|
Klyith posted:without it being totally obvious or a complete disaster. Wait, what game have you been watching?
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2016 09:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 11:28 |
|
|
DarkRefreshment posted:This was my point though, someone hacks in to your account and takes your internet space ship pictures it isn't theft. According to the white knights, all this money going to CIG is a donation. A donation is not a purchased product. With no purchased product, i.e. ownership, how can you have a theft? Now if they want to change the narrative and say you are buying the digital items then maybe you have a case for theft. Even that has proven to be a grey area in law though considering most ironclad TOS state that you are paying for the ability to use said item in the game and all rights belong to the content creator. Same reason you can't file charges against CCP if they ban your account in EVE and deny you access to your I'm pretty sure you can steal things that have been grown, bred, built, gifted, found, adversely possessed, patented, artistically created, or really any other way of owning something without having bought it. See: Archering, Space Kitten, dreams.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2017 06:26
|
|
|
DarkRefreshment posted:Hell, maybe. I would just challenge ownership criteria before going off about theft if I was Reddit people. Law makes my brain hurt to be honest. I feel like the one person on the internet that would never want to claim to be any form of lawyer. Yeah, I'm not a lawyer either, but I think the interesting bit (that others have pointed out) is that it's not a matter of if this is theft or not, but what the value of stolen jpegs are. A stolen NPR tote bag isn't worth what your donation point was; it's worth a tote bag. A stolen account to a closed MMO is worth nothing, despite what you've paid over the years towards it. You could argue that most of the expensive jpegs have no value to them, because stealing them doesn't deprive the owner of anything. However that probably won't hold up in court thanks to the grey market giving a quantifiable value to jpegs, making any restitution calculation pretty easy. Space Crabs posted:[Chris Robers] would design some kind of dimensional multiverse Whoa, whoa, whoa, are we talking about the same guy here? Edit: tax 
Ubik_Lives fucked around with this message at 11:25 on Jun 9, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2017 11:20
|
|
|
Golli posted:The difference here is that instead of letting you take the tote bag home, an MMO insists that you leave the tote bag in a locker on their premises, and they promise to let you use it whenever you want. Because they have failed to properly secure the premises, they have a duty to restore the property that you are now deprived of use. In the case of both a tote bag or a jpeg, these are of nominal intrinsic value and thus should be quickly and easily replaced. If the items are not quickly and easily replaced, then the claim that the items are of nominal intrinsic value is less plausible, and opens up an alternative interpretation. That the money you pay an MMO is locker rental, and if the company is at fault (by using cheap locks, etc) they could be responsible to return the rent paid on the locker and/or the value of its contents. -not a lawyer- Is that really going to be the case for stolen accounts though? I would imagine most stolen account occur not because someone breaks into the metaphorical locker, but because someone steals the key from you, which you had an implied duty to protect. Hell, an actual locker place would probably charge you for key and lock replacement. Also a real life locker rental place would have an ironclad term of service that states they aren't responsible for the contents of the locker, and can't guarantee its safety. Speaking of metaphors, I know I'm just a pleb lurker, but why do people mock "huge milestone" so much? It seems pretty clear to me that "huge" isn't part of the metaphor, and the phrase is just denoting that you've passed a metaphorical milestone that has a contextual significance or importance, hence it's a huge "milestone", not a "huge milestone". I would understand getting annoyed at people who mix metaphors and talk about hitting milestones, rather than passing milestones and hitting targets (though I am totally okay with visualisation of CIG constantly hitting huge milestones), but this seems to be making a mountain out of a molehill.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2017 13:21
|
|
|
kw0134 posted:So when lawyers talk about property, they talk about "a bundle of rights" that denote ownership under the law. The right to possession, the right of disposal, the right of exclusivity, etc. With our figurative NPR totebag, that's obvious: I can use, sell, junk, lend, or refuse to lend it any way I like. I own it, unambiguously, under classical notions of property law. Is that significantly different to a software license though? I don't have an exclusive right to Windows 10, I can't give it away, but I could dispose of it. But if someone takes my Windows 10 key, they've denied me access to my licensed software. Or stealing your iTunes or Amazon Movies accounts. I don't own any of that stuff, I just have an agreement with the people who do. I feel like this must have been settled in a court somewhere. It can't be that there has never been a case involving someone being caught stealing laptops, with the contents of those laptops being considered either way for restitution.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2017 15:38
