Welcome to the New Shacknews

You're currently viewing the beginning of a full site renovation for Shacknews.com. You might find something working oddly. If you do, let us know! More exciting new features to follow.

Star Citizen Developer Addresses Rumors of Financial Struggles

Cloud Imperium Games took out a sizable loan and offered up the company as collateral, but that’s not indication of financial difficulties.    

71

Cloud Imperium Games co-founder Ortwin Freyermuth assuaged concerns from the Star Citizen community when fans noticed that the studio had taken out a sizable loan from UK banking institution Coutts. The studio’s principals offered Cloud Imperium as collateral on the loan, leading many to believe that coffers had run dry developing Star Citizen. Financially savvy readers can view the filings here (courtesy of GameSpot).

According to Freyermuth, who addressed the rumors on Cloud Imperium’s forums, much ado was made over nothing. The studio’s relationship with Coutts enables it to receive advances on tax rebates, which in turns allows the developer to avoid converting currencies to British Pounds.

“Our UK companies are entitled to a Government Game tax credit rebate which we earn every month on [Star Citizen's single-player campaign] Squadron 42 development," Freyermuth wrote on Cloud Imperium’s forums. “These rebates are payable by the UK Government in the fall of the next following year when we file our tax returns. [We] have elected to partner with Coutts, a highly regarded, very selective, and specialised UK banking institution, to obtain a regular advance against this rebate, which will allow us to avoid converting unnecessarily other currencies into GBP.”

Freyermuth and his partners watch the financial market, and applied for the advance after considering which currencies make up the bulk of their income. Moreover, the Star Citizen IP is excluded from being offered as collateral in the studio’s agreement with Coutts, so there’s no concern that Cloud would lose control of its game. “We obviously incur a significant part of our expenditures in GBP while our collections are mostly in USD and EUR. Given today's low interest rates versus the ongoing and uncertain currency fluctuations, this is simply a smart money management move, which we implemented upon recommendation of our financial advisors.”

One could argue that fans had every right to be concerned over Star Citizen’s future. The game has raised tens of millions through crowdfunding since 2012, but seems gridlocked in perpetual development. Bits and pieces materialize, leaving many players to speculate when, or if the full product will surface.

Contributing Editor

From The Chatty

  • reply
    June 26, 2017 3:05 PM

    David Craddock posted a new article, Star Citizen Developer Addresses Rumors of Financial Struggles

    • reply
      June 26, 2017 3:29 PM

      Yeah, basically anyone with a passing knowledge of finance could look at this and be like: "Not an issue."

      Jesus. So much fucking idiocy out there.

      • reply
        June 26, 2017 5:01 PM

        It's just become yet another entrenched position. If some new piece of news, instant spin makes it sure-fire evidence for each side that their position is the one true opinion.

        It's a game. Or will be. Or won't be. Just watch and don't give money and everyone can be happy.

        • reply
          June 26, 2017 5:10 PM

          That's pretty much my attitude. I threw $100 at it for a MISC Freelancer with lifetime insurance back closer to the start, and another $10 for a metal Citizen card (which I have received).

          The money is spent, so there's no point in worrying about it. The game will either come out, or it won't. If it comes out, it will be somewhere on the spectrum between "terrible" and "awesome". Obviously I'd prefer it to come out and be awesome, but I don't know whether that will be the case.

          I do know there's a ridiculous amount of venom and histrionics directed at the game, and it's fanned by bizarre conspiracy theories and (deliberate?) misinterpretation of mundane business activity.

          • reply
            June 26, 2017 5:18 PM

            Sup Freelancer buddy. I bought that more to support the game than for the ship, but now I kind of regret it.

            I don't expect much from SC any more since a large portion of the community paid their way to the top already. My hopes for the game are pretty much all centered around how functional the economy is with so much real money pumped into it.

            No point in space truckin' in my freelancer for 10 cents worth of credits an hour.

            • reply
              June 26, 2017 5:24 PM

              For me it was 50% supporting the game, and 50% ensuring a decent worst-case platform to support what I'm interested in.

              Aside from RSI just overspending and running out of money, that's probably one of the bigger credible concerns. It's unclear how the economy will be affected when people already have all those ships.

          • reply
            June 26, 2017 6:42 PM

            No point in worrying?

            Collectively, it's 150 million.

    • reply
      June 26, 2017 3:30 PM

      I hope the game gets finished, end up being terrible and people nail Chris Roberts to the wall. This whole thing has seemed fishy from the get go.

      • reply
        June 26, 2017 3:35 PM

        lol what the fuck is wrong with you

      • reply
        June 26, 2017 3:35 PM

        ...why?

        Have you even looked at what the outputs of their efforts are?

      • reply
        June 26, 2017 3:38 PM

        Have the decency and switch to your alt account when shitposting. This is unprofessional.

      • reply
        June 26, 2017 3:38 PM

        I proudly do not support Star Citizen, nor believe Chris Roberts actually gives a shit about the game EVER being "Compete".

        • reply
          June 26, 2017 3:56 PM

          ...I think the intention is to make the persistent universe a live service...

          So yeah, it wont ever be complete, and I don't think that was ever the intention.

          You've got some weird bones to pick with Star Citizen, man.

        • reply
          June 26, 2017 4:13 PM

          and you base this on what?

        • reply
          June 26, 2017 10:08 PM

          "Proudly"? That sounds silly.

        • reply
          June 27, 2017 5:13 AM

          How strange

      • reply
        June 26, 2017 4:10 PM

        Nice try Derek Smart. We're on to you.

        • reply
          June 26, 2017 9:01 PM

          Oh he's on FIRE over on twitter right now.

          It's painfully obvious that he has no idea about corporate finance or intelligently managing large somes of cash... mostly because he's a 30-year failure, with delusions of grandeur.

          I like to keep tabs on his general idiocy over on https://www.reddit.com/r/DerekSmart/
          His level of self-ownage is really entertaining.
          Bring popcorn.

      • reply
        June 26, 2017 4:17 PM

        Stick to your shitty click bait listicles.

      • reply
        June 26, 2017 4:35 PM

        Greg. What are you doing, Greg.

      • reply
        June 26, 2017 4:35 PM

        This sounds like a well formed and mature opinion, I would love to hear more about how you came to this position.

      • reply
        June 26, 2017 4:37 PM

        this is a real shit-tier post/opinion

      • reply
        June 26, 2017 4:46 PM

        Aren't you the guy who included a bunch of Derek Smart conspiracy theories in an official Shacknews video?

      • reply
        June 26, 2017 5:24 PM

        Shacknews.

      • reply
        June 26, 2017 5:34 PM

        Fired up the old account to post WTF

      • reply
        June 26, 2017 6:10 PM

        Greg, I too default to hoping that things are shit, thus making the world a shittier place so I can sit upon a throne of shit, and say to all, "Look at all this shit, I told you it would be shit."

        Fuck everyone and everything, so long I feel superior, it's the American* way.

        *Excluding Canadians, Mexicans, residents Central America, residents of South America, and those living on islands either geologically or politically classified as "American" because of course, they're not Real Americans.

        • reply
          June 26, 2017 7:27 PM

          I definitely want Star Citizen to be a success, but I find myself routinely hoping that all these big box office prequels, reboots, sequels, remakes and phoned in predictable super hero movies bomb so completely that they start financing original stories again.

          Also I want the Trump Administration to fail in everything it tries to do, pretty much.

          So you can sometimes root for failure for the right reasons.

          • reply
            June 26, 2017 8:18 PM

            What net negative effect is there if there is an increasing amount of good and well made media in the world?

            Even if any given specific example is not to your taste, can you not be happy for the enrichment of the world? It seems to me that more good media, especially in a non-zero-sum system, is simply better.

            Also the Trump administration is a clear and obvious net negative on humanity as a whole, granted that's what many of his supporters like about it, but I believe hoping something monstrous like that fails is only logical.

            • reply
              June 26, 2017 8:37 PM

              Well now this is just a tangent-- but If there was truly an increasing amount of good (subjective here, I know) movies, I'd completely agree there is no net negative effect. But there doesn't seem to be. It seems like studios are taking less risks than ever before in my lifetime, and everything is soccer-mom focused-grouped to a bland paste. As far as 2017 releases go I've only seen Get Out, compared to 2007 where I probably saw 40 movies. Basically, I want a change in the direction cinema is going, and that change will require failure on behalf of the studios.

              The quality of tv, however, has been increasing in quality tremendously. I'm not at all bothered by the more formulaic stuff that comes out in that medium since there's plenty of other options for me there.

              • reply
                June 26, 2017 9:09 PM

                Don't have much to add on the TV side, but to expand on films and my general mindset above...

                I highly doubt Justice League (2017) will be, but I honestly hope that against all odds will turn out to be an excellent movie. However, if it is bad, I hope that it does poorly and teaches the creators and investors the correct lessons, though admittedly I think that to be unlikely.

                I don't think the odds are quite as long but I have similar doubts about Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets but again I would very much be pleased if the movie is at least great-bad like The Fifth Element was.

                However, I'm going to see Baby Driver and probably the same for Detroit and Lucky Logan. I'm excited for all three. Atomic Blonde could be fun, and while I expect it to not be fun given the subject matter, I suspect Dunkirk will probably be worth seeing.

                A bit to my surprise The Big Sick is looking like it's probably good, it isn't something I'm excited for but I'm glad it's probably good.

                Uhh.. I've heard really good things about Raw? I've not seen that yet though. It's on my list.

                And on the already released and "safer" side of things, while the tone and style weren't really risky after the success of The Lego Movie, the related but not directly so The Lego Batman Movie was quite good. Also albeit not without its flaws and failings, Wonder Woman was a surprise success, enough so I could recommend it in general. I don't think everyone will like it, but it, like Lego Batman is worth a view unless you absolutely cannot stand the concept of superhero films.

                • reply
                  June 26, 2017 10:29 PM

                  Since you took the time to write all that, I went ahead an watched trailers for most of those.

                  Justice League- I'm automatically out. I've never really enjoyed any superhero movies apart from Batman, and I actually prefer the Burton version-- though Nolan was solid as well. Ultron was the last one I saw, and I would have walked out on it if I could have.

                  Valerian and Baby Driver both look like they have real protagonist issues. I might be able to get past the millennial factor in Baby Driver if his character was far more interesting than he seemed in the trailer... but it would be insurmountable for me in Valerian.

                  Detroit has some potential... really depends on how ham fisted it is with it's message. Gotta wait for reviews on this one.

                  Lucky Logan- ensemble caper :( I feel like I know how it's gonna go beat for beat already. Didn't really like Oceans 11 and skipped the rest of those.

                  Atomic Blonde- I got about 10 seconds into this trailer, looked like the worst of the bunch. Looked like hollow action drivel.

                  Big Slick- could be funny, probably a bit heavy on the sentiment though

                  Raw- well, it's a horror with a 90% RT score, so I'll *definitely* check this one out. I'm already sold on the genre (horror movies have actually been getting better recently) when it's by a real writer, so I did not watch the trailer in order to go in fresh.

                  I'll contrast this with my 2007 top 10:

                  1. Zodiac
                  2. The Lives of Others
                  3. No Country For Old Men
                  4. There Will Be Blood
                  5. Death Proof
                  6. The Orphanage
                  7. Reservation Road
                  8. 3:10 to Yuma
                  9 . [rec]
                  10. The Lookout

                  • reply
                    June 26, 2017 10:50 PM

                    Okay, okay but 2007 is a really tough year to compare against. For my personal list off the top of my head I'd add/swap-in Michael Clayton and Ratatouille.

                    And again, many of these are hopes, against expectation, because I would rather desire for a better world than not.

                    As for my excited three Baby Driver, is Edgar Wright which by itself is a default "in" for me.

                    Detroit is directed by Kathryn Bigelow who is a strong director in general, and with Lucky Logan well, Soderbergh is all over the map, he experiments and I like that he takes risk. I don't like everything he's made, the Oceans' movies were mostly alright, but when he hits strong, he hits strong.

                    They seem like pretty safe bets, not that I'll bet anything other than my expectations. Though perhaps they won't be to your taste?

                    I'd nearly forgotten about The Lookout, that a was solid film. I think I did an in-home double feature with Brick when I finally saw them.

                    • reply
                      June 26, 2017 11:06 PM

                      I really do admire you're optimism. I didn't used to be this cynical about movies, but every year it seems there is less stuff I wanna see. I didn't enjoy crapping on all those trailers, I know how it looks. I kept my reactions honest, though.

                      I'd say predictability is the biggest killer in anything for me, and we're just getting a lot of by the numbers stuff right now.

                      My two favorite movies of the last few years were probably Interstellar and Nightcrawler. I had *no idea* what was going to happen in those movies (it helps that I almost always skip trailers as a rule), and they both blew me away. I also really liked Spotlight, since I'm a huge Micheal Keaton and Mark Ruffalo fan. Birdman was cool too.

                      I liked Soderbergh's Solaris a whole lot (even though it got a pretty mixed reaction from most, from what I remember), and I loved The Informant(!). Che was unwatchable, even with Benecio Del Toro who might be my favorite actor. Oceans was just pretty flat, and I don't think I've seen any others. Maybe Contagion-- I vaguely remember Matt Damon in that, so I guess I saw it-- but it left no impression.

      • reply
        June 26, 2017 7:07 PM

        Why would you root for this game to fail? It would be incredible if they pull it off.

        • reply
          June 26, 2017 7:33 PM

          I would definitely pick it up if they do.

        • reply
          June 26, 2017 9:20 PM

          No one is rooting because they believe the opposite of you. It's their opinion. Why should you always believe it's gonna be awesome?

          My prediction has always been- this is the Titanic in sloow motion. I'm not rooting against it, that's my opinion.

          • reply
            June 27, 2017 3:43 AM

            A lot of people are doing exactly that

          • reply
            June 27, 2017 4:45 AM

            Greg explicitly said in his first post that he hopes the game gets finished and is terrible.

      • reply
        June 26, 2017 7:32 PM

        Dude, just.... no

      • reply
        June 26, 2017 7:36 PM

        Just like Hillary Clinton am I right?

      • reply
        June 26, 2017 8:30 PM

        You...hope for a game to be bad? Really?

      • reply
        June 26, 2017 8:31 PM

        You work here right ?

      • reply
        June 26, 2017 8:31 PM

        Sup lakren

      • reply
        June 27, 2017 1:28 AM

        Fair and balanced.

      • reply
        June 27, 2017 6:55 AM

        That's a rather unprofessional comment for a writer of a gaming website.

        Good thing TMWTB doesn't want to exclusively interview anyone from The Star Citizen team, right.

      • reply
        June 27, 2017 7:31 AM

        Don't mince words. Tell us what you really think.

      • reply
        June 27, 2017 7:59 AM

        I'm going to white knight for GBurke59 here and say that I get the spirit of his post in that he doesn't want to see a company with this business model succeed since it would validate the approach.

        The virtual ships and the moving target of a timeline does feel pretty gross to me but people are free to do what they want with their money. I just hope those same people don't complain and whine across the internet IF the project crashes and burns. I suspect that's too much to hope for though.

    • reply
      June 26, 2017 3:52 PM

      has anyone played the latest builds of SC? I play a good bit of Star Marine and its really good fun, I have no problems getting access to any of my ships and flying therm around in the PU and doing some quests and some dog fighting, SURE its still a bit buggy with some frame rate issues but Ill hold my final judgment till after 3.0 or after the first part of SQ42 , if both turn out shit ill bit the bullet and admit i backed a bad game

      • reply
        June 26, 2017 4:56 PM

        I liked Star Marine the little bit I played, but damn I was bad lol

        I keep checking out new features and then purposely waiting for later. I like seeing what they're working on, but want to maintain some level of ignorance about the systems for when the game comes out and I can just dive in.

      • reply
        June 27, 2017 8:03 AM

        How can you say that with a straight face? The movement is floaty and awkward as fuck. The guns sound great and the graphics are top notch but everything else about the experience is pretty awful for a FPS experience. Do you really feel like you could run and gun?

    • reply
      June 26, 2017 4:04 PM

      If none of you can see the problem with how Chris Roberts gets funding from Pre ordering "ships" a lot of which aren't even in the game still. And continues to Take "Backers" money and show little progress, and more delays, after delays. It's a Carrot on a stick. I'm used to Star Citizen "fans" attacking me for less. But the "fans" will never see it this way and continue to pour money into the game that i highly doubt will ever be finished.

      People bitch about 40$ DLC yet star citizen has ships at 400$-2,500$ where’s the outrage here?

      PS: I love how Chris Roberts gave himself a raise in salary this year. Maybe finish the stuff you promised to finish before doing something like that. Makes you look bad.

      • reply
        June 26, 2017 4:12 PM

        Honestly it was pretty obvious from very early on that this game would never manifest into anything tangible.

        • reply
          June 26, 2017 5:03 PM

          You should have a look at their progress videos and try out the very playable Arena Commander and Star Marine modules.

          • reply
            June 26, 2017 5:19 PM

            But those are, what, encapsulated parts of the larger game they actually pitched?

            • reply
              June 26, 2017 5:21 PM

              Yeah, they are. And the pace of their progress has accelerated a lot because they got a lot of backend stuff completed to support the persistent universe.

              I think strategically, it was the right thing to do for the game, but the seemingly relative lack of progress for the first couple of years while they tried to figure out a rational way to produce the content they wanted to totally burned them in the eyes of casual observers.

              • reply
                June 26, 2017 5:29 PM

                Yup. It didn't help they sort of spun their tires for a bit on asset creation because as they built the pipelines they got a lot better with the tools and there was a clear quality difference between earlier generation stuff and the stuff they are putting out now. So earlier stuff had to go back for another pass.

                • reply
                  June 26, 2017 5:36 PM

                  Mmhmm, a huge portion of their effort was exploratory. But now, I think they have figured out a lot of the issues and are hitting the ground running.

            • reply
              June 26, 2017 5:25 PM

              In a sense. Right now you have a mini persistent universe with a handful of stations. There isn't really a whole lot to do and is really combat oriented. Alpha 3.0 has been delayed about year but current indication is release in 1-2 months. This is where the larger game starts coming together. Subsequent versions should focus on what you actually do in the universe like mining/exploration/shipping/blackjack/hookers/etc.

