Dishonest, no, deceptive, yes, just not in a rob-a-bank-degree of it.
a.k.a. marketing. As you said:
Clearly from a marketing point of view they sold a nice presentation to a lot of people.
Now a few things that I think you're missing. I apologise if I didn't actually explain this, but it's assumed knowledge for most backers. I thank you, I have consequently reassessed what is or isn't assumed knowledge.
THAT is imo a point they still have to prove. As soon as they did that to a degree that satisfies me and they actually put some usable and compareable information behind all the nicely created data that the ships have (so you can actually see what is an actual advantage and whats not, and what is and what is not a unchangeable preset), I will happily support them.
The problem with this is two fold:
1) They haven't done any balancing because they don't have a working prototype. That fancy video showing the Scythe fighting the Hornet, that was scripted. What is available right now, some "nice art assets" a few "stats" and a limited hanger module, that's it, that's
all they have. The prototype for balancing will be the pre-alpha dogfighting module, which we, the backers, will be testing. The best way to ensure that a single ship doesn't have a (game breaking) advantage is too
help them test it.
2) As previously stated by me, and no this isn't wishful thinking on my part, this is the development teams every intention, and one that they can achieve because they have already got the majority of the game funding they need, is
everything that can be brought can be earned in the final game upon release. In other words if you're in one of the less effective ships, you will have an opportunity to upgrade, and are not "locked out" of higher tier ships because you didn't want to put down the extra money for them.
You're requiring them to have already done the balancing at this point in time, when they are not physically able too. It may be a requirement for you to invest, but once again,
Caveat emptor. If you don't want to invest until they get the combat balancing right, that's your prerogative.
This is my main gripe, I am in general somewhat disappointed that they focused so hard on the presentation of all the stuff, without providing all that many actual facts regarding the game.
So you're effectively disappointed that they focused on what they have? If this was a normal game development, everything you're seeing, the alien race ideas, the mechanics, all of it would be fully fleshed out before the public even got a glimpse of it.
What you need to understand is this is
unprecedented. Chris Roberts original intention was to get a couple of million bucks, and say "Okay guys, great you're interested, we've proved our concept will be profitable, so now we're going to approach a publisher and we'll see you all in 2 years with an alpha." As they got more and more funding they said "Fuck the publisher, we can do this ourselves, but we therefore will have to in house everything". This means that everything, and I mean everything, you see now, is an early prototype. The modified CryEngine3, the ship models, even the stats, it's all subject to change. And what you see, with the exception of a couple of surprises they don't want to spoil for obvious reasons (i.e. Squadron 42), or is too "raw", what they have published is what they have.
From my economical position they didn't deliver nowhere near enough.
I must stress, I'm not suggesting you modify your economic position, if you want to see some ships in an effective dog fight, properly balanced, ships properly stated, and that's when you'll say "Hey, they've got something here", then that's perfectly acceptable. What I am asking you to understand is that you're economic position and RSI's economic position are not even close to aligning. They are 6 months, at minimum, away from the point you seem to be expecting of them right now. In other words, you need to reassess your expectations
if you want to look at what is on the table right now. If you don't want to do that, then you're going to get into a lot of arguments like this one, where we tell you nothing much of consequence towards your decision of pledging, or not.
Again, I am not trying to make this bad, not at all, I am merely trying to bring some realism back into what is more than just a long-term investment.
A commendable goal. And if you think I am hostile towards this, I apologise. I believe our goals are more aligned that otherwise here. You wish to bring rational thinking into what is, for most, an emotional decision right now, and so do I. I'm not going to be arrogant enough to suggest "I don't make emotional decisions", but I must point out, I have higher functioning autism, and Star Citizen, for better of worse, has become one of my areas of "focus". This means I know a lot about it, and have an huge, almost character defining, desire to learn everything I can. For this reason, although their is an emotional element to my decision to pledge as much as I have, ultimately there are very rational justifications as well.