Then just let us gather all the terms together. <stuff>
If you want to gather terms together then step one is to recognise that all the stuff you alpha, beta etc stuff is simply part and parcel of the "run phase" of a project.
There are different organisations around the world with their own systems so you get slightly different terms but basically projects have between 5 and 7 phases. You can google 2project phases" or "project lifecycle".
(1 or 2) Concept or Initiation Phase - often has 2 phases; some companies add extra steps. This is the doodling on a napkin, the pitching, the small meetings, lots of cost and benefit assessments. wil lit make a profit? Most ideas die in this phase, a few get a little funding before being pulled a tiny few get to the next phase.
(1 or 2) This is Definition, sometimes Definition and Set-Up. More work to flesh out the idea looking at a lot more than just costs and possible benefits. What people do you need, what other stuff - buildings, licences, equipment. Some projects get canned at this point whilst others complete this early build-up and initiation phase. In SC's case this is the post Kickstarter stuff that included setting up the company and - yes - sorting out the goals.
(3) Then you have "Design, Development and Implementation". This is what we usually talk about as "development". And there are specific terms depending out there depending on whether you are writing software or building a canal. This is what most people talk about when they use the term "development".
Lastly a lot of systems have some "post-project" phases like Closure (staff no longer needed), Maintenance (some support folk maybe), Benefit phases.
A big difference between KS funded games and games from major studios is that we are seeing just about everything. With a AAA studio we only see the middle bit - and usually not even all of that.
So comparing how long a KS project has been underway - any KS project - to how long a big studio game took to make ........ its not even an apples to oranges comparison.
On the contrary. Like it was explained several times already, the hardest work is only about to come - to put all those pieces together.
SC is out of question, they do not have money to finish it. Period. Read what CR said - they have money for SQ42 only, all other income goes towards feature creep.
They have money for SQ42 only ... IF funding SUDDENLY dries up COMPLETELY.
Which it wont. Which is does not (as we speak/write more money comes in...)
You might think it is different. You might read anything you want into CR's words. Everyone is entitled to his own reality filter.
Fact is ... funding income has INCREASED lately (Nov/Dec 2016 ... strongest period since campaign start), not decreased. Correction (after having checked the spreadsheet, thanks to advice from the posters here): Fact is...funding has INCREASED lately: per year 28,3 M$ --> 32,9 M$ --> 35, 9 M$ --> 36,1 M$ October/November 2016 ... one of the strongest periods since campaign start (12.992.170 $ ... compared to the Oct/Nov 2013 period with 13.004.390 $)
They have money for SQ42 only ... IF funding SUDDENLY dries up COMPLETELY.
Yes, that is what I and CR said - they have money for SQ42 only...
Whether it is conditioned by funding drying up or inreasing is irrelevant, they only have money for SQ42. Period.
Sure, you can argue that as long as money pours in, anything is possible, it will be just a matter of time but that would be fairly stupid argument...is that what you tried to imply?
First of all, that's not correct - that's just a misinterpretation based on a paragraph, ignoring everything CR has been saying from the beginning.
Second of all, even if it WAS true - and they could only finish SQ42 with current funds - he's clearly saying the funds from the sales will help fund Star Citizen.
So, unless you think SQ42 won't sell at all - they have more funds even in that worst case scenario, which in itself is extremely, extremely unlikely.
The only way you can turn any of this into a real issue, is if you care more about fabricating a problem than looking at reality.
AND at the same time it demands higher budget for completion of the game. It is completely nuts and inefficient development.
A higher budget that he does get from his backers. Inefficient or not ... does not matter .. his backers grant him time and money to do it. No signs of drying up ... to the contrary .. end of last year was most successful crowdfunding month in the whole campaign.
Have fun
All that extra money from backer's, and still no completed game.
Fact is, they raised more money than CR claimed was needed, even after the change in scope, yet they still need more money to complete it.
Fact is, they raised more money than CR claimed they needed to have the game released, yet they have missed the release date(s) set by CR, and still need more money to actually release the completed game.
When are people going to wake up?
Let me explain something really simple to you:
The budget is almost entirely about paying the people who work for you.
It's not a magical number that can produce a game on a linear scale according to its size.
Meaning, if something takes LONGER than expected - you need to pay your people MORE than you predicted.
Delays in the gaming industry when it comes to ambitious AAA games - is 100% normal and the accepted standard by any consumer with a memory. So, any time such a game is delayed, its budget increases - because people need more time to work on it. You simply don't hear about it, because it goes on behind the scenes - and the publisher is the investor in that case.
Beyond that, they're going to need money to SUSTAIN the game after release - which means there's no limit on how much they can use - and it will only help improve and maintain the game properly. There's absolutely no rational, moral or reasonable incentive to NOT accept the money that people are willing to give you, in support of the game.
When are the ignorant naysayers going to wake up?
Nothing that you said changes the facts.
CR claimed to need X amount of money to complete the game in a certain time frame.
That amount of money was raised, and exceeded, as was the time frame.
The scope of the game changed, and once again, the amount of money needed to complete the game at that point was raised and exceeded, as was the time frame.
CR claimed stretch goals/change of scope would not affect or delay the completion/release date of the game.
Pretty much every deadline given by CR has been missed so far.
Making excuses and claiming it is a simple explanation does not change any of those facts.
As for the ignorant remark, seem's to be a case of the kettle calling the pot.
A creative person is motivated by the desire to achieve, not the desire to beat others.
AND at the same time it demands higher budget for completion of the game. It is completely nuts and inefficient development.
A higher budget that he does get from his backers. Inefficient or not ... does not matter .. his backers grant him time and money to do it. No signs of drying up ... to the contrary .. end of last year was most successful crowdfunding month in the whole campaign.
Have fun
All that extra money from backer's, and still no completed game.
Fact is, they raised more money than CR claimed was needed, even after the change in scope, yet they still need more money to complete it.
Fact is, they raised more money than CR claimed they needed to have the game released, yet they have missed the release date(s) set by CR, and still need more money to actually release the completed game.
When are people going to wake up?
Let me explain something really simple to you:
The budget is almost entirely about paying the people who work for you.
It's not a magical number that can produce a game on a linear scale according to its size.
Meaning, if something takes LONGER than expected - you need to pay your people MORE than you predicted.
Delays in the gaming industry when it comes to ambitious AAA games - is 100% normal and the accepted standard by any consumer with a memory. So, any time such a game is delayed, its budget increases - because people need more time to work on it. You simply don't hear about it, because it goes on behind the scenes - and the publisher is the investor in that case.
Beyond that, they're going to need money to SUSTAIN the game after release - which means there's no limit on how much they can use - and it will only help improve and maintain the game properly. There's absolutely no rational, moral or reasonable incentive to NOT accept the money that people are willing to give you, in support of the game.
When are the ignorant naysayers going to wake up?
Nothing that you said changes the facts.
CR claimed to need X amount of money to complete the game in a certain time frame.
That amount of money was raised, and exceeded, as was the time frame.
The scope of the game changed, and once again, the amount of money needed to complete the game at that point was raised and exceeded, as was the time frame.
CR claimed stretch goals/change of scope would not affect or delay the completion/release date of the game.
Pretty much every deadline given by CR has been missed so far.
Making excuses and claiming it is a simple explanation does not change any of those facts.
As for the ignorant remark, seem's to be a case of the kettle calling the pot.
I didn't say it changed facts.
The facts just make your point useless and irrational - unless your argument is that delays mean something really important here.
You seem to think that missing deadlines and being unable to predict release dates accurately is unique or unusual in the gaming industry.
It's not, it's the norm.
What's important is that the game is being worked on - and progress is obvious. All promised modules are now released. The foundation of the final game is getting ever closer.
Even in the worst case scenario, they will have the funds to release both SQ42 and the MVP of SC. That's the WORST case scenario.
Conclusively, your effort to make delays and missed release dates into a serious issue is not only weak and unsubstantiated - it's also irrational.
They have money for SQ42 only ... IF funding SUDDENLY dries up COMPLETELY.
Yes, that is what I and CR said - they have money for SQ42 only...
Whether it is conditioned by funding drying up or inreasing is irrelevant, they only have money for SQ42. Period.
Sure, you can argue that as long as money pours in, anything is possible, it will be just a matter of time but that would be fairly stupid argument...is that what you tried to imply?
Hey, if you run out of arguments ... just say so ;-)
Have fun
Huh?
Fact is, as of now, they have funds to finish SQ42 only and that is still in question whether they will be actually able to pull it off and what the result will be.
You are the one trying to pull out strawman that "as long as money keeps rolling in, SC will be finished"...ignoring history and current status of the project, leaving aside stupidity of the argument itself as pointed before.
Hey, if you run out of arguments ... just say so ;-)
Have fun
Huh?
Fact is, as of now, they have funds to finish SQ42 only and that is still in question whether they will be actually able to pull it off and what the result will be.
You are the one trying to pull out strawman that "as long as money keeps rolling in, SC will be finished"...ignoring history and current status of the project, leaving aside stupidity of the argument itself as pointed before.
Ignore history ?
May I remind you .... Nov/Dec 2016 were the most successful months in the history of this crowdfunding campaign. Correction (after having checked the spreadsheet, thanks to advice from the posters here): May I remind you: funding has INCREASED lately: per year 28,3 M$ --> 32,9 M$ --> 35, 9 M$ --> 36,1 M$ October/November
2016 ... one of the strongest periods since campaign start (12.992.170 $
... compared to the Oct/Nov 2013 period with 13.004.390 $)
Hey, if you run out of arguments ... just say so ;-)
Have fun
Huh?
Fact is, as of now, they have funds to finish SQ42 only and that is still in question whether they will be actually able to pull it off and what the result will be.
You are the one trying to pull out strawman that "as long as money keeps rolling in, SC will be finished"...ignoring history and current status of the project, leaving aside stupidity of the argument itself as pointed before.
Ignore history ?
May I remind you .... Nov/Dec 2016 were the most successful months in the history of this crowdfunding campaign.
Have fun
Please don't spread lies.
When you have cake, it is not the cake that creates the most magnificent of experiences, but it is the emotions attached to it. The cake is a lie.
Hey, if you run out of arguments ... just say so ;-)
Have fun
Huh?
Fact is, as of now, they have funds to finish SQ42 only and that is still in question whether they will be actually able to pull it off and what the result will be.
You are the one trying to pull out strawman that "as long as money keeps rolling in, SC will be finished"...ignoring history and current status of the project, leaving aside stupidity of the argument itself as pointed before.
Ignore history ?
May I remind you .... Nov/Dec 2016 were the most successful months in the history of this crowdfunding campaign.
Hey, if you run out of arguments ... just say so ;-)
Have fun
Huh?
Fact is, as of now, they have funds to finish SQ42 only and that is still in question whether they will be actually able to pull it off and what the result will be.
You are the one trying to pull out strawman that "as long as money keeps rolling in, SC will be finished"...ignoring history and current status of the project, leaving aside stupidity of the argument itself as pointed before.
Ignore history ?
May I remind you .... Nov/Dec 2016 were the most successful months in the history of this crowdfunding campaign.
Have fun
Please don't spread lies.
It's hard to avoid when quoting you
When you have cake, it is not the cake that creates the most magnificent of experiences, but it is the emotions attached to it. The cake is a lie.
So November 2016 was the most successful funding month ever? Is that what you're getting at? Yeah, December it dipped back down to like $2.5-3 million.
So November 2016 was the most successful funding month ever? Is that what you're getting at? Yeah, December it dipped back down to like $2.5-3 million.
November 2013 was the most successful. December 2015 was the most successful.
But the record of those 2 months together, that was 2016.
So November 2016 was the most successful funding month ever? Is that what you're getting at? Yeah, December it dipped back down to like $2.5-3 million.
November 2013 was the most successful. December 2015 was the most successful.
But the record of those 2 months together, that was 2016.
Where are you pulling those numbers from? Is there an archive or something? I was interested in seeing what the yearly funding has been year-over-year, but they only show the past 6 months on their site.
Where are you pulling those numbers from? Is there an archive or something? I was interested in seeing what the yearly funding has been year-over-year, but they only show the past 6 months on their site.
So November 2016 was the most successful funding month ever? Is that what you're getting at? Yeah, December it dipped back down to like $2.5-3 million.
November 2013 was the most successful. December 2015 was the most successful.
But the record of those 2 months together, that was 2016.
Where are you pulling those numbers from? Is there an archive or something? I was interested in seeing what the yearly funding has been year-over-year, but they only show the past 6 months on their site.
It does not and never has mattered how much money people donate to CIG each month. CIG will spend it and deliver 3/5ths of jack diddly.
Chris has now admitted they dont have enough money, right now, in the bank, to complete SC. They have pissed it away. But thats ok, the backers will throw money at them forever.
Comments
Powerful stuff.
So impactful
There are different organisations around the world with their own systems so you get slightly different terms but basically projects have between 5 and 7 phases. You can google 2project phases" or "project lifecycle".
(1 or 2) Concept or Initiation Phase - often has 2 phases; some companies add extra steps. This is the doodling on a napkin, the pitching, the small meetings, lots of cost and benefit assessments. wil lit make a profit? Most ideas die in this phase, a few get a little funding before being pulled a tiny few get to the next phase.
(1 or 2) This is Definition, sometimes Definition and Set-Up. More work to flesh out the idea looking at a lot more than just costs and possible benefits. What people do you need, what other stuff - buildings, licences, equipment. Some projects get canned at this point whilst others complete this early build-up and initiation phase. In SC's case this is the post Kickstarter stuff that included setting up the company and - yes - sorting out the goals.
(3) Then you have "Design, Development and Implementation". This is what we usually talk about as "development". And there are specific terms depending out there depending on whether you are writing software or building a canal. This is what most people talk about when they use the term "development".
Lastly a lot of systems have some "post-project" phases like Closure (staff no longer needed), Maintenance (some support folk maybe), Benefit phases.
A big difference between KS funded games and games from major studios is that we are seeing just about everything. With a AAA studio we only see the middle bit - and usually not even all of that.
So comparing how long a KS project has been underway - any KS project - to how long a big studio game took to make ........ its not even an apples to oranges comparison.
Which it wont. Which is does not (as we speak/write more money comes in...)
You might think it is different. You might read anything you want into CR's words. Everyone is entitled to his own reality filter.
Fact is ... funding income has INCREASED lately (Nov/Dec 2016 ... strongest period since campaign start), not decreased.
Correction (after having checked the spreadsheet, thanks to advice from the posters here):
Fact is...funding has INCREASED lately:
per year 28,3 M$ --> 32,9 M$ --> 35, 9 M$ --> 36,1 M$
October/November 2016 ... one of the strongest periods since campaign start (12.992.170 $ ... compared to the Oct/Nov 2013 period with 13.004.390 $)
Have fun
Whether it is conditioned by funding drying up or inreasing is irrelevant, they only have money for SQ42. Period.
Sure, you can argue that as long as money pours in, anything is possible, it will be just a matter of time but that would be fairly stupid argument...is that what you tried to imply?
Second of all, even if it WAS true - and they could only finish SQ42 with current funds - he's clearly saying the funds from the sales will help fund Star Citizen.
So, unless you think SQ42 won't sell at all - they have more funds even in that worst case scenario, which in itself is extremely, extremely unlikely.
