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.
If a two time Pulitzer price winning news outlet quotes an anonymous source and tells me CIG is about to secure 75 M$ to finish Star Citizen, I will listen.
If "someone" on YouTube quotes "someone anonymous" while presenting his personal opinion .... i have my doubts that this is anything more than a rumour.
The credibility of the source of the news is an important factor.
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.
If a two time Pulitzer price winning news outlet quotes an anonymous source and tells me CIG is about to secure 75 M$ to finish Star Citizen, I will listen.
If "someone" on YouTube quotes "someone anonymous" while presenting his personal opinion .... i have my doubts that this is anything more than a rumour.
The credibility of the source of the news is an important factor.
Have fun
These days, i am not so sure i would even trust the 'news' source, all things considered. Unless CIG make some kind of statement i would treat it all as speculation without basis.
Due to the reality of false rumors and leaks surrounding SC for years now, it is logical to dismiss anonymous sources nobody can verify that have without standing grounds.
That aside, I mentioned before selling/licensing technology would be a smart bet for CIG, they have worked a hell lot in expanding and integrating a lot of tech together, developing a revenue stream not dependent on backers alone (but also not a publisher) would mitigate the dependency in the reality of the delays it has faced. So it would not surprise me.
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.
If a two time Pulitzer price winning news outlet quotes an anonymous source and tells me CIG is about to secure 75 M$ to finish Star Citizen, I will listen.
If "someone" on YouTube quotes "someone anonymous" while presenting his personal opinion .... i have my doubts that this is anything more than a rumour.
The credibility of the source of the news is an important factor.
Have fun
These days, i am not so sure i would even trust the 'news' source, all things considered. Unless CIG make some kind of statement i would treat it all as speculation without basis.
Yeah, the last official credible news source was wrong and I can't list why without going into politics which is not allowed on this site.
"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
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.
I dont know where in the world you are living or what assets your business is using to secure a loan for 2% but here in the USA you are not getting a loan for 2% by using an unfinished and unproven video game as collateral. Heck, you can not even mortgage an office building for 2%, enen personal mortgages are at an all time low around 4% and those are secured with an actual property.
Even the Small Business Administration adds 2% to prime for their loans. The larger the loan the higher the rate so I am a bit skeptical about where you are pulling that 2% number from.
We are also not talking about generating money with your capital, if we were, putting it in a bank account would not be an option so I dont know why you brought that up.
"Sean (Murray) saying MP will be in the game is not remotely close to evidence that at the point of purchase people thought there was MP in the game." - SEANMCAD
If making more money on investments than the interest rate on taking out a loan was so easy, you'd see banks investing that money instead of loaning it out in the first place.
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.
I dont know where in the world you are living or what assets your business is using to secure a loan for 2% but here in the USA you are not getting a loan for 2% by using an unfinished and unproven video game as collateral. Heck, you can not even mortgage an office building for 2%, enen personal mortgages are at an all time low around 4% and those are secured with an actual property.
Even the Small Business Administration adds 2% to prime for their loans. The larger the loan the higher the rate so I am a bit skeptical about where you are pulling that 2% number from.
We are also not talking about generating money with your capital, if we were, putting it in a bank account would not be an option so I dont know why you brought that up.
Well here in Canada If you own a home you can get a personal line of credit for prime +1/4%
I don't know what kind of programs you have in your country but depending on what the capital is for, last year I could have borrowed 1.2 million at 0% for 2 years.
CIG probably has most their capital locked up in term investments, in turn those investments are used as security. You can also put up personal assets as security. You and I have no idea what kind of assets CIG holds.
Companies locking up their capital then borrowing their operating capital at a lower rate is pretty much the way of the world these days.
edit: Being the way of the world doesn't mean that I agree with it.
If making more money on investments than the interest rate on taking out a loan was so easy, you'd see banks investing that money instead of loaning it out in the first place.
If making more money on investments than the interest rate on taking out a loan was so easy, you'd see banks investing that money instead of loaning it out in the first place.
Though banks do actually make investments, they just have certain rules about making investments.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
If making more money on investments than the interest rate on taking out a loan was so easy, you'd see banks investing that money instead of loaning it out in the first place.
I don't know about down south. But here in Canada, banks are now big time into the insurance business as well as mutual funds and other similar junk.
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?
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.
So you asked a question knowing the answer?
Why would you take an advance - even though there will be other costs involved? Answer: when its cheaper for you (them) to do so. They may be saving money by e.g. incurring lower currency hedging charges say - which they could be doing since a lot of the funds are raised in dollars.
Now imagine the headlines if this was the other way around and you knew they could "save money" but opted not to. "Read all about it: CIG had the opportunity to "save" (or make if you wish) money but are so cavalier with backers money that they couldn't be bothered." Yeah.
As for the future - what matters today is the here and now. This is basically a quarter by quarter arrangement. They get a some money early (the start probably) of a quarter, when the rebate comes in they pay off that quarters "pseudo-loan".
Note: fundamentally the bank's "loan" is secured on the rebate, not the (UK part of an) unfinished game. (Which will give them some recovery - selling office assets etc. but not much else) If the bank was providing a "proper" loan secured on said unfinished game this would imply that they were happy the game was going to release etc. (or that the bank was stupid.) Which would be huge news in itself: major bank confident SC will release etc.
And what if circumstances change the arrangement will get changed or cancelled - maybe by the bank!
Has the company released their taxes? Employee stats. You can have four offices around the world, and four hundred employees - that might equal four apartments for you to jump around in and four hundred employees that do small things, such as draw me spaceship. It is mind numbing to think about all the $1000 bottles this guy has drank, the hookers he paid, and the first class flights taken on everyone's else's dime.
The devs for this game must all be millionaires by now and it hasnt even come close to launch yet...;ike many of us have said before, why launch when you make millions in alpha state?
Has the company released their taxes? Employee stats. You can have four offices around the world, and four hundred employees - that might equal four apartments for you to jump around in and four hundred employees that do small things, such as draw me spaceship. It is mind numbing to think about all the $1000 bottles this guy has drank, the hookers he paid, and the first class flights taken on everyone's else's dime.
The internet will give you an answer if you bother to look. (Clue: answer begins with Y .....)
Which e.g. is why they are being paid a rebate by the UK government. Oh wait you mean they are fooling all the governments and Amazon etc. etc. Ahhh ...
If making more money on investments than the interest rate on taking out a loan was so easy, you'd see banks investing that money instead of loaning it out in the first place.
They do...... but they diversify!
I used to work at a bank, and coincidentally enough, I was the man in charge of the investment portfolio. Banks are forbidden by federal law to invest depositor money into the stock market. Think about that for a moment, and you'll understand why that is great for their members.
It is possible for a bank to be a part of a holding company that may invest. But you will only see this with the mega banks. Of course, this is also why in 2009 so many mega-banks were about to go under. Your "normal" bank was fine - they didn't invest in a bunch of garbage. Local/regional banks buy CDs to earn money on their reserve cash.
Normal bank thrive on loans and checking accounts. They make some money on the interest, and they make HUGE amounts on the late/other penalties. That is their bread and butter. Its really sad because the poorest people are their greatest revenue source. They make way more money on penalties than interest.
In fact, if you're in a credit category that will earn the bank high interest they want nothing to do with you. They want that A credit person who is going to miss a few payments, not the C credit guy who is going to default and cost the bank thousands.
It's simply clickbait, why are we even discussing it.
Because we can freely discuss anything we want, even if it's probably not true.
“Nevertheless, the human brain, which survives by hoping from one second to another, will always endeavor to put off the moment of truth. Moist” ― Terry Pratchett, Making Money
Bank loans, a guy that has proven time and again his greed, and (yes I did look), almost no business documentation to back what he says up. Yes, he is creating a game. So was EQNext, remember? And then we found out they had a whole 16 employees, as opposed to an entire dev team. Then they had all those dev videos? Yeah, those were cool. And the beautiful look at the conventions. (Didn't it win most anticipated at E3?)
But, you're right. Star Citizen has soooo much more proof than EQNext. My bad.
If making more money on investments than the interest rate on taking out a loan was so easy, you'd see banks investing that money instead of loaning it out in the first place.
Banks do invest. But they have to give out loans as well. Have to as in forced to. That's one of the requirements to get a permission from the government. At least that's how it is in many parts of the world. Not sure if it applies to all countries.
Constantine, The Console Poster
"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves." - Carl Jung
With the current amount already accumulated. An additional $75 million would make it the most expensive game to develop. A lot of the game is suppose to be procedural. So it would be difficult to showcase it until the final stages of development. It would be odd to see marketing material that still has thousands of placeholders objects.
Comments
If a two time Pulitzer price winning news outlet quotes an anonymous source and tells me CIG is about to secure 75 M$ to finish Star Citizen, I will listen.
If "someone" on YouTube quotes "someone anonymous" while presenting his personal opinion .... i have my doubts that this is anything more than a rumour.
The credibility of the source of the news is an important factor.
Have fun
That aside, I mentioned before selling/licensing technology would be a smart bet for CIG, they have worked a hell lot in expanding and integrating a lot of tech together, developing a revenue stream not dependent on backers alone (but also not a publisher) would mitigate the dependency in the reality of the delays it has faced. So it would not surprise me.
"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
Even the Small Business Administration adds 2% to prime for their loans. The larger the loan the higher the rate so I am a bit skeptical about where you are pulling that 2% number from.
We are also not talking about generating money with your capital, if we were, putting it in a bank account would not be an option so I dont know why you brought that up.
I don't know what kind of programs you have in your country but depending on what the capital is for, last year I could have borrowed 1.2 million at 0% for 2 years.
CIG probably has most their capital locked up in term investments, in turn those investments are used as security. You can also put up personal assets as security. You and I have no idea what kind of assets CIG holds.
Companies locking up their capital then borrowing their operating capital at a lower rate is pretty much the way of the world these days.
edit: Being the way of the world doesn't mean that I agree with it.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
They do...... but they diversify!
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Lending money alone, just doesn't cut it anymore.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
<Please insert more credits to continue>
Why would you take an advance - even though there will be other costs involved? Answer: when its cheaper for you (them) to do so. They may be saving money by e.g. incurring lower currency hedging charges say - which they could be doing since a lot of the funds are raised in dollars.
Now imagine the headlines if this was the other way around and you knew they could "save money" but opted not to. "Read all about it: CIG had the opportunity to "save" (or make if you wish) money but are so cavalier with backers money that they couldn't be bothered." Yeah.
As for the future - what matters today is the here and now. This is basically a quarter by quarter arrangement. They get a some money early (the start probably) of a quarter, when the rebate comes in they pay off that quarters "pseudo-loan".
Note: fundamentally the bank's "loan" is secured on the rebate, not the (UK part of an) unfinished game. (Which will give them some recovery - selling office assets etc. but not much else) If the bank was providing a "proper" loan secured on said unfinished game this would imply that they were happy the game was going to release etc. (or that the bank was stupid.) Which would be huge news in itself: major bank confident SC will release etc.
And what if circumstances change the arrangement will get changed or cancelled - maybe by the bank!
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Which e.g. is why they are being paid a rebate by the UK government. Oh wait you mean they are fooling all the governments and Amazon etc. etc. Ahhh ...
It is possible for a bank to be a part of a holding company that may invest. But you will only see this with the mega banks. Of course, this is also why in 2009 so many mega-banks were about to go under. Your "normal" bank was fine - they didn't invest in a bunch of garbage. Local/regional banks buy CDs to earn money on their reserve cash.
Normal bank thrive on loans and checking accounts. They make some money on the interest, and they make HUGE amounts on the late/other penalties. That is their bread and butter. Its really sad because the poorest people are their greatest revenue source. They make way more money on penalties than interest.
In fact, if you're in a credit category that will earn the bank high interest they want nothing to do with you. They want that A credit person who is going to miss a few payments, not the C credit guy who is going to default and cost the bank thousands.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
― Terry Pratchett, Making Money
But, you're right. Star Citizen has soooo much more proof than EQNext. My bad.
A lot of the game is suppose to be procedural. So it would be difficult to showcase it until the final stages of development. It would be odd to see marketing material that still has thousands of placeholders objects.