It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Actually that post wasn't meant for you. It was so that other forum readers wouldn't have to wonder where we're pulling those numbers from.It doesn't change my comments at all. But thanks for the link....again!I picked up data for whole 2017.The few business ventures during sales are sure to skew the figures. But my 3 day example above is pretty clear.This year Star Citizen has made more than $140 per every new person registering on their website, and that includes free registrations.Yet majority of all funds comes from new backers buying single ship.Phaserlight said:Because simply put: each spaceship they sell generates a certain amount of work, and they have been selling spacecraft at a faster rate than they are completing them or the game. They moved from even selling ships to selling "concepts" of ships. They have even gone back and had to retouch some of the older ships it has been so long. It is not sustainable, and they seem to have been floating their company on hope and good will.
Hence, "stopgap measure".
The move to start selling land was a smart one, if not entirely unexpected, provided they need the extra cashflow to complete the MVP.
Otherwise, it's just greedy.
Why do you all have these weird fantasies about a million odd people buying and buying and buying more then buying more and more and more..........
Very few will buy land. It is a supplement, just as sales and lti ships and all that nonsense is. If they got rid of all that they might need to down size, but they would still be fine with just newcomer funding with a single ship.
They might have once gotten most of their funds from new backers, but not any more.
Source for my data: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tMAP0fg-AKScI3S3VjrDW3OaLO4zgBA1RSYoQOQoNSI
edit (you can also look forward to me necroing that thread of the last time you gave me this link after the xmas sales )
Yes. Legal expenses are also a part of the company's expenses.MadFrenchie said:I wasn't implying that backers would be required to shell puts extra cash for this. The pool I mentioned is simply the funding received, not that I think they've taken the funder money and put it in a room or account somewhere and aren't touching it. I'm saying, should the courts order CIG to pay damages, should CIG be allowed to use the funds garnered from crowdfunding to pay that (as well as the lawyer fees associated), or should CIG be expected to fund that separately?1. Backers don't owe anyone anything. They already paid when they made their purchase, and won't need to pay extra no matter what happens.MadFrenchie said:That does present a whole other strand of hairy to this: if the settlement or judgement rendered does say "CIG, you folks intentionally broke the agreement and as such you owe Crytek X amount of money" ... Do backers owe that money? Should CIG and the employees responsible pony up that cash separate of backer funds?Talonsin said:Hurray for crowdfunded money being used to settle legal issues due to bad management!
If this does end in a settlement or judgement against CIG, it will be an important legal point for all crowdfunded projects to take note of.
Personally feel that intentionally misleading or committing acts that would create such a liability should not be assessed against the fund pool backers have contributed. If it could be reasonably decided that CIG acted out of innocent ignorance but still violated the agreement, backer money should be used to cover such settlements or judgements.
2. There is no special pool of backer money. After a backer transfers the money to CIG, it's CIG's and will be used to pay for CIG's expenses, including paying Crytek for possible damages
3. CIG's owners, managers, and employees don't need to pay anything. In some cases it's possible that owner/manager/employee must pay compensation because they've caused damages, but that's normally only when someone has committed a crime or ignored their responsibilities. Making bad decision while working - even if those decision leads to the company breaking agreements - is not serious enough that you'd need to pay for those damages personally.
That's why I quoted Talonsin. Should backer funding be used to support a legal defense of a company breaking contract obligations, particularly if done knowingly?
It's not worth buying at its current state.alloin said:Hey guys, is this game worth buying? I see a lot of comments on the performance, but I have one of the best possible computers available and have yet to test it's full potential. This game looks like a challenge!
DDOS is a crime, an you can get jail sentence for DDOS if you do enough:marganculos said: