Its worth remembering people that discovery cannot be used as a fishing trip. Everything that Crytek request has to be for a reason pertinent to the case and the judge has to agree.
The Star Citizen Thread V10
- Thread starter Sir.Tj
- Start date
- Status
"We craft universes of unprecedented magnitude"
I mean I suppose calling two planets a a universe is unprecedented, just not in a good way.
I mean I suppose calling two planets a a universe is unprecedented, just not in a good way.
Jacques d'Orleans
Banned
If he says: "I am a lawyer and everything seems to be going just fine, I guess!" it's nothing else than his personal opinion on a ongoing lawsuit.
As I said before, as long as there is no attorney/client relationship established those youtube lawyers can tell you whatever they want or whatever you want to hear, all they do is expressing their personal opinions about a lawsuit.
Their videos are not legal advice and should not/can not, in any way or form, seen as such, they're just their personal opinions on that matter. End of story.
Btw, I find it highly disturbing that there are no disclaimers in the videos of those youtube lawyers which are explicitly stating that these videos are mere opinions and can't be taken as legal advice nor valid legal commentary.
Not that it would be too hard to put a disclaimer at the start or end of an video.
Legal Disclaimer:
The informations you obtain thru my posts on this forum are not, nor are they intended to be, legal advice.
The information in my forum posts is not a substitute for personal legal advice.
The information contained in my forum posts is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice on any matter.
Jacques d'Orleans expressly disclaims all liability with respect to actions taken or not taken based on any or all of the contents of his posts on this website.
If he says: "I am a lawyer and everything seems to be going just fine, I guess!" it's nothing else than his personal opinion on a ongoing lawsuit.
As I said before, as long as there is no attorney/client relationship established those youtube lawyers can tell you whatever they want or whatever you want to hear, all they do is expressing their personal opinions about a lawsuit.
Their videos are not legal advice and should not/can not, in any way or form, seen as such, they're just their personal opinions on that matter. End of story.
Btw, I find it highly disturbing that there are no disclaimers in the videos of those youtube lawyers which are explicitly stating that these videos are mere opinions and can't be taken as legal advice nor valid legal commentary.
Not that it would be too hard to put a disclaimer at the start or end of an video.
Legal Disclaimer:
The informations you obtain thru my posts on this forum are not, nor are they intended to be, legal advice.
The information in my forum posts is not a substitute for personal legal advice.
The information contained in my forum posts is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice on any matter.
Jacques d'Orleans expressly disclaims all liability with respect to actions taken or not taken based on any or all of the contents of his posts on this website.
To be fair, it is kinda obvious. If you saw an 'internet lawyer' say:"Hmm, I haven't really read it, but skimming it now I guess it looks like CIG has a good case.", that should not make you think you just heard a verdict. I am a trained clinical neuro-psychologist, when I say:"Hey, why you so salty boi?" I assume people understand that is not me suggesting a diagnosis or insinuating a high level of natrium in their amygdala.
Last edited:
Jacques d'Orleans
Banned
To be fair, it is kinda obvious. If you saw an 'internet lawyer' say:"Hmm, I haven't really read it, but skimming it now I guess it looks like CIG has a good case.", that should not make you think you just heard a verdict. I am a trained clinical neuro-psychologist, when I say:"Hey, why you so salty boi?" I assume people understand that is not me suggesting a diagnosis or insinuating a high level of natrium in their amygdala.
Well, given the reactions from the usual suspects after watching the videos of those youtube "lawyers", I would say, nope, most people don't understand that.
I am not sure 'most' people comment. Anyway, at which point is it legit to just shrug and let idiots be idiots? I am not sure what your job is, but are you willing to spell everything out, no matter how obvious, to everyone, even when they aint paying you or even know you? I know I am not.
Last edited:
I dont see anyhing about the cayman islands on that document?
You can join them at public events. They generally have presence at game conventions or you can email them and request a studio visit. Or drop by a bar citizen event near a studio. They visit those out of their own iniative.
