The Star Citizen Thread v 4

[ZeeWolf]

I thought SC was open development. Why would they not inform backers of where they are with development? I understand why they have been secretive on the SQ42 side so they don't "spoil the plot" or whatever but we're to believe that they are completely open about development and where they are and the project and treating backers exactly like invested publishers that they were supposed to report to and all that stuff (remember 'the pledge'?). But then they reveal to some special backer tour that they have a bunch of stuff that they haven't revealed? I'm confused!

It's all guff anyway. Since when has a publisher turned up for an update on something they've put 100 million dollars into and been told "thanks for the money, you gave us so much money that deadlines and ticking clocks no longer apply. We'll call you"

 

[dayrth]

"I want it all and i want it NOW!"

I know, we all do.

I don't think that's what Lysander meant. I think it was more, I don't believe it until I can see it.

 

[Asp Explorer]

It's refactored open development. This iteration is so open - it's percieved as requiring an NDA

 

[MaxLexandre]

It's refactored open development. This iteration is so open - it's percieved as requiring an NDA

I thought SC was open development. Why would they not inform backers of where they are with development? I understand why they have been secretive on the SQ42 side so they don't "spoil the plot" or whatever but we're to believe that they are completely open about development and where they are and the project and treating backers exactly like invested publishers that they were supposed to report to and all that stuff (remember 'the pledge'?). But then they reveal to some special backer tour that they have a bunch of stuff that they haven't revealed? I'm confused!

It's all guff anyway. Since when has a publisher turned up for an update on something they've put 100 million dollars into and been told "thanks for the money, you gave us so much money that deadlines and ticking clocks no longer apply. We'll call you"

Open development or not, if Backers visit their studios and get to see/know stuff they haven't shown/told to everybody yet, why shouldn't they be ruled by NDA?

Wouldn't be fair otherwise have the persons who would visit studios be the sources of information before the developers actually share it. The only way i see to rule out NDA, is to not show or tell anything that isn't publicly know

 

[MarktJones]

Open development or not, if Backers visit their studios and get to see stuff they haven't shown to everybody yet, why shouldn't they be ruled by NDA?

Wouldn't be fair otherwise have the persons who would visit studios be the sources of information before the developers actually announces it. The only way i see to rule out NDA, is to not show or tell anything that isn't publicly know

So:

1 It's open development.
2 But if you come to the studio you can't tell anyone about what you saw.
3 And we aren't going to tell them either.

Hmmmmm. ;-)

 

[MaxLexandre]

So:

1 It's open development.
2 But if you come to the studio you can't tell anyone about what you saw.
3 And we aren't going to tell them either.

Hmmmmm. ;-)

If who visits the studio will see and know stuff that isn't public yet, then obviously: NDA, open development or not. If who visits the studio would not get to see or know anything outside what's publicly released, then no NDA needed!

It's a matter of basic logic for me.

 

[lysan]

I don't think that's what Lysander meant. I think it was more, I don't believe it until I can see it.

Right on Commander!

 

[MarktJones]

If who visits the studio will see and know stuff that isn't public yet, then obviously: NDA, open development or not. If who visits the studio would not get to see or know anything outside what's publicly released, then no NDA needed!

It's a matter of basic logic for me.

For me I don't understand how you can have open development with a NDA. But ultimately I don't care. My beta download has nearly completed.

 

[Voivod]

If who visits the studio will see and know stuff that isn't public yet, then obviously: NDA, open development or not. If who visits the studio would not get to see or know anything outside what's publicly released, then no NDA needed!

It's a matter of basic logic for me.

You do realize having an NDA is exactly the opposite of open development right?

 

[MaxLexandre]

You do realize having an NDA is exactly the opposite of open development right?

I know how it looks but at the end it's irrelevant on this situation.

If they are going to show un-seen stuff to the visitors of their studios, they will have to go through NDA. I think even the Media runs by NDA of what they saw, neither do they show it on the articles, neither they do describe in detail what it was shown to them.

