Ok? So what are you arguing about? That's exactly what I said. If you want content, then buy the separate single-player game.
I wouldn't "argue" with that at all.
Nor was I arguing just correcting a few errors. Your comment I said there was "no game" for example.
Ditto that SC ran out of money - the results were from a year earlier.
Ditto that they had to bring in private investment. Better speculation - we don't know - they didn't. Think about it: they got a "large" investment for a "tiny" % of the company. Bailouts don't work like that. And - as I said - I don't think they can touch it. But that is speculation on my part; that release of funding will be tied to the achievement of one (or more) milestones.
Business bailouts where one is seeking profit don't work like that, but didn't the investor invest so much because they wanted the game to be created and not for any particular business profit reason? (IE, it's not like a typical bail out because the motivations of the bailor are different and untypical too). That's the impression I was under although I can't recall why. Coulda sworn I read something about it but it's been like, a year since then so I don't remember the details anymore.
.....well, regardless with that much money in play, I hope they're satisfied or will be satisfied with what they got with their investment.
The investor invested so much because Star Citizen has cult-like following who keep buying really expensive ships. They're hoping they'll eventually be able to turn that following into huge profits.
It wasn't a bailout because a bailout would have happened at much lower price. Also it wasn't any kind of charity by people who want to see the game made. Believing in the product and the business is always behind making these kinds of investments, but investors aren't doing charity. They estimate potential for profit and then everyone makes nice statements to the public.
And - as I said in a previous thread - my assumption is that the investment, made in return for a % of the company, would come with caveats. The main one - in my opinion - being that the game has to release. I have no proof of this but to me that would simply be sound business sense. The alternative is that you believe someone threw $46M at the game whilst also saying the game will never release. You must think these investors are real idiots then. Me I think they will have put some caveats in the contract: like no money until it releases.
I have proof to the contrary, in their latest financial statements their UK operations already list proceeds from issue of shares.
Ok? So what are you arguing about? That's exactly what I said. If you want content, then buy the separate single-player game.
I wouldn't "argue" with that at all.
Nor was I arguing just correcting a few errors. Your comment I said there was "no game" for example.
Ditto that SC ran out of money - the results were from a year earlier.
Ditto that they had to bring in private investment. Better speculation - we don't know - they didn't. Think about it: they got a "large" investment for a "tiny" % of the company. Bailouts don't work like that. And - as I said - I don't think they can touch it. But that is speculation on my part; that release of funding will be tied to the achievement of one (or more) milestones.
Business bailouts where one is seeking profit don't work like that, but didn't the investor invest so much because they wanted the game to be created and not for any particular business profit reason? (IE, it's not like a typical bail out because the motivations of the bailor are different and untypical too). That's the impression I was under although I can't recall why. Coulda sworn I read something about it but it's been like, a year since then so I don't remember the details anymore.
.....well, regardless with that much money in play, I hope they're satisfied or will be satisfied with what they got with their investment.
The investor invested so much because Star Citizen has cult-like following who keep buying really expensive ships. They're hoping they'll eventually be able to turn that following into huge profits.
It wasn't a bailout because a bailout would have happened at much lower price. Also it wasn't any kind of charity by people who want to see the game made. Believing in the product and the business is always behind making these kinds of investments, but investors aren't doing charity. They estimate potential for profit and then everyone makes nice statements to the public.
We dont know for sure. It was an 'odd' amount to receive. It could have been one of those "how much do you need to stay in business until SQ 42 is released and sold?' CR in typical fashion made up some number out of thin air and the guy scratched him a check. Or they could have taken the operating costs for the first 6 or 7 years and then taken an average and the guy gave them a years worth of money. They were still going to get 'donations' and subs and sell ships but he gave them a buffer.
We just dont know. It was called an 'investment' I am sure to make it sound legit. But could have also just been a tax write off as well.
SC is running on a day by day basis I suspect in terms of finances. That 'investment' probably is covering cost over runs and maybe paying back other (unknown) loans and interest. They have been running at a negative for the past 3 years according to their own numbers. I havent seen 2018 financials but I suspect they ran at a negative there too, and probably so far this year as well.