|
|
|
I have a question for finance goons. Let’s assume that this is indeed a loan the size of their tax return, that’s there to see them to the ‘cons. Their tax return is collateral for the base amount, and everything else F42 owns covers the interest. But what happens when F42 gets the tax return? It’s sixty days between a default and the bank clearing you out. That’s more than enough time to spend that money. If CIG is still failing at that point, what incentive is there to pay off the loan over keeping the plates spinning for two more months, and what protections does the bank have against this?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2017 02:34
|
|
|
Space Crabs posted:
The all-encompassing blog reporting on the game of infinitely expanding scope. Truly we are the blessed ones, to bear witness to a philosophical battle for the ages. Just kidding, there's no information in Star Citizen. Derek could have just written "There is no game", but he's trying to be polite.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2017 09:41
|
|
|
toanoradian posted:edit: or maybe your post is a joke about coding and I just don't get it. I'm sorry. I'm pretty sure it's a you don't understand game development joke, where most code is supposed to have plenty of descriptors; non-code text describing what you are doing and why, so anyone else who has to use your code knows exactly what you are doing and can modify it without causing unintended bugs. But the code shown by CIG on their videos don't have useful descriptors, so clearly they aren't needed, and the reason why CIG can't fix a bug without creating two more is just because they are working on features that are just so advanced and revolutionary, that you obviously will hit delays and rework if only you understood game development.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2017 06:18
|
|
|
BeefThief posted:It's mid-August and they haven't released anything this year. Such blatent FUD. Star Citizen 2.6.3 Patch Notes posted:Updates and Fixes Checkmate, goonie.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2017 08:56
|
|
|
Hav posted:Solipsist propaganda. Until you benjamin button your way back into mom, tempus fugit in one direction. That's how I view time. To me, everyone is removing their posts to forget about Star Citizen, Chris Roberts is giving all his money to people who need it, and Derek Smart is calling things before they happen.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2017 02:15
|
|
|
Flared Basic Bitch posted:Is Derk fighting with TheAgent about what TheAgent says his personal acquaintances are talking about? Surely I have this wrong? Yeah? Derk Smartly, Holistic Warlord
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2017 06:22
|
|
|
The Titanic posted:I hope it hurt. I have little doubt she funded that film with both money and equipment. I hope they took her for a ride. I hope they lied their asses off to her to string her along for as long as they could. I hope they told her nothing, even after release and they knew that her already bit part she was really looking forward to was actually cut. drat. Your big break up has changed you. You used to be so full of life, but now you're ice cold. Ubik_Lives fucked around with this message at 07:14 on Oct 20, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2017 07:12
|
|
|
The Titanic posted:Now I know why I was born this way. Here lies The Titanic, died busting for a leak *hmmm, not quite* Here lies The Titanic, had a couple of lookouts, made accidental contact, died of internal injuries *almost* The Titanic, she lies where she fell, because no-one on this earth is getting her off that floor I'm going with that. So are there any more cons or major funding drives left for CIG this year, or is it onto another drought season until next year?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2017 12:29
|
|
|
The Titanic posted:Are you calling me fat??? Not sure if we are still in joke mode, but new rule about piss-troughs: Wear shoes and don't touch the floor or anything on it. Trusting in your fellow man to minimise splash damage is folly. But if we are in joke mode, then quite the opposite. I know you've drastically shed weight, but in doing so, you've gone from being able to pick up anyone, to being way out of our depth.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2017 00:36
|
|
|
One other thing I was wondering about, can CIG really shed staff effectively? If the claims that everyone who quits needs to sign an NDA is true, and I imagine there must be a financial incentive to make that stick, wouldn't any drastic staff cuts result in large payouts to those staff? If they were aiming for a restructure that would last them years, sure, but I feel like they are locked on their current path and can only drive full speed ahead. I know this has been said by many a person only to be proven wrong, but I can't comprehend how this can go on for much longer.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2017 00:47
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:How can something be full of nothing? If theres nothing there, it cannot be full. Clearly you've never downloaded Star Citizen to your hard drive.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2017 08:47
