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.
You are completely amiss on employees of a company being aggravated by one aggressive schedule practice, that is a common practice and it's meant to keep teams focused on delivery, if you'd work within companies with this reality you'll see this type of schedule is tight but not imposing.
In our company in projects outsourced to us if they give to the client the estimate of 6 months, internally the scheduling will want that work finished in 3-4 months, aware already that it will be delayed, the logic behind this if I can explain any decently, is that if you give your employees a tight target to finish their work expecting the delay yourself, the work would still be finished sooner rather than if you gave them a conservative target to finish their work; so it won't slip past the 6 months.
The only problem here with that is that they mirror such schedule publicly, the caveats there state and explain such but even with them, some still create unrealistic expectations surrounding those estimates solidity; why I think they should change their approach.
IMPORTANT: Please keep all replies to my posts about GAMING. Please no negative or backhanded comments directed at me personally. If you are going to post a reply that includes how you feel about me, please don't bother replying & just ignore my post instead. I'm on this forum to talk about GAMING. Thank you.
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.
You are completely amiss on employees of a company being aggravated by one aggressive schedule practice, that is a common practice and it's meant to keep teams focused on delivery, if you'd work within companies with this reality you'll see this type of schedule is tight but not imposing.
In our company in projects outsourced to us if they give to the client the estimate of 6 months, internally the scheduling will want that work finished in 3-4 months, aware already that it will be delayed, the logic behind this if I can explain any decently, is that if you give your employees a tight target to finish their work expecting the delay yourself, the work would still be finished sooner rather than if you gave them a conservative target to finish their work; so it won't slip past the 6 months.
The only problem here with that is that they mirror such schedule publicly, the caveats there state and explain such but even with them, some still create unrealistic expectations surrounding those estimates solidity; why I think they should change their approach.
Well, they've already gone from their "3.0 will be ready in one month and a half" estimate to being delayed by half a month from that so far. In terms of relative proportions, that's just slightly less than going from a 6 month estimate with a 3-4 month delay. So right now they're still "on track" to "only get delayed by 50%", but then, they still have a month and a half left to go and there will likely be even more delays during that time.
As you've stated, assuming what you said is true about them purposefully underestimating things for the sake of making their employees work faster without hurting employee morale, maybe they won't mind that anyways, but it certainly doesn't make them look good to the outside populace.
Honestly though they'd have to have a likely off train of thought to purposefully underestimate the schedule for the reasons you stated while also knowing they're going to give that same underestimated schedule to the public. At that point they'd have been better off just keeping their own purposefully flawed (if they're doing what you say they're doing) estimates to themselves rather than have their supporters and backers realize they're being lied to with purposeful underestimates.
[...] people should expect these early deadlines to change because [...]
This is the problem, right here. It's not "deadlines" or promises, for that matter, it's ESTIMATES. As long as people talk about estimates as something else than what it is, they will expect delivery on said dates.
When a contractor gives me an ESTIMATE on a price for work to be done, I expect that estimate to be the price for the work, and I'm pretty flippin' disappointed when that estimate is exceeded.
EDIT: My point is we all know what words mean. Attempts to redefine words specifically for a few game developers doesn't change what those words actually mean.
Estimates of price on work is easy compared to estimates on development work. They cannot be compared, if you know anything about development.
I'm not redefining words. CIG have been clear all along that the schedule is an estimate. And I don't agree that everybody know what the words mean. My point is that when you and others who know the difference in meaning then you should use the correct terms because otherwise you'll spread the wrong impression. I've seen this countless of times - people who grab a wrong word and spin further on it, making a feather into five hens before you know it. Besides, how do others know you don't use the words deliberatly, to paint a false image to serve your own agenda? It's a well known rethoric trick and used by many people in such debates.
And the reason why this game will take for ever!! They need to make a plan and stick to it, then add the other stuff later. I am sorry but I have lost all faith in this title and this is why I am not a supporter anymore.
It seems to me that they know they can make a income from new ship and stuff that they come out with every month so why put out a game? I fell it is time for them to put something out,,, I mean they haven't put out one thing they said they were going too,,, SQ 42,,,,, Star Marine,,,, 3.0 and so on,,,,,,
I have been with this game from the beginning and spent quite a bit with 5 ships and a monthly sub for a few years so I have seen them come from 4 or 5 peeps to what they are today so yeah,,, it's time they release something and stop making ships for a game that really does not exist yet
And the reason why this game will take for ever!! They need to make a plan and stick to it, then add the other stuff later. I am sorry but I have lost all faith in this title and this is why I am not a supporter anymore.
It seems to me that they know they can make a income from new ship and stuff that they come out with every month so why put out a game? I fell it is time for them to put something out,,, I mean they haven't put out one thing they said they were going too,,, SQ 42,,,,, Star Marine,,,, 3.0 and so on,,,,,,
I have been with this game from the beginning and spent quite a bit with 5 ships and a monthly sub for a few years so I have seen them come from 4 or 5 peeps to what they are today so yeah,,, it's time they release something and stop making ships for a game that really does not exist yet
I tend to agree, but also would add that there is little context provided for the "why" which I think is the biggest issue. So one of the things I found weird in the last couple months was that I heard they had/were refactoring fog. For the life of me I couldn't, and still don't, understand why. So I get this snippet of information on some work performed and it's obviously one of the many reasons for delay, but I don't get particulars as to why that undertaking was necessary.
I think that this is one of the more challenging aspects of transparent communication. Sure, they can be completely open with why they're behind, but that would likely be lost on the vast majority of people, who really just want a summary. I feel like they need to refine their communication to multiple layers of detail. Maybe for some giving the reasoning that there were "Massive changes in scope" is fine and dandy, but when I see something like this, I'm almost waiting for that new guy from Starship Troopers to chime in "Would you like to know more?" because they answer would be "Yes please!"
