My quetion to you is so what?
I like the game for what it is today, it don't give a poo about any of these arguments, they only thing that matters to me is my enjoyment for what it is right now.
Then by all means, knock yourself out mate. I do not think many here have questioned that some people can have fun with a broken, buggy and incomplete product. Heck, pretty sure there are products even in a worst state or more barebones than SC that may get some positive reviews too.
Aren't they separate issues?
Whether you enjoy it in its current state or not does not mean you can't be critical of it for still being in alpha after 10 years.
They are not mutually exclusive.
Indeed. That has been a false equivalency often used by some posters here to argue
"this guy is having fun" ergo SC must be good. As shown multiple times there are as many people, if not more, that tried but do not have fun with SC and therefore the equivalency does not follow. Personal and anecdotal accounts can not support a universal statement.
To reasonably argue that SC is somewhat 'good' (never mind the fully universal BDSSE) from a player perspective, the argument should instead be tried from larger scale and slightly more objective metrics such as player concurrency metrics, game press reviews/rankings and scores, aggregated user reviews, units sold and revenue etc. None of these metrics in isolation can give you an accurate picture either but when put together usually you should have a reasonable answer to the
"is SC any good?" discussion. You can see often some SC backers arguing the revenue element (probably about the only one that can hold any water) but when those figures come from a non publicly audited CIG tracker and are used in a 'financial blog' that omits on purpose basic elements from standard financial accounts, even that one can be doubtful.
