> Yes, CIG is absolutely the most transparent game studio of all time. I say this with over 13 years experience in and around the games industry. If that's the

> Yes, CIG is absolutely the most transparent game studio of all time. I say this with over 13 years experience in and around the games industry. If that's the best you've seen, I would recommend you to Riot Games excellent series of blog articles on their game design (principles, practice, front end, back end, player management etc). Or... Elite's dev blog and forums, which were excellent? > As for Elite, that is an excellent example of a project that failed to deliver what it promised. Uhhh.. no? I think it delivered everything I hoped for, and more? As a player of the original I've been delighted by the scope of the game. Feel welcome to disagree of course, but let's be clear that we're talking opinions not facts. One thing is for sure: they delivered a game that has given me a lot of fun for a long time. SC has delivered posts as you say, e.g. about deadlines - that they've missed - it's really much less useful for me in terms of my personal enjoyment. > But game development is hard Yes, but looking at peers with less money and grand goals, those peers actually achieved their goals, let's celebrate that maybe a bit more instead? > So it really pisses me off ... That's not actually an OK excuse for how you've been writing on here. > It's possible to fail. You're on a forum where people build their own companies from scratch. Most of these people fail. Sure, but it's not the 1970s. We should not be celebrating game companies that are in the process of possibly failing, holding them up as gems of the industry (as you appear to be doing, from my perspective), especially when many of their choices lead directly to missed deadlines and the absence of a game for me to play. > You want points of reference, I invite you to look at game studios that actually "take the money and run". Start with Zynga, see how deep that rabbit hole goes. Zynga delivered, over and over and over. What they delivered wasn't a game, arguably, more a skinner box, but you'd have a pretty hard time convincing me they entertained fewer people than SC has. If I can sum up your arguments: - Elite: a project that failed to deliver what they promised - Zynga: a game studio that took the money and run I simply can't see that you would get widespread agreement with those views. They are both profitable companies with hundreds of thousands more happy users of their products than SC has. Zynga in particular didn't even charge for many of their products, so it's a bit hard to claim they 'took the money and ran'. Anyway, why don't we leave our discussion here. You can post again if you like but I won't respond to it, I don't believe either of us is presenting information that will persuade the other person of their view.