Game Discussions Star Citizen Discussion Thread v12

Mole HD

Mole HD
Agony_Aunt said:
Regarding your previous comment addressed at me, your choice, but it would help show that you don't blindly believe CIG will deliver on the things they talk about doing.

As for this post, I don't think there is anything wrong per se with hoping CIG will deliver and that you enjoy SC, but that wasn't what you were being asked about. You were being asked about whether you enjoy being lied to and misled and how much it will take before you say that's enough.

Its a different question.

Or, are you simply saying, you enjoy SC enough to the point that you don't care about the publisher lying to you? Because, one of the foundations of support for CIG from the early days was people saying (and they still say it) that they got fed up with lying publishers.

And yet, here we are, with CIG telling whoppers that would make an EA exec blush.

Or do you believe CIG have not lied or intentionally misled to backers?

I seem to recall us having this convo before... i wonder if you opinion has changed on the matter.
Click to expand...
As long as you can take SC as it stands and play it for what it is rather then what you hoped it could or may never be, it's fine. When you over examine and over analyse it as we do on here it just leads to more frustration...it takes what little pleasure you could ever get from playing it too. I rip Ci¬G and the project to bits on here as a vent for all the inadequacies and frustrations of it...but I still play most nights :)

I had a good session tonight with a mate just doing random stuff...delivering cargo whilst I sat in the turret of his ship, explored one of the moons looking for derelicts...rescued some random guy who had fallen out of a ship....even managed a bit of ROC mining...although the fun was had trying to fit 2 ROCs into his MSR in the first place. It ended after a few hours with the inevitable 30k... but we were done by then anyway.
 
Last edited:

[VR] Merkir

[VR] Merkir
metatheurgist said:
Even with the backers giving it their all the project would've died twice without Calder. Calder is the only thing keeping the show running now.
Click to expand...


Since you keep repeating this, I'll bite this time and say I disagree. I'll point you to a reply you got a couple of weeks ago...
Viajero said:
Not exactly. The first main investment happened in May 2018, and 2018 had not yet seen a dramatic increase in pledging according to CIGs tracker. The second investment happened towards the end of 2019 in a record pledge year indeed but that could simply mean the Calders saw the increased funding (and therefore good potential returns) and decided to increase their investment with the option they allegedly had. Who knows.

If we believe CIGs funds tracker then we can see CIG has pretty much only had reserves for around 4-5 months of operating expenses at any given time. That is not a very comfortable position to be in, in general. CIG must have concluded sometime during 2017 or early 2018 that extra investment was necessary to ensure stability medium term for their plans. I may be wrong and I am sure there must be plenty other factors, but I think in the main it is just as simple as that.

A different story is what did the Calders see of value in SC and what are the conditions and returns details imposed for their investment.
Click to expand...


My summary is that the Calders first investment did indeed occur at a time when CIG funds were low. No argument there. Whether they "would have died" is unknown, but IMHO unlikely given many other options they might have had.
The second investment was much later and was simply a call option the Calders decided to take, but I see no evidence that "the project would have died" without it. It's more likely simply a commercial decision by Calders to increase their equity in the company for reasons only they know.
Your final comment that "Calder is the only thing keeping the show running now" seems like fiction given the record pledges in 2020.
 

Agony_Aunt

Agony_Aunt

Viajero

Volunteer Moderator
Viajero
Merkir said:
Since you keep repeating this, I'll bite this time and say I disagree. I'll point you to a reply you got a couple of weeks ago...



My summary is that the Calders first investment did indeed occur at a time when CIG funds were low. No argument there. Whether they "would have died" is unknown, but IMHO unlikely given many other options they might have had.
The second investment was much later and was simply a call option the Calders decided to take, but I see no evidence that "the project would have died" without it. It's more likely simply a commercial decision by Calders to increase their equity in the company for reasons only they know.
Your final comment that "Calder is the only thing keeping the show running now" seems like fiction given the record pledges in 2020.
Click to expand...

Well, even if metatheurgist way to put it is a bit blunt he is not entirely wrong. CIG´s own tracker shows that were it not for the Calders money the project would have been in the red since 2019 if I am not mistaken. This does not necesarilly mean they would have had to close shop but they would have most likely had to downsize and reduce staff. A prudent company would have had to plan for that down size way ahead of the actual "in the red" moment to ensure enough cash in hand reserves to operate, like a year or 2 ahead at least. And/or take more loans.

And that is based on CIG´s own tracker and costs info. Given there is no public audited reports on the US side and CIG´s own data lacks important financial elements such as basic balance sheets etc I suspect the actual situation is probably somewhat worst than represented.
 
Last edited:

Agony_Aunt

Agony_Aunt
Viajero said:
Well, even if metatheurgist way to put it is a bit blunt he is not entirely wrong. CIG´s own tracker shows that were it not for the Calders money the project would have been in the red since 2019 if I am not mistaken. This does not necesarilly mean they would have had to close shop but they would have most likely had to downsize and reduce staff. A prudent company would have had to plan for that down size way ahead of the actual "in the red" moment to ensure enough cash in hand reserves to operate, like a year or 2 ahead at least. And/or take more loans.

And that is based on CIG´s own tracker and costs info. Given there is no publicly audited reports on the US side and CIG´s own data lacks important financial elements such as basic balance sheets etc I suspect the actual situation is probably somewhat worst than represented.
Click to expand...

But CR said in 2016-ish, if funding ever stopped they would be able to keep going with funds from the sale of SQ42!!!

Oh.... erm.... i see.
 

Firkrayt

Firkrayt
Theodrid said:
@LittleAnt

Genuine question here Ant, how many times are you willing to be bitten in the backside, (lied to, misled, let down, take your pick), before you say 'enough'? Just seems to me we are already well beyond the point where any reasonable or rational person would have any faith left to give CIG/Mr Roberts.

It's like saying to your missus, 'it's ok honey, you've cheated on me for the 73rd time but you said you wouldn't again so we're cool'. Haven't we also breached the point where repeating the same thing and expecting different results, (quoting or backing CIG/Mr Roberts), is indeed mad as a box of frogs at this stage in proceedings?
Click to expand...
Correct answer for LA is "it's okay, I count only from 73th time". Actualy, lot of whiteknighters do exactly that, Chris says something and they are cool, totally forgetting their own previous experience, again and again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom