The problem is really they tie the release date estimate so tight with the estimates of all the ongoing tasks, so put some bugs in there and it will be enough to force them to push back the release; no buffer and no maneuverability just make it worse...
Without considering or even trying to speculate a buffer to tackle in bugs and other issues that arise, it really makes having estimates at all pointless, I think they should have one approach where the progress reported in schedule shouldn't be based on how close the release estimate is.
I don't believe in "due to the complexity of what we’re building". I mean, if they keep going on with this in mind , they will never release the game.
We talk about the biggest update yet that brings in large amount of tech that touches up to the core of the game... one the hardest parts in dev is getting core pieces of tech merged together, the biggest challenge will make it work well together, the number of bugs and other issues that arise during that process will be a daunting task, but there's no other option but to keep pushing forward.
The problem is, people are looking at the internal schedule as if it were promises made to the players. Their new published production schedules are just that, they don't figure in buffer room in internal schedules because that would be silly. That's why most companies don't publish their actual production schedules, they instead pointedly give estimated dates only when they have a very firm idea of reaching it.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. - Douglas Adams
The problem is, people are looking at the internal schedule as if it were promises made to the players. Their new published production schedules are just that, they don't figure in buffer room in internal schedules because that would be silly. That's why most companies don't publish their actual production schedules, they instead pointedly give estimated dates only when they have a very firm idea of reaching it.
I know, this is about public perception, and if people are taking that in a way they shouldn't it is CIG who needs to change their approach.
When I said the buffer it's just to not make the internal one being shared, but one that is meant for public consumption that gives them maneuverability, this is what they refuse to do because they say it's impossible to speculate that with any accuracy, to stand that weekly delays are a better option for the sake of open development, and I really disagree with that.
SC is going to be 2019 or 2020. Even if they release it in some form sooner it will probably still take time to get fully fleshed out. This is a game with a distinct possibility of being one of the most significant games since WoW. People just look to short term, think of what this game could be 10-20 years from now. I do not think any games in a long time get such a free hand to build new experimental systems with the funding to keep the project going on this scale. It is a unique opportunity that will likely not come around again for many years to come. I think people just need to temper their level of hype. If it's not out by 2020 that when I would start to worry.
I pretty much understand that you love SC, but you are defending them since .. 4? year ago ? And what you have is a 3.0 ( under development ) Alpha version of the game with more and more delay's . Isn't this enough already ? I mean .. is OK to support something, but in the end, common sense should step forward and say "That's it".
..and I don't buy whatever you wrote up above. What I said stands because they said the 3.0 version from last year, is a lot different then today 3.0 because they "learned things". Well, why don't they spend another year and in 2018 they will come and say : 3.0 ( insert any version you want actually ) of 2017 is a lot different then 3.0 from 2018 .
Point is, technology evolves and we learn every day about different things . So they will always erase and build from scratch and if they will keep going like this, in the end, there will be no SC. Just..Alpha Version(s) of the game, which .. is very pathetic with their budged.
The Caveats imply it. It's like what I said, people are perceiving the estimates as something solid and take them way more seriously than CIG takes them, independent of the disclaimers. That creates a disconnect that proves that CIG shouldn't share the internal dates they work with to the public, because they do NOT consider any sort of buffer for bugs and any other problems that can arise part of the process.
The technology is simply the biggest and longest part of what they do here, they are not taking this long creating a profession, or new areas and content, it's the back-end of what is set to be one MMO, and that is what 3.0 is big on, from creating the backends to support the economy and trading, and one solar system, to making the gameplay persistent as it should be in one MMO.
Then we get to the core of the argument, should they rush it or should they delay it? There's a high expectation lying surrounding it and I think they realize they need to release something decently stable and impressive with it. I'd say they feel the pressure on both fronts "Hurry up but don't rush it!".
Your point should have been OK , if it was just .. few delay's. But no .. they delayed everything since they announced the game.
You are well informed with SC so , could you be kind to let me know how many delays have been since the beginnings? That is the problem. No the delay itself.
Reporter: What's behind Blizzard success, and how do you make your gamers happy? Blizzard Boss: Making gamers happy is not my concern, making money.. yes!
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
Your point should have been OK , if it was just .. few delay's. But no .. they delayed everything since they announced the game.
You are well informed with SC so , could you be kind to let me know how many delays have been since the beginnings? That is the problem. No the delay itself.
Well, what is happening right now is not quite the same thing or by the same reasons, since the schedules appeared things are far more transparent and the scope of each update is quite locked.
And that is what the community wanted during the heavy criticism that made the schedule appear in the first place, provides a good overview of what to expect feature-wise and the status of each feature towards completion.
Only the estimates matter is controversial on it, it shouldn't be how close the estimate is to determine the perception of completion, yet how many features are finished vs what's left to complete and its status.
Your point should have been OK , if it was just .. few delay's. But no .. they delayed everything since they announced the game.
You are well informed with SC so , could you be kind to let me know how many delays have been since the beginnings? That is the problem. No the delay itself.
Well, what is happening right now is not quite the same thing or by the same reasons, since the schedules appeared things are far more transparent and the scope of each update is quite locked.
And that is what the community wanted during the heavy criticism that made the schedule appear in the first place, provides a good overview of what to expect feature-wise and the status of each feature towards completion.
Only the estimates matter is controversial on it, it shouldn't be how close the estimate is to determine the perception of completion, yet how many features are finished vs what's left to complete and its status.
Missing the estimate by a month? Cool. Two months? I understand. An entire quarter? Okay.. Half a year? Hmm... A year? ... So what went wrong?
Missing the estimate by a month? Cool. Two months? I understand. An entire quarter? Okay.. Half a year? Hmm... A year? ... So what went wrong?
Development goes wrong. If you look at 3.0 it's quite transparent they are merging tech together and go through issues with it, some issues might require refactors or new code to be able to overcome the blockers that arise.
If they weren't working mostly in tech and back-end for 3.0, it'd bet it would be far easier to ever estimate and predict the release, but it is what it is.
And they just make it worse by sharing their internals that do not account for this sort of issues, that's why bugs alone will force them to delay again and again.
Missing the estimate by a month? Cool. Two months? I understand. An entire quarter? Okay.. Half a year? Hmm... A year? ... So what went wrong?
Development goes wrong. If you look at 3.0 it's quite transparent they are merging tech together and go through issues with it, some issues might require refactors or new code to be able to overcome the blockers that arise.
If they weren't working mostly in tech and back-end for 3.0, it'd bet it would be far easier to ever estimate and predict the release, but it is what it is.
And they just make it worse by sharing their internals that do not account for this sort of issues, that's why bugs alone will force them to delay again and again.
So, if it's merely the PR value of not including buffers in their estimates to the public.. Exactly how long do you think it would take an employee to simply add, say... a 6 month buffer to each production schedule? Exactly how hard would it be for CR to provide a 6 month buffer when he discusses release dates and estimates? And notice that, even with a 6 month buffer, 3.0 is still late.
If that is the difference that makes the internal schedule so awfully misleading... Why isn't it worth even an extra 30 minutes of a single employee's time to correct?
So, if it's merely the PR value of not including buffers in their estimates to the public.. Exactly how long do you think it would take an employee to simply add, say... a 6 month buffer to each production schedule? Exactly how hard would it be for CR to provide a 6 month buffer when he discusses release dates and estimates? And notice that, even with a 6 month buffer, 3.0 is still late.
If that is the difference that makes the internal schedule so awfully misleading... It isn't worth even an extra 30 minutes of a single employee's time to correct?
It's about playing safe, and this is what companies on this aspect do, they internally schedule their developers to finish work by 2016, but they will announce to the public the game will be finished in 2017 (even then delays happen but there's far less risk). Others only announce a date when the release is close and there's something solid to give.
So yeah I think this is a lot about communication that is their biggest fault, sharing internals of what's called aggressive scheduling should be prevented and the community is overall agreeing.
