Star Citizen 3.0 - Refusing Refunds

13468913

Comments

  • rpmcmurphyrpmcmurphy DublinMember RarePosts: 2,501
    Orinori said:
    The cost to the end of this year was approximated at being $120 million (based on $100,000 per year per employee)
    Why stop there, lets approximate it at 150 million to date and say that its actually $13,250 per month!

    What?

    For a long time people have used $10,000 per employee per month as a metric for estimating development costs, which is why the figure was $120 million.
  • OrinoriOrinori Member UncommonPosts: 70
    Orinori said:
    The cost to the end of this year was approximated at being $120 million (based on $100,000 per year per employee)
    Why stop there, lets approximate it at 150 million to date and say that its actually $13,250 per month!

    What?

    For a long time people have used $10,000 per employee per month as a metric for estimating development costs, which is why the figure was $120 million.
    so? if we are not using data that has any meaning beyond 'guessing for whatever suits me today' why not change it to what ever we feel like? 
    Excessionrpmcmurphy
  • ErillionErillion Member EpicPosts: 7,954
    Excession said:
    I read your numbers as you typed them, you said:

     161 million ... 13.000 $ per employee per month .... 12384 employee-months .... 
    Even with the current full complement of 400 employees that is 2.6 years worth.

    Since, as I said before, they do not have 161 million, can they really afford another 2.6 years with what they have left, and what they raise each month?

    I am not sure, and frankly, as far as SC goes, I do not care, but if they do not manage to release SQ42, I will be pissed.
    You seem to think that i typed it as "2.6 years starting NOW".

    That is NOT what i posted.

    Some of those estimated 12384 employee-months have of course been already "used up" in the last years.


    Have fun
  • OrinoriOrinori Member UncommonPosts: 70
    Erillion said:

    Some of those estimated 12384 employee-months have of course been already "used up" in the last years.
    does this include the ones that the UK government gives back?
  • rpmcmurphyrpmcmurphy DublinMember RarePosts: 2,501
    edited October 12
    Orinori said:
    Orinori said:
    The cost to the end of this year was approximated at being $120 million (based on $100,000 per year per employee)
    Why stop there, lets approximate it at 150 million to date and say that its actually $13,250 per month!

    What?

    For a long time people have used $10,000 per employee per month as a metric for estimating development costs, which is why the figure was $120 million.
    so? if we are not using data that has any meaning beyond 'guessing for whatever suits me today' why not change it to what ever we feel like? 

    Dude, $10,000 per month per employee is the industry standard figure given to approximate development costs. It has nothing to do with "guessing for whatever suits me today".

    Post edited by rpmcmurphy on
  • ErillionErillion Member EpicPosts: 7,954

    Dude, $10,000 per month per employee is the industry standard figure given to approximate development costs. It has nothing to do with "guessing for whatever suits me today".

    "Dude", that $10.000 per month per employee is not an industry standard, but a rule of thumb from an experienced developer that a lot of people agree too. It is not an "official" standard anywhere.

    More recently, another experienced developer now says its closer to $13.000 these days.

    Chose whatever you want to believe.


    Have fun
    rpmcmurphy
  • OrinoriOrinori Member UncommonPosts: 70
    Orinori said:
    Orinori said:
    The cost to the end of this year was approximated at being $120 million (based on $100,000 per year per employee)
    Why stop there, lets approximate it at 150 million to date and say that its actually $13,250 per month!

    What?

    For a long time people have used $10,000 per employee per month as a metric for estimating development costs, which is why the figure was $120 million.
    so? if we are not using data that has any meaning beyond 'guessing for whatever suits me today' why not change it to what ever we feel like? 

    Dude, $10,000 per month per employee is the industry standard figure given to approximate development costs. It has nothing to do with "guessing for whatever suits me today".

    Dude, you are using that figure to approximate development costs, aka guessing. We can change these figures to what ever the hell we want, It won't make it more accurate. 
    Excessionrpmcmurphy
  • ErillionErillion Member EpicPosts: 7,954
    Orinori said:
    Erillion said:

    Some of those estimated 12384 employee-months have of course been already "used up" in the last years.
    does this include the ones that the UK government gives back?
    Nope.

    Neither does it include money coming in from voluntary subscriptions.


    Have fun
  • ExcessionExcession NottinghamMember RarePosts: 709
    Erillion said:
    Excession said:
    I read your numbers as you typed them, you said:

     161 million ... 13.000 $ per employee per month .... 12384 employee-months .... 
    Even with the current full complement of 400 employees that is 2.6 years worth.

    Since, as I said before, they do not have 161 million, can they really afford another 2.6 years with what they have left, and what they raise each month?

    I am not sure, and frankly, as far as SC goes, I do not care, but if they do not manage to release SQ42, I will be pissed.
    You seem to think that i typed it as "2.6 years starting NOW".

    That is NOT what i posted.

    Some of those estimated 12384 employee-months have of course been already "used up" in the last years.


    Have fun
    You did not place any caveat on the numbers, I just took them as typed.

