Sure but they haven't been working on this iteration of the game for 10 years. That would be a ludicrous thing to imply.
Ancel claimed it was at day one of development and yet they showed as much of a functioning game as CIG.
Yeah but that statement is flawed, day one as finished engine/tech and are now doing the game assets and so forth, no doubt in my mind if you go back to when the tech starting being built it would be years ago.
What they have is what SC had when they presented KS, that asset prototype/tech demo, not what they have today, a released alpha with most of its core gameplay mechanic in it (from FPS to ship flight/dogfighting to EVA).
As usual I'm inclined to disagree. CIG are still working on their tech, they're only designing and prototyping some of it almost 6 years on.
What CIG have mainly shown off at their conventions is no different than what Ancel was showing off, a tech demo that does not accurately represent the current state of game development (otherwise we would've had 3.0 a long time ago).
It doesn't work like that Max, the customers paid the money to CIG to try and make a game, they don't own anything, even CIG's own ToS supports this if i remember right.
And if they had no chance of failing payments why would the bank require such guarantees, the entire IP and all assets are included, there's no way this can be spun to make it look good for CIG, at best Chris's speech about having enough cash was complete bollocks, at worst they're in financial dire straits
Wait? Now what the ToS says is what matters? lol... No that's not how it works, the company is actively providing refunds because the nature of the status of the project the backers who wish to do so can stand their right. So in the case of a bank taking ownership you can bet the bank would be facing with refund requests, chargeback and international lawsuits if they don't comply with customer protection rights (if they keep the IPs and assets and their value they simply keep their liabilities).
The bank would only get property, not the liabilities. That's the problem.
I'd much prefer RSI having investors instead. Investors might even take a company over, but as long as the company stays its liabilities stays.
This loan agreement means that if RSI fails to pay the lender gets to strip the company bare of everything. What's left would only be unfulfilled liabilities and RSI with no chance of fulfilling any of them.
As usual I'm inclined to disagree. CIG are still working on their tech, they're only designing and prototyping some of it almost 6 years on.
What CIG have mainly shown off at their conventions is no different than what Ancel was showing off, a tech demo that does not accurately represent the current state of game development (otherwise we would've had 3.0 a long time ago).
But that is no longer the base game, the tech that is arriving is mostly to tap in the stuff that's missing over the core gameplay that is already there. Either that is Network, PG or other bits of tech that are lying a lot on optimization and improvement (like IS 2.0).
Last year when CIG has shown 3.0, it was 3.0, as we see what is set to be released soon has the stuff that was there shown as a WIP even if it's coming late, demos are obviously controlled environments and only a fraction of what's its current feature-set.
But when they shown at Citizencon the wurm tech demo, it was laid as a tech demo so it's that part where they just want to show what they can do / the direction they are going for. In this aspect we got both.
The bank would only get property, not the liabilities. That's the problem.
I'd much prefer RSI having investors instead. Investors might even take a company over, but as long as the company stays its liabilities stays.
This loan agreement means that if RSI fails to pay the lender gets to strip the company bare of everything. What's left would only be unfulfilled liabilities and RSI with no chance of fulfilling any of them.
I mean we discussed this in Spectrum yesterday and one of CIG's lawyers kinda pitched in in the aspect where the backers could stand the right to ask the bank to give them their money back, ofc he didn't gave any detailed answer side of a superficial hint otherwise he would be quoted around as some sort of official statement.
This is the thing I don't worry about though, CIG here has securities with the crowdfund, I'd be worried if we were talking a company that has no money flow and needs to get the loan to finish and release their product, that yes would be risky because delaying the product with no money flow would be enough to get the bank in your tails. And I also consider the current status of the dev with the next updates and if they keep on rolling in stuff, if anything they'll increase the "profitability" of the crowdfunding campaign.
As usual I'm inclined to disagree. CIG are still working on their tech, they're only designing and prototyping some of it almost 6 years on.
What CIG have mainly shown off at their conventions is no different than what Ancel was showing off, a tech demo that does not accurately represent the current state of game development (otherwise we would've had 3.0 a long time ago).
