› ›

Howdy, Stranger!

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

Sign In Register

Quick Links

This Week In Star Citizen

rpmcmurphyrpmcmurphy Member EpicPosts: 3,502
edited December 2018 in Star Citizen
And in recent news Star Citizen developer CIG won the coveted award for Worst Business Model of 2018, an almost unanimous decision from the staff of massivelyop.com, 6 out of 7 staff voted for Star Citizen, with the readers affirming their decision. 



In a rather unsurprising turn of events for the controversial developer, news of shares being sold to three companies, Erloch Ltd, Indus Management Ltd and Infatrade Group Corporation emerged thanks to a filing made at companyhouse.co.uk. The shares amount to a 11.88% stake in the company and raised $22 million in capital but also netted the sellers (Chris Roberts, Erin Roberts, Ortwin Freyermurth) a tidy fee of $2.9M, $0.26M and $0.52M respectively.


A very interesting disection of this matter can be found on Guard Frequency's podcast and is well worth one's time

Stay glued to This Week In Star Citizen, in our next update we should have an announcement for the winner of MassivelyOP.'s controversial Most Likely To Flop Award :)

Have fun

Scot

Comments

  • rodarinrodarin Member EpicPosts: 2,611
    Only in terms of utilizing funds for what theyre intended I imagine. If everything is true and the numbers are accurate its basically the best business model ever. Who wouldnt love to bring in 30-40 mil a year spend 12-15 on the help, continue to live like the rich and famous, and release decades old assets a couple times a year to an aging test bed server? And not actually release a 'game' even the single player one that had a huge media circus when it named all the voice actors who worked on it. Voice acting that was done how long ago now?

    Nah theyre doing just what they want, and the lemmings are all eating it up.
    Kyleran
  • VrikaVrika Member LegendaryPosts: 7,827
    rpmcmurphy said:

    In a rather unsurprising turn of events for the controversial developer, news of shares being sold to three companies, Erloch Ltd, Indus Management Ltd and Infatrade Group Corporation emerged thanks to a filing made at companyhouse.co.uk. The shares amount to a 11.88% stake in the company and raised $22 million in capital but also netted the sellers (Chris Roberts, Erin Roberts, Ortwin Freyermurth) a tidy fee of $2.9M, $0.26M and $0.52M respectively.


    MassivelyOP's article didn't really have anything surprising since they voted Star Citizen the worst business model last year too, but this is large news.

    I think it's good news because it means they're getting money outside of having to get players pay for everything, but at the same time I think it's also something that RSI should have told its backers themselves instead of letting people find it out from elsewhere.
     
  • ErillionErillion Member EpicPosts: 10,254
    edited December 2018
    Vrika said:
    MassivelyOP's article didn't really have anything surprising since they voted Star Citizen the worst business model last year too, but this is large news.

    I think it's good news because it means they're getting money outside of having to get players pay for everything, but at the same time I think it's also something that RSI should have told its backers themselves instead of letting people find it out from elsewhere.
    Old news already and has been discussed ad nauseam in various forums.

    The usual suspects construct their conspiracy theories around information that any Star Citizen fan can look up, because its publically available ... and the financial data for the UK offices of CIG have been available year after year.

    So ... *** yawn ***

    Wake me up to the same "90 days TOPS" news next month ....

    Meanwhile SC has one of the most successful years in its history, both economically and performance wise ... whatever the usual suspects say ...


    Have fun

  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 21,450
    If you keep selling shares to investors, they will have a larger and larger say in what the games revenue strategy will be. They want a ROI and more, so the question has to be asked is this money needed and why? Or is it just a way for the top executives to make some money now?
  • rodarinrodarin Member EpicPosts: 2,611
    edited December 2018
    Erillion said:
    Vrika said:
    MassivelyOP's article didn't really have anything surprising since they voted Star Citizen the worst business model last year too, but this is large news.

    I think it's good news because it means they're getting money outside of having to get players pay for everything, but at the same time I think it's also something that RSI should have told its backers themselves instead of letting people find it out from elsewhere.

    The usual suspects construct their conspiracy theories around information that any Star Citizen fan can look up, because its publically available ... and the financial data for the UK offices of CIG have been available year after year.


    Have fun

    Links?

    And do any of those documents itemize where every dollar is going?
  • ErillionErillion Member EpicPosts: 10,254
    >>>
    so the question has to be asked is this money needed and why?
    >>>

    In 2018 so far CIG made 35.651.726 $.  I would guess by the end of the year it will be around 37-38 M$.

    35.651.726 divided by 12 is 2970977.  Using an old rule of thumb of 10000 $ per employee per month for EVERYTHING, this supports a studio of about 297 people.

    CIG currently has between 450-500 employees at the moment. Some contracts seem to end with this year and they have a big recruitment going on in all of their studios (not something a company usually does if it has financial problems).

    So i think they can always use more and additional money.


    Have fun

  • ErillionErillion Member EpicPosts: 10,254
    rodarin said:
    Links?

    And do any of those documents itemize where every dollar is going?
    A rhetorical question, as you already know it and can see the link in your "hero's" (=The Smarty) twitter account and homepage.

    And anyone can find it using Google (use words like "cloud imperium games financial report" or "Foundry 42 UK financial")


    Have fun

  • VrikaVrika Member LegendaryPosts: 7,827
    Erillion said:
    Vrika said:
    MassivelyOP's article didn't really have anything surprising since they voted Star Citizen the worst business model last year too, but this is large news.

    I think it's good news because it means they're getting money outside of having to get players pay for everything, but at the same time I think it's also something that RSI should have told its backers themselves instead of letting people find it out from elsewhere.
    Old news already and has been discussed ad nauseam in various forums. 
    What do you mean old news? The Companies House data was published last Friday.
     
  • ErillionErillion Member EpicPosts: 10,254
    Vrika said:
    Erillion said:
    Vrika said:
    MassivelyOP's article didn't really have anything surprising since they voted Star Citizen the worst business model last year too, but this is large news.

    I think it's good news because it means they're getting money outside of having to get players pay for everything, but at the same time I think it's also something that RSI should have told its backers themselves instead of letting people find it out from elsewhere.
    Old news already and has been discussed ad nauseam in various forums. 
    What do you mean old news? The Companies House data was published last Friday.
    3 days in the time of social media and discussion forums IS old news.


    Have fun
  • KellerKeller Member UncommonPosts: 602
    Vrika said:
    rpmcmurphy said:

    In a rather unsurprising turn of events for the controversial developer, news of shares being sold to three companies, Erloch Ltd, Indus Management Ltd and Infatrade Group Corporation emerged thanks to a filing made at companyhouse.co.uk. The shares amount to a 11.88% stake in the company and raised $22 million in capital but also netted the sellers (Chris Roberts, Erin Roberts, Ortwin Freyermurth) a tidy fee of $2.9M, $0.26M and $0.52M respectively.


    MassivelyOP's article didn't really have anything surprising since they voted Star Citizen the worst business model last year too, but this is large news.

    I think it's good news because it means they're getting money outside of having to get players pay for everything, but at the same time I think it's also something that RSI should have told its backers themselves instead of letting people find it out from elsewhere.
    I don't. Investors don't have the same interests as players. Investors mean that all the profit doesn't find its way back to the game. 


    And why does SC need the extra money? I get the selling of ships binds new players to your IP. So by selling ships you will get money and new players.SC has a steady income generated by selling the ships, so why this extra injection of money?
    rpmcmurphy
  • rpmcmurphyrpmcmurphy Member EpicPosts: 3,502
    edited December 2018
    Vrika said:
    Erillion said:
    Vrika said:
    MassivelyOP's article didn't really have anything surprising since they voted Star Citizen the worst business model last year too, but this is large news.

    I think it's good news because it means they're getting money outside of having to get players pay for everything, but at the same time I think it's also something that RSI should have told its backers themselves instead of letting people find it out from elsewhere.
    Old news already and has been discussed ad nauseam in various forums. 
    What do you mean old news? The Companies House data was published last Friday.
    Erillion's just doing his misinformation thing.

    The only official talk about investors before now was prior to CIG raising $23 million, where they told backers that breaking the $23 million barrier would make them free of any external ties.

    @Erillion Any speculation elsewhere from people like DS is irrelevant to this topic because this is confirmed information, not speculative/hearsay/unconfirmed ramblings.

