Breaking: Silicon Knights Files Lawsuit Against Epic

[StefanS]

To me it seems mostly that SK wants out of the UE3 deal, maybe get their money back or something and that the improvments they have been making not to be categorized as an update of UE3 but rather is a new engine all together and do not have to pay licenses to Epic because of that...

Actually they're suing for more than 75,000,000 USD. At least that's the jurisdictional amount mentioned in the pdf.

Another thing SK claims is that Epic didn't allocate enough of its human resources to the engine development team but rather chose to develop their own games. This is going to be very hard to proof IMO.
Also they're claiming that parts of that "game code" was actually "engine" code, which wasn't made available to devs. Their claim is that such behaviour runs contrary to the spirit of the licensing agreement. This is going to very hard to prove as well.
Now as for Epic slipping the release date of the final version twice (Xbox360, PS3), SK might have a case here.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

I don't know what to think. Of course anything is possible, but it seems like SK is looking to blame someone else for their own failings. Of course I'm not an insider , but eh, I don't have a lot of faith in Dennis after all the hyping and CG movies and etc, before they showcased that flaming pile of kaka that was the first too human unveiling. And it wasn't only technical (performance) issues. It was everything. On top of that, the latest Too Human demonstration isn't so great either. I think that they sunk a ton of money into Too Human, are seeing very tepid responses, and want to sue somebody for something so that they have money to recoup costs. But then again thats all speculation

Yeah if you took the effort to read the article you would have known that is because SK says epic didnt gave them a decent working UE3 engine, not because SK cant do better.

Atleast thats SK look on things.

 

[sionyboy]

So it would seem that with R6V using UE2.5 for the basis of its engine, Gears of War is still the only full priced UE3 only game. There is no mention of UE3 on the R6V box or credits, simply;

 

[psorcerer]

Few points:
1. Epac EE3 code is horrible, poor performing and over-architectured.
2. To do GeoW this good technically, a lot of work was done by in-house MFFT developers.
3. Epac EE3 code runs so bad on PC3 that it's just unusable.
4. MFFT didn't acquire Epac even when they had all the resources and Epac was waiting to be acquired.

Just think of the above.

P.S. the points above are just a pure speculation and do not have any relation to the real world.

 

[almighty]

Maybe this is why Sony are helping to optomise UE3.0 for PS3 because they have had alot of complaints from developers who have liecensed the engine based on the sample that comes with the PS3 dev kit due to bad performace.

On a side note, i HATE UE3.0

 

[Arwin]

Maybe this is why Sony are helping to optomise UE3.0 for PS3 because they have had alot of complaints from developers who have liecensed the engine based on the sample that comes with the PS3 dev kit due to bad performace.

On a side note, i HATE UE3.0

It's discussed a little in this interview:

GI: I was a little bit confused about something – the Unreal Engine announcement. They announced they were working in conjunction with Sony in optimizing the Unreal 3 engine for the PlayStation 3.

Harrison: Correct.

GI: But that was one of the things two years ago at E3 where you showed Unreal Tournament – with Epic and nVidia – why is this a reannouncement?

Harrison: If we’re honest, we didn’t do enough of a good job supporting them and getting them the tools and technology early enough. Also, Epic isn’t a huge company. They don’t have unlimited resource. We have parachuted in some of our SWAT team of super engineers to help them. Specifically, to optimize for SPUs, which are the point of difference that the Cell Processor has. That process is under way. The benefits that it yields to end developers whether they’re writing exclusive titles or multiplatform titles is that the performance on PS3 goes up exponentially, and it will make for a much better game experience.

GI: I’ve heard from a number of developers that one of the problems with porting a game that’s based on Unreal, or having a multiplatform game that’s based on Unreal, was because Epic didn’t have their tech up to speed and they were waiting for updates. Is this basically saying, “It’s going to get fixed, it’s going to get better?”

Harrison: Yes, I think that’s a fair summary. We know that there are a lot of developers who are using the technology, so this is a significant impact for the industry.

http://www.gameinformer.com/News/Story/200707/N07.0719.1908.25222.htm?Page=3

 

[nintenho]

On the other hand, this whole E32006 thing to me does not hold too much water, as the problems with the TH sowing there were at least not only engine related, but more, gameplay, animations and stuff like that.