But that is no longer the base game, the tech that is arriving is mostly to tap in the stuff that's missing over the core gameplay that is already there. Either that is Network, PG or other bits of tech that are lying a lot on optimization and improvement (like IS 2.0).
Last year when CIG has shown 3.0, it was 3.0, as we see what is set to be released soon has the stuff that was there shown as a WIP even if it's coming late, demos are obviously controlled environments and only a fraction of what's its current feature-set.
But when they shown at Citizencon the wurm tech demo, it was laid as a tech demo so it's that part where they just want to show what they can do / the direction they are going for. In this aspect we got both.
Back in January when they were starting to talk about 3.0 they mentioned a few things that were essential (and by proxy essential to SQ42) which they were just starting design and prototyping of.
Last year when CIG showed 3.0 it was a mockup, it was made of a load of stuff that only existed for the slapped together demo, it functioned but it only worked within the very narrow constraints it was made for, it's commonly known as a vertical slice or a bullshot demo and is really no different than what Ancel showed.
The primary difference being that Ancel has not asked a million people to give him money based on that video. He could show elephants break dancing with Luke Skywalker in 4D and it still wont cost you or I a cent until a game comes out, and you get to read reviews before buying.
What is already playable and shown by CIG is substancialy more than what was shown in the BGE2 demo.
Not even going into the whole time effort commitment in the logistic involved in opening and running 4 studios with 400+ from the ground up whille maintaining a passionate comunity up to date with detailed reports and organizing 2 major events each year.
Last year when CIG showed 3.0 it was a mockup, it was made of a load of stuff that only existed for the slapped together demo, it functioned but it only worked within the very narrow constraints it was made for, it's commonly known as a vertical slice or a bullshot demo and is really no different than what Ancel showed.
The stuff they were shown existed. The Delamar planet'oidsh with its landing zone existed, the new ships existed, and so forth, but it was all a WIP and as we see after 3.0 we saw all of this features continuing development, Delamar today shows a massive improvement from what it was.
The demo is obviously controlled and limited as the intent is to show off specific stuff, that doesn't make it a tech demo, the difference is between showing stuff just created to show off tech (citizencon) and showcasing several things part of an update (gamescon). And that's why they were labeled differently.
adamlotus75 said: and it still wont cost you or I a cent until a game comes out, and you get to read reviews before buying.
Hmmm, shall you miss the magical combination of ubisoft and pre-order programs hehe
But by all proper means, SC doesn't cost you a cent either if you want until it comes out and read its reviews before buying.
Ignore babuinix. He likes to try and construct strawman arguments in order to change the subject and/or say how everyone critical of the project is a hater. Evidence and reason doesn't work on him and will just try to loop it back to Derek Smart somehow if backed into a corner lol
You just described yourself with pinpoint accuracy.
On the topic now. Yet another SC thread with the usual suspects speculating in extremis and blowing things out of proportion.
Ignore babuinix. He likes to try and construct strawman arguments in order to change the subject and/or say how everyone critical of the project is a hater. Evidence and reason doesn't work on him and will just try to loop it back to Derek Smart somehow if backed into a corner lol
You just described yourself with pinpoint accuracy.
On the topic now. Yet another SC thread with the usual suspects speculating in extremis and blowing things out of proportion.
Almost as extreme as the speculation from the brown noses regarding pretty much all forms of gameplay related to SC.
I mean how dare we discuss CIG taking out a loan against the entirety of their assets.
Last year when CIG showed 3.0 it was a mockup, it was made of a load of stuff that only existed for the slapped together demo, it functioned but it only worked within the very narrow constraints it was made for, it's commonly known as a vertical slice or a bullshot demo and is really no different than what Ancel showed.
The stuff they were shown existed. The Delamar planet'oidsh with its landing zone existed, the new ships existed, and so forth, but it was all a WIP and as we see after 3.0 we saw all of this features continuing development, Delamar today shows a massive improvement from what it was.
The demo is obviously controlled and limited as the intent is to show off specific stuff, that doesn't make it a tech demo, the difference is between showing stuff just created to show off tech (citizencon) and showcasing several things part of an update (gamescon). And that's why they were labeled differently.
Some of those things existed as assets that could be used in the actual game, while some assets and game features were purely for the demo.
I think it does label it as a tech demo because you don't get given a patch shortly after the demo which allows you to then do those things in the game.
Look at all the things they showed in the demo that still do not exist in the game almost a year later. All we ever see is a solo character running around in a barren landscape, we don't see them mining, we don't see them moving cargo, we don't see them doing salvage or running missions etc.
Anyway, this is all diverting from the actual topic.
And BoOM! Suddenly everyone's an expert in financial planning and banking in the U.K.
Ikr? Everyone seems to be AAA devs or world class financial planners. I'm sure there's a psychologist here to who will explain the thinking behind it all.
Ignore babuinix. He likes to try and construct strawman arguments in order to change the subject and/or say how everyone critical of the project is a hater. Evidence and reason doesn't work on him and will just try to loop it back to Derek Smart somehow if backed into a corner lol
You just described yourself with pinpoint accuracy.
On the topic now. Yet another SC thread with the usual suspects speculating in extremis and blowing things out of proportion.
Except, you know, I actually concede points when sufficient evidence is presented whereas bab just calls you a sad hater and brings Derek Smart into the convo but whatever helps you sleep at night lol
Some of those things existed as assets that could be used in the actual game, while some assets and game features were purely for the demo.
I think it does label it as a tech demo because you don't get given a patch shortly after the demo which allows you to then do those things in the game.
Look at all the things they showed in the demo that still do not exist in the game almost a year later. All we ever see is a solo character running around in a barren landscape, we don't see them mining, we don't see them moving cargo, we don't see them doing salvage or running missions etc.
Anyway, this is all diverting from the actual topic.
As most game demos shown in conferences, the games do not release shortly after gameplay is shown... If you are showing off a gameplay mission that is the same players will play once it's released then you have a gameplay demo.
When we check this last E3 and go check Borderlands 3 tech demo, you will see how they were showing off engine editors, tech and tools the same way CIG did in Citizencon (the actual tech demo they did), with one mission flow created purposely to do a more solid showcase. While CIG in the past didn't clarify this, last year it was clear what was part of the game and what was created just to showcase tech/features.
And BoOM! Suddenly everyone's an expert in financial planning and banking in the U.K.
Ikr? Everyone seems to be AAA devs or world class financial planners. I'm sure there's a psychologist here to who will explain the thinking behind it all.
Dont forget the experties in office furniture, doors, coffe machines and motion capture. Oh and fashion and cars whille were at it.
I am not going to post the megaton information i have remembered on this game,if people can't pay attention for themselves,oh well. However,i have to ask..."dependency on crowdfund is what created this game" SAYS WHO?
Too often this Robert's guy just outright LIES and yes you have to have some intelligence to see the obvious by reading between the lines and paid attention from day 1 when he claimed he only needed 6 mil from KSr and when he got Angry Joe to endorse his non existent game to manipulate people into his KSr campaign.
BTW i never once needed anyone else to imply anything,i use my own common sense and brain to figure things out.However for a long while so many like to use Derek Smart as a SCAPEGOAT to steer blame away from Robert's.Point being i said a long time ago,i figured he had loans and likely partners he was keeping quiet because after all,he was claiming he needed OUR money to build this game.
I still can't imagine what great game he claimed he could make with 6 mil KSr money?At this point,just more lies and without any laws,he can continue to ride this money train forever and likely paying no taxes as well. I would like further explanation and information on his agenda way back when they sold the only shares back to company? just soooo many sketchy things going on with this game/business,it almost never looks to be legit.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
I was going to create a separate article for this but I like SC so I'll just post it here. If you do a search on 'Star Citizen is in financial trouble' you will see this article being picked up by a few sources and reprinted on the web. I'm sure CIG will address this formally before it gets out of hand as the bad press can drive a lot of players away. So far, any discussion about this on the official site has been locked. Correction, the first one was locked now there are more.
CIG, the creators of Star Citizen, a game that has pulled in $150 million in crowdfunding, many times the original goal of $6 million, has applied for additional loan funding from a bank, in return offering up literally everything they own as collateral – the Star Citizen IP, all assets, all code, distribution rights and so on. From the attached PDF:
24. LICENCE
24.1 The Chargee, ( bank ), hereby grants to the Chargor , ( CIG ), an exclusive license, revocable only in accordnance with Clause 24.2, to develop, produce, exploit and otherwise deal with the Game.
24.2 The Chargee, ( bank ), may terminate the license granted pursuant to Clause 24.1 above upon the happening of an Event of Default which remains unremedied on the date failing 60 days after the the Chargee has given written notice to the Chargor of such Event of Default.
TL;DR The bank now own the game and provide a license to CIG to continue developing, if they miss a payment, all the backers get screwed. They can’t apply for any additional loans or funding because they have nothing to offer – all their assets have a negative pledge clause.
Putting everything you own up as collateral is pretty rare – Ford did it just before the 2008 recession and it was a heavily remarked upon piece of news because mortgaging the company was, and is, a gutsy move that requires either a strong long-term plan requiring lots of capital investment, or is an act of desperation in trying to feed a furnace and the only thing left are the floorboards and planking upon which it sits. Either way it’s a huge risk.
Obviously the terms of the loan aren’t public, but this looks like it’s more of the latter than the former – banks will look at the company’s assets, net income, company structure, accountant reports, etc. and then usually offer (or refuse) a loan with strings attached, the number of strings depending on the financial shape of the business. CIG went to Coutts with their finances and came back with a floating charge, a fixed charge (on all assets), and a negative pledge. Evidently, their finances did not impress.
The last thread got closed because it linked to a banned source, so I’m linking to the original source here:CIG, the creators of Star Citizen, a game that has pulled in $150 million in crowdfunding, many times the original goal of $6 million, has applied for additional loan funding from a bank, in return offering up literally everything they own as collateral -. From the attached PDF:. They can’t apply for any additional loans or funding because they have nothing to offer – all their assets have a negative pledge clause.Putting everything you own up as collateral is pretty rare – Ford did it just before the 2008 recession and it was a heavily remarked upon piece of news because mortgaging the company was, and is, a gutsy move that requires either a strong long-term plan requiring lots of capital investment, or is an act of desperation in trying to feed a furnace and the only thing left are the floorboards and planking upon which it sits. Either way it’s a huge risk.Obviously the terms of the loan aren’t public, but this looks like it’s more of the latter than the former – banks will look at the company’s assets, net income, company structure, accountant reports, etc. and then usually offer (or refuse) a loan with strings attached, the number of strings depending on the financial shape of the business. CIG went to Coutts with their finances and came back with a floating charge, a fixed charge (on all assets), and a negative pledge. Evidently, their finances did not impress.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
The ridiculously low-level Journalists of sites like The Escapist and GameRanx are also picking on the story, but with quite the misinformation and fear mongering:
The ridiculously low-level Journalists of sites like The Escapist and GameRanx are also picking on the story, but with quite the misinformation and fear mongering:
I guess we're in for another 2015 "IMMINENT DOOMSDAY" dejavu again. CIG will likely Publicly Adress this as, not in a Sunday at least.
It's ridiculous the number of people reaching reddit, chats and forums thinking for real the SC project is now over... gg
While the game provisionally known as Star Citizen is exempt collateral that doesn't mean that everything is exempt. All it means is that the Star Citizen IP remains in CIG's hands. As per the terms set out in the loan document Coutts does indeed hold the license for which they are granting CIG the right to use. In that respect they do own the game, its assets and the SQ42 IP until such a time that CIG clear their loan.
Obviously if CIG meet their payments then there is no issue, if they don't....
If people can defend Roberts standing on stage and lying how can they then turn round and criticise these people hyperbolising the loan news?
Comments
As usual I'm inclined to disagree. CIG are still working on their tech, they're only designing and prototyping some of it almost 6 years on.
What CIG have mainly shown off at their conventions is no different than what Ancel was showing off, a tech demo that does not accurately represent the current state of game development (otherwise we would've had 3.0 a long time ago).
I'd much prefer RSI having investors instead. Investors might even take a company over, but as long as the company stays its liabilities stays.
This loan agreement means that if RSI fails to pay the lender gets to strip the company bare of everything. What's left would only be unfulfilled liabilities and RSI with no chance of fulfilling any of them.
Last year when CIG has shown 3.0, it was 3.0, as we see what is set to be released soon has the stuff that was there shown as a WIP even if it's coming late, demos are obviously controlled environments and only a fraction of what's its current feature-set.
But when they shown at Citizencon the wurm tech demo, it was laid as a tech demo so it's that part where they just want to show what they can do / the direction they are going for. In this aspect we got both.
This is the thing I don't worry about though, CIG here has securities with the crowdfund, I'd be worried if we were talking a company that has no money flow and needs to get the loan to finish and release their product, that yes would be risky because delaying the product with no money flow would be enough to get the bank in your tails. And I also consider the current status of the dev with the next updates and if they keep on rolling in stuff, if anything they'll increase the "profitability" of the crowdfunding campaign.
Last year when CIG showed 3.0 it was a mockup, it was made of a load of stuff that only existed for the slapped together demo, it functioned but it only worked within the very narrow constraints it was made for, it's commonly known as a vertical slice or a bullshot demo and is really no different than what Ancel showed.
Not even going into the whole time effort commitment in the logistic involved in opening and running 4 studios with 400+ from the ground up whille maintaining a passionate comunity up to date with detailed reports and organizing 2 major events each year.
The demo is obviously controlled and limited as the intent is to show off specific stuff, that doesn't make it a tech demo, the difference is between showing stuff just created to show off tech (citizencon) and showcasing several things part of an update (gamescon). And that's why they were labeled differently.
Hmmm, shall you miss the magical combination of ubisoft and pre-order programs hehe
But by all proper means, SC doesn't cost you a cent either if you want until it comes out and read its reviews before buying.
On the topic now. Yet another SC thread with the usual suspects speculating in extremis and blowing things out of proportion.
I mean how dare we discuss CIG taking out a loan against the entirety of their assets.
Frank 'Spankybus' Mignone
www.spankybus.com
-3d Artist & Compositor
-Writer
-Professional Amature
Some of those things existed as assets that could be used in the actual game, while some assets and game features were purely for the demo.
I think it does label it as a tech demo because you don't get given a patch shortly after the demo which allows you to then do those things in the game.
Look at all the things they showed in the demo that still do not exist in the game almost a year later. All we ever see is a solo character running around in a barren landscape, we don't see them mining, we don't see them moving cargo, we don't see them doing salvage or running missions etc.
Anyway, this is all diverting from the actual topic.
That means just 2.5K per Million. Not to mention the possibility of leveraging or hedging currency fluctuations, but that is always a gamble.
As most game demos shown in conferences, the games do not release shortly after gameplay is shown... If you are showing off a gameplay mission that is the same players will play once it's released then you have a gameplay demo.
When we check this last E3 and go check Borderlands 3 tech demo, you will see how they were showing off engine editors, tech and tools the same way CIG did in Citizencon (the actual tech demo they did), with one mission flow created purposely to do a more solid showcase. While CIG in the past didn't clarify this, last year it was clear what was part of the game and what was created just to showcase tech/features.
When you have cake, it is not the cake that creates the most magnificent of experiences, but it is the emotions attached to it.
The cake is a lie.
However,i have to ask..."dependency on crowdfund is what created this game" SAYS WHO?
Too often this Robert's guy just outright LIES and yes you have to have some intelligence to see the obvious by reading between the lines and paid attention from day 1 when he claimed he only needed 6 mil from KSr and when he got Angry Joe to endorse his non existent game to manipulate people into his KSr campaign.
BTW i never once needed anyone else to imply anything,i use my own common sense and brain to figure things out.However for a long while so many like to use Derek Smart as a SCAPEGOAT to steer blame away from Robert's.Point being i said a long time ago,i figured he had loans and likely partners he was keeping quiet because after all,he was claiming he needed OUR money to build this game.
