I dont understand whats with all the rush, it will be released, when it does, hell, if the game is out in 2018 i dont care, better to wait it out polished ,than rush it and get crap.
But they shouldnt make promises they cant keep either, hm maybe the anxiety from the community expectations simply reflects their deadlines.
I dont understand whats with all the rush, it will be released, when it does, hell, if the game is out in 2018 i dont care, better to wait it out polished ,than rush it and get crap.
But they shouldnt make promises they cant keep either, hm maybe the anxiety from the community expectations simply reflects their deadlines.
Or they make everyone feel like the game is right around the corner so they can get more money.
2018? The current predictions are sometime after 2020.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
2018? The current predictions are sometime after 2020.
Predictions about this are the most flawed thing ever, as nobody knows the exact feature set that is wanted by-release and post-release of the so-called 1.0/MVP.
Seeing the roadmap to 4.0, what includes a lot of on the fundamental professions, 85% of all the ships stuff people talk about end 2017/2018; it could be close to a beta on 2018. If what they want is the path once discussed of "not all stretch goals will be in by 1.0"; the other path continues the alpha to make it as most feature-complete as possible before 1.0, taking more time. Both paths are viable really and directly impact the outcome.
A big factor I'm wondering is how fast is the PU going to progress once it is the priority instead of SQ42, as known where most of work-force is currently working at.
2018? The current predictions are sometime after 2020.
Predictions about this are the most flawed thing ever, as nobody knows the exact feature set that is wanted by-release and post-release of the so-called 1.0/MVP.
Seeing the roadmap to 4.0, what includes a lot of on the fundamental professions, 85% of all the ships stuff people talk about end 2017/2018; it could be close to a beta on 2018. If what they want is the path once discussed of "not all stretch goals will be in by 1.0"; the other path continues the alpha to make it as most feature-complete as possible before 1.0, taking more time. Both paths are viable really and directly impact the outcome.
A big factor I'm wondering is how fast is the PU going to progress once it is the priority instead of SQ42, as known where most of work-force is currently working at.
I don't think they will ever be through with SQ42 as they already stated their would be at least two more SQ42 parts. The only way to tell is how long they will be. Knowing CR they will probably just keep making them like they did with Wing Commander.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
I don't think they will ever be through with SQ42 as they already stated their would be at least two more SQ42 parts. The only way to tell is how long they will be. Knowing CR they will probably just keep making them like they did with Wing Commander.
This kinda falls on business after release on the success of the release of the first EP obviously, imagine if profits wouldn't really pay off start working on the sequel right away and would be more necessary on the PU dev, and vice-versa.
It's really those things that can really go both ways and we just don't know until we do. But personally, I hope workforce redirects efforts to the PU, and focus on one thing at a time as they are not liable for EP2 before SC's release.
Anyone surprised by this? they push something out (that wont work) just to make sure they get a Christmas rush for people who get excited from seeing ANYTHING new come out, whether it works or not.
It certainly isnt the 2.6 they showed during gamescon. Dragonfly already shown as being delayed (to at least 3.0)
But to me it looks like some reskins of old stuff, a couple new ships, another instance or two. SM (whatever that is actually going to be is anyones guess) more than likely a generic shooter without much substance.
Now let's see if they can actually stick to their deadlines. Delays are expected but they have a history of having horrible estimates
If the deadline gets moved, you will see it in the Production Schedule in real time.
Interesting move by CIG. But as they said ... whatever they do, someone will ALWAYS complain.
Or someone will find it the most revolutionary, fidelitious, transparent, realistic, something, ever produced in the PC gaming kingdom.
LOL, you made me spit my drink. A company posting estimates that they can change anytime they feel like it and you called it revolutionary, brilliant!
"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
So what does this actually inform people of apart from shifting timelines? It's not like you're finding out why something has been delayed, which is far more important than just finding out it has been delayed.
Less silence and more clarity on the status of the next release. In terms of delays the good thing is really now we know what is going on, instead of silence this finally transmits the date changes when they do happen and what are the deadlines they are working with (internally ofc).
I dont understand how having access to an "internal" schedule that Erillion himself says is subject to change gives us any more information than we already had? Did we not already know 2.6 was next and coming "soon"? How does having this schedule change that? You can not say it gives us a target date because that date is subject to change.
So at the end of the day what do we really have here? More target dates that are subject to change? How does this new "revolutionary" transparent-ism change the fact that Star Marine will not be releasing in any form on Nov 28th like the chart says?
"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 dont understand how having access to an "internal" schedule that Erillion himself says is subject to change gives us any more information than we already had? Did we not already know 2.6 was next and coming "soon"? How does having this schedule change that? You can not say it gives us a target date because that date is subject to change.
So at the end of the day what do we really have here? More target dates that are subject to change? How does this new "revolutionary" transparent-ism change the fact that Star Marine will not be releasing in any form on Nov 28th like the chart says?
What information you already had on this; "we're working on it, soon" statements?
On my side, I like things turn more real in terms of expectations of what is the progress over very generalistic comments on what's the status of next releases; and even if the dates do change... what is the change you ask? We would know when that happens, instead of silence when it comes to announce delays we had till now.
Also the date as it currently stands is Dec 8th. So at least for me, instead of whining about everything I'm waiting a few days for when they update the schedule to see if they met the tasks that had deadlines during this week, if there were or not changes and so on.
I dont understand how having access to an "internal" schedule that Erillion himself says is subject to change gives us any more information than we already had? Did we not already know 2.6 was next and coming "soon"? How does having this schedule change that? You can not say it gives us a target date because that date is subject to change.
So at the end of the day what do we really have here? More target dates that are subject to change? How does this new "revolutionary" transparent-ism change the fact that Star Marine will not be releasing in any form on Nov 28th like the chart says?
What information you already had on this? "we're working on it, release soon"?
On my side, I like things turn more real in terms of expectations of what is the progress over very generalistic comments on what's the status of next releases; and even if the dates do change... what is the change you ask? We would know when that happens, instead of the silence (famously known as: Soon).
On my side, having a new chart that they are allowed to change the dates on each week is the same thing as saying "soon".
You want a revolutionary idea? How about them picking an actual realistic date for the next two versions to be released. If they hit those, all is well but if they miss a date, they give all the backers a new ship. Putting "their" money, opps I mean "our" money, where their mouth is, now that is revolutionary...
"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
On my side, having a new chart that they are allowed to change the dates on each week is the same thing as saying "soon".
It's the life of development if the public ones float as they do the internal ones haha, but it's called more real open development; if we get the dates they internally are working with, then we know what they know. And I think that is what the community has been asking for, less silence on this.
As for the revolutionary idea, is not a bad one really; a safe bet in development is if your internal date is 2017, you give 2018 instead and have a margin to work with.
On my side, having a new chart that they are allowed to change the dates on each week is the same thing as saying "soon".
It's the life of development if the public ones float as they do the internal ones haha, but it's called more real open development; if we get the dates they internally are working with, then we know what they know. And I think that is what the community has been asking for, less silence on this.
As for the revolutionary idea, is not a bad one really; a safe bet in development is if your internal date is 2017, you give 2018 instead and have a margin to work with.
I think the community has been asking for more info on what is holding them back. They want real info as to what is stopping them, what's slowing things down and if they post dates like this and then miss them, or know they need to change them, then to let the backers know exactly why this is happening.
Putting out a chart and saying all dates subject to change is exactly where everyone was before. Everyone knew the dates CIG spat out would never be hit and in the future you might see something materialize. The chart, in my opinion, is nothing more then fluff to try and appease the masses.
I think the community has been asking for more info on what is holding them back. They want real info as to what is stopping them, what's slowing things down and if they post dates like this and then miss them, or know they need to change them, then to let the backers know exactly why this is happening.
Isn't that what you see there? First as described in the case of delays that should be the place where they provide explanations. In the other hand, you can already tell what is scheduled to take more time by what has the longest schedule to complete internally;
Tech Systems:
Serialized Variable (some network engineering that was a stretch goal)
AC MegaMap (stretch goal):
Network work (that is pretty much what the mega map is)
Those 2 have the longest schedules, both Network work, so the page already tells us what is taking longer and it is described to some extent the details of those tasks.
Not convinced that these showpiece bits of ‘organization’ are much more than window dressing.
Now delays happen in the best run and worst run game developments. CIG is just down in the 'worst run' category. They are profligately wasting their sponsors money. I'd be surprised if they've actually locked down any aspect of the game so far.
Roberts, with no oversight, will be swallowing that cash from the money spigot until he explodes.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
I think the community has been asking for more info on what is holding them back. They want real info as to what is stopping them, what's slowing things down and if they post dates like this and then miss them, or know they need to change them, then to let the backers know exactly why this is happening.
Isn't that what you see there? First as described in the case of delays that should be the place where they provide explanations. In the other hand, you can already tell what is scheduled to take more time by what has the longest schedule to complete internally;
Tech Systems:
Serialized Variable (some network engineering that was a stretch goal)
AC MegaMap (stretch goal):
Network work (that is pretty much what the mega map is)
Those 2 have the longest schedules, both Network work, so the page already tells us what is taking longer and it is described to some extent the details of those tasks.
To be clear when you say what you see there are you talking about the graph they released?
Even if you are talking about the graph I don't think that's the info some backers are looking for. They want actual meat and potatoes kind of information as to what is holding things up. CIG is great at spewing out information but is most of it relevant or are they just babbling for the sake of babbling?
It cant be all that hard to say heres the issue, here's where we are, here is how we plan to tackle it, we will give you an update as soon as we have some progress made or we change our plan on tackling it.
Usually its heres some generalized issues, we are working on it(with almost no info) and then it's radio silence.
Its also been radio radio silence on a lot of the core features. Does CIG even have features locked in for what they have promised or are they still winging it for a lot of things?
To be clear when you say what you see there are you talking about the graph they released?
It's kinda more of a trello, you don't have that much info; the task mentioned goes as far as: For the serialization, Network Engineering will begin work on 21st November. ETA is 8th December
This is directly taken from Jira that is tracker / tasking software they use, so that's the kind of information you expect from there. I think they aren't even reaching the developers of those tasks, it's a matter of collecting data from the tracker.
I'd suppose if a developer misses a task assigned to him, that will be updated or reflected on Jira as well. Then someone on the community-side relays such to that page.
Now let's see if they can actually stick to their deadlines. Delays are expected but they have a history of having horrible estimates
I would hope they could hit a date a month out. I think that's akin to hitting a barn with a baseball from 6 feet.
Remember 'Star Marine going to be out in a few weeks -- a month, tops!'?
It could happen with 2.6, I guess, especially if it's rushed and buggy.
Why? Can you "guarantee" what you will be doing next week let alone next month.
The reality is more involved though, it depends what the parameters are. If you are tasked to give dates that - if you don't make them - its the end of the world as you know it you make sure that any dates you give are very conservative and the targets as limited as possible. There will be an awful lot of padding in your estimates. If, on the other hand, you are being asked for your "best endeavour" projections you can try and be more accurate; you are more likely to miss these dates though. And often what a company might put out is something between the two; best endeavours + some "float".
That said the "plan" - in Excel I suspect - doesn't really tell you anymore than what is in e.g. the vlogs. For example what does "Arena Commander Balance / Improvements" actually mean? What does "finished" look like. My assumption is that, at this stage, it is an ongoing activity and round about now (probably Wednesday) they are going to draw a line under the work and drop whatever they have into 2.6. Work will then continue prior to 2.7. Same deal with the other stuff as well.
The take away is that round about the 8th December - with Christmas probably a drop dead date - they believe they will have enough "new" stuff to merit a new drop.
And that's "OK" because they are not working to a driven "you have to hit these dates or else" schedule - they learnt that lesson last year. At least its "OK" if "enough" progress is being made and, crucially, seen to be being made. Which is what backers can decide as each iteration delivers "more"; is the progress enough.
To be clear when you say what you see there are you talking about the graph they released?
It's kinda more of a trello, you don't have that much info; the task mentioned goes as far as: For the serialization, Network Engineering will begin work on 21st November. ETA is 8th December
This is directly taken from Jira that is tracker / tasking software they use, so that's the kind of information you expect from there. I think they aren't even reaching the developers of those tasks, it's a matter of collecting data from the tracker.
I'd suppose if a developer misses a task assigned to him, that will be updated or reflected on Jira as well. Then someone on the community-side relays such to that page.
It seems lately the someone on the community side is not relaying the information to the community which I believe is the crux of the problem.
