Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

CIG publishes financials for years 2012 - 2017

PhaserlightPhaserlight Member EpicPosts: 3,003
This is gold.  I wish you had done this YEARS ago, CIG:

https://cloudimperiumgames.com/blog/corporate/cfo-comment-2012-2017-financials

"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance

Erillion
«1345

Comments

  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    edited December 2018
    Wonder if this has to do with the court proceedings?  Either way, the backers better get to buying those ships if I'm reading it correctly.  They've exhausted almost half of the "buffered" crowdfunding income over the past 3 years, and it's my understanding that they don't even have all the features they wish to test in the alpha at this point.
    Phaserlight

    image
  • Octagon7711Octagon7711 Member LegendaryPosts: 8,967
    Sounds like they're expanding their investments.  

    "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

  • rodarinrodarin Member EpicPosts: 2,576
    And they sold 10% to and investor for 46 million  and they released the SQ 42 roadmap. No wonder the fanbois havent posted nay of this.

    Project is now officially swirling down the drain at this point.

    Whenever ANY 'indie' developer adds an investor (whether they want to spin it as marketing or not) theyre done. And why would they need to sell 10% for 46 million when they have raised over 210 million?

    SQ 42 roadmap is also gold. Its at least 3 years away from release by their best guess estimates.

    Really cant make this stuff up.
    Rhime
  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Member EpicPosts: 7,275
    edited December 2018
    So CIG bought in a 46 million dollars investment, clarified in full now that they disclosed all the financials.

    Well, this now puts the wild speculation and "my sources" over the financial status of the project aside, the numbers are out there.

    This investment will put this year financials in beyond 86 million dollars income.
  • laseritlaserit Member LegendaryPosts: 6,305
    rodarin said:
    And they sold 10% to and investor for 46 million  and they released the SQ 42 roadmap. No wonder the fanbois havent posted nay of this.

    Project is now officially swirling down the drain at this point.

    Whenever ANY 'indie' developer adds an investor (whether they want to spin it as marketing or not) theyre done. And why would they need to sell 10% for 46 million when they have raised over 210 million?

    SQ 42 roadmap is also gold. Its at least 3 years away from release by their best guess estimates.

    Really cant make this stuff up.
    46 million for 10% = 460 million evaluation.

    Now you can play Shark Tank

    "Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee

  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    edited December 2018
    MaxBacon said:
    So CIG bought in a 46 million dollars investment, clarified in full now that they disclosed all the financials.

    Wasn't expecting at all, this puts the wild speculation and "my sources" over the financial status of the project aside, the numbers are out there.

    This investment will put this year financials in beyond 86 million dollars income.
    Seems like maybe the net loss over the past 3 years created a situation where CIG was more willing to court a serious investor to make up the difference.

    Of course, nothing confirms that, but the timing of the event coupled with the swing towards a red net balance the past 3 years is interesting to consider.

    EDIT- it's also interesting that 46 million here and 86 million total on the year means this year was on track for another red bottom line without the investor cash.
    PhaserlightNorseGod

    image
  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Member EpicPosts: 7,275
    laserit said:
    46 million for 10% = 460 million evaluation.

    Now you can play Shark Tank
    rodarin likes to put his hateful spin on everything, of course having gotten on investment agreed upon such as a huge evaluation a company is a bad thing, no investor would ever invest that much on a scam that will never release... Err.. Wait a second... xD
  • rodarinrodarin Member EpicPosts: 2,576
    edited December 2018
    MaxBacon said:
    laserit said:
    46 million for 10% = 460 million evaluation.

    Now you can play Shark Tank
    rodarin likes to put his hateful spin on everything, of course having gotten on investment agreed upon such as a huge evaluation a company is a bad thing, no investor would ever invest that much on a scam that will never release... Err.. Wait a second... xD
    BAd 'investments' are bad. CiG has been LOSING money for the past 3 years. Not sure how you think someone with a lot of money and no brains (this project attracts a lot of people like that apparently on all levels) is going to change that.

    Unless that investor is goign to sit there and hold CR accountable (highly unlikely) all the investor did was give them 46 million more dollars to piss away.

    [mod edit] you all think you can SPEND your way out of problems. Its impossible, especially when you dont have the core self control to manage more funds than you needed in the first place.

