I don't get that difficulty to produce roadmap. I assume they use some project management system, and there are things to do but not done at all, things in variour stages of completion, things completed. How it can be SO difficult to take snapshot of that and publish it. Unless things are so messed up that they do not want to publish it. Or there is no real project management at all.
Game Discussions Star Citizen Discussion Thread v12
- Thread starter Yaffle
- Start date
-
- Tags
- star citizen
It's a bingo
In the Inside Star Citizen video, the developer said: "The rec room is one of my favorites. This is just due to a) We can play chess. I worked on that for quite a bit but we got it there..."
I guess an inability to build out the promised tech could be the central issue. But a company with no form of internal roadmap has completely imploded, and I don't think they're that directionless.
(I just reckon they keep hitting the 'walnuts through a sieve' problem, as an SA guy put it. The easy stuff is all getting done, but all the bigger tech issues keep hitting blockers.)
Ok for you this is primarily a CR issue? (Just complicated by dev delays?).
I think that might be leaning in to the 'micromanager' boogeyman a bit too much even for me
He's shown himself to be hyper-aware of community feedback at points, and he'll know full well that they're getting savaged over this particular aspect. I think in particular the idea of him putting it to bed for 6 months so they can reassess it in the January priorities 'week' seems unlikely on that front.
I think you may be right that coming up with a display that shows only what they want to show may be causing them some pain though
![[VR] DDM_Reaper20](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/44/44021.jpg?1588332101){kind=avatar}
Absolutely. The real problem about that, however, is (apparently) that there are so many SC fans out there who have convinced themselves that it's coming, that -- one day -- it will all come together, and (magically, I assume) become the game they've been promised -- and they appear content to throw their purses at CI, hoping that more money will fix all their issues. I don't know zilch about programming, but that much I know: competence can be bought, but retaining it . . . ah, that's more difficult. CRobbert is his own worst enemy in that regard. I'd like to know how many experts he made leave because reality and his expectations couldn't be coaxed into having a love child...
There's another problem. As you and others have stated so succinctly: the longer they take, the worse it'll look when compared to the latest and greatest games, and SC relies completely on its looks. Raytracing, everybody? It's the next big thing. I don't suppose SC supports that... (however, let's be fair, it'd be an EXCELLENT excuse to delay the game two, three years longer!).
I think the real struggle with the roadmap is not technical at all but only political/marketing.
The roadmap, as they want to show it, is a double-edged tool :
I think also that at the beginning of the year, the real state of their internal roadmap was not what CIG wanted to show publicly. During the year, CIG may have reshuffled some teams/tasks just to present the roadmap in its best light. Reshuffling working teams/tasks can take some significant time.
The roadmap, as they want to show it, is a double-edged tool :
- it shows the real internal structure of the project, how many ressources are put on each part of the project
- it give to competitor (FDEV or other) a good view of what is worked on
- it give to the community and haters many arguments to complain/criticize management (and they will do)
- it can show in pure light wasted ressources (ex : 5 guys coding full year a feature abandoned at last)
- it represent the internal structure of the company
- others I don't think about
I think also that at the beginning of the year, the real state of their internal roadmap was not what CIG wanted to show publicly. During the year, CIG may have reshuffled some teams/tasks just to present the roadmap in its best light. Reshuffling working teams/tasks can take some significant time.
In fact CIG is going to great efforts to delay or distract from the promised roadmap to the point where providing the roadmap would be the quickest and simplest solution. I mean there IS a roadmap is there? Like there is a SQ42 ready to be released? At this point you wonder what could possibly be the reason for not providing a roadmap because its so ridiculous to not have it? Is it because its about stuff they know they cant provide and they dont want to legally bind themselves in a hard place? Or is it because nobody knows whats on it at this point?
The lack of a roadmap is really worrying because its basically such a non-issue item in development yet it seems to be a problem for CIG.
LA is probably right that CIG shouldnt have talked about and announced a roadmap to begin with but if the motivation for saying that is to not get under pressure from people expecting announced things to happen CIG should stop selling stuff and talking publicly period. Whatever they say and do pretty much increases the expectations people have for them. And we all know WHY CIG announced the roadmap. To get a few more months in which the moolah is rolling. Now its time to come true on it and as we are talking about a roadmap its pretty hard to come up with excuses to avoid providing one.
Would have...should have. Maybe CIG should ve just produce and release the game they originally promised to begin with? But as its all about the money its not surprising we are where we are. The various funding months and the overall budget for Star Citizen are not a success story....so many people who think they are are grossly mistaken about that.
If the reason behind the roadmap delay isnt technical but political than sorry but these people need to grow up and make a statement. Just make a decision like an actual adult and face the consequences. "Playing for time" isnt honest, isnt competent and just sleezy/cheap/scammy at this point. We are not talking about a few thousand bucks here. With MILLIONS (supposedily) being made each month such behavior would be criminal
A brilliant moment of clarity here from you LA.
Problem is its quite okay to hide development stuff when one is self funding the project. Or limit its distribution just to investors, if it is funded by some private investors. But when it is funded with public crowd funding hiding that kind of stuff is not really okay.
The sold their souls to Calder. Again, why do that if the money is as good as the chart says and string themselves up by their balls. Don't add up.
Ok, but even if we were to assume every logistical / strategic / PR hurdle there was definitely an issue (and honestly I really doubt they're changing team structure just to facilitate a public roadmap)...
A year?
A year to tackle those issues and visualise a Jira database?
Really?
Corporations move slow. And putting together a pseudo-Jira for gamers is an odd thing for a large project to do (I'll give CIG that particular 'never been done before' honour
). But even taking all that into account... a year is absurd. Seems likely that they're either struggling to obscure all of the aspects which they don't want to show (which according to Chris is just the individual names and assignments), or they're deliberately playing for time...
You can't/don't have to show all your internal stuff when you are a company, even if you run on public fund or crowd funding. You have to place a limit on what can be public and what can't be public.
If you want CIG to hide nothing, you should be able to review the code, know the name of all persons on teams, know what services CIG buy to Amazon exactly, spec of the servers, how much is everybody paid, etc. Where is the limit ?
Answer to WHERE IS MY MONEY GONE? should be fine.
Audited report consisting of balance sheet, P/L, cashflow and changes in equity (for group) is perfectly sufficient in most cases. It's also a standard reporting level for a myriad of companies all over the world.
No need to re-invent the wheel for reporting figures, we're not Cloud Shenanigans here.
Yes there are limits what can be public and what cannot. I do not deny that. But they have essentially taken money from people against promise to deliver certain product. And people have right to in what stage said product is, and when they can reasonably expect product to be delivered. Hiding behind empty words or non-communication practice does not change that, in fact it just makes people suspicious of them.
Mid 2019 one of my customer wanted to add a simple private section on his website with a simple "log/password" access. I ask him "what for ?". He said me he wanted to show documents to its managers only. I asked him "what type of documents ?". He said legal stuff. I said him, "you will need some level of access to your documents, I would be surprised if all your managers should have access to the same type of documents in your new space."
He said I will think about it and come back to me with answers.
End of 2020, they are still discussing the matter because they have found that in France they need 3 levels of access, in Germany they need 2 levels and in Italy they need 4 levels and they are trying internally to standardize access levels.
Personal info, Need to Know & Anything required for data protection or 'Secrecy' (to stop competitors stealing the code for example).
But the code can be reviewed by an Independent Auditor, thats not a problem.
Whats left is all the stuff apart from the actual names of the staff. Job titles and responsibilities are good enough.
That's not what CIG publish each year in its "accounting" (not sure of the term) document ?
Isn't that the whole point of the Username & Password, it decides what level of access you have when you sign in?