Star Citizen - The E.L.E.

[Motto]

Now hold on Derek. If you continue on this course, you might be the cause of this game failing. You wouldn't want that now would you? Just leave the blame for the Brexit, because those pesky little UK pounds is what will get them in the end of course  :D

[dsmart]

Now hold on Derek. If you continue on this course, you might be the cause of this game failing. You wouldn't want that now would you? Just leave the blame for the Brexit, because those pesky little UK pounds is what will get them in the end of course  :D

Good point! 

[zoidy]

I have updated my blog (the bottom part) with his statement, and my comments.

But what does appear to be true is the loan agreement is for SQ42, not SC, as Narrenbart & I were discussing earlier? That's what I thought from the document, albeit I'm still confused what the actual definition is of the "Game", as it explicitly seems to exclude Star Citizen but doesn't explicitly include SQ42, and as Narrenbart noted there's no reference to the Excluded Collateral earlier in the agreement.

But it does appear to me that it's the non Star Citizen "Game" that's being referred to, which I guess means SQ42?

[dsmart]

I have updated my blog (the bottom part) with his statement, and my comments.

But what does appear to be true is the loan agreement is for SQ42, not SC, as Narrenbart & I were discussing earlier? That's what I thought from the document, albeit I'm still confused what the actual definition is of the "Game", as it explicitly seems to exclude Star Citizen but doesn't explicitly include SQ42, and as Narrenbart noted there's no reference to the Excluded Collateral earlier in the agreement.

But it does appear to me that it's the non Star Citizen "Game" that's being referred to, which I guess means SQ42?

That's a Red Herring. The list of included assets already surpasses anything that could be listed in the "excluded assets" list. Which means that it's probably correct in the loan docs - which we don't have access to.

Similarly, if it was for Squadron 42, it would be stated as thus. There is no mention of SQ42 in the filing.

[dsmart]

https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/879093065033625607

[zoidy]

I have updated my blog (the bottom part) with his statement, and my comments.

But what does appear to be true is the loan agreement is for SQ42, not SC, as Narrenbart & I were discussing earlier? That's what I thought from the document, albeit I'm still confused what the actual definition is of the "Game", as it explicitly seems to exclude Star Citizen but doesn't explicitly include SQ42, and as Narrenbart noted there's no reference to the Excluded Collateral earlier in the agreement.

But it does appear to me that it's the non Star Citizen "Game" that's being referred to, which I guess means SQ42?

That's a Red Herring. The list of included assets already surpasses anything that could be listed in the "excluded assets" list. Which means that it's probably correct in the loan docs - which we don't have access to.

Similarly, if it was for Squadron 42, it would be stated as thus. There is no mention of SQ42 in the filing.

Well that's what I've been saying - there's a reference to the "Game", but no definition of it. But what is explicitly referenced as being excluded is "the video game provisionally titled Star Citizen". So it's either SQ42, without directly referencing it, or the exclusion clause isn't accurate. I have to think it's more likely it's the former.

BUT ... that still means SQ42, and presumably (and perhaps most importantly?) the hours of footage they paid Hollywood movie stars to make, is included, as well as all the code assets etc at the UK studio. And it does seem unlikely it's about UK govt tax credits, that sounds nonsense to me 

[StanTheMan]

I have updated my blog (the bottom part) with his statement, and my comments.

But what does appear to be true is the loan agreement is for SQ42, not SC, as Narrenbart & I were discussing earlier? That's what I thought from the document, albeit I'm still confused what the actual definition is of the "Game", as it explicitly seems to exclude Star Citizen but doesn't explicitly include SQ42, and as Narrenbart noted there's no reference to the Excluded Collateral earlier in the agreement.

But it does appear to me that it's the non Star Citizen "Game" that's being referred to, which I guess means SQ42?

That's a Red Herring. The list of included assets already surpasses anything that could be listed in the "excluded assets" list. Which means that it's probably correct in the loan docs - which we don't have access to.

Similarly, if it was for Squadron 42, it would be stated as thus. There is no mention of SQ42 in the filing.

Well that's what I've been saying - there's a reference to the "Game", but no definition of it. But what is explicitly referenced as being excluded is "the video game provisionally titled Star Citizen". So it's either SQ42, without directly referencing it, or the exclusion clause isn't accurate. I have to think it's more likely it's the former.

