Health of the game (SC)

[EchoSeven]

So recently, there has been a lot of information coming out that raises questions about the project.

I'm not here to encourage people to decide one way or another, but there's enough there for me to decide that a less risky approach is called for.

If the game is fantastic, a guaranteed winner, has everything I want and it is going to get made, Chris gets $3000. Less confident, $1000. Concerns? Even less.

What's given me concerns? The leak from a employee recently (working in art) sounds a bit too familiar with what I have experienced in some companies myself and are giving me the warning signals as well as general messages from people exiting, as well as higher profile departures.

I've copied it below, don't read it if you don't want to and your perfectly happy with where you are at. If anyone does want to reduce the level of commitment to the game, touch base with me and I will give you some information about how best to to do it.

Why I'm Leaving CIG

Based on the quality bar that has been set for this project, a Star Citizen character takes me anywhere from 3-6 weeks to get in game. I have been working at CIG for 17 months. In that time I have completed exactly 5 characters. That's 24 weeks at most.

So why is this?

Ingredients for Success

There are three main ingredients that are needed to produce quality characters for a project. These are concept, budget, and time.

To say it simply, a character is usually only as good as its concept, since it is the concept that defines the parameters of the execution of the character. There can certainly be bad models created from good concepts, but rarely do bad concepts produce good models. Since the concept is the biggest influence of the model, then it is of utmost importance that the concept doesn't change once the model has been started. Rob and Megan are two very talented artists that have produced great concepts for us since I have been here. It's when either these concepts are changed during model creation, or after model completion, that causes problems. This is when direction wants changes to the design of the character rather than the implementation of the concept.

There is an important distinction to be made about asset feedback. Different stages in the process require different types of feedback. If a concept gets approved, then the only feedback for the completed model should be about how well the concept was realized and the quality of the model (sculpt, textures). When the feedback on the model is about the design ("I don't like the leg straps") then the problem is with the concept, not the model. I have been doing this long enough to know that sometimes problems don't come to the surface until after the model is created, sometimes things just don't translate to 3D the way you expected. But this should be the exception, not the rule. This was a perpetual problem in my time here, a concept gets approved, and then unapproved after the model is created- concept level feedback on models.

In looking over the models of the FPS Marines and Pirates, it should be clear that some are better than others. The difference in quality? Concept. The Heavy Marine and Heavy Pirate had completed concepts that did not change through the building of the model. They are a balanced and polished piece of art as intended by the concept artist. The others? Their concepts changed repeatedly during the model building. They crawled to the finish line as Frankenstein assets, cobbled together by different artists. The next important factor is budget. Anyone who has worked in game art knows that quality is not measured in a vacuum. Quality only exists relative to the available budget- tris and pixels. You plan and build your character based on the budget you expect to have. When I started here, I was astounded to learn that no one was able to tell me the budget for character assets. People seemed to be operating under the mantra "It's CryEngine, the budget is irrelevant" This attitude for game art production is suicide in a bottle. This apparently is still a difficult question to answer. In the absence of budget, Roberts judges all game assets against his own imagination or an asset in another game.

Time is the last ingredient. When an artist is moved off and on an asset, the asset suffers. Staying in the"zone" on a character keeps the motivation high, the excitement stays constant and keeps the momentum constant for moving through the difficulties encountered. Your energy tends not to stall when you can go at an asset full bore through the life of the process. Very rarely did anything I worked on enjoy unbroken attention from me. I know there are always times when the project demands you to hop on something, put out a fire, but this has been a chronic problem during my time here.

The Sataball Suit, the last asset we made, was met with satisfaction and praise. What was different? We started with a clear, approved concept, a clear budget, and were given the time to build the model. The methods for creating this model were completely traditional, no new pipeline. The pipeline was never the problem. The problem was not getting the three required ingredients. When we get what we need, we can shine.

Completion and Unapproval

The simple feeling of completing a task is something that we all take for granted. Whether it's graduating with a degree or emptying the sink of dirty dishes, the feeling that you have actually done something (especially if it is difficult) gives your day, your week, or your life a sense of progression. You are moving forward and hopefully bettering your situation. We all thrive on the satisfaction of completing a task.

This is why redoing a task over and over again is so draining to the psyche. Now, to be clear- I expect to have to redo things at times. Sometimes the circumstances change, the asset becomes problematic, or the bar has been greatly raised by adjacent assets within the context of the game.

Redoing something more than once? Repeatedly? Every asset? Repeatedly? It is clearly not about the asset or the artist. Several times since I have been here, I have had an asset approved by CR only to learn weeks or months later that he had decided that it wasn't good enough.

One production phenomenon that has become familiar to anyone working under Roberts is 'Unapproval.' That is, when something that was previously approved becomes unacceptable later on in production for reasons known to Roberts only. It is usually based on whim or a nebulous quality bar that has shifted.

When you get approval only to have it revoked later on, repeatedly, approval becomes meaningless. It is no longer a metric of progression. It does not energize or motivate you. It is met with apathy or cynicism.

Redoing the same asset over and over again kills the spirit, and I suspect this was largely the reason the UK character team collapsed.

Ownership

It is essential that artists take ownership of their assets. It is what drives an artist, draws forth the best of their abilities, and makes them stick through the difficult points in the process of creation. There is nothing more satisfying for an artist than to look at a completed work and saying "I made that". Ownership also makes it easy to know who is accountable for problems with the asset and forces artists to work in a clean and efficient manner that minimizes future problems because they know that they alone will be held responsible if their asset breaks something or looks bad. When assets are perpetually passed from artist to artist, especially if they are "ducktaping" work done by other artists, there is zero sense of ownership. You are the clean-up crew instead of the creator and this very quickly saps your motivation to do your best. Why? Well because you can't really claim ownership. It wasn't your asset.

Authority and Responsibility

When someone is hired for a position there is a direct ratio of the authority that they can expect to have, and the amount of responsibility that they will be expected to have. A junior level artist doesn't expect to be able to make any real decisions on how things are done, but no one would hold them responsible if the pipeline or character art as a whole is sub-par. Conversely, a Lead should expect to have most of the control on pipeline and asset review, and for that privilege and trust they trade accountability for the pipeline efficiency and asset quality as a whole. Because they make larger scale decisions on the system, they a held accountable for what that system produces.

It became clear within a matter of weeks of working at CIG, that all the decisions for the character pipeline and approach had been made- by Roberts. It became clear that this was a company-wide pattern- CR dictates all. Instead of articulating the standard for approval and allowing the team to develop the best methods to meet this bar, Roberts dictates what the method is, usually with a fraction of the knowledge that the employee has over their particular field. Then, when the plan or method fails to produce the results CR wants, the employee inevitable takes the blame, after all they are responsible for their corner of the game.

The Bus

When you have someone at the top who wants to make every decision but is accountable for no decisions he makes and is keen on publicly blaming those beneath him for those bad decisions, it creates an environment of people desperate to avoid that blame. Since no one can hold CR accountable, and they certainly don't want to be made out at fault, they point fingers at anyone else. This breeds distrust and resentment among coworkers. I have been a victim of undue blame at times and am sure that I have thrown others under the bus as well.

Forrest

Forrest became involved in the character pipeline when it was decided to redo the FPS characters. I like Forrest on a personal level. I think he is a good guy at heart and is doing the best job he can with the experience and personality he has. His mandate from CR was to improve the look of the characters. So what is the problem? Experience and attitude. Forrest came into the character pipeline full force. He had already decided what was lacking for characters. Namely- the ship art pipeline and techniques. He was not concerned with budget and memory. He was not concerned with time. He wanted what CR wanted- great looking screenshots. He dismissed my concerns about the time it will take to do characters like ships, tri count, and memory. He told me that I didn't know how to model characters (after eight years of doing this). Forrest is very green, but more importantly it is obvious that he does not know how to deal with conflict or even disagreement. Putting someone with so little experience in games and no experience with characters in charge of the character team was frankly insulting. Billy and I spent a month undoing many of the ship techniques that Forrest had insisted on- mostly multiple materials and how the UVs were laid out. I wouldn't expect someone at Forrest's experience level to know what is common sense to anyone who has shipped a title. That is-plan for the game, not for screenshots and know that you will have less memory than you think. Forrest made every rookie mistake in the book in his charge, but what was worse is that he mowed down anyone who challenged his naive assumptions with insults and dismissal. With CR at his back, he stomped around like a child wearing his Father's boots. Convincing Forrest that he might be wrong about something is a campaign in itself. Forrest might have value from his contributions to other areas of the art, but his involvement with characters was wasteful in time and effort, and absolutely corrosive to moral. He is simply the wrong man for the job and is one of my biggest reasons for leaving.