I was talking with Lando yesterday and ended hitting the same key, but their stand shows to be "we're damned if we do and damned if we don't".
So again, how hard is it to add the buffer needed to make those "aggressive schedules" more realistic, thereby avoiding all this miscommunication you speak of?
EDIT- Why are the only options "unrealistically optimistic schedules" or "no schedules at all"?
So again, how hard is it to add the buffer needed to make those "aggressive schedules" more realistic, thereby avoiding all this miscommunication you speak of?
EDIT- Why are the only options "unrealistically optimistic schedules" or "no schedules at all"?
It's not hard indeed. Lando claims they're damned if they do it or not, on discussions I had others claim if they add the buffer then the schedules are untruthful because they don't mirror the estimates they work with, stating the disclaimers are there and that people are ignoring them to put too much expectation in said estimates.
"There are literally only three options: - We give no estimates. I do this every Thursday on ATV and people are disappointed. - We give precise estimates i.e. we think this will be out in December. When we miss it, people are disappointed and say we shouldn't give dates. - We give a detailed, dependency-based schedule that mirrors our internal estimate... (the current setup that will face frequent push backs, people will still be disappointed and say we shouldn't give dates)."
But I do not agree with him because I think the 2nd is the best path, play safe greatly reduces that risk and it's not about something that will make everyone happy but yes something that helps to mold the expectations and mitigates the impact delays will have. The current approach quite wears people down.
So again, how hard is it to add the buffer needed to make those "aggressive schedules" more realistic, thereby avoiding all this miscommunication you speak of?
EDIT- Why are the only options "unrealistically optimistic schedules" or "no schedules at all"?
It's not hard indeed. Lando claims they're damned if they do it or not, on discussions I had others claim if they add the buffer then the schedules are untruthful because they don't mirror the estimates they work with, stating the disclaimers are there and that people are ignoring them to put too much expectation in said estimates.
"There are literally only three options: - We give no estimates. I do this every Thursday on ATV and people are disappointed. - We give precise estimates i.e. we think this will be out in December. When we miss it, people are disappointed and say we shouldn't give dates. - We give a detailed, dependency-based schedule that mirrors our internal estimate... (the current setup that will face frequent push backs, people will still be disappointed and say we shouldn't give dates)."
But I do not agree with him because I think the 2nd is the best path, play safe greatly reduces that risk and it's not about something that will make everyone happy but yes something that helps to mold the expectations and mitigates the impact delays will have. The current approach quite wears people down.
I agree, and it is a much better indicator of when the backers will see something than the internal schedules. Which is what matters, in the end, to the backers.
You will never please everyone, but I would think it only logical to use the method that will get you closest to the actual date. And again, in the context of this thread, no matter how general the estimate, one year is a noticeable delay. CR started out (from what I understand) by giving a general "late 2016" date, to which we are significantly past due.
CiG keeps missing their own internal production dates so much that it's clear that, at the very least, they are not very good at setting internal production dates.
Although considering that each and every day is more money to be paid in a market where revenue decreases as a product ages (or... pre-product in this case, most likely), the bigger issue will be if they'll still have enough money to complete the game at this rate considering that if it takes them THIS long to get an alpha out (and this alpha isn't out yet and still getting delays after delays), it'll probably take them a long time to get the final product out.
For their sake hopefully whales will still be buying up ships. A questionable case because I imagine even whales will eventually stop and say "How many ships do I need, anyways?"
I agree, and it is a much better indicator of when the backers will see something than the internal schedules. Which is what matters, in the end, to the backers.
You will never please everyone, but I would think it only logical to use the method that will get you closest to the actual date. And again, in the context of this thread, no matter how general the estimate, one year is a noticeable delay. CR started out (from what I understand) by giving a general "late 2016" date, to which we are significantly past due.
And it is why the community has been giving strong feedback on this. It's quite clear this had an impact on them and hopefully, they'll make changes to have one different approach to it.
I myself wouldn't keep the estimates, I would just mold the production report to rely on every feature complete and the dev status individually and per section of what's to complete, that for me a clean way to communicate the status of the update without estimates; only releasing a testing/live estimate once there's something solid to announce.
Actually, like the video. You realize all your estimates are off and start giving estimates that are longer. 3.0 in one year. Anything sooner is ahead of schedule.
I understand setting short estimates keeps the hype meter high. People may not check in as often if you say one year from now. It's a two sided sword.
"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
Actually, like the video. You realize all your estimates are off and start giving estimates that are longer. 3.0 in one year. Anything sooner is ahead of schedule.
I understand setting short estimates keeps the hype meter high. People may not check in as often if you say one year from now. It's a two sided sword.
The hype meter is one of the primary drivers (arguably the only one) behind the funds keeping them afloat so it's not surprising their priorities would lie more with that.
Problem with estimates is that they're not just estimates of time, they're also estimates of money. When RSI spends 8 additional months doing a patch because they missed estimates, that also means they just missed their cost estimate by about $20 million.
The hype meter is one of the primary drivers (arguably the only one) behind the funds keeping them afloat so it's not surprising their priorities would lie more with that.
I don't see pushing back release dates weekly is giving them any extra funding lol. The heavy community criticism the schedule estimates are getting shows how it's having the opposite impact.
Not only is the hype meter down, I think this method is the biggest hype killer approach on an upcoming release I have seen in recent times.
I never really looked into this game. Are the developers a group of highly experienced MMORPG veterans? Or are they a bunch of first-timers?
The company is new but it's made of both spectrums.
They have veterans in lead as Tony Zurovec (for the MMO part) that was the creator of the Crusader series (worked on Ultima as well), Erin Roberts (production lead) that was lead management for the LEGO games, CR as the CEO comes from the big title in the space sim genre that is wing commander.
Side of that they have a lot of Crytek's veterans, as they started with Cryengine they ended up hiring many of those who created Cryengine in the first place when Crytek started to fall apart and laid off many people. I don't think they have big names that came from MMO's expect perhaps a few ex-blizzard.
The hype meter is one of the primary drivers (arguably the only one) behind the funds keeping them afloat so it's not surprising their priorities would lie more with that.
I don't see pushing back release dates weekly is giving them any extra funding lol. The heavy community criticism the schedule estimates are getting shows how it's having the opposite impact.
Not only is the hype meter down, I think this method is the biggest hype killer approach on an upcoming release I have seen in recent times.
Hmm, well, if even such a stalwart fan of SC such as yourself is saying that (which kinda implies even your hype meter is dying a bit from this), then yea, I find it hard to argue with your reasoning when the evidence that supports your argument is right there in front of everyones' faces.
It doesn't really speak highly about those making the estimated date announcements though, that's for sure. They either seriously messed up with their estimates, or if they mistakenly thought that overly optimistic estimates were good for the hype meter, they seriously underestimated how much it'd kill the hype when their estimates fail to be reached. Or both.
If they actually honestly believe those estimates that they give to the public, I wonder what that does for morale within the company. Various management employees sincerely believing "Hey, we'll probably have 3.0 out in 49 days!" and then 16 whopping days later finding out "Hey, actually, thanks to delays, we'll probably have 3.0 out in 47 days!" constantly must be REALLY aggravating to at least a few people inside the company, I imagine.
Comments
Poor frogs.
The problem is, people are looking at the internal schedule as if it were promises made to the players. Their new published production schedules are just that, they don't figure in buffer room in internal schedules because that would be silly. That's why most companies don't publish their actual production schedules, they instead pointedly give estimated dates only when they have a very firm idea of reaching it.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. - Douglas Adams
When I said the buffer it's just to not make the internal one being shared, but one that is meant for public consumption that gives them maneuverability, this is what they refuse to do because they say it's impossible to speculate that with any accuracy, to stand that weekly delays are a better option for the sake of open development, and I really disagree with that.
You are well informed with SC so , could you be kind to let me know how many delays have been since the beginnings? That is the problem. No the delay itself.
Reporter: What's behind Blizzard success, and how do you make your gamers happy?
Blizzard Boss: Making gamers happy is not my concern, making money.. yes!
They don't just take it, they double down on their pledges.
"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
And that is what the community wanted during the heavy criticism that made the schedule appear in the first place, provides a good overview of what to expect feature-wise and the status of each feature towards completion.
Only the estimates matter is controversial on it, it shouldn't be how close the estimate is to determine the perception of completion, yet how many features are finished vs what's left to complete and its status.
If they weren't working mostly in tech and back-end for 3.0, it'd bet it would be far easier to ever estimate and predict the release, but it is what it is.
And they just make it worse by sharing their internals that do not account for this sort of issues, that's why bugs alone will force them to delay again and again.
If that is the difference that makes the internal schedule so awfully misleading... Why isn't it worth even an extra 30 minutes of a single employee's time to correct?
So yeah I think this is a lot about communication that is their biggest fault, sharing internals of what's called aggressive scheduling should be prevented and the community is overall agreeing.
I was talking with Lando yesterday and ended hitting the same key, but their stand shows to be "we're damned if we do and damned if we don't".
EDIT- Why are the only options "unrealistically optimistic schedules" or "no schedules at all"?
"There are literally only three options:
- We give no estimates. I do this every Thursday on ATV and people are disappointed.
- We give precise estimates i.e. we think this will be out in December. When we miss it, people are disappointed and say we shouldn't give dates.
- We give a detailed, dependency-based schedule that mirrors our internal estimate... (the current setup that will face frequent push backs, people will still be disappointed and say we shouldn't give dates)."
But I do not agree with him because I think the 2nd is the best path, play safe greatly reduces that risk and it's not about something that will make everyone happy but yes something that helps to mold the expectations and mitigates the impact delays will have. The current approach quite wears people down.
You will never please everyone, but I would think it only logical to use the method that will get you closest to the actual date. And again, in the context of this thread, no matter how general the estimate, one year is a noticeable delay. CR started out (from what I understand) by giving a general "late 2016" date, to which we are significantly past due.
Although considering that each and every day is more money to be paid in a market where revenue decreases as a product ages (or... pre-product in this case, most likely), the bigger issue will be if they'll still have enough money to complete the game at this rate considering that if it takes them THIS long to get an alpha out (and this alpha isn't out yet and still getting delays after delays), it'll probably take them a long time to get the final product out.
For their sake hopefully whales will still be buying up ships. A questionable case because I imagine even whales will eventually stop and say "How many ships do I need, anyways?"
I myself wouldn't keep the estimates, I would just mold the production report to rely on every feature complete and the dev status individually and per section of what's to complete, that for me a clean way to communicate the status of the update without estimates; only releasing a testing/live estimate once there's something solid to announce.
I understand setting short estimates keeps the hype meter high. People may not check in as often if you say one year from now. It's a two sided sword.
"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
Not only is the hype meter down, I think this method is the biggest hype killer approach on an upcoming release I have seen in recent times.
They have veterans in lead as Tony Zurovec (for the MMO part) that was the creator of the Crusader series (worked on Ultima as well), Erin Roberts (production lead) that was lead management for the LEGO games, CR as the CEO comes from the big title in the space sim genre that is wing commander.
Side of that they have a lot of Crytek's veterans, as they started with Cryengine they ended up hiring many of those who created Cryengine in the first place when Crytek started to fall apart and laid off many people. I don't think they have big names that came from MMO's expect perhaps a few ex-blizzard.
It doesn't really speak highly about those making the estimated date announcements though, that's for sure. They either seriously messed up with their estimates, or if they mistakenly thought that overly optimistic estimates were good for the hype meter, they seriously underestimated how much it'd kill the hype when their estimates fail to be reached. Or both.
If they actually honestly believe those estimates that they give to the public, I wonder what that does for morale within the company. Various management employees sincerely believing "Hey, we'll probably have 3.0 out in 49 days!" and then 16 whopping days later finding out "Hey, actually, thanks to delays, we'll probably have 3.0 out in 47 days!" constantly must be REALLY aggravating to at least a few people inside the company, I imagine.