I'll give you that the two branches may not necessarily be in the same state but I can guarantee you that, if they previously had in mind supporting both and are now down to only support one, it's a great relief in development efforts.
As to whether it's a good decision, it's a different and very hard to tell matter. I find it a little absurd though how much input people have into this. These decisions matter only in context; you need to be familiar with a lot of the technical background on the game itself and its ongoing development to really be informed on whether it is.
For context: I work with Blizzard games a ton. I'm extremely familiar with Blizzard, their teams, the work that goes on there; nature of my job. I also frequent the subreddits where armchair programmers and game designers think they can outsmart the devs by throwing random buzzwords in the comments. Everybody thinks they know better, thinks they know how to manage a community of millions to tens of millions, thinks they know how to ship AAA games, etc.
I see a very similar pattern on HN with CIG because CIG is (far) more transparent than your average studio. And I just wonder (this is a general statement, not only about your comment) why people adopt this "I know better" attitude when they clearly don't have al the variables and know it themselves.
I've seen this in every single thread about SC. People here see a kickstarter project taking a long time and start yelling their own startups' platitudes like "release early release often" that aren't applicable to game dev the same way. Every time I expect better and every time I'm disappointed
Can you explain to me the difference in practice between
'a rewrite of an existing code base from language A to language B'
versus
'Saying you will support language B as well, dropping language A after a while completely, then announcing you are going to try to complete it in language B'
Because I am not sure I perceive a large semantic difference.
I happen to agree with an earlier post suggesting that if you want to run off with the money, then this kind of thing is a pretty good way of creating noise and cover instead of results.
Also: can you please stop shitting on the HN community with your posts and keep to the topic?
I get that you want to rant for some reason, but it would be better for us all if you did it in notepad or emacs rather than here.
You're merely claiming hundreds of game developers, part of the most transparent game studio of all time, are involved in this grand conspiracy.
What does "running off with the money" even mean? Create artificial work for yourself and your company all the while pissing people off on purpose? Oh yeah that's a much better plan than just making a game.
Reminds me of people claiming the lunar landing was faked because they have it in their head that faking the thing and maintaining the charade over decades is somehow cheaper.
Regarding your question, we're talking about shading languages, most of which are autogenerated by the sources. This is more akin to dropping support for a platform than "rewriting everything".
This forum has rules about how to talk to other people in the forum. I feel you are ignoring them in terms of how you talk about me and other HN users.
Have you read the forum guidelines?
"You're merely claiming hundreds of game developers, part of the most transparent game studio of all time, are involved in this grand conspiracy."
I claimed no such thing and I do not enjoy your hyperbole.
In my experience when announcements are made and timetables shifted, it comes from higher up.
As for 'the most transparent game studio of all time'. Really? I think perhaps you should have followed the Numenera/Torment or Elite crowdfunded projects as a point of reference on that, you would likely have a different opinion.
"What does "running off with the money" even mean?"
I can only presume you have never funded an unsuccessful kickstarter project. I've funded several. They all followed an identical pattern of projects scope / platform changes and dozens of premature 'about to ship, just 1 more month' optimistic updates from CEOs.
Generally 'running off with the money' means taking the money and not delivering a product. In the case of kickstarter, usually using a long series of excuses along the way. It does not literally need to mean catching a flight to some far-off country with the money. Often the money is simply spent while people post misleading updates about the progress of the project. Then the final update: "Sorry, we thought we could deliver. But we can't".
I honestly can't see a difference between what's happening with this projects and the other projects that failed, nor any difference in the communication style, content and frequency. Winning projects don't usually look like this. Numenera didn't. Elite didn't.
"Reminds me of people claiming the lunar landing was faked because they have it in their head that faking the thing and maintaining the charade over decades is somehow cheaper."
Again, you're just being rude and hyperbolic. If you think a kickstarter project involving repeated delays over a period of years - which turn out to be CEO deception about project viability - is 'questioning the moon landing', then you are perhaps naive about crowd funded projects. I am not insulting you by saying this. I simply mean it literally: from what you're saying, it seems you don't know what crowdfunded projects are like. I do. I've wasted plenty of money on them.
I hope star citizen does not turn out to be pie in the sky, partly because the world needs good space sims and partly because I put my own money on the line.
However, projects that suddenly announce changes of this magnitude when they ought to have delivered something years ago, often turn out to have other underlying problems that prevent their ultimate success. Star Citizen has undergone multiple changes of project scope, changes of technology platform, never-ending delays, and it is hard to believe that this is the result of the kind of management that wants to deliver a good product on time and is capable of doing it.
I also funded Elite Dangerous as a kickstarter backer, and I consider it to be a good example of good project management. I have had the pleasure of playing it for years.
Yes, CIG is absolutely the most transparent game studio of all time. I say this with over 13 years experience in and around the games industry. They're creating a plethora of video and text content on their process, on the development of the game, the design, the experiences, failures and successes, etc. They share time tables. They share their deadlines. They often miss them in fact, and so do I at my company. It doesn't mean they're running off with the money.
As for Elite, that is an excellent example of a project that failed to deliver what it promised. I love Elite, by the way, but the only reason you're touting it here is because it's already out, whereas SC is not. I understand that, you're a gamer, you want something you can play now, not something you can play later.
Here's the thing: Star Citizen and CIG are both plagued with issues. Cultish behaviour from their communities, overpromising tendencies, micromanagement, etc. It's not a flawless game or studio. But game development is hard and game developers are some of the most passionate about their job, of all professions on earth. So it really pisses me off when people start claiming that all they want to do is "run with the money".
It's possible to fail. You're on a forum where people build their own companies from scratch. Most of these people fail. If after dedicating years of your life on your vision while being questioned at every corner you end up failing, that's not "running with the money", that's failing. It's hard, it sucks, it destroys you and this happens to people on here every single day. It's not some kind of goal that they're all looking forward; "oh man I can't wait until we don't have to keep up this charade anymore of pretending to work on the game every day, so that we can enjoy all the jaccuzzis we've been buying!".
You want points of reference, I invite you to look at game studios that actually "take the money and run". Start with Zynga, see how deep that rabbit hole goes.
> Yes, CIG is absolutely the most transparent game studio of all time. I say this with over 13 years experience in and around the games industry.
If that's the best you've seen, I would recommend you to Riot Games excellent series of blog articles on their game design (principles, practice, front end, back end, player management etc). Or... Elite's dev blog and forums, which were excellent?
> As for Elite, that is an excellent example of a project that failed to deliver what it promised.
Uhhh.. no? I think it delivered everything I hoped for, and more? As a player of the original I've been delighted by the scope of the game. Feel welcome to disagree of course, but let's be clear that we're talking opinions not facts.
One thing is for sure: they delivered a game that has given me a lot of fun for a long time.
SC has delivered posts as you say, e.g. about deadlines - that they've missed - it's really much less useful for me in terms of my personal enjoyment.
> But game development is hard
Yes, but looking at peers with less money and grand goals, those peers actually achieved their goals, let's celebrate that maybe a bit more instead?
> So it really pisses me off ...
That's not actually an OK excuse for how you've been writing on here.
> It's possible to fail. You're on a forum where people build their own companies from scratch. Most of these people fail.
Sure, but it's not the 1970s. We should not be celebrating game companies that are in the process of possibly failing, holding them up as gems of the industry (as you appear to be doing, from my perspective), especially when many of their choices lead directly to missed deadlines and the absence of a game for me to play.
> You want points of reference, I invite you to look at game studios that actually "take the money and run". Start with Zynga, see how deep that rabbit hole goes.
Zynga delivered, over and over and over. What they delivered wasn't a game, arguably, more a skinner box, but you'd have a pretty hard time convincing me they entertained fewer people than SC has.
If I can sum up your arguments:
- Elite: a project that failed to deliver what they promised
- Zynga: a game studio that took the money and run
I simply can't see that you would get widespread agreement with those views. They are both profitable companies with hundreds of thousands more happy users of their products than SC has. Zynga in particular didn't even charge for many of their products, so it's a bit hard to claim they 'took the money and ran'.
Anyway, why don't we leave our discussion here. You can post again if you like but I won't respond to it, I don't believe either of us is presenting information that will persuade the other person of their view.
As to whether it's a good decision, it's a different and very hard to tell matter. I find it a little absurd though how much input people have into this. These decisions matter only in context; you need to be familiar with a lot of the technical background on the game itself and its ongoing development to really be informed on whether it is.
For context: I work with Blizzard games a ton. I'm extremely familiar with Blizzard, their teams, the work that goes on there; nature of my job. I also frequent the subreddits where armchair programmers and game designers think they can outsmart the devs by throwing random buzzwords in the comments. Everybody thinks they know better, thinks they know how to manage a community of millions to tens of millions, thinks they know how to ship AAA games, etc.
I see a very similar pattern on HN with CIG because CIG is (far) more transparent than your average studio. And I just wonder (this is a general statement, not only about your comment) why people adopt this "I know better" attitude when they clearly don't have al the variables and know it themselves.
I've seen this in every single thread about SC. People here see a kickstarter project taking a long time and start yelling their own startups' platitudes like "release early release often" that aren't applicable to game dev the same way. Every time I expect better and every time I'm disappointed
</rant>