Is CIG really looking to secure $75 million to finish SC?

VorpalChicken28 · September 2017

So this guy on Youtube is saying that CIG is trying to secure $75 million in order to finish SC, whats peoples thought?

(I'd like to point out for clarity, that the source he has is NOT DS, seems some people seem to have some difficulty listening to the video, as DS has published some info similar to this)

Albatroes · September 2017

How much has this game pulled in so far?

Azaron_Nightblade · September 2017

Doesn't seem too far fetched, so it could go either way... still... without some official word...

Lusts · September 2017

This dudes video seems groundless as he doesn't provide sources. Just "Oh this guy told me this so it must be true." So I'd take this dudes video with a grain of salt. Regardless if you are a Star Citizen supporter or not. He also doesn't seem to have any knowledge on how development works and why some things are running the way they are currently or why 3.0 is delayed despite most of the information being out there so he seems to be blinded by frustration.

As for his argument on the face tech going into Star Citizen. It's not the first time a game had this kind of system. EverQuest II had a face rig system just like what is going into Star Citizen where it utilized your webcam to track your face using a series of dots and those movements would translate into characters face. If I recall, it was called SoEmote. Star Citizen didn't develop the code for this face tracking feature and from what they said at their 3.0 presentation, it is something that is going to run in the background with the game. This was also true for EverQuest II, their face feature was a separate program running in the background while the game was going and the two communicated with each other.

The faces in Star Citizen are already rigged for motion capture to push realism. They're already built with a skeleton and system to track rig movements so pushing this feature is obvious. All the CIG devs would have had to do was code something for the two programs to communicate with each other and bam, it's done. It wasn't like they stopped making game assets to focus solely on this feature. That being said, there are over 400+ devs for CIG now, a lot of people think CIG wastes time developing these features and aren't working on other ones which is wrong. They have multiple studios working on different aspects of the game. It's dumb to think a company is going to stop everything and assign 400+ people onto one feature. That isn't efficient.

Either way, the dudes video is groundless and to me is just a video of some dude ranting cause he didn't get his precious 3.0 release yet. "I spent $150 on the game. Wtf is going on? Where is my 3.0?!". I spent $800 so far (Judge me if you want) and even I know the risks going into funding a game from Kickstarter and even I'm patient. I'd rather have something that is working and close to what they envisioned than to have something rushed out and broken. I don't expect the game to come out until 2020-2025 and that is fine with me. If people can't handle the wait, then don't back the game or don't pay attention to it until a more finished product is available. I backed the game because I want to see a game like this happen. Even if Star Citizen fails, I put my money towards the vision. Star Citizen gathered over $100 million from backers alone. Most game companies in the industry aren't going to ignore that kind of success. If Star Citizen fails, I almost guarantee you that another company is going to try and make something similar to Star Citizen, cause the market is there. That is why I dropped $800 into Star Citizen. It's to show the industry that I want something like this and I believe in such a vision.

TL;DR: Dudes video has no merit. Don't back the game or pay attention to the game if delays frustrate you or if you can't be patient.

laxie · September 2017

If you look at the funding to date and what has been developed, I think $75M is a humble estimate. Even though a decent chunk of the game has been developed, a lot more still needs to be done, including some of the core systems.

The funding relative to other games is silly though. Most AAA games (pre-marketing) cost less than the $158M already collected. In fact, you could make a whole AAA MMO from scratch for the $75M. The Secret World and Rift both cost in the range of $50M. Horizon Zero Dawn was $47M. Something like Crowfall, which is still in development, is valued at around $20M.

Star Citizen's funding is currently akin to a finished Destiny or GTA 5, which cost $137M to develop.

Does it have enough to show for it? I think objectively not - it is doing some innovative things, but if you played any of the Alphas, it's clear it doesn't compare to a finished AAA game, by a long shot.

BeansnBread · September 2017

Once they get another $75 million they will be able to say that they need another $75 million.

Erillion · September 2017

No sources given, no names named.

Just a rumour and some guys personal opinion ... like a thousands of others.

Has been discussed ad nauseam already on the official and reddit SC forums.

Have fun

blorpykins · September 2017

$75M you say? They'll make that up during the Christmas sale later this year. I'm just happy to a thread that isn't about the 600i

rpmcmurphy · September 2017

Going by the lack of progress so far with $160 million I think they need far more than $75 million to make something releasable.

I don't believe they are soliciting for investors though, how embarrassing would that be....

VorpalChicken28 · September 2017

I'd like to address people dismissing the use of an anonymous source. As a journalist in a former career it's not unusual to use anonymous sources, infact it's not even frowned on (excellent example was the Watergate scandal with the source of the information being Deep Throat)

What you have to do in the instance when an anonymous source is used is look at the credibility of the individual relaying the information to you, as the reader/viewer of the information.

