I still cant say de did a good job with railjack

[Felsagger]

49 minutes ago, -Sandman said:

On the contrary, It's not as simple as saying "well they have the skill-sets but not the manpower". Notice I said management objectives? This is a business, and no right thinking business moves ahead with a project without first planning and analyzing gaps, the same way you have done so above. This is where the bulk of incompetence lies. Will a project like that be executable with current resources? Maybe not... does that make it impossible? Of course not... and that certainly does not make it automatically financially nonviable either. Delivery goes far beyond a developer simply being able to design, code and launch a feature. 

You know that such post was an example illustrating the division of work and dedication to some aspects of the game. Those teams are mixed, they vary in size and they get distributed. Their current size is about 250 to 300 employees. 

The discussion you propose pertains to risk analysis. The micro management of their studio is something that we don't know. We can't speculate how they do their Gantt table and how they run parallel endeavors on the same project, if we see this like the construction of a building. Availability, use, depletion and returns of resources is one portion of the equation, the other set of variables is interest and trust. I simply threw away a mock up illustrating a division of work because DE commits a lot of mistakes in many fronts when they introduce new sale content on this GAAS F2P game. Financial capability is another discussion that has to do with accounting. I can't get into those because we don't know their finances. They will not tell us, no one does. 

The project is impossible to execute with the current resources. We've seen this with Rail Jack. Their vision exceeds their capabilities and the immediate delivery. They are not Germans or Swiss for a top rigorous discipline. DE project management can't be outlined because the game itself is always bouncing places. There is no clear route to follow. This project is constantly on a brainstorming of ideas without a strict schedule. The game feeds on improvisation, input of the players and tryouts while the other cycle of the business operates such as RNG weapons, Prime packs, accessories and their currency, Platinum. 

At this point Rail Jack is a complete joke if we speak about management objectives.   

[-Sandman]

1 hour ago, Felsagger said:

You know that such post was an example illustrating the division of work and dedication to some aspects of the game. Those teams are mixed, they vary in size and they get distributed. Their current size is about 250 to 300 employees. 

The discussion you propose pertains to risk analysis. The micro management of their studio is something that we don't know. We can't speculate how they do their Gantt table and how they run parallel endeavors on the same project, if we see this like the construction of a building. Availability, use, depletion and returns of resources is one portion of the equation, the other set of variables is interest and trust. I simply threw away a mock up illustrating a division of work because DE commits a lot of mistakes in many fronts when they introduce new sale content on this GAAS F2P game. Financial capability is another discussion that has to do with accounting. I can't get into those because we don't know their finances. They will not tell us, no one does. 

While I do agree with digital content you indeed need to take a risk based approach and that some of the disastrous updates would have been a calculated gamble in maybe trying to just break even or keep within deadlines; but based on the type feedback seen from the devs on such updates it can also be inferred that there are more simple explanations; occam's razor, they simply didn't even know they were biting off more than they can chew. Again this speaks to management and strategic direction.

With respect to the building example, all of these things, even the above are not so mutually exclusive; and don't get me wrong, I understand that the focus of your point was aligned a bit differently. Obviously we will never be able to absolutely have full transparency on any of this, but I don't think we need to see detailed financials and project charts to see that their management of projects are not proficient. My point is if in the analysis of their concepts and ideas the principals find them to be viable then current human resource capacity is not a limitation; I don't think this is a limiting factor in 2020. 

Even if we were to delve into areas such as quality, this again speaks to management competence as a root cause, as if employees are producing shoddily, this is more symptomatic of lack of structures and systems than simple negligence. 

Edited June 10, 2020 by -Sandman

[Felsagger]

1 hour ago, -Sandman said:

While I do agree with digital content you indeed need to take a risk based approach and that some of the disastrous updates would have been a calculated gamble in maybe trying to just break even or keep within deadlines; but based on the type feedback seen from the devs on such updates it can also be inferred that there are more simple explanations; occam's razor, they simply didn't even know they were biting off more than they can chew. Again this speaks to management and strategic direction.

With respect to the building example, all of these things, even the above is not so mutually exclusive; and don't get me wrong, I understand that the focus of your point was aligned a bit differently. Obviously we will never be able to absolutely have full transparency on any of this, but I don't think we need to see detailed financials and project charts to see that their management of projects are not proficient. My point is if in the analysis of their concepts and ideas the principals find them to be viable then current human resource capacity is not a limitation; I don't think this is a limiting factor in 2020. 

Even if we were to delve into areas such as quality, this again speaks to management competence as a root cause, as if employees are producing shoddily, this is more symptomatic of lack of structures and systems than simple negligence. 

 

Exactly. Their quality control net is absent in everything. DE is way too informal despite their talent and work capability. You can feel this throughout the game. Even in their Dev streams you can feel how informal they are. I wonder if they really like what they are doing. I question constantly if they feel happy with their results. Lately I haven't seen any enthusiasm whatsoever out of this team. I don't want to think about this but they seem to be financially declining, discarding the Sars Cov 2 time. 

Edited June 10, 2020 by Felsagger

[(PSN)GEN-Son_17]

15 hours ago, Felsagger said:

 

Exactly. Their quality control net is absent in everything. DE is way too informal despite their talent and work capability. You can feel this throughout the game. Even in their Dev streams you can feel how informal they are. I wonder if they really like what they are doing. I question constantly if they feel happy with their results. Lately I haven't seen any enthusiasm whatsoever out of this team. I don't want to think about this but they seem to be financially declining, discarding the Sars Cov 2 time. 

I think you guys are applying business principles that don't represent DE's team. They're having fun (or were), taking risks and maximizing team creativity over financial efficiency. They're running similar to a small, creative stakeholder business instead of a large, focused shareholder business. We are intervening with that experience by attempting to force them into a corporate structure, with corporate expectations and demanding AAA, paid title performance befitting a massive company, as Felsagger pointed out. Their success has triggered our obsessions and our assumptions. Railjack has been the centerpoint of this.

The problem is that is not DE's model, never has been. The structure of Warframe is based on chapters. Railjack, our subject, is the exact standard model of their large releases. Fortuna (still not "completed") has a role in the Deadlock Protocol. Cetus (still not "completed") is playing a role in The Glass Maker. Is it a common understanding that Warframe is a progressive story that we actually can assist in growing or is the demand of content overriding the devs' vision and the goal of "reliving the past" for seasoned players a better goal? DE tries both and, ultimately and unfortunately, it has growing surfaced on the dev's faces. Honestly, we strongly need to back off. My opinions, of course.

[Felsagger]

57 minutes ago, (PS4)GEN-Son_17 said:

I think you guys are applying business principles that don't represent DE's team.

Business mechanics such as management objectives doesn't throws out fun and informality or style of the team. These principles defines the scope of the objective, defines the amount of resources needed while the team understand the level of commitment that such decision implies. Every team in an office, architecture, engineering or any other design company always analyzes the scope of the project in terms of resources. This is done by everybody. 

Quote

 

They're having fun (or were), taking risks and maximizing team creativity over financial efficiency. They're running similar to a small, creative stakeholder business instead of a large, focused shareholder business. We are intervening with that experience by attempting to force them into a corporate structure, with corporate expectations and demanding AAA, paid title performance befitting a massive company, as Felsagger pointed out. Their success has triggered our obsessions and our assumptions. Railjack has been the center point of this.

We don't have to. If the game doesn't give what we want we complement it with other games. They don't lose, we don't lose. However they will stop getting our money if the quality is not there because the world of video games is based on the DELIVERY. Nothing attains success forever. Right now the boat is about to sink. The moment to MOVE is now because once the next generation starts in full throttle if DE doesn't adapt they are done. 

 

When a company misrepresent a product then expectations becomes obsessions. This is why DE most lower down their pies in the skies. Otherwise they will face more smack talk from the public. Right now I'm sure that they don't like their project. They are not excited about it, they are not enthusiastic about the game's future. They don't feel happy with the results and they are not having fun at all. Right now they are just pestered with the project releasing shoddy updates. You can see this with their latest performance excluding Sas-Cov 2 time. 

 

Railjack was the hit or miss for them. They placed too much effort in it. They now are having a hard time because the problem is this, they need to commit. If they don't we will end up baking a shoddy GAAS F2P game. 

 

Quote

The problem is that is not DE's model, never has been. The structure of Warframe is based on chapters. Railjack, our subject, is the exact standard model of their large releases. Fortuna (still not "completed") has a role in the Deadlock Protocol. Cetus (still not "completed") is playing a role in The Glass Maker. Is it a common understanding that Warframe is a progressive story that we actually can assist in growing or is the demand of content overriding the devs' vision and the goal of "reliving the past" for seasoned players a better goal? DE tries both and, ultimately and unfortunately, it has growing surfaced on the dev's faces. Honestly, we strongly need to back off. My opinions, of course.

Fine, we leave the boat, get other games and leave them be. Is this what you are suggesting?

 

Again, they have to COMMIT because they alone chose this to be their BUSINESS. We never forced them. If they don't we will end up having incomplete islands everywhere. This is how you send a game to the recycle bin. 

Edited June 10, 2020 by Felsagger

[bulletsearl]

I just completed my railjack only to find out that nothing about its customisation or the missions is explained at all. Also, none of the Earth missions have open squads, am I supposed to do all of the map solo?