Wait? What? Didnt they show a 60 minute gameplay video last Aug that showed all that stuff that everyone said was awesome? SPECIFICALLY called 3.0 GAME PLAY? The one I called faked. SO if that existed then and was as awesome as they showed it to be and were at that time (according to their own claims) working with Amazon and the new engine for 10 months why will it take so long to get even some of that into the tech demo itself?
If they can (allegedly) 'play' the game 'live' in front of all these rabid fanbois and record it and have only a 'single' bug (where the hornet disappeared) then why the hold up? That was shown 5 months ago. So what happened to all this 'they will expedite progress now that they have the foundation set up' arguments?
Of course all the cellar developers will claim that presentation doesnt mean all thats ready for release. Even though thats EXACTLY what Roberts and Co want people to believe. Or at least its very close to being release ready. So why show something like that in August and have it (according to fans) be flawless, only to have it take (at least) a year before ANY of it is implemented let alone everything they showed?
That was rhetorical BTW, guys with a brain know why they make those movies and pass them off as game play. Despite some of them being shown to be complete frauds and none of them having yet delivered anything actually playable on their test bed server despite them being shown as game play footage 3 years ago.
Wait? What? Didnt they show a 60 minute gameplay video last Aug that showed all that stuff that everyone said was awesome? SPECIFICALLY called 3.0 GAME PLAY? The one I called faked. SO if that existed then and was as awesome as they showed it to be and were at that time (according to their own claims) working with Amazon and the new engine for 10 months why will it take so long to get even some of that into the tech demo itself?
If they can (allegedly) 'play' the game 'live' in front of all these rabid fanbois and record it and have only a 'single' bug (where the hornet disappeared) then why the hold up? That was shown 5 months ago. So what happened to all this 'they will expedite progress now that they have the foundation set up' arguments?
Of course all the cellar developers will claim that presentation doesnt mean all thats ready for release. Even though thats EXACTLY what Roberts and Co want people to believe. Or at least its very close to being release ready. So why show something like that in August and have it (according to fans) be flawless, only to have it take (at least) a year before ANY of it is implemented let alone everything they showed?
That was rhetorical BTW, guys with a brain know why they make those movies and pass them off as game play. Despite some of them being shown to be complete frauds and none of them having yet delivered anything actually playable on their test bed server despite them being shown as game play footage 3 years ago.
Guys with brains understand that one mission, and one half ready planet is not the complete list planned for 3.0. It will include more landing locations, more planets, missions, and the basic professions.
So you say all the press just "allegedly" seen it played live? Lets put it clear you accuse many gaming sites lying about it?
Wait? What? Didnt they show a 60 minute gameplay video last Aug that showed all that stuff that everyone said was awesome? SPECIFICALLY called 3.0 GAME PLAY? The one I called faked. SO if that existed then and was as awesome as they showed it to be and were at that time (according to their own claims) working with Amazon and the new engine for 10 months why will it take so long to get even some of that into the tech demo itself?
If they can (allegedly) 'play' the game 'live' in front of all these rabid fanbois and record it and have only a 'single' bug (where the hornet disappeared) then why the hold up? That was shown 5 months ago. So what happened to all this 'they will expedite progress now that they have the foundation set up' arguments?
Of course all the cellar developers will claim that presentation doesnt mean all thats ready for release. Even though thats EXACTLY what Roberts and Co want people to believe. Or at least its very close to being release ready. So why show something like that in August and have it (according to fans) be flawless, only to have it take (at least) a year before ANY of it is implemented let alone everything they showed?
That was rhetorical BTW, guys with a brain know why they make those movies and pass them off as game play. Despite some of them being shown to be complete frauds and none of them having yet delivered anything actually playable on their test bed server despite them being shown as game play footage 3 years ago.
Do you actually believe this or are your just trying to keep threads going? Do you understand the level of crazy it takes to actually believe in a conspiracy this size? We're talking about he involvement of all of CIG as well as handfuls of journalists. Journalists who would, probably, benefit waaaaaaay more from breaking a story of a conspiracy of this size than actually accepting money.
Yeah, I remember Last Guardian being shown like 3 different times, lol. I can also remember plenty of games which showed complete gameplay, or that were actually playable on a show floor, and didn't release for years after. You're essentially looking for a simple answer to a complex question. You are acting like this is something that is binary when it's not. You don't need to be a genius to figure that out.
Wait? What? Didnt they show a 60 minute gameplay video last Aug that showed all that stuff that everyone said was awesome? SPECIFICALLY called 3.0 GAME PLAY? The one I called faked. SO if that existed then and was as awesome as they showed it to be and were at that time (according to their own claims) working with Amazon and the new engine for 10 months why will it take so long to get even some of that into the tech demo itself?
If they can (allegedly) 'play' the game 'live' in front of all these rabid fanbois and record it and have only a 'single' bug (where the hornet disappeared) then why the hold up? That was shown 5 months ago. So what happened to all this 'they will expedite progress now that they have the foundation set up' arguments?
Of course all the cellar developers will claim that presentation doesnt mean all thats ready for release. Even though thats EXACTLY what Roberts and Co want people to believe. Or at least its very close to being release ready. So why show something like that in August and have it (according to fans) be flawless, only to have it take (at least) a year before ANY of it is implemented let alone everything they showed?
