CIG BLEEDING MONEY?!?! Not according to their financial statement.

[Devil Dog Hog]

So i come across this article, https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ccn.com/star-citizen-developer-bleeds-cash-as-legal-woes-escalate/ , and cant help but wonder where his source is. Last I checked, CIG had a good year with funding in 2018 (https://cloudimperiumgames.com/blog/corporate/cloud-imperium-financials-for-2018). Considering they haven't released their 2019 report and probably won't until December 2020, I wonder how the author is inferring CIG's financial status. Especially since the financial statement says they made more in 2019 than they did in 2018. Maybe its from the development tracker that only shows the last six months of fund raising at $39,614,364. But thats only the last six months and not the year as a whole. Either way, I think its safe to assume this guys talking out his ass with an opinion and not factual data.
What say you testies?

 

[Montoya]

Technically correct.

They spend more than they bring in, and make up the difference from reserves raised from the first few years when they had a surplus.

Thing is, they dont have to be in the red, they can simply stop hiring to add to the 550 (?) employees, downside to say 400 and be in the black every year. Instead they choose to keep hiring and speed up the progress as much as possible. This is a strategic decision, not some sort of problem with funding, which is growing rapidly and 2019 was the biggest year on record.

 

[Crymsan]

Hmm they are not completely wrong either. This is one of those people using the facts to suit their argument. Basically they raised around $50m and spent $50 maybe more and had what about $10m left before the year not counting the buy in. The problem with the buy in money is does this money become development money or as it is buying a share of the business effectively CRoberts cash. Anyways the good news is star citizen is raising lots of cash still, the bad news is they are spending just as much (if them developing the game is bad news). I agree if the fund raising was drying up it could be a cause for concern especially as there is no game release in sight. The speed of development is always the biggest issue with the project perhaps up there with the they promised us x!

 

[Harkonan]

An unfinished product not making profits .... *shocked*

 

[Lorddarthvik]

Hmm they are not completely wrong either. This is one of those people using the facts to suit their argument. Basically they raised around $50m and spent $50 maybe more and had what about $10m left before the year not counting the buy in. The problem with the buy in money is does this money become development money or as it is buying a share of the business effectively CRoberts cash. Anyways the good news is star citizen is raising lots of cash still, the bad news is they are spending just as much (if them developing the game is bad news). I agree if the fund raising was drying up it could be a cause for concern especially as there is no game release in sight. The speed of development is always the biggest issue with the project perhaps up there with the they promised us x!

The buy in money is supposed to be spent on marketing, according to the original announcement, if I recall correctly.

As for this article, it's clickable trash. As you said, the writer is pushing his own narrative through half truths and omitting context.
The establishment is dying, and anything that goes against it they will try to attack, with whatever they can, whether it's real or all lies. It's pathetic.

 

[Devil Dog Hog]

The speed of development is always the biggest issue with the project perhaps up there with the they promised us x!

Agreed, but then again i think its safe to say we all drank the cool-aid and are addicted at this point. Were all ready this far down the creek and i distinctly remember tossing the paddles out to make more room for the beer.

 

[Montoya]

cIg Is lOsInG mOniE!!!! ... is a very typical comment response on many of my videos.

 

[Bambooza]

Agreed, but then again i think its safe to say we all drank the cool-aid and are addicted at this point. Were all ready this far down the creek and i distinctly remember tossing the paddles out to make more room for the beer.

Wait there is cool-aid flavored beer?

As for a tech company, it's fairly common for them to operate at a yearly loss as they overspend their yearly income in future feature development. In fact, the stock market typically reacts negatively to tech companies that reduce their R&D budget to stay in the black.

 

[Phil]

Well lets be honest here, in 2018 they posted almost 49 million coming in and 56.1 million going out, this is a loss no matter how you look at it, the issue I have is their losing ground on both SQ42 and the core game, more delays, more setbacks and having to hire more people just to push a SQ42 deadline if I had to guess 2019 will look somewhat similar they will record a loss if they in fact hired more people unless the profits in the Nov ship sale were so outrageous that it made up the gap which may be the case. Overall 2019 I think was pretty successful financially for CIG but again the delays are piling up and they really cant afford to stretch SQ42 out for another year my fear is we will see either another selloff of CIG or some promises broken about funding from the player base, I don't foresee SQ42 hauling in millions of dollars from the consumer because most players are already invested and purchased it and space sim retail is relatively a small market.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Sky Captain]

We saw their 2019 backer income. We need to see the financial statement showing their 2019 cost next. Then we will know a bit more about their trajectory.

CIG had a great year on the income front in 2019 though.

 

[Grimbli]

An unfinished product not making profits .... *shocked*

I actually had an interaction with a troll the other night inside SC that claimed there was no way CIG would be able to keep the game operational once it released as there's no subscription model.

(He was a troll for other reasons, not just because I disagreed with that statement.)

 

[Phil]

I think he has a valid argument, I personally don't see this game being able to not be funded in some way unless they plan on releasing new ships and content every year and sales will be their income but even then that's questionable, personally I feel some sort of fee will be one of the promises that gets broken.

I should also say I prefer a monthly payment option if it ensures the stability, quality and longevity of the game I have no issues with it if they do add one.

 

[Devil Dog Hog]

I think he has a valid argument, I personally don't see this game being able to not be funded in some way unless they plan on releasing new ships and content every year and sales will be their income but even then that's questionable, personally I feel some sort of fee will be one of the promises that gets broken.

I should also say I prefer a monthly payment option if it ensures the stability, quality and longevity of the game I have no issues with it if they do add one.

I agree with your statement. I don't see how they can maintain the quality and innovation that the player base wants, unless they have some sort of subscription. I honestly would be happy to pay $10 a month to play in this sandbox. Another opportunity is selling ad space inside the game at space stations with a futuristic twist. If it kept the game free I'm fine with seeing Monster Energy Drink and others on my rest stop visits. Not much of a difference from them now. I don't see the ship sales being a viable long term financial plan. Maybe have them as limited once a year with LTI. I just don't want it to turn into a pay to play system.

 

[Montoya]

I don't foresee SQ42 hauling in millions of dollars from the consumer because most players are already invested and purchased it

I would disagree.

Most of my friends outside of TEST have zero interest in buying a game still in development. They want to see it in a box, on a shelf at Gamestop to even consider playing it.

 

[DontTouchMyHoHos]

I would disagree.

Most of my friends outside of TEST have zero interest in buying a game still in development. They want to see it in a box, on a shelf at Gamestop to even consider playing it.

This

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

Oooh, Drama!

EDIT -

Oh, drama.

From the first few bulletpointed lines:

CIG’s legal jockeying does not bode well for gamers who have waited nine years to play the space epic.

November 2012 to Janurary 2020 is Seven years. Seven years.

From the first paragraph:

first-person shooter.

It's also a flight sim and combat flight sim, and it was those before the Third Person aspects were introduced with the Hangar and even then it was a First Person Non-Shooter. The FPS came with the PU and Star Marine, but even then if you go in the PU it's about 5% of what you do. It's still mostly focused on flight, or you can't get to the place to do the FPS stuff.

Further on:

Backers initially crowdfunded the ambitious project in 2011 to the tune of a cool $250 million

A) 2012.
B) In 2012 at the end of the kickstarter, the initial funding round, it was backed to the tune of $6.23 million, not $250 million.

The research and grasp of the project is lacking and sucks a powerful amount of arse. I have no further time for this article.

 

[Grimbli]

They want to see it in a box, on a shelf at Gamestop to even consider playing it.

There's a lot of people who are very upset over Preorder and Early Access games, they go around preaching that everyone should wait until a game is fully released before purchasing. I think there will be plenty of people to buy SQ42.

 

[Radegast74]

Another thing to consider: CR worked on and produced several Hollywood movies. He's used to raising money out of thin air, and knows how to balance books and use tax incentives and losses and carry-overs year after year to his advantage. At a certain point, what is on the paper bears some semblance to reality, but, not necessarily the reality you or I deal with or expect.

 

[Phil]

There's a lot of people who are very upset over Preorder and Early Access games, they go around preaching that everyone should wait until a game is fully released before purchasing. I think there will be plenty of people to buy SQ42.

Usually I agree with this but Star Citizen is unlike any other game ever made you have access to the entire game as it progresses, the main issue with preordering these days is AAA companies not fulfilling their promises or sneaking garbage games past you like Fallout76 or Anthem and 99.9% I agree with not preordering even though I still do it myself on occasion I feel Star Citizen is the exception because its so transparent you really cant say you didn't know what was coming unless you never bothered to try it.

 

[Xist]

That article was written by crypto coins news, an organization whose purpose is to tell you all the reasons to should pay them more for their Bitcoin than they paid for it.

What they have to say about anything is irrelevant IMO.