And now it’s Star Citizen vs Crytek


It wouldn’t be 2012-2018 (and who knows how much longer) without a Star Citizen controversy. Chris Robert’s mega-crowdfunded space-everything game has been subject to a great deal of scrutiny about what it’s spent its half-decade and its $173 million dollars on, but a brand new curveball is that his studios Cloud Imperium Games and Roberts Space Industries are being sued by Crysis and CryEngine makers Crytek.

Up until last year, Star Citizen was built using CryEngine, but now Crytek are arguing there’s been a breach of contract and copyright infringement. They’re after an injunction which, if successful, wouldn’t mean good things for that release date we’ve been holding out for.

Crytek, who also flog their CryEngine tech to other developers, have lawyered up partly because they claimed that Star Citizen’s bifurcation into two separately-sold titles (the other being singleplayer campaign module Squadron 42) constitutes a violation of the original single-game license. I.e. that they’re making two games when they only paid for the rights to use the engine for one.

Cloud Imperium Games and RSI, for their part, point out that they stopped using CryEngine last December, and now use Amazon’s Lumberyard engine instead. “This is a meritless lawsuit that we will defend vigorously against,” CIG told Gamasutra in a statement, “including recovering from Crytek any costs incurred in this matter.”

However, it’s the engine-switch itself which forms part of Crytek’s complaint, with their also arguing that agreements about the use of Cryengine logos in Star Citizen promotional materials have been violated too.

Furthermore, Crytek allege that they have seen lines of on-screen code that in Star Citizen promotional development videos that suggest it is still using CryEngine in some way. These waters are only muddied further by the fact that Lumberyard itself is built around CryEngine tech.

To boot, Crytek allege that the Star Citizen folk have not fully disclosed modifications they made to CryEngine during development, as was also in the original contract.

Oof, basically. As well as damages, some but not all of which amount to $75,000, Crytek are seeking an injunction that would prevent any continued use of their code. If it did turn out (and it might well not, of course) to be the case that Star Citizen or Squadron 42 still used elements of CryEngine, we can surely expect the painstaking removal process to add a big chunk of time to its already epic development cycle.

Expect this to be long, messy and expensive.

You can read the full lawsuit, filed in a California district court, here, if you’re so inclined.


  1. Creamice says:

    Hmm. This does not look like “patent-trolling”.
    Seems like a good, justified case for Crytek.

    Wonder what defense they would have for these infractions.

    • Premium User Badge

      distantlurker says:

      Yeah to be fair, that 2 games, 1 license is a solid case and gives grounds for the injunction.

      Don’t see why they can’t settle this quickly OOC tho.

      • Love Albatross says:

        >Don’t see why they can’t settle this quickly OOC tho.

        If they could have, they would have imo.

        My understanding (not a lawyer and not a Californian so correct me if I’m wrong) is that Cali courts take an extremely unfavourable view of frivolous lawsuits. If they got to this stage without first attempting to negotiate with CIG that would seem to be very negligent and could end with them getting fined by the courts. Looking into the law firm on CryTek’s side I find it difficult to believe that would happen. We’re hearing about this now because CryTek has exhausted other avenues.

        • neotribe says:

          I am a California lawyer. None of that makes any sense. You can’t settle a lawsuit before it’s filed. Negligence is a tort concept, the court doesn’t “fine” you for choosing to sue to enforce a contract. (Sometimes there are court ordered settlement conferences or mediation after the suit is in progress, as courts try to reduce the number of trials they have to conduct.) Further, this is in Federal court (“District Court”), and the suit is far from frivolous under the applicable rules — even if it’s a loser. Nowhere close to being so frivolous as to invite sanctions just for filing the complaint.

          • neotribe says:

            I mean they’re being repped by Skadden Arps, not Saul Goodman.

      • dahools says:

        As the S42 Campaign is not out yet all they have to do is bundle it with the PU currently not technically out either. (In testing). Merge them together via marketing and this goes away completely. It like saying the single player campaign in COD is separate from the multi side. Don’t know nowadays but they always used to have separate exe’s anyway.

        • Mokinokaro says:

          That’s only a small part of the lawsuit though.

        • Janichsan says:

          The difference is that Squadron 42 will be (and actually is already) sold as separate product.

