I think the forbes article gives a decent account of where this is at present. We will soon see where the chips landland. I hope that the escapist are mistaken, for the sake of the backers, and the ID card seems to be fairly dodgy ground so far. If it goes to court we'll find out quickly enough if the claims they made are slanderous or not.
******Official Star Citizen / Squadron 42 Thread******
- Thread starter Raumarik
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Jan 2007
- Posts
- 919
- Location
- West Sussex
Assuming an average of £30,000 a year on salaries for 300 staff that's 9m a year. So they can operate for 7-8 years based on that which should be enough.
90m in funding isn't even that much didn't Halo 4 or Destiny have 300m spent on it?
At the end of the day you can choose to be as cynical as you like about whether it will be all that it has been set up to be, especially if you haven't contributed to the funding (I haven't to date) but if it does come out and does what it says on the tin then it will be something truly special.
90m in funding isn't even that much didn't Halo 4 or Destiny have 300m spent on it?
At the end of the day you can choose to be as cynical as you like about whether it will be all that it has been set up to be, especially if you haven't contributed to the funding (I haven't to date) but if it does come out and does what it says on the tin then it will be something truly special.
Last edited:
It's not a Forbes article it's a blogger hosted by Forbes which anyone can be, just wanted to point that out as saying "Forbes article" gives it unwarranted gravitas.
Looks like the 9 Escapist sources have dropped to 6, 3 of which are anonymous to the author...I know anonymity is needed to protect the sources but surely the journalists should know who they are talking to! lol What a mess.
Looks like the 9 Escapist sources have dropped to 6, 3 of which are anonymous to the author...I know anonymity is needed to protect the sources but surely the journalists should know who they are talking to! lol What a mess.
That's a pretty conservative estimate of game developer salaries, especially on a game that's so high-profile and basically in 100% crunch mode. If costs aren't almost double that I'd be highly surprised. You have to also remember that they've set up four(?) studios with their associated costs, used software consultancy houses to do swathes of development, and spent an age mo-capping for Squadron 42 at an expensive facility (as opposed to creating their own, which they were supposed to do based on one of the stretch goals...). Yes, $90m is a lot of money but it's surprising how quickly it can disappear.
All these criticisms would go away were CIG to publish even basic accounting details. The Escapist made the mistake of reporting on CIG's purported hiring policies, which has given CIG something to latch on that deflects from the accounting issue. What's the betting that if they *do* sue for defamation it'll be about HR/Sandi rather than the claims that they're running low on funds?
I don't think it's cynical to say that Star Citizen now is something completely different to that which was pitched in the Kickstarter. I'm a low-level backer and I pledged based on the premise that this was a game where space flight would be the core component. Instead, it seems much of the project funding is going toward creating an FPS experience (Squadron 42) *set* in space. Like the market needs another of those. I may be wrong; it'll be interesting to see the S42 casting announcements at CitizenCon.
Nothing that has been released so far gives me confidence that the game will be what I hoped it would be, and CIG's carte blanche on TOS changes mean that I don't even have the option of a refund regardless of how long it takes to deliver. At this point I don't actually want a refund, as it might all still turn out for the best. But I hope this illustrates that there *are* people out there who have legitimate cause for concern, and how CIG's behaviour could be damaging to crowdfunding of games in future.
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2013
- Posts
- 3,089
- Location
- Edinburgh
The Vast majority of funds for Big budget games goes on the advertising.
I never got this attitude people have,
I mean, Was there ever the option of a 'refund'?
You don't ask charities for money you donate to them back. With kickstarters you're not buying a product, you're getting a gift for donating a certain amount of money.
Lol if you think so. I make a reasonable post so you come back to proclaim you have touched a nerve. lol kk.
