211
this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2024
211 points (96.5% liked)
Games
32532 readers
1000 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No, just no. You compared it to a very simple game that can run all of that from a single back end. I created a similarly simple economic simulation in an Excel sheet from a single supply/demand curve in college, in a weekend.
And then you go on to knock them for not being feature complete when they tell you that themselves. They absolutely are still developing, they're releasing the second system in the next big patch.
Nobody is going to argue with you that it's had issues. But at least give it a fair comparison. That's what's got people upset.
I left out features of Merchant of the Skies that are not relevant for a comparison.
The fact is that after 12 years and ~$750M allegedly spent on development, the trading/hauling gameplay is more crude than a indie game developed by two people.
That they are "still developing" is irrelevant. It is not unreasonable to question where the money is going considering how crude the gameplay is (if it even exists as we can see from the journalism spaceship JPEG).
Because they've got about a million things to do. So yeah, it's pretty basic gameplay right now. Nobody is denying that. But to reduce multiple engine switches, court enforced stop work orders, and assets in production to "they spent everything over a decade and all they have is a jpeg", is just ridiculous.
Citation needed.