Kick in the BALLs!

NaffNaffBobFace

Space Marshal
Donor
Jan 5, 2016
5,043
20,187
1,525
RSI Handle
NaffNaffBobFace
It was not a sale to finish SQ42, but to provide funds to market it.

There was a promise that all funds wold be used to develop the game. Marketing the game correctly is very expensive and without those funds, either it will fail in terms of sales, or a significant amount of development resources would need to shift to marketing the game
GTA V cost $137M to develop, and another $128M in marketing costs.

CoD: MW2 costs a mere $50M to develop, but $200M spent in marketing.

Destiny, $140M in development, and another $140M in marketing.

The point here is that you can make an awesome game, but without a massive marketing budget, nobody will hear about and buy it.

Star Citizen has been crowd funding the development which has raised $220M, but this does not include marketing costs.

Chris Roberts managed to get this billionaire investor and his son who like the idea of this game to pitch in $46M for a 10% stake in CIG.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattperez/2018/12/20/billionaire-clive-calder-and-son-invest-46-million-in-studio-behind-crowdfunded-game-star-citizen/

The funds will go towards marketing of Squadron 42.
Ahhhh, yes I was aware of that from when it happened, it's also in the link in my earlier post...

The way Phil said it, it sounded like a 10% sale happened to get funds to finish making s42, not to market/launch it. I was worried something huge had gone down that i hadn't been paying attention to.

There is a massive difference between:
- not having enough backer funds to finish making s42 and selling 10% of the company for 46 million to be able to finish it,
- and selling 10% of the company to get 46 million to market the final game worldwide rather than waste a quarter of the total backer generated funds on doing so, especially when they have said multiple times every single penny of backer funds will go on developing and running the game/s.
 
Last edited:

ColdDog

Grand Admiral
Donor
Oct 3, 2014
384
1,350
1,360
RSI Handle
FatalisSmilodon
There is a massive difference between:
- not having enough backer funds to finish making s42 and selling 10% of the company for 46 million to be able to finish it,
- and selling 10% of the company to get 46 million to market the final game worldwide rather than waste a quarter of the total backer generated funds on doing so, especially when they have said multiple times every single penny of backer funds will go on developing and running the game/s.
Keep asking questions... and... I hate when people compare star citizen to other games (GTA V)... there is only one comparison based on crowd funding that I see happening at the same time SC began - Elite Dangerous. GTA V - Rockstar Games has been at this awhile (GTA 1, 2 , 3, 4 ) with a proven infrastructure, funding and support models; Star Citizen has not.
 

Montoya

Administrator
Staff member
Oct 31, 2013
5,861
29,357
2,555
RSI Handle
Montoya
there is only one comparison based on crowd funding that I see happening at the same time SC began - Elite Dangerous.
And Elite Dangerous is a great game!

However, they started off with "you are a ship, now go do things!".

7 of the 9 people I introduced to Elite Dangerous played for 10min and then quit because the game was "stupid".

You are a ship, go pick up things from station a-2934 and sell it at station k-3924.

How many thousands of potential players did Elite lose in the opening months because the game was too shallow?
 

ColdDog

Grand Admiral
Donor
Oct 3, 2014
384
1,350
1,360
RSI Handle
FatalisSmilodon
How many thousands of potential players did Elite lose in the opening months because the game was too shallow?
Hind sight is always 20-20. This (crowd funding) was a new concept - they chose a direction and SC went a different direction - are they both wrong? - damned if you do and damned if you don't. Time will tell because this is all new, going against the paradigm of EA, Rockstar, Bioware, etc.
 

NaffNaffBobFace

Space Marshal
Donor
Jan 5, 2016
5,043
20,187
1,525
RSI Handle
NaffNaffBobFace
Hind sight is always 20-20. This (crowd funding) was a new concept - they chose a direction and SC went a different direction - are they both wrong? - damned if you do and damned if you don't. Time will tell because this is all new, going against the paradigm of EA, Rockstar, Bioware, etc.
We (as in Chris Roberts and all us backers) are not so much going against traditional publishing - this was the last option before abandoning the project entirely. Chris Roberts went to the publishers and they declined. This crowd funder was to get a demo built and enough interest to get the publishers on board, as the piublishers said no one wanted a Space Game anymore... and it just blew up and continues unabated.

Did they miss out on declining such an investment oppertunity? Depends how big the final game is but I doubt they would have sunk $200 million into development alone.
 
Last edited:

ColdDog

Grand Admiral
Donor
Oct 3, 2014
384
1,350
1,360
RSI Handle
FatalisSmilodon
Did they miss out on declining such an investment? Depends how big the final game is.
Assuming they get to the final game - The story has not ended for both SC and Elite Dangerous... they are both relevant and still going. Again, time will tell - I just hope CIG does not get much further in over their head (if they are). Hard decisions to come for CIG... I want this game more than ever, but it all requires money, investment and time. Back to our initial concerns... time typically works against everything, and without money, there is no SC.
 

NaffNaffBobFace

Space Marshal
Donor
Jan 5, 2016
5,043
20,187
1,525
RSI Handle
NaffNaffBobFace
Assuming they get to the final game - The story has not ended for both SC and Elite Dangerous... they are both relevant and still going. Again, time will tell - I just hope CIG does not get much further in over their head (if they are). Hard decisions to come for CIG... I want this game more than ever, but it all requires money, investment and time. Back to our initial concerns... time typically works against everything, and without money, there is no SC.
And that circles back round to my first post in this thread:
They have covered this. If the incoming pledges drop below the level that is sustainable for developing further innovations, they have "A few levers to pull".



To me that says: If revenue dwindles, the option is there to flip the switch and dash to the end with the dev and resources created to that point. Until then (if that ever comes) development continues.
 

Vavrik

Grand Admiral
Donor
Sep 19, 2017
1,463
6,071
900
RSI Handle
Vavrik
Hind sight is always 20-20. This (crowd funding) was a new concept - they chose a direction and SC went a different direction - are they both wrong? - damned if you do and damned if you don't. Time will tell because this is all new, going against the paradigm of EA, Rockstar, Bioware, etc.
I've also written off companies like EA etc. for bringing this kind of game through the next steps. But that's not to write them off entirely, just out of this. They're too focused on bottom line to be really innovative.

To me that says: If revenue dwindles, the option is there to flip the switch and dash to the end with the dev and resources created to that point. Until then (if that ever comes) development continues.
Yes well. There are a lot of ways that CIG can mess this up.

There's also a related lesson in software development too. "If you have to fix bugs in your software project more than once, then probably the cause is here: there is a problem with your object model, or there is a misinterpretation of your requirements, or your developing against a moving target" -- Me, to a project team I work with. Last week.

How many of those "or's" describe CIG?
 

NaffNaffBobFace

Space Marshal
Donor
Jan 5, 2016
5,043
20,187
1,525
RSI Handle
NaffNaffBobFace
Yes well. There are a lot of ways that CIG can mess this up.

There's also a related lesson in software development too. "If you have to fix bugs in your software project more than once, then probably the cause is here: there is a problem with your object model, or there is a misinterpretation of your requirements, or your developing against a moving target" -- Me, to a project team I work with. Last week.

How many of those "or's" describe CIG?
I see where you are coming from.

However, we only have the reports we are given to gauge whats going on in CIG. If they say they have built some "Levers to pull" in to the project, they have some levers to pull. Exactly what those are? Only those with their hand on the lever, or that the lever is attached to, know.

Yes, there is a large element of trust having to be leaned upon here and I hope they never have to throw them and we never find out.

I find your quote very interesting. If you only fix bugs once, what is "smoke testing" for? I don't work in development but work with people who do and they seem very frustrated every time they have to do this?
 
Forgot your password?