    Even so, considering they have raised a total of 161 million since they started, which using your figures gives them 2.6 years dev time total, they have already used up 5 (or 6, depending how pedantic you want to be based on comments made by CR) years of dev time with varying dev numbers, and are still pre alpha (maybe alpha, depending on how 3.0 is, but to me, that is a stretch).

    Do you honestly feel that they will continue to raise enough on a monthly basis to maintain dev numbers and finish the project?

    A creative person is motivated by the desire to achieve, not the desire to beat others.

  • OrinoriOrinori Member UncommonPosts: 70
    Erillion said:
    Orinori said:
    Erillion said:

    Some of those estimated 12384 employee-months have of course been already "used up" in the last years.
    does this include the ones that the UK government gives back?
    Nope.

    Neither does it include money coming in from voluntary subscriptions.


    Have fun
    Hmm, ok. What about money incoming from advertisement, partnerships and general deals? does it include anything like this? It's almost like this type of accounting by randomly guessing numbers is completely worthless!
    Excession
  • OrinoriOrinori Member UncommonPosts: 70
    I think it is priceless that people here think having 160 million to date and continuing to raise well over 2 million per month to DEVELOP a game without ANY debt attached should some how be a 'concern' xD.
    ExcessionGdemami
  • ExcessionExcession NottinghamMember RarePosts: 709
    Orinori said:
     without ANY debt attached 
    Sure, if you ignore the loans....

    A creative person is motivated by the desire to achieve, not the desire to beat others.

  • ErillionErillion Member EpicPosts: 7,954
    Orinori said:
    Erillion said:
    Orinori said:
    Erillion said:

    Some of those estimated 12384 employee-months have of course been already "used up" in the last years.
    does this include the ones that the UK government gives back?
    Nope.

    Neither does it include money coming in from voluntary subscriptions.


    Have fun
    Hmm, ok. What about money incoming from advertisement, partnerships and general deals? does it include anything like this? It's almost like this type of accounting by randomly guessing numbers is completely worthless!
    I think for that ("does it include.."?) you will have to ask the CIG financial department.


    Have fun
  • ErillionErillion Member EpicPosts: 7,954
    Excession said:

    Do you honestly feel that they will continue to raise enough on a monthly basis to maintain dev numbers and finish the project?
    I feel they will raise enough money through whatever works to finish the project.

    I think dev numbers have changed and will change throughout the project. And that this is normal in the gaming software industry,


    Have fun
    Orinori
  • rpmcmurphyrpmcmurphy DublinMember RarePosts: 2,501
    edited October 12
    Orinori said:
    Dude, you are using that figure to approximate development costs, aka guessing. We can change these figures to what ever the hell we want, It won't make it more accurate. 
    The $120 million figure was reached by adding CIG staff numbers for each year from 2012 - 2017 and then multiplying by the typically used $10,000 per employee per month.
    If we then use those same staff numbers for that period and multiply by $12,500 per employee per month (Brian Fargo's 20% higher costs figure) we arrive at $180 million. Capiche?

    Erillion said:
    that $10.000 per month per employee is not an industry standard, but a rule of thumb from an experienced developer that a lot of people agree too. It is not an "official" standard anywhere.

    That's precisely what an industry standard is.
    It is an established norm when working out the costs for development, ergo an industry standard. It doesn't have to be official to become a norm.

    Take the example from Collins dictionary:
    The industry standard is to have an amount equal to 5 percent of the operating budget in the general fund.
    Post edited by rpmcmurphy on
  • OrinoriOrinori Member UncommonPosts: 70
    Erillion said:

    I think for that ("does it include.."?) you will have to ask the CIG financial department.


    Have fun
    I would rather just suggest the sky is falling if that's OK with you, it's like.....so much easier ya know!


    ErillionExcession
  • OrinoriOrinori Member UncommonPosts: 70
    Capiche?
    Yes....it's a guess based on guesses, I already got that.
    Excessionrpmcmurphy
  • rpmcmurphyrpmcmurphy DublinMember RarePosts: 2,501
    Orinori said:
    Capiche?
    Yes....it's a guess based on guesses, I already got that.

    Would you like me to turn on the kiddies TV programmes for you?
  • rodarinrodarin camarillo, CAMember RarePosts: 1,813
    Always funny how these money things always switch to 'they have enough money' or 'they dont have enough money' back and forth.

    End of the day we are talking about ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY MILLION DOLLARS (allegedly). If they (or anyone) cant deliver something halfway playable then they SHOULD all be put in prison. Actual laws aside.

    Irony is if not for the extreme amount of time they have been milking people they dont get nearly that much money. But having it hasnt insured actually GETTING a GAME (not a tech demo or an MVP or some nice movies) an actual GAME. because there isnt one, and even the most GENEROUS guestimates are still YEARS away. No Star Citizen, no SQ 42, no anything. DESPITE the massive amount (allegedly) of money they have taken in.

    I said it a few years ago when it was at 'only' 50 million or so, they made a cottage industry of keeping failed video game 'makers' (of all branches) employed, and they have continued to keep them employed (and added quite a few more).

    Basically I said the people continually giving these guys money were allowing them to live. The higher ups well beyond their means, and the plebes were just simply employed.

