Star Citizen Lies, Ramblings, Jpegs, and Bullshit

[Slapmeandcallmegurl]

But you acknowledge they did change the TOCs to deny refunds?

No. It always said the pledge is non refundable.

https://imgur.com/a/Ov1Tt

Are you deliberately missing where it says refunds only when they cease development of the game?

They've always said no refunds in the ToS.

[dsmart]

No. It always said the pledge is non refundable.

That's a blatant lie.

Are you deliberately missing where it says refunds only when they cease development of the game?

They've always said no refunds in the ToS.

That's another blatant lie.

Nice try ignoring the ToS, including the changes, while posting what you know to be nothing but lies. Listen, we don't have time for this shit anymore. Either argue in good faith, or leave.

[Slapmeandcallmegurl]

Unless all this 'anti consumer' rhetoric is aimed at the situation where they stop development. Which, let's be honest, obviously means they would have run out of cash. If they've run out of cash then it's pretty basic cognitive reasoning that the backers wouldn't get diddly squat in refunds. So well played Sherlock, you've deduced the utterly obvious!

No refunds on pledges has always been in the ToS. They can't refund what they've spent on development.

[Slapmeandcallmegurl]

That's a blatant lie.

That's another blatant lie.

Nice try ignoring the ToS, including the changes, while posting what you know to be nothing but lies. Listen, we don't have time for this shit anymore. Either argue in good faith, or leave.

Holy shit man, can you read? It's there in black and white. Your own quote.

[dsmart]

Holy shit man, can you read? It's there in black and white. Your own quote.

That's precisely my point, it's there. In the image I posted. Which states if they failed to deliver within a certain period of time, a backer was entitled to a refund. Then they changed it. That's precisely why I posted the image with the diff.

[dsmart]

Clearly this guy knows nothing about financial development.

I'm not into game development, but i'm into business analytics and financial controlling. By the end of 2017, Cloud Imperium had about 14 million to pay their bills. Around 48 million per year have to be paid, some costs can be reduced immediately, other (f.e. employees) are more long term and you have to invest, to get rid of employees. For example if you force to quit a several amount of employees in a defined timeframe, you have to have a social plan for them in some countries, especially those located in the european union.

If you put this against the message, that they don't need more funds to complete the game (as said by Jesus himself), you see a complete lack of financial overview. Even if the game would be released right now, there would be a massive problem with financials anyway.

So what about the 46 million investment figure? Well if you take the release of 3.0, the 14 million in cash at the end of 2017, and the investment of 46 millions, you have to explain why exactly 46 million, why not 20 or 100 millions? Especially when you look at marketing of 7 millions in 2017, which is business critical because it's the only source to generating revenue. Is it really nessesary to have 46 millions again, to support the only working thing in this company, the marketing?

Well at this moment, you have to look at the investment itself. 46 millions for 10% percent of the company (not the product 42 or SC, the company itself). So the company must have a value of around 460 million in total. In a non-public company (not traded at stock market), the value is calculated roughly with the profit over 10 years, including future profits. Therefore they planning again with around 50 million profit, witch would be possible because the development costs and other stuff should drop if the product is finalized, and the software as a service would pay out.

But i would calculate it the other way around. Chris has a "just another year" mentality, so therefore he goes for the cheapest cash infusion possible. So 14 millions in 2017, 46 millions at the end of 2018 leads to the following calculation:
14 millions at 2017 => around 0 at the end of 2018 => incoming of backers dropped by 1.2 million per month in 2018.
46 millions at 2018 => around 0 at the end of 2020 => incoming of backers dropped by 2 millions per month in 2019/2020 (estimated). There should be the release of 42.
Somehow this is "last straw" behavior. If it pays out, the investor has a lot of revenue, of not 46 millions are peanuts. But the official statement, the 42 millions are going to marketing is simply wrong. This is almost two times the marketing cost summed up till 2012 (around 26 millions). For an already working and rolling marketing machine!

My prediction: If 42 is not released in 2020 with a super-duper release (i mean finacially), cloud imperium will close down at Q3/Q4 2020, going down as the biggest dumpster fire in crowd funding of all times.?

[Slapmeandcallmegurl]

That's precisely my point, it's there. In the image I posted. Which states if they failed to deliver within a certain period of time, a backer was entitled to a refund. Then they changed it. That's precisely why I posted the image with the diff.

"However, you acknowledge and agree that delivery on such date is not a firm promise and may be extended by RSI..."

[dsmart]

"However, you acknowledge and agree that delivery on such date is not a firm promise and may be extended by RSI..."

So now you've switch again. Nice try.

[Slapmeandcallmegurl]

Not really. But whatever floats your boat.

[Spunky Munkee]

Robbers did original;l have a delivery date and originally said that if we dont make our release date we will, in the interests of transparency have an audit made and release our financials. He said if you dont feel we are living up to our end of the bargain we will issue refunds.

That's the project I backed.

Then the slew of anti consumer changes occoured one by one stripping the backers of their real transparency or rights to exit.

[dsmart]

Who remembers this gem?

[dsmart]

FYRE Star Citizen

[dsmart]

Blast from the past where @ 23:00 Chris Roberts explains how a vertical slice is used to defraud publishers

[Scruffpuff]

Blast from the past were @ 23:00 Chris Roberts explains how a vertical slice is used to defraud publishers

It's difficult to find any instances of Chris Roberts talking about anything he understands or comprehends, so it was nice to see him discussing something he knows a good deal about.

[jwh1701]

It's difficult to find any instances of Chris Roberts talking about anything he understands or comprehends, so it was nice to see him discussing something he knows a good deal about.

LOL very true, this will be enjoyable to use when the right thread comes up.