|
|
|
TheAgent posted:
I hope Ben is animated like Stan from Monkey Island given his flat shirt plaid. A true master of ships.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2017 17:34
|
|
|
D_Smart posted:That's my thinking as well. They have to settle. But you don't need high powered attorneys for the back and forth. Though it's bad for them because this being a fast track case, we can expect to be in discovery and depositions as early as late Jan to mid Feb. I can't wait. I have zero legal experience, but my gut feeling is Crytek probably want a quick settlement. Crytek don't have infinite money to burn on an endless lawsuit, and neither do CIG. If they get quagmired in court either Crytek run out of money and fold, or CIG run out of money and fold which would probably cause Crytek to follow suit, given their legal bills due and no winnings to take. Revenge works best when it doesn't involve your own suicide. And as this thread has always stated, the greatest embarrassment to Chris Roberts would not be being destroyed by big gaming, vindicating his claims of needing to fight the established publishers and gaming corporations, but to have been given every advantage and still not being able to deliver. Don't martyr him. Let him die in the desert looking promised land. So, to me, Crytek waited until CIG had their big sales period and they are as cashed up as they'll ever be. They got the biggest law firm they could find for a shock and awe display in negotiation, dispelling any notion CIG might have about winning at a trial. They emphasised how CIG were intentionally breaching the contract, so returning back to the status quo isn't sufficient for them; they don't want CIG to claim this was all an honest mistake, roll S42 back into Star Citizen and dump Lumberyard, and continue to not make a game while burning money and enriching the management. And they probably don't want to bankrupt CIG, because they don't want secured creditors picking at the carcass before they can, which would also include anything that would functionally kill the company off, like a public display of the financials. So I think Crytek will demand the sale money and whatever else they think they can get, and a cut of all jpeg purchases going forward. A joint press release will be published about how both sides have resolved their differences, and look forward to the release of Star Citizen. Skadden will get paid for about two weeks worth of work. CIG will pretend like nothing has happened, continue promising great things, then die in the summer before making it to the next sale period. Crytek will laugh and continue to not pay its employees. The financials and funding tracker will remain a mystery. CIG will become the laughing stock of the gaming world, but the faithful will blame Crytek and Derek, and move onto the next scam. And where they go, we will follow.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2018 15:39
|
|
|
Once again, zero legal experience, but I've had a flick through the GLA and a little of CIG's response (not all of it, because holy poo poo it's unreadable), and it really pains me to say that I'm more on CIG's side at the moment. The crux of the issue is the exclusive section. Does Star Citizen need to be made in Cry Engine or not?  The section in question is 2.1.2, which is part of 2.1. Basically 2.1 (to non-lawyer idiot me) is saying who does what in relation to the game and Cry Engine (limitations are in section 2.2). The 2.1.1 to 2.1.3 all start with exclusive / non-exclusive to indicate who is doing what. So to me: 2.1.1 - You can make Cry Engine better, but you're not the only group doing that. However, that doesn't mean you can get other people to fix our engine without our written permission, as per 2.6, because we don't want people stealing our code. 2.1.2 - You, and you alone will make the game. Any sub-contractors, any sub-companies, anyone else, needs our written permission as per 2.6 (but we can't be unreasonable about it), because again, we don't want outsiders seeing our engine without a contract. 2.1.3 - You, and you alone will make and sell the game, but we really don't care if you sub-contract outside companies to publish and distribute the game for you. Sure, you can read 2.1.2 as if it limits the game to only being in Cry Engine, but you need to ignore the similar framing of the two points either side of it, and the context of the section as a whole. It's not a section saying that they must develop, support and maintain Cry Engine (but you can work on other engines as well), must only use Cry Engine, and they must sell Star Citizen and no other games. It's just saying who can do those things. If the game was supposed to be CE locked, you'd expect that to be 2.2 (with potentially exactly the same wording). If that line of reasoning holds, the rest of CryTek's arguments start to falter. Breaking S42 into another game is bad if they are using Cry Engine. CIG have paid for one game, not the ability to pay once and keep spinning of sub games indefinitely. This would be a breach of the pay-out to dodge royalties. But if they are using another engine, what royalty damages are there? The amount between the split and the switch perhaps, but I think we all know that no-one is really buying S42, and any royalties in that period would be less that the cost of a Skadden bathroom break. Also things like no longer showing the CryTek logos don't make sense if they aren't using