Hey may have gotten some details wrong, but the thing is, those details have very little bearing on his analysis. One example is with regards to the supposed external investors. Sure the investors were dropped in favor of a fully crowdfunded game, but they were dropped long before the game even reached half the current amount. If, at that point, they were confident they could make the game exclusively on crowdfunding, then why put so many resources towards drawing in more funding, especially if it compounds the need for more funding? It's a CFO's financial nightmare.
But more importantly, why bother dropping the investors at all? CIG stated from the start that they wanted to make a game that followed their "vision," uncompromised by external interests, such as publishers and investors. Why would they have enlisted these investors in the first place, unless they weren't interested in some sort of vested control in the development of the game? (And this is what signed contracts are for, to establish the amount of influence that an investor would have.) So in the end, they guarantee that the investors have a very limited amount of influence, and as such, there is no reason to ditch them later on. Either CIG was making misleading statements about their initial financial game coverage by implying that they had investors as a safety net when they had none, or their initial plan for the game wasn't as free of external influence as they had claimed it would be.
So despite the author of the article not being informed in a few particular aspects, the most important probably being the investor dilemma, it actually has little bearing on the veracity of his article. In fact, if he knew a bit more about the financial situation, he'd find it even more disturbing. (And that's not even going into the management of development, which is a whole other can of worms.)
)