    They could drop 5 BILLION dollars in Chris Roberts bank account right now and there still wouldnt be a game delivered. I truly believe that because that is just how bad these guys are with money. You could give them enough to launch their own rocket to Mars and they wouldnt be able to make a game that would simulate it....
    Post edited by Vaross on
    WalkinGlenn
  • laseritlaserit Member LegendaryPosts: 6,305
    MaxBacon said:
    laserit said:
    46 million for 10% = 460 million evaluation.

    Now you can play Shark Tank
    rodarin likes to put his hateful spin on everything, of course having gotten on investment agreed upon such as a huge evaluation a company is a bad thing, no investor would ever invest that much on a scam that will never release... Err.. Wait a second... xD
    You would think that somebody investing 46 million would have done their due diligence.

    "Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee

  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Member EpicPosts: 7,275
    Seems like maybe the net loss over the past 3 years created a situation where CIG was more willing to court a serious investor to make up the difference.

    Of course, nothing confirms that, but the timing of the event coupled with the swing towards a red net balance the past 3 years is interesting to consider.

    EDIT- it's also interesting that 46 million here and 86 million total on the year means this year was on track for another red bottom line without the investor cash.
    Well CIG was as seen on this financials investing a lot on their company growth over the past years, spending more than what they were crowdfunding.

    So this shows they want to keep the development of the projects on the scale that they are, hence this big cash injection.

    What I would never imagine is that investors would accept 460 million dollars evaluation of the company, the company would never have assets of that worth so it's deff on the prospect of profitability I think.
  • Octagon7711Octagon7711 Member LegendaryPosts: 8,967
    Good press which will bring attention to the sales coming up.  Happens like clockwork.  Great marketing.

    "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

  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Member EpicPosts: 7,275
    edited December 2018
    rodarin said:
    BAd 'investments' are bad.
    You spin this whatever you want rodarin.

    Investors will not throw away 46 million dollars accepting one 460 million dollars evaluation just cause why not, if they accepted this you can be sure have microscopely inspected CIG and have seen positive prospects over such big investment.
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    edited December 2018
    MaxBacon said:
    Seems like maybe the net loss over the past 3 years created a situation where CIG was more willing to court a serious investor to make up the difference.

    Of course, nothing confirms that, but the timing of the event coupled with the swing towards a red net balance the past 3 years is interesting to consider.

    EDIT- it's also interesting that 46 million here and 86 million total on the year means this year was on track for another red bottom line without the investor cash.
    Well CIG was as seen on this financials investing a lot on their company growth over the past years, spending more than what they were crowdfunding.

    So this shows they want to keep the development of the projects on the scale that they are, hence this big cash injection.

    What I would never imagine is that investors would accept 460 million dollars evaluation of the company, the company would never have assets of that worth so it's deff on the prospect of profitability I think.
    Are we sure?  They have a lot of tech they've developed, numerous studios....  460 million is a lot, but when you're an international company...  Is it?

    I wouldn't presume to know honestly.

    image
  • PhaserlightPhaserlight Member EpicPosts: 3,003
    Wonder if this has to do with the court proceedings?  Either way, the backers better get to buying those ships if I'm reading it correctly.  They've exhausted almost half of the "buffered" crowdfunding income over the past 3 years, and it's my understanding that they don't even have all the features they wish to test in the alpha at this point.
    It's the 46M deal, more likely (like @MaxBacon stated).

    Almost as if real investors want accountability, rather than the "transparency" CIG's been spouting the past 6 years.
    MadFrenchieNorseGod

    "The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
    Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance

  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Member EpicPosts: 7,275
    Are we sure?  They have a lot of tech they've developed, numerous studios....  460 million is a lot, but when you're an international company...  Is it?

    I wouldn't presume to know honestly.

    When we talk investors accepted CIG is worth 460 million dollars to accept 46 for 10%, there has to be reason there, this is business. Now the worth of CIG in terms of assets and studios and such that's a minor thing because we are talking about furniture and such on rented office buildings, it's really their engine and technology yeah the only thing I see as the thing of most value CIG has.

    But even that, how could it be worth so much? That's why I think they accepted it because they see good prospects on the profitability of the investment, not any worth the company has to payback 46M.
    MadFrenchie
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    Wonder if this has to do with the court proceedings?  Either way, the backers better get to buying those ships if I'm reading it correctly.  They've exhausted almost half of the "buffered" crowdfunding income over the past 3 years, and it's my understanding that they don't even have all the features they wish to test in the alpha at this point.
    It's the 46M deal, more likely (like @MaxBacon stated).

    Almost as if real investors want accountability, rather than the "transparency" CIG's been spouting the past 6 years.
    Fair enough.  It's funny how easily devs can generate these reports and share such details when they stand to gain from the effort.

    CIG isn't alone in that.  I honestly feel every crowdfunded project should be showing such financials to their backers.  Nowhere else in business is one party so forced to take the other at their word for the entire point of the transaction.
    Phaserlight

    image
  • rodarinrodarin Member EpicPosts: 2,576
    I have an idea it will come out that Chris Roberts spin on the whole investor thing is half truth. I suspect that ANY investor would know better than to do a deal like that. I also suspect there is guaranteed money in there for the investor in case this thing crashes and burns.

    It also begs a lot of other question But the two biggest are... who valued it at 450 million in the first place? Who are the parent companies that these outstanding shares represent?

    There is ZERO value ot this company, none, nada, zip. the only thing they have is money raised ot create a game. Which they dont have. they also dont have an engine at least not one free and clear since theyre still getting sued and the one they are using is a mish mash of 3 or 4 different ones that no one can decipher.

    They do have a 10K coffee maker, but thats 3 or 4 years old now so whats it really worth these days 3 fiddy? And a 15K mural and some 40K doors. And a bunch of PCs and a two or three year old recording/movie making studio. SO I guess they are completely assettless.

    But like I said if they dont raise another penny from here on out what you see is really what youre going to get, and from the looks of it SQ 42 would never get made if they dont keep the money coming in.

    Its amazing that now 250 million + into this thing they still are 3 years away from releasing anything remotely worth of being called retail worthy.

    How people can continue to blindly defend it is beyond hilarious.

    Going to be awesome when this investor who completely is onboard with their vision starts demanding some return on that investment. If they comply that will mean monetizing something new and totally different or diminishing the value of things people have already bought and paid for. Because there will now have to be a NEW money source and a more continuous one. It was bad enough when Roberts was there doing what he does he now has to answer to someone for more money. Its easy to ignore people who request refunds but its another to deny a guy who scratched you a check for 46 million.

    This whole thing just got laot more entertaining. I havent gone to see what Derek Smart has to say but I can imagine its complete gold.
    PhaserlightMisatoTremor
  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Member EpicPosts: 7,275
    edited December 2018
    Are we sure?  They have a lot of tech they've developed, numerous studios....  460 million is a lot, but when you're an international company...  Is it?

    I wouldn't presume to know honestly.
    Also, one bit this investment was put on, was the Marketing needs of SQ42.

    The funny bit is that I from years ago been saying they would be smart if they got one publisher/investor to fund up a marketing campaign and/or console port of SQ42, with things as its cast being huge attractive points to make it sell very well.
    MadFrenchieMisatoTremor
  • ErillionErillion Member EpicPosts: 10,232
    I find it interesting to compare our previous estimates with the published numbers.

    In the past the "rule of thumb" of 10000 $ per employee per month  overall cost has been used to estimate burn rate.

    From these numbers a "new" rule of thumb can be calculated, which is 12.776 $ (averaged), or lets say 13.000 $. I know that one of the posters (sorry, cannot remember the name on the top of my head) here did a pretty good estimate, predicting this increase in cost. Because the 10 k$ rule was already pretty dated.

    However, these number varied a lot over the years:

    2012 ... 7340
    2013 ... 17904
    2014 ... 16482
    2015 ... 15985
    2016 ... 10166
    2017 ... 8776

    To me that shows that in the years where CIG relied on contracting out and outsourcing, the number was significantly higher than the 10 k$ rule. While in later years - when CIG did a lot in house - the number was going down (and even lower) than the old 10k value. Others may interpret the numbers differently.

    Another interesting aspect is the cost for  "...camera, stage rental, shoot and actor costs relating to the star-studded storyline narrative for Squadron 42. ..."  Some people have predicted cost of several tens of millions of dollars for that part of the game. That obviously was not the case. However, it clearly is still a multi million dollar effort.

