Crytek Filing Lawsuit Against CIG

Arglebargle · March 2018

Eldurian said:

BeansnBread said:

Eldurian said:

Now a bunch of people on the internet without law degrees and who have probably never even taken a business law class in most cases want to argue about how the case IS crap simply because they seriously LOVE Chris Roberts and Star Citizen that much.

Ok...

Fixed.

I'll just continue let the tech law lawyer who is a neutral party do my arguing for me because I highly doubt anyone on either side of this entire debate who's posting on these forums understands this case better than him.

You don't view that as an "Appeal to authority" debate trick?

I've worked with a number of lawyers in the past, and they are just as capable of screwing things up as anyone else. Even more so when all the info is not yet in evidence.

Folks prefer to settle out of court, because when you go into the legal system there's no real telling of what might get decided.

BeansnBread · March 2018

Babuinix said:

Why and how I'm making it my business to tell you how donators spend their money?

A quote was posted that I called stupid. It is below:

"Every time Goonsquad/SA/DS post salt on Star Citizen, I spend more money on it. Every time a mentally disturbed former backer or Elite CMDR toxic emo comments, I spend more money on it. Every time they refuse to answer why they spend so much time arguing about a game they don't even like, I spend more money on it. Want to watch the world burn because you can't have your way? You got whats coming to you"

You then said the following:

"Seems to be working exceptionally tbh !"

Which implies that you think what was quoted was accurate. In fact, you edited your quote to include the word exceptionally which I can only think means that you think it is an exceptional part of funding.

That you are incapable of following that thread should be embarrassing to you, yet you actually wanted me to write it out for you.

laserit · March 2018

rpmcmurphy said:

laserit said:

MadFrenchie said:

MaxBacon said:

MadFrenchie said:
Unfortunately, if they were still considered employees of Crytek, any work they did there belongs to Crytek, no matter if they eventually moved to CIG.

Says who it belongs to them? If in agreement they develop X for their client it's theirs (the client) once it's delivered. It would have to be implicit that work, assets, etc... made for the client belongs to them, not to the client, what doesn't make sense to me.

Any work you do as an employee of another company doesn't belong to you. It belongs to the company. So if they eventually became CIG employees, it makes no difference in the case of ownership of work they did prior to leaving Crytek.

That gets a little sticky when the employer is defaulting on the employees compensation.

According to whom? If a contract continues to exist between employee and employer then whether they are paying wages or not is irrelevant unless there is some precedent or clause in the contract allowing such a thing.

When the employer is not compensating the employee the employer is breaking a contract. The employee is a creditor just like the government, bank or a vendor. The difference is how far you are down the list.

A shitty employer might want you too believe that you have no rights or recourse but in the civilized world that is just not the case.

There's hundreds, if not thousands of different scenarios. What would make you think its so black and white?

Like I said, its gets sticky.

Babuinix · March 2018

Well actually I was referring to your own quote not Zandog's lol

BeansnBread said:

Wow, that's an exceptionally stupid quote.

I hope my sentiment inspires more donations for Star Citizen.

Might as well borrow another one then

BeansnBread said:
That you are incapable of following that thread should be embarrassing to you, yet you actually wanted me to write it out for you.

And yeah it's stupid and pointless, like this whole thread tbh lol

BeansnBread · March 2018

Babuinix said:

Well actually I was referring to your own quote not Zandog's lol

BeansnBread said:

Wow, that's an exceptionally stupid quote.

I hope my sentiment inspires more donations for Star Citizen.

Might as well borrow another one then

BeansnBread said:
That you are incapable of following that thread should be embarrassing to you, yet you actually wanted me to write it out for you.
And yeah it's stupid and pointless, like this whole thread tbh lol

Our back and forth is pointless and stupid, but the whole thread isn't. Crytek and CIG are looking to butt heads right now and there is actually a lot of information in this thread that is pretty useful. With the exception of a few people, like you and I in this case, there have been pretty good arguments on either side of the case.

