• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Star Citizen Development Discussion (Is Derek Smart Right?)

Page 49 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

rivethead

Platinum Member
Jan 16, 2005
2,559
83
91
20 vs 20 dog fights are possible now?
I don't know what the current 3.0 build has as far as player counts (I haven't been invited yet), but internal testing they got to 128 players. Supposedly at decent frame rates. Having said that, I've heard that 3.0 frame rates right now are atrocious (back to the 10-12 frames days.....which chased me out of 2.6 for good).

So, yeah, you can probably do 20 v 20.....if you don't mind slideshows.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KMFJD

rivethead

Platinum Member
Jan 16, 2005
2,559
83
91
Man, ya'll are late ranting about the land claims. :rolleyes:
This backer is uncomfortable with land claims. I don't mind them as a thing. It's more the precedent of unexpectedly monetizing something within the game. What's next? Custom haircuts (fyi...not my idea...stolen from another complaint thread but it made me laugh).

I've never been a believer in the whole CIG is running out of money thing. Or the CIG is greedy thing. But things like this make me wonder..............
 
  • Like
Reactions: TechBoyJK

Red Storm

Lifer
Oct 2, 2005
14,214
215
106
This backer is uncomfortable with land claims. I don't mind them as a thing. It's more the precedent of unexpectedly monetizing something within the game. What's next? Custom haircuts (fyi...not my idea...stolen from another complaint thread but it made me laugh).

I've never been a believer in the whole CIG is running out of money thing. Or the CIG is greedy thing. But things like this make me wonder..............
Actually stuff like custom haircuts is the proper way to monetize a multiplayer game IMHO. Cosmetics are best because they don't have a direct impact on game play.

I have no idea how this land claim thing will work out (both the system itself and the concept of paying real money for it), and while I do think it's neat, it still feels like a concept that will be far off from the actual launch, which we are already far away from.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ZGR

Skel

Diamond Member
Apr 11, 2001
6,063
357
136
This backer is uncomfortable with land claims. I don't mind them as a thing. It's more the precedent of unexpectedly monetizing something within the game. What's next? Custom haircuts (fyi...not my idea...stolen from another complaint thread but it made me laugh).

I've never been a believer in the whole CIG is running out of money thing. Or the CIG is greedy thing. But things like this make me wonder..............
A Space Nigerian will be available to help me smuggle in his millions of game credits in if I give them my real bank account?
 

rivethead

Platinum Member
Jan 16, 2005
2,559
83
91
Man, ya'll are late ranting about the land claims. :rolleyes:
This backer is uncomfortable with land claims. I don't mind them as a thing. It's more the precedent of unexpectedly monetizing something within the game. What's next? Custom haircuts (fyi...not my idea...stolen from another complaint thread but it made me laugh).

I've never been a believer in the whole CIG is running out of money thing. Or the CIG is greedy thing. But things like this make me wonder..............
Actually stuff like custom haircuts is the proper way to monetize a multiplayer game IMHO. Cosmetics are best because they don't have a direct impact on game play.

I have no idea how this land claim thing will work out (both the system itself and the concept of paying real money for it), and while I do think it's neat, it still feels like a concept that will be far off from the actual launch, which we are already far away from.

That's very true.
 

Fallen Kell

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,405
102
106
Yeah, I'm not too thrilled about land claims either if real money is involved (even if there is a way to convert real money to in-game money, I don't like the idea of land claims). I havn't really read much about it yet, so I don't have the full information, but I would much rather see something like this being purely in-game mechanics (i.e. you need to gain certain reputation with local factions to be able to then request or be granted a land claim in that area, and you need to perform certain actions in order to maintain the land claim).

I also completely agree on the idea of haircuts and cosmetic skins being the best way to monetize within the game (and I have fully expected that to occur with this game).
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,415
3,940
126
the game is already pay to win. may was well let people buy virtual plots of pixel dirt.
 

Ranulf

Golden Member
Jul 18, 2001
1,606
138
106
No one messes with Happy McDeath's little corner of the 'verse I tells you what.

As for buying digital plots of land, nothing really surprises me with Star Citizen anymore.
 

KMFJD

Lifer
Aug 11, 2005
20,526
18,922
136
So Crytek is suing CIG

https://www.scribd.com/document/367101474/Crytek-v-CIG


  • [facts A] Seems like they're angry about the splitting off of squadron 42 as a standalone game without purchasing a separate game license, as the original license was procured for star citizen only.

  • [facts B] Crytek seems super salty that the logos for crytek/cryengine were removed from the product. They claim the inclusion of the actual logo was part of a negotiation for a lower fee on the licensing for the engine, which (according to facts A) was intended for SC only.

  • [facts C] CIG isn't using cryengine exclusively anymore, so they broke the promise they made to us to use the engine exclusively. They claim that entering into agreement with Amazon Lumberyard is a breach of exclusivity. That's going to be a fun one to watch play out.

