Star Citizen displays their goal on a public roadmap and delivers on them
Not once has that happened. Back when the roadmap was feature-centric they never made an intended release date, and since they 'refactored' it to become date-centric they haven't released a single quarterly patch that has included all the features that were originally planned. The only time the roadmap is in any way relevant is when a given patch is released, because by that point the roadmap has been stripped down to match what was actually delivered. At that point it's no longer a roadmap, it's just patch notes.
I am happy that they delayed instead of shoving out a less than good Squadron out. This is what happened internally as communicated. They were much further along in 2016 but they didn't like the quality and content. Hence the delay and push for a 2020 release. Yes it is unfortunate that delays happened but at the end of the day the product development is what matters and the game I am playing now has a much better chance of reaching the ambitions than the product I played in 2016.
Just look at the difference between the first morrow tour which would have been the standard of the game release in 2016 in comparison to the Morrow tour last year.
Two points: You're assuming the Squadron 42 that eventually gets released is going to be good, to justify the delays. That remains to be seen (and certainly can't be taken for granted), but personally I see more of a Mass Effect: Andromeda situation occurring, where years of work is thrown away and the game that's finally released is entirely cobbled together in the last 18 months of development. That's not iterating and improving over previous designs, that's facing up to economic realities and being forced to actually deliver something by publishers (or, in CI(G)'s case, investors). Roberts might have the most shares, but it doesn't absolve him of his legal responsibilities to his investors, whatever they may be.
Secondly, guess what? By the time the game is released the 2017 demo will look just as dated as the 2015 morrow tour does now. And fans were
raving about the 2015 demo at the time. Technology isn't standing still, and the "they'll only release it when it's up to standard" argument fails when they take so long that they end up having to play catch-up with other games. For all its limitations, CoD:IW bettered any of the character work and gameplay CI(G) has delivered to date, but that's already ancient history. SC/Squadron 42 are firmly stuck in that loop of having to constantly revamp work they've already done just to keep up. That's not the same as iterating and improving on a design because there never has been any clear design, which in turn is because development has been focused primarily on raising money, not delivering a game.
Plenty of others have already taken you to task on your very poorly-judged comparison of CI(G) and CDPR, but I would also add that while you try and make it sound as if The Witcher 3 was only great because they were able to iterate on 1 & 2, you're neglecting the important fact that 1 & 2 were great games in their own right.
I'll give some general replies because as usual this is turning towards all against me
even though I am a cautious optimist that enjoys hearing all opinions regarding SC.
Cautious optimism is fine, praising good work is fine, it's the denialism, whitewashing of Roberts' many and varied missteps, and disingenuous comparisons to successful developers that tends to get called out.
