Well let's just start with Repayments, you know if you don't make them, you end up with a bailiff puting a padlock on the door just like 38 studios.
Well sorry to break your bubble, but it was not debt payments that doomed 38 studios, they just could not make payroll, had not even made a debt payment yet. So yes, NO difference.
Um, it was their debt that made it impossible for them to get more loans and not be able to make that payroll. This seriously needs explained?
This ^^ for truth!
It seems that 38 studios was in debt a lot more than the 75 million from the state of Rhode Island.
"By the time 38 Studios closed its doors for good in June, dismissing hundreds of employees in an e-mail, the company listed $150 million in debt, $22 million in assets and $320 in petty cash."
If I remember correctly, they were in significant debt before the RI deal which is why the deal was supposed to remain quiet.
There are 3 types of people in the world. 1.) Those who make things happen 2.) Those who watch things happen 3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
Well let's just start with Repayments, you know if you don't make them, you end up with a bailiff puting a padlock on the door just like 38 studios.
Well sorry to break your bubble, but it was not debt payments that doomed 38 studios, they just could not make payroll, had not even made a debt payment yet. So yes, NO difference.
Um, it was their debt that made it impossible for them to get more loans and not be able to make that payroll. This seriously needs explained?
This ^^ for truth!
It seems that 38 studios was in debt a lot more than the 75 million from the state of Rhode Island.
"By the time 38 Studios closed its doors for good in June, dismissing hundreds of employees in an e-mail, the company listed $150 million in debt, $22 million in assets and $320 in petty cash."
Well let's just start with Repayments, you know if you don't make them, you end up with a bailiff puting a padlock on the door just like 38 studios.
Well sorry to break your bubble, but it was not debt payments that doomed 38 studios, they just could not make payroll, had not even made a debt payment yet. So yes, NO difference.
Um, it was their debt that made it impossible for them to get more loans and not be able to make that payroll. This seriously needs explained?
This ^^ for truth!
It seems that 38 studios was in debt a lot more than the 75 million from the state of Rhode Island.
"By the time 38 Studios closed its doors for good in June, dismissing hundreds of employees in an e-mail, the company listed $150 million in debt, $22 million in assets and $320 in petty cash."
If I remember correctly, they were in significant debt before the RI deal which is why the deal was supposed to remain quiet.
That whole deal stunk. Taxpayers should not be invested into a high risk entertainment, especially behind their backs.
Agreed.
But I can kinda see why RI did what they did - it was a time when jobs were few and far between, and RI seriously lacking in technology companies, the people behind the deal thought it would be the boost they needed. Add to that having a celebrity bringing this injection was even bigger. Sadly the people closest to the deal ignored all the warnings.
There are 3 types of people in the world. 1.) Those who make things happen 2.) Those who watch things happen 3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
Well let's just start with Repayments, you know if you don't make them, you end up with a bailiff puting a padlock on the door just like 38 studios.
Well sorry to break your bubble, but it was not debt payments that doomed 38 studios, they just could not make payroll, had not even made a debt payment yet. So yes, NO difference.
Um, it was their debt that made it impossible for them to get more loans and not be able to make that payroll. This seriously needs explained?
And as I said in my previous post, all of the pre-sold stuff for SC is just as bad. It cuts WAY into future revenue/sales and makes it just as hard to get a loan going forward, because THE key factor in any kind of corporate financing is the speed and ability of the company to pay that borrowed money back.
All of the stuff that has been sold up to now, will obviously not be bought again by the same people in the future.
CIG has basically presold everything on a fully paid pre-order, so the money they'd get from all that, they already have (and spent).
A bad balance sheet is a bad balance sheet, and pre-sold inventory turns into a liability in the same way loans do, when you have spent all the money from the pre-orders and not produced the product. If you have a bad balance sheet, you are probably not going to get that loan you want.
Well let's just start with Repayments, you know if you don't make them, you end up with a bailiff puting a padlock on the door just like 38 studios.
Well sorry to break your bubble, but it was not debt payments that doomed 38 studios, they just could not make payroll, had not even made a debt payment yet. So yes, NO difference.
Um, it was their debt that made it impossible for them to get more loans and not be able to make that payroll. This seriously needs explained?
