The Star Citizen Thread V10

[Agony_Aunt]

They later claimed GameStar mistranslated and that CIG will definitely not just go for a measly ten systems at launch. Doesn't matter either way, the reality is they don't even have one measly system after seven years and production hasn't exactly been 'ramping up'. I don't see the difference between five systems in a hypothetical release or five million systems in a hypothetical release when neither is likely to happen anyway. It is like debating whether I will transfer to Real Madrid, FC Barcelona or 'only' to Valencia. I could promise I won't 'settle for just Valencia' but we all know none of them are interested in me anyway.

They flip flopped a bit on that. They started waffling about the finished product vs the version when all the core features are complete or something (would have to dig up the exact quote).

Its pretty clear at this point, the best they can expect at the moment is perhaps 1 more system in the coming year, perhaps slowly speeding up as the "pipelines" are fleshed out and they can copy/paste more and more stuff... but then, i'm sure CR won't be happy with too much copy/paste and will want to see that fidelity dial turned up to max on new systems.

Its a far cry from 2016(?) when they said the next system would be ready by 4.0, which was implied to be in 2017. And its worth noting that this was after they had already announced they were working on full planets.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

It turns out this ship advert may have been ever so slightly misleading...

Oh man, that was cheesy, and of course, deriverative. I'd almost forgot about it.

Graphics are looking dated now. 5 years ago... time flies.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

It's an odd one.

If they'd have been sensible and focused on releasing a functioning and well polished S42 that delivered on promises made before moving onto SC, I think they'd be getting a lot less flak than they are at the moment

I think Calder has told them to get their act together in return for the investment and that is now what they are trying to do.

But yeah, a (good) release of SQ42 would have shown they were capable of delivering a decent product and it would have given them the foundations, plus lessons learned, for opening that up to multiplayer and from there growing out of it SC.

 

[StuartGT]

They flip flopped a bit on that. They started waffling about the finished product vs the version when all the core features are complete or something (would have to dig up the exact quote).

Its pretty clear at this point, the best they can expect at the moment is perhaps 1 more system in the coming year, perhaps slowly speeding up as the "pipelines" are fleshed out and they can copy/paste more and more stuff... but then, i'm sure CR won't be happy with too much copy/paste and will want to see that fidelity dial turned up to max on new systems.

Its a far cry from 2016(?) when they said the next system would be ready by 4.0, which was implied to be in 2017. And its worth noting that this was after they had already announced they were working on full planets.

You remember correctly about travelling to new star systems coming end 2016 - it was stated by Chris Roberts to a BBC reporter, towards the end of this BBC Click feature on Star Citizen:

Source: https://youtu.be/F0Jmywv3QjQ

 

[Fishy]

They flip flopped a bit on that. They started waffling about the finished product vs the version when all the core features are complete or something (would have to dig up the exact quote).

Its pretty clear at this point, the best they can expect at the moment is perhaps 1 more system in the coming year, perhaps slowly speeding up as the "pipelines" are fleshed out and they can copy/paste more and more stuff... but then, i'm sure CR won't be happy with too much copy/paste and will want to see that fidelity dial turned up to max on new systems.

Its a far cry from 2016(?) when they said the next system would be ready by 4.0, which was implied to be in 2017. And its worth noting that this was after they had already announced they were working on full planets.

Oh you...

 

[[VR] Merkir]

I was with you until this bit

Uh, except you pulled my sentence out of context. It was preceded with "And that might happen if the current rate of backer income continues..."
Emphasis added for clarity.

 

[[VR] Merkir]

To be fair, he's right in principle. The problem is just that CIG has long since ceased being a games company, much less intent on releasing anything.

Pretty much. While it's easy to laugh and poke fun at their "game development", it's the self serving business model that deserves far more critical discussion, and IMO needs to be denounced by the backers. Instead, what we see, even on this thread, is that some backers just don't care how CIG gets their money, or how much they waste, or whose pockets it lines. Buy an Idris!

 

[AJW]

As many a start-up will attest, profit is irrelevant if you can build your business valuation to become a $1B+ unicorn takeover target. In fact many unicorns had huge losses before their buy-outs.

While all my posts this evening have been tongue-in-cheek, mark my words, the current thinking in CIG, especially from the likes of Freyermuth and the new investors, is to build the valuation up to $1B, then $2B if possible. And that might happen if the current rate of backer income continues and leads eventually to a decent game release. It will then be a matter for history to record that given enough money, and regardless of the wastage and incompetence, a games company can eventually release a decent game and become an industry powerhouse. And a side effect might be one man, the 75% shareholder, becoming a billionaire.

