It is called Star Citizen Alpha 2.0. That is below Star Citizen 1.0. It is not complete yet, nor does it aspire to be.
And I fail to see this need to release something complete when the development is still ongoing. Why do you complain that Star Citizen is not a complete game yet, after only less than 3 years of development?
First of all, because the vast majority of commercially released games took less than 3 years and less than 100 million USD to complete. This is our complaint 1: Because the scope has increased immensely over the years, there was never any chance of them nailing down even a single core mechanic
. The Arena Commander release should have been the endpoint of getting the flight dynamics done, not its beginning, to pick one example.
2: We know that getting a 40 mission single player game takes about 3 years to develop from scratch, and that doing so would have solved a lot of problems SC currently has. This is complaint 2: Roberts' priorities seem to be to get as much of the game done at once, when it would be more prudent to fully finish one or two aspects of it for a release and then build on it
. Elite follows this approach, and as a result, it's far more successful than SC (Seriously, Elite sold a million copies last year.)
3: SC's business model is atrocious. It combines the worst aspects of kickstarter and F2P culture (From kickstarter, exploiting people's willingness to buy into a promise, from F2P, the overt reliance on a small number of whales to bring in the dough), and as a result, you have a community of useful idiots who are acting like a publisher except without the ability to exert influence over the development of the product that publishers normally have. This is complaint 3: SC's business model is built on continually promising development; actual delivery of things is actively harmful to the business model
Vast majority of games do not release anything to the public until the game is more or less done.
And entitled gamers like this (no offense) are the reason why.
You seem to believe that putting out horrifically buggy pieces of **** is good development practice. It isn't.
Releasing a "finished" product restricts further game development because you have to keep in mind to not break the game for the players and to support the product. It is not a good thing! It is a modern fad. You risk ending up like Elite or Minecraft or multitude of other modern games with open development model that are perpetually stuck in mediocrity. A game that is "finished", stable, yet shallow and the devs are afraid to touch it. Star Citizen does release playable content, but at the same time SC makes it clear that it is heavily WIP, incomplete and buggy. Thats how you do it, the best of both worlds. Too much stability too early is an enemy of effective development.
And while SC is doing this, they're continually putting their ability to pull off the full game they have promised into question. Every single thing they've released so far has put their technical skills into question
. The game should be getting better. It isn't. With every release, they're just increasing bug counts.
Do you think SC is not being developed well? Fine, only higher ups ultimately know the truth about that, and we will see sooner or later what the end result is. But complaining that they have not released the game yet just makes you look like you are being impatient and ignorant of game development. They can take their time. There is no need to rush at all.
Again: The SC backers are performing one part of what a publisher normally does, but are not afforded any of the priviledges publishers normally have. We do not have any veto right over management decisions. We do not have sign-off on features. We do not have insight into detailed project progress. Just like people generally misinterpret the work editors and publishers do in the literary world, gamers generally misunderstand the role of publishers; While they can be toxic, they more often than not are crucial to getting a game to a releasable state.