The Elephant in the room

Visions are cheap. Ideas are cheap. A good leader is not simply someone with a vision or a great idea. A good leader not only has the vision, but they can communicate that vision to the team, and more importantly they inspire and energize the team members with that vision. Chris Roberts might have a vision but he can't communicate it. And therefore, no one on the team knows what it is. This is known to every team member, certainly of the art team. Roberts is not an artist and it is clear he is not a visual communicator. The basic understanding of macro vs micro, what is essential to the piece and what is not, completely escapes him. Everything is of equal importance- the laces on the boot are just as important as the overall value pallet and silhouette, in many cases more. This is indicative of Robert's extreme lack of understanding of the most basic of artistic principals. That level of ignorance and lack of visual depth for an artist would be problematic, but for someone at a director level, it is absolutely crippling to a project.

Robert's deficit wouldn't be much of a problem if he trusted the vision of the art directors, people who are actually artist and have directed other artists. But he doesn't, insisting that he is the only one who can direct the artists. I suspect this is an issue of ego, a man intent on appearing like a visionary. But regardless, the results so far have been disastrous, rife with perpetual rework, wasted time, and mass frustration. No one can buy into CR's artistic vision because no one, including CR, seems to know what it is.

So the one thing that no one discusses is the biggest problem. Roberts is someone who on a companywide level is always feared, but never respected. His direction is met with nervous compliance to his face, and rolled-eyed resentment behind his back. When his orders are articulated later to the rest of the team, and basic questions of logic and practicality are inevitable asked, they are met not with an explanation of why CR's idea is a good one, but the importance of his happiness. The explanation is always the same- "I know it makes no sense, but that's what CR wants".

This team is filled with people who have experience publishing other titles. Lots. We all know how it is "supposed" to be done. But everyone is faced with the same repeated dilemma, a choice- make CR happy or do what works for the game? Short term survival vs long term wins. And unfortunately it's the survival option that wins out, mainly because turning away from a directive of CR is a recipe for unemployment.

I am only speaking from one corner of this project, but I know that the micro managerial frustration experience is an epidemic at CIG. Everyone seems to be unhappy for the exact same reason. I don't foresee anything changing at CIG if Roberts doesn't change himself. And this is a shame because the company has all the ingredients to do something truly great, if only they would be allowed to do it.


Also - This review was recently left.

Cons
• Large projects are expected to be completed in unrealistic times (Chris)
• No established workflows or communication (Senior Management broadly)
• Management is very poor, under-skilled, and disregards previous industry experience as unimportant (Sandi)
• Morale is very low due to unrealistic expectations and poor management (Senior Management broadly)

Recommendations
• Bring on management who have experience in the field and do not disregard their experience
• Train managers in all aspects of management including project management, communication, conflict resolution and time management
• Hire a third party to assess hierarchy and restructure accordingly

[Calignos]

I'd be lying if I said I wasn't a little nervous by the, apparent, frequency of turn-over at CIG. While I am not surprised at the reported dictatorship style management by CR, I was hoping that it would have been a beneficial thing rather than a negative. In that, he would stick very close to his vision and not let anyone sway him from what he had in mind. Which still might be the case, but on the flip side it appears to be creating an atmosphere of stiffed artistic freedom and poor management.

Regardless of reported internal issues, I have pledged far too much already, and had no intentions of any further purchases pre or likely post release (minus content expansions). But if I had, I would definitely be a little more hesitant right now. Not to dissuade anyone from purchasing, as all these rumors are just that. With the hopefully Baby-PU and SM coming out soon, hopefully we will still see a positive results in the end.