While it isnt 'vaporware' its no more than a bunch of strung together tech demos and proof of concept mechanics. If people started listing the 'stuff' you can do in ACTUAL games how long would the lists be? SC has guys listing caves (three I think) mining (how many types of rocks are there?) 'racing', dogfights, etc. If you broke real games down like that you could have about a thousand things and still not touch all the stuff these guys are trying to say is 'content'. Laughable.
And - as I said in a previous thread - my assumption is that the investment, made in return for a % of the company, would come with caveats. The main one - in my opinion - being that the game has to release. I have no proof of this but to me that would simply be sound business sense. The alternative is that you believe someone threw $46M at the game whilst also saying the game will never release. You must think these investors are real idiots then. Me I think they will have put some caveats in the contract: like no money until it releases.
I have proof to the contrary, in their latest financial statements their UK operations already list proceeds from issue of shares.
£149.63 proceeds were paid for 113,861 new shares.
And the investment is mentioned on page 1. Its a great statement but what does it mean?
I assume that (113,861 / 1,113,861) is about 10%. (Which is what I thought I remembered being announced but then there was a post saying 5%.)
As I - and @rodarin - said we just don't know. My pragmatic self says that there will have been strings attached. People do such stuff when they hire e.g. a builder; companies do it all the time - so I feel sure that there are "conditions" regarding how the money can be used, what happens if it all goes wrong and so forth.
And - as I said in a previous thread - my assumption is that the investment, made in return for a % of the company, would come with caveats. The main one - in my opinion - being that the game has to release. I have no proof of this but to me that would simply be sound business sense. The alternative is that you believe someone threw $46M at the game whilst also saying the game will never release. You must think these investors are real idiots then. Me I think they will have put some caveats in the contract: like no money until it releases.
I have proof to the contrary, in their latest financial statements their UK operations already list proceeds from issue of shares.
£149.63 proceeds were paid for 113,861 new shares.
And the investment is mentioned on page 1. Its a great statement but what does it mean?
I assume that (113,861 / 1,113,861) is about 10%. (Which is what I thought I remembered being announced but then there was a post saying 5%.)
As I - and @rodarin - said we just don't know. My pragmatic self says that there will have been strings attached. People do such stuff when they hire e.g. a builder; companies do it all the time - so I feel sure that there are "conditions" regarding how the money can be used, what happens if it all goes wrong and so forth.
I think one of the goons did an analysis of the 2018 financials for what we can see.
if I remember correctly CI paid back the Coutts loan finally which is a good thing.
I also believe they did some napkin math and assumed funding based on previous years and concluded they were running in the red again and it’s a high probability that they have already started using that 46M in order to keep the lights on. Without being able to see the tax returns for the US company though it’s all just a educated guess.
My guess is if they don’t release SQ42 by end of 2020 you will see another portion of the company being sold off to be used “only for marketing” again.
And - as I said in a previous thread - my assumption is that the investment, made in return for a % of the company, would come with caveats. The main one - in my opinion - being that the game has to release. I have no proof of this but to me that would simply be sound business sense. The alternative is that you believe someone threw $46M at the game whilst also saying the game will never release. You must think these investors are real idiots then. Me I think they will have put some caveats in the contract: like no money until it releases.
I have proof to the contrary, in their latest financial statements their UK operations already list proceeds from issue of shares.
Daydreaming about a video game arriving for the 90th time lol. Such an adult thing to do
I'm sure this time it will come true, for real now.
Carry on.
Change just 1 word and it looks like you are taking the piss out of fanbois.
If only there wasn't something to play As it's free to play for a week you should give it a go! Might keep you busy while waiting for Elite carriers, space legs and atmospheric planets update
Daydreaming about a video game arriving for the 90th time lol. Such an adult thing to do
I'm sure this time it will come true, for real now.
Carry on.
Change just 1 word and it looks like you are taking the piss out of fanbois.
If only there wasn't something to play
As it's free to play for a week you should give it a go! Might keep you busy while waiting for Elite carriers, space legs and atmospheric planets update
Nah, you're alright. I can play any time, I don't need to take part in free fly weeks. Quite happy playing stuff on my Switch and FFXIV right now, thanks.
You spend so much time doing CIG's marketing work for them I can only assume that you're sneakily trying to recruit me to bolster CIG's limp numbers or something, ya sneaky little shill you!
