Interesting how with the white knights, the game is always doing great and they never invite people to play with them, never invite people to join a discord, or never name their orgs. or thank their friends for having a good time in game, never mention details of what they did in gaming session. If one did it, it would'nt seem so unusual.
I play within my org, but I won't mix me in-game and here together.
Mind this is the place I have gotten close to death threats from whoever was creating alt accounts with the fans going to all suicide type of talk if you remember.
So not comfortable at all on doing something as inviting or people around the forum here who play to get into a session together, it's not a welcoming tone sadly as this forum is more about people who don't own/play SC hating it than anything else.
LMAO guys still think this thing is going to be released.
12-20-2018 was the day the dream died. Make sure to bookmark this because thats what is going to happen.
At BEST Roberts sells too many shares and he gets kicked off his own project then and only then will this thing have a prayer of getting put out.
I used to think as long as the money kept rolling in it had a chance but as we now know they have been in the red for at least 3 years and I imagine 2018 was the worst yet (thus why they sought a bail out well they have probably been looking for a bail out for years but they finally softened these guys up enough)
How can a BILLION dollars (Chris Roberts math of 4-1 independent studio versus big time conglomerate) not make the single player game? How is THAT still 4 or 5 years away (which basically means never) and how is it his brother claimed 2 or 3 years ago to have played all the missions at that time?
I dont have to write anything anymore these days anyway since its like shooting fish in a barrel its not even fair. At least before it was simple common sense now its absolutes.
They still have to put in (working, not placeholders) spindles, modules, blades, remote turrets, drones, hired NPCs, docking collars, a chat window, etc etc
I used to think as long as the money kept rolling in it had a chance but as we now know they have been in the red for at least 3 years <snip> <snip>
They haven't been "in the red". Their financial balance has been positive; staff have been paid etc. Crysis went in the red; staff didn't get paid. A big difference if you are the staff.
We don't actually know what the current position is. The financials for Foundry 42 won't tell us since that is just a sub-company which gets its money from higher up the tree. And the financials for RSI won't tell us since they only go to 2017. In short we have no number for the end of 2018.
However as they have been paying staff throughout 2018 and seem to have hired more the only conclusion we can make is that the crowdfunding coming in has been at least sufficient.
If at the end of 2018 they have less than $14M (or whatever) then you can say they have had "negative cash flow". If more than "positive cash slow". (I'm ignoring the $46M.)
And with record crowdfunding in December 2018, quarterly updates delivered more or less as stated and the development in better shape than at the end of 2017.
The only unknown - I suggest - is how the investment might be viewed by potential future backers: no opinion people simply decide on the merits / state of the development; a sell out that makes people decide not to pledge; a sign of confidence, an outside investor believes the game will release lets go for it.
My own view is that it won't make much, if any, difference - but that is just my opinion. Future patches, the signs of a maturing game, better performance and, at some point, the MVP - those are what I think will have much more impact. Or - flip side - huge problems and delays. As I said a long time ago the alpha is a two edged sword; it showcases what is finished today. Not the doom, not the hype but what there is.
I used to think as long as the money kept rolling in it had a chance but as we now know they have been in the red for at least 3 years <snip> <snip>
They haven't been "in the red". Their financial balance has been positive; staff have been paid etc. Crysis went in the red; staff didn't get paid. A big difference if you are the staff.
We don't actually know what the current position is. The financials for Foundry 42 won't tell us since that is just a sub-company which gets its money from higher up the tree. And the financials for RSI won't tell us since they only go to 2017. In short we have no number for the end of 2018.
However as they have been paying staff throughout 2018 and seem to have hired more the only conclusion we can make is that the crowdfunding coming in has been at least sufficient.
If at the end of 2018 they have less than $14M (or whatever) then you can say they have had "negative cash flow". If more than "positive cash slow". (I'm ignoring the $46M.)
And with record crowdfunding in December 2018, quarterly updates delivered more or less as stated and the development in better shape than at the end of 2017.
The only unknown - I suggest - is how the investment might be viewed by potential future backers: no opinion people simply decide on the merits / state of the development; a sell out that makes people decide not to pledge; a sign of confidence, an outside investor believes the game will release lets go for it.
My own view is that it won't make much, if any, difference - but that is just my opinion. Future patches, the signs of a maturing game, better performance and, at some point, the MVP - those are what I think will have much more impact. Or - flip side - huge problems and delays. As I said a long time ago the alpha is a two edged sword; it showcases what is finished today. Not the doom, not the hype but what there is.
Be that as it may, having negative cash flow the last three years on record isn't really a good signal. It begs the question whether the 46 millions were more an investment or a bailout.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
I used to think as long as the money kept rolling in it had a chance but as we now know they have been in the red for at least 3 years <snip> <snip>
They haven't been "in the red". Their financial balance has been positive; staff have been paid etc. Crysis went in the red; staff didn't get paid. A big difference if you are the staff.
We don't actually know what the current position is. The financials for Foundry 42 won't tell us since that is just a sub-company which gets its money from higher up the tree. And the financials for RSI won't tell us since they only go to 2017. In short we have no number for the end of 2018.
However as they have been paying staff throughout 2018 and seem to have hired more the only conclusion we can make is that the crowdfunding coming in has been at least sufficient.
If at the end of 2018 they have less than $14M (or whatever) then you can say they have had "negative cash flow". If more than "positive cash slow". (I'm ignoring the $46M.)
And with record crowdfunding in December 2018, quarterly updates delivered more or less as stated and the development in better shape than at the end of 2017.
The only unknown - I suggest - is how the investment might be viewed by potential future backers: no opinion people simply decide on the merits / state of the development; a sell out that makes people decide not to pledge; a sign of confidence, an outside investor believes the game will release lets go for it.
My own view is that it won't make much, if any, difference - but that is just my opinion. Future patches, the signs of a maturing game, better performance and, at some point, the MVP - those are what I think will have much more impact. Or - flip side - huge problems and delays. As I said a long time ago the alpha is a two edged sword; it showcases what is finished today. Not the doom, not the hype but what there is.
Be that as it may, having negative cash flow the last three years on record isn't really a good signal. It begs the question whether the 46 millions were more an investment or a bailout.
Definite a bailout in my opinion. And of course CR is trying to spin it that it’s for marketing....marketing for a game that’s not going to come until 2020 and we know that date is going to get pushed back and for a game that I’m sure even non gamers know about. Normally I keep my bullshit meter turned off whenever CR talks cause it’s always going off but the bullshit was so great the meter turned itself on.
Do you know a game IN DEVELOPMENT that does have POSITIVE cash flow ? Would be interested in the numbers (link please).
Have fun
Yes, but this is a man who initially said he could do it in 2 years for $500,000. We are now 6 years in and 200 million isn't enough. If you are unable to budget in the neighborhood of 30 millions annually, things have gone off course.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
Do you know a game IN DEVELOPMENT that does have POSITIVE cash flow ? Would be interested in the numbers (link please).
Have fun
Yes, but this is a man who initially said he could do it in 2 years for $500,000. We are now 6 years in and 200 million isn't enough. If you are unable to budget in the neighborhood of 30 millions annually, things have gone off course.
Incorrect.
First: "it" has changed since 2012 by a factor of magnitude (anywhere between x10 to x30 in my opinion) Second: the 500.000 $ you refer to were intended to show external investors that there IS interest in such a kind of game. They were NEVER the expected development cost. And the estimate was already obsolete by the end of the Kickstarter campaign - even obsolete on day 1 (!) of they Kickstarter campaign.
Again ... which Game DOES have a positive cashflow during development before launch ?
Can you elaborate on how the scope has changed between 10 and 30 times? Planets strike me as the largest change but the plan was always to have elaborate set pieces the player could explore. As we've seen from Lorville it's not completely open, there are still glass walls all over the place so in that respect they're still similar to the original design although they might be larger. Outside of these areas a player wouldn't have had full access but that in itself is not really that big of a deal, plenty of other games use PG for that sort of thing and it's quite straightforward for them.
>> Again ... which Game DOES have a positive cashflow during development before launch ?
The absence of an example does not automatically mean Star Citizen is good. CIG wanted $23 million for full autonomy and have now received more than 10x that figure. The game (with all stretch goals) was claimed to be fully funded at $65 million, they now have almost 4x that figure and yet they are operating on a very thin line. If somebody receives way more than they claim they need but are then seen to be "scraping by" it's not surprising for people to wonder what went wrong.
Can you elaborate on how the scope has changed between 10 and 30 times? Planets strike me as the largest change but the plan was always to have elaborate set pieces the player could explore. As we've seen from Lorville it's not completely open, there are still glass walls all over the place so in that respect they're still similar to the original design although they might be larger. Outside of these areas a player wouldn't have had full access but that in itself is not really that big of a deal, plenty of other games use PG for that sort of thing and it's quite straightforward for them.
>> Again ... which Game DOES have a positive cashflow during development before launch ?
The absence of an example does not automatically mean Star Citizen is good. CIG wanted $23 million for full autonomy and have now received more than 10x that figure. The game (with all stretch goals) was claimed to be fully funded at $65 million, they now have almost 4x that figure and yet they are operating on a very thin line. If somebody receives way more than they claim they need but are then seen to be "scraping by" it's not surprising for people to wonder what went wrong.
From a Wing Commander style game with some FPS aspects and some limited locations per system (the initial Kickstarter pledge at the beginning of October 2012) to an immersive world to live in a la Star Wars Galaxies. Where not only fighters but all kinds of player types can live in. With 100 systems in it's final form, where you can land anywhere (not only selected zones - any "glass walls" are Alpha limitations, to be removed during development). With dozens of ships and many dozens of variants. With hundreds of modules and weapons. With a solo game featuring a Hollywood cast rarely seen even in a blockbuster movie. Yes, I personally call that an enlarged scope.
Have fun
PS: Two things come to mind as cause for delays and increased spending. Technical challenges being larger than expected. And more iteration cycles needed than expected (e.g. the necessary move from external contractors to in house development).
Do you know a game IN DEVELOPMENT that does have POSITIVE cash flow ? Would be interested in the numbers (link please).
Have fun
Yes, but this is a man who initially said he could do it in 2 years for $500,000. We are now 6 years in and 200 million isn't enough. If you are unable to budget in the neighborhood of 30 millions annually, things have gone off course.
This is a guy who overspent and over expanded on Freelancer. Sold it to Microsoft and keep asking for more money to continue working on the game. They scaled it back and launched it, after minimizing his role during development. He never made a game after that. If he haven't leaned from that experience he may end up repeating it. So far it looks like he's walking the same path. Instead of focusing on one game like most new studios, he's working on two and plans on making the second one into a series. I'd like to see this thing work and hope history doesn't repeat itself, which it seems to be doing.
"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
Do you know a game IN DEVELOPMENT that does have POSITIVE cash flow ? Would be interested in the numbers (link please).
Have fun
Yes, but this is a man who initially said he could do it in 2 years for $500,000. We are now 6 years in and 200 million isn't enough. If you are unable to budget in the neighborhood of 30 millions annually, things have gone off course.
Incorrect.
First: "it" has changed since 2012 by a factor of magnitude (anywhere between x10 to x30 in my opinion) Second: the 500.000 $ you refer to were intended to show external investors that there IS interest in such a kind of game. They were NEVER the expected development cost. And the estimate was already obsolete by the end of the Kickstarter campaign - even obsolete on day 1 (!) of they Kickstarter campaign.
Again ... which Game DOES have a positive cashflow during development before launch ?
Have fun
I mostly agree with you, but I'd just like to point out that even what you are describing strikes me as a misuse of Kickstarter; you are supposed to ask for what you know it will take to accomplish the project, not a lesser but more achievable amount "to show external investors". Saying 'well, Chris knew 500k wouldn't be enough but he just wanted to make a point' doesn't really help Star Citizen's case. In the best of light, this is an underhanded way to use KS.
At any rate, I'm well aware of my own biases and I'm inclined to bow out of Star Citizen discussions until circa 2021. The cards seem to be now on the proverbial table. Good luck, folks.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
Can you elaborate on how the scope has changed between 10 and 30 times? Planets strike me as the largest change but the plan was always to have elaborate set pieces the player could explore. As we've seen from Lorville it's not completely open, there are still glass walls all over the place so in that respect they're still similar to the original design although they might be larger. Outside of these areas a player wouldn't have had full access but that in itself is not really that big of a deal, plenty of other games use PG for that sort of thing and it's quite straightforward for them.
>> Again ... which Game DOES have a positive cashflow during development before launch ?
The absence of an example does not automatically mean Star Citizen is good. CIG wanted $23 million for full autonomy and have now received more than 10x that figure. The game (with all stretch goals) was claimed to be fully funded at $65 million, they now have almost 4x that figure and yet they are operating on a very thin line. If somebody receives way more than they claim they need but are then seen to be "scraping by" it's not surprising for people to wonder what went wrong.
