71–80 of 335 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I regret backing Elite Dangerous, it's underwhelming.
The irony being that it's basically what SC promised in their KS.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I regret backing Elite Dangerous, it's underwhelming.
And this is the unfortunate problem with the agile “release an MVP and iterate” approach when talking about a game. Unlike a SaaS product that might initially solve a problem, a game needs to be compelling, make a good first impression, and be fun, all out of the gate, to retain player interest. The Early Access model has continued to fail because people try the early version, dislike it (because it isn’t finished),…
He lost because of a forced arbitration clause. This massive privatization of justice where any boilerplate service or product now comes with forced arbitration is making my blood boil. The justice system should always be an option when arbitration fails, and arbitration should take no more than a reasonable time to fail (say, two weeks for this $5000 amount). The whole point of a small claims court is to handle such…
Completely agreed. Prisons are another example of an essential public service that should never be privatized or outsourced.
I guess my biggest issue with this all is that it’s called a “pledge.” I pledge money on the condition that I get a game. In this case they’re just taking my money with a huge chance that I’ll never see anything remotely close to what I pledged for. My end was fulfilled, their end not so much.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I regret backing Elite Dangerous, it's underwhelming.
And this is the unfortunate problem with the agile “release an MVP and iterate” approach when talking about a game. Unlike a SaaS product that might initially solve a problem, a game needs to be compelling, make a good first impression, and be fun, all out of the gate, to retain player interest. The Early Access model has continued to fail because people try the early version, dislike it (because it isn’t finished),…
crowdfunding campaign that exceed expectations put the developer in a really tough spot. Star Citizen asked for $2 million but got 6. If they had said they keep everything the same, the schedule would stay sane but everyone would call it a money grab because they take $6 million to develop a $2 million game. The other option is to make use of the additional $4 million, but in almost all cases that will destroy the schedule.
Now if you are like Star Citizen and keep raising money (and get another $180 million) that same principle quickly pushes you deeper and deeper into feature creep.
It's a systematic problem every crowd funding project has to solve. Star Citizen seems to have stabilized their predictions of total money raised to get a fixed feature set, but I can't blame them for not predicting that they would raise over $200 million until release and planning for that.
There’s a crowdsourced tracker of all of the promises made to backers of Star Citizen over the years thoroughly documented with links to the proof. https://starcitizentracker.github.io/ Since posting this always gets a lot of hatred from the koolaid drinkers, I’m going to pre-emptively suggest that, if you have a problem with something on the tracker, you should submit a correction. You should not attack me or the pe…
I feel like this is generally fair, but things that get pushed back from one patch to the next shouldn't count as broken promises. It seems disingenuous to count "3.2 didn't have mining, it's been pushed to 3.3" on the same level as "we said you'd be able to run your own server with mods, but now you can't". Maybe you need another category for Delayed
Given that they seem to be tracking basically everything, even down to the level of "mentioned once in an interview that this might sometime be possible", I would be super interested to see this after an official 1.0 release and for the years of patches after.
I really hope they have history tracking for the entries, so you can see how they have been categorized over time and when they went from one status to another. I'd be way more interested in those stats, seeing what they have delivered over time.
However I'm sure this will stop being updated once CIG start releasing stuff as it appears the only thing keeping it going is anger.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
However, in the process they seem to have fully embraced the waterfall method which seems to me to be the root cause of the problem. They could have delivered the original concept as an MVP and continued to build towards their long-term vision through patches and incremental updates, much like rockstar did with GTA V online. Instead they're working slowly towards shipping a gigantic monolith where all that's playable…
I'll preface with the fact I've not kept up with SC development at all. But haven't they released multiple "modules" as they've been going?
It isnt freature creep. Being crowd-funded is their business model. New features, new hype, means new money. They cannot ever finish because then it all stops. The game will only be released once the cowdfumding well runs dry. Therefore, the best way to get the eventual game is to stop supporting it with money. They lost me when they hired gillian anderson. I want to believe, but that was jumping a shark too far.