Star Citizen Thread v6

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
- The loan is at 0.25% which is not improbable with todays interest rates AND the ability as a customer to negotiate in todays extremely low interest rates
- With that low interest they can easily MAKE money by borrowing money and invest part of it to counter the low interest rate
- And no, the bank owns nothing of CIG, they have security of CIG assets in case of CIG failing to repay said loan

Source: My 20 years experience as an investment, financial and general banker.

I know you're having a laugh but the loan is not 0.25%, at minimum it is 2.25%

https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/6jepuv/chill_out_on_financial_speculation/djdp4y0/

The bank does have ownership during the duration of the loan or else they would not be able to grant CIG a license. You can't give a license 'to develop, produce, exploit and otherwise deal with the Game' if you don't have the rights to do so.
 
Last edited:
A quick recap here maybe, for us plebs who don't do Tw@ter?

I think he just refers to the fact that Sandi, as one of the people responsible for PR, posts photographs of developers' screens while they work on some kind of a feature or a model, so the message is "Ignore that scary loan thing, look, shiny!".
 
Last edited:
I love how many interpretations there are for this document that totally contradict each other [yesnod] the web never changes. If the security for the loan is basically everything doesn't that speak for a rather big chunk of cash?
 
I love how many interpretations there are for this document that totally contradict each other [yesnod] the web never changes. If the security for the loan is basically everything doesn't that speak for a rather big chunk of cash?

Only if everything is worth anything.....
 
I love how many interpretations there are for this document that totally contradict each other [yesnod] the web never changes. If the security for the loan is basically everything doesn't that speak for a rather big chunk of cash?

it could also speak for a high perceived chance of default.
 
My god, the doomsday patrol is really active.

- It's standard practice to set up EVERYTHING as security just so that the Bank has a means to demand payment from liquidated assets just so the loan taker cant just run away
- Banks today would NOT loan money to a company they view as a security risk
- It also means that F42 can now RAISE the loan at need as long as the total value to their security allows it.
- The loan is at 0.25% which is not improbable with todays interest rates AND the ability as a customer to negotiate in todays extremely low interest rates
- The loan will be tax deductable
- If F42 need money to finish the SQ42 game it's MORE expensive to MOVE money from the US to UK than taking a loan
- With that low interest they can easily MAKE money by borrowing money and invest part of it to counter the low interest rate
- And no, the bank owns nothing of CIG, they have security of CIG assets in case of CIG failing to repay said loan

Source: My 20 years experience as an investment, financial and general banker.

LOL damage control at its finest :) You claim things you have no idea about until you have seen the contract so your theory is somehow "better" then other peoples?
 
I think he just refers to the fact that Sandi, as one of the people responsible for PR, posts photographs of developers' screens while they work on some kind of a feature or a model, so the message is "Ignore that scary loan thing, look, shiny!".

Oooh look! Shiny! https://twitter.com/SandiGardiner?lang=en

Add's more more fuel to the fire: https://heatst.com/gaming/huge-crow...zen-gets-negative-articles-scrubbed-from-web/

Especially this: http://archive.is/JLByy

*Runs away and hides*
 
Last edited:
Huh. Roberts said he didn't want a game publisher breathing down his neck, so instead he puts the game in the hands of a multinational banker. Makes... sense? :)

At least, as someone else mentioned, this puts pressure on CIG to actually release something. From what they've put on the web, it seems to me they could easily take what they have done so far, tie it together and release this year something that would be on a par, quality-wise, with the 1.0 release of ED. It won't be up to Roberts' perfectionist expectations of "fidelity", but the backers would have a game, and CIG could update it post-release like hundreds of other game developers have done.
 
Last edited:
Hey, this might even be a GOOD thing.

Imagine this scenario:

1. CIG defaults on the loan.
2. SC and all it's assets (physical and non-physical) now belong to Coutts & Co.
3. Coutts and Co. seek another publisher to buy the assets from them (they wouldn't want to keep a game IP and assets in their portfolio - would make no sense).
4. Coutts sell SC and all its IP to a large game publisher.
5. Large Game publisher now takes hold of the project with proper project managers (sorry Chris we gotta let you go!)
6. Large Game publisher decides to honor the backers original stretch goals, manages project well and releases a decent Star Citizen that everyone backed for originally.
7. Profit
8. Backers happy.

Bought by Frontier Interprises ??? Just kidding ...

I have been reading your (all of you) posts and you all seem fairly level headed. At least in the realm of it. I was wondering how many of you have bought into SC? I know I did even though I had/have suspicions that it will never come to fruit. Much like Oleg Maddox vision of the NEW IL-2 Cliffs of Dover. His dream was so big that it was finally abandoned and he was drummed out. Maddox and Roberts share similar ambitions but I'm not sure SC will even see the light that CloD saw.

Now I am not bad mouthing anyone there as I bought into it purely out of curiosity with my eyes wide open. Perhaps just so I could talk about it if you will. But on my personal observation if the Alpha of what, four years, is any indication they are a long way from a finished product. If I am proven wrong, that's fine. But honestly I do not see it. 3.0 may be a game changer. But as it is it's kind of user unfriendly to me. If you play me in ED you'll find that I am one of the most pitiful PvPers in the universe.