I still can't imagine what great game he claimed he could make with 6 mil KSr money?At this point,just more lies and without any laws,he can continue to ride this money train forever and likely paying no taxes as well.
I would like further explanation and information on his agenda way back when they sold the only shares back to company?
just soooo many sketchy things going on with this game/business,it almost never looks to be legit.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Star Citizen is likely in financial trouble
(Source: www.neogaf.com)
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/c…GM-FC6tbyhYlss
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/c…filing-history
CIG, the creators of Star Citizen, a game that has pulled in $150 million in crowdfunding, many times the original goal of $6 million, has applied for additional loan funding from a bank, in return offering up literally everything they own as collateral – the Star Citizen IP, all assets, all code, distribution rights and so on. From the attached PDF:
TL;DR The bank now own the game and provide a license to CIG to continue developing, if they miss a payment, all the backers get screwed. They can’t apply for any additional loans or funding because they have nothing to offer – all their assets have a negative pledge clause.
Putting everything you own up as collateral is pretty rare – Ford did it just before the 2008 recession and it was a heavily remarked upon piece of news because mortgaging the company was, and is, a gutsy move that requires either a strong long-term plan requiring lots of capital investment, or is an act of desperation in trying to feed a furnace and the only thing left are the floorboards and planking upon which it sits. Either way it’s a huge risk.
Obviously the terms of the loan aren’t public, but this looks like it’s more of the latter than the former – banks will look at the company’s assets, net income, company structure, accountant reports, etc. and then usually offer (or refuse) a loan with strings attached, the number of strings depending on the financial shape of the business. CIG went to Coutts with their finances and came back with a floating charge, a fixed charge (on all assets), and a negative pledge. Evidently, their finances did not impress.
The last thread got closed because it linked to a banned source, so I’m linking to the original source here:CIG, the creators of Star Citizen, a game that has pulled in $150 million in crowdfunding, many times the original goal of $6 million, has applied for additional loan funding from a bank, in return offering up literally everything they own as collateral -. From the attached PDF:. They can’t apply for any additional loans or funding because they have nothing to offer – all their assets have a negative pledge clause.Putting everything you own up as collateral is pretty rare – Ford did it just before the 2008 recession and it was a heavily remarked upon piece of news because mortgaging the company was, and is, a gutsy move that requires either a strong long-term plan requiring lots of capital investment, or is an act of desperation in trying to feed a furnace and the only thing left are the floorboards and planking upon which it sits. Either way it’s a huge risk.Obviously the terms of the loan aren’t public, but this looks like it’s more of the latter than the former – banks will look at the company’s assets, net income, company structure, accountant reports, etc. and then usually offer (or refuse) a loan with strings attached, the number of strings depending on the financial shape of the business. CIG went to Coutts with their finances and came back with a floating charge, a fixed charge (on all assets), and a negative pledge. Evidently, their finances did not impress.
More Info: www.neogaf.com
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
"a bank now owns SC"
"can't pay their debts"
"RIP Star Citizen"
Clickbaity misleading "journalists" on their finest, it's also causing a colossal discussion in Reddit over it: https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/6jepzi/psa_massive_amount_of_misinformation_spread_in/
I guess we're in for another 2015 "IMMINENT DOOMSDAY" dejavu again. CIG will likely Publicly Adress this as, not in a Sunday at least.
It's ridiculous the number of people reaching reddit, chats and forums thinking for real the SC project is now over... gg
The charge document is quite clear on the the loan's interest rate range:
The loan will be at least 4.25%, dependant on how much Coutts' wanted to charge on top.
--
The above is taken from https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/6jepuv/chill_out_on_financial_speculation/djdp4y0/
While the game provisionally known as Star Citizen is exempt collateral that doesn't mean that everything is exempt. All it means is that the Star Citizen IP remains in CIG's hands.
As per the terms set out in the loan document Coutts does indeed hold the license for which they are granting CIG the right to use. In that respect they do own the game, its assets and the SQ42 IP until such a time that CIG clear their loan.
Obviously if CIG meet their payments then there is no issue, if they don't....
If people can defend Roberts standing on stage and lying how can they then turn round and criticise these people hyperbolising the loan news?