Couldn't it be a case of different instances, or "channels". Like in GTA 5 you can only play with 30 players at a time, even though you can see the stats, records, etc. of everyone.
The difference in GTA is that there's a system in place to search for and join your friends/crewmates. Without that system, you would just be thrown in with 30 random people, and those are the only people you would ever see.
I'm guessing when you load up NMS you get put in a lobby of local-ish people, maybe 30 or whatever, and you would only be able to see those 30 people if you happened across them in the massive universe.
That or they straight up lied and you can't see other people at all. It would be nice for the devs to just come out and clear it up once and for all, as there's no question they've been intentionally vague so far, and that shit is getting old real fast.
That Whole article on Eurogamer is a non-issue. It was just a print error with the PEGI rating. That's it.
You have to look on the left side of that Box at the PSN icons, do you see a Multiplayer and PSN Subscription required icon? Do you see any of those being covered up with a sticker? Because if they tried to cover up "actual" multiplayer, there would have been a PSN multiplayer icon on the left side.
There isn't one, so it's a non-issue. Go look on other PS4 boxes that have actual multiplayer and see the PSN icons there on the back and compare it with NMS. /Shrug
They have already explained why the two players couldn't see each other. Of course, most likely just think the devs were lying about it. If you think the developers are that dishonest, just sell the game back now, walk away from this forum because you should believe they 'are all out to get your money and are on the same field of honesty as the presidential hopefuls of the USA
I think the intention was clearly there, just watching the video posted by @TheYear1500 shows they planned to implement multiplayer (of a fashion). The fact that they haven't addressed the removal of multiplayer pre-release or even post-release is not helping their case at all. It makes it look like they're ignoring their customers, it makes it look like they said it for sales, it makes it look like they lied. They should just stand up and address it with no ambiguity, people would be pissed but they would also respect them for setting the matter straight.
I think the intention was clearly there, just watching the video posted by @TheYear1500 shows they planned to implement multiplayer (of a fashion). The fact that they haven't addressed the removal of multiplayer pre-release or even post-release is not helping their case at all. It makes it look like they're ignoring their customers, it makes it look like they said it for sales, it makes it look like they lied. They should just stand up and address it with no ambiguity, people would be pissed but they would also respect them for setting the matter straight.
They never said the game would have full blown multiplayer, just that in theory you could meet eachother, but they never said you could communicate and play together (PVE. PVP, that kind of stuff).
I have been very critical about this game and it's lack of meaningful gameplay features, but even I knew what the game would contain and that was definitely NOT multiplayer.
They have already explained why the two players couldn't see each other. Of course, most likely just think the devs were lying about it. If you think the developers are that dishonest, just sell the game back now, walk away from this forum because you should believe they 'are all out to get your money and are on the same field of honesty as the presidential hopefuls of the USA
Do you have a link to this explanation? Because all I've found is the twitter stuff which is vague as ever. That dev clearly said you would be able to see other players, so I don't think a blunt and direct explanation of how the system works would be out of order here.
I think the intention was clearly there, just watching the video posted by @TheYear1500 shows they planned to implement multiplayer (of a fashion). The fact that they haven't addressed the removal of multiplayer pre-release or even post-release is not helping their case at all. It makes it look like they're ignoring their customers, it makes it look like they said it for sales, it makes it look like they lied. They should just stand up and address it with no ambiguity, people would be pissed but they would also respect them for setting the matter straight.
There is of course the possibility that the "limited" multiplayer interaction was not actually removed, but is simply having issues at the moment. Given how some past allegations have unfolded, HG may simply be waiting for players to discover the "correct" way to meet up.
If HG are lying about this, they WILL be found out. Yet they continue to actively hint at the existence of multiplayer features: “We added a ‘scan for other players’ in the Galactic Map to try to encourage this happening. We wanted it to happen – but the first day?” - Sean Murray on launch day
I cannot believe that any developer would be so stupid as to keep lying about something that they can't possibly hope to get away with.
I think the intention was clearly there, just watching the video posted by @TheYear1500 shows they planned to implement multiplayer (of a fashion). The fact that they haven't addressed the removal of multiplayer pre-release or even post-release is not helping their case at all. It makes it look like they're ignoring their customers, it makes it look like they said it for sales, it makes it look like they lied. They should just stand up and address it with no ambiguity, people would be pissed but they would also respect them for setting the matter straight.
It certainly seems that some of the interviews they did were a bit misleading, but i don't think it was intentional, i think they wanted the game to be the way they described, that it didn't end up that way was just one of those things that often happens in a games development cycle, and they just couldn't implement it in the way they wanted. So, yes, players are disappointed, but the game is playable and by all accounts people are having fun, its lack of multiplayer is probably not that significant.