To dismiss an anonymous source out of hand is not a good thing, it's even irresponsible in some cases.

spankybus · September 2017

I single anonymous source with no hard evidence is complete shite and anyone running with that has no credibility...which is why it's on YouTube.

if you are an investigative journalist, the signal source will get you started, but you need more than one persons word. Who knows what individuals motivations are anyway?

Talonsin · September 2017

Didn't they also just get some sort of bank loan recently? $150 million sounds like a lot but you also have to consider the cost of 4 studios in 4 different countries, over 400 employees which if the average employer cost (not employee pay) is 80,000 then just the cost of the employees is 32 million per year. Then throw in the cost of the outside contractors and advertising. Seems like it would be easy to eat up that %150 million in 5 years...

The video makes some good points, why have things like the tutorial and some costumes been removed from the game? Why have we not seen ANY SQ42 game play when we were told it would be released last year? Why get a bank loan if you have plenty of cash? Tax credit my behind, invest that extra cash in an index fund and save yourself the interest payment. The tax credit is not going to cover the cost of the interest on the loan so that response from CIG is BS.

Just so we are clear I am not saying they are broke or going out of business or that the whole thing was a scam. I am just saying there are some things that dont add up to what we are being told and I personally feel the money has been mismanaged. I just dont know the extent of the mismanagement.

CrazKanuk · September 2017

I can't see why they'd be looking to secure any money. As it stands they bring in enough money to sustain their company year to year as it is. If they weren't actively bringing in money then I'd see this as being more viable, but I don't see it as being likely because of that.

Talonsin · September 2017

CrazKanuk said:

I can't see why they'd be looking to secure any money. As it stands they bring in enough money to sustain their company year to year as it is. If they weren't actively bringing in money then I'd see this as being more viable, but I don't see it as being likely because of that.

If they bring in enough money then why did they recently secure a loan in the UK?

Vrika · September 2017

CrazKanuk said:

I can't see why they'd be looking to secure any money. As it stands they bring in enough money to sustain their company year to year as it is. If they weren't actively bringing in money then I'd see this as being more viable, but I don't see it as being likely because of that.

They're likely not bringing in enough money. They've got 400 people developing Star Citizen, that costs a lot. Even bringing in 2-3 million dollars a month like RSI is doing isn't enough.

djcincy · September 2017

Really considering the scope of the project they have budgeted pretty well, but it doesn't surprise me they want more funding for it. Swtor spent over 400 million and that was over 10 years ago. This project is way more ambitious than Swtor and im glad to see them getting investors to finish the production. It is kinda sad that individual backers who invested large amounts of money early don't get to buy into the company and will never see any of the profit.

azarhal · September 2017

Talonsin said:

CrazKanuk said:

I can't see why they'd be looking to secure any money. As it stands they bring in enough money to sustain their company year to year as it is. If they weren't actively bringing in money then I'd see this as being more viable, but I don't see it as being likely because of that.

If they bring in enough money then why did they recently secure a loan in the UK?

It's not a loan in the sense "we need more money".

Tiamat64 · September 2017

djcincy said:

Really considering the scope of the project they have budgeted pretty well, but it doesn't surprise me they want more funding for it. Swtor spent over 400 million and that was over 10 years ago. This project is way more ambitious than Swtor and im glad to see them getting investors to finish the production. It is kinda sad that individual backers who invested large amounts of money early don't get to buy into the company and will never see any of the profit.

They'll get shiny virtual spaceships, though!

DijonCyanide · September 2017

A guy from YouTube never invokes automatic confidence in me to believe their point of view. On the other hand, WTF, SC has already had enough money dumped into it & it's still not released. I want, & it looks, like a next generation game, but not investing one cent till it actually releases.

Talonsin · September 2017

azarhal said:

Talonsin said:

CrazKanuk said:

I can't see why they'd be looking to secure any money. As it stands they bring in enough money to sustain their company year to year as it is. If they weren't actively bringing in money then I'd see this as being more viable, but I don't see it as being likely because of that.

If they bring in enough money then why did they recently secure a loan in the UK?

It's not a loan in the sense "we need more money".

If you read that statement from CIG it tells you that they are taking an advance on the rebate payments they get from the government. If they did not need more money, why take an advance on that money? The exchange rate excuse is nice but how does he know what will happen after brexit? What if the UK government decided to change those rebates and CIG no longer qualifies? They will have to then pay that money back.

In short, the money they took was an advance of money they were already going to receive. You dont take an advance of future money if you dont need money because in the process of doing so you incur other charges and interest. This is why cashing out an annuity with J.G. Wentworth is such a bad idea.

