Game Discussions Star Citizen Discussion Thread v12

[Mole HD]

The “money folk” behind CIG are primarily Chris Roberts and his good friend and business partner Ortwin Freyermuth. CR may also believe he’s making a game, but the pair have a long history of lining their own pockets with other people’s money. It’s just that they’ve skipped the middle (tax) manor the most part, and are now bilking people directly.

Is it just me...or does anyone else think that Ortwin Freyermuth should have (House Slytherin) in brackets after his name?

 

[Xink]

You keep arguing there is no profit based on your opinion that the company has not delivered a game. Buy back in and take them to court if you feel strongly about it.

The facts are, they have even refused refunds past the 30 day window because the product they sold, the ships, were delivered. The courts sided with CIG. No amount of crying will change that.

Making games is not CIG's business. It's selling ships.

 

[GuruNot]

Is it just me...or does anyone else think that Ortwin Freyermuth should have (House Slytherin) in brackets after his name?

Yup .... They are a bunch of snakes

 

[Firkrayt]

Is it just me...or does anyone else think that Ortwin Freyermuth should have (House Slytherin) in brackets after his name?

Excuse me? I always thought that 'Ortwin Freyermuth' means exactly that, but it's in Scottish!

 

[Skizomeuh]

You keep arguing there is no profit based on your opinion that the company has not delivered a game. Buy back in and take them to court if you feel strongly about it.

The facts are, they have even refused refunds past the 30 day window because the product they sold, the ships, were delivered. The courts sided with CIG. No amount of crying will change that.

Making games is not CIG's business. It's selling ships.

Funny fact: I found it was already my take on Nov 15 2016

And I think it started because The Vision® is in fact more shortsighted than it seems. Shortsighted like in by adding the biggest number of little tiny details, the sum of these would inevitably be constistent, wil magically fit together and the whole will stand on its own foot.

And that's the biggest problem I have with SC: complete lack of consistency and foundations. I backed it in it's first hours, because I saw confidence, a project that looked like already well thought up, with an apparently solid game design base, from an old videogame celebrity - yes not flawless but those generally know how to gather forces and spread confidence and motivation. I even didn't back Elite Dangerous back then because I thought their KS campaign was too vague and showed almost nothing concrete. History got me wrong: it happens Star Citizen/SQ42 is (or was since the beginning) in full improvisation mode.

Yes I was prepared for cheesy arcade-y content which would take a long time to deliver and won't be perfect/feature complete but enjoyable, but I was expecting he would let experienced people in charge of departments he shouldn't have to take care of or doesn't have the skills for, for the sake of project's health a progression. It happens he micromanages everything.

I thought he had grow up from his past experiences, I thought crowdfunding was an asset for the project's success both for the limited amount (even if colossal) of money raised and the moral weight of receiving people's money - not "evil publishing crooks. It happens he doesn't care of where the money is coming from and what that binds him to.

The worst danger for this project is the continuous flow of cash: first when the cash counter raised so fast I was pleased, then later amazed, and ultimately worried because I saw an evergrowing scope filled with at best features with underestimated costs/devtime, at worst absurdly time consuming (both from dev and player's pov) absurd features. It happens they lost themselves in shoehorning development and technical debt hell.

I thought I backed a game, it happens we crowdfunded an expensive lifestyle erected as a business model.

Lastly, I now think that even if the MVP ultimately comes in an enjoyable shape, damage is irreversibly done: it happens they managed to shatter their own community. There's barely no chances this will end well ingame, between self-entitled SC defenders of the first hours that will consider them more citizens than the others, disappointed that won't be able to see the good in the game even if it'll be right in front of them, cynics that will be happy to ruin the game for others for the sake of exploiting flaws and grief-enabling features, and CIG who will have to manage all that pretty people with the "talent" they already prove us to have.

I won't ask for a refund, because I'n not in for a big amount - just the basic, and because the risk is part of crowdfunding. I may play SQ42 even if I've never put many interest in it, but probably won't put the tip of a toe in the cesspool PU is bound to become.

 

[VR Mr Teatime]

You keep arguing there is no profit based on your opinion that the company has not delivered a game. Buy back in and take them to court if you feel strongly about it.

The facts are, they have even refused refunds past the 30 day window because the product they sold, the ships, were delivered. The courts sided with CIG. No amount of crying will change that.

Making games is not CIG's business. It's selling ships.

Question: when buying a digital ship, does CIG's web site/transaction state anywhere that the "game" is required in order to have that ship delivered to you?

If not, the game and its state is irrelevant, only that your account gets credited with the ship, once you have bought it. I'd be very surprised if CIG commit to the state or "quality" of the asset once delivered and therefore will always argue that you have the ship delivered once its on your account, even if the game or ship within it is a dumpster fire.
If CIG do state that the game is required in order to get the ship delivered, then there might be a case for non-delivery of goods, if the game is not in a state to allow the ship to be used, or the game asset doesn't exist at all within it.
BTW - the court case you're citing was in the US (L.A. iirc). The UK has different laws and there are ways of short cutting the CCJ/enforcement process and almost guarantee a refund, if you think you're owed more than £750 in England or Wales. You don't need to prove the debt initially, you just have to have the paperwork so the court can make a determination at a later stage in the process.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Was it companies house you sourced the records (UK) or was it US records ?