Maybe other parts of the demo were setback by them not getting the engine 2 months before E3 (when they were supposed to). They got UE3 for 360 in november. I assume the demo just ran on a PC or something at E3?

 

[Davros]

Maybe epic should of had a clause like ID

10. Indemnification. Licensee hereby agrees to indemnify, hold harmless and defend Id Software and Id Software's predecessors, successors, assigns, officers, directors, shareholders, employees, agents, representatives, licensees (but not including Licensee), sublicensees, distributors, attorneys and accountants (collectively, the "Id Related Parties") from and against any and all “Claims”, which shall mean all damages, claims, losses, causes of action, liabilities, lawsuits, judgments and expenses (including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses) arising from, relating to or in connection with (i) a breach of this Agreement by Licensee and/or (ii) Licensee's use or non-use of the Authorized Copy. Id Software agrees to notify Licensee of any such Claims within a reasonable time after Id Software learns of same. Licensee, at its own expense, shall defend Id Software and the Id Related Parties from and against any and all Claims. Id Software and the Id Related Parties reserve the right to participate in any defense of the Claims with counsel of their choice, and at their own expense. In the event Licensee fails to provide a defense, then Licensee shall be responsible for paying the attorneys' fees and expenses incurred by Id Software and the Id Related Parties regarding the defense of the Claims. Id Software and the Id Related Parties, as applicable, agree to reasonably assist in the defense of the Claims. No settlement by Licensee of any Claims shall be valid unless Licensee receives the prior written consent of Id Software and the Id Related Parties, as applicable, to any such settlement.

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

Maybe epic should of had a clause like ID

Maybe Epic do have such a clause, but it's not legal. The courts generally don't look kindly on clauses that try to supercede statute law and pretty much try to do an end run around supplying the exact thing that the company took money to provide in the first place.

Maybe SK consider that Epic have already broken the contract by not supplying working code, so any such clause is void.

SK obviously think they have a good chance at this as they've filed suit already, and it's very embarrassing for a company like Epic who have been positioning themselves as a premier multi-platform engine provider.

 

[fearsomepirate]

If I read that Indemnification clause correctly, it basically says "If the Licensee does something that results in us getting sued, it all goes back to the licensee," not "If we break our contract, tough crap."

 

[Rainbow Man]

Like that Sony guy pointed out, Epic isn't that big a company, and like Bouncing pointed out, the'yre positining themselves to be a premier MULTI platform engine provider..

So perhaps they simplly got in a bit above their heads trying to develop triple-A titles and develop AND support a comprehensive gaming engine for multiple platforms to quite a few licensees.

Simply a lack of manpower in other words?

Peace.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Maybe Epic do have such a clause, but it's not legal. The courts generally don't look kindly on clauses that try to supercede statute law and pretty much try to do an end run around supplying the exact thing that the company took money to provide in the first place.

Yeah. Kinda like if you sign a contract that says 'you, your relations, and all parties acting on your behalf will not hold me responsible for all or any injuries or harms that befall you as part of my direct or indirect action or inaction' and then I stab you to death - I can't wave the contract around and say you waived statutory rights. I'm still done for murder. IMO companies should be fined big bucks for these stupid 'get out of jail free' clauses that try to wiggle out of statutory rights. Any contract that so willingly doesn't follow proper law is trying to get away with trouble-making, so should be brought to task.

 

[dobwal]

Isn't "game specific" code a pretty weak argument in this context. Its hard to imagine that gears offer scenarios so unique that the relevant code used to enhance performance would of been useless to any other developer. If the same guys who wrote the engine code are also the same guys who wrote the "game specific" code then I think Epic argument is weaken further.

I can understand Epic not wanting to release code of other licensees but any engine code associated with Gears and used to overcome performance limitation of the UE3 base code should be available to all licensees unless the licensees agree to such restrictions.

If you going to be a developer as well as an engine provider, I think that its unethical to limit access to engine code as an advantage when competing as a developer unless you explicit state that intention in your contracts.

However, there is nothing other than allegations by SK, so until this played out in court, Epic deserves a benefit of the doubt.

 

[inefficient]

Game Over

My opinion is that this is a case where a company SK clearly underestimated what they were getting into. And when the shit hit the fan, they decided to resort to litigation.

