Support NeoGAF

[RubberJohnny]

Someone made a nice infographic - summing up progress in its fifth year, with $154 million pledged

The funny thing about this is all the bad news is coming directly from Chris Roberts, so backers can't yell it's fake or moan about Derek Smart being behind it.

 

[WetPotatoBread]

This thread is weird

 

[Ganyc]

This thread is weird

only 1-2 people in the thread who don't know what estimated dates are.

 

[RubberJohnny]

only 1-2 people in the thread who don't know what estimated dates are.

Oh man, I love this weird thing the backers have where there are "estimated" and "real" release dates, even though CIG have never said anything of the sort. It's literally just something the community made up to defend CIG's shitty scheduling and project management and attack backers for not being OK with them running roughshod over deadlines.

Like, OK, if you ignore that Chris promised 3.0 was coming in 2016 as a firm date to Gamestar before Gamescom, and if you ignore that his caveat at Gamescom was actually insisting the date might not be correct because it might launch earlier you're still stuck with the fact that both of the things he did definitely promise were coming in 2016 at Gamescom - the Delta Patcher and Spectrum - didn't make it. So even if he did offer what the backers define as a "real" release date, it'd have made no difference! They'd still have missed it! It's a nonsense, meaningless distinction!

It's one of those semantic games that might work in the echo chamber, but doesn't work outside when no one is using the same definitions.

 

[elyetis]

I think it's unfair to call the 2016 release of 3.0 an estimate.
It wasn't an estimate, it was a fantasy. Not in the "trying to lie to us" sense, I'm sure CR thought it was real. But I can't imagine that this date was given with an internal schedule for it even remotely as precise as the one we currently get in the schedule report.

The bigger problem was still that as the "estimated" date drew closer, backer were still left wondering if that 'estimate' was still remotely close to being right or not.

But on the bright side, it's a thing of the past ( when it comes to Star Citizen, sadly not for SQ42 ) since it ended up being the wake-up call which made them go the schedule report route, which is something benefiting everyone.

 

[RubberJohnny]

Yeah, but we're still waiting on the SQ42 schedule report we've been promised since January.

VV: Yes there's something wrong when spectators with no experience of game development frequently do better at estimating progress than the only group who actually know the status of the project.

 

[Burny]

I think it's unfair to call the 2016 release of 3.0 an estimate.
It wasn't an estimate, it was a fantasy. Not in the "trying to lie to us" sense, I'm sure CR thought it was real. But I can't imagine that this date was given with an internal schedule for it even remotely as precise as the one we currently get in the schedule report.

If that was the case, why is Chris Roberts leading this project then and not being questioned by backers?

In case he wasn't knowingly lying to backers, but thought this was actually a real possibility rather than a fantasy, mustn't he have been lying to himself more than to anybody? Or is he so out of touch with the actual state of development that he simply couldn't have possibly known better? Those are the "harmless" options btw. the others would be that he's been knowingly deceiving about the actual state of the project.

In that case, how can anybody in good consciousness continue to throw fistfuls of 100$ notes at them, when they present one of their new fancy concept ships?

 

[Pepboy]

I think it's unfair to call the 2016 release of 3.0 an estimate.
It wasn't an estimate, it was a fantasy. Not in the "trying to lie to us" sense, I'm sure CR thought it was real. But I can't imagine that this date was given with an internal schedule for it even remotely as precise as the one we currently get in the schedule report.

The bigger problem was still that as the "estimated" date drew closer, backer were still left wondering if that 'estimate' was still remotely close to being right or not.

But on the bright side, it's a thing of the past ( when it comes to Star Citizen, sadly not for SQ42 ) since it ended up being the wake-up call which made them go the schedule report route, which is something benefiting everyone.

Wait... I am confused. I know CIG started sharing internal schedules after they failed to deliver. But what makes you think these now public internal schedules are more precise than the previous (internal only) internal schedules?

 

[Dictator93]

I do not always concern troll, but when I do, I make sure I have polygon-styled inforgraphics.

 

[Ganyc]

Oh man, I love this weird thing the backers have where there are "estimated" and "real" release dates, even though CIG have never said anything of the sort. It's literally just something the community made up to defend CIG's shitty scheduling and project management and attack backers for not being OK with them running roughshod over deadlines.