Owning a game, even a good one, that has already been sold to more or less everyone who is likely to be interested in purchasing it, doesn't seem to me to be adequate grounds for valuing a company at $1B.

 

[MTBFritz]

Don't forget, a single crater on a barren moon in SC has more content than the whole of Skyrim!

Now you are misquoting. CRoberts said that a single crater on one of the moons is bigger then the whole map of Skyrim and fanatics immediately translated that into "ONE CRATER HAS MORE CONTENT THEN THE WHOLE OF SKYRIM YOH!!!!"

 

[Mole HD]

Now you are misquoting. CRoberts said that a single crater on one of the moons is bigger then the whole map of Skyrim and fanatics immediately translated that into "ONE CRATER HAS MORE CONTENT THEN THE WHOLE OF SKYRIM YOH!!!!"

If I remember rightly, it was a few outspoken critics (none from here, of course) that first misquoted that phrase...which has now turned into an urban myth

 

[[VR] Merkir]

So while on the topic of business models, a comparison of CIG's to a typical AAA games studio. This is necessarily subjective. YMMV.

	CIG	AAA Games Publisher
Commercial Risk:	VERY LOW CIG has contributed little or no funding.	HIGH Fully funded by the AAA company.
Obligations:	VERY LOW Little obligation to backers as they provided "pledges". No obligations to a publisher. No self imposed time lines while baker funding continues unabated.	MEDIUM-HIGH Large obligations internally to publisher/shareholders due to Loss- Leader business model.
Cost of the game:	~$250 on average, for the ~1 million backers/players so far	~$60
Game is Pre-paid or Paid-on-delivery	Pre-paid (and if released, also Paid-on-delivery)	Paid-on-delivery
Risk to Backer/Purchaser	HIGH The game may not be released	LOW
Company Ownership	75% Chris Roberts 10% Investors Remainder - Roberts family, Freyermuth, others	Varies. Perhaps thousands of shareholders for some AAAs.
Use of Backer Funds/Game Sales	To build CIG from scratch to a $460M company (as at 2018). Profits/Dividends (if any) to shareholders (above).	Profits/Dividends (if any) to shareholders (above)

(Happy to be corrected on any of the above, in fact please do. I've recorded no data. This is from memory only)

What this shows quite clearly I think is the self serving business model Roberts has pulled off. He's used no funds of his own. He's used backers funds to build his company from scratch to what is now presumably in excess of the $460M valuation of last year. CIG/CRoberts puts ALL the risk onto the backers, while increasing his personal net worth by $350M.

Compare that to the AAA games publisher who uses their own consolidated revenue and shareholders' funds for development. The AAA and its shareholders take on all the risk.

Now I wouldn't particularly care about any of this, HOWEVER, the clincher here is CRoberts publicly deriding the big bad horrible publishers (paraphrasing), and saying that CIG's model is so much better for game development and for you, the backers. To me it looks like the height of hypocrisy. And it's far worse when considering the waste of backers funds and the incompetence of the project management.

 

[MTBFritz]

If I remember rightly, it was a few outspoken critics (none from here, of course) that first misquoted that phrase...which has now turned into an urban myth

I m sure it was Derek Smart....that guy is always the FIRST when it comes to SC related news and "I said that years ago already"

 

[VR Golgot]

Uh, except you pulled my sentence out of context. It was preceded with "And that might happen if the current rate of backer income continues..."
Emphasis added for clarity.

Yeah I actually strayed too far. I meant that earlier bit...

And that might happen if the current rate of backer income continues and leads eventually to a decent game release.

I do get what you're saying. That could be the gamble they're going for. It just seems a mighty big if is all

I could see a Freelancer-style recovery happening. Just seems like the odds on it are mighty long now. The seeming requirements would be: persistent funding / Chris being removed / a streamlined version of the game being both achievable and publicly palatable / many more years to achieve the same.

Freelancer was like 4 years of dev when MS took it on, and needed another 3 years to be cut down in scope and knocked into shape.

SC is.... it's old. It's properly into Duke Nukem territory now. Someone could well make a decent, tighter game out of it. But can they definitely make a palatable, successful one to the eyes of someone in 2024 or whatever? I think that exploration ship is close to sailing.

 

[MTBFritz]

@Merkir

Whats the composition of that 460 million number?

 

[Tippis]

It's based on the valuation that a 10% company share was worth a $46M investment.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

If I remember rightly, it was a few outspoken critics (none from here, of course) that first misquoted that phrase...which has now turned into an urban myth

I seem to recall the original quote, although can't quite remember what it was. It was a funny twist on it though.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

I m sure it was Derek Smart....that guy is always the FIRST when it comes to SC related news and "I said that years ago already"

Its all there in the July blog! /s

 

[Agony_Aunt]

while increasing his personal net worth by $350M.

This is wrong, as CR hasn't pocketed the money and the company's value doesn't mean its his either. The company's valuation is just that, a valuation, based on the Calder investment only. It in no way represents the actual value of the company, which i would say is probably negative at the moment, since they have no product they can release and they owe money to Calder and possibly other investors and loans.

CR is of course drawing a salary, and probably a good one at that, but its (hopefully) not excessive, since it is the money from backers.

 

[Viajero]

So while on the topic of business models, a comparison of CIG's to a typical AAA games studio. This is necessarily subjective. YMMV.

	CIG	AAA Games Publisher
Commercial Risk:	VERY LOW CIG has contributed little or no funding.	HIGH Fully funded by the AAA company.
Obligations:	VERY LOW Little obligation to backers as they provided "pledges". No obligations to a publisher. No self imposed time lines while baker funding continues unabated.	MEDIUM-HIGH Large obligations internally to publisher/shareholders due to Loss- Leader business model.
Cost of the game:	~$250 on average, for the ~1 million backers/players so far	~$60
Game is Pre-paid or Paid-on-delivery	Pre-paid (and if released, also Paid-on-delivery)	Paid-on-delivery
Risk to Backer/Purchaser	HIGH The game may not be released	LOW
Company Ownership	75% Chris Roberts 10% Investors Remainder - Roberts family, Freyermuth, others	Varies. Perhaps thousands of shareholders for some AAAs.
Use of Backer Funds/Game Sales	To build CIG from scratch to a $460M company (as at 2018). Profits/Dividends (if any) to shareholders (above).	Profits/Dividends (if any) to shareholders (above)

(Happy to be corrected on any of the above, in fact please do. I've recorded no data. This is from memory only)

What this shows quite clearly I think is the self serving business model Roberts has pulled off. He's used no funds of his own. He's used backers funds to build his company from scratch to what is now presumably in excess of the $460M valuation of last year. CIG/CRoberts puts ALL the risk onto the backers, while increasing his personal net worth by $350M.

Compare that to the AAA games publisher who uses their own consolidated revenue and shareholders' funds for development. The AAA and its shareholders take on all the risk.

Now I wouldn't particularly care about any of this, HOWEVER, the clincher here is CRoberts publicly deriding the big bad horrible publishers (paraphrasing), and saying that CIG's model is so much better for game development and for you, the backers. To me it looks like the height of hypocrisy. And it's far worse when considering the waste of backers funds and the incompetence of the project management.

Probably missing a line related to exposure to legal or regulatory liabilities.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

So while on the topic of business models, a comparison of CIG's to a typical AAA games studio. This is necessarily subjective. YMMV.

	CIG	AAA Games Publisher
Commercial Risk:	VERY LOW CIG has contributed little or no funding.	HIGH Fully funded by the AAA company.
Obligations:	VERY LOW Little obligation to backers as they provided "pledges". No obligations to a publisher. No self imposed time lines while baker funding continues unabated.	MEDIUM-HIGH Large obligations internally to publisher/shareholders due to Loss- Leader business model.
Cost of the game:	~$250 on average, for the ~1 million backers/players so far	~$60
Game is Pre-paid or Paid-on-delivery	Pre-paid (and if released, also Paid-on-delivery)	Paid-on-delivery
Risk to Backer/Purchaser	HIGH The game may not be released	LOW
Company Ownership	75% Chris Roberts 10% Investors Remainder - Roberts family, Freyermuth, others	Varies. Perhaps thousands of shareholders for some AAAs.
Use of Backer Funds/Game Sales	To build CIG from scratch to a $460M company (as at 2018). Profits/Dividends (if any) to shareholders (above).	Profits/Dividends (if any) to shareholders (above)

(Happy to be corrected on any of the above, in fact please do. I've recorded no data. This is from memory only)

What this shows quite clearly I think is the self serving business model Roberts has pulled off. He's used no funds of his own. He's used backers funds to build his company from scratch to what is now presumably in excess of the $460M valuation of last year. CIG/CRoberts puts ALL the risk onto the backers, while increasing his personal net worth by $350M.

Compare that to the AAA games publisher who uses their own consolidated revenue and shareholders' funds for development. The AAA and its shareholders take on all the risk.

Now I wouldn't particularly care about any of this, HOWEVER, the clincher here is CRoberts publicly deriding the big bad horrible publishers (paraphrasing), and saying that CIG's model is so much better for game development and for you, the backers. To me it looks like the height of hypocrisy. And it's far worse when considering the waste of backers funds and the incompetence of the project management.

No accountability for all the cash collected. Totally unregulated. Enriched on other peoples money - the wet dream of any financial market agent.