Always fun when folks compare SC to bloated, terrible, or mismanaged games and say 'See it's not the only one!' I don't think that disclaimer means what you think it does.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
Always fun when folks compare SC to bloated, terrible, or mismanaged games and say 'See it's not the only one!' I don't think that disclaimer means what you think it does.
Ah yeah every game should take exactly the same time to make, same with books, movies, tv series. If it takes longer than norm it's automatically "bloated, terrible and mismanaged"
Always fun when folks compare SC to bloated, terrible, or mismanaged games and say 'See it's not the only one!' I don't think that disclaimer means what you think it does.
Ah yeah every game should take exactly the same time to make, same with books, movies, tv series. If it takes longer than norm it's automatically "bloated, terrible and mismanaged"
I think it is clear that SC has been poorly managed. I'd say that for any game in development for 8+ years with a billion dollar budget.
That isn't even debatable.
That said, all the money should allow Roberts to recover nicely, even from poor management. That's the hope, at any rate. I think he was caught a bit off guard by the money thrown his way - I defy anyone to stay focused in that tornado of funds.
Always fun when folks compare SC to bloated, terrible, or mismanaged games and say 'See it's not the only one!' I don't think that disclaimer means what you think it does.
Ah yeah every game should take exactly the same time to make, same with books, movies, tv series. If it takes longer than norm it's automatically "bloated, terrible and mismanaged"
I think it is clear that SC has been poorly managed. I'd say that for any game in development for 8+ years with a billion dollar budget.
That isn't even debatable.
I'll debate you.
Is the goal of SC to deliver a completed, fully functional game?
Or is the goal of the project (now, perhaps not when it started) simply to keep the funding machine going?
Because if it's the second one... then this is one of the best managed projects I have ever seen.
Sandi > Chris
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Always fun when folks compare SC to bloated, terrible, or mismanaged games and say 'See it's not the only one!' I don't think that disclaimer means what you think it does.
Ah yeah every game should take exactly the same time to make, same with books, movies, tv series. If it takes longer than norm it's automatically "bloated, terrible and mismanaged"
I think it is clear that SC has been poorly managed. I'd say that for any game in development for 8+ years with a billion dollar budget.
That isn't even debatable.
It is debatable for the simple fact that they didin't had a billion dollar budget 8 years ago and there's no other game like Star Citizen that's been made in less time or less budget.
Also, that multiple studios with bigger funding and bigger manpower have taken as long while making less complex games.
Sure you can argue the conditions of crowdfunding aren't optimal for planning big projects where ambition dictates the scope but that's what they had going for and rolled with it and are still going strong so hardly mismanagement.
Is the goal of SC to deliver a completed, fully functional game?
Or is the goal of the project (now, perhaps not when it started) simply to keep the funding machine going?
Because if it's the second one... then this is one of the best managed projects I have ever seen.
That makes zero sense
With crowdfunding To deliver a completed fully functional game you need to keep paying developers to make all the features you want and to pay them you need to keep funding going.
Anyone playing or just looking at their finances know that money coming in is all going back to the game.
Besides, It's much profitable to make a weapon skin (1 artist = cost is meaningless) and sell it for a couple dollars to millions of players than making a fully functional ship inside out that will require multiple artists, animators, sound guys and so on that will be bought by much less number of people.
That is why some games make more in a year than CIG did in 10+ years of crowdfunding. Thet can also spend more in a couple of years than CIG has in 10+ years.
Is the goal of SC to deliver a completed, fully functional game?
Or is the goal of the project (now, perhaps not when it started) simply to keep the funding machine going?
Because if it's the second one... then this is one of the best managed projects I have ever seen.
That makes zero sense
With crowdfunding To deliver a completed fully functional game you need to keep paying developers to make all the features you want and to pay them you need to keep funding going.
Anyone playing or just looking at their finances know that money coming in is all going back to the game.
Besides, It's much profitable to make a weapon skin (1 artist = cost is meaningless) and sell it for a couple dollars to millions of players than making a fully functional ship inside out that will require multiple artists, animators, sound guys and so on that will be bought by much less number of people.
That is why some games make more in a year than CIG did in 10+ years of crowdfunding. Thet can also spend more in a couple of years than CIG has in 10+ years.
Leave it to you to try and argue that Star Citizen hasn't made Roberts enough money.
It's posts like this that really show how divorced you are from reality.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Always fun when folks compare SC to bloated, terrible, or mismanaged games and say 'See it's not the only one!' I don't think that disclaimer means what you think it does.
Ah yeah every game should take exactly the same time to make, same with books, movies, tv series. If it takes longer than norm it's automatically "bloated, terrible and mismanaged"
I think it is clear that SC has been poorly managed. I'd say that for any game in development for 8+ years with a billion dollar budget.
That isn't even debatable.
It is debatable for the simple fact that they didin't had a billion dollar budget 8 years ago and there's no other game like Star Citizen that's been made in less time or less budget.
Also, that multiple studios with bigger funding and bigger manpower have taken as long while making less complex games.
Sure you can argue the conditions of crowdfunding aren't optimal for planning big projects where ambition dictates the scope but that's what they had going for and rolled with it and are still going strong so hardly mismanagement.
That's reasonable.
However, in my mind a billion dollars and 10 years in development is by definition, a poorly run project and a horrible waste of funds. As you pointed out, how do you put together a project plan with crowd-funding? My opinion is that Roberts isn't a bad person or that Star Citizen will fail, but I do bet if Roberts were to do it all over again, he could release Start Citizen with a 500 million dollar budget in 6-8 years.
I bet there has been significant growth in his understanding.
IMHO, I think too many people are trying to build the next 100 million players game when they need to learn how to build a 100 player game first.
If I were Roberts I would have used Squadron 42 to build assets and to test different concepts, but release the title just to go through the entire process from start to finish. I think that is why UO did so well, building up a fan base and assets through the Ultima series and then going into a MMORPG.
Building a company is hard. I think the game is probably the least challenging component of what is going on here.
To me, the problem isn't that they've taken so long or that they've spent so much money, although that is problematic. The real problem is that the DEVELOPERS THEMSELVES said they were going to release SQ42 in 2014 and SC in 2016.
The customers didn't set those goals, the DEVELOPER made those promises.
Now that they've blown by their own schedule by about a decade, nothing they say can be taken seriously. The DEVELOPERS obviously don't know what they are doing.
The argument is frequently made that we, the customers, don't know anything about software development or game development or how large technical projects work. But that is a canard, we the customers didn't make the promises. We the customers didn't miss the release target by an absurd and comical amount. It was the DEVELOPERS that missed their *own* predictions.
To me there are only two obvious conclusions: either they simply are incompetent, or they don't care about releasing anything anymore since they've seen how much money they can get without a real sellable product. That borders on a scam.
To me, the problem isn't that they've taken so long or that they've spent so much money, although that is problematic. The real problem is that the DEVELOPERS THEMSELVES said they were going to release SQ42 in 2014 and SC in 2016.
The customers didn't set those goals, the DEVELOPER made those promises.
Now that they've blown by their own schedule by about a decade, nothing they say can be taken seriously. The DEVELOPERS obviously don't know what they are doing.
The argument is frequently made that we, the customers, don't know anything about software development or game development or how large technical projects work. But that is a canard, we the customers didn't make the promises. We the customers didn't miss the release target by an absurd and comical amount. It was the DEVELOPERS that missed their *own* predictions.
To me there are only two obvious conclusions: either they simply are incompetent, or they don't care about releasing anything anymore since they've seen how much money they can get without a real sellable product. That borders on a scam.
I had to double check to make sure I didn't post this.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Wargfoot said: However, in my mind a billion dollars and 10 years in development is by definition, a poorly run project and a horrible waste of funds...
A billion dollar project that takes 10 years is reasonable if you've just finished a profitable 600 million dollar project.
But building a new 1 000+ strong company from scratch so that you could do a billion dollar project as the new team's first job together is really stupid.
However, in my mind a billion dollars and 10 years in development is by definition, a poorly run project and a horrible waste of funds.
I think that reducing all the complexity and nuances that each project has into a fixed number rate of failure when reality shows otherwise a bit short sighted.
We know costs have been increasing significantly and in the media, projects can deal with very different challenges. From creativity to tech to funding there's many uncertain factors to consider all toguether.
By that reasoning GTA 6 would fit that criteria and we all know better. In the end, business wise, what matters is that enough players enjoy a game to recoup the costs of making it and hopefully continue to support it to fund future updates or sequels.
Wargfoot said: However, in my mind a billion dollars and 10 years in development is by definition, a poorly run project and a horrible waste of funds...
