Untitled diff
8 removals
78 lines
17 additions
82 lines
THE STAR CITIZEN PROJECT IS IN FINANCIAL TROUBLE
THE STAR CITIZEN PROJECT IS IN FINANCIAL TROUBLE
As I have reported in the past, for some time now sources have informed me that the project was in financial straits. Despite denials from some in the toxic backer community, and silence from CIG/RSI – even though they had pledged to provide financials to backers – their recent 2016 financials filing in the UK, had some curious entries which served to support this notion.
As I have reported in the past, for some time now sources have informed me that the project was in financial straits. Despite denials from some in the toxic backer community, and silence from CIG/RSI – even though they had pledged to provide financials to backers – their recent 2016 financials filing in the UK, had some curious entries which served to support this notion.
But before I get into that, I want to point out that as far back as 2015 when various sources (past and present), informed myself and indeed various news (e.g. The Escapist, Kotaku UK etc) outlets of the project’s financial problems, they were estimated to have roughly 90 days worth of funding. As with anything related to analysis, that’s the info that was available at the time. However, since that time (and you can see this from the funding metrics), a set of whales clearly stuck in “Sunk Cost Fallacy” – as well as those who are using the project as a money laundromat – have been steadily putting money into the project in order to prop it up. This despite the fact that, by all accounts, the project is now a complete failure, and stands zero chance of ever being completed, let alone as was pitched back in Nov 2012. As I wrote in both my Oct 2016 Shattered Dreams and Dec 2016 Irreconcilable Differences blogs, following blatant lies from Chris Roberts at both GameCom 2016 and CitizenCon 2016, the signs were already there – in plain view. But only if you were paying attention.
But before I get into that, I want to point out that as far back as 2015 when various sources (past and present), informed myself and indeed various news (e.g. The Escapist, Kotaku UK etc) outlets of the project’s financial problems, they were estimated to have roughly 90 days worth of funding. As with anything related to analysis, that’s the info that was available at the time. However, since that time (and you can see this from the funding metrics), a set of whales clearly stuck in “Sunk Cost Fallacy” – as well as those who are using the project as a money laundromat – have been steadily putting money into the project in order to prop it up. This despite the fact that, by all accounts, the project is now a complete failure, and stands zero chance of ever being completed, let alone as was pitched back in Nov 2012. As I wrote in both my Oct 2016 Shattered Dreams and Dec 2016 Irreconcilable Differences blogs, following blatant lies from Chris Roberts at both GameCom 2016 and CitizenCon 2016, the signs were already there – in plain view. But only if you were paying attention.
As CIG and RSI are private US companies, backers have no way to gain access to their financials (as was promised), without filing a lawsuit (it will probably get kicked into arbitration). However, as the largest studio (in what is a string of 15 corporate entities), Foundry 42 in the UK, is the current conduit to their financial picture in some regard. On June 12th, I wrote an analysis of their 2016 filing. That filing showed, as had previously been speculated these past years, that they had to be burning no less than $3m per month funding this project across five (there are now two in the UK) studios. One thing that stuck out was a curious restatement in Section 19, which I pointed out:
As CIG and RSI are private US companies, backers have no way to gain access to their financials (as was promised), without filing a lawsuit (it will probably get kicked into arbitration). However, as the largest studio (in what is a string of 15 corporate entities), Foundry 42 in the UK, is the current conduit to their financial picture in some regard. On June 12th, I wrote an analysis of their 2016 filing. That filing showed, as had previously been speculated these past years, that they had to be burning no less than $3m per month funding this project across five (there are now two in the UK) studios. One thing that stuck out was a curious restatement in Section 19, which I pointed out:
“Section 19 is very curious. Due to the huge restated amount of £2.4m ($3.0m) from 2015, it reads like the sort of thing that would result from either a govt audit, or them just cleaning up their books in order to pass any due diligence muster. Also, as they’re now taking tax credits, it makes sense that these sort of numbers should be devoid of any such discrepancies, or they would also be in some serious problems with the govt. If you look at the chart from the previous analysis, with these restated numbers, it is now also clear that though the company doesn’t sell anything, they’re using money received from the parent (the backer piggy bank) company, as their income/turnover cash flow.”
“Section 19 is very curious. Due to the huge restated amount of £2.4m ($3.0m) from 2015, it reads like the sort of thing that would result from either a govt audit, or them just cleaning up their books in order to pass any due diligence muster. Also, as they’re now taking tax credits, it makes sense that these sort of numbers should be devoid of any such discrepancies, or they would also be in some serious problems with the govt. If you look at the chart from the previous analysis, with these restated numbers, it is now also clear that though the company doesn’t sell anything, they’re using money received from the parent (the backer piggy bank) company, as their income/turnover cash flow.”
Well, I was right (again). Following that June 9th filing (which as I noted, was early this year, seeing as they traditionally filed late, while paying fines), they filed a charge (aka loan) on June 13th. This charges means that, in addition to a previous NatWest Bank loan from Jan 2015, they just took out another bank loan, this time through Coutts & Co which, along with NatWest, is owned (1, 2) by RBS. This would explain why they needed to “clean” their books, and this discrepancy was probably flagged as part of the due diligence the bank had to do in order to grant this loan.
Well, I was right (again). Following that June 9th filing (which as I noted, was early this year, seeing as they traditionally filed late, while paying fines), they filed a charge (aka loan) on June 13th. This charges means that, in addition to a previous NatWest Bank loan from Jan 2015, they just took out another bank loan, this time through Coutts & Co (fined in 2012 by UK authorities , in 2016 by Asian authorities, and in 2017 by the Swiss authorities over money laundering) which, along with NatWest, is owned (1, 2) by RBS. This would explain why they needed to “clean” their books, and this discrepancy was probably flagged as part of the due diligence the bank had to do in order to grant this loan.
The end result is that, even after supposedly raising over $152 million from backers, they now have two (1, 2) bank loans which they have to carry on their books, and which have to be paid each month from backer funds, seeing as the company has no other source of revenue.
The end result is that, even after supposedly raising over $152 million from backers, they now have two (1, 2) bank loans which they have to carry on their books, and which have to be paid each month from backer funds, seeing as the company has no other source of revenue.
And we still don’t know how many loans – if any – the US based entities have on their books, which, in addition to investor money, is probably why they are now cash strapped and need to continue taking loans to make payments on current loans, while trying to stay afloat.
And we still don’t know how many loans – if any – the US based entities have on their books, which, in addition to investor money, is probably why they are now cash strapped and need to continue taking loans to make payments on current loans, while trying to stay afloat.
“Long ago I stopped looking at this game the way I did when I worked for a publisher who gave me a fixed budget to make a retail game. I now look at our monthly fundraising and use that to set the amount of resources being used to develop this game. We keep a healthy cash reserve so that if funding stopped tomorrow we would still be able to deliver Star Citizen (not quite to the current level of ambition, but well above what was planned in Oct 2012)” – Chris Roberts, Sept 30th, 2014 (Letter From The Chairman)
“Long ago I stopped looking at this game the way I did when I worked for a publisher who gave me a fixed budget to make a retail game. I now look at our monthly fundraising and use that to set the amount of resources being used to develop this game. We keep a healthy cash reserve so that if funding stopped tomorrow we would still be able to deliver Star Citizen (not quite to the current level of ambition, but well above what was planned in Oct 2012)” – Chris Roberts, Sept 30th, 2014 (Letter From The Chairman)
“First of all, we always have a decent amount of money in reserve, so if all support would collapse, we would not suddenly be incapacitated. We plan the scope of the development based on what arrives monthly by the people to support. I’m not worried, because even if no money came in, we would have sufficient funds to complete Squadron 42. The revenue from this could in-turn be used for the completion of Star Citizen.” – Chris Roberts, Jan 14th, 2017 (GameStar interview)
“First of all, we always have a decent amount of money in reserve, so if all support would collapse, we would not suddenly be incapacitated. We plan the scope of the development based on what arrives monthly by the people to support. I’m not worried, because even if no money came in, we would have sufficient funds to complete Squadron 42. The revenue from this could in-turn be used for the completion of Star Citizen.” – Chris Roberts, Jan 14th, 2017 (GameStar interview)
Aside from that, these loans – especially this second one – ensure that if they were to default, or the company goes bust, all the secured assets (IP rights, assets including art, music etc, hardware, office equipment, as well as tax credits, third-party agreements etc) related to the project, all belong to the bank being first in line. Backers and investors stand to lose everything.
Aside from that, these loans – especially this second one – ensure that if they were to default, or the company goes bust, all the secured assets (IP rights, assets including art, music etc, hardware, office equipment, as well as tax credits, third-party agreements etc) related to the project, all belong to the bank being first in line. Backers and investors stand to lose everything.
This needs to be stressed:
This needs to be stressed:
I don’t care how they spin this, or what backers choose to believe, this is a very – very – bad and eye opening event that just happened. If the largest studio associated with this project now has two loans – secured against all its worldwide assets – and tied to the parent holding company (hence the two charges), it stands to reason that the US parent company 1) can’t secure additional investors, which is always preferable to taking out secured loans 2) is probably either saddled with a pre-existing debt load, or it can’t get a loan – or it would have taken out the loan, then continued to fund the studios as it has been doing (as per the UK financials).
I don’t care how they spin this, or what backers choose to believe, this is a very – very – bad and eye opening event that just happened. If the largest studio associated with this project now has two loans – secured against all its worldwide assets – and tied to the parent holding company (hence the two charges), it stands to reason that the US parent company 1) can’t secure additional investors, which is always preferable to taking out secured loans 2) is probably either saddled with a pre-existing debt load, or it can’t get a loan – or it would have taken out the loan, then continued to fund the studios as it has been doing (as per the UK financials).
It also means that with a $152 million liability (to backers) for products they have yet to deliver, whatever this loan is, couldn’t be any substantial amount or it won’t have been taken through a subsidiary company that has no tangible assets (other than hardware, furniture etc) or income (it is funded by the US parent – as a separate studio).
It also means that with a $152 million liability (to backers) for products they have yet to deliver, whatever this loan is, couldn’t be any substantial amount or it won’t have been taken through a subsidiary company that has no tangible assets (other than hardware, furniture etc) or income (it is funded by the US parent – as a separate studio).
So, a crowd-funded project that needed $5 million, six years later has now burned through $152 million (assuming the funding chart is accurate), investor money, and has bank loans. And there are now two. Which means that this second loan wasn’t big enough to pay off the first loan. Which invariably means that they need both loans. And they can’t take out any more loans because the second loan has now tied up ALL the company assets as security.
So, a crowd-funded project that, back in 2012, needed $5 million, now six years later has burned through $152 million (assuming the funding chart is accurate) in backer money, plus investor money, and now has bank loans on top of that.
And there are now two loans in the UK alone. Which means that this second loan wasn’t big enough to pay off the first loan. Which invariably means that they need both loans. And they can’t take out any more loans because the second loan has now tied up ALL the company IP and assets as security (see p3 section 4 & 5 of the loan docs).
They have failed to ship ANY project, even after raising ALL this money. And there is NOTHING that currently shows that they can do it even if they raised another $150 million.
They have failed to ship ANY project, even after raising ALL this money. And there is NOTHING that currently shows that they can do it even if they raised another $150 million.
The fact that they are taking out secured loans, means that backer funding is insufficient to continue operations. So that means they now rely on that same backer funding to not only fund operations, but to also pay these debts. So how are they going to do that in the long term, now that they are saddled with debt, for a project that was said to be fully funded.
The fact that they are taking out secured loans, means that backer funding is insufficient to continue operations. So that means they now rely on that same backer funding to not only fund operations, but to also pay these debts. So how are they going to do that in the long term, now that they are saddled with debt, for a project that was said to be fully funded.
So instead of being accountable to a publisher, or to backers who funded them, they are now accountable to investors and bankers. And these banks now own ALL of the CIG/RSI assets, of which the Star Citizen IP is the primary and most valuable.
So instead of being accountable to a publisher, or to backers who funded them, they are now accountable to investors and bankers. And these banks now own ALL of the CIG/RSI assets, of which the Star Citizen IP is the primary and most valuable – if they ever complete (they won’t) the project.
They’re screwed. It really is that simple.
And worse, according to p16 Section 24, the bank now basically owns both Star Citizen and Squadron 42, and gives CIG/RSI permission to continue to develop and sell the games. This is revoked if CIG/RSI goes 60 days without paying their loan.
