This, with the double irony of the main dev of BC 3000AD pointing that out without a long time ago (and somehow not realizing CiG situation was mirroring his..), including in this very forum
Game Discussions Star Citizen Discussion Thread v12
- Thread starter Yaffle
- Start date
-
- Tags
- star citizen
Are you agreeing with me or just being all contrary for the sake of it again? I can never work out whichWhat can they do though? SQ42 is still the obvious title to get out the door first. But the overall situation for the shared tech seems to be this:
Source: https://old.reddit.com/r/starcitizen_refunds/comments/wrh59w/whats_cigs_problem_with_instances/iktdz6p/
Just take a single example of a shared feature: Station elevators.
I don't know if I even need to say more
(But... disappearing helmets, boomerang grenades, detachable ship elevators, collision deaths, shield holes. Etc etc. There seem to be enough core bugs out there resisting fixes that even if 50% turn out to be purely due to networking issues in SC alone, there's still a condensed core of jank in the engine which may never be scrubbable. It seems perfectly possible that focusing on polishing either game to a deliverable state = Hobson's choice. IE neither one could ever make that particular grade ¯\(ツ)/¯ )
Ah, the curated, highly edited, and deceptive Star Citizen "gameplay" video reposting from Little Ant. Oh, how I've missed thee. Let me count the ways...
The more years pass the more I start to envision a day when they'd announce "sorry citizens but we made the harsh decision to cancel SQ42 to focus on SC".
And it will be praises and rejoices, and the fact that the vanity project gobbled and wasted a majority of the half billion donations will be wiped by the faithful in this very moment.
And it will be praises and rejoices, and the fact that the vanity project gobbled and wasted a majority of the half billion donations will be wiped by the faithful in this very moment.
Imagine if they cancelled SC to focus on SQ42!!!
It will always be alpha, in addition to whatever other labels CIG has to apply for legal reasons. Alpha implies that all those promises and dreams are still on the table, which is crucial to the business model. Even the slightest implication that "That's it. That's the game." and there's no reason for anyone to give them another penny.
Would be even more cataclysmic I'd probably ruin a dozen of ribs laughing.
Are you agreeing with me or just being all contrary for the sake of it again? I can never work out which
A bit of both
. (Although hopefully it's contrariness for a reason...)I was agreeing that the current situation is crap. (SQ42 hoovering up SC cash & dev focus).
But also suggesting that 'close your wallet' initiatives probably won't change anything. (Any Calders-style entity is going keep doubling down on SQ42 as the obvious launch target, for that official payout, while constantly being thwarted by the spaghetti code...)
The bit of the equation I omitted is: 'Close your wallet' initiatives rarely work. Partially because what the complainants want is normally pretty diverse, and partially because they rarely reach a critical mass of the playerbase. Given that the refunds sub suggests there's a rolling conveyor belt of new whales replacing the old, it's arguable that any 'sod SQ42' protest will get lost amongst the ongoing 'GIB Space Limousine' craze.
It takes a while for each new whale generation to grock SC's inner truth after all
---
TLDR: CIG may have invented a perpetual money burning machine. And 'Alpha As A Service' is all it can ever be.
(I'm kinda stacking theories here though, so who knows
)
Last edited:
I wonder how Calder is feeling about his investment these days.
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
Well, if the CIG funding tracker is to be believed, and the Calders are getting their interest returns from it, then I suspect they must be actually elated. Although that would be money not going towards development.
The big question is when and how they plan to get their principal investment back, if at all. On top of interest returns we are talking around 50+ millions. If they want it back someone has to buy back their shares at whatever rate they agreed in their investment arrangement.
Last edited:
That would be, like, proper norty and illegal though right? In theory only the subscription cash could be tapped. (Products delivered etc).
I still reckon the Calders saw legit returns in this. They just may have been wrong
. (Or they're playing some 4D chess game where they turn the Manchester offices into a full scale MSR, offer backers an endless theme park ride, and make out like bandits... Anything is possible in SC-land )Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
Not sure I follow, why do you think it would be illegal?
There is no ceiling on peak SC...
Its the one thing that tempts me to actually play SC. The hilarious bugs.
Just guessing they'd struggle to square it with the ToS...
And broader norms around revenue vs profit.
Our resident retired accountant team figured the dividend would be unlawful if it weren't for the subscription loophole.
I figure any other variant on defining revenue as profit would have to sneak out that same hole, or comparable. (Which rules out cash on the ship-sale scale).
That made me think of the song, The Loophole, by Garfunkel and Oates
The chorus could be appropriate to SC if certain words were changed.
There still seems to be some misunderstanding that the Calders invested in a space game...they invested in the online marketing venture under the commonly used Hollywood accounting guise of 'advertising funds', nothing more. Where their returns come from isn't via sales of a completed space game or two...but tapping the online marketing potential as it stands. The sale of jpegs and ships...where of course, although Ci~G continue to muddy the waters, still legally remain as sales of digital goods...and exactly why there's VAT or sales tax added at source to any purchase (pledge) from the RSi store. The funds being 'pledged' or given are for the development of what should be the rising question, Ci~G as an online marketing company selling digital assets (which may eventually include a game or two) or solely the two ridiculously overdue and vastly over budget space games?That would be, like, proper norty and illegal though right? In theory only the subscription cash could be tapped. (Products delivered etc).
I still reckon the Calders saw legit returns in this. They just may have been wrong
If you remember back a few years and CR's last venture into making space games, he pulled exactly the same stunt with Microsoft...Microsoft gave some extra $30m in capital specifically (but not specifically enough) to further fund the development and completion of the massively over budget and overdue Freelancer...the idiot Roberts spent it all on making the wing commander movie with the same vague shyster accounting. He stated that the funds from Microsoft were to develop the company making the game, not the game Itself.
That being the case...I've no doubt a few shares options in the rising 'Empire of Roberts' venture wouldn't go far amiss for the Calders either
Last edited:
The VAT's there because it has to be. CIG ain't a registered charity or whatever, and the pledge line is bumph. They're pre-purchases.
Now if you're saying CIG might define the current ships as delivered products, and so draw a profit semi-legitimately? Like, they could maybe? But that's a road with a bunch of class action law suits at the end of it... And some consumer rights laws raising their eyebrows outside the US.
The Calders are from the music biz, so totally at home with dubious routes to profit, no doubt. But that seems to tip over into 'unwise' territory to me.