    If what has been presented is ALL they have after this many years then the money is really beside the point. And you white knights can continue the same tired rhetoric all you want but those excuses have LONG since been moot. The ONLY even semi valid one was the engine and they rebuilt it (twice) and Amazon also gave them a new version, and according to Roberts they have been integrated with that version for nearly two years now. (a year we have known about and the 'secret' year)

    So you can all (both sides) play the theorycrafting game all you want with the money but that is immaterial at this point, and should have been for a long time now.

    If they cant deliver something more than anyone has seen for 160 million then they never will deliver anything for any amount of money because eventually it just gets ridiculous. Basically throwing more money at it isnt the answer, that is something a lot of people understand. But apparently Liberals and SC backers dont.
  • OrinoriOrinori Member UncommonPosts: 70
    Orinori said:
    Capiche?
    Yes....it's a guess based on guesses, I already got that.

    Would you like me to turn on the kiddies TV programmes for you?
    You could, but it still would not change the fact that the figures you are using when applied to describe CIG's financial state is nothing more than a poor guess based on incomplete information. Worse still, that guess becomes wildly more inaccurate with the more time that passes. 
  • EldurianEldurian Member EpicPosts: 1,755
    edited October 12
    Eldrach said:
    Can't fathom why people would demand a refund for slow delivery knowing the fact that they've supported a game development which involves maybe the largest game ever created, with no publisher on top of that -And then act all entitled afterwards.  I would not be surprised if a game of this scale, from a new studio, which has to spend half it's time begging for money with "concept sales" - Will take 8-9 years to finish.

    It doesn't really matter how long we now expect it to take. It's what people originally thought when they laid down their money. If you hand over money under the impression it'll be done in 3 years and then 6 years later it's still years away from completion, you might feel you're not getting what you paid for, perhaps at that pace you might never get it....

    And the thing is, back in 2015 CR said people are entitled to refunds, a couple of times they've tried to walk back on that and it seems that's what they're doing here.


    If you hand over money in a Kickstarter expecting anything you are a fool. Kickstarters are a gamble, and anyone who hasn't caught on to that by now must have been living under a rock. You pledge what you are willing to lose if the project goes south based your confidence that it won't go south, and how much it will be worth to you if it doesn't. Getting angry and demanding a refund is like demanding a refund because you lost a hand of poker.

    I know the one kickstarter I paid into that didn't pan out I didn't demand a refund. I just sold my pledge to people who were still faithful the game would succeed. Guaranteed anyone who is upset about their Star Citizen investment can hop on Reddit and do the same. At a profit if they were smart enough to buy LTI ships.
    Post edited by Eldurian on
  • OrinoriOrinori Member UncommonPosts: 70
    rodarin said:

    If what has been presented is ALL they have after this many years then the money is really beside the point
    I would agree that Star Citizen 3.0 needs to show good progress to the backers, if it does not it will be a real problem for SC's future funding. From the small snippets I have seen though I don't think that will be an issue. Again they need to also show decent progress on SQ42 at CitizenCon. while this one would be less of a problem if the progress does not look great, It could still cause issues. However I am not expecting to be disappointed in either of these area's, hoping I am not being too optimistic for sq42 but heck whats the point in being pessimistic.
  • ErillionErillion Member EpicPosts: 7,954
    >>>
    but heck whats the point in being pessimistic.
    >>>

    You will ALWAYS be pleasantly surprised, because it will ALWAYS be better than what your miserable pessimistic mind predicted.  ;-)


    Have fun

    Orinori
  • ChicagoCubChicagoCub Chicago, ILMember UncommonPosts: 330
    Rhime said:
    Always something to piss and moan about. Why would anyone want a refund now when the biggest and most important update of the game is almost in the public's hands? Crying about refunds after at least trying it makes more sense and frankly, would be a relief to see them go too...win/win for all of us!
    Maybe because there will always be a, "biggest and most important update of the game...almost in the public's hands" and people are just tired of waiting?  It seems we've left the world of development as a means to produce a product that earns revenue in favor of a world where development actually earns the revenue which begs the question, if you can earn revenue simply through developing a game, why would you ever release the game?
  • EldurianEldurian Member EpicPosts: 1,755
    Erillion said:
    >>>
    but heck whats the point in being pessimistic.
    >>>

    You will ALWAYS be pleasantly surprised, because it will ALWAYS be better than what your miserable pessimistic mind predicted.  ;-)


    Have fun

    There are downsides to being overly pessimistic all the time but then there are people who make insanely optimistic predictions that will absolutely never come true, and that's about 90% of the people throwing a fit about Star Citizen right now. And throwing a fit about every other kickstarter project on every other kickstarter's forums. And who were throwing a fit about how buggy the release of AAA games were back when the MMO market still had AAA investors.

    They're also they kind of people you see screaming at store clerks when you go to the store and the baristas/waiters at your favorite places to eat.

    They have this expectation of how the world should be that was never grounded in reality and get mad as hell when reality doesn't live up to it.

    I think the healthiest people live somewhere between super pessimist and prince/princess level optimism. 
Sign In or Register to comment.