      • reply
        June 26, 2017 4:39 PM

        There's a difference between thinking selling digital content for a game that doesn't exist is unethical, and hoping a game people have supported comes out and is bad.

      • reply
        June 26, 2017 4:46 PM

        I think when he gave his wife a six figure salary to do...whatever...she does at his company it was obvious the money being raised was just getting spent on whatever the fuck.

        • reply
          June 26, 2017 5:04 PM

          You know, she was one of the ones who spearheaded their insanely successful marketing campaign, right?

          As the most crowd-funded project ever, I'd say she has earned her stripes.

          • reply
            June 26, 2017 5:15 PM

            Yeah, but she's a woman at a video game company, so it must be nepotism.

            • reply
              June 26, 2017 5:16 PM

              Oh, yes. My apologies. I should have known!

            • reply
              June 26, 2017 5:42 PM

              The fuck is this black cat? It's nepotism, I'm no
              Gamer gate asshole. Roberts also hired his own brother to pull a nice salary as well. Hiring your family is nepotism, that's my entire point

              • reply
                June 26, 2017 5:52 PM

                Funny how you don't mention that until you're challenged on your post

                • reply
                  June 26, 2017 5:54 PM

                  Sorry, next time I'll make sure to list all Roberts somewhat shady business decisions in one post.

              • reply
                June 26, 2017 5:58 PM

                His brother??!? He hired his brother?!?? His completely unqualified brother whose participation in a Wing Commander / Privateer game is completely unprecedented and whose participation is presumably not a large part of what players should WANT from a WC/Privateer game??!?

                Production

                Starlancer (2000) (Producer)
                Privateer 2: The Darkening (1996) (Producer)
                ShadowCaster (1993) (Associate Producer)
                Strike Commander (1993) (Associate Producer)
                Wing Commander: Privateer (1993) (Associate Producer)

                Design
                Starlancer (2000) (Original Concept)
                Dangerous Streets / Wing Commander (1994) (Dogfight Choreography)
                Wing Commander / Wing Commander II (Special CD-ROM... (1994) (Design)
                Wing Commander (1990) (Design)

                Programming/Engineering
                Super Wing Commander (1994) (Dogfight Choreography)

                Quality Assurance

                Super Wing Commander (1994) (Quality Assurance)
                Wing Commander / Wing Commander II (Special CD-ROM... (1994) (Quality Assurance)
                Wing Commander (1990) (Quality Assurance)

                Scandalous!

                • reply
                  June 26, 2017 6:02 PM

                  Plus all the other things he has worked on in the years since. Call it what you want but he is not unqualified.

                  http://www.mobygames.com/developer/sheet/view/developerId,23689/

                  • reply
                    June 26, 2017 6:05 PM

                    If Chris Roberts is making a space sim / trader and Erin ISN'T involved, it would be more reason for concern.

                    • reply
                      June 26, 2017 8:19 PM

                      My understanding from reports around the time he came on was seen as a big positive. Chris has a tendency to want bigger and better, while his brother is the one that can keep him grounded and get things released based on the wing commander days.

                    • reply
                      June 26, 2017 9:44 PM

                      agreed, Chris is the visionary, and Erin is a big part of making sure all the parts go together and actually work.

              • reply
                June 26, 2017 6:03 PM

                It's only nepotism if they're not qualified for the job. Don't you think his brother would be qualified, since he worked on several of Roberts' previous games?

                • reply
                  June 26, 2017 6:09 PM

                  I guess I can't speak to his wife or brothers credentials since I'm unfamiliar with them. If they really are the best people for the job then good bless, I hope it's a great game. As a casual observer it looks as gross to me as Trump bring in his kids to every presidential appointment.

                  • reply
                    June 26, 2017 6:10 PM

                    man what a terrible sub-subthread

                  • reply
                    June 26, 2017 6:52 PM

                    I would hazard that his brother along with his outfit are one of the main reasons SC hasn't already crashed and burned.

                  • reply
                    June 26, 2017 6:55 PM

                    Foot + mouth.

                    You're right to be skeptical, but the information on his wife and brother aren't hard to find.

                  • reply
                    June 27, 2017 3:45 AM

                    The world needs less casual observers

                • reply
                  June 26, 2017 7:18 PM

                  What? No it's not!

                  The whole problem with nepotism is that otherwise qualified people will get shut out because of family connections, regardless of whether the insider is qualified. It's an uneven playing field. Favoring a family member isn't right just because you think they're great for the job! That's exactly how privileged groups of people stay privileged!

                  All those bros getting wall street jobs because their dads know each other are still qualified, and I guarantee you they went to the right schools -- the problem isn't that they're not qualified, it's that they're given preference over equally qualified people who lack connections. That's nepotism!

                  • reply
                    June 26, 2017 7:40 PM

                    In general it's very common and not exclusive to the games industry. Whether it be private enterprise or in government or public safety.

                    • reply
                      June 26, 2017 7:50 PM

                      "It's not what you know, it's who you blowknow."

                      • reply
                        June 26, 2017 7:52 PM

                        The step below that is friends helping each other out and we have plenty of examples of that happening here on this site.

                        • reply
                          June 26, 2017 8:09 PM

                          Right. Hiring family to important positions in a large organization is generally worth some extra scrutiny, but it's really not that big a deal unless the people hired have substandard capabilities for the positions.

                • reply
                  June 26, 2017 9:30 PM

                  It's nepotism even if they are qualified. Bobby Kennedy was legitimately qualified to be Attorney General yet it still prompted the passage of an anti-nepotism law to prevent such a thing from happening again.

                  The problem with nepotism is that it's impossible to not be biased toward the person, qualified or not.

                • reply
                  June 27, 2017 6:12 AM

                  That's not correct at all.

            • reply
              June 26, 2017 11:58 PM

              Don't be a twat

            • reply
              June 27, 2017 11:11 AM

              Giving the person you are married to a cushy job is the very definition of nepotism, wtf.

          • reply
            June 27, 2017 6:16 AM

            Chris Roberts' ideas really sold themselves. As they should because on paper the game is the most ambitious game ever.

      • reply
        June 26, 2017 5:24 PM

        It's absolutely a problem, but it would still be awesome if the game turned out to be good and no one wasted their money on a scam. We should hope for that, but be prepared for the worst as well.

      • reply
        June 26, 2017 5:24 PM

        Usually when you pre-order something, that means it's not available yet. If you're against pre-ordering, then don't pre-order. There's a lot of things you can talk about besides the ships. What are your thoughts on the persistent universe module that's being released in a few weeks with alpha 3.0? Have you checked out any of the new asset work that they've demoed in their monthly videos, which have dramatically revamped and improved the functionality of the ships that are in the game so far? Are you aware that these are the things that every game developer goes through before a finished product is shipped, and that Star Citizen is still well within a reasonable timeline for a project that's scoped at this scale?

      • reply
        June 26, 2017 8:57 PM

        I'm a fan. I backed about 3.5 years ago and last put in money around 2.5 years ago. I've also had 100-ish hours of fun gaming from it so far too... Thus, I'm confused where this carrot-stick metaphor comes in to reason?

        Are you asking me to bitch because I don't have a full released game yet? Or should I bitch about feature creep? Certainly things have scaled up, but then I've already got my moneys worth. Whatever anyone else chooses to spend or deems worthy value is surely up to them, no?

        Or maybe you should just STFU

    • reply
      June 26, 2017 4:31 PM

      To be clear this is less about "hating on star Citizen" and more about Me Hating when people are being taken advantage off.

      • reply
        June 26, 2017 4:45 PM

        Bullshit. You care about being proven right. If you actually cared about people being taken advantage of, you'd be hoping you're wrong and that the game comes out and is awesome, because that would mean people weren't taken advantage of.

        Instead you're just one of those sad, spiteful people who hope things are terrible just so you can feel justified in preemptively shitting on them and telling people how dumb they are for supporting them.

      • reply
        June 26, 2017 4:46 PM

        To be fair, the people being taken advantage of have nobody to blame but themselves.

      • reply
        June 26, 2017 5:05 PM

        Why don't you let the backers decide if we are getting value for our money rather than use your privileged media position to put forth non-factual accounts and unsolicited opinions about things that you lack certainty about?

        • reply
          June 26, 2017 7:05 PM

          As a backer ($80 for some dumbass "racing" ship that I saw a couple of times in some hanger), I'm not getting value for my money.

        • reply
          June 26, 2017 7:20 PM

          This post could literally have been copied and pasted from someone on facebook with "MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN in their profile picture.

      • reply
        June 26, 2017 5:38 PM

        Then do some journalism and find out what's really going on

      • reply
        June 26, 2017 5:42 PM

        What about being taken advantage on?

      • reply
        June 26, 2017 5:48 PM

        You should probably make sure your Star Citizen user name far from your shack name when you buy it in the future, wouldn't want all that "told you so you bitter motherfucker" messages to pile up in your inbox.

      • reply
        June 26, 2017 6:25 PM

        It sounds more like you hate the people who you feel have been taken advantage of.

