The Staggered Development extra time fallacy

[Lorddarthvik]

They halved the number of devs working on a feature, ie, doubling the workload of the remaining devs. Then doubled the period of which it is worked on, bringing it right back down where they started. There is no more time to work on a feature. It's the exact same amount of man-hours. The only way to get extra work out of this is to bend space-time.



I did indeed notice that. This doesn't fix it.



Look, how many months pass between features doesn't tell anything about the amount of work that is put into the feature, as it doesn't address whether there are 1, 2, 20, or 200 people working on it. So lets talk about man-hours and man-months.

If feature X takes 3 months with 10 people, that's about 5k man-hours. If you divide those 10 people to two 5 people teams that then work on features X and Y, but over 6 months instead, that's still 5k man-hours for feature X. You do not get any additional time, if 5k man-hours isn't enough to get that feature done, then it isn't enough just because you spread them over 6 months instead of 3.


They're still making the same amount of features over the same period of time. Only before this they made X, then Y, then Z. Now they make X with half the team and Y with the other half, but X gets released 3 months earlier and Z is started. That is, if you considered "all at once" a bad approach, this is then 'even more at once'.



Spending greater initial effort to reduce the amount of time required to fix a feature has nothing to do with staggered development. To spend greater initial effort, you'd need more man-hours, that is, you either need to hire more people or reduce the amount of work you're doing. Could be CIG is just using this 'staggered development' as a smokescreen to have few months to catch-up, spend greater initial effort for the next update and hope to get that ball rolling, but if they don't start to more accurately estimating the amount of work they can do for each patch and only promise the amount of features they can make with their man-hours, we'll be back here in no-time flat.

Why do you assume that half the ppl work on one feature now??? You can easily stagger the process by retaining the same amount of ppl on the teams. You just stagger per team per feature. That way you do get the benefit of not having to jump between projects and get a better feature right out of the gate. That can save time.
Or it won't, but it's better then having features that don't work and everybody being pissed off about it. It can help in the long run.
Let's say they had the 10 men teams working on features. Those teams spent 3 month each working on their own features. Some finished, some didn't, and had to spend time from the next 3 months on it. It would only make sense to allow them to spend 6 months, as they were already spending that time.
It doesn't half the amount the of ppl working on it.
As for how can we know how much time they spend on it, we can't know exactly. But we can see on the roadmap and the patch notes and weekly newsletters how they need more time for a lot of the features then 3 months.


We keep arguing the same point. They do Not get more time overall. That is true.
What you assume is that somehow they won't be making up any time lost by not having to jump between features, and not having to go back to features they were supposed to complete.
I say they might do. And that's the extra time.
Will this make things faster from our perspective? No. Actually it means an extra 3 months because of the staggering, as you can see by the SQ42 push back.
But it might make things more playable and enjoyable which is a win for us backers.

 

[Vavrik]

@Lorddarthvik is pretty much correct here. The 2 teams working on two different versions of SC was an example, to demonstrate the change and explain it in a simplified way. They were not saying they have split the development team in two. And for what it's worth, don't get hung up on Agile. CIG did not use that term, because it is inappropriate to use in this context. The term was used by a project manager later, who thinks that anything that has a scrum must be SCRUM. I counted 3 uses of Agile in the thread following the description, and all 3 used it incorrectly.

 

[Montoya]

I think the ship sales are not driving the cash they need

That is a fact that is widely known.

They tend to be (at this point with 550+ employees) about $1M in the red every month. This is just my estimate, could be a bit higher or lower. They use the cash reserves to make up the difference, then there is Citizencon and what ever ship sale they have there which tends to be very profitable and makes up for a few months of losses.

2018 ended with $37,759,020 raised. They need at least $42M-$45M* to be in the black.

*This may be higher if the employee count is higher this year, which Im sure it is

 

[atpbx]

CIGs biggest problem is that they have a fundamentally flawed development model.

What should have been a relatively simple exercise in developing a minimum viable product - Proc gen universe, hand crafted hero zones, RNG missions, and then add game play systems and ships over time as people play, focusing on ONE gameplay system at a time and one ship at a time, instead has become a huge mess of absolutely nothing getting done because there is still EVERYTHING to do, and people are spread too thin.


There is absolutely no focus on getting an actual functioning game out the door, for people to get stuck into.

 

[Printimus]

CIGs biggest problem is that they have a fundamentally flawed development model.

What should have been a relatively simple exercise in developing a minimum viable product - Proc gen universe, hand crafted hero zones, RNG missions, and then add game play systems and ships over time as people play, focusing on ONE gameplay system at a time and one ship at a time, instead has become a huge mess of absolutely nothing getting done because there is still EVERYTHING to do, and people are spread too thin.


There is absolutely no focus on getting an actual functioning game out the door, for people to get stuck into.

And this is exactly why we are getting to play SQ42 next year right? Cause nothing gets done.

 

[atpbx]

And this is exactly why we are getting to play SQ42 next year right? Cause nothing gets done.

We are not even in next year and SQ42 already had a three month delay.

On top of the 3 year delay it had from its last release date (2016).

Theres being angsty because I dont like your new shiny ship, and theres going after me to pick apart posts for the sake of it, despite the fact that the supporting evidence is right in your face.

If I wasnt supporting the process, I wouldnt be 5 grand in, not as much as some, more than others, but to describe their management of the project as anything other than completely incompetent would be patently false.

You can pretty much bet your house on not seeing SQ42 next year, in any form.

 

[Printimus]

We are not even in next year and SQ42 already had a three month delay.

On top of the 3 year delay it had from its last release date (2016).

Theres being angsty because I dont like your new shiny ship, and theres going after me to pick apart posts for the sake of it, despite the fact that the supporting evidence is right in your face.

If I wasnt supporting the process, I wouldnt be 5 grand in, not as much as some, more than others, but to describe their management of the project as anything other than completely incompetent would be patently false.

You can pretty much bet your house on not seeing SQ42 next year, in any form.

I'm sorry you feel this way. Many other backers (including myself) still have high hopes! At least the devs have the foresight to notify us of a very small delay regarding the beta (not actual release) of their single player game. Development changes as it progresses, as does everything else in life. You and I have no control over the process by which CIG runs their company so why worry about it?

I am right there with you as a fellow concierge member. SC will still be the best damn space sim. Shit just takes time to work out.

 

[Crymsan]

Lets be honest having backed people are not as open minded about whether something is good or bad (because they have already paid). They have whatever is left of the money from the backer (to advertise Squadron 42) and all of the money from ship buyers has already gone to make both games. They told us squadron 42 was the priority so the very slow pace of star citizen was always given that as the reason. Only now we know, squadron 42 is also going slow and behind.

Despite all the talk there has never been a period when development has all the tools and has sped up. This means there is a very real danger that star citizen will run out of money before completion. Who then would buy $50 dollar space ships? Maybe just maybe there is enough to make squadron 42 but only if the delays do not keep happening and people put even more money in. I do not hold out a lot of hope for the PU they need at least another $150 million for another 3 years minimum.

They could and should try and get something into release state you can even sell ships after when they are ready to add new features.

Note this might all sound pessimistic it just shows the size of the problem they have to fix and they really need to be focused which they have never been so far.

Any ways just my opinion. The backed money I have spent is long gone.

 

[Lorddarthvik]

CIGs biggest problem is that they have a fundamentally flawed development model.

What should have been a relatively simple exercise in developing a minimum viable product - Proc gen universe, hand crafted hero zones, RNG missions, and then add game play systems and ships over time as people play, focusing on ONE gameplay system at a time and one ship at a time, instead has become a huge mess of absolutely nothing getting done because there is still EVERYTHING to do, and people are spread too thin.


There is absolutely no focus on getting an actual functioning game out the door, for people to get stuck into.

While you point about making everything at the same time is a valid concerne, it's only valid when it is without context.

Making the "minimal viable product" was something they set out to do in the first year and soon realized that it would still be a huge undertaking with ZERO innovation. This in turn would have meant that there would have been no way to get the planets, the cities, the scale, the physics, or the seemles universe we currently have. They would have been locked into a shitty basic game engine with mediocre flight physics, 10 year old visual fidelity, and basic ass fps combat at best. All separated by minutes of loading screens.
Would you have backed the same amount, if after 2-3 years they just released something that's a weak copy of Elite:BoringUs at best, or No Man's Sky 1.0 at worst?
I sure as hell wouldn't have. I would have been pissed like hell. That's not what the blurb said when I signed up.
You see, the way they develop might not be the most optimal if you already have the budget. They could do it in a more linear fashion then. But they don't have it.
If they want to keep this up, they have to promise everything, and have to deliver some bits of everything at the same time. Otherwise who would give a shit in the long run?
They would have ended up just like Elite did. They got nice big fleet carriers now! Yeah, looks awesome, spent ages working out the tech for that!
It will be great, if only there were enough ppl still playing to use them...


Edit: I feel your pain, I have many concerns about the games development as well, yes they are taking way longer then I would like it, but it's the way they can keep making this shit happen. And it will happen, some day....

Tldr.: if they did it your way, like Elite tried, do you think they would have the same amount of backers and money to work with? I sure don't.

 

[Sraika]

Lets be honest having backed people are not as open minded about whether something is good or bad (because they have already paid). They have whatever is left of the money from the backer (to advertise Squadron 42) and all of the money from ship buyers has already gone to make both games. They told us squadron 42 was the priority so the very slow pace of star citizen was always given that as the reason. Only now we know, squadron 42 is also going slow and behind.

Despite all the talk there has never been a period when development has all the tools and has sped up. This means there is a very real danger that star citizen will run out of money before completion. Who then would buy $50 dollar space ships? Maybe just maybe there is enough to make squadron 42 but only if the delays do not keep happening and people put even more money in. I do not hold out a lot of hope for the PU they need at least another $150 million for another 3 years minimum.

They could and should try and get something into release state you can even sell ships after when they are ready to add new features.

Note this might all sound pessimistic it just shows the size of the problem they have to fix and they really need to be focused which they have never been so far.

Any ways just my opinion. The backed money I have spent is long gone.

I disagree with you on most of the points.
I'd argue that SQ42 isn't actually going significantly slower than we expected it to.
There has definitely been a period where development has sped up. In case you hadn't noticed we are now having quarterly updates. If that isn't a speed increase i don't know what is lol
I'm fairly certain they spend less than 50mil a year, which appears to be your figure, though i admittedly have zero evidence either way. On top of that, they aren't showing any signs of being low on cash and funding only continues to grow. Citizencon is also coming up, along with the anniversary sale, and i expect the amount of money they are going to pull in is going to be huge.
I personally believe, and i am not the only one, that it would be a mistake to continue selling ships after release. I also believe that rushing the release is only going to make the game itself worse.
Them trying new development strategies isn't a sign of a lack of focus, but rather the opposite. If they feel they can get more work done by changing the way they do things, (or better work or faster work or whatever) then it only makes sense to change the way they do things.

Finally, if you feel like the money you spent is gone, you're welcome to spend more. Even just buying a 5 dollar flair item can only help. Hell, if everyone chipped in a dollar that'd be over 2 million dollars. And sure, at 50 million a year that's only like 2 weeks worth, but hey, every little bit counts, eh?
:p

 

[Printimus]

Lets be honest having backed people are not as open minded about whether something is good or bad (because they have already paid). They have whatever is left of the money from the backer (to advertise Squadron 42) and all of the money from ship buyers has already gone to make both games. They told us squadron 42 was the priority so the very slow pace of star citizen was always given that as the reason. Only now we know, squadron 42 is also going slow and behind.

Despite all the talk there has never been a period when development has all the tools and has sped up. This means there is a very real danger that star citizen will run out of money before completion. Who then would buy $50 dollar space ships? Maybe just maybe there is enough to make squadron 42 but only if the delays do not keep happening and people put even more money in. I do not hold out a lot of hope for the PU they need at least another $150 million for another 3 years minimum.

They could and should try and get something into release state you can even sell ships after when they are ready to add new features.

Note this might all sound pessimistic it just shows the size of the problem they have to fix and they really need to be focused which they have never been so far.

Any ways just my opinion. The backed money I have spent is long gone.

You severely underestimate the willingness of backers to keep buying space pixels....

 

[Tealwraith]

CI was having a problem with 300* devs delivering a patch every 3 months so now they will have two teams of 150** devs delivering a patch every 6 months. Sounds screwy to me, but only time will tell. This looks to me like CI is trying out different brainstorming ideas to see if anything will get the job done.

The basic conflict is getting a stable build to release quarterly versus having the desired content ready to go. CR said CI would stay on track and deliver what was ready each quarter, but that hasn't happened as he apparently believes that each patch has to show certain features (incremental improvements) or it won't be released. I would prefer a stable build on time, but it's possible that there are too many interconnected pieces to leave certain features out and have a stable build each quarter. I get the feeling that CI is long on creativity and short on troubleshooting management, but that's endemic to every place I've ever worked.

I'm confident that my pledge was not wasted and we will get the game at some point. The only question is when. CR WILL deliver something playable, he always has.

Printimus is right, though, space pixels are sexy and extremely collectible.

*made up number
**half of the first made up number

 

[Radegast74]

And this is exactly why we are getting to play SQ42 next year right? Cause nothing gets done.

Careful, the only said it would go into beta ... we don't know what their plans are for beta testing. Chris really seems to want to guard SQ42 for as long as possible, so the game isn't spoiled for anyone.

My other random thoughts on this...we really don't know what their internal teams are, and how they are composed, and how many people they had.

Moving to staggered development like this looks like a great solution if you have grown and now have more people than before. It may also solve other problems; they mentioned before the issue of one crucial person being sick and not being able to deliver something, which could start cascading delays down the line.

Personally, I think it is great they are trying new things out. If you want to get something done, sometimes you have to try something new. Harnessing & supervising high level employees is really an art. They aren't digging a ditch...

 

[atpbx]

While you point about making everything at the same time is a valid concerne, it's only valid when it is without context.

Making the "minimal viable product" was something they set out to do in the first year and soon realized that it would still be a huge undertaking with ZERO innovation. This in turn would have meant that there would have been no way to get the planets, the cities, the scale, the physics, or the seemles universe we currently have. They would have been locked into a shitty basic game engine with mediocre flight physics, 10 year old visual fidelity, and basic ass fps combat at best. All separated by minutes of loading screens.
Would you have backed the same amount, if after 2-3 years they just released something that's a weak copy of Elite:BoringUs at best, or No Man's Sky 1.0 at worst?
I sure as hell wouldn't have. I would have been pissed like hell. That's not what the blurb said when I signed up.
You see, the way they develop might not be the most optimal if you already have the budget. They could do it in a more linear fashion then. But they don't have it.
If they want to keep this up, they have to promise everything, and have to deliver some bits of everything at the same time. Otherwise who would give a shit in the long run?
They would have ended up just like Elite did. They got nice big fleet carriers now! Yeah, looks awesome, spent ages working out the tech for that!
It will be great, if only there were enough ppl still playing to use them...


Edit: I feel your pain, I have many concerns about the games development as well, yes they are taking way longer then I would like it, but it's the way they can keep making this shit happen. And it will happen, some day....

Tldr.: if they did it your way, like Elite tried, do you think they would have the same amount of backers and money to work with? I sure don't.

Using Elite is a really bad example, because it was made on less money than CIG made in their first year of kick starting, and once they kicked it out the door, they did absolutely nothing with it.


A lot of things CIG are doing, they dont need to do to a great workable game out the door that they can build on.

 

[Lorddarthvik]

Using Elite is a really bad example, because it was made on less money than CIG made in their first year of kick starting, and once they kicked it out the door, they did absolutely nothing with it.


A lot of things CIG are doing, they dont need to do to a great workable game out the door that they can build on.

Elite may not be the only example but it the only relevant one I could find, with similar gameplay as SC.
Also, initial funding was 8 mil+ "substantially more" as brabem admitted.
And elite had to drop some "small" initially promised features like a single player campaign.
As you said, they haven't done anything to it in years.

So they spent the money, didn't deliver on what was promised in the kickstarter, and then didn't do anything with the game.
How does this prove that if CIG did a minimum viable piece of garbage, they would still get the funding they need to progress?

Btw, CiG made 6.2 mil on injtial funding, that is significantly less, then promised the world and more, and then got some more money to play with over the years. They are still doing the single player, and all the rest that was promised.

I do agree that they could concentrate a bit more on some basic stuff, like getting the simplest missions working. That would be nice for a change.
But I think they do need to keep pushing all the other stuff as well to keep us hooked and hopeful, and thus keep us funding the game.
Is this a good thing? I dunno. Time will tell I guess.

 

[Mich Angel]

Quarterly patches are still coming out same as before!

Example: instead of like now having a quarterly patch with a lot a ships and features that is half ass finished, we get more finished and fleshed out less broken patches.
............... > That is the general idea with staggered development they are trying to aim at!

What does it matter who work on what for us, or how many on what.. just a lot a personal opinions and guess work.*

And person talking about people like any one person know what others like, want or think, is just to try bring merit to their opinion like it would make it stronger, it don't!*
So why talk for others, speak for your self and not what you think you know others want, think or do.*

Here is my bottom thought on this....
Regardless of complexity "Keep it simple" !

CHEERS!

*Fine print Side note:This is not a personal post, its aimed to anyone so don't take it personal.

 

[Montoya]

Quarterly patches are still coming out same as before!

yeah, I think Ill make a video about this staggered development thing, looks like it confused people.

 

[Mich Angel]

yeah, I think Ill make a video about this staggered development thing, looks like it confused people.

Yeah! I agree, think that would be a perfect idea.

 

[Printimus]

Montoya explains it all.

^ title of your sex tape

 

[Crymsan]

From what I see, if they wan't they can roll out the game as is. They can move it to beta, polish it, create a jumpgate to connect galaxies create more missions within the exisitng planets and cities and it will have more content than Anthem, ED, warframe etc. The roll out can include mining, cargo transport, passenger transport, bounty hunting, FPS and space battles (escorts vs pirates). Vaandul can randomly spawn at border sites with no access to their planet and area until a future update.

I disagree with you on most of the points.
I'd argue that SQ42 isn't actually going significantly slower than we expected it to.
There has definitely been a period where development has sped up. In case you hadn't noticed we are now having quarterly updates. If that isn't a speed increase i don't know what is lol
I'm fairly certain they spend less than 50mil a year, which appears to be your figure, though i admittedly have zero evidence either way. On top of that, they aren't showing any signs of being low on cash and funding only continues to grow. Citizencon is also coming up, along with the anniversary sale, and i expect the amount of money they are going to pull in is going to be huge.
I personally believe, and i am not the only one, that it would be a mistake to continue selling ships after release. I also believe that rushing the release is only going to make the game itself worse.
Them trying new development strategies isn't a sign of a lack of focus, but rather the opposite. If they feel they can get more work done by changing the way they do things, (or better work or faster work or whatever) then it only makes sense to change the way they do things.

Finally, if you feel like the money you spent is gone, you're welcome to spend more. Even just buying a 5 dollar flair item can only help. Hell, if everyone chipped in a dollar that'd be over 2 million dollars. And sure, at 50 million a year that's only like 2 weeks worth, but hey, every little bit counts, eh?
:p

Look I respect your opinion, you can have weekly updates if you want the speed of progress is not about the number of updates but the content. I could get into all the wrong dates given for release but all that does is feed frustration. I will not spend anymore on this game if others want to that's up to them.