A billion dollar project that takes 10 years is reasonable if you've just finished a profitable 600 million dollar project.
But building a new 1 000+ strong company from scratch so that you could do a billion dollar project as the new team's first job together is really stupid.
In computer science back in the old days there was a saying "third time's the charm".
The first time, you don't know what you are doing and fail.
The second time you think you know what you are doing but try to do too much, and fail.
The third time you know what you are doing and also know not to let the project expand out of control, and then you succeed.
CIG appears to be in phase two, they know somewhat of what they are doing but they don't know how to stop the sprawl and bloat that is overtaking the project. In regular projects the leadership would have been fired long ago, but with the crowdsourcing revenue stream there is no pressure to deliver a product, so I don't have much hope actually that there will be a real game released.
However, in my mind a billion dollars and 10 years in development is by definition, a poorly run project and a horrible waste of funds.
I think that reducing all the complexity and nuances that each project has into a fixed number rate of failure when reality shows otherwise a bit short sighted.
We know costs have been increasing significantly and in the media, projects can deal with very different challenges. From creativity to tech to funding there's many uncertain factors to consider all toguether.
By that reasoning GTA 6 would fit that criteria and we all know better. In the end, business wise, what matters is that enough players enjoy a game to recoup the costs of making it and hopefully continue to support it to fund future updates or sequels.
The absurdity of your comparison is that the mere fact there is a GTA 6 means that GTA 1,2,3,4,5 plus expansions were all successfully delivered.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
However, in my mind a billion dollars and 10 years in development is by definition, a poorly run project and a horrible waste of funds.
I think that reducing all the complexity and nuances that each project has into a fixed number rate of failure when reality shows otherwise a bit short sighted.
We know costs have been increasing significantly and in the media, projects can deal with very different challenges. From creativity to tech to funding there's many uncertain factors to consider all toguether.
By that reasoning GTA 6 would fit that criteria and we all know better. In the end, business wise, what matters is that enough players enjoy a game to recoup the costs of making it and hopefully continue to support it to fund future updates or sequels.
I hope for Star Citizens' success.
That said, I think the view that Roberts was surprised by the influx of cash, which opened up tons of possibilities, is a charitable read of the history of this project. My admittedly uneducated opinion is that he'd have been better off delivering the original project on time and on budget.
I'm sure if he'd have known he was going to get a billion he'd have plotted out the entire thing differently. The challenges of crowd funding have been covered at length here.
That doesn't speak to the quality of the game, a release date, or the level of success it will enjoy. I hope for the sake of all involved it goes well - I'm skeptical because I do have very limited software project management experience, and this doesn't look great to me.
Just launching a game this ambitious would be tough, but to do so in a way that allows for open world PvP makes the difficulty x2, and in a way that makes those high pledge packages worth the 50K without tossing out balance (P2W) is a modifier of x5.
The project has enormous scope in technical requirements, world size, PvP, and successful game loops - they're going for the gold on every imaginable front where any one game in the past is lucky to hit one of those.
However, in my mind a billion dollars and 10 years in development is by definition, a poorly run project and a horrible waste of funds.
I think that reducing all the complexity and nuances that each project has into a fixed number rate of failure when reality shows otherwise a bit short sighted.
We know costs have been increasing significantly and in the media, projects can deal with very different challenges. From creativity to tech to funding there's many uncertain factors to consider all toguether.
By that reasoning GTA 6 would fit that criteria and we all know better. In the end, business wise, what matters is that enough players enjoy a game to recoup the costs of making it and hopefully continue to support it to fund future updates or sequels.
The absurdity of your comparison is that the mere fact there is a GTA 6 means that GTA 1,2,3,4,5 plus expansions were all successfully delivered.
This.
This plus untested elements like GTA offering a 50K pledge pack and somehow giving players 50K in value without making it P2W.
However, in my mind a billion dollars and 10 years in development is by definition, a poorly run project and a horrible waste of funds.
I think that reducing all the complexity and nuances that each project has into a fixed number rate of failure when reality shows otherwise a bit short sighted.
We know costs have been increasing significantly and in the media, projects can deal with very different challenges. From creativity to tech to funding there's many uncertain factors to consider all toguether.
By that reasoning GTA 6 would fit that criteria and we all know better. In the end, business wise, what matters is that enough players enjoy a game to recoup the costs of making it and hopefully continue to support it to fund future updates or sequels.