Regarding on gamedev opinions many devs I worked with appreciated SC. Some are skeptical sure but and some support it. The guys at Paradox Development Studio got inspired by SC for example. Especially for Stellaris.
You can join them at public events. They generally have presence at game conventions or you can email them and request a studio visit. Or drop by a bar citizen event near a studio. They visit those out of their own iniative.
Regarding on gamedev opinions many devs I worked with appreciated SC. Some are skeptical sure but and some support it. The guys at Paradox Development Studio got inspired by SC for example. Especially for Stellaris.
Last edited:
You'd have to research the companies mentioned therein. Companies are usually seated in jurisdictions. Some might reside in the Caymans.
And since it came up: I don't care much if they sell some stock to Cayman companies. I'd rather ask: Who controls these ompanies that buy stocks?
You said discussion of the share sale at all was unsourced gossip. I was just pointing out it's from a legitimate source. (Link for posterity: Confirmation Statement - Dec 11)
Basic searches for the companies involved do indeed suggest Cayman island connections for two of them, but doubtless this will all come out in the wash. I'll leave it to more knowledgeable heads to dig further, personally.
A private company is entitled to transfer shares. I don't see anything wrong with that. I would be more worried if they lost the clear majority of shares. Which they haven't. Additionally the income of SC through crowdfunding is increasing as the game is coming together. There would be much more concern if funding was down and even then capital reserves in companies generally allow for another year of operations.
SC is likely to hit the 40 million barrier this year. That is more than Frontiers's 2018 revenue report. https://www.frontier.co.uk/annual-report#ar_highlights_kpis
Last edited:
Last edited:
You seem to be unable to avoid throwing bricks at "the other game". Top line revenue is a figure in isolation. If other brick throwers are to be believed there are considerably less than 100 Devs working on "the other game", in a single location. So burn rate is completely different.
It would appear, although not 100% substantiated so far, that the 3rd company on the filing, the one that has the exact number of shares totalling the release by the 3 directors, is a typo.
Infratrade does not seem to exist anywhere on the interwebz, barring a 2 employee LinkedIn for a small oil company in the Far East.
Infatrade, on the other hand, is a financing company primarily for property developers. They offer both bridging and mezzanine loans secured against assets.
As there have never been any typos before in CIG filings at Companies House (/sarcasm) it is possible that it could be either of those two entities in receipt of shares?
Well there is a bit of a difference between fully audited FD accounts and SC's "tracker" - the only part of which we can check is audited being the UK operation.
That said you're missing the point somewhat SC on 3.4 whereas ED is merely 3.3.
That's like a dial it up to 11 kind of deal - it's like one incerement more!
I don't see how sharing public information is throwing bricks? It's just for comparison due to similar industries and close in size and revenue. This forum has much more knowledge and relation to Frontier. That's why its better to use relevent information rather than obscure like what is SIE Santa Monicas revenue?
Any surviving startup shifts and adapts. The one's don't die. Pivoting and adapting to a dynamic environment is a must in the business.
I love shifting goalposts too!
Any surviving startup shifts and adapts. The one's don't die. Pivoting and adapting to a dynamic environment is a must in the business.
I don't want to go further offtopic but selling that many shares to Tencent should also be looked at with caution as well. Same goes for CCP that sold to Pearly Abyss. Which will change the focus on their game development for sure.
Last edited:
Jacques d'Orleans
Banned
Infatrade was the gap finance provider for Crobbers movie Lucky Number Slevin (see page 41 of this pdf)
Just sayin'.
Jacques d'Orleans
Banned
Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't, it depends.
And yet you dismissed governmental data as “unsupported” (or whatever the word was before it got deleted)?
And the point is, no matter how often it's pointed out what the topic of the thread is, some parties seem incapable to stay away from discussing a completely different game and a completely different company.
And that wasn't really the point nor the actual referent, now was it?
Last edited:
- Status