There are plenty of good reasons to think SC is doing just fine. I happen to not believe that, but it's a completely valid stance to take.
A stance is valid if it is backed by facts. You cannot be both right. They are doing a good job or they don't.
Sorry, I am just not into wishy washy rhetoric and I sincerely hope this is not too aggressive for some people.
Incorrect. Opinions are an interpretation of the facts, not facts in and of themselves. Specifically the reason you should be able to argue for either side of an issue before you really consider yourself worthy to even have an opinion.
Observe:
SC includes FPS, Space Sim, Single-player, and Multi-player components. That effectively means that they're building about three games worth of content and then making all those games talk to each other. It's actually fairly realistic to expect three different studios to be able to complete each game in 2-4 years for about $20-$40 million each. That's not too far off fairly standard numbers in the industry.
SC has a playable DFM and has churned out a load of ships in the last couple years. They've also demo'd the FPS module, and have said that S42 is moving along well. If you consider that one studio is doing the work you might expect from three, then what's out now is actually pretty good. Especially when you consider that most games come together right at the very end, and the early days are virtually unplayable in most cases.
$90 million in crowdfunding is actually a lot better than $90 mil from VC or Publisher funding because it comes interest free and with fewer strings. That means CIG actually has clean money to develop with, and no need for a profitable exit. They can build with what they have and break even, and it's a win. That suggests that they're really health.
All facts, and all really good reasons to think SC is in good shape. The fact that I don't think things are going that well for them, doesn't prevent my looking at stuff like that and seeing the validity in that argument. I just disagree. Why don't you take a look at some of those other opposing arguments and see if you can find some validity in them. There really are several good points through this thread. I think you'll find it makes your own position a lot stronger.
The main point is that naysayers here will make this a self fulfilling prophecy. Say it did have a reasonable chance of success. All the negative side of this noise cant really help, can it?
Well... Definitely the noise can help people in case they are doing a long con for personal interest, or are people interested to sell ships in the grey market.
People closing their eyes and ignoring the red flags, and adopting the "wait and see" practice, is exactly what they want. It's exactly what any people that are deceiving people want.
Stop the ship sales and then people will have more reasons to look good intentions on those people. Then, I would consider acceptable to "wait and see".
The main point is that naysayers here will make this a self fulfilling prophecy. Say it did have a reasonable chance of success. All the negative side of this noise cant really help, can it?
Well... Definitely the noise can help people in case they are doing a long con for personal interest, or are people interested to sell ships in the grey market.
People closing their eyes and ignoring the red flags, and adopting the "wait and see" practice, is exactly what they want. It's exactly what any people that are deceiving people want.
Stop the ship sales and then people will have more reasons to look good intentions on those people. Then, I would consider acceptable to "wait and see".
Completely agree with that :-)
I don't think CIG can credibly remain selling virtual promises after this, regardless of guilt or innocence. But that will require external investment and locking down project scope... like now.
I don't know CR, so I could not say much about his character. But in my opinion, if what you say is true, he is borderline commiting a fraud. I would like to think CR, as a man praised for his vision and passion in game, not to mention his past work, would be blinded with greed as to willingly want to dug his own grave.
I had the chance to work under a person who many praised as a genius. Indeed the person is very talented, visionary. However, many projects failed to meet deadlines, not because of the team lacking the ability, but because of a serious oversights during project planning. Many times too idealistic and not practical.
Just saying, there are many ways to make money if you had the funds. They don't need to spend all the funds from the get go. They could reinvest the funds on properties, bonds, etc, many of which are legal.
Just saying, there are many ways to make money if you had the funds. They don't need to spend all the funds from the get go. They could reinvest the funds on properties, bonds, etc, many of which are legal.
There is some debate on that. Unless a stated goal within the KS feature list was starting an investment bank. It could be argued.
There are plenty of good reasons to think SC is doing just fine. I happen to not believe that, but it's a completely valid stance to take.
A stance is valid if it is backed by facts. You cannot be both right. They are doing a good job or they don't.
Sorry, I am just not into wishy washy rhetoric and I sincerely hope this is not too aggressive for some people.
Incorrect. Opinions are an interpretation of the facts, not facts in and of themselves. Specifically the reason you should be able to argue for either side of an issue before you really consider yourself worthy to even have an opinion.
Hmm I don't think you read what I wrote honestly. I never said opinions are facts. I said you should base your opinion on facts. so you just repacked my statement and called it incorrect
The second part is more problematic for me though. You really think that to have a valid opinion you first need to argue for the opposite side? This reminds me of the creationist idea about teaching the controversy. I hope you know what it was about. This idea that teaching an opposing theory is good for education.
edit. To be clear. I don't disagree on everything but we were asking a specific question: Is CIG doing a good job?
The thing is this con artist and crook thinks he is protected by Kickstarter terms. I pretty much can assure you when dealing with embezzlement of this kind of money he will be facing some criminal charges and serious jail time. You can't just steal million upon millions and say oops sorry, there is an accountability and some of these investors could afford to hire some pretty high end lawyers or hitmen for much less than they invested in SC.
$90 million in crowdfunding is actually a lot better than $90 mil from VC or Publisher funding because it comes interest free and with fewer strings. That means CIG actually has clean money to develop with, and no need for a profitable exit. They can build with what they have and break even, and it's a win. That suggests that they're really health.
All facts, and all really good reasons to think SC is in good shape.
No need for a profitable exit according with the intentions of a 3rd party, you should say.
But the thing is, that Roberts could have a need of a profitable exit, personally, that could bigger than ever, so he really proceed with the venture, and if that does not come, he would just leave.
I don't see how the fact that they don't have VC with more powerful voice to direct the development for 3rd parties profit, could indicate that "they are really health".
Roberts could have burned most of his money already. And could be trying to pursuit quietly VC money to maintain and end the project. That is what the rumors say, and for such rumors, Roberts refuse to prove them wrong.
And let's just do not be naive and call "demos" and "tech demos" proof of progress. So far there is no indication in any that they did, that they will be really capable to deliver into the promises that they did, or will transform those shiny things in an actual MMO game. They only are showing (and nothing in the hands of the public) that can release something that is totally far of what they promised and hyped people about. Limited and just appealing to visual fidelity.
They are showing "tries" that they are far to indicate/proof that they can finish the product in the way that it was promised. Many things are openly stated as pending of research. And research, not always produces development, or at least, in an acceptable time frame.
In other words, it does not seem to me that there are indications that they are health. Quite the contrary.
Layoffs, restructuring things in the middle of the project, slow pace of development of minor things (even for the material released, they take a long time to fix issues or to add value to that, and are actually very stubborn in some design choices that clearly are liked only by a minority - because if it was the contrary, more people would play, much more).
That is far to be "health" or "common" and indicates the contrary. That they are not health. Indicates lack of a proper planning, which apparently they are trying to fix now, but in a way that will impact a lot more in further delays, more waste of money and again, "to try", not really yet with the certainty to deliver what was promised.
With all their "transparency" that sounds more like an eternal Damage Control than transparency, its hard to believe that they will have the support that they need for so long. It has been dropping now, and I don't see anything that they could bring to the table (meaning in the hands of the backers) that really can be a source of motivation, but instead, a source of more problems and complaints.
The scenario is of an obvious flop if it ever releases. If you look to the thing objectively, and consider the realities of the market and of the situation that they put themselves.
With respect to how long it actually takes to make a game like this, I agree that the game as currently described and taking into consideration upcoming games like Fallout 4, a 5, 6, 7 year development cycle is reasonable.
A couple of problems with SC however is that CIG itself was the one to set unrealistic expectations of the original (and even current) time line and how extra money beyond a certain point would help shrink the development time.
Now IMO, they are at least as knowledgeable and realistic about development cycles as we are so the unrealistic short times they set were done deliberately for fundraising purposes.
To think that they have been giving honest guesses about when the game would be ready all along you'd have to believe that they know less about development cycles than we do... which would be its very own disturbing thought.
Most other opinions and theories about wrongdoings and malfeasance at CIG flow from this: Have they been deliberately misleading about release dates in order to feed the fundraising? And, if so, what else are they being misleading about?
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
The thing is this con artist and crook thinks he is protected by Kickstarter terms. I pretty much can assure you when dealing with embezzlement of this kind of money he will be facing some criminal charges and serious jail time. You can't just steal million upon millions and say oops sorry, there is an accountability and some of these investors could afford to hire some pretty high end lawyers or hitmen for much less than they invested in SC.
And that dear friends is how naysayers kill a 30+ year reputation and a project which is still running based on no facts or experience but rather on pure fear, uncertainty and doubt. Oh and how they get themselves sued for defamation too.
Check my other posts. Not saying that CR hasnt or has done any of these things, but psiic and those like him will make sure this project never sees the light of day.
There is some debate on that. Unless a stated goal within the KS feature list was starting an investment bank. It could be argued.
You lost me there. The KS goal is to create a game. How does it prohibits the company for which, in the course of pursuing the goal, managed the funds obtained from the KS? Besides, does it say anywhere, that all the funds MUST be spent in order to create the game. I am sure if one somehow managed to created a game, all features included as promised in the KS, with less fund obtained from the KS (cost less), it won't get sued.
