Sandpit, on 20 February 2014 - 11:22 PM, said:
ok.........
so because they explained why they missed a deadline that makes it ok and somehow different from every other deadline ever missed. Gotcha
Sooooooooooooooo
you're saying that it's ok for SC to have 38million for a hangar and then not deliver their deadlines
No, I'm saying that they did not miss a deadline, they shifted project goals and realigned priorities to better suite the project. That is part of project management and happens all the time. They showed that the change would not effect the critical path as such keeping the project on schedule.
Sandpit, on 20 February 2014 - 11:22 PM, said:
You're also suggesting that a company should tell its customers every time there's a staff change? Interesting. How many times do other companies make sure to randomly announce every time an employee is hired or fired or resigns (unless it's the CEO position of a large company or some sort of scandal)? That has absolutely nothing to do with the game or us as customers. Since when is it expected for a company to run their staffing decisions by it's customers? That's really not a good example of anything.
Nope, just an example of the open nature of CIG (SC is just the game by the way). Because of the nature of the funding Mr. Roberts is treating the backers as a CIO would the BoD. Understanding that and what it means is integral to the discussion.
You thinking this has nothing to do with the game is sad. Understanding how the money we gave them ( yes I'm a backer ) is letting us know the direction he is taking the company ergo the game. Beyond that the fish bowl style of development is getting them feedback from the backers early on. Feedback that they are listening to and acting on. When we the last time PGI did anything we asked?
Sandpit, on 20 February 2014 - 11:22 PM, said:
This is just another in a long list of posts that basically says "SC is better because they explained the missed deadline so that makes it ok. Nevermind that they're completely blowing past deadlines like every other game ever developed because that's the nature of the business most times. I'll just hold PGI to a double standard because it's not cool to say anything bad about SC"
It's exactly the same thing. A missed deadline is a missed deadline no matter the reason. Hell we had forum rage here because a staff member had a family emergency (which they announced AND explained so your example really holds no validity in this case) and had to push some hitbox adjsutments back by a couple of weeks.
Wow, seriously? Have you never been part of a large scale project? Its not about a missed deadline. Deadlines are missed all the time. We are mad becase they set a deadline and miss it and just ignore us when we ask about it, delete our threads asking about the deadline, lie to about the deadline, post that the features are 100% complete when they are far from done, and generally ignore the people giving them money. No I don't think they need to go to the CIG level of transparency but maybe get to a middle ground that's better then ignoring us or straight up lying to us.
Sandpit, on 20 February 2014 - 11:22 PM, said:
You complain that PGI doesn't communicate and then complain about the new UI issues. Yet, they announced WEEKS prior to launch what issues the new UI would have and that they would patch and fix as they go (which they have done every single patch since its launch), so they did EXACTLY what you're saying they don't do and yet saying it's ok for SC to miss a deadline because they explained it. It's not ok, for whatever reason, that PGI did the exact same thing though.
You find where they said "We are removing features in UI 2.0" and I will agree. But they did not. Not only did they not inform us the new UI would be missing basic features ( such as what module is installed via the load out overview and double clicking an item to remove it ) they did not give us ample time to help test ( 2 sessions of 2 hours really doesn't count ). And for the pathetic 4 hours of testing, they ignored the feedback they did get.
Sandpit, on 20 February 2014 - 11:22 PM, said:
If you want to hold them to a different or higher standard that's cool but don't expect those that aren't and that are more of a middle of the road type to not see it for what it is. I've never said a bad thing about SC, I'm looking forward to it. It looks like a fun game. The forum rage over there is increasing just like it did here and will continue to rise as deadlines are missed and adjustments are made that a select few forum trolls don't like and start doing exactly what's done here.
You have an interesting view on standards. If I were PGI I would never have removed the BETA tag from this game. If it's beta then its unfinished and all this would be moot. If CIG launches a game (not in beta) and it crashes all the time, doesn't have many of the announced features, has only a few maps (worlds), limited ships, no FPS module, no quests or any of the other major features promised for the launch, then yes they will have many vocal CUSTOMERS. Remember, PGI was given over 5 million dollars for a project sight unseen. They do not have a good track record (
http://en.wikipedia....i/Piranha_Games) and people still gave them a crap ton of money, why? Because they/we really want a Mechwarrior/Battletech game. My only regret is I gave them so much money. I should have just played the trial mechs and the 4 you can fill the free bays with until they made it possible for me to play with more then 3 of my friends. I don't mind giving money for services but such a basic feature as grouping with 4, 5, 6 or 11 friends is not one I am willing to pay for. WoT has that feature and as such everyone I know that plays left.
This is the ONLY game dev team I know of that purposefully adds obstructions to having fun. YES they need to make money to support the game and future development. But that should never be at the cost of fun game play/social interaction. Look at successful F2P games, they hit you on all sorts of little crap, boosters, character slots and look/feel stuff. Other then world of tanks not a single one I am aware limits party size based on money.
That you are happy with the state of the game is cool, PGI needs happy customers and you are few and far between. If the forums are indicative of the player base (or the increased sales for that matter) then I would assume they are hemorrhaging customers ( that's my assumption, take it as you will ).
There is one positive outcome to this, in the 30+ years I've been programming I've never taken the time to learn game programming. Realizing that they can make this poor of a game and make good money has finally driven me to take the time to learn about game dev. I should have a prototype up and running in 6 months, but you never know, I might miss that deadline...
Edited by Tigreen, 12 March 2014 - 03:11 PM.
2
