Is this a rip off? Or is this Frontier first encounters all over again?

Squicker

S
Juniper said:
£75. So that's even 2nd beta people can't access the forum.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I did not realise this.

That's a flaw, in terms of comms anyway, perhaps it serves another objective in FD's plan.

It's entirely conceivable FD may not want to put the sort of detailed comms we're asking for in the General access forum due to it leaking to competitors press etc. If there's currently a defect list as long as a blue whale *****, they might indeed think that it leaking would make people viewing it, see ED in a bad light.

Likewise they are probably not too keen on any sort of roadmap data being leaked to competitors. It's certainly something they would think about in some detail before committing.

Previous to this, I was thinking all backers were in the PBF, so what's the big drama in stuffing it all in there...
 

Juniper

Juniper
It's a good point... although also worth remembering that Chris Roberts is an Alpha backer. ;)

(unless he was merely given it as he's DB's pal)
 

Squicker

S
Juniper said:
It's a good point... although also worth remembering that Chris Roberts is an Alpha backer. ;)
Click to expand...

Haha, well I guess he would be. No wonder he pulled his dogfighter when he saw how well Alpha 1.0 was going for FD! :D

I am thinking that, out of context, a massive defect list, published on some gamers blog somewhere, could engender a whole, "god ED looks like a mess, best steer clear of that", type mentality. To me, 200 defects doesn't sound like a lot, but to someone else it might sound like ED will be released as a complete leaky bucket. A perception takes a moment to make, and a lifetime to break.
 

Rog

Rog
I dread to think of the deluge Chris Roberts and co will suffer when SC goes into alpha from their hundreds of thousands of very expectant backers.

It's going to make any E: D concerns look piffling in comparison.
 

sporadic_kit

S
Joe nose said:
For someone who says they are fine with delay, you certainly seem concerned by it. And if you think the project manager needs to make bi-weekly reports to you as a 'key stakeholder,' I rather think you are getting carried away with what a £35 kickstarter pledge entitles you to.

Example by-weekly report: we've squashed some bugs. We're working on compatibility issues with x,y. We're testing gameplay issues with z.

Repeat. Bi-weekly.

I'm a backer - a (very) minor stakeholder in the big scheme of things; and I don't need to know any of this. I know the process is well underway and ongoing. The dev diaries and newsletters keep me updated, and I can watch gameplay footage on youtube. If I wanted to get a bit closer to development I'd have pledged to the DDF. Or actually invested money in the company. Why would I need to be re-assured twice a week that Frontier are actually doing some work instead of running around like headless chickens, or spending most of their day in the pub?
Click to expand...

I am not concerned with delay, I am concerned with poor communication. I support delay because ultimately it results in a better quality of the finished product. Also by the way, bi weekly means every two weeks.
 

sporadic_kit

S
Squicker said:
But it doesn't boil simply down to this.

For a forum full of what I initially thought were clever people, most seem to have a lot of difficulty holding TWO thoughts in their heads simultaneously:

The game can be late for valid reasons
The communication from FD can be improved

It is possible for both things to legitimately happen and the OP actually says this in his post, if anyone would care to read it properly.
Click to expand...

Exactly what im saying. Delays are acceptable and necessary.

Communication is critical but lacking. Im going to carry on reading this thread and might even have to give you an example of how a project manager should communicate with key project stakeholders. If the forum doesn't know what a stakeholder is then read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_stakeholder
 

sporadic_kit

S
SAB380 said:
I"m a project manager working in global IT by trade...and you're points are all fair.

Except Kickstarter is quite clear that you are 'pledging' and making 'donations'.

People who give money aren't investors and aren't stakeholders.....we are unofficially because we all want the game and have an interest, but they have no obligation to officially treat us as such.

I think a large part of it is crowd sourcing being in its infancy as well.

Game developers will have to learn to factor in some buffer time because these veterans already know EVERYTHING slips when it comes to software development.

And all the Kickstarter games so far will have to dedicated a small amount of resources to giving better progress updates along the way rather than being so adhoc with a 'trust us...' approach.

I do however cut Braben and Roberts a lot of slack in that regard because I do trust them totally ...... though I do add at least 6 months to any date Chris Roberts gives :D
Click to expand...

I was a global IT infrastructure project manager for 6 years. Now im head of IT.

I am a stakeholder and so is everyone else who pledged:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_stakeholder
 

cadmonkey33

cadmonkey33
dead-horse.gif
 

Squicker

S
ZeeWolf said:
so you think that backing a small amount on a Kickstarter proposition gives you the same rights regarding expectation and deadlines as a publisher or investor may expect?

no
Click to expand...

Strictly speaking, the amount would not matter. Comms is comms.

For example, the smallest technical projects I have delivered are of a value of c£2m and one of these was to a firm of 40,000 staff (it is fair to say small project values like this are usually delivered to say 10,000-20,000 people). This means each user has a stake of £50. Less than I actually pledged FD. My business has an open book to all stakeholders except where data protection or security is an issue. Yes, any user can log onto my firm's extranet site for their project and see whatever there is to see, should they choose to, so long as the client agrees with this ethos (most love it). Many users do not choose to look, but many do take an interest. It's not our ethos to deprive those who are interested just because some are not.

I have a friend who is a project manager who delivers small technical projects. She regularly delivers to one firm with only 1500 staff, projects sometimes as tiny £30-£50k. But nonetheless, each of these users with their paltry £30 (and less) stake get comms and her ethos is still, "customer is king". Understandably, she is well respected and never out of work.

Communication is all, the fiscal amount of the stake is meaningless.

Those who do not wish for more comms from FD simply don't look at those comms. To actively oppose increased comms is merely being the dog in a manger.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom