It makes perfect sense. Virka said my reasoning is false since the deal was publicly announced and that Crytek isn't missing out on any compensation by it still being in Alpha. But by the document there is a clause for public release and cash shops. So I'm sure it will be brought up as it will be used against the time of the project.
Specify the clause and context as to where they are entitled to earnings from a cash shop and the game sales on release.
PDF page 7, clause 1.2 "Commercial Life"
Do you mean this:
1. Definitions
...
1.2. "Commercial Life": The period of time in which Licensee makes the game available to play by third parties, in exchange for the payment of any fee(s), including, without limitation, any free-to-play version with in-game microtransactions.
Licensee is CIG, and third party is us gamers. It talks about CIG getting money from us gamers, not about Crytek getting money from anyone.
Seems oddly worded to be the "gamers", to me third-party would refer to a publisher via other countries or something. But I'm not a lawyer I'll stay outta this one and continue to observe.
[[ DEAD ]] - Funny - I deleted my account on the site using the cancel account button. Forum user is separate and still exists with no way of deleting it. Delete it admins. Do it, this ends now.
It makes perfect sense. Virka said my reasoning is false since the deal was publicly announced and that Crytek isn't missing out on any compensation by it still being in Alpha. But by the document there is a clause for public release and cash shops. So I'm sure it will be brought up as it will be used against the time of the project.
Specify the clause and context as to where they are entitled to earnings from a cash shop and the game sales on release.
PDF page 7, clause 1.2 "Commercial Life"
Do you mean this:
1. Definitions
...
1.2. "Commercial Life": The period of time in which Licensee makes the game available to play by third parties, in exchange for the payment of any fee(s), including, without limitation, any free-to-play version with in-game microtransactions.
Licensee is CIG, and third party is us gamers. It talks about CIG getting money from us gamers, not about Crytek getting money from anyone.
Seems oddly worded to be the "gamers", to me third-party would refer to a publisher via other countries or something. But I'm not a lawyer I'll stay outta this one and continue to observe.
In contracts, third parties means everyone who aren't part of that contract, so it could also mean CIG selling to publishers or redistributors.
But the important point is that it's about CIG selling the game to someone, and doesn't talk about Crytek at all.
Really, with legal stuff there is absolutely no telling how things will fall. Regardless of any context or obvious language.
Had a friend's case fail in court when 'about three weeks' was legally determined to be 17 days.
While I am inclined to believe that the CIG disorganization extends to all facets of their company, there's just no way to make assurances about how the legal case goes. Just another reason folks try to avoid the legal system. Indeterminant, and expensive.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
Comments
But the important point is that it's about CIG selling the game to someone, and doesn't talk about Crytek at all.
Had a friend's case fail in court when 'about three weeks' was legally determined to be 17 days.
While I am inclined to believe that the CIG disorganization extends to all facets of their company, there's just no way to make assurances about how the legal case goes. Just another reason folks try to avoid the legal system. Indeterminant, and expensive.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
You mean Easter, after next Easter.
MAGA