FloatingDivider
Member
I can't help that the dev team picture is the most cohesive thing they've released in years.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Star Citizen loan clarification: it's an advance on their UK game dev tax rebate
- Thread starter Raticus79
- Start date
I can't help that the dev team picture is the most cohesive thing they've released in years.
Cabbagehead
Member
You suck at trolling.
FloatingDivider
Member
I'm just laying down a broad foundational basis I can build upon by releasing alpha posts that showcase my current line of thinking. At some point in time I will connect all of these disparate posts and you will be amazed at the grandeur of my postings. Until that time though you can buy additional words and sentences, and insurance for those words and sentences for the lowly fee of US$18000. Thanks for helping out.
TheChewyWaffles
Member
You can do better than this. This is like copy-pasting in the navy seal copypasta in terms of quality.
SolicitorPirate
Member
I don't exactly buy the gambling comparison. Casinos and all other modern gambling products rely on extensive physiological manipulation that primarily vulnerable people. As far as I'm aware, SC doesn't do that. People are giving money because they want to and believe in the promise of SC, not because they are being subjected to skinner box conditioning.
That said, almost nothing about SC makes me feel comfortable either. The seemingly ever escalating scope and constant delays make me suspect a lack of cohesive project management, and the community around the game reminds me of the fanbase around No Man's Sky prior to release. Of course, I hope the game turns out to be good, but if it doesn't, then I hope at least cooler heads prevail.
That said, almost nothing about SC makes me feel comfortable either. The seemingly ever escalating scope and constant delays make me suspect a lack of cohesive project management, and the community around the game reminds me of the fanbase around No Man's Sky prior to release. Of course, I hope the game turns out to be good, but if it doesn't, then I hope at least cooler heads prevail.
Cabbagehead
Member
Not even close to the same type of community, we actual get to play the game, while it progresses and they talk to us/inform us week in and week out. But i get your point.
Cave Johnson
Member
This is an unfair comparison because one of them have playable modules before release. And even if the game significantly downscales, you still have the data that you have played prior.
Personally I find it similar to No Man's Sky, because while they let you "play the game", actually it seems very little of the gameplay systems are in place this late in development.
I don't mean accurate headbob when running or the best space explosions or working toilets, which is what CIG seems to focus on. I'm talking about the gameplay that might actually make the game fun, the core gameplay loop.
They've published incredibly, incredibly vague "design documents" that read more like the marketing on the back of a game case. I think everyone has in their own mind's eye what this game will be like, and they are trying to keep that illusion as long as possible before settling on what the game will actually be.
That element makes it feel very similar to No Man's Sky, which promised to be everything to everybody without actually clarifying how shallow the gameplay loop is.
I am also of the opinion that the only way CIG will be able to continue to employ 300-400 people post-release is if they keep targeting the whales. I know they've promised to stop selling these specific ships post-release, but my money is that they will create "expansion packs" and part of the expansion pack will be the ability to pre-order and purchase expensive ships that way.
Personally my guess is they release a product that doesn't live up to the hype, probably hits ~75% metacritic, they start downsizing or Roberts goes after whales with expansion packs. I think Squadron 42 will be closer to 70% metacritic, because that game looked like a complete mess the last time they showed it (when originally they anticipated releasing it later that year, indicating they didn't realize how terrible it looked).
edit: Correction, I was thinking of the 2015 unveiling of SQ 42 looking like a complete mess, but the 2016 video of SQ 42 did nothing to change my priors. Especially since the 2016 video is clearly a vertical slice that was incredibly staged (enemies don't move, sandworm animation, etc.) plus the core gameplay shown in that trailer looked a lot like No Man's Sky (driving around big empty areas to hit buttons). Actually seems a bit less immersive than No Man's Sky in the 2016 video. I am sincerely hoping I'm wrong because I would love a good first person ship building space sim, but I see no evidence that this won't have a huge backlash in a few years time.
Laughing Banana
Weeping Pickle
People spending tens of thousands of dollars for something that they don't even know when will receive or even if that something will even exist in the end just... amazes me 
Antilurker77
Member
The interest rates for these types of loans are usually in the double digits. On top of interest, there are additional fees that may need to be paid. Plus if they're actual end-of-year tax credit is less than the estimate, they have to pay the difference for that to. I can guarantee you that this is a net-loss in the long run, the pound would really, really have to crash hard for this to happen.
And like I said before, even if this was what they were trying to do and not an act of desperation, they would have used cash for collateral, not the entire studio and all its assets. And why aren't other companies doing it? Do you really thing CIG are some genius financial firm?
Gold_Loot
Member
*gasp* Heaven forbid.
This is the second time you've repeated this incorrect statement. I corrected you before and you ignored me, so let's try this again.
From Ortwin's statement:
Highlighting is mine, not from the original article.
Yeah, no.
You need to take a step back towards the real world mate, because you are verging on the ridiculous.
But non of that ever happened, hence why the original escapist article,was taken down.
It was all made up, with the source being one Derek K Smart.
Starbuck2907
Member
Can we get this last bit added to the OP?
Zambayoshi
Member
Interesting that CIG/RSI would rather pay interest on a short-term loan than just continue to inject funds as usual over the short time needed to obtain the rebate, and then have Foundry 42 run on the rebate money for a few months, eliminating the need to inject further funds during that time.
Either (as some have mentioned) CIG/RSI is taking a gamble on the US$/UK£ exchange rate getting better over the next six months or so, or more likely (in my view) CIG/RSI is so short on funds (or has funds locked up) that it needs to (effectively) move the $8m tax rebate forward so it can avoid injecting further funds into Foundry 42 for a while, at least until the next funding drive.
Funnily enough, that next funding drive (Gamescom) is just around the corner...
Either (as some have mentioned) CIG/RSI is taking a gamble on the US$/UK£ exchange rate getting better over the next six months or so, or more likely (in my view) CIG/RSI is so short on funds (or has funds locked up) that it needs to (effectively) move the $8m tax rebate forward so it can avoid injecting further funds into Foundry 42 for a while, at least until the next funding drive.
Funnily enough, that next funding drive (Gamescom) is just around the corner...
Cave Johnson
Member
I laughed at this.
Antilurker77
Member
Ortwin's post is PR hogwash. Prime collateral is a meaningless statement, all it means is that in addition to the tax rebate they had to offer additional assets to secure the loan. He's trying to downplay throwing the entire studio being on the line to stop backers from panicking. The contract is pretty clear on what F42 had to put down for collateral.
You don't get to decide where my money goes.
For me choosing to spend money on backing SC isn't a choice between X and Y but rather spending on both.
But just for clarification, is it ok with you if I sign for my 1080ti and 4K monitor that are being delivered this morning? Or should I refuse them and get a refund and go and buy some fucking asset flip indie games for no fucking reason.
Oh so you have the contract papers that will spill out what exactly is put on collateral over what the company has stated?
Why dont you show them to us and set the record straight?
The docs were linked in the previous thread weren't they? There was a charges section listing out the entire studio, the game, other stuff, along with the government tax credit.
Having said that, I have no idea what is considered normal for this sort of loan agreement.
Yoi need to understand how CIG work.
Foundry 42, the U.K. Dev team, have no revenue stream outside of the parent company in the states.
So every month CIG (the American parent company) send them money over to pay their bills.
With the current financial climate, this money is worth less and less each month with the pound weakening against the dollar.
Foundry 42 however is eligible for U.K. Tax credits, so all they have done is borrow a lump sum of capital from the bank, secured against future tax credits to inject into F42 now, so they make better use of the dollars they have on hand.
See, when it's explained as it actually is, it's really rather dull and simple. But not simple enough for some indie Dev fossils to understand unfortunately.
I've read over the PDF a few times now, and I do believe you are right and I am in the wrong here over the contents of the loan. My apologies.
Antilurker77
Member
It's fine. I know I've have a pretty negative outlook in this thread, but I do hope CIG actually proves me wrong and manages to deliver something the backers can be happy with.
I predict that this thread doesn't have too long for this world if things continue at the current pace.
In either case, the amount of prophesying of doom around Star Citizen and the wait for that one thing to drop that will destroy the entire project is amazing. You've got people in wait jumping at every chance to say "I told you so" with barely a fraction of the facts.
In either case, the amount of prophesying of doom around Star Citizen and the wait for that one thing to drop that will destroy the entire project is amazing. You've got people in wait jumping at every chance to say "I told you so" with barely a fraction of the facts.
