Search results

Well youre all over the place so I guess you have a point here. You remind me of politicians who make comments that all lead to a particular conclusion --in this case the economic inviability of CSI's business model-- only to disavow said conclusion when asked point blank.

Half of those are not factual but instead variations of the 'real scotsman' argument. They've already determined what ships they are going to use in the squadron 42 game and so yes new ships will not be in that game. They are also working on the MMO and that will have those ships by all...

Waving your hands at anecdotes may be fun and factual but for making a point it remains gratuitous nonsense. At some point are you going to discuss something other than halfassed economic supply side wishcasting and theorycrafting and actually discuss the company and its policies, revenue...

Oh noes I lost $100 from buying the Cutlass. Anyway, fraud would lead to criminal liability as well. Even the people that bought capital ships are not going to cause other companies to go under if they don't get the game. Point being the societal risk associated with crowdfunding is minimal...

The rub is that when you buy in as a VC firm you are expecting a percentage. CSI didn't sell stock. They sold you the game early for all intents and purposes. If they don't deliver a game I don't see why they are not subject to fraud laws. Ultimately you don't need stockholders or a board...

All hail our corporate overlords for without them we could never produce a marketable prototype. As an engineer that has had to deal with the paradigm you talk about its not all the roses you claim it to be. This is doubly so in high tech fields where CFO types often don't have the technical...