Quoted from Aurich:I just don't agree with that.
Do I wish that games just shipped finished? Yes.
But given that they don't, and that's just reality, I'd rather they were done right, and we were just kept in the loop in the meantime. Does that mean "hey, feel free to take a year?" Nope. But I don't want "we'll have it in 2 weeks!" and then some bugs or ideas come up and they need more like 4, but since they posted a date they either rush it or people flip out.
Tell us that you're working on it. Tell us you'll give us a date when you feel comfortable giving one. Give the date then. Meet it.
If you rinse and repeat that then everyone will feel informed, and way more comfortable. Just doing it sometimes doesn't work though, you have to keep it up. That's how you build back some trust and understanding.
I would like to add to aurich's comments about the level of transparency from stern
I agree that it would be nice about the "we're working on it" [by title] along with other statuses like "no code changes planned" and "code finalized on mm-dd-yyyy with version no. x.xxx", but what also needs to occur is something of a "proposed target" date along with monthly or quarterly status updates.
this way it kind of puts stern in the position to hit those targets and brings to light those updates that missed their proposed target dates.
this would put some sense of responsibility on the development teams to hit the goals that they, themselves are setting.
Las Vegas, NV
