Yeah, they're definitely holding off on the new content and just getting on with bug bashing
Oh wait ...
Oh wait ...
Game Discussions Star Citizen Discussion Thread v12
- Thread starter Yaffle
- Start date
-
- Tags
- star citizen
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
Yeah, I am assuming the SQ42 dedicated devs/time is ring fenced here of course. If not the case then… bring in the popcorn!
Last edited:
Nothing in CIG's history has indicated this. From what we've seen, they pull people from one project to the other as required, depending on which they think is the priority of the moment.
A positive Glassdoor appears...
Employment, Gimli, and hopes for an end to crunch...
Employment, Gimli, and hopes for an end to crunch...
5/5
Hard work, but great team and benefits
Producer
Current employee, more than 3 years
Manchester, England
Recommend
CEO approval
Business outlook
Pros
The overall project and aims are amazing, and like nothing else in the industry that I've experienced.
With everything else going on in the games industry right now, I feel lucky to be able to work on such a unique project.
The SQ42 cast come in from time to time - ridiculously cool to get to see Gimli walking round the office.
Office environment is amazing, really modern office, free coffee from baristas, pastries and treats. These are small things, but they make it a place you actually want to come into to work.
Cons
Crunch for releases did become difficult when doing quarterly patches, but with the new release schedule each month, I think this is going to improve.
Hmm.... a bit whiffy that one.
Nothing else in the industry they've experienced? How many years of experience do they have? Why would someone with lots of experience go to work for CIG at this stage (3 years employed, meaning they joined circa 2021).
With everything else going on in the games industry at the moment sounds like faithful speak where they claim the rest of the industry is bad.
Cast coming into the office? Why? More mocap reshoots? Can't imagine any of them just popping in for a coffee with Chris.
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
Should have worded that better. Not talking about specific individual devs but overall planned man hours. It does not matter if the actual devs contributing to those SQ42 man hours is in flow. What I would expect, given their alleged goal of 2026 for SQ42, is that a good chunk of dedicated man hours has been planned and ring fenced to deliver that. Otherwise, yeah, popcorn,
They could have announced massive scope, full ship interior to exterior seamless transitions, physicalized everything, 1000s of players on a single shard... and then failed to do any of it or release a broken mess.
Sometimes money is the enemy of good.
Just imagine what all the independent game creators could have done with all the money SC wasted
Just spotted this:
He's marked as 'open to work'. Looks like a push rather than a jump.
I'm sure it's good news, and means CIG have all the talent they need
Depends if they are removing all of them or not. Maybe just scaling back growth, just keeping some on to deal with staff turnover.
If its all of them, that would be interesting.
Could be a sign that Calder pulled his investment, but not a solid one, and we won't know for sure unless CIG collapse or do a lot more firings. Frustrating that CIG could perhaps keep that hidden for another year (or more!), assuming it happened. Or actually... someone divesting shares would have to be noted on Companies House as soon as it happened? Is it the UK entity they have shares in? Or the US one?
They may have others, but that's 3 UK-based ones definitely gone. The third guy notes that he handled EU hires too.
(As a daft side note: I noticed that a new executive assistant, snagged from PwC, is posting job opportunities for CIG. It's not super unusual, but just caught my eye. Plus I liked that she had a degree in criminal psychology
) Yeah I'm thinking it's likely another sign of belt tightening. Alongside the layoff rounds, director trimming etc. In concert it all reads as saving pennies.
Could just be prep for bad news, or dealing with current cashflow issues, rather than outright bad news etc. But it looks like that at minimum.
As far as I can work out they're only compelled to issue share statements when the majority stakeholder moves between tiers (<50%, <75% etc). They announced when the Turb deal shaved CR below 75% etc.
That said if they issue new shares / alter the share structure I think they may have to announce that possibly? So we might get a sign if a new sugar daddy is found? Also any resulting changes to the board would have to be noted etc.
The next confirmation statement in September should include a full list of current shares and shareholders, even if they didn't have to announce changes immediately.
Of course a lot of money is going to flow down the drain until then.
Snagged or rented?
Funny how just recently a Spectrumite asked for CIG to contract PWC when they did exactly that last year.
Developing Software - A case study in self analysis - Star Citizen Spectrum
Where I work we develop large software applications and sometimes things go wrong. In 2023 the amount of production level defects got to a point where things had to change and so my company decided...
robertsspaceindustries.com
Last edited:
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
They have been doing quite a lot of layoffs since 2023 at least.
Given 7+ years have already passed since their first investment I strongly suspect the Calders must have renegotiated the deal so to extract returns from ongoing revenues in some form. Or the original deal perhaps already contained provisions in this regard.
In this case most of the layoffs we have seen in the last couple years would probably be aimed to generate margins owed to the Calders.
Mike was just messing around in his hangar when another player' ship appeared. After a bit of debate with chat about whether Mike should kill him he again disappeared and the ship Mike was summoning appeared.
I'm not convinced. Some of that should show up in the (late) financial report, wouldn't it?
The anecdote that CIG told their auditors is somewhat plausible, i.e. a guaranteed minimum 6% or revenue-based return after 6, optionally 10, years.
I'm more convinced that CIG lost their copies of the agreement in an office move and reconstructed those values from collective memory.
Maybe the Ortwin-shuffle got them a fresh copy of those terms.