A stance is valid if it is backed by facts. You cannot be both right. They are doing a good job or they don't.
Hmm I don't think you read what I wrote honestly. I never said opinions are facts. I said you should base your opinion on facts. so you just repacked my statement and called it incorrect
The second part is more problematic for me though. You really think that to have a valid opinion you first need to argue for the opposite side? This reminds me of the creationist idea about teaching the controversy. I hope you know what it was about. This idea that teaching an opposing theory is good for education.
Yes, I did. You specifically said that we can't both be right. We both absolutely can be right because what we have are opinions based on disparate facts. Our personal interpretation of those facts do not invalidate the facts themselves.
When one person says they think SC is fine and lists out a string of valid points, they're not wrong. When another says they think SC is in trouble and lists out a string of other valid points, they're not wrong either.
And, yeah. You really should be able to argue both sides of a point, no matter what it is, before you can be sure you have an opinion that's not weighted by personal bias. Truth is virtually never on the extreme, but rather something in the middle. You have to take the other side seriously and when their points invalidate your position, you need to examine where you're standing. You may not be specifically wrong, but there's something you've failed to account for in your position. Ignoring facts that contradict your stance is the opposite of making you right.
That's why I'm comfortable with my article. I've been an SC fan for years, and sincerely hope it'll succeed. I've looked hard at everything I could think of that suggests things are okay and tried to find reasons to ignore the indications otherwise. If I couldn't build an argument against myself, I would have considered what I wrote biased and not submitted it. It also makes me completely comfortable with dissenting [intelligent] opinions, even appreciative.
Whether it's global warming or evolution, both sides of the argument are usually about as right as they are wrong because they tend to ignore the possibility of a greyer truth. Whatever side of the position you're on, you're WAY better off if you understand the other as well as you do your own. Besides, it keeps you from sounding like a quack.
WOW ..... that was a great, and 100% on the money..... I am a long time backer and I followed SC very closely and I have seen how the RSI employees have changed for the "old days". CR will never step down.... it's not in him to do that, but someone needs to sit him down and say enough is enough! The peeps play the game will only care that they can see every nut and bolt for 10 sec....... What the peeps want is a fun well thought out game that plays smooth. With out that this game will never get off the ground, and like you said.... when producers start to leave there are real problems, and they must be addressed or we all have just flush some cash..... CR if your reading this (I know your not), just get Foundry 42 out and stop with the new ships already.... and all this BS would go away!!!
The thing is this con artist and crook thinks he is protected by Kickstarter terms. I pretty much can assure you when dealing with embezzlement of this kind of money he will be facing some criminal charges and serious jail time. You can't just steal million upon millions and say oops sorry, there is an accountability and some of these investors could afford to hire some pretty high end lawyers or hitmen for much less than they invested in SC.
And that dear friends is how naysayers kill a 30+ year reputation and a project which is still running based on no facts or experience but rather on pure fear, uncertainty and doubt. Oh and how they get themselves sued for defamation too.
Check my other posts. Not saying that CR hasnt or has done any of these things, but psiic and those like him will make sure this project never sees the light of day.
Why? If he is wrong and CR is honest he has already, since years actually, all the money needed to finish the game. So, how this game "never will see the light of day" because the psiic doubts?
If the game never see the light of the day or dies sooner after day one, we catch just one more lie, ops, misrepresentation of Roberts, since he was putting in the minds of their backers, after the 23 million dollars milestone achieved, that the backers were now financing the development for many years ahead of the day one.
And yes, I suspect that he was misrepresenting that too. Specially by the kind of whining that he wrote in that letter to The Escapist, plus their desperate attitude to grab cash, despite all the bad reputation raising due that.
$90 million in crowdfunding is actually a lot better than $90 mil from VC or Publisher funding because it comes interest free and with fewer strings. That means CIG actually has clean money to develop with, and no need for a profitable exit. They can build with what they have and break even, and it's a win. That suggests that they're really health.
All facts, and all really good reasons to think SC is in good shape.
No need for a profitable exit according with the intentions of a 3rd party, you should say.
But the thing is, that Roberts could have a need of a profitable exit, personally, that could bigger than ever, so he really proceed with the venture, and if that does not come, he would just leave.
As a company/project. He and everyone else still need to get paid, which is personal profit. They have no investors that need a cut.
I'm not sure where you live, but go get a cup of coffee with someone doing a tech startup or someone who scouts for venture capitalists. You shouldn't have to go too far to find someone. Try to understand the business side of it a little more, and then I think it'll make more sense. Money has a myriad of flavors and understanding the complexities that make up something like this puts a different color on everything.