The absurdity of your comparison is that the mere fact there is a GTA 6 means that GTA 1,2,3,4,5 plus expansions were all successfully delivered.
Indeed, yet that studio and others, with all their experience, knowledge and funding can still also take 10 years +1 billion dollar to make a game.
Which means taking that long and spending as much can't be an automatic flag for "failure" but one of the consequences of attempting big and ambitious games.
Specially when aplied to crowdfunded studios starting from scratch.
Babuinix said: Indeed, yet that studio and others, with all their experience, knowledge and funding can still also take 10 years +1 billion dollar to make a game.
Which means taking that long and spending as much can't be an automatic flag for "failure" but one of the consequences of attempting big and ambitious games.
Specially when aplied to crowdfunded studios starting from scratch.
True, it cannot be an automatic flag.
However, GTA is banking on a proven formula, a well-established franchise, with a known fanbase. SC is trying a bunch of new stuff, and even ideas that are often not well received (open world PvP), so I think the risks are altogether different.
Again, none of that equals failure, but it does leave room for healthy skepticism (not hate).
Babuinix said: Indeed, yet that studio and others, with all their experience, knowledge and funding can still also take 10 years +1 billion dollar to make a game.
Which means taking that long and spending as much can't be an automatic flag for "failure" but one of the consequences of attempting big and ambitious games.
Specially when aplied to crowdfunded studios starting from scratch.
True, it cannot be an automatic flag.
However, GTA is banking on a proven formula, a well-established franchise, with a known fanbase. SC is trying a bunch of new stuff, and even ideas that are often not well received (open world PvP), so I think the risks are altogether different.
Again, none of that equals failure, but it does leave room for healthy skepticism (not hate).
Skepticism is warranted as well. Most often the fanbase is right when a majority of it questions (skeptically) a game's production. When there is this much money on the line with such a long development cycle, there will naturally be questions. Is there a game that launched where the public and fan base was united in skepticism (like with SC or Camelot Unchained, etc...) that launched and did exceptionally well? I am not saying one or two people questioned it, but many did. In over 20 years of gaming and playing MMOs, I cannot think of one game where I went from "It will never launch" skepticism to "WOW this game is amazing" in the development cycle. New World may come close but it took years to figure out.
Babuinix said: Indeed, yet that studio and others, with all their experience, knowledge and funding can still also take 10 years +1 billion dollar to make a game.
Which means taking that long and spending as much can't be an automatic flag for "failure" but one of the consequences of attempting big and ambitious games.
Specially when aplied to crowdfunded studios starting from scratch.
True, it cannot be an automatic flag.
However, GTA is banking on a proven formula, a well-established franchise, with a known fanbase. SC is trying a bunch of new stuff, and even ideas that are often not well received (open world PvP), so I think the risks are altogether different.
Again, none of that equals failure, but it does leave room for healthy skepticism (not hate).
Agree wholeheartdly but that can be said about every new franchise and games who cater to niche playmodes like most crowdfunded games tend to be. Besides the open world pvp, the full loot, sim aspect, high spec requirements etc etc...
But then again you could say that SC witg 10 years of early builds accessible to it's players has a prooven formula already, a well established franchised and known fanbase.
Skepticism is normal, calling out automatic fail if X time and X money is spent not so much.
A game will take whatever it will take to make. Some good and bad games are made hastly others take a long time. Just like albuns, books, movies, paintings, buildings every creative medium.
In the end, as they say, the proof is in the pudding. (And Squadron 42 will show that undoubtebly)
Wargfoot: "Let's start with the obvious, some feel you may be a paid Star Citizen shill, any merit to those claims?"
Babs: (glances at official limited-edition SC Rolex) "I only have 15 minutes for this interview, so let's keep it on topic."
Wargfoot: "Apologies, what feature excites you most about Star Citizen?" Babs: [Babs didn't take a breath for the next 30 minutes, redacted for length] Wargfoot: "What do you say to those who doubt Roberts' ability to deliver?" Babs: [Babs didn't take a breath for the next 30 minutes, redacted for length and explicit content] Wargfoot: "Thanks for taking time to be with us today." Babs: "Thanks for listening."
Closing thoughts: While I may doubt the ability of Roberts to pull off this groundbreaking title, what I couldn't deny was Babs' enthusiasm. As the Roberts Industries helicopter lifted off Babs gave me a friendly nod and was gone.
However, in my mind a billion dollars and 10 years in development is by definition, a poorly run project and a horrible waste of funds.
I think that reducing all the complexity and nuances that each project has into a fixed number rate of failure when reality shows otherwise a bit short sighted.
We know costs have been increasing significantly and in the media, projects can deal with very different challenges. From creativity to tech to funding there's many uncertain factors to consider all toguether.
By that reasoning GTA 6 would fit that criteria and we all know better. In the end, business wise, what matters is that enough players enjoy a game to recoup the costs of making it and hopefully continue to support it to fund future updates or sequels.
The absurdity of your comparison is that the mere fact there is a GTA 6 means that GTA 1,2,3,4,5 plus expansions were all successfully delivered.
Indeed, yet that studio and others, with all their experience, knowledge and funding can still also take 10 years +1 billion dollar to make a game.
Which means taking that long and spending as much can't be an automatic flag for "failure" but one of the consequences of attempting big and ambitious games.
Specially when aplied to crowdfunded studios starting from scratch.
See you have this warped way of viewing things.
It's like saying that having your new pilot have to deal with an engine fire on his maiden flight is OK because some other pilot with 25 years experience successfully landed his when the same thing happened.
Does an engine fire mean the plane is gonna crash? No... but it sure isn't a good sign.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Comments
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
Ah yeah every game should take exactly the same time to make, same with books, movies, tv series. If it takes longer than norm it's automatically "bloated, terrible and mismanaged"
I'd say that for any game in development for 8+ years with a billion dollar budget.
That isn't even debatable.
That said, all the money should allow Roberts to recover nicely, even from poor management. That's the hope, at any rate. I think he was caught a bit off guard by the money thrown his way - I defy anyone to stay focused in that tornado of funds.
Is the goal of SC to deliver a completed, fully functional game?
Or is the goal of the project (now, perhaps not when it started) simply to keep the funding machine going?
Because if it's the second one... then this is one of the best managed projects I have ever seen.
Sandi > Chris
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Also, that multiple studios with bigger funding and bigger manpower have taken as long while making less complex games.
Sure you can argue the conditions of crowdfunding aren't optimal for planning big projects where ambition dictates the scope but that's what they had going for and rolled with it and are still going strong so hardly mismanagement.
With crowdfunding To deliver a completed fully functional game you need to keep paying developers to make all the features you want and to pay them you need to keep funding going.
Anyone playing or just looking at their finances know that money coming in is all going back to the game.
Besides, It's much profitable to make a weapon skin (1 artist = cost is meaningless) and sell it for a couple dollars to millions of players than making a fully functional ship inside out that will require multiple artists, animators, sound guys and so on that will be bought by much less number of people.
That is why some games make more in a year than CIG did in 10+ years of crowdfunding. Thet can also spend more in a couple of years than CIG has in 10+ years.
It's posts like this that really show how divorced you are from reality.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
However, in my mind a billion dollars and 10 years in development is by definition, a poorly run project and a horrible waste of funds. As you pointed out, how do you put together a project plan with crowd-funding? My opinion is that Roberts isn't a bad person or that Star Citizen will fail, but I do bet if Roberts were to do it all over again, he could release Start Citizen with a 500 million dollar budget in 6-8 years.
I bet there has been significant growth in his understanding.
IMHO, I think too many people are trying to build the next 100 million players game when they need to learn how to build a 100 player game first.
If I were Roberts I would have used Squadron 42 to build assets and to test different concepts, but release the title just to go through the entire process from start to finish. I think that is why UO did so well, building up a fan base and assets through the Ultima series and then going into a MMORPG.
Building a company is hard.
I think the game is probably the least challenging component of what is going on here.
The customers didn't set those goals, the DEVELOPER made those promises.
Now that they've blown by their own schedule by about a decade, nothing they say can be taken seriously. The DEVELOPERS obviously don't know what they are doing.
The argument is frequently made that we, the customers, don't know anything about software development or game development or how large technical projects work. But that is a canard, we the customers didn't make the promises. We the customers didn't miss the release target by an absurd and comical amount. It was the DEVELOPERS that missed their *own* predictions.
To me there are only two obvious conclusions: either they simply are incompetent, or they don't care about releasing anything anymore since they've seen how much money they can get without a real sellable product. That borders on a scam.
------------
2024: 47 years on the Net.
Like most things in game development plans can change a lot a long the years and we've seen that from a big share of multi billion dollar studios.
The only greater difference here is the fact that crowdfunding and open development exposed people who had no idea that could happen more bluntly.
Like I said, to me that is the real problem.
------------
2024: 47 years on the Net.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
But building a new 1 000+ strong company from scratch so that you could do a billion dollar project as the new team's first job together is really stupid.
I think that reducing all the complexity and nuances that each project has into a fixed number rate of failure when reality shows otherwise a bit short sighted.
We know costs have been increasing significantly and in the media, projects can deal with very different challenges. From creativity to tech to funding there's many uncertain factors to consider all toguether.
By that reasoning GTA 6 would fit that criteria and we all know better. In the end, business wise, what matters is that enough players enjoy a game to recoup the costs of making it and hopefully continue to support it to fund future updates or sequels.
The first time, you don't know what you are doing and fail.
The second time you think you know what you are doing but try to do too much, and fail.
The third time you know what you are doing and also know not to let the project expand out of control, and then you succeed.
CIG appears to be in phase two, they know somewhat of what they are doing but they don't know how to stop the sprawl and bloat that is overtaking the project. In regular projects the leadership would have been fired long ago, but with the crowdsourcing revenue stream there is no pressure to deliver a product, so I don't have much hope actually that there will be a real game released.
------------
2024: 47 years on the Net.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
That said, I think the view that Roberts was surprised by the influx of cash, which opened up tons of possibilities, is a charitable read of the history of this project. My admittedly uneducated opinion is that he'd have been better off delivering the original project on time and on budget.
I'm sure if he'd have known he was going to get a billion he'd have plotted out the entire thing differently. The challenges of crowd funding have been covered at length here.
That doesn't speak to the quality of the game, a release date, or the level of success it will enjoy. I hope for the sake of all involved it goes well - I'm skeptical because I do have very limited software project management experience, and this doesn't look great to me.
Just launching a game this ambitious would be tough, but to do so in a way that allows for open world PvP makes the difficulty x2, and in a way that makes those high pledge packages worth the 50K without tossing out balance (P2W) is a modifier of x5.
The project has enormous scope in technical requirements, world size, PvP, and successful game loops - they're going for the gold on every imaginable front where any one game in the past is lucky to hit one of those.
This plus untested elements like GTA offering a 50K pledge pack and somehow giving players 50K in value without making it P2W.
Which means taking that long and spending as much can't be an automatic flag for "failure" but one of the consequences of attempting big and ambitious games.
Specially when aplied to crowdfunded studios starting from scratch.
However, GTA is banking on a proven formula, a well-established franchise, with a known fanbase. SC is trying a bunch of new stuff, and even ideas that are often not well received (open world PvP), so I think the risks are altogether different.
Again, none of that equals failure, but it does leave room for healthy skepticism (not hate).
But then again you could say that SC witg 10 years of early builds accessible to it's players has a prooven formula already, a well established franchised and known fanbase.
Skepticism is normal, calling out automatic fail if X time and X money is spent not so much.
A game will take whatever it will take to make. Some good and bad games are made hastly others take a long time. Just like albuns, books, movies, paintings, buildings every creative medium.
In the end, as they say, the proof is in the pudding. (And Squadron 42 will show that undoubtebly)
Wargfoot: "Let's start with the obvious, some feel you may be a paid Star Citizen shill, any merit to those claims?"
Babs: (glances at official limited-edition SC Rolex) "I only have 15 minutes for this interview, so let's keep it on topic."
Wargfoot: "Apologies, what feature excites you most about Star Citizen?"
Babs: [Babs didn't take a breath for the next 30 minutes, redacted for length]
Wargfoot: "What do you say to those who doubt Roberts' ability to deliver?"
Babs: [Babs didn't take a breath for the next 30 minutes, redacted for length and explicit content]
Wargfoot: "Thanks for taking time to be with us today."
Babs: "Thanks for listening."
Closing thoughts:
While I may doubt the ability of Roberts to pull off this groundbreaking title, what I couldn't deny was Babs' enthusiasm. As the Roberts Industries helicopter lifted off Babs gave me a friendly nod and was gone.
It's like saying that having your new pilot have to deal with an engine fire on his maiden flight is OK because some other pilot with 25 years experience successfully landed his when the same thing happened.
Does an engine fire mean the plane is gonna crash? No... but it sure isn't a good sign.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018