So...how much of this "company" paid for by backers to produce a game that they funded has been sold off now? And I'm sure there was a vote in this most open development right?
Star Citizen Discussion Thread v11
- Thread starter Sir.Tj
- Start date
-
- Tags
- star citizen
- Status
There were rumours that Turbulent were owed a significant amount through their dealings with Ci¬G already and were extremely unhappy...rumoured enough that I had heard about it although can't remember where I read it.
I suspect you're very close to the truth there.
Normally that would be the case, but what if what you own is just ALPHA and pipeline for jpeg making will be laid only in 4.0?
It's not impossible.
It's also possible that Turbulent sees a possibility that Star Citizen will indeed be successful and takes the chance of getting some shares instead of payment so they can cash in on it later on.
I wonder if it's tax deductable?
I cannot really even think of getting a mining ship.
I mean, after all the games one remembers that has had mining of some kind (World of Warcraft, EVE, NMS, Elite Dangerous) it was never really FUN. Not to mention THAT profitable.
That said, it might indeed be fun but i think I'd rather get that kind of ship in-game, most industrial gameplay does not really feel...fun, but trucking for some reason IS...
That would be a 4K image so the resolution is good according to my Pixel to USD conversion rate.I believe that is inaccurate. How about you spend $4000 on a jpeg image of Canon 1SC? That's much more fun!
That's why i like to compare kickstarters and backing games in extremely early production as high risk investment.
You literally GIVE a company money in the HOPE they will find (for example) gas, minerals, oil or similar things and you get some shares in return. If the company fails to find anything and go bankrupt you get nothing in return and just with a kickstarter and giving a company that builds a computer game money early on there is no guarantee.
You don't get shares with "crowdfunding". You're just throwing silly money at waiting sharks. Potentially. This comparison isn't close in any way. It's not investing when you waive all your rights an investor should have.
There's no charity, since you are paying VAT in all countries. They are abusing crowdfunding, though, indeed.
No, but we get a ship, and hopefully a game, that would be the equivalent of getting some value of shares. We give a company X and hope to receive Y. In both examples we can either get X or we can loose it all.
And what "rights" do you imagine someone has who throws money at a project that might have a chance of complete failure? A money back guarantee? The money is, just as a kickstarter, used during whatever project is made so in that regard both share the same drawback, ie too loose the money put into a project.
With shares you get your shareholders rights. And that includes usually having the right to look at the books. Go to AGM and that.
True, but you miss the main point im making.
They are both high risk and you invest money in the HOPE of a return of investment. In both cases the money can be lost and there is no guarantee you can even get ANYTHING back.
That works in the majority of cases but can it really apply to Star Citizen?
Their KS was for low figures which puts it in high risk territory. The further they go from that figure the less risk there should be. If $23M was meant to be enough to create the game, how can it be high risk despite recieving $300M+?
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
Also not impossible. But if that was the case that would mean that the price of 25% of Turbulent would be even less than the theoretical value of those 2340 CIG shares (roughly 1 million USD).
Now, I am not sure what is Turbulent annual profit after taxes etc or the size of the owed bill, but I would highly doubt the company value is as low 2-3 million USD.
Last edited:
If CIG isn't their only customer, I guess it's their most important and resource-focused one.
https://turbulent.ca/fr/retrospective
https://turbulent.ca/fr/retrospective
If it was CIG shares I'd be looking for exit options.... just in case....
My point is that scamming people off their money is harder and not that lucrative with real investment. I don't debate the money can be lost.
I'm will not take the amount of money raised into account in the high risk vs reward, merely the practical part behind it.
Money raised does not guarantee a released product.
I mean, take the idea of a gas prospecting company that has managed to raise money for 7-8 years and shown small promise and shown some info about how well their gas prospecting and extracting hardware is...and have yet to show an actual definitive finding of a gas pocket? They still get money through word of mouth but there is no guarantee they will find gas.
Hence, the amount raised have nothing to do with the amount of risk.
People have been easily scammed of money from company investment for over a century and if CIG is a scam it's a poorly designed one.
That said, I do not disagree with you that the Kickstarter and also Early Access should have a higher degree of oversight in general because it's literally tossing money over a cliff and hope you get something back and there is no clear view where the tossed money went. If anything it should have more legal protection similar to high risk investment into actual companies with the same insight.
So instead of kickstarting a game, it should be treated as sponsoring a separate section of a game company and there should be a clear insight into that company for those who invested/kickstarted.
- Status