Star Citizen - Chris Roberts, lots of spaceship porn, lots of promises


#8286

When they’re not taking screen shots, they’re making movies. I mean, it’s not as if they have a game to play. But this Top Gun movie rendition done with Star Citizen footage, is really good. Watch.


#8287

At 0:53, that pilot looks a bit like you, Derek.


#8288

He does!


#8289

Yeah, he totally does :)


#8290

Last night there was a new filing in the CryTek v CIG case.

The judge granted a CIG motion to dismiss with leave to amend by CryTek.

The Court GRANTS with leave to amend Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss42 . Within 21 days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff shall file a Third Amended Complaint addressing the deficiencies discussed in this Order or notify Defendants and the Court that it does not intend to amend. Thereafter, Defendants shall file their response within 21 days.”

Pouring over it now.

For a list of the docs referenced in the filing, go here.


#8291

It seems like the Court is basically requesting more details/specifics before deciding but it’s so far out of my realm that I could be totally wrong. At the very least it seems like we have a few more months before these last parts of the MtD are ruled on.


#8292

That sounds painful.


#8293

It seems that the judge was fairly harsh to Crytek’s interpretation of the disputed license exclusivity clause. I don’t know how Crytek amends that particular component sufficient to overcome the decision the judge reached using the information presented.


#8294

I agree. Also I think she’s tying it all up so as not to waste an appeals court time.

All of the above from her previous ruling will still stand, discovery will commence, the case will go to trial (Summer 2019) if they don’t settle etc

The only issue with this MtD is related to item #2 which Crytek changed to 2.4 in the SAC (Second Amended Complaint) which CIG then filed a new MtD for.

Basically, if this MtD stands - even after Crytek’s amendment - then item #2 (exclusivity) remains GRANTED (in favor of CIG).


#8295

Disclaimer: Neither myself, nor those whacky Goons have anything to do with this.

Star Citizen backers who, 6 yrs later, don’t have a game to play, are petitioning US govt to make SCREEN SHOTS (from Star Citizen ofc) derivative works.

Not even joking.


#8296

A space sim is a very dynamic video game. A screen shot can include elements of composition. Deciding what view to use, what objects to include in the view etc. I’m not sure there’s enough creativity involved that it should be considered a derivative work but the request isn’t as silly as it might seem on first reading.


#8297

It’s silly and wholly without merit. Only the creators of the original works can claim such rights. It’s not like you’re creating an original work (e.g. painting). A screenshot is based on someone else’s original works. By this metric, you might as well copyright song by someone else, just because you created a derivative substep of it.


#8298

LOL!! Don’t worry though; it’s totally not P2W.

Source link for more lols


#8299

What I’ve realized from reading some of the SC forums is that the people who fund this thing are not normal gamers. To them, this is a dream or even an ideology they’ve signed on to. They’re ok with the game taking 7 more years or even going past their lifetime just so the dream may live. Chris has managed to create a real, true cult, completely divorced from any normal notion of a video game. This is why nothing will faze them. Anything CIG comes up with will be justifiable in order to fund the dream.


#8300

Yeah, Chris is probably deflowering virgins underneath posters of Megadeth at this point.

Where’s Janet when you really need her?


#8301

Surprised he hasn’t changed his name to include a middle initial T, that would fit neatly with the "Cult of Chris T."™


#8302

Yup. All of that. Also Sunk Cost Fallacy + Cognitive Dissonance


#8303

I made a video of the latest Crytek v CIG lawsuit. Also Fake News Alert!

#1 (12/12/2017) - original complaint

#2 (01/02/2018) - FAC = First Amended Complaint. This one contained EVERYTHING from the original complaint except they cleaned up the Ortwin issue related to his waiver. So THIS one did supersede the original complaint

#3 (08/16/2018) - SAC = Second Amended Complaint. This one was ONLY about 2.4 which the judge gave them leave to amend in her ruling on the FAC. As a result of this smaller filing, that’s why the judge had this at the TOP of her MtD ruling over 2.4 “On September 6, 2018, Defendants filed their motion to dismiss (“MTD”), now before the Court, seeking dismissal of Crytek’s claim for breach of contract based on Section 2.4 of the GLA”


#8304

Soundcloud podcast version


#8305

I have a feeling this is probably a dumb question, but:
Could CIG not simply now purchase a second license for Squadron 42?