Also, it should be noted that in 2012 a study found that 75% of KS projects shipped late, but that only 3.6% actually failed to ship.
That same study also found out that additional 33% of the Kickstarter projects had not yet delivered despite being past their given estimated delivery time.
So the failure rate was something between 36.6% and 3.6%. Until someone does a further study about how many of those delayed projects eventually delivered we don't know any more about the failure rate than that it was between 36.6% and 3.6%.
I still means that two thirds of the projects delivered at least something, which is better than I honestly expected from Kickstarter.
Also, it should be noted that in 2012 a study found that 75% of KS projects shipped late, but that only 3.6% actually failed to ship.
That same study also found out that additional 33% of the Kickstarter projects had not yet delivered despite being past their given estimated delivery time.
So the failure rate was something between 36.6% and 3.6%. Until someone does a further study about how many of those delayed projects eventually delivered we don't know any more about the failure rate than that it was between 36.6% and 3.6%.
I still means that two thirds of the projects delivered at least something, which is better than I honestly expected from Kickstarter.
No, that's not correct either. A game in development neither failed, nor successful. Do you consider everything you're currently working on a failure? If so, that really sucks. However, C'est la vie, if that's your outlook on life then to each his own.
FYI, I do have some more recent numbers (up until 2013) which show that the delivery rate for projects funded in 2011 currently stands at 73%, 2012 is 78% and 2013 is currently at 45%. Also, it should be noted that the 2013 project data is incomplete, since I do it on my spare time only, and haven't dug into any of the 2013 projects above an initial google search. Should be interesting to see how the 2013 projects look in a year. I think that a 3-year turnover seems to be the current trend. Also, the average project ships 10 months past it's estimated date, based on the data I have.
CrazKanuk said: Past behaviour predicts future behaviour
I stopped reading right there.
Considering this conclusion being fallacious, using your very own logic, the rest of your post is also flawed thus no point reading any further
No I like where he's going with that line. It means CR will continue to hype and not deliver and then sell the company to a publishing giant (next part is opinion) while probably blaming backers for not being generous enough and forcing him to sell to someone like EA in order to see the game finished.
CrazKanuk said: Past behaviour predicts future behaviour
I stopped reading right there.
Considering this conclusion being fallacious, using your very own logic, the rest of your post is also flawed thus no point reading any further
No I like where he's going with that line. It means CR will continue to hype and not deliver and then sell the company to a publishing giant (next part is opinion) while probably blaming backers for not being generous enough and forcing him to sell to someone like EA in order to see the game finished.
Priceless
Note: He will not blame backers, that isn't his style. He will sell it as the best thing under the sun to happen to SC.
CrazKanuk said: Past behaviour predicts future behaviour
I stopped reading right there.
Considering this conclusion being fallacious, using your very own logic, the rest of your post is also flawed thus no point reading any further
No I like where he's going with that line. It means CR will continue to hype and not deliver and then sell the company to a publishing giant (next part is opinion) while probably blaming backers for not being generous enough and forcing him to sell to someone like EA in order to see the game finished.
It's possible but Chris Roberts has put as much time and energy into creating Cloud Imperium Games as he has developing Star Citizens so I think that's as much part of the dream as the game is for him. People who backed this game didn't just kickstart a game they kickstarted an entire software development studio which I wouldn't be surprised at all if they start talking about their next game as we get closer to SC's launch.
Also, it should be noted that in 2012 a study found that 75% of KS projects shipped late, but that only 3.6% actually failed to ship.
People love to trot that out but seem unwilling to acknowledge that the success rate completely tanks when you look at a far more relevant category - Kickstarted MMOs.
Does it? Let's compare numbers. So I've got a list here of 31 "MMOs" as categorized by Massivelyop and a significant number are, actually, playable. Not sure if this is an exaggeration based on stereotype or based on the definition of release.
Do you realize what you have twice done now?
First it was 75% of all Kickstarters of all kinds shipped and only 3.6% actually failed to ship.
When asked to look at "Kickstarted MMOs" that shipped or failed to ship, you returned with a list of "crowdfunded MMOs that are in a playable state."
It's as if you can't accept that @Arkade99 has a valid point, but that is very unlike you, so it's really strange that you are doing this.
-- Whammy - a 64x64 miniRPG - RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right? - FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
Also, it should be noted that in 2012 a study found that 75% of KS projects shipped late, but that only 3.6% actually failed to ship.
People love to trot that out but seem unwilling to acknowledge that the success rate completely tanks when you look at a far more relevant category - Kickstarted MMOs.
Does it? Let's compare numbers. So I've got a list here of 31 "MMOs" as categorized by Massivelyop and a significant number are, actually, playable. Not sure if this is an exaggeration based on stereotype or based on the definition of release.
Do you realize what you have twice done now?
First it was 75% of all Kickstarters of all kinds shipped and only 3.6% actually failed to ship.
When asked to look at "Kickstarted MMOs" that shipped or failed to ship, you returned with a list of "crowdfunded MMOs that are in a playable state."
It's as if you can't accept that @Arkade99 has a valid point, but that is very unlike you, so it's really strange that you are doing this.
Not at all. He's basically looking for accountability for a project scope that is wildly different than what was originally proposed. Am I wrong? It would be like if I worked in data entry and I said I could finish 100 entries today. Then my boss gives me an extra 300 entries. Why should my boss expect that all 400 entries will be done before the end of the day? It's not as though they were given an opportunity to re-estimate the delivery date. Everyone keeps referring to the KS estimated delivery date, but the product proposed now vs then is wildly different. So the question becomes, do we want a $500,000 game? Or do we want a $100 million game?
In short, no, he doesn't have a point. The real question is, do we want developers to quit it with the funding milestones? Is the estimated delivery date REALLY that important to people? Or would they rather see a game with expanded scope? More game for the same price? Personally, I care less about the delivery date and more about what's delivered. There are 3 modules out there now that you're more than welcome to try. There is plenty of communication. If you can't see that there's progress, whether you believe it's acceptable progress or not, then I'm really sorry.
So are you saying that my point is invalid? So that even with an expanded scope, they should be forced to deliver within the estimated delivery date? Or what? Face some sort of penalty? Personally, I just don't see the point, nor the validity. However, I also never denied they were beyond their estimated delivery date.
Not at all. He's basically looking for accountability for a project scope that is wildly different than what was originally proposed. Am I wrong? It would be like if I worked in data entry and I said I could finish 100 entries today. Then my boss gives me an extra 300 entries. Why should my boss expect that all 400 entries will be done before the end of the day? It's not as though they were given an opportunity to re-estimate the delivery date. Everyone keeps referring to the KS estimated delivery date, but the product proposed now vs then is wildly different. So the question becomes, do we want a $500,000 game? Or do we want a $100 million game?
In short, no, he doesn't have a point. The real question is, do we want developers to quit it with the funding milestones? Is the estimated delivery date REALLY that important to people? Or would they rather see a game with expanded scope? More game for the same price? Personally, I care less about the delivery date and more about what's delivered. There are 3 modules out there now that you're more than welcome to try. There is plenty of communication. If you can't see that there's progress, whether you believe it's acceptable progress or not, then I'm really sorry.
So are you saying that my point is invalid? So that even with an expanded scope, they should be forced to deliver within the estimated delivery date? Or what? Face some sort of penalty? Personally, I just don't see the point, nor the validity. However, I also never denied they were beyond their estimated delivery date.
....aaand third time.
You never denied the delays, you called them "re-estimate the delivery date". You care about what is delivered, yet what was delivered is bare tech demo. 3 modules out there now that you're more than welcome to try - hangar module, c'mon..
Yes, delivery dates are important. The game being longer in development due missed deadlines does not mean expanded scope, in fact it likely means the opposite because the resources otherwise used for "expanded scope" are spent on catching up with those missed deadlines...
Seriously, can't you see the pattern in your posts...?
CrazKanuk said: Past behaviour predicts future behaviour
I stopped reading right there.
Considering this conclusion being fallacious, using your very own logic, the rest of your post is also flawed thus no point reading any further
No I like where he's going with that line. It means CR will continue to hype and not deliver and then sell the company to a publishing giant (next part is opinion) while probably blaming backers for not being generous enough and forcing him to sell to someone like EA in order to see the game finished.
It's possible but Chris Roberts has put as much time and energy into creating Cloud Imperium Games as he has developing Star Citizens so I think that's as much part of the dream as the game is for him. People who backed this game didn't just kickstart a game they kickstarted an entire software development studio which I wouldn't be surprised at all if they start talking about their next game as we get closer to SC's launch.
I'm sure the same could be said for Digital anvil and Ascendant pictures, minus the crowdfunding portion, but we all know where that went.
Not at all. He's basically looking for accountability for a project scope that is wildly different than what was originally proposed. Am I wrong? It would be like if I worked in data entry and I said I could finish 100 entries today. Then my boss gives me an extra 300 entries. Why should my boss expect that all 400 entries will be done before the end of the day? It's not as though they were given an opportunity to re-estimate the delivery date. Everyone keeps referring to the KS estimated delivery date, but the product proposed now vs then is wildly different. So the question becomes, do we want a $500,000 game? Or do we want a $100 million game?
In short, no, he doesn't have a point. The real question is, do we want developers to quit it with the funding milestones? Is the estimated delivery date REALLY that important to people? Or would they rather see a game with expanded scope? More game for the same price? Personally, I care less about the delivery date and more about what's delivered. There are 3 modules out there now that you're more than welcome to try. There is plenty of communication. If you can't see that there's progress, whether you believe it's acceptable progress or not, then I'm really sorry.
So are you saying that my point is invalid? So that even with an expanded scope, they should be forced to deliver within the estimated delivery date? Or what? Face some sort of penalty? Personally, I just don't see the point, nor the validity. However, I also never denied they were beyond their estimated delivery date.
....aaand third time.
You never denied the delays, you called them "re-estimate the delivery date". You care about what is delivered, yet what was delivered is bare tech demo. 3 modules out there now that you're more than welcome to try - hangar module, c'mon..
Yes, delivery dates are important. The game being longer in development due missed deadlines does not mean expanded scope, in fact it likely means the opposite because the resources otherwise used for "expanded scope" are spent on catching up with those missed deadlines...
Seriously, can't you see the pattern in your posts...?
So are you saying that the scope of the game has not increased since the end of the Kickstarter Campaign?
Seriously, if you don't think the scope has changed, I see the problem.
Actually, here's a counter question. So if the original estimated delivery date was 2017, then does this argument go away? If they were to refund all KS backers, right now, then do they get to continue their funding indefinitely without criticism?
Honestly, I don't get it. RSI has a wide open refund policy right now, so if people have a problem then get your money back. I'm just saying, the majority of people backing the project don't. The majority of people backing the project would rather wait on a quality product.
Not at all. He's basically looking for accountability for a project scope that is wildly different than what was originally proposed. Am I wrong? It would be like if I worked in data entry and I said I could finish 100 entries today. Then my boss gives me an extra 300 entries. Why should my boss expect that all 400 entries will be done before the end of the day? It's not as though they were given an opportunity to re-estimate the delivery date. Everyone keeps referring to the KS estimated delivery date, but the product proposed now vs then is wildly different. So the question becomes, do we want a $500,000 game? Or do we want a $100 million game?
In short, no, he doesn't have a point. The real question is, do we want developers to quit it with the funding milestones? Is the estimated delivery date REALLY that important to people? Or would they rather see a game with expanded scope? More game for the same price? Personally, I care less about the delivery date and more about what's delivered. There are 3 modules out there now that you're more than welcome to try. There is plenty of communication. If you can't see that there's progress, whether you believe it's acceptable progress or not, then I'm really sorry.
So are you saying that my point is invalid? So that even with an expanded scope, they should be forced to deliver within the estimated delivery date? Or what? Face some sort of penalty? Personally, I just don't see the point, nor the validity. However, I also never denied they were beyond their estimated delivery date.
I don't see very much validity in forcing them to deliver at estimated release dates either, but at this point it's way past where you could explain them being late simply because the scope was increased.
Here's estimated release dates from January 2015:
Scope of the game didn't increase since then. The release date estimations they make just aren't accurate.
So are you saying that the scope of the game has not increased since the end of the Kickstarter Campaign?
Seriously, if you don't think the scope has changed, I see the problem.
Actually, here's a counter question. So if the original estimated delivery date was 2017, then does this argument go away? If they were to refund all KS backers, right now, then do they get to continue their funding indefinitely without criticism?
Honestly, I don't get it. RSI has a wide open refund policy right now, so if people have a problem then get your money back. I'm just saying, the majority of people backing the project don't. The majority of people backing the project would rather wait on a quality product.
....4th time.
Vrika was faster...
Regardless, the "re-scaling" argument is irrelevant - the increased scale consists of number of modules to be released. That was the whole point of modules afterall.
As an "outsider", at this point, pretty much the only reasonable thing to do with SC is wait and see if the game ever releases (and is good).
Why should anyone new, at this time, put $1 into a game with this much controversy surrounding it, when by CGI's own admission, they have missed many deadlines already?
It also does not look good that CGI/CR keeps selling new ships to keep the money coming in, because if they NEED more funding at this point, after already taking in $100 mil+, that is also a big warning sign.
Or gimmicks to attract new paying players like that recent free in game cash give away. It smells of desperation.
So I, like many others (I suspect) are taking a definite "wait and see" as far as SC goes. And not putting in a cent until after release.
So are you saying that the scope of the game has not increased since the end of the Kickstarter Campaign?
Seriously, if you don't think the scope has changed, I see the problem.
Actually, here's a counter question. So if the original estimated delivery date was 2017, then does this argument go away? If they were to refund all KS backers, right now, then do they get to continue their funding indefinitely without criticism?
Honestly, I don't get it. RSI has a wide open refund policy right now, so if people have a problem then get your money back. I'm just saying, the majority of people backing the project don't. The majority of people backing the project would rather wait on a quality product.
....4th time.
Vrika was faster...
Regardless, the "re-scaling" argument is irrelevant - the increased scale consists of number of modules to be released. That was the whole point of modules afterall.
Explain how it's irrelevant, though? I mean they were taking on new features up until the end of 2014 based on their own stretch goals on their website. Not saying they aren't to blame for that. However, to insist that it's irrelevant is ridiculous. I mean the boarding alone is a beast. Everything from there on out just increases the effort required. Again, keep in mind that to finish a character, you're looking at a month, possibly more. I'm not disagreeing that it's on them, but to say the scope hasn't increased isn't right either.
As far as Vrika goes, all but the S42 episode and FPS will be in the 2.0 update which is, to my knowledge, still supposed to be launched in 2015. You, really, can't argue with that infographic. Yeah, there are two big things not finished. However, just because they're modular doesn't mean there aren't dependencies. S42 probably relies on all modules, so you won't see it until all modules are done. However, everything else in that list has been or is planned for alpha 2.0. So is it as bad as it's being made out to be? That's a little more subjective.
Also, it should be noted that in 2012 a study found that 75% of KS projects shipped late, but that only 3.6% actually failed to ship.
People love to trot that out but seem unwilling to acknowledge that the success rate completely tanks when you look at a far more relevant category - Kickstarted MMOs.
Does it? Let's compare numbers. So I've got a list here of 31 "MMOs" as categorized by Massivelyop and a significant number are, actually, playable. Not sure if this is an exaggeration based on stereotype or based on the definition of release.
Do you realize what you have twice done now?
First it was 75% of all Kickstarters of all kinds shipped and only 3.6% actually failed to ship.
When asked to look at "Kickstarted MMOs" that shipped or failed to ship, you returned with a list of "crowdfunded MMOs that are in a playable state."
It's as if you can't accept that @Arkade99 has a valid point, but that is very unlike you, so it's really strange that you are doing this.
Not at all. He's basically looking for accountability for a project scope that is wildly different than what was originally proposed. Am I wrong? It would be like if I worked in data entry and I said I could finish 100 entries today. Then my boss gives me an extra 300 entries. Why should my boss expect that all 400 entries will be done before the end of the day?
That's a poor analogy, since Chris Roberts is the boss. He's the one who told his investors that he would deliver a product by a certain date and for a certain budget. He was the one who expanded the scope and who has so far failed to deliver a finished product.
You can make the argument that they didn't miss their estimates, but instead decided to make a much larger/better game with all the extra money, and you'd have a point. But is that really fair to the people who pledged on Kickstarter? They didn't buy into that. Yes, they can get refunds, but it's still not right to sell someone a product, and then hold back that product indefinitely so they can keep making it bigger and better. People want what they paid for.
You guys can debate all you want on release dates things that have been said, promised. Bottom line is how much money have they blown on things that had nothing to do with making the game? Has he blown money on making commercials on a game that isn't even close to being made? Why does he still have to sell non existing ships? Anyone asking those questions after giving so much cash to this project would be asking the right questions. Bottom line is the money and by all accounts and what we see him doing weekly says he is running low on cash.
Sad part is IF Erin Roberts would of been in charge from the start things could be very different.
Scary part is the people he has involved himself with, a few of them do not seem like the type of people to be involved with. Not going into all that, it is all out there and who these people are. I hope the rumors of money laundering is all bull, But I must say it sure does look like a pyramid scheme that would work very well to launder money.
I watched a video of Chris Roberts this weekend and through the whole video I keep hearing how great you guys are and know you understand how we have to keep the money rolling in.
So that leaves me with one final statement about this whole thing. The scam continues.
Sorry but that is IMHO! I really hope am wrong but being around these type people and games for almost 20 years I have never seen anything like this on such a large scale!
Not at all. He's basically looking for accountability for a project scope that is wildly different than what was originally proposed. Am I wrong? It would be like if I worked in data entry and I said I could finish 100 entries today. Then my boss gives me an extra 300 entries. Why should my boss expect that all 400 entries will be done before the end of the day? It's not as though they were given an opportunity to re-estimate the delivery date. Everyone keeps referring to the KS estimated delivery date, but the product proposed now vs then is wildly different. So the question becomes, do we want a $500,000 game? Or do we want a $100 million game?
In short, no, he doesn't have a point. The real question is, do we want developers to quit it with the funding milestones? Is the estimated delivery date REALLY that important to people? Or would they rather see a game with expanded scope? More game for the same price? Personally, I care less about the delivery date and more about what's delivered. There are 3 modules out there now that you're more than welcome to try. There is plenty of communication. If you can't see that there's progress, whether you believe it's acceptable progress or not, then I'm really sorry.
So are you saying that my point is invalid? So that even with an expanded scope, they should be forced to deliver within the estimated delivery date? Or what? Face some sort of penalty? Personally, I just don't see the point, nor the validity. However, I also never denied they were beyond their estimated delivery date.
I don't see very much validity in forcing them to deliver at estimated release dates either, but at this point it's way past where you could explain them being late simply because the scope was increased.
Here's estimated release dates from January 2015:
Scope of the game didn't increase since then. The release date estimations they make just aren't accurate.
I would disagree, you have to factor what they are trying to achieve in that scope as well. If they where making a typical mmo then I would agree, but they're not. What they're trying to achieve has been deemed by fans and non-fans as impossible. No amount of planning can predict what you may face. While i would say CR putting out dates was silly, but when your trying to create something like this you're bound to hit a shit-ton of break walls, pushing back what you had planned to re-think and try another approach.
Tbh while things are being delayed, but they ARE being delivered. As Craz said, 3 modules are out for players to test. we've been told 2.0 is going to be released soon, Squadron 42 has a 2016 stamp on it, PU is in the works and people are getting weekly amounts of information on it and questions asked. All this and they haven't even hit the max time frame an average mmo (half baked) needs for development.
I think having these concerns are fine, but it's too early imho. CR had wishful thinking with a 2016 release.
The problem with releasing as they go along is that game creation in its early stages is ugly and frustrating and not something that I would have customers experience.
When you push out playable builds this takes away time and resources from making the entire game as a whole. Pushing out playable builds means patching issues, balancing (for some strange reason) and more resources are diverted to patching and unfinished product.
There's a big difference between releasing a broken PTR prototype and a relatively polished arena commander / hangar module. The main problem is the audience, I would rather see them release footage of broken but solid mechanics in the game than have more unsatisfying releases of modules.
While they are exciting things it's hard to see the foundation of interaction between the player and the worlds themselves. What we are getting is the player interacting with smaller elements within the world. Of course I understand that the planet kind of stuff is going to come a lot later so I have tempered my expectations.
Even if they did not release the game to us in modules, they'd still need to make a fairly polished playground for testing all the core gameplay mechanics.
Testing gameplay mechanics is not a waste of developer's time. It's essential part of creating a good game, especially when it comes to competitive multiplayer games.
It's a waste of time when said systems may not even be in place in the final product. Systems have to be re-itereated because they may want to add in something to calculate metrics or something may be scrapped entirely.
Testing things for iteration is great. Testing unfinished products is wasting time.
Play for fun. Play to win. Play for perfection. Play with friends. Play in another world. Why do you play?
Also, it should be noted that in 2012 a study found that 75% of KS projects shipped late, but that only 3.6% actually failed to ship.
People love to trot that out but seem unwilling to acknowledge that the success rate completely tanks when you look at a far more relevant category - Kickstarted MMOs.
Does it? Let's compare numbers. So I've got a list here of 31 "MMOs" as categorized by Massivelyop and a significant number are, actually, playable. Not sure if this is an exaggeration based on stereotype or based on the definition of release.
Do you realize what you have twice done now?
First it was 75% of all Kickstarters of all kinds shipped and only 3.6% actually failed to ship.
When asked to look at "Kickstarted MMOs" that shipped or failed to ship, you returned with a list of "crowdfunded MMOs that are in a playable state."
It's as if you can't accept that @Arkade99 has a valid point, but that is very unlike you, so it's really strange that you are doing this.
Not at all. He's basically looking for accountability for a project scope that is wildly different than what was originally proposed. Am I wrong? It would be like if I worked in data entry and I said I could finish 100 entries today. Then my boss gives me an extra 300 entries. Why should my boss expect that all 400 entries will be done before the end of the day?
That's a poor analogy, since Chris Roberts is the boss. He's the one who told his investors that he would deliver a product by a certain date and for a certain budget. He was the one who expanded the scope and who has so far failed to deliver a finished product.
You can make the argument that they didn't miss their estimates, but instead decided to make a much larger/better game with all the extra money, and you'd have a point. But is that really fair to the people who pledged on Kickstarter? They didn't buy into that. Yes, they can get refunds, but it's still not right to sell someone a product, and then hold back that product indefinitely so they can keep making it bigger and better. People want what they paid for.
But every game that is crowd funded has stretch goals which expand the scope of the game. If someone is putting money into a game blindly, without that understanding then that's unfortunate. It's not uncommon, though. I feel bad for people who thought they were buying into a static product and I really hope they'll pursue a refund. That being said, there are hundreds of thousands of others who are hoping the game materializes in the current state, and they don't mind waiting for it. I can definitely agree with you, though, that someone who bought into this without any knowledge of how crowd funding works may be disappointed. Then again, they may also feel like they are getting better value for their money too. Who's to know? There really aren't any metrics showing us how many people are unhappy, which is a big reason RSI is openly offering refunds, which many KS projects don't do, btw. Fairness would really boil down to expectation, and the question is how many people believed there would be no stretch goals? How many people wouldn't have wanted stretch goals? My guess is that number is pretty low, so I wouldn't lose sleep over it.
Not at all. He's basically looking for accountability for a project scope that is wildly different than what was originally proposed. Am I wrong? It would be like if I worked in data entry and I said I could finish 100 entries today. Then my boss gives me an extra 300 entries. Why should my boss expect that all 400 entries will be done before the end of the day? It's not as though they were given an opportunity to re-estimate the delivery date. Everyone keeps referring to the KS estimated delivery date, but the product proposed now vs then is wildly different. So the question becomes, do we want a $500,000 game? Or do we want a $100 million game?
In short, no, he doesn't have a point. The real question is, do we want developers to quit it with the funding milestones? Is the estimated delivery date REALLY that important to people? Or would they rather see a game with expanded scope? More game for the same price? Personally, I care less about the delivery date and more about what's delivered. There are 3 modules out there now that you're more than welcome to try. There is plenty of communication. If you can't see that there's progress, whether you believe it's acceptable progress or not, then I'm really sorry.
So are you saying that my point is invalid? So that even with an expanded scope, they should be forced to deliver within the estimated delivery date? Or what? Face some sort of penalty? Personally, I just don't see the point, nor the validity. However, I also never denied they were beyond their estimated delivery date.
I don't see very much validity in forcing them to deliver at estimated release dates either, but at this point it's way past where you could explain them being late simply because the scope was increased.
I would disagree, you have to factor what they are trying to achieve in that scope as well. If they where making a typical mmo then I would agree, but they're not. What they're trying to achieve has been deemed by fans and non-fans as impossible. No amount of planning can predict what you may face. While i would say CR putting out dates was silly, but when your trying to create something like this you're bound to hit a shit-ton of break walls, pushing back what you had planned to re-think and try another approach.
Tbh while things are being delayed, but they ARE being delivered. As Craz said, 3 modules are out for players to test. we've been told 2.0 is going to be released soon, Squadron 42 has a 2016 stamp on it, PU is in the works and people are getting weekly amounts of information on it and questions asked. All this and they haven't even hit the max time frame an average mmo (half baked) needs for development.
I think having these concerns are fine, but it's too early imho. CR had wishful thinking with a 2016 release.
If you take a look at what they actually provided, in 3 years we have an alpha dogfighting module, and walking simulators.
Trusing their words on release dates, well they talked about 2014 and 2015 for squadron 42, now they say 2016. Persistent universe alpha was a 2014 and 2015 thing, at citizencon they provided a map. When the whole star marine being delayed indefinitely circulated here was Ben Lesnick in july 2015 saying that it would be made available in weeks and not months or years.
Chris Roberts had a wishful thinking that it would be done in 2014, 2015 and 2016. Given the speed they deliver things and what they wish to achieve I would say 2017 is starting to sound like wishful thinking as well. After all, they aren't just trying to make an average MMO.
Kickstarters are notoriously bad at releasing things in time. Games like broken age and dreamfall chapters had to rely on splitting up releases because money became an issue. Creator of divinity: original sin struggled with investors since doing lengthy beta costs a lot of money. Developer of shadowrun online folded moments after they released the game.
Chris Roberts can defend feature creep and expanded scope all he wants, he relies on ship sales from loyal fans and showing the game on events but there is a limit on how much money people will donate for virtual ships. Donations has been slowing down while and to complete this beast they probably need squadron 42 partially released within a year with good sales numbers to continue development beyond 2016.
Iselin: And the next person who says "but it's a business, they need to make money" can just go fuck yourself.
Yes they are far behind a "rough" schedule or timeline; however, look at the quality they are going for and have designed and showed already. This is not a simple project. He is doing space, ground, innership, and a whole universe.
I do agree they should of came up with a more realistic timeline at the start, but at the rate they are going the end project will be worth it 120%!
It isn't just the time, it's the money. Their goal was to raise 500k. They have raised 93 million. Raising 186 times what they said they needed isn't enough to finish the game even close to on schedule?
you ARE aware that the average mmo takes around 5 years to develop right? 98 million isn't a big deal either when you see how much money was spent on other MMO games either. Do some research.
Even better. They don't have to even come up with new features to explain the delay. They are still getting millions a month doing absolutely nothing at all.
If you think they are "doing absolutely nothing at all" i recommend you read the very detailed weekly and monthly progress reports on the official Star Citizen homepage.
You mean the reports that have been saying that Star Marine would be released soon for the last year? Oh ya they are totally accurate in their representation of the state of SC.
Comments
So the failure rate was something between 36.6% and 3.6%. Until someone does a further study about how many of those delayed projects eventually delivered we don't know any more about the failure rate than that it was between 36.6% and 3.6%.
I still means that two thirds of the projects delivered at least something, which is better than I honestly expected from Kickstarter.
Considering this conclusion being fallacious, using your very own logic, the rest of your post is also flawed thus no point reading any further
No, that's not correct either. A game in development neither failed, nor successful. Do you consider everything you're currently working on a failure? If so, that really sucks. However, C'est la vie, if that's your outlook on life then to each his own.
FYI, I do have some more recent numbers (up until 2013) which show that the delivery rate for projects funded in 2011 currently stands at 73%, 2012 is 78% and 2013 is currently at 45%. Also, it should be noted that the 2013 project data is incomplete, since I do it on my spare time only, and haven't dug into any of the 2013 projects above an initial google search. Should be interesting to see how the 2013 projects look in a year. I think that a 3-year turnover seems to be the current trend. Also, the average project ships 10 months past it's estimated date, based on the data I have.
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
----------------
Note: He will not blame backers, that isn't his style. He will sell it as the best thing under the sun to happen to SC.
First it was 75% of all Kickstarters of all kinds shipped and only 3.6% actually failed to ship.
When asked to look at "Kickstarted MMOs" that shipped or failed to ship, you returned with a list of "crowdfunded MMOs that are in a playable state."
It's as if you can't accept that @Arkade99 has a valid point, but that is very unlike you, so it's really strange that you are doing this.
- RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right?
- FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
^ It's all better now. Nothing to see here folks.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Not at all. He's basically looking for accountability for a project scope that is wildly different than what was originally proposed. Am I wrong? It would be like if I worked in data entry and I said I could finish 100 entries today. Then my boss gives me an extra 300 entries. Why should my boss expect that all 400 entries will be done before the end of the day? It's not as though they were given an opportunity to re-estimate the delivery date. Everyone keeps referring to the KS estimated delivery date, but the product proposed now vs then is wildly different. So the question becomes, do we want a $500,000 game? Or do we want a $100 million game?
In short, no, he doesn't have a point. The real question is, do we want developers to quit it with the funding milestones? Is the estimated delivery date REALLY that important to people? Or would they rather see a game with expanded scope? More game for the same price? Personally, I care less about the delivery date and more about what's delivered. There are 3 modules out there now that you're more than welcome to try. There is plenty of communication. If you can't see that there's progress, whether you believe it's acceptable progress or not, then I'm really sorry.
So are you saying that my point is invalid? So that even with an expanded scope, they should be forced to deliver within the estimated delivery date? Or what? Face some sort of penalty? Personally, I just don't see the point, nor the validity. However, I also never denied they were beyond their estimated delivery date.
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
----------------
You never denied the delays, you called them "re-estimate the delivery date".
You care about what is delivered, yet what was delivered is bare tech demo.
3 modules out there now that you're more than welcome to try - hangar module, c'mon..
Yes, delivery dates are important. The game being longer in development due missed deadlines does not mean expanded scope, in fact it likely means the opposite because the resources otherwise used for "expanded scope" are spent on catching up with those missed deadlines...
Seriously, can't you see the pattern in your posts...?
So are you saying that the scope of the game has not increased since the end of the Kickstarter Campaign?
Seriously, if you don't think the scope has changed, I see the problem.
Actually, here's a counter question. So if the original estimated delivery date was 2017, then does this argument go away? If they were to refund all KS backers, right now, then do they get to continue their funding indefinitely without criticism?
Honestly, I don't get it. RSI has a wide open refund policy right now, so if people have a problem then get your money back. I'm just saying, the majority of people backing the project don't. The majority of people backing the project would rather wait on a quality product.
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
----------------
Here's estimated release dates from January 2015:
Scope of the game didn't increase since then. The release date estimations they make just aren't accurate.
Vrika was faster...
Regardless, the "re-scaling" argument is irrelevant - the increased scale consists of number of modules to be released. That was the whole point of modules afterall.
Why should anyone new, at this time, put $1 into a game with this much controversy surrounding it, when by CGI's own admission, they have missed many deadlines already?
It also does not look good that CGI/CR keeps selling new ships to keep the money coming in, because if they NEED more funding at this point, after already taking in $100 mil+, that is also a big warning sign.
Or gimmicks to attract new paying players like that recent free in game cash give away. It smells of desperation.
So I, like many others (I suspect) are taking a definite "wait and see" as far as SC goes. And not putting in a cent until after release.
Explain how it's irrelevant, though? I mean they were taking on new features up until the end of 2014 based on their own stretch goals on their website. Not saying they aren't to blame for that. However, to insist that it's irrelevant is ridiculous. I mean the boarding alone is a beast. Everything from there on out just increases the effort required. Again, keep in mind that to finish a character, you're looking at a month, possibly more. I'm not disagreeing that it's on them, but to say the scope hasn't increased isn't right either.
As far as Vrika goes, all but the S42 episode and FPS will be in the 2.0 update which is, to my knowledge, still supposed to be launched in 2015. You, really, can't argue with that infographic. Yeah, there are two big things not finished. However, just because they're modular doesn't mean there aren't dependencies. S42 probably relies on all modules, so you won't see it until all modules are done. However, everything else in that list has been or is planned for alpha 2.0. So is it as bad as it's being made out to be? That's a little more subjective.
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
----------------
You can make the argument that they didn't miss their estimates, but instead decided to make a much larger/better game with all the extra money, and you'd have a point. But is that really fair to the people who pledged on Kickstarter? They didn't buy into that. Yes, they can get refunds, but it's still not right to sell someone a product, and then hold back that product indefinitely so they can keep making it bigger and better. People want what they paid for.
Sad part is IF Erin Roberts would of been in charge from the start things could be very different.
Scary part is the people he has involved himself with, a few of them do not seem like the type of people to be involved with. Not going into all that, it is all out there and who these people are. I hope the rumors of money laundering is all bull, But I must say it sure does look like a pyramid scheme that would work very well to launder money.
I watched a video of Chris Roberts this weekend and through the whole video I keep hearing how great you guys are and know you understand how we have to keep the money rolling in.
So that leaves me with one final statement about this whole thing. The scam continues.
Sorry but that is IMHO! I really hope am wrong but being around these type people and games for almost 20 years I have never seen anything like this on such a large scale!
Star Citizen – The Extinction Level Event
4/13/15 > ELE has been updated look for 16-04-13.
http://www.dereksmart.org/2016/04/star-citizen-the-ele/
Enjoy and know the truth always comes to light!
Tbh while things are being delayed, but they ARE being delivered. As Craz said, 3 modules are out for players to test. we've been told 2.0 is going to be released soon, Squadron 42 has a 2016 stamp on it, PU is in the works and people are getting weekly amounts of information on it and questions asked. All this and they haven't even hit the max time frame an average mmo (half baked) needs for development.
I think having these concerns are fine, but it's too early imho. CR had wishful thinking with a 2016 release.
Testing things for iteration is great. Testing unfinished products is wasting time.
Play for fun. Play to win. Play for perfection. Play with friends. Play in another world. Why do you play?
But every game that is crowd funded has stretch goals which expand the scope of the game. If someone is putting money into a game blindly, without that understanding then that's unfortunate. It's not uncommon, though. I feel bad for people who thought they were buying into a static product and I really hope they'll pursue a refund. That being said, there are hundreds of thousands of others who are hoping the game materializes in the current state, and they don't mind waiting for it. I can definitely agree with you, though, that someone who bought into this without any knowledge of how crowd funding works may be disappointed. Then again, they may also feel like they are getting better value for their money too. Who's to know? There really aren't any metrics showing us how many people are unhappy, which is a big reason RSI is openly offering refunds, which many KS projects don't do, btw. Fairness would really boil down to expectation, and the question is how many people believed there would be no stretch goals? How many people wouldn't have wanted stretch goals? My guess is that number is pretty low, so I wouldn't lose sleep over it.
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
----------------
Trusing their words on release dates, well they talked about 2014 and 2015 for squadron 42, now they say 2016. Persistent universe alpha was a 2014 and 2015 thing, at citizencon they provided a map. When the whole star marine being delayed indefinitely circulated here was Ben Lesnick in july 2015 saying that it would be made available in weeks and not months or years.
Chris Roberts had a wishful thinking that it would be done in 2014, 2015 and 2016. Given the speed they deliver things and what they wish to achieve I would say 2017 is starting to sound like wishful thinking as well. After all, they aren't just trying to make an average MMO.
Kickstarters are notoriously bad at releasing things in time. Games like broken age and dreamfall chapters had to rely on splitting up releases because money became an issue. Creator of divinity: original sin struggled with investors since doing lengthy beta costs a lot of money. Developer of shadowrun online folded moments after they released the game.
Chris Roberts can defend feature creep and expanded scope all he wants, he relies on ship sales from loyal fans and showing the game on events but there is a limit on how much money people will donate for virtual ships. Donations has been slowing down while and to complete this beast they probably need squadron 42 partially released within a year with good sales numbers to continue development beyond 2016.
Anyone familiar with Chris Roberts work should know his MO is overpromised, underdelivered, and late.
They'd better release the single player part of the game in the next year, or even True Believers are going to start getting a little nervous.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.