Cloud Imperium Issues Official Statement about Rumored Financial Issues

NoOther said:
No, because that is a retail product. There is no comparison to buying a hamburger at McDonalds and crowd funding. What kind of stupid analogy is that?
Click to expand...

I don't see how his analogy is stupid. You guys are the one arguing that this is an investment because you are preordering some item. If the argument is that you are purchasing a certain level reward that is you buying an item.

Hell above somebody said that there is no difference between me paying somebody $100 for a service and crowd funding. That is a retail transaction then.

If both parties agree from the start that X is going to be given for a promised Y in return, that is a retail transaction.
 
Exavior said:
I don't see how his analogy is stupid. You guys are the one arguing that this is an investment because you are preordering some item. If the argument is that you are purchasing a certain level reward that is you buying an item.

Hell above somebody said that there is no difference between me paying somebody $100 for a service and crowd funding. That is a retail transaction then.

If both parties agree from the start that X is going to be given for a promised Y in return, that is a retail transaction.
Click to expand...

Crowdfunding is not retail. It is not a preorder of some item. That is where your analogy fails. There is no guarantee of delivery. You are investing in the hopes that a game is going to be developed. They are not at all the same thing.

A pre-order is a guaranteed order of an item that will be available at a certain time. Ordering from McDonalds is a guarantee they will make and serve an item at that time, it isn't even a pre-order.
 
NoOther said:
Crowdfunding is not retail. It is not a preorder of some item. That is where your analogy fails. There is no guarantee of delivery. You are investing in the hopes that a game is going to be developed. They are not at all the same thing.
Click to expand...

The EU disagrees with you concerning Star Citizen (and so does California , Texas, and even CIG themseves). It is not an investment, it is a straight up purchase/pre-order.

"starting on February 1st, we will be required to charge VAT on all purchases (including digital goods) made through the Roberts Space Industries International website, similar to how we must charge sales tax on items sold in Texas and California."

https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/14433-VAT-Change-Announcement
 
LightsOut41 said:
The EU disagrees with you concerning Star Citizen (and so does California , Texas, and even CIG themseves). It is not an investment, it is a straight up purchase/pre-order.

"starting on February 1st, we will be required to charge VAT on all purchases (including digital goods) made through the Roberts Space Industries International website, similar to how we must charge sales tax on items sold in Texas and California."

https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/14433-VAT-Change-Announcement
Click to expand...

And if you did the kickstarter?
 
NoOther said:
And if you did the kickstarter?
Click to expand...

In this case, semantics. CIG converted all Kickstarter "pledges" into digital goods that could be gifted, sold on the grey market, melted, etc. That same Aurora you "pledged" for with Kickstarter could later be purchased when CIG moved to their store front model.
 
LightsOut41 said:
In this case, semantics. CIG converted all Kickstarter "pledges" into digital goods that could be gifted, sold on the grey market, melted, etc. That same Aurora you "pledged" for with Kickstarter could later be purchased when CIG moved to their store front model.
Click to expand...

Not semantics. Kickstarter is not the same company as CIG. Kickstarter has a different platform. The language in the law very specifically cited people who purchased through the CIG website. Also that is only the EU, TX, and CA.
 
I have no idea why you are arguing. CIG converted Kickstarter "pledges" into digital assets (which can be purchased) from their store front. Kickstarter raised slightly over 2M. 1/75th of the total so far.

NONE of it is an investment and all of it has become a purchase. CIG uses the term "purchase" in the link above.
 
LightsOut41 said:
I have no idea why you are arguing. CIG converted Kickstarter "pledges" into digital assets (which can be purchased) from their store front. Kickstarter raised slightly over 2M. 1/75th of the total so far.

NONE of it is an investment and all of it has become a purchase. CIG uses the term "purchase" in the link above.
Click to expand...

I was defending my own post, because I was and still am right. Those that originally backed were doing so by investing, that is the point of kickstarter to begin with.
 
NoOther said:
I was defending my own post, because I was and still am right. Those that originally backed were doing so by investing, that is the point of kickstarter to begin with.
Click to expand...

So, you're perfectly fine with the whole of your 401k being "invested" in buy-ins for this game?

Crowdfunding is not an investment. You're pre-ordering a product which isn't even guaranteed to be made. If it was an investment you would be purchasing stock in the company itself, not purchasing a product which may or may not be released. This is basic common sense.
 
SmokeRngs said:
So, you're perfectly fine with the whole of your 401k being "invested" in buy-ins for this game?

Crowdfunding is not an investment. You're pre-ordering a product which isn't even guaranteed to be made. If it was an investment you would be purchasing stock in the company itself, not purchasing a product which may or may not be released. This is basic common sense.
Click to expand...

These analogies are getting out of hand. Not all investments are the same. Why would I put all my money in any one basket? That is completely foolish.

Crowdfunding is very much an investment. There are many types of investments, not all of them involve stocks. It really isn't my problem you guys don't understand all the different types of investments out there.
 
NoOther said:
These analogies are getting out of hand. Not all investments are the same. Why would I put all my money in any one basket? That is completely foolish.

Crowdfunding is very much an investment. There are many types of investments, not all of them involve stocks. It really isn't my problem you guys don't understand all the different types of investments out there.
Click to expand...
in·vest·ment
inˈves(t)mənt/
noun
  1. 1.
    the action or process of investing money for profit or material result.
    "a debate over private investment in road-building"
    synonyms: investing, speculation; More

    Not that I care but you neither can profit nor receive material goods.


    You guys should argue whether SC is a material good.
 
Logan321 said:
I don't understand the netrage, to be honest. If you backed it, and you think it'll be a flop, get a refund or sell your pledge to someone else. If you didn't back it, why do you care? It's not your money.
Click to expand...
It isn't about it being or not being my money. It is about the impact that projects like this have on the industry as a whole. If you can't see that, well I'm sorry.
 
Krazy925 said:
in·vest·ment
inˈves(t)mənt/
noun
  1. 1.
    the action or process of investing money for profit or material result.
    "a debate over private investment in road-building"
    synonyms: investing, speculation; More

    Not that I care but you neither can profit nor receive material goods.


    You guys should argue whether SC is a material good.
Click to expand...


Lol, I can do that too:

[in-vest]

See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
verb (used with object)
1.
to put (money) to use, by purchase or expenditure, in something offering potential profitable returns, as interest, income, or appreciation in value.
2.
to use (money), as in accumulating something:
to invest large sums in books.

The point being, crowd funding is investing in a project with the hopes that it will be successful and you will get a reward. There are many different rewards types depending on the level of investment, some of them are even material. But it does not specifically have to be material. Many of these companies would not get money elsewhere, so they get investments through crowd funding to startup and develop their business, normally with the intention of delivering a particular product. The fact that there is even any argument over what it means to invest in something or if something is truly an investment is pretty ridiculous.

For instance, you may invest in family by giving them money to get an education. You are investing in their future. Generally you are not expecting a direct return on that. The real return is that your family does well and prospers. There are all kinds of investments and gains from investments.
 
Is there a semantics subforum somewhere? :D

I would agree it can be seen as an investment, in that it is a future-looking placement of money to generate something in the future, which is not guaranteed.
 
SO by the definition you can't invest time into anything? If I invest time into learning to weld better I can be a better welder. I don't weld for a living, or really at all anymore, so money plays zero part in that.

I don't get how people can't wrap their heads around that. And of course there's that one guy who's all like well dump your whole 401k into something.... and they say the people that got SC are the dumb ones...
 
Dekoth-E- said:
It isn't about it being or not being my money. It is about the impact that projects like this have on the industry as a whole. If you can't see that, well I'm sorry.
Click to expand...
Right, because all the successful crowd sourced games since have floundered. Oh wait, many were completed and some were even good. This isn't the first game to miss deadlines or require a huge budget or have feature creap. It's just the first one to crowd source AND provide regular updates on progress. I think the gaming industry has both good and bad examples to look to from this game.
 
Logan321 said:
Right, because all the successful crowd sourced games since have floundered. Oh wait, many were completed and some were even good. This isn't the first game to miss deadlines or require a huge budget or have feature creap. It's just the first one to crowd source AND provide regular updates on progress. I think the gaming industry has both good and bad examples to look to from this game.
Click to expand...

Careful your bias is showing. This is about far more than a crowd funded game and simple feature creep and you should know it unless you are really that deep in denial. This is a crowd funded game that had adopted a clear pay to win model for a game so broad in scope that it is difficult to make a rational argument that this isn't an extremely elaborate scam. This "game" has been mishandled every single step of the way in ways that would get most companies crucified over. It had been plagued with not only feature creep, but gross mismanagement, blatantly made up information regarding release schedules and a slew of other problems that I cannot for a second understand how anyone could deny. This all given the history of the guy in charge makes it so unlikely this isn't an elaborate scam that one could actually make a more realistic argument that the moon landings were faked.

If this isn't an elaborate scam, then it has been so grossly mishandled that the entire management needs to be fired.
 
Your getting closer with your second half statement there, it's not a scam, it does have some bad management tho. I don't think he needs fired but there does need to be someone brought in who is objective about it. Chris puts too much passion into it and that's in my opinion why we are where we are. If they can bring someone in who can make that divide between emotional decision and rational decision that isn't so tied to the project I think it could speed things up. I think if it was up to Chris and Chris only then this would go on for years because he loves the project and can't stop saying O that's cool put that in there. If there was someone who actually was allowed to make the decision to say No and it sticks we'd be a lot further along. Throwing out Chris' passion would be a huge loss to the project but there does need to be someone who can stop the feature creep

Also, I'm not entirely sure you can have a pay to win in such an open ended concept like this. Maybe on the "guild" level but not on the person level. There is no clearly defined finish line, and even if one guy bought an idris and has enough friends to actually fly the damn thing, someone else could solely be interested in science or exploration or mining and not give 2 flying fucks about the capital ship that's in one tiny corner of the in game universe. If it was a purely combat game then maybe it would be pay to win at first until people had the in game assets to get the bigger ships, but it's not just combat, and because of the scale of the game one ship isn't going to make a shit ton of difference in the end to any one. Now maybe a guild as a whole could own a planet or a sector or something, but then other guilds or just groups of players could unite and collectively butt fuck them if the need arises, which in my mind just adds to the collective universe of the game
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top