Star Citizen Thread v6
- Thread starter Brett C
- Start date
- Status
FailureToReport talks about the state of the project, his own refund ($7,300 excl. grey market), feature creep, CIG's behaviour etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crFonNn6Vkc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crFonNn6Vkc
It is impossible to know how much funding the company has outside of crowdfunding. The model for SC in the beginning was, at least it was told so, to crowdfund only a part of the game to then get investors on board who provide additional funds to complete the game. Nobody knows if CIG maybe has borrowed several dozen millions from a bank, or if deals with companies like AMD or faceware provide additional funding. So I wouldn't assume that they only have what is made visible on the website. This funding tracker is totally marketing anyways.
Wasn't one of CRs sales pitches back in the day that they would be financially open to backers?
Last edited by a moderator:
Uuuuh...You know It´s getting nasty when those"whales"who root for SC&CIG all those years deciding to refund........
Thanks for the link. Intersting to hear an actual (Or alleged? Must be an alt of Derek Smart, surely?
) whale falling out with Star Citizen.Can't say I disagree with anything they say. Except for the time where they started getting uncomfortable with Star Citizen. The red flags where flying all over 2015 when "Star Marine" was quitely delayed only to be "weeks not months away", while Star Citizen put a 400$ price tag on a civil passenger transport ship that required mechanics and tech that wasn't even close to on the Horizon and blew scope for the mechanic out of any reasonable proportions up to the bloody cocktail mixing minigame.
I really can't speak for anything earlier than 2015, because I only backed and started to follow the game at the end of 2014.
Last edited:
Don't recall anything like that. I thought it was always meant to be 100% backed by the players, the idea being, CIG would never be beholden to anyone except the players.
I believe it quickly changed to that once it dawned on them how much money they were raking in.
Do you really think there would be legimate investors and CR still being able to deliver nothing? I mean real investors have enough money into a project that they would have a genuin interest in making a profit out of it. If that isnt the case they will either pressure towards a change or pull out their money.
There was "chatter" that "The Other Game" had a forced release due to the Venture Capital turning the screw to get their money back and that was only 2 years from the KS?
People who are professional money makers don't understand game development!
People who are professional money makers don't understand game development!
Is it just me or is it beyond pathetically sad that this guy wants his money back so posts a 55 minute video in which he nauseatingly grovels and apologises to the "community" whilst trying to justify his position; all presumably in an attempt to avoid the predictable savaging from the shrills?
What a great "community" to be part of!
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
That has always been the official word indeed. One of the main selling points of the game was that it was completely free from interference by evil publishers or investors, both of which would probably offer funding in exchange of their own sets of binding conditions for it.
I would venture to say that A LOT of funds have been obtained solely based on this independence premise.
If CIG were to have accepted additional investor funds I would expect CIG at least would transparently communicate that dramatic change of funding direction to backers. Not doing so would be akin to lying to backers and of course would mean their own "The Pledge" was worthless to start with.
Last edited:
The funny thing is that, the instant you suggest that any kind of sensible estimate indicates that they're running on fumes, the backers will immediately fall back on the “…but they have additional investors, obviously, because everyone wants to get in on the project” excuse. That, or that they're using backer money for advanced financial trading schemes, which would not just break all of those promises but most likely be very deep into the very dark grey area of what's even legal. I've seen some cases where this is made back-to-back with claims that CIG is 100% transparent and open with its financing and the project's overall development.
Never mind that no-one has any idea what's going on, which kind belies the whole “The Pledge” nonsense to begin with. Never mind that one of the first things they removed when Derek started stomping around was the agreement to divulge their finances if the project was running late. Never mind that they tried to say that people agreed to this long after they actually had any opportunity to agree (or decline to agree) to anything. Never mind that we know for a fact that CIG had actual investors, not just backers, who pretty much universally bailed out around the same time — it's possible, if not entirely likely (or at least not rational) to imagine that they still have a couple of those.
…and then, of course, there's their bank business, where the Coutts deal is just one of many. You'd think that the company pledging substantial portions of the assets the backer money was supposed to create, to the point where they are now licensees of their own IP would fall exactly in that category of “dramatic change”, and yet, not as much as a peep was uttered before someone accidentally found out and they had to come up with all kinds of excuses and attempts at downplaying what they had done.
