quote:

Okay, I this is actually a debatable point and arguably the crux of many issues. The question is simple; is Star Citizen in good hands and on its way to becoming what people want?

I argue that the answer is no. I base this argument on three points. The first is that CIG has a history of failing to meet their own expectations. The second is that CIG has a history of mismanagement. And the third is that nobody actually knows what they are getting.

CIG's history of dates is well known. With the exception of the social module in August they have never met a single date. From the weekend delay of the hangar module to the indefinite delay of Star Marine to the latest promise of SQ42 in 2016 CIG has a history of failure. This is particularly disconcerting given that CIG has 100% control over progress, schedule, and even what is delivered. While delays and missteps are expected in any major creative endeavor, when a project manager habitually fails to deliver after multiple reworks the problem is no longer with the program. The problem is with the manager. CIG has given backers no reason to believe things will change.

The Jennison letter is a well established source of controversy, and given Sandi's confirmation of its validity in my recent email exchange his accusations of mismanagement and wasted effort deserve consideration. However the most damning example of mismanagement comes from Chris's own words. When the Escapist article was published Chris spent an entire workday, by his own admission, writing a response. In spite of being in charge of four studios and having an incredibly accomplished Director of Communications in David Swafford he chose to waste an entire day writing that missive. That he did so is damning proof of his inability to delegate. That nobody in the company was able to tell him that posting a message showing he cared more about scouring Twitter than running the company is proof of his inability to listen. CIG has given backers no reason to believe this company is competently managed.

When Chris was asked to write down what Star Citizen is in a recent interview, he simply wrote "DREAMS". It's a telling example of a very simple issue; absolutely none of the backers has a coherent vision of what Star Citizen will actually be. Vast portions of the game mechanics remain theoretical or vaguely described. Three years after the Kickstarter began (and four years into development) we are still in such an early state that the Community Manager declared that most companies wouldn't even call it an alpha. Yet in spite of this supposedly immature state (that's a year past the original release date) CIG has already seen fit to dial back expectations. The Star Citizen Kickstarter page lists a series of bullet points that summarizes what the game actually is. Two of them have already been retracted. Drop-in drop-out co-op play is gone, replaced with separate missions. Private servers has been relegated to something the developers won't even think about unti after release. Furthermore the definition of Star Citizen has changed. What was once explicitly declared to not be a MMO is now called the opposite by the Community Manager. Squadron 42 is now an open world game. With things as subjective and nebulous as Star Citizen is now it is impossible for every backer to be satisfied because some people are expecting opposing things. CIG has given backers no reason to believe they will make everyone happy.

So there you have it. I welcome your rebuttal.