Star Citizen Online - The search for more money

Yeah, it was insulin and old-school antibiotics I was thinking of - they do genuinely go off.

And in actual SC related news:What are the pros and cons for CIG to voluntarily disclose company finances? - Page 4 - RSI Community Forums
"We can't tell you how we've spent the money as it might make people angry"

Um...saying something like that isalsogoing to make people angry.
HTH.

Itzena_sl said:

Yeah, it was insulin and old-school antibiotics I was thinking of - they do genuinely go off.

And in actual SC related news:What are the pros and cons for CIG to voluntarily disclose company finances? - Page 4 - RSI Community Forums
"We can't tell you how we've spent the money as it might make people angry"

Um...saying something like that isalsogoing to make people angry.
HTH.

Click to expand...

I get his point and he is right, but holy fuck that is just throwing fuel on the fire.

Mist_sl said:

It would also mean disclosing everyone's pay which is kinda illegal?

Click to expand...

It's not illegal, also I'm pretty sure they could just be like literally every other company out there and have cost centers and a big 'payroll' sum per month.

I side with CIG on that issue. It's silly to think a company will just disclose financials because of accusations. They don't for a myriad of reasons. Unless it's the FTC that is asking, any company will tell them to fuck off.

I think the issue comes in that their company wouldn't exist except for crowdfunding. It's a complicated issue that doesn't quite have a traditional answer for it.

In my opinion if they succeed it will be heralded as a golden age of 'microinvestors' and be the shining beacon of capitalism blah blah and if they fail it will go down as a massive scandal, everything will be ripped apart and the government will regulate crowdfunding into obsolescence.

Tuco_sl said:

A source is anonymous if their identity isn't published.
Source (journalism) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When a publication uses an anonymous source they are saying, "This person who has real credibility says this. You will have to trust us that A: That person has credibility. B: That person said this.". This means the publication becomes part of the news rather than reporting it (which is bad), but in this case the worst part is that the Escapist has no credibility, so it can't be taken seriously.

When WaPo relied on anon sources for the Watergate scandal we were talking about a top shelf publication betting their very valuable reputation. If it turned out to be tripe they had a lot to lose. In this case we're talking about a mediocre gaming news site paying bottom dollar on shit-tier gaming journalists trying to make click bait. They simply don't have the standing to use anon sources and not be laughed out of the room by anyone who cares about journalistic integrity.

Click to expand...

Michael Lewis, Tom Keene and Charlie Rose would have to disagree with nearly everything written Tuco. All 3 won their awards by staking a 'Watergate' on page 1. I like you alot Tuco, but in our modern era some of the finest journalism has come from blogs and non-conventional news agencies. The Sandusky Affair, the NYSE rebate scandal, the Crude oil and LIBOR fixing and the Lehman fiasco were all broken by "pulp" journalists, who are now kind of big deals.

The big difference is since 1980 and the Atari scandal there have been very little actual "journalism" in the video game media. In fact, I can't think of a single expose which actually had a lick of investigative reporting in the gaming media since the EA overtime scandal in 2011.

Forbes is now covering the story too. Pretty much a good summary of the whole situation.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasoneva...nd-retraction/

You know it's serious when they demand personal apology to a dude's wife, the White Knight only appears in moments of need to defend the honor of fair maidens vigorously.

Tuco_sl said:

...If they went to court would they be obliged to open the books to a third party or the public?

Click to expand...

If they went to court it's almost certain they'd have to release financial details as evidence; whether those details then become public knowledge or not I'm not sure, I've a feeling they would. It would be pretty stupid of CIG to go down this path unless their finances are sound enough to refute the story.

Journalism and the media today are built on anonymous sourcing. We see it all the time in sports journalism. Whenever there is a leak of some sort, nobody questions the 'vetting' of said anonymous sources. Is it because it's coming from the Escapist? (although I think SC fanboys would be going crazy no matter who was doing the reporting). If it was I guess a more 'verified' game journalist (PC Gamer, Polygon even Kotaku), would more be taking the side of the journalist?

I haven't been following SC, I only caught up with the recent dust up. I wanted it to be clear that I have little connection to the project when I say that I didn't realize what a cult-like mentality had sprung up around the project. The first wtf moment came when I caught somewhere yesterday that the "design document" for the ship I was mocking earlier actually costs$350. I cannot even fathom why anyone would give anyone so much money for something that so little thought and effort was put into. The only explanation is that the emotional buy-in to this project is enormous and primarily based off whatever fantasies people have conjured up in their minds.

I have little trouble believing that the Escapist's reporting on the project itself is accurate and it really does have the kind of problems that the leaks have described, mostly because I have lived through it myself no less than three times. When I first read their plans I had an eye-roll moment because it was clear that although they did receive a lot of money, they didn't quite understand how far that money would go. That is not a very good first sign. $90M certainly does seem like a lot of money, and it is, but seasoned game development studios have burned through much more than that on projects far less ambitious. CiG is a new studio, the creative director hasn't made a game in many years, and the scope is larger than any game that has ever been released successfully. I suppose anything is possible... but some things are less likely. I think SC delivering on everything as promised, and as reasonable people have imagined it to be, is in the realm of not very likely.

As to the reporting itself... anonymity is not something to be that skeptical of as publicly airing a company's dirty laundry is extremely risky and can lead to being blackballed across the industry. If you decide to burn that bridge then you stand a very real chance of becoming unhire-able and ending your career. It is especially true for something like SC as the more high profile the project you spill on, the more easily potential employers will find that you ran your mouth. If you recall from a decade gone by the infamous (on these forums) F13 interview about the collapse of Sigil was also anonymous (although certain FoH board postings were less so). That spill was 100% totally and completely true.

The personal and HR stuff is in the who knows and who cares section of the report, I have no idea if that is true or not. In the end, if the game is good when it comes out I have no problem buy it, as I love space sim games.