CIG never said anything? Yeah right, it is pretty clear that these are all estimate dates, it's named in the schedule, the homepage, from chris himself etc.

These dates are ALWAYS estimated dates and you don't understand something simple as that.

Yeah, but we're still waiting on the SQ42 schedule report we've been promised since January.

yeah right, the schedule for SQ42 never even had a date, and they never said it would come in january.

 

[RubberJohnny]

CIG never said anything? Yeah right, it is pretty clear that these are all estimate dates, it's named in the schedule, the homepage, from chris himself etc.

Where are the SQ42 dates describes as "estimated dates?" It just says "Answer the Call 2015", "Answer the Call 2016", "Answer the Call 2017"?

Plus the original image that you objected to just said "stated release dates", which includes any release date, stated out loud, estimated or not.

yeah right, the schedule for SQ42 never even had a date, and they never said it would come in january.

They said in January that they had a SQ42 schedule they'd give us, not that they'd give us an SQ42 schedule in January.

My original post was pretty clear, you're really scraping the barrel here.

 

[Ganyc]

Where are the SQ42 dates describes as "estimated dates?" It just says "Answer the Call 2015", "Answer the Call 2016", "Answer the Call 2017"?

ah, now it's SQ42 only and you are ignoring everything else? (Answer the call 2015? The hell?)

Ok, but now i can't take you serious, perhaps it is better if i ignore all of your comments. You clearly have an agenda agains sc

They said in January that they had a SQ42 schedule they'd give us, not that they'd give us an SQ42 schedule in January.

yes, they will give us the schedule when the time is right (like always)

 

[RubberJohnny]

ah, now it's SQ42 only and you are ignoring everything else? (Answer the call 2015? The hell?)

So you're admitted not everything is listed as an estimated date, and they still miss non-estimated dates, making the whole concept of estimated and non-estimated dates useless. Glad we got that out of the way.

yes, they will give us the schedule when the time is right (like always)

Why is the time not right at the moment? I mean, SQ42 has been AWOL since 2015, I think the community would like an update.

 

[epmode]

This thread is miserable.

 

[elyetis]

Wait... I am confused. I know CIG started sharing internal schedules after they failed to deliver. But what makes you think these now public internal schedules are more precise than the previous (internal only) internal schedules?

Not more precise, the fact that it actually exist at all seems new. Something which took 1 year to be done ( with some things pushed back to 3.1 or more), was expected to be done in 4 months ?
I mean look at the Beyond 3.0.0 - Overview on the schedule-report and imagine everything you see from January to July/August then add what was needed for 2.6. Imagine all that put on a internal planning going from August 19 ( Gamescom ), to December ... I just can't picture such a planning ever existing, except if they thought cloning and pills removing the need to sleep, would be discovered in a matter of days, and maybe the use of some time-turner too.

Again on that aspect what is done is done anyway, what matter now is that we have the schedule-report, and I can only hope to see the same being applied to most of the project now, SQ42 included, and the sooner the better.

 

[Burny]

This thread is miserable.

Perfectly reflects the state of a project running for at the very least five years, having collected 150+$ Mio. by means of selling virtual items to be used in the finished product with no end of sales pitching in sight, and notably lacking any announced public "1.0" release date, but with released alpha builds that even lack the required networking to enable the project to fulfill its original promise.

What do you expect such a project to inspire? Believe and doubt. Both are represented here.

 

[RubberJohnny]

Not more precise, the fact that it actually exist at all seems new. Something which took 1 year to be done ( with some things pushed back to 3.1 or more), was expected to be done in 4 months ?

I mean look at the Beyond 3.0.0 - Overview on the schedule-report and imagine everything you see from January to July/August then add what was needed for 2.6. Imagine all that put on a internal planning going from August 19 ( Gamescom ), to December ... I just can't picture such a planning ever existing, except if they thought cloning and pills removing the need to sleep, would be discovered in a matter of days, and maybe the use of some time-turner too.

I don't know how you write all that out and don't conclude it's either incompetence or malice on the part of Chris.

I mean backers on the subreddit started arguing they deliberately lied about the readiness of 3.0 to make money, because suggesting that was considered less worse than they genuinely didn't know.

 

[elyetis]

I don't know how you write all that out and don't conclude it's either incompetence or malice on the part of Chris.

Oh I already said I think it's incompetence when it comes to communication ( whether it's because CR is just too hyped about his game and need to share it or because they didn't do proper planning, we will probably never know ).