Just like numbers don't always mean the same thing in statistics, money doesn't always mean the same thing in business.
The main point is that naysayers here will make this a self fulfilling prophecy. Say it did have a reasonable chance of success. All the negative side of this noise cant really help, can it?
Well... Definitely the noise can help people in case they are doing a long con for personal interest, or are people interested to sell ships in the grey market.
People closing their eyes and ignoring the red flags, and adopting the "wait and see" practice, is exactly what they want. It's exactly what any people that are deceiving people want.
Stop the ship sales and then people will have more reasons to look good intentions on those people. Then, I would consider acceptable to "wait and see".
Again, what is their motivation for this "con"? Please respond using some logic. Here are some things to consider. 1) CR's net worth is more than what money is left in the project at this point. 2) There is more opportunity to capitalize on future sales of in-game items if they ship a game. We've seen rates of capitalization on KS games be like 10, 20, 30 times that of what they raised in their KS (based solely on pre-sales versus steam sales). 3) The risk is too high. Promising something elaborate and getting everyone in a tizzy about this game only increases the risk of failure, and by escalating the risk, they run the risk of class action lawsuits. It's probable that they could have gotten the same support by dusting off their old Privateer code, updating the graphics engine, and adding in-game ship sales. They would DEFINITELY see a much higher return on that if they were doing pre-sales.
Sorry, but the problem with your argument is that it's not logical. There is no reason or motivation.
$90 million in crowdfunding is actually a lot better than $90 mil from VC or Publisher funding because it comes interest free and with fewer strings. That means CIG actually has clean money to develop with, and no need for a profitable exit. They can build with what they have and break even, and it's a win. That suggests that they're really health.
All facts, and all really good reasons to think SC is in good shape.
No need for a profitable exit according with the intentions of a 3rd party, you should say.
But the thing is, that Roberts could have a need of a profitable exit, personally, that could bigger than ever, so he really proceed with the venture, and if that does not come, he would just leave.
As a company/project. He and everyone else still need to get paid, which is personal profit. They have no investors that need a cut.
I'm not sure where you live, but go get a cup of coffee with someone doing a tech startup or someone who scouts for venture capitalists. You shouldn't have to go too far to find someone. Try to understand the business side of it a little more, and then I think it'll make more sense. Money has a myriad of flavors and understanding the complexities that make up something like this puts a different color on everything.
Just like numbers don't always mean the same thing in statistics, money doesn't always mean the same thing in business.
"As a company/project. He and everyone else still need to get paid,
which is personal profit. They have no investors that need a cut."
This was not an argument that could have invalidated what I said.
"I'm not sure where you live, but go get a cup of coffee with someone
doing a tech startup or someone who scouts for venture capitalists. You
shouldn't have to go too far to find someone. "
LOL You are talking with a former game developer. I am sure that i understand the business.
"Just like numbers don't always mean the same thing in statistics," Except that we never talked about statistics Hyperbole. LOL
Let's agree now that its pointless to go further with our discussion because you just hit the proud barrier
1) CR's net worth is more than what money is left in the project at this point.
Do we actually know that this is true? I've seen opinions about what his net worth was at the start of the crowdfunding range from broke to very wealthy but I haven't seen any facts. You have any?
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
A stance is valid if it is backed by facts. You cannot be both right. They are doing a good job or they don't.
Hmm I don't think you read what I wrote honestly. I never said opinions are facts. I said you should base your opinion on facts. so you just repacked my statement and called it incorrect
The second part is more problematic for me though. You really think that to have a valid opinion you first need to argue for the opposite side? This reminds me of the creationist idea about teaching the controversy. I hope you know what it was about. This idea that teaching an opposing theory is good for education.
Yes, I did. You specifically said that we can't both be right. We both absolutely can be right because what we have are opinions based on disparate facts. Our personal interpretation of those facts do not invalidate the facts themselves.
When one person says they think SC is fine and lists out a string of valid points, they're not wrong. When another says they think SC is in trouble and lists out a string of other valid points, they're not wrong either.
And, yeah. You really should be able to argue both sides of a point, no matter what it is, before you can be sure you have an opinion that's not weighted by personal bias. Truth is virtually never on the extreme, but rather something in the middle. You have to take the other side seriously and when their points invalidate your position, you need to examine where you're standing. You may not be specifically wrong, but there's something you've failed to account for in your position. Ignoring facts that contradict your stance is the opposite of making you right.
That's why I'm comfortable with my article. I've been an SC fan for years, and sincerely hope it'll succeed. I've looked hard at everything I could think of that suggests things are okay and tried to find reasons to ignore the indications otherwise. If I couldn't build an argument against myself, I would have considered what I wrote biased and not submitted it. It also makes me completely comfortable with dissenting [intelligent] opinions, even appreciative.
