I mean, it’s an obvious scam. Always has been. They only have a few tech demos, and bunch of polished marketing material. There’s nothing to actually release.
I do not believe it to be an outright scam. However, it is horribly managed and I do consider the funding model to be predatory.
The whole “pledge” store should not be a thing at this stage IMO. It’s just a cash shop they can justify huge prices with. It’s actively contributed to the scope creep by introducing new vehicle roles, which they sometimes admit to not having designed gameplay for yet. Nor does it currently tell you if you can actually rent or buy the ship in-game (subject to progress wipes). Heck, the closest thing to a scam they’ve had recently was a “new starter bundle” of in-game gear that you lose upon your first death / unrecoverable body. This is a game where 80% of your deaths are to bugs or unintuitive behaviour.
They also keep trying to change their standards to match modern games. Ships have gone through multiple reworks which take months for a single ship. A sensible dev would lock that in and commit to releasing under those standards. It’s been pointed out that with the current rate of progress, they’ll still be releasing currently announced ships into the 2030s.
That’s not even mentioning the single player component, Squadron 42, which got indefinitely delayed a few years back before a major demo showcase which never materialised. Supposedly, it’s been scrapped and re-done more than once.
Their last big chance to show they’ve pulled things together is going to be the upcoming CitizenCon (yes, it has one) where they’ll supposedly be making a big Squadron 42 announcement. A former customer service employee, who recently criticised the company’s spending practices, claimed they’d taken a much more serious approach to the scope creep and that we’d see some results of that towards the end of this year.
I’m not holding my breath though. They’ve been known to create bullshit for presentations before (e.g the infamous sand worm) and I absolutely would not be surprised if Chris Roberts feels pressured to one-up Starfield.
As a side note, does anyone else get the impression this article was written by an AI? It repeatedly lists of buzzword features, like the Hangar module which hasn’t been relevant for years, and barely discusses what the game is actually like.
The fanbois have obviously found this story and voting down the people saying how obvious the grift was/is.
I wonder how many other space sim genre games that conspicuously did not hand out the begging bowl, or squander all their money and were actually delivered have happened in the time that Star Citizen hasn’t. Being generous the best that can be said is the project is just badly mismanaged. At worst, and more realistically, much of that money just got siphoned away to fund lifestyles. Maybe the devs know they can run this grift for as long as their people stupid enough to keep funding them, knowing they’ll never have to actually deliver on their promises.
I mean, it’s an obvious scam. Always has been. They only have a few tech demos, and bunch of polished marketing material. There’s nothing to actually release.
I do not believe it to be an outright scam. However, it is horribly managed and I do consider the funding model to be predatory.
The whole “pledge” store should not be a thing at this stage IMO. It’s just a cash shop they can justify huge prices with. It’s actively contributed to the scope creep by introducing new vehicle roles, which they sometimes admit to not having designed gameplay for yet. Nor does it currently tell you if you can actually rent or buy the ship in-game (subject to progress wipes). Heck, the closest thing to a scam they’ve had recently was a “new starter bundle” of in-game gear that you lose upon your first death / unrecoverable body. This is a game where 80% of your deaths are to bugs or unintuitive behaviour.
They also keep trying to change their standards to match modern games. Ships have gone through multiple reworks which take months for a single ship. A sensible dev would lock that in and commit to releasing under those standards. It’s been pointed out that with the current rate of progress, they’ll still be releasing currently announced ships into the 2030s.
That’s not even mentioning the single player component, Squadron 42, which got indefinitely delayed a few years back before a major demo showcase which never materialised. Supposedly, it’s been scrapped and re-done more than once.
Their last big chance to show they’ve pulled things together is going to be the upcoming CitizenCon (yes, it has one) where they’ll supposedly be making a big Squadron 42 announcement. A former customer service employee, who recently criticised the company’s spending practices, claimed they’d taken a much more serious approach to the scope creep and that we’d see some results of that towards the end of this year.
I’m not holding my breath though. They’ve been known to create bullshit for presentations before (e.g the infamous sand worm) and I absolutely would not be surprised if Chris Roberts feels pressured to one-up Starfield.
As a side note, does anyone else get the impression this article was written by an AI? It repeatedly lists of buzzword features, like the Hangar module which hasn’t been relevant for years, and barely discusses what the game is actually like.
The fanbois have obviously found this story and voting down the people saying how obvious the grift was/is.
I wonder how many other space sim genre games that conspicuously did not hand out the begging bowl, or squander all their money and were actually delivered have happened in the time that Star Citizen hasn’t. Being generous the best that can be said is the project is just badly mismanaged. At worst, and more realistically, much of that money just got siphoned away to fund lifestyles. Maybe the devs know they can run this grift for as long as their people stupid enough to keep funding them, knowing they’ll never have to actually deliver on their promises.