Do you have that in writing? Did he sign it?
Weeeeellllll… there is this thing where he signed something to the effect of treating backers like publishers, while at the same time saying that this will allow him to not have anything to do with publishers any more. There's this distinct air of his despising publishers and everything they stand for, and promising that he'll treat backers the same and give them the respect “they deserve”.
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
Do you have that in writing? Did he sign it?
Well, it is indeed in CIG´s original TOS. It´s all described in a July blog or somefink.
Funny how people praise him for being "unbiased" while he says the exact same things we do on this forum but we are haters instead
Reminds me a bit of the early skeptic posts on RSI where each one started with a block of praising and presenting the game and your faith BUT..... Failuretoreport hasnt evolved a fully fledged opinion about this yet, hes just at the start where he feels compelled to speak up and take action on all the disappointments he suffered so far. In light of this he treads "lightly" and goes into extreme detail to describe his reasoning and thinking. He makes it very clear that he loves the game but wont support CiG anymore which has let him down time and time again. We had these massive explanations years ago in v2 or v3 of this thread but again, SC fanboys dont read those anymore so this YT blogger is "unbiased"It doesnt matter in the end, hes just wording our exact thoughts in a more "polite" way to not step on too many toes.
In this regard his video is kind of a surprise. Not that he speaks out against CiG but the fact that he is praised for it instead of flamed to hell and back. Things definately have changed. The video is FIFTYFIVE minutes long....and he talks non-stop bringing up examples over examples and backing up his progress as a backer with solid data.....its just that the game is so massively layered by now (by design) that you need such a long time to bring across a simple thing. Because if you sum it up in a 2liner (which you basically can) people wont follow your reasoning and call you hater. He had to "prove" he knows what hes talking about and that took 55 minutes.....sad.
Spot on mate and exactly how I feel about it as well. As far as I see it Derek was simply too "rude" all those years ago, didnt show the "proper" level of submission and respect when he addressed the valid points he brought up and as a result people never bothered to read any of his posts and instead went on a massive hate campaign to destroy him. Thats how it goes if you have a clear opinion and are not afraid to voice it. FailureToReport instead tries to not off anybody which results in the video that reminds me a bit of "groveling" in order to avoid the crapstorm. Its not about the game and the commnity. If I had a problem with CiG and felt the way he does I would let them have it but of course most SC-fans cannot differentiate in this regard and simply push back even if they would agree with you if only they would think for a few seconds and try to understand what you are saying.
Weeeeellllll… there is this thing where he signed something to the effect of treating backers like publishers, while at the same time saying that this will allow him to not have anything to do with publishers any more. There's this distinct air of his despising publishers and everything they stand for, and promising that he'll treat backers the same and give them the respect “they deserve”.
If he treated EA like this back in the Wing Commander time its no wonder he got booted
Last edited:
Star Citizen is now completely owned by a bank. There is no independence left.
Just another one of many false promises.
The bank not only owns the IP, but every asset of Star Citizen for what is essentially a payday loan. CIG works on someone else's product now.
What's important to know is that financial speculators don't do these kind for deals for earning just a little bit of interest. They grabbed the whole 160M project including physical assets for just 4M and now bet on the debtor defaulting on the loan. So thanks to Coutts we know what SC (not the IP itself, but the whole operation) is worth now: Less than 3 % of what supposedly backers have spent on it.
Last edited:
Their campaign was contradictory in that regard. On the kickstarter page you can still read the following:
"We have investors that have agreed to contribute the balance we need to complete this game as long as we can validate that there is a demand for a high end PC space game. By meeting or surpassing our target on Kickstarter you tell the world that you want a PC based Space Sim and allow us to make this game." https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/cig/star-citizen
So the idea was: collect a decent amount of money through crowdfunding --> investors will hand out additional funds.
Who these investors are or were, and how much funding they provided or would have provided was never made transparent. Anyway, this shows that the very original concept was not based on pure crowdfunding, and there has always been the possibility that funds from other sources form the basis for the project.
Edit:
btw.: I don't like when people make up arguments without referring to sources. Fans or critics alike generate random and baseless narratives by doing this, and everything becomes a mess in the end.
Last edited:
So basically, "we reserve the right to contradict this at any time" then, stay classy CR...
- Status