the engine anymore, and would probably come under 10.6, which states (to non-lawyer me), if sections become unenforceable because of legal or factual reasons (and not using the engine would seem to be a factual reason to not advertise you're using the engine), you ignore that section and keep the rest of the agreement. Showing Cry Engine code on Youtube is still a problem, but it's looking pretty minor at this point. One of the big things to me is really the damages side of things. Other than a support and mod fee, CryTek is paid up. Even if Star Citizen becomes a mobile app, have they really lost anything by no longer being the engine used? What can they really ask for here? I started to think perhaps they were out for blood, not money (completely invalidating my previous line of thought), but even then, I don't think it would be that painful for CIG to terminate the agreement (sections 8.2 and 8.3). I mean, it would suck hilariously for the coders, who need to go through every line of code, cutting out the original CE code, then putting back the exact same legacy Lumberyard code. Practically I'd say they would just claim to have done it, because you wouldn''t be able to tell the difference. Also, is it just me, or does 8.3 reference section 6.3, which doesn't exist? Secret mystery clause! I can't see CryTek's end game here. Nothing makes sense to me anymore. They can't really claim blood or money. My only thought at the moment is this is some sort of huge trap to bait CIG into admitting breaches they haven't been charged with yet. The RSI defence springs to mind. "Hah! RSI is not CIG, checkmate Mr CryBabyTek!" "Well, did you get our written permission to sub-licence the development of our game? To a company who then proceeded to bag poo poo on us while showing our code to the world? This cost millions of dollars of damages to our reputation and future sales, which you are responsible for. We have an updated list of claims, and we're putting your previous claims into evidence." "ya whoah did ehp did eh woh did..." Other than that, and again, not a lawyer at all, this seems like CryTek is searching for an opening, rather than having a significant grievance. Ubik_Lives fucked around with this message at 04:32 on Jan 7, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2018 04:09
|
|
|
SomethingJones posted:
If I invite you to an exclusive pineapple pizza party, is it it exclusive because I'm only serving pineapple pizza, or because of the limited invites? The exclusive nature could be referring to CIG being the only one allowed to embed Cry Engine in Star Citizen because they don't want third parties seeing the code without contracts, or Cry Engine being embedded in the game to the exclusion of other engines. I mean, how do you read 2.1.3? That CIG can't work on any other games while working on Star Citizen? Is that a normal agreement in the game engine world? Or 2.1.1? That CIG need to develop, support and maintain Cry Engine, but it's cool, because they can do that while working on other engines as well. I don't want to keep on this point too much, because I seem to be very much in the minority here, but let's look at this another way. Ignore the exclusive phrase for a second, and look at the entire combined sections (paraphrasing 2.1, 5.1.1, 2.1.2 and 2.6). Grant: Subject to the restrictions in the agreement, and us getting paid our quarter of a million euros, Crytek grants CIG a world-wide license only to exclusively embed Cry Engine in Star Citizen, and develop the Star Citizen, which right shall be sub-licensable to others if we give our written permission. I mean, this is literally a section titled grants, and this section is referred to as a right. How do you force someone to use a right? Crytek granted me the right to only use Cry Engine? Cool, I guess, but I'm not going to exercise it. The very next section is Restrictions on Use. Why is there not a section there saying the Licensee shall not use any other engine to develop the game, other than Cry Engine? Why say "subject to restrictions, have another restriction"? And if it is a restriction and not a right, how do you sub-license it? You can easily give someone the right to help embed Cry Engine into Star Citizen, but if I give you the right to only use Cry Engine in Star Citizen, it's an entirely meaningless concept. I might be wrong about this, but I don't think you can say there's only one way to read that section.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2018 12:51
|
|
|
D_Smart posted:I know it's a brain-teaser for some people who aren't used to contracts and contract law. That's why we have lawyers and judges. This isn't going to be hard at all because it's going to come down to INTENT. I know you're dismissing my posts out of hand, but I'd actually like to get your reasoning on this. You're saying that if 2.1.2 were to say it was "non-exclusively", it would be that CIG and others (not only CIG as in your 2.1.1 example) would be allowed to embed CryEngine in the game. But if it said "exclusively" it means not that "only CIG" may embed CryEngine in the game, but "CIG must" embed CryEngine in the game. Isn't that changing the relationship of the exclusivity just by inverting it? So taking the original example: 2.1.2: "non-exclusively" = That being CIG and others would be allowed to, for example, "embed CryEngine in the Game" Would the inverse not be as per the other examples: 2.1.2: "exclusively" = That being only CIG would be allowed to, for example, "embed CryEngine in the Game" not: 2.1.2: "exclusively" = That being the CIG must "embed CryEngine in the Game" Also the law dictionary example you linked of exclusive right seems to support the "only CIG definition". If we insert that over the exclusivity we get: "...Crytek grants to Licensee a world-wide, license only to [the right or privilege that can only be used by the person who it is granted to] embed CryEngine in the Game and develop the Game which right shall be sub-licensable pursuant to Sec. 2.6" That would really sound to me like they are saying only CIG can put CryEngine in the game, and you need (as per 2.6) CryTek's written permission to let anyone else work on the game. It's a right being granted to CIG (the Licensee), and only CIG can use that right. I would assume this would be to protect their code from anyone who might steal it or whatever. If CIG could let anyone work on Star Citizen, then people who hadn't signed the NDA and Terms and Conditions with CryTek could go nuts. I'm not trying to start a fight. I'm enjoying the Star Citizen train wreck as much as everyone else here. This law suit is a perfect example of whoever loses, we win. But I'd like to actually understand why that section is such a slam dunk. Total aside, am I the first to notice the "First Public Release" conditions in 1.5? Half a million alpha or beta players, game being released as non-beta (does a pre-alpha qualify?), or July 31, 2015, whichever is sooner. Star Citizen is out you guys, we all missed it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2018 16:54
|
|
|
Martman posted:Who is attempting to force someone to use a right? My point was just that 2.1.2 refers to the embedding of CryEngine into the game as a right of the Licensee (CIG) that can be sub-licensed subject to conditions. If you read the embedding of CryEngine into the game as a condition, something that CIG are obliged or forced to do, then it's not really a right anymore. Again, not a lawyer, so maybe there are legal rights that are conditions or penalties.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2018 17:20
|
|
|
SomethingJones posted:Licenses are restrictive, they set out what you cannot do. They set limits and boundaries. The word exclusive in the context of a license is excluding something and that something must be clearly defined. Oh, I totally get that. The question is what they are excluding, and they haven't made it clear. Take the following sentences: Xbox is exclusively releasing Halo Bob is exclusively listening to pop music I am exclusively shitposting to the internet Each of those sentences have the same structure, but the exclusivity refers to different things, because we understand the context behind each of them. Xbox is the exclusive in the first, being the only ones to release Halo. The pop music is the exclusive in the second, and Bob, when he listens to music, listens to nothing else. And in the last, it's the action of shitposting to the exclusion of other things I could be doing that is the exclusive, not that I am the only one, or the target. But any of them can be read differently. Xbox is releasing Halo to the exclusion of all other games. Only Bob can listen to pop music. Etc. Because of a lack of punctuation, and a desire to keep the same sentence structure as the sub-sections either side of it, it's not made absolutely clear what the exclusivity is referring to. "...Crytek grants to Licensee a world-wide, license only: to exclusively embed CryEngine in the Game and develop the Game which right shall be sub-licensable pursuant to Sec. 2.6" Has been read as, even if some don't make practical sense, the following: CIG must use the license to embed CryEngine in the Game, to the exclusion of other engines. CIG, to the exclusion of others, may use the license to embed CryEngine in the Game CIG, may embed CryEngine exclusively into the Game, and no other games, and develop the Game CIG has exclusive use of CryEngine, no-one else can use it, which they may use to embed into the Game Again, not a lawyer, but I think that agreement could have used some commas (and the one they did use seems out of place) if they wanted to make things clearer. It doesn't seem to me that there's a one true way to read that section, and it's compounded by the sub-sections either side of it which use the exact same structure. Ubik_Lives fucked around with this message at 04:06 on Jan 8, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2018 04:00
|
|
|
SomethingJones posted:Makes no sense. Perhaps you meant 'Halo is being released as an XBox exclusive title' which means it excludes other platforms other than XBox. I did, but the original line still works (well, sort of because Xbox isn't the one doing the releasing, but for the purpose of the line, assume Bungie is now part of the Xbox corporation). Halo is a title exclusive to Xbox. Xbox is releasing Halo as an exclusive. Xbox is exclusively releasing Halo. I mean, I don't want to get into dictionary definitions here, but: exclusively to the exclusion of others; only. "paints produced exclusively for independent retailers" as the only source. "I can exclusively reveal that Gail shares a birthday with Rod Stewart" You can see that it swings both ways. In the second definition it's not the birthday that's exclusive, but the single source of the action. Xbox is the only source of Halo. Taking that definition and applying it to the full