If responsible backers and investors don’t start screaming (they will need attorneys for this) at CIG and holding them to the ToS wihch promised the release of financials, then they only have themselves to blame for the end result.
This is Freelancer all over again. Microsoft bought Digital Anvil. Chris failed. Microsoft kicked him out and took over the project.
They’re screwed. It really is that simple. As are backers who forked out over $150 million, only to see CIG run out of money, then turn around and take out loans against the projects. So if CIG defaults (or decides to walk away), the bank owns everything; while not carrying the $150+ million liability that CIG owes to backers who funded (pre-paid the project).
If responsible backers and investors don’t start screaming (they will need attorneys for this) at CIG and holding them to the ToS which promised the release of financials, then they only have themselves to blame for the end result.
It has to be stated that this loan could very well be used to wind down operations in the short-term, pay out bonuses, and Golden parachutes etc, for Chris Roberts’ friends and family who have unjustly enriched themselves from backer and investor money. Then they default on the loan, wind down the companies – and walk away.
STAR CITIZEN 3.0 DELAYED – AGAIN. BUT THE SALE MUST GO ON!
STAR CITIZEN 3.0 DELAYED – AGAIN. BUT THE SALE MUST GO ON!
The on-going saga surrounding the much touted 3.0 build also just had another event.
The on-going saga surrounding the much touted 3.0 build also just had another event.
Back on May 26th, I wrote up an article based on some new info sent to me via various sources. Sources had claimed that not only was Squadron 42, the single player game based on Star Citizen, not due out in 2017, but neither is Star Citizen itself. They also claimed that the internal dev schedule was totally different from the public version, and that the former stretched all the way to 2021.
Back on May 26th, I wrote up an article based on some new info sent to me via various sources. Sources had claimed that not only was Squadron 42, the single player game based on Star Citizen, not due out in 2017, but neither is Star Citizen itself. They also claimed that the internal dev schedule was totally different from the public version, and that the former stretched all the way to 2021.
Since they started publicizing the dev schedule, it has been consistently riddled with bogus and highly questionable entries. During that time, they continued to use all kinds of new and inventive ways to squeeze their backer whales for money, under the guise of progress being made on the project. And they just did it – again.
Since they started publicizing the dev schedule, it has been consistently riddled with bogus and highly questionable entries. During that time, they continued to use all kinds of new and inventive ways to squeeze their backer whales for money, under the guise of progress being made on the project. And they just did it – again.
After announcing a new concept sale for June 23rd (date of new schedule) weeks prior, they started the sale a day before the new schedule was due to be released. The sale was for a “racing” bike, which doesn’t exist, and for a game mechanic that doesn’t exist either; but which they have been touting as coming in 3.0. The same build in which they touted procedural planets, but have now settled for “level” based moons and planetoids due to on-going technical difficulties with the engine. I wrote about this on June 22nd:
After announcing a new concept sale for June 23rd (date of new schedule) weeks prior, they started the sale a day before the new schedule was due to be released. The sale was for a “racing” bike, which doesn’t exist, and for a game mechanic that doesn’t exist either; but which they have been touting as coming in 3.0. The same build in which they touted procedural planets, but have now settled for “level” based moons and planetoids due to on-going technical difficulties with the engine. I wrote about this on June 22nd:
“**BREAKING*** two sources have now confirmed that 3.0 is such a technological nightmare, and performance hog, that nobody knows how they are going to end up releasing it within the current time frame; let alone for GamesCom.
“**BREAKING*** two sources have now confirmed that 3.0 is such a technological nightmare, and performance hog, that nobody knows how they are going to end up releasing it within the current time frame; let alone for GamesCom.
Croberts working on his new justification speech (aka newsletter), in which he may have no choice but to admit that the switch to LY hasn’t been as straightforward (gee, who knew!?) as they made it out to be – seven months ago.
Croberts working on his new justification speech (aka newsletter), in which he may have no choice but to admit that the switch to LY hasn’t been as straightforward (gee, who knew!?) as they made it out to be – seven months ago.
It’s amazing to me that since July 2015, I’ve been right about so many things, that those guys don’t even bother recapping them anymore. This despite the fact that I document them religiously in my blogs and forum posts – for a reason.