It was very clear to me that the advantage to the UE3 license was that you could get a prototype up and running on the PC platform very quickly, and therefore your content creation teams could immediately hit the ground running with actually building the game itself instead of waiting for an engine to materialize.

What EPIC is providing is millions of lines of code representing countless man hours of some of the best minds in the industry at reasonably small price. They are not selling you a guarenteed game of any sort.

EPIC harped over and over on the fact that the engine was still under development. And jumping in as a beta licensee gave you access to their "experimental" code base and not a completed engine.

Also, SK before accepting the terms of the license had the chance to evaluate the code and see if it was a good fit for them or not. EPIC could only make the assumption that such a "prestigious" development house like SK would have the programmers qualified to make such a decision. If they made the wrong decision, that is entirely their own fault and only demonstrated their own incompetence.

SK is basically a dead company now. I expect they will immediately begin to lose their employees and bleed talent. No one wants to work in a sinking ship.

I see no chance in hell that SK will win in this case. And the only reason why they filed at all is because of the pure dumb arrogance of SK's senior management.

 

[inefficient]

Isn't "game specific" code a pretty weak argument in this context. Its hard to imagine that gears offer scenarios so unique that the relevant code used to enhance performance would of been useless to any other developer. If the same guys who wrote the engine code are also the same guys who wrote the "game specific" code then I think Epic argument is weaken further.

Epic does not claim their engine guarantees a "Gears of War" game. Just like the Home Depot does not guarantee you will ever be able to build a fine house.

Sk seems to be totally disregarding the skill required by the laborers working to construct a game with the codebase provided. The engine is supposed to be a resource not a solution!

If games were easy to make, everyone would be making them. And we know that this generation particularly poses some of the most difficult challenges. And even with the treasure chest of tools and reference code the UE3 engine is, it is still not mean you can make a game without very talented people doing some very hard work.

To quote another developer on a different but similar subject:

I don't think it's ever been about "better tools", regardless of what anyone wants to believe. The problem comes in when people forget that tools are there to help us to our job better or faster, not to do the job for us. Our team is responsible for the product that gets in the hands of the players - we're never, ever going to tell them that we couldn't do something "because the tools wouldn't allow it." or because "it was too hard." Those are the poorest of excuses.

 

[dobwal]

My opinion is that this is a case where a company SK clearly underestimated what they were getting into. And when the shit hit the fan, they decided to resort to litigation.

It was very clear to me that the advantage to the UE3 license was that you could get a prototype up and running on the PC platform very quickly, and therefore your content creation teams could immediately hit the ground running with actually building the game itself instead of waiting for an engine to materialize.

What EPIC is providing is millions of lines of code representing countless man hours of some of the best minds in the industry at reasonably small price. They are not selling you a guarenteed game of any sort.

EPIC harped over and over on the fact that the engine was still under development. And jumping in as a beta licensee gave you access to their "experimental" code base and not a completed engine.

Also, SK before accepting the terms of the license had the chance to evaluate the code and see if it was a good fit for them or not. EPIC could only make the assumption that such a "prestigious" development house like SK would have the programmers qualified to make such a decision. If they made the wrong decision, that is entirely their own fault and only demonstrated their own incompetence.

SK is basically a dead company now. I expect they will immediately begin to lose their employees and bleed talent. No one wants to work in a sinking ship.

I see no chance in hell that SK will win in this case. And the only reason why they filed at all is because of the pure dumb arrogance of SK's senior management.

Well SK claims refute your assertion.

"Epic's licensing document stated that a functional version of the engine would be available within 6 months of development kits being available.... Silicon Knights claims: "The final development kit for the Xbox 360 was released in early September, 2005, such that Epic was obligated to release the functional Engine for that platform no later than March, 2006.".....The suit continues: "However, that deadline came and went without Epic providing Silicon Knights with a functional version of the Engine. Indeed, it was not until much later (November, 2006)that Epic ever provided anything resembling working Xbox 360 code to its licensees."

They also claimed that 6 months release after dev kits release has also been breach in relation to the PS3. PS3 dev kits were released in Aug, 2006 and yet SK has received no fully functional PS3 UE3 engine almost a year later.