And as I said in my previous post, all of the pre-sold stuff for SC is just as bad. It cuts WAY into future revenue/sales and makes it just as hard to get a loan going forward, because THE key factor in any kind of corporate financing is the speed and ability of the company to pay that borrowed money back.
All of the stuff that has been sold up to now, will obviously not be bought again by the same people in the future.
CIG has basically presold everything on a fully paid pre-order, so the money they'd get from all that, they already have (and spent).
A bad balance sheet is a bad balance sheet, and pre-sold inventory turns into a liability in the same way loans do, when you have spent all the money from the pre-orders and not produced the product. If you have a bad balance sheet, you are probably not going to get that loan you want.
So, OZ is largely correct.
92 million and counting in funding --vs-- 150 million in debt financing
Sorry: I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree
All of the stuff that has been sold up to now, will obviously not be bought again by the same people in the future.
CIG has basically presold everything on a fully paid pre-order, so the money they'd get from all that, they already have (and spent).
Option 1 :
Sell the game to a million more new people.
Option 2:
Sell DLCs/mission discs with new storyline and cinematics to your existing players, using the existing technology, artwork and employees.
Have fun
None of that matters when you walk into Citi or BoA want to ask for that $50 mil credit line to finish the game.
The bankers don't care about promises, they care about the books.
And if you are on the hook for $90 mil+ of product you have not finished, and have not delivered, and will not make a profit on, you don't think they will care about that? It is a straight liability.
I can say for a fact that they will.
Edit: and worse, because this is a "software" company and not, say, a company that actually makes a real product, or has other products/contracts to generate profitable cashflow, there is very little in the way of collateral either, to get that new loan.
Judging by the current SC crowdfunding income (almost 1.7 M$ in the last three days) i do not see any visits to Citi, Deutsche Bank or BoA in the near future ... they are simply not necessary at the moment.
Actually they care about what's called market viability, it means the amount of customers you have, and the amount of income you can expect. CIG as a company already has proven their market viability by showing they've had 1 million people willing to give them $91 million in non loaned cash. That is huge when it comes to loan assessment.
That being said though, going by the last few days of sales I don't see any loans being necessary.
Actually they care about what's called market viability, it means the amount of customers you have, and the amount of income you can expect. CIG as a company already has proven their market viability by showing they've had 1 million people willing to give them $91 million in non loaned cash. That is huge when it comes to loan assessment.
That being said though, going by the last few days of sales I don't see any loans being necessary.
Agreed, nicely said, good sir.
Can you imagine how fast their stock would trend upward, just on that data alone. IF, they offered stock.
How does the difference between an active influx of free cash and 1 millionish transactions vs a massive debt and it's interest even approach being similar?
Actually they care about what's called market viability, it means the amount of customers you have, and the amount of income you can expect. CIG as a company already has proven their market viability by showing they've had 1 million people willing to give them $91 million in non loaned cash. That is huge when it comes to loan assessment.
That being said though, going by the last few days of sales I don't see any loans being necessary.
Agreed, nicely said, good sir.
Can you imagine how fast their stock would trend upward, just on that data alone. IF, they offered stock.
It would be pretty interesting to see. I imagine quickly with how many competing investors would be trying to get a piece. Along with fans just wanting to own some shares to collect.
Judging by the current SC crowdfunding income (almost 1.7 M$ in the last three days) i do not see any visits to Citi, Deutsche Bank or BoA in the near future ... they are simply not necessary at the moment.
How does the difference between an active influx of free cash and 1 millionish transactions vs a massive debt and it's interest even approach being similar?
Because when a non-crowdfunded game launches, every single box and DLC and virtual item generates positive revenue.
For SC, all of the stuff they have already sold, they do not get paid again for after launch, and if that money is spent during development, like a very large part of it has been, what then?
They have nothing to entice an investor or financial institution with to get new financing, when they are on the hook for all kinds of product they have not delivered.
It is really about "how do you get more financing when the money runs out/low".
In that sense, having $100 mil in pre-sold product for an unfinished game is just as bad as a $100 mil credit line to a potential investor. Having the loan creates a slightly worse cash flow, but that is it.
How does the difference between an active influx of free cash and 1 millionish transactions vs a massive debt and it's interest even approach being similar?
Because when a non-crowdfunded game launches, every single box and DLC and virtual item generates positive revenue.
For SC, all of the stuff they have already sold, they do not get paid again for after launch, and if that money is spent during development, like a very large part of it has been, what then?
They have nothing to entice an investor or financial institution with to get new financing, when they are on the hook for all kinds of product they have not delivered.
It is really about "how do you get more financing when the money runs out/low".
In that sense, having $100 mil in pre-sold product for an unfinished game is just as bad as a $100 mil credit line to a potential investor. Having the loan creates a slightly worse cash flow, but that is it.
You're completely wrong, as I've mentioned in this thread, having $100 million in pre sold product proves overwhelming demand, and thus a viable market for the product. Also keep in mind the company does not owe that $100 million back in anyway other than pixels. An investor sees this as an extremely good measure, of what potential outcome could be once it's released to a mass market.
You can see this process at play in it's simplest form on the TV show, Shark Tank. Large investors look at the future potential, and they gauge it by demand response. This is exactly how investment works even when you're dealing with larger numbers like, Billions, or Trillions. Investors gauge how much to invest, by the market viability of the product.
How does the difference between an active influx of free cash and 1 millionish transactions vs a massive debt and it's interest even approach being similar?
Because when a non-crowdfunded game launches, every single box and DLC and virtual item generates positive revenue.
For SC, all of the stuff they have already sold, they do not get paid again for after launch, and if that money is spent during development, like a very large part of it has been, what then?
They have nothing to entice an investor or financial institution with to get new financing, when they are on the hook for all kinds of product they have not delivered.
It is really about "how do you get more financing when the money runs out/low".
In that sense, having $100 mil in pre-sold product for an unfinished game is just as bad as a $100 mil credit line to a potential investor. Having the loan creates a slightly worse cash flow, but that is it.
You're completely wrong, as I've mentioned in this thread, having $100 million in pre sold product proves overwhelming demand, and thus a viable market for the product. Also keep in mind the company does not owe that $100 million back in anyway other than pixels. An investor sees this as an extremely good measure, of what potential outcome could be once it's released to a mass market.
You can see this process at play in it's simplest form on the TV show, Shark Tank. Large investors look at the future potential, and they gauge it by demand response. This is exactly how investment works even when you're dealing with larger numbers like, Billions, or Trillions. Investors gauge how much to invest, by the market viability of the product.
You could be right.
But considering I have worked in investment finance for 15+ years, I doubt it.
There are so many problems with CGI/SC I would not recommend to any VC or money manager to put anything in this thing. (And I have 60+ of those in my contact list.)
Most of those things, because CGI is a privately held company, can not be known. But, the biggest question is what is the cash burn rate of this thing, vs remaining capital. I have worked the research on dozens of companies that work R+D leading up to the release of a product, and what I have seen with CGI is not encouraging. Project management is all over the place, with the departure of several senior execs during the primary development process. That is bad, bad, and bad.
There is also no way to know when this thing will be released and in what shape it will be. How much "post release" development will be needed, at what burn rate, to satisfy the existing requirements of pre-sold virtual items? More people? Fewer? How will the post-launch reception of the game affect cashflow going forward, and how soon will there be anything to generate "new revenue"? Who the hell knows....
The bottom line is were I a banker, VC, or investor... when CGI eventually goes looking for bridge financing to get this thing to launch, I would not be interested in the least. (And that is not even talking about opportunity cost..)
How does the difference between an active influx of free cash and 1 millionish transactions vs a massive debt and it's interest even approach being similar?
Because when a non-crowdfunded game launches, every single box and DLC and virtual item generates positive revenue.
For SC, all of the stuff they have already sold, they do not get paid again for after launch, and if that money is spent during development, like a very large part of it has been, what then?
They have nothing to entice an investor or financial institution with to get new financing, when they are on the hook for all kinds of product they have not delivered.
It is really about "how do you get more financing when the money runs out/low".
In that sense, having $100 mil in pre-sold product for an unfinished game is just as bad as a $100 mil credit line to a potential investor. Having the loan creates a slightly worse cash flow, but that is it.
You're completely wrong, as I've mentioned in this thread, having $100 million in pre sold product proves overwhelming demand, and thus a viable market for the product. Also keep in mind the company does not owe that $100 million back in anyway other than pixels. An investor sees this as an extremely good measure, of what potential outcome could be once it's released to a mass market.
