Welcome to an Update to the Crytek vs CIG Star Citizen Lawsuit, with Crytek’s last response before the Court Rule on It’s Own Motion to Dismiss. Yes they are trying to dismiss their own case. ALSO I am not a Lawyer and anything I talk about here is from the case/documents as I understand it.
A Quick Summary of what has recently been happening, Crytek are trying to dismiss their own case as they say they want to wait for Squadron 42 to be released and then refile.
This is after everything other than 2 of Crytek’s Complaints has already been dismissed or withdrawn.
The 2 Remaining Points being the Squadron 42 Claim – Squadron 42’s Development and Sale as a Standalone Game Breaches Crytek’s GLA with CIG & the Credits Claim – Star Citizen Should be displaying CryEngine/Crytek Credits.
Crytek want to have the case dismissed without prejudice and no conditions so they can bring it back to court if and when they want to (they say when SQ42 releases).
CIG want the case to be dismissed with prejudice so it can’t be brought back OR with conditions like Crytek have to pay CIGs legal fees.
The Court had Crytek put a $500k bond up to cover CIGs fees in situations like this.
CIG had pretty much demolished Crytek’s remaining case:
Showing that Crytek had contacted Amazon to ask what was licensed to CIG by Amazon and Amazon said all versions of CryEngine and Lumberyard that Crytek had given to Amazon. This suggests that even if CIG had parts of their Game using CryEngine and not Lumberyard that would still be within their Agreement with Amazon and therefore not a breach of anything with Crytek.
CIG also used some extremely colorful language when explaining to the court that Crytek should not be able to have their case dismissed without condition.
“Crytek should not be allowed to aim its car at CIG’s storefront window, stomp the accelerator, smash through, do doughnuts for years, then back out and drive away to maybe circle around and crash CIG again another day.”
CIG go onto say that Crytek are trying to avoid a Near-Certain Adverse Ruling.
Crytek have since made their final response before the Judge Rules on the Motion to Dismiss on the 7th of February.
Crytek say the Motion to Dismiss Is About Timing and Efficient Case Management
CIG’s Opposition repeatedly suggests, with ample vitriol and hyperbole, that CIG has all but won this case and that Crytek is “surrendering.” Whether CIG is posturing for the Court or the public, CIG’s spin could not be less accurate. Crytek filed its motion for the simple reason that CIG, as unbelievable as it sounds several years into game development, purports [REDACTED]… now this is something Crytek did before, using Redacted Statements in a way that made it look potentially more dramatic to onlookers.
CIG has already said they have not shared any release dates for SQ42 with Crytek ONLY that they were not sure how players would access the game yet (via the PU Launcher or a Standalone one, or if it would be available offline I suppose)
The other thing to potentially note in CIGs favor as well is that Squadron 42 Pledges include access to Star Citizen’s AC & SM Modes JUST not the Persistent Universe.
While it seems far-fetched that any video game developer, who has been working extensively on a game and is pressing toward a release date, [REDACTED], CIG stated this position in a recent verified discovery response. This has suggested to Crytek that CIG has fully embraced a delay strategy.
Basically that CIG are delaying the release of Squadron 42 because of this case.
Crytek go onto say This dismissal is a matter of timing, nothing more.
And that CIG seeks sanctions, not conditions, on the basis that Crytek is taking a cut-and-run approach to avoid an imminent adverse ruling that leads to a fee award. None of CIG’s characterizations are true. Crytek is not running, and there is no imminent adverse ruling whatsoever. Crytek, unlike CIG, is willing to back its words with deeds.
Crytek say they “will refile upon the release of Squadron 42, and it firmly believes it will prevail.” “Crytek is not losing, it is waiting.”
Breach of the GLA is based on Development of Squadron 42 as a standalone game, not the actual release of Squadron 42
“CIG does not have any rights to embed the CryEngine in and develop any game that does not fit the GLA’s definition of a Game. From the inception of this case, it has been Crytek’s position that CIG’s development of Squadron 42 as a standalone game was, by itself, a breach of the GLA whether or not Squadron 42 was ever released at all.”
Crytek go onto say that the release of Squadron 42 isn’t a precondition of the breach claim BUT CIG will no longer have any ability to hide how it has been developing Squadron 42 once it releases it & they will be able to prove it’s been Breaching the GLA with a Standalone Game.
This Argument however is a little weak… given that CIG are using the Lumberyard Engine now… and have Amazon have given them a license to use the CryEngine too. It seems to me CIG can do what they want QUESTION MARK?
Crytek say they Should not be Faulted for Assuming the Truth of CIG’s Public Statements as CIG had suggested that Squadron 42 should of been out by & was being developed as a standalone game.
Crytek still claim that Star Citizen did not switch Engines to Lumberyard BUT are instead using CryEngine under the Amazon/Lumberyard License, in an attempt to mislead the court… Which seems an odd way to phrase it… for all anyone knows outside of CIG the game might be entirely Lumberyard and Custom Code… BUT it’s irrelevant seeing that Amazon DID liscene CryEngine to CIG as well.
Crytek say “CIG’s repeated reversals make it extremely hard to litigate the parties’ disputes in an organized fashion or to even decide what discovery is necessary because CIG’s litigation statements are discarded at its convenience.”
Crytek go onto say – “CIG never stopped using the same CryEngine code originally licensed under the GLA, and CIG has never provided a single authority stating that taking a second license from a third party to develop using the same code covered by the first license somehow voids the restrictions of the first license. Crytek thus remains confident that, as soon as CIG admits (or can no longer claim ignorance to the fact) that it is developing a standalone version of Squadron 42, it will be in breach of the GLA and that CIG’s Amazon license provides CIG no shelter from the GLA.”
Crytek also argue that dismissing now saves everyone time and money as well as meaning their will only be 1 potential trial in the future AND as the Case Remains In Its Early Stages according to Crytek that it’s sensible to do so. (I would like to point out the case is moving into it’s 3rd year). But I am sure a huge amount more discovery could take place if this continued.
Crytek do say that they have proposed some “Reasonable Conditions” on Dismissal in the past BUT don’t seem to have included them in its Motion to Dismiss given to the Court:
Those conditions were that all current claims from the current action could be used in the defense or support of prevailing party fees.
Crytek would agree to leave it’s posted Bond with the court until the parties resolve their dispute.
If Crytek did not bring a 2nd action then either party “could bring a motion for fees/prevailing party motion in a declaratory action presented to this Court”.
They say any of CIGs Proposed Conditions are punitive and seek to punish Crytek… I think that is kind of the point.
Crytek go onto say that None of CIG’s Expenses Will be Wasted as they will effectively continue the case at a later date & that Crytek’s Basis for Dismissal is not “Suspect” rather a matter of timing and ripeness.
Crytek then go on to say “Typical Cases” Warranting Dismissal with Prejudice Are Quite Different From The Present Case & that There is no Near-Certain Adverse Ruling for Crytek to Avoid & The Payment of Fees is Unnecessary to Protect CIG.
Dismissal of Crytek’s Credits Claim along with its Squadron 42 Claim is a Matter of Judicial Economy, it makes sense to save money and have the complaints dealt with at the same time at a later date.
It looks like Crytek have been trying to avoid discovery of certain areas that CIG has requested those largely being Crytek’s Cash Flow & Financials as well as more info on CryEngine Developed Games, which Crytek says has no bearing on the case & is overly broad anyway. As Crytek say “Crytek’s is not Seeking Damages Based on a Theory of Lost Profits” or lost sales of Crytek developed games as a result of CIG’s removal of CryEngine Credits from Star Citizen HOWEVER Crytek also say “Crytek’s admission that its game business was not damaged is not in any way an admission that Crytek’s licensing business has not been damaged or that Crytek has not been harmed from the loss of advertising it was entitled to under the GLA”
They end with Crytek respectfully requests that the Court grant its motion for voluntary dismissal without prejudice.