The intro of this video from 1:13 to 3:38 is a perfect example of what is wrong with SC and the people who continue to support its development style. From the "testbed" facilitating development of ARMA 4, to the SC masses that cry "it's an Alpha!", the dangers of selling a product that has no incentive to become the full game it takes the guise of in the pursuit of R&D dollars. I would like to take a look at the developing discourse around ARMA Reforger, and draw some comparisons to SC 1.0, and ask the community about what your expectations for the future are, and if the changed goals from CIG warrant a change in development philosophy. ARMA Reforger wasn't sold strictly as a traditional game, similarly to SC. This is basic knowledge you should understand going into this, and now that the conclusion of this strange gaming life cycle is drawing near a close with ARMA 4 and SC 1.0 respectively, people start to reasonably question exactly how they bridge that gap. Its not only about the game they are playing be unfinished, its trying to rationalise a lie... they are playing Reforger, its officially a "testbed" but also a "standalone" ARMA game, and so it stands to reason that over the course of development of ARMA 4 that Reforger would become less of its "testbed" self, and resemble the "standalone" experience that represents the resources that were meant to go into ARMA 4 through Reforger. That is to say, ARMA 4 is not growing in a vacuum, it is being built upon the foundation of Reforger, and so Reforger is then a showcase of what to expect for ARMA 4, and now that the later is so close, you start to wonder why things are still broken, and question if there will ever be a period of time that Reforger is allowed to stand on its own, or if it will never truly become a game, just a half measure experience between ARMA 3 and 4. We need to take a critical look at the expectations presented by the developer, and nurtured by the community within and surrounding this product, that is posturing itself as a playable experience, a "game". Bohemia were clear that Reforger would be two things, a "testbed", and a "standalone title" in the franchise. So what kind of outcomes are possible for the development of Reforger and bridging that development into the eventual release of ARMA 4? Well they were upfront about it being a "testbed", and so cutting the jargon out, essentially the players were expected to tolerate an open style development system where developmental progress was held above playability, nothing new these days, we call it "early access", and the other expectation that was set was that by the end of this period of EA, that Reforger would stand "alone", a fully functioning experience and meaningful part of the franchise, and so again to cut out the fluff, essentially this means players expect that there will be a reasonable period of time where Reforger is complete, no longer acting as a "testbed", and is the official experience for everyone who is part of the franchise's community, even the people who don't support the concept of EA, that Reforger would represent the franchise for a reasonable period of time, just like any other feature complete game Bohemia have developed. The reality though is that if that were true, with ARMA 4 officially due in 2027, Reforger should be very near that point where it becomes that "standalone" experience that was promised above its starting existence of simply a "testbed", and with a reasonable enough time period to enjoy it with the entire community. If we're being a little realistic, the evidence and timing suggests that by the time ARMA 4 releases, be it in 2027 or later, Reforger will at best end its "testbed" phase at the same time as ARMA 4 releases, and that's being charitable. Before jumping ahead, are these fair expectations? If Reforger never gets its time in the sun as a "standalone" game before ARMA 4, I would consider it a rug pull, and doubtless others would, not everyone OFC, but if not, then what became of that expectation that Bohemia set, was it a misunderstanding? What vision of Reforger would be consistent and fair with these two expectations that were set by Bohemia? This is all before you look at how Reforger is currently being marketed on Steam, but that's not the case with SC so lets ignore that potential dumpster fire. How does this tie into SC. Well it comes down to what you feel the reasonable expectations were over the years of development, through the announcement of plans for 1.0, and what to expect for that 1.0 release. Personally, I expect that gameplay loops that interact between other loops to create a 'whole' ecosystem of interactive gameplay exists, a set of enjoyable and closed loops that together create their own closed loop that is the basis of gameplay in the verse, including all the gameplay that was at the very least sold to players through ship sales. For instance, the Hawk existing in SC presents an expectation that by 1.0, it should function as it was concepted, including the associated bounty hunting features and how the ship incorporates itself into them, and the same for everything else that was sold, from the Ranger to the Endeavor and everything in between, if it was presented as something to expect, then at the very least a T1 implementation of it should be present when 1.0 arrives. I don't feel like its an unfair expectation. If I owned an Endeavor I would be upset that my particular niche of SC that I was sold, was arbitrarily relegated to being post release content, while being sold as inherent content for the base game. Right? I feel like if CIG took money for something, they have reasonably set an expectation that it would be a functional and integrated part of what any rational adult would consider "SC 1.0", and I think when you take into consideration the advertising CIG do for SC, considering its obviously known not only current state, but recent states too, this apparent concept that everything is moot until an arbitrary 1.0 label is stamped on SC just comes across as nothing but ridiculous. Is this to say the developmental concept is faulty? NO! Is this to say people should feel aggrieved with SC's development? NO! Am I suggesting CIG will hold 1.0 forever out of reach to justify milking the community endlessly? ...I wouldn't put it past them to at least think about it, but NO! What I'm suggesting is that 1.0 should be an accurate reflection of expectations set among the various different types of people in the community, who cant even fathom trying to understand what it is about a type of gameplay they don't like that resonates with other players, even when unreasonably forced to consider such things by CIG. It doesn't need all the bells and whistles, but if its something the average and targeted niche players have paid money for, it should be part of 1.0, and if its an expectation set by the industry, such as maintaining a reasonable level of playability, that should also constitute a "SC 1.0". The proof is in the pudding... but theres no need to take a "wait and see" approach when CIG have already confirmed that previously sold features will not be present in SC 1.0, and if that seems like niche mundane content that you don't care about, that's not necessarily wrong, but its not fair, and its not sustainable for continued development of SC post 1.0. My biggest take away from considering these things is that I feel like, if we are to accept a cut down version of SC 1.0, no matter how little, it makes the label of "1.0" arbitrary, and so to give it meaning a change in design philosophy would correct this problem, simply close what loops are already present, and maintain a level of content support that does not detract from the promised playability and stability, then how ever that manifests itself when at a reasonable industry standard, you call that "SC 1.0", and you treat the game as an ever evolving Live Service (as if it isn't already but that's a tangent) that will instead of aiming to shed its concept of "in development", instead embrace it as a positive aspect, one that reinforces an endless commitment to what originally was the dream of many individuals, that already grew to this point and has no intention of stopping, that's what I want for not only a "SC 1.0", but a SC today and tomorrow. What do people actually expect for SC 1.0, and does it seem fair or reasonable? Another question; is no one worried SC as it is now will simply never change? That it will always be at risk of being one miniscule patch away from total collapse into unplayability for the majority of people?