Hesitant but still optimistic.

[EchoSeven]

If people really want to put more into the game, I suggest buying RSI credits via the grey market (pre loved credits) at 20% off.
Like you, I'm looking forward to seeing what releases are coming up.

[jive]

I'm honestly not worried at all.

I don't know how many of you have ever worked at a start up, but these kinds of growing pains are absolutely par for the course. A lot of people neglect to keep in mind that this is CIG's first and only project. You're guaranteed to see near constant 'unapproval' in that kind of environment.

That being said, as an avid development follower even I get frustrated with the constant rehashing of assets and content. Doesn't mean I would jump ship. It's pretty obvious that the engine is starting to come together and we'll be entering the wonderful world of design iteration instead of tech iteration - where the points mean nothing and the answers don't matter.

I'll be staying the course. This isn't my first kickstarter, nor early access rodeo. Don't let internal wobbles frighten you, just let external ones. If Star Marine drops and it's absolute garbage, I might sing a different tune.

[Wave]

To me, it seems a bit unprofessional to leave a position, then publicize a document criticizing your employers, saying the problem lied with them, and not the person leaving.

I'm not worried, because to me, it just looks like polish. If this idea or concept doesn't do it, redo it. It may be frustrating but if you're patient, I think it will pay off.

[EchoSeven]

Kind of depends.
I've been in one of those jobs that are genuinely toxic. Imagine not being able to say your mind, instigate positive change, show initiative, grow and become skilled at what you do. You appeal and discuss the issue, and are stonewalled / they don't have the power to change it or don't want to. Meanwhile, everyone thinks the place is amazing leaving you open to criticism and attack from the outside, with the only people you can draw comfort from are those who have already left and "get it".
People don't just leave and make stuff up. Your right - it doesn't look good. But for someone to do so, perhaps as a sense of outrage or frustration after having a horrible journey, well, it speaks as much of how the company took care of them / handled it as much as it does about an employee.
Not saying your wrong, just it's kind of tough as we are on the outside.
What I do know is that that sort of environment creates inefficiencies and negativity that cut into production and progress as people just "give up" and do what they are told rather than what they know is right which results in PROBLEMS down the track. I just weep at the millions that were lost in inefficiencies that could have been directed more productively.
You really need experience at the top end. It's hardly CIG's entire fault either, they never expected it to get so big.
Maybury leaving was a big flag for me though. I really had some faith in that man.

[jive]

I don't necessarily think it means anything that one employee or even a handful had bad experiences with the company. There are four studios (not counting CO) each with their own hierarchy and problems. There are lots of cracks to fall through, especially when the floorboards get ripped out every few months when overdrive mode kicks in for somesuch deadline or presentation.

Like I mentioned before, startups, especially those without a product out to market already, are the single most taxing work environment in the world. I don't think that CIG is a cesspool of toxic relationships - we simply wouldn't see smiles on Ben, Lisa, or Lando's face so often. Most people at CIG probably love their jobs. But there are bound to be people who feel unfulfilled, misunderstood, disenfranchised, or slighted - that's true of every large and expanding company ever.

The state of the game is different from the state of the company - the company will have bumps and creaks just like any other. Will that boil down into bad craftsmanship for the game? From the looks of it, that is a resounding *no*.

But, like I said before, the proof will only be in the pudding - if Star Marine or the protoverse are garbage, then we need to start asking questions and calling people out. It is not yet time for the pitchforks. =)

[EchoSeven]

Well, looks like we will get more of this..

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/article ... he-Company

As Minsc says, let's give it a big shake and see what falls out.

ARTICLE IN FULL

Star Citizen Employees Speak Out on Project Woes
LIZZY FINNEGAN | 2 OCTOBER 2015 2:00 AM

*Editor's Note: We reached out for comment early yesterday to Chris Roberts and Cloud Imperium Games and will update this article if and when they respond.*

Following my recent op-ed, titled "[Eject! Eject! Is Star Citizen Going to Crash and Burn?](http://www.escapistmagazine.com/article ... ling-Point)" a number of sources, comprised of both current and former employees of Cloud Imperium Games, reached out to discuss troubling revelations about the state of the company. We have agreed to protect their identities, as well as to give them an opportunity to share their accounts. From inappropriate managerial conduct to fund mismanagement, here is the story from those who lived it. Nine people reached out to us - two were completely anonymous and were used to corroborate information. The seven quoted below identified themselves, but will be referenced by number (CS1, CS2, etc.) at their request.

Before jumping in, it is important to appreciate the gravity of this situation. Crowdfunding campaigns are a necessity for smaller independent developers to both break into the industry and to present a unique gaming experience when they don't have the luxury of AAA backing. While there are no guarantees with funding a project, the FTC has set a precedent by holding those launching campaigns accountable for any improper behaviors and misrepresentation in regards to crowdfunding campaigns.

**AMBITION MAY BE STAR CITIZEN'S GREATEST FLAW**
Star Citizen is an ambitious space simulation title from industry veteran Chris Roberts. The game began as a passion project, drawing inspiration from Wing Commander and Freelancer. Star Citizen promised a triumphant return to the space-sim genre by combining a huge universe with multiple gameplay options, a massive variety of ships, and no subscription fees. The demand was immediately overwhelming. More than $2 million was raised through Kickstarter within a month, blowing past the original $500,000 goal.

Following the successful completion of the campaign, crowdfunding continued through other methods. In August 2014 the campaign reached $49 million, with Roberts stating that they still needed additional funds in order to "sustain this level of development." The game has, to date, raised nearly $90 million through crowdfunding.

Previously, Cloud Imperium Games claimed that the high cost of the stretch goals was intended to allow them to meet a November 2014 release date while still adding the additional content.

"The purpose of the higher stretch goals is to ensure that the game-as-described is finished in the two year time period," the Star Citizen FAQ from the Kickstarter, last updated October 2012, reads. "We intend to build the game that Chris Roberts described at GDC Online regardless, but without additional funding we are going to have to do it one piece at a time, starting with Squadron 42, rather than as a single larger production. With more funding we can include more ships, systems, unique locations, animations and cinematic sequences."

...more about the campaign and less about the actual game.
- Several sources
Backers pledged millions of dollars to a project with the understanding that the money would be used to ensure the delivery of the complete title in the promised time period. However, some sources stated that at some point Star Citizen became "more about the campaign and less about the actual game," with repeated delays announced while citing the additional funds raised as the cause. According to several former employees and industry veterans, the reason Star Citizen is so popular is because it's never been done. And, they continue, the reason it has never been done is because it can't be done - at least, not with $90 million.

"$90 million for what he's pitching, even with a competent leadership, you couldn't do," CS1 wrote. "The thing you have to remember about Chris Roberts is that, before this, he hadn't made a game in twelve years. He has no concept of what can and can't be done today with that amount of money, or for a game like this. Chris Roberts hadn't made a game in twelve years, and he was actively ignoring the input of people who have been in and a part of the industry that entire time."

The popular consensus among most of the people who reached out is that Chris Roberts is not intentionally a con man. "He doesn't set out in the morning to screw anybody over. He's just incredibly arrogant," CS2 stated.

**"IT WAS INCREDIBLY TOXIC. I HAD TO GET OUT."**
According to several sources, being an employee of Cloud Imperium Games meant subjecting yourself to public insults, screaming, profanity, racism, and stress so powerful that some people would become physically ill.

"I realized it was affecting my health, my home life. I needed to get out. So I left. I had no job lined up. I just had to get out. I looked at my situation, I had enough in savings, so I left," CS3 told me. "I couldn't take it. It was by far the most toxic environment I have ever worked in. No one had clear direction about how to do their jobs well. No one was empowered to do their jobs well. Everything was second guessed, and the default reaction to everything was blame and yelling and emails with all capital letters and curse words."

"I couldn't take it. It was by far the most toxic environment I have ever worked in."
-CS3
It was also alleged that Roberts' wife and Cloud Imperium Games Vice President of Marketing Sandi Gardiner enforced discriminatory hiring practices. CS1 reported that they were instructed to, first, check the education field on a prospective employee's resume. If too much time had passed, Gardiner reportedly informed people not to hire them, because "they may be over 40, which makes them a protected class and harder to fire." It was also claimed that Gardiner used race as a determining factor in selecting employees, allegedly once saying "We aren't hiring her. We aren't hiring a black girl."

Sources indicate that multiple complaints have been taken to the Human Resource department against Gardiner, with little assistance on the matter - HR, after all, ultimately answers to Roberts and Gardiner.

"She would write emails with so much profanity. She would call people stupid, retard, faggot. Accuse men of not having balls. And she was incredibly hostile to other female employees," CS4 stated. "Sandi is very jealous. She has to be the queen bee at the company. Whenever I was around her, I felt like I was in the presence of a cobra who, at that moment, might not have been inclined to strike but was completely willing to. You don't get on her bad side," CS3 added. "There were two things you were told, when you were hired. One, you don't talk about [Roberts and Gardiner] being married, to anyone. Ever. And two, you don't make Sandi mad."

"[Sandi Gardiner] would write emails with so much profanity. She would call people stupid, retard, faggot. Accuse men of not having balls."
-CS4
In addition to Gardiner's alleged conduct, many felt they were required to be on constant guard when addressing Roberts as well.

CS3 stated that it wasn't uncommon practice to round up four or five people to review an email intended for Roberts, to make sure there was nothing potentially upsetting in the wording. "His immediate response to everything was to insult people, and accuse everyone of being idiots," he said. "It was like the Eye of Sauron. You never wanted to say anything in an email or a meeting that would bring the Eye of Sauron on you. He couldn't control his temper, and had no problem making a public scene of it."

"Games are not a professional environment by default, by their nature," CS4 said. "That's one of the great things about working on a game. But there are certain levels of unprofessionalism that you don't go beyond. Chris and Sandi made it part of their job to go beyond those levels."

**"FOLLOW THE MONEY."**
imageturbulentstatement
This statement was the common thread that linked all of the sources who reached out together. They truly wanted me to follow the money - a feat not easily accomplished. Multiple sources from within the company stated that the Pacific Palisades mansion that Chris Roberts shares with Sandi Gardiner is being paid for with funds from the company, along with the couple's personal vehicles and personal vacations.

CS5 stated that Gardiner would be out of the country on vacation or auditioning for movie or television roles, allegedly paid for with company money, but would post images of the office - taken by another employee - to make it appear as though she was at work. Multiple sources confided that several videos were filmed using company resources and employees, both in Cloud Imperium Games' offices and in the couple's home.

Tales of first class travels, lavish lifestyles, and seven figure combined annual salaries were near-universally reported. Several sources pointed to one concrete example of potential fund mismanagement, however, and statements from both Cloud Imperium Games and their partner, Turbulent, appear to add some level of credibility to the claim.

In February 2013, an announcement on the Roberts Space Industries website detailed the start of the partnership with Turbulent. "We've partnered with Turbulent, an excellent large-scale web development team in Montreal to develop a new, much more elegant back-end architecture that can easily flex to accommodate our comprehensive requirements," the announcement reads. "Every process is going to be redesigned to work the way it should in order for the site to seamlessly intertwine with Star Citizen exactly the way we envision, rather than hacking our way around a pre-packaged solution."

The statement went on to detail the changes that would be made to the existing website's layout and features, user interface, and forums, with the tradeoff being "more time." One thing not mentioned in the detailing of the remodel and partnership at this time, however, was an investment in the development of a crowdfunding platform.

CS7 indicated that Cloud Imperium Games Montreal entered into a joint venture partnership with Turbulent to continue to develop and sell the crowdfunding platform that was built for Star Citizen to other companies - and that backer money was being used for this project. HEAP C3MS is described as "the first platform to combine content, community, and commerce within one integrated platform," and was used for the design of the RSI website.

"We thank Cloud Imperium Games for taking a risk with us and for contributing conceptually and commercially..."
-Turbulent
After Star Citizen's crowdfunding campaign was entered into the Guinness Book of World Records as the "Most Crowdfunded Project (Overall)," Turbulent released a statement on their website. In this statement Marc Beaudet, CEO of Turbulent, wrote "We thank Cloud Imperium Games for taking a risk with us and for contributing conceptually and commercially to making HEAP C3MS fantastic for content monetization."

Other sources expressed concern over what they call "irresponsible spending." Complete portions of the game have been stripped down and entirely redone, utilizing extra time and resources, and often with minimal or no reward. The company also allegedly hired "big-name Hollywood actors" to do voice-overs for commercials. "This isn't going to make the game better. This is throwing away money because, deep down, Chris Roberts wants to make movies," CS5 stated. "He failed in Hollywood, but he never made peace with that."





"He failed in Hollywood, but he never made peace with that."
-CS5
An all-star Hollywood cast has also been slated for the game itself, a claim that has been confirmed in a recent interview Develop had with Roberts. "We have a top-level movie cast more than any game that's been out there, period, by a long way," he said. "So I cast it like I did my movies. It's acted like the movies. We have the full performance capture, we're pushing the tech as much as possible." Roberts also indicated that four months were spent filming performance capture with this all-star Hollywood cast, at a cost that several employees anticipate being astronomical.

"THE COMPANY IS BLEEDING BOTH MONEY AND EMPLOYEES."
Several different sources have indicated that the company has already used the majority of its funding, but not much has been created to show for it. The number most often received from people has indicated that, currently, the company has less than $8 million of what was raised from the crowdfunding efforts left - a number that several employees have stated is "common knowledge" within the company - although it is important to note that pledges are still being accepted for Star Citizen through the RSI website, with game packages and merchandise available to purchase.

"They've spent $82 million dollars, and what is there to show for that? There's a demo, a racing demo, a single first person shooter level, and an area where you can walk around. For $82 million," CS2 stated. Most of the sources feel this is the reason for continued fundraising through the website - to "extend the dream" for as long as possible. They also feel this is the motivation behind the inflated pricing on digital products that, at this moment, allegedly don't exist.

image1500
The most expensive package on the website, weighing in at a whopping $15,000, allows a player to use "all ships announced up to 2014, plus a couple 2015 Concepts." The package also "comes loaded" with Hangar decorations and 20,000 UEC starting money for the game launch. The newest ship pack, revealed on Sept. 30, costs $900 dollars. I personally do not consider a space sim to be the type of game I would typically turn to, and therefore asked a source whether such pricing is typical for unlocking in-game material. "They're charging more for packages than for the game itself. That's pretty unorthodox," I was told. Then again, Roberts previously revealed that a single complete ship was costing anywhere from $35,000 to $150,000 to complete.

"Personally, I felt like the company was understaffed for what they were trying to do," CS3 stated. "Building these spaceships - every ship is equivalent of a game level. They're supposed to be something where you can examine the entire outside, and then go inside and walk around the entire inside. And that's a huge amount of work. And they had just a handful of people working on this."

"The firings are both saving and costing money," CS6 said. "The money is running out and they're cutting wherever they can - but they're cutting people, not frills. Chris Roberts wants a certain game - practically a movie - and doesn't want to compromise on anything but staff. "He's letting go people (sic) necessary to complete the game, but then wants to hire a professional linguist to create three brand new alien languages. He's making this entire project impossible," Three added.

It has been indicated that nearly the entire character development team in the UK office quit within a four month period - including global character lead Andy Matthew, Senior Character Artist Seth Nash, and several character designers - and that Star Citizen currently does not have any full character builds complete. Sources have also indicated that the Austin office is, in fact, closing - despite CIG's claims that this is untrue. This is allegedly being done in the form of gradual layoffs, despite the fact that the office was guaranteed by CIG as the $11 million stretch goal.

**"WE WERE MAKING COMMERCIALS. WE WEREN'T MAKING A GAME.**
"It wasn't about making a game. it was about a flashy demo for Gamescom, or PAX, or the next commercial."
- CS4
The most common issue people discussed, second only to tales of workplace improprieties, was the lack of progress that Star Citizen has seen. Three former employees, who voluntarily quit for a myriad of reasons, echoed this sentiment, stating that they felt they were spending more time creating material for cons and fundraising than creating any material for gameplay.

"The thing I noticed when I started was that we were making commercials. We weren't making a game," CS2 said. "It was all about what was on the screen behind [Roberts] during the presentation."

"A lot of people would be like "Where's the game? When is this going to turn into a game?" CS3 added. "It was all about making pretty spaceships and brochures and commercials and hiring big name Hollywood actors to do voice-overs for the commercials. We were never working on a game."

"We were always building towards the next event," CS4 stated. "It wasn't about making a game. it was about a flashy demo for Gamescom, or PAX, or the next commercial. It never felt like they were trying to make a game, as much as digital spaceships to sell."

One former employee compared the campaign for Star Citizen to the back of a book.

"You pick up a book, and what's the first thing you do? You read the back. The back is the best part of the book, because you can project what your experience is going to be. And usually the book isn't as good as what you imagine it will be," CS2 said. "With [Roberts], it would be, like, 'look at these beautiful renders of characters, and of this spaceship.' But none of it was real. He shows some artwork, and then people project what their experience is going to be. Like the back of a book."

**"HE WANTS THE GAME TO BE EVERYTHING TO EVERYBODY.
AND NOW IT'S NOTHING TO NOBODY."**
"You have to ask 'at what point are you taking advantage of someone?' There's a certain responsibility."
- CS3
There was a grim and near-universal feeling of guilt that almost all of the people who spoke out shared. "You have to ask 'at what point are you taking advantage of someone?' There's a certain responsibility," CS3 said in regards to the backers who have contributed large sums of money. "Like, I felt like we should have gone to their homes and made sure their kids were eating and dressed. It starts to feel like a gambling addiction after a certain point. It was hard not to feel guilty."

"Fans would come into the studio, and I wanted to be like 'Dude, run. Take your money and run.' I felt like I was part of a con," CS2 added. "This could really severely damage crowdfunding, at least for games. Who's going to want to do that again? People will look at everything and think 'but what if it's another Star Citizen?'"

Some expressed concerns that Star Citizen became more about the crowdfunding than the actual project. "With Star Citizen, the metric is how much money you've made, not what you've done with that money," One stated.

One source compared Roberts to Donald Trump, saying "the value he puts on people is how much they agree with him. The more you say yes, the better you do." The widespread belief among everyone I spoke with is that Chris Roberts is a true visionary - but not a true leader. Chris Roberts has a vision, but people say he can neither articulate nor deliver the vision.

Whether or not a game will come out is a topic of debate, and the only point none of the sources were able to agree on.

"I just really don't see (CIG) coming out with anything as they are. They need to be bailed out."
- CS3
"I'm guessing something will come out," CS3 said. "What format or who will publish it, I don't know. I think it's unlikely that CIG will put something out. They will be bought, or some angel investor will come in. I just really don't see them coming out with anything as they are. They need to be bailed out."

"Games are made like houses. You want to make the foundation first and the wallpaper last. With Chris Roberts, everything is the wallpaper," CS2 added. "I think there will be a game. But it will be a shell of what was promised."

"There won't be a game. It's not going to happen. But then again, I am a pessimist," CS5 chimed in. "The entire production process is circular. You spend six months proving that what you said wouldn't work won't work. There is no progress happening."

"Chris Roberts thinks he's George Lucas. He thinks he's a genius," CS2 asserted. "He's a fraud, pure and simple. If he was just a salesman, or he worked in marketing, or he was answering to a producer, he would do well. But the emperor wears no clothes. Anybody who has worked with him will tell you the same thing. The difference is that lots of people have a dream, but only some can communicate it. I don't think he's sinister, or a bad person. He's Donald Trump. He thinks that if he wants to do something, he can. Because he's Chris Roberts."

[Calignos]

https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm ... e-Escapist

CR's response to all this, which was submitted for the Escapist article but still not included. Very long and very well thought out response.

[EchoSeven]