    My thoughts on the matter is that CIG should simply get ahead of these things, why not announce this close to time and paint it in a way that is beneficial instead of allowing people to speculate about the need for external funding when they have received $210 million already.
    They should have learned these lessons from previous blunders, the Coutts loan being a prime example.

  • ErillionErillion Member EpicPosts: 10,254
    edited December 2018
    >>>
    My thoughts on the matter is that CIG should simply get ahead of these things
    >>>

    They do. They will ignore it like all the rest ;-)  and keep creating a great game.

    Like the Coutts loan debate, like the money laundering debate, like the Swedish Mafia debate, like the Caribean island debate, like the sportscar salesman debate, like the exchange rate speculation debate, like the national subsidy for game companies debate, like the coffee machine debate etc. etc. ad nauseam.


    Have fun

    rpmcmurphy
  • VrikaVrika Member LegendaryPosts: 7,827
    edited December 2018
    Keller said:
    Vrika said:
    In a rather unsurprising turn of events for the controversial developer, news of shares being sold to three companies, Erloch Ltd, Indus Management Ltd and Infatrade Group Corporation emerged thanks to a filing made at companyhouse.co.uk. The shares amount to a 11.88% stake in the company and raised $22 million in capital but also netted the sellers (Chris Roberts, Erin Roberts, Ortwin Freyermurth) a tidy fee of $2.9M, $0.26M and $0.52M respectively.


    MassivelyOP's article didn't really have anything surprising since they voted Star Citizen the worst business model last year too, but this is large news.

    I think it's good news because it means they're getting money outside of having to get players pay for everything, but at the same time I think it's also something that RSI should have told its backers themselves instead of letting people find it out from elsewhere.
    I don't. Investors don't have the same interests as players. Investors mean that all the profit doesn't find its way back to the game. 
    The difference between having investors and not is that previously backers financed 100% of the game's costs and company owners were entitled to 100% of the profits, whereas now backers have only financed about 90% of the game's costs and company owners are entitled to have 100% of the profits.

    Star Citizen is not a foundation. It's a for-profit business.
    Erillion
     
  • rpmcmurphyrpmcmurphy Member EpicPosts: 3,502
    edited December 2018
    Erillion said:
    >>>
    My thoughts on the matter is that CIG should simply get ahead of these things
    >>>

    They do. They will ignore it like all the rest ;-)  and keep creating a great game.

    Like the Coutts loan debate, like the money laundering debate, like the Swedish Mafia debate, like the Caribean island debate, like the sportscar salesman debate, like the exchange rate speculation debate, like the national subsidy for game companies debate, like the coffee machine debate etc. etc. ad nauseam.


    Have fun


    See this is just false or selective memory.

    Do you not remember Ortwin trying to justify the Coutts loan after it was picked up? Exchange rate due to Brexit, does that ring a bell?

    That is what I'm referring to, get ahead of having to do things like that.

    Lumping actual things that occured with completely speculative things is not at all helpful and makes it appear that you cannot discuss any of this in a rational manner.
  • gervaise1gervaise1 Member EpicPosts: 6,919
    Vrika said:
    Keller said:
    Vrika said:
    In a rather unsurprising turn of events for the controversial developer, news of shares being sold to three companies, Erloch Ltd, Indus Management Ltd and Infatrade Group Corporation emerged thanks to a filing made at companyhouse.co.uk. The shares amount to a 11.88% stake in the company and raised $22 million in capital but also netted the sellers (Chris Roberts, Erin Roberts, Ortwin Freyermurth) a tidy fee of $2.9M, $0.26M and $0.52M respectively.


    MassivelyOP's article didn't really have anything surprising since they voted Star Citizen the worst business model last year too, but this is large news.

    I think it's good news because it means they're getting money outside of having to get players pay for everything, but at the same time I think it's also something that RSI should have told its backers themselves instead of letting people find it out from elsewhere.
    I don't. Investors don't have the same interests as players. Investors mean that all the profit doesn't find its way back to the game. 
    The difference between having investors and not is that previously backers financed 100% of the game's costs and company owners were entitled to 100% of the profits, whereas now backers have only financed about 90% of the game's costs and company owners are entitled to have 100% of the profits.

    Star Citizen is not a foundation. It's a for-profit business.
    Interesting news.

    Is the money raised to fund the game? I doubt it. They said last year that they had enough. And since then they have:

    - raised more through crowdfunding;
    - released 3.0;
    - spelt out what they need to finish to release an MVP, all of which are included in 3.5 and 3.6. So if no slips another 6 months. 

    So hard to believe they don't have enough funds to finish. 
     

    However whilst CR - clearly - doing something he wants to do making money will also be an aim.

    Assuming they follow through on their statement that all the crowdfunding will be used in development - and given the size of the team it is easy to see that being met.  

    Maybe this is one of the options? Based - maybe - at some point in the future declaring that the game will simply be "sold" rather than "funded". 

    Maybe its also based on other possibilities. Maybe a TV series? There was a film in the past so why not? They have the art assets and the tech and team to generate more; its something CR has been involved in and if they can get the current cast of SQ42 on-board to headline it ..... well its hard to get something picked up that studios haven't been involved in but I suspect its an option. 

    Interesting though. If anything it points towards SC (& SQ42) moving out of crowdfunding and just becoming "games for sale". Possibly the end of drama as we know it.
  • KefoKefo Member EpicPosts: 4,229
    rpmcmurphy said:
    Erillion said:
    >>>
    My thoughts on the matter is that CIG should simply get ahead of these things
    >>>

    They do. They will ignore it like all the rest ;-)  and keep creating a great game.

    Like the Coutts loan debate, like the money laundering debate, like the Swedish Mafia debate, like the Caribean island debate, like the sportscar salesman debate, like the exchange rate speculation debate, like the national subsidy for game companies debate, like the coffee machine debate etc. etc. ad nauseam.


    Have fun


    See this is just false or selective memory.

    Do you not remember Ortwin trying to justify the Coutts loan after it was picked up? Exchange rate due to Brexit, does that ring a bell?

    That is what I'm referring to, get ahead of having to do things like that.

    Lumping actual things that occured with completely speculative things is not at all helpful and makes it appear that you cannot discuss any of this in a rational manner.
    You act surprised that Erillion is going to try to spin this into a way that minimizes it and this includes pointing the finger at Derek Smart cause he’s the boogeyman.

    I’m going to say this will probably continue (the selling of shares for a nice profit to line CR’s pocket) and backers won’t find out about it until the next UK filing. 
  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 42,599
    edited December 2018
    Erillion said:8
    Vrika said:
    MassivelyOP's article didn't really have anything surprising since they voted Star Citizen the worst business model last year too, but this is large news.

    I think it's good news because it means they're getting money outside of having to get players pay for everything, but at the same time I think it's also something that RSI should have told its backers themselves instead of letting people find it out from elsewhere.
    Old news already and has been discussed ad nauseam in various forums.

    The usual suspects construct their conspiracy theories around information that any Star Citizen fan can look up, because its publically available ... and the financial data for the UK offices of CIG have been available year after year.

    So ... *** yawn ***

    Wake me up to the same "90 days TOPS" news next month ....

    Meanwhile SC has one of the most successful years in its history, both economically and performance wise ... whatever the usual suspects say ...


    Have fun

    And yet, despite all of this great "progress"...still no published release date for either game.

    Any bets whether this will still be the status quo at the end of 2019?

    I'm wondering if "launching" really even matters to you and most other fans, doesn't appear so.

    Rather amazing really 

    "True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde 

    "I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant

    Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm

    Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

    Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™

    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon






  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    Erillion said:
    Vrika said:
    Erillion said:
    Vrika said:
    MassivelyOP's article didn't really have anything surprising since they voted Star Citizen the worst business model last year too, but this is large news.

    I think it's good news because it means they're getting money outside of having to get players pay for everything, but at the same time I think it's also something that RSI should have told its backers themselves instead of letting people find it out from elsewhere.
    Old news already and has been discussed ad nauseam in various forums. 
    What do you mean old news? The Companies House data was published last Friday.
    3 days in the time of social media and discussion forums IS old news.


    Have fun
    That is.....  Quite the stretch.
    BeansnBread

    image
  • ohioastroohioastro Member UncommonPosts: 534
    Kyleran said:
    Erillion said:8
    Vrika said:
    MassivelyOP's article didn't really have anything surprising since they voted Star Citizen the worst business model last year too, but this is large news.

    I think it's good news because it means they're getting money outside of having to get players pay for everything, but at the same time I think it's also something that RSI should have told its backers themselves instead of letting people find it out from elsewhere.
    Old news already and has been discussed ad nauseam in various forums.

    The usual suspects construct their conspiracy theories around information that any Star Citizen fan can look up, because its publically available ... and the financial data for the UK offices of CIG have been available year after year.

    So ... *** yawn ***

    Wake me up to the same "90 days TOPS" news next month ....

    Meanwhile SC has one of the most successful years in its history, both economically and performance wise ... whatever the usual suspects say ...


    Have fun

    And yet, despite all of this great "progress"...still no published release date for either game.

    Any bets whether this will still be the status quo at the end of 2019?

    I'm wondering if "launching" really even matters to you and most other fans, doesn't appear so.

    Rather amazing really 

    Substitute "paid employee" for "fan" and it makes a lot of sense.  A poster who defends every last detail of what a company does - never criticizing them, even mildly, or even expressing any disappointment - is not a fan.  They're paid by the company or paid to post.  And there is only one person here that does this.  There are also clearly zealous fans.   You can tell the difference.
  • KefoKefo Member EpicPosts: 4,229
    Kyleran said:
    Erillion said:8
    Vrika said:
    MassivelyOP's article didn't really have anything surprising since they voted Star Citizen the worst business model last year too, but this is large news.

    I think it's good news because it means they're getting money outside of having to get players pay for everything, but at the same time I think it's also something that RSI should have told its backers themselves instead of letting people find it out from elsewhere.
    Old news already and has been discussed ad nauseam in various forums.

    The usual suspects construct their conspiracy theories around information that any Star Citizen fan can look up, because its publically available ... and the financial data for the UK offices of CIG have been available year after year.

    So ... *** yawn ***

    Wake me up to the same "90 days TOPS" news next month ....

    Meanwhile SC has one of the most successful years in its history, both economically and performance wise ... whatever the usual suspects say ...


    Have fun

    And yet, despite all of this great "progress"...still no published release date for either game.

    Any bets whether this will still be the status quo at the end of 2019?

    I'm wondering if "launching" really even matters to you and most other fans, doesn't appear so.

    Rather amazing really 

    They will probably announce SQ42 soonish but then continue to push it back because it must be the best as release videos of them trying their best to get it done. And the status quo will continue of it’s totally coming at the end of (insert current year)
  • BeansnBreadBeansnBread Member EpicPosts: 7,254
    Eww....
  • gervaise1gervaise1 Member EpicPosts: 6,919
    Kefo said:
    Kyleran said:
    <snip>

    And yet, despite all of this great "progress"...still no published release date for either game.

    Any bets whether this will still be the status quo at the end of 2019?

    I'm wondering if "launching" really even matters to you and most other fans, doesn't appear so.

    Rather amazing really 

    They will probably announce SQ42 soonish but then continue to push it back because it must be the best as release videos of them trying their best to get it done. And the status quo will continue of it’s totally coming at the end of (insert current year)
    For SQ42 I think an announcement of something soon sounds right plus - probably - a roadmap. Which may very well have some things from SC on it (see below). 

    From a big picture perspective:

    - SQ42 needs SC stuff that has not yet been released to alpha e.g. female character models
    - the SC alpha is ..... an alpha! Prudent to allow some time for features to "bed in" or slip!
    - the SC MVP is pencilled in for mid-2019. (Features spelt out currently in 3.5/3.6).
    - the MVP release will generate press: good, bad or indifferent.
    - did I mention possible slippage; so lets say possible 3.7!
    - For maximum SQ42 sales - to non-backers - they will want to use the July/August (possible October) coverage to help drive a late November Thanksgiving / Christmas launch.

    Now whether they are at all close enough or confident enough to announce a 2019 date - not a clue. And even if they are whether whether they will achieve it - that is another question.

    That would be my top down what I would like to see happen big picture. That would need to be compared with the bottom up picture though - whatever that is for SQ42.
Sign In or Register to comment.