[Megathread] Star Citizen

[Gorsameth]

Still amazing how you can think that removing Chris Roberts would magically make a game like Star Citizen come out faster.

Chris Roberts is the reason for all the multiple delayed games in existence and it doesn't have anything to do with the dificulty and complexity of the task at hand.

Please Roberts stop mismanaging Unisofts BeyondGood&Evil2. For the sake of gaming gods get away from Bethesdas Starfield and the new Elder Scrolls. Stop iterating the new GTA6 with new features, just resking GTA5 and get on with it! Leave Elite to Braben and stop messing with those icy planets and release them already along with the promised walking inside our ships and EVA'ing in space!

That is a hell of a starwman your constructing there. I'll just take it as confirmation that you have no response to the actual argument presented and have to build your own to attack.

[Proskill]

when is 3.10 coming out on live servers?

also what does dual sticks actually mean?
dont u have only 1 stick in our modern aircrafts? what do u use the second one for?

[Edge-]

Still amazing how you can think that removing Chris Roberts would magically make a game like Star Citizen come out faster.

Chris Roberts is the reason for all the multiple delayed games in existence and it doesn't have anything to do with the dificulty and complexity of the task at hand.

I mean...it's his studio, so he's ultimately responsible, yeah. And there's reporting to back it up -

But despite everything, most of the staff we talked to still passionately believe in this unwieldy, ever-changing dream project.

Earlier reporting from Kotaku UK who talked with plenty of current staff about the project back in 2016, many of whom discussed issues including -

“I think he got too much money too fast, that he wasn't held accountable for his words, actions, or things he was supposed to deliver, and he turned the project into a runaway idea. I think that if there were people around him to take the CEO duty off his shoulders, or he had more trust in his directors and didn't micromanage them as much, that he would be seen as a much easier person to work with.”

Roberts, of course, denied that he heavily micromanaged his staff.

This is further backed up by Forbes 2019 article -

Forbes spoke to 20 people who used to work for Cloud Imperium, many of whom depict Roberts as a micromanager and poor steward of resources. They describe the work environment as chaotic.

Including a named employee, who had previously worked with Roberts, adding his voice to that -

“As the money rolled in, what I consider to be some of [Roberts’] old bad habits popped up—not being super-focused,” says Mark Day, a producer on Wing Commander IV who runs a company that was contracted to do work on Star Citizen in 2013 and 2014. “It had got out of hand, in my opinion. The promises being made—call it feature creep, call it whatever it is—now we can do this, now we can do that. I was shocked.”

So there's absolutely evidence that Roberts known history of poor project management and leadership is once again rearing its head with SC again. Would it magically make the game come out sooner? No, it wouldn't be magical at all. But there remains a real chance that without Roberts micromanaging and continuing to promise the sun and the moon, that the team could work more efficiently and effectively at their current goals.

Please Roberts stop mismanaging Unisofts BeyondGood&Evil2. For the sake of gaming gods get away from Bethesdas Starfield and the new Elder Scrolls. Stop iterating the new GTA6 with new features, just resking GTA5 and get on with it! Leave Elite to Braben and stop messing with those icy planets and release them already along with the promised walking inside our ships and EVA'ing in space!

This is a really sad, pathetic strawman dude. Stop deflecting criticism levied at Roberts/SC to completely unrelated games. If you don't want to address the criticism, fine. But let me know when BGE2, Starfield, TES6, or GTA6 start taking hundreds of millions of dollars in crowdfunding from their fans while making grandiose promises without any timelines. It's such a painfully bad comparison.

[MrAnderson]

when is 3.10 coming out on live servers?

also what does dual sticks actually mean?
dont u have only 1 stick in our modern aircrafts? what do u use the second one for?

There should be some new patches this week to iron some kinks and maybe it will move to open PTU this friday.

Dual Joystick allows finer and smoother flying and is way more valuable now with 3.10 patch and the new flight model and fixed weapons changes.





Yet you can find "pro" flyers using all kind of setups.

[Proskill]

ill watch those videos, but before that can u explain in short what do u need 2 joysticks for?? u can control the plane with just 1, no?

[Val the Moofia Boss]

when is 3.10 coming out on live servers?

also what does dual sticks actually mean?
dont u have only 1 stick in our modern aircrafts? what do u use the second one for?

3.9 was in PTU for 3.5 weeks, so I'm guessing 3.10 is a month or so out.

[Mister K]

Wait, you really see no issue with the game continuously being pushed back? The public funding level is dynamic, not static for one, and CIG has no guarantee it will keep going until they are done. It's an extremely high-risk game.

To add to that, we can see how, in excruciating detail, CIG's burn rate of cash has been increasing. We don't have data from the recent years but it's higher than the financial report as they are bigger now.

It's pretty dramatic to say that it is not a problem. It definitely is, and backer patience is not infinite.



For context: CIG does not offer refunds anymore and have not for years. Do you think they should re-offer those, then?

The bottom line is: CIG was always good at talking and selling people their own dreams. Creating it is a separate thing entirely, and thus far the result has been quite unimpressive.

Back in the day we used to meme about not getting a game by 2015. It's 2020 and we're nowhere near anything closely resembling a product for Star Citizen. That really puts things into perspective on how terribly this project has been mismanaged.

The truth is that Chris should have been thrown out years ago and replaced like he was on Freelancer.

I think at this point I have given up on actually caring (never did, I knew what I signed up for and I am fine with it). There is a lot of the game there and systems in place, but it's has a long, long way to go. I hop on from time to time, but not enough to keep me occupied for more than few days.

With increased burn rate of cash I suppose it won't last forever, but it depends whether licensing what they have created is even viable to recuperate or keep them afloat.

I think I should note, for me it's not a problem (so I shouldn't speak for everyone). I funded a Kickstarter knowing the possible risks. People fund many projects in the risk of it never seeing the light at the end of the tunnel.

But indeed, while Chris had a great vision he should of at least had a good producer to filter his ideas. Lucas syndrome, but Lucas at least created something great. Star Citizen is still on it's way, a long, bloody and sweaty way...

- - - Updated - - -

Chris Roberts is the reason for all the multiple delayed games in existence and it doesn't have anything to do with the dificulty and complexity of the task at hand.

Wannabe developers always think they know more than a studio and what goes into the huge task of actually developing a product. Yet they are no where near at the skill level or in the field related to the actual product.

Then again, it's an easy target in the case of Star Citizen. Too many ways to attack it and make a compelling argument.

- - - Updated - - -

Roberts, of course, denied that he heavily micromanaged his staff.

This is further backed up by Forbes 2019 article -

Including a named employee, who had previously worked with Roberts, adding his voice to that -

I don't think I have worked on any project which was not over-complicated and delayed purely due to micromanagement.

[Edge-]

I don't think I have worked on any project which was not over-complicated and delayed purely due to micromanagement.

There's always the risk of it, and it can often happen. But the scope to which it seems to be happening is what is unique here. I'm reminded a bit of Mark Kern/Red 5/Firefall. Kern was the head of the studio and the visionary behind the project, it was gonna be rad. They were blowing tons of money on marketing during their alpha testing (sounds kinda familiar) to try to drum up excitement to raise additional funds. And, much like SC, it worked pretty well, though not from fans. Kern was apparently amazing at finding additional outside investment, which was great.

The rub came in that Kern had a penchant for micromanaging, and would give directives, disappear to raise more money, and then come back and tell his teams that what they did was shit and that they needed to remake it in a totally different direction. Hence why the game had 4-5 vastly different tutorial experiences that were fully fleshed out (not just testing) during its alpha/beta phase. His issues as studio head eventually lead to the board of directors firing him as the game lingered in what appeared to be a perpetual state of development/beta.

It's hardly a 1:1 comparison and I'm not trying to say the two situations are identical in their details. They're absolutely not. However, I do see many striking similarities in the way that Kern and Roberts behave respective to their leadership and management of their teams during development. Hallmarks like grandiose ideas that are likely not really technically feasible/realistic but are pushed for anyways, frequent micromanaging of staffs rather than trusting team leads to handle things effectively, a constant need for more funding to sustain an ever expanding testing phase that makes progress in some areas while regressing in others etc. etc.

And IMO there's merit in discussing them alongside discussing some of the impressive things the teams have done with the game so far. Roberts isn't exactly and unknown, and these issues are well documented from some of his previous games he led before moving to the film industry, so it's hardly as if this is some sort of character assassination. Simply saying, "Micromanaging and delays happen." is kinda meaningless because it's a general/blanket statement devoid of any context for SC, including comments from the staff who worked on the title who voiced concerns over this.

[MrAnderson]

So there's absolutely evidence that Roberts known history of poor project management and leadership is once again rearing its head with SC again. Would it magically make the game come out sooner? No, it wouldn't be magical at all. But there remains a real chance that without Roberts micromanaging and continuing to promise the sun and the moon, that the team could work more efficiently and effectively at their current goals.

This is a really sad, pathetic strawman dude. Stop deflecting criticism levied at Roberts/SC to completely unrelated games. If you don't want to address the criticism, fine. But let me know when BGE2, Starfield, TES6, or GTA6 start taking hundreds of millions of dollars in crowdfunding from their fans while making grandiose promises without any timelines. It's such a painfully bad comparison.

Pure conjecture and mostly fuelled by not wanting to believe anything else. The sheer fact that no other studio/game has come close to released something remotely similar gameplay with the scale, scope and fidelity of Star Citizen combined with the fact that several other studios and games face the same delays and problems in their development should be self explanatory that making big games will always come with big problems attached no matter who's the CEO.

Complaining about that a CEO who has all the responsibility, the burden and the motivation to provide the best product possible of being a micro-manager is being obtuse and naive since that's a trait you'll find in many other Studio Lead Dev's and the most successful tech company CEO's.

https://www.inc.com/kevin-hong/the-m...5-million.html

I understand that it's easier for most gamers to cope with the frustrations of being disappointed with something by trying to find culprits allowing you to channel that frustration onto a single person instead of just admitting you know less about game development that you thought you did.

ill watch those videos, but before that can u explain in short what do u need 2 joysticks for?? u can control the plane with just 1, no?

Most Dual Stickers play a lot of in decoupled mode and use one joystick for all the Strafing another for the Pitch/Roll/Yawn.

[Easo]

Ah yes, One Man's Lie, Farming Simulator meets Minecraft with space ships. Not even comparable to Star Citizen/Squadron 42 in terms of both a mechanics and game scope standpoint.

Except they released everything and then some in the end. Even things that were not announced or were made up by the overimagination of fans.
You really should think about your argument, because No Man's Sky was turned around, put on the track and then took the pedestal.

[Edge-]

Pure conjecture and mostly fuelled by not wanting to believe anything else.

Except for the named and unnamed employees who backed that up in reporting.

The sheer fact that no other studio/game has come close to released something remotely similar gameplay with the scale, scope and fidelity of Star Citizen combined with the fact that several other studios and games face the same delays and problems in their development should be self explanatory that making big games will always come with big problems attached no matter who's the CEO.

"No other company has tried this!" remains a really bad blanket excuse, and predicated on a spurious base notion in need of further investigating.

Why hasn't any company tried a game of this scope? Is it too expensive? Is it too technically challenging? Is it unfeasible in the longrun? There are a lot of qualifications to be made to provide any context to that defense, and I haven't seen those qualifications been made yet.

Delays happen, nobody is arguing otherwise, but the breadth and scope of the delays for SC are absolutely abnormal, and if anything track closer to the development issues of titles like Anthem, which itself saw a very troubled launch.

Complaining about that a CEO who has all the responsibility, the burden and the motivation to provide the best product possible of being a micro-manager is being obtuse and naive since that's a trait you'll find in many other Studio Lead Dev's and the most successful tech company CEO's.

It's absolutely not. Micromanaging can be effective, but as projects grow in size (and SC is a MASSIVE project), an individual at the top trying to micromanage becomes more and more of a bottleneck and problem for workflow.

I mean, from your article alone -

As the ultimate bootstrapping strategy, my team and I decided to live in a van and drive around the country to sign up as many theaters as possible. During this period, our sales team of up to five members and two vans covered over 200,000 miles and increased our partnerships from 50 to about 450 theaters.

5 people and 2 vans is not multiple studios spanning continents with hundreds of full time staffers, contract workers, and temps. Micromanaging a team of single digit employees as they travel around a single country isn't remotely equivalent to what Roberts is tasked with for SC.

If this was, say, Hello Games and their 25ish employees, Sean Murray likely wouldn't get much grief for more closely micromanaging a small team largely situated in a single studio. Small indie teams like that are the apt comparison for that piece, not a massive company with hundreds of employees and hundreds of millions of dollars in funding.

I understand that it's easier for most gamers to cope with the frustrations of being disappointed with something by trying to find culprits allowing you to channel that frustration onto a single person instead of just admitting you know less about game development that you thought you did.

Your high horse isn't quite as high as you may think it is. I'm not frustrated in the slightest, nor disappointed in the slightest. I'm a casual outside observer that's been fascinated with this titles ambitious goals and development process. I'm basing my comments off of reporting that's been done on the studio including interviews with employees, as well as the behavior of the studio writ-large and Roberts himself.

It's not as if Roberts history of poor project leadership wasn't a criticism and point of concern during the KS phase, because it was. He's also a superb salesman, and was pitching an extremely attractive game and has successfully gotten it more funding than I think he ever dreamed of. Which is a huge credit to him and his efforts. But that doesn't mean that he's not without flaws in his leadership/management style, flaws worthy of consideration, discussion, and criticism.

[MrAnderson]

Except for the named and unnamed employees who backed that up in reporting.

"No other company has tried this!" remains a really bad blanket excuse, and predicated on a spurious base notion in need of further investigating.

Why hasn't any company tried a game of this scope? Is it too expensive? Is it too technically challenging? Is it unfeasible in the longrun? There are a lot of qualifications to be made to provide any context to that defense, and I haven't seen those qualifications been made yet.

Delays happen, nobody is arguing otherwise, but the breadth and scope of the delays for SC are absolutely abnormal, and if anything track closer to the development issues of titles like Anthem, which itself saw a very troubled launch.

Nobody said that, I said no other company has made it. But many have indeed tried. Bungie tried with Destiny and failed, Bioware tried with Mass Effect and failed, Ubisoft has been trying with BeyondGood&Evil2 for more than a decade.

If you search interviews from any of the big studios devs you'll certainly find someone complaining about micro-managing. It's just an easy and lame excuse to try blame delays of a massive project onto one single person for the sake of releasing some personal frustration of watching a game being made. Every CEO has flaws, they are human after all, that's why all it matters is what their company produces and any reviews of character/professionalism are useless until the fat lady sings aka reviews and criticism will only be relevant after the games development ceases completely. Since that's not gonna happen any time soon we get the cynics and the haters spillage of bullshit noise year after year because basically they can't cope with the wait so finding excuses for them becomes a hobby but since their knowledge is so limited they stick to the very first and simplistic version of whatever negative drama they find plausible.

That's why most Studios keep development for themselves most of the time to save gamers and themselves of this useless noise. Imagine Blizzard sharing the process of developing Diablo 4 or better their cancelled mmo turned Overwatch, noobs would lose their minds ranting and theorizing about all those "failed" devs having problems nailing down their game concepts.

It's not a high horse, it's the simplest and most mature way of dealing with game development as a bystander. When you have a broad knowledge of what happens in the industry as a whole you get a better perspective than those who for some reason or another let their emotional attachment get to their reasoning. That's when you get the obsessive haters constantly making up doom theories that fit a narrative which removes their fault (for example, not knowing how game development works and manage expectations accordingly) from the equation by blaming it all in one person.

- - - Updated - - -

Except they released everything and then some in the end. Even things that were not announced or were made up by the overimagination of fans.
You really should think about your argument, because No Man's Sky was turned around, put on the track and then took the pedestal.

Nah

[Edge-]

Nobody said that, I said no other company has made it.

Again, this needs qualification as to why no company has ever attempted a game this ambitious. It's not a self-sustaining argument.

Bungie tried with Destiny and failed

No they absolutely did not. Destiny's scope and scale was always a fraction of what SC's is supposed to be. It was always designed as a first person looter/shooter RPG.

Bioware tried with Mass Effect and failed

I assume you're talking Andromeda, and that's...not a great comparison, as its struggles were the direct result of them trying to do more technically ambitious things that they simply weren't able to make work. And much of those struggles and failures go back to serious internal/management issues with its development stemming from massive understaffing to working with an engine they were not adept at etc.

Ubisoft has been trying with BeyondGood&Evil2 for more than a decade.

That's not true. It was in pre-production hell for quite some time, but actual development/production did not start until 2016 - https://www.gamespot.com/articles/wh.../1100-6444617/

And with a considerably smaller team than CIG has, that's also working on multiple titles at the same time, "Wild" - https://www.gamespot.com/articles/be.../1100-6440841/

If you search interviews from any of the big studios devs you'll certainly find someone complaining about micro-managing. It's just an easy and lame excuse to try blame delays of a massive project onto one single person for the sake of releasing some personal frustration of watching a game being made.

It can be, yes. Though most of the stories like that as of late (ME:A, Anthem, Destiny, Naughty Dog etc.) don't pin most of the problems on micromanagement, but on other aspects, or as part of broader problems. Because it also can be the very reason why games struggle in development, and the Red 5/Firefall comparison with Kern comes to mind again, here. It was his micromanagement and constant direction changing that left the game languishing in beta until the board of directors fired him.

Imagine Blizzard sharing the process of developing Diablo 4 or better their cancelled mmo turned Overwatch, noobs would lose their minds ranting and theorizing about all those "failed" devs having problems nailing down their game concepts.

If they were relying on consumers to fund their development, consumers would be rightly mad. But they aren't, so it's irrelevant. They need to convince stakeholders, in this case it would be Blizzard/Activision. They also have massive cashflows that allow them to dump massive amounts of money into development for titles, something that's more recently gotten them in trouble with Activision who have started putting the clamps down on that behavior.

When you have a broad knowledge of what happens in the industry as a whole you get a better perspective than those who for some reason or another let their emotional attachment get to their reasoning.

Hi there, I've worked in the gaming industry for about a decade on titles ranging from small 1-man indie affairs to pretty notable AAA's. Not in gamedev, but working closely with developers often during either early development or seeing the game through to launch. Much of this work was done on MMO's, which are of particular interest to me and it's a genre I've followed closely since well before I started working in the industry.

As stated, I have no emotional, or even financial attachment to SC. I have no vested interest in its success or failure. I want it to succeed, because that's generally my view on most games, but especially given how crazy ambitious the game is and how much folks seem to desperately want to see that vision achieved.

That's when you get the obsessive haters constantly making up doom theories that fit a narrative which removes their fault (for example, not knowing how game development works and manage expectations accordingly) from the equation by blaming it all in one person.

Again, I don't think anybody has placed 100% of the blame on Roberts. The opinion is that he may shoulder a considerable amount of it, given that this is his project, his dream, and he's ultimately responsible for the game as the CEO of the company. That's it.

[Mehrunes]

Two games are different. Comparing a similar functionality between the two is moronic. Apples and Oranges. He made the original claim without explaining the reasoning.

There are more dependencies on a game like Star Citizen to fully work than No Man Sky. Compare a single player RPG vs WOW. Both will have inventory, but I can tell you one will be much more difficult to develop hence longer time in development. Same analogy goes for what I mentioned with GTA V and something like iRacing or GT.

But @Beazy wasn't just comparing functionality of in-game features in a vacuum. They were comparing them in a very specific context. I.e. the capacities of game engines. So right off the bat you're misrepresenting their argument. And then you went completely off-tangent about development time.

Secondly, for the most part you avoided the subject of the burden of proof and how the burden of proof for your own counterclaims rests on you. You know, the actual point of my post that you were replying to. The only thing you provided in that was actually on point is "comparing the two (things that I just misrepresented) is moronic". Even if you took out the misrepresentation, this would still be a rather subpar substantiation of your own claims.

Wannabe developers always think they know more than a studio and what goes into the huge task of actually developing a product. Yet they are no where near at the skill level or in the field related to the actual product.

Then again, it's an easy target in the case of Star Citizen. Too many ways to attack it and make a compelling argument.

If you weren't so busy constantly putting yourself on a pedestal labeled "not a wannabe developer" just so you could look down on everyone else (while failing at something as basic as how the burden of proof works and being unable to address @Beazy's point about technical limitations of game engines) as if one could not defend the glory that is Star Citizen (I wonder why it's a recurring theme with posters defending it in this thread), you'd have realized that the comment by @MrAnderson you jumped on the bandwagon of is nothing more than a blatant straw-man.

No one said anything about Chris Roberts being the one and only reason for game delays. No one denied the difficulties and complexities of game design as a factor in delays. Which makes your own 2 cents about how people below the pedestal you put yourself on are too stupid to understand "what goes into the huge task of actually developing a product" nothing more than a projection. Rooted in another poster's fallacy. It's almost as if you weren't the sole repository of all wisdom or something. What's even funnier is that what you said isn't even remotely limited to game design. Making your own projection disjointed from your pedestal. Making the very point of that pedestal moot.

Another funny thing is what MrAnderson said one line earlier, i.e. "Still amazing how you can think that removing Chris Roberts would magically make a game like Star Citizen come out faster.". Because, their subsequent straw-man aside, it's almost as if it was the case for pretty multiple project Roberts headed in the past. The projects he got axed from one way or another did proceed faster after the fact. Which is neither a statement that he was the sole factor at fault for those projects in particular, let alone that he's the sole factor for all delays in gaming. But it does say something about these particular projects and this particular man. Somehow that did not factor into your attempt at enlightening the unwashed masses.

The sheer fact that no other studio/game has come close to released something remotely similar gameplay with the scale, scope and fidelity of Star Citizen combined with the fact that several other studios and games face the same delays and problems in their development should be self explanatory that making big games will always come with big problems attached no matter who's the CEO.

Neither did CIG though, so this is an absolutely meaningless remark.

[Easo]

Nah

Did you... did you seriously just link me video from the release days of the game, from back in 2016? And totally ignored what I said? I understand that you fanatically like SC and think it is the best thing ever, but common!

Well, specially just for you, a quite famous video, which already is outdated by a few more major content patches since then:

[Edge-]

*snip*

Even then, "faking" a massive universe like that to the point where the end-user isn't going to really be able to tell if it's truly all one massive, seamless galaxy or if it's a series of large levels containing solar systems strung together isn't really a negative, either. If anything, that shows a lot of creativity and ingenuity, and that similar results can be achieved with a fraction of the investment and minimal, if any, impact on the end users experience.

[MrAnderson]

All the games/studios I mentioned have dabbled with the idea of making massive worlds while maintaining it interesting and with AAA graphics, Namely Andromeda dev's spent a lot of time trying to make seamless planetary landings work but had to abandon the idea eventually. Probably because the console hardware couldn't handle it. I suspect well see many more games and studios trying to go for the Star Citizen feel with the new console generation since they now have SSD's fast enough to support all that data streaming. BeyondGood&Evil2 has been in the works silently for a lot of time now, same as the Wild Game and none of them have released yet or have a release date so certainly that Dev working on it has the blessing of Ubisoft which is a 30 year old company with 18k employers in studios around the world and 1.7$billion in revenue in 2018.

CIG has it's own cashflow going and that's why they can develop accordingly while expanding their studios, the nonsense that funding would magically dry up and the company is pure idiotic nonsense since just like they can increase their staff and expenses they can decrease them if they feel like it.

Again, I don't think anybody has placed 100% of the blame on Roberts

Oh you think wrong, you only need to read this thread since some of them post in this thread quite frequently

Did you... did you seriously just link me video from the release days of the game, from back in 2016?

All those points still stand today so why wouldn't they be relevant?

They don't diminish the efforts of NMS sky dev's in improving their game but they clearly show how some technical aspects are harder to solve than others. NMS engine does a lot of neat tricks to convey a sense of believability and scale of it's universe but ofc it's focus is on the survival/exploration which is their core gameplay aspect.

[Edge-]

All the games/studios I mentioned have dabbled with the idea of making massive worlds while maintaining it interesting and with AAA graphics, Namely Andromeda dev's spent a lot of time trying to make seamless planetary landings work but had to abandon the idea eventually. Probably because the console hardware couldn't handle it.

That's not true at all, and we have reporting to back that up. Kotaku's piece on the troubled development was clear that the concept was canned because BW simply couldn't get it to work technically or narratively within the Frostbite engine - https://kotaku.com/the-story-behind-...ive-1795886428

I suspect well see many more games and studios trying to go for the Star Citizen feel

Per the piece, it was going for the "No Man's Sky" feel, not Star Citizen.

with the new console generation since they now have SSD's fast enough to support all that data streaming.

Except that planetary takeoffs/landing already exist on current-gen consoles in other titles, so it's not something that inherently requires a SSD.

BeyondGood&Evil2 has been in the works silently for a lot of time now, same as the Wild Game and none of them have released yet or have a release date so certainly that Dev working on it has the blessing of Ubisoft which is a 30 year old company with 18k employers in studios around the world and 1.7$billion in revenue in 2018.

I linked you to reporting on it. It's been in actual development for 4 years so far, with the team splitting time between multiple games. Additionally, Ubisoft is not throwing all their studios or finances behind it so I'm unsure why you would bring up the full size and financial scale of Ubisoft. That seems like a pernicious way to attempt to imply that the publisher, which is actively developing and supporting dozens of mid-sized/AAA titles, is throwing many/most of its resources behind the game.

CIG has it's own cashflow going and that's why they can develop accordingly while expanding their studios, the nonsense that funding would magically dry up and the company is pure idiotic nonsense since just like they can increase their staff and expenses they can decrease them if they feel like it.

I don't know where you're getting that from, I've surely never said that and I don't recall anyone posting that recently.

Oh you think wrong, you only need to read this thread since some of them post in this thread quite frequently

Cite them, then. Because I've followed it and plenty of people have laid blame at the feet of Roberts. Not all the blame, but much of it.

[Easo]

They don't diminish the efforts of NMS sky dev's in improving their game but they clearly show how some technical aspects are harder to solve than others. NMS engine does a lot of neat tricks to convey a sense of believability and scale of it's universe but ofc it's focus is on the survival/exploration which is their core gameplay aspect.

As @Edge mentioned, does it matter, really? Fan complaints were adressed, even more, they added crapload of other stuff. The issues people had with the game were addressed. That video's authors complaints are quite specific, but... they are not the reasons NMS almost died after the release.
No one cares about ultra realistic day/night cycle, really, if it looks believable enough.

And my answer was mostly to the Rennadrel. I absolutely fail to see how SC is bigger in scope than NMS, now. Maybe in mechanics? Sure, ship handling and destruction, fine. But outside of ships...? What is there that NMS does not have, a gamechanger?

[Mister K]

But @Beazy wasn't just comparing functionality of in-game features in a vacuum. They were comparing them in a very specific context. I.e. the capacities of game engines. So right off the bat you're misrepresenting their argument. And then you went completely off-tangent about development time.

Secondly, for the most part you avoided the subject of the burden of proof and how the burden of proof for your own counterclaims rests on you. You know, the actual point of my post that you were replying to. The only thing you provided in that was actually on point is "comparing the two (things that I just misrepresented) is moronic". Even if you took out the misrepresentation, this would still be a rather subpar substantiation of your own claims.

I was directly referring to the comment he made originally comparing NMS and SC when they are not in the same realm (see page 538). I am not going to be repeating myself, it's getting boring. Scroll up, see my reasoning for the difficulty between the two. Multiplayer being the key here with completely different gameplay structure.

If you weren't so busy constantly putting yourself on a pedestal labeled "not a wannabe developer" just so you could look down on everyone else (while failing at something as basic as how the burden of proof works and being unable to address @Beazy's point about technical limitations of game engines) as if one could not defend the glory that is Star Citizen (I wonder why it's a recurring theme with posters defending it in this thread), you'd have realized that the comment by @MrAnderson you jumped on the bandwagon of is nothing more than a blatant straw-man.

No one said anything about Chris Roberts being the one and only reason for game delays. No one denied the difficulties and complexities of game design as a factor in delays. Which makes your own 2 cents about how people below the pedestal you put yourself on are too stupid to understand "what goes into the huge task of actually developing a product" nothing more than a projection. Rooted in another poster's fallacy. It's almost as if you weren't the sole repository of all wisdom or something. What's even funnier is that what you said isn't even remotely limited to game design. Making your own projection disjointed from your pedestal. Making the very point of that pedestal moot.

Another funny thing is what MrAnderson said one line earlier, i.e. "Still amazing how you can think that removing Chris Roberts would magically make a game like Star Citizen come out faster.". Because, their subsequent straw-man aside, it's almost as if it was the case for pretty multiple project Roberts headed in the past. The projects he got axed from one way or another did proceed faster after the fact. Which is neither a statement that he was the sole factor at fault for those projects in particular, let alone that he's the sole factor for all delays in gaming. But it does say something about these particular projects and this particular man. Somehow that did not factor into your attempt at enlightening the unwashed masses.

1. Because armchair developers on forums think they know more than real developers actively working on these projects. I am more than happy to exchange Github accounts and contributions (dated I stopped the career path a year ago, also primarily can only post screens due to private repos). While not related to game design (UI Developer primarily using REACT) many of the same principals apply.
2. What are you asking me to prove, the differences between development of NMS vs SC systems and how much different and difficult they would be for a game like SC? Are you really going to ask me that? I was not the one that started comparing the two. That is my whole argument, it's uncomparable. PS, he was the one that first claimed "I am a software developer" to do just that "could look down on everyone else" and solidify his points
3. Already shown the technical limitation of CE (map size/player size) and how it had to be modded. Again what are you asking me to show you? Opening up knowledge base and cite code? I don't have access to NMS engine.
4. I didn't say he is the one and only reason for game delays, however it is a butterfly effect.
5. Difficulties and complexities of game design is something that seems to be overlooked, no one said it, it had to be pointed out because "NMS did it with shit engine on consoles" LOL.
6. So we are going back to him being the sole problem? Which one is it then?

Again I am not arguing the development time of SC and how much of an amazing game that has everything perfect it is. I am arguing the comparison between NMS to SC, that's how simple this is Mehrunes.