Peeeling wrote on Oct 14, 2016, 07:09:
Just to clarify: it's not my contention that SC (by which I mean the vision of SC they've allowed fans to conjure in their heads over the years) would be done by now if it had been done properly.
What I'm saying is that if it had been done properly, everyone (including me) would, right now, be happily flying our ships around a huge multiplayer persistent universe, getting out and walking around space stations, driving around planets, trading, doing missions, upgrading our ships - and I can say that with confidence because Elite has already done most of that on a tiny fraction of the budget.
I own Elite: Dangerous and they're not even in the same league. Same with No Man's Sky - it may have a huge universe but if there is so little to do there then it doesn't have any staying power. CIG is developing the game with the big picture in mind, basing it around an expansive lore and extremely involved gameplay mechanics. However, that doesn't come overnight. WoW took years after release to become a worthwhile game and even then it relied heavily on rinse and repeat fetch missions.
Owning both Elite: Dangerous and Star Citizen I can say with confidence that I much prefer the route being taken by CIG. It's not about a sprint, it's about a marathon. They're developing a game that will be actively played for a decade, not something that will quickly lose its appeal. According to Steam there are less than 6,000 people playing per day - more people are playing DayZ and Borderlands 2, older games that have replayability and a community. Look at Counter-Strike: Global Offensive - it has over half a million daily players. That's what CIG is looking to achieve with Star Citizen and rushing the game out is a great way to kill off any chance of that happening.
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."