That was rhetorical BTW, guys with a brain know why they make those movies and pass them off as game play. Despite some of them being shown to be complete frauds and none of them having yet delivered anything actually playable on their test bed server despite them being shown as game play footage 3 years ago.
Guys with brains understand that one mission, and one half ready planet is not the complete list planned for 3.0. It will include more landing locations, more planets, missions, and the basic professions.
So you say all the press just "allegedly" seen it played live? Lets put it clear you accuse many gaming sites lying about it?
I'd expect CR to cut a lot of that from 3.0 to get it out the door so there isn't a backer revolt. Expect maybe 1 more landing zone on a new planet, some variations of current missions and saying there's a blocker so professions will be pushed out to a later patch
Wait? What? Didnt they show a 60 minute gameplay video last Aug that showed all that stuff that everyone said was awesome? SPECIFICALLY called 3.0 GAME PLAY? The one I called faked. SO if that existed then and was as awesome as they showed it to be and were at that time (according to their own claims) working with Amazon and the new engine for 10 months why will it take so long to get even some of that into the tech demo itself?
If they can (allegedly) 'play' the game 'live' in front of all these rabid fanbois and record it and have only a 'single' bug (where the hornet disappeared) then why the hold up? That was shown 5 months ago. So what happened to all this 'they will expedite progress now that they have the foundation set up' arguments?
Of course all the cellar developers will claim that presentation doesnt mean all thats ready for release. Even though thats EXACTLY what Roberts and Co want people to believe. Or at least its very close to being release ready. So why show something like that in August and have it (according to fans) be flawless, only to have it take (at least) a year before ANY of it is implemented let alone everything they showed?
That was rhetorical BTW, guys with a brain know why they make those movies and pass them off as game play. Despite some of them being shown to be complete frauds and none of them having yet delivered anything actually playable on their test bed server despite them being shown as game play footage 3 years ago.
Do you actually believe this or are your just trying to keep threads going? Do you understand the level of crazy it takes to actually believe in a conspiracy this size? We're talking about he involvement of all of CIG as well as handfuls of journalists. Journalists who would, probably, benefit waaaaaaay more from breaking a story of a conspiracy of this size than actually accepting money.
Yeah, I remember Last Guardian being shown like 3 different times, lol. I can also remember plenty of games which showed complete gameplay, or that were actually playable on a show floor, and didn't release for years after. You're essentially looking for a simple answer to a complex question. You are acting like this is something that is binary when it's not. You don't need to be a genius to figure that out.
They got caught at least once fabricating those videos. I think I made a pretty decent argument that the 3.0 one specifically the hornet segment was totally fabricated as well.
And no only 3 or 4 people would have to know about it, the guys working the joysticks and Chris Roberts. And why would the 'press' need to know? I mean how many views has that thing had? a few million? And people still dont see what is right there for them to see. Mostly because they dont want to.
Immaterial now but I said it when I was defending my stance, that there is no way no how ANY of that hornet segment is real, and there is no way no how it will be implemented into a place where 'players' will be able to do it themselves, especially not in 2016 (which at the time people claimed 3.0 would be released) and not in 2017 either. Despite them showing it in a 'game play' video.
That was basically a car commercial. they unveiled the Hornet then they showed some 'cool' stuff it could do. At least it wasnt a jpeg I guess. But its not in the game and I am sure some one can see when they claim it will be in the game, but maybe not because I suspect they cant put it in the game (despite it obviously being rendered somehow ) because then people would expect to be able to do what that video showed. Which I have said since I saw that, they wont be able to do because they made it all up.
Its simple. You show a new ship, one that actually 'exists', you sell XXX amount of those ships. Why not release them for people to play with on the test bed? Answer is simple to me. But obviously not to the blind masses who dont question anything and just go with the narrative they are telling people.
The problem with all this is once something called 3.0 gets released there will be a whole new slew of issues and problems and people will forget everything they claimed that version was SUPPOSED to have in it, and stuff they dont release will fade into obscurity. So its a constant cycle of distract and confuse.
People can go back themselves and see what they claimed in 2014 and see what from those presentations has actually made it into the test bed demo. The same thing with 2015. Its basically none of the 'big' stuff they 'showcased'. Of course they added a few things but it has mostly been bug fixes, adding some skins to ships and calling them 'new' and adding more jpegs for sale.
Wait? What? Didnt they show a 60 minute gameplay video last Aug that showed all that stuff that everyone said was awesome? SPECIFICALLY called 3.0 GAME PLAY? The one I called faked. SO if that existed then and was as awesome as they showed it to be and were at that time (according to their own claims) working with Amazon and the new engine for 10 months why will it take so long to get even some of that into the tech demo itself?
If they can (allegedly) 'play' the game 'live' in front of all these rabid fanbois and record it and have only a 'single' bug (where the hornet disappeared) then why the hold up? That was shown 5 months ago. So what happened to all this 'they will expedite progress now that they have the foundation set up' arguments?
Of course all the cellar developers will claim that presentation doesnt mean all thats ready for release. Even though thats EXACTLY what Roberts and Co want people to believe. Or at least its very close to being release ready. So why show something like that in August and have it (according to fans) be flawless, only to have it take (at least) a year before ANY of it is implemented let alone everything they showed?
That was rhetorical BTW, guys with a brain know why they make those movies and pass them off as game play. Despite some of them being shown to be complete frauds and none of them having yet delivered anything actually playable on their test bed server despite them being shown as game play footage 3 years ago.
Do you actually believe this or are your just trying to keep threads going? Do you understand the level of crazy it takes to actually believe in a conspiracy this size? We're talking about he involvement of all of CIG as well as handfuls of journalists. Journalists who would, probably, benefit waaaaaaay more from breaking a story of a conspiracy of this size than actually accepting money.
Yeah, I remember Last Guardian being shown like 3 different times, lol. I can also remember plenty of games which showed complete gameplay, or that were actually playable on a show floor, and didn't release for years after. You're essentially looking for a simple answer to a complex question. You are acting like this is something that is binary when it's not. You don't need to be a genius to figure that out.
They got caught at least once fabricating those videos. I think I made a pretty decent argument that the 3.0 one specifically the hornet segment was totally fabricated as well.
And no only 3 or 4 people would have to know about it, the guys working the joysticks and Chris Roberts. And why would the 'press' need to know? I mean how many views has that thing had? a few million? And people still dont see what is right there for them to see. Mostly because they dont want to.
Immaterial now but I said it when I was defending my stance, that there is no way no how ANY of that hornet segment is real, and there is no way no how it will be implemented into a place where 'players' will be able to do it themselves, especially not in 2016 (which at the time people claimed 3.0 would be released) and not in 2017 either. Despite them showing it in a 'game play' video.
That was basically a car commercial. they unveiled the Hornet then they showed some 'cool' stuff it could do. At least it wasnt a jpeg I guess. But its not in the game and I am sure some one can see when they claim it will be in the game, but maybe not because I suspect they cant put it in the game (despite it obviously being rendered somehow ) because then people would expect to be able to do what that video showed. Which I have said since I saw that, they wont be able to do because they made it all up.
Its simple. You show a new ship, one that actually 'exists', you sell XXX amount of those ships. Why not release them for people to play with on the test bed? Answer is simple to me. But obviously not to the blind masses who dont question anything and just go with the narrative they are telling people.
The problem with all this is once something called 3.0 gets released there will be a whole new slew of issues and problems and people will forget everything they claimed that version was SUPPOSED to have in it, and stuff they dont release will fade into obscurity. So its a constant cycle of distract and confuse.
People can go back themselves and see what they claimed in 2014 and see what from those presentations has actually made it into the test bed demo. The same thing with 2015. Its basically none of the 'big' stuff they 'showcased'. Of course they added a few things but it has mostly been bug fixes, adding some skins to ships and calling them 'new' and adding more jpegs for sale.
I'd comment on the rest of your post, but the last sentence was enough. Trivializing the progress made in the past 12 months is like saying "Sure, they've made some progress with cars in the past 50 years, but it's mostly just changing the styles and stuff. Everything else is the same." Lol, keep preaching, though. Keeping these threads alive is what is funding the project so thanks for your contribution.
Wait? What? Didnt they show a 60 minute gameplay video last Aug that showed all that stuff that everyone said was awesome? SPECIFICALLY called 3.0 GAME PLAY? The one I called faked. SO if that existed then and was as awesome as they showed it to be and were at that time (according to their own claims) working with Amazon and the new engine for 10 months why will it take so long to get even some of that into the tech demo itself?
If they can (allegedly) 'play' the game 'live' in front of all these rabid fanbois and record it and have only a 'single' bug (where the hornet disappeared) then why the hold up? That was shown 5 months ago. So what happened to all this 'they will expedite progress now that they have the foundation set up' arguments?
Of course all the cellar developers will claim that presentation doesnt mean all thats ready for release. Even though thats EXACTLY what Roberts and Co want people to believe. Or at least its very close to being release ready. So why show something like that in August and have it (according to fans) be flawless, only to have it take (at least) a year before ANY of it is implemented let alone everything they showed?
That was rhetorical BTW, guys with a brain know why they make those movies and pass them off as game play. Despite some of them being shown to be complete frauds and none of them having yet delivered anything actually playable on their test bed server despite them being shown as game play footage 3 years ago.
Guys with brains understand that one mission, and one half ready planet is not the complete list planned for 3.0. It will include more landing locations, more planets, missions, and the basic professions.
So you say all the press just "allegedly" seen it played live? Lets put it clear you accuse many gaming sites lying about it?
I'd expect CR to cut a lot of that from 3.0 to get it out the door so there isn't a backer revolt. Expect maybe 1 more landing zone on a new planet, some variations of current missions and saying there's a blocker so professions will be pushed out to a later patch
I expect the opposite. Thats why 3.0 is late imho because they want it full and (to some extent) polished, because as it should be the real games foundation it needs to be a big bang, plus because quite dumbly many people treat SC like a full game, not like an alpha, whining about bugs and stuff.
Wait? What? Didnt they show a 60 minute gameplay video last Aug that showed all that stuff that everyone said was awesome? SPECIFICALLY called 3.0 GAME PLAY? The one I called faked. SO if that existed then and was as awesome as they showed it to be and were at that time (according to their own claims) working with Amazon and the new engine for 10 months why will it take so long to get even some of that into the tech demo itself?
If they can (allegedly) 'play' the game 'live' in front of all these rabid fanbois and record it and have only a 'single' bug (where the hornet disappeared) then why the hold up? That was shown 5 months ago. So what happened to all this 'they will expedite progress now that they have the foundation set up' arguments?
Of course all the cellar developers will claim that presentation doesnt mean all thats ready for release. Even though thats EXACTLY what Roberts and Co want people to believe. Or at least its very close to being release ready. So why show something like that in August and have it (according to fans) be flawless, only to have it take (at least) a year before ANY of it is implemented let alone everything they showed?
That was rhetorical BTW, guys with a brain know why they make those movies and pass them off as game play. Despite some of them being shown to be complete frauds and none of them having yet delivered anything actually playable on their test bed server despite them being shown as game play footage 3 years ago.
Guys with brains understand that one mission, and one half ready planet is not the complete list planned for 3.0. It will include more landing locations, more planets, missions, and the basic professions.
So you say all the press just "allegedly" seen it played live? Lets put it clear you accuse many gaming sites lying about it?
I'd expect CR to cut a lot of that from 3.0 to get it out the door so there isn't a backer revolt. Expect maybe 1 more landing zone on a new planet, some variations of current missions and saying there's a blocker so professions will be pushed out to a later patch
I expect the opposite. Thats why 3.0 is late imho because they want it full and (to some extent) polished, because as it should be the real games foundation it needs to be a big bang, plus because quite dumbly many people treat SC like a full game, not like an alpha, whining about bugs and stuff.
I'm sure a lot of people treat it like a full game because CR is kinda doing things backwards in terms of pre-alpha->alpha->beta->release but that's part of another discussion. Let's hope you're right and you prove me wrong but Chris likes to say things, I think, just to hear himself talk so I wouldn't expect much polish to 3.0 or it to have all the features promised.
I expect the opposite. Thats why 3.0 is late imho because they want it full and (to some extent) polished, because as it should be the real games foundation it needs to be a big bang, plus because quite dumbly many people treat SC like a full game, not like an alpha, whining about bugs and stuff.
Polished I wouldn't say, but its scope can increase in some places and be cut on others. Depends on what is pushing the release further, but whatever it is only gives more time to the other teams and tasks to be worked upon.
One thing it most certainly will have more than what was announced is more ships, actually, 1 of the Ships of 3.0 was released on 2.6 due to its delay.
I expect the opposite. Thats why 3.0 is late imho because they want it full and (to some extent) polished, because as it should be the real games foundation it needs to be a big bang, plus because quite dumbly many people treat SC like a full game, not like an alpha, whining about bugs and stuff.
I'm sure a lot of people treat it like a full game because CR is kinda doing things backwards in terms of pre-alpha->alpha->beta->release but that's part of another discussion. Let's hope you're right and you prove me wrong but Chris likes to say things, I think, just to hear himself talk so I wouldn't expect much polish to 3.0 or it to have all the features promised.
Backwards in what way? Like they're trying to do it all at once? I can't disagree with you on that. I mean the whole idea behind Agile is constant and continuous release of software. So Alpha 2.0 was released in December 2015, and 2.6 was December 2016. So some were really quick (like weeks) and others were 4 or 5 months between releases. Ideally, we'd be talking about weeks between releases, not months. This wouldn't be the first development team in history to cherry pick Agile Principles, but I think that if they could actually commit to pushing out releases in-line with their iterations, it might go a long way to giving people some confidence. 3.0 should simply be a target milestone, in my opinion, that says "When we get to 3.0, these are the features that will be in." and maybe give a tentative schedule. By doing that, and then releasing more frequently, you can actually track the progress to plan.
I expect the opposite. Thats why 3.0 is late imho because they want it full and (to some extent) polished, because as it should be the real games foundation it needs to be a big bang, plus because quite dumbly many people treat SC like a full game, not like an alpha, whining about bugs and stuff.
I'm sure a lot of people treat it like a full game because CR is kinda doing things backwards in terms of pre-alpha->alpha->beta->release but that's part of another discussion. Let's hope you're right and you prove me wrong but Chris likes to say things, I think, just to hear himself talk so I wouldn't expect much polish to 3.0 or it to have all the features promised.
Backwards in what way? Like they're trying to do it all at once? I can't disagree with you on that. I mean the whole idea behind Agile is constant and continuous release of software. So Alpha 2.0 was released in December 2015, and 2.6 was December 2016. So some were really quick (like weeks) and others were 4 or 5 months between releases. Ideally, we'd be talking about weeks between releases, not months. This wouldn't be the first development team in history to cherry pick Agile Principles, but I think that if they could actually commit to pushing out releases in-line with their iterations, it might go a long way to giving people some confidence. 3.0 should simply be a target milestone, in my opinion, that says "When we get to 3.0, these are the features that will be in." and maybe give a tentative schedule. By doing that, and then releasing more frequently, you can actually track the progress to plan.
I was thinking about more focusing on graphics before they have the foundations in place. Alphas I've been a part of have had placeholders for npcs, scenery, etc while they work on the actual systems for the game itself. Mind you I have no idea how agile works since I'm not in the field so maybe they do it differently then what I've seen as a alpha/beta tester?
I expect the opposite. Thats why 3.0 is late imho because they want it full and (to some extent) polished, because as it should be the real games foundation it needs to be a big bang, plus because quite dumbly many people treat SC like a full game, not like an alpha, whining about bugs and stuff.
I'm sure a lot of people treat it like a full game because CR is kinda doing things backwards in terms of pre-alpha->alpha->beta->release but that's part of another discussion. Let's hope you're right and you prove me wrong but Chris likes to say things, I think, just to hear himself talk so I wouldn't expect much polish to 3.0 or it to have all the features promised.
Backwards in what way? Like they're trying to do it all at once? I can't disagree with you on that. I mean the whole idea behind Agile is constant and continuous release of software. So Alpha 2.0 was released in December 2015, and 2.6 was December 2016. So some were really quick (like weeks) and others were 4 or 5 months between releases. Ideally, we'd be talking about weeks between releases, not months. This wouldn't be the first development team in history to cherry pick Agile Principles, but I think that if they could actually commit to pushing out releases in-line with their iterations, it might go a long way to giving people some confidence. 3.0 should simply be a target milestone, in my opinion, that says "When we get to 3.0, these are the features that will be in." and maybe give a tentative schedule. By doing that, and then releasing more frequently, you can actually track the progress to plan.
I was thinking about more focusing on graphics before they have the foundations in place. Alphas I've been a part of have had placeholders for npcs, scenery, etc while they work on the actual systems for the game itself. Mind you I have no idea how agile works since I'm not in the field so maybe they do it differently then what I've seen as a alpha/beta tester?
Omg!!!! That's my jam!!! Yeah, I agree about Alphas. To be honest, though, I haven't seen a placeholder graphic in a dogs age, so no real surprise.
I expect the opposite. Thats why 3.0 is late imho because they want it full and (to some extent) polished, because as it should be the real games foundation it needs to be a big bang, plus because quite dumbly many people treat SC like a full game, not like an alpha, whining about bugs and stuff.
I'm sure a lot of people treat it like a full game because CR is kinda doing things backwards in terms of pre-alpha->alpha->beta->release but that's part of another discussion. Let's hope you're right and you prove me wrong but Chris likes to say things, I think, just to hear himself talk so I wouldn't expect much polish to 3.0 or it to have all the features promised.
Backwards in what way? Like they're trying to do it all at once? I can't disagree with you on that. I mean the whole idea behind Agile is constant and continuous release of software. So Alpha 2.0 was released in December 2015, and 2.6 was December 2016. So some were really quick (like weeks) and others were 4 or 5 months between releases. Ideally, we'd be talking about weeks between releases, not months. This wouldn't be the first development team in history to cherry pick Agile Principles, but I think that if they could actually commit to pushing out releases in-line with their iterations, it might go a long way to giving people some confidence. 3.0 should simply be a target milestone, in my opinion, that says "When we get to 3.0, these are the features that will be in." and maybe give a tentative schedule. By doing that, and then releasing more frequently, you can actually track the progress to plan.
I was thinking about more focusing on graphics before they have the foundations in place. Alphas I've been a part of have had placeholders for npcs, scenery, etc while they work on the actual systems for the game itself. Mind you I have no idea how agile works since I'm not in the field so maybe they do it differently then what I've seen as a alpha/beta tester?
Omg!!!! That's my jam!!! Yeah, I agree about Alphas. To be honest, though, I haven't seen a placeholder graphic in a dogs age, so no real surprise.
I feel like pantheon has shown off placeholder npcs until they could be fully fleshed out.
Things take longer than CR expects. It's not rocket science, is it?
Same thing happened with:
Hangar Module Arena Commander Star Marine Alpha 2.0
They were ALL later than CR predicted.
Guess what, they're ALL out now.
ArcCorp (social module) came out on time, though - but that's clearly the exception.
If you can't handle delays when dealing with huge, ambitious games - you probably shouldn't follow the alpha development process.
That would be pretty stupid, to be honest.
Conclusively, delays mean nothing except delays.
Find a new argument if you want to seem convincing.
I agree with you on this. I'm actually battling the opposite issue with some of my team members. We never miss our quotes, but we are really shitty at estimating. Unfortunately, we give estimates that are too long. So I'm now just having to reign that habit in (for the past 8 months or a year). Both underestimating and overestimating are equally damaging and both can destroy your credibility. What most people seem to forget is that there is a whole hierarchy of people underneath CR who would be feeding up into his estimate. He may get the brunt of the backlash, but he is only the one responsible for delivering the estimate, not making it. The extent of his estimation would/should consist of punching numbers into MS Project and watching dates extend out. The estimates themselves come from people below him.
Being that I'm dealing with the same issue I can attest that it isn't as simple as having a conversation. There are many, many contributing factors. It's a non-trivial issue. However, I'd rather that they be more aggressive with estimates than overly conservative (2 and 3 times longer than necessary) because at least with an aggressive estimate, they will bust their ass to hit it and then we'd just have to delay. Unfortunately, I can also see how that would be psychologically damaging too.
Things take longer than CR expects. It's not rocket science, is it?
Same thing happened with:
Hangar Module Arena Commander Star Marine Alpha 2.0
They were ALL later than CR predicted.
Guess what, they're ALL out now.
ArcCorp (social module) came out on time, though - but that's clearly the exception.
If you can't handle delays when dealing with huge, ambitious games - you probably shouldn't follow the alpha development process.