I can accept that in a complex project there can be a great number of dependencies. So if there is a game breaking issue in one area, that could spider out into multiple other areas, it could also require that entirely unscheduled work needs to be taken on in order to hold up the area where the issue resides. Without that information, how are we supposed to appreciate the change in scope? As you put it, they seem to just be adding in new stuff all the time. Is there good reason behind that? In order to fix something in the original scope of work, did they need to expand their scope to include additional work that was outside the original schedule? There could be completely good reasons for them changing the scope, or they can just continue to give them impression that they arbitrarily expanded the scope "because".
When I read "3.0" I was shocked to hear that the game had released and it was already on 3.0! ALPHA 3.0... now all is right with the world. I've pretty much given up hope in ever seeing this released. Maybe some day I'll be pleasantly surprised!
At this stage in development they should have all of the features locked down and reserve refactorings to correct game breaking issues. If they're still this sloppy then launch is going to be a disaster and their live team is going to drown.
This game was supposed to launch in 2014. It's 3 years late now. All kinds of reasons have been given to why. I don't consider any of them reasonable. Still it seems whatever kind of industry this is, it's profitable enough to keep on going. Maybe we'll see more of this in the future.
Talking about games where thousands of players exist simultaneously in a single instance and mechanics related to such games.
This game was supposed to launch in 2014. It's 3 years late now. All kinds of reasons have been given to why. I don't consider any of them reasonable. Still it seems whatever kind of industry this is, it's profitable enough to keep on going. Maybe we'll see more of this in the future.
Tired argument. We know the scope between then and now has changed drastically. Just go do some research.
Comments
In our company in projects outsourced to us if they give to the client the estimate of 6 months, internally the scheduling will want that work finished in 3-4 months, aware already that it will be delayed, the logic behind this if I can explain any decently, is that if you give your employees a tight target to finish their work expecting the delay yourself, the work would still be finished sooner rather than if you gave them a conservative target to finish their work; so it won't slip past the 6 months.
The only problem here with that is that they mirror such schedule publicly, the caveats there state and explain such but even with them, some still create unrealistic expectations surrounding those estimates solidity; why I think they should change their approach.
As you've stated, assuming what you said is true about them purposefully underestimating things for the sake of making their employees work faster without hurting employee morale, maybe they won't mind that anyways, but it certainly doesn't make them look good to the outside populace.
Honestly though they'd have to have a likely off train of thought to purposefully underestimate the schedule for the reasons you stated while also knowing they're going to give that same underestimated schedule to the public. At that point they'd have been better off just keeping their own purposefully flawed (if they're doing what you say they're doing) estimates to themselves rather than have their supporters and backers realize they're being lied to with purposeful underestimates.
I'm not redefining words. CIG have been clear all along that the schedule is an estimate. And I don't agree that everybody know what the words mean. My point is that when you and others who know the difference in meaning then you should use the correct terms because otherwise you'll spread the wrong impression. I've seen this countless of times - people who grab a wrong word and spin further on it, making a feather into five hens before you know it. Besides, how do others know you don't use the words deliberatly, to paint a false image to serve your own agenda? It's a well known rethoric trick and used by many people in such debates.
Viking
"Equally important, writes Leverett, is for players to remember that 3.0 of last year is a "shadow of what 3.0 means today".
Read more at http://www.mmorpg.com/star-citizen/news/30-delay-concerns-addressed-by-will-leverett-1000045047#54hHm6tJp4VAopm8.99
And the reason why this game will take for ever!! They need to make a plan and stick to it, then add the other stuff later. I am sorry but I have lost all faith in this title and this is why I am not a supporter anymore.
It seems to me that they know they can make a income from new ship and stuff that they come out with every month so why put out a game? I fell it is time for them to put something out,,, I mean they haven't put out one thing they said they were going too,,, SQ 42,,,,, Star Marine,,,, 3.0 and so on,,,,,,
I have been with this game from the beginning and spent quite a bit with 5 ships and a monthly sub for a few years so I have seen them come from 4 or 5 peeps to what they are today so yeah,,, it's time they release something and stop making ships for a game that really does not exist yet
I tend to agree, but also would add that there is little context provided for the "why" which I think is the biggest issue. So one of the things I found weird in the last couple months was that I heard they had/were refactoring fog. For the life of me I couldn't, and still don't, understand why. So I get this snippet of information on some work performed and it's obviously one of the many reasons for delay, but I don't get particulars as to why that undertaking was necessary.
I think that this is one of the more challenging aspects of transparent communication. Sure, they can be completely open with why they're behind, but that would likely be lost on the vast majority of people, who really just want a summary. I feel like they need to refine their communication to multiple layers of detail. Maybe for some giving the reasoning that there were "Massive changes in scope" is fine and dandy, but when I see something like this, I'm almost waiting for that new guy from Starship Troopers to chime in "Would you like to know more?" because they answer would be "Yes please!"
I can accept that in a complex project there can be a great number of dependencies. So if there is a game breaking issue in one area, that could spider out into multiple other areas, it could also require that entirely unscheduled work needs to be taken on in order to hold up the area where the issue resides. Without that information, how are we supposed to appreciate the change in scope? As you put it, they seem to just be adding in new stuff all the time. Is there good reason behind that? In order to fix something in the original scope of work, did they need to expand their scope to include additional work that was outside the original schedule? There could be completely good reasons for them changing the scope, or they can just continue to give them impression that they arbitrarily expanded the scope "because".
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
----------------
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
----------------