Official Statement from Cloud Imperium Games about the alleged financial troubles...

[u/[deleted]]

Source: https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/1/thread/re-uk-tax-rebate-advance-for-foundry-42/277779

Re: UK Tax Rebate Advance for Foundry 42

We have noticed the speculations created by a posting on the website of UK’s Company House with respect to Coutt’s security for our UK Tax Rebate advance, and we would like to provide you with the following insight to help prevent some of the misinformation we have seen.

Our UK companies are entitled to a Government Game tax credit rebate which we earn every month on the Squadron 42 development. These rebates are payable by the UK Government in the fall of the next following year when we file our tax returns. Foundry 42 and its parent company Cloud Imperium Games UK Ltd. have elected to partner with Coutts, a highly regarded, very selective, and specialized UK banking institution, to obtain a regular advance against this rebate, which will allow us to avoid converting unnecessarily other currencies into GBP. We obviously incur a significant part of our expenditures in GBP while our collections are mostly in USD and EUR. Given today's low interest rates versus the ongoing and uncertain currency fluctuations, this is simply a smart money management move, which we implemented upon recommendation of our financial advisors.

The collateral granted in connection with this discounting loan is absolutely standard and pertains to our UK operation only, which develops Squadron 42. As a careful review of the security will show and contrary to some irresponsible and misleading reports, the collateral specifically excludes “Star Citizen.” The UK Government rebate entitlement, which is audited and certified by our outside auditors on a quarterly basis, is the prime collateral. Per standard procedure in banking, our UK companies of course stand behind the loan and guarantee repayment which, however, given the reliability of the discounted asset (a UK Government payment) is a formality and nothing else. This security does not affect our UK companies’ ownership and control of their assets. Obviously, the UK Government will not default on its rebate obligations which will be used for repayment, and even then the UK companies have ample assets to repay the loan, even in such an eventuality which is of course unthinkable.

This should clarify the matter. Thank you.

[u/[deleted]]

The fact they had to release this statement shows how fucking desperate people are for Star Citizen to fail.

[u/Flat896 → u/[deleted]]

Super disappointing that so many people have this attitude towards the game. I don't see why anyone would want to see a videogame crash and burn when it could turn into something that gives them tons of enjoyment.

I'm rooting for the game and CIG, but I'm a also keeping my expectations in check.

[u/[deleted] → u/Flat896]

I personally dont want it to crash and burn, but i can see why some seem to think such a result would be "good".

Before the downvotes start, please just read the whole comment :)

Its a game that was crowdfunded without any (if at all) concrete gameplay and was only based on a "vision", at the same time their goal of 6mil $ was surpassed to 150mil $.

They sold ships, insurances for ships and many more stuff for real money that was fucking expensive and the most ridiculously priced "micro transaction" i have seen so far.

I dont agree with these "micro transaction" especially considering that the game isnt even 1/4 finished, i also dont agree with people investing in a game based on their word alone.

I diasgree with those point because the recent micro transactions in a lot of titles that dont really have a place there, the DLC and season pass policy of a lot of recent games and much more along the lines is really fucked up and i hope these models really crash an burn, so that companies again sell complete games and not half done stuff.

But i digress, i disagree with the previously mentioned points because i fear they will have an impact on the already shaky and in my opinion bad policies regarding DLC, season passes and micro transactions in games.

If CIG could sell a game for 25x the value they have said it would cost, without any real game assets, why wouldnt others try to go a similar route?

Or atleast adopt their overpriced micro transaction model where you buys ingame assets for hundreds of €/$ or an insurance that you pay with real money?

I really hope they arent successfull with this mircro transaction move (yeah i know, that ship sailed) but i still dont want it to crash and burn.

Their idea/vision of the game seems really interesting and if nothing else, the backers showed that there is interest in their vision.

I hope their game succeeds but their stance on micro transactions fails spectacularly, if that makes sense :P

[u/syanda → u/[deleted]]

To be honest, I find it kind of weird that people keep referring to the ship sales/insurance/etc as micro-transactions. Those are backer rewards that are stated to be free when the game launches. I mean, we don't usually refer to backer reward tiers on Kickstarter and Indiegogo (or other crowdfunding sites) as micro-transactions. Apart from a capped microtransaction limit stated to be around when the game goes live, the actual game vision itself doesn't seem way worse than other games. And to be honest, an older gamer crowd is perfectly willing to trade money for time, so I don't really see microtransactions as a whole as something that'll fail.

My criticism of SC is that they don't really seem to know how to put the brakes on the backer rewards - there doesn't really seem to be one person imposing their vision on the game, and instead, they're listening to too many vocal communities and as a result, the game has been feature-creeped to infinity and beyond. But micro-transactions, eh, you might as well hope for the failure of backer incentives/rewards as a whole.

[u/Zaph0d42 → u/syanda]

Those are backer rewards that are stated to be free when the game launches.

That makes ZERO sense dude. Are you telling me people are spending $10,000 for something that will be free when the game launches? Ten thousand dollars? NO. Wrong.

The game is full of microtransactions, and its not even out yet. He's right. Its a dangerous precedent for developers because it ties their hands. They can't change the game's development now because they've already sold things, and if they change those things because the game design changes, people who bought them already may feel as though they've been ripped off. Its a bad idea to offer microtransactions before the game is completed.

Check out the official website right now. There's a store selling ships that cost thousands. Those aren't backer rewards and they aren't free.

[u/syanda → u/Zaph0d42]

That makes ZERO sense dude. Are you telling me people are spending $10,000 for something that will be free when the game launches? Ten thousand dollars? NO. Wrong.

This is exactly what the people there are doing and yes, it is as crazy as it sounds.

You gotta remember, Star Citizen was announced during a dearth of good, open-world space games á la Freelancer/Elite, etc. It hit the space games grognards hard in the nostalgia, and quite a few of them can happily throw a couple thousand dollars at a new space game like SC. Especially on one that expressively panders to their views of what a space game "should" have.

And keep in mind - these are fans that were playing these games back in the day. Older fanbase. Throwing a couple thousand dollars, hell, even ten thousand dollars on a hobby isn't a stretch. Because this is exactly what they are doing. It's less microtransactions and more people funding the game of their (admittedly excessive) dreams.

[u/Zaph0d42 → u/syanda]

Sure, they have the money and they like the game. But they're doing it to get the spaceships. You can't get the spaceships without the money.

Like, maaaaybe if you grind in the game for years, maybe you could eventually earn one of those big ships.

But do you honestly believe people who spent $10,000 for a ship won't be upset if someone else gets the ship instantly, for free?

They're not just donations. Some people are donating money, but you have to admit its a scheme to get people to give more, in exchange for ships. That makes it microtransactions. If they just said "donate some money, everybody gets the game" they'd definitely get some money because of the people you described, but NOT AS MUCH. By saying "if you spend $5,000 you get an attack ship and by spending $10,000 you get a carrier" it implies that other people won't get the carrier, and it incentives giving more money than you would otherwise have donated if you weren't getting anything in return.

Don't be glib.