section, not just the subsection: "...Crytek grants to Licensee a world-wide, license only: to exclusively embed CryEngine in the Game and develop the Game which right shall be sub-licensable pursuant to Sec. 2.6" You can see that if we say the exclusivity is taking CIG as the only source to make the game with CryEngine, it has a different meaning to if CIG needs to make the game with CryEngine to the exclusion of others. The other two sections also make much more sense in this reading. Saying CIG has the license to exclusively manufacture the game makes more sense that only CIG can make the game, not that CIG can only make the game and nothing else. 2.1.1 also reads better if you say anyone, including CIG can work on improving the engine, not CIG can work on any engine they like. This is compounded by looking at the current CryEngine single user limited license agreement, which shares heavy similarities to the CIG one, and probably share a similar foundation. "2.1. Grant: Subject to strict and continuous compliance with the restrictions of this Agreement Crytek grants to Licensee a non-exclusive, non-transferable, non-assignable, non-sublicensable, limited license (the “License”) only to: 2.1.1. to install and run the CRYENGINE pursuant to the CRYENGINE Documentation; 2.1.2. to develop, maintain, extend and/or enhance CRYENGINE pursuant to the CRYENGINE Documentation; 2.1.3. to develop Games using CRYENGINE and to render such Games in object code form (including the CRYENGINE Assets and the CRYENGINE Redistributables) pursuant to the CRYENGINE documentation; 2.1.4. publish, distribute, sell, sublicense or exploit in any other way Games developed and rendered during the Subscription Period in object code form only and only under terms consistent with and no less protective of Crytek’s rights than those contained in this Agreement in perpetuity. ..." We can see that the exclusive clause is way up the front, directly referring to how exclusive the license is for the end user. It's not exclusive, because plenty of people are going to be using this license to make games. But CIG have a specific license to them and their game. It is exclusive to them. But not every part of that grant is exclusive, namely 2.1.2, the ability to develop, maintain, extend and/or enhance CryEngine. Everyone else, from CryTek to anyone with another exclusive or non-exclusive agreement has that right. That bit isn't exclusive to CIG. So, perhaps, when they went to modify the document (or the document that the current agreement is based on, since it's much newer), they took the grants section, removed non-exclusive from 2.1, and placed it as the first qualifier for each sub-section, to make sure that the engine development was non-exclusive, but everything directly relating to Star Citizen was, including its development and production. And that's why 2.1.1 is non-exclusive, but 2.1.2 and 2.1.3 are. I will grant you that the embed CryEngine doesn't appear in the new agreement, so you could argue that bit has special meaning, but again, why isn't that in 2.2? Or stated that CIG have an exclusive right to exclusively embed Cryengine to make it clear in respect to the restructure of 2.1 as a whole? Again, I am not a lawyer. But I think it's a bit much to look at that sub-section, with its total lack of punctuation and clarifying statements, and say it can only be read one way.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2018 06:29
|
|
|
SomethingJones posted:There is no second definition, the definition is exactly the same. The word is rooted in 'exclude', if you can exclusively reveal a piece of information that means that you are party to that information to the exclusion of others and can therefore exclusively reveal it. But that's not the same, because we were talking about actions before, not the actors. Actions that only you can take are different to you being only able to take one action. We both agreed before that Bob exclusively listening to pop music meant that Bob didn't listen to other music. This was the first definition, "only", so "Bob only listens to pop music". But if we use the second definition, the sentence takes a radically different meaning; "Bob is the only one who can listen to pop music". We know that isn't true, so we discount it, but it has that potential meaning. After all, if we took the birthday example, and applied the first definition, again, we get a weird result. "I can only reveal that Gail and Rob Stewart share a birthday". Not "only I can", but "I can only". I can't reveal anything else to anyone. Unless this is some sort of deduction puzzle game, we would ignore this definition and use the second. So, then it comes to CIG and exclusively embedding CryEngine. To use your words, we are now deciding between if this means "to the exclusion of other things", i.e.; they can only use CryEngine and no other engines, or "to the exclusion of others", i.e.; only they can be the ones to embed CryEngine, and no-one else (except those allowed in 2.6). Ubik_Lives fucked around with this message at 07:18 on Jan 8, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2018 07:16
|
|
|