I will say that your disingenuousness is grating. But it's not like everyone doesn't recognize it. You quoted me saying, "I hope my sentiment inspires more donations for Star Citizen." This follows that other quote as a joke and you posted the numbers talking about how exceptionally it's working. We are going into the weeds because you can't or don't want to accept that you were also talking about the way people spend their money, when it is obvious you were.

Besides that though, there isn't anything wrong with talking about the way people spend their money. Some people might think it's rude, but when a person spends all of his savings on a video game donation before said game comes out, in my opinion at least, it is monumentally fucking stupid. I doubt this happens often, but there are a million cases where people do stupid things with money and again, in my opinion, there is nothing wrong with pointing out how stupid they were with money. MC Hammer comes to mind as a classic example.

Babuinix · March 2018

I believe you are mistaking me celebrating the continuous financial support of a game I've backed and actively play with someone going out of it's way to point fingers at strangers for spending money on something they disapprove as a mean to attack the project and it's supporters

Yeah... it's stupid and pointless alright.

Kefo · March 2018

Zandog said:

Kefo said:

Zandog said:

Kefo said:

Zandog said:

Kefo said:

Durzax said:

SpottyGekko said:

There is no conjecture required, crowdsourced money WILL be used to pay every penny of this legal battle, just as it is used to cover any other expense.

That's what the funding is for, it covers the cost of development, which includes the operating costs of the company by default. CIG has no other sources of income AFAIK.

True, the crowdfunded money can be used for any business expenses needed.
That does NOT translate into CIG and Chris Roberts ARE using those funds that way, thus where conjecture comes in.
CIG has business bank accounts.
Chris Roberts has personal bank accounts.
A good business man or woman would never let these mix.

Well CR isn’t a good business man in my opinion lol

Well good thing your opinion doesn't matter now does it? I know you don't have the intelligence to be able to raise $200 let alone $200,000,000. Good or bad, the man has shown the imagination and initiative to make money.

Personal attacks aside did I strike a nerve with you? Did I shake the core of your belief that CR can do no harm with my opinion? You seem awfully angry for me stating my opinion.

And not that it matters but yeah I have raised over 200, well above that actually and recently to help habitat for humanity

Will they remember me when they have a roof over their heads? Eh I could care less as long as they are sheltered. You still seem pretty triggered by me posting though.

The only thing I'm triggered by is how dedicated you Goons are to taking down a video game. Is there nothing else you guys have going for you?

Why didn’t anyone inform me I’m a goon? Does this mean that I don’t have to spend the money to get a SA account because I already have one somewhere? Do you think I’m actually Derek Smart?

FrodoFragins · March 2018

I'm a firm believer that many backers aren't familiar with sunk costs and believe that if they keep throwing money at VIG the mismanagement will simply go away.

Babuinix · March 2018

I'm a firm believe that many haters aren't familiar with game development and believe that if they keep throwing hate at CIG, Chris Roberts and it's backers somehow their pain will simply go away.

Zandog · March 2018

Kefo said:

Zandog said:

Kefo said:

Zandog said:

Kefo said:

Zandog said:

Kefo said:

Durzax said:

SpottyGekko said:

There is no conjecture required, crowdsourced money WILL be used to pay every penny of this legal battle, just as it is used to cover any other expense.

That's what the funding is for, it covers the cost of development, which includes the operating costs of the company by default. CIG has no other sources of income AFAIK.

True, the crowdfunded money can be used for any business expenses needed.
That does NOT translate into CIG and Chris Roberts ARE using those funds that way, thus where conjecture comes in.
CIG has business bank accounts.
Chris Roberts has personal bank accounts.
A good business man or woman would never let these mix.

Well CR isn’t a good business man in my opinion lol

Well good thing your opinion doesn't matter now does it? I know you don't have the intelligence to be able to raise $200 let alone $200,000,000. Good or bad, the man has shown the imagination and initiative to make money.

