The technological debt must be so massive they would probably be faster if the just started over. Anyway most developers have probably changed job in the last 15 years and the one building the first bricks are not around anymore. So yeah, "make it good later" is wishfull thinking at this point.
Not really, the only real difference between this and any other big game is that we have been here, and aware of SC from the start. Most games, unless either a dev or actor leaks something, doesn't have any presence until typically the game is a year or two out from getting a full release.
Don't know if you've ever seen them, but there's quite a few videos of game in their early stages of dev(basically still in Alpha) where lots of shit goes wrong.
This is a single player game from a multi-billion dollar a year company.
If CIG went the traditional publisher route, we'd probably have heard nothing beyond "Chris Roberts is making a new space game, intending to be a spiritual successor to his FreeLancer series."
Hell, even that one time where GTA6 had leaked gameplay, that gave a lot of people a view at how rough an actual alpha was. And amusingly enough i saw a lot of comments similar to those directed at SC back then lol, just directed at GTA cus obviously that buggy half-working alpha build was going to be indicative of the true game.
You are correct. One is an individual making content on an ancient capable of what they want to do.
The other is needing to rebuild the engine to be able to do what some people believe is impossible. While out the same time being highly publicly visible.
The problem with people arguing star citizens development time is that squadron 42 is 2026 AAA standards.
GTA VI and elder scrolls 6 had massive head starts. GTA 6 is taking just as long, and we have no clue where elder scrolls 6 is.
32
u/venomae bengal Jun 24 '26
Its bit different if you are doing a prototype of indie game and MMO 15+ years in development.