Derek Smart Profile picture
Dec 4, 2017 29 tweets 6 min read
Once in awhile, I get a Star Citizen scoop so shocking, that even with trusted sources, I remain skeptical. We've been debating how on Earth they could raise $1m a day for 2 days straight when they've struggled ALL Nov to raise money.
Amid that debate, as CIG has done in the past in which they react to public (especially stuff that I write) opinion & perception in the most hilarious way, it appears that they've done it again.
Only this time, seeing that the anniversary Nov fundraising had taken a catastrophic dip, they've apparently done what they always do: inflate the funding chart to suspicious levels.
We've known for sometime now, with *concrete* evidence, that the funding chart is complete nonsense, designed to show backer confidence in the project, but desperation means mistakes get made.
And this time, with the inflated numbers for Dec 1 & 2, they've made the biggest mistake yet, and completely shown their hand and added more evidence to this notion that the chart is pure nonsense.
We know it doesn't track refunds, investor money, loans, taxes etc. They *claim* it doesn't track subscriptions, though that one is up in the air because it NEVER falls below a certain number - EVER.
Basically, as part of the on-going scam, the public facing funding chart is part of the confidence scam used to give backers a false sense of security in order to avoid panic.
Like the project, it's basically a marketing gimmick that bears very little relevance to the reality of the situation. And it's all perfectly legal as it relates to perception.
I am quite certain that the US and UK corps that gave them loans, are well aware of the true financials of the company. Which is why the Coutts loan, this past Summer, forced them to restate their earnings going back 2 years.
How they explain to these corps the discrepancy between the funding chart and their actual financials, is the sort of thing that creative accounting is derived from.
Multiple sources, even those who hear it through third-party within the studios, are well aware that they are financially unstable as they do NOT have the funding to complete the project. It's not even a secret anymore.
The land sale desperation, in which they CLEARLY state that having raised $166m (at that time) was to continue raising funds, is yet another Red flag that most ignore.…
With the one year late 3.0 having been rushed to the public testing ahead of the anniversary sale, still a complete disaster, the amount of work still left to do, is mind-boggling to say the least.
And we're not even talking about features, but also the fact that most of the JPEG ships they have been selling, aren't even in the game. Some are 4 years old since being sold!
Then we talk about the game world itself. Seriously, this is an actual representation of the world they have built. Stanton? Three moons. That's it.
Back in the Summer when a source told me that the internal and public dev schedules were different, and that the latter was a sham, that was no joke. Then backers took notice.
How did CIG react to the fact that bugs keep piling up, while not being addressed? They REMOVED the bug counts from the schedule. Completely.
Last time I checked, in addition to the 3000+ bugs in the 2.6.3 patch released this past April, 3.0 by itself has generated over 1100 more - and climbing.…
All of this amounts to one simple fact: The game is never - ever - getting completed. And if what I am hearing (and can't share) is true, what comes next is even more astounding than land sales and key people exiting the project.
Throughout the history of the video game industry NO project has EVER succeeded just by throwing money at it. Not a single one. There is a reason that such projects get canceled.
But none of that matters. What matters is that the remaining backers still funding this train wreck through Sunk Cost Fallacy, are about to get the rude awakening they SHOULD have seen coming a mile away. We'll be here to remind them.
Before I forget, this accounting of the 3.0 version over the weekend, comes from a long-time backer who just wanted the game he paid for. Read it.…
And in case you weren't aware, CIG has been charging backers $10 to get access (via subs) to the 3.0 build - for a game they ALREADY PAID for.
Meanwhile, this is from the perspective of an outsider looking in.
Sandi Gardiner, on the record back in Dec 2015 about the funding chart, and taking pressure off backers. $100M raised. Watch 6:55-10:00
Sandi Gardiner, on the record back in Mar 2014 about deceptive sales practices. $40M raised. Listen 18:15 - 18:40

I swear, when these clowns eventually get sued, discovery is going to be an absolute blast. This is why we've been working diligently to preserve EVERYTHING off-line.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Derek Smart

Derek Smart Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @dsmart

Oct 10, 2020
Well don't look now, but SQ42 no longer has a release date. Wait till you see Chris's response in an AMA on the game's 8th (it's actually 9, but whose counting?) anniversary.…
As Star Citizen turns eight years old, the single-player campaign still sounds a long way off…
But wait! Are you old enough to remember this 2014 interview?…
Read 7 tweets
Oct 8, 2020
So there's a new Star Citizen controversy brewing and which various parties are diving into. I haven't done much digging, so I will just provide some of my own thoughts.

First of all, I want to make this clear - again...
Star Citizen devolved into an absolute scam years ago. The basis for the scam is that the creators and primaries were busy focused on unjust enrichment by taking money out of the project, rather than putting money into it. This has gone on for years now.
To the extent that not only have they done shady financial things like building a corp with backer money, then selling back that corp to themselves, but also taking out large sums from the venture, even as they run out of money year after year.
Read 28 tweets
Sep 29, 2020
For context, you'd have to do some catching up on my tweets since this fiasco started. To be clear, as a veteran game dev for 30+ yrs, as I see it, this battle was a long-time in the making, and needed to be waged.
Though some of my peers & colleagues in the biz are hesitant to publicly opine given the parties involved, my view is that with all the confusion as to the merits of the matter and what it means to gamers and game devs, this discussion is worth having cuz feelz aren't relevant.
To get started, this is what I said on 08/13 when news of the lawsuit went public, and which goes back to what I just stated in the first tweet of this thread.

Read 46 tweets
Sep 25, 2020
This is a very big deal indeed.

Amazon’s Luna game streaming service is powered by Windows and Nvidia GPUs…
When Google decided to do Stadia, maybe they thought that because most of the leading game engines supported Linux - and thus Vulcan api for graphics - that devs would rush on board.
Thing is, like OGL, Vulcan hasn't exactly lit our collective butts on fire because it's new (to those not keeping up to date), and it's a major hassle to implement in a graphics pipeline. Forget about porting from DX to Vulcan; it makes grown men wheep.
Read 9 tweets
Sep 21, 2020
If you thought Chris couldn't be any more, what's the word - dismissive? Well, he told the community that he's so busy that he can't answer their [important] questions. However, he will answer a SINGLE question. I swear I'm not making this up:…
"Tony’s goal (goal != promise) is to have elements of the Dynamic Universe start to come online next year, likely towards the back half of the year, where player’s actions can impact both the Dynamic Economy and other players."
Read 6 tweets
Sep 16, 2020
Epic Games lawsuit is just a publicity stunt, says Apple… via @benlovejoy
lmao! I doubt that very much. Despite my misgivings about how Epic went about this lawsuit and which was only revealed via Apple's filings (emails), Epic could have more publicity impact by putting money for these legal bills into worthy causes - or even marketing.
Generally, a company that has traditionally supported devs the way Epic has over the years, aren't likely to put those same devs at risk by engaging in a protracted publicity stunt like this and which has severe consequences.
Read 13 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!


0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy


3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!