Personal attacks aside did I strike a nerve with you? Did I shake the core of your belief that CR can do no harm with my opinion? You seem awfully angry for me stating my opinion.

And not that it matters but yeah I have raised over 200, well above that actually and recently to help habitat for humanity

Will they remember me when they have a roof over their heads? Eh I could care less as long as they are sheltered. You still seem pretty triggered by me posting though.

The only thing I'm triggered by is how dedicated you Goons are to taking down a video game. Is there nothing else you guys have going for you?

Why didn’t anyone inform me I’m a goon? Does this mean that I don’t have to spend the money to get a SA account because I already have one somewhere? Do you think I’m actually Derek Smart?

Why do you always dodge a question with a question?

gervaise1 · March 2018

BeansnBread said:

gervaise1 said:

BeansnBread said:

MaxBacon said:

BeansnBread said:

Sales are not mutually exclusive with refunds. Pre-orders are sales. You don't know wtf you are talking about. Again.

Excuse me people act like Crowdfund is a Pre-Order platform, like Kickstarter itself is a pre-order platform, because it is legally threated as a sale, buying a product that is still to be.

Within that reality, @gervaise1 argument is very well valid, the reality of SC in legal terms would hit as the one of one pre-order, liabilities on that aspect, as with money going back into the dev budget then it would not be declared as profit, yet an expenditure.

You don't know what you're talking about either.

I know full well what I am talking about. Given what you have written I am not sure you do appreciate the difference between a "pre-order" that a customer might cancel prior to delivery and and a "sale" which may generate a refund.

In jargon terms: pre-orders generate "prepaid revenues" (also called unearned revenue, pre-payments) that a business receives from its "customers" for "future delivery" of in this case SC. Assuming that the company follows the "revenue recognition principle" this income cannot - cannot - be considered as a recognized revenue until the sale to the customer has been completed.

There is more to it - you can get into creditors, liabilities, debtors etc - but I prefer to keep things simple because its generally accepted that SC has not yet been delivered. Then again we seem to have people saying on the one hand SC is making a glorious profit and on the other its going to run out of money!

Note: the above revolves around considering SC backers as customers and not investors.

Hence the suggestion that Crytek wants the P&L to base a claim for any future award doesn't hold water.

Your whole argument depends on the idea that because a product has not been delivered, that no sale has taken place and therefor no damages can be taken - this is the stupid part of your argument. It goes a step too far. And it follows that the next part of your story, where you talk about future awards, also falls apart easily.

On a side note, I've never seen anyone talk about glorious profits for SC. I won't speak to your own experience, but until I see evidence of it, I don't believe you. If anything, people have been whining about how ludicrous their team size is and how, even though they have taken in so much money, it is being spent very quickly because of the sheer enormity of the project.

Not "my" argument. Standard accounting practice. Read what I wrote. I like to keep things simple but for you I will expand:

"International Financial Reporting Standards" exist produced by the IFRS Foundation and the International Accounting Standards Board. More than one set of standards due to the global nature of business but a section of all the standards covers how a company should recognise assets, liabilities, equity, income and expenses. These rules - RULES - that the accountants must follow when they do their "accrual based accounting". More jargon hence my attempt at "in simple terms".

So saying "your whole argument depends on" just misses the mark. S

And since a P&L would be produced by accountants - following said rule - roll of the drums ... there are no profits.

The glorious referenece was sarcasm but people in this thread are suggesting that SC certainly seem to be suggesting that SC has made a profit inclusing yourself. If you take a step back and stop sprouting is, imo, blindingly obvious since the game is not yet finished and is still consuming money.

Hey Ygtitte I have sold this house for $100k look at the profit I have made. But Jon its still being built, you don't know how much its going to cost and as a result our accountants haven't classed it as a sale. Ah but I have the money Ygritte, its a glorious profit I tell you, your argument hinges on the house not being built. Jon Snow you know nothing.

Turrican187 · March 2018

gervaise1 said:

BeansnBread said:

gervaise1 said:

BeansnBread said:

MaxBacon said:

BeansnBread said:

Sales are not mutually exclusive with refunds. Pre-orders are sales. You don't know wtf you are talking about. Again.

Excuse me people act like Crowdfund is a Pre-Order platform, like Kickstarter itself is a pre-order platform, because it is legally threated as a sale, buying a product that is still to be.

Within that reality, @gervaise1 argument is very well valid, the reality of SC in legal terms would hit as the one of one pre-order, liabilities on that aspect, as with money going back into the dev budget then it would not be declared as profit, yet an expenditure.

You don't know what you're talking about either.

I know full well what I am talking about. Given what you have written I am not sure you do appreciate the difference between a "pre-order" that a customer might cancel prior to delivery and and a "sale" which may generate a refund.

In jargon terms: pre-orders generate "prepaid revenues" (also called unearned revenue, pre-payments) that a business receives from its "customers" for "future delivery" of in this case SC. Assuming that the company follows the "revenue recognition principle" this income cannot - cannot - be considered as a recognized revenue until the sale to the customer has been completed.

There is more to it - you can get into creditors, liabilities, debtors etc - but I prefer to keep things simple because its generally accepted that SC has not yet been delivered. Then again we seem to have people saying on the one hand SC is making a glorious profit and on the other its going to run out of money!

Note: the above revolves around considering SC backers as customers and not investors.

Hence the suggestion that Crytek wants the P&L to base a claim for any future award doesn't hold water.

Your whole argument depends on the idea that because a product has not been delivered, that no sale has taken place and therefor no damages can be taken - this is the stupid part of your argument. It goes a step too far. And it follows that the next part of your story, where you talk about future awards, also falls apart easily.

On a side note, I've never seen anyone talk about glorious profits for SC. I won't speak to your own experience, but until I see evidence of it, I don't believe you. If anything, people have been whining about how ludicrous their team size is and how, even though they have taken in so much money, it is being spent very quickly because of the sheer enormity of the project.

Not "my" argument. Standard accounting practice. Read what I wrote. I like to keep things simple but for you I will expand:

"International Financial Reporting Standards" exist produced by the IFRS Foundation and the International Accounting Standards Board. More than one set of standards due to the global nature of business but a section of all the standards covers how a company should recognise assets, liabilities, equity, income and expenses. These rules - RULES - that the accountants must follow when they do their "accrual based accounting". More jargon hence my attempt at "in simple terms".

So saying "your whole argument depends on" just misses the mark. S

And since a P&L would be produced by accountants - following said rule - roll of the drums ... there are no profits.

The glorious referenece was sarcasm but people in this thread are suggesting that SC certainly seem to be suggesting that SC has made a profit inclusing yourself. If you take a step back and stop sprouting is, imo, blindingly obvious since the game is not yet finished and is still consuming money.

Hey Ygtitte I have sold this house for $100k look at the profit I have made. But Jon its still being built, you don't know how much its going to cost and as a result our accountants haven't classed it as a sale. Ah but I have the money Ygritte, its a glorious profit I tell you, your argument hinges on the house not being built. Jon Snow you know nothing.

Nope, does not work this way.
Please inform yourself before spreading misinformation - thank you.

ScotchUp · March 2018

There is so many twists and turns with this game development. We have people on both sides not willing to let anyone get the last word in about the games. Yet I can understand why backers in this thread may want to quiet any negative comments about the development. They have money riding on the game. Yet, these games are getting a heck of a lot of advertising, good or bad doesn't matter. Keep them in the conversations is always good advertising. Could be backers real motive.

I sure hope the games come out soon, hate to see you guys still arguing about this while you are laying on your death beds.

