The Star Citizen Thread V10

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.

Viajero

Volunteer Moderator
Viajero
Merkir said:
Just because you believe the company value is negative doesn't mean it is. I'm using a valid method to determine share price, which is a significant investment of $46 million in 2018 for 10% of the shares. Also their revenue is significant and historically quite stable - commercially the basis for a solid share price.

If you believe no profit and small loans are a significant factor in company valuation, you might want to take a look at a recent case study like Uber. Prior to their May 2019 IPO, they disclosed that they may never "achieve profit". Quoting from prior to the IPO, "last private market value of $76 billion". Based on that private valuation they set the IPO price at a valuation of $74 billion, raised $8 billion during the IPO, the share price immediately dropped 8% on close of day 1, and has clawed its way back to what was the private valuation since then.

Perhaps the private investors' 10% buyout of CIG last year was a smart move, comparatively? ;)
Click to expand...

True. There are usually some outlier cases where the market has placed a premium on money losing businesses. You can find plenty of those during the dot com bubble period and more recently in the biotech start up arena (Theranos anyone?). Some of the main reasons that happens is because investors in those cases had a hunch or otherwise usually unsubstantiated hope (some would even say faith) that the business would turn around at some point. Also many of these had a “promise” of being disruptive for their respective markets. Mythical unicorns. Uber, with its amazing year on year revenue growth and user base growth does indeed fit in this unicorn profile.

The majority of those ended up destroying most of the value (if not all and then some) of the investments done. And the case of Uber is probably not going to be an exception (unless miracle or somehow manage to get their costs under control below their revenues).

All those cases notwithstanding the fundamental principle still holds that the most solid company valuations are primarily based on the track record of their profitability (or lack thereof) that can be relied upon for projections going forward.
 
Last edited:

Navigare Necesse Est

Navigare Necesse Est
Viajero said:
True. There are usually some outlier cases where the market has placed a premium on money losing businesses. You can find plenty of those during the dot com bubble period and more recently in the biotech start up arena (Theranos anyone?). Some of the main reasons that happens is because investors in those cases had a hunch or otherwise usually unsubstantiated hope (some would even say faith) that the business will turn around at some point. Also many of these had a “promise” of being disruptive for their respective markets. Mythical unicorns. Uber, with its amazing year on year revenue growth and user base growth does indeed fit in this unicorn profile.

The majority of those ended up destroying most of the value (if not all) of the investments done. And the case of Uber is probably not going to be an exception (except miracle).

All those cases notwithstanding the fundamental principle still holds that the most solid company valuations are primarily based on an equally solid track record of profitability that can be relied upon for projections going forward.
Click to expand...
You're right, but if you don't have profitable records you need to find another way to valuate and find a model. Right now we have a valuation from last year when someone was willing to pay 46 million for 10%. We need not know how they came to the conclusion to pay that amount - there just was a market at that price point. We might come to entirely different conclusions ourselves.
 

cheesenbiscuits

cheesenbiscuits
Navigare Necesse Est said:
You're right, but if you don't have profitable records you need to find another way to valuate and find a model. Right now we have a valuation from last year when someone was willing to pay 46 million for 10%. We need not know how they came to the conclusion to pay that amount - there just was a market at that price point. We might come to entirely different conclusions ourselves.
Click to expand...
Or this could be a billionaires lesson to his insistent son how you should invest wisely.
 

Viajero

Volunteer Moderator
Viajero
Navigare Necesse Est said:
You're right, but if you don't have profitable records you need to find another way to valuate and find a model. Right now we have a valuation from last year when someone was willing to pay 46 million for 10%. We need not know how they came to the conclusion to pay that amount - there just was a market at that price point. We might come to entirely different conclusions ourselves.
Click to expand...

In the above mentioned realm of guesses, unsubstantiated hope or faith, which seems to be the Calders investment case, the question about the company value is largely irrelevant. There could be a ton of ways for them and CIG to rationalize it. Unsubstantiated or unrealistic sales growth expectations probably ranks up high in there, etc.

My personal opinion is that the Calders must have hard coded an investment return plan of some sort in their shares purchase agreement, making the company value or their share in it largely a moot point. Or at least fully protecting the down side. A sort of loan if you will.

I would be extremely surprised if they are banking their return mainly or only on the CIG share price upside or dividends.
 
Last edited:

MTBFritz

MTBFritz
Chris Simon said:
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUgvNkfzIzI


Slightly OT video, but the first three minutes are relevant. I almost wetted myself laughing. :)
Click to expand...

In short....The Mighty Jingles reports from the future

  • after breaking half a BILLION dollars in funding Chris Roberts closes the studios in US and Europe and transfers development of the game to his newly constructed moon base
  • in other SC related news Chris Roberts announces that SC will continue development on the Unreal 15 engine to take advantage of the engines superior features. Of course this means that development will be reset as all assets and existing features have to be reworked from zero. According to Roberts this wont be much of a problem, sale of ships can continue in the interim as you dont need the ships modelled or even ingame in order to sell them on the RSI store
  • fans voiced their concern that Mark Hamil wont be able to continue the required voice acting for SQ42 as he technically died last month and is currently in suspended animation. Various statements declare that he will be able to fulfill his contract with CIG as he can be taken out of suspended animation in order to work on voice acting for short periods of time
  • SQ42 will be available on the EPIC store and is still slated for a punctual release in 2049
I think he got his ribbing a couple years back already when he dared to voice his concern with the direction and progress of Star Citizen. Payback is a female dog :)

edit: I need to clarify that by "billion" he probably means the european billion which is a number with 12 zeroes. the US "half a billion" would be only 500.000.000 which CIG almost has :)
 
Last edited:

sovapid

sovapid
Oh man, Obsidian Ant streamed SC today???

