Games

I really don't think that it's all that abnormal, aside from the funding structure.

Lots of video games

including even some pretty successful ones

have dev studios that screw up the scope when they estimate what they can accomplish with their financial and hardware budget.

The problem is that if you're a video game developer and you look at the state of your game and you know that it doesn't meet up with what you're hoping to make, you can maybe go to the publisher and say "we screwed up and need more money". And the publisher

who is familiar with the industry and has the ability to actually come in and take a look at what's going on with your development process and has bean-counters whose job is to make a cold, clear-eyed call on this

is one entity who is hopefully is going to make an objective call.

But with Star Citizen, that structure doesn't exist. The developer can just keep go begging for more money.

Take Daikatana: "The aim was for the company to create games that catered to their creative tastes without excessive publisher interference, which had constrained both Romero and Hall too much in the past."

Or Duke Nukem Forever: "Broussard and Miller funded Duke Nukem Forever using the profits from Duke Nukem 3D and other games. They gave the marketing and publishing rights to GT Interactive, taking only a $400,000 advance." That was self-funded, so there wasn't some outside party saying "no more".

In 2009, with 3D Realms having exhausted its capital, Miller and Broussard asked Take-Two for $6 million to finish the game.[8] After no agreement was reached, Broussard and Miller laid off the team and ceased development.[8] A small team of ex-employees, which later became Triptych Games, continued development from their homes.[14]

In September 2010, Gearbox Software announced that it had bought the Duke Nukem intellectual property from 3D Realms and would continue development of Duke Nukem Forever.[15] The Gearbox team included several members of the 3D Realms team, but not Broussard.[15] On May 24, 2011, Gearbox announced that Duke Nukem Forever had "gone gold" after 15 years.

The problem is that the developer knows perfectly well that the game doesn't meet the kind of standard that they'd hoped for and which they'd gotten players expecting, but they aren't willing to cut their losses and just wrap things up. And the publisher wasn't in a position to cut development off. In Duke Nukem Forever's case, happened when they exhausted their own capital, because employees aren't gonna work without pay.

But in Star Citizen's case, even that brake doesn't exist. They aren't using their capital. They're using player capital that they got in exchange for promises, and I don't think that players are nearly as good as an outside publisher at performing cold, hard, objective analysis of the development process. CIG dug themselves into a deep hole. Once they're in that hole, there's not really a good way out. If they just stop development at any given point, they aren't going to have something that players are happy with. The only route they have out, to not fail, is to make more promises, try to get more money, and somehow try to develop their way to a successful game. So they're gonna keep doing that until all of the players cut them off, which can take a long time. A publisher would say "you blew through numerous deadlines in the existing development process, and I don't think that you're a good investment", or said "no more money unless you give me a hard, short timeline for wrapping this up". I think that CIG knew pretty well that there was no point where they could wrap things up in a handful of months and meet player expectations, so their choice was always "fail" or "keep kicking the can down the road in hopes that they could fix things".