Star Citizen Scraps CitizenCon Keynote Stream Fee

Star Citizen backers are generally pretty understanding about Cloud Imperium Gaming's ongoing crowdfunding efforts, and many of them own hundreds or thousands of dollars worth of virtual ships for CIG's upcoming space game(s). An effort to raise more funds for CitizenCon has met with outrage, however, as fans balked at an effort to charge to watch a livestream of the keynote for the convention. After considerable backlash on Reddit, the developer has relented and made the stream free once again (thanks theyarecomingforyou). Chris Roberts' post about all this outlines initial reasoning that sounds similar to what's happened with development of the game itself, saying more money was sought because the scope of the convention has expanded beyond their initial plans:
This year's CitizenCon is much bigger than last years, with two separate stages and tracks. We did this because we felt the format we tested last year was a success and because of this we wanted to expand it to allow more people to attend and provide more opportunities to hear from and interact with the devs.

With a venue and planned attendance three times the CitizenCon in Frankfurt, with more panels (so more devs needing to travel) , more food and drink options for everyone the proposed budget for this year's CitizenCon was almost double last years. And this was without any video coverage, let alone streaming of the second stage, and a plan to just stream the opening keynote from the main stage.

Yes, you read that right, the original plan didn't have any plan for streaming anything beyond the opening keynote. There was not even video archiving of the second stage due the additional costs of getting a second video crew for that stage. Even then there was some debate as to whether it was truly worth it to spend a chunk of change to stream the opening keynote for 90 minutes when we're always in a foot race to compress it as a high-quality video and post to YouTube as quickly as possible after the demo so people can enjoy a HD Video as opposed to a crappy re-post of a Twitch Stream.
View : : :
Re: Star Citizen Scraps CitizenCon Keynote Stream Fee
Sep 4, 2018, 10:15
Re: Star Citizen Scraps CitizenCon Keynote Stream Fee Sep 4, 2018, 10:15
Sep 4, 2018, 10:15
theyarecomingforyou wrote on Sep 3, 2018, 15:19:
You're just being obtuse now. It means there is a legal basis for it to proceed to court, not that the claims have merit. They can be easily dismissed at the next stage. A Motion to Dismiss doesn't determine merit, only the legal basis for a claim. The Motion to Dismiss doesn't have any bearing on the likelihood of the claims being upheld, it just means further evidence is required to clarify those points.

I never claimed ANY of the above. Yet, you keep parroting it as if I did. That's deflection.

I have been CONSISTENT in what I've been saying. That being YOU guys - and the "legal experts" - had claimed that the lawsuit was bs. If that was the case, the MtD would have succeeded in its ENTIRETY. And that has EVERYTHING to do with the merits of a case. If the claims had NO merits, then it would NEVER have survived an MtD. That's how that works. That's what an MtD is designed to do.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Sep 3, 2018, 15:19:
A normal person doesn't have half a brain, they have a full one. I'm starting to see your confusion.

I see that one flew over your head. Makes sense.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Sep 3, 2018, 15:19:
Further, all of this is predicated on RSI being a signatory to the contract when it wasn't, only to a Autodesk licence. The court also overlooked that 'The Game' is defined as including Star Citizen and Squadron 42, even though it was defined by Crytek in the GLA. All things easily dismissed once evidence is presented in court.

That's hilarious. You ARE aware that the judge ruled that RSI was in fact party to the GLA, right? So you're saying you and the "legal experts" know more about the law and common sense than a FEDERAL JUDGE?! LOL!!

The definition of "GAME" already passed the bar for litigation. If it didn't, the judge would have granted the dismissal of that claim. Instead, she agreed with the reading of the GLA and let it stand.

Further, you don't know what "evidence" means because the ONLY evidence for this is already IN THE GLA. What? You think there's some other supa sekret contract hiding somewhere? LOL!!

That you think it's "easily dismissed" is the height of ignorance because if that was the case, it wouldn't have survived an MtD, as that's the FIRST bar of entry that ANY claim has to survive in order to proceed.

Jesus, it's almost as if you're just ignoring even the most basic of facts, while clinging onto straws.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Sep 3, 2018, 15:19:
Yes, $100m in damages for a contract in which CIG only paid a fraction of that amount is absurd. And given the amount won't be anything like that Star Citizen won't collapse.

Again, you're displaying ignorance. The law DOES NOT CARE about the value of the license. They care about the ILLICIT PROFIT of a contractual breach. It doesn't matter if what you stole cost $5 or $15. If you sold it for $500, that's the claim. You know there's a LEGAL bar for all such things, right? e.g. read up on the difference between a charge of "theft" and "felony theft" or "battery" vs "aggravated battery" etc.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Sep 3, 2018, 15:19:
Finally, the GLA grants Crytek the right to improvements to the engine developed by CIG but there is no timeframe specified in the contract and CIG has changed engines, terminating the GLA.

You're wrong in ALL of the above. And I'm certain that either you didn't read the GLA, you didn't understand it, or you're being willfully ignorance of the facts. Or you're just lying (which is always a possibility with you guys).

