Thread by @dsmart

OK new court activity in the Crytek vs CIG fiasco. In case you missed where all this started earlier this year, here's a refresher.

https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/1213141052342882304?s=21

Subsequent follow-up

https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/1213945643158450176?s=21

There was that time when a lead CIG dev flat-out LIED about the engine switch.

He even drew an image - for which I tore him apart because with my knowledge of CryEngine, Lumberyard, and my disassembling of key Star Citizen modules, I knew he was lying.

forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/the-st…

This has been their position which they held right through that time, and even after they were sued by Crytek.

And I got yelled at quite a bit; but I stood my ground - against all odds because I knew with 100% certainty that I was right.

i.imgur.com/w5oEBaX.png

The latest filings are not only startling but eyebrow raising. In fact, they reveal ALL of what I have been saying would eventually come out:

1) CIG never - ever - switched to Lumberyard

2) Chris Roberts lied to his backers, investors, media and that old lady down the street.

#1

docdro.id/aWBMByc

#2

docdro.id/mxx7RhW

#3

courtlistener.com/docket/6256484…

Read these key parts..

Now through discovery we know with 100% certainty that not only did CIG not switch to Lumberyard, but they made it worse by literally only switching trademarks & copyright notices (from Crytek/CryEngine to Amazon/Lumberyard) in clear violation of the Crytek agreement (GLA)

"CIG argues that it would have no obligation to credit Crytek if it switched to an engine
different from the CryEngine covered by the GLA. Of course, the reverse is equally
true, i.e., CIG does have an obligation to credit Crytek if it has not switched away from
the CryEngine"

"As detailed in Section I.A.2, CIG has already stated that it continues
to rely on the same CryEngine code covered by the GLA—there was no switch..."

"CIG’s actual contention is that taking a second license to the CryEngine from Amazon.somehow voids the GLA. Crytek has never suggested that it agrees with that
contention, nor has CIG ever provided any legal authority to support it."

😂😂😂

It gets worse..

The Amazon letter to Crytek confirms CIG didn't license LY until 2016 - more than 2 yrs after they signed the Crytek GLA. And all that time, CIG was peddling two (Star Citizen & Squadron 42) games - in violation of the GLA which was for one game.

Since the GLA can only be terminated by both parties, it remains in effect - and only for Star Citizen. That being the case, since they never did switch (which they are allowed to for Star Citizen) they're on the hook for removing Crytek marketing logos etc from Star Citizen.

All of this explains why, after uncovering these lies during discovery, Crytek decided to dismiss the case until SQ42 is released - an event that would have utterly devastating financial consequences for CIG - MUCH worse than Epic Games vs Silicon Knights debacle.

If you have been reading my blogs about this fraudulent project, my coverage of the "engine switch", and the lawsuit, it should be painfully clear that lying to everyone has been the consistent pattern of conduct that CIG has been engaged in since the 2012 project inception.

At every turn, I did my best to outline precisely what I observed was going on. And shockingly, almost 5 years after that first 2015 blog, neither game is even 50% completed - 9 yrs + $350m later.

Seriously, it has been one big scam right down the line

dereksmart.com/2015/07/star-c…

Fun times 😂

robertsspaceindustries.com/media/hr6txd91…

Funny how in court docs it was shown they signed the agreement with Amazon in April 2016.

This was my extensive blog on this back in Dec 2016 after I discovered the switch and wrote about it before CIG issued a public statement.

dereksmart.com/2016/12/star-c…