The wording supplied in the GLA suggests that even if you don’t take the wording of 2.1.2 to preclude switching engines, 2.4 almost certainly does, and Skadden’s point is that CIG/RSI’s behaviour would consist of a breach of 2.4 at the very least. The 2 years would only apply from a termination of the contract, which neither side argues has happened, rather than a breach, but even so ending the contract would effectively stall development for two years, or at least prohibit CIG from providing substantive updates or releases.
I saw this the first time around, though admittedly hadn’t read the wording in the other supplied Exhibits. Crytek/Skadden’s argument will be that as CIG is selling SQ42 as a standalone product, it precludes them being a single game in a single client. CIG might be able to worm their way out of that one.
Probably so that they can still make claim for subsequent enhancements to Cryengine, which they may also be able to pursue through their own contract with Amazon, but I’m unsure.
This is how you get a supposedly top-tier law firm to take your case, I imagine.
This response almost guarantees it goes to trial, and the discovery process is going to be interesting for everyone following the development of Star Citizen.