Yet I hear a lot of people saying people on CIG payroll are fighting any negative comments. True? Maybe. Would that be believable. Of course, seen it with AAA companies.

Yet, this is very entertaining, keeps my eyes on the prize.

Kefo · March 2018

Zandog said:

Kefo said:

Zandog said:

Kefo said:

Zandog said:

Kefo said:

Zandog said:

Kefo said:

Durzax said:

SpottyGekko said:

There is no conjecture required, crowdsourced money WILL be used to pay every penny of this legal battle, just as it is used to cover any other expense.

That's what the funding is for, it covers the cost of development, which includes the operating costs of the company by default. CIG has no other sources of income AFAIK.

True, the crowdfunded money can be used for any business expenses needed.
That does NOT translate into CIG and Chris Roberts ARE using those funds that way, thus where conjecture comes in.
CIG has business bank accounts.
Chris Roberts has personal bank accounts.
A good business man or woman would never let these mix.

Well CR isn’t a good business man in my opinion lol

Well good thing your opinion doesn't matter now does it? I know you don't have the intelligence to be able to raise $200 let alone $200,000,000. Good or bad, the man has shown the imagination and initiative to make money.

Personal attacks aside did I strike a nerve with you? Did I shake the core of your belief that CR can do no harm with my opinion? You seem awfully angry for me stating my opinion.

And not that it matters but yeah I have raised over 200, well above that actually and recently to help habitat for humanity

Will they remember me when they have a roof over their heads? Eh I could care less as long as they are sheltered. You still seem pretty triggered by me posting though.

The only thing I'm triggered by is how dedicated you Goons are to taking down a video game. Is there nothing else you guys have going for you?

Why didn’t anyone inform me I’m a goon? Does this mean that I don’t have to spend the money to get a SA account because I already have one somewhere? Do you think I’m actually Derek Smart?

Why do you always dodge a question with a question?

You asked a question that I can’t answer since I’m not a goon so it doesn’t apply to me and would be silly of me to try and answer. So I guess I’ll turn your post on you and ask why do you dodge a question with a question?

Linif · March 2018

MaxBacon said:

Linif said:
Right, but I'm looking toward the result that may end up with CIG having their butts kicked. I can see what the fanatics will do, but what of the average gamer who's invested only to find that CIG hasn't been playing ball legally? You reckon they'll bury their head in the sand?

It's one amazing thing you know, most of the backers I know care about the game they backed for and its development, not this lawsuit, or how much they've spent in a door or in a coffee machine.

That's why I find your questions simply silly, people do not care about this, they haven't invested in SC expecting a financial return to have to "put their heads in the sand" in the prospect of the company losing money in a lawsuit.

Much less would they become criminals on a case that as we've seen from everyone with legal expertise that has given input on the initial argumentation from both sides stated, are disputes over debatable things in a contract.

I'm not sure how the question is silly. I've backed this and I care about this. Am I not people? I invested what I have (Pledge plus a ship via discount trade-in) but I expect no financial return. I'm not sure what you meant by this part and I don't believe I mentioned any financial return?

By burying their head in the sand, I was referring to people not holding SC accountable for the mess they've got themselves in, intentional or otherwise.

Using the term criminal seems odd. I assume this comes from my saying about "playing ball legally", which I meant in reference to the copyright stuff cropping up. Though it seems you're implying I meant more, but I'm uncertain?

Bestinna · March 2018

this game will fail.

gervaise1 · March 2018

Turrican187 said:

gervaise1 said:

BeansnBread said:

gervaise1 said:

BeansnBread said:

MaxBacon said:

BeansnBread said:

Sales are not mutually exclusive with refunds. Pre-orders are sales. You don't know wtf you are talking about. Again.

Excuse me people act like Crowdfund is a Pre-Order platform, like Kickstarter itself is a pre-order platform, because it is legally threated as a sale, buying a product that is still to be.

Within that reality, @gervaise1 argument is very well valid, the reality of SC in legal terms would hit as the one of one pre-order, liabilities on that aspect, as with money going back into the dev budget then it would not be declared as profit, yet an expenditure.

You don't know what you're talking about either.

I know full well what I am talking about. Given what you have written I am not sure you do appreciate the difference between a "pre-order" that a customer might cancel prior to delivery and and a "sale" which may generate a refund.

In jargon terms: pre-orders generate "prepaid revenues" (also called unearned revenue, pre-payments) that a business receives from its "customers" for "future delivery" of in this case SC. Assuming that the company follows the "revenue recognition principle" this income cannot - cannot - be considered as a recognized revenue until the sale to the customer has been completed.

There is more to it - you can get into creditors, liabilities, debtors etc - but I prefer to keep things simple because its generally accepted that SC has not yet been delivered. Then again we seem to have people saying on the one hand SC is making a glorious profit and on the other its going to run out of money!

Note: the above revolves around considering SC backers as customers and not investors.

Hence the suggestion that Crytek wants the P&L to base a claim for any future award doesn't hold water.

Your whole argument depends on the idea that because a product has not been delivered, that no sale has taken place and therefor no damages can be taken - this is the stupid part of your argument. It goes a step too far. And it follows that the next part of your story, where you talk about future awards, also falls apart easily.

On a side note, I've never seen anyone talk about glorious profits for SC. I won't speak to your own experience, but until I see evidence of it, I don't believe you. If anything, people have been whining about how ludicrous their team size is and how, even though they have taken in so much money, it is being spent very quickly because of the sheer enormity of the project.

Not "my" argument. Standard accounting practice. Read what I wrote. I like to keep things simple but for you I will expand:

"International Financial Reporting Standards" exist produced by the IFRS Foundation and the International Accounting Standards Board. More than one set of standards due to the global nature of business but a section of all the standards covers how a company should recognise assets, liabilities, equity, income and expenses. These rules - RULES - that the accountants must follow when they do their "accrual based accounting". More jargon hence my attempt at "in simple terms".

<snip>

Nope, does not work this way.
Please inform yourself before spreading misinformation - thank you.

They are the rules. Easy to check. Or just go and look at how e,g. Activision Blizzard report their earnings.

Eldurian · March 2018

Arglebargle said:

Eldurian said:

I'll just continue let the tech law lawyer who is a neutral party do my arguing for me because I highly doubt anyone on either side of this entire debate who's posting on these forums understands this case better than him.

You don't view that as an "Appeal to authority" debate trick?

I've worked with a number of lawyers in the past, and they are just as capable of screwing things up as anyone else. Even more so when all the info is not yet in evidence.

Folks prefer to settle out of court, because when you go into the legal system there's no real telling of what might get decided.

I think appeal to an authority is more when people make a good well thought out reasoned / backed point and then you do a google search for the one person with a doctorate on the internet to agrees with you to dispute it.

What I'm doing is coming into a trash debate of no substance where nobody has any idea what the heck they are talking about and saying "Well this guy is an actual lawyer who specializes in cases like these, has no affiliation to CIG, and says this case is trash."

The average mmorpg.com user is as qualified to debate this as they are nuclear physics or brain surgery, and most people posting in this subject have a heavy bias one way or the other about CIG. I realize it's a very American quality to think your opinion matters no matter how ignorant about the subject you are, but it really doesn't.

BeansnBread · March 2018

Eldurian said:

Arglebargle said:

Eldurian said:

I'll just continue let the tech law lawyer who is a neutral party do my arguing for me because I highly doubt anyone on either side of this entire debate who's posting on these forums understands this case better than him.

You don't view that as an "Appeal to authority" debate trick?

I've worked with a number of lawyers in the past, and they are just as capable of screwing things up as anyone else. Even more so when all the info is not yet in evidence.

Folks prefer to settle out of court, because when you go into the legal system there's no real telling of what might get decided.

