I agree and I think the importance of such a well written pieces like this is far greater than the piece itself.
It shows CR & CIG that the media is observing them closely, and will burn them to ground without hesitation if needed. Basically, they're substituting the publisher's supervision, which can only be good for end users (the gamers).
Agreed. Working without a publisher looming over your shoulder with a bottom line goal and a list of expenditures offers a LOT of freedom. It gives people the opportunity to try unconventional things, and to backtrack and explore different avenues when those initial forays don't quite work out as planned.
However (and perhaps I should have put that in all caps), having zero oversight means you can forget where your funding came from in the first place. Backers are not funding their vision, they are funding CR's vision, and that may not line up with all of the theorycrafting citizens have done while they wait for a finished game, or even the MVP. This series does well at reminding all parties that while CR may not have the oversight of a publisher, he does have a responsibility to the backers, and the longer this drags on, the more individuals will want accountability for that funding and what's happening to the game. Star Marine - even if it was intended as "just a game mode" or a modular aspect of the whole project - shows that the level of "open development" CR claimed really was not so open, after all. And while this project does not hinge on the development of Star Marine, its setbacks, along with what was shown in the first article, are certainly symptomatic of the delays, bugs, refactoring, cancellations, etc. that raise concerns.
You are right, the media outlets that have been paying attention to this are the supervision, and win, lose, or draw, they will be there at every big turn to remind CR that someone will be publicly holding this project (and its principals) accountable.