The only way i see to not be NDA on this case, would the studio tours to be locked to what is publicly know to all backers and avoid the leaking problem as a whole because there would be no leaks.

 

[Voivod]

I know how it looks but at the end it's irrelevant on this situation.

No it's not.

NDAs are the exact opposite of open development.
Stop using one of you want to claim the other.

 

[ZeeWolf]

To be fair, they originally promised to update backers after each "major milestone" which is a little ambiguous on SC these days. Also, I can see that a development house would control what it showed to it's publisher in that it would have demonstrations and there would be development work going on elsewhere that the publisher might not see.

However as a backer of SC I do feel slightly vague on the project's status and I feel completely oblivious as to when things are being released. A publisher would know what quarter of what year something is intended to hit the stores, even if it missed the target date everyone would push for it. With SC it just feels like Michelangelo painting the Sistine ceiling, you know? The Charlton Heston version when the Pope keeps asking when it'll be finished and he keeps saying "when it's finished" and it's never finished. I just don't know if SC is some kind of gaming masterpiece that justifies it yet.

 

[MaxLexandre]

No it's not.

NDAs are the exact opposite of open development.
Stop using one of you want to claim the other.

I'm not claiming anything towards open development. I'm claiming the situation of visitors on their studios getting to see things that are not revealed yet publicly, has to be ruled by NDA. So that's just what it is.

Like it or not, it would be messy have visitors who visit the studio not having NDA sharing and leaking stuff before the actual developers.

 

[Asp Explorer]

First they have to develop stuff to leak

 

[Voivod]

I'm not claiming anything towards open development.

And I'm not claiming anything about what you are claiming.
I'm talking about CIG claiming open development when they have NDAs and super secret illuminati testers and excuses for having closed development while also claiming open development.
It's the typical mess CIG like to get themselves in.

 

[MaxLexandre]

And I'm not claiming anything about what you are claiming.
I'm talking about CIG claiming open development when they have NDAs and super secret illuminati testers and excuses for having closed development while also claiming open development.
It's the typical mess CIG like to get themselves in.

What i care for the sake of open development, is the studio reports, every week and month on what they're working on, and mostly the more in-depth discussions into mechanics and tech (Sean Tracy kind of content), for me the rest is mostly fluff.

 

[jdbleam]

And I'm not claiming anything about what you are claiming.
I'm talking about CIG claiming open development when they have NDAs and super secret illuminati testers and excuses for having closed development while also claiming open development.
It's the typical mess CIG like to get themselves in.

They are very open about development.....at least what they are willing to show. What they are willing to show is their weekly content. If you thought open development mentioned you got to see what they were currently working on, I have an Idris to sell you....

On a more serious note, CIG is more open about the development of SC then any other developer of similar size or budget I have seen.

 

[lysan]

They are very open about development.....at least what they are willing to show. What they are willing to show is their weekly content. If you thought open development mentioned you got to see what they were currently working on, I have an Idris to sell you....

On a more serious note, CIG is more open about the development of SC then any other developer of similar size or budget I have seen.

True, however no other developer has taken more than 100 million dollars from supporters. So that need to go into the equation.

 

[jdbleam]

Hang on, wait a second. Wasn't there a publisher that recently released a game from a major franchise who's main game play feature was online pvp and sold millions of dollars worth of pre-order that on the day of release, the servers didn't work. Matter of fact the servers didn't work for weeks and not reliably for months. There are things I get onto CIG about (blatant money grab with the quarterly unmelt token using store credit) and there are things that all publishers go through. I'll reassess how I feel about SC in january.

 

[Voivod]

Hang on, wait a second. Wasn't there a publisher that recently released a game from a major franchise who's main game play feature was online pvp and sold millions of dollars worth of pre-order that on the day of release, the servers didn't work. Matter of fact the servers didn't work for weeks and not reliably for months. There are things I get onto CIG about (blatant money grab with the quarterly unmelt token using store credit) and there are things that all publishers go through. I'll reassess how I feel about SC in january.

Which game are you referring to?