Whether it's global warming or evolution, both sides of the argument are usually about as right as they are wrong because they tend to ignore the possibility of a greyer truth. Whatever side of the position you're on, you're WAY better off if you understand the other as well as you do your own. Besides, it keeps you from sounding like a quack.
Yes. Listening to the argument of the opposite side is fundamental for a good debate .Agreed. I never disputed that but I don't need to argue both sides.
The main problem I see here is that you are talking all the time about the premises and not about the conclusion. Yes in an argument some premises can be validated and true but the conclusion is still wrong.
Ultimately we want to see results, a conclusion, even on a forum ... (well maybe i am asking too much)
p.s. Oh and truth is usually very one sided. If it is not well, Plato called them Sophists.
CR want's to make a game, he, along with a few other's (by his own admission), starts work on the game, and put's together a demo.
CR decide's he will use a KS campaign to generate some funds, which he hopes will show investor's it is a worthwhile project to drop some cash into (again, by his own admission).
Original KS goal is 500k, KS campaign raises over 2 mil, CR decide's not to bother with other investor's, as money is rolling in anyway.
Stretch goal's are added, with the last one at the 65 mil mark.
SC has raised over 90 mil so far, which far exceed's the amount CR has said he needed to make the game, and also exceeded what CR said was needed for each stretch goal.
So why are they still selling ship's? why are they still selling ship's that do not exist? why are backer's (and fence sitters) still waiting for the game that was estimated to be released last year?
Why, when they (according to the funding campaign) have more than enough money to complete the game?
Simple answer is CR had/has no idea how much money it would really take to develop SC, CR also made the mistake of listening to "fan's", and saying yes to what they wanted adding to the game, which led to feature creep, and delays (which CR stated would not happen due to stretch goals).
Does any of this make CR a conman, I do not think so, but it does give me doubt's as to the state of SC, and how backer's money (which include's mine) has been used so far, and it make's me wonder if SC will ever see release.
A creative person is motivated by the desire to achieve, not the desire to beat others.
The thing is this con artist and crook thinks he is protected by Kickstarter terms. I pretty much can assure you when dealing with embezzlement of this kind of money he will be facing some criminal charges and serious jail time. You can't just steal million upon millions and say oops sorry, there is an accountability and some of these investors could afford to hire some pretty high end lawyers or hitmen for much less than they invested in SC.
And that dear friends is how naysayers kill a 30+ year reputation and a project which is still running based on no facts or experience but rather on pure fear, uncertainty and doubt. Oh and how they get themselves sued for defamation too.
Check my other posts. Not saying that CR hasnt or has done any of these things, but psiic and those like him will make sure this project never sees the light of day.
Why? If he is wrong and CR is honest he has already, since years actually, all the money needed to finish the game. So, how this game "never will see the light of day" because the psiic doubts?
If the game never see the light of the day or dies sooner after day one, we catch just one more lie, ops, misrepresentation of Roberts, since he was putting in the minds of their backers, after the 23 million dollars milestone achieved, that the backers were now financing the development for many years ahead of the day one.
And yes, I suspect that he was misrepresenting that too. Specially by the kind of whining that he wrote in that letter to The Escapist, plus their desperate attitude to grab cash, despite all the bad reputation raising due that.
Because it's clear that the original funding plan relies upon the continued goodwill of the community and backers, and continued crowd funding. When that confidence goes the fuel that keeps CIG rolling to completion dries up and the project can't finish as planned.
The whole 'only $8M left' is also supplemented by ongoing crowdfunded income - so the statement that CIG is running out of money is from people who don't really get the concept of cashflow analysis. They assume the $90M is fixed funding but it isnt.. check the history!
BUT, naysayers will drive even professional backers away with this level of toxicity.. and then.. minimal funding from community and none from investment firms.. then no SC.
I'm an existing backer, and I would have bought the Endeavor (£420). I'd been waiting for it. Now, I'm sitting on the fence and seeing how this plays out. Cause and effect. Fortunately my situation provides some evidence to CIG of the impact of SmartyPants and The Escapist... even from a previous backer.
Because it's clear that the original funding plan relies upon the continued goodwill of the community and backers, and continued crowd funding. When that confidence goes the fuel that keeps CIG rolling to completion dries up and the project can't finish as planned.
No. It's not clear. At all. Your claim is the contrary of what the CEO of the company said originally and for years after the game fully funded. There is no such thing of "continued crowd-funding" to guarantee the release. It was just to add things and to keep the game alive for longer, as well as the excuse of a faster release of the core of the game. The target was hit and they have to deliver into their promises that were based in that target (and yes, they are 11 months behind schedule of that). If they did not complete the project because the funding ended, and actually, keep for years the project alive too, because they told that this additional money would make sure that, they defrauded consumers.
Does any of this make CR a conman, I do not think so, but it does give me doubt's as to the state of SC, and how backer's money (which include's mine) has been used so far, and it make's me wonder if SC will ever see release.
True. Failing does not make him a conman. But he has a legal responsibility and will be hold accountable for that anyway. Not with jail time, in case nothing too ugly going on, but with fines. Companies defraud consumers all the time in different situations and hold accountable. The difference is that they have enough reputation and tradition to stay in the business. In a sensible industry and market like the game industry and coming from a starter company, that means the end of it. The end of the company, the project and the Roberts reputation. Blame Roberts for that. He ignored this risk and continue to ignore.
People won't let this precedence to become "acceptable" because that will lead to the end/fall of the crowdfunding, specially in the Space Sim genre. Consumers simply won't trust their money anymore and many others will use the example of Star Citizen to defraud other consumers and "been safe", because, "if they are ok, I should be ok too, I just have to make up some excuses".
Nope! Its 90m+ dollars. Those looking to the interests of crowdfunding and consumers will make them an example to remind that crowdfunding does not come without risk for those running the campaign.
the latest Around the Verse, go to 28.05 for the ship progress section for the Caterpillar cargo hauler.
Seems like game progression to me. As to all the other noise, all I am seeing and hearing is: A profound plethora of pontificating preponderance in paranoia.
Comments
Observe:
SC includes FPS, Space Sim, Single-player, and Multi-player components. That effectively means that they're building about three games worth of content and then making all those games talk to each other. It's actually fairly realistic to expect three different studios to be able to complete each game in 2-4 years for about $20-$40 million each. That's not too far off fairly standard numbers in the industry.
SC has a playable DFM and has churned out a load of ships in the last couple years. They've also demo'd the FPS module, and have said that S42 is moving along well. If you consider that one studio is doing the work you might expect from three, then what's out now is actually pretty good. Especially when you consider that most games come together right at the very end, and the early days are virtually unplayable in most cases.
$90 million in crowdfunding is actually a lot better than $90 mil from VC or Publisher funding because it comes interest free and with fewer strings. That means CIG actually has clean money to develop with, and no need for a profitable exit. They can build with what they have and break even, and it's a win. That suggests that they're really health.
All facts, and all really good reasons to think SC is in good shape. The fact that I don't think things are going that well for them, doesn't prevent my looking at stuff like that and seeing the validity in that argument. I just disagree. Why don't you take a look at some of those other opposing arguments and see if you can find some validity in them. There really are several good points through this thread. I think you'll find it makes your own position a lot stronger.
Well... Definitely the noise can help people in case they are doing a long con for personal interest, or are people interested to sell ships in the grey market.
People closing their eyes and ignoring the red flags, and adopting the "wait and see" practice, is exactly what they want. It's exactly what any people that are deceiving people want.
Stop the ship sales and then people will have more reasons to look good intentions on those people. Then, I would consider acceptable to "wait and see".
I don't think CIG can credibly remain selling virtual promises after this, regardless of guilt or innocence. But that will require external investment and locking down project scope... like now.
I don't know CR, so I could not say much about his character. But in my opinion, if what you say is true, he is borderline commiting a fraud. I would like to think CR, as a man praised for his vision and passion in game, not to mention his past work, would be blinded with greed as to willingly want to dug his own grave.
I had the chance to work under a person who many praised as a genius. Indeed the person is very talented, visionary. However, many projects failed to meet deadlines, not because of the team lacking the ability, but because of a serious oversights during project planning. Many times too idealistic and not practical.
Just saying, there are many ways to make money if you had the funds. They don't need to spend all the funds from the get go. They could reinvest the funds on properties, bonds, etc, many of which are legal.
The second part is more problematic for me though. You really think that to have a valid opinion you first need to argue for the opposite side? This reminds me of the creationist idea about teaching the controversy.
I hope you know what it was about. This idea that teaching an opposing theory is good for education.
edit.
To be clear. I don't disagree on everything but we were asking a specific question: Is CIG doing a good job?
But the thing is, that Roberts could have a need of a profitable exit, personally, that could bigger than ever, so he really proceed with the venture, and if that does not come, he would just leave.
I don't see how the fact that they don't have VC with more powerful voice to direct the development for 3rd parties profit, could indicate that "they are really health".
