Well this would be perfectly fine if you represented CIG somehow but you do not. They are giving these dates and they are continuing to be stupid about the whole thing. Why you trying to defend something you know is wrong in the first place?
I don't need to represent it. As everyone else i can make my own mind from what was said about. And the moment 2016 was this hopeful deadline, i didn't took it as any rock solid date, so my expectations for it are in due place.
What is wrong, is that he does NOT play safe when he gives dates, it's all so optimistic and hopeful that everything is going to go without a hitch or any setbacks.
In any way the estimate does not seem to be any complete shot in the dark. From his own words on what its current status and what's left to do. It's impossible to speculate on this until (if) they show the game playing next month and we can see by ourselves.
I think it was a bit more than just a hopeful deadline. It was (and continues to be) an official announcemment. The Bishop trailer was quite clearly a release declaration, the splitting of packages earlier in the year were obviously to do with the upcoming release, the website is still declaring 2016 as the year to expect Sq42.
I don't particularly care they've delayed it, most of us expected it because they're probably the worse company in existence for keeping deadlines, my only gripe is that they're not a bit more up front with the very people that are making the ideas a reality.
I think it was a bit more than just a hopeful deadline. It was (and continues to be) an official announcemment. The Bishop trailer was quite clearly a release declaration, the splitting of packages earlier in the year were obviously to do with the upcoming release, the website is still declaring 2016 as the year to expect Sq42.
I don't particularly care they've delayed it, most of us expected it because they're probably the worse company in existence for keeping deadlines, my only gripe is that they're not a bit more up front with the very people that are making the ideas a reality.
That's because you don't understand game development on the most transparent project ever!!! :awesome:
They won't announce a delay on their sales revenues. Delays don't make money. The SC Fans are accepting "silent" delays because CIG teached indoctrinated them how game Star Citizen Development works.
Wait for Citcon and we shall see if they'll not mention the release matter. 32 days now.
It's not accepting "silent" delays, generally on the community of backers there was skepticism towards 2016 as its date since it was announced. And for me it kinda put my expectation that it possibily woudn't make it when CR some time after announcing 2016 puts it as "hopefully we will make it".
Showing how 2016 was such a rock-solid hopeful date. And that is what i am against, giving backers hopeful release dates, if it is for that better not give the date at all.
Well this would be perfectly fine if you represented CIG somehow but you do not. They are giving these dates and they are continuing to be stupid about the whole thing. Why you trying to defend something you know is wrong in the first place?
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I think it was a bit more than just a hopeful deadline. It was (and continues to be) an official announcemment. The Bishop trailer was quite clearly a release declaration, the splitting of packages earlier in the year were obviously to do with the upcoming release, the website is still declaring 2016 as the year to expect Sq42.
I don't particularly care they've delayed it, most of us expected it because they're probably the worse company in existence for keeping deadlines, my only gripe is that they're not a bit more up front with the very people that are making the ideas a reality.
That's because you don't understand game development on the most transparent project ever!!! :awesome:
This isn't untrue and it goes to demonstrate a LOT as well. First off, no, people generally don't understand game development, or even software development for that matter and tend to have unrealistic expectations of both. Shit, if I can't get a PM to understand the concept of software development, getting someone who works at McDonald's to understand it isn't going to be any easier (although sometimes I think it could be). So, no, you don't understand game development and based on your commentary I would venture to say you have zero understand of software development either.
Secondly, the classic overcompensation is the exact thing that's hurting games as a whole. We're actually living in a day and age where there IS actually really good and transparent communication from developers. However, there has been constant and continual evidence that the general public is unable to communicate on any level above literals. If there is any space left for interpretation then they will take it and run with it and have a million YouTube views in less than a day. Honestly, it sometimes makes me wonder if people are laughing at them, but I think it's more likely the sad case that people are actually just that dense. So congratulations humanity!!
I think it was a bit more than just a hopeful deadline. It was (and continues to be) an official announcemment. The Bishop trailer was quite clearly a release declaration, the splitting of packages earlier in the year were obviously to do with the upcoming release, the website is still declaring 2016 as the year to expect Sq42.
I don't particularly care they've delayed it, most of us expected it because they're probably the worse company in existence for keeping deadlines, my only gripe is that they're not a bit more up front with the very people that are making the ideas a reality.
That's because you don't understand game development on the most transparent project ever!!! :awesome:
This isn't untrue and it goes to demonstrate a LOT as well. First off, no, people generally don't understand game development, or even software development for that matter and tend to have unrealistic expectations of both. Shit, if I can't get a PM to understand the concept of software development, getting someone who works at McDonald's to understand it isn't going to be any easier (although sometimes I think it could be). So, no, you don't understand game development and based on your commentary I would venture to say you have zero understand of software development either.
Secondly, the classic overcompensation is the exact thing that's hurting games as a whole. We're actually living in a day and age where there IS actually really good and transparent communication from developers. However, there has been constant and continual evidence that the general public is unable to communicate on any level above literals. If there is any space left for interpretation then they will take it and run with it and have a million YouTube views in less than a day. Honestly, it sometimes makes me wonder if people are laughing at them, but I think it's more likely the sad case that people are actually just that dense. So congratulations humanity!!
There is still no excuse for that CIG is doing right now with SQ42 and there is no excuse for what they did with Star Marine. Look at how Uncharted 4 was handled. Now compare that with how CIG is handling their own delays. First problem is that Uncharted 4 was closed development. CIG is open development. Yet the Uncharted 4 had a much better and believable explanation then anything CIG has given us. Even though it was closed development. So you can sit there and say we are too stupid to understand all you want. If they can handle this half way decent there wouldn't be any problem right now. But smart people like yourself would know such things wouldnt you....
I would also like to point out that the CIG supporters are the ones saying that this SQ42 launch date is incorrect. Even though CIG is still claiming this date.
Supporters always with the "you dont understand' nonsense. That is IMMATERIAL if the OFFICIAL word was AND STILL IS 'it will be released by xxxx. Its one thing to speculate and BOTH sides do that all the time (why they would need in such a transparent and open development with almost daily 'updates' is beyond me) but they do. Maybe because what I just said is exactly the case, they dont really say anything, and when they do it is conveniently ignored by the supporters (irony) if it doesnt fit the narrative or realistic expectations.
I said it when I first came back about a month ago. People were all hot for SQ 42 I said if they dont have something at that moment (a month ago) that is much much much better than the tech demo theyre calling an alpha for an SQ product it isnt going to be released in a retail state before the end of the year.
I also have been around this long enough to know if they DID have something that refined and optically impressive they would have leaked it somehow. This whole idea that theyre waiting for the next convention to have some massive reveal is more white knight fantasyland crap.
That convention will be more of the same they might show something SQ 42 related that shows they at least havea proof of concept with it, and they will make the same bold statements about it like they did Star Marine and then they will try and sell more ships.
Then around Nov there will be some announcement that some third party issue occurred and SQ 42 will be delayed while they 'focus' on 3.0. Which due to the unforeseen issues with SQ 42 is also not on the track they would like it to be on so only a portion of what you were shown (more than likely nothing that mattered) will be added in that next 'game changing' update.
The script is so predictable and they never change it people can literally give an outline and a fairly accurate timeline of how things will unfold over the next few months. Call it educated speculation.
Because what I said right there has so much more probability of happening than them actually doing what their OFFICIAL website says trying to put odds on it would be impossible.
Bottomline is come Jan 1st you wont see SQ 42 nor will you be flying missions with a dragonfly and taking off from one ship and landing on anther. I doubt you will be landing any ship on any planets either/ And you certainly wont be walking cargo on or off any of those ship that you hope you can land on those PG planets. But that is one thing they might get in, a PG planet. So for all that has been promised and announced and 'shown' getting a PG should be a great disappointment, but the people invested in this game will be so overjoyed by it they will continue top praise the almighty Roberts.
I would also like to point out that the CIG supporters are the ones saying that this SQ42 launch date is incorrect. Even though CIG is still claiming this date.
CIG supporters say that one should wait for CitizenCon in October where SPECIFICALLY SQ42 is the topic. As has been announced by CIG during GamesCom.
Most do NOT say that the date is incorrect - in fact most on the forums expect the bulk of the game in early 2017 (with maybe the first episodes in 2016 as teaser). They point out that CURRENTLY the scheduled date is 2016 (see SQ42 official homepage) and until that officially changes (e.g. via a CitizenCon announcement) 2016 is the official date.
People can SPECULATE as much as they want ... its just superflous as a relevant OFFICIAL announcement w.r.t. SQ42 will come out in only a few days.
I would also like to point out that the CIG supporters are the ones saying that this SQ42 launch date is incorrect. Even though CIG is still claiming this date.
CIG supporters say that one should wait for CitizenCon in October where SPECIFICALLY SQ42 is the topic. As has been announced by CIG during GamesCom.
Most do NOT say that the date is incorrect - in fact most on the forums expect the bulk of the game in early 2017 (with maybe the first episodes in 2016 as teaser). They point out that CURRENTLY the scheduled date is 2016 (see SQ42 official homepage) and until that officially changes (e.g. via a CitizenCon announcement) 2016 is the official date.
People can SPECULATE as much as they want ... its just superflous as a relevant OFFICIAL announcement w.r.t. SQ42 will come out in only a few days.
Have fun
Exactly. People need to stop spreading FUD and just believe that SQ42 will be out later this year and possibly early next year. Believe in the Chris Roberts and his CIG.
Secondly, the classic overcompensation is the exact thing that's hurting games as a whole. We're actually living in a day and age where there IS actually really good and transparent communication from developers. However, there has been constant and continual evidence that the general public is unable to communicate on any level above literals. If there is any space left for interpretation then they will take it and run with it and have a million YouTube views in less than a day. Honestly, it sometimes makes me wonder if people are laughing at them, but I think it's more likely the sad case that people are actually just that dense. So congratulations humanity!!
So when I look at this slide from one of Chris Roberts presentations I am being too literal expecting this to be anywhere close to being done by the end of 2016? So when Chris Roberts says "Spring of 2015" I am being too literal for thinking it might be done by the end of 2016?
I dont know where you work but judging by what you are saying, your software development cycle is FUBAR if your staff can not deliver software within a year and a half of the projected dates they gave you. You might want to start looking for either new programmers or a new job yourself...
"Sean (Murray) saying MP will be in the game is not remotely close to evidence that at the point of purchase people thought there was MP in the game." - SEANMCAD
I would also like to point out that the CIG supporters are the ones saying that this SQ42 launch date is incorrect. Even though CIG is still claiming this date.
CIG supporters say that one should wait for CitizenCon in October where SPECIFICALLY SQ42 is the topic. As has been announced by CIG during GamesCom.
Most do NOT say that the date is incorrect - in fact most on the forums expect the bulk of the game in early 2017 (with maybe the first episodes in 2016 as teaser). They point out that CURRENTLY the scheduled date is 2016 (see SQ42 official homepage) and until that officially changes (e.g. via a CitizenCon announcement) 2016 is the official date.
People can SPECULATE as much as they want ... its just superflous as a relevant OFFICIAL announcement w.r.t. SQ42 will come out in only a few days.
Have fun
Using caps does not make your post any more authoritive Erillion...
Anyhow, given the comments about the state of AI I'm going to be surprised if anything makes a debut this year. Perhaps there will be a demo but I rather doubt it, I'd imagine Roberts would want to release it as a whole unit.
Thanks for granting your permission for people to speculate, I'm sure that's much appreciated.
So when I look at this slide from one of Chris Roberts presentations I am being too literal expecting this to be anywhere close to being done by the end of 2016? So when Chris Roberts says "Spring of 2015" I am being too literal for thinking it might be done by the end of 2016?
Uh remember that Squadron 42 was not meant to release the FULL game at once, it was meant to release in up to 5 updates of 10 missions each until the game was complete. (unrelated to SQ42 Behind Enemy Lines)
What ended up shaping into the full thing at once instead, no alphas, no betas.
I think it was a bit more than just a hopeful deadline. It was (and continues to be) an official announcemment. The Bishop trailer was quite clearly a release declaration, the splitting of packages earlier in the year were obviously to do with the upcoming release, the website is still declaring 2016 as the year to expect Sq42.
I don't particularly care they've delayed it, most of us expected it because they're probably the worse company in existence for keeping deadlines, my only gripe is that they're not a bit more up front with the very people that are making the ideas a reality.
That's because you don't understand game development on the most transparent project ever!!! :awesome:
This isn't untrue and it goes to demonstrate a LOT as well. First off, no, people generally don't understand game development, or even software development for that matter and tend to have unrealistic expectations of both. Shit, if I can't get a PM to understand the concept of software development, getting someone who works at McDonald's to understand it isn't going to be any easier (although sometimes I think it could be). So, no, you don't understand game development and based on your commentary I would venture to say you have zero understand of software development either.
Secondly, the classic overcompensation is the exact thing that's hurting games as a whole. We're actually living in a day and age where there IS actually really good and transparent communication from developers. However, there has been constant and continual evidence that the general public is unable to communicate on any level above literals. If there is any space left for interpretation then they will take it and run with it and have a million YouTube views in less than a day. Honestly, it sometimes makes me wonder if people are laughing at them, but I think it's more likely the sad case that people are actually just that dense. So congratulations humanity!!
There is still no excuse for that CIG is doing right now with SQ42 and there is no excuse for what they did with Star Marine. Look at how Uncharted 4 was handled. Now compare that with how CIG is handling their own delays. First problem is that Uncharted 4 was closed development. CIG is open development. Yet the Uncharted 4 had a much better and believable explanation then anything CIG has given us. Even though it was closed development. So you can sit there and say we are too stupid to understand all you want. If they can handle this half way decent there wouldn't be any problem right now. But smart people like yourself would know such things wouldnt you....
Yeah, but the thing that some don't seem to understand is that even when a delivery date isn't slipped on a "closed development", what you get is what they made golden to hit that date. It doesn't mean it's good, it doesn't mean it's finished, it means that it's what they delivered on that date.
I'm not trying to say that transparency is an excuse here. SC has been like a comedy of errors. That being said, people cannot handle transparency. SC isn't the one example of it. There are a plethora of examples, including NMS, which have shown that people cannot handle transparency. So what I'm saying is that if they had remained closed, development and CR's mouth, then they'd probably ship without so much as a peep. It'd be like the greatest fucking thing since sliced bread. Instead, you give people a vision and they imprint that idea on their memory and they will be unwavering about that. SM is a perfect example of that. So was PU. So was NMS. Actually, NMS was the greatest example because there were a multitude of times that they said "It does not have multiplayer!!!!". Actually, Destiny did the same. They said it was not an MMO, yet it somehow got called an MMO, lol. Same goes for The Division.
I'm not so sure that people can't handle transparency. What people can't handle is seeing things happen, seeing things change and then not be told why that's occuring. If you're going to be open then be open and give people a proper insight as to what's going on.
One of the things I was looking forward to with SC was a better understanding of the development process, instead most of the 'open development' has turned out to be nothing more than marketing fluff. The jump point magazines do have some good information but that's about it.
Secondly, the classic overcompensation is the exact thing that's hurting games as a whole. We're actually living in a day and age where there IS actually really good and transparent communication from developers. However, there has been constant and continual evidence that the general public is unable to communicate on any level above literals. If there is any space left for interpretation then they will take it and run with it and have a million YouTube views in less than a day. Honestly, it sometimes makes me wonder if people are laughing at them, but I think it's more likely the sad case that people are actually just that dense. So congratulations humanity!!
So when I look at this slide from one of Chris Roberts presentations I am being too literal expecting this to be anywhere close to being done by the end of 2016? So when Chris Roberts says "Spring of 2015" I am being too literal for thinking it might be done by the end of 2016?
I dont know where you work but judging by what you are saying, your software development cycle is FUBAR if your staff can not deliver software within a year and a half of the projected dates they gave you. You might want to start looking for either new programmers or a new job yourself...
Actually, the delivery date was 2014.
Yeah, that's pretty much exactly what I'm talking about. Along with the laughable date above and the "$6 million game" argument. The image you're linking to above is approaching 2 years old. There has been plenty of press with regards to release dates since that time. However, again, people just hold onto what's been said and take it literally as if there can be no change in a project that is "impossible". If we're wanting to check mark things I mean the only thing that hasn't been demonstrated to date would be S42. So we're probably talking about being a year behind. Not that it's not substantial, but it's already been acknowledged on numerous occasions that the scope has changed.
So what do we have here? We've got massive scope change, a high level of risk, and CR who was replaced by his brother (probably because of his unrealistic expectations), and we've got a company working with an "Agile" methodology who is REALLY using waterfall based on the highly dependent nature of their project. What does this mean? Well, it means that we can't just release at will, it means that we've baked in lots of dependencies on features that simply don't exist. This is why only about 25% of waterfall projects hit their target and about another 25% fail altogether. The other 50% are just fucked. Why? Waterfall requires an increasingly high investment to return anything. Agile concentrates on small interations which actually release something.
The other problem is that you're talking about quotes given 2 years ago. You notice how CDPR didn't give a release date for Cyberpunk 2077? Yeah, that's because you DON'T FUCKING DO THAT!!! However, there is one thing for sure, the closer you are to actually releasing, the better your estimate will be. I know it sounds retarded, but it's true. At my company, we don't announce anything at a show that won't be out in 6 months or less. For anyone who is a "Big Deal" we will have closed-door meetings to show what we're working on, but no release dates are given.
Based on what you're telling me, if you actually do work in software, then you aren't likely to be working on large projects. Secondly, I don't know why anyone would expect that this would be released any sooner than 2016. There is some image circulating about development timelines and where SC sits in comparison. Say what you want, but if you had even the slightest knowledge about game development, how long they take, etc. I think you'd be pretty impressed at the progress in 4 years, even with the fuck-ups. Finally, again, if I were executing a project properly, in Agile, then I could ship the product any time I'd like. However, it's not Agile (maybe it's more agile now, but it wasn't). If you believe that the scope sold was realistically a 2 year project then you're simply misinformed. If you believe the image that you're posting above, we've still got some 2016 left. However, let's say it took 1 more year, even. Do you think that a 20-25% slip on a waterfall project is a bad thing? Especially when the PM is a fucking cook, the scope is constantly changing, and what you're trying to do is not common knowledge and has been called, "impossible" by some.
Right now we have the equivalent of Chris telling some dude in a Chinese restaurant during the holidays at Hong Kong rumor. CIG has anounced nothing of the sort.
Secondly, the classic overcompensation is the exact thing that's hurting games as a whole. We're actually living in a day and age where there IS actually really good and transparent communication from developers. However, there has been constant and continual evidence that the general public is unable to communicate on any level above literals. If there is any space left for interpretation then they will take it and run with it and have a million YouTube views in less than a day. Honestly, it sometimes makes me wonder if people are laughing at them, but I think it's more likely the sad case that people are actually just that dense. So congratulations humanity!!
So when I look at this slide from one of Chris Roberts presentations I am being too literal expecting this to be anywhere close to being done by the end of 2016? So when Chris Roberts says "Spring of 2015" I am being too literal for thinking it might be done by the end of 2016?
I dont know where you work but judging by what you are saying, your software development cycle is FUBAR if your staff can not deliver software within a year and a half of the projected dates they gave you. You might want to start looking for either new programmers or a new job yourself...
Actually, the delivery date was 2014.
Yeah, that's pretty much exactly what I'm talking about. Along with the laughable date above and the "$6 million game" argument. The image you're linking to above is approaching 2 years old. There has been plenty of press with regards to release dates since that time. However, again, people just hold onto what's been said and take it literally as if there can be no change in a project that is "impossible".
OK, so you think it is perfectly acceptable for companies to give release dates every 6 months and then when they miss those dates, to give new release dates while doing this over and over again for several years. Thank you for clearing that up for me. I apologize for being so literal and expecting any kind of release date given to ever be met within a 3 year span of time from the date given.
"Sean (Murray) saying MP will be in the game is not remotely close to evidence that at the point of purchase people thought there was MP in the game." - SEANMCAD
All these websites rely themselves on the single journalist that posted about it, so i reached the journalist where all of this was sourced from directly and:
So... Wasn't guaranteed it will delay, however, it's likely. Hence why CIG have not confirmed it.
It's interesting that GameRanx reports "Squadron 42 is most likely to arrive by mid to late 2017" unlike what the actual journalist that made the interview they were reporting on said.
Secondly, the classic overcompensation is the exact thing that's hurting games as a whole. We're actually living in a day and age where there IS actually really good and transparent communication from developers. However, there has been constant and continual evidence that the general public is unable to communicate on any level above literals. If there is any space left for interpretation then they will take it and run with it and have a million YouTube views in less than a day. Honestly, it sometimes makes me wonder if people are laughing at them, but I think it's more likely the sad case that people are actually just that dense. So congratulations humanity!!
So when I look at this slide from one of Chris Roberts presentations I am being too literal expecting this to be anywhere close to being done by the end of 2016? So when Chris Roberts says "Spring of 2015" I am being too literal for thinking it might be done by the end of 2016?
I dont know where you work but judging by what you are saying, your software development cycle is FUBAR if your staff can not deliver software within a year and a half of the projected dates they gave you. You might want to start looking for either new programmers or a new job yourself...
Actually, the delivery date was 2014.
Yeah, that's pretty much exactly what I'm talking about. Along with the laughable date above and the "$6 million game" argument. The image you're linking to above is approaching 2 years old. There has been plenty of press with regards to release dates since that time. However, again, people just hold onto what's been said and take it literally as if there can be no change in a project that is "impossible".
OK, so you think it is perfectly acceptable for companies to give release dates every 6 months and then when they miss those dates, to give new release dates while doing this over and over again for several years. Thank you for clearing that up for me. I apologize for being so literal and expecting any kind of release date given to ever be met within a 3 year span of time from the date given.
Lol, yes, it sure is. Were you aware that The Division was set to release in 2014? Only to release in 2016? Half-life 2 was delayed for years. The Witcher 3 was delayed a multitude of times, amounting to a year or so. Then you've got developers who are just dead-on with their delivery dates, like Bethesda. Or so they'd have you believe. Bethesda has been quoted as saying that Fallout 4 was essentially done and ready to go before it was even announced. So, yes, delays happen and they happen frequently. Until they are ready for release, they could change even more frequently than 6 months.
Do I think it's acceptable to continually change delivery dates? I'd love to live in a world where someone set a date and that was it. However, the reality is that that is rarely the case. Actually, I'd say that the expectation of delays is more common now, isn't it? Is it acceptable? It depends on what you'd rather. Would you rather hear nothing about a game until it's released? Or would you rather hear everything about a game?
I'm not saying that you're wrong, but it does illustrate why transparency doesn't work. That boils down to misaligned expectations. Where you expected that it would ship, commercially, in 2016, I was skeptical and actually expected delays. Similarly, there are some who would argue that it should have been shipped in 2014 because that's what their original estimate was. The delta from that person to you is massive. The delta from you to where I am is smaller but still exists. However, you're saying that you're now unwilling to accept change since these dates were published in some presentation 2 years ago. Why would you have an expectation that things wouldn't change if AAA publishers slip their own dates by months, multiple times, when they aren't even announcing the titles until they are nearly done, or with months to go before release?
I understand that you feel like you're being lied to but, contextually, it really isn't that dissimilar than any other game, or piece of software. The biggest issue is what it's always been, and that's the dependencies that are baked into the game. Not being able to act quickly and be responsive to basically shut people up is a great illustration of this. Instead there is a year-long shit storm before anything of substance is demonstrated and will, possibly, be in alpha soon. It demonstrates a severe lack of flexibility. I'd go as far as to say that I wouldn't be surprised to see more delays. However, what I am saying is that delays aren't something exclusive to SC, never has been, and never will be. It's something that is now pandemic in the games industry and is more likely to happen than not. Really, it just makes the case to do away with transparency altogether, like what Bethesda does. Honestly, I really don't think that everyone needs to know how the magic trick is done and it will probably be a huge disappointment for most anyway.
I understand what you are saying and honestly, I need a job in game development.
I could lie about features that are not even in my game like Sean Murray answering yes to multiplayer.
I can say "stretch goals will not delay release" and then a few months later act like people are stupid for NOT expecting my game to be delayed due to stretch goals. (Star Citizen)
I could give dates over and over again and not meet a single one while I laugh all the way to the bank. (as we just discussed)
I could announce features like Co-OP at the beginning of development to get more people to give me money and then later I can say no refunds and then announce that Co-OP would take away from the singe player experience. (Star Citizen)
Heck, I can even change the terms of service whenever I want and remove any accountability of me even producing a game! (Star Citizen)
I could sell pictures of things in my game that are not even in there yet and best of all, I dont even have to create them at launch. (Star Citizen)
Yep, I need a job in game development.
"Sean (Murray) saying MP will be in the game is not remotely close to evidence that at the point of purchase people thought there was MP in the game." - SEANMCAD
Right now we have the equivalent of Chris telling some dude in a Chinese restaurant during the holidays at Hong Kong rumor. CIG has anounced nothing of the sort.
How so considering that article was published after your first comment? But yea the source they quoted is kinda similiar to what I said. Some dude heard Chris say it and that is where we are getting this information. But is there a video or anything from CIG?
I understand what you are saying and honestly, I need a job in game development.
I could lie about features that are not even in my game like Sean Murray answering yes to multiplayer.
I can say "stretch goals will not delay release" and then a few months later act like people are stupid for NOT expecting my game to be delayed due to stretch goals. (Star Citizen)
I could give dates over and over again and not meet a single one while I laugh all the way to the bank. (as we just discussed)
I could announce features like Co-OP at the beginning of development to get more people to give me money and then later I can say no refunds and then announce that Co-OP would take away from the singe player experience. (Star Citizen)
Heck, I can even change the terms of service whenever I want and remove any accountability of me even producing a game! (Star Citizen)
I could sell pictures of things in my game that are not even in there yet and best of all, I dont even have to create them at launch. (Star Citizen)
Comments
What is wrong, is that he does NOT play safe when he gives dates, it's all so optimistic and hopeful that everything is going to go without a hitch or any setbacks.
In any way the estimate does not seem to be any complete shot in the dark. From his own words on what its current status and what's left to do. It's impossible to speculate on this until (if) they show the game playing next month and we can see by ourselves.
The Bishop trailer was quite clearly a release declaration, the splitting of packages earlier in the year were obviously to do with the upcoming release, the website is still declaring 2016 as the year to expect Sq42.
I don't particularly care they've delayed it, most of us expected it because they're probably the worse company in existence for keeping deadlines, my only gripe is that they're not a bit more up front with the very people that are making the ideas a reality.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
This isn't untrue and it goes to demonstrate a LOT as well. First off, no, people generally don't understand game development, or even software development for that matter and tend to have unrealistic expectations of both. Shit, if I can't get a PM to understand the concept of software development, getting someone who works at McDonald's to understand it isn't going to be any easier (although sometimes I think it could be). So, no, you don't understand game development and based on your commentary I would venture to say you have zero understand of software development either.
Secondly, the classic overcompensation is the exact thing that's hurting games as a whole. We're actually living in a day and age where there IS actually really good and transparent communication from developers. However, there has been constant and continual evidence that the general public is unable to communicate on any level above literals. If there is any space left for interpretation then they will take it and run with it and have a million YouTube views in less than a day. Honestly, it sometimes makes me wonder if people are laughing at them, but I think it's more likely the sad case that people are actually just that dense. So congratulations humanity!!
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
----------------
Have fun
I said it when I first came back about a month ago. People were all hot for SQ 42 I said if they dont have something at that moment (a month ago) that is much much much better than the tech demo theyre calling an alpha for an SQ product it isnt going to be released in a retail state before the end of the year.
I also have been around this long enough to know if they DID have something that refined and optically impressive they would have leaked it somehow. This whole idea that theyre waiting for the next convention to have some massive reveal is more white knight fantasyland crap.
That convention will be more of the same they might show something SQ 42 related that shows they at least havea proof of concept with it, and they will make the same bold statements about it like they did Star Marine and then they will try and sell more ships.
Then around Nov there will be some announcement that some third party issue occurred and SQ 42 will be delayed while they 'focus' on 3.0. Which due to the unforeseen issues with SQ 42 is also not on the track they would like it to be on so only a portion of what you were shown (more than likely nothing that mattered) will be added in that next 'game changing' update.
The script is so predictable and they never change it people can literally give an outline and a fairly accurate timeline of how things will unfold over the next few months. Call it educated speculation.
Because what I said right there has so much more probability of happening than them actually doing what their OFFICIAL website says trying to put odds on it would be impossible.
Bottomline is come Jan 1st you wont see SQ 42 nor will you be flying missions with a dragonfly and taking off from one ship and landing on anther. I doubt you will be landing any ship on any planets either/ And you certainly wont be walking cargo on or off any of those ship that you hope you can land on those PG planets. But that is one thing they might get in, a PG planet. So for all that has been promised and announced and 'shown' getting a PG should be a great disappointment, but the people invested in this game will be so overjoyed by it they will continue top praise the almighty Roberts.
Most do NOT say that the date is incorrect - in fact most on the forums expect the bulk of the game in early 2017 (with maybe the first episodes in 2016 as teaser). They point out that CURRENTLY the scheduled date is 2016 (see SQ42 official homepage) and until that officially changes (e.g. via a CitizenCon announcement) 2016 is the official date.
People can SPECULATE as much as they want ... its just superflous as a relevant OFFICIAL announcement w.r.t. SQ42 will come out in only a few days.
Have fun
I dont know where you work but judging by what you are saying, your software development cycle is FUBAR if your staff can not deliver software within a year and a half of the projected dates they gave you. You might want to start looking for either new programmers or a new job yourself...
Using caps does not make your post any more authoritive Erillion...
Anyhow, given the comments about the state of AI I'm going to be surprised if anything makes a debut this year. Perhaps there will be a demo but I rather doubt it, I'd imagine Roberts would want to release it as a whole unit.
Thanks for granting your permission for people to speculate, I'm sure that's much appreciated.
Have fun
What ended up shaping into the full thing at once instead, no alphas, no betas.
I'm not trying to say that transparency is an excuse here. SC has been like a comedy of errors. That being said, people cannot handle transparency. SC isn't the one example of it. There are a plethora of examples, including NMS, which have shown that people cannot handle transparency. So what I'm saying is that if they had remained closed, development and CR's mouth, then they'd probably ship without so much as a peep. It'd be like the greatest fucking thing since sliced bread. Instead, you give people a vision and they imprint that idea on their memory and they will be unwavering about that. SM is a perfect example of that. So was PU. So was NMS. Actually, NMS was the greatest example because there were a multitude of times that they said "It does not have multiplayer!!!!". Actually, Destiny did the same. They said it was not an MMO, yet it somehow got called an MMO, lol. Same goes for The Division.
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
----------------
One of the things I was looking forward to with SC was a better understanding of the development process, instead most of the 'open development' has turned out to be nothing more than marketing fluff. The jump point magazines do have some good information but that's about it.
Actually, the delivery date was 2014.
Yeah, that's pretty much exactly what I'm talking about. Along with the laughable date above and the "$6 million game" argument. The image you're linking to above is approaching 2 years old. There has been plenty of press with regards to release dates since that time. However, again, people just hold onto what's been said and take it literally as if there can be no change in a project that is "impossible". If we're wanting to check mark things I mean the only thing that hasn't been demonstrated to date would be S42. So we're probably talking about being a year behind. Not that it's not substantial, but it's already been acknowledged on numerous occasions that the scope has changed.
So what do we have here? We've got massive scope change, a high level of risk, and CR who was replaced by his brother (probably because of his unrealistic expectations), and we've got a company working with an "Agile" methodology who is REALLY using waterfall based on the highly dependent nature of their project. What does this mean? Well, it means that we can't just release at will, it means that we've baked in lots of dependencies on features that simply don't exist. This is why only about 25% of waterfall projects hit their target and about another 25% fail altogether. The other 50% are just fucked. Why? Waterfall requires an increasingly high investment to return anything. Agile concentrates on small interations which actually release something.
The other problem is that you're talking about quotes given 2 years ago. You notice how CDPR didn't give a release date for Cyberpunk 2077? Yeah, that's because you DON'T FUCKING DO THAT!!! However, there is one thing for sure, the closer you are to actually releasing, the better your estimate will be. I know it sounds retarded, but it's true. At my company, we don't announce anything at a show that won't be out in 6 months or less. For anyone who is a "Big Deal" we will have closed-door meetings to show what we're working on, but no release dates are given.
Based on what you're telling me, if you actually do work in software, then you aren't likely to be working on large projects. Secondly, I don't know why anyone would expect that this would be released any sooner than 2016. There is some image circulating about development timelines and where SC sits in comparison. Say what you want, but if you had even the slightest knowledge about game development, how long they take, etc. I think you'd be pretty impressed at the progress in 4 years, even with the fuck-ups. Finally, again, if I were executing a project properly, in Agile, then I could ship the product any time I'd like. However, it's not Agile (maybe it's more agile now, but it wasn't). If you believe that the scope sold was realistically a 2 year project then you're simply misinformed. If you believe the image that you're posting above, we've still got some 2016 left. However, let's say it took 1 more year, even. Do you think that a 20-25% slip on a waterfall project is a bad thing? Especially when the PM is a fucking cook, the scope is constantly changing, and what you're trying to do is not common knowledge and has been called, "impossible" by some.
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
----------------
Was going by this. Seems believable.
So...
Wasn't guaranteed it will delay, however, it's likely. Hence why CIG have not confirmed it.
It's interesting that GameRanx reports "Squadron 42 is most likely to arrive by mid to late 2017" unlike what the actual journalist that made the interview they were reporting on said.
Lol, yes, it sure is. Were you aware that The Division was set to release in 2014? Only to release in 2016? Half-life 2 was delayed for years. The Witcher 3 was delayed a multitude of times, amounting to a year or so. Then you've got developers who are just dead-on with their delivery dates, like Bethesda. Or so they'd have you believe. Bethesda has been quoted as saying that Fallout 4 was essentially done and ready to go before it was even announced. So, yes, delays happen and they happen frequently. Until they are ready for release, they could change even more frequently than 6 months.
Do I think it's acceptable to continually change delivery dates? I'd love to live in a world where someone set a date and that was it. However, the reality is that that is rarely the case. Actually, I'd say that the expectation of delays is more common now, isn't it? Is it acceptable? It depends on what you'd rather. Would you rather hear nothing about a game until it's released? Or would you rather hear everything about a game?
I'm not saying that you're wrong, but it does illustrate why transparency doesn't work. That boils down to misaligned expectations. Where you expected that it would ship, commercially, in 2016, I was skeptical and actually expected delays. Similarly, there are some who would argue that it should have been shipped in 2014 because that's what their original estimate was. The delta from that person to you is massive. The delta from you to where I am is smaller but still exists. However, you're saying that you're now unwilling to accept change since these dates were published in some presentation 2 years ago. Why would you have an expectation that things wouldn't change if AAA publishers slip their own dates by months, multiple times, when they aren't even announcing the titles until they are nearly done, or with months to go before release?
I understand that you feel like you're being lied to but, contextually, it really isn't that dissimilar than any other game, or piece of software. The biggest issue is what it's always been, and that's the dependencies that are baked into the game. Not being able to act quickly and be responsive to basically shut people up is a great illustration of this. Instead there is a year-long shit storm before anything of substance is demonstrated and will, possibly, be in alpha soon. It demonstrates a severe lack of flexibility. I'd go as far as to say that I wouldn't be surprised to see more delays. However, what I am saying is that delays aren't something exclusive to SC, never has been, and never will be. It's something that is now pandemic in the games industry and is more likely to happen than not. Really, it just makes the case to do away with transparency altogether, like what Bethesda does. Honestly, I really don't think that everyone needs to know how the magic trick is done and it will probably be a huge disappointment for most anyway.
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
----------------
I could lie about features that are not even in my game like Sean Murray answering yes to multiplayer.
I can say "stretch goals will not delay release" and then a few months later act like people are stupid for NOT expecting my game to be delayed due to stretch goals. (Star Citizen)
I could give dates over and over again and not meet a single one while I laugh all the way to the bank. (as we just discussed)
I could announce features like Co-OP at the beginning of development to get more people to give me money and then later I can say no refunds and then announce that Co-OP would take away from the singe player experience. (Star Citizen)
Heck, I can even change the terms of service whenever I want and remove any accountability of me even producing a game! (Star Citizen)
I could sell pictures of things in my game that are not even in there yet and best of all, I dont even have to create them at launch. (Star Citizen)
Yep, I need a job in game development.
Thanks, point proven.
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
----------------