They've yet to hit a target date without removing proposed content. That is a criticism btw as they should by now have a better handle on how long they need and build in some slack. Hope I'm wrong though!
There is always a point in criticising targets being missed especially when it happens repeatedly. This isn't a final release date these are in some cases minor features which we've been waiting a very long time to even get to the alpha test stage. That isn't a complaint, just an observation but I'd hate to think we weren't allowed to say "damn guys, get the dates a bit more accurate on attempt number 4 please". They can easily build in slippage, but the project has to start hitting some fluffy deadlines at some point.
hello all iv just got the game and when i come to download it, it says its gonna take weeks to download is this normal?
Your missing the point of them being targets, not deadlines. The targets are and will always be optimistic as they are designed not to have any slippage in them. They are the date expected should everything be working 100% all the time.
The targets set by software companies I have worked with for instance always assume 100% output from all the team, don't take into account, sickness of members of staff, holidays, delays waiting on 3rd parties, change of scope. Those are all non factors in the target systems that as far as I am aware almost every company uses.
These are internal targets that they are wishing for. They will never hit those target dates as a whole if you take it as 3.0. However if you split up each section then you will see they are hitting smaller team targets and missing others. There is no way this will change to the point that they will release 3.0 sized updates on target dates.
Now when they start doing smaller updates with 3.1 or 3.2 those dates should be more accurate as they have relative less content and thus less likely for creep to set in with what will be done unless they change scope of whats in those updates as a whole.
This is why I don't believe any criticism can be given and why we should never expect them to hit these dates. The only reason we are seeing them in the first place is people wanted to see what progress was happening behind the development.
If the patcher is updated as expected it could be that we then have things a lot more as 3.1.1, 3.1.2 being dropped on the odd week, month or similar with much more minor updates/bug fixes ect and that is what will be hit on time much more often because they are going to be single team or single item/bug updates and so we may not even see them feature in the main schedule but they could be on a much more finite schedule.
I'm not missing the point at all, if they are setting their own targets and consistently missing them, then they should be a little more generous when setting them next time. They are well aware the community is watching progress keenly and wanting them to start hitting them.
You don't get a free pass because it's an aspiration to hit something, not when you repeatedly fail to do so. I'm a fan of the development but I'm not going to keep silent over frankly poor scheduling and project management, which is the only real reason for consistently failing to meet targets regardless of which industry you are managing in. I don't care whether you believe criticism can or cannot be given, it will be and in many cases it's justified. That doesn't mean backers will demand money back etc. It's about keeping some form or pressure on them to keep delivering, you can be a fan whilst still being a customer expecting results.
I pop in here every few months just to see what's changed. Not much, it seems. The same criticism of missed targets by some, the same starry eyed devotion and unwillingness to accept said criticism by others... Still no news on SQ42, either? I was hoping to have seen something of it by now.