Perhaps that's why I do not think much of SC first few introduction missions. Go fix a comm relay seems fairly simple. But fighting off bad guys is not so I found out. Even though it's an Alpha, I find it hard to believe that introductory missions meant to help you get a financial (assumed I admit) start in game are so difficult. And without a manual or instructions on getting your ship back you have no idea what you are dealing with.

They had a manual but pulled it because things were changing so quickly. So I wondering just how much frustration is behind all those happy faces we see on the weekly update videos.

Chief
 
Bought by Frontier Interprises ??? Just kidding ...

I have been reading your (all of you) posts and you all seem fairly level headed. At least in the realm of it. I was wondering how many of you have bought into SC? I know I did even though I had/have suspicions that it will never come to fruit. Much like Oleg Maddox vision of the NEW IL-2 Cliffs of Dover. His dream was so big that it was finally abandoned and he was drummed out. Maddox and Roberts share similar ambitions but I'm not sure SC will even see the light that CloD saw.

Now I am not bad mouthing anyone there as I bought into it purely out of curiosity with my eyes wide open. Perhaps just so I could talk about it if you will. But on my personal observation if the Alpha of what, four years, is any indication they are a long way from a finished product. If I am proven wrong, that's fine. But honestly I do not see it. 3.0 may be a game changer. But as it is it's kind of user unfriendly to me. If you play me in ED you'll find that I am one of the most pitiful PvPers in the universe.

Perhaps that's why I do not think much of SC first few introduction missions. Go fix a comm relay seems fairly simple. But fighting off bad guys is not so I found out. Even though it's an Alpha, I find it hard to believe that introductory missions meant to help you get a financial (assumed I admit) start in game are so difficult. And without a manual or instructions on getting your ship back you have no idea what you are dealing with.

They had a manual but pulled it because things were changing so quickly. So I wondering just how much frustration is behind all those happy faces we see on the weekly update videos.

Chief

I remain a backer of Star Citizen but only at a very base level, something like $50.
I think they'll get something done but I also think it will be a long, long way from what we thought we were originally going to get. I am, and have always been very sceptical of Roberts' grandiose promises.

What I find most off-putting is how little gameplay we get shown, nearly everything is a static shot or a quick pan, never do we see characters actually engaging in game mechanics despite 3.0 being just around the corner. If they are so willing to show off a vending machine or the sole of a janitor's boot then why are they loathe to show off something about piracy, bounty hunting, moving cargo, mining or any other of the professions etc
 
From what they've put on the web, it seems to me they could easily take what they have done so far, tie it together and release this year something that would be on a par, quality-wise, with the 1.0 release of ED. It won't be up to Roberts' perfectionist expectations of "fidelity", but the backers would have a game, and CIG could update it post-release like hundreds of other game developers have done.

Exept that, unlike ED 1.0, SC currently doesnt have missions, trading, mining, exploring, smuggling. There is only a part of a system, it runs at about 20FPS in multiplay if you have a NASA workstation and crashed every 15 minutes. They will need at least another 1-2 years to get it up to ED 1.0 quality. Heck, they probably need at least a year to fix the techdemo they currently have, never mind add gameplay of any sorts. Which, as a reminder, was a game that the SC community despised 2.5 years ago. Pretty sure they wont appreciate something worse than that, almost five years after ED launched. :p
 
Exept that, unlike ED 1.0, SC currently doesnt have missions, trading, mining, exploring, smuggling. There is only a part of a system, it runs at about 20FPS in multiplay if you have a NASA workstation and crashed every 15 minutes. They will need at least another 1-2 years to get it up to ED 1.0 quality. Heck, they probably need at least a year to fix the techdemo they currently have, never mind add gameplay of any sorts. Which, as a reminder, was a game that the SC community despised 2.5 years ago. Pretty sure they wont appreciate something worse than that, almost five years after ED launched. :p

Then perhaps it's not so far fetched if SC goes belly up that Frontier might want some of the scraps .... I seriously doubt it as it would most likely cost more to make it work (with ED) than be useful.

Chief
 
Then perhaps it's not so far fetched if SC goes belly up that Frontier might want some of the scraps .... I seriously doubt it as it would most likely cost more to make it work (with ED) than be useful.

Chief

Unfortunately, that wont happen (not just FD, in general). The 'core game', for as much as there is one, isn't worth anything to any designer. No matter what another dev is planning, doing it from scratch would be better than take some weird and super buggy frankstein-engine wannabe-MMO as foundation. The only thing of worth are the assets (sound/graphics). The sound in SC is very sub-par so far. ED easily destroys it, as do most other sci-fi games. The graphics are *great*, but only really useful to a dev designing a game, preferably UE based, without having any assets yet but looking for something in the SC style. FD has zero use for them as it clashes with their own style. And noone will 'finish' SC for them if that means investing for many years while having the obligations to the current backers.

They are on their own.
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom