You could have used almost exactly the same arguments to show that Enron wasn't engaged in systematic fraud. Monumentally stupid.
Last edited:
It's The Agent over at SA time again...
hello
sq42 is totally folded into the PU (think gamemode like AC or SM)
sqlude "grossly mismanaged" and not due until 2018 or very late 2017
"A working 3.0 is years away."
features "are being cut like sliced bread" in order to hit this year
"Biggest failure? Communication."
more mocap for integral roles
"Current funding is completely insufficient. Backers need to reach deep if they want to see a beta release."
Source: https://robertsspaceindustries.com/schedule-reportHere’s the current list of bugs and changes that are considered a priority to fix before releasing 2.6.1:
- Networking
- Client disconnects (code 7, 8, and 0)
- Memory leaks and corruption
- Desynchronization
- Arena Commander
- Missiles not inheriting velocity from ships
- Missiles travelling erratically
If features have to be cut in order to release this year - I wonder what they will be.
Calix prototyped how players could interact with the world and items
Serialized Variable – RISK
Originally moved out of the 2.6.0 goals due to the time required to complete this.
The Network Engineers are continuing to fix bugs with this, however once one is fixed, another appears somewhere else. This is all happening in quite complex and sensitive code, so bugfixing requires more time
Still, at least they managed their first Bake Off. Chris Roberts could use more withering Mary Berry glares in his direction, and lectures on crumb structure.
If features have to be cut in order to release this year - I wonder what they will be.
So, basically, absoloutely nothing new to announce.
It was probably just a cornflakes carton, covered in mud to look like bread to fake progress while they still theorycraft the recipe.
Backend Services
The Backend Team has been hard at work on a massive project to refactor our entire backend infrastructure to a new architecture we’re calling Diffusion. Diffusion will be a truly cloud-oriented service architecture that will help improve high scalability and availability for our services. It will be powered by a top level “coordination” layer written in a proprietary language developed by our Lead Server Engineer, Jason Ely.
If the simplest explanation usually proves correct, and premeditated deception is dismissed, then the alternative explanation is consistent ignorance. These are our choices and neither is comforting.
Let's walk through the data and apply some logic.
PROPOSITION
Chris Roberts has a history of giving release date estimates about significant content that later prove incorrect.
EVIDENCE
-- Squadron 42 was supposedly coming in 2014, then 2015, then 2016, now 2017 ("Probably.")
-- Star Marine was supposed to be coming out in "3 weeks time" back in March of 2015. By summer of 2015, it was "weeks not months away." Then at Gamescom we were told it was coming in September. Then months more past, the year ended, and in January we were told it was actually in 2.0 as FPS but that the separate game was still coming. It finally released in December of 2016 but without many of the originally pitched features.
-- At Gamescom in August of 2016, Chris said Alpha 3.0 would release before December 19th. It's February 10th, 2017, and though we've received little specific guidance, it's not looking like we will see it anytime soon.
There are other examples but this seems enough to demonstrate an obvious pattern of inaccuracy exists. So let's get our Logic on and draw some conclusions.
FACT
Chris gives inaccurate guidance and does so constantly. This is incontrovertible at this point. If the simplest explanation is usually correct, we are left with two options:
DEDUCTIONS
-- Either he does so knowingly and is deceiving us (Malevolence.)
-- He does so unknowingly and is deluded himself. (Incompetence.)
These are our choices. Both have troubling implications. It's a Character issue or a Competence issue.
COUNTER ARGUMENT
I've seen some people who acknowledge the history of inaccurate guidance while denying it has any implications or significance for the project. This is the "It will be done when it's done" argument and I'd say fallacy.
It assumes that despite a track record rife with missed deadlines, despite his record of bad backer guidance, despite his lack of discernment about the real challenges of hitting their development goals, everything will turn out great in the end. Eventually. Somehow.
But apply Occam's Razor to the above. Reject Malevolence and the simplest explanation is that Chris is managing the project poorly and doesn't seem to even realize it. Troubling patterns keep repeating over and over. He seems unwilling or unable to correct them. Unexpected complications keep setting the project back yet he doesn't learn to expect them in the future.
You may be untroubled by that but it's hardly untroubling. How can leaders who can't learn from their mistakes really lead anywhere but to further mistakes?
CONCLUSION
Backers don't have to assume Malevolence when weighing Chris's historic record, but if they reject it, then they are choosing Incompetence. Rejecting both simple explanations in spite of the historic record is an act of defiant faith, not of logic. The logical explanation at this point then is to assume a future filled with constantly missed dates and delays that will only survive if the faith of the financing masses perseveres in spite of bad project management and lousy guidance.
Is it all doom and gloom then? I don't think it has to be.
SOLUTION
The solution is for Chris to learn from his own mistakes and give more sober, honest guidance in the future. If he needs to give dates, he should only do so in consultation with his entire development team because chances are, the guys and gals in the trenches are the ones who have a better appreciation for the complexity and the challenge ahead.
The worst case scenario then is they give overly cautious guidance, Chris shares it with backers, and then CIG ends up beating a release date. If that became a pattern, the entire storyline surrounding the project would change. They would become the studio that consistent beats expectations rather than being consistently beaten by them. Narratives of malevolence and incompetence would fade and new ones would emerge. Trust in the company would start to seem logical and not be an act of faith. That seems like a future worth pursuing to me.