"Epic has attempted to avoid its obligations under the Agreement by representing to Silicon Knights that the support, modifications, or enhancements to the Engine – all of which are essential to the Engine’s proper function – were “game specific” and not “engine level” adaptations".....It's claimed: "That representation is false, as evidenced in part by the fact that Epic later provided nearly all the Gears of War code to all of its licensees, at no extra charge, in a belated effort at damage control."

Experimental code or not, Epic contractually obligated themselves to provide a fully functionally engine at a specific time, which SK claims they did not.

 

[dobwal]

Epic does not claim their engine guarantees a "Gears of War" game. Just like the Home Depot does not guarantee you will ever be able to build a fine house.

Sk seems to be totally disregarding the skill required by the laborers working to construct a game with the codebase provided. The engine is supposed to be a resource not a solution!

If games were easy to make, everyone would be making them. And we know that this generation particularly poses some of the most difficult challenges. And even with the treasure chest of tools and reference code the UE3 engine is, it is still not mean you can make a game without very talented people doing some very hard work.

To quote another developer on a different but similar subject:

SK isn't claiming that Epic guaranteed them a Gears game, they claiming that Epic did not provide them with a fully functional engine at a time specified within their contract with Epic. Also, they claim Epic did this even though they had a functional version of UE3, which was used to build Gears but not made available to the licensees.

The purpose of buying a third party engine is to make game development "easier" by purchasing work you don't have to do for yourself.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Epic does not claim their engine guarantees a "Gears of War" game. Just like the Home Depot does not guarantee you will ever be able to build a fine house.

Sk seems to be totally disregarding the skill required by the laborers working to construct a game with the codebase provided. The engine is supposed to be a resource not a solution!...

Buying MSWord doesn't enable you to write a best selling novel. If you take 3 years to write a book with Word and it never gets published, you don't sue MS over it. However, if you buy Word and as you type, every third word is deleted, fonts get randomly changed, punctuation is inserted in the wrong place, and a whole load of other bugs, the tool is not fit to do the job for which it was sold you. Thus you'd ask for your money back. And if over the period of three years you had been in touch with MS over these problems and they kept saying 'we'll fix it' and never did, they've wasted three years of your work, for which one could say it'd be fair to be compensated. If they're not going to fix the issues, they should say outright and give you option to replace the tool with an alternative.

This is the case with SK. They're saying UE3 isn't fit for the purpose for which it was sold to them. None of us not using UE3.0 to develop an XB360 game can comment on how true that is or isn't, and we don't know if the fault lies with the creators of the content unable to use the tool, or the tool being no good. But SK feel they have a case, and it can't be swept aside as readily as you are trying to.

This is one for the law courts, to decide the limits of the license and accountability for UE3 to support their customers.

 

[inefficient]

Well SK claims refute your assertion.

"Epic's licensing document stated that a functional version of the engine would be available within 6 months of development kits being available.... Silicon Knights claims: "The final development kit for the Xbox 360 was released in early September, 2005, such that Epic was obligated to release the functional Engine for that platform no later than March, 2006.".....The suit continues: "However, that deadline came and went without Epic providing Silicon Knights with a functional version of the Engine. Indeed, it was not until much later (November, 2006)that Epic ever provided anything resembling working Xbox 360 code to its licensees."

It's going to come down to what SK definition of "functional" is. Epic will claim that their engine was "functional".

Epic did have a functional version of the Engine in March. We know this because this was the month Microsoft themselves would start using the UE3 engine. You might remember this quote from Shame Kim "We only work with the best partners and utilize the best technologies, and Epic and the Unreal Engine 3 hit the mark on both those fronts" said Shane Kim, General Manager, Microsoft Game Studios.

SK is just arguing that because the version of the engine they finally revealed with the Gears of War source code was "more functional" than what they had access to prior, the UE3 engine was not "truly" functional until that date.

Epic had no obligation to release the Gears source code. They only did so because they are magnanimous company that has the best of the whole industry in mind. SK would probably have no grounds for litigation at all today if Epic had not had been so generous to them. This is akin to looking a gift horse in the mouth... and then firing a couple rounds off at the guy who gave it to you.

 

[scooby_dooby]

I remember BioShock originally being announced as using the Tribes: Vengeance modified UE2 engine...

I don't have the link, but I remember fairly certainly that Bioshock devs stated they were using a modifed UE 2.5 engine, but using the UE3 toolset.