Kefo said: And CR is their boss. If they are missing that many deadlines and there are that many delays then CR should be sitting them down and having a discussion with them.
If I keep missing my estimates and delaying everyone you can be damn sure my boss is going to be coming to me to figure out what the hell is going on.
You are playing by wrong assumptions. They were giving estimates already admitting they were of no solidity and would be delayed, they practice aggressive scheduling, so you might want to read about that to understand how it flows. If those dates were conservative estimates then you'd have a point, but they were not.
Kefo said: And CR is their boss. If they are missing that many deadlines and there are that many delays then CR should be sitting them down and having a discussion with them.
If I keep missing my estimates and delaying everyone you can be damn sure my boss is going to be coming to me to figure out what the hell is going on.
You are playing by wrong assumptions. They were giving estimates already admitting they would be delayed, because of the simple practice usually called aggressive scheduling, you might want to read about that to understand how it flows. If those dates were conservative estimates then you'd have a point, but they are not.
So a caveat on the website that says we will be wrong allows them to wipe their hands of any and all responsibility.
I want you to try that at your job. Go to your boss and tell them that you are going to seriously fuck up everything you do for the next month and when they fire you a week later try and use the excuse that you told your boss you would be screwing up so they can't fire you!
No I definitely don't think they could afford to have a dejavu 2.0 with 3.0.
I could care less if it took until 2020, myself, but I doubt that others who are more significantly invested would be so forgiving.
It's frustrating but end of the day it's just what it is, we can be disappointed on the time it takes but the way I see it would be worse if they just throw it out to the backers in the state of 2.0 by giving in to the pressure to deliver.
That includes the missed deadlines, delays, and mismanagement.
I'm just proving your points in your imagination. Again, you are speculating and throwing opinions.
You are delusional if you think it is CR who is making the internal estimates for the work that is scoped out per feature in-dev and not the producers (being that their job y'know). lol
You can not refute my post, so you call me delusional, it is a good job Vikingir has not seen your post, or you would be reported for name calling (joke, or maybe not).
A creative person is motivated by the desire to achieve, not the desire to beat others.
As far as I know, LiF has 2 versions: single player and private server. In other words, a peer-to-peer architecture. Is this what CIG is aiming for in their "MMO"? I'm assuming you're aware there are many reasons the vast majority of MMOGs do not allow private servers.
In a different thread around the same time you linked to a nebulous picture which seemed to imply CIG was doing something with grid computing (an idea that has been around since the early 90's). I'm assuming this is what you mean by "a working network setup as we talked before".
To my knowledge, most MMORPGs do something like this; if you have more players going to a certain area, you devote more computing resources to that area.
This doesn't necessarily solve the network issue; if each character takes up too much data (i.e. everything from 'I am carrying an assault rifle with 12 bullets' to 'my right arm is damaged')... there are different ways of tackling this, but it often leaves things open to hacking or stability issues, the latter of which it seems CIG is running into.
...in other words, you have faith that CIG are going to solve this problem, and I the skeptic am saying some of the best minds in gaming have tackled this problem over the past decades and certain sacrifices have to be made. That's the problem as I see it; CR doesn't jibe well with sacrifice, which is how you end up with a game stuck in development hell.
I'm talking the MMO, and it's not p2p, the LiF MMO is set of 49 servers sustaining one single game-world, each server handles one area of the map and supports I think attm 64 players, there are borders in the maps and you can see from one server to the other server as you seamlessly move between them, say, you'll see players and buildings in the other server as they stream to each other.
That is also the core idea behind SC's network, but it needs a more complex approach due the nature of the game, and they also want scaling that explaining easily is, the more players that are in X area, that area will move one server to 4 servers (supporting the same physical space).
The base approach is well possible, the rest is to be seen because scaling as they described it is by no means easy to pull off.
So a caveat on the website that says we will be wrong allows them to wipe their hands of any and all responsibility.
I want you to try that at your job. Go to your boss and tell them that you are going to seriously fuck up everything you do for the next month and when they fire you a week later try and use the excuse that you told your boss you would be screwing up so they can't fire you!
No, the caveats are there because they explain it, you want to ignore them to take and perceive those dates as something they were not.
In our office the scheduling for the teams is no different, they give always tight time frames that always slip and get pushed back, say while in management they estimate to the client it takes 2 months, they'll poke back the teams and say 1 month, that is a common practice because if you tell them 2 months from the start it's more likely the date slips past the 2 months than if you keep them working to deliver in 1 month; the problem arises when they push it back over 2 months (then yes, very unhappy boss) that is in a superficial way why aggressive scheduling is a thing.
CIG's mistake here was giving to the public the same dates their developers work with, causing people to get extra salty when they see weekly push backs, people took those dates more seriously than CIG did, at least now they seem to have realized that was a bad idea.
So a caveat on the website that says we will be wrong allows them to wipe their hands of any and all responsibility.
I want you to try that at your job. Go to your boss and tell them that you are going to seriously fuck up everything you do for the next month and when they fire you a week later try and use the excuse that you told your boss you would be screwing up so they can't fire you!
No, the caveats are there because they explain it, you want to ignore them to take and perceive those dates as something they were not.
In our office the scheduling for the teams is no different, they give always tight time frames that always slip and get pushed back, say while in management they estimate to the client it takes 2 months, they'll poke back the teams and say 1 month, that is a common practice because if you tell them 2 months from the start it's more likely the date slips past the 2 months than if you keep them working to deliver in 1 month; the problem arises when they push it back over 2 months (then yes, very unhappy boss) that is in a superficial way why aggressive scheduling is a thing.
CIG's mistake here was giving to the public the same dates their developers work with, causing people to get extra salty when they see weekly push backs, people took those dates more seriously than CIG did, at least now they seem to have realized that was a bad idea.
Ok so what happens when the boss tells the client 2 months and then 8 months later (like CR and CIG like to do) they might give you a scaled back version of what they originally promised?
Does that caveat still absolve them of the horrendous inability to plan out or estimate anything or is it still you don't understand game development but in a really long winded post?
Does that caveat still absolve them of the horrendous inability to plan out or estimate anything or is it still you don't understand game development but in a really long winded post?
The caveats simply tell what it is, either we like it or not, when we read this caveat: "we will ALWAYS extend timelines or re-do features and content if we do not feel they are up to our standards."
I don't think what drives delays would be the skills of estimating or planning the moment they are willing to re-do things as they develop them. Much less when it comes to their current phase of dev, bug-fixing, there's no estimating that, one issue can take either minutes or weeks, unless you're willing to make the release anyway (if even possible).
Does that caveat still absolve them of the horrendous inability to plan out or estimate anything or is it still you don't understand game development but in a really long winded post?
The caveats simply tell what it is, either we like it or not, when we read this caveat: "we will ALWAYS extend timelines or re-do features and content if we do not feel they are up to our standards."
I don't think what drives delays would be the skills of estimating or planning the moment they are willing to re-do things as they develop them. Much less when it comes to their current phase of dev, bug-fixing, there's no estimating that, one issue can take either minutes or weeks, unless you're willing to make the release anyway (if even possible).
So you're agreeing that it's just a way for them to weasel out of anything and everything.
Either they are re-doing it (because of terrible management and they couldn't get it right the first time, seems to happen a lot) or they can't estimate timeframes because reasons so it must be anarchy in the office since no one is held to a timeline and if things slip then oh well shit happens the caveat is on the website.
So you're agreeing that it's just a way for them to weasel out of anything and everything.
Either they are re-doing it (because of terrible management and they couldn't get it right the first time, seems to happen a lot) or they can't estimate timeframes because reasons so it must be anarchy in the office since no one is held to a timeline and if things slip then oh well shit happens the caveat is on the website.
What I agree is that giving the dates in the first place is useless if they are not giving conservative estimates, with or without the caveats.
The perception of progress shouldn't be how close one date is and yes what's left to do, that is what this last schedule update finally focused on.
I must admit, if I had a great job doing what I loved and good money coming in I wouldn't rush anything either.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
I must admit, if I had a great job doing what I loved and good money coming in I wouldn't rush anything either.
Getting it out early or on time didn't do much for ME: Andromeda. Everyone said it felt like EA rushed Bioware to push it out. Reaching a deadline with a game is a damnable deal no matter what.
If SC was on time, then it wouldn't be good enough, polished, or some other sort of wrong thing.
CIG was never going to win this war. That's why "he who shall not be named" didn't really have to succeed in his vendetta. Seeds of discord were enough. From that perspective this project is screwed six ways till Tuesday.
ME:As biggest mistake was dropping the characters that carried the series. Then shifting major resources to new game.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Getting it out early or on time didn't do much for ME: Andromeda. Everyone said it felt like EA rushed Bioware to push it out. Reaching a deadline with a game is a damnable deal no matter what.
Don't mind the pressure to deliver clearly exists, but there's also the pressure from people's expectations in 3.0
If they drop the ball and push 3.0 in the state they did 2.0, it's going to be more damning than the backlash they get from further delaying it.
I think they know this very well, many people see 3.0 as the "deal maker or breaker" for them. I think they are under high pressure to deliver something capable to impress on one side, and as soon as possible on the other.
I recommend the zealots spend more time addressing the reasons behind the continuing delays, what is being changed to address them and less about picking apart minor points in the author's article
No conspiracies needed, they admit to the problems they are facing and describe them, you'll see notes as the performance one of the biggest things to resolve: "Player Count & General Stability Currently, performance and stability drop sharply once the active players in a server reach 12-15 players."
Thanks for sharing Max, its a good document which covers in great detail what they've accomplished and what remains.
I see they will release the SQ42 update at a later date. I think it would be helpful if they could layout a realistic delivery target date for this product and then hit it.
I suppose they are trying to get 3.0 out first but afterwards if they could ring fence some resources to wrap that up it would help alleviate some credibility issues they currently have.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I must admit, if I had a great job doing what I loved and good money coming in I wouldn't rush anything either.
Getting it out early or on time didn't do much for ME: Andromeda. Everyone said it felt like EA rushed Bioware to push it out. Reaching a deadline with a game is a damnable deal no matter what.
If SC was on time, then it wouldn't be good enough, polished, or some other sort of wrong thing.
CIG was never going to win this war. That's why "he who shall not be named" didn't really have to succeed in his vendetta. Seeds of discord were enough. From that perspective this project is screwed six ways till Tuesday.
The question is: which is better for the fans?
Largely depends on the end product here. If this game is DoA or never makes it there, there's no real argument to be made that the publishers at EA really did a wrong thing, when compared to the ultimate alternative.
CIG was never going to win this war, but it had little to do with DS, and everything to do with promising a whole bakery in the sky.
I feel like they need to have everything be polished.
This is not far from the truth, although not exactly precise. CIG is setting quality above all, so it's not about polishing but getting to the right level of quality before releasing it.
It's become a rare thing in software development, and which I personally am glad to see in this project. Consumers should be happy about this too, IMO. What we often get today is not very consumer friendly. I've always had the same leading star as CIG when developing my own programs and systems. CR and I are aligned on many development policies, which I noticed from the beginning and was one of the reasons I decided to back this project.
@MaxBacon - It's useless to quote the caveats to the haters. They know about them already and have decided to ignore them or interpreted them to something else than what is said in the Schedule Report. That's also true about most of the "Journalists" who report about games out there.
About aim dates removed from the Schedule Report - there are plenty left, including the estimated release date, which is the most important one:
There's also this overall schedule for the whole year, with the months they plan to implement things:
Then, at the bottom, there's the plans for 3.1 and 3.2 in some detail.
All of this is a lot of information about what's coming. Add to that the video shows they produce, like Around the Verse, which are also packed with development information, and backers really have nothing to complain about when it comes to development information.
I feel like they need to have everything be polished.
This is not far from the truth, although not exactly precise. CIG is setting quality above all, so it's not about polishing but getting to the right level of quality before releasing it.
It's become a rare thing in software development, and which I personally am glad to see in this project. Consumers should be happy about this too, IMO. What we often get today is not very consumer friendly. I've always had the same leading star as CIG when developing my own programs and systems. CR and I are aligned on many development policies, which I noticed from the beginning and was one of the reasons I decided to back this project.
@MaxBacon - It's useless to quote the caveats to the haters. They know about them already and have decided to ignore them or interpreted them to something else than what is said in the Schedule Report. That's also true about most of the "Journalists" who report about games out there.
About aim dates removed from the Schedule Report - there are plenty left, including the estimated release date, which is the most important one:
There's also this overall schedule for the whole year, with the months they plan to implement things:
Then, at the bottom, there's the plans for 3.1 and 3.2 in some detail.
All of this is a lot of information about what's coming. Add to that the video shows they produce, like Around the Verse, which are also packed with development information, and backers really have nothing to complain about when it comes to development information.
Arena commander would like to have a word with you about the quality will always be our number one goal.
So a caveat on the website that says we will be wrong allows them to wipe their hands of any and all responsibility.
I want you to try that at your job. Go to your boss and tell them that you are going to seriously fuck up everything you do for the next month and when they fire you a week later try and use the excuse that you told your boss you would be screwing up so they can't fire you!
No, the caveats are there because they explain it, you want to ignore them to take and perceive those dates as something they were not.
In our office the scheduling for the teams is no different, they give always tight time frames that always slip and get pushed back, say while in management they estimate to the client it takes 2 months, they'll poke back the teams and say 1 month, that is a common practice because if you tell them 2 months from the start it's more likely the date slips past the 2 months than if you keep them working to deliver in 1 month; the problem arises when they push it back over 2 months (then yes, very unhappy boss) that is in a superficial way why aggressive scheduling is a thing.
CIG's mistake here was giving to the public the same dates their developers work with, causing people to get extra salty when they see weekly push backs, people took those dates more seriously than CIG did, at least now they seem to have realized that was a bad idea.
Ok so what happens when the boss tells the client 2 months and then 8 months later (like CR and CIG like to do) they might give you a scaled back version of what they originally promised?
Does that caveat still absolve them of the horrendous inability to plan out or estimate anything or is it still you don't understand game development but in a really long winded post?
Tell me how do you provide an estimate for something that's never been done before?
So a caveat on the website that says we will be wrong allows them to wipe their hands of any and all responsibility.
I want you to try that at your job. Go to your boss and tell them that you are going to seriously fuck up everything you do for the next month and when they fire you a week later try and use the excuse that you told your boss you would be screwing up so they can't fire you!
No, the caveats are there because they explain it, you want to ignore them to take and perceive those dates as something they were not.
In our office the scheduling for the teams is no different, they give always tight time frames that always slip and get pushed back, say while in management they estimate to the client it takes 2 months, they'll poke back the teams and say 1 month, that is a common practice because if you tell them 2 months from the start it's more likely the date slips past the 2 months than if you keep them working to deliver in 1 month; the problem arises when they push it back over 2 months (then yes, very unhappy boss) that is in a superficial way why aggressive scheduling is a thing.
CIG's mistake here was giving to the public the same dates their developers work with, causing people to get extra salty when they see weekly push backs, people took those dates more seriously than CIG did, at least now they seem to have realized that was a bad idea.
Ok so what happens when the boss tells the client 2 months and then 8 months later (like CR and CIG like to do) they might give you a scaled back version of what they originally promised?
Does that caveat still absolve them of the horrendous inability to plan out or estimate anything or is it still you don't understand game development but in a really long winded post?
Tell me how do you provide an estimate for something that's never been done before?
I don't know but when SC does something that's never been done before then you let me know.
If optimization is a problem maybe it is time to tone down the game a little. I think, I could be wrong, that its focus on high end gaming pc is doing more harm than good to the project overall.
Look at EvE. It was unbearable ugly in terms of character design and such when it launched. With time they updated the characters, UI and textures - People played regardless, because the game itself as in mechanics is awesome, the graphics are a plus.
Set aside making it look like only could run on a 4k+ pc and start placing the gaming mechanics themselves as priority.
So a caveat on the website that says we will be wrong allows them to wipe their hands of any and all responsibility.
I want you to try that at your job. Go to your boss and tell them that you are going to seriously fuck up everything you do for the next month and when they fire you a week later try and use the excuse that you told your boss you would be screwing up so they can't fire you!
No, the caveats are there because they explain it, you want to ignore them to take and perceive those dates as something they were not.
In our office the scheduling for the teams is no different, they give always tight time frames that always slip and get pushed back, say while in management they estimate to the client it takes 2 months, they'll poke back the teams and say 1 month, that is a common practice because if you tell them 2 months from the start it's more likely the date slips past the 2 months than if you keep them working to deliver in 1 month; the problem arises when they push it back over 2 months (then yes, very unhappy boss) that is in a superficial way why aggressive scheduling is a thing.
CIG's mistake here was giving to the public the same dates their developers work with, causing people to get extra salty when they see weekly push backs, people took those dates more seriously than CIG did, at least now they seem to have realized that was a bad idea.
Ok so what happens when the boss tells the client 2 months and then 8 months later (like CR and CIG like to do) they might give you a scaled back version of what they originally promised?
Does that caveat still absolve them of the horrendous inability to plan out or estimate anything or is it still you don't understand game development but in a really long winded post?
Tell me how do you provide an estimate for something that's never been done before?
I don't know but when SC does something that's never been done before then you let me know.
Then why was SC impossible if it's doing stuff that's done on the daily?
Speaking to that point, though, the company I work for does plenty of stuff that's never been done before, and it's scheduled. How is it scheduled? I don't know. However, the results can come in the form of heavy delays all the way to projects being placed on hold indefinitely if technology simply isn't there yet.
If optimization is a problem maybe it is time to tone down the game a little. I think, I could be wrong, that its focus on high end gaming pc is doing more harm than good to the project overall.
This is absolutely not the case. Go check out the offline mode trick and see the good performance you achieve, shows the game is not as heavy graphically as people think and how the performance problem is not about the graphics.
The servers are the problem, and that is not based on how good or bad the graphics are, it's based on netcode, as more mechanics come online the more simulation and all the servers are undertaking, so the netcode ongoing dev is not coming online fast enough to back up the 3.0 release, leading to performance problems the schedule mentions.
So a caveat on the website that says we will be wrong allows them to wipe their hands of any and all responsibility.
I want you to try that at your job. Go to your boss and tell them that you are going to seriously fuck up everything you do for the next month and when they fire you a week later try and use the excuse that you told your boss you would be screwing up so they can't fire you!
No, the caveats are there because they explain it, you want to ignore them to take and perceive those dates as something they were not.
In our office the scheduling for the teams is no different, they give always tight time frames that always slip and get pushed back, say while in management they estimate to the client it takes 2 months, they'll poke back the teams and say 1 month, that is a common practice because if you tell them 2 months from the start it's more likely the date slips past the 2 months than if you keep them working to deliver in 1 month; the problem arises when they push it back over 2 months (then yes, very unhappy boss) that is in a superficial way why aggressive scheduling is a thing.
CIG's mistake here was giving to the public the same dates their developers work with, causing people to get extra salty when they see weekly push backs, people took those dates more seriously than CIG did, at least now they seem to have realized that was a bad idea.
Ok so what happens when the boss tells the client 2 months and then 8 months later (like CR and CIG like to do) they might give you a scaled back version of what they originally promised?
Does that caveat still absolve them of the horrendous inability to plan out or estimate anything or is it still you don't understand game development but in a really long winded post?
Tell me how do you provide an estimate for something that's never been done before?
I don't know but when SC does something that's never been done before then you let me know.
Then why was SC impossible if it's doing stuff that's done on the daily?
Speaking to that point, though, the company I work for does plenty of stuff that's never been done before, and it's scheduled. How is it scheduled? I don't know. However, the results can come in the form of heavy delays all the way to projects being placed on hold indefinitely if technology simply isn't there yet.
Because CR is at the helm and he couldn't schedule himself out of a wet paper bag. This would be conjecture since I have no direct proof but I would say his micromanaging every aspect and them going about things backwards would tend to lead to the way things are now
Kefo said: I don't know but when SC does something that's never been done before then you let me know.
High End graphic in a game that will be designed as a MMO. (But basically there is a reason why you should avoid that) Oh wait ... EQ2 comes in mind ...
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.
High End graphic in a game that will be designed as a MMO. (But basically there is a reason why you should avoid that) Oh wait ... EQ2 comes in mind ...
Really? For a developer yourself that's the definition of short-sighted lol (heavily biased anyway)
Let's go compare their tech, backend and overall depth of systems of current, 3.0 and ongoing/planned beyond that to what other MMO's do and let's still claim SC is just the same but with better graphics lol
From the physics, to AI, to simulation, to the scale, within many other things that are indeed, leading to something that was never done before.
Comments
You are playing by wrong assumptions. They were giving estimates already admitting they were of no solidity and would be delayed, they practice aggressive scheduling, so you might want to read about that to understand how it flows. If those dates were conservative estimates then you'd have a point, but they were not.