        • Ergates_Antius says:

          It’s not out yet, but they’ve already been selling it as a separate game.

    • Smaug says:

      I am shocked they did not consult Crytek beforehand, like come on.

    • 2late2die says:

      As I understand, CIG bought CryEngine outright – link to
      This means they weren’t using the license and so weren’t bound by its conditions when they decided to switch to Lumberyard. Am I missing something here?

      • Baines says:

        I’d feel even iffier about trusting what CIG says than I’d be trusting Crytek. And even if CIG did buy the engine outright, we don’t know what terms CIG had agreed to.

        I really doubt Crytek sold CryEngine to CIG without any conditions at all as to what CIG could do with it afterwards. (Else there’d be nothing stopping CIG from slapping their own name onto it and selling their own licenses to others for their proprietary “CigEngine.”)

        • ryanrybot says:

          I believe they did buy the engine and called it StarEngine.
          To me it feels like CryTek is going after CIG because CryTek is faltering, and in need of some cash. They’ve already lost most of their developers to CIG, and now they want a slice of that sweet CIG crowdfunding money. Why else would they be looking that closely at the code on the monitors in the videos that CIG produces?

          Also, the lawsuit states that CIGs lawyer used to work for CryTek, and knows the ins and outs of CryTeks business and has exploited them in CIGs benefit. Which, if the case, CryTek should have brought up when they went into negotiations with CIG in the first place, not years later.

          I’m sure that CIG isn’t a completely innocent in all this, but CryTek sure does seem like they took a few too many missteps and are now trying to recover their failing company in any way possible.

          • zaphod42 says:

            Where to begin. “Sweet crowdfunding cash” is silly, and shows how little you know about the game industry. The 100 million that SC has generated (and spent) is a drop in the bucket for AAA game industry. It’s not that much at all comparatively. I know “millions” sounds like a lot to an individual, and it is, but to a business that is nothing at all.

            Second, as the above poster tried to tell you, there’s no such thing as “bought the engine”. No company would be stupid enough to simply sell their software with no licence at all. Star Citizen DID sign SOME kind of agreement with Crytek, and we don’t know what the rules to that contract are. But if they’re suing, they probably have a reason.

            You’re clueless.

    • rochrist says:

      No it doesn’t. It reeks of a desperate failing company trying anything it can to stay alive.

      • Hoot says:

        This. Very much so. Crytek suck. Their engine isn’t even that good and they’re just sore because after Crysis their company went into freefall.

        Crytek : You used a thing you paid for in a way we didn’t want you to.

        CIG : Well, we paid to use the engine and we have. Why do you get to say how we use it once we’ve actually paid to use it?

        Crytek : Because it’s mine.

        CIG : You realise this is pretty childish, right? I mean we’re making something genuinely impressive over here.

        Crytek : Yeah but it was my thing, and I wanna tell you how to use my thing because I know how it’s supposed to be used and, and, and…*sob*…we could have made something better if we had all that money too!

        CIG : *sigh* No, you couldn’t have. Now fuck off.

        • Mokinokaro says:

          That’s not at all what happened though.

          CIG allegedly agreed to these conditions.

        • Ergates_Antius says:

          You do understand the basic concept of contracts and how they work. Right? Because it kind of sounds like you don’t.

          CIG : Well, we paid to use the engine and we have. Why do you get to say how we use it once we’ve actually paid to use it?

          Crytek: Because you signed a legally binding contract agreeing to that, and negotiated a reduced licensing fee on that basis.

        • neotribe says:

          That’s not even close to what the complaint alleges, maybe actually read it.

      • zaphod42 says:

        This comment reeks of a desperate star citizen fan trying to defend it at all costs.

  2. Microrocksima says:

    Fighting a lawsuit would presumably require considerable funds.
    I wonder how backers of the game will feel about this if it turns out that CIG have been negligent.

    • automatic says:

      Lawsuit stretch goal.

    • tomimt says:

      Denial, like always. In many ways, the most HC backers of SC remind me of cultists, who believe the leaders can do no wrong.

    • Sin Vega says:

      They’ll probably feel an added incentive to piss money away on making a number go up for its own sake.

  3. Bilateralrope says:

    I wasn’t aware that Star Citizen changed game engines. Is that ever a good idea ?

