One of the most interesting differences between Starfield and SC/SQ42 is that Starfield is funded by the traditional investor model and SC/SQ42 is funded by crowd-funding. The investor model requires games to release quickly, because the return on investment is compared to the best alternative. That alternative is typically a broad market portfolio. For such a broad portfolio, a large investor expects to see 7-15% returns per year, so every year that the game gets delayed it needs to make 7-15% more profit for it to be worth the investment. This makes investors force out games quickly, because if they don't believe another year will increase the yield by another 7-15% (on top of what the developers already had to promise to get the initial investment), it would just be foolish for the investor to give the game another year. Gamers don't care about that, we just want to play a good game, but it also means that the developer can take much longer to develop the game (as we all know). So, the real question is this: Will Starfield be any good or will it be pushed out too early and end up like Fallout 76? Interestingly, the current market down-turn might mean that investors will be more willing to wait because there isn't much else to invest in, so perhaps Starfield will be delayed instead.