CrazKanuk · September 2017

Talonsin said:

CrazKanuk said:

I can't see why they'd be looking to secure any money. As it stands they bring in enough money to sustain their company year to year as it is. If they weren't actively bringing in money then I'd see this as being more viable, but I don't see it as being likely because of that.

If they bring in enough money then why did they recently secure a loan in the UK?

Because their assets aren't liquid. As with any company, if you've got extra cash lying around it's not likely to be in a bank account earning 0.5% interest, right?

laserit · September 2017

Talonsin said:

azarhal said:

Talonsin said:

CrazKanuk said:

I can't see why they'd be looking to secure any money. As it stands they bring in enough money to sustain their company year to year as it is. If they weren't actively bringing in money then I'd see this as being more viable, but I don't see it as being likely because of that.

If they bring in enough money then why did they recently secure a loan in the UK?

It's not a loan in the sense "we need more money".

It scares me how little people understand about money and how easily appeased the masses can be. This explanation given by CIG makes little sense. The tax credit is not going to cover the cost of the interest from the loan, if tax credits worked like that every business would be out there borrowing money they did not need in order to make/save more money.

You dont take a loan to save money.

These days in business, you can borrow money nearly for free. It's whats keeping economies rolling in more ways than one.

Asheram · September 2017

So why isn't the single player game Squadren 42 finished yet, wasn't that supposed to be out in 2015?

Talonsin · September 2017

CrazKanuk said:

Talonsin said:

CrazKanuk said:

I can't see why they'd be looking to secure any money. As it stands they bring in enough money to sustain their company year to year as it is. If they weren't actively bringing in money then I'd see this as being more viable, but I don't see it as being likely because of that.

If they bring in enough money then why did they recently secure a loan in the UK?

Because their assets aren't liquid. As with any company, if you've got extra cash lying around it's not likely to be in a bank account earning 0.5% interest, right?

Ahh the typical change the focus of the question. You stated "As it stands they bring in enough money to sustain their company year to year as it is" and I asked "if that was the case, why the loan this year".

This has nothing to do with assets being liquid. This loan was not even about their assets, it was an advance of rebates they get from the UK government.

So my question to you is, why take an advance and incur extra charges and interest costs if you didnt need the money?

laserit · September 2017

Talonsin said:

CrazKanuk said:

Talonsin said:

CrazKanuk said:

I can't see why they'd be looking to secure any money. As it stands they bring in enough money to sustain their company year to year as it is. If they weren't actively bringing in money then I'd see this as being more viable, but I don't see it as being likely because of that.

If they bring in enough money then why did they recently secure a loan in the UK?

Because their assets aren't liquid. As with any company, if you've got extra cash lying around it's not likely to be in a bank account earning 0.5% interest, right?

Ahh the typical change the focus of the question. You stated "As it stands they bring in enough money to sustain their company year to year as it is" and I asked "if that was the case, why the loan this year".

This has nothing to do with assets being liquid. This loan was not even about their assets, it was an advance of rebates they get from the UK government.

So my question to you is, why take an advance and incur extra charges and interest costs if you didnt need the money?

You can borrow the money at say 2% (it can even be less depending) and easily invest it for a larger return.

Keeping money in the bank is to lose money. The interest rates won't cover inflation.

CrazKanuk · September 2017

Talonsin said:

CrazKanuk said:

Talonsin said:

CrazKanuk said:

I can't see why they'd be looking to secure any money. As it stands they bring in enough money to sustain their company year to year as it is. If they weren't actively bringing in money then I'd see this as being more viable, but I don't see it as being likely because of that.

If they bring in enough money then why did they recently secure a loan in the UK?

Because their assets aren't liquid. As with any company, if you've got extra cash lying around it's not likely to be in a bank account earning 0.5% interest, right?

Ahh the typical change the focus of the question. You stated "As it stands they bring in enough money to sustain their company year to year as it is" and I asked "if that was the case, why the loan this year".

This has nothing to do with assets being liquid. This loan was not even about their assets, it was an advance of rebates they get from the UK government.

So my question to you is, why take an advance and incur extra charges and interest costs if you didnt need the money?

What's amusing is that just a couple posts ago you went on about how it scares you how little people know about money these days. What's probably scarier is the number of people who THINK they have all the answers. That's a real fucking nightmare. You can see examples of it every day. Simple, plain arrogance, but blatant ignorance. You need only open a newspaper anywhere in the world.

Howdy, Stranger!

Is CIG really looking to secure $75 million to finish SC?

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Is CIG really looking to secure $75 million to finish SC?

Comments