Cloud Imperium responds to Crytek's attempt to dismiss its own lawsuit
Star Citizen developer maintains engine providers claim "is and always has been meritless"
Cloud Imperium Games has responded to the latest development in its ongoing legal battle with Crytek -- namely, the latter trying to dismiss its own lawsuit.
Earlier this month, Crytek filed for a dismissal without prejudice so that it would be able to refile the lawsuit after Squadron 42 -- the single-player element of Star Citizen that lies at the centre of some of its claims -- had been released.
Cloud Imperium was given until January 24 to respond, and has done so in court documents uncovered by Eurogamer. In it, the studio calls for a dismissal with prejudice, including a payment of $500,000.
"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," the company said.
The legal dispute hinges around the engine at the heart of Star Citizen. Crytek claims that Cloud Imperium breached contract by continuing to develop the game without a licence. Cloud Imperium maintains that it switched to Amazon Lumberyard (which happens to be an offshoot of CryEngine).
The studio also points to the fact that Crytek has asked to delay the case until after Squadron 42 has launched as proof that it "concedes CIG's long-argued point that no breach could even theoretically occur until actual game release," demonstrating how the lawsuit has been a waste of time and money.
Cloud Imperium claims it has spent $900,000 on legal fees and costs so far, and is adamant that Crytek can't just walk away from this.
"Crytek should not be allowed to aim its car at CIG's storefront window, stomp the accelerator, smash through, do doughtnots for years, then back out and drive away to maybe circle around and crash CIG another day," the document reads.
"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."
It added that the security bond "would barely cover a portion of the wreckage."