Star Citizen General BS

[dsmart]

Can't believe I'm about to argue this like a shitizen BUT:

Look through the guy's past videos, he's a critic rather than a fan. I'm guessing that he's pissed at CIG for not giving a refund & losing a lot of money or something.

He sounds pretty conspiratorial and all he quotes are "anonymous" sources.

I think this needs filing in the crackpot bin, at least until it gets reported independently by someone else (Derek / media), .

I agree. It's all bollocks. Also, old video. So.

[dsmart]

BREAKING! Word is a sizable portion of that $17.5m (triggered option) was used to settle the lawsuit with Crytek. Probably because CIG didn't have the cash on hand to fork it out. If true, I'm verily shocked.

It would also explain why the Calders decided to exercise their discount share price option when in fact they gave CIG $46m back in Summer 2018 for a game was supposed (yup, it's been delayed again) to be in Beta *THIS* qtr for a 2020 release.

https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/1245453181812977669

[dsmart]

BREAKING! Word is a sizable portion of that $17.5m (triggered option) was used to settle the lawsuit with Crytek. Probably because CIG didn't have the cash on hand to fork it out. If true, I'm verily shocked.

It would also explain why the Calders decided to exercise their discount share price option when in fact they gave CIG $46m back in Summer 2018 for a game was supposed (yup, it's been delayed again) to be in Beta *THIS* qtr for a 2020 release.

https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/1245453181812977669

Mar 23rd

https://www.docdroid.net/MjI2SL9/govuscourtscacd6964371260.pdf

Mar 27th

https://cloudimperiumgames.com/blog/corporate/cloud-imperium-additional-investment-from-existing-investors

I am pretty sure that's just a coincidence though 

[Motto]

No, because Crytek got Cryreckt, and Chris still can wave his hands, Calders decided to invest even more in the BDSSE. Djeez Derek, you of all people should know that 

[dsmart]

ICYMI

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/577242378?t=0h12m10s

- Guessed prior to announcement that it was original investors

- Spotted that the small buy in (9250 shares) was half of Infatrade initial buy in. They got it for 52% of original price. Indus (Calders) seemingly got theirs for 85% of initial price. The discounts suggest an actioned contractual right.

- Possibly an anti-dilution strategy. IE if more share issuing on the way.

- Corresponds roughly with Erin being moved off SQ42 etc in Jan. Possibly reflects a milestone being hit (or more likely missed).

- Indus would go up to 13% from 10% it seems, diluting Chris/Erin/Ortwin etc. (Over time could reduce Chris to below 50%, but not in striking distance yet)

[wiser3754]

I have to ask, if CRoberts and CiG are fearing a controlling interest from the Calders in the form of a 51% purchase, CiG would've included a clause to limit that yeah?

If so, can the Calders use proxies or third parties to shadow purchase controlling interest thereby kicking Chris off the chairman of the board?

[StanTheMan]

I have to ask, if CRoberts and CiG are fearing a controlling interest from the Calders in the form of a 51% purchase, CiG would've included a clause to limit that yeah?

If so, can the Calders use proxies or third parties to shadow purchase controlling interest thereby kicking Chris off the chairman of the board?

That's is a plausible sounding (to me) exit strategy once they have exhausted all the corona virus angles on ships, aliens, professions and face mask sales etc..

[dsmart]

I have to ask, if CRoberts and CiG are fearing a controlling interest from the Calders in the form of a 51% purchase, CiG would've included a clause to limit that yeah?

If so, can the Calders use proxies or third parties to shadow purchase controlling interest thereby kicking Chris off the chairman of the board?

I doubt it. The Calders won't need a controlling interest if their goal is to get rid of or sideline croberts. They aren't amateurs.

Also, there's no way they would have agreed to a contract that limits their ability to gain 51% of the company. Remember that back in 2018 when they gave $46m, they were in a position of strength because the project was insolvent. So Calders would have got anything they asked for at the time.

[jwh1701]

I doubt it. The Calders won't need a controlling interest if their goal is to get rid of or sideline croberts. They aren't amateurs.

I still do not understand the reason for the investment from the entities involved. I tried to work through every angle as an investor and just cannot fathom why? No matter who they removed they still have a mess that is mostly likely in need of a restart. There is so much wrong with CI for me to grapple with  I cannot see why they believe they could break even let alone windfall profits.


I keep thinking there is so much going on in the background that they are not letting anyone know about. PS5 / Xbox releases? Chris hoodwinking them but I doubt it.

[DemonInvestor]

@jwh1701
Well the whole thing is a high risk, high reward move. If they've negotiated well, they've secured additional brand rights. Meaning if CIG actually pulls off the release of something pulling in even bigger amounts of player, it could be quite a profitable brand (Star citizen the vacuumer, Star Citizen the flamethrower...). I mean the whole thing has quite the pull in the media.
Another thing is looking at how many stuff gets a minimum viable release and still keeps making money - when actually cutting back big time on devs.

But again, i personally don't see them having made a great decision with their investment. It's always about expectations with investment and mine might be overly negative, their overly positive. Who's right will be seen in the future - though we all have our expectations ;)

[N0mad]

I've always been puzzled by the Calder investment. It's possible they may have been looking to diversify away from music / films into games and saw SC as the stepping stone for that. Perhaps they even believed whatever BS Chris had promised them. On the other hand, maybe they've got an exit strategy in mind if the game never gets released and ship sales dry up. If I were them I'd do the following:

• keep the PU as-is, but just add bug fixes and sell new ships
• Move all devs to concentrate on the single player game but scale it back to individual levels rather than a galaxy sized open world
• Recycle the art assets into different projects
• Failing all that: take all the SQ42 art work and mo-cap and make an animated film / series for Netflix

All of this would involve side-lining Chris Roberts (even if that never gets mentioned officially). Some or all of that could be done whilst keeping up the pretence of continuing to make the PU even if the only thing you do is sell more ships. Just my thoughts.

[dsmart]

It's the standard high risk, high reward investor scenario. Worst case they would get the Star Citizen and Squadron 42 brands which are worth more than the money ($46M + $17.5M) they gave to Chris. Remember that these guys are into music and movies too. I outlined it all in my 2018 blog.

I mean, a bunch of investors kept giving Theranos money - even after it was widely known that they whole thing as a massive scam. It's not a new thing for investors to foolishly throw money away.

[jwh1701]

It's the standard high risk, high reward investor scenario. Worst case they would get the Star Citizen and Squadron 42 brands which are worth more than the money ($46M + $17.5M) they gave to Chris. Remember that these guys are into music and movies too. I outlined it all in my 2018 blog.

I mean, a bunch of investors kept giving Theranos money - even after it was widely known that they whole thing as a massive scam. It's not a new thing for investors to foolishly throw money away.

LOL i keep forgetting about Theranos and I'm faking a deep voice lady. My failure is trying to trying to think logically about investors. Even if the brand is worth more I can easily imagine is costing double or more to fix it.

[jwh1701]

@jwh1701

But again, i personally don't see them having made a great decision with their investment. It's always about expectations with investment and mine might be overly negative, their overly positive. Who's right will be seen in the future - though we all have our expectations ;)

That's my long-term feeling on how this will workout.

[jwh1701]

If I were them I'd do the following:

• keep the PU as-is, but just add bug fixes and sell new ships
• Move all devs to concentrate on the single player game but scale it back to individual levels rather than a galaxy sized open world
• Recycle the art assets into different projects
• Failing all that: take all the SQ42 art work and mo-cap and make an animated film / series for Netflix

We should have an contest on who can thoery craft on the outcome of the investment if it ever materializes.