        You wish ill upon backers based on the hypothesis that the project is a scam, and the hypothesis that this ill will teach said harmed backers not to be harmed again in the future. And also because you would then be correct.

        • reply
          June 26, 2017 6:44 PM

          He didn't say that

          • reply
            June 26, 2017 6:48 PM

            He's hoping for the worst possible scenario for everyone involved, especially the people he supposedly thinks have been taken advantage of. Whether or not he "hates" them, he's absolutely wishing ill upon them.

          • reply
            June 26, 2017 6:58 PM

            I think "hate" is probably the wrong word really, but I was trying to maintain Greg's word choice.

      • reply
        June 26, 2017 6:27 PM

        You've made your opinions on Star Citizen very clear.

      • reply
        June 26, 2017 6:34 PM

        Still wrong noob. Do you even play video games

      • reply
        June 27, 2017 1:48 AM

        Such utter bullshit. How about you establish that someone IS being taken advantage of first. If they had nothing to show, I might agree. But what they have achieved and what they have shown has obviously taken a good amount of work. It's impressive for what it is.

        Like Arcanum said, if "people getting taken advantage of" was your worry, you'd hope for the game to deliver what people are expecting. Instead you _literally said you personally hope it fails_, which implies two things:

        1) You don't really know if it will fail
        2) Despite that, you hope that it will, in essence hoping that the people you are "protecting" or "feeling sorry for" end up being disappointed.

        If you want to be an ass towards someone or something, at least have the balls to be straight faced about it.

        • reply
          June 27, 2017 2:25 AM

          Another thing to consider is Shackfleet has like 100-200 members, all with ships ranging from $30 to $1000. The guy basically just told a small part of the community that he hopes they wasted their money and get burned. That's a pretty shitty thing to do to your own community.

      • reply
        June 27, 2017 8:44 AM

        Is the 59 in your name the max price you pay for games or the year you were born?

    • reply
      June 26, 2017 4:48 PM

      lol that last paragraph. Even official news posts are like this now. "Gridlocked in prepetual development" despite the fact that they're constantly detailing and publishing the progress they make.

      Whatever, I'm not interested in arguing about it again. But for the record I hope the game comes out and is awesome, because hoping anything else is pretty shitty.

      • reply
        June 26, 2017 4:58 PM

        That's not what I wrote. Let me know when you have some free time and I'll teach you how to copy and paste.

        • reply
          June 26, 2017 5:12 PM

          Well I didn't copy paste it, I wrote it out. I made a spelling mistake and capitalised a letter, but that is what you said.

          No need to get so arsey about it, wasn't trying to shit on you. Just laughing about how even official shackposts can't resist the negative spin. You are of course entitled to be as negative as you want about it. Doesn't mean I have to like it though.

        • reply
          June 26, 2017 6:10 PM

          gridlocked in perpetual development

          I just copy/pasted

    • reply
      June 26, 2017 4:58 PM

      Hey guys here's 4 subsequent posts shitting on a game but no I don't have a bone to pick, I just feel bad for the people who like it.

    • reply
      June 26, 2017 6:50 PM

      I don't care about anything related to Star Citizen until it's officially version 1.0. If that never happens, so be it.

      • reply
        June 26, 2017 6:54 PM

        Their client for early backers is up to 2.0 at least now.

        • reply
          June 27, 2017 4:53 AM

          That's not how versioning works.

          • reply
            June 27, 2017 4:55 AM

            what if you could pay $1000 to bump a minor version

          • reply
            June 27, 2017 5:52 AM

            That's not how any of this works?

            • reply
              June 27, 2017 6:03 AM

              No, that isn't not how any of it doesn't work.

              • reply
                June 27, 2017 8:16 AM

                Isn't...not...doesn't....

                Let's see the first two cancel out and so...

                Oh. Gotcha.

      • reply
        June 26, 2017 9:49 PM

        Which is the same as a whole lot of people. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, at all.

        I backed the first day. I've loved everything Roberts had ever released and I wanted them to cross that $2million threshold in order to actually develop the game.
        I would have been completely satisfied if it was nothing but an update of Privateer (which I adored).

        But, oh, did they raise so much more. And it shows in the tech and the assets, and even what they've released so far.

        I'll continue to be a supporter.

        • reply
          June 27, 2017 6:01 AM

          It's really a project for dreamers. I'm backing it mainly for the sheer ambition of it, and so far they are delivering- albeit slowly.

    • reply
      June 26, 2017 7:10 PM

      Bookmarking thread for extensive user note collation tomorrow.

    • reply
      June 26, 2017 7:29 PM

      no skin in the star citizen game for me but this thread is weird, esp. from shack staff. kind of surprised here, but you do you!

    • reply
      June 26, 2017 8:29 PM

      Oh hey look! An article with a lot of comments. I should check out the threa... OH MY GOD!

    • reply
      June 26, 2017 8:58 PM

      The payment model for this game is so scummy, and has to be bad for game balance. Why are people so happy to pay huge amounts for ships

      • reply
        June 26, 2017 9:28 PM

        How these prices fit into the game balance is where I get very skeptical. If the ships people are paying for now are reasonably obtainable by playing the game, then their purchasers will feel ripped off. If they're difficult to obtain, the majority of players, who didn't put that much money into the game, will be pissed. If they're too weak or too overpowered, the people that have them or don't have them, respectively, will be pissed. I just don't see how they can get the game to a state where their playerbase will be satisfied.

        The extended development time is actually working in RSI's favor, though. It's harder to get worked up over a $200 ship purchase when you shelled that money out 5+ years in the past.

        • reply
          June 26, 2017 9:52 PM

          The Constellation clocks in at about $250ish

          Roberts has previously stated, that you can purchase one ingame from zero funds within about 2 weeks of what they call "normal play"

          I don't think that's unreasonable.

          Nor do I think the funders/backers will feel like they're getting ripped off either.

          • reply
            June 26, 2017 10:12 PM

            Two weeks. How many hours is that. Mmo players are happy to grind 8 hours a day, but what about normies.

        • reply
          June 27, 2017 1:15 AM

          So take this with a grain of salt because I have read little on it, but I based on their plans for ship modules, I will assume the bulk of in-game expenses will come from upgrading a ship. Of course buying bigger base hulls will cost more, but buying upgrades will be what most players spend their money on when it comes to ships. Ships will have module upgrades of varying stats (think armor pieces in WoW) and each module will have additional performance slots for fine tweaking (think WoW gemslots) is how I read it. Again, I could have misread it but that's my take on it.

          For current funding, they have always said 45 dollars is all anyone needs to spend to get into the game. Buying a bigger, more expensive ship doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be better, it just means a player wanted to support the game at that price point and start out doing that ships specific role.

          I wouldn't worry so much about pricing and balance, CIG, the community is very vocal and will call out CIG if they notice expensive ships performing better than their description should allow.

          Just wait and see.

          • reply
            June 27, 2017 1:53 AM

            Oops, I think I got lost in my original explanation. I think they said they don't want ships hard to obtain (although direct upgrades, like Hull-C -> Hull-D would probably take awhile). I think that would be the best path. If you want a ship, it will take you a week or so of casual playing to buy the base model. The real cost should be in upgrading it.

        • reply
          June 27, 2017 6:37 AM

          I went to the Reddit Q&A thread to ask about some of the points I made above and to your concerns, here are the answers they gave: https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/6jhkd5/weekly_question_and_answer_thread_june_25_2017/djgn2zy/

          • reply
            June 27, 2017 7:02 AM

            I think, and I'm saying this as a SC backer, that the financial model HAS to include various forms of micro transactions to keep the servers running. I don't think they'll be able or willing to just finance SC "out of pocket" from single player releases. Perhaps the limited sale of in game currency will be enough, perhaps not. I'd guess they'll eventually land on something like the model of Guild Wars

            • reply
              June 27, 2017 8:48 AM

              They did mention that with their new render to texture tech, they could have advertisements floating around. Adding real world ads (with some kind of future filter restriction) could be a way to help keep the servers going?

      • reply
        June 26, 2017 9:34 PM

        The plan is that big ships that can't land are like guild halls that require a constant minimum crew and large amounts of in-game supplies to maintain operation.

        The larger the ship the more in-game effort it will take to maintain and the inverse.

        This would seed the player base with a variety of platforms so it's not just NPCs with more than single-seaters at launch, plus player groups and factions can and have formed ahead of time, I'm sure with some drama already having occurred.

        As to why folks are happy to pay the really big amounts? Either it's a team effort, as it will need to be in-game to maintain the big ships, or they're flush with cash and were/are hungry for the semi-unrealistic dream the game represents.

    • reply
      June 27, 2017 1:33 AM

      What pisses me off the most is the fact that I don't have a gaming pc anymore, and even though I have a good laptop now it is not a gaming laptop and this game looks like a resource hog. So even if it's released one day I may still not be able to play it. Money well invested!

      In other words, this game takes so long to develop that in the meantime my gaming habits changed and I'm not as interested as I was when I backed it.

    • reply
      June 27, 2017 2:09 AM

      Why did You have to end your article on such a negative note Craddoc? "Gridlocked in perpetual development" is a way to spin it of course, but for us who follow dev updates each week such a statement seems a little ignorant to be honest.