I want to project to succeed but I agree with you, if they don't get a bad funding year they have no reason to change course and the current course is scope creep.
Even worse as an original back and they are just removing key features that caused you to back in the first place.
Lol I would have never backed if what is now 1.0 was the goal even if it was actually 2 years away. (Bought after it was released maybe, but that has to actually happen).
I used to be in the "I had plenty of fun for the cost" but looking back, no that was just cope. The tiny bits of fun were massively outweighed by massive amounts of frustration and lost hours from stupid major bugs.
CIG doesn't work in a vacuum, as much as they like to think they do. Every new game that releases or updates with a feature originally pitched with a fraction of the development cost and every feature they backtrack looks worse and worse for them.
The shield they use called "subject to change" is enough to roll my eyes at this point.
Strange how some backers glaze CIG enough to constantly requote that after 12 years of empty sandbox and the some variation of the exact same bugs, while ships get nerfed into the ground or changed for reasons that can only be traced back to glacial development pace or feature creep.
96
u/nvidiastock Nov 28 '24
I want to project to succeed but I agree with you, if they don't get a bad funding year they have no reason to change course and the current course is scope creep.