  • [facts D] CIG apparently agreed to give bugfixes etc to CryTek yearly. Several notices were sent by CryTek, CIG responded that they'd be OK and are ready to send fixes, but allegedly did not.

  • [facts E] CIG disclosed the engine to third parties, faceware etc. Also mentions us, by way of Bugsmashers (kind of funny, CIG could just ship the entire bugsmashers series on a dvd to CryTek to satisfy 'facts D', and they've clearly watched it...)
and now for the counts:

  • [counts 1] Basically all of the above, itemized and restated as "Breach of Contract"

  • [counts 2] "Copyright infringement" - much salt about code being shown on screen and to third parties, basically expanding on "facts E" above a bit.
relief prayers... what they want out of this. some nasty stuff.

  • (a, c, d, e) direct damages (cash, money, drugs and hos) "well in excess of $75,000" [this suit is citing and targeting a California law edit: misread, actually 28 USC 1332 and specifically 17 USC 504], punitive damages, etc. money money money.

  • (b) oof. quoting this one directly. "entering a permanent injunction enjoining and restraining Defendants from continuing to possess or use the Copyrighted Work and a preliminary and permanent injunction requiring Defendants, and all those acting in concert or participation with Defendants, from infringing or encouraging, aiding or abetting others to infringe the Copyrighted Work" -- seems to me they either want to repossess cryengine or otherwise 'steal' starengine.
Bonus favorite line of the entire suit (I lol'd):

  1. On November 20, 2012, Crytek and Defendants entered into a Game License Agreement ("GLA") with Crytek. The GLA was extensively negotiated, and negotiations on behalf of the Defendants were led by one of the Defendants' co-founders, Freyermuth. In prior years, Freyermuth also represented Crytek in negotiations of similar license agreements with third parties. Notwithstanding that he had confidential information about Crytek's licensing practices that would unfairly advantage Defendants, Freyermuth never recused himself from those negotiations and never resolved that conflict of interest with Crytek. The negotiations on behalf of Crytek were led by Carl Jones, then an employee of Crytek. Jones later left Crytek and became an employee of Defendants.

https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/7jkocy/crytek_gmbh_v_cloud_imperium_games_corp_et_al/

stolen from the reddit post,

/Scotty set deflectors at maximum strength
 

Rifter

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,516
744
126
seems open and closed case, Crytek has this one in the bag, its a clear cut breach of contract. Just a matter of how much in damages the court awards them.
 

rivethead

Platinum Member
Jan 16, 2005
2,559
83
91
seems open and closed case, Crytek has this one in the bag, its a clear cut breach of contract. Just a matter of how much in damages the court awards them.
Considering we've only seen one side of the story (Crytek's) it's hard to call anything an open and closed case. If I'm wrong and you've seen CIG's defense or counter-claims, please link.

Regardless, this one has "settled quietly out of court" written all over it.
 

KMFJD

Lifer
Aug 11, 2005
20,526
18,922
136
Considering we've only seen one side of the story (Crytek's) it's hard to call anything an open and closed case. If I'm wrong and you've seen CIG's defense or counter-claims, please link.

Regardless, this one has "settled quietly out of court" written all over it.
It does? Why would they hire one of the most powerful law firms in the world to litigate this?
 

Rifter

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,516
744
126
Considering we've only seen one side of the story (Crytek's) it's hard to call anything an open and closed case. If I'm wrong and you've seen CIG's defense or counter-claims, please link.

Regardless, this one has "settled quietly out of court" written all over it.
Ok let me rephrase then. If CIG did sign a contract with the wording as outlined in the document linked above, then this is a open and closed case. Defense is irreverent, if they signed the contract, as they are clearly in breach of it.
 

rivethead

Platinum Member
Jan 16, 2005
2,559
83
91
It does? Why would they hire one of the most powerful law firms in the world to litigate this?
Perhaps they want to negotiate an out-of-court settlement from a position of strength. Typically, suing your customers isn't seen favorably in the eyes of other future customers. Which is why I expect this will be settled quietly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KMFJD

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
102,133
16,351
136
Perhaps they want to negotiate an out-of-court settlement from a position of strength. Typically, suing your customers isn't seen favorably in the eyes of other future customers. Which is why I expect this will be settled quietly.
forgive me, but "Settled quietly" for anything related to this game is well-on impossible by now. Battle lines have been drawn across two sides, it seems, and the drama that surrounds this entire process has been very public and, it seems, quite nasty at times. Crytek and their customers pretty much share the same social space as the SC developers and fans, so I would be surprised if this could go down quietly.
 

rivethead

Platinum Member
Jan 16, 2005
2,559
83
91
forgive me, but "Settled quietly" for anything related to this game is well-on impossible by now. Battle lines have been drawn across two sides, it seems, and the drama that surrounds this entire process has been very public and, it seems, quite nasty at times. Crytek and their customers pretty much share the same social space as the SC developers and fans, so I would be surprised if this could go down quietly.
CIG and Crytek both have a choice: take to court and let the public watch, or settle out of court, sign an NDA and then repeat the same "we came to an amicable agreement outside of court" mantra. The later is better for both parties in my opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TechBoyJK