I want you to try that at your job. Go to your boss and tell them that you are going to seriously fuck up everything you do for the next month and when they fire you a week later try and use the excuse that you told your boss you would be screwing up so they can't fire you!
A creative person is motivated by the desire to achieve, not the desire to beat others.
That is also the core idea behind SC's network, but it needs a more complex approach due the nature of the game, and they also want scaling that explaining easily is, the more players that are in X area, that area will move one server to 4 servers (supporting the same physical space).
The base approach is well possible, the rest is to be seen because scaling as they described it is by no means easy to pull off.
In our office the scheduling for the teams is no different, they give always tight time frames that always slip and get pushed back, say while in management they estimate to the client it takes 2 months, they'll poke back the teams and say 1 month, that is a common practice because if you tell them 2 months from the start it's more likely the date slips past the 2 months than if you keep them working to deliver in 1 month; the problem arises when they push it back over 2 months (then yes, very unhappy boss) that is in a superficial way why aggressive scheduling is a thing.
CIG's mistake here was giving to the public the same dates their developers work with, causing people to get extra salty when they see weekly push backs, people took those dates more seriously than CIG did, at least now they seem to have realized that was a bad idea.
Does that caveat still absolve them of the horrendous inability to plan out or estimate anything or is it still you don't understand game development but in a really long winded post?
I don't think what drives delays would be the skills of estimating or planning the moment they are willing to re-do things as they develop them. Much less when it comes to their current phase of dev, bug-fixing, there's no estimating that, one issue can take either minutes or weeks, unless you're willing to make the release anyway (if even possible).
Either they are re-doing it (because of terrible management and they couldn't get it right the first time, seems to happen a lot) or they can't estimate timeframes because reasons so it must be anarchy in the office since no one is held to a timeline and if things slip then oh well shit happens the caveat is on the website.
The perception of progress shouldn't be how close one date is and yes what's left to do, that is what this last schedule update finally focused on.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
If they drop the ball and push 3.0 in the state they did 2.0, it's going to be more damning than the backlash they get from further delaying it.
I think they know this very well, many people see 3.0 as the "deal maker or breaker" for them. I think they are under high pressure to deliver something capable to impress on one side, and as soon as possible on the other.
I see they will release the SQ42 update at a later date. I think it would be helpful if they could layout a realistic delivery target date for this product and then hit it.
I suppose they are trying to get 3.0 out first but afterwards if they could ring fence some resources to wrap that up it would help alleviate some credibility issues they currently have.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Largely depends on the end product here. If this game is DoA or never makes it there, there's no real argument to be made that the publishers at EA really did a wrong thing, when compared to the ultimate alternative.
CIG was never going to win this war, but it had little to do with DS, and everything to do with promising a whole bakery in the sky.
Quote from the first pt. in caveats:
@MaxBacon - It's useless to quote the caveats to the haters. They know about them already and have decided to ignore them or interpreted them to something else than what is said in the Schedule Report. That's also true about most of the "Journalists" who report about games out there.
About aim dates removed from the Schedule Report - there are plenty left, including the estimated release date, which is the most important one:
There's also this overall schedule for the whole year, with the months they plan to implement things:
Then, at the bottom, there's the plans for 3.1 and 3.2 in some detail.
All of this is a lot of information about what's coming. Add to that the video shows they produce, like Around the Verse, which are also packed with development information, and backers really have nothing to complain about when it comes to development information.
Viking
Then why was SC impossible if it's doing stuff that's done on the daily?
Speaking to that point, though, the company I work for does plenty of stuff that's never been done before, and it's scheduled. How is it scheduled? I don't know. However, the results can come in the form of heavy delays all the way to projects being placed on hold indefinitely if technology simply isn't there yet.
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
----------------
The servers are the problem, and that is not based on how good or bad the graphics are, it's based on netcode, as more mechanics come online the more simulation and all the servers are undertaking, so the netcode ongoing dev is not coming online fast enough to back up the 3.0 release, leading to performance problems the schedule mentions.
(But basically there is a reason why you should avoid that)
Oh wait ... EQ2 comes in mind ...
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.
Let's go compare their tech, backend and overall depth of systems of current, 3.0 and ongoing/planned beyond that to what other MMO's do and let's still claim SC is just the same but with better graphics lol
From the physics, to AI, to simulation, to the scale, within many other things that are indeed, leading to something that was never done before.