SomethingJones posted:No, you are completely wrong Then why does "I can exclusively reveal that Gail shares a birthday with Rod Stewart" work? Should it not be "I can, exclusively, reveal that Gail shares a birthday with Rod Stewart"? In that example, I am revealing something exclusively. But it does not mean that I am exclusively revealing something to the exclusion of revealing other things, like exclusively listening to music to the exclusion of other music. It means I am the only one who is revealing this, to the exclusion of others. As you said "if you can exclusively reveal a piece of information that means that you are party to that information to the exclusion of others and can therefore exclusively reveal it". The subject was exclusive there, not the verb (and no commas either). Let's use your exclusively reveal argument, but changing "reveal" to "listen to", and "information" to "music". "if you can exclusively listen to a piece of music that means that you are party to that music to the exclusion of others and can therefore exclusively listen to it. You wouldn't be able to exclusively listen it if the music was not exclusive to you. So in your example above it is implicit that the music you are listening to is exclusive to you, meaning that all others are excluded from having it." Surely you can see how your defence of these two situations are completely different and contradictory?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2018 10:17
|
|
|
Baxta posted:Is German your first language by any chance? I have actually had this discussion with native German speakers before as it seems exklusiv and ausschliessend can be used in the ways you are referring to. No, it's English. I'm just bemused by this. Both exclusive and exclusively have two meanings, with my reveal example coming from the Oxford Dictionary. With two definitions you'd have to look at the better fit. Or not, because we all know the English language has no issues with homonyms and stressing changing meaning. Then it became something of a weird brain teaser where people were saying the two definitions were the same, only they clearly resulted in different outcomes when you swapped the examples around, and their definitions for the "same" definition weren't universal and are clearly unique to each example. If someone were to say that you shouldn't use the "only source" definition of exclusivity in formal documents or whatever, I'd be cool with that. But instead I get "Nah mate, it just works the way I say it does, so how about you take these extra commas and give yourself a semi-colon?" I mean, we didn't even get into how different stressing changed the meaning. Taking an exclusive action approach, there's still a difference in meaning between: "exclusively embed CryEngine in The Game" "exclusively embed CryEngine in The Game" and "exclusively embed CryEngine in The Game" This isn't even changing the meaning of words, but the first line stresses that you must embed CryEngine into Star Citizen, i.e.; this game is a CryEngine exclusive. The second stresses that Star Citizen is the only game you can embed CryEngine into, i.e.; this CryEngine license is exclusive to Star Citizen and nothing else. The final one stresses that embedding CryEngine into the game comes at the exclusion of other engine embedding into games you might do, i.e.; this prohibits you from any other game development. It's like one of those lines where you can get seven meanings out of one sentence. Though to be fair to SomethingJones, this is totally what commas are for. English is crap and designed to make lawyers rich is what I'm saying. SomethingJones posted:'Listen' and 'reveal' are both verbs for completely different actions therefore the adverb 'exclusive' works in conjunction with them to give you the meaning. The adverb tells you how the verb is happening. So the word has two definitions and requires a contextual reading to derive the correct implied meaning? Ubik_Lives posted:exclusively I loving CALLED IT
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2018 12:05
|
|
|
MinorInconvenience posted:When the lawsuit was originally filed, I said I wanted to see the whole GLA, because I thought CrySkadden looked like they were burying the lede a bit. And I think this is it. I know people are about to murder me for harping on about the implied definitions of words, so I'm just going to make this one post on this section and then go back to lurking. Do you think in the context of this section that licensing refers to CIG being the Licencee or the Licensor? The entire section is talking about CIG won't make another engine that competes with CryEngine (design, develop, create, support, maintain, etc), so I would assume that would mean that CIG can't license out a new engine they've created after looking at how CryEngine works, not that the entire company is locked to CryEngine for everything, for the life of Star Citizen and two years after that. The section looks to me like an anti-competiton section, not an exclusivity section. That said, I would assume they fall very much foul of "promoting" in that section. They heavily talked up how good the switch would be from CryEngine to Lumberyard. This wasn't contractually obliged logos to inform users what engine is being used. These were videos they published with interviews they made talking about how easy it was to make the switch and all the new advantages of doing so. I think they could have been good if they just said "We made the change to LumberYard. No further comment", but they couldn't help themselves from talking up how awesome to future will be compared to now. Also maybe "developing"? Does it count as developing an engine if you modify it for your own use? After all, if those changes don't make it back into LumberYard, the LumberYard hasn't developed in any way, and while CIG are cutely calling their mods Star Engine, it's not a commercial engine in competition with CryEngine. I guess you'd look at their interactions with Amazon, because part of the support Amazon gave to CIG may have been to develop enhancements to LumberYard to support CIG better, which would be based on knowledge they took from CryEngine. But if not, then it might be that they are developing their game, not the engine (unless again, they are sending improvements to Amazon like they were supposed to with CryTek). I'll go back under my rock now. Ubik_Lives fucked around with this message at 06:24 on Jan 9, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2018 05:28