The only way you can turn any of this into a real issue, is if you care more about fabricating a problem than looking at reality.
CR claimed to need X amount of money to complete the game in a certain time frame.
That amount of money was raised, and exceeded, as was the time frame.
The scope of the game changed, and once again, the amount of money needed to complete the game at that point was raised and exceeded, as was the time frame.
CR claimed stretch goals/change of scope would not affect or delay the completion/release date of the game.
Pretty much every deadline given by CR has been missed so far.
Making excuses and claiming it is a simple explanation does not change any of those facts.
As for the ignorant remark, seem's to be a case of the kettle calling the pot.
A creative person is motivated by the desire to achieve, not the desire to beat others.
The facts just make your point useless and irrational - unless your argument is that delays mean something really important here.
You seem to think that missing deadlines and being unable to predict release dates accurately is unique or unusual in the gaming industry.
It's not, it's the norm.
What's important is that the game is being worked on - and progress is obvious. All promised modules are now released. The foundation of the final game is getting ever closer.
Even in the worst case scenario, they will have the funds to release both SQ42 and the MVP of SC. That's the WORST case scenario.
Conclusively, your effort to make delays and missed release dates into a serious issue is not only weak and unsubstantiated - it's also irrational.
Hey, if you run out of arguments ... just say so ;-)
Have fun
But its great to rehash known things, is it not ? Makes for wonderful loop-discussions....
Have fun
Fact is, as of now, they have funds to finish SQ42 only and that is still in question whether they will be actually able to pull it off and what the result will be.
You are the one trying to pull out strawman that "as long as money keeps rolling in, SC will be finished"...ignoring history and current status of the project, leaving aside stupidity of the argument itself as pointed before.
May I remind you .... Nov/Dec 2016 were the most successful months in the history of this crowdfunding campaign.
Correction (after having checked the spreadsheet, thanks to advice from the posters here):
May I remind you:
funding has INCREASED lately:
per year 28,3 M$ --> 32,9 M$ --> 35, 9 M$ --> 36,1 M$
October/November 2016 ... one of the strongest periods since campaign start (12.992.170 $ ... compared to the Oct/Nov 2013 period with 13.004.390 $)
Have fun
When you have cake, it is not the cake that creates the most magnificent of experiences, but it is the emotions attached to it.
The cake is a lie.
When you have cake, it is not the cake that creates the most magnificent of experiences, but it is the emotions attached to it.
The cake is a lie.
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/funding-goals
When you have cake, it is not the cake that creates the most magnificent of experiences, but it is the emotions attached to it.
The cake is a lie.
2012- 4.3+300k = 4.6m
2013- 7.8+2.1 = 9.9m
2014- 6.1+3.1 = 9.2m
2015- 5.3+5.2 = 10.5m
2016- 7.7+3 = 10.7m
Makes it so nov/dec of 2016 were indeed the best for them.
So November 2016 was the most successful funding month ever? Is that what you're getting at? Yeah, December it dipped back down to like $2.5-3 million.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
But the record of those 2 months together, that was 2016.
Where are you pulling those numbers from? Is there an archive or something? I was interested in seeing what the yearly funding has been year-over-year, but they only show the past 6 months on their site.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
Nov & Oct 2013 = 13,004,390
2016 was short by 12K:
Nov & Oct 2016 = 12,992,170
All the data is centralized here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tMAP0fg-AKScI3S3VjrDW3OaLO4zgBA1RSYoQOQoNSI/edit#gid=1694467207
It gives the most in-depth view on SC's crowdfund you could possibly get.
Be sure to look at the other folders too... lots of grafics there, lot of trending calculations
Have fun
Wrong by 12.220 $ .... ashes on my head ....
Truely a project that is on the downward spiral to DOOM !!1! with such abysmal crowdfunding performance ....
Have fun
Chris has now admitted they dont have enough money, right now, in the bank, to complete SC. They have pissed it away. But thats ok, the backers will throw money at them forever.