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
How in the world does the thread clarifying the situation end up as a bigger trainwreck than the one with fake news....?
RubberJohnny
Banned
Because it's not really the "everything's fine" message that the backers hoped for.
We know from 2015 and 2016 filings that the UK tax rebate is about £3.2 million and their monthly costs are about £2.0 million, so this advance deal is essentially a payday loan.
They've got the whole company living paycheck to paycheck.
frontieruk
Member
I really didn't want to post in this thread as it's a shitfest, but if the £ is weakening against the $ surely the money being pumped in from CIG would actually be increasing as the $ could buy more £ ?
or did I miss something in currency conversions?
Rudimental
Member
This is exactly what I was about to ask.
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
Forgive me but I genuinely don't believe you know anything about finances after your thread today.
It isn't that hard to understand that it's better for them to avoid converting their money into pounds right now wherever possible.
RubberJohnny
Banned
Why? The crux of the thread was CIG had liquidity problems, Ortwyn just confirmed it. He proved me right!
I think the only thing I was incorrect on was the whole project being up as collateral rather than just two studios and the SQ42 IP, but in my defense that was only defined in private documents and it was just referred to as "the game" throughout the public ones, so no one could know better. Given SQ42 gets the bulk of staff and development effort, to the point where the PU languishes with 8 months between patches, I don't think putting up 80/90% of your company rather than 100% is a great improvement, especially now we know the amount they're getting is so low.
Except the deal is an advance for a few months - the UK doesn't leave the EU until 2019.
frontieruk
Member
Thinking about it low interest rates could actually make it more feasible than paying for currency conversion, but that's the best i can come up with.
Considering the pound has fallen 4 cents to the dollar in that last month and has absolutely zero reason to not continue its downward trend, it could very well be 10% down over the next few months. The actual act of fully being out of the EU is not a prerequisite for the Pound continuing to fall as it has been, especially considering the instability in the UK's current government.
RubberJohnny
Banned
It fell over the last month because of the Snap Election and the Hung Parliament that happened as a result, that's not an "every month" thing, so yes, it will stop the downward trend.
Come back in a few months when May can't get her coalition in line and then show me where the pound has gone. If May is even still PM. I'd imagine a leadership challenge to her could also result in the pound going down.
That's not even to talk of bombs being thrown in the brexit negotiations publicly.
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
Because you genuinely didn't know what you were talking about.
By that time the documents were already out there so yea, major blow since your entire doom and gloom scenario revolved around everything involved with the IP being used as collateral indicating financial failure when we've seen nothing indicating so. It was pointless speculation, you got rightfully called out on, so at least save some face and take the L on that one.
Rudimental
Member
I understand the rationale: if the pound is going to decline in the future, then you want to hang on to your dollars so you can exchange them more efficiently in the future. That post, though, seemed to be saying that dollars (in the money that CIG sends) are decreasing in value.
RubberJohnny
Banned
Weren't you insisting they didn't put the company up as collateral? I seem to have a better accuracy record than you.
I think the concerning thing here is still how lopsided this agreement is - if it's a forward for their tax rebate, why isn't the collateral just their future tax rebate plus interest?
Listing the entire company and IP as collateral makes it seem that Coutts genuinely think there's a risk the company don't make it through the next few months. I think if there's not a big infusion of backer cash at Gamescom, we could hear about employees not being paid.
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
Reflect on the fact that the only other person who started that rumor in the first place was Derek Smart and that you were perfectly willing to believe and perpetuate his statements based on a misunderstanding of legal documents and when corrected by someone in the lowkey SC OT you said it was "rubbish."
Oh my lord you're still going....
RubberJohnny
Banned
Derek Smart doesn't come into this - the original source was the Companies House listing and he wasn't even the guy who spotted it, that was someone on Something Awful.
I really don't get backers fanatical obsession with this guy as a supervillain undermining the project - Derek Smart isn't responsible for the game being mismanaged, or three years late, or for the company giving a hundred million dollars of backer assets to a bank in lien for three million quid. That's all on CIG, but backers don't want to criticise them because they've got too much invested, so they make a boogeyman.
VV: See?
Similar threads
- Locked