You just literally quoted him saying it is not a promise but a goal. How did you translate that into a promise?
Did you miss the bit where I explicitly stated is wasn't a literal promise?
Here's what I originally said
"Maybe not in those exact words but it was stated that 3.0 would be
coming before the 19th of December as end-of-year content and that they
didn't want a repeat of 2015 where they were working to the last mnute
to push the patch out. So it wasn't literally promised but the wording and context implied it was as good as promised."
The transcript clearly shows Chris's intent and plan to release that by the end of the year. He doesn't even include a disclaimer of "hopefully by end of year" in those sentences.
Folks attempting to play semantics with you are just being desperate.
Did you miss the bit where I explicitly stated is wasn't a literal promise?
Here's what I originally said
"Maybe not in those exact words but it was stated that 3.0 would be
coming before the 19th of December as end-of-year content and that they
didn't want a repeat of 2015 where they were working to the last mnute
to push the patch out. So it wasn't literally promised but the wording and context implied it was as good as promised."
The transcript clearly shows Chris's intent and plan to release that by the end of the year. He doesn't even include a disclaimer of "hopefully by end of year" in those sentences.
Folks attempting to play semantics with you are just being desperate.
He literally admitted twice a promise wasn't made
"Maybe not in those exact words" If they weren't he's exact word how can it be a promise, did he say it Will be or Definitely be out?
and
"So it wasn't literally promised'.
There's nothing left to be said, he admitted it wasn't a promise, case closed.
If people assume and think it's a promise, that's on you.
The transcript clearly shows Chris's intent and plan to release that by the end of the year. He doesn't even include a disclaimer of "hopefully by end of year" in those sentences.
Folks attempting to play semantics with you are just being desperate.
You are playing semantics. Not only was it a hope but CR has been very clear since they "busted a gut" getting the initial alpha out that they were working to "soft targets" rather than "hard targets".
And at the end of 2016 they finished whatever networking stuff they were working on and it didn't get them to whatever level of performance they had set for 3.0. So "3.0" became "2.6". Which we can infer because they started new networking stuff - see the schedule - towards the end of December.
Now soft targets means you have to look at the overall progress being made on the alpha. What has happened since the alpha first launched; in the last 12 months; since last summer or the end of the year.
And on that basis "you" decide whether they are "worthy"; decide whether you want to support them; decide whether they are "a failure" or whatever.
Many have said for over a year now neither "hype" nor "negativity" matter. The alpha is out there and its a double edged sword.
The transcript clearly shows Chris's intent and plan to release that by the end of the year. He doesn't even include a disclaimer of "hopefully by end of year" in those sentences.
Folks attempting to play semantics with you are just being desperate.
You are playing semantics. Not only was it a hope but CR has been very clear since they "busted a gut" getting the initial alpha out that they were working to "soft targets" rather than "hard targets".
And at the end of 2016 they finished whatever networking stuff they were working on and it didn't get them to whatever level of performance they had set for 3.0. So "3.0" became "2.6". Which we can infer because they started new networking stuff - see the schedule - towards the end of December.
Now soft targets means you have to look at the overall progress being made on the alpha. What has happened since the alpha first launched; in the last 12 months; since last summer or the end of the year.
And on that basis "you" decide whether they are "worthy"; decide whether you want to support them; decide whether they are "a failure" or whatever.
Many have said for over a year now neither "hype" nor "negativity" matter. The alpha is out there and its a double edged sword.
Again, I'm reading the obvious context of the transcript. It is obvious that Chris made those comments with a plan for release by end of the year. They didn't make it. This has happened more than once during the project. Folks are justified to critique them for that, because they're asking for pledges up front to help deliver the product in the advertised state and simply saying "we have no f&($ing idea" is not acceptable (for obvious reasons). Nor are the dates being inferred; they come directly from Chris and/or CIG. Are you attempting to submit that Chris made those comments while, in the back of his mind, he felt strongly that it wouldn't be possible? Why would he knowingly set the bar at an unrealistic level? Good managers don't do that, and when self-imposed deadlines are repeatedly missed, people with a financial interest start to take notice. That's not hype nor negativity.
You're making the mistake of thinking I'm saying "He's an obvious liar because he's ONLY saying that to sell ships," which is untrue. I'm saying that it doesn't matter whether or not his primary intent for giving out these dates was to sell ships. It still has the effect of driving the sales and making Chris and CIG more moneys, and it would only be reasonable to assume that Chris and/or CIG gave the public dates they thought they could make at the time. With that in mind, one would be justified in critiquing them for taking in cash based upon these dates and then repeatedly missing them as a matter of competence (or, at the very least, a matter of unreasonable amounts of optimism when you're using someone else's money). To attempt to confuse this by, for example, trying to assert the critique is unwarranted because of other projects whose funding schemes and development methods were different stinks of white knighting. If those other developers repeatedly missed self-imposed deadlines, their investors and/or other interested parties would be right to start critiquing the progress there, too.
/me enters quietly here .. and whisper : 3.0 ? Bro please .. /andrun
Reporter: What's behind Blizzard success, and how do you make your gamers happy? Blizzard Boss: Making gamers happy is not my concern, making money.. yes!
Here's a simple translation of the 3.0/17 schedule organized per deadlines:
It shows more clearly the feature-list of 3.0 (by end of June deadlines), and then what is the stuff to be worked right after that will drive 3.1.
By its future deadlines, 3.1 would aim its release at the end of August. Now considering the reality of delays I would put 3.0 at late August/September instead, what still gives a chance of 3.1 at the end of the year.
But then after releasing one major update as 3.0, 3.1 might be heavy on stability/bug-fixing instead of new features.
this game had better be the end all be all of games or its gonna be the biggest flop in history.
From a business perspective, I'm sure most companies would kill to be able to generate millions in sales without even having to do much more than a few alpha builds, pictures of some things, and a schedule of... well, the next alpha build.
I, personally, dislike the schedule. There are things in highlight that should be second to performance.
I would never imagine that "fluff" or superficial things would ever drag one update over stuff as tech and network. And on the case of performance, it relates a lot to netcode, something infamous for how many headaches it gives developers.
You should never see this as "less important things taking priority", yet as the important tasks being often large and long-term milestones.
hey guys, i have read many articles on the site for year, but i just recently joined. i am excited for the future of Star Citizen and the recent AtVs and the release of the 3.0 and beyond schedule are really appreciated in putting things in perspective. people should make up their own mind if pledging to a game in development is right for them and they should know what pledging means so there are no misunderstandings later. you are funding the development of a game based on a dream and as such it could either end up being an amazing dream (released with some amazing gameplay, mechanics, fun and longevity) or a nightmare (not get released or be a shallow, un-fun, buggy, grindy mess of a game); so if you feel at all apprehensive or sceptical, that is more than fine (and with many poor recent Indie and AAA releases, appropriate) and as such i would suggest that you do not pledge, but if you want to support the game and help test the various builds then by all means do so.
i have not seen anyone mention this but THIS may help people to understand the reason for the delay of planetary landings and one of the reasons we did not see Alpha 3.0 launch late last year as CIG and we hoped. pay close attention to this:
Chris Roberts:
With the debut of 3.0 at the end of June we’re starting with the three Moons around Crusader; Cellin, Yela and Daymar. In addition, we’re hoping to also get the Planet-like Asteroid Delamar and its landing zone Levski in as a “Stretch” goal. Then as we move through the year the universe will expand to include all the main landing zones for Stanton. We had originally hoped to deliver most of the Stanton Landing Zones with the first release of Planetary Tech, but that proved optimistic once the talented team at Behaviour, who had built ArcCorp, Levski, Grim HEX and had begun work on the remaining landing zones of Stanton, moved off Star Citizen and onto another Behaviour project in December. We had been steadily shifting our reliance away from external resources and we felt it would be unfair to block them from the opportunity to work on their own game. Unfortunately, replacing an Environment team of over 20 is no small task, which has set back the progress we had originally planned to make on the landing zones of Stanton. As of today, we have just abut replaced the team with internal hires and we are continuing to hire additional environment artists as fast as we can find ones that meet our quality bar. The Environment Team is now some 37 artists strong, so long term we feel we are better situated to deliver the vast amount of locations that Star Citizen and Squadron 42 needs.
hope this clears any date discrepancies for anyone. let me know if you have any other questions. speaking of which what are people most looking forward to experiencing from the current feature set and content in 3.0? i am personally hoping that they get the first iteration of Netcode 2.0 in and working well, planetary landings and the new Subsumption mission system.
oh and does anyone know if we will get Crusader in 3.0 as it currently exists rotating on it's axis (though we cannot land on it or enter its atmosphere but it's there) but also orbiting around Stanton, while the 3 moons we will be able to land on orbit it while rotating themselves?
"Cherish the quiet...before my STORM!" For a $5/5000 in-game credit bonus for backing Star Citizen (MMO) or Squadron 42 (Single Player/Co-op) use my Referral code: STAR-3QDY-SZBG
speaking of which what are people most looking forward to experiencing from the current feature set and content in 3.0? i am personally hoping that they get the first iteration of Netcode 2.0 in and working well, planetary landings and the new Subsumption mission system.
I'm just looking forward to trying out some of the professions and seeing what the game loops are like.
So they reveal in April that they lost a good chunk of manpower in December? Most open development ever!
Tell bad news only when you have good news to cover it up.
Star Citizen is not aiming to give us good and honest insight on their development. They are trying to hype us.
The good news is that they replaced another contractor with an in house team. Which makes communication and task supervision much easier than before. That only leaves Turbulent as contractor - and they are only working on the homepage and forum side, not the game itself.
CIG needed contractors at the start of the project, as they were still looking for the right persons to add to the CIG team and were lacking certain skill sets in house. Now - with 300+ team size - they have most of the expertise they need in house.
So they reveal in April that they lost a good chunk of manpower in December? Most open development ever!
Tell bad news only when you have good news to cover it up.
Star Citizen is not aiming to give us good and honest insight on their development. They are trying to hype us.
The good news is that they replaced another contractor with an in house team. Which makes communication and task supervision much easier than before. That only leaves Turbulent as contractor - and they are only working on the homepage and forum side, not the game itself.
CIG needed contractors at the start of the project, as they were still looking for the right persons to add to the CIG team and were lacking certain skill sets in house. Now - with 300+ team size - they have most of the expertise they need in house.
As I said, tell bad news only when you have good news to cover it up.
We weren't informed about the problem when it happened. We were informed months later about their good work in fixing it.
So they reveal in April that they lost a good chunk of manpower in December? Most open development ever!
Tell bad news only when you have good news to cover it up.
Star Citizen is not aiming to give us good and honest insight on their development. They are trying to hype us.
The good news is that they replaced another contractor with an in house team. Which makes communication and task supervision much easier than before. That only leaves Turbulent as contractor - and they are only working on the homepage and forum side, not the game itself.
CIG needed contractors at the start of the project, as they were still looking for the right persons to add to the CIG team and were lacking certain skill sets in house. Now - with 300+ team size - they have most of the expertise they need in house.
As I said, tell bad news only when you have good news to cover it up.
We weren't informed about the problem when it happened. We were informed months later about their good work in fixing it.
With Behaviour behind they have all the work being done in-house, despite the delays it's a good move going forward.
Also announcing to the backers would be better because?
Also announcing to the backers would be better because?
I think a small announcement would be useful, it would serve to do away with a lot of the speculation and arguments for why things are delayed. They wouldn't be expected to go into details for confidentiality reasons but it could just be enough to cover the situation and the impact of bringing it in house, pros and cons.
Well I don't agree, not only it could put Behaviour in a bad spot in terms of image (not that they would care) but announcing that they had just "lost" 20 artists and were in dire need of them would probably put them in a harder spot when negotiating contracts with new hires.
The fact that they are releasing the planetary landings in batches makes more sense than delivering all of them at the same time. Besides, some (2?) of the moons have atmosphere and we already seen the outposts, derelict ships etc so I'm sure CIG won't be making the mistake of releasing them so barren that they get boring quick.
I see the sphere of what is set open development on things exactly like the production schedules, the insider look and report at the actual development of the game. Not on updates about their employees/studios (HR).
@Vrika I would counter with one other recent example, nobody knew they had a 5th studio already setup for a year on UK with 10 employees, until they mentioned it I think last month. On this aspect, it's rather random when/if they update us, what they have been clear on is the effort put on reducing outsourcing and replace them with in-house hires.
Well I don't agree, not only it could put Behaviour in a bad spot in terms of image (not that they would care) but announcing that they had just "lost" 20 artists and were in dire need of them would probably put them in a harder spot when negotiating contracts with new hires.
The fact that they are releasing the planetary landings in batches makes more sense than delivering all of them at the same time. Besides, some (2?) of the moons have atmosphere and we already seen the outposts, derelict ships etc so I'm sure CIG won't be making the mistake of releasing them so barren that they get boring quick.
Well like I said, they wouldn't have to divulge too much detail due to confidenitality reasons. The general gist would be enough. I agree that it could put them in a difficult position when negotiating contracts.
I don't think that releasing them in batches makes any more sense. The only reason I can think they are doing that is because they seriously overestimated how quickly they would be able to put planets together.
Not sure why you're trying to get in a back handed jab at Elite, was purpose does that serve? Are you just trying to antagonise because I disagree with you or something? It's strange that you show so much patience and tolerance for Star Citizen's development but have none for Elite. Both games remain in development and are just taking different paths.
Well I don't agree, not only it could put Behaviour in a bad spot in terms of image (not that they would care) but announcing that they had just "lost" 20 artists and were in dire need of them would probably put them in a harder spot when negotiating contracts with new hires.
The fact that they are releasing the planetary landings in batches makes more sense than delivering all of them at the same time. Besides, some (2?) of the moons have atmosphere and we already seen the outposts, derelict ships etc so I'm sure CIG won't be making the mistake of releasing them so barren that they get boring quick.
....... It's strange that you show so much patience and tolerance for Star Citizen's development but have none for Elite. Both games remain in development and are just taking different paths.
...says the one whose reddit posts continually defend Elite without the so-called "objectivity" or "concerned criticism" that he shows for Star Citizen. It's quite the contradictory conundrum, isn't it? I still don't know what the motivation is, though..... Were you just so enamoured with ED and got lucky with a reddit name? Or are you an FDev employee? Either could be a possibility.
Either way, I would have thought that people (both sides of the fence) would have liked to see a production schedule. It's just one more thing to keep the company accountable and one more thing for people to bitch about if they miss. There are so many targets to miss here. So why argue about the past when there are so many opportunities to talk about what they miss in the future?
Comments
The transcript clearly shows Chris's intent and plan to release that by the end of the year. He doesn't even include a disclaimer of "hopefully by end of year" in those sentences.
Folks attempting to play semantics with you are just being desperate.
He literally admitted twice a promise wasn't made
"Maybe not in those exact words" If they weren't he's exact word how can it be a promise, did he say it Will be or Definitely be out?
and
"So it wasn't literally promised'.
There's nothing left to be said, he admitted it wasn't a promise, case closed.
If people assume and think it's a promise, that's on you.
You are playing semantics. Not only was it a hope but CR has been very clear since they "busted a gut" getting the initial alpha out that they were working to "soft targets" rather than "hard targets".
And at the end of 2016 they finished whatever networking stuff they were working on and it didn't get them to whatever level of performance they had set for 3.0. So "3.0" became "2.6". Which we can infer because they started new networking stuff - see the schedule - towards the end of December.
Now soft targets means you have to look at the overall progress being made on the alpha. What has happened since the alpha first launched; in the last 12 months; since last summer or the end of the year.
And on that basis "you" decide whether they are "worthy"; decide whether you want to support them; decide whether they are "a failure" or whatever.
Many have said for over a year now neither "hype" nor "negativity" matter. The alpha is out there and its a double edged sword.
Again, I'm reading the obvious context of the transcript. It is obvious that Chris made those comments with a plan for release by end of the year. They didn't make it. This has happened more than once during the project. Folks are justified to critique them for that, because they're asking for pledges up front to help deliver the product in the advertised state and simply saying "we have no f&($ing idea" is not acceptable (for obvious reasons). Nor are the dates being inferred; they come directly from Chris and/or CIG. Are you attempting to submit that Chris made those comments while, in the back of his mind, he felt strongly that it wouldn't be possible? Why would he knowingly set the bar at an unrealistic level? Good managers don't do that, and when self-imposed deadlines are repeatedly missed, people with a financial interest start to take notice. That's not hype nor negativity.
You're making the mistake of thinking I'm saying "He's an obvious liar because he's ONLY saying that to sell ships," which is untrue. I'm saying that it doesn't matter whether or not his primary intent for giving out these dates was to sell ships. It still has the effect of driving the sales and making Chris and CIG more moneys, and it would only be reasonable to assume that Chris and/or CIG gave the public dates they thought they could make at the time. With that in mind, one would be justified in critiquing them for taking in cash based upon these dates and then repeatedly missing them as a matter of competence (or, at the very least, a matter of unreasonable amounts of optimism when you're using someone else's money). To attempt to confuse this by, for example, trying to assert the critique is unwarranted because of other projects whose funding schemes and development methods were different stinks of white knighting. If those other developers repeatedly missed self-imposed deadlines, their investors and/or other interested parties would be right to start critiquing the progress there, too.
Reporter: What's behind Blizzard success, and how do you make your gamers happy?
Blizzard Boss: Making gamers happy is not my concern, making money.. yes!