It’s amazing to me that since July 2015, I’ve been right about so many things, that those guys don’t even bother recapping them anymore. This despite the fact that I document them religiously in my blogs and forum posts – for a reason.
All that aside, the primary claim that “they can’t build the game as pitched” and which everyone was saying that I was wrong about, remains true.
All that aside, the primary claim that “they can’t build the game as pitched” and which everyone was saying that I was wrong about, remains true.
Ignoring the $150m (they were at $85, and have since passed this) + proper engine (they switched to the more advanced LY) that I said they would need to pull it off.
Ignoring the $150m (they were at $85, and have since passed this) + proper engine (they switched to the more advanced LY) that I said they would need to pull it off.
Recently (well, before GamesCom 2016), I said that they simply didn’t have the tech to do procedurally generated planets, that the pitched 3.0 was bullshit dipped in Ether. Less than 6 months later, 3.0 has been significantly scaled back. And has moons – in a level – instead of procedural planets (shown in an elaborate R&D video showcase posing as in-game).
Recently (well, before GamesCom 2016), I said that they simply didn’t have the tech to do procedurally generated planets, that the pitched 3.0 was bullshit dipped in Ether. Less than 6 months later, 3.0 has been significantly scaled back. And has moons – in a level – instead of procedural planets (shown in an elaborate R&D video showcase posing as in-game).
I have no doubt that they will probably release something called 3.0, then continue to update it. They did the same thing with 2.0. Right up to 2.6.x
I have no doubt that they will probably release something called 3.0, then continue to update it. They did the same thing with 2.0. Right up to 2.6.x
ps: There is another JPEG sale tomorrow June 23rd. So they’re probably going to lie in tomorrow’s 3.0 schedule update, then update it again the following week with the proper data.”
ps: There is another JPEG sale tomorrow June 23rd. So they’re probably going to lie in tomorrow’s 3.0 schedule update, then update it again the following week with the proper data.”
The sale for the Nox bike went up, and so far they have raised about $700K from it. Bear in mind that the funding chart is said to be highly inaccurate and being manipulated and used by CIG/RSI as a way to show that there is continued interest in the project,
The sale for the Nox bike went up, and so far they have raised about $700K from it. Bear in mind that the funding chart is said to be highly inaccurate and being manipulated and used by CIG/RSI as a way to show that there is continued interest in the project,
Then the 3.0 schedule went up the day following the sale. And it’s hilariously as expected.
Then the 3.0 schedule went up the day following the sale. And it’s hilariously as expected.
On June 20th, I had written that, from looking at the June 16th schedule, that there was no way they were going to make it.
On June 20th, I had written that, from looking at the June 16th schedule, that there was no way they were going to make it.
“But 3.0 is on the way. The Evocati “aim” date, as per last week’s schedule update, is 06-21-17 to 07-05-17. We know that’s probably not going to happen. And when it eventually drops, we’ll see what the performance is like.”
“But 3.0 is on the way. The Evocati “aim” date, as per last week’s schedule update, is 06-21-17 to 07-05-17. We know that’s probably not going to happen. And when it eventually drops, we’ll see what the performance is like.”
So in last week’s schedule, the Evocati (closed test group) release date window was 06/21/17 – 07/05/17. This week it’s now 07/07/17 – 07/20/17. And from comparing it to the previous schedule, while littered with entries such as “TBD” and “delayed due to unforeseen shortage in resources”, it’s clear that they’re not likely to make that date either.
So in last week’s schedule, the Evocati (closed test group) release date window was 06/21/17 – 07/05/17. This week it’s now 07/07/17 – 07/20/17. And from comparing it to the previous schedule, while littered with entries such as “TBD” and “delayed due to unforeseen shortage in resources”, it’s clear that they’re not likely to make that date either.
Basically, a total of 7 items were “completed” (this is subjective, when you look at notes which indicate that such tasks spawned new sub-tasks), and a total of 19 (!) were pushed back.
Basically, a total of 7 items were “completed” (this is subjective, when you look at notes which indicate that such tasks spawned new sub-tasks), and a total of 19 (!) were pushed back.