From a Wing Commander style game with some FPS aspects and some limited locations per system (the initial Kickstarter pledge at the beginning of October 2012) to an immersive world to live in a la Star Wars Galaxies. Where not only fighters but all kinds of player types can live in. With 100 systems in it's final form, where you can land anywhere (not only selected zones - any "glass walls" are Alpha limitations, to be removed during development). With dozens of ships and many dozens of variants. With hundreds of modules and weapons. With a solo game featuring a Hollywood cast rarely seen even in a blockbuster movie. Yes, I personally call that an enlarged scope.
Have fun
PS: Two things come to mind as cause for delays and increased spending. Technical challenges being larger than expected. And more iteration cycles needed than expected (e.g. the necessary move from external contractors to in house development).
I suppose if you're looking at the very initial pitch then I could see why you might think it has expanded so much but they were so free with adding stretch goals all through the Kickstarter that it ballooned in scope just within that 1st month. The real change in scope that people refer to though is when it went fully open world vs limited planetary access, there was always going to be ship boarding, fps, eva yadda yadda.
P.S Three things come to mind for delays and increased spending. An extravagance of money leading to a desire to have "all the things" as evidenced by the tranistion from Best Damn Space Sim Ever to Best Damn First Person Sim Ever to Best Damn First Person Universe Ever, an inability to lock the "vision" down and having to keep adding things to pay for the already increased scope.
if first game of a new studio: investors and/or crowdfunding
if subsequent game title: a) profit from previous game(s) b) investors c) stock market d) government subsidy e) crowdfunding f) license rights and merchandising g) microtransactions
if first game of a new studio: investors and/or crowdfunding
You forgot loans.
So which has been more typical for new studios over the decades? How would you rank investors, loans, and crowdfunding as being most typical overall?
Loan is for me just a variant of investor. Where the bank is the investor. Around here certain banks are infamous for grabbing and taking over any new businesses that stumble and have (even temporary) financial problems.
About your question. IMHO investors (direct or indirect via stock exchange) were typical for new studios. Only recently crowdfunding came to the fore as an alternative. With SC crowdfunding being an anomaly or role-model. Depends on who you ask.
Loan is for me just a variant of investor. Where the bank is the investor. Around here certain banks are infamous for grabbing and taking over any new businesses that stumble and have (even temporary) financial problems.
About your question. IMHO investors (direct or indirect via stock exchange) were typical for new studios. Only recently crowdfunding came to the fore as an alternative. With SC crowdfunding being an anomaly or role-model. Depends on who you ask.
Have fun
Pretty sure banks loan money to make money off of interest. If that business fails, then the bank sells whatever that business assets has to recoup their money by civil laws.
I'm not sure how many new studios are publicly traded during startup.
Do you think if CIG went public, things would be different, i.g. held accountable?
Loan is for me just a variant of investor. Where the bank is the investor. Around here certain banks are infamous for grabbing and taking over any new businesses that stumble and have (even temporary) financial problems.
About your question. IMHO investors (direct or indirect via stock exchange) were typical for new studios. Only recently crowdfunding came to the fore as an alternative. With SC crowdfunding being an anomaly or role-model. Depends on who you ask.
Have fun
Pretty sure banks loan money to make money off of interest. If that business fails, then the bank sells whatever that business assets has to recoup their money by civil laws.
I'm not sure how many new studios are publicly traded during startup.
Do you think if CIG went public, things would be different, i.g. held accountable?
I think that would depend on the legal situation of the country that CIG would have chosen for the incorporation of their company .... and what type of company it would be. Some have to make their numbers public, others do not.
All this money going to 'development' is semantics at best he and his cronies collecting 6 figure incomes the past 6 or 7 years accounts for a shit ton of money. Not to mention whatever else they claimed was 'development' but with no itemization or receipts we only have their (his) word to go by. And if anything the article point blank says the guy outright lied back when they were claiming SQ 42 was in a playable state.
Article still written with and ironically (maybe not) the authors picture proves this out...rose colored glasses.
Despite the evidence, that article is pinned on the 'If what CIG tells us is true....'. Ignoring the ample evidence to the contrary. Hopefully Roberts has to continue to seek bailouts to the point someone else takes over the project. Or he sells out to Amazon, et al.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
Comments
Mind this is the place I have gotten close to death threats from whoever was creating alt accounts with the fans going to all suicide type of talk if you remember.
So not comfortable at all on doing something as inviting or people around the forum here who play to get into a session together, it's not a welcoming tone sadly as this forum is more about people who don't own/play SC hating it than anything else.
12-20-2018 was the day the dream died. Make sure to bookmark this because thats what is going to happen.
At BEST Roberts sells too many shares and he gets kicked off his own project then and only then will this thing have a prayer of getting put out.
I used to think as long as the money kept rolling in it had a chance but as we now know they have been in the red for at least 3 years and I imagine 2018 was the worst yet (thus why they sought a bail out well they have probably been looking for a bail out for years but they finally softened these guys up enough)
How can a BILLION dollars (Chris Roberts math of 4-1 independent studio versus big time conglomerate) not make the single player game? How is THAT still 4 or 5 years away (which basically means never) and how is it his brother claimed 2 or 3 years ago to have played all the missions at that time?
I dont have to write anything anymore these days anyway since its like shooting fish in a barrel its not even fair. At least before it was simple common sense now its absolutes.
You want working elevators?
doubt.jpg
We don't actually know what the current position is. The financials for Foundry 42 won't tell us since that is just a sub-company which gets its money from higher up the tree. And the financials for RSI won't tell us since they only go to 2017. In short we have no number for the end of 2018.
However as they have been paying staff throughout 2018 and seem to have hired more the only conclusion we can make is that the crowdfunding coming in has been at least sufficient.
If at the end of 2018 they have less than $14M (or whatever) then you can say they have had "negative cash flow". If more than "positive cash slow". (I'm ignoring the $46M.)
And with record crowdfunding in December 2018, quarterly updates delivered more or less as stated and the development in better shape than at the end of 2017.
The only unknown - I suggest - is how the investment might be viewed by potential future backers: no opinion people simply decide on the merits / state of the development; a sell out that makes people decide not to pledge; a sign of confidence, an outside investor believes the game will release lets go for it.
My own view is that it won't make much, if any, difference - but that is just my opinion. Future patches, the signs of a maturing game, better performance and, at some point, the MVP - those are what I think will have much more impact. Or - flip side - huge problems and delays. As I said a long time ago the alpha is a two edged sword; it showcases what is finished today. Not the doom, not the hype but what there is.
"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
Have fun
"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
First: "it" has changed since 2012 by a factor of magnitude (anywhere between x10 to x30 in my opinion)
Second: the 500.000 $ you refer to were intended to show external investors that there IS interest in such a kind of game. They were NEVER the expected development cost. And the estimate was already obsolete by the end of the Kickstarter campaign - even obsolete on day 1 (!) of they Kickstarter campaign.
Again ... which Game DOES have a positive cashflow during development before launch ?
Have fun
Outside of these areas a player wouldn't have had full access but that in itself is not really that big of a deal, plenty of other games use PG for that sort of thing and it's quite straightforward for them.
>> Again ... which Game DOES have a positive cashflow during development before launch ?
The absence of an example does not automatically mean Star Citizen is good. CIG wanted $23 million for full autonomy and have now received more than 10x that figure. The game (with all stretch goals) was claimed to be fully funded at $65 million, they now have almost 4x that figure and yet they are operating on a very thin line.
If somebody receives way more than they claim they need but are then seen to be "scraping by" it's not surprising for people to wonder what went wrong.
Have fun
PS:
Two things come to mind as cause for delays and increased spending. Technical challenges being larger than expected. And more iteration cycles needed than expected (e.g. the necessary move from external contractors to in house development).
"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
At any rate, I'm well aware of my own biases and I'm inclined to bow out of Star Citizen discussions until circa 2021. The cards seem to be now on the proverbial table. Good luck, folks.
"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
P.S Three things come to mind for delays and increased spending. An extravagance of money leading to a desire to have "all the things" as evidenced by the tranistion from Best Damn Space Sim Ever to Best Damn First Person Sim Ever to Best Damn First Person Universe Ever, an inability to lock the "vision" down and having to keep adding things to pay for the already increased scope.
Game Studios? Yes.
How do you think game titles are typically funded? Just curious.
if first game of a new studio: investors and/or crowdfunding
if subsequent game title:
a) profit from previous game(s)
b) investors
c) stock market
d) government subsidy
e) crowdfunding
f) license rights and merchandising
g) microtransactions
Have fun
So which has been more typical for new studios over the decades? How would you rank investors, loans, and crowdfunding as being most typical overall?
About your question. IMHO investors (direct or indirect via stock exchange) were typical for new studios. Only recently crowdfunding came to the fore as an alternative. With SC crowdfunding being an anomaly or role-model. Depends on who you ask.
Have fun
I'm not sure how many new studios are publicly traded during startup.
Do you think if CIG went public, things would be different, i.g. held accountable?
Have fun
Article still written with and ironically (maybe not) the authors picture proves this out...rose colored glasses.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.