CO management seems to be chaotic

[timfrombriz]

Who's departed from the coding team is speculative. There are a lot of co_xxx accounts that are long term devs who havent been on the forums in many years.

If you google Colossal Order linkedin, theres programmers who are new, and the old ones I remember I cant find.

Theres been no official announcements about departures, other than CEO stating an average of 1 departure annually. Thats still a high head count to drop off given the team size of 30(and it has doubled in recent years), especially if its the founding and leading talent. Loosing a receptionist is different to loosing your lead programmer.

 

[ClemiMD]

I'm working in a small company, owner-managed, familiar working atmosphere, less than 10 employees. Half of them (including me) have been working here for over ten years. On average, one employee joins or leaves the company every year. There are people who are constantly looking for new challenges and a different professional environment, while others like it constant and stable and work their whole life in a single company. I don't think that's unusual.

 

[Ashreon]

A year into making CS II was 2019. They had plenty of time to replace them. As for losing a major developer each year, that's not fact, just a "what if".

You obviously do not work in Software Development. Losing your Lead Developer is one of the worst things that can happen.
They're the ones that make sure that what all other Devs do is up to snuff. You do not just replace a Lead Developer. It doesn't work like that. The Lead Developer is the one person that has the know-how to lose them is devastating for a software development project - especially early in the project.

Then continuously losing roughly one person a year in a company of 30 people.. There's going to be a fair few programmers and 3D artist that's been lost there. It is a brain drain and not a good one.

You can try to spin it however you like, but it doesn't change facts.

 

[BoraBora]

You can try to spin it however you like, but it doesn't change facts.

And you can try to present opinions and guesses as facts, it doesn't change any worker, whatever his trade, is replacable. No software company is doomed for years because a lead developer left. And for the record, the 4 main developers, the ones having created the company and made it a success are owners of CO and are still working (the fifth owner would be Mariina, hired as CEO by these 4 at the beginning of CIM's development).

 

[mehmeteking]

And you can try to present opinions and guesses as facts, it doesn't change any worker, whatever his trade, is replacable. No software company is doomed for years because a lead developer left.

Wrong. While what you say is (mostly) true for labour- or capital-intensive industries, software is a knowledge-intensive industry. Losing key employess may spell the end for a software company. That's why large companies have entire teams or departments dedicated to talent retention.

 

[BoraBora]

Wrong. While what you say is (mostly) true for labour- or capital-intensive industries, software is a knowledge-intensive industry. Losing key employess may spell the end for a software company. That's why large companies have entire teams or departments dedicated to talent retention.

We're talking about the sequel (as in "same thing but updated") to a video game, developed in Unity. Not brain surgery or a multinational project to conquer a $10 billion market.

Anyway, what you call facts are just speculations based on a lead developer quitting 4 or 5 years ago. The only fact is this: a lead developer quit 4 or 5 years ago. The rest are senseless generalizations.

 

[Lys91]

We're talking about the sequel (as in "same thing but updated") to a video game, developed in Unity. Not brain surgery or a multinational project to conquer a $10 billion market.

Anyway, what you call facts are just speculations based on a lead developer quitting 4 or 5 years ago. The only fact is this: a lead developer quit 4 or 5 years ago. The rest are senseless generalizations.

If game development is so easy, why is the game so bad?

Plenty of game companies tank after some of their lead staff leave and spam soulless sequels that never capture the original game.

Also, it is not the lead developer but the lead designer. IMHO, it perfectly explains why the simulation is so broken.

It is a bit insulting to imply that game development does not require talent and that workers can be mindlessly replaced.

 

[BoraBora]

If game development is so easy, why is the game so bad?

Because it was released 1 year too soon, at least.

It is a bit insulting to imply that game development does not require talent and that workers can be mindlessly replaced.

Oh please. Of course it require talent. A lot of trades require talent, BTW, not just software developement. But we're not talking about irreplaceable geniuses for a game like CS II. Without everything the community brought to the game, CS 1 wouldn't have been such a great game, by the way. Don't get me wrong: i loved it and played it from 2015 to last year. But the original design flaws (since we're talking about the designer) were obvious and the modders had to fix them.

 

[mehmeteking]

Because it was released 1 year too soon, at least.




Oh please. Of course it require talent. A lot of trades require talent, BTW, not just software developement. But we're not talking about irreplaceable geniuses for a game like CS II. Without everything the community brought to the game, CS 1 wouldn't have been such a great game, by the way. Don't get me wrong: i loved it and played it from 2015 to last year. But the original design flaws (since we're talking about the designer) were obvious and the modders had to fix them.

I don't know which part of "knowledge-intensive" you failed to understand...

Settlers: New Allies; a hundred people worked on it for several years and it costed around 40m euros. It was an utter disaster for the series.
Manor Lords; second most wishlisted game on Steam and people who played the demo are already loving it. Developed by one (1) guy.

You cannot look at an industry where literally one person can do in a few years what a hundred could not do in several years, and then talk about how "everyone is replaceable." You evidently don't know much about software industry so please try to refrain from making absurd claims

 

[BoraBora]

So CO was doomed in 2019. CS II will never recover. Let's play something else.

 

[mehmeteking]

So CO was doomed in 2019. CS II will never recover. Let's play something else.

That's just speculation, but doesn't mean it is necessarily false.

 

[Daedalos_MS]

So CO was doomed in 2019. CS II will never recover. Let's play something else.

I bought a couple of games since CS2 fiasco. At this moment I do not have free space on my HDD and I truly believe that waiting for a patch next week is fruitless endeavour, and I can delete the CS2 and try it in 2025/2026.

I have to say, that I am very negatively surprised how CO is engaging with the community.
» Suggestion section is completely untouched by them
» In Bug section report they replied for the last time mid January
» In the official announcement they usually do not answer any questions at all

I see huge disconnect between developer and gamers, was it always like this? If there is still someone who remembers the time when CS1 was released, I would like to know if the situation was different or not.

To be honest, at this moment I have a feeling that this forum is just a ruse. Giving us false feeling that we have a platform where we can engage with developer/publisher, meanwhile it is just heavily controller environment trying to minimize the spread of negative experience the customers have.

Maybe since CS2 release the CO is in crisis mode and that is why they do not communicate with us, where they even wanted to stop releasing their Word of the Week, AKA their only communication towards gamers. And as I cannot compare the CO behaviour prior CS2 release, I have only my negative speculations.

 

[Potoroo]

I see huge disconnect between developer and gamers, was it always like this? If there is still someone who remembers the time when CS1 was released, I would like to know if the situation was different or not.

I'd put this thread from the CS1 forum up as an exemplar: The Communities love/hate relationship with Cities: Skylines.. It has all the common elements of this forum, like complaints about fundamental issues seemingly being ignored, lack of progress on bug fixes, complaints about people being mean to the devs, etc, and includes Mariina's earlier version of "maybe this game isn't for you" and my response to it. For context, in my search for a worthy successor to SC4, the "two lots of 'what were they thinking?'" refers to SimCity 2013 and Cities XL, and the "tantalisingly close" of course is CS1. You probably won't need to read it all, just the first couple of pages should make you feel right at home.

 

[MohawkWolfo98]

I'd put this thread from the CS1 forum up as an exemplar: The Communities love/hate relationship with Cities: Skylines.. It has all the common elements of this forum, like complaints about fundamental issues seemingly being ignored, lack of progress on bug fixes, complaints about people being mean to the devs, etc, and includes Mariina's earlier version of "maybe this game isn't for you" and my response to it. For context, in my search for a worthy successor to SC4, the "two lots of 'what were they thinking?'" refers to SimCity 2013 and Cities XL, and the "tantalisingly close" of course is CS1. You probably won't need to read it all, just the first couple of pages should make you feel right at home.

Thanks for this fascinating link. There is so much similarity between now and then! I was geniuenely stunned reading that. So the problems actually began in 2015, not 2020…

So we can piece together the sequence of events. Post release CS2, CO was insanely out of touch and intoxicated with their success (looking at their financials it was) and was thinking that the problems of CS2 was the same as CS1: toxic players looking to stir the pot. This was further enhanced by the community at large for feeding toxic positivity to CO in the lead up to the launch, creating the illusion that nothing was wrong right up till the performance announcement and Steam which got people spooked, at which point it was too late. I myself did not speak out in force until the announcement of the Steam workshop and ignored all warning signs.

The difference is of course CS1 was far more feature complete and half the cost, so when she made the same arguments as before, it received far more backlash she anticipated. Thus, still following the out of touch “its a small minority of toxic players” trope, she began making all those incredible statements of too high expectations, players at fault, and arrogant statements of “we know how to do simulations”. It certainly explains CO’s behaviour then and now.

I can now completely understand why she wrote all that: it’s always been there from the start, we just didn’t see it because CS1 proved to be too successful. This episode has also proved that CO does not respond to emergency situations well at all. To me, I feel it speaks to a lack of leadership and rn seems paralysed on what to do: something really worrying and depressing imo.

 

[jordanrl]

And you can try to present opinions and guesses as facts, it doesn't change any worker, whatever his trade, is replacable. No software company is doomed for years because a lead developer left. And for the record, the 4 main developers, the ones having created the company and made it a success are owners of CO and are still working (the fifth owner would be Mariina, hired as CEO by these 4 at the beginning of CIM's development).

While 4-5 years is absolutely enough time to recover, software development absolutely has non-replaceable employees, and anyone with even the slightest bit of experience with the industry knows that. The Lead Developer is not always one of those people, but they often are. When one of those people leave, you don't replace them, you usually change the plan. The position gets replaced, but the plan itself gets changed to adapt to the people who you do have.

This is problematic for companies where they have externally mandated software requirements at times, such as video game sequels where fans have expectations based on previous games, or requirements that come from marketing materials that have already been made public.

Marketing kills more software projects than any other single cause, in my experience.

Sometimes that's marketing to the public, sometimes it's pitches to investors. But marketing is almost always based upon the metrics that someone believes will generate success regardless of feasibility or resources.

This particular problem is usually MORE pronounced the SMALLER the software company is. In smaller companies you have less redundancy of skills and experience within the team to handle the unexpected, and you usually also have fewer people who can stop one reckless marketer/visionary from making promises that kill your product with unachievable goals.

Personally I find it unlikely that the cause of this travesty can be squarely placed at the feet of the Lead Dev leaving the company 4-5 years ago. However it's very likely that was an important risk factor.

 

[Daedalos_MS]

I'd put this thread from the CS1 forum up as an exemplar: The Communities love/hate relationship with Cities: Skylines.. It has all the common elements of this forum, like complaints about fundamental issues seemingly being ignored, lack of progress on bug fixes, complaints about people being mean to the devs, etc, and includes Mariina's earlier version of "maybe this game isn't for you" and my response to it. For context, in my search for a worthy successor to SC4, the "two lots of 'what were they thinking?'" refers to SimCity 2013 and Cities XL, and the "tantalisingly close" of course is CS1. You probably won't need to read it all, just the first couple of pages should make you feel right at home.

As I started playing CS1 more than 4.5 years after its release and immidiately with mods, this is for me first time I have experince with CO game after its release. So your link puts things to the different perspective for me.

...Post release CS2, CO was insanely out of touch and intoxicated with their success (looking at their financials it was) and was thinking that the problems of CS2 was the same as CS1: toxic players looking to stir the pot. ...

This is one way hot to look at it. Hope you do not mind I will share mine, which maybe slightly differs from yours...

It looks like that with every single game CO ever released, their ambitions far exceeded their capabilities at that moment. Where after the game was released, the CO continuously tried to improve the game and grow along the way. Sometimes they did a little bit better (CIM1, CS1), and sometimes a little bit worse (CIM2).

With CS2 it is the same, the CO envision far superior game than its predecessor and as always their capabilities are not at proper level so they could deliver. If the history will repeat itself, the CO’s capabilities will grow along the way as they would be working on CS2 and game will be improved on very slow, but steady pace. The game will never be completely polished as the CO will reach the point, where it no longer makes sense to continue work on the game from financial perspective and they will move on another game, which would be again envisioned as far superior than its predecessor.

Basically, CO is challenging themselves with every single game and that is something I can admire.

HOWEVER,

If the developer is challenging themselves, it should not be done at customers expense as CO is doing. A lot of customers don’t know the history and details, but they should not be punished for it. If any developer is releasing a game as finished product, it should be finished. In the case the developer decide, for whatever reason, to release game sooner, they have to put “early access” sticker on it and warn their customers, that the road ahead would be very bumpy. For all I care, they can even release early access game for full price as customers can decide if they are willing to buy unfinished product or not.

After three released game, where it seems that it was always the same, CO should already known better and I am questioning the motives behind releasing CS2 as finished product.

In the case CS2 was released as Early-access game, I would not be so blind to pre-order it (I learned my lesson here). But I would also not buy it at least a year or maybe two after the CO's EA release, where I believe a lot of customers would do the same thing. And yes,I believe that there would be a lot less heat in the forum, but also a lot less money in CO’s pocket…

You can argue that my speculation is wrong and I am to hard on the CO, but look at this forum, look at the review, the majority believe the decision CO and PDX did was only money driven. Sad part is, if this is not true, a lot of problems could be easily avoided.

 

[BoraBora]

While 4-5 years is absolutely enough time to recover, software development absolutely has non-replaceable employees, and anyone with even the slightest bit of experience with the industry knows that. The Lead Developer is not always one of those people, but they often are. When one of those people leave, you don't replace them, you usually change the plan. The position gets replaced, but the plan itself gets changed to adapt to the people who you do have.

This is problematic for companies where they have externally mandated software requirements at times, such as video game sequels where fans have expectations based on previous games, or requirements that come from marketing materials that have already been made public.

Marketing kills more software projects than any other single cause, in my experience.

Sometimes that's marketing to the public, sometimes it's pitches to investors. But marketing is almost always based upon the metrics that someone believes will generate success regardless of feasibility or resources.

This particular problem is usually MORE pronounced the SMALLER the software company is. In smaller companies you have less redundancy of skills and experience within the team to handle the unexpected, and you usually also have fewer people who can stop one reckless marketer/visionary from making promises that kill your product with unachievable goals.

Marketing has nothing to do with the CS II debacle, this whole expectations excuse has been beaten to death. Whatever the marketing campaign, any game has to be mostly bug-free, and reasonably performing on reasonably priced hardware. CS II at release was like a car missing a wheel and stuck at 60 km/h. It's not much better 5 months later.

As for the modding support, which we just got this week in severely crippled (no assets) and beta form, it wasn't expected at release 5 months ago because of the PDX marketing but because the studio is CO who made a fortune with CS1 thanks to its modding support and said publicly for years how much they valued the modders work. Then we got the blatant lies at release about the region packs and asset editor coming "soon" and again the culprit was CO not the PDX marketing team.

I'm not even talking about some natural expectations like having bikes in a contemporary city building which nobody talks about anymore because there's no point given how much work CS II requires to be a stable, bug-free complete game with fair performances and how slim are the chances it'll happen one day. The list of natural expectations could fill a whole page. This week the DLC reminded us CS II was released without a sand texture. Can you name a single city building ever released without a sand texture? I can't. Don't blame the marketing for setting too high expectations, don't blame the customers for these supposed too high expectations, blame the developers who delivered a terrible product and the publisher who wasn't ashamed to sell it.