You can see this process at play in it's simplest form on the TV show, Shark Tank. Large investors look at the future potential, and they gauge it by demand response. This is exactly how investment works even when you're dealing with larger numbers like, Billions, or Trillions. Investors gauge how much to invest, by the market viability of the product.
You could be right.
But considering I have worked in investment finance for 15+ years, I doubt it.
There are so many problems with CGI/SC I would not recommend to any VC or money manager to put anything in this thing. (And I have 60+ of those in my contact list.)
Most of those things, because CGI is a privately held company, can not be known. But, the biggest question is what is the cash burn rate of this thing, vs remaining capital. I have worked the research on dozens of companies that work R+D leading up to the release of a product, and what I have seen with CGI is not encouraging. Project management is all over the place, with the departure of several senior execs during the primary development process. That is bad, bad, and bad.
There is also no way to know when this thing will be released and in what shape it will be. How much "post release" development will be needed, at what burn rate, to satisfy the existing requirements of pre-sold virtual items? More people? Fewer? How will the post-launch reception of the game affect cashflow going forward, and how soon will there be anything to generate "new revenue"? Who the hell knows....
The bottom line is were I a banker, VC, or investor... when CGI eventually goes looking for bridge financing to get this thing to launch, I would not be interested in the least. (And that is not even talking about opportunity cost..)
Sorry, you can try and boast credentials, but it's pretty obvious you're no investment strategist. Someone in said field would first ask what the relevance of the turn over was. Was their job in the development cycle complete? You can't just say look someone left, that's bad. There's more to know, before you can judge that. You're just regurgitating other tired arguments at this point. You need to know specifics to speculate, and we don't know them. Sometimes people get offered more money, and they leave. There's always someone else that can do the job, just as well.
What we can see are the numbers going in, and the approximate number of people it comes from. Going by those numbers alone, you'd be a fool not to see the current/potential value of the product. Management can always be dealt with, this is why investment firms will reserve the right to approval before supplying any funds. Meaning they will assess all the relevant data of the situation, before talking hard numbers.
I wouldn't want part in any Elmer Fudd investing, where someone thinks $90 million in early development demand, isn't something to look into. Early development is a key phrase in that as well, these are the people who have come to the project without means of external advertisements. An investor would look at what the potential would be, once broader audience was reached ect. The technology and infrastructure is already in place, the hard part is done. Now they just need the capital to finish.
PS. Lots of people have rich friends, myself included. It doesn't always mean they know what they're doing. Sometimes people with the most diverse, and loaded portfolios lose the most money, because they don't understand speculative demand, i.e. they ask the wrong questions, when choosing where to put their money.
I have NEVER heard of any effort where 3 senior project execs (look up the specific names and titles yourself) left a major project before release, and it turned out well. Senior project execs only move up as being part of successful projects, they have every incentive to stay if such a project might even POTENTIALLY turn out well. Any single executive might leave and it is not necessarily a big deal, but 3 senior ones in the space of a few months, that is something different. If you lack the experience to understand that, that is your problem.
Go to business school and then talk to me about investing, who knows, I might see you there: I guest lecture at a couple.
Two words: opportunity cost. Look them up. No investor is going to touch this thing, and it is clear you do not understand why, that is not my problem. I could explain why, but it is like talking to a stump.
MMOs are a bad investment these days, and if you look around the industry, all of the big players are hurting. Private investors realize this, acutely. Banks do, as well.
MMOs are a bad investment these days, and if you look around the industry, all of the big players are hurting. Private investors realize this, acutely. Banks do, as well.
correction, lame run-off-the-mill fantasy WOW clones are a bad investment these days. Innovation is always a good investment, and SC is pure innovation. Besides, I very much doubt CIG needs any investments in the foreseeable future.
Guess what, they could put it on Steam any day if they needed the cash and double the player base on day 1.
After that they could make a dumbed down console version of the single player campaign and put it out on Xbox One and PS4.
etc. etc.
you don´t seem to be a very competent "expert", just like the other handful of armchair experts around this place predicting doom.
Actually they care about what's called market viability, it means the amount of customers you have, and the amount of income you can expect. CIG as a company already has proven their market viability by showing they've had 1 million people willing to give them $91 million in non loaned cash. That is huge when it comes to loan assessment.
That being said though, going by the last few days of sales I don't see any loans being necessary.
Agreed, nicely said, good sir.
