meganothing wrote: ↑
Thu Nov 08, 2018 1:49 pm
I read another forum for an EA game where the same worries (and additionally accusations of abandonment or bad management) are posted every alpha because every alpha-release takes longer than the previous one.
And every alpha it becomes apparent that there was no feature-creep because immediately some players declare that they are dissatisfied with the small amount of new features in this alpha and that promised features A,B and C still are not implemented.
The points I want to make with this anecdote: For external spectators development always seems too slow. Often even when they are software developer themselves. And development cycles have a strong tendency to lengthen.
You bring one point that I'm thinking about: The more features you have that interact the more complex everything becomes. There are unintended consequences and loopholes might show up everywhere when you're not careful. If you release early and release often, you have a better chance to catch those issues early in the process and to find mitigations. If you make major changes, though, you cannot release because it doesn't work. All the changes presented in the FFF sound rather medium or minor, though and most seem to be working fine internally.
You bring up another point that I was not thinking about: User expectations that build up over time.
They probably consider our high expectations and don't want to release alpha/experimental stuff because their alpha usually has the quality of a final release by other studios. Now this is difficult. They cannot release the new features bit by bit because they would break things all the time. Users and especially modders wouldn't be happy. On the other hand they should release smaller updates and test if they actually work in the field as intended. 0.17 will probably be quite fare away from 1.0 because of all the small things that will show up afterwards.
I have no solution to any of this.