I've been thinking a lot about Star Citizen recently, particularly as a result of one particular friend of mine who gets so hyped about it that you'd think it was the Second Coming or something. I've taken a look at it, and I'm impressed. It looks good for what it is. That said, there's a lot of potential problems with it, not the game, but the approach to the design and funding. There seems to me to be this idea kicking around among PC gamers that Kickstarter projects will demolish the traditional forms of publishing and revolutionize the industry. I'm not so sure.

Let me clarify the latter point first: Kickstarter rewards those who are tuned in, you and me. We've been playing video games since the Age of the Dinosaurs. We love gaming, and we often view it as a core part of our identity. To us, dropping $20 or more on a project that looks really, really cool seems like an amazing idea. Even if it never comes to fruition, we hope that our investment will inspire more games that we want to play.

However, we are not the majority of gamers. Most people who play video games see it as a pastime. They'll load up Halo, play a few rounds with their buddies, and go off to do something else. They don't see games as art, they see them as entertainment. If we're Siskel and Ebert, they're the guys that line up to see the latest Scary Movie. Nothing wrong with that, but to most, investing in a project that may or may not ever be released is a stupid waste of cash. Better to buy the series that they know and love, your CoDs, your Halos, your Assassin's Creed, and your Skyrims. That way, they'll have their fun without the risk. That's why traditional publishing models will survive: Most people who play want the big, impressive AAA titles that only the big publishers can provide, not the niche titles that show up on Kickstarter.

Now, on to my main topic: Star Citizen has made an impressive amount of money on Kickstarter, but Chris Roberts has turned around and put it all back into the project. Why is that a problem? Seems like it should be lauded, that sort of devotion to artistry, no? Well, there's no way a game that expensive in a niche genre like Space Sims could ever make a profit considering that nearly everyone who is going to buy it already has done so. Also, with the focus solely on pushing the PC system to the max, that minimizes the potential market even further, since most people aren't running dedicate gaming rigs. Star Citizen is an all in product, a suicide bomb: It's not going to make a company, the company will exist for the game and go out in a fiery blaze of glory at a loss.

The problem with vanity products like this is that they don't exist in a vacuum. EA, Ubisoft, and all the others are watching Star Citizen, I guarantee it. And what happens when it fails as a product? The big companies see the core gamers, the hardcoe, and those on PC as an unviable audience. Those big publishers aren't going anywhere. What a game like Star Citizen might actually do is convince the big publishers to go even more all-in on the console markets. I mean, why not? PC is risky, PC is demanding, and PC gamers are more likely to pirate their product rather than buy it.

I don't want to focus on the virtues or failings of Star Citizen exclusively. I'm just using the game to illustrate my point: That vanity projects are as destructive as they are constructive. I have my misgivings about such things, and there they are.

What do you think? Am I just worrying too much?