Can you imagine how fast their stock would trend upward, just on that data alone. IF, they offered stock.
It would be pretty interesting to see. I imagine quickly with how many competing investors would be trying to get a piece. Along with fans just wanting to own some shares to collect.
I think you need a better understanding of what 'shares' actually are, believe it or not, they could easily end up 'burning' their available capital faster than the development team can. And with how share values fluctuate with real and perceived issues etc. then gambling their companies future on the stock exchange is something i would imagine they are far too sensible to dabble in, particularly now.
I have NEVER heard of any effort where 3 senior project execs (look up the specific names and titles yourself) left a major project before release, and it turned out well. Senior project execs only move up as being part of successful projects, they have every incentive to stay if such a project might even POTENTIALLY turn out well. Any single executive might leave and it is not necessarily a big deal, but 3 senior ones in the space of a few months, that is something different. If you lack the experience to understand that, that is your problem.
Go to business school and then talk to me about investing, who knows, I might see you there: I guest lecture at a couple.
Two words: opportunity cost. Look them up. No investor is going to touch this thing, and it is clear you do not understand why, that is not my problem. I could explain why, but it is like talking to a stump.
MMOs are a bad investment these days, and if you look around the industry, all of the big players are hurting. Private investors realize this, acutely. Banks do, as well.
So, believe what you want.
I'm not going to questions anyone's credential's but one thing I will say is that I've had my fair share of well known investment firms coming knocking at my door in the past promising me pie in the sky returns. One was even boasting of being able to provide me with 36% returns to which I laughed and replied that if he was willing to put that in writing, I'd give him all my money.
Anyways nothing personal but my personal experience's with your industry is that you guys like to talk out your ass.
One major factor you might want to get right in your research is that SC is not an MMO, also that the MMO's like League of Legends, World of Tanks and such are raking in cash, hand over fist. Although today I would be wary of investing in a market that is becoming oversaturated.
I don't have Warren Buffet on my speed dial. I have no idea how good or bad Star Citizen will be at launch.
What I DO know is that I really liked the scene shown in the video. It was EXACTLY what I was hoping for in the Squadron 42 game. It is a throwback to the Wing Commander games.
All these folks arguing about money really are still stuck in an argument from years ago. They are still arguing about whether they should have promised to include celebrity actors in the game (or maybe even if they should have promised to make Squadron 42 at all).
That argument is moot. The promises were made. The pledges were collected. Now they are delivering on that promise. Maybe they won't deliver on Star Citizen. Maybe they will... but my focus has always been on Squadron 42 and I am happy.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Actually they care about what's called market viability, it means the amount of customers you have, and the amount of income you can expect. CIG as a company already has proven their market viability by showing they've had 1 million people willing to give them $91 million in non loaned cash. That is huge when it comes to loan assessment.
That being said though, going by the last few days of sales I don't see any loans being necessary.
Agreed, nicely said, good sir.
Can you imagine how fast their stock would trend upward, just on that data alone. IF, they offered stock.
It would be pretty interesting to see. I imagine quickly with how many competing investors would be trying to get a piece. Along with fans just wanting to own some shares to collect.
I think you need a better understanding of what 'shares' actually are, believe it or not, they could easily end up 'burning' their available capital faster than the development team can. And with how share values fluctuate with real and perceived issues etc. then gambling their companies future on the stock exchange is something i would imagine they are far too sensible to dabble in, particularly now.
Did you see the word shares, and decide to try and school me on something? The guy said imagine. It was merely a subjective take on if they ever went public. I'm aware of the disadvantages of doing so. It probably wouldn't even be considered anyway.
@Burntvet I'm also aware of opportunity costs which is hardly the ultimate deciding factor here. Seems to me you're more implying of concord fallacy. Which could be argued but, I would say as SC is still proven in it's demand with what could be the highest graphical quality in the multiplayer gaming market. Investors would be wise to figure out similar factors made WoW the giant it was. The great part is CIG only owes ships not money.
As far as company attrition, again I can't see that being a massive detriment or even an indicator at this point with the small amount we've seen thus far. It's game development, employment is fickle and executives project hopping is becoming very much the norm for the industry.
It'll be interesting to see how things start to come out with their restructured team. I think the first true performance indicators will be the alpha 2.0 and Squadron 42. As others have said as well, those will be what the game is ultimately judged by, and will determine whether or not backers keep buying.
