Why does repeating the same post twice make him a troll if his original post is still relevant?
-
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
Why does repeating the same post twice make him a troll if his original post is still relevant?
Krisprolls
Banned
Ah ah oh the irony...
I'd say backers are more emotionally invested in this game than people who aren't backers. Sounds kinda more logical.
Because it's much easier to undermine a person's credibility, rather than counter the actual argument. Especially if you know you're wrong.
His argument's been countered 12 times to sunday if you read the thread.
Like the below:
Please.
Cave Johnson
Member
And? There's more concern trolling in this thread and it has been pointed out this goes far back in years... from the same guy. And that is disturbing.
jakonovski
Member
The big deal is, I suppose, whether CIG already has the money to fund a payroll big enough to keep getting a tax rebate corresponding to the size of the loan. As opposed to hoping they can keep up the payroll.
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
Not only does the OP counter his argument, several people have at this point. At no point did that user even remotely demonstrate an understanding of how these things work and it's pretty clear at this point that he has a vested interest in not doing so since he's also been spreading misinformation about the games for years. Come on dude. :| Hell I even countered that entire list on the last page.
If a company goes bankrupt its most likely gonna be the end of their projects?
Who would have thought, I didnt know this was unique to Star Citizen and no other companies
TheVoidDragon
Member
You were wrong about plenty of other things relating to this situation and you know that. You claimed in the SC OT that a suggestion of the loan being for the exact same reason as what the loan actually turned out to be for was "rubbish", then went on to say that collateral being part of it was bad and there was no reason there should even be any in the first place because you're able to get one without it so clearly financial trouble is the only explanation for there being any collateral. That's a bit more than just being wrong about what was put up as collateral.
ScientificPizza
Banned
I love that a thread that started with "Well that was an overreaction" has devolved into another overreaction
Bah. Bringing in off-forum things from what is effectively our guild chat while you've been lurking in appear offline mode, after having criticized how people were moving to Discord... accused us of wanting to turn things into a "hugbox" in the alpha thread, so I didn't kick you so you could have your say, and in the mean time we've been putting up with you turning up to stir things up every few months when you have some new material to copy/paste from SA. It's so old but I know you'd just sign up with another account, and at least this way people see your name instead of having to remember the alt of the week.
The link to our chat is in the Star Citizen alpha OP. Anyone can quote this post for the link to the Discord chat, scroll up to see all the previous posts and see for themselves.
Discord link:
Outrun
Member
Well, they have spent money on the project. They are invested financial and emotionally.
Before I got my refund, I was too.
Although I have my opinion's on CR and CIG in general, I drop in whenever there is news to see what's going on.
I have no expectations that this game will release as advertised. But I also expect nothing of CIG.
Them releasing a good game whenever, will be a pleasant surprise for me.
Sevenfold
Member
This whole thing continues to be fascinating.
Yeah, you're not wrong about this. I have no idea where the "transparency" claims came from. They've barely outlined the basic gameplay loop.
The bank stuff seems 90% standard in retrospect, but the game is still likely going to be a huge disappointment to many, if not the majority, of backers.
TheVoidDragon
Member
That's not really the case from what i've seen here and in the other recent threads. Quite a few people who aren't backers seem to be pretty desperate for this game to fail and look for any reasons they can to make it look bad, to the point they use misinformation and non-issues to try to convince others the whole game is a scam or it's all falling apart. I don't see backers spouting negative opinion and ambiguous claims that aren't backed up by any sort of evidence, then changing their story or just ignoring when they're shown to be wrong.
Here we go again. Do you not know how long game development takes? It's been 4 years, 5 at the most...that is no longer than the usual development time for games, and that isn't even for games that are anywhere near this in terms of scope or ambition. So how is a game being in development for the usual time games are in development a problem?
Do you know what bridging finance is?
I'll wait.
While this is not exactly an unusual financial instrument, it's also not cheap.
The speculation about this being a way to exploit a potential XE shift in the USD favour is nullified by since the charge was registered USD/GBP has done all of fuck all.
Taking myself out of the gaming side for a bit (Massive Freelancer fan with an interest at least in the SP portion of Star Citizen) this project truly shows how you let people into the development process and suddenly everyone's an expert. Including in pretty obscure financial instrument usage.
This is no different, and the semi-opaque statements don't help. Ah well. It reminds me of the whole GOG shutdown which is still pushed as a hoax in the media and here despite publicly available evidence to show what happened. Here we have people fighting the black and white battle trying to convince people that this either is something that is common (it really isn't) and means the project is doomed (it doesn't).
It implies a cashflow issue, and considering we are 3 months into a new tax year and they're still awaiting tax rebates is...fun.
Maybe a dive into the UK sides companies house filings is in order,but considering they're privately held and only a subsidiary may not show a lot.
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
Or even people who aren't backers but are interested in this game's potential. This is a literally a
-one side has been following the information shown over the years at best and are hyped for the game at worst
versus
-one side actively ignores the information and instead provides baseless speculation at best and maliciously spreading false info/rumors at their worst.
Yet I keep seeing people equate the two. :|
Not really. I've been a backer since the original kickstarter. Put my $30 in and just the ridiculous drama on gaf and showing developers that there is a market for space operas was totally worth it. I barely even check the OT. I'd say there are plenty of people emotionally invested in CI failing by the posts on this forum.
Methinks you're a little too emotionally attached here to be fair.
I'm not being malicious at all and as stated am a fan on Robert's work. However when people on both sides take a very limited amount of financial knowledge into a debate like this it helps nobody.
If I have time I'll do some proper research into our (UK) taxation incentives for the creative industries, how it affects this project and what figures we can be looking at here but I'll say this:
There's far better ways to hedge a currency than this and if someone has told Robert's this is a smart financial instrument for this purpose instead of straight borrowing against future revenue then I offer to advise him as his financial advisors are wankers
That's a good point about borrowing against future revenue... In general it did strike me as strange to hedge currency risk if they are getting the refund relatively soon. Plus the bank is going to bake some of the expectations about depreciation into the interest rate. I wonder if he's already tapped out loans vs future revenue...
Edit: sounds like the rebate is scheduled to be paid for NEXT autumn? I guess as in 2018? Not sure why the rebate is so far off, but I suppose that lends credence to currency betting as explanation. I wonder if it will pay off.
I mean, the OP specifically said the tax rebate would only be payable next year in autumn, I guess those were the terms of the rebate.
And yes it's a cashflow issue since most of their backers are American and European and they have to pay out their loans in British Pounds, which has also been mentioned in the OP.
Zalusithix
Member
Yep, our Discord channel of ~14 active GAF SC org members constitutes all the backers in the game. Every last one. I also said that aside from topics like this, the SC community is far less united. SC community, of course, being more than the few active people in our org - just in case I had to point out the obvious. Meanwhile I didn't post immediately in this topic, and only have once, and it wasn't even in regards to the loan. Even if I had, what would it have mattered? It's not a race on the thread. Even if all of us piled on the second after posting trying to set the mood, we'd not even make it to the second page before it could swing the other way by other forum participants.
But yes, keep following our org channel where not a single person likes you (for obvious reasons) thinking that I'm out to get you. Unlike your crusade against SC, I've got better things to do than constantly think about you. Frankly, I'd rather never have to think about you. The fact that you come up in chat at all is your own fault. If you don't want to be a controversial topic, don't show up in every SC thread like clockwork with the same predictable doomsaying of the project.
Always makes me laugh when this argument gets played:
Look at those damn armchair developers! Don't they know how long game development takes?
Aztechnology
Member
Always makes me laugh when this argument gets played:
Look at those damn armchair developers! Don't they know how long game development takes?
Assuming that picture is from 2012/13? Because a lot of changes for the better IMO were made since then. I'd rather have them try for greatness and fail as a backer, than to have given us another Elite Dangerous. I say this as someone who backed and has played both.
Jan 2015.
Always makes me laugh when this argument gets played:
Look at those damn armchair developers! Don't they know how long game development takes?
"A delayed game is eventually good, but a rushed game is forever bad." - Shigeru Miyamoto, quite possibly sitting in an armchair, you can't disprove it.
Aztechnology
Member
Well regardless, my point after that still stands. If it had just turned out to be another Elite Dangerous I would have been disappointed.
In Service
Member
It makes sense as a long term hedge against currency rates. The benefits from the legal/banking point of view is that even with the facility fee and the cost of legals, the longer you run the agreement the lower those charges (averaged over the life of the facility) are. That means the cost of hedging isn't as prohibitive.
We also have the UK issue of Brexit on the horizon and if the pound gains ground then there may be a substantial change in currency.
Ultimately, it does make sense that it's a currency hedge and the cost of the product needs to be weighed against the possible fluctuations. This time last year, we were at 1:1.367 and now we are at 1:1.273 which is just less than a 10% swing.
I would not agree that the ONLY reason to enter into a transaction such as this is because cash flow is tight.
EDIT - Also, don't assume that this is a simple form of currency gambling. The exchange rate they might have negotiated in their facility may be better or worse than today's rate depending on how the parties believe the rates will move by the time of the repayment so it will likely be on advice as stated in the forum post.
That's nice and all but it has nothing do with the original point: namely SC defenders attacking people for pointing out its long development time on the basis of "not knowing how long games take" when the developers of the very game in question publicly stated that v1.0 of the whole game and Ep1 of S42 would be out at the end of 2016.
The argument is completely destroyed. Every time someone comes out with that attack you can write them off as a fanboy.
TheVoidDragon
Member
Always makes me laugh when this argument gets played:
Look at those damn armchair developers! Don't they know how long game development takes?
I think there's a bit of a difference between the developers plans for the game being delayed due to unexpected problems and people generally saying 5 years is too long for a game to be in development. The delays are something it's fine to criticize (although some of them do have good reasons), but it's still not gone beyond the usual development time so comments like "It's been in development for too long!" are absurd as they don't usually mention anything at all about the delays, just how long it's been in development.
joecanada
Member
In response to game development timelines , I politely asked that question on page 2 of this thread "didn't they miss their own targets though that they themselves set"?
and no one answered. I guess this is why.
I have another question ... have they now updated this timeline? what are the new goals?
Games sometimes take a long time to develop. Games sometimes get delayed. Destroyed? Really?
I mean, the argument has been various other games that took longer to develop. But I guess it's DESTROYED because sometimes things don't go according to plan.
How is it destroyed in any way? Games get delayed all the time. Even fucking Nintendo delays games. Developers are not magically predictors of 100% of how much their game will take.
It's destroyed because the whole crux of the attack was that it was ludicrous to expect the game to be out by now, and anyone who did had exposed their laughable lack of knowledge of game development. Including it seems the developers of the game.
You only have to scroll back a few pages to find people posting comparison charts of development time and why it was "proof" that anyone expecting the game to be out now was living in a fantasy land.
That response doesn't even address the argument described in the text you quoted.
Zalusithix
Member
They don't really do estimates like that anymore. Instead we have more of a rolling schedule for the individual aspects that comprise the next SC point release that's updated every week with the current status and target windows. It's more useful to see where they are on any given thing in the near term, but certainly won't help those that want some long ranging forecast. Considering those long term forecasts were never right though, I consider it an improvement. It's somewhat akin to the weekly weather vs the farmer's almanac.
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/schedule-report
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
Yea it's almost like plans change throughout development because it isn't linear...Always makes me laugh when this argument gets played:
Look at those damn armchair developers! Don't they know how long game development takes?
Actually, the first game they wanted to make at Kickstarter would cost $20 million and release 2014/2015, but was totally different in scale. One of the biggest reasons why release dates have stretched was because of the added funding creating possibilities to increase the size of the game. You could argue that this is unnecessary feature creep that may hurt the game, but on the other hand they just could have purely cashed in that extra $100 mil and be done with it.
That's really an amazing way to spin it. Except, you know, it's literally nothing like that? People are acting like the game has been developed for an unreasonable amount of time, which, well, it's a pretty dumb statement and has been called out as such. No one here said "anyone expecting the game to be out now is living in a fantasy land"
If that chart is from 2015, didn't they already have tens of millions of dollars at that point? Like they probably should have realized what they were trying to do wouldn't jive with that chart.
Sarcastic Poster
Member
I'll buy the full game on release if it's any good. Can we expect the full "retail" MMO release by 2020?
Cabbagehead
Member
Read the Kotaku article. To see what happened in 2014 to 2015.
That Jackpot whole agrument is moot. Just link the Kotaku. It explains why their 2015 estimation was missed.
The game has only been in development for three to four years. That not long at all for TWO games and they were and still are modifying their engine to suit their needs, for their game. A single game seems to take much longer. For other studios, but you don't see maby folks complaining, because they don't get to see the issues and pitfalls behind the scenes.
Like they do here.
Cloud imperium Games wasn't a big staff at all until mid 2014 and didn't have a real studio, until the end of 2013 or 2014. That's when full production started and they started hiring more developers. As game theory and ideas turned into tangible tools and mechanics.
Must have been closer to 60 somewhere by then if early 2015. I know they were at around 25 somewhere when I put some money into it in late 2013.
TheVoidDragon
Member
You're making a bit of a leap there, no one has said anything like "How dare you expect the game to be out by now?" that i've seen. The charts and replies about development time being within the usual time period were in reply to people specifically saying 5 years is too long to develop a game and that it's taking too long to be made.
Zalusithix
Member
Close; SC had been backed by over 68 million by the time 2014 rolled over to 2015.
Dreams-Visions
Member
lol, ya'll need to chill the fuck out.
The fervor with which the haters spread their vitriol and doubt and the apologists make excuses for everything never ceases to amaze. I understand and cam empathize with both camps as we've seen bad experiences from kick starter and the ever-changing scope of SC continues to make the skeptical even more skeptical...and on the other hand we have several GAFers who are hundreds (and in some cases thousands) of dollars invested into the promise of the game and what it might become that clearly makes them take personal offense to every skeptical comment and quickly hand-wave even fair concerns.
Meanwhile, I'm sitting over here on the sideline with my nominal $45 investment eating popcorn and watching the missiles criss-cross in the night sky.
Neither group is completely right or wrong. People should retain a reasonable level of skepticism until *something* is fucking finished with this game. After all, even what has been provided is pretty bare and uninspired (lovely visuals notwithstanding). Presumably that will be SQ42, which we thought was going to be done already or at least some time this year, IIRC. Maybe it's looking like 2018 now? Maybe 2019.
I will say this much for myself: With each RSI email or SC GAF thread update/bump I see with them attempting to sell YET ANOTHER future ship concept for my right-now cash, I too continue to lose my patience with RSI. I am a patient man and I am looking forward to the game, but I am not a fool who would drop hundreds or thousands of dollars on ship promises. Momma didn't raise me to be that gullible (with respect to those of you who did). Fuck that nonsense.
At some point, everyone will reach a "Show me the money!" point. For some of us, that will be sooner rather than later. Apologists with extended patience will have to find a way to empathize and share space with those who have lost theirs after years of overpromising and under-delivering. While ignoring the trolls.
Best of luck to RSI.
The fervor with which the haters spread their vitriol and doubt and the apologists make excuses for everything never ceases to amaze. I understand and cam empathize with both camps as we've seen bad experiences from kick starter and the ever-changing scope of SC continues to make the skeptical even more skeptical...and on the other hand we have several GAFers who are hundreds (and in some cases thousands) of dollars invested into the promise of the game and what it might become that clearly makes them take personal offense to every skeptical comment and quickly hand-wave even fair concerns.
Meanwhile, I'm sitting over here on the sideline with my nominal $45 investment eating popcorn and watching the missiles criss-cross in the night sky.
Neither group is completely right or wrong. People should retain a reasonable level of skepticism until *something* is fucking finished with this game. After all, even what has been provided is pretty bare and uninspired (lovely visuals notwithstanding). Presumably that will be SQ42, which we thought was going to be done already or at least some time this year, IIRC. Maybe it's looking like 2018 now? Maybe 2019.
I will say this much for myself: With each RSI email or SC GAF thread update/bump I see with them attempting to sell YET ANOTHER future ship concept for my right-now cash, I too continue to lose my patience with RSI. I am a patient man and I am looking forward to the game, but I am not a fool who would drop hundreds or thousands of dollars on ship promises. Momma didn't raise me to be that gullible (with respect to those of you who did). Fuck that nonsense.
At some point, everyone will reach a "Show me the money!" point. For some of us, that will be sooner rather than later. Apologists with extended patience will have to find a way to empathize and share space with those who have lost theirs after years of overpromising and under-delivering. While ignoring the trolls.
Best of luck to RSI.
Similar threads
- Locked