The Star Citizen Thread v9

Cobra1984

C
Bootcha invested in November 2012 and this was posted when he pulled out 3 years later:

Official statement by ex-RSI/CIG investor
Nov 18, 2015 12:48

"I, under the name "Bootcha", an investor with Cloud Imperium Games from Nov 13, 2012 till today, have decided to part ways with Cloud Imperium Games. As such, my investment has been returned to me, as is, with no accumulated interest. I no longer have any remaining business, legal interest, or influential bearing with Cloud Imperium Games and their ongoing business operations, and they have no further obligations towards me.

My opinions have been public, honest, and within the terms of my NDA. I enjoyed helping Star Citizen however I could, and was blessed to meet and befriend so many passionate artists, engineers, and designers. However, this project no longer has need of me, nor I of it.

I would like to thank fuzzknot for giving me the kick in the to get this exit ball rolling, Mr. Smart for being frank and open with me, many past and present CIG employees for talking to me, Ben Lesnick for giving me this opportunity in the first place, Imp Zone for shaking some sense into me, and the Goons as a whole for ruining everything."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4-oHfJNrr0


This was the 2015 'Get A Refund' period for Star Citizen, when backers realised that Chris could not and would not deliver what he had pitched.

Nick Monroe wrote a lengthy piece advising backers how to get their money back:
http://gameranx.com/updates/id/65926/article/how-to-get-a-refund-in-star-citizen/

Briefly, this led into Derek tracking the ToS changes over time as CIG moved to close down refunds, culminating in the end of refunds In Dec 2017 with the 3.0 ToS.

Financial transparency and obligations to backers were both removed from the ToS during this period.

Bootcha (Mike Nightingale) met with Chris, Ortwin, Ben and others. He refers to his involvement in the Sunk Cost Galaxy videos on youtube and he has a very nice helmet.

Sunk Cost Galaxy ep 1:
https://youtu.be/gGq4YEp8QUY
 

Cobra1984

C
Viajero said:
Not really, no. Maybe I was not clear enough, I asked for a link or quote that we can all read/view and agree that indeed some potential investors money has been actually used by CIG for development. If Bootcha has posted that in a way that can be read/watched then it should not be much of an issue for you to just link it.

As far as I can see none of the posts we have read or videos we have seen from him show any actual evidence on that. Happy to be shown otherwise though.
Click to expand...

Backers are not entitled to see any financial information on funding and spending because CIG removed that financial guarantee from their terms of service.

The information you are looking for belongs to CIG, not any investors.

There has been no independent audit of funding or expenditure, all we can see are the UK wages and 2 loans on the UK filings.

You're asking for something that others have been asking for since 2015 and that CIG have taken steps to keep hidden.
 

DLewth

DLewth
Cobra1984 said:
Backers are not entitled to see any financial information on funding and spending because CIG removed that financial guarantee from their terms of service.

The information you are looking for belongs to CIG, not any investors.

There has been no independent audit of funding or expenditure, all we can see are the UK wages and 2 loans on the UK filings.

You're asking for something that others have been asking for since 2015 and that CIG have taken steps to keep hidden.
Click to expand...

It's kind of sad that "CIG getting sued by Crytek" is the best chance any backers will see where the money went.
 

Cobra1984

C
DLewth said:
It's kind of sad that "CIG getting sued by Crytek" is the best chance any backers will see where the money went.
Click to expand...

Indeed, and the narrative shifted into 'you aren't entitled to anything', 'it's an investment', and 'it's a donation' on the SC subreddit as soon as CIG removed that paragraph containing the guarantee of financial disclosure.

Skadden are the best hope of seeing where the money went, and how much the failed endeavours with third parties like Ilfonic, the motion capture equipment, mocap studios etc actually cost.

Oh and the space door.
 

Viajero

Volunteer Moderator
Viajero
Cobra1984 said:
Bootcha invested in November 2012 and this was posted when he pulled out 3 years later:

...
Click to expand...

All of this well known indeed, and very interesting. No evidence in there about other investors money actually having being used by CIG in development of Star Citizen though.

Cobra1984 said:
You're asking for something that others have been asking for since 2015 and that CIG have taken steps to keep hidden.
Click to expand...

Fully agree there is no evidence of investors funds being used in SC development yet, evidence from CIG or otherwise. As compelling as the rumours may be for some, rumours they remain.
 

DLewth

DLewth
Stigbob said:
He'll win even if (when) he fails. They've already laid the foundations for blaming Dr Smart/haters/leavers/sub contractors/big developers.
Click to expand...

