Star Citizen: Chris Robert`s new space sim (the Wing Commander guy)

Page 228 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

ViRGE

Elite Member, Moderator Emeritus
Oct 9, 1999
31,516
167
106
That's bad information.

Many people are still going on about the dates pitched during the original kickstarter when the scope of the game project was much smaller because they had no idea they'd be sitting on $120M.
That Roberts decided to make something else doesn't make it bad information. That makes him a bad project manager.:p

SQ42 was supposed to be done by now, full stop. A limited delay is understandable, but he has not done a good job justifying that delay* or providing new goals. At this point the game is going to be delayed by longer than the original development cycle was projected to be in the first place. So yeah, people are a little irate.

*And no, Star Citizen is not a justification for delaying SQ42. The Kickstarter was for a SP space sim with some extra stuff, not an MMO
 
Last edited:

TechBoyJK

Lifer
Oct 17, 2002
16,699
60
91
That Roberts decided to make something else doesn't make it bad information. That makes him a bad project manager.:p

SQ42 was supposed to be done by now, full stop.

Only based on the original dates. Things changed. So 'full stop' is just a fallacy. The community at large was perfectly ok with the changes, and there was a long window were refunds were being given to original backers who weren't ok with it. So, yea it's bad information.

The 'but it was supposed to be done by now' argument was to be made back in 2014. It's 2016. That ship sailed.

I never said SC was justification for SQ42 delays. That assertion makes me think you just glanced over my comment. In fact, it's obvious that they are putting limited effort on SC and most of their work is on SQ42. Hence most of their workforce being in the SQ42 studios.
 
Last edited:

ViRGE

Elite Member, Moderator Emeritus
Oct 9, 1999
31,516
167
106
Only based on the original dates. Things changed. So 'full stop' is just a fallacy. The community at large was perfectly ok with the changes, and there was a long window were refunds were being given to original backers who weren't ok with it. So, yea it's bad information.
Again, no. Just because you disagree with it doesn't make it incorrect (i.e. "bad information"). SQ42 is significantly delayed from the originally promised release date. Period.

Anyhow, not trying to be obstinate here. Just that Roberts hasn't handled this well at all, and that while a lot of us don't take the time/energy to be vocal about it, we aren't happy with the delays.
 

TechBoyJK

Lifer
Oct 17, 2002
16,699
60
91
Again, no. Just because you disagree with it doesn't make it incorrect (i.e. "bad information"). SQ42 is significantly delayed from the originally promised release date. Period.

Anyhow, not trying to be obstinate here. Just that Roberts hasn't handled this well at all, and that while a lot of us don't take the time/energy to be vocal about it, we aren't happy with the delays.

But saying 'period.' just seems unreasonable to me though. Yea, that's my opinion, but I have to assert here I think it's also a fairly objective observation. The originally promised released date was absolutely nullified in face of the project's scope changing wildly. So much so that you can easily argue that the original date was for a project that was scrapped and replaced with a new project with budget 10x's the original.

ie.. much like Illinois trying to raise $50M to build a 2 lane bridge across the mississippi, and getting started on it without knowing if they'd ever get the $50M to complete it.

Well the people ended up really liking the idea, so much so that it was decided to build an 6 lane bridge and voters approved $250M to do it. Well, project has now changed, and the original bridge that was started now needs to be scrapped and torn down to make room for the bigger bridge.

Of course.. the bigger bridge won't be done in the timeframe pitched to build the 2 lane bridge.
 

preslove

Lifer
Sep 10, 2003
16,754
63
91
But saying 'period.' just seems unreasonable to me though. Yea, that's my opinion, but I have to assert here I think it's also a fairly objective observation. The originally promised released date was absolutely nullified in face of the project's scope changing wildly. So much so that you can easily argue that the original date was for a project that was scrapped and replaced with a new project with budget 10x's the original.

ie.. much like Illinois trying to raise $50M to build a 2 lane bridge across the mississippi, and getting started on it without knowing if they'd ever get the $50M to complete it.

Well the people ended up really liking the idea, so much so that it was decided to build an 6 lane bridge and voters approved $250M to do it. Well, project has now changed, and the original bridge that was started now needs to be scrapped and torn down to make room for the bigger bridge.

Of course.. the bigger bridge won't be done in the timeframe pitched to build the 2 lane bridge.

lol

This is a very apt, stupid analogy, given that "I've got a bridge to sell you" is a common phrase for describing an obvious scam.
 

ViRGE

Elite Member, Moderator Emeritus
Oct 9, 1999
31,516
167
106
But saying 'period.' just seems unreasonable to me though. Yea, that's my opinion, but I have to assert here I think it's also a fairly objective observation. The originally promised released date was absolutely nullified in face of the project's scope changing wildly. So much so that you can easily argue that the original date was for a project that was scrapped and replaced with a new project with budget 10x's the original.
The original release date proved to be unrealistic, I agree. But again, that's a sign of bad project management. Regardless it is not done in the time promised, and you can't just "nullify" a release date when you've already taken millions of dollars in customers' money.:( Which to loop things back around to where we started, is why Chris Roberts is not the Red Cross; these aren't donations and the Red Cross has better project management.:p

And just because it's going to be bigger and shinier doesn't mean that it's not delayed. That's feature creep, and it's very dangerous to a project. Especially since pretty much all of the creep is due to Star Citizen.
 
Last edited:

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,947
126
Chris Roberts has never managed a project correctly. No surprise here.. I just hope new people stop losing money into this scam. The whales deserve everything they get though.
 

preslove

Lifer
Sep 10, 2003
16,754
63
91
The original release date proved to be unrealistic, I agree. But again, that's a sign of bad project management. Regardless it is not done in the time promised, and you can't just "nullify" a release date when you've already taken millions of dollars in customers' money.:( Which to loop things back around to where we started, is why Chris Roberts is not the Red Cross; these aren't donations and the Red Cross has better project management.:p

And just because it's going to be bigger and shinier doesn't mean that it's not delayed. That's feature creep, and it's very dangerous to a project. Especially since pretty much all of the creep is due to Star Citizen.

Hey man, it's not like feature creep is a very common way for software projects to fail. I mean, an incompetent executive telling his developers to completely redesign a game while in the middle of development wasn't the reason Duke Nukem Forever went off the rails, or anything :colbert:
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,947
126
Hey man, it's not like feature creep is a very common way for software projects to fail. I mean, an incompetent executive telling his developers to completely redesign a game while in the middle of development wasn't the reason Duke Nukem Forever went off the rails, or anything :colbert:

He also created assets before understanding the limitations of his engine. This thing will be studied and studied for a long time. Both from a project stand point and sunk cost fallacy.
 

TechBoyJK

Lifer
Oct 17, 2002
16,699
60
91
The original release date proved to be unrealistic, I agree. But again, that's a sign of bad project management.

Again, I think you're making a statement based on a fallacy.

Had the original project not changed in scope, then maybe the original release date would have been realistic.

But saying it proved to be unrealistic because the of bad management, I think that's just false, and it's false because its a strawman.

It's a strawman because the original date was for the original project. Holding original date as a standard for the current project is simply unreasonable, as the original date was pitched before the project changed so drastically. And it changed drastically because they raised way more money than they asked for. That's bad management? Yea, ok.
 

TechBoyJK

Lifer
Oct 17, 2002
16,699
60
91
And just because it's going to be bigger and shinier doesn't mean that it's not delayed. That's feature creep, and it's very dangerous to a project. Especially since pretty much all of the creep is due to Star Citizen.

Feature/scope creep is not necessarily dangerous. It can be, absolutely, but just because it's there doesn't make it bad.

http://www.pmi.org/learning/library/scope-creep-not-necessarily-bad-thing-3352

Scope creep is the insidious growth of a project beyond its original objective. While scope creep can be devastating to a project, it can at the same time offer tremendous opportunities for organizations to improve their products, increase sales, build reputations, and improve relationships with their customers. This article discusses ways that changes to the work content and objectives of a project can be used positively when controlled and communicated in the right manner. Of vital importance is the establishment of a written, detailed baseline. After proposed changes are approved, change documents should update this baseline, address all significant factors, and be clearly communicated to all parties involved.

What's happening is there's scope creep due to massive influx of funds, which has allowed CIG to improve their products. CIG has done a relatively good job at keeping people in the loop and engaging the community about it. So the idea that things are bad just because there's scope creep is another fallacy.
 

TechBoyJK

Lifer
Oct 17, 2002
16,699
60
91
Hey man, it's not like feature creep is a very common way for software projects to fail. I mean, an incompetent executive telling his developers to completely redesign a game while in the middle of development wasn't the reason Duke Nukem Forever went off the rails, or anything :colbert:

Bad analogy, because DNF didn't find themselves sitting on a $100M warchest.

So comparing the two and the issues with scope creep is even worse than my bridge analogy. We both failed.

Scope creep CAN and does cause a lot of projects to fail. But in project management you learn that it's also very much a good thing, as it means those supporting the project are willing to compromise on the plan to get more from it. And if they want more from it, it's because it's headed in the right direction.
 

TechBoyJK

Lifer
Oct 17, 2002
16,699
60
91
Agreed. I think TechBoyJK is balls deep into this "game."

I've been into game development for years, and I've been involved with several startups. What CIG is doing is very interesting to me. And having an appreciation for their work, I probably get more out of it and see more into it. From a distance, I can see how people could think that's a scam, but it's just not.
 

Fallen Kell

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,100
467
126
The original project is what I paid for! That's the whole gosh darn point!:p

Then ask for a refund and quit complaining about something that you have no vested interest in. If you don't want a refund, start reading up on the development, there is more information about this game than any other that has ever been developed.

In most game development, progress follows an exponential completion curve, with a very slow start while the engine and mechanics are all being worked on. At some point, that curve then starts to really ramp up as the underlying pieces are mostly complete (with the design 95-98% complete) such that all the other parts that depend on the low level engine can now be created without wasting effort re-creating everything anytime a low level change occurs. Star Citizen is very much in that point in the development cycle where those underlying engine and mechanics are mostly complete.

It is at the point in time where most studios would just now be releasing information about the game, show some in-game demos, some dog-fighting and FPS action... While we have been playing the alpha for a year, giving information about what works, what doesn't, what needs to be balanced, etc., while other games would only get that information 2-3 months before release and would either do nothing about it because it is too late to use that information, or hastily release nerf after nerf trying to rebalance and again and again.
 
Last edited:

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,947
126
Most games don't promise a bunch of features before they know if it will work in the engine.