I think appeal to an authority is more when people make a good well thought out reasoned / backed point and then you do a google search for the one person with a doctorate on the internet to agrees with you to dispute it.

What I'm doing is coming into a trash debate of no substance where nobody has any idea what the heck they are talking about and saying "Well this guy is an actual lawyer who specializes in cases like these, has no affiliation to CIG, and says this case is trash."

The average mmorpg.com user is as qualified to debate this as they are nuclear physics or brain surgery, and most people posting in this subject have a heavy bias one way or the other about CIG. I realize it's a very American quality to think your opinion matters no matter how ignorant about the subject you are, but it really doesn't.

Then you don't understand an appeal to authority.

Eldurian · March 2018

Maybe. But I'm quite confident in saying the opinions being thrown around here by mmorpg.com users have no more merits than your opinions on brain surgery or nuclear science.

To be clear, even though I have taken a business law class that I did pretty well in I don't consider myself an authority on law any more than I would consider myself an authority on biology because I dissected a rat in high school. I realise law is a highly complex subject with many nuances that take years to understand properly so despite probably being better educated about it than 90% of the posters on this forum probably are, I'm not throwing around my opinion because I recognize I'm ignorant on this subject. My opinion based purely on my own personal knowledge is trash. It's not worth involving in the debate.

Thankfully, the guy in the video is someone who has studied law for years, breaks it down point-by-point quite articulately in a way that makes a hell of a lot of sense. So rather than say "OMG THAT'S APPEAL TO AUTHORITY FALLACY" how about you convince me why you are qualified enough I should give a damn what you have to say about law, and point out where his articulate and well argued conclusions are wrong. Because law is a complex enough subject that I need something better than "I have lawyer friends" before I'll assume anything you say is of merit.

Iselin · March 2018

Eldurian said:

Babuinix said:

A neutral 3rd party who is actually a lawyer basically sums up in this video and the follow up video that Crytek's entire case is crap.

Now a bunch of people on the internet without law degrees and who have probably never even taken a business law class in most cases want to argue about how the case isn't crap simply because they seriously hate Chris Roberts and Star Citizen that much.

Ok...

Sounds to me like you're one of those people if what you took from that video is that "Crytek's entire case is crap."

That video, if you actually watched it, deals only with the narrow subsidiary issue of whether discovery should be put on hold until the court rules on CIG's motion to dismiss. How exactly does that make the entire case crap?

Durzax · March 2018

The entire Crytek vs Cig vlog for which the update vlog was made.

Crytek' chances are very slim, as they are fighting against years of contract law.

Shodanas · March 2018

Durzax said:

The entire Crytek vs Cig vlog for which the update vlog was made.

Crytek' chances are very slim, as they are fighting against years of contract law.

It was apparent from the get go that this is just a cash grab attempt from Crytek.

Kefo · March 2018

Shodanas said:

Durzax said:

The entire Crytek vs Cig vlog for which the update vlog was made.

Crytek' chances are very slim, as they are fighting against years of contract law.

It’s my opinion that this is just a cash grab attempt from Crytek.

Fixed for you

Eldurian · March 2018

Iselin said:

Sounds to me like you're one of those people if what you took from that video is that "Crytek's entire case is crap."

That video, if you actually watched it, deals only with the narrow subsidiary issue of whether discovery should be put on hold until the court rules on CIG's motion to dismiss. How exactly does that make the entire case crap?

I am one of those people and I freely admitted that in my last post. I've taken a single law class, albeit one more than most posters here I'm guessing. But as I said:

"I don't consider myself an authority on law any more than I would consider myself an authority on biology because I dissected a rat in high school."

However did YOU watch the video? The dude agreed with CIG that the case was likely to be dismissed. If your case is likely to be dismissed then.... your entire case is crap.

Howdy, Stranger!

Crytek Filing Lawsuit Against CIG

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Crytek Filing Lawsuit Against CIG

Comments