Intellivision Amico’s trademark changed to ‘abandoned’

[zapzapzac]

5 minutes ago, MattPilz said:

I purposefully added myself to the Founders list and then paid $100 down on the heels of Phil's live stream this February where launch dates were said to be committed by the end of that month and the deposits fully safe and refundable. I then spent a month of time attempting to get a refund after waiting many months for any activity on that front, and received no correspondence so had to pursue a formal dispute to get that reimbursed. It's very unfortunate and certainly not a good look for the company going forward.

 

I don't see any difference between this and Nick + Phil literally breaking into your car and taking 100 dollars. And yet calling them scammers is controversial? 

[Wayler]

I tried to converse with mr_me (or redditshreadit) a few times and found it ultimately pointless. It is like trying to convince a true believer that evolution is a thing. There will never be any common ground. The words you are using are the same but the language is completely alien. 

 

Trying to get a "gotcha" moment or any admission of being in the wrong is not going to happen. So at some point you need to just let it go. Talk about something else. Maybe you both have a shared interest in soccer? 

 

Amico Soccer! 

[gaterooze_ink]

14 hours ago, mr_me said:

The founding partners and directors are in this thing with quite a bit of their own money even considering the salary compensation paid out and ignoring the work they've put in.  No interest has been paid according to the risk disclosure shared earlier this year, and may not ever be paid.

 

equity investment / loans outstanding (not including interest) / salary (2-years) = net sum invested

FP1   $167k   $119k   $177k   =   $109k

FP2   $133k   $342k                =   $476k

FP3   $150k   $113k   $177k   =    $85k  

FP4   $150k   $545k                =   $695k

Dir    $1.0M   $607k                =   $1.6M

 

So after subtracting salaries received, the founding partners are in it for about $1.36M of their own money.  Include the fifth board member and it's close to $3M.  None of them have profited.

Let's autopsy this comment to see the level of deception on display. You've opened a can of worms here.

 

First let me preface this by saying I am not calling the Amico a scam in this comment, though as a general comment just because a scam fails doesn't mean it wasn't a scam.

 

The first deception is obfuscating the names. FP1 = Tommy, FP2 = Stephen Roney, FP3 = Nick Richards, FP4 = Dave Perry, and Dir = Sudesh. No one is calling Stephen Roney, Dave Perry or Sudesh scammers. They are victims as much as any investor. Yet you include them to try and hide Tommy and Nick's real positions.

 

Some of the numbers are wrong (Tommy and Nick have slightly more equity according to Nick) but I'll go with your figures for now. The next big deception is leaving out the accrued interest to Tommy and Nick. For the record, it's $174k for Tommy and $167k for Nick. If, using your figures, Tommy and Nick were paid back the rest of their loans plus the accrued interest, they would be in profit by $184k and $195k respectively. Certainly their intention was to do this, and it could still eventuate in an insolvency allocation - those sums would be paid to Tommy and Nick before any investors saw any money, or before preorder depositors were paid out.

 

You may try to say they never intended to receive that interest, but then why did they accrue it? Some of the other board member loans by Roney and Perry had 0% interest, so why did Tommy and Nick's? And why did they charge effectively a ~30% annual interest (later dropping to 10%) to their own company?

 

The third deception is by stating "no interest had been paid" and listing the "loans outstanding" but neglecting to mention the massive repayments made to Tommy and Nick, and the timing of them. Nick repaid himself $80k and Tommy repaid himself a whopping $284k. Where did this money come from since they had no revenue, you may ask? Well, the repayments came shortly after the Fig crowdfunded investment. Before they shipped a product. I'm sure the investors weren't told their money would be spent this way.

 

On top of that, they made those repayments instead of keeping the preorder deposit money safe. At the end of 2020, after making these repayments of $364k, the company was left with only $229k cash in the bank (another $200k was set aside for payroll), yet they owed customers $539k in preorder deposits. Those loan repayments put the company underwater with their refund obligations.

 

And the kicker? Those loans did not need to be repaid - they had no maturity date. If the company was truly acting in the interests of its investors and customers, they would not have repaid them at a time they were struggling for money, until they had generated revenue.

 

I'm sure mr_me will defend all of this with obtuse logic, handwaving and whataboutism. But at least the facts are there for all to see.

 

[Cebus Capucinis]

It's not crowdfunding.™️ It's investment.™️ This has already been discussed.™️

[PlaysWithWolves]

1 hour ago, MattPilz said:

 

This is what I would consider unethical conduct. I purposefully added myself to the Founders list and then paid $100 down on the heels of Phil's live stream this February where launch dates were said to be committed by the end of that month and the deposits fully safe and refundable. I then spent a month of time attempting to get a refund after waiting many months for any activity on that front, and received no correspondence so had to pursue a formal dispute to get that reimbursed. It's very unfortunate and certainly not a good look for the company going forward.

 

 

Oh, right. I'd forgotten they opened up the Founders list later on to fill canceled spots. 
Unfortunately, @Morpheus still isn't in that group unless he specifically contacted Intellvision and got put on "the list" and was accepted.

[roots.genoa]

Wow, lots of posts to catch up today. So... If I got this right, the SEC claims J Allard had no material role, but Tommy introduced him as an 'avenger' in a video aimed at investors.

 

So I guess the Amico being a scàm (dude) depends on your definition of an avenger. Has this been discussed?

[Cebus Capucinis]

5 minutes ago, roots.genoa said:

Wow, lots of posts to catch up today. So... If I got this right, the SEC claims J Allard had no material role, but Tommy introduced him as an 'avenger' in a video aimed at investors.

 

So I guess the Amico being a scàm (dude) depends on your definition of an avenger. Has this been discussed?

Also, what are they avenging against? Is Shigeru Miyamoto Thanos in this fever dream, and he only has to get the pieces to an NES Power Glove to control the gaming universe and directly project all of his rampant pornography in our collective minds, except for Tommy and his plucky group of heroes driving Fieros and living under piers?

[gaterooze_ink]

4 minutes ago, roots.genoa said:

If I got this right, the SEC claims J Allard had no material role

Intellivision stated that, in response to the SEC challenging their claim that he was still on their team (in which case, if he had a material role which impacted them by leaving, they would have been in bigger trouble).

[number6]

@anyone who knows

 

Along with licensing rights, did Intellivision ever mention having sub-licensing rights for any s/w they may have announced at any time?

This may speak to the notion of Intellivision licensing IP to others, hence my question.

 

btw-this type of info is not usually secret. example:Blaze announced they had acquired some C64 program rights as a result of RetroGames Ltd. sub-licensing to Blaze.

 

#6

[+GoldLeader]

I like this jovial thread and feel oblivated to read it, but it has become a bit bloviated,  like you guys are just jogging a nerd horse sometimes...I come back and you're all just bloviating on Mr_me and bloviating on 1980sGamer,...I mean those guys are likely to get indigenous if ya keep it up.

[Cebus Capucinis]

Man, I'd have loved to see Tommy on QVC.

[SteveTheColecoDude]

20 minutes ago, Cebus Capucinis said:

Man, I'd have loved to see Tommy on QVC.

 

Just imagine, some overly friendly hosts asking about the product and putting a question to Tommy that he can't answer and him resorting to his default position of calling them douchebags and haters.

[MrBeefy]

1 hour ago, Wayler said:

 

Amico Soccer! 

Those shots are interesting. The stills look okay, but the footage they've shown was not good. 

 

It was stuttering so bad I really question how well Amico can handle any games.

[Pink]

 

"This WILL happen"

 

Tomfoolery 😂

Edited August 14, 2022 by Pink

[mr_me]

58 minutes ago, gaterooze_ink said:

Let's autopsy this comment to see the level of deception on display. You've opened a can of worms here.

 

First let me preface this by saying I am not calling the Amico a scam in this comment, though as a general comment just because a scam fails doesn't mean it wasn't a scam.

 

The first deception is obfuscating the names. FP1 = Tommy, FP2 = Stephen Roney, FP3 = Nick Richards, FP4 = Dave Perry, and Dir = Sudesh. No one is calling Stephen Roney, Dave Perry or Sudesh scammers. They are victims as much as any investor. Yet you include them to try and hide Tommy and Nick's real positions.

 

Some of the numbers are wrong (Tommy and Nick have slightly more equity according to Nick) but I'll go with your figures for now. The next big deception is leaving out the accrued interest to Tommy and Nick. For the record, it's $174k for Tommy and $167k for Nick. If, using your figures, Tommy and Nick were paid back the rest of their loans plus the accrued interest, they would be in profit by $184k and $195k respectively. Certainly their intention was to do this, and it could still eventuate in an insolvency allocation - those sums would be paid to Tommy and Nick before any investors saw any money, or before preorder depositors were paid out.

 

You may try to say they never intended to receive that interest, but then why did they accrue it? Some of the other board member loans by Roney and Perry had 0% interest, so why did Tommy and Nick's? And why did they charge effectively a ~30% annual interest (later dropping to 10%) to their own company?

 

The third deception is by stating "no interest had been paid" and listing the "loans outstanding" but neglecting to mention the massive repayments made to Tommy and Nick, and the timing of them. Nick repaid himself $80k and Tommy repaid himself a whopping $284k. Where did this money come from since they had no revenue, you may ask? Well, the repayments came shortly after the Fig crowdfunded investment. Before they shipped a product. I'm sure the investors weren't told their money would be spent this way.

 

On top of that, they made those repayments instead of keeping the preorder deposit money safe. At the end of 2020, after making these repayments of $364k, the company was left with only $229k cash in the bank (another $200k was set aside for payroll), yet they owed customers $539k in preorder deposits. Those loan repayments put the company underwater with their refund obligations.

 

And the kicker? Those loans did not need to be repaid - they had no maturity date. If the company was truly acting in the interests of its investors and customers, they would not have repaid them at a time they were struggling for money, until they had generated revenue.

 

I'm sure mr_me will defend all of this with obtuse logic, handwaving and whataboutism. But at least the facts are there for all to see.

 

My intention was not to obfuscate, I just don't like naming people.  But it's easy to identify the two that have executive positions.  There is no direct relation between dollar amount invested in equity and the number of shares because the cost of shares decreased over time.  Those are the correct dollar amounts from the risk disclosure so the former CEOs equity share is much larger than the fifth board member even though the fifth board member has much more money invested in equity. 

 

The former CEO and the CFO do not have near enough shares to control the company so the other board members are very much involved in the decision making.  Many of whom continued to pour money into the company in 2021 as others had their loans reduced.  Which by the way converted interest bearing loans to zero interest.   If you think there is some wrong doing because some board members increased their loans while others were reduced, that's your opinion.  Each board member has varying personal resources, it's between them.  But the former CEO did step up with his own money when the company needed it.  I'm just making it aware how much money the people controlling this company personally have in it amidst accusations of profiting.  Sure if the company is successful, company shares increase in value, they might even get paid the principal outstanding on loans, then even the interest, or possibly convert that into more shares.  But we are far away from that.

 

 

[gaterooze_ink]

16 minutes ago, mr_me said:

The former CEO and the CFO do not have near enough shares to control the company so the other board members are very much involved in the decision making.

I won't correct the other misinterpretations, but the above is a serious misunderstanding of how most companies are run. It depends on the company's constitution of course, but typically the CEO and CFO have autonomy to make day to day decisions for the company, effectively controlling it themselves 99% of the time, and only needing board approval for certain specified matters. Unless you've seen the company documents or minutes of their meetings, you cannot possibly make the assumption you did.

[1980gamer]

I am a little confused, when it is said they had no revenue?

Where do the dollars form the Store go?  T's, hats and other items?

Are those not part of IE/Amico money?

 

I would certainly think the 8 games sold had to count as Amico revenue.  Oh, maybe some going to the developers?  Of course they had production costs for those as well.

 

I think the stuff they are selling on ebay is all Steve's effort and most likely goes to him or at least a good part of it?

 

 

 

 

[MrTrust]

51 minutes ago, number6 said:

Along with licensing rights, did Intellivision ever mention having sub-licensing rights for any s/w they may have announced at any time?

This may speak to the notion of Intellivision licensing IP to others, hence my question.

 

Not for anything specific to my knowledge.  They did mention it when they announced the layoffs and scale back.

 

They did talk about it during the StartEngine pitch.  It's about 9 minutes into this video.  Only source I was able to find for it.

 

 

Basically, someone rightly pointed out that they were using sales data for mobile games, a completely different model than IE's, to justify this enormous serviceable market they were claiming, and asked what market research they could point to to back up this claim.

 

Well, they added $8 billion to their SAM because of this putative "silent market" that hasn't bought any gaming thing since the Wii, and actually they could count on that market because they were going to do mobile games and RFID board games and all these other revenue streams to reach those people other than the Amico itself.

 

[+CurlyQ]

3 hours ago, 1980gamer said:

Until then..

 

[1980gamer]

1 minute ago, CurlyQ said:

I must only be an Amateurcastinator.  I am certainly not at that level!

[gaterooze_ink]

4 minutes ago, 1980gamer said:

I am a little confused, when it is said they had no revenue?

Where do the dollars form the Store go?  T's, hats and other items?

Are those not part of IE/Amico money?

 

I would certainly think the 8 games sold had to count as Amico revenue.  Oh, maybe some going to the developers?  Of course they had production costs for those as well.

Well, the SEC filing makes the statement of having no revenue, but you're right, there technically was some - but it was extremely small in relation to the outgoings and debt. The boxed games did not sell well at all.

[SegaMasterSystemPunk]

5 minutes ago, gaterooze_ink said:

Well, the SEC filing makes the statement of having no revenue, but you're right, there technically was some - but it was extremely small in relation to the outgoings and debt. The boxed games did not sell well at all.

They sure didn't. I got banned from the happy amico talk topic when I asked Tommy why he lied about them being close to selling out.

[+Lathe26]

15 minutes ago, CurlyQ said:

Ok, I legit want to know how the 8 player couch co-op game play works.  🙂

[digdugnate]

1 hour ago, Cebus Capucinis said:

It's not crowdfunding.™️ It's investment.™️ This has already been discussed.™️

PLEASE LEAVE (tm)

[number6]

20 minutes ago, MrTrust said:

 

Not for anything specific to my knowledge.  They did mention it when they announced the layoffs and scale back.

 

They did talk about it during the StartEngine pitch.  It's about 9 minutes into this video.  Only source I was able to find for it.

 

Thank you. I thought it was a topic worth discussing, since as you mentioned, it was only a general comment from Phil in the announcement.

I've read the joking about the various listings of titles people have seen in print and heard in videos.

I'm more curious exactly what s/w the current Intellivision has rights for. That would include any rights through licensing to do their own sub-licensing, if said sub-licensing rights existed.

 

Sadly from reading articles, wiki, and statements made here I am seeing conflicting info regarding ownership and rights.

Therefore I ask the following stupid question, which granted, only applies to 1 of the titles:

Someone mentioned that Astrosmash was a product they licensed. Can anyone confirm/clarify that?

 

#6