If they do post something it generally is "we are working on it" which isn't good enough. It needs to come with info on what's wrong(or at least what they think is wrong), the plan to fix it and a timeline. If the timeline needs to shift then let people know. Don't go silent for weeks or months and let everyone wonder and start going worst case in their heads.
CIG needs to realize their backers want this kind of info and if they keep treating them like 2nd rate citizens they will be shooting themselves in the foot
I get why many backers want "more" information, but what do these backers really expect to hear? I suspect what they really want is hear that all the mismanagement and drama issues and accusations are false. The fact is that any game studio runs into the same issues with hitting internal release targets regardless of scope and size of the game. It comes with the business. If Roberts is to be taken at his word here (and I see no reason to accuse him of lying), then backers are already getting more information than I've seen any other studio release via the internal release schedule. You've certainly never seen Blizzard shoot themselves in the foot by revealing something like that. Still people complain though. . .
Now let's see if they can actually stick to their deadlines. Delays are expected but they have a history of having horrible estimates
I would hope they could hit a date a month out. I think that's akin to hitting a barn with a baseball from 6 feet.
Remember 'Star Marine going to be out in a few weeks -- a month, tops!'?
It could happen with 2.6, I guess, especially if it's rushed and buggy.
Why? Can you "guarantee" what you will be doing next week let alone next month.
The reality is more involved though, it depends what the parameters are. If you are tasked to give dates that - if you don't make them - its the end of the world as you know it you make sure that any dates you give are very conservative and the targets as limited as possible. There will be an awful lot of padding in your estimates. If, on the other hand, you are being asked for your "best endeavour" projections you can try and be more accurate; you are more likely to miss these dates though. And often what a company might put out is something between the two; best endeavours + some "float".
That said the "plan" - in Excel I suspect - doesn't really tell you anymore than what is in e.g. the vlogs. For example what does "Arena Commander Balance / Improvements" actually mean? What does "finished" look like. My assumption is that, at this stage, it is an ongoing activity and round about now (probably Wednesday) they are going to draw a line under the work and drop whatever they have into 2.6. Work will then continue prior to 2.7. Same deal with the other stuff as well.
The take away is that round about the 8th December - with Christmas probably a drop dead date - they believe they will have enough "new" stuff to merit a new drop.
And that's "OK" because they are not working to a driven "you have to hit these dates or else" schedule - they learnt that lesson last year. At least its "OK" if "enough" progress is being made and, crucially, seen to be being made. Which is what backers can decide as each iteration delivers "more"; is the progress enough.
History. Roberts is always late. And that video explanation for Citizen Con showed examples of him dumping crap into the lap of an already burned out, overextended team. It's the MO. It's always been his MO.
When it's at a point where folks can actually play it, then I'll believe. Other than that, it's just another CIG claim.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
Comments
But they shouldnt make promises they cant keep either, hm maybe the anxiety from the community expectations simply reflects their deadlines.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Seeing the roadmap to 4.0, what includes a lot of on the fundamental professions, 85% of all the ships stuff people talk about end 2017/2018; it could be close to a beta on 2018. If what they want is the path once discussed of "not all stretch goals will be in by 1.0"; the other path continues the alpha to make it as most feature-complete as possible before 1.0, taking more time. Both paths are viable really and directly impact the outcome.
A big factor I'm wondering is how fast is the PU going to progress once it is the priority instead of SQ42, as known where most of work-force is currently working at.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
It's really those things that can really go both ways and we just don't know until we do. But personally, I hope workforce redirects efforts to the PU, and focus on one thing at a time as they are not liable for EP2 before SC's release.
It certainly isnt the 2.6 they showed during gamescon. Dragonfly already shown as being delayed (to at least 3.0)
But to me it looks like some reskins of old stuff, a couple new ships, another instance or two. SM (whatever that is actually going to be is anyones guess) more than likely a generic shooter without much substance.
So at the end of the day what do we really have here? More target dates that are subject to change? How does this new "revolutionary" transparent-ism change the fact that Star Marine will not be releasing in any form on Nov 28th like the chart says?
1) delays due to reasons
2) the next ship sale is working and just around the corner
On my side, I like things turn more real in terms of expectations of what is the progress over very generalistic comments on what's the status of next releases; and even if the dates do change... what is the change you ask? We would know when that happens, instead of silence when it comes to announce delays we had till now.
Also the date as it currently stands is Dec 8th.
So at least for me, instead of whining about everything I'm waiting a few days for when they update the schedule to see if they met the tasks that had deadlines during this week, if there were or not changes and so on.
You want a revolutionary idea? How about them picking an actual realistic date for the next two versions to be released. If they hit those, all is well but if they miss a date, they give all the backers a new ship. Putting "their" money, opps I mean "our" money, where their mouth is, now that is revolutionary...
As for the revolutionary idea, is not a bad one really; a safe bet in development is if your internal date is 2017, you give 2018 instead and have a margin to work with.
Putting out a chart and saying all dates subject to change is exactly where everyone was before. Everyone knew the dates CIG spat out would never be hit and in the future you might see something materialize. The chart, in my opinion, is nothing more then fluff to try and appease the masses.
Tech Systems:
AC MegaMap (stretch goal):
Those 2 have the longest schedules, both Network work, so the page already tells us what is taking longer and it is described to some extent the details of those tasks.
Not convinced that these showpiece bits of ‘organization’ are much more than window dressing.
Now delays happen in the best run and worst run game developments. CIG is just down in the 'worst run' category. They are profligately wasting their sponsors money. I'd be surprised if they've actually locked down any aspect of the game so far.
Roberts, with no oversight, will be swallowing that cash from the money spigot until he explodes.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
Even if you are talking about the graph I don't think that's the info some backers are looking for. They want actual meat and potatoes kind of information as to what is holding things up. CIG is great at spewing out information but is most of it relevant or are they just babbling for the sake of babbling?
It cant be all that hard to say heres the issue, here's where we are, here is how we plan to tackle it, we will give you an update as soon as we have some progress made or we change our plan on tackling it.
Usually its heres some generalized issues, we are working on it(with almost no info) and then it's radio silence.
Its also been radio radio silence on a lot of the core features. Does CIG even have features locked in for what they have promised or are they still winging it for a lot of things?
This is directly taken from Jira that is tracker / tasking software they use, so that's the kind of information you expect from there. I think they aren't even reaching the developers of those tasks, it's a matter of collecting data from the tracker.
I'd suppose if a developer misses a task assigned to him, that will be updated or reflected on Jira as well. Then someone on the community-side relays such to that page.
The reality is more involved though, it depends what the parameters are. If you are tasked to give dates that - if you don't make them - its the end of the world as you know it you make sure that any dates you give are very conservative and the targets as limited as possible. There will be an awful lot of padding in your estimates. If, on the other hand, you are being asked for your "best endeavour" projections you can try and be more accurate; you are more likely to miss these dates though. And often what a company might put out is something between the two; best endeavours + some "float".
That said the "plan" - in Excel I suspect - doesn't really tell you anymore than what is in e.g. the vlogs. For example what does "Arena Commander Balance / Improvements" actually mean? What does "finished" look like. My assumption is that, at this stage, it is an ongoing activity and round about now (probably Wednesday) they are going to draw a line under the work and drop whatever they have into 2.6. Work will then continue prior to 2.7. Same deal with the other stuff as well.
The take away is that round about the 8th December - with Christmas probably a drop dead date - they believe they will have enough "new" stuff to merit a new drop.
And that's "OK" because they are not working to a driven "you have to hit these dates or else" schedule - they learnt that lesson last year. At least its "OK" if "enough" progress is being made and, crucially, seen to be being made. Which is what backers can decide as each iteration delivers "more"; is the progress enough.
If they do post something it generally is "we are working on it" which isn't good enough. It needs to come with info on what's wrong(or at least what they think is wrong), the plan to fix it and a timeline. If the timeline needs to shift then let people know. Don't go silent for weeks or months and let everyone wonder and start going worst case in their heads.
CIG needs to realize their backers want this kind of info and if they keep treating them like 2nd rate citizens they will be shooting themselves in the foot
ATV's, Monthly Reports are a thing.
If anyone here think's that delays when developing a game as large as this one are something out of the ordinary they are absolutely delusional.
History. Roberts is always late. And that video explanation for Citizen Con showed examples of him dumping crap into the lap of an already burned out, overextended team. It's the MO. It's always been his MO.
When it's at a point where folks can actually play it, then I'll believe. Other than that, it's just another CIG claim.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.