This is all in line with sources saying that the internal dev and public schedules are completely out of sync, and that CIG/RSI are just releasing as much as they feel is needed to appease backers. As far back as the April schedule, which I wrote about, among other things, and during which it was scheduled to be released the end of June, I was saying that it’s highly unlikely to happen.
This is all in line with sources saying that the internal dev and public schedules are completely out of sync, and that CIG/RSI are just releasing as much as they feel is needed to appease backers. As far back as the April schedule, which I wrote about, among other things, and during which it was scheduled to be released the end of June, I was saying that it’s highly unlikely to happen.
The Star Citizen Tracker which is religiously maintained and updated as development continues, is a stark reminder that, regardless of the rumored 2021 date (subject to further delays of course), there is so much work left to be done, that even if they automagically got the resources (money, talent, tech) to pull it off, that it clearly has another five or more years to go.
The Star Citizen Tracker which is religiously maintained and updated as development continues, is a stark reminder that, regardless of the rumored 2021 date (subject to further delays of course), there is so much work left to be done, that even if they automagically got the resources (money, talent, tech) to pull it off, that it clearly has another five or more years to go.
And here I was, back in July 2015 being conservative when I stated that to pull off what they promised would require $150 million minimum, a competent team, and capable engine. Since that time, at $85 million raised, they’ve exceeded that $150m, and switched engines – even as they continue to bleed experienced talent who are being replaced by inexperienced people who have to get up to speed on a six year project.
And here I was, back in July 2015 being conservative when I stated that to pull off what they promised would require $150 million minimum, a competent team, and capable engine. Since that time, at $85 million raised, they’ve exceeded that $150m, and switched engines – even as they continue to bleed experienced talent who are being replaced by inexperienced people who have to get up to speed on a six year project.
With their two biggest fundraising events, GamesCom (Aug 22-26) and CitizenCon (Oct 27th) coming up, as they have done in the past, it is likely that they will brand and push out whatever build (3.0 was previously 2.7, as sources had stated that the former didn’t exist at the time Chris announced it) they have in time for either of those two events.
With their two biggest fundraising events, GamesCom (Aug 22-26) and CitizenCon (Oct 27th) coming up, as they have done in the past, it is likely that they will brand and push out whatever build (3.0 was previously 2.7, as sources had stated that the former didn’t exist at the time Chris announced it) they have in time for either of those two events.
Which brings me to…
Which brings me to…
THE LATEST BLATANT CASH GRAB
THE LATEST BLATANT CASH GRAB
Basically, ahead of this latest sale, without any forewarning or announcement, they yanked the Redeemer ship from sale.
Basically, ahead of this latest sale, without any forewarning or announcement, they yanked the Redeemer ship from sale.
Unless you are familiar with how the game’s assets work, you won’t understand what just happened. Basically, this move not only removes the ability for backers to trade up and/or trade in better ships, but it also requires them to spend more money in order to get what they want. Here, are some choice comments (1, 2 3) from those affected.
Unless you are familiar with how the game’s assets work, you won’t understand what just happened. Basically, this move not only removes the ability for backers to trade up and/or trade in better ships, but it also requires them to spend more money in order to get what they want. Here, are some choice comments (1, 2 3) from those affected.
“I’ve got a big ship pack and am fully reliant on CCUs to convert the contained ships into the ones I want.
“I’ve got a big ship pack and am fully reliant on CCUs to convert the contained ships into the ones I want.
After CIG’s initial threat to erase all $0 CCUs from our hangars, I quickly hunkered down to make a solid upgrade plan, got it in place, and bought all the necessary CCUs. These were not particularly cheap, and largely revolved around using the Redeemer as a stepping stone, simply because it iswas the only always-available ship at that price. Now a large majority of the upgrade plan that CIG ‘encouraged’ me to invest in just got decimated. And the remainder of it will go down the drain with the $0 CCU wipe, removing the CCUs I can now no longer use because of the Redeemer removal.
After CIG’s initial threat to erase all $0 CCUs from our hangars, I quickly hunkered down to make a solid upgrade plan, got it in place, and bought all the necessary CCUs. These were not particularly cheap, and largely revolved around using the Redeemer as a stepping stone, simply because it iswas the only always-available ship at that price. Now a large majority of the upgrade plan that CIG ‘encouraged’ me to invest in just got decimated. And the remainder of it will go down the drain with the $0 CCU wipe, removing the CCUs I can now no longer use because of the Redeemer removal.