Section 7.3, p12

Reverse Technology Transfer. Annually during the Game’s development period, and again
upon publication of the final Game, Licensee shall provide Crytek with any bug fixes, and
optimizations made to the CryEngine's original source code files (including CryEngine tools
provided by Crytek ) as a complete compilable version. All such technology outlined in this
Section and provided by Licensee to Crytek pursuant to this section (collectively the
“Reverse Technology Transfer”) shall be the sole and exclusive property of Licensee. Given
that such Reverse Technology Transfer is the sole and exclusive property of Licensee,
Licensee hereby grants Crytek a non-exclusive, royalty-free and perpetual license to such
Reverse Technology Transfer (“Reverse Technology License”) solely for the purposes of ( 1)
using the Reverse Technology Transfer internally at Crytek, (2) incorporating the Reverse
Technology Transfer in future releases of the CryEngine and (3) distributing the CryEngine,
with the embedded Reverse Technology Transfer to third parties without restriction and
without payment of any additional fees or royalties to Licensee. Crytek acknowledges that it
does not and will not obtain any rights in the Game itself.

See the word "annually"? What do you think that means? I'll wait.

Section 8, p13

Term. The Term of this Agreement shall begin on the Effective Date. Unless sooner
terminated in accordance with the provisions hereof, the Term shall remain in force for the
Commercial Life of the Game.

Termination. Each Party shall have the right to terminate this Agreement or the license grants
with respect to the Game prior to the end of the Term immediately upon written notice
delivered to the other party if, at any time: (a) the other party is in material breach of any
term, condition or covenant of this Agreement and fails to cure such breach within thirty (30)
days after its receipt of written notice thereof by the other party; or (b) the other party (i)
becomes insolvent; or (ii) admits in writing its insolvency or inability to pay its debts or
perform its obligations as they mature; or (iii) makes or attempts an assignment for the
benefit of creditors; or (iv) files a petition for reorganization, readjustment or rearrangement of
its business or affairs under any laws or governmental regulations relating to bankruptcy or
insolvency, or is adjudicated bankrupt or if a receiver is appointed for such other party and such
action is not dismissed within sixty (60) days. In addition, Crytek shall have the right to
terminate this Agreement (x ) in the event it ceases generally to provide the CryEngine to its
customers, or (y) pursuant to Sections 6.1.2 (iii).

Effect of Termination. Upon termination of this Agreement, the license shall immediately and
automatically end and Licensee shall immediately take the following measures: (a) Licensee
shall return the CryEngine and any and all material related thereto to Crytek (including all
data carriers and documentation); and (b) Licensee shall delete and/or destroy any and all
copies of the CryEngine, whether in object code or source code, in whole or in part,
permanent or temporary; and (c) Licensee shall promptly provide to Crytek a statement
signed by an authorized officer of Licensee that any and all material regarding the CryEngine
have been returned to Crytek and any and all copies of the CryEngine have been deleted
and/or destroyed. Sections 6.3 and 7 shall survive any termination of this Agreement, as well
as any other provisions which by their terms or meaning are intended to survive. Termination
of this Agreement shall not relieve the Parties of any obligation accruing prior to such

Please point to the part where switching engines - even if they DID do that - terminates the GLA.

And while you're at it, please point to the part of the CIG response and their MtD where they claim that the GLA had in fact terminated, thus meaning that the lawsuit itself had no merit as a result of that.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Sep 3, 2018, 15:19:
Stating 'by law' in a contract dispute is meaningless, as both parties have differing interpretations and it is for the court to determine the correct interpretation of the contract under the law.

OK, I'm convinced that you're an ignorant fool. The whole point of "by law" isn't meaningless. It's about jurisdiction and findings of fact. How else do you think that the disputing parties will be able to seek a legal remedy? That's the whole point and why Crytek is using CIG. And in doing so, were able to convince a FEDERAL JUDGE that 5/6 of their claims had enough merit to GO TO TRIAL.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Sep 3, 2018, 15:19:
Apologies if I wasn't clear. The judge sided with CIG's interpretation that Crytek's claim was absurd, rather than herself calling it absurd. It's a valid distinction but doesn't change the end result.

No apologies needed.

And you're still WRONG because she did NO SUCH thing. Jesus, I even posted both excerpts of her ruling. It's almost as if you either don't understand English, lack reading comprehension skills, or you're just ignorant and/or arguing in BAD FAITH.

She excerpted a case precedent ruling which claimed that the definition of "exclusive" as explained by Crytek didn't pass the smell test because of how contract law interprets contracts based on either the actual language, or when there is a dispute, the intent of the contract. FYI, this is a good example of how claims don't survive an MtD; which is why I've been explaining to you for DAYS now, but you choose to ignore it. She killed it. Which means it's not going to be a valid claim during the lawsuit UNLESS Crytek - through discovery - can provide evidence (recordings, emails, paperwork etc) that shows the INTENT of the contract was for it to be an exclusive. Then Crytek can - again - amend their complaint, thus proving to the judge that the claim passed the muster for the GLA implying that it was to be an exclusive.

She then excerpted CIG's own use of the word "absurd" which, btw, is came from CIG's response to the lawsuit.

The goal of contract interpretation is to determine and enforce the parties’ mutual intent at
the time the contract was formed. Thor Seafood Corp. v. Supply Mgmt. Servs., 352 F. Supp. 2d
1128, 1131 (C.D. Cal. 2005). The language of the contract alone governs the parties’ intention
and the contract’s meaning, so long as the language is clear, explicit, and does not involve an
absurdity. Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1638, 1639, see Waller v. Truck Ins. Exchange, Inc., 11 Cal. 4th 1,
18, 19 (1995) (“Courts will not strain to create ambiguity where none exists.”).

She wasn't "siding" with CIG. She was citing case law, as well as pointing out how CIG described it; hence her indicating that she didn't cite the whole thing.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Sep 3, 2018, 15:19:
The odds were 60/40 of it getting dismissed in its entirety. In other words there was a high chance that portions of the lawsuit would continue. So yeah, maths really isn't that hard and yet still you manage to mess it up.

Wow. Just wow.

Your "legal experts" gave the MtD a 60/40 chance of "getting dismissed in its entirety". And you somehow interpret that to mean "there was a high chance that portions of the lawsuit would continue"?

ps: That's not even about math btw, it's about common sense logic.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Sep 3, 2018, 15:19:
Well there's: 1) Crytek not paying staff, 2) Amazon saved Crytek from bankruptcy, 3) Crytek shuts down five studios after weak 2016, 4) Crytek's CEO was ousted after Crytek received investment to keep afloat

Nice deflection there. NONE of that supports your claims about Crytek's penchant for the contractual breach that you claimed, and to which I was responding. And NONE of that has ANYTHING to do with Crytek's contract licensing practices - which is what we were arguing about in that instance.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Sep 3, 2018, 15:19:
It's funny how you claim to know all the details about this situation and yet have conveniently ignored that Crytek is broke and desperate for money which is great motivation for a spurious lawsuit. If you don't even know basis about the situation like that then how can we take anything you say seriously?

NONE of which is relevant. Stop deflecting.

And I am not asking anyone (least of all you, who I'm just making look stupid) to take me seriously. That would imply that I care enough about what people think or that I would seek to encroach on their ability to deduce for themselves what's going on. Most people aren't stupid. At least not intentionally. That's all there is to it.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Sep 3, 2018, 15:19:
You're talking about Line of Defense, right? Because yeah, it is a massive laughing stock of the industry. Maybe even a scam. Good point.

Nice try. It took you long enough. The dog whistle from your cohort a few comments ago, appears to have worked.

I can go to any search engine - right now - and put in the game of my game, and the name of Star Citizen, then see the results of which one is a "massive laughing stock" or "maybe even a scam". You should try it. When you're done, look up the difference between a crowd-funded game, and a self-funded one. Get back to me on that, as I'm sure it will be hilarious.

ps: I have released over 19 games across a 30 yr history. CIG/RSI have yet to build a SINGLE game after 7 yrs and $192M of OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY.

This comment was edited on Sep 4, 2018, 12:11.
Game developers are just human beings who happen to make games for a living. If you want to hold us up to higher standards of conduct, then go ahead
...but don't be surprised if we don't uphold them
Avatar 9141
Sep 1, 2018Sep 1 2018
Sep 1, 2018Sep 1 2018
Sep 1, 2018Sep 1 2018
Sep 1, 2018Sep 1 2018
Sep 2, 2018Sep 2 2018
Sep 1, 2018Sep 1 2018
Sep 2, 2018Sep 2 2018
Sep 2, 2018Sep 2 2018
Sep 2, 2018Sep 2 2018
Sep 2, 2018Sep 2 2018
Sep 2, 2018Sep 2 2018
Sep 2, 2018Sep 2 2018
Sep 2, 2018Sep 2 2018
Sep 2, 2018Sep 2 2018
Sep 2, 2018Sep 2 2018
Sep 2, 2018Sep 2 2018
Sep 2, 2018Sep 2 2018
Sep 2, 2018Sep 2 2018
Sep 3, 2018Sep 3 2018
Sep 3, 2018Sep 3 2018
Sep 3, 2018Sep 3 2018
Sep 4, 2018Sep 4 2018
                  Re: Star Citizen Scraps CitizenCon Keynote Stream Fee
Sep 4, 2018Sep 4 2018
Sep 4, 2018Sep 4 2018
                    Re: Star Citizen Scraps CitizenCon Keynote Stream Fee
Sep 2, 2018Sep 2 2018
Sep 2, 2018Sep 2 2018
Sep 2, 2018Sep 2 2018
Sep 3, 2018Sep 3 2018
Sep 3, 2018Sep 3 2018
Sep 3, 2018Sep 3 2018
Sep 3, 2018Sep 3 2018
Sep 3, 2018Sep 3 2018
Sep 3, 2018Sep 3 2018
Sep 4, 2018Sep 4 2018
Sep 4, 2018Sep 4 2018