This is why I considere the schedule report so important, we should neither get new unrealistic estimates, nor should we be kept in the dark. And when an estimate is given, we shouldn't have to wait the last second to hear about it ( yup I think about you, SQ42 vertical slice ), and the current schedule report achieve just that, which is a really good thing IMHO.
My only problem is that it's not applied to the entire project.

 

[Raticus79]

https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitize...g_your_cake_and_eating_it_too_planetary_tech/

What did the Stretch Goal of $6,000,000.00 promising "100 systems at launch" actually amount to?

Well, for starters, it didn't have planets you could land anywhere on, per 10FTC Episode 28 Question 6 planets to scale with an open and playable surface was never intended with the original release of Star Citizen that would have been comprised of 100 Star Systems.

That isn't to say there wouldn't have been planets and moons.. you just wouldn't have been able to interact with them in even a remotely realistic or meaningful way.

Get too close to one? Nifty vFX followed by death then respawn (probably).

What we would have had would have been something like how things were done in Freelancer (the game), specifically the concept of planetary entrance points/rings (possibly several per planet).

Arc Corp's Area 18 may have ended up being a concept for what some of the more heavily populated cities/planets might be implemented as but it is easy to see how this could have been how all landing sites were originally planned to be implemented.

So, to answer the first question:

We would have had a largish area to fly around in with planets some of which you can stop down to via a cut scene or maybe on-rails flight path to then probably interact with other players also on that planet via an instancing system.

We would probably also have been able to do things like buy and sell goods, ships, weapons and armor from both these "cities" and space stations.

What effect has the planetary tech that has been developed over the past year or two had on the scope of Star Citizen as a whole?

Don't get me wrong, Area 18 is neat and all, but it is not a very big place in terms of actual gaming real estate.

If variations of that is all we would have had available to us planet-side than it would have been fine, I guess, but nothing truly ground breaking.

That isn't to say the work on procedurally generated planets that CIG has done also is ground breaking - it isn't..

The scale at which they are building the planets, however, is what's ground breaking.

The first iteration of this that the backer's will see comes in the form of 3 moons and a planetoid - nothing approaching "big" in terms of celestial bodies, yet to circumnavigate Cellin on foot is said to take 12 and a half days.

We've read that tidbit. We've re-read that tidbit. It is not new news. Yet it still boggles the mind.

It is one thing, with the upgrade to 64bit, to be able to make a big space game filled with big.. open.. space.

But that, by itself, is neither all that impressive nor does it necessarily make for good game play: 100 systems full of empty black to play hide and seek in? woo.

To answer the second question:

I argue that the inclusion of the planetary tech ahead of release (contrary to what was originally planned) has increased the amount of engaging playable area that Star Citizen will have to offer by a magnitude that isn't easily comprehended.

Celestial bodies at 1/4th, 1/6th or even 1/10th the scale of real life that we can actually explore and play on (ground battles, base building, racing, etc) is such a departure from what was originally pitched in terms overall size that it is difficult to even make a comparison.

How does 5-10 systems at launch now compare, size wise, to 100 systems at launch then and does it constitute less game then we were originally pitched?

So, and I realize that this has gone a tad long (I fired my editor.. sorry), the conclusion/answer to the last question:

Yes, as the trolls of this sub will undoubtedly remind us repeatedly, 5-10 is absolutely smaller than 100.. when taken as simple numbers and nothing further.

But 5 - 10 or even 20 "Area 18's" in a given star system * 100 probably doesn't even amount to the playable surface area of one of the moons we're getting in 3.0.

Yes, yes.. I know, content density is a potential problem - and only time will tell whether or not CIG are able to populate these planets with enough engaging content to keep us coming back to see the sights..

But I think you'll agree that with the inclusion of the planetary tech and just how much that magnifies that amount of game that can be crammed into a given system, 5 - 10 systems at launch is both less "open space" and at the same time significantly more game.

Could CIG still hold to the 100 systems at launch with the planetary tech? sure.. but it will likely take years of content creation to flesh out that many systems.

Would you rather the game stay a perpetual Alpha/Beta during that time or would you rather be playing the live version as soon as possible and CIG can add to it as they go?

We really cannot have our cake and eat it too, but I posit that CIG's apparent current plan is a compromise that I can live with.

Thoughts?

I guess it would have been kind of hard to put a chart for this on that infographic.

 

[Seiniyta]

Hmm, I initiated a refund. let's see how this goes. I still hope the project is successful and happily buy into it once it's actually released but for now I can't really justify it anymore after so long.

 

[RubberJohnny]

https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitize...g_your_cake_and_eating_it_too_planetary_tech/

I guess it would have been kind of hard to put a chart for this on that infographic.

It's not like the original "Freelancer" way of doing things was any more feasible. They only managed 2 or 3 finished landing zones despite working on them since 2013, how would they ever have gotten to enough for 100 systems when they're struggling so much with 1? They're not doing this because "actually it's more content", they're doing it because Day 1 they set the scope way too large and expanded it ever since.

Like I actually believed the backer arguments that going heavily procgen way would allow them to churn out planets and systems faster, because y'know NMS and Elite are Games-That-Exist. But now the backers are arguing that the procgen way is actually more work and time consuming than the old way, which is the exact opposite of what they were arguing months ago:

How Star Citizen plans to do much of what No Mans Sky couldn't

This planet is one of thousands that Cloud Imperium is creating. While No Man's Sky uses its tech to generate new planets as you travel, Star Citizen uses procedural generation to build the skeleton of specific planets before artists fill in the vital details. There are far fewer planets in Star Citizen--the studio is aiming for about 100 solar systems, each containing an average of five planets with their own moons as well--but Roberts and his team are working to ensure that each planet is worth exploring and returning to.

"We want to create texture--an emotional feeling for each location," Roberts says. "We need a history, a sense of place, for each of these worlds. Details are important."

With Star Citizen, Roberts says there will be side quests, distinct landmarks, new characters, and more to find on each rock's surface. Cloud Imperium is also aiming for "Crysis-like visual fidelity" on each one.

Goes completely against the backer justification of "they're focusing on 5-10 so they're not all identikit" and "this was expected since they went procedural" because this is 8 months past them planning procedural planets.

 

[elyetis]

https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitize...g_your_cake_and_eating_it_too_planetary_tech/

It's goes back to what was discused two days ago in this very topic.

No one should argue that going from 100 to 5-10 system but with the planetary tech, is just a loose, because it's not, it's a trade.
The question then is to know if it was a trade worth making, which is :
- subjective : being in their ship, exploring space, discovering news celestial bodies, using a bigger variety of trade route, more mining space, etc.. will matter more or less depending on who is asked than being able to have a more immersive experience with planet interaction and all that will come with it.
- hard to make a -definitive- opinion on so soon

What can't be denied is that people were sold on the game on an premise, and up to 1 year ago people weren't thinking "hey you know what, space is boring and empty if you can't land on a planet without a loading leading to a landing zone".

I was absolutely impressed by the planetary tech, heck I still am every time it is shown. But at the same time, even after seeing it, I never thought about it as somewhere I would want to spend more than 10% of my time playing the game.
For me the game was and still is about space and ships first and foremost, based on that, my initial reaction is that this trade is not one I would want to make.

 

[RubberJohnny]

No one should argue that going from 100 to 5-10 system but with the planetary tech, is just a loose, because it's not, it's a trade.

It's absolutely a loss - look at the article talking to Chris Roberts at Gamescom in the thread linked above where he says they were planning on doing 100 systems with procedural planets.

Now they're cutting the content down to less than five or ten percent because they fucked up.

 

[elyetis]

It's absolutely a loss - look at the article talking to Chris Roberts at Gamescom where he says they were planning on doing 100 systems with procedural planets.

Doesn't seems like an actual quote thought, no ? I mean there a quote where he say how detailed he wants the planets to be, but the part about the 100 solar systems, each containing an average of five planets with their own moons as well isn't a direct quote from Gamescom ( or at least it doesn't seems so ).

But even if it is what was said, it doesn't really matter. When I say it's a trade, I mean from a developpement point of view.
It's about whether or not the planetary tech getting done before the game release is what lead to the change of scope when it comes to the number of system.

 

[RubberJohnny]

Doesn't seems like an actual quote thought, no ? I mean there a quote where he say how detailed he wants the planets to be, but the part about the 100 solar systems, each containing an average of five planets with their own moons as well isn't a direct quote from Gamescom ( or at least it doesn't seems so ).