The times when it was a valid concept that you could release a game and you needed new hardware are long over.
No longer can we make structures on the computer chips smaller and smaller, since structures now approach the size of single atoms.
No longer do computer about double their computing power every two years.
Progress has seriously slowed down because we have reached the limits of the doable. No more large performance jumps. Quite on the contrary we might be basically increasingly stuck in respect to performance for home computers, because we cannot lower the required energy per computation anymore and thus the energy spent is the limit for the archievable computing power.
And how much energy you want your computer to consume is naturally limited.
The times when it was a valid concept that you could release a game and you needed new hardware are long over.
No longer can we make structures on the computer chips smaller and smaller, since structures now approach the size of single atoms.
No longer do computer about double their computing power every two years.
Progress has seriously slowed down because we have reached the limits of the doable. No more large performance jumps. Quite on the contrary we might be basically increasingly stuck in respect to performance for home computers, because we cannot lower the required energy per computation anymore and thus the energy spent is the limit for the archievable computing power.
And how much energy you want your computer to consume is naturally limited.
There are many performance gains with new frameworks and technologies, on both hardware and software.
Games are not going all cutting edge, they take many years to catch up, because the hardware of the majority of the players of those games is always dated, if you want the most of an audience you'll have to scale down your requirements.
It's simply business, going all cutting edge as far games go is bad for business if you end up with a title that requires cutting edge to be playable.
Comments
It wasn't a bailout because a bailout would have happened at much lower price. Also it wasn't any kind of charity by people who want to see the game made. Believing in the product and the business is always behind making these kinds of investments, but investors aren't doing charity. They estimate potential for profit and then everyone makes nice statements to the public.
Source: https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08815227/filing-history
We just dont know. It was called an 'investment' I am sure to make it sound legit. But could have also just been a tax write off as well.
SC is running on a day by day basis I suspect in terms of finances. That 'investment' probably is covering cost over runs and maybe paying back other (unknown) loans and interest. They have been running at a negative for the past 3 years according to their own numbers. I havent seen 2018 financials but I suspect they ran at a negative there too, and probably so far this year as well.
While it isnt 'vaporware' its no more than a bunch of strung together tech demos and proof of concept mechanics. If people started listing the 'stuff' you can do in ACTUAL games how long would the lists be? SC has guys listing caves (three I think) mining (how many types of rocks are there?) 'racing', dogfights, etc. If you broke real games down like that you could have about a thousand things and still not touch all the stuff these guys are trying to say is 'content'. Laughable.
£149.63 proceeds were paid for 113,861 new shares.
And the investment is mentioned on page 1. Its a great statement but what does it mean?
I assume that (113,861 / 1,113,861) is about 10%. (Which is what I thought I remembered being announced but then there was a post saying 5%.)
As I - and @rodarin - said we just don't know. My pragmatic self says that there will have been strings attached. People do such stuff when they hire e.g. a builder; companies do it all the time - so I feel sure that there are "conditions" regarding how the money can be used, what happens if it all goes wrong and so forth.
if I remember correctly CI paid back the Coutts loan finally which is a good thing.
I also believe they did some napkin math and assumed funding based on previous years and concluded they were running in the red again and it’s a high probability that they have already started using that 46M in order to keep the lights on. Without being able to see the tax returns for the US company though it’s all just a educated guess.
My guess is if they don’t release SQ42 by end of 2020 you will see another portion of the company being sold off to be used “only for marketing” again.
But I don't mean that, I mean the 16,519,625 pounds that were generated from "Proceeds from issue of shares" in their latest financial statement.
I'm sure this time it will come true, for real now.
Carry on.
As it's free to play for a week you should give it a go! Might keep you busy while waiting for Elite carriers, space legs and atmospheric planets update
By that reasoning your Elite Dangerous thread posts are all marketing too? Why stop? It was going so well... Forgot to post the new updates too
And no I wont give you my referral code.
Oh and thanks for pledging!
Games are not going all cutting edge, they take many years to catch up, because the hardware of the majority of the players of those games is always dated, if you want the most of an audience you'll have to scale down your requirements.
It's simply business, going all cutting edge as far games go is bad for business if you end up with a title that requires cutting edge to be playable.