That would be pretty stupid, to be honest.
Conclusively, delays mean nothing except delays.
Find a new argument if you want to seem convincing.
And you don't have a problem with genuine roberts being wrong so consistently?
I find that strange, if someone else let me down time after time I would be pissed off, I certainly wouldn't go round making excuses and apologising for their incompetency.
Things take longer than CR expects. It's not rocket science, is it?
Same thing happened with:
Hangar Module Arena Commander Star Marine Alpha 2.0
They were ALL later than CR predicted.
Guess what, they're ALL out now.
ArcCorp (social module) came out on time, though - but that's clearly the exception.
If you can't handle delays when dealing with huge, ambitious games - you probably shouldn't follow the alpha development process.
That would be pretty stupid, to be honest.
Conclusively, delays mean nothing except delays.
Find a new argument if you want to seem convincing.
And you don't have a problem with genuine roberts being wrong so consistently?
I find that strange, if someone else let me down time after time I would be pissed off, I certainly wouldn't go round making excuses and apologising for their incompetency.
Whatever floats your boat I guess...
Ok, so here's my take. Yeah, I think it's hilarious how he's continuously giving bad estimates. However, that's not entirely his fault as he is/should be relying on others to provide him with accurate estimates. SO!!! He either has a chronic problem with poor estimates or overly optimistic estimates, or he isn't listening to people and just tossing out numbers based on what he believes things should take. I'd love to think that the later isn't reasonable, but who knows.
However, despite those shitty estimates in the past, they're now giving us whole fucking timelines including features, dates, etc. I view that as a positive thing. It holds them somewhat more accountable for their estimates, other than the boss just dropping dates out of thin air. If you are ACTUALLY showing what is being delivered when it at least shows thought being put into those estimates, so it's not incompetency.
Here's a a question for you. Do you think that the whole CR dates debacle is blown out of proportion? If not, then why do we get other properties where developers seem to get a good ole pat on the back for consistently missing dates, while CR is labelled as incompetent? Case in point, Camelot Unchained. Look at other anticipated games as well. Pantheon, Shards Online, etc., etc. The list is, effectively, endless. Not making excuses, but it seems like CR is being demonized for something that is an industry problem, not something exclusive to SC. Don't you agree?
3.0 by the end of the year, 4.0 by the end of next year. I think it usually takes a full year to do the major updates. Regular updates were announced to go from monthly to every 3 months. 2.6.1, 2.6.2, that would be about 6 months right there. Then probably 2.6.3, 2.6.4 or maybe a big jump at the end of the year for 3.0. IMO.
I'm surprised the video didn't include the latest schedule update which would have helped a lot.
"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 find that strange, if someone else let me down time after time I would be pissed off, I certainly wouldn't go round making excuses and apologising for their incompetency.
Here is what you do not seem to understand ... Chris Roberts did not let us down.
And certainly not time after time. Contrary to you many backers do understand that what CIG is creating here IS NOT EASY. It may take longer than expected, because this particular combination of game mechanics and concepts HAS NOT BEEN DONE BEFORE. And innovation cannot be planned as accurately as a run-of-the-mill software project. There will be delays. There will be iteration steps - that means "things have to be redone until they work" ! This rework takes time. And that is ok.
Even legends like Sid Meier stress that you have to keep working on a game until it works, until it is fun, until suddenly a disparate collection of parts become a legendary game. And that can take years.
I find that strange, if someone else let me down time after time I would be pissed off, I certainly wouldn't go round making excuses and apologising for their incompetency.
Here is what you do not seem to understand ... Chris Roberts did not let us down.
And certainly not time after time. Contrary to you many backers do understand that what CIG is creating here IS NOT EASY. It may take longer than expected, because this particular combination of game mechanics and concepts HAS NOT BEEN DONE BEFORE. And innovation cannot be planned as accurately as a run-of-the-mill software project. There will be delays. There will be iteration steps - that means "things have to be redone until they work" ! This rework takes time. And that is ok.
Even legends like Sid Meier stress that you have to keep working on a game until it works, until it is fun, until suddenly a disparate collection of parts become a legendary game. And that can take years.
Have fun
I understand that some people will apologise and defend things to a degree that they would not apply to other games or companies, that makes it hard to take those people seriously or believe they have any objectivity about the matter.
I don't care about why you feel excuses are sufficient because they are simply not sufficient.
If these dates were announced completely separate from sales then there would be a bit of wriggle room. However, they purposely give out false dates to mislead people, they ride the good feeling about the latest demostration in order to fleece backers/potential customers. Why people choose to ignore or defend this, I have no idea. Why people prefer to pull the wool over their own eyes, I have no idea. When did this sort of behaviour become acceptable?
Other companies consistently meet their deadlines, their deadlines reflect the difficulty of the task at hand which is why "Oh they're doing new things that are hard!!" simply does not fly. The false deadlines are given purely for financial reasons, anyone saying otherwise is just being willfully ignorant.
Here's a a question for you. Do you think that the whole CR dates debacle is blown out of proportion? If not, then why do we get other properties where developers seem to get a good ole pat on the back for consistently missing dates, while CR is labelled as incompetent? Case in point, Camelot Unchained. Look at other anticipated games as well. Pantheon, Shards Online, etc., etc. The list is, effectively, endless. Not making excuses, but it seems like CR is being demonized for something that is an industry problem, not something exclusive to SC. Don't you agree?
If other companies were milking people in the same way that CIG does, then they too should be called out for their despicable behaviour. But that's not really the case is it.
Out of those examples I only follow Camelot Unchained and while their delays are disappointing they do give good in-depth reasons as to why they happen (unlike CIG). Also, they don't have conventions with bullshot demos religiously accompanied by sales where they repeatedly, as in every single fricking time, give a date that they cannot honour, a date that they know they cannot honour, and is only given for the express purpose of misleading people to open their wallets.
Comments
If they can (allegedly) 'play' the game 'live' in front of all these rabid fanbois and record it and have only a 'single' bug (where the hornet disappeared) then why the hold up? That was shown 5 months ago. So what happened to all this 'they will expedite progress now that they have the foundation set up' arguments?
Of course all the cellar developers will claim that presentation doesnt mean all thats ready for release. Even though thats EXACTLY what Roberts and Co want people to believe. Or at least its very close to being release ready. So why show something like that in August and have it (according to fans) be flawless, only to have it take (at least) a year before ANY of it is implemented let alone everything they showed?
That was rhetorical BTW, guys with a brain know why they make those movies and pass them off as game play. Despite some of them being shown to be complete frauds and none of them having yet delivered anything actually playable on their test bed server despite them being shown as game play footage 3 years ago.
Guys with brains understand that one mission, and one half ready planet is not the complete list planned for 3.0.
It will include more landing locations, more planets, missions, and the basic professions.
So you say all the press just "allegedly" seen it played live? Lets put it clear you accuse many gaming sites lying about it?
Do you actually believe this or are your just trying to keep threads going? Do you understand the level of crazy it takes to actually believe in a conspiracy this size? We're talking about he involvement of all of CIG as well as handfuls of journalists. Journalists who would, probably, benefit waaaaaaay more from breaking a story of a conspiracy of this size than actually accepting money.
Yeah, I remember Last Guardian being shown like 3 different times, lol. I can also remember plenty of games which showed complete gameplay, or that were actually playable on a show floor, and didn't release for years after. You're essentially looking for a simple answer to a complex question. You are acting like this is something that is binary when it's not. You don't need to be a genius to figure that out.
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
----------------
And no only 3 or 4 people would have to know about it, the guys working the joysticks and Chris Roberts. And why would the 'press' need to know? I mean how many views has that thing had? a few million? And people still dont see what is right there for them to see. Mostly because they dont want to.
Immaterial now but I said it when I was defending my stance, that there is no way no how ANY of that hornet segment is real, and there is no way no how it will be implemented into a place where 'players' will be able to do it themselves, especially not in 2016 (which at the time people claimed 3.0 would be released) and not in 2017 either. Despite them showing it in a 'game play' video.
That was basically a car commercial. they unveiled the Hornet then they showed some 'cool' stuff it could do. At least it wasnt a jpeg I guess. But its not in the game and I am sure some one can see when they claim it will be in the game, but maybe not because I suspect they cant put it in the game (despite it obviously being rendered somehow ) because then people would expect to be able to do what that video showed. Which I have said since I saw that, they wont be able to do because they made it all up.
Its simple. You show a new ship, one that actually 'exists', you sell XXX amount of those ships. Why not release them for people to play with on the test bed? Answer is simple to me. But obviously not to the blind masses who dont question anything and just go with the narrative they are telling people.
The problem with all this is once something called 3.0 gets released there will be a whole new slew of issues and problems and people will forget everything they claimed that version was SUPPOSED to have in it, and stuff they dont release will fade into obscurity. So its a constant cycle of distract and confuse.
People can go back themselves and see what they claimed in 2014 and see what from those presentations has actually made it into the test bed demo. The same thing with 2015. Its basically none of the 'big' stuff they 'showcased'. Of course they added a few things but it has mostly been bug fixes, adding some skins to ships and calling them 'new' and adding more jpegs for sale.
I'd comment on the rest of your post, but the last sentence was enough. Trivializing the progress made in the past 12 months is like saying "Sure, they've made some progress with cars in the past 50 years, but it's mostly just changing the styles and stuff. Everything else is the same." Lol, keep preaching, though. Keeping these threads alive is what is funding the project so thanks for your contribution.
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
----------------
One thing it most certainly will have more than what was announced is more ships, actually, 1 of the Ships of 3.0 was released on 2.6 due to its delay.
Backwards in what way? Like they're trying to do it all at once? I can't disagree with you on that. I mean the whole idea behind Agile is constant and continuous release of software. So Alpha 2.0 was released in December 2015, and 2.6 was December 2016. So some were really quick (like weeks) and others were 4 or 5 months between releases. Ideally, we'd be talking about weeks between releases, not months. This wouldn't be the first development team in history to cherry pick Agile Principles, but I think that if they could actually commit to pushing out releases in-line with their iterations, it might go a long way to giving people some confidence. 3.0 should simply be a target milestone, in my opinion, that says "When we get to 3.0, these are the features that will be in." and maybe give a tentative schedule. By doing that, and then releasing more frequently, you can actually track the progress to plan.
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
----------------
Omg!!!! That's my jam!!! Yeah, I agree about Alphas. To be honest, though, I haven't seen a placeholder graphic in a dogs age, so no real surprise.
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
----------------
StarNetwork (full) implementation
AI subsumption
Item 2.0
Content (planets, stations, etc.)
None of which was demonstrated at Gamescom, apart from a small segment of the content.
That's what they're working on right now, apart from 2.6.1.
I personally don't expect 3.0 until around CitizenCon. That's just my gut feeling based on past delays.
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.
Same thing happened with:
Hangar Module
Arena Commander
Star Marine
Alpha 2.0
They were ALL later than CR predicted.
Guess what, they're ALL out now.
ArcCorp (social module) came out on time, though - but that's clearly the exception.
If you can't handle delays when dealing with huge, ambitious games - you probably shouldn't follow the alpha development process.
That would be pretty stupid, to be honest.
Conclusively, delays mean nothing except delays.
Find a new argument if you want to seem convincing.
I agree with you on this. I'm actually battling the opposite issue with some of my team members. We never miss our quotes, but we are really shitty at estimating. Unfortunately, we give estimates that are too long. So I'm now just having to reign that habit in (for the past 8 months or a year). Both underestimating and overestimating are equally damaging and both can destroy your credibility. What most people seem to forget is that there is a whole hierarchy of people underneath CR who would be feeding up into his estimate. He may get the brunt of the backlash, but he is only the one responsible for delivering the estimate, not making it. The extent of his estimation would/should consist of punching numbers into MS Project and watching dates extend out. The estimates themselves come from people below him.
Being that I'm dealing with the same issue I can attest that it isn't as simple as having a conversation. There are many, many contributing factors. It's a non-trivial issue. However, I'd rather that they be more aggressive with estimates than overly conservative (2 and 3 times longer than necessary) because at least with an aggressive estimate, they will bust their ass to hit it and then we'd just have to delay. Unfortunately, I can also see how that would be psychologically damaging too.
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
----------------
And you don't have a problem with genuine roberts being wrong so consistently?
I find that strange, if someone else let me down time after time I would be pissed off, I certainly wouldn't go round making excuses and apologising for their incompetency.
Whatever floats your boat I guess...
Ok, so here's my take. Yeah, I think it's hilarious how he's continuously giving bad estimates. However, that's not entirely his fault as he is/should be relying on others to provide him with accurate estimates. SO!!! He either has a chronic problem with poor estimates or overly optimistic estimates, or he isn't listening to people and just tossing out numbers based on what he believes things should take. I'd love to think that the later isn't reasonable, but who knows.
However, despite those shitty estimates in the past, they're now giving us whole fucking timelines including features, dates, etc. I view that as a positive thing. It holds them somewhat more accountable for their estimates, other than the boss just dropping dates out of thin air. If you are ACTUALLY showing what is being delivered when it at least shows thought being put into those estimates, so it's not incompetency.
Here's a a question for you. Do you think that the whole CR dates debacle is blown out of proportion? If not, then why do we get other properties where developers seem to get a good ole pat on the back for consistently missing dates, while CR is labelled as incompetent? Case in point, Camelot Unchained. Look at other anticipated games as well. Pantheon, Shards Online, etc., etc. The list is, effectively, endless. Not making excuses, but it seems like CR is being demonized for something that is an industry problem, not something exclusive to SC. Don't you agree?
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
----------------
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.
I'm surprised the video didn't include the latest schedule update which would have helped a lot.
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/schedule-report
"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
And certainly not time after time. Contrary to you many backers do understand that what CIG is creating here IS NOT EASY. It may take longer than expected, because this particular combination of game mechanics and concepts HAS NOT BEEN DONE BEFORE. And innovation cannot be planned as accurately as a run-of-the-mill software project. There will be delays. There will be iteration steps - that means "things have to be redone until they work" ! This rework takes time. And that is ok.
Even legends like Sid Meier stress that you have to keep working on a game until it works, until it is fun, until suddenly a disparate collection of parts become a legendary game. And that can take years.
Have fun
I understand that some people will apologise and defend things to a degree that they would not apply to other games or companies, that makes it hard to take those people seriously or believe they have any objectivity about the matter.
I don't care about why you feel excuses are sufficient because they are simply not sufficient.
If these dates were announced completely separate from sales then there would be a bit of wriggle room.
However, they purposely give out false dates to mislead people, they ride the good feeling about the latest demostration in order to fleece backers/potential customers.
Why people choose to ignore or defend this, I have no idea. Why people prefer to pull the wool over their own eyes, I have no idea. When did this sort of behaviour become acceptable?
Other companies consistently meet their deadlines, their deadlines reflect the difficulty of the task at hand which is why "Oh they're doing new things that are hard!!" simply does not fly.
The false deadlines are given purely for financial reasons, anyone saying otherwise is just being willfully ignorant.
If other companies were milking people in the same way that CIG does, then they too should be called out for their despicable behaviour. But that's not really the case is it.
Out of those examples I only follow Camelot Unchained and while their delays are disappointing they do give good in-depth reasons as to why they happen (unlike CIG). Also, they don't have conventions with bullshot demos religiously accompanied by sales where they repeatedly, as in every single fricking time, give a date that they cannot honour, a date that they know they cannot honour, and is only given for the express purpose of misleading people to open their wallets.