Not really; CIG publish a heavily sanitised version of the financials
Game Discussions Star Citizen Discussion Thread v12
- Thread starter Yaffle
- Start date
-
- Tags
- star citizen
It's not sanitised. It's fantasised.
You will also show stuff that can be used by your competitors against you/take advantage on you ?
Only if the salaries you pay or the working conditions you have are so poor that any other competitor can just offer better. But most people look into that before they apply for the job or accept it in the first place so its not really a secret.
Specifically I dont think theres a problem with publishing Director Salaries & Bonuses & Expenses from any and every Company that is owned or partially owned or invested in by CIG. How much money has been spent on what part of the project since 2012 (You know, like they said they would and are legally accountable for as it was a KS pledge that if it didnt happen by a certain time then a full Independent Audit would be carried out and Published) That would be nice and open and none of it is Company secrets
Specifically I dont think theres a problem with publishing Director Salaries & Bonuses & Expenses from any and every Company that is owned or partially owned or invested in by CIG. How much money has been spent on what part of the project since 2012 (You know, like they said they would and are legally accountable for as it was a KS pledge that if it didnt happen by a certain time then a full Independent Audit would be carried out and Published) That would be nice and open and none of it is Company secrets
Hey, they did say they would in the ToS:
Back when the game was supposed to come out in 2014...
Instead backers got some unaudited blog accounting from 2018 on :/
Yes. But someone in the company has to give the level acess to each of the managers. If a subsidiary (S1) of the company use internally level A and B access and another subsidiary (S2) use internally levels 1, 2 and 3 you have to restructure the way access levels are used in some subsidiaries if you want to standardize level access before giving every subsidiary of the company a common website tool. And if the company decides to keep only 2 access levels (A,B), where do you put managers of level 2 of the subsidiary S2 ? Level A they are downgraded, level B they are upgraded... do you see the human problems it causes ?
In my case, a simple demand (it's not technically difficult to define level access tied to login/password) led the company to rethink the way in which it handles its managers. Simple tool demand / big effects.
(Yes the internal legal & marketing teams could have qualms about stuff shared with the public etc, but those would be internal concerns for the most part. Not them running up against national frameworks for sharing sensitive documents etc.)
And hey, we're dealing with the Bugsmashers guys here. They'll share anything
(Just ask HelloKitty
)Ah ok, having seen your further posts, you mean they have different management tiers across their national offices. (Not that the regions had different legal requirements, as I read it).
Ok, so sure, bureaucracy happens, and turf wars within companies too. And these things can drag on. But do you think that the company maybe would have sorted it out quicker if they had a million voracious customers making angry memes about that specific issue and its lack of resolution
There's a fire under CIG, in that they're very reliant on backer goodwill. It seems unlikely they'd let that goodwill sit burning for so long without a particularly good reason. (And I'm not convinced that 'LA and Austin can't agree on what agile is' would really hold them up forever.)
Last edited:
Why just limit to Director salaries ? You place the limit to Directors but another will want to see sub directors and seniors developers. Why not ?
[LittleAnt] You will also show stuff that can be used by your competitors against you/take advantage on you ?
All info can be used, not only salaries. Just by publishing a precise roadmap CIG can give advantage to it's competitor FDEV.
Concrete example : CIG plan to add animals to planets, FEDV also after the release of Odyssey. When CIG will show animals on the roadmap, FDEV will have a small idea of whether or not they are ahead of CIG on this point and decide or not to change its priorities to release animals before CIG.
Perhaps so, but how about things where they really fail, like ETA of fixing various "sink to floor/surface", "non-working elevators" and so on bugs. What kind of advantage potential competitor gets from knowing that?
Public companies are required to publish director's salaries. While CIG are not public, they claim to be open and transparent about it and did promise backers in the early days to be transparent about where the money was being spent. So, it might behoove them to publish the directors' salaries at least to increase confidence they are not taking an unreasonable amount while the product is still not released, and not, for example, taking so much they can afford to buy mansions and go on holidays on yachts. Once they have released a quality product and the funding changes from pledges to purchases, then hell, they can go wild if they want.
Regarding non-directors, its not an obligation for any company and most companies are usually very secretive about staff salaries. Every job i've worked at upon joining HR has instructed people to never discuss their salaries with other employees.
Of course, HR aren't always so cautious about it. Once, while working in IT support, i was called out to look at a problem with a computer in HR and they had a spreadsheet open on their computer listing the salaries of employees. While i didn't get to see them all, and pretended not to notice, i saw some numbers which were very interesting to me, and quite useful when it came to the annual renogotation of my own salary
i saw some numbers which were very interesting to me, and quite useful when it came to the annual renogotation of my own salary
Which is exactly the reason WHY companies ask their employees to never discuss wages among each other. Some even threaten contract termination if not upheld (even tho that was contested and beat in court at leaast in germany)...its still common practice.
Bit late on that front. CIG roadmapped planetary animals back in 2017
Chris Roberts said:
I do get the argument you're making here. But in CIG's specific case, I honestly think their competitors have given up on timing anything around CIG's roadmap statements. (As evidenced by the shade FDev have recently thrown at CIG regarding being unreleased over the same time period, while crossing into similar territory with EDO. And by smaller fry like the Rebel Galaxy guys saying they held off waiting on Star Citizen, but then realised they could totally go ahead and develop a whole game before SC actually released...)
And who can blame them? What's the point in trying to react to CIG's roadmapping when it has proved so markedly unreliable time after time after time?
Last edited:
You misunderstand me, I meant that specifically there was no reason or defence whatsoever against publishing Director salaries. That can be done today without any argument
No reason to limit it to that at all, just start with it, right now, thats all. The rest can come tomorrow or the next day but no later. CIG dont have competitors remember, they also dont have a game which you kind of need to be the competition yourself as well but thats beside the point. Youre new to Frontier but I promise you they take their own damn time about things and do it to their own timescales and priorities and yes on feedback from players and players priorities (but theres so many of them that nobody sees it actually happening until their bit gets the attention). Frontier are beyond caring what SC does or doesn't do. CR & DB backed each others KS projects...one of them did rather well out of it, not sure how the other one thinks its going.
DB had plans for Elite but ironically the technology wasnt there, this was 1984. So they broke the tech and released something and each time the tech advanced they went back and had another go. This time the tech is there so the game is being built, but the plans have been there all along, they wont change these priorities much at all regardless of whats happening. Its a Roadmap to 'finish' the game and they sticking to it.....and I dont think it changes much tbh and thats probably not a bad thing
Stuff like... what?
I mean, at the risk of sounding like a hater, what exactly would anyone want to use anything SC for? You can already find better persistence, better multiplayer, better stability, better graphics, better clouds, better physics, better NPCs, better fully destructible vehicles/environments, bigger planets, bigger systems, bigger galaxy, better physicalisation... I can't think of a single thing anyone developing a game would want to borrow from SC apart from some concept art, and that should be covered by copyright (I say should because looking at the
Last edited:
its thanks to posts like this that I now mentally have the Asp Scout, the Asp Explorer and now the Asp Nomad as 3 distinct ships in my head.
Well if you cant beat it, steal it and pretend its yours I suppose.
In fact when I talk about competitor, I mainly talk about Elite Dangerous post Odyssey in some future.
And it's not about borrowing CIG's tech/engine but more CIG looking at what FDEV do and vice versa. And in this case, with CIG having a public roadmap and FDEV not, it's mainly FDEV looking at what CIG do.
Last edited:
Mostly they would look what CIG does and try NOT to do it.
Though technically that truly would give some advantage Frontier 'legs' are mainly an FPS / exploration tool with associated gameplay. Its like Elite with legs.
CIG 'legs' are the game, its like GTA in space.
They are not going in the same direction. They are as disjointed as CQC is to the main game in ED. There will be similarities ofc its sci-fi. All sci-fi has aliens, alien flora & fauna and landscapes, space ships etc etc
I dont like NMS coz its too 'Disney' and I dont like SC for other reasons like the UI. Other people wont like ED coz reasons. But they all offer a similar game in a lot of respects. Its different styles and theres plenty of room for everyone. There is no 'war' between ED & NMS, just an imaginary one between SC and everyone else
CIG 'legs' are the game, its like GTA in space.
They are not going in the same direction. They are as disjointed as CQC is to the main game in ED. There will be similarities ofc its sci-fi. All sci-fi has aliens, alien flora & fauna and landscapes, space ships etc etc
I dont like NMS coz its too 'Disney' and I dont like SC for other reasons like the UI. Other people wont like ED coz reasons. But they all offer a similar game in a lot of respects. Its different styles and theres plenty of room for everyone. There is no 'war' between ED & NMS, just an imaginary one between SC and everyone else