The Star Citizen Thread

[Bains]

Mod hat off for a mo.

Yeah I'd agree only up to the point that it's a game of numbers - if they had a significant number of backers demanding money back then they'd have something to address. IMO with one of two of the vocal minority throwing their metaphorical toys, I don't think that there is cause for concern nor a need to restructure their approach. Even here there has been one or two people creating threads demanding that something gets fixed or they're taking their money and walking. Stamping ones feet and waving around threats does little to help anyones case and people seem to forget that the internet stays around and how one behaves leaves a quasi permanent track record for all to see.

I've reduced the value of my chips but am still invested and not demanding my money back. Neither is it this latest turn of events that led me to form my view. As for a vocal minority its worth keeping in mind there are many with the same outlook but not voicing their concerns. As ever those on a forum on any side of a debate represent the very tip of the iceberg.

As such I really hope it doesn't seem to them that those with concerns are predominately made up of a vocal minority of unreasonable backers, and therefore they is no evidence suggesting they have lessons to learn. For me that would only mean complacency and denial must be added to a list of serious management level issues they are as of yet still not ready to confront and address.

 

[Steve O B Have]

I've reduced the value of my chips but I'm still investing and not demanding my money back. Neither is it this latest turn of events that lead to me forming my view. As for a vocal minority its worth keeping in mind there are many with the same outlook but not voicing their concerns. As ever those on a forum on any side of a debate represent the tip of the iceberg.

I really hope it doesn't seem to them that those with concerns are predominately made up of backers who should be dismissed. For me that would only add complacency and poor judgement to the list of issues they need to address.

I don't disagree that there is a huge amount to be said for transparency, however I would not go so far as to suggest that the numbers of the vocal minority are also directly proportional or representative as the positive bunch. Statistically someone that has something bad to say is far more likely to voice it than someone that is either neutral or positive. It's human nature to vent ones anger/angst but it's a far more rare thing for someone to represent the positive/neutral standpoint.

Someone is always going find something to complain about or something to take affront to - they will then feel that it's their moral compunction to express that loudly and vehemently - recognising on balance what is a genuine reasonable complaint and what is emotionally driven indignation is a tough thing for a public facing company to deal with.

Personally I think that it is far too early to be suggesting that CIG and RSI are going at it wrong - the simple fact is that what is the usual process that a games house normally goes through behind closed doors and shepherded by producers and funders is out on the table for all to see. CR has been honest, is upholding his personal feeling that he doesn't want to deliver a buggy and unplayable first impression and I respect him and his team for that. To draw a parallel - keep in mind how impressive the ED first Alpha was and how valuable that initial impression was.

 

[Toumal]

Personally I think that it is far too early to be suggesting that CIG and RSI are going at it wrong - the simple fact is that what is the usual process that a games house normally goes through behind closed doors and shepherded by producers and funders is out on the table for all to see. CR has been honest, is upholding his personal feeling that he doesn't want to deliver a buggy and unplayable first impression and I respect him and his team for that. To draw a parallel - keep in mind how impressive the ED first Alpha was and how valuable that initial impression was.

I think there's two facets to this. On one hand you have rabid fanboys who take anything said or even hinted at as gospel, and are equally eager to reject anything that doesn't come from the source of their reverence. They are of course a minority, but a very annoying one. On the other hand you have the guys working on SC with a very transparent development process - which I think is an interesting and bold thing to have - but my beef with how they're doing things is that it was readily apparent to anyone with a bit of experience that their schedule was incredibly optimistic, to use a positive term.

Does that mean they're incompetent? No! But like any big software project it's a question of who's making the technical decisions, and I don't get the feeling that they've fully understood the gravity of all the things ahead of them. That's just a feeling, I might be wrong, but eh...

The press statements are another thing entirely. So to take them at their word, when they announced the last DFM timeline they were talking about stuff like "warming up the caches" - which is just mumbo-jumbo, it doesn't mean a thing. Oh you mean the web cache for when the released binary is to be distributed? First of all, use varnish, second of all, no need to "warm up" anything, and even if you did, you'd need the finished binary which you don't have yet. Of course, it all sounds a lot better than "We'll work in crunch mode for a week and hope that at the last day we can produce something that's release-worthy".
Crunch mode is sometimes not avoidable due to outside influence. But it is not "good", nor should it be expected.

tl;dr version: I think the technical capabilities of CIG/RSI are not so much in question as the tone and content of their announcements with relations to the actual output. From a management perspective it would've been a lot more sensible to not try and one-up Elite Dangerous at all costs and have a release the very day before, and instead release when it's ready.

 

[Bains]

I don't disagree that there is a huge amount to be said for transparency, however I would not go so far as to suggest that the numbers of the vocal minority are also directly proportional or representative as the positive bunch. Statistically someone that has something bad to say is far more likely to voice it than someone that is either neutral or positive. It's human nature to vent ones anger/angst but it's a far more rare thing for someone to represent the positive/neutral standpoint.

Someone is always going find something to complain about or something to take affront to - they will then feel that it's their moral compunction to express that loudly and vehemently - recognising on balance what is a genuine reasonable complaint and what is emotionally driven indignation is a tough thing for a public facing company to deal with.

Personally I think that it is far too early to be suggesting that CIG and RSI are going at it wrong - the simple fact is that what is the usual process that a games house normally goes through behind closed doors and shepherded by producers and funders is out on the table for all to see. CR has been honest, is upholding his personal feeling that he doesn't want to deliver a buggy and unplayable first impression and I respect him and his team for that. To draw a parallel - keep in mind how impressive the ED first Alpha was and how valuable that initial impression was.

If I was the Managing Director, walked into the office one day and said "What the hell is going on? This is not the first time we've missed deadlines. Why can't you issue a realistic deadline? And damn it man, its reached the stage where people on the forums are demanding their money back!?"

And the response from my Director of Development was, effectively, "Chill, no biggie, guys on the internet, you know what they're like! Besides, for every one of those pikers there are many more who are still happy!"

Believe me, I'd be issuing a P45.

Nonetheless we've both stated our views. For me the group of senior managers who run that company have serious lessons to learn, and quite honestly I struggle to see how this is even a matter of debate. Meanwhile I think you feel they're doing fine, and if anyone needs to reflect it's actually the gamers who have backed them. Unfortunately I think they still share your outlook because I see no sign of a change in how they operate - so let's hope you're right.

 

[Cico]

Much as I predicted

dogfighting module, which was due be sent out to backers today. But project director Chris Roberts has announced that the current build is too unstable for release, and so has been delayed. Again.

 

[Aleksej]

The delay itself does not bother me. What bothers me most in CIG is that they cannot meet the deadlines that they have set themselves! IMO if you set the deadline than you must do everything to fulfil it, otherwise do not set any deadlines even approximate ones.

 

[Boomotang]

One of the big problems I see with Star Citizen is the still on going feature creep. They are still in funding mode, and still setting funding goals.

That's gotta stop. They have to step up and say "OK, keep giving us money, now it's profit for us. No more features are going to be added".

They have the money now. Excellent. Now make the game.

I'm looking forward to S.C. But Elite more so.

I wouldn't say that they're still adding features with more money raised. It's more like they're adding more content.

 

[Alric]

I think it's also a mistake to see peoples reactions as polarised between impatient and realistic. Not everybody who wants to see them release something is just desperate to play the game. There's the question of how the game is developed, and I think it's a big one.

In their day games like Wing Commander have been by budget projects with all the bells and whistles. There's a tendency to the same for SC - highly polished, highly detailed etc.

But pulling in the other direction is the trend for open development, release early and often. We've seen runaway success from the likes of Minecraft with a product that wasn't polished or even released technically for a long time - but it was publicly, visibly progressing, giving people something tangible and engaging them in the process.

Star Citizen, I feel, is falling between two stools. Promising the openness of a Kickstarter but the polish of a big budget final release.

My desire for them to release something is nothing to do with impatience. It's to do with my belief that putting something out there, warts and all to be played or discussed or shot at, is a catalyst for development and useful feedback. Keeping something back until it's perfect, in a complex multifaceted project, is a recipe for trouble.

I also take the view that as a business, and especially as a crowd funded project, the views of your customers, fans and backers are valuable. If people take the time to share their opinions of your product, they're giving you something important. Even when it's negative. It's easy to take that for granted in the gaming industry. But then, it's also easy to fail.

 

[Boomotang]

I won't be disappointed if AC is delayed. The problem that concerns me most is that there won't be control settings setup in-game and presumably no TrackIR support.

I'm also slightly bummed about those things. But it isn't a game breaker for me. Keyboard/button layout will come very soon after. Rob Irving said the ground work to get it in is ready but they can't implement it for release because their build is in feature lock, which means that it's almost guaranteed to come out very soon with no new features introducing new bugs.

 

[Boomotang]

Yes - apparently they were in code lock - although they'd branched with different depts. working on different stuff according to Wingman's Hangar - also released yesterday.

I don't pretend to fully understand what that means as I'm not a developer.

They were/are in 'feature' lock. Meaning no new features to introduce new bugs, while they work on fixing the existing bugs.

 

[Herne]

If I was the Managing Director, walked into the office one day and said "What the hell is going on? This is not the first time we've missed deadlines. Why can't you issue a realistic deadline? And damn it man, its reached the stage where people on the forums are demanding their money back!?"

And the response from my Director of Development was, effectively, "Chill, no biggie, guys on the internet, you know what they're like! Besides, for every one of those pikers they are many more who are still happy!"

Believe me, I'd be issuing a P45.

Nonetheless we've both stated our views. For me they as a company and senior group of managers have serious lessons to learn, and I struggle to see how this is a matter of debate. I think you feel they're doing fine and if anyone needs to reflect it's actually the gamers who have backed them. Unfortunately I think they still share your outlook because I see no sign of a change in how they operate - so let's hope you're right.

**** Happens !! it's a fact of life, just like when Bill Gates gets up on stage to show off a nice shiny new version of windows and gets a BSOD.

PBR being integrated into cryengine, I suspect was no small task, all of the game assets will have needed updating, and imo is probably a large part of the reason for the delay from december until the pax reveal.

I work for a software development company, non games related, not as a developer but as the systems / network engineer, and I know all to well how DEV's fix one thing, and something else breaks. This is just par for the course.

I'll wait until Arena Commander launches before I make judgement, and I will be comparing it to the quality of the ED alpha 1.1 build. Which still impresses me today BTW

 

[Bains]

I think it's also a mistake to see peoples reactions as polarised between impatient and realistic. Not everybody who wants to see them release something is just desperate to play the game. There's the question of how the game is developed, and I think it's a big one.

In their day games like Wing Commander have been by budget projects with all the bells and whistles. There's a tendency to the same for SC - highly polished, highly detailed etc.

But pulling in the other direction is the trend for open development, release early and often. We've seen runaway success from the likes of Minecraft with a product that wasn't polished or even released technically for a long time - but it was publicly, visibly progressing, giving people something tangible and engaging them in the process.

Star Citizen, I feel, is falling between two stools. Promising the openness of a Kickstarter but the polish of a big budget final release.

My desire for them to release something is nothing to do with impatience. It's to do with my belief that putting something out there, warts and all to be played or discussed or shot at, is a catalyst for development and useful feedback. Keeping something back until it's perfect, in a complex multifaceted project, is a recipe for trouble.

I also take the view that as a business, and especially as a crowd funded project, the views of your customers, fans and backers are valuable. If people take the time to share their opinions of your product, they're giving you something important. Even when it's negative. It's easy to take that for granted in the gaming industry. But then, it's also easy to fail.

I think you make a very good point.

 

[Dante80]

Why is this thread moved to the Elite: Dangerous Support Subforum?

 

[Bains]

Why is this thread moved to the Elite: Dangerous Support Subforum?

To serve as a cautionary tale for the ED support team perhaps?

 

[metanoia]

Why is this thread moved to the Elite: Dangerous Support Subforum?

They are hoping the elite community will now support Star Citizen, as looking at the RSI forums the star citizen community aren't.

 

[Boomotang]

@Toumal

It's not about Chris Roberts being "Caesar" to me. I take the same attitude towards ED development. It's about being even keeled and not throwing a tantrum if a gameplay mechanic is different than what I personally wanted, or if there are delays in 'releases'.

People are still considering these 'releases' in the context of most games' official releases or beta programs. Delays in those stages would be a lot more frustrating to me. But I can COMPLETELY understand not having a 'code' lock prior to the release date of their first playable combat build in this stage of development.

 

[Aleksej]

I'm also slightly bummed about those things. But it isn't a game breaker for me. Keyboard/button layout will come very soon after. Rob Irving said the ground work to get it in is ready but they can't implement it for release because their build is in feature lock, which means that it's almost guaranteed to come out very soon with no new features introducing new bugs.

Of course these are not game breakers but I really do not understand the fact that the state of the TrackIR did not change in 6 months. In November they have stated that there won't be TrackIR support in DFM release planned for December. In April they say that there won't be TrackIR support for AC v1. I have only one question - what were they doing all that time, I do not think it is that difficult to implement such support, especially as they have already introduced OR support.

As for key bindings I have read that it will be possible to modify them in XML file as the devs do. But if this is possible why not to make this easier? Also I am used to using rudder pedals, will I be able to set them up manually in the game?

 

[Boomotang]

...they [may] well hit a show-stopper forcing them to rework all these ships.

I highly doubt that. There's a big difference between modelling the ships and getting them 'finished'. The modelling, texturing, and shading phase is not the majority of the work. The only thing that MIGHT have to be reworked is modelling less polys, but I doubt it. There's a reason that they only 'finished' the Hornet before committing that type of work to the rest of their fleet.

 

[Bains]

@Toumal

It's not about Chris Roberts being "Caesar" to me. I take the same attitude towards ED development. It's about being even keeled and not throwing a tantrum if a gameplay mechanic is different than what I personally wanted, or if there are delays in 'releases'.

People are still considering these 'releases' in the context of most games' official releases or beta programs. Delays in those stages would be a lot more frustrating to me. But I can COMPLETELY understand not having a 'code' lock prior to the release date of their first playable combat build in this stage of development.

I really don't mind if they say September for a release date. I just think its a bad sign that they continually fail at issuing realistic deadlines in the first pace. You may excuse them for this but it doesn't change the fact many backers don't take their word seriously anymore. This is not a good position to be in.

I think it's also important they get the message about this. And I appreciate backers like you are trying to show support, but when people use the forums to continually excuse them and attack those who don't (e.g. suggesting they are throwing tantrums), you are in fact simply sabotaging an important message they need to get and take on board. Seen in this light excusing them all the time is well-meaning but misguided and simply making matters worse. And guaranteeing things will have to get very bad before they finally do get the message.

By the way I didn't know about not having Track IR support either. One more bummer to add to the list.

As I have stated before it seems self-evident that the decision to not have us all flying around in a one ship DFM long ago, but instead prioritise a full showroom of ships and fish tanks can only have been driven by marketing rather than any kind of conventional software development wisdom. Or at least I hope so because the alternative speaks of incompetence given they many well hit a show-stopper forcing them to rework all these ships.

I highly doubt that.

As your line acknowledges, you simply can't be sure, nor can they. This is software development after all. Expect that whatever can go wrong, will go wrong. And without wanting to get into tech speak I believe it's a matter of record that there have already been after the fact decisions that have forced them to go back and waste time and money to rework/cover old ground as far as all these ships go.

 

[ianw]

They were/are in 'feature' lock. Meaning no new features to introduce new bugs, while they work on fixing the existing bugs.

Thanks - that makes sense.