And you just know that Roberts, Roberts & Freyermuth have money-go-rounded a few mill to the Cayman/Channel Isles so hard it'll probably never be found.
 

Cobra1984

C
I don't know of any other investors.

I was following this when they got their £3m loan last year on top of their NatWest loan.

Ortwin lied about that loan btw - he said it would be paid off with that year's tax credit. They got the tax credit but the loan is still outstanding on their books.

Then they start stripping back the staff and lose key employees. You can trawl linkedin for evidence of this yourself, I'm not comfortable posting it. You can see people moved to remote. You can see expensive PR being replaced with cheap freelance. Big time. Non trivial numbers.

A picture emerges.

JP leaves. 2 contradicting statements of what's happening with the flight model come out of CIG within 2 days.

Dev updates are suddenly stagnant for 3 weeks. AtVs get chopped to a fraction in length.

Now we're back to investors, and it's starting to look like 2012 all over again.
 

Tippis

Tippis
Viajero said:
Not really, no. Maybe I was not clear enough, I asked for a link or quote that we can all read/view and agree that indeed some potential investors money has been actually used by CIG for development.
Click to expand...

Yes, really. You asked for a source of confirmations and statements from investors. I gave you an investor — that's as much a source as you could ever ask for. Then you asked me to dig out information from that source, and I told you to go directly to the source rather than rely on my account, which you could then dismiss as “second-hand” and “rumours.”

Just because you don't accept the source for what it is, and dismiss what the source has said, does not mean that no evidence. There is. The source is it. Just ask him, and stop moving the goalposts. If you don't accept this evidence — a first-hand source — then you are clearly refusing to accept any evidence because you will claim it's all rumours.

Either you can accept that the evidence exists — and has existed for many years now — or you can start trying to actively disprove its veracity (I suggest by going to the source). Or you can just keep trolling, I suppose.
 
Last edited:

DLewth

DLewth
Cobra1984 said:
Ortwin lied about that loan btw - he said it would be paid off with that year's tax credit. They got the tax credit but the loan is still outstanding on their books.
Click to expand...

That was obvious. "it was cheaper than moving the money from the US" was their excuse.

No. Anyone who has done something more complicated than cash from a Bureau-de-Change at Gatwick knows that.

They were out of money and/or hiding debt(s).
 

Viajero

Volunteer Moderator
Viajero
Tippis said:
Yes, really. You asked for a source of confirmations and statements from investors. I gave you an investor — that's as much a source as you could ever ask for. Then you asked me to dig out information from that source, and I told you to go directly to the source rather than rely on my account, which you could then dismiss as “second-hand” and “rumours.”

Just because you don't accept the source for what it is, and dismiss what the source has said, does not mean that no evidence. There is. The source is it. Just ask him, and stop moving the goalposts.
Click to expand...

lol, I am just having a blast watching you struggle to produce a link, quote, anything really.
 

Tippis

Tippis
Viajero said:
lol, I am just having a blast watching you struggle to produce a link, quote, anything really.
Click to expand...

I provided you with, not just “anything,” but with a first-hand source — no struggle needed.
You refuse to accept it. You dismiss a first-hand account as “rumours”. That is your problem, not mine.
 

Viajero

Volunteer Moderator
Viajero
Tippis said:
I provided you with, not just “anything,” but with a first-hand source — no struggle needed.
You refuse to accept it. You dismiss a first-hand account as “rumours”. That is your problem, not mine.
Click to expand...

No, no. I accept it fully as potential source, but so far I have not been able to find in any of his posts or videos any evidence of investors money actually having been used by CIG in SC development.

Have you?
 

Cobra1984

C
It's a denial that the project could need investment, by denying that investors even existed.

Followed by a refusal to talk to an investor.

Followed by a denial that what Bootcha wrote could be true.
 

Cobra1984

C
Viajero said:
No, no. I accept it fully as potential source, but so far I have not been able to find in any of his posts or videos any evidence of investors money actually having been used by CIG in SC development.

Have you?
Click to expand...

Well you won't find it because only CIG's books will tell you that, or an independent audit of the project's finances.

That was explained to you 3 times.
 

Tuub t Tute

T
Can we stop this circle of nonsense. All Vajero asked for was a link to anything published, even by Bootcha, which confirmed the existence of investors other than Bootcha.

The narrative presented was "investors" plural, not investor (Bootcha), singular

All the rest is just semantics and point scoring.

Does the latest delay in updating the schedule mean the BMM won't be out this (or any) year? :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom