ALL THE LATEST NEWS ABOUT THE BUSINESS OF PC GAMES

News

Cloud Imperium Games continues its fight with Crytek

Cloud Imperium Games continues its fight with Crytek

Star Citizen developer Cloud Imperium Games (CIG) has made its next steps in its legal battle with Crytek.

In a court document - via Eurogamer - CIG claimed that Crytek had realised its lawsuit was "meritless" after the company sought to temporarily dismiss its lawsuit. Crytek wanted to wait until after the release of Squadron 42 to have its case against CIG.

"The real reason Crytek wants to walk away from its SQ42 claim is because Crytek can no longer delay the inevitable reckoning that its claim is and has always been meritless," said the document.

The document continued: "At the very least, the Court should dismiss Crytek’s credits claim with prejudice and order that the security bond be released to CIG.

"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.

"Crytek richly deserves having its keys taken away for all time, so that CIG can conduct responsible business without further interference from Crytek or its series of lawyers."

CIG added that the money from the security bond "would barely cover a portion of the wreckage."

Crytek initially sued CIG in 2017, the problem stems from the developer using Amazon Lumberyard for Star Citizen's development after having agreed to exclusively use Crytek's CryEngine.

Cloud Imperium first tried to get the case dismissed in early 2018.


Tags:
Staff Writer

A freelance writer based in Berkshire. Besides PG and PCGI she has written as a guides writer, specialising in RPG's and horror.

Comments

1 comment
View options
  • Order by latest to oldest
  • Order by oldest to latest
  • Show all replies
Joe Blobers Project Manager
CIG said the claim have no merit... and Court approved it already several times over the past 2 years and half. Even their super attorney supposed to crush CIG... left Crytek quarters ago as there is nothing to be saved. Here are the summary of each Court answer:


* Failed Claim: In its initial complaint, Crytek falsely accused CIG’s Co-Founder and General Counsel of engaging in a conflict of interest when negotiating the GLA.
<*> Disposition: Withdrawn in Face of Rule 11.After CIG produced the written conflict waiver signed by Crytek, Crytek withdrew the allegation on the eve of service of CIG’s Rule 11 motion.

* Failed Claim: Crytek’s leading cause of action alleged that CIG violated GLA § 2.1.2by switching to a different game engine.
<*> Disposition: Dismissed by Court. The Court granted CIG’s motion to dismiss the § 2.1.2 claim as unsupported by the plain language of the GLA and anathema to the concept of a license

* Failed Claim: Crytek sought punitive damages on its claims for breach of contract and copyright infringement.
<*> Disposition: Dismissed by Court. The Court granted CIG’s motion to dismiss

* Crytek’s claim or punitive damages as unsupported by the simplest black letter law.
In its Second Amended Complaint, Crytek added a new claim alleging that CIG violated GLA § 2.4by engaging in a competing game engine business.
<*> Disposition: Dismissed by Court. The Court granted CIG’s motion to dismiss Crytek’s § 2.1.2 claim, finding that Crytek had stated no facts in support of the claim.

* Failed Claim: Crytek claimed that CIG violated the GLA’s non-disclosure provisions by sharing CryEngine source code with third-party Faceware Technologies.
<*> Disposition: Dropped after bond ordered. Crytek dropped this claim after Faceware and CIG submitted declarations from both sides denying that Faceware had ever received access to CryEngine, and Crytek admitted it had zero evidence in support of its claim.

* Failed Claim: Crytek claimed that CIG violated the GLA by failing to deliver certain bug fixesand engine optimizations.
<*> Disposition: Dropped after bond ordered. After CIG showed that it had tendered the code and then actually delivered it, Crytek dropped the claim.

* Failed Claim: Crytek claimed that CIG violated the GLA by posting snippets of CryEngine in the video series Bugsmashers.
<*> Disposition: Dropped after bond ordered. After CIG pointed out that Crytek had already published all of its code and thus could not possibly be damaged by the alleged snippets, Crytek dropped the claim.