You can add the trolls to your ignore list you know
I'm not going to ignore him, I wouldn't give himthe pleasure
I'll just RTM any troll bait posts unless he can have an adult conversation for once.We're in a tricky area here. CIG aren't a charity, and this isn't a donation. It's a pledge where the consumer (me) says "I pledge to give you this money up-front on the understanding that you will make your best effort to deliver the product you pitched" and where the producer (CIG) says "I accept your money and will do my utmost to deliver the product in its entirety and within the timescales specified". Kickstarter say "sounds good, give me my portion of the money for setting this up, la la la la la".
All well and good. My assertion is that CIG haven't, in good faith, tried to deliver on the Kickstarter. They have continually changed the scope of the project such that it's almost completely divorced from that original pitch. What was almost an aside to the main project (SQ42) now seems to be getting main billing.
Kickstarter at the time had a clause in the T&Cs that stated that the producer would attempt to deliver within 12 months of the estimated release date. We're approaching that deadline now (November 2015). At what point should CIG be held accountable to their backers? [If your answer to this is "never", think about what that means for the future of crowdfunding and the trust that it requires]
To be honest CIG arent really going to win this one because if the escapist backs down and retracts they lose A LOT more credibility than they already have and CIG keep its privacy but the rumors continue as nothing was proved from either side.
If the Escapist doesnt back down, CIG sues and if they do and it goes to court they will have to produce financials for the business which is what DS wants. So they lose to DS but maybe win over the Escapist.
If the Escapist doesnt back down, CIG sues and loses and it comes out its all true, they lose to the Escapist, DS and the community.
Due to how the Escapist has walked into the most blatant trap of all time followed by CIG, DS is just sat there now rubbing his hands waiting for it all to blow up. This was very well orchestrated by a few individuals.
If the Escapist doesnt back down, CIG sues and if they do and it goes to court they will have to produce financials for the business which is what DS wants. So they lose to DS but maybe win over the Escapist.
If the Escapist doesnt back down, CIG sues and loses and it comes out its all true, they lose to the Escapist, DS and the community.
Due to how the Escapist has walked into the most blatant trap of all time followed by CIG, DS is just sat there now rubbing his hands waiting for it all to blow up. This was very well orchestrated by a few individuals.
By your own admission the T&C is to ATTEMPT to deliver within 12 months of the end. Also the pledges were given to help build the game with the reward of the game and whatever package came with the size of the pledge.
No matter how you look at it backers freely gave money to build a game and as such we have no direct stake held in the company. If they fail you aren't getting the money back so you may as well support it and hope they deliver.
Re the scope of the game, they continually asked what the community wanted and it responded so they obliged. They are working on providing what was originally promised but all the supposed feature creep is community driven so as a community we have no right to complain about feature creep.
Also on the subject of "running out of money"....this would never realistically happen, because if it did come to the point where CIG could see that their money burn was exceeding their ability to bring in new funds (something I feel that Mr Smart is trying to make happen to self-fulfil his own prophecy) and that money was getting to that point where it runs out, I'm sure there would be a tonne of investors that would buy up Equity in the company for a slice of future profits and/or raise a senior debt facility based on the fact they have a very profitable market already in place.
I keep seeing "game devs" who have no clue about how the finances of a business are run, say that it cant be done for $90 Million, (including anonymous CIG ex-employees) when all they do is build in game assets.....they have no clue about how the finances are paid and raised as this isn't their department.
And don't get me started in Derek Smarts "expert knowledge" the guy has an agenda and that's all I need to know to take everything he says with a pinch of salt.
I keep seeing "game devs" who have no clue about how the finances of a business are run, say that it cant be done for $90 Million, (including anonymous CIG ex-employees) when all they do is build in game assets.....they have no clue about how the finances are paid and raised as this isn't their department.
And don't get me started in Derek Smarts "expert knowledge" the guy has an agenda and that's all I need to know to take everything he says with a pinch of salt.
Doubt it, they'll probably leave the financial claims out of the lawsuit and thus out of the court.
Agreed.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Jan 2007
- Posts
- 8,684
- Location
- *̡̡ı ̡̡͡|̲̲̲͡͡͡ ̲▫̲͡ ̲̲̲͡͡π̲̲͡͡ ̲̲͡▫̲̲͡͡ ̲|̡̡
I got this "Game" with a bundle from AMD. Is there any more to it than a couple of bot matches yet?
I'm currently enjoying Elite Dangerous which feels like a proper game.
I'm currently enjoying Elite Dangerous which feels like a proper game.
The problem with the original Kickstarter T&Cs was that they included no recourse (other than mediation) if the producer was unable to meet their deliverables. It wasn't intended such that the consumer was able to get *something* back from the project even if at a reduced scope. It wasn't intended to cover the case where the producer wilfully changed and increased the scope to the point at which it devalued the consumer's original pledge. Kickstarter aren't willing to get involved at this level, which is why their platform is so flimsy and a high-profile failure (that CIG could be if they're not careful) could do irreparable damage to it as a funding model.
Indeed, and this is why I think Derek Smart's attempts to sue them are not community-serving. The best chance we (as consumers) have to see an output is to let CIG get on with it, for better or worse. If they fail we have to hope that another company will pick up the pieces. That, however, isn't my point. My point isn't whether they'll deliver something or not, it's whether there should be recourse to a refund if the scope changes so fundamentally that you're not getting the product you originally pledged for. There *should* be some protection for that. My worry about the game is that it won't be much like the one that was pitched.
As a community, perhaps not. But as an individual who didn't request any of these changes, I absolutely do.
Impossible to do as the Escapist would claim the story has merit and CIG would have to prove it doesnt... by showing the company financials
Here we go again.....
Elite is ok as the flight mechanics are nice but the game is as boring as hell as while there is large scope there is naff all to do in it, plus its a release game not an alpha... which SC is, this might be why it feels like a proper game!. (I also own Elite btw)
You wont get much in an alpha so expecting a complete game is wrong. Yes there is a basic planet side walk around social module, pve and solo/group pvp dog fighting but there is more to come when its ready.
Thought that was just a ship that you got from AMD with a new card!
Not an actual "Package"
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Jan 2007
- Posts
- 8,684
- Location
- *̡̡ı ̡̡͡|̲̲̲͡͡͡ ̲▫̲͡ ̲̲̲͡͡π̲̲͡͡ ̲̲͡▫̲̲͡͡ ̲|̡̡
I was expecting some sort of content but I'm not at all bothered as I didn't pay for it. I've had it for about a year and it's no different to when I first got it. I don't expect I will ever load it up again.
I vaguely recall it being about £60 worth of stuff. One would expect a game with that!
Thought that was just a ship that you got from AMD with a new card!
Not an actual "Package"
I vaguely recall it being about £60 worth of stuff. One would expect a game with that!
Staff wages are typically a small portion of costs...like single digit percentages. Might be higher in SC as marketing has been largely of the free, viral kind thus far.
Where's the other money going then? I can't imagine 91% of the funds going to studio rent, engine licence and events.
I would imagine they have burned a lot on setting up the studios and hiring over the last 3-4 years but I imagine there is still plenty left.
Also a lot of folks are forgetting the partnerships deals they have done. I would imagine AMD have paid a reasonable sum and i would be interested to see what the arrangement is with Saitek too.
Re the downsizing claim there re 67 jobs advertised on the CIG website, they are moving the Santa Monica office to a larger facility and they are moving some of the work from Huston to other sites and if people are unable to move with the work then their jobs become unsustainable hence the Huston office losing some people. (Remember how Wingman went).
My friend who works at Foundry 42 and is still in his probation was offered a job move to German to the Frankfurt office to centralize what hes working on but couldn't do it due to family commitments. He's voluntarily doing 3 hours overtime every working day because he beleives in the project and wants to show hes keen . He likes the working environment and hasn't experienced any of the toxic crap folks are banding about.
Last edited: