You forgot the...
User - "this isn't what I paid for"
LOL, that kind of reminded me of the old gag about project design and release
You forgot the...
User - "this isn't what I paid for"
Having read the article, both E: D and SC made mistakes. Roberts is right that E: D went for a "bare bones" approach, and could have done with another year in the oven. SC made the mistake of promising the Earth, Moon and Stars, but not having any form of real plan as to how to deliver those until a lot of money had already been spent. Two wrongs don't really make any form of right, but at least E: D has been playable for over a year, and SC now seems to be making real progress.
"You have stated that you expect to have an Alpha up and going in about 12 months, with a beta roughly 10 months after that and then launch. For a game of this size and scope, do you think you can really be done in the next two years?
Really it is all about constant iteration from launch. The whole idea is to be constantly updating. It isn’t like the old days where you had to have everything and the kitchen sink in at launch because you weren’t going to come back to it for awhile. We’re already one year in - another two years puts us at 3 total which is ideal. Any more and things would begin to get stale."
Dated from 19-10-2012 on this website - https://www.themittani.com/features...s-chris-roberts
Having read the article, both E: D and SC made mistakes. Roberts is right that E: D went for a "bare bones" approach, and could have done with another year in the oven. SC made the mistake of promising the Earth, Moon and Stars, but not having any form of real plan as to how to deliver those until a lot of money had already been spent. Two wrongs don't really make any form of right, but at least E: D has been playable for over a year, and SC now seems to be making real progress.
Having read the article, both E: D and SC made mistakes. Roberts is right that E: D went for a "bare bones" approach, and could have done with another year in the oven. SC made the mistake of promising the Earth, Moon and Stars, but not having any form of real plan as to how to deliver those until a lot of money had already been spent. Two wrongs don't really make any form of right, but at least E: D has been playable for over a year, and SC now seems to be making real progress.
The hard truth is this:
First they had no money so they turned to crowdfunding to be able to make a game.
Then the money started flowing and everything was awesome for a while.
Then the money kept flowing in despite them stating they now have "enough money to finish the whole game", but they couldn't say "no" to more money, so they increased the scope AND claimed that pledging more money would get the game done faster.
Now we're rapidly approaching the end of 2016, they are now reducing the scope down to a "minimum viable product" with no release date in sight while at the same time realizing that Fred Brooks was right after all, and nine women can't give birth to a child in one month.
However, the people I had fierce discussions with back at the end of 2014, who told me that I would have to eat my words "early 2016 at the very very latest, but most likely much sooner than that", are either gone or simply forgot about their previous claims.
Oh and both SQ42 and 3.0 are pushed back to 2017, and the religious nutjobs went through their classic dance routine for both: First they claim it's false information, probably from dsmart. Then they claim the gaming media is wrong too. Death threats are issued. Then CIG finally admits it in a half-sincere fashion ("We never said 2016... what's that? our own trailer? Sorry, have to go now!"), and then they are super fine with it ("It's better for the game anyway!")
You know during elite dangerous kickstarter i got picture that they would do base game on release then expand that with seasonal passes.Having read the article, both E: D and SC made mistakes. Roberts is right that E: D went for a "bare bones" approach, and could have done with another year in the oven. SC made the mistake of promising the Earth, Moon and Stars, but not having any form of real plan as to how to deliver those until a lot of money had already been spent. Two wrongs don't really make any form of right, but at least E: D has been playable for over a year, and SC now seems to be making real progress.
"Do you work in game development?"
Thanks for the flowers, Galaxy Cat!
To which I can happily say, no, I do software for real life space stuff Not that it matters, because you don't have to be a game developer to understand software development.
Posted by SA user: spacetoaster
The fact that cultists try and claim that "real work" didn't begin until much later than 2012 is so.....
I mean, there's hours of youtube videos of them showing them working on a game and pages of text of them talking about it. All starting years ago.
Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4WmjasDWic
Within the first minute they're talking about "FULL PRODUCTION" going on right now (this was published in JANUARY 2013).
The Kotaku article is very cleverly written because many aspects can be viewed from different angles. eg CR laments those who wouldn't say yes to his demands and celebrates that he was right and they were wrong when what he wanted is produced, which can be read as strong leadership, motivating his employees to produce his dreams. However, what about the person on the receiving end? Imagine coming into work each day and wondering what game the boss played last night and which part of it you now need to incorporate into the game you are developing. Even when you know that every module that touches that piece needs to be refactored to accommodate it; you know you have to answer yes, because no isn't an answer. I would not wish to be a producer in that environment. Strong leadership is great, but there is a careful balance to be drawn and this borders on dictatorial.
I think in a light of SC/CIG criticism it should be pointed out that majority of ED players critical to SC doesn't really want to see SC to fail. For them mostly it is another space game, a bit different scope, a bit more story driven MMORPG style. What really triggers most of them - and me - is constant barage of:
* How ED is boring and SC/NMS/next wunderkid will come and destroy it;
* How SC is most amazing game ever developed (like, really?);
* How CR is perfect visionary and can do no wrong (ohh yes, I am aware I have similar bias towards FD and David. Even then though I have been critical to lot of their suggestions and ideas);
* How everything CIG does is unique and "first ever" (ProcGen - I mean, really? PG was blasted by CR low hack job and not worthy of his concepts. It took several years to change his mind lol);
This article doesn't bring much for us to the table - we worry more about 2.2 beta than what's going on with CIG to be honest. Yes, it confirms some of suspicious about lack of basic mgt/comms skill with CR and CIG leadership. It is hard to deliver product in such atmosphere and frankly if I were SC backer I would get worried because all these mistakes costs a lot.
In nutshell, for rest of us outside CR reality bubble is very hard to compete with dream CR has sold to his followers. And that's frankly my biggest issue. It is like craving for that perfect looking girl while ignoring awesome/fun ones around you.
My condolances.
It's interesting to see the reaction to the article from staunch backers, I wonder if it'll be as remotely as positive as he continues his series. This should be amusing! The way he ended it wasn't anything close to positive and allowing CR to respond at length continues to reveal the arrogant incompetence we love him for. It's always someone else's fault -- but when things go right, there's never a drop of praise for the employees who made it work. Easier to take all the credit, I guess.
As always, I just feel bad for the underpaid perma-crunch devs who have to struggle with mgmt, especially the UK devs. The LA office is poison.
haha, very funny. Even though this is just the first in the series he is writing, I am happy that he didn't mention me, as that would detract from the article.
Incidentally, this was one year to the day.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CtHz6FrWAAATFfo.jpg
As for the second part of your post, the guy left F42 late last year, I believe in October. Not exactly in the long lost, distant past like you were trying to insinuate it was.
"This article is part of an ongoing series on Star Citizen from Kotaku UK"
It would hinder the journalistic integrity of the ongoing series if it fails to cover some of the more contentious events of the whole saga, and you can't include pivotal moments like the post-Escapist temper tantrum without any mention of the AntiChris. It's part of the Star Citizen narrative, regardless of your (Orlando's) ongoing attempts to whitewash and retcon every single misstep. And the funny thing is that you only have Roberts to blame for that.
The hard truth is this:
First they had no money so they turned to crowdfunding to be able to make a game.
Then the money started flowing and everything was awesome for a while.
Then the money kept flowing in despite them stating they now have "enough money to finish the whole game", but they couldn't say "no" to more money, so they increased the scope AND claimed that pledging more money would get the game done faster.
Now we're rapidly approaching the end of 2016, they are now reducing the scope down to a "minimum viable product" with no release date in sight while at the same time realizing that Fred Brooks was right after all, and nine women can't give birth to a child in one month.
However, the people I had fierce discussions with back at the end of 2014, who told me that I would have to eat my words "early 2016 at the very very latest, but most likely much sooner than that", are either gone or simply forgot about their previous claims.
Oh and both SQ42 and 3.0 are pushed back to 2017, and the religious nutjobs went through their classic dance routine for both: First they claim it's false information, probably from dsmart. Then they claim the gaming media is wrong too. Death threats are issued. Then CIG finally admits it in a half-sincere fashion ("We never said 2016... what's that? our own trailer? Sorry, have to go now!"), and then they are super fine with it ("It's better for the game anyway!")
Have they approached you about being in the making of Star Citizen documentary yet ?.