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
Perhaps they want to negotiate an out-of-court settlement from a position of strength. Typically, suing your customers isn't seen favorably in the eyes of other future customers. Which is why I expect this will be settled quietly.
I suspect you are correct. Crytek has an open and shut case for the two games for one price argument, so that will definitely be settled out of court. CIG would be highly motivated to not have that negative publicity. On the other hand, I seriously doubt that Crytek wants an actual trial over CIG's failure to tell them how to make Crytek's product actually work. Unless Crytek is about to go belly up, they don't want to actually show potential customers that they are willing to sue you for not telling them how to fix the product they are trying to sell. And I really don't think Crytek wants to litigate a complaint that apparently without realizing it, they signed a contract with a lawyer who had represented them on multiple occasions. Part of the award would undoubtedly be big red indelible forehead stamps reading "STUPID" for each Crytek lawyer and employee involved. I'm guessing that CIG forks over something south of a million for licensing fees and legal fees and agrees to crediting Crytek for the engine. The only sticking point I see will be the bug fixes; Crytek is apparently due them and obviously needs them, but I don't know that they are CIG's to share. As they are apparently Amazon's work product, that's beyond my layman's ability to even make wild ass guesses.
 

Fallen Kell

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,405
102
106
The only sticking point I see will be the bug fixes; Crytek is apparently due them and obviously needs them, but I don't know that they are CIG's to share. As they are apparently Amazon's work product, that's beyond my layman's ability to even make wild ass guesses.
The simple resolution to bugfix issue is the send in all the bugfixes that they failed to send up until the point that CIG switched over to the lumberyard builds. All of those bugfixes would thus be only CIG's work product and have no strings attached to Amazon.

Several of these claims seem to simply be people not understanding what they signed, and/or not paying attention or following through with on-going business contacts to avert such a situation. Splitting of the games into 2 games seems and bugfixes seem to be perfect examples of such a thing.

The logo change is probably something that is more in line with the current direction of development with lumberyard changes, something that the dev team probably didn't realize was part of a contract.

I don't blame Crytek at all for suing. In most cases, it is the only way to get the other party to actually look into something verses the whole run-around of getting a request to the right people when going through normal business relationship channels (since the ongoing relationships was probably with the development teams who have nothing to do with legal and probably don't even know who to contact within their respective orgs).
 

bbhaag

Diamond Member
Jul 2, 2011
4,848
579
126
The allegations brought against CIG by Crytek seem on par with litigation these days. They seem to be taking the local hometown prosecutor approach. Why just charge the defendant with possession when you can tack on intent to distribute and resisting too. Throw as much against the wall as possible and see what sticks.
Anyway, chances are good that this will be settled behind closed doors after years of arbitration and with a non disclosure contract agreed to by both parties.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rivethead

rivethead

Platinum Member
Jan 16, 2005
2,559
83
91
The simple resolution to bugfix issue is the send in all the bugfixes that they failed to send up until the point that CIG switched over to the lumberyard builds. All of those bugfixes would thus be only CIG's work product and have no strings attached to Amazon.

Several of these claims seem to simply be people not understanding what they signed, and/or not paying attention or following through with on-going business contacts to avert such a situation. Splitting of the games into 2 games seems and bugfixes seem to be perfect examples of such a thing.

The logo change is probably something that is more in line with the current direction of development with lumberyard changes, something that the dev team probably didn't realize was part of a contract.

I don't blame Crytek at all for suing. In most cases, it is the only way to get the other party to actually look into something verses the whole run-around of getting a request to the right people when going through normal business relationship channels (since the ongoing relationships was probably with the development teams who have nothing to do with legal and probably don't even know who to contact within their respective orgs).
If what you say is true (and I think it is), it points to poor management at CIG. Which honestly isn't that surprising. CIG is, after all, the same company that subcontracted FPS level design to Ilfonic and then didn't give them any direction and/or the correct sizing resulting in most of the work being thrown away. I expect this from Chris Roberts: he's a dreamer, not a leader. But I do NOT expect this from his brother Erin. Erin is a leader, not a dreamer. So how Erin, Chris, and even Ortwin could forget to remind/inform their development team: "oh hey guys we're contractually required to display the Crytek logo on our boot up screen, so make sure that happens" is just amazing to me. But then again, I need to remind myself that I'm only hearing Crytek's side of the story......
 

Fallen Kell

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,405
102
106
So how Erin, Chris, and even Ortwin could forget to remind/inform their development team: "oh hey guys we're contractually required to display the Crytek logo on our boot up screen, so make sure that happens" is just amazing to me. But then again, I need to remind myself that I'm only hearing Crytek's side of the story......
Well, I think you nailed it on the head here with most of this. However, the Crytek agreement I believe happened pre-Erin, and as such, he probably did not even know the details.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY