4 ms·

While I believe this is one of the worst written articles I have read in a while, the point they are trying to make still stands. At what point do we consider t

While I believe this is one of the worst written articles I have read in a while, the point they are trying to make still stands. At what point do we consider this a failed experiment? I also think it's not really for the 'outsiders', people that have not bought the game, to determine. There is a playable game there, just not the fully featured promised delivery. I personally have hopes for Star Citizen, as it would be something I would enjoy playing. I also have a lot of hope this does not become another E.T. for the industry.

jdlshore 5y ago
Depends on how you define success and failure, I suppose. By the standard, "a sustainable and profitable," they're successful. They used to average about $30mm per year and in the past few years, it's closer to $70mm per year. (See https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tMAP0fg-AKScI3S3VjrDW3OaLO4zgBA1RSYoQOQoNSI/edit#gid=1694467207 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tMAP0fg-AKScI3S3VjrD... .) By the standard, "an enjoyable, polished game," they're not yet successful, but they're not a failure either, as the game is in active development with new releases every three months. By the standard, "an enjoyable diversion that's worth its base price ($45) today," they're a massive success to some and an utter failure to others. Depends on what you like, your tolerance for bugs, and your patience for waiting for new features. By the standard, "a game that released when they said it would," they're a complete failure. The fourth definition is the one detractors focus on, but to me it's the least interesting. (And I say that as someone with no vested interest or money in the project.) So when is it a failed experiment? I'd say, "When they stop making enough money to continue development." (Assuming that happens before the game is polished.) But there's no sign of that happening. The funding keeps going up.

jdlshore 5y ago

Depends on how you define success and failure, I suppose. By the standard, "a sustainable and profitable," they're successful. They used to average about $30mm per year and in the past few years, it's closer to $70mm per year. (See https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tMAP0fg-AKScI3S3VjrDW3OaLO4zgBA1RSYoQOQoNSI/edit#gid=1694467207 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tMAP0fg-AKScI3S3VjrD... .) By the standard, "an enjoyable, polished game," they're not yet successful, but they're not a failure either, as the game is in active development with new releases every three months. By the standard, "an enjoyable diversion that's worth its base price ($45) today," they're a massive success to some and an utter failure to others. Depends on what you like, your tolerance for bugs, and your patience for waiting for new features. By the standard, "a game that released when they said it would," they're a complete failure. The fourth definition is the one detractors focus on, but to me it's the least interesting. (And I say that as someone with no vested interest or money in the project.) So when is it a failed experiment? I'd say, "When they stop making enough money to continue development." (Assuming that happens before the game is polished.) But there's no sign of that happening. The funding keeps going up.