Right now with the bad press it has received no investor is going to touch this game. So they are lucky they have their funding going strong right now. The question has been and will be in the future how much longer before they have an actual game to play and charge for.
I do have one question, for all the people buying ships and yes the more expensive one's are they going to get to play the game free or still have to pay once the game does go live. Sorry if this has been asked already.
Comments
There are 3 types of people in the world.
1.) Those who make things happen
2.) Those who watch things happen
3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
But I can kinda see why RI did what they did - it was a time when jobs were few and far between, and RI seriously lacking in technology companies, the people behind the deal thought it would be the boost they needed. Add to that having a celebrity bringing this injection was even bigger. Sadly the people closest to the deal ignored all the warnings.
There are 3 types of people in the world.
1.) Those who make things happen
2.) Those who watch things happen
3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
All of the stuff that has been sold up to now, will obviously not be bought again by the same people in the future.
CIG has basically presold everything on a fully paid pre-order, so the money they'd get from all that, they already have (and spent).
A bad balance sheet is a bad balance sheet, and pre-sold inventory turns into a liability in the same way loans do, when you have spent all the money from the pre-orders and not produced the product. If you have a bad balance sheet, you are probably not going to get that loan you want.
So, OZ is largely correct.
Sorry: I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Sell the game to a million more new people.
Option 2:
Sell DLCs/mission discs with new storyline and cinematics to your existing players, using the existing technology, artwork and employees.
Have fun
None of that matters when you walk into Citi or BoA want to ask for that $50 mil credit line to finish the game.
The bankers don't care about promises, they care about the books.
And if you are on the hook for $90 mil+ of product you have not finished, and have not delivered, and will not make a profit on, you don't think they will care about that? It is a straight liability.
I can say for a fact that they will.
Edit: and worse, because this is a "software" company and not, say, a company that actually makes a real product, or has other products/contracts to generate profitable cashflow, there is very little in the way of collateral either, to get that new loan.
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/funding-goals
Have fun
That being said though, going by the last few days of sales I don't see any loans being necessary.
Can you imagine how fast their stock would trend upward, just on that data alone. IF, they offered stock.
Sooner or later even the crowd funding well will run dry and then what?
With SC no where even close to being done, a trip to the bank is at least as likely as not.
For SC, all of the stuff they have already sold, they do not get paid again for after launch, and if that money is spent during development, like a very large part of it has been, what then?
They have nothing to entice an investor or financial institution with to get new financing, when they are on the hook for all kinds of product they have not delivered.
It is really about "how do you get more financing when the money runs out/low".
In that sense, having $100 mil in pre-sold product for an unfinished game is just as bad as a $100 mil credit line to a potential investor. Having the loan creates a slightly worse cash flow, but that is it.
You can see this process at play in it's simplest form on the TV show, Shark Tank. Large investors look at the future potential, and they gauge it by demand response. This is exactly how investment works even when you're dealing with larger numbers like, Billions, or Trillions. Investors gauge how much to invest, by the market viability of the product.
But considering I have worked in investment finance for 15+ years, I doubt it.
There are so many problems with CGI/SC I would not recommend to any VC or money manager to put anything in this thing. (And I have 60+ of those in my contact list.)
Most of those things, because CGI is a privately held company, can not be known. But, the biggest question is what is the cash burn rate of this thing, vs remaining capital. I have worked the research on dozens of companies that work R+D leading up to the release of a product, and what I have seen with CGI is not encouraging. Project management is all over the place, with the departure of several senior execs during the primary development process. That is bad, bad, and bad.
There is also no way to know when this thing will be released and in what shape it will be. How much "post release" development will be needed, at what burn rate, to satisfy the existing requirements of pre-sold virtual items? More people? Fewer? How will the post-launch reception of the game affect cashflow going forward, and how soon will there be anything to generate "new revenue"? Who the hell knows....
The bottom line is were I a banker, VC, or investor... when CGI eventually goes looking for bridge financing to get this thing to launch, I would not be interested in the least. (And that is not even talking about opportunity cost..)
Squadron 42 will be the measuring stick. They're beginning to sell pre-orders, odds are very much in favour of it releasing.