|
|
|
SomethingJones posted:Did Crytek stop supporting CIG before the end of the support term (Dec 2018) because what CIG did with the engine made it: My guess would be that CIG asked Crytek to send over support staff to help get them started. The GLA has a section where Crytek can help you with your modified code, but it's at their discretion, and it's a thousand euros per man-day. Sending a bunch of employees out on secondment would have been great for Crytek to bring in more cash, and for CIG to get some people with CryEngine experience. So CIG sets up a German office to dodge the travel and 4-star accommodation requirements, and then after a while, poaches the lot of them. Crytek gets upset at losing staff and the support money, and goes back their contractual obligation of only offering support on unmodified code. So nothing. I don't see that happening with Amazon. Amazon employees aren't about to jump ship to CIG, and CIG can't afford to splash out on paying for large numbers of Amazon support staff to work on the modified code. Amazon probably do give support on unmodified LumberYard code like Crytek did, but that won't help CIG for the same reasons. And so the game just gets worse and worse as they try to bolt more features on.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2018 10:41
|
|
|
MedicineHut posted:2.4 seems aimed primarily at preventing licensee creating and selling a competitng engine, although it also prevents licensee from supporting and maintaing competing engines. Does the LY GLA have an obligation to maintain similar to the CryEngine one? https://aws.amazon.com/service-terms/ The Lumberyard stuff is down at section 57. "57.5 Other Restrictions. Without limiting the license restrictions set out in the Agreement, you may not (a) distribute the Lumberyard Materials in source code form, except as expressly permitted by Section 57.2(b) and (c), (b) use or exploit the Lumberyard Materials or any portion thereof to develop, maintain, participate in the development of, or support any competing engine, development tool, or software framework, (c) use the Lumberyard Materials or any portion thereof as part of a logo or trademark, (d) remove, obscure, or alter any proprietary rights notices (including copyright and trademark notices) contained in the Lumberyard Materials, (e) take any action that would require us or you to license, distribute, or otherwise make available to anyone the Lumberyard Materials under different terms (e.g., combining Lumberyard Materials with software subject to “copyleft” open source licenses), or (f) use or exploit the Lumberyard Materials or any portion thereof in any manner or for any purpose other than as expressly permitted by these terms."
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2018 15:06
|
|
|
G0RF posted:Also, it only just fully hit me today the irony of CIG’s plight with respect to Squadron’s relationship to Crytek and Coutts. CIG must have made explicit declarations to Coutts about Squadron as a discreet standalone game, considering that Squadron alone was used as collateral for the loan. Yet to Crytek and elsewhere, Squadron is part of Star Citizen. Is the Coutts loan still outstanding? Would we know if they have paid it off? I thought that was a pay-day loan to get them to the convention period, and the UK gaming tax credit was part of the collateral, which they were supposed to get in the fall. If that loan is still around, and CIG have taken the tax credit without paying the loan off, Coutts must have a pretty itchy trigger finger about now.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2018 06:41
|
|
|
Deep down I knew the answer before I'd even asked the question, but yet, as with all things related to Star Citizen, I can't understand how they can keep failing at everything they do.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2018 06:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 11:28 |
|
|
SomethingJones posted:Tax credits, selling SQ42 pre-orders, ending Crytek support, a payday loan, land sales and motherfucking tanks. The Crytek support fee is an optional fee if they want to continue getting support from Crytek in 2019 and onwards. They were covered up to the end of this year as part of the original payment. I think the UK tax credit would be the main motivator. They needed a payday loan to get them to the tax credit, and upon reaching the tax credit, they haven't managed to pay the loan off. That tax credit appears critical for their survival, so if it was threatened by being wrapped up in a generic, non-UK space MMO, I could see them panicking and swapping engines just so they could make the split.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2018 05:02
|
|