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

[dsmart]

Obligatory IANAL. Just someone that also occasionally deals with enterprise licensing.

Yeah, join the club. Though I have more experience in software contracts and IP licensing to know that everything you posted - aside from the SQ42 split - is 100% wrong.

ps: You did see section 2.4, right?

Derek Smart (dsmart)

[MiquelRamirez]

That sucks. They actually have Australian servers too.

I am well aware of r/StarCitizenAustralia :) Not sure though, how is the Amazon cloud computing service is organised in this part of the world. I’d say that calling “Australian” some CPU time on the Amazon cloud is a bit of a stretch.

So it could well be an Amazon issue. I have had issues with Amazon streaming services before.

I just meant that console gaming, at least for me, tends to be different than the kind of thing you would get in any simulation kind of game. I guess part of it just comes down to a limitation on control mechanisms. Beyond that, there are elements that reminds me of a game like EvE, which i feel isn’t really universally appealing.

It wasn’t meant as a slight against console gamers, as I am one myself. But when I’m playing on my consoles, I’m kind of in it for a more streamlined experienced compared to when I play on my PC. But this may just be because I do both, and compartmentalize them in this way.

Okay, now I see where you come from.

I played for almost a decade EVE online… so I am intringued about what is reminding you from EVE. Both for good and bad.

The complexity and possibilities of the whole thing seems to be quite mindblowing… and overwhelming. CCP devoted heaps of effort to what they called the “New Player Experience”, in order to provide a minimum structure for new players to find what they can do in the game. Probably they have injected a healthy dose of steroids in that, now that the game is free to play.

[sharaleo]

ps: You did see section 2.4, right?

Star Engine does not ‘compete’ with CryEngine - CIG don’t sell Star Engine to 3rd parties. You’re clutching dude.

[BlairFraser]

I think he is referring to this:

Stripped to the pertinent bits it would read “During the Term of the License, Licensee shall not directly or indirectly engage in licensing any game engine or middleware which compete with CryEngine”.

Edit: But, as pointed out just below: Its a non-compete, they can’t license a competing engine ‘out’, doesn’t block them from licensing an engine ‘in’.

[sharaleo]

It’s a non-compete clause, not a lock-in clause.

[BlairFraser]

Roger that, my context was limited.

[dsmart]

Star Engine does not ‘compete’ with CryEngine - CIG don’t sell Star Engine to 3rd parties. You’re clutching dude.

Are you serious right now, or just trolling me?

[dsmart]

Edit: But, as pointed out just below: Its a non-compete, they can’t license a competing engine ‘out’, doesn’t block them from licensing an engine ‘in’.

Rubbish. Which part of “designing”, “developing”, “creating”, “supporting”, “maintaining”, “promoting”, “selling”, or “licensing - DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY” did you miss? So which part of these are “in” and which are “out”?

ps: “which compete with CryEngine” (this would include Star Engine and Lumberyard)

[BlairFraser]

I shouldn’t have commented without reading the full contract. Where can I get a copy? (So I can provide a proper, informed answer)

[Lantz]

The various documents are here:

r/starcitizen_refunds - CIG has filed a response to Crytek lawsuit, including a...

It’s entertaining to hear how varied internet opinion is on this thing.

[divedivedive]

(post withdrawn by author, will be automatically deleted in 24 hours unless flagged)

Ha, just screwin’ with you. I wanted to see if I could make a post that said that.

[BlairFraser]

CIG can’t be “engaged in the business of” developing an engine that competes with Crytek.
Are they in the business of developing a competing engine? I don’t think so, Star Engine is for their own internal use. Perhaps if they offered paid services to Epic to develop new Unreal engine code.

CIG can’t be “engaged in the business of” doing X engine stuff that competes with Crytek.
Are they in the business of doing X engine stuff with a competing engine? I don’t think so, Star Engine is for their own internal use. Perhaps if they offered paid services to Epic to do X stuff with the Unreal engine.

etc…

The only tricky one is “licensing” due to its context sensitive meaning - which I erred on in my first read. You can license (offer) or license (receive). If you are engaged in the business of something it implies you are receiving compensation in exchange for something else. e.g., Customer pays you money, you give them a license. Its pretty clear this is license in the offer form. This clause doesn’t prevent them from paying money to receive a license from someone else. They can receive a license for Lumberyard, they can’t offer out a license for Star Engine. Perhaps there is something else in the contract that prevents this, but it isn’t in 2.4.

I think its pretty clear 2.4 is a non-compete.

[Destarius]

Under interpretation principles you can use the other words to parse the meaning of “license” so it does look more like a non-compete rather than a lock-in.

[instant0]

It was pretty shit in 2010 in Brisbane as well. .AU internet was (and probably still is) like a third world country/rural US.

[dsmart]

I think its pretty clear 2.4 is a non-compete.

Yes. And it prevents them from doing all the things you said they could do. Namely, you claim it only pertains to them if they are developing a competing engine. This despite the fact that the plain English reading of 2.4 isn’t in the least bit ambiguous, nor does it make any such distinction.

Then there is the matter of them promoting their own engine as Star Engine, and subsequently switching to Lumberyard - both of which clearly violate 2.4.

[dsmart]

Under interpretation principles you can use the other words to parse the meaning of “license” so it does look more like a non-compete rather than a lock-in.

Yes. 2.4 is a non-compete and has nothing to do with 2.1.2 which constitutes the lock-in as per my reading of it.

[Fishbreath]

This despite the fact that the plain English reading of 2.4 isn’t in the least bit ambiguous

You’ve been around long enough to know that the plain English reading of a contract term and its actual meaning don’t necessarily coincide.

Interestingly, such noncompete clauses in software licenses (those which attempt to prevent one party from developing software which serves the same purpose as the licensed software) are frequently cited (here, for instance) as a textbook case of copyright misuse.

I find that very odd. It seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to be able to ask for in a contract, but I suppose there’s a distinction between a contract in general terms and a license agreement. Beats me. I’m not a lawyer.

[MrTibbs]

For those in the know, is this Star Citizen video series by Binky accurate? Like the game, Sunk Cost Galaxy (hilarious title) isn’t finished yet, but outside of a lame tangent involving meal preparation, I’m finding the mini-documentary to be quite entertaining.

[Hotfreak]

If it keeps on raining, my guess is that the levee is going to break.

[dsmart]

You’ve been around long enough to know that the plain English reading of a contract term and its actual meaning don’t necessarily coincide.

Interestingly, such noncompete clauses in software licenses (those which attempt to prevent one party from developing software which serves the same purpose as the licensed software) are frequently cited (here, for instance) as a textbook case of copyright misuse.

I find that very odd. It seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to be able to ask for in a contract, but I suppose there’s a distinction between a contract in general terms and a license agreement. Beats me. I’m not a lawyer.

I absolutely agree. However, the key point that some people are missing is that this was a bespoke contract, not your standard fare template. This is the sort of thing that lawsuits are made of, and why a judge needs to be in the middle, as that’s the only party who can determine the merits of the causes of action, which then send the whole thing to trial by jury. The INTENT and SPIRIT of the contract, are key.

Remember that Crytek claims they did all the 2011-12 work for the promos and such, while they were pitching the engine to CIG. And in exchange for that unpaid work, as well as a reduction in licensing fees (for 2012 that is), CIG also promised certain things such as exclusive use of the engine, marketing via logos etc.