    • jezcentral says:

      Lumberyard IS CryEngine.

      • Bilateralrope says:

        In terms of code, Lumberyard is derived from CryEngine. But one of the things Crytek are claiming is that they had an agreement that SC would only use Crytek. The fact that Amazon owns Lumberyard means that the court is likely to view it as a different engine.

        • Mokinokaro says:

          Plus the fact that CIG’s bugsmashing streams have them using Cryengine’s editors (Lumberyard’s are different) which means the “switch” was likely a smokescreen to try and avoid the Crytek obligations.

          They’ve been caught red handed and have the choice of admitting they switched engines (violating the termination agreement) or admitting they didn’t (violating the rest.)

          CIG has utterly screwed themselves and almost guaranteed there will be no game, at least made by them.

        • neotribe says:

          It *is* a different engine, in the sense of being another company’s product. CIG/RSI allegedly entered into a combination exclusive co-development and, basically, a **marketing** agreement WITH CRYTEK (i.e. not Amazon) as part of the deal it got on licensing CryEngine. CIG was expected to contribute improvements back to the engine, and to PROMINENTLY MARKET IT. Yes, Crytek is on the ropes and so yes, of course that promotional value is important to them. As was getting fixes and improvements back. Presumably, the price RSI/CIG paid for the license reflected those terms.

          The gravamen of the allegations is that CIG/RSI entered into a contract meant to make Crytek hard to get rid of, eyes open, then decided to fuck them off when Lumberyard became an alternative. Violating the exclusivity agreement. And further, are still using Crytek-provided tools etc (with the updated Lumberyard version of CryEngine), constituting a copyright violation once the Crytek license was invalidated by CIG’s breach.

  4. Humppakummitus says:

    75K? Just give them a couple of ships.

    • Mokinokaro says:

      That’s the minimum you can claim in California court.

      Crytek is asking for much much more. Probably in the millions.

    • neotribe says:

      They’re alleging damages OVER $75k for jurisdictional purposes under 28 U.S.C. § 1332: link to .

      The prayer for relief at the end of the complaint asks for rather more, including a permanent injunction, actual damages and disgorgement of unjust enrichment,, and even punitive damages (those may be a stretch).

      If the allegations aren’t overblown and are provable, well, it’s really fucking bad for CIG/RSI.

  5. KillahMate says:

    they have seen lines of on-screen code that in Star Citizen promotional development videos that suggest it is still using CryEngine in some way

    Um, what the hell? Lumberyard is not ‘built around CryEngine tech’ – Lumberyard IS Cryengine. Lumberyard is a fork of CryEngine 3.8.1! It’s got CryEngine code coming out of its ears! It’s even a fork of the same version of CryEngine Star Citizen was using, which is why it apparently took Cloud Imperium Games one day and two engineers to switch Star Citizen over to Lumberyard.

    This is so weird. Is Crytek counting on people not knowing that Lumberyard is CryEngine? It’s public information, including many pages of programmers discussing what was actually changed or added by Amazon, which at the time Star Citizen switched was apparently ‘not much yet’.

    • Bilateralrope says:

      I can see two possibilities:
      – Crytek started this lawsuit, knowing they will lose if it reaches court, but hoping that they can settle with CiG paying them less than it would cost CiG to fight it.

      – Crytek saw lines of code that they know aren’t in Lumberyard.

      • IgrokU says:

        OR, SC bought the code in 2014 and doesn’t feel the need to pay again.

        • Love Albatross says:

          According to the legal filing they did not buy the code in 2014, not in a way that allows them to do whatever they want with no repercussions. This suit has come about because CryTek says they had a contract drawn up with CIG with specifics about how and where the engine would be used and how it would benefit CryTek.

      • KillahMate says:

        Considering the desperate state Crytek is in right now I admit I’m leaning towards the first of those possibilities.

        • Love Albatross says:

          Obviously CryTek wants to get paid, but that does not mean their claims are false. If even part of what the suit alleges is true they have every right to pursue this.

          And there’s no way the law firm they have jumped on board without checking it first. One of the partners was on the winning side of Oculus Rift vs Zenimax. They’re not doing this for fun, they think there’s a good chance of winning.

