@jayskoon93: Understood. However the way you wrote it came off very very, how should I say it "not flattering." IMHO, I don't think that has ever been a sole focus for these new movies. Just because Rogue One was very diverse does not mean that every new SW movie going forward is going to do that. I am not sure where these ideas came from that all of a sudden SW is trying to meet some politically correct racial or life style quota. That has never been the case and Kennedy (and LucasFilm) have never expressed that in their "vision" of SW going forward. It is, however, nice to see that the movies that we have grown to love over the years have evolve to reflect the diverse world we already live in. The world has always been this way whether people like it or not, agree with it or not - and that is what makes this creative development process both fun and interesting to watch.

@jayskoon93: News flash!! People of color and other ethnic backgrounds were already in the original Star Wars movie. And while Lucas is no "poster board" for diversity in his film, the idea of a "diverse" universe did not allude him with all of the different forms of alien life portray in his films. The world is a diverse place - get over it.

@ILSATS: No, you are correct. Roberts got himself into a jam when he did the cardinal rule most publishers try to avoid - setting a release date to early in the development cycle. People screamed bloody murder when it wasn't reach. People's expectations were not realistic and Roberts got caught in his own hype. Since then, he has done a course correction and is being extremely transparent in how the development is going and where they are at. When you look at what the major AAA publishers do (I am looking at you EA, Activision, Blizzard, etc) I find Roberts efforts very welcomed.

@bc2999: I beg to differ that each of those games had a linear start and finish. Game development (in a larger sense) doesn't work that way. You create a concept, you start working (and bringing) those ideas to fruition, you modify and adjust along the way adding and subtracting from the overall core concept (and base game play) until you make a decision that you are no longer going to add in "substantive material" or make "major changes to the core game features" or you can't hit a "target date" the publisher has set for the game. No one is saying that Roberts did not add to the original vision (I made that point quite clear) and no one is saying he blew past promised dates (I made that point quite clear also). There are a lot of pieces to the puzzle that have yet to be put together. And yes, if he keeps adding, he will never reach the end. But he is the publisher - he can set the window as large or as short as he wants -without being beholden to a publisher or financial timetable that would force him to "rush out a game" to meet quarterly financial targets.

There is a base game in each area that he is creating (persistent universe, arena commander, squadron 42, etc) and their is all the "extra" he is adding on top. Has he locked down the core of the game and stopped adding to that - I don't know, I am not on the development team. Does he keep changing the base core of the game with new ideas - once again, I don't know. The only thing I can do as a consumer is read, watch, listen and follow along. And somewhere along the line, I have to make a decision on whether what has been presented is enough for me to warrant investing my dollars in a game that has not yet marked an end date. I have to decide if it makes sense for me to give a company my money on the promise of a future game. I decided I can part ways with $60 and I am willing to wait. So far, I am not concern. If people can't afford too or are unwilling or unable to spend that money - DON'T. But don't whine and cry about it (I'm not saying you are) because others have. People do what they want with their money. Why do people care? If you want to drop $2,000 on this game and you believe in Chris Robert's vision - go for it. Why do people care? Either you will get a good game, get a mediocre game or you will lose your money. Oh well, such is life and such is the risk you took when you invested in A KICKSTARTER PROJECT!!!

If you dig hard through their website and if you watch enough of their public videos, you will find that they are far from disorganized and unplanned. But is feature creep a real issue - yeah probably. I am not going to discount that. You are right, not everyone is going to be able to run this game. Not everyone should be buying it. If you are not smart enough to plan properly, play the game free when free weekends are offered or make sure you have a gaming computer that can support this game, than you have no business being here. This game is not going to be optimized for the lowest common denominator and so it shouldn't.

@soulfulDAGGER: Than you missed the whole point of my text if you stopped reading. Funding amount, staffing level and overall vision qualifies this game as a AAA title. AAA gaming titles are an informal classification meant for publishers and games that have very high development and large marketing budgets. This game has both. And with a funding source north of $140 million, this is far from an indie title. This game may have started out as a small, indie title with a small vision but has now morph way beyond that. And that was not a result of Roberts (per se) but the mass amount of people who choose to give money for the game and in the belief that Roberts could deliver. Roberts presented a grand vision, people bought into the vision and when his funding got higher than he imagined, he started adding to that vision.

The vision of Space Engineers is way different than Star Citizen. Different game, different play style and will have a different end result. The game has been in development for 4 years and just entered into Beta. And if you had read the rest of my text, you would have seen that (like Star Citizens), Space Engineers continues to be in development (over an extended period of time) and the game creators were (and are) taking their time to make sure they create their vision of what they want for their player base.

I am not going to say who has better story line, game implementation, etc - those are all subjective based on what you are looking for in a game. Everybody likes something different and everybody wants something different out of a game. You don't like what Star Citizen has to offer, fair enough. It doesn't mean it doesn't have something for somebody else. It's continued funding suggest that there are many who are still happy with its current progress, what it currently has and what it proposes to have in the future. People vote with their pocket books and so far they have spoken loud and clear.

@Cetra79: No offense, but your comment is the most ridiculous I have ever read. You should do a little homework first before you attack. GTA V took 5 1/2 years to be released (April 2008 to September 2013) and another year to get on the PlayStation 4 & Xbox One and another 6 months before it came to the PC. Destiny took 4 1/2 years to develop (2009-2014), Watch Dogs took 5 years (2009-2014), StarCraft II (Wings of Liberty) took 7 years (2003 development started, announced to the public in 2007, released July 2010) . And that is just to name a few titles. Triple AAA titles take time to develop. Why on earth do you people think that Star Citizens (as it was promoted and talked about) was coming out in 2 or 3 or 4 years is beyond me.

Now, did Chris Roberts get over enthusiastic on his deadlines, made promises, added goals and not realize the amount of time needed to flush out all of his ideas - of course he did. What publisher doesn't and what publisher hasn't missed a date promised to the public? There is a reason why Blizzard is famous for saying "its ready, when it's ready." They do not give a s**t how long it takes - they take their time until the game is ready and Blizzard fans have to deal with it.

Roberts made the mistake of promising deadlines he could not keep because of the complexity of the game. It is a shitty mistake that he will have to deal with but people really need to grow up. Complex games take time to develop and no amount of whining is going to change that.

Today's AAA publishers would never release their timetables and development details publicly, constantly make videos telling backers where they are and what they have done (or not done) and be an arms throw away from the public. EA, Bethesda, Activision, please - these publishers would never tell you these things. Roberts is doing that. It is your responsibility to do your homework, read the information that is out there and decide if this is a game you want to buy now, later or continue to invest in. You are making an investment into the vision that Roberts has set out for his game. No matter if you were a day 1 backer or a day 600 backer, make no bones about it - you made (or are making) a long term investment in what you believe Roberts can deliver. That is what Kickstarter is all about and has ever been about. Don't spend your money on a Kickstarter project if you are not prepared to lose it or be at the whim of the creator.

I bought the game last year for $60 (PU + Squadron 42 combo) and have not spent 1 additional penny. It is my money and the great thing about having my own money, I get to choose what I want to do with my hard earn cash. I watch, read and observe what was going on, liked what I saw and decided to make the purchase and play what currently exists. And from what I have seen over the years, I am no sucker, it is no scam and Roberts is not riding away in the sunset laughing all the way to the bank. So give it a rest people - hating on the game is not going to make it go away. Wishing its downfall because you are mad that people spent their own money on something they liked or wanted is not going to somehow make it go away. You spend your money on what you think will work for you. Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't. Guess what? That's life. My $60 is well spent on what will be an awesome game when its done. And it will be ready, when it's ready. I have no problem waiting.

@Seymour47 Just because you are not happy with what EA has done gives you no right to steal it and then play it - don't like, don't play it - I can respect that - but to suggest you might steal it and play it as a means to "stick it to EA" does nothing but hurt all of us who pay money to play PC games.