I think the use if 'realism' as a defence for gameplay mechanic left the room when instant teleport 'holograms' were introduced :/.
Maybe, maybe not. The game isn't truly realistic – it never was, and it never should have been. I love science fiction, but completely realistic science fiction is often a drag.
I don't understand why telepresence was the big realism breaker for so many people. Why isn't it top speed? Why isn't it ship combat being done by humans and not algorithms? Or shielding? Or the completely non-physical economy? What about the scaling of ship volume to ship power output / internal space?
Realism literally didn't extend to basic physics, basic geometry, basic economics, basic psychology, etc. from day one. And that isn't even really an insult: that space operas deviate from true science for the sake of story is well understood.
So what's the big deal with telepresence? The setting already has instantaneous across-galaxy communication. The only realism problems are a) the bandwidth situation, and b) why anyone is ever in a ship. Neither feel like the biggest unrealistic things in the game to date, and I think both were problems already in the 'verse as is.
But anyway, yep, as my post was saying, realism is not an argument for such limited availability. The argument for that is gameplay. And contrary to someone's "I agree" earlier, I wasn't saying everything should be available everywhere. Saying it's realistic != saying it should be so.
Hardly any games do this, upgrading stuff as you play is the meat and spuds of most games
He does have an interesting point though. Games shouldn't give you everything maxed out at the start, but something important can be told about a game from whether people would want to play if they had all the goodies already.
It's the whole topic of addiction-based gameplay. Jeff Vogel wrote an excellent pair of articles about this.