Minimum viable product, what about maximum viable time frame?

Nilden

I've heard a lot about the minimum viable product but have started to wonder just how long they can prolong this?

How long can they keep this going? How fast are they burning through those millions of dollars? When will it reach the must launch out of time state?

What do you think is a maximum viable time frame, and the variables that contribute?

adamlotus75

The excitement for SC has pretty much faded I think with the general gaming public (not the backers, obviously).  They have probably missed their optimum launch window which would have been late 2015.  At that point they would have had virtually no competition - now all the big dogs are arriving with their space games, or existing space games are being expanded and enhanced.

filmoret

I predicted the MVP will be out by February 2017.   That all depends on if they really have a pg working planet.  They claim they do.

MaxBacon

Another thread about the same?
There is no factual answer to any of those questions, so a period there.

With all the speculation involved, SC shall continue as long they have the money and continue receiving additional funding every month.... i wouldn't see them much worried about any MVP.

It's good to remind people that forget many times that SC has one Alpha release, that continuously keeps being updated... it's future progress shall directly influence many things, future funding, future support... ending up also on how long would CIG be able to keep the alpha and taking their time or starting wrapping things up to Beta/Release.

There's far too many factors involved, but as people around are one-sided i don't believe it's possible to achieve one discussion where both sides can height equality on the opinions and views of the persons who post on this forum.

So maximum time-frame? There isn't. Estimates? Literately no standing base to make them because it's not known what they plan to deliver by MVP and after MVP.

adamlotus75 said:
The excitement for SC has pretty much faded I think with the general gaming public

Was the general gaming public ever excited? SC as ED are considered niche games... when we talk about space sims that are not causal games (unlike NMS).

(just see how well it went for ED by trying to appeal to the mainstream audience for their game, results on the source where most criticism against the game comes from)

adamlotus75

Yeah I think there was a lot of excitement, I nearly bought in pre-hangar module as it all looked awesome from the promo.

ED is a very good super niche game.  It's semi popular because it's good (for what is it - a modern version of original 80s Elite) but it suffers in comparison to the wild promises of SC which is somewhat unfair.

MaxBacon

adamlotus75 said:

Yeah I think there was a lot of excitement, I nearly bought in pre-hangar module as it all looked awesome from the promo.

I see the excitement about the same thing it was years ago.

The General public sees SC, as that wow shiny effect, and usually the interest goes away at the "Space Sim" part. What causes the niche effect is when the game is meant to more specific audiences, and while i see SC taking "jabs" at mainstream with FPS element, it still bases its gameplay around a space sim that casual players don't have much interest for.

bcbully

  

Elsabolts

Time is not on SC side.

H0urg1ass

Time frame for what though?  From the looks of it there are now going to be three separate games.  A single player Wing Commander style game.  A single player, but with multiplayer mode FPS (Or is single player campaign even confirmed?).  Then, at some point in the far future, after they've managed to sell 2+ modules to you separately, they are going to combine the modules and sell them to us again as a whole?

I seriously don't even know what's going on at all.

MaxBacon

H0urg1ass said:

Time frame for what though?  From the looks of it there are now going to be three separate games.  A single player Wing Commander style game.  A single player, but with multiplayer mode FPS (Or is single player campaign even confirmed?).  Then, at some point in the far future, after they've managed to sell 2+ modules to you separately, they are going to combine the modules and sell them to us again as a whole?

I seriously don't even know what's going on at all.

Well i don't blame you with all the drama and misinformation around.

It's only 2 separate games to be at the end, SC = MMO (Includes Arena Commander and Star Marine), and SQ42 = Single-player Campaign. In terms of those two, all the backers up until some months ago will get both, who backs now that can buy SC or SQ42 stand-alone.

Vrika

They release how much sales they have made on their website, and someone has made a tracker of their sales on here:
 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tMAP0fg-AKScI3S3VjrDW3OaLO4zgBA1RSYoQOQoNSI/edit?pref=2&pli=1#gid=1694467207

They are still making sales average of about $2 million a month, but their sales have been dwindling a bit since start of this year, and with how large their team is they're likely spending money faster than they're getting.

They should have some cash in bank, and if it gets tight they can always control it a little by giving people discounts and doing more ship concept sales, so I don't think they're at any financial problems right now. But I guess if this trend continues they might have to downsize their employee count a bit in 2017, and their deathline for releasing something good is in 2018.

This is just a guess. No one knows how much money they have left in bank, and no one knows exactly how much they're spending each month.

CrazKanuk

Did they release the feature set for their MVP? I think that some hear "Minimum" and automatically think it's a shell of a product. It's not, an MVP is the absolute base product that is acceptable for delivery to the end customer. At the same time, it's also unlikely that all features would be included. However, if you don't know what the MVP "looks" like, then how an you say what the delta is between that and a "Maximum Viable Product"? Unless they released their MVP feature set, which I was unaware of. 

Shodanas

CrazKanuk said:

Did they release the feature set for their MVP? I think that some hear "Minimum" and automatically think it's a shell of a product. It's not, an MVP is the absolute base product that is acceptable for delivery to the end customer. At the same time, it's also unlikely that all features would be included. However, if you don't know what the MVP "looks" like, then how an you say what the delta is between that and a "Maximum Viable Product"? Unless they released their MVP feature set, which I was unaware of. 

CR in one of his "10 for the chairman" videos very clearly stated that MVP = ALL core / important systems in place and fully functional.

Furthermore he said that SC's development will essentially never cease as the team or teams will always be putting stuff in the game. Like MMO's do.

filmoret

Shodanas said:

CrazKanuk said:

Did they release the feature set for their MVP? I think that some hear "Minimum" and automatically think it's a shell of a product. It's not, an MVP is the absolute base product that is acceptable for delivery to the end customer. At the same time, it's also unlikely that all features would be included. However, if you don't know what the MVP "looks" like, then how an you say what the delta is between that and a "Maximum Viable Product"? Unless they released their MVP feature set, which I was unaware of. 

CR in one of his "10 for the chairman" videos very clearly stated that MVP = ALL core / important systems in place and fully functional.

Furthermore he said that SC's development will essentially never cease as the team or teams will always be putting stuff in the game. Like MMO's do.

He also said that Star Marine would launch within 5 weeks and the game would only take like 2 years to completely develop.  They also claim to have completely functional PG planets.   How exactly do we decide what to believe here?

Funny thing if you google Chris Roberts then you have 2 different individuals.  One is the guy who claims to have hacked an airplane midflight.  The other is the president of CIG who makes a lot of claims as well.

Arglebargle

Vrika said:

They release how much sales they have made on their website, and someone has made a tracker of their sales on here:
 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tMAP0fg-AKScI3S3VjrDW3OaLO4zgBA1RSYoQOQoNSI/edit?pref=2&pli=1#gid=1694467207

They are still making sales average of about $2 million a month, but their sales have been dwindling a bit since start of this year, and with how large their team is they're likely spending money faster than they're getting.

They should have some cash in bank, and if it gets tight they can always control it a little by giving people discounts and doing more ship concept sales, so I don't think they're at any financial problems right now. But I guess if this trend continues they might have to downsize their employee count a bit in 2017, and their deathline for releasing something good is in 2018.

This is just a guess. No one knows how much money they have left in bank, and no one knows exactly how much they're spending each month.

In the 'refund story that cannot be named', the CIG claim was that two thirds of the money had been spent.  That would give them about another year of full bore developer spending left.  That is, if Roberts and crew have not gone profligate.  Good luck on that.  

filmoret

Arglebargle said:

Vrika said:

They release how much sales they have made on their website, and someone has made a tracker of their sales on here:
 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tMAP0fg-AKScI3S3VjrDW3OaLO4zgBA1RSYoQOQoNSI/edit?pref=2&pli=1#gid=1694467207

They are still making sales average of about $2 million a month, but their sales have been dwindling a bit since start of this year, and with how large their team is they're likely spending money faster than they're getting.

They should have some cash in bank, and if it gets tight they can always control it a little by giving people discounts and doing more ship concept sales, so I don't think they're at any financial problems right now. But I guess if this trend continues they might have to downsize their employee count a bit in 2017, and their deathline for releasing something good is in 2018.

This is just a guess. No one knows how much money they have left in bank, and no one knows exactly how much they're spending each month.

In the 'refund story that cannot be named', the CIG claim was that two thirds of the money had been spent.  That would give them about another year of full bore developer spending left.  That is, if Roberts and crew have not gone profligate.  Good luck on that.  

Hmm got any link to that claim from CIG?  Because I got a link from them saying that wasn't true.

CrazKanuk

Shodanas said:

CrazKanuk said:

Did they release the feature set for their MVP? I think that some hear "Minimum" and automatically think it's a shell of a product. It's not, an MVP is the absolute base product that is acceptable for delivery to the end customer. At the same time, it's also unlikely that all features would be included. However, if you don't know what the MVP "looks" like, then how an you say what the delta is between that and a "Maximum Viable Product"? Unless they released their MVP feature set, which I was unaware of. 

CR in one of his "10 for the chairman" videos very clearly stated that MVP = ALL core / important systems in place and fully functional.

Furthermore he said that SC's development will essentially never cease as the team or teams will always be putting stuff in the game. Like MMO's do.

Thanks! So MVP might equal? What? The entire game? That was pretty much my point. People are simply all up in arms about nothing, or at least something they don't even know about. 

aliven

Nilden said:

I've heard a lot about the minimum viable product but have started to wonder just how long they can prolong this?

How long can they keep this going? How fast are they burning through those millions of dollars? When will it reach the must launch out of time state?

