Support NeoGAF

[maxiell]

That indeed has happened. CIG has talked about it openly via community and even press channels.

Any idea what happened there?

 

[Geist-]

There are few facts to work with. We know CIG has raised $89.3 million and averages about $2 million raised per month. Then we have Derek Smart's accusation that CIG has $8 million left in the bank and spends about $3.5 million per month, which means the company would run out of money in the first quarter of 2016. CIG has responded to that accusation with silence.

Eh, they kind of did.

...Your client's defamatory claims are entirely without merit and include unfounded allegations that the funds raised for the project were used improperly, even fraudulently...

...In sum, your client's allegations and demands are completely without basis and hereby rejected in their entirety...

I mean, they didn't respond with actual numbers, but assuming CIG is not delusional by thinking 8 million left of 90m is anything but improper use of funds, I would assume that means that they reject the $8m claim.

Still, no hard numbers, so they could be lying. But I doubt it.

Any idea what happened there?

Definitely fired for some reason, no other explanation for how sudden it was. Still, we're never going to have a clear explanation, it's against business ethics to discuss reasons for terminations.

 

[Zambayoshi]

Eh, they kind of did.



I mean, they didn't respond with actual numbers, but assuming CIG is not delusional by thinking 8 million left of 90m is anything but improper use of funds, I would assume that means that they reject the $8m claim.

Still, no hard numbers, so they could be lying. But I doubt it.


Definitely fired for some reason, no other explanation for how sudden it was. Still, we're never going to have a clear explanation, it's against business ethics to discuss reasons for terminations.

I would have thought they meant "improper" in a legal sense rather than referring to fiscal irresponsibility.

I imagine it would be very difficult to properly budget for development in a situation where CIG is not able to easily estimate what the total amount of funds will be. Did they set the total budget at the amount of funds raised when the last stretch goal was reached? Or do they allocate more funds to the various modules on an ad-hoc basis depending on perceived need and the desirability to improve the projected outcome of each module. I think it would be a nightmare.

CIG must at least have a projected 'event horizon' beyond which they do not depend on receiving any more funding. If not, then that is pretty irresponsible. It would be like building a house and relying on more bricks just showing up each day without having a set plan on how many bricks are required in total to build the house.

I was reading a document linked to earlier in the thread which refers to Chris Roberts having a very changeable view on the 'vision' of the game, in terms of approving concepts before later revoking approval. If that happens too much, you may end up with a house that is only half-built when the bricks run out, to continue the previous comparison.

 

[Dictator93]

There are few facts to work with. We know CIG has raised $89.3 million and averages about $2 million raised per month. Then we have Derek Smart's accusation that CIG has $8 million left in the bank and spends about $3.5 million per month, which means the company would run out of money in the first quarter of 2016. CIG has responded to that accusation with silence.

For which there is no public evidence of any of those things, other than from... DS?

I think we should not trust the source for obvious reasons. Also, there is some weird assumption there that CIG would have been spending 3.5 million per month even though the project only expanded to its current size within the last year.

 

[Danthrax]

For which there is no public evidence of any of those things, other than from... DS?

I think we should not trust the source for obvious reasons. Also, there is some weird assumption there that CIG would have been spending 3.5 million per month even though the project only expanded to its current size within the last year.

We have public record of Derek Smart's accusation, which is what my sentence says. I'm a trained journalist; I know how to write sentences that are true (and won't get a newspaper sued for libel).

As for the content of his accusations, you're right, we have no public record of them. We don't know if they're true. If they're true, they're worrisome.

For what it's worth I'd assumed that CIG set their budget at about $2 million per month, which what they've been averaging in new donations for quite a while. It would only make sense, right? They couldn't possibly be so incompetent as to spend significantly more than that, right? I can't imagine they'd have as small an amount of money in the bank as $8 million because Chris Roberts said they had enough reserves to finish the game if funding dried up — besides, millions of dollars bring in pretty hefty interest payments, even if they're just in a plain savings account and not invested in a decent financial instrument. They're smart enough to put all the donations in anything other than a shoebox, right?

 

[Dictator93]

We have public record of Derek Smart's accusation, which is what my sentence says. I'm a trained journalist; I know how to write sentences that are true (and won't get a newspaper sued for libel).

No worries, I was not critiquing what you wrote. It was logically sound.

For what it's worth I'd assumed that CIG set their budget at about $2 million per month, which what they've been averaging in new donations for quite a while. It would only make sense, right? They couldn't possibly be so incompetent as to spend significantly more than that, right? I can't imagine they'd have as small an amount of money in the bank as $8 million because Chris Roberts said they had enough reserves to finish the game if funding dried up — besides, millions of dollars bring in pretty hefty interest payments, even if they're just in a plain savings account and not invested in a decent financial instrument. They're smart enough to put all the donations in anything other than a shoebox, right?

Without even getting to the point of thinking about if it were true, and why that seems really illogical or unlikely... we have to start here:

As for the content of his accusations, you're right, we have no public record of them. We don't know if they're true. If they're true, they're worrisome.

Sources of information need reliability and/or established legitimacy. That is something I think we do not get from someone like DS, so we can barely start a great conversation in the first place.

It is worrying to me that for some reason the media decides to run star citizen investigation stories as soon as DS starts posting stuff. That already heftily skews the questions and narratives that frame the stories. A hint at what I mean is to be found Tony Zurovek's response recently.

In my mind it makes me think that what if all stories about 9/11 were written and framed under the question of whether it was an inside job. Would we ever get good journalism / meaningful stories if we start by phrasing the coverage such? I do not think so. Almost any Star Citizen article out there in popular media pretty much starts off with the premise whether or not star citizen is, or is not a scam.

 

[Zambayoshi]

We have public record of Derek Smart's accusation, which is what my sentence says. I'm a trained journalist; I know how to write sentences that are true (and won't get a newspaper sued for libel).

As for the content of his accusations, you're right, we have no public record of them. We don't know if they're true. If they're true, they're worrisome.

For what it's worth I'd assumed that CIG set their budget at about $2 million per month, which what they've been averaging in new donations for quite a while. It would only make sense, right? They couldn't possibly be so incompetent as to spend significantly more than that, right? I can't imagine they'd have as small an amount of money in the bank as $8 million because Chris Roberts said they had enough reserves to finish the game if funding dried up — besides, millions of dollars bring in pretty hefty interest payments, even if they're just in a plain savings account and not invested in a decent financial instrument. They're smart enough to put all the donations in anything other than a shoebox, right?

Interesting that Chris Roberts said that. I wonder about how ethical it is to continue fund-raising efforts for a game that is already fully funded. Delaying the game and continuing fund-raising efforts might ironically earn more money than if the game were released. I'm not suggesting that is what has happened, but if the game is already fully-funded - it can be finished in a timely manner to the standard matching Chris Roberts's vision for it - isn't the only reason left to continue fund-raising profit? That sounds problematic to me if that's the case.