IMHO SC will live or die, based on the reception of Squadron 42
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
What we can see are the numbers going in, and the approximate number of people it comes from. Going by those numbers alone, you'd be a fool not to see the current/potential value of the product. Management can always be dealt with, this is why investment firms will reserve the right to approval before supplying any funds. Meaning they will assess all the relevant data of the situation, before talking hard numbers.
I wouldn't want part in any Elmer Fudd investing, where someone thinks $90 million in early development demand, isn't something to look into. Early development is a key phrase in that as well, these are the people who have come to the project without means of external advertisements. An investor would look at what the potential would be, once broader audience was reached ect. The technology and infrastructure is already in place, the hard part is done. Now they just need the capital to finish.
PS. Lots of people have rich friends, myself included. It doesn't always mean they know what they're doing. Sometimes people with the most diverse, and loaded portfolios lose the most money, because they don't understand speculative demand, i.e. they ask the wrong questions, when choosing where to put their money.
I have NEVER heard of any effort where 3 senior project execs (look up the specific names and titles yourself) left a major project before release, and it turned out well. Senior project execs only move up as being part of successful projects, they have every incentive to stay if such a project might even POTENTIALLY turn out well. Any single executive might leave and it is not necessarily a big deal, but 3 senior ones in the space of a few months, that is something different. If you lack the experience to understand that, that is your problem.
Go to business school and then talk to me about investing, who knows, I might see you there: I guest lecture at a couple.
Two words: opportunity cost. Look them up. No investor is going to touch this thing, and it is clear you do not understand why, that is not my problem. I could explain why, but it is like talking to a stump.
MMOs are a bad investment these days, and if you look around the industry, all of the big players are hurting. Private investors realize this, acutely. Banks do, as well.
So, believe what you want.
Innovation is always a good investment, and SC is pure innovation.
Besides, I very much doubt CIG needs any investments in the foreseeable future.
Guess what, they could put it on Steam any day if they needed the cash and double the player base on day 1.
After that they could make a dumbed down console version of the single player campaign and put it out on Xbox One and PS4.
etc.
etc.
you don´t seem to be a very competent "expert", just like the other handful of armchair experts around this place predicting doom.
I'm not going to questions anyone's credential's but one thing I will say is that I've had my fair share of well known investment firms coming knocking at my door in the past promising me pie in the sky returns. One was even boasting of being able to provide me with 36% returns to which I laughed and replied that if he was willing to put that in writing, I'd give him all my money.
Anyways nothing personal but my personal experience's with your industry is that you guys like to talk out your ass.
One major factor you might want to get right in your research is that SC is not an MMO, also that the MMO's like League of Legends, World of Tanks and such are raking in cash, hand over fist. Although today I would be wary of investing in a market that is becoming oversaturated.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
What I DO know is that I really liked the scene shown in the video. It was EXACTLY what I was hoping for in the Squadron 42 game. It is a throwback to the Wing Commander games.
All these folks arguing about money really are still stuck in an argument from years ago. They are still arguing about whether they should have promised to include celebrity actors in the game (or maybe even if they should have promised to make Squadron 42 at all).
That argument is moot. The promises were made. The pledges were collected. Now they are delivering on that promise. Maybe they won't deliver on Star Citizen. Maybe they will... but my focus has always been on Squadron 42 and I am happy.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
@Burntvet I'm also aware of opportunity costs which is hardly the ultimate deciding factor here. Seems to me you're more implying of concord fallacy. Which could be argued but, I would say as SC is still proven in it's demand with what could be the highest graphical quality in the multiplayer gaming market. Investors would be wise to figure out similar factors made WoW the giant it was. The great part is CIG only owes ships not money.
As far as company attrition, again I can't see that being a massive detriment or even an indicator at this point with the small amount we've seen thus far. It's game development, employment is fickle and executives project hopping is becoming very much the norm for the industry.
It'll be interesting to see how things start to come out with their restructured team. I think the first true performance indicators will be the alpha 2.0 and Squadron 42. As others have said as well, those will be what the game is ultimately judged by, and will determine whether or not backers keep buying.
I do have one question, for all the people buying ships and yes the more expensive one's are they going to get to play the game free or still have to pay once the game does go live. Sorry if this has been asked already.
Star Citizen – The Extinction Level Event
4/13/15 > ELE has been updated look for 16-04-13.
http://www.dereksmart.org/2016/04/star-citizen-the-ele/
Enjoy and know the truth always comes to light!