    The average annual income of a CIG employee between 2013-2017 is  66904 $. There are tables out there with average wage rates for Europe and US if you want to put that into context. I would say it is average for Europe (where most of CIGs employees work) and below average for the US.


    Have fun

    Phaserlight
  • VrikaVrika Member EpicPosts: 6,435
    edited December 2018
    Erillion said:


    The average annual income of a CIG employee between 2013-2017 is  66904 $. There are tables out there with average wage rates for Europe and US if you want to put that into context. I would say it is average for Europe (where most of CIGs employees work) and below average for the US.
    I think the average annual income is higher.

    For example in 2017 the number of employees would have been 397 + 38 = 435 at the end of the year. I'm including employees in General & Admin, but excluding those who are in Publishing Ops, Community Events and Marketing because Salaries and related costs are said to exclude Community, Events, and Marketing.

    At the start of 2017 number of employees would have been same as at the end of 2016, which is: 323 + 19 = 342.

    Average number of employees during the year was likely (435 + 342) / 2 = 388,5 employees that are counted to their salary figure.

    In 2017 salaries and related costs were $29 992 000, and divided by 338,5 employees it would make $88 602.



    EDIT: Using that formula for 2013 - 2017 I'd get average annual income of $89 295

    EDIT 2: Corrected one calculation error
     
  • ErillionErillion Member EpicPosts: 10,232
    Darn .... computer ate my longer reply.

    Short version .... i assumed that the "marketing" number was external cost only, not including salaries.

    $89295 is - i think - too much for the average european salary but OK for US. In Europe the $66904 does sound more plausible.

    The truth will most likely be somewhere in the middle between our two estimates.


    Have fun
  • ErillionErillion Member EpicPosts: 10,232
    Another interesting aspect - subscriptions.

    My older estimates - that there are quite a lot of voluntary subscribers, tenthousands - seem to have been correct.

    If we assume 2/3 Centurion subscribers (12 x 12 = 144) and 1/3 Imperator Subscribers (12 x 24 = 288) and therefore an average subscription of 193 $ per year, that would be (3069000/193) around 15902 "average" subscribers.  More like 20000+ish, as most will be "Centurions".


    Have fun

  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Member EpicPosts: 7,275
    edited December 2018
    I think you're missing the biggest cost of The Publishing/Events/Marketing is likely the Publishing.

    Mind this would embed the running costs from the traffic game downloads/updates cost to the actual game-servers hardware (Amazon serves both the data and hardware to SC), those costs seem to fit that category.
  • rodarinrodarin Member EpicPosts: 2,576
    Erillion said:
    I find it interesting to compare our previous estimates with the published numbers.

    In the past the "rule of thumb" of 10000 $ per employee per month  overall cost has been used to estimate burn rate.

    From these numbers a "new" rule of thumb can be calculated, which is 12.776 $ (averaged), or lets say 13.000 $. I know that one of the posters (sorry, cannot remember the name on the top of my head) here did a pretty good estimate, predicting this increase in cost. Because the 10 k$ rule was already pretty dated.

    However, these number varied a lot over the years:

    2012 ... 7340
    2013 ... 17904
    2014 ... 16482
    2015 ... 15985
    2016 ... 10166
    2017 ... 8776

    To me that shows that in the years where CIG relied on contracting out and outsourcing, the number was significantly higher than the 10 k$ rule. While in later years - when CIG did a lot in house - the number was going down (and even lower) than the old 10k value. Others may interpret the numbers differently.

    Another interesting aspect is the cost for  "...camera, stage rental, shoot and actor costs relating to the star-studded storyline narrative for Squadron 42. ..."  Some people have predicted cost of several tens of millions of dollars for that part of the game. That obviously was not the case. However, it clearly is still a multi million dollar effort.

    The average annual income of a CIG employee between 2013-2017 is  66904 $. There are tables out there with average wage rates for Europe and US if you want to put that into context. I would say it is average for Europe (where most of CIGs employees work) and below average for the US.


    Have fun

    Then why is it when they were outsourcing everything they were in the black and when they were doing it in house they were in the red?
Sign In or Register to comment.