Jump to content

Recommended Posts

While constructive criticism is preferred, when people feel no one is being listened to, my experience is they stop bothering with the constructive part.  CIG seems very willing to spend time/resources recovering from a bad decision and very little preventing.  To me, that is a sign of poor leadership.  A good leader welcomes respectful, constructive feedback from employees to try and make decisions better.  It seems like fewer employees are willing to help CIG leadership avoid poor decision.  This results in "Group Think" and we spent lots of time in business school discussing how to identify it and why it is so bad.  And, I have seen it in actual business and it can be devastating to a project. 

They really need to start involving outside, constructive input.  I have seen entire streams talking about possible ways to do this.  Essentially, most involve an Evocati like group but for major announcements rather than gameplay and under NDA.  If they continue to have an environment where employees are reluctant to bring up potential issues, they will continue to have these PR issues and more and more in the community will turn against them.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/14/2018 at 6:20 PM, Squirrel said:

To me, that is a sign of poor leadership. 

Really?   Gesh....   It was a mistake...... he corrected it .... and everyone makes a mistake - and no its not an End of the World mistake either.   Since Blizzard and others charge for special access during streams it isn't unprecedented in the gaming industry - but the problem I had with it is that it was an unprecedented move for the history of free access (with the exception of JP mag - and subscriber vault) - for Star Citizen.

Now it is time to "get over it please".....

If you truly don't like Citizencon after you see the presentation then make some constructive criticism then....... (But I assure you - you will be blown away)

But to push the point ... as Bad Leadership I think is baseless (since everyone is entitled to make a mistake).

-------------

Think about it another way........ is there any other person in the History of Game Development........... that is a better leader than Chris Roberts ====== OBVIOUSLY NO ONE COMES CLOSE. 😎 === and how many Leaders do the Grunt work like CR does and gets in and codes the game as well?

++++++

I'd make this assertion as well.......... Sandi and Erin Roberts are NOT typical (related to the boss free-loaders)..... they are incredibly talented as well......

&&&&&

Tony Z was an incredible find ------ and is more talented than most game developers....

........................  CIG = awesome leadership  😎 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a couple points here.

First: CitizenCon will be freaking awesome. Even with it's past issues such as broken game play and what not, it is always awesome.

Second: Given the nature of the way CIG is attempting to deal with it's community, I'd say some leeway can be given for missteps considering NO ONE has ever done this before and they are creating the processes as they go.

Lastly: The issue isn't solely that they wanted to charge for the stream. There are three main sticking points here...

   1 - It has always been free

   2 - They weren't going to let the streamers who keep up the hype in periods of low output, share the experience with the communities they have built around this game.

   3- If it had been presented well ahead of time, and the keynote/demo was free to all, and an explanation of why they wanted to do what they wanted to do was adequately         given, IT WOULDN'T BE AN ISSUE!

All in all, it's no longer an issue. However, we as members of the community can only hope that going forward, lessons are learned and NOT repeated.

I agree @VoA, all things considered, CIG does a pretty decent job and they have some extremely talented and dedicated employees. Nevertheless, we should continue to pressure them to continually improve, especially with regards to community engagement. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not just a mistake.  There have been a series of mistakes, mostly revolving around pricing and feeding the narrative that CIG needs money (whether true or not, they are feeding the narrative).  Everything from the outlandish pricing of the A2 to citizencon and other items make it pretty obvious that employees are not willing to give constructive criticism to decisions.  A single bad decision is often made.  But, they are making them too often.  Definitely showing signs of suffering from group think where contrary opinions are not welcomed.  It is the responsibility of management to create an environment where group think does not exist.  Failure to do so is a failure of management.  It doesn't mean that it can't be corrected.  It just means it needs to be recognized first.  I think it is good the CR is willing to own the mistake.  That is an excellent start.  But, it is far from the end of resolving their problems with the community.  The biggest thing they could do to calm much of the community and restore faith from many of those wavering is to release SQ42 sometime next year and give us a rough quarter for release this year.

