Lots of studios have reasonably open development, Frontier published weekly updates detailing development processes, Camelot Unchained do loads of in-depth updates and streams, Subnautica do some exceptionally open development.
It's really not a big deal.
When you put Frontier as open development i get kinda... what?
When it comes to ED they do some in-depth stuff on development, but for the vast majority we have no idea of what's going on with the development, when it comes to features and stuff under development we will usually hear about it (confirmation of feature, release date, etc...) when they are VERY close to being released. On that aspect Frontier is more closed than most.
Literally THOUSANDS of dev answers ! They delete questions when they have been answered so only the dev replies remain ... so when you see 300+ responses in a thread ... thats the dev responses only :-)
Have fun
sounds like a Q/A simulator more than a space game
You have not read even one of those answers apparently.
Have fun
well the meaning of my comment was that some developers talk more about the game then they do building it. BUt to be fair there are a lot of people who perfer that to playing the game
Talking and answering questions is a good thing. Of the many games i've backed over the years SC features by far the most transparent development process. No other funded project presents its backers with a monthly report where each and every studio / team talks in detail about what they have worked on during that month.
What other funded project got 100mil from backers and then repeatedly release excuses as to why they haven't delivered?
This is unique to one company and if it was my company I wouldn't be all the proud of the accomplishment.
You must be referring to a different project. Unless you can point me to said "repeatedly released excuses".
Again, as a backer all i need to see is on my SSD. They are delivering what they promised us. Slowly ? Sure. Is it a curvy road ? Sure. But they are delivering and the project is shaping up at a steady pace.
Lots of studios have reasonably open development, Frontier published weekly updates detailing development processes, Camelot Unchained do loads of in-depth updates and streams, Subnautica do some exceptionally open development.
It's really not a big deal.
When you put Frontier as open development i get kinda... what?
When it comes to ED they do some in-depth stuff on development, but for the vast majority we have no idea of what's going on with the development, when it comes to features and stuff under development we will usually hear about it (confirmation of feature, release date, etc...) when they are VERY close to being released. On that aspect Frontier is more closed than most.
when it comes to features and stuff under development we will
usually hear about it (confirmation of feature, release date, etc...)
Ya, who wants to hear about "confirmation of feature and release date".
Lots of studios have reasonably open development, Frontier published weekly updates detailing development processes, Camelot Unchained do loads of in-depth updates and streams, Subnautica do some exceptionally open development.
It's really not a big deal.
When you put Frontier as open development i get kinda... what?
When it comes to ED they do some in-depth stuff on development, but for the vast majority we have no idea of what's going on with the development, when it comes to features and stuff under development we will usually hear about it (confirmation of feature, release date, etc...) when they are VERY close to being released. On that aspect Frontier is more closed than most.
The more a project is marketed and talked about before there is something consumers can buy (even if the purchase is just an early access file) the more skeptical I become.
I really appreciate devs that do more than talk, becuase as soon as I hear 'coming' my mind usually turns off. Only exception in 7 days to die
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
The more a project is marketed and talked about before there is something consumers can buy (even if the purchase is just an early access file) the more skeptical I become.
I really appreciate devs that do more than talk, becuase as soon as I hear 'coming' my mind usually turns off. Only exception in 7 days to die
This is the typical life of the games where the community funds them. Most of the times from an simple idea that goes through years and years until something is there and can be played.
If that is something you do not like, and you prefer to simply buy game > play game, then it's really best to not get involved with the part where you Fund the game.
"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." -Chris Roberts, October 2012
Before some knuckle dragger jumps down my throat; it's game development, things change, I get it. However, I'm not in favor of making it appear as if those raising objections don't have a leg to stand on.
Do you want this to become the next Duke Nukem Forever?
"Well, @Phaserlight what am I supposed to do about it?"
Glad you asked; at this point, nothing. Nothing at all. Just stop trying to silence every critic that comes along. That's not good.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
The more a project is marketed and talked about before there is something consumers can buy (even if the purchase is just an early access file) the more skeptical I become.
I really appreciate devs that do more than talk, becuase as soon as I hear 'coming' my mind usually turns off. Only exception in 7 days to die
This is the typical life of the games where the community funds them. Most of the times from an simple idea that goes through years and years until something is there and can be played.
If that is something you do not like, and you prefer to simply buy game > play game, then it's really best to not get involved with the part where you Fund the game.
what little you know of me.
I play almost exclusively only Early Access titles and have done so for the past 2 years.
having said that I dont buy those games with dreams of the future. the game play features as they exist at the time I buy them is what I like and I perfer more so then other options at that time.
I am not saying its a bad thing but i am saying there are people who play the 'communication simulators' more than the actual game
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I play almost exclusively only Early Access titles and have done so for the past 2 years.
having said that I dont buy those games with dreams of the future. the game play features as they exist at the time I buy them is what I like and I perfer more so then other options at that time.
I am not saying its a bad thing but i am saying there are people who play the 'communication simulators' more than the actual game
But it was both promised and demanded by the backers. In fact CIG has increased recently the community involvement from the developers, and having more in-depth dives into development with early footage and all that... Because the backers recently were not happy about the status of the open development on SC.
It's really a requirement on any funded game these days. When things are ready they will be released upon the alpha, as they are, until then... this window needs to keep open.
I play almost exclusively only Early Access titles and have done so for the past 2 years.
having said that I dont buy those games with dreams of the future. the game play features as they exist at the time I buy them is what I like and I perfer more so then other options at that time.
I am not saying its a bad thing but i am saying there are people who play the 'communication simulators' more than the actual game
But it was both promised and demanded by the backers. In fact CIG has increased recently the community involvement from the developers, and having more in-depth dives into development with early footage and all that... Because the backers recently were not happy about the status of the open development on SC.
It's really a requirement on any funded game these days. When things are ready they will be released upon the alpha, as they are, until then... this window needs to keep open.
I am sorry but that statement does not change or affect my point in anyway
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
When you put Frontier as open development i get kinda... what?
When it comes to ED they do some in-depth stuff on development, but for the vast majority we have no idea of what's going on with the development, when it comes to features and stuff under development we will usually hear about it (confirmation of feature, release date, etc...) when they are VERY close to being released. On that aspect Frontier is more closed than most.
I was actually thinking of the kickstarter to release stage. They would do regular developer videos, they would do a lot concept art and through developement stage art, they would talk a lot more about plans, changes, the lore etc They're definitely not like that now though, they play things a lot closer to their chest.
I am sorry but that statement does not change or affect my point in anyway
Well wasn't meant to change your opinion of it. For me i like where it stands, specially after the change the formats to remove a lot of time-filler"fluff".
I am sorry but that statement does not change or affect my point in anyway
Well wasn't meant to change your opinion of it. For me i like where it stands, specially after the change the formats to remove a lot of time-filler"fluff".
first off we should all be more honest in what we are talking about regarding 'required'. 10 From the Chairmen followed by a 2 hour demo at Gamescom is not part of the 'communication' requirement if in fact there really is such a requirement in the first place and we are not just assuming
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
first off we should all be more honest in what we are talking about regarding 'required'. 10 From the Chairmen followed by a 2 hour demo at Gamescom is not part of the 'communication' requirement if in fact there really is such a requirement in the first place and we are not just assuming
The requirement i mean: what was promised on open community towards the development and what the subscribers are paying for every month (and their expectations from it).
For example, there is only monthly and weekly studio reports because the backer community did pressure them to do so, i think on 2014.
Lots of studios have reasonably open development, Frontier published weekly updates detailing development processes, Camelot Unchained do loads of in-depth updates and streams, Subnautica do some exceptionally open development.
It's really not a big deal.
When you put Frontier as open development i get kinda... what?
When it comes to ED they do some in-depth stuff on development, but for the vast majority we have no idea of what's going on with the development, when it comes to features and stuff under development we will usually hear about it (confirmation of feature, release date, etc...) when they are VERY close to being released. On that aspect Frontier is more closed than most.
The more a project is marketed and talked about before there is something consumers can buy (even if the purchase is just an early access file) the more skeptical I become.
I really appreciate devs that do more than talk, becuase as soon as I hear 'coming' my mind usually turns off. Only exception in 7 days to die
Some studio have open development; others don't, they carefully release information - or in some cases opt not to release info e.g. EA and next years ME.
ED, CU, SC and Frontier have / had no choice; they are / were (ED has launched of course) crowd funded. So raising money is a part of the task. A pretty big part as well. Companies that "just release products" do a lot of talking as well but they do it to internally and to investors, investment funds, venture capitalists and so forth not to the general public. Hence the products "appear". The talk and marketing does happen however.
Which is why people - rightly - should be "sceptical". Sometimes the numbers don't add up or the investors get cold feet. And stuff gets canned.
For SC a key point was the release of the alpha.
Its a two edged sword of course. It put to rest all the there are no staff / no game / its an island in the sun posts. There is no hiding however for the devs; they can talk all they want about plans but at the end of the day
the alpha is out there.
And if its not in the alpha they just need to finish the features.
And so far updates have been coming; there is visible progress. The project - dare we say game? - is starting to be revealed. Its starting to look like "something" is going to release even if CR is abducted by aliens. Exactly when and whether it will deliver "everything" remains to be seen.
Which may be why discussions on the SC forum have certainly taken a turn for the mundane. Now there are discussions on e.g. whether the sound effects are appropriate!
first off we should all be more honest in what we are talking about regarding 'required'. 10 From the Chairmen followed by a 2 hour demo at Gamescom is not part of the 'communication' requirement if in fact there really is such a requirement in the first place and we are not just assuming
The requirement i mean: what was promised on open community towards the development and what the subscribers are paying for every month (and their expectations from it).
For example, there is only monthly and weekly studio reports because the backer community did pressure them to do so, i think on 2014.
no that would not be correct on multiple counts
1. ONLY items explictly stated in the kickstarter apply. Any item promised, suggested or otherwise outside of those kickstarter goals are not.
2. they are goals. they are not requirements. and if not completed backer doesnt get a refund by default. this is why they are called 'goals' and not 'commitments'
3. ones 'expectations of it' rarely ever apply to any business transaction in any contract unless both parties understand and agree to those expectations and the understanding of those expectations are understood to be THE SAME between the two parties but usually its just the authors understanding of it and the reader more often then not doesnt have a say in that interpreation without at min a legal battle
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Comments
When it comes to ED they do some in-depth stuff on development, but for the vast majority we have no idea of what's going on with the development, when it comes to features and stuff under development we will usually hear about it (confirmation of feature, release date, etc...) when they are VERY close to being released. On that aspect Frontier is more closed than most.
Again, as a backer all i need to see is on my SSD. They are delivering what they promised us. Slowly ? Sure. Is it a curvy road ? Sure. But they are delivering and the project is shaping up at a steady pace.
Ya, who wants to hear about "confirmation of feature and release date".
I really appreciate devs that do more than talk, becuase as soon as I hear 'coming' my mind usually turns off. Only exception in 7 days to die
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
This is the typical life of the games where the community funds them. Most of the times from an simple idea that goes through years and years until something is there and can be played.
If that is something you do not like, and you prefer to simply buy game > play game, then it's really best to not get involved with the part where you Fund the game.
http://imgur.com/gallery/XLQF220
...nothing wrong at all.
"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." -Chris Roberts, October 2012
Before some knuckle dragger jumps down my throat; it's game development, things change, I get it. However, I'm not in favor of making it appear as if those raising objections don't have a leg to stand on.
Do you want this to become the next Duke Nukem Forever?
"Well, @Phaserlight what am I supposed to do about it?"
Glad you asked; at this point, nothing. Nothing at all. Just stop trying to silence every critic that comes along. That's not good.
@Kyleran /mic drop
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
I play almost exclusively only Early Access titles and have done so for the past 2 years.
having said that I dont buy those games with dreams of the future. the game play features as they exist at the time I buy them is what I like and I perfer more so then other options at that time.
I am not saying its a bad thing but i am saying there are people who play the 'communication simulators' more than the actual game
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
But it was both promised and demanded by the backers. In fact CIG has increased recently the community involvement from the developers, and having more in-depth dives into development with early footage and all that... Because the backers recently were not happy about the status of the open development on SC.
It's really a requirement on any funded game these days. When things are ready they will be released upon the alpha, as they are, until then... this window needs to keep open.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I was actually thinking of the kickstarter to release stage. They would do regular developer videos, they would do a lot concept art and through developement stage art, they would talk a lot more about plans, changes, the lore etc
They're definitely not like that now though, they play things a lot closer to their chest.
Hope that clears up what I meant.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
For example, there is only monthly and weekly studio reports because the backer community did pressure them to do so, i think on 2014.
ED, CU, SC and Frontier have / had no choice; they are / were (ED has launched of course) crowd funded. So raising money is a part of the task. A pretty big part as well. Companies that "just release products" do a lot of talking as well but they do it to internally and to investors, investment funds, venture capitalists and so forth not to the general public. Hence the products "appear". The talk and marketing does happen however.
Which is why people - rightly - should be "sceptical". Sometimes the numbers don't add up or the investors get cold feet. And stuff gets canned.
For SC a key point was the release of the alpha.
Its a two edged sword of course. It put to rest all the there are no staff / no game / its an island in the sun posts. There is no hiding however for the devs; they can talk all they want about plans but at the end of the day
the alpha is out there.
And if its not in the alpha they just need to finish the features.
And so far updates have been coming; there is visible progress. The project - dare we say game? - is starting to be revealed. Its starting to look like "something" is going to release even if CR is abducted by aliens. Exactly when and whether it will deliver "everything" remains to be seen.
Which may be why discussions on the SC forum have certainly taken a turn for the mundane. Now there are discussions on e.g. whether the sound effects are appropriate!
1. ONLY items explictly stated in the kickstarter apply. Any item promised, suggested or otherwise outside of those kickstarter goals are not.
2. they are goals. they are not requirements. and if not completed backer doesnt get a refund by default. this is why they are called 'goals' and not 'commitments'
3. ones 'expectations of it' rarely ever apply to any business transaction in any contract unless both parties understand and agree to those expectations and the understanding of those expectations are understood to be THE SAME between the two parties but usually its just the authors understanding of it and the reader more often then not doesnt have a say in that interpreation without at min a legal battle
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me