I’m starting to have some serious regret about giving money to a company that treats its backers with such blatant hostility.”
I’m starting to have some serious regret about giving money to a company that treats its backers with such blatant hostility.”
“Kinda pissed.
“Kinda pissed.
I bought the 5-pack of the Nox with the sole intention of grabbing 3x Redeemers so I could use my Eclipse and BMM CCU with LTI, and still have a Redeemer and a Nox to hang on to.
I bought the 5-pack of the Nox with the sole intention of grabbing 3x Redeemers so I could use my Eclipse and BMM CCU with LTI, and still have a Redeemer and a Nox to hang on to.
Without warning that kinda screws up my plans to finalize ships before the 3.0 $0CCU wipe…
Without warning that kinda screws up my plans to finalize ships before the 3.0 $0CCU wipe…
Awesome. :/”
Awesome. :/”
“My guess is that the Redeemer was removed to break the $0 CCU conversion to Banu Merchantman.
“My guess is that the Redeemer was removed to break the $0 CCU conversion to Banu Merchantman.
Might be a very clever first step to the anticipated Great $0 CCU Hangar Cleanout of ’17.
Might be a very clever first step to the anticipated Great $0 CCU Hangar Cleanout of ’17.
Once they started doing sudden, unannounced price changes on existing ships (like BMM going from $250>$300>$350), the writing was on the wall.
Once they started doing sudden, unannounced price changes on existing ships (like BMM going from $250>$300>$350), the writing was on the wall.
My guess is they WILL continue to announce prices for new Concept ships ahead of time (as stated), but they WON’T announce price hikes for anything that isn’t new. And temporarily removing the Redeemer removes a critical permanent CCU upgrade point.
My guess is they WILL continue to announce prices for new Concept ships ahead of time (as stated), but they WON’T announce price hikes for anything that isn’t new. And temporarily removing the Redeemer removes a critical permanent CCU upgrade point.
So…. Remove previously permanent ships temporarily, mix in some selective price hikes, and remove old $0 CCUs from hangars- it will go along way to stop the ability to build ships for less than sticker price.
So…. Remove previously permanent ships temporarily, mix in some selective price hikes, and remove old $0 CCUs from hangars- it will go along way to stop the ability to build ships for less than sticker price.
If you can, complete any upgrade chains while it is still possible!”
If you can, complete any upgrade chains while it is still possible!”
Peachy!
Peachy!
STILL BUILDING TOOLS & TECH
STILL BUILDING TOOLS & TECH
As if all that wasn’t bad enough, having dropped the pretext of doing procedural planets in the game world, in a June 22nd broadcast of Around The Verse, they showed a segment (FF to 26:46) showcasing a new tool – outside of the CryEditor – that’s basically barebones for manual entity placement. In a “level” based world. Essentially, this tool basically sets up the world entities – and has nothing to do with the actual creation of the 110 star systems and 500+ planets and moons they have yet to manually create (in the CryEditor) for the game. And as of the upcoming 3.0, they are still struggling to create even the three moons promised; even after removing the promised planet from the schedule.
As if all that wasn’t bad enough, having dropped the pretext of doing procedural planets in the game world, in a June 22nd broadcast of Around The Verse, they showed a segment (FF to 26:46) showcasing a new tool – outside of the CryEditor – that’s basically barebones for manual entity placement. In a “level” based world. Essentially, this tool basically sets up the world entities – and has nothing to do with the actual creation of the 110 star systems and 500+ planets and moons they have yet to manually create (in the CryEditor) for the game. And as of the upcoming 3.0, they are still struggling to create even the three moons promised; even after removing the promised planet from the schedule.
Star Citizen: Around the Verse - Building Solar Systems & Nox Preview
Star Citizen: Around the Verse - Building Solar Systems & Nox Preview
Playback isn't supported on this device.
Playback isn't supported on this device.
0:00 / 40:25
0:00 / 40:25
Six years later, they are still building tools. For a game that was supposed to have been released in Nov 2014.
Six years later, they are still building tools. For a game that was supposed to have been released in Nov 2014.