        • Mokinokaro says:

          Crytek could very well be in those dire straits because CIG’s not been paying them.

        • LacSlyer says:

          While that’s easy to assume, something else to consider is the very week that CIG announced they were switching engines Crytek downsized and closed several offices literally days before. While that could be extreme coincidence, they likely have a valid lawsuit on their hands here.

        • zaphod42 says:

          What about the desperate state CIG is in? They’ve run out of development money and the game isn’t done yet by a LONG shot, and now they’re selling virtual plots of space land. Its pretty sad.

    • Love Albatross says:

      Just because LY is forked from CE that does not mean it isn’t a separate engine for licensing purposes.

      But it doesn’t matter anyway, because going by what’s alleged in the suit they’re screwed either way.

      Either CIG has switched to LY, in which case they’re in breach of the contract, or they haven’t actually switched, and they’re in breach of the contract. And the LY switch/not switch is irrelevant for the time leading up to it, when CryTek are alleging CIG were in breach of contract for not paying royalties and not passing back code changes.

      • Mokinokaro says:

        LY has different code/map editors integrated.

        CIG is still openly using the Cryengine editors which means they’ve likely not switched.

    • Anti-Skub says:

      Is Crytek counting on people not knowing that Lumberyard is?

      Lawsuits don’t generally hinge on how informed the public is.

    • zaphod42 says:

      You can’t be this stupid.

      They’re saying the saw some code that Luberyard doesn’t include. If so that’d mean they’re breaching their agreement.

      Just because Luberyard is based on Crytek doesn’t mean it contains 100% of crytek or is the same. Think it through, dude.

    • zaphod42 says:

      >This is so weird. Is Crytek counting on people not knowing that Lumberyard is CryEngine? It’s public information

      Jesus christ do you have any idea how a court of law works?

      This is so painfully ignorant. It has nothing to do with what “people” know. They’ll bring in experts to testify. “People” (jurors?! judges?) don’t have to know shit.

      You’re extremely ignorant.

  6. jezcentral says:

    I’ll be interested to see how this plays out. Crytek is collapsing. It needs to get its currently devved game out, and for that to be successful, if they are to have any chance of being here in a few years’ time.

    What we are seeing is Crytek’s very one-eyed version of events. (Naturally, as it is a court case.) I find it very hard to believe that CIG won’t be able to turn around and highlight a LOAD of stuff that Crytek didn’t do, after they imploded, and argue that they invalidated any contractual obligations first (if they concede there are any).

    Points like “CIG promised us bug fixes for our own engine” beggar belief. (Coincidentally, a begging bowl is their current financial strategy.)

    • Ergates_Antius says:

      If it’s in the contract then it’s not “they promised us”, it’s “they signed a contract agreeing to”.

      • jezcentral says:

        Agreed. It still beggars belief.

        • neotribe says:

          Indeed, I’ll be interested to see what the answer to the complaint says. I’d imagine it will be along the lines that Crytek had already breached in some way, possibly due to their struggle to keep the lights on, which led to suspended payments and eventually the switch. Of course, suspending royalty payments would hasten Crytek’s failure, so it starts to get sticky in terms of contractual rights and obligations. There’s the contract, but there’s also the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

    • PiiSmith says:

      Do you have a source on this struggle of Crytek? I would like to read it up myself.

    • LacSlyer says:

      One thing that I personally think suggests this isn’t just a money grab lawsuit is that CIG announced switching engines days after Crytek announced downsizing and closing several of their offices. As well, considering it’s been a year since the announcement they likely didn’t just come up with this idea now for the lawsuit and have been working on it since then, which suggests a very well formed lawsuit.

    • Baines says:

      So you want CIG to take the Silicon Knights approach? Chris Roberts does sometimes act a bit like Denis Dyack.

      (Silicon Knights sued Epic, claiming that Epic sabotaged them and other licensees with Unreal Engine 3. Epic countered by suing Silicon Knights for copyright infringement and breach of contract. The case went through the courts for several years, with Epic winning in the end and Silicon Knights being ordered to destroy all their code that was derived from UE3 and to recall and destroy all unsold games that had such code. Dyack and friends jumped ship, and Silicon Knights filed for bankruptcy a couple of years after the ruling.)

    • GDorn says:

      Maybe Crytek should hold a kickstarter for a game they might deliver in a decade.

    • Dave L. says:

      Points like “CIG promised us bug fixes for our own engine” beggar belief.

      This is the most bonkers thing to me about the contract. Apparently CIG’s contract with Crytek had them agreeing to essentially take over development of Crytek’s engine? Why would anybody agree to that? That’s not how engine licensing has ever worked!

      • fausterion says:

        It’s not that bonkers when you consider that Crytek alleges that they built the entire Star Citizen Kickstarter campaign for CIG.

        Chris Roberts brought nothing to the table other than an idea and his name. Everything else was built by Crytek, so obviously they got some serious considerations in exchange.

    • zaphod42 says:

      CIG is also collapsing though lol.

  7. Chalky says:

    As well as damages, some but not all of which amount to $75,000, Crytek are seeking an injunction that would prevent any continued use of their code.

    This 75k figure is a bit of a red herring here. The reason the document mentions this figure specifically is because this is the threshold for a law suit like this in California. The complaint just says that the figure is far in excess of the 75k minimum threshold and therefore they qualify to file the suit.

    I very much imagine that the real amount they’re after in will run into the millions.

    The lawsuit seems very serious indeed if the accusations are proven. CIG appear to be insisting that they’ve migrated away from CryEngine – but the complaint says they signed an exclusive contract with CryTek to only use CryEngine so their defense is literally admitting to one of the offenses that they are accused of.

    Looking forward to hearing more details on this come out, but I imagine this will be the death blow to an already limping project.

    • Dinger says:

      A sensible and succinct comment. The key is exactly what the contract says as opposed to what the complaint says. If the contract does say that RSI agrees to use CryEngine exclusively, well RSI now claims that they’re not using CryEngine but rather Lumberyard. It doesn’t matter if much of Lumberyard is CryEngine; both parties claim it’s different. If both RSI wants to claim it’s the same, then they lose on the complaint there.
      So it hinges on the contract (and how well both parties fulfilled the terms of the contract). The part of the complaint that alleges that RSI’s attorney might have used his privileged knowledge of CryTek (having previously worked with them) and then hired the guy who negotiated CryTek’s side of the contract suggests that something more may be at stake here.

  8. Spacewalk says:

    It’s a rich man’s world.

  9. svge says:

    Out of interest… How is it that an engine that’s built upon Cryengine and includes the same code as Cryengine not owned by Crytek?

    • Love Albatross says:

      In the same way that Bethesda’s Creation engine is not owned by the people that own Gamebryo.

      • Premium User Badge

        phuzz says:

        Or Valve’s GoldSrc (ie HalfLife 1) engine isn’t owned by ID (it’s based on the Quake and Quake 2 engines).

        Wait, we are playing “who’s graphics engine came from where” aren’t we?

    • Mokinokaro says:

      When they were desperate for cash Crytek sold their source code to Amazon.

      Incidentally StarEngine was forked from version 3.7 while Lumberyard forked from 3.8 and a lot changed between those versions.

      CIG claimed they integrated their code into LY within a few days which seems very unlikely.

    • Excors says:

      Crytek still owns a large amount of the code in Lumberyard, in the copyright sense of ownership. But they sold Amazon a license to use that code and to sub-license it to other people, for reportedly ~$50M. Amazon chose to sub-license it for free to anyone who wants it, with the restriction that you can’t use it with non-Amazon cloud services.

      Most software has multiple copyright owners. CryEngine includes open source code that’s owned by various third-party developers. Lumberyard includes code owned by Amazon, plus Crytek and third-party developers. Star Citizen’s engine includes code owned by CIG/RSI, plus Amazon and Crytek and third-party developers. That’s all fine and normal – you just need copyright licenses from all those owners (or from appropriate sub-licensors).

      But from this lawsuit it sounds like Crytek isn’t really complaining about copyright violation anyway, they’re complaining about CIG/RSI breaching a contract (“Game License Agreement”) they signed with Crytek to exclusively use CryEngine (which it seems reasonable to interpret as “CryEngine as released by Crytek under Crytek’s copyright licensing terms, including paying licensing fees and royalties to Crytek”), and that contract (they think) isn’t nullified just because CIG/RSI stopped using CryEngine. Presumably the outcome will depend on the exact wording of that agreement.