Its the filings for the UK company which they have to file.

The source provides the link, its gov.uk

 

[Agony_Aunt]

I can't say I'm particularly interested, it's blatant capitalism at it's finest. In a world where 90% of all politicians and business leaders are solely concerned with lining their own pockets...it means very little at the end of the day

Well, it could matter in terms of being able to (or interest in) delivering the game you and others want.

A million here, a million there soon adds up to a lot of development man hours that could be paid for.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

b) they are just going back on their promise of reinvesting all proceeds in the development and profiting personally from backers money, given in good will for development only.

That's my take. They said all money pledged goes towards development. If its not pledge money, what is it?

Tax credits? I don't think the UK gov would be happy with the tax credits going directly into the pockets of the board.

Subscriptions? That money is meant for the shows for backers as i recall.

Calder's investment? He gave money to CIG so they could pay themselves and Swiss-bank Family Roberts bonuses? That doesn't make sense.

And yes, i'm aware, money is fungible, but really all the money taken in should go to the delivering on the things they promised, not lining their pockets beyond salaries. And the directors' salaries look rather sweet for a company that hasn't delivered a single product yet.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Dividends seem a little premature to me

Yeah, Jimmy Saville levels of premature.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

CIG owe backers nothing!

I think this deserves a song!

 

[Viajero]

That's my take. They said all money pledged goes towards development.

Yeah, if Quavers&Wotsits can find one of the quotes where CR or CIG stated that all money would go to development, probably from early on, and then get the Dividends info from the filings, a brand new meme could see the light

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Yeah, if Quavers&Wotsits can find one of the quotes where CR or CIG stated that all money would go to development, probably from early on, and then get the Dividends info from the filings, a brand new meme could see the light

Its still on the webiste

Stretch Goals - Roberts Space Industries | Follow the development of Star Citizen and Squadron 42

Roberts Space Industries is the official go-to website for all news about Star Citizen and Squadron 42. It also hosts the online store for game items and merch, as well as all the community tools used by our fans.

robertsspaceindustries.com

As a crowd funded project, money pledged goes directly to the game's development.

I guess part of the game is filling the pockets of the board members now.

 

[Space Menace]

CIG owe backers nothing!

I think this deserves a song!

It's not about owing, it's about taking dividends from something where dividends don't exist. If players are buying ships and that is all, then they get the ship delivered digitally, they have a right to expect to be able to fly those ships in a game that gets released fully (complete).

There is no problem with directors having a nice salary from the company, but dividends are very different, I see no reason to take dividends. I see no profit until the 'ships' can fly in a fully completed released game. Then they would have to wait to see what profit they are making from the project they completed. That is the time for dividends.

However they are getting away with something that really is not good and probably misappropriation. Don't get me wrong, there is a lot of this type of thing goes on in companies, doesn't make it right or defensible.
Certainly an eye opener when dividends were mentioned.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

It's not about owing, it's about taking dividends from something where dividends don't exist. If players are buying ships and that is all, then they get the ship delivered digitally, they have a right to expect to be able to fly those ships in a game that gets released fully (complete).

There is no problem with directors having a nice salary from the company, but dividends are very different, I see no reason to take dividends. I see no profit until the 'ships' can fly in a fully completed released game. Then they would have to wait to see what profit they are making from the project they completed. That is the time for dividends.

However they are getting away with something that really is not good and probably misappropriation. Don't get me wrong, there is a lot of this type of thing goes on in companies, doesn't make it right or defensible.
Certainly an eye opener when dividends were mentioned.

I'm not sure the topic in that thread had anything to do with the financials... last i checked, backers were still not discussing it. But maybe i'm wrong.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Found the thread

Star Citizen ships are expensive and I feel like people who've been here for a long time are starting to lose perspective. - Star Citizen Spectrum

I feel like we need to remind ourselves sometimes, that these ships are overpriced. It's been like this for a long time obviously, but I've been getting the distinct feeling that people are losing...

robertsspaceindustries.com

Its about ships being too expensive.

Oh, the thread is worth a read. One person thinking maybe one day SC will have player numbers like New World.

LOL

 

[Gregstrom]

Isn’t the profit thing easy to manage? You could define CIG UK as an outsourcing business that charges another CIG firm fees for development resources, let it hold some IP and sell it on to another CIG firm… profit!

 

[Xink]

Take them to court if you feel they have done something illegal.

They sell digital goods on a website which makes them money.

It's still a scam. But surprising that they took dividends off the back of a record revenue year? No.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Isn’t the profit thing easy to manage? You could define CIG UK as an outsourcing business that charges another CIG firm fees for development resources, let it hold some IP and sell it on to another CIG firm… profit!

That's pretty much what they do. There is one of their companies, I think its Roberts Space Industries that just holds the IP rights for the game. IIRC CR sold the IP rights to CIG for around 10 million many years ago.

That would need someone to provide a source to, just going off memory here, but IIRC, then it basically means CR pocketed 10 million of backers money as he sold his own ideas (IP) to his own company.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Take them to court if you feel they have done something illegal.

They sell digital goods on a website which makes them money.

It's still a scam. But surprising that they took dividends off the back of a record revenue year? No.

Legally they've done nothing wrong. Corporations legally do nothing wrong all the time and get away with it, because its technically not illegal. People don't have to like what they get away with though.