Roberts could have burned most of his money already. And could be trying to pursuit quietly VC money to maintain and end the project. That is what the rumors say, and for such rumors, Roberts refuse to prove them wrong.
And let's just do not be naive and call "demos" and "tech demos" proof of progress. So far there is no indication in any that they did, that they will be really capable to deliver into the promises that they did, or will transform those shiny things in an actual MMO game. They only are showing (and nothing in the hands of the public) that can release something that is totally far of what they promised and hyped people about. Limited and just appealing to visual fidelity.
They are showing "tries" that they are far to indicate/proof that they can finish the product in the way that it was promised. Many things are openly stated as pending of research. And research, not always produces development, or at least, in an acceptable time frame.
In other words, it does not seem to me that there are indications that they are health. Quite the contrary.
Layoffs, restructuring things in the middle of the project, slow pace of development of minor things (even for the material released, they take a long time to fix issues or to add value to that, and are actually very stubborn in some design choices that clearly are liked only by a minority - because if it was the contrary, more people would play, much more).
That is far to be "health" or "common" and indicates the contrary. That they are not health. Indicates lack of a proper planning, which apparently they are trying to fix now, but in a way that will impact a lot more in further delays, more waste of money and again, "to try", not really yet with the certainty to deliver what was promised.
With all their "transparency" that sounds more like an eternal Damage Control than transparency, its hard to believe that they will have the support that they need for so long. It has been dropping now, and I don't see anything that they could bring to the table (meaning in the hands of the backers) that really can be a source of motivation, but instead, a source of more problems and complaints.
The scenario is of an obvious flop if it ever releases. If you look to the thing objectively, and consider the realities of the market and of the situation that they put themselves.
A couple of problems with SC however is that CIG itself was the one to set unrealistic expectations of the original (and even current) time line and how extra money beyond a certain point would help shrink the development time.
Now IMO, they are at least as knowledgeable and realistic about development cycles as we are so the unrealistic short times they set were done deliberately for fundraising purposes.
To think that they have been giving honest guesses about when the game would be ready all along you'd have to believe that they know less about development cycles than we do... which would be its very own disturbing thought.
Most other opinions and theories about wrongdoings and malfeasance at CIG flow from this: Have they been deliberately misleading about release dates in order to feed the fundraising? And, if so, what else are they being misleading about?
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Check my other posts. Not saying that CR hasnt or has done any of these things, but psiic and those like him will make sure this project never sees the light of day.
When one person says they think SC is fine and lists out a string of valid points, they're not wrong.
When another says they think SC is in trouble and lists out a string of other valid points, they're not wrong either.
And, yeah. You really should be able to argue both sides of a point, no matter what it is, before you can be sure you have an opinion that's not weighted by personal bias. Truth is virtually never on the extreme, but rather something in the middle. You have to take the other side seriously and when their points invalidate your position, you need to examine where you're standing. You may not be specifically wrong, but there's something you've failed to account for in your position. Ignoring facts that contradict your stance is the opposite of making you right.
That's why I'm comfortable with my article. I've been an SC fan for years, and sincerely hope it'll succeed. I've looked hard at everything I could think of that suggests things are okay and tried to find reasons to ignore the indications otherwise. If I couldn't build an argument against myself, I would have considered what I wrote biased and not submitted it. It also makes me completely comfortable with dissenting [intelligent] opinions, even appreciative.
Whether it's global warming or evolution, both sides of the argument are usually about as right as they are wrong because they tend to ignore the possibility of a greyer truth. Whatever side of the position you're on, you're WAY better off if you understand the other as well as you do your own. Besides, it keeps you from sounding like a quack.
If he is wrong and CR is honest he has already, since years actually, all the money needed to finish the game. So, how this game "never will see the light of day" because the psiic doubts?
If the game never see the light of the day or dies sooner after day one, we catch just one more lie, ops, misrepresentation of Roberts, since he was putting in the minds of their backers, after the 23 million dollars milestone achieved, that the backers were now financing the development for many years ahead of the day one.
And yes, I suspect that he was misrepresenting that too. Specially by the kind of whining that he wrote in that letter to The Escapist, plus their desperate attitude to grab cash, despite all the bad reputation raising due that.
I'm not sure where you live, but go get a cup of coffee with someone doing a tech startup or someone who scouts for venture capitalists. You shouldn't have to go too far to find someone. Try to understand the business side of it a little more, and then I think it'll make more sense. Money has a myriad of flavors and understanding the complexities that make up something like this puts a different color on everything.
Just like numbers don't always mean the same thing in statistics, money doesn't always mean the same thing in business.
Again, what is their motivation for this "con"? Please respond using some logic. Here are some things to consider.
1) CR's net worth is more than what money is left in the project at this point.
2) There is more opportunity to capitalize on future sales of in-game items if they ship a game. We've seen rates of capitalization on KS games be like 10, 20, 30 times that of what they raised in their KS (based solely on pre-sales versus steam sales).
3) The risk is too high. Promising something elaborate and getting everyone in a tizzy about this game only increases the risk of failure, and by escalating the risk, they run the risk of class action lawsuits. It's probable that they could have gotten the same support by dusting off their old Privateer code, updating the graphics engine, and adding in-game ship sales. They would DEFINITELY see a much higher return on that if they were doing pre-sales.
Sorry, but the problem with your argument is that it's not logical. There is no reason or motivation.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
This was not an argument that could have invalidated what I said.
"I'm not sure where you live, but go get a cup of coffee with someone doing a tech startup or someone who scouts for venture capitalists. You shouldn't have to go too far to find someone. "
LOL
You are talking with a former game developer. I am sure that i understand the business.
"Just like numbers don't always mean the same thing in statistics,"
Except that we never talked about statistics
Hyperbole.
LOL
Let's agree now that its pointless to go further with our discussion because you just hit the proud barrier
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
The main problem I see here is that you are talking all the time about the premises and not about the conclusion. Yes in an argument some premises can be validated and true but the conclusion is still wrong.
Ultimately we want to see results, a conclusion, even on a forum ... (well maybe i am asking too much)
p.s. Oh and truth is usually very one sided. If it is not well, Plato called them Sophists.
CR want's to make a game, he, along with a few other's (by his own admission), starts work on the game, and put's together a demo.
CR decide's he will use a KS campaign to generate some funds, which he hopes will show investor's it is a worthwhile project to drop some cash into (again, by his own admission).
Original KS goal is 500k, KS campaign raises over 2 mil, CR decide's not to bother with other investor's, as money is rolling in anyway.
Stretch goal's are added, with the last one at the 65 mil mark.
SC has raised over 90 mil so far, which far exceed's the amount CR has said he needed to make the game, and also exceeded what CR said was needed for each stretch goal.
So why are they still selling ship's? why are they still selling ship's that do not exist? why are backer's (and fence sitters) still waiting for the game that was estimated to be released last year?
Why, when they (according to the funding campaign) have more than enough money to complete the game?
Simple answer is CR had/has no idea how much money it would really take to develop SC, CR also made the mistake of listening to "fan's", and saying yes to what they wanted adding to the game, which led to feature creep, and delays (which CR stated would not happen due to stretch goals).
Does any of this make CR a conman, I do not think so, but it does give me doubt's as to the state of SC, and how backer's money (which include's mine) has been used so far, and it make's me wonder if SC will ever see release.
A creative person is motivated by the desire to achieve, not the desire to beat others.
The whole 'only $8M left' is also supplemented by ongoing crowdfunded income - so the statement that CIG is running out of money is from people who don't really get the concept of cashflow analysis. They assume the $90M is fixed funding but it isnt.. check the history!
BUT, naysayers will drive even professional backers away with this level of toxicity.. and then.. minimal funding from community and none from investment firms.. then no SC.
I'm an existing backer, and I would have bought the Endeavor (£420). I'd been waiting for it. Now, I'm sitting on the fence and seeing how this plays out. Cause and effect. Fortunately my situation provides some evidence to CIG of the impact of SmartyPants and The Escapist... even from a previous backer.
Your claim is the contrary of what the CEO of the company said originally and for years after the game fully funded. There is no such thing of "continued crowd-funding" to guarantee the release. It was just to add things and to keep the game alive for longer, as well as the excuse of a faster release of the core of the game.
The target was hit and they have to deliver into their promises that were based in that target (and yes, they are 11 months behind schedule of that).
If they did not complete the project because the funding ended, and actually, keep for years the project alive too, because they told that this additional money would make sure that, they defrauded consumers.
People won't let this precedence to become "acceptable" because that will lead to the end/fall of the crowdfunding, specially in the Space Sim genre. Consumers simply won't trust their money anymore and many others will use the example of Star Citizen to defraud other consumers and "been safe", because, "if they are ok, I should be ok too, I just have to make up some excuses".
Nope! Its 90m+ dollars. Those looking to the interests of crowdfunding and consumers will make them an example to remind that crowdfunding does not come without risk for those running the campaign.
the latest Around the Verse, go to 28.05 for the ship progress section for the Caterpillar cargo hauler.
Seems like game progression to me.
As to all the other noise, all I am seeing and hearing is:
A profound plethora of pontificating preponderance in paranoia.
Have a good day.
Edit: had to redo the video paste,my bad.