The Star Citizen Thread v9

[Tippis]

No, no. I accept it fully as potential source

There's nothing potential about it. You're just flat-out refusing to accept it. You are disqualifying a first-hand source as a not being an actual source and a first-hand account as not being actual evidence, for no adequately explained reason.

Again: just go ask him. He's quite easy to find and you already know where to do so. Until you do, and until you start disproving his claims, the only conclusion can be that you've now crossed over into some very desperate trolling.

 

[Viajero]

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.

In my case I definitely think that SC will need additional funds (private investment or othewise) to deliver everything promised, as promised.

We also know that multiple investors probably existed, based on what both Chris Roberts and Bootcha have stated.

We also know Bootcha´s money was not used in development.

We also know that following crowdfund success CR stated intent was not to use investors money.

The part of puzzle missing is what happened to the money of the remaining investors earmarked initially for the project. So far neither CIG nor the investors themselves have produced any evidence that that money has been used in development of the game.

 

[Cobra1984]

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?

He asked SPECIFICALLY for evidence of investment capital being used for SC development.

There isn't even evidence that backer money or bank loans have been used for SC development. You don't get that without seeing the books.

The only investor I know about is Bootcha and I linked his stuff. Then the goalposts moved six times and it turned into clear denial.

 

[Viajero]

There's nothing potential about it. You're just flat-out refusing to accept it. You are disqualifying a first-hand source as a not being an actual source and a first-hand account as not being actual evidence, for no adequately explained reason.

Again: just go ask him. He's quite easy to find and you already know where to do so. Until you do, and until you start disproving his claims, the only conclusion can be that you've now crossed over into some very desperate trolling.

Just indulge me and answer this question if you will:

So far I have not been able to find in any of Bootcha´s posts or videos any evidence of investors money actually having been used by CIG in SC development.

Have you?

 

[Tippis]

Just indulge me and answer this question if you will:

So far I have not been able to find in any of Bootcha´s posts or videos any evidence of investors money actually having been used by CIG in SC development.

Have you?

Unless you assume some very screwed-up and compartmentalised accounting where cash is not piled up as the fungible good it is but rather individually and specifically labelled and portioned out to cover this or that equally specific outlay, yes. And so have you. You just refuse to accept it.

If you want even more, just ask him. Like I did.

 

[Cobra1984]

The naivety of the question negates the existence of enough cognitive ability to comprehend any answer given.

 

[Chris Simon]

Unless you assume some very screwed-up and compartmentalised accounting where cash is not piled up as the fungible good it is but rather individually and specifically labelled and portioned out to cover this or that equally specific outlay, yes. And so have you. You just refuse to accept it.

If you want even more, just ask him. Like I did.

Not saying I'm not enjoying your circular discussion, guys, but I think it would really help if you simply linked the source of your assumptions instead of repeating that "everybody knows this"

 

[Viajero]

Unless you assume some very screwed-up and compartmentalised accounting where cash is not piled up as the fungible good it is but rather individually and specifically labelled and portioned out to cover this or that equally specific outlay, yes. And so have you. You just refuse to accept it.

If you want even more, just ask him. Like I did.

It was not a binary thing, there was an additional option there. If I remember correctly, and I do not have the relevant links/quotes handy I am afraid, the way the initial investment funds (such as Bootcha´s) were set up following crowdfund success was that that money would not be used up in development unless required later on.

Notwithstanding the fact that I personally think CIG needs it, or will need it at any rate, we have not seen yet any clear cut confirmation (neither from CIG nor investors themselves) that that activation has occurred.

The main reason I am insisting on a smoking gun, 100% clear and shareable evidence piece, for this is because the implications and impact of contrasting that with Chris Roberts´ statements about not wanting investors (and the fan base narrative of independence) would be huge, imo.

 

[MTBFritz]

So… none of the “senior” people they had knew how to make games, huh?
That's the only way I feel I can read that excuse and have it many any kind of sense.

“So we’re building not just a game, not just a company, but also all the processes to make this stuff work.” — yeah, no. Those processes are pretty much universal and familiar to anyone not straight out of college. You didn't have to build anything if you had any actual experience on-board. This is not a matter of Activision vs. the little guy. This is a matter of industry experience vs. cluelessness (and guess what, the big studios take on junior engineers all the time and teach them those processes — it's how they end up growing into senior engineers).

Now, I could understand that Chris had no idea how to make a game or how to adhere to modern coding practices, what with having been away from it all for a decade and a half, but the rest of them?!

What good can any of the rest do if they have a megalomaniac micro-managing know-it-all above them who doesnt listen to advice and only has $$$ in his eyes? Past reports outline the problem that suggestions were falling on deaf ears and Croberts included himself rather disruptively into the development process. As the rest of the leadership is family you cant really go to either of them also. So all the good people left early on after they recognized where this ship is sailing. I guess the walking bear is waking up to the ugly truth himself and is now flailing around trying to come up with a solution but by now he is too deep in. Its just sad to see that he bashes the people who probably gave everything they had and were grinding in eternal crunch for the last year or so. They really deserve better....

 

[Tippis]

Not saying I'm not enjoying your circular discussion, guys, but I think it would really help if you simply linked the source of your assumptions instead of repeating that "everybody knows this"

The source is Bootcha. He's a person. It's a half-decade jumble of posts, videos, conversations, chats, mail exchanges — some recorded, some not; some public, some not. There's no “linking to it” because he — the person — is it. Well… I suppose there is, but that would be doxxing.

If I remember correctly, and I do not have the relevant links/quotes handy I am afraid, the way the initial investment funds (such as Bootcha´s) were set up following crowdfund success was that that money would not be used up in development unless required later on.

JFC. All that “no source / no evidence” nonsense only to end up with you doing the exact same thing.

Also, how very sneaky to introduce that additional little word there — “used up”. As if that made any difference. The money was used simply by virtue of existing. That's how funding works. Whether it was transferred to Chris' Porsche company fuel card or to Sandi's business class air seats (because the backers won't know) or to [Unnamed Code Typist #56]'s cat groomer or if it was just used to secure and back up all those transactions is largely beside the point.

The main reason I am insisting on a smoking gun, 100% clear and shareable evidence piece, for this is because the implications and impact of contrasting that with Chris Roberts´ statements about not wanting investors (and the fan base narrative of independence) would be huge, imo.

But you already have the smoking gun for that. They had investors. Chris wanted them and he got them pretty much right out the gate. What they did with the money, and what accounting trickery they employed to say “no, this money we had never did anything” is wholly irrelevant to that fact, and that alone means that any such statements or narratives were false from the get-go.

 

[Cobra1984]

Not saying I'm not enjoying your circular discussion, guys, but I think it would really help if you simply linked the source of your assumptions instead of repeating that "everybody knows this"

A fair point.

To clear it up, this is what normally happens - when a private individual invests money into a project he does NOT write his name on the individual dollar bills so we can sift through it at a later date and see where it ended up.

 

[Viajero]

But you already have the smoking gun for that. They had investors. Chris wanted them and he got them pretty much right out the gate. What they did with the money, and what accounting trickery they employed to say “no, this money we had never did anything” is wholly irrelevant to that fact, and that alone means that any such statements or narratives were false from the get-go.

I think this little "used up" detail is important and key to have a smoking gun in order to be able to not only argue with the fan base on the matter of investors and independence, but also eventually for the gaming media to solidly base a discussion/article about it.

The fact "CIG had investors" was never under discussion but by itself is not enough (imo) of a smoking gun if the party line narrative can still simply state that the money has not been actually used up to pay dev salaries or to buy equipment or to pay rent or similar.

Not saying I'm not enjoying your circular discussion, guys, but I think it would really help if you simply linked the source of your assumptions instead of repeating that "everybody knows this"

This, simple really.

 

[Cobra1984]

Apparently there are 'some eyes' on this thread right now so I'm bumping this.

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

 

[Chris Simon]

A fair point.

To clear it up, this is what normally happens - when a private individual invests money into a project he does NOT write his name on the individual dollar bills so we can sift through it at a later date and see where it ended up.

Yes, I agree. So it boils down to "Unless CIG will tell us, we won't know", which was the original Viajero's point

And Tippis, "Bootcha said it" doesn't count as a source.

 

[Cobra1984]

Yes, I agree. So it boils down to "Unless CIG will tell us, we won't know", which was the original Viajero's point

And Tippis, "Bootcha said it" doesn't count as a source.

No, I made that point to Viajero 3 times, and it was made again when it was pointed out that Skadden will get the financials if CIG fail to settle outside of a courtroom.

CIG removed a financial transparency clause from their ToS, effectively hiding what the whole pot of cash was spent on - a financial guarantee given to backers in 2012.

What followed was a clear denial of the existence of investors in order to deny they could need investment now, followed by an upside down reversal backpedal manoevure.

 

[Viajero]

No, I made that point to Viajero 3 times, and it was made again when it was pointed out that Skadden will get the financials if CIG fail to settle outside of a courtroom.

CIG removed a financial transparency clause from their ToS, effectively hiding what the whole pot of cash was spent on - a financial guarantee given to backers in 2012.

What followed was a clear denial of the existence of investors in order to deny they could need investment now, followed by an upside down reversal backpedal manoevure.

Just to clarify, I have never denied the existence of investors. This post above summarizes my position on the issue at hand:

In my case I definitely think that SC will need additional funds (private investment or othewise) to deliver everything promised, as promised.

We also know that multiple investors probably existed, based on what both Chris Roberts and Bootcha have stated.

We also know Bootcha´s money was not used in development.

We also know that following crowdfund success CR stated intent was not to use investors money.

The part of puzzle missing is what happened to the money of the remaining investors earmarked initially for the project. So far neither CIG nor the investors themselves have produced any evidence that that money has been used in development of the game.

 

[Tippis]

And Tippis, "Bootcha said it" doesn't count as a source.

That's not what I'm saying either. I'm saying that Bootcha counts as a source. If you want the source, there he — not “it” — is. If you want what he said — which is a different thing — then I can only point you to the search function on SA, reddit, the old RSI forums, Discord, youtube, Kotaku etc, but that would be second hand compared to the man himself.

The fact "CIG had investors" was never under discussion but by itself is not enough (imo) of a smoking gun if the party line narrative can still simply state that the money has not been actually used up to pay dev salaries or to buy equipment or to pay rent or similar.

They can claim that as much as they like, but that doesn't change the fact that it happened, and that alone belies any notion that Chris didn't want, seek, or accepted investors.

Where the money ended up doesn't matter — it was still used in the development of the game simply by virtue of existing because, again, that's just how financing works. If they try that one, you can equally respond by “well, then you're not a backer” because (using the same line of reasoning and demand for detailed evidence) there is nothing to prove that their money was used or has contributed either.

 

[Cobra1984]

... there is nothing to prove that their money was used or has contributed either.

Or the £3m Coutts loan or the Natwest loan or any kickstarter funds or Turbulent storefront sales.

There's no accounting for any of it EXCEPT the outgoings for F42.

That's what the financial guarantee clause was for and they removed it.

 

[DLewth]

Could we just stop asking each other to prove a negative? We're already on thread 9, and unless the courts pull it out and disclose it we never will know about the finances.

 

[Chris Simon]

Could we just stop asking each other to prove a negative? We're already on thread 9, and unless the courts pull it out and disclose it we never will know about the finances.

In all history of this thread and its ancestors, there are only two things people are doing
1) posting videos
2) trying to prove each other wrong.

It's fun.