I've said this to 'haters' and will say it here, blind fanaticism to SC is just the flip side of the same flawed coin as blind hatred.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The backlash towards charging for access to the stream is just a symptom of a growing number of people that are running out of patience.

The message was clear. CIG is a company built completely with crowd funding. And sometimes they don't act like it.

As was mentioned already by some, CIG would had never been able to raise the amount of money they did if an expected release date was 10 years down the road. Are they aware of that?

Community? This is not about community. This is about investors.

Does anyone have any doubt that CIG will make an awesome presentation at CitizenCon? I don't.

They have always made the greatest trailers. Showed jaw dropping tech demos. That's what marketing is all about.

But bringing it all together, making a fun game to play and delivering it in a reasonable timeframe is the challenge. 

Many of you that follow game development know that there is a huge problem with many early access games. No matter the success and development time they have, many remain unpolished and filled with bugs forever.

A great example is looking at PUBG vs Fortnite and now COD Blackout.

You play something like Blackout and you see the result of a company that knows how to produce polished games at record pace. Blackout "beta" is a more finished product than PUBG ever was.

I don't doubt the talent and capability of CIG to deliver but they still have to prove it. Not in videos or early access builds but by bringing to market a polished game.

Conpare Cyberpunk 2077 demo with last year SQ 42 demo and there is no denying that both are impressive. But there was a big difference between one and the other.

One showed a polished experience. The other did not.  

So the question here is. 

Who believes that CIG will be able to release to stores a finished and polished SQ42 by the end of 2019? Who believes that CIG will announce a 2019 release date?

I don't . What we will probably get is a beta of some kind that is meant for one thing and one thing alone. For CIG to appease the investors and gain some additional time. 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Comet said:

Who believes that CIG will be able to release to stores a finished and polished SQ42 by the end of 2019? Who believes that CIG will announce a 2019 release date?

I don't . What we will probably get is a beta of some kind that is meant for one thing and one thing alone. For CIG to appease the investors and gain some additional time. 

I can't see a 2019 Sq42 as many things required are far from finished. I was thinking 2020 Sq42 2021 PU beta. And there are peoples even more pessimistic.

I would guess they could finish all game mechanics required sometime in 2019 but then they probably still need half a year of final polishing.

But its probably best for the health of the community if he announced a Sq42 releasedate like christmas 2019. Then he could still delay it a few months. 

 

And if we have that they could do some better trailers towards end of the year maybe hire some professionals for that. And then they could put it on steam for examples to get some preorder money and such from non-backer audience so they don't have to milk the backers so much with insane sales getting ever more desperate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Squirrel said:

It's not just a mistake.  There have been a series of mistakes, mostly revolving around pricing and feeding the narrative that CIG needs money....

If CIG "needs" money then why do they keep hiring people and expanding their operations?   A business "needing money" tends to lay off people right?

One thing that most don't realize is is the growth potential CIG has.   Any publicly traded company would kill for CIGs growth and potential games once live (with two games S42 and SC - creating a synergy of profit = two blockbusters where most will play both).

9 hours ago, Squirrel said:

Everything from the outlandish pricing of the A2 ...

Really I thought it was a Bargain and picked up one especially with a Nova Tank coming with it as part of the Warbond version = Penultimate Attack Ship vs Ground Installations = Win at its price point = besides - people forget that pledging is optional and is really intended to support the development of the game (not just for a player to "obtain a ship") ;)

9 hours ago, Squirrel said:

..... and other items make it pretty obvious that employees are not willing to give constructive criticism to decisions.  A single bad decision is often made.  But, they are making them too often.  Definitely showing signs of suffering from group think where contrary opinions are not welcomed.  It is the responsibility of management to create an environment where group think does not exist.  Failure to do so is a failure of management.  It doesn't mean that it can't be corrected.  It just means it needs to be recognized first.

