Derek Smart is a dev who has done some space sim/combat games (Battlecruiser 3000, Universal Combat,...) and today he has written a quite lenghty and insightful article on why Star Citizen is probably going to fail at some point. Instead of the casual Nostradamus posts from randoms, Derek brings his own experiece as a dev specialized in this particular genre to clearly define what's going wrong... Prepare at least 10-20 minutes to read everything, it's worth it:
http://www.dereksmart.org/2015/07/interstellar-citizens/

Wasn't he kind of a douche/tool?

How are those Battlecruiser 3000 games?

I just have a hard time taking anyone seriously when they call their own games "The Holy Grail" for a genre.

It's not that he doesn't have good points, and he does indeed articulate them well. But, come on. He couldn't come across as a bigger bag of tools if he hired a PR guy to make him look bad.

and sue happy

exactly - all those above points. He can't seem to say anything without making sure to slip-in that he's all lawyer'ed-up. Even this piece, I notice, starts out that way. [edit]; Having read the article - he makes plenty of valid points. Like all other kickstarter's, I haven't invested a dime. I won't be disillusioned by Star Citizen; because even if I am excited by what they're promising, I won't spend anything on it until it exists.

The true prodigy of game industry returns, heed his every word for they are something something, damn cant remember those bloody biblical lines

Underlying the entire piece is this: if I can't figure out how to make it work, then nobody can.

+1

Exactly, he must have chestpain from banging on it. :^P

Though I share some of his views that Star Citizen has grown too ambitious and even if they pull it of the product may very well be less than the sum of it's parts, though it's too early for that and only time will tell.

Thanks for the link!

To others in this thread, don't bash the guy for his tone. Here's the heart of his article:

Originally promised in 2 years time:

A rich universe focused on epic space adventure, trading and dogfighting in first person.
Single-player: offline or online (drop in/drop out co-op play)
Persistent Universe (hosted by US)
Modable multiplayer (hosted by YOU)

Promised in addition since then:

Rich, persistent universe with 100 (!) populated star systems
Dynamic economy with millions (!) of entities
Newtonian physics
Space combat
Trading
Exploration
Ship upgrades (engines, weapons, etc.) and customization
Multi-crew ships (your friends can exist in your ship)
Activities including mining, harvesting raw materials, factories, and so on
First person inside ships with combat
First person inside stations with combat
First person on level-based planetary hubs with combat
Career based progression with stats
Single player and co-op mode (Squadron 42)
Multiplayer (Star Citizen)

Actually delivered at 2.5 years time:

A hangar where you can see and walk around the ships you’ve bought
A combat training simulator, Arena Commander, where you can dogfight with some—not all—of the ships you’ve bought thus far in the game. And there’s racing. Not to mention the fact that, as of this writing, that module still can’t even handle 8 vs. 8 combat engagements without terrible issues.
________________________________________________________

The reason the article is so long is that he explains why the sum total of what's been promised simply cannot be produced.

And, pompous or not, he's got the know-how to actually hold that opinion.

Doesn't look good. Not for the devs, the backers, not for game crowdsourcing...

While he does raise some good points the feeling I get from the article is that "If I couldn't do it, then no one else can either".

It's a little more than that.

He knows what game engine they are using. He knows its actual limitations. He knows what their engine needs to be able to do. He knows they don't have an engine that can do it.

He also mentions that they are announcing cut features already, 2 top guys have left the project, and that they are burning through money faster than they are bringing it in.

I dunno. Maybe I'm reading a bit much into the article based on Derek Smart of 20-25 years ago. Strip out the history and also all of the self-generated hype for his own projects and he does make some points.


Likewise, he does bring up something that has bothered me about Kickstarters in general: feature creep. "If we reach this goal then we'll add this!" No, just get your original goals to work right and to be enjoyable. Don't add stuff just because you got more money. Make it part of the core design or save it for an expansion. But get the core working properly and out the door as a complete game on its own. The vision for a game shouldn't change just because more money came in. I have a feeling that the "tiers" idea has hurt quite a number of projects instead of helping to provide a better product.

The worst thing possible is if it fails it will get the whole kickstarter initiatives with it :( - it's just that big.

No way.

1. The current audience of Star Citizen is actually small, both as a percentage of crowdfunders and as a percentage of gamers.

2. Kickstarters fail, scam or underdeliver all the time. It doesn't seem to inhibit crowdfunding. The majority of customers spent a moderate AAA-ish amount, they'll sigh and move on.

3. No one cares about the big spender cultists except people who'll enjoy seeing them cry. Most kickstarters don't rely on cultists to obtain funding, so they'll be unaffected. How the crash of Star Citizen will affect the future of similar projects is, of course, completely unpredictable.