  10. TotallyUseless says:

    Wait what? Crytek is still alive? I thought their studios have closed down.

    One can speculate that Crytek may be trying to milk cash off from Star Citizen since Crytek is a dying company… on the other hand, more chance to screw Star Citizen is always for the good of all whom they have inconvenienced. =))

  11. Love Albatross says:

    Something that this suit reveals is that CryTek was responsible for a lot of the early work on the Star Citizen, including the initial demos and promotional work for the Kickstarter. So CIG gathered crowd funding based on the work of a third party.

    If backers are gonna feel salty about anything, start there.

    • thranx says:

      No, because any backer paying attention knows that’s been the case from the start. The first 3 years, more work was done by external studios than CIG.

      I think what started as a partnership (CIG did a TON of work that got contributed back as part of the license) turning into recruitment. I think CIG has hired away alot of Crytek’s talent, diminishing an already struggling company in a field that is notoriously difficult to find quality employees.

      • Mokinokaro says:

        And going by LinkedIn, CIG didn’t hold onto a lot of them for long.

  12. Dreggsao says:

    My money is on all of this coming to nothing with CIG counter-suing Crytek also for breach of contract.
    Just an uninformed guess though.

    • Mokinokaro says:

      With backer money if they do so.

      The allegations alone have to be sending waves of doubt through all but the most cult-like of Star Citizen backers.

      • ScottTFrazer says:

        So, most of the ones still buying ships? I’m not sure anything can shake their confidence

      • Premium User Badge

        ooshp says:

        Waves of doubt?

        I backed the game in some year I don’t even remember, pretty minimal amount and no extra ships. And I honestly believe I’ve already had my money’s worth in entertainment from the hardcore SC cult going on the defensive and the hilarious articles about Choberts and his quest to be a bigger wanker than Molyneaux.

        I feel this court case could provide so much additional entertainment I should sling another $50 to CIG. I no longer have any interest or concern in actually playing a finished product, even if one should ever appear.

        • Ergates_Antius says:

          Whilst SC does sound quite interesting *if* it turns out as claimed, I kind of want the whole thing to collapse. The entertainment value of the resulting shitstorm would far exceed anything the game could ever offer.

  13. Premium User Badge

    Drib says:

    I get the impression of hungry scavengers picking at a corpse, honestly.

  14. Hmm-Hmm. says:

    Release date? This backer wonders if it will ever release in the first place. A release date is the least of my concerns regarding SC. Heck, I’m more worried about all the people who put a ton of money into it and the fact that RSI seem to think that’s all a-okay.

  15. aircool says:

    Hmmm… news of a lawsuit. Best think of a quick way to raise some cash, perhaps selling some virtual land might do the trick.

    If L. Ron Hubbard had invented a video game, it would be Star Citizen.

  16. Neutrino says:

    What’s the late Lord Baelish doing in Star Citizen?

  17. Chromatose says:

    I’d normally be on CIG / RSI’s side here as Crytek have certainly not been saints in the past, but these are some pretty serious allegations. If even half of them turn out to be merited, it means that the Star Citizen guys acted in incredibly bad faith and deliberately shirked their contractual obligations. Really disappointing stuff.

  18. modzero says:

    Certain smart guy is having a field day on Twitter. Unfortunately Twitter disabled counting the tweets in a thread (because those were useful, therefore untwitey), but it’s A Lot.

  19. SimbaLion says:

    Star Citizen is crowdfunded. Regular every-day gamers have invested hundreds of millions of dollars into this product, and they want to see it released.

    What this will actually do is backfire. Crytek hasn’t done anything important. The Far Cry series is mediocre, and the Crysis series was quickly forgotten. Star Citizen is the most anticipated game of the last 10 years and might continue to be for the next 10 years.

    Crytek made a serious mistake when they decided to launch this lawsuit. They obviously gave zero thought to the consequences of their action. What can they hope to accomplish? Either to delay or kill Star Citizen, which will make them the most hated game development company in the history of video games, or to steal millions of dollars from gamers in some sort of settlement, which will also result in a whole lot of hate from gamers.

    This lawsuit could very possibly destroy Crytek permanently.

    • Chromatose says:

      Thanks for that comprehensive and sober analysis of the lawsuit. I’m really glad that nobody is getting too emotionally invested in one side and is no way trying to whip up an angry gamermans mob.

    • Ergates_Antius says:

      Took a while for the rabid SC fanboys to appear, but here they come.

      Crytek haven’t done anything important, apart from release several best selling games and creating the Cryengine that Star Citizen is built upon.

      What can they hope to accomplish? Well, get paid what they believe they’re due based on the contract they entered into with CIG. Or do you believe they should just say “Oh, well lots of people are looking forward to Star Citizen so we should just let CIG get away with breaching contract”. Does that honestly sound reasonable to you?

    • Fitzmogwai says:

      So you’re suggesting it’ll be another ten years before Star Citizen gets released?

      Well okay, I’ll go along with that.

    • SBLux says:

      Far Cry 1 was ground-breaking for its time and is still a great game to this day.

    • TheOneFlow says:

      If your primary product is your engine it doesn’t really matter what the average gamer thinks of you, developers (ideally) don’t choose an engine because of its public reputation.

      Sidenotes: 1. it will be decades until EA gives up the throne of least liked entity in gaming, 2. the most anticipated game of all time is the next Monkey Island Half Life 3

    • zaphod42 says:

      >Star Citizen is the most anticipated game of the last 10 years and might continue to be for the next 10 years.

      Hahahahaha, because it’ll never come out! Right you are hahahhaha.

  20. RakeShark says:

    Arglebargle was right.

    • Arglebargle says:

      I picked a bad five days to be off the net. Still, everyone seems to have covered it pretty well.

  21. Ragnar says:

    I’m confused by the picture for the article. How and why is Gary Oldman getting pulled into all this?

    • Chromatose says:

      “It’s going to be a cracker”, Oldman uttered, thoroughly compelled by Squadron 42’s incredibly complex and meaningful story and screenplay, and not at all just out of professional courtesy.

      PS to actually answer your question, he plays a major character in Squadron 42, and had his likeness digitally recreated for it.

    • dahools says:

      A full character list is on this site.
      link to

    • zaphod42 says:

      Chris Roberts used most of the backers’ money for Star Citizen to hire Gary Oldman and Gillian Anderson so he could pretend he was a movie director for a day and make them act out his fantasies.

      Poor Gillian Anderson had to wear a skin-tight motion capture suit while Chris Roberts perved all over her. :(

  22. racccoon says:

    Cloud Imperium Games and Roberts Space Industrie are a joke, they have violated all promises, used mass’s of money for there own monetary gains, over bought & over theatre’ized there game far too many times, plus created other games using the very same funds, graphics concepts & code created from the original crazy funded idea called STAR Citizen.
    This is a violation of contract to the gaming people!
    So yeah they are not playing the game as they are clouded by the fact that know there aren’t any laws to over power their acts of misconception to public currently.
    So they get away with it & keep on asking for more money.
    Horrible people.

  23. wombat191 says:

    *Offers popcorn to the room*

    This will be interesting

  24. JS says:

    “add a big chunk of time to its already epic development cycle”
    No, the biggest game titles are all developed over many years. Most of them are not even announced until years after development started. Just because Star Citizen has an extremely open and transparent development process that we have been able to follow closely from the start doesn’t mean that the total process is longer than for other major titles.

    • Mokinokaro says:

      “Open and transparent” which is why everything of note they keep locked behind NDAs and heavily limit their staff interacting with the public.

      Star Citizen’s development is barely more open than any AAA publisher.

      CIG also openly lies to their community such as constantly shifting the year development supposedly began.

      So far the dev cycle is pretty consident with the larger MMOs but they are rapidly approaching the longest MMO dev times without even having a vertical slice to show for it

  25. mercyRPG says:

    Its high time for Star Citizen to Go Down!

  26. fenriz says:

    “Excuse us, Crytek, aren’t we players, who expect to play as soon as possible, more important than your thirst for money and reasons for showing causes?”

    (yeah right, in Soviet Union)

    • Mokinokaro says:

      So CIG should be able to possibly screw Crytek’s entire business just because it’ll hurt Star Citizen fans’ hearts if the possibly illegally made game doesn’t release?

      Star Citizen: not a cult