Really...... I guess you never read Jump Point Magazine have you???   Collaboration among employee's is strong even though people that prefer to gripe want to create a false narrative like this....   I guess you haven't watch last week's RTV either.... Calix has his tasks to do sure - but also freedom to create game systems almost as he sees fit (and can imagine them) - we wouldn't have "grabby hands" if this wasn't the case.... :)

9 hours ago, Squirrel said:

 But, it is far from the end of resolving their problems with the community. 

I see it as a few false narratives perpetuated by "some" (a minority) in the community itself.   Fortunately SC player base is far less toxic and more mature than most games.

9 hours ago, Squirrel said:

The biggest thing they could do to calm much of the community and restore faith from many of those wavering is to release SQ42 sometime next year and give us a rough quarter for release this year.

Good thing though they are building their tech up to have S42 live up to expectations......... and the VAST majority of players would rather them get it right and be truly awesome than to rush it - wouldn't you agree?

9 hours ago, Squirrel said:

I've said this to 'haters' and will say it here, blind fanaticism to SC is just the flip side of the same flawed coin as blind hatred.

Except one side does the research and has a better understanding of the game..... and the other just wants click-bait publicity (look at the Derek Smart Snafu and how Alpha 2.0 completely debunked his nonsense) ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Comet said:

As was mentioned already by some, CIG would had never been able to raise the amount of money they did if an expected release date was 10 years down the road. Are they aware of that?

This is a false premise...... most people know that the game IS PLAYABLE and has been for some time.   You can even say that AC v0.8 was playable and even better than many new games - so again - the premise falls flat on its face.   That along with the updates and road-map - people should know what they are pledging for.    I repeat Alpha 3.2 is better than the vast majority of "officially released" MMOs out on the market today and it even has more content than most and by far one of the largest playable areas.   3.3 will make the game even better - so stop trying to say that people have been fooled - they haven't.

++++++++ 

This graph shows proof that CIG did the responsible thing to hire a large number developers as fast as they could to devote the resources needed - instead of trying to save $ at the detriment of time or quality (if they didn't than there would be a legitimate issue)

Star Citizen Projected Headcount

13 hours ago, Comet said:

They have always made the greatest trailers. Showed jaw dropping tech demos. That's what marketing is all about.

Yes and they have used in-game assets correct? ;) - so again stop pretending people are being fooled - they aren't.

13 hours ago, Comet said:

Who believes that CIG will be able to release to stores a finished and polished SQ42 by the end of 2019? Who believes that CIG will announce a 2019 release date?

I do :) + I hope but less likelihood of an announced release date at Citizencon......... it really comes down to this image below :)

Please read what the sentence says after CONTENT

98evbrrettl11.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good move on CIG to remove the pay-wall for watching the primary events, I'll give them that.

Also, I think we need to split out Squadron 42 and the Persistent Universe as two very separate games:

  • Squadron 42 (S42) is a single player space flight simulator with a specific story arc.
  • The Persistent Universe (PU) is a multiplayer space immersive universe.

There's a lot of tech that the Persistent Universe is going to need that will likely have little to no impact on Squadron 42.  Think we'll need to mine, haul cargo, or various other jobs that CIG is planning for the PU in S42?  I don't.  There's a lot of that tech that they want to build, but doesn't need to be built out yet or in place for S42.  With that in mind, I think we could be looking at a release of S42 by the end of 2019--if they can get through their current hurdles.  

Actually... play on the games' name, Squadron 42:  they know the answer to their hurdles, but do they really understand the question(s)? :D :D  Maybe they should build a supercomputer named Deep Thought...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly, @VoA Tech demo is what there really is to be honest. We don't have a planet (yet), most of the mechanics aren't even there yet. I know that SC will take years, but Sq42 shouldn't take mush longer (2020). This is not from working, this is time for restess people. 

Expectation Vs Reality.  

That graph doesn't proof anything as it is PURELY guess work. It claims that from  nov 2016 to somewhere around now the staff numbers haven't changed. So many flaws on  just one picture, staff turn over is high and the company has always looking for more staff. Btw the staff count from all 4 official offices was 485 about this time last year. I'm not dissing you they companies are still expanding and still looking for more staff. Take the example for a ship the amount of people is quite large, a single fighter to go through every stage is dozens upon dozen of people (not all at one time).  

It is nowhere for they have fully finished one system alone, without the small stuff, like rest stops, specific NPC mission givers, missions set pieces.

Again, if I felt negative, than I am sorry and that is not meant to give across to feelings. I don't like the business and marketing and some what CR for he had thought about this before.  He may be a genius at coding, but lacks at  proper marketing. The various things I really hate is the lack of thought with the community, be the thing new concept sales or the paid streaming. It is really a shitty it keeps happening without notice. Granted, Disco lando had talked about the putting the off VAT and try to keep it low, but truth is it's not involving them as  VAT goes to the EU and they still have the same pledge amount whether US or EU in the bank(figuratively). 

@Buckaroo

Quote

Good move on CIG to remove the pay-wall for watching the primary events, I'll give them that.

It was the masses that forced, CR to removed only the start and the end. Any other games convention do it for free(live stress) as in MARKETING to the masses. See, you see how many people will come and generate a total roughly $40-60 dollars, not the other way around. It isn't their first time either, by now they should have picking it smoother. Most cons  outsourcing to professional crew.

every time, they decide to pull off a dick move they keep it until it is too late to freakin' change it. It's not that it is cost to much just time. Say take you "Avocados" or "Con"seirge and use them as a quick test base for letting you know how they would react to certain event or changes. They would be an exact, but close to deciding.   

Again, the $20 bill is too late. I can't even "delete" my $10, which doesn't have any reason why as it doesn't have an timed event.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/17/2018 at 9:48 AM, VoA said:

If CIG "needs" money then why do they keep hiring people and expanding their operations?   A business "needing money" tends to lay off people right?

One thing that most don't realize is is the growth potential CIG has.   Any publicly traded company would kill for CIGs growth and potential games once live (with two games S42 and SC - creating a synergy of profit = two blockbusters where most will play both).

Really I thought it was a Bargain and picked up one especially with a Nova Tank coming with it as part of the Warbond version = Penultimate Attack Ship vs Ground Installations = Win at its price point = besides - people forget that pledging is optional and is really intended to support the development of the game (not just for a player to "obtain a ship") ;)

Really...... I guess you never read Jump Point Magazine have you???   Collaboration among employee's is strong even though people that prefer to gripe want to create a false narrative like this....   I guess you haven't watch last week's RTV either.... Calix has his tasks to do sure - but also freedom to create game systems almost as he sees fit (and can imagine them) - we wouldn't have "grabby hands" if this wasn't the case.... :)

I see it as a few false narratives perpetuated by "some" (a minority) in the community itself.   Fortunately SC player base is far less toxic and more mature than most games.

Good thing though they are building their tech up to have S42 live up to expectations......... and the VAST majority of players would rather them get it right and be truly awesome than to rush it - wouldn't you agree?

Except one side does the research and has a better understanding of the game..... and the other just wants click-bait publicity (look at the Derek Smart Snafu and how Alpha 2.0 completely debunked his nonsense) ;) 

The rumors of CIG financial issues are beyond CIG's control.  However, CIG is taking actions that feed that narrative in ways very much in CIG's control.  The biggest is that CIG has put a strong emphasis on gaining new revenue for some reason.  It could very well be that they want the publicity of yet another milestone of backing.  But, the downside is that it feeds the narrative that they need that money.  The pricing of the A2 is an extreme example.  The warbond version cost $600.  For that, using existing money, you would have gotten a ship ($700 value), a tank ($105 value) and LTI (unknown value).  That means that for new money, you paid $600 to get what they claimed was $805+ worth of items.  That is a "bargain" only if you give them new money.  If they are trying to be a successful business, why are they willing to give a 25%+ discount for new revenue?  That is the kind of action they have taken that feeds the narrative they are having money issues.  I don't know for sure what their financial situation is and I ignore the rumors.  But, I can observe their actions and they act in a manner that feeds the narrative that they need additional funding because they are constantly taking actions to give discounts of varying size to gain new funding.  If they were comfortable with the amount of money sitting in the bank, they wouldn't be putting a large premium on additional revenue.

If you read just in this thread where someone talks about how upper management is ignorant of some 'common' community complaints and then look at some of the decisions they make, like the charging for access to watch the con, it becomes pretty clear that there are few, if any, push backs on business decisions.  CR may encourage feedback on technical decisions, but technical management and personnel/business management are very different skillsets.  From what I have seen, they do not have a good feel for the potential negative aspects of their decisions.  That would normally come from community managers.  Some companies think of them as people to manage (control/manipulate) the community whereas good ones also help management anticipate community reaction to major decisions.  But, management has to be willing to listen to them.  If people are unwilling to bring up contrary thoughts, that is group think.  Using contrary thoughts helps to refine and improve plans.  They need more of that and the easiest way is to encourage in house discussion.  But otherwise, they can always try to leverage outside assistance.  Whatever they do, they need to first recognize there is a problem.

The 'blind fanatics' of anything are, by definition, doing the exact same thing as the 'blind haters': making decisions based on emotion rather than considering facts that are contrary to said feelings.  I did not call anyone out for that but if I hit someone's nerve with the statement that blind fanatics are essentially just as flawed as blind haters, I'd suggest taking a break for a little while.  Go smell the roses as it were and see more of what is actually important in life.  It's not a game and not even gaming in general.

I have been trying to avoid getting snarky or sarcastic though I have seen several opportunities to do so.  But, if the toxicity of the official forums is starting to infect these as well, then perhaps this isn't a place for rational discussions like I was thinking.  Peace out, good luck and have fun.


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Squirrel said:

The rumors of CIG financial issues ....  The biggest is that CIG has put a strong emphasis on gaining new revenue for some reason.
 

False statements like this is how Rumors start - I am sure you'll agree.   Having a small fee (not much different than what Blizzard does) for ONE streaming even in ONE year isn't exactly a big "REVENUE" driver.    I am sure you will see how things are getting BLOWN way out of proportion....... even with the fact it has been reversed.

1 hour ago, Squirrel said:

 But, the downside is that it feeds the narrative that they need that money.  

False again - there is NO evidence that Star Citizen NEEDS more $.   It is a business and wants to improve its revenue but a little know fact (that if you have followed the project from the start) is that CR has to FEND off investors (besides regular backers).   CR did take a couple of investors (including his partner that is CIGs main lawyer) - but if he "needed" $ there would be MANY many private Angle investors waiting to jump on board.   The Metrics for CIG completely refute your assumption - including revenue growth, player population growth, hiring, investing in more locations, moving towards completion of S42, having a PROVABLE workable PU that functions better and is more expansive than most game that have had "official Launches" - vs SC only being in Alpha, etc....

Stop perpetuating the rumors please....

1 hour ago, Squirrel said:

 The pricing of the A2 is an extreme example.  The warbond version cost $600.  For that, using existing money, you would have gotten a ship ($700 value), a tank ($105 value) and LTI (unknown value).  That means that for new money, you paid $600 to get what they claimed was $805+ worth of items.  That is a "bargain" only if you give them new money.  

Look at the Star Lifter thread.   It took me until the end of the Concept Sale to finally pull the trigger and get one on Warbond - but I did because it was a great bargain.   It is called brilliant marketing ........ not a "trick" or "scam" because they supposedly "need money" ===== see how ridiculous the rumors are?

If you were going to buy it with previous in-game credit then you would pay $700 and not get the Nova Tank (and its up to you specifically if you want one or not).    I don't think you can make the case though for the Penultimate Ground Bomber - installation infiltration ship....... as being "expensive" vs the other ships in its price range including the Hammerhead.   The A2 will inflict far more damage (with MOABs) or wide spread damage (with Cluster Bombs)----- than any other ship...... including having all its turrets covering the ground side.   Not to mention it is designed for Atmospheric flight while ships like the Hammerhead are not (per RTV)

1 hour ago, Squirrel said:

That is the kind of action they have taken that feeds the narrative they are having money issues.  I don't know for sure what their financial situation is and I ignore the rumors.  But, I can observe their actions and they act in a manner that feeds the narrative that they need additional funding because they are constantly taking actions to give discounts of varying size to gain new funding.  If they were comfortable with the amount of money sitting in the bank, they wouldn't be putting a large premium on additional revenue.

Again - False Narrative - I guess you don't understand their "funding model" = Pledging = voluntary = everything obtainable in game = more $ for increase scope (YES INCREASED SCOPE even with delays = GREAT thing for the best space sim ever = next gen MMO).

Notice how their hiring is continuing but platuing - that is because S42 is nearing completion (with evidence of the vast majority of its tech now completed) - then these devs will move onto the PU and all this Rumor Nonsense will be forgotten.   S42 will keep people enthralled for at least a year as the PU then blossoms with all the Devs focusing on it until launch then another chapter in S42 - then live development after PU launch :)

1 hour ago, Squirrel said:

If you read just in this thread where someone talks about how upper management is ignorant of some 'common' community complaints and then look at some of the decisions they make, like the charging for access to watch the con, it becomes pretty clear that there are few, if any, push backs on business decisions.  CR may encourage feedback on technical decisions, but technical management and personnel/business management are very different skillsets.  From what I have seen, they do not have a good feel for the potential negative aspects of their decisions.  That would normally come from community managers.  Some companies think of them as people to manage (control/manipulate) the community whereas good ones also help management anticipate community reaction to major decisions.  But, management has to be willing to listen to them.  If people are unwilling to bring up contrary thoughts, that is group think.  Using contrary thoughts helps to refine and improve plans.  They need more of that and the easiest way is to encourage in house discussion.  But otherwise, they can always try to leverage outside assistance.  Whatever they do, they need to first recognize there is a problem.

I think the issues that you think are out there - are WAY OVERBLOWN...... and that's why there isn't much "attention" being made to many of it - from a very VERY small vocal minority.   CR knows the gaming industry very well and how the vocal few think they have the power to metastasize very minor issues that are either inconsequential or something that later development is tackling.

  • An example of something being flat out wrong is your analysis of CIG "needing" more $
  • Another is your example of the A2 being "too expensive"
1 hour ago, Squirrel said:

The 'blind fanatics' of anything are, by definition, doing the exact same thing as the 'blind haters': making decisions based on emotion rather than considering facts that are contrary to said feelings.  I did not call anyone out for that but if I hit someone's nerve with the statement that blind fanatics are essentially just as flawed as blind haters, I'd suggest taking a break for a little while.  Go smell the roses as it were and see more of what is actually important in life.  It's not a game and not even gaming in general.

I have been trying to avoid getting snarky or sarcastic though I have seen several opportunities to do so.  But, if the toxicity of the official forums is starting to infect these as well, then perhaps this isn't a place for rational discussions like I was thinking.  Peace out, good luck and have fun.

Setting the facts straight - I am obviously not a "blind fanatic" and you are not a "blind hater" - but when one evaluates issues like this you need to approach them with Logic and Research - not latching onto a Rumor to see if it has any validity when it clearly doesn't ;)

That's how Derek Smart got destroyed.... as you know....... and Alpha 2.0 debunked his whole premise :)

+++++++++++

Another way of looking at Star Citizen is to see the Positives (which there are many) vs the Negatives (very few).

I posted this thread thinking that it was a problem since it broke precedence of SC information and presentations always being free......... but then I debunked my own argument against CIG after thinking about it further  with JP and Subscriber Vault always being "pay to access" information.

I have also have had a number of other issues (my biggest one so far is the lack of a female Avatar all these years)....... but again the Positives far out-way the negatives :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×