It shows more clearly the feature-list of 3.0 (by end of June deadlines), and then what is the stuff to be worked right after that will drive 3.1.
By its future deadlines, 3.1 would aim its release at the end of August. Now considering the reality of delays I would put 3.0 at late August/September instead, what still gives a chance of 3.1 at the end of the year.
But then after releasing one major update as 3.0, 3.1 might be heavy on stability/bug-fixing instead of new features.
From a business perspective, I'm sure most companies would kill to be able to generate millions in sales without even having to do much more than a few alpha builds, pictures of some things, and a schedule of... well, the next alpha build.
You should never see this as "less important things taking priority", yet as the important tasks being often large and long-term milestones.
i have not seen anyone mention this but THIS may help people to understand the reason for the delay of planetary landings and one of the reasons we did not see Alpha 3.0 launch late last year as CIG and we hoped. pay close attention to this:
hope this clears any date discrepancies for anyone. let me know if you have any other questions.
speaking of which what are people most looking forward to experiencing from the current feature set and content in 3.0? i am personally hoping that they get the first iteration of Netcode 2.0 in and working well, planetary landings and the new Subsumption mission system.
oh and does anyone know if we will get Crusader in 3.0 as it currently exists rotating on it's axis (though we cannot land on it or enter its atmosphere but it's there) but also orbiting around Stanton, while the 3 moons we will be able to land on orbit it while rotating themselves?
"Cherish the quiet...before my STORM!"
For a $5/5000 in-game credit bonus for backing Star Citizen (MMO) or Squadron 42 (Single Player/Co-op) use my Referral code: STAR-3QDY-SZBG
Just ask theagent next time ahah
It's good going actually. Look how long it took to find out what happened to Star Marine as a comparison
I'm just looking forward to trying out some of the professions and seeing what the game loops are like.
Tell bad news only when you have good news to cover it up.
Star Citizen is not aiming to give us good and honest insight on their development. They are trying to hype us.
The good news is that they replaced another contractor with an in house team. Which makes communication and task supervision much easier than before. That only leaves Turbulent as contractor - and they are only working on the homepage and forum side, not the game itself.
CIG needed contractors at the start of the project, as they were still looking for the right persons to add to the CIG team and were lacking certain skill sets in house. Now - with 300+ team size - they have most of the expertise they need in house.
Have fun
As I said, tell bad news only when you have good news to cover it up.
We weren't informed about the problem when it happened. We were informed months later about their good work in fixing it.
Also announcing to the backers would be better because?
I think a small announcement would be useful, it would serve to do away with a lot of the speculation and arguments for why things are delayed. They wouldn't be expected to go into details for confidentiality reasons but it could just be enough to cover the situation and the impact of bringing it in house, pros and cons.
The fact that they are releasing the planetary landings in batches makes more sense than delivering all of them at the same time. Besides, some (2?) of the moons have atmosphere and we already seen the outposts, derelict ships etc so I'm sure CIG won't be making the mistake of releasing them so barren that they get boring quick.
@Vrika I would counter with one other recent example, nobody knew they had a 5th studio already setup for a year on UK with 10 employees, until they mentioned it I think last month. On this aspect, it's rather random when/if they update us, what they have been clear on is the effort put on reducing outsourcing and replace them with in-house hires.
Well like I said, they wouldn't have to divulge too much detail due to confidenitality reasons. The general gist would be enough. I agree that it could put them in a difficult position when negotiating contracts.
I don't think that releasing them in batches makes any more sense. The only reason I can think they are doing that is because they seriously overestimated how quickly they would be able to put planets together.
Not sure why you're trying to get in a back handed jab at Elite, was purpose does that serve? Are you just trying to antagonise because I disagree with you or something?
It's strange that you show so much patience and tolerance for Star Citizen's development but have none for Elite. Both games remain in development and are just taking different paths.
...says the one whose reddit posts continually defend Elite without the so-called "objectivity" or "concerned criticism" that he shows for Star Citizen. It's quite the contradictory conundrum, isn't it? I still don't know what the motivation is, though..... Were you just so enamoured with ED and got lucky with a reddit name? Or are you an FDev employee? Either could be a possibility.
Either way, I would have thought that people (both sides of the fence) would have liked to see a production schedule. It's just one more thing to keep the company accountable and one more thing for people to bitch about if they miss. There are so many targets to miss here. So why argue about the past when there are so many opportunities to talk about what they miss in the future?
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------