Wonder how that went. "Played" last night and it was awful.

They already have another patch in the PTU to try and fix server performance.
 

LanceLord

LanceLord
MTBFritz said:
Hell yeah, I was looking up to Blizzard for so long....even thinking about joining them as an employee (tho not in a dev capacity). This is the company which didnt only have a glorious uprising but also were responsible for so many great memories of mine. I felt kind of a kinship to these people especially when I felt personally adressed with all their smooth talks on stage.

Fast forward to today and Blizzard is a souless monster to me. I still follow what games they are working on but mainly in order to stay as far away from them as I can. I believe that Blizzard has crumbled under the constant pressure for profit and gamers...once the crowd carrying them as well as providing them with the materials for future games are now just cattle (before it was trying to make a game that we like, now its making a game they can tell us we gonna like). Making a lot of noise but kept pacified with no power whatsoever in order to keep the "white" gold flowing. This is a company which has drastically changed the bigger it got.

I see this repeating itself whenever a once small-time game studio gets some big hits and is either expending or getting swallowed by a big publisher. Thats the moment things usually go downhill from. Theres only a few companies around right now who resist the temptation of more money and deliberately stay small in order to focus on what they want....making games. The future is indie. Mark my words.
Click to expand...
This has been the case throughout the industry regardless of what gaming genre it happens to. On the prolific RPG/Simulation front Maxis (owned the simulation niche via groundbreaking titles like The Sims, Spore, SimCity), Mythic (Dark Age Camelot, Warhammer), Bioware (now apparently on its last legs with dud MVP of the year Anthem) are proof of that. This was almost the fate of Bungie had they not managed to survive/escape Activision cannibalism. And lucked out with literally walking away with full ownership of their IP and intellectual property rights intact.

I'm praying this is not going to be the case for Obsidian after they release The Outer Worlds. Or Rebel Galaxy Outlaw for that matter..... :cautious:

Disney continuing to permit EA exclusive developer rights/control of its Star War franchise will never cease to dumbfound me. Them allowing EA to defile the SW franchise has been a taboo crime against humanity.
 
Last edited:

LanceLord

LanceLord
Sanya V. Juutilainen said:

"Another thing that we're doing - and again, down the line - is that you will be able to walk around, inside your ship, you'll be able to get out of your ship, walk around inside space stations, other vehicles, all of that sorta thing."

All of this isn't presented as "it would be awesome", but "we will definitely (try to) do it at a later time".
Click to expand...
The thing is since this feature is going to be so challenging to implement, there is a workaround. Space legs doesn't have to function literally the immersive way it does in SC or X4 Frontier. It can be subtle/suggestively implied like the way Rebel Galaxy handles space leg mobility in space stations.

Or as another alternative (which would be perhaps a lot easier to implement from a development perspective) limit player mobility to their ship interior as mentioned earlier. But restrain mobility to 1st person POV inside your ship only. This doesn't allow you to see your feet/toes and would permit viewing/use of only your hands. This 1st POV would let you walk around and explore your ship interior the way SC currently does. With all the high end attention to detail and customization that is currently being pimped in SC with the latest customization updates.

I'd pay an indecent sum of real life credits to have a SC customization of my ship. Experience virtual 3D living in true The Sims 3 style the way you currently can in SC. Regardless of whether it's my cheap flying waffle maker Sidey or stealthy Asp. The ability to have my Holo Me use 1st POV to explore areas like the cargo bay or newly added med bay module. Then be able to grab a quick bite to eat from the newly installed galley/bar or or small lounge module on my ASP. Or eat from my pilot's chair on the bridge in my Sidey due to the lack of interior space for a galley/bar/mess hall module. Then go sleep in my bed/cot when I'm ready to log off or just do it for the immersion.

So it's quite feasible to go the SC route and focus on internal ship customization with a 1st person POV space leg feature. This would greatly incentivize me to grind towards my next couple hundred million credits for a Belugia/Cutter etc. Just to earn the privilege of owning/interacting with potential luxury commodity/service items on ships in this class (like a zero G swimming pool or toilet). A combination of suggestive RGO space legs, and the insane degree of immersive SC style ship interior customization would definitely make up the lack of real space legs IMO
 

Mole HD

Mole HD
sovapid said:
Oh man, Obsidian Ant streamed SC today???

Wonder how that went. "Played" last night and it was awful.

They already have another patch in the PTU to try and fix server performance.
Click to expand...
It was awful indeed, I gave up after an hour when it got worse instead of settling...latest quick fix patch to hit the PU from the PTU last night seems to work better. Nice seeing you on there tonight slumming it on the EU servers ;)
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom