Ok, that's a lot of words to say, "NMS does it all via procedural generation while SC does it using a mixture of procedural generation and manual work done by hand.", which is my understanding of their efforts based off of what I've read -
https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/d...lpha-3-point-8
Which has nothing to do with what I wrote and I'm not sure why you bring it up. My point was that, contrary to your assertion, the MA:A team was looking to NMS for inspiration with the game, not SC.
You're the one that claimed they were trying to make it for a decade to begin with, which is all I was rejecting. They haven't been. There has been early pre-production and prototyping, but no actual development really started until at least 2016, and that time has been split.
And SC doesn't get that kind of cover. BGE2 has asked for precisely $0 in crowdfunding to support its development. SC has been asking for people to fund it since day one, so expectations are obviously gonna be a bit different.
Not it does fucking not. Ubisoft's total staffing includes developers and tons of non-development staff. Ubisoft as a publisher is, again, working on
at least a dozen different games plus unannounced titles right now, now two. The lionshare of them are
not working on BGE2.
This is some really weird argumentative trick you keep employing trying to imply shit repeatedly without evidence. The size of Ubisoft, its financial resources, and its number of staff are irrelevant here. Completely. You were comparing BGE2 to SC, so you need to compare the team actually working on BGE2, including the budgets, if you want a fair comparison. Anything else is an attempt to reframe the issue in a way that appears dishonest, whether intentional or not.