Not in that interview, but in this one:

Making Star Citizens Planets believable - August 26, 2016

"Even though we have 100 star systems, which pales in comparison to billions or quintillions or whatever, with three or four planets each, that is 400 worlds that you have to build with enough detail for a first person shooter, which is what we are doing," says Roberts. "Ultimately the world and universe is going to be hand crafted. I think that will make a better experience and game that way, because you feel like it all has a purpose and it all means something, so that the world makes sense to you. The ultimate goal is to have very specific hand crafted worlds and locations that have character."

I mean it's not that unbelievable a goal, Elite and NMS do thousands of full explorable worlds already, and those had a far lower budget, staff count, and development time than SC.

 

[MisterR]

only 1-2 people in the thread who don't know what estimated dates are.

All developers should start doing this. Just call everything an estimated date, that way nobody is allowed to complain when you continue to miss these dates over and over.

 

[Ganyc]

All developers should start doing this. Just call everything an estimated date, that way nobody is allowed to complain when you continue to miss these dates over and over.

who says that they aren't allowed to complain? They can complain but they should not see the estimated dates as "definitive dates" (especially by kickstarter games)

 

[MisterR]

who says that they aren't allowed to complain? They can complain but they should not see the estimated dates as "definitive dates" (especially by kickstarter games)

You're trying to use semantics to excuse them missing multiple dates. At what point do you expect them to give real dates?

 

[staticneuron]

All developers should start doing this. Just call everything an estimated date, that way nobody is allowed to complain when you continue to miss these dates over and over.

All games have target windows both internally and externally. Hence you see threads and people crying when the dates are pushed. Have you never seen that before?

Internally it may lead to reviews, restructure, changes in funding or cancellation. Some of the games worked on by devs never see the light, so never get the scrutiny and you never know the missed internal deadlines. Star Citizen has been open since the project had only 7 people working on it, and backers have been at it every step of the way with multiple playable versions of many stages during alpha. It changes how many view things since they are so used to being kept in the dark until beta or closer to release, it seems as if people think that dates or not missed usually or that games only take two years to release.

Major franchises are worked on my multiple teams so while one game is released another team is working on the next iteration. When production ramps up for some of the biggest games out there studios (EA, Ubisoft, Rockstar) tend to have over 1000 people working on their biggest projects not counting outsourcing. And normally these are on single player games with MP elements. Star Citizen is an MMO and S42 is single player game, and they have shared assets and tech. It is going to take a while, especially since the man at the help is focused on quality. Most of the backers are ok with it as well. Those that are not can get a refund, even though that runs counter to the concept of getting the game finished.

You're trying to use semantics to excuse them missing multiple dates. At what point do you expect them to give real dates?

They litterally tell you what to expect from the dates ever since chris talked about it and at the huge caveats section in the progress report.

Most relevant bits...

II.The estimates we provide are just that: estimates. They are based on our knowledge and experience, but there are many aspects of game development that are impossible to predict because they literally cover uncharted territory. You will see the same estimates we use in our internal planning, but it is important to understand that in many cases (especially with groundbreaking engineering tasks) these estimates are often subject to change due to unforeseen complexity in implementing features.

III.The time expected for bug fixing and polishing is also very hard to estimate, increasingly so in online and multiplayer situations. The complexity and the difficulty in testing at a large scale make it harder to reproduce and isolate bugs in order to fix them. We base our estimates, again, on our experience, but we also know that it's possible for a single bug to cause a delay of days or weeks when a hundred others might be fixed instantly.

 

[Cabbagehead]

You're trying to use semantics to excuse them missing multiple dates. At what point do you expect them to give real dates?

What are you babbling about? estimations aren't a excuse. Any release date from the kickstarter to the crowdfunding goals, we're estimates and that has been made clear multiple times. Go check Kickstarter FAQ and go read anything in relation to dates from 2012 onward. You should find that CIG, has every right to change course, as they've told backers plenty of times before hand.


Everything is subject to change. (its the reason they're independent)

Specially in active development. You and others really need to stop with the double standards aswell. I don't see you bitching about release dates being missed with traditional games in early development (Because you don't get to see it), yet here you are. Matter a fact i'm sure you'd take whatever they come up with as a reason for a delay and forget about it until it gets released or canceled ala Final Fantasy, Destiny, Last Guardian, The Division or even Mass Effect.

Main difference is most of these are single player games (With two m
being mmo-lite) and they still struggled to get them out on time and still within their orignal framing, scope or vision.

 

[Ganyc]

You're trying to use semantics to excuse them missing multiple dates. At what point do you expect them to give real dates?

At what point? Hm maybe after the game hits beta (like every other AAA Publisher does)?


But surely not in alpha phase, there is a reason why all the dates in the schedule are "estimated dates", active development ftw


and that what staticneuron and Cabbagehead wrote

 

[Akronis]

It's hilarious to me that the same two people are always the ones coming in during a lull in development or something else comes out that can be twisted negatively and shitting up the entire thread.

You both care far too much about a game that you're convinced is a scam lol it's kind of sad.

 

[Cabbagehead]

It's hilarious to me that the same two people are always the ones coming in during a lull in development or something else comes out that can be twisted negatively and shitting up the entire thread.

You both care far too much about a game that you're convinced is a scam lol it's kind of sad.

Personally they need to get help. Those people are far more obsessed with this project and the community. Then is healthy. I mean we're backers and are obligated to be in here and to react to new things being put out or communicated.


Per CIG's agreement to us and the community at large to be open.

But them? it's just assumption after assumption, accusations after accusation. An whatever point trying to get made is quickly swamped over by some bullshit conspiracy or jaded double standards. That they aren't going to apply to any other game or in-development product. Its deprived and comes from a dishonest viewpoint.

Yet they want to labeled us "sheep" or "white knights" whatever other bullshit cope out non answer to a question. That may have been persented. Although when they get to the name calling, you know that the ground their standing on is weaker then 99 cent toilet paper.

 

[staticneuron]

It's hilarious to me that the same two people are always the ones coming in during a lull in development or something else comes out that can be twisted negatively and shitting up the entire thread.

You both care far too much about a game that you're convinced is a scam lol it's kind of sad.

There is more than two, it is just that the others are better at the drive-bys, some like to linger. But yeah, there are missionaries for every type it seems.

 

[Akronis]

There is more than two, it is just that the others are better at the drive-bys, some like to linger. But yeah, there are missionaries for every type it seems.

For sure there's more than two. But the two I'm referring to are so consistent it's legitimately sad. Drive-by posts are stupid, but at least those people don't come off as deranged lol.

I have some problems with Elite Dangerous, but beyond some minor posts complaining, I am not constantly in that thread shitting it up like an asshole. I just occasionally check back in to see in there's anything new or interesting.

 

[RubberJohnny]

Ah, I see we're back to backers throwing personal attacks around to defend a tech demo rather than discuss things.

That didn't last long.

 

[staticneuron]

For sure there's more than two. But the two I'm referring to are so consistent it's legitimately sad. Drive-by posts are stupid, but at least those people don't come off as deranged lol.

I have some problems with Elite Dangerous, but beyond some minor posts complaining, I am not constantly in that thread shitting it up like an asshole. I just occasionally check back in to see in there's anything new or interesting.

I have to get used to the basics once again. I haven't gone back in a while because of other games in backlog. I will check it again with the multicrew.

 

[Cabbagehead]

Like I said these individuals have a pattern and it's a deprived one.

 

[Evolution of Metal]

You're trying to use semantics to excuse them missing multiple dates. At what point do you expect them to give real dates?

As long as there are people who pre-order new ships, they don't have to bother talking with anyone else about the dates, it would only work against them. You can be sure there will be Gamescom and Citizencon pre-order packages flying off the digital shelves.

You dangle the carrot saying "soon", otherwise you either deceive people and they get angry, or tell them 2019 earliest and they lose interest.

At what point? Hm maybe after the game hits beta (like every other AAA Publisher does)?

That is not how the industry works, you are using bullshit arguments. Have you even seen a beta announcement from EA/Sony/Ubisoft without the final release date? Which AAA game got the release announcement during the beta? Most games get the release window estimation together with the reveal (like Fall 2017 or Q1 2018), they might get delayed a quarter or two, but publishers always make generic early announcements about pushing the game one quarter to polish it.

Every project has internal milestones and deadlines which developers try to accomplish. There is a document somewhere in the CIG office estimating the real, long-term development schedule.

 

[Pepboy]

Not more precise, the fact that it actually exist at all seems new. Something which took 1 year to be done ( with some things pushed back to 3.1 or more), was expected to be done in 4 months ?
I mean look at the Beyond 3.0.0 - Overview on the schedule-report and imagine everything you see from January to July/August then add what was needed for 2.6. Imagine all that put on a internal planning going from August 19 ( Gamescom ), to December ... I just can't picture such a planning ever existing, except if they thought cloning and pills removing the need to sleep, would be discovered in a matter of days, and maybe the use of some time-turner too.

Again on that aspect what is done is done anyway, what matter now is that we have the schedule-report, and I can only hope to see the same being applied to most of the project now, SQ42 included, and the sooner the better.

I thought your post after this one was reasonable -- about subjective trades and some being disappointed.

But I guess I'm still confused because in the post I quoted you were the one to mention precision. But now you are saying you thought they had no internal schedule at all, prior to publicly releasing the schedules?

In particular the part you mention about something expected to take 4 months ending up taking 1 year. There are two basic interpretations:

1. They had no internal schedule and mostly took a shot in the dark

2. They had an internal schedule similar to the one now but grossly misestimated the time it takes.

It sounds like you feel the first is true?
Personally the second one seems far more likely to me. As an implication, it suggests we should not think that much of their current schedules and that SC may be poorly managed.

 

[RubberJohnny]

The reddit thread is worth a read as a classic example of how bad behaviour built up while in an echo chamber looks when it leaves it.

5 years in, $154+ million in funding, 350+ employees, and all they have to show for it is a broken tech demo, minimal updates, unfulfilled promises (but very pretty in-game models).
How are people still pledging money to this? The /r/StarCitizen subreddit reads like a textbook study of Battered Wife Syndrome. It seems like CIG is really good at getting backers emotionally involved with the project, and it's pretty sad to watch happen. At this point, I don't see how this game is ever going to come out with even 10% of what was promised.

It's ridiculous. The more I read the more I think how ridiculous the backers are, as people have said their subreddit is quite something. It astounds me that we are 5 years through it's supposed 10 year development and the system that is playable is still not complete. How can people have any confidence that in the next 5 years another 4-9 systems will be completed.
IMO this game should be used as a case study for how not to project manage.

People astounded at the vociferous personal attacks and instant "this is actually good for Star Citizen" defences backers are throwing out over being told the game they've spent hundreds or thousands on is launching with 5% of the content, if they're lucky.

 

[Cabbagehead]

It sounds like you feel the first is true?
Personally the second one seems far more likely to me. As an implication, it suggests we should not think that much of their current schedules and that SC may be poorly managed.

This whole post makes zero sense.

You do understand that CIG is literally working on everything that will make SC what it is present and future. Right now, at this very second? from code, to Ai, to the engine, to gameplay, to art, to networking, to graphics and design. All of it.

All internal schedule are going to be iffy with new tech or tackling new endeavors, hence why they use estimations to map out the possible outcome. Eitherway the use of an estimate isn't a hard science and not using them would be very bad management on the flipside.

Beacuse you need something semi-tangible keep you focused. Still you don't want that to force you do finish something. You know or have a feeling won't be quite there yet. But at the same time, maybe you can get it finished on time or before, given the right circumstances.


So realitiy and hopefulness are at play here (If you bothered to watch their schedule video you'd know this). With some general human/technology error added on. All about having some leeway/rope.

 

[FreezerGeezer]

The picture posted of the cutlass rework, the blue variant in particular, looks interesting. I look forward to seeing the rework for the red; search and rescue could be a bit of fun in the universe.

 

[elyetis]

In particular the part you mention about something expected to take 4 months ending up taking 1 year. There are two basic interpretations:

1. They had no internal schedule and mostly took a shot in the dark

2. They had an internal schedule similar to the one now but grossly misestimated the time it takes.

It sounds like you feel the first is true?

It sure hope they had a proper internal schedule for 2.6 at that point, but I definitely think CR mostly took a shot in the dark for the 3.0 estimate.

But an internal schedule being misestimated doesn't not automaticaly mean it's poorly managed. I'm a dev too, and I understand the principle of 'shit happen'; that's why I live by the Scotty Principle, which is clearly something Chris Robert doesn't know of when it come to his tendency to share an estimated date.

 

[Pepboy]

This whole post makes zero sense.

You do understand that CIG is literally working on everything that will make SC what it is present and future. Right now, at this very second? from code, to Ai, to the engine, to gameplay, to art, to networking, to graphics and design. All of it.

All internal schedule are going to be iffy with new tech or tackling new endeavors, hence why they use estimations to map out the possible outcome. Eitherway the use of an estimate isn't a hard science and not using them would be very bad management on the flipside.

Beacuse you need something semi-tangible keep you focused. Still you don't want that to force you do finish something. You know or have a feeling won't be quite there yet. But at the same time, maybe you can get it finished on time or before, given the right circumstances.


So realitiy and hopefulness are at play here (If you bothered to watch their schedule video you'd know this). With some general human/technology error added on. All about having some leeway/rope.

Sorry, I have no clue what you are talking about or asking.

Of course CIG is working on the game. So does every developer, by definition. That alone doesn't suddenly mean they are or are not poorly managed, or that they will hit or miss their goals. Just means they are a developer...

I'm guessing we do not share a mindset similar enough to have a dialogue, in that we both seem unable to parse the grammar or sentences of the other.

 

[Ganyc]

That is not how the industry works, you are using bullshit arguments. Have you even seen a beta announcement from EA/Sony/Ubisoft without the final release date? Which AAA game got the release announcement during the beta? Most games get the release window estimation together with the reveal (like Fall 2017 or Q1 2018), they might get delayed a quarter or two, but publishers always make generic early announcements about pushing the game one quarter to polish it.

you misunderstood me.

What i wanted to say was that all the early release dates from the Publishers are "estimated dates" not "real dates". That is why almost every game gets (late in development/in beta phase) delayed - this is game development no one knew what could happen.


btw the "betas" from EA/Sony/Ubisoft often aren't "real" Betas, these are better demos with a fancy name.

The picture posted of the cutlass rework, the blue variant in particular, looks interesting. I look forward to seeing the rework for the red; search and rescue could be a bit of fun in the universe.

yesterday we got a teaser pic from an Idris bridge and today a teaser pic from a cutlass variant. Maybe we'll see these ships in the next atv ^^

 

[RubberJohnny]

Delays in gaming are pretty rare nowadays, aren't they? It seems like the publishers and platform holders have largely got product management down - they know what sort of scope is suitable for what size team, that the tech is feasible for the game, and can ensure that games come out annually with an accurate date almost a year in advance.

Basically the only ones we hear that have delays are those with longer development times indicative of internal problems and reworks, like No Mans Sky or Mass Effect: Andromeda.

That doesn't seem like great company to be in, but even that is pretty different from CIG setting a release date of Q4 2014 for Squadron42 in 2012, and having it be AWOL five years later.

 

[Jangowuzhere]

It's hilarious to me that the same two people are always the ones coming in during a lull in development or something else comes out that can be twisted negatively and shitting up the entire thread.

You both care far too much about a game that you're convinced is a scam lol it's kind of sad.

Yeah, I don't really see where all this negative naysaying is coming from. I have zero attachment to Star Citizen, but from what I know, most people who backed the project are happy with the game's progress and what has been shown off.

 

[Zabojnik]

Delays in gaming are pretty rare nowadays, aren't they? It seems like the publishers and platform holders have largely got product management down - they know what sort of scope is suitable for what size team, that the tech is feasible for the game, and can ensure that games come out annually with an accurate date almost a year in advance.

You mean ... by going safe? Which is very much what Star Citizen isn't, for better or for worse.

 

[Pepboy]

It sure hope they had a proper internal schedule for 2.6 at that point, but I definitely think CR mostly took a shot in the dark for the 3.0 estimate.

But an internal schedule being misestimated doesn't not automaticaly mean it's poorly managed. I'm a dev too, and I understand the principle of 'shit happen'; that's why I live by the Scotty Principle, which is clearly something Chris Robert doesn't know of when it come to his tendency to share an estimated date.

Agreed its not a smoking gun but missing deadlines (internal or external) is a hallmark of poorly managed games. I'm sure it happens in well managed games but given CR history and the number of times it has happened, I lean more in favor of poorly managed.

That being said, I still think there is a chance, albeit small, that SC does succeed for a short time.

However once the ship money runs dry upon release, they will need to find new sources of revenue or else layoff a lot of people. My guess is they sell more ships bundled with expansions. May be a bit P2W but I think the community will justify it as "how else can they afford this development without subscriptions".