What do you think is a maximum viable time frame, and the variables that contribute?

Minimum viable product is something that can work and nothing more. So, for example, no mario but black block jumping on texturless world. One world. Hell, even one screen worth of content. Because THIS is mvp. 

MVP isnt "lets see how much we can cut out before they burn us". 

filmoret

CrazKanuk said:

Shodanas said:

CrazKanuk said:

Did they release the feature set for their MVP? I think that some hear "Minimum" and automatically think it's a shell of a product. It's not, an MVP is the absolute base product that is acceptable for delivery to the end customer. At the same time, it's also unlikely that all features would be included. However, if you don't know what the MVP "looks" like, then how an you say what the delta is between that and a "Maximum Viable Product"? Unless they released their MVP feature set, which I was unaware of. 

CR in one of his "10 for the chairman" videos very clearly stated that MVP = ALL core / important systems in place and fully functional.

Furthermore he said that SC's development will essentially never cease as the team or teams will always be putting stuff in the game. Like MMO's do.

Thanks! So MVP might equal? What? The entire game? That was pretty much my point. People are simply all up in arms about nothing, or at least something they don't even know about. 

Its suppose to feature all the core functions of the game.  Not the entire universe that the game is set in.  So you will have all features but not all the planets/solar systems to explore yet.

donger56

The fact that this game has been in development since 2011 and they are using terms like "minimum viable product" kind of tells you all you need to know. Eventually they have to release something or they will end up in court, so as soon as the money runs out, then you will get your half baked game. Don't expect anything close to what was promised back in 2012. As soon as they release something they can blame slow sales and lack of income for why many of the features never get into the game. Then Roberts can bail and transition into a "consulting" role just like he has done in the past. They knew awhile ago they couldn't do what they promised so the last couple of years has just been an exercise in delay tactics and trying to milk this project for whatever they could get out of it. Anyone still throwing money into this black hole is foolish. 

CrazKanuk

filmoret said:

CrazKanuk said:

Shodanas said:

CrazKanuk said:

Did they release the feature set for their MVP? I think that some hear "Minimum" and automatically think it's a shell of a product. It's not, an MVP is the absolute base product that is acceptable for delivery to the end customer. At the same time, it's also unlikely that all features would be included. However, if you don't know what the MVP "looks" like, then how an you say what the delta is between that and a "Maximum Viable Product"? Unless they released their MVP feature set, which I was unaware of. 

CR in one of his "10 for the chairman" videos very clearly stated that MVP = ALL core / important systems in place and fully functional.

Furthermore he said that SC's development will essentially never cease as the team or teams will always be putting stuff in the game. Like MMO's do.

Thanks! So MVP might equal? What? The entire game? That was pretty much my point. People are simply all up in arms about nothing, or at least something they don't even know about. 

Its suppose to feature all the core functions of the game.  Not the entire universe that the game is set in.  So you will have all features but not all the planets/solar systems to explore yet.

Says who? 

CrazKanuk

donger56 said:

The fact that this game has been in development since 2011 and they are using terms like "minimum viable product" kind of tells you all you need to know. Eventually they have to release something or they will end up in court, so as soon as the money runs out, then you will get your half baked game. Don't expect anything close to what was promised back in 2012. As soon as they release something they can blame slow sales and lack of income for why many of the features never get into the game. Then Roberts can bail and transition into a "consulting" role just like he has done in the past. They knew awhile ago they couldn't do what they promised so the last couple of years has just been an exercise in delay tactics and trying to milk this project for whatever they could get out of it. Anyone still throwing money into this black hole is foolish. 

If the MVP was a literal term, as you are eluding to, then they would have already released it, undocked, and got the fuck out of there. However, until you are able to produce a list of features included in that, then what you're saying is just a bunch of bullshit and misinformation. Sorry. You have no clue what an MVP is, let alone what the SC MVP is. However, if making grand sweeping statements like "It won't deliver everything promised back in 2012" makes you feel more intelligent, then I guess we'll just let you have that simple pleasure. 

CrazKanuk

aliven said:

Nilden said:

I've heard a lot about the minimum viable product but have started to wonder just how long they can prolong this?

How long can they keep this going? How fast are they burning through those millions of dollars? When will it reach the must launch out of time state?

What do you think is a maximum viable time frame, and the variables that contribute?

Minimum viable product is something that can work and nothing more. So, for example, no mario but black block jumping on texturless world. One world. Hell, even one screen worth of content. Because THIS is mvp. 

MVP isnt "lets see how much we can cut out before they burn us". 

Absolutely not. Please go, get educated, get your PMP and then give a more informed decision. Viability is the key. It doesn't need to be feature complete, but you're completely ignoring the concept of viability. 

Albatroes

They'll milk this train as long as they can, followed by "Sorry, we didn't have enough money to continue/finish the project."