BUT ... that still means SQ42, and presumably (and perhaps most importantly?) the hours of footage they paid Hollywood movie stars to make, is included, as well as all the code assets etc at the UK studio. And it does seem unlikely it's about UK govt tax credits, that sounds nonsense to me 

OK but ... this is one example of why corporate lawyers earn so much.   

If the loan agreement is a mess it is going to cost a lot of lawyering to sort it out and there will be plenty of precedent for both sides to use.

[StanTheMan]

https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/879093065033625607

Unless the banker is wrong, even if Coutts were to have asked for this collateral, CIG would have gone elsewhere to get this loan without such encumbrance.

Mind you, any company that can employ Andy Serkis to do MOCAP and then fuck it up to the degree CIG/CRobers has, can screw up anything.

[dsmart]

https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/879093065033625607

Unless the banker is wrong, even if Coutts were to have asked for this collateral, CIG would have gone elsewhere to get this loan without such encumbrance.

Mind you, any company that can employ Andy Serkis to do MOCAP and then fuck it up to the degree CIG/CRobers has, can screw up anything.

What do you mean? The fact that they agreed to this sort of collateral, means they had no choice.

[Greggy_D]

This loan is their Hail Mary pass.

They need the cash to get them to Gamescon and 3.0.  The future of CIG is riding on how much they pull in during those events.

[Ghostmaker]

This loan is their Hail Mary pass.

They need the cash to get them to Gamescon and 3.0.  The future of CIG is riding on how much they pull in during those events.

And then what? Remember, as people have noted repeatedly, they do not have a game. You cannot walk into Best Buy, or log onto Steam, and buy Star Citizen. It is not released.

Ergo, they have no cash flow from people purchasing. This isn't complex, it's business 101.

What they have are people who are buying 'futures', effectively paying for future benefits in the game. This isn't new -- heck, you could argue that Patreon and crowdfunding work off it -- but I doubt they're bringing in enough cash as time goes on and the development cycle gets longer and longer. People are reading the Doc's writings, and OSC's writings, and are starting to ask uncomfortable questions.

[dsmart]

That's basically it. Even if they make money at both of these upcoming events, they are still going to be right back here a few months later because they still do not have a finished product to sell.

[dsmart]

These comments was so straightforward for laymen to understand, I added them to my blog update from this morning.

“GBP has strengthen over the last bit, but USD is still quite strong. Unless they expect the GBP to materially fall, converting USD now will still buy a lot more GBP, and in turn British labor, than it would have a few years ago. If this were about f(x), they could manage currency risks through derivatives, which does not require collateralized lending. Maybe there is an angle I am not seeing as f(x) trading is its own discipline in finance, but the whole f(x) argument by Ortwin feels like a smokescreen. Pigs get fed, hogs get slaughtered.”

https://www.pcgamesn.com/star-citizen/star-citizen-loan-coutts-and-co

“Question remains why they need such a small loan now (tax rebate is estimate below $5 million) and why they had to give the bank a floating charge and negative pledge. It’s not currency exchange rate, that is the biggest bullshit i ever heard because neither CIG nor the Bank knows how the pound will develop and it might even cost CIG more if the pound recovers.

Floating Charge means that from now on everything F42 UK does is covered as collateral even if it does not exist yet. They create a new ship, it’s automatically part of the collateral. Which extends to Star Citizen. The exclusion of Star Citizen is in name only (the IP).

Negative Pledge means that F42UK and parent company can not get any other loans. If for example CIG US would try to get a loan in the US and send money to CIG UK they would be in breach of contract and default on the loan.

This is typically only done for bailout loans. Never for a simple advance on tax were you typically only put up the tax credit as security and maybe a savings account.

The Bank obviously thought that there is a good chance CIG will not make it to the end of the fiscal year to get the tax rebate and therefor asked them to put up everything. This is a private Bank that knows when to make profit and it is pretty obvious that they have attached a very high interest rate on this and hope CIG will default“

[mixalot]

This one is my favorite from the Eurogamer article:

"It's one thing to deliver late, it's quite another when you've already taken people's money. It doesn't matter if the developers are well meaning or not, this one's way out of control. If a little thing like this causes a panic, it's a sign that credibility has been worn out."

[StanTheMan]

It looks from Ortwins article re the loan that he has in fact gone bald as a coot.

Has he been pulling his own hair out or has someone been doing it for him ?