A thread about what how parallels in computer game development can be drawn with AFV development in the UK and the lessons that can be derived from Continuous Improvement / Continuous Development (CI/CD) techniques.
Cool graphics alert. You have been warned.
1/
Cool graphics alert. You have been warned.
1/
Star Citizen is a computer game that is in development. It was launched as a Kickstarter in 2012 with a delivery date of 2014. It is exquisite, from the artwork to the level of detail to seamless experience it offers.
2/
2/
9 years after announcement, it hasn't gone live. It is still in Alpha. There is 1 solar system to explore. It is buggy. It crashes. It is still amazingly feature rich and is full of promise. But it's not something you can jump in and play reliably.
3/
3/
It has raised in excess of $400M over this time. Just over $350 via funding and the remainder via investment with sale of 10% of the company. Star Citizen has its fans. The people that are working on it. The people that see its potential and support it. The investors.
4/
4/
The game chose to "shoot for the moon" from the start. Gold plate, gilt edge, artisan-ally craft every detail. To be honest I'd love to see it finished myself. But it's not ready for the main-stream yet. It's more a fund-raising, experiential business model than a product.
5/
5/
Compare and contrast to another game - Elite: Dangerous.
6/
6/
It too launched a Kickstarter in 2012. It too had a launch date of 2014. But it delivered in 2014. It entered the market.
7/
7/
Elite: Dangerous didn't offer the full suite of features and it wasn't perfect itself, but it offered a fairly robust platform with the features it included being polished. 400 billion stars ready for you to go and explore...
8/
8/
It also offered a roadmap: Start with a solid foundation then add functionality.
This resonated with customers who bought the ready to go product, funded it, battle tested it, suggested improvement, fed back. This user base far exceeds Star Citizens core in numbers.
9/
This resonated with customers who bought the ready to go product, funded it, battle tested it, suggested improvement, fed back. This user base far exceeds Star Citizens core in numbers.
9/
In the 9 years since the Kickstarter launch, Elite: Dangerous has issued steady release after release, inexorably moving towards the feature set Star Citizen is promising. It has earned over $22M in this timespan.
10/
10/
It's not quite there yet, and iterations haven't always been smooth, but it's darned close and everything it does have is pretty reliable and functional. You can jump into Elite: Dangerous and have a fair expectation that it will stand up to what you want to do.
11/
11/
Ajax and CV90. Two paths that could have been taken in 2010. One promising exquisite functionality once delivered. The other a solid platform and the support around it to improve continuously over that time. One hasn't delivered. The other has reached broad feature parity.
12/
12/
Exquisite Full Featured Big Bang vs Continuous Improvement / Continuous Development. Shoot for the Moon vs Build a Foundation then collaboratively improve with additional functionality over time.
13/
13/
I know which project delivery method I would choose for an AFV programme. Any project / programme in fact. Deliver Iteratively. Fail Fast. Continuously Improve. Does this sound familiar to any Army slogans? The Army already knows. It just doesn't realise it yet.
14/
14/
(I'm still looking forward to playing Star Citizen's full release, but I've been playing Elite:Dangerous in the intervening years.)
15/
15/
/FIN
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