I think the intention was clearly there, just watching the video posted by @TheYear1500 shows they planned to implement multiplayer (of a fashion). The fact that they haven't addressed the removal of multiplayer pre-release or even post-release is not helping their case at all. It makes it look like they're ignoring their customers, it makes it look like they said it for sales, it makes it look like they lied. They should just stand up and address it with no ambiguity, people would be pissed but they would also respect them for setting the matter straight.
It certainly seems that some of the interviews they did were a bit misleading, but i don't think it was intentional, i think they wanted the game to be the way they described, that it didn't end up that way was just one of those things that often happens in a games development cycle, and they just couldn't implement it in the way they wanted. So, yes, players are disappointed, but the game is playable and by all accounts people are having fun, its lack of multiplayer is probably not that significant.
On PS4 you can just create a Chat Party, invite your friends who are also playing NMS and tada.... multiplayer lol. That's exactly what we did last night and were actually having a blast. Constantly updating eachother what we have found, if we unlocked something or found something interesting, etc.
So you don't actually have to see eachother ingame to have fun.
I think the intention was clearly there, just watching the video posted by @TheYear1500 shows they planned to implement multiplayer (of a fashion). The fact that they haven't addressed the removal of multiplayer pre-release or even post-release is not helping their case at all. It makes it look like they're ignoring their customers, it makes it look like they said it for sales, it makes it look like they lied. They should just stand up and address it with no ambiguity, people would be pissed but they would also respect them for setting the matter straight.
It certainly seems that some of the interviews they did were a bit misleading, but i don't think it was intentional, i think they wanted the game to be the way they described, that it didn't end up that way was just one of those things that often happens in a games development cycle, and they just couldn't implement it in the way they wanted. So, yes, players are disappointed, but the game is playable and by all accounts people are having fun, its lack of multiplayer is probably not that significant.
Nope, it's not a case of something mentioned in an old interview that was then subsequently cut from the game but never revealed as such.
Sean Murray confirmed the existence of multiplayer features TWO DAYS AGO !: “We added a ‘scan for other players’ in the Galactic Map to try to encourage this happening. We wanted it to happen – but the first day?”
I think the intention was clearly there, just watching the video posted by @TheYear1500 shows they planned to implement multiplayer (of a fashion). The fact that they haven't addressed the removal of multiplayer pre-release or even post-release is not helping their case at all. It makes it look like they're ignoring their customers, it makes it look like they said it for sales, it makes it look like they lied. They should just stand up and address it with no ambiguity, people would be pissed but they would also respect them for setting the matter straight.
They never said the game would have full blown multiplayer, just that in theory you could meet eachother, but they never said you could communicate and play together (PVE. PVP, that kind of stuff).
I have been very critical about this game and it's lack of meaningful gameplay features, but even I knew what the game would contain and that was definitely NOT multiplayer.
Nor did I say they would have full-blown multiplayer. I said multiplayer (of a fashion) by which I mean you might be able to meet up but not group up, you might be able to shoot stuff or explore together but not have any bonuses for doing so, nor would there be any co-op quests that you could do together. Something more along the lines of what is available in Journey.
Murray did say that you would be able to communicate.
To be honest I couldn't care less, I just think the way its been handled is really piss poor. They should have got on top of the situation asap instead of letting it build to the ridiculous levels that it is now.
I think the intention was clearly there, just watching the video posted by @TheYear1500 shows they planned to implement multiplayer (of a fashion). The fact that they haven't addressed the removal of multiplayer pre-release or even post-release is not helping their case at all. It makes it look like they're ignoring their customers, it makes it look like they said it for sales, it makes it look like they lied. They should just stand up and address it with no ambiguity, people would be pissed but they would also respect them for setting the matter straight.
It certainly seems that some of the interviews they did were a bit misleading, but i don't think it was intentional, i think they wanted the game to be the way they described, that it didn't end up that way was just one of those things that often happens in a games development cycle, and they just couldn't implement it in the way they wanted. So, yes, players are disappointed, but the game is playable and by all accounts people are having fun, its lack of multiplayer is probably not that significant.
On PS4 you can just create a Chat Party, invite your friends who are also playing NMS and tada.... multiplayer lol. That's exactly what we did last night and were actually having a blast. Constantly updating eachother what we have found, if we unlocked something or found something interesting, etc.
So you don't actually have to see eachother ingame to have fun.
On PC there are a whole raft of different Voice comm options from TS3, mumble, discord, ventrilo etc. that can be used for the exact same thing, in any game, or games even as you don't have to even be playing the same games, its not multiplayer though, its just people chatting together while they are playing a game.
I think the intention was clearly there, just watching the video posted by @TheYear1500 shows they planned to implement multiplayer (of a fashion). The fact that they haven't addressed the removal of multiplayer pre-release or even post-release is not helping their case at all. It makes it look like they're ignoring their customers, it makes it look like they said it for sales, it makes it look like they lied. They should just stand up and address it with no ambiguity, people would be pissed but they would also respect them for setting the matter straight.
It certainly seems that some of the interviews they did were a bit misleading, but i don't think it was intentional, i think they wanted the game to be the way they described, that it didn't end up that way was just one of those things that often happens in a games development cycle, and they just couldn't implement it in the way they wanted. So, yes, players are disappointed, but the game is playable and by all accounts people are having fun, its lack of multiplayer is probably not that significant.
On PS4 you can just create a Chat Party, invite your friends who are also playing NMS and tada.... multiplayer lol. That's exactly what we did last night and were actually having a blast. Constantly updating eachother what we have found, if we unlocked something or found something interesting, etc.
So you don't actually have to see eachother ingame to have fun.
On PC there are a whole raft of different Voice comm options from TS3, mumble, discord, ventrilo etc. that can be used for the exact same thing, in any game, or games even as you don't have to even be playing the same games, its not multiplayer though, its just people chatting together while they are playing a game.
Exactly. I just mentioned the PS4, since I am playing it on PS4. ;-)
No man's sky, who did not take your money, failed in one promise and got this kind of heat.
Can you imagine Star Citizen who took 118 million dollars out of gamers pocket, fails to deliver?
Oh it will be glorious!
I don't know.
NMS is 60 euro/dollars - and Star Citizen is between 30 and 45 depending on when you buy. I actually believe I paid 25 euro for the initial pledge package, but I'm not sure.
If Star Citizen is released and ends up being no better than NMS - then there's no rational reason to make it more of a spectacle.
I think people forget that the 118 million dollars is made up of pledges - which means people have donated money in the hopes of getting something valuable in return. It's not 118 million dollars donated by a single person - so why would it be a bigger deal?
Obviously, if someone honestly believes paying 10000 dollars for a pledge package means he or she is entitled to a game that's objectively 200 times better than the average PC game - then I could see why it would be a bigger deal, but that would mean the person in question is unreasonable.
Buying NMS is not a donation, it's buying a finished product that's been marketed as having a billion worlds worth exploring.
I really find OPs thread name very funny. When NMS got to Steam page It sead clearly singleplayer game, there were no MP tag or MMO tag just ONE player.
No man's sky, who did not take your money, failed in one promise and got this kind of heat.
Can you imagine Star Citizen who took 118 million dollars out of gamers pocket, fails to deliver?
Oh it will be glorious!
I don't know.
NMS is 60 euro/dollars - and Star Citizen is between 30 and 45 depending on when you buy. I actually believe I paid 25 euro for the initial pledge package, but I'm not sure.
If Star Citizen is released and ends up being no better than NMS - then there's no rational reason to make it more of a spectacle.
I think people forget that the 118 million dollars is made up of pledges - which means people have donated money in the hopes of getting something valuable in return. It's not 118 million dollars donated by a single person - so why would it be a bigger deal?
Obviously, if someone honestly believes paying 10000 dollars for a pledge package means he or she is entitled to a game that's objectively 200 times better than the average PC game - then I could see why it would be a bigger deal, but that would mean the person in question is unreasonable.
Buying NMS is not a donation, it's buying a finished product that's been marketed as having a billion worlds worth exploring.
I do hope you are not seriously trying to suggest that people are paying such sums as $10,000 without expecting to get back something in return, as i am fairly sure that even those who only paid $50 are expecting to get a game in return. At the very least, those buying NMS are buying a game, hopefully the game they thought they were buying, at the moment, SC cannot make that claim as it doesn't have a finished product yet, and may still be several years away from doing so, the only real difference between the two products is that those who bought NMS bought a game, while those who bought SC are buying the promise of a game.
No man's sky, who did not take your money, failed in one promise and got this kind of heat.
Can you imagine Star Citizen who took 118 million dollars out of gamers pocket, fails to deliver?
Oh it will be glorious!
I don't know.
NMS is 60 euro/dollars - and Star Citizen is between 30 and 45 depending on when you buy. I actually believe I paid 25 euro for the initial pledge package, but I'm not sure.
If Star Citizen is released and ends up being no better than NMS - then there's no rational reason to make it more of a spectacle.
I think people forget that the 118 million dollars is made up of pledges - which means people have donated money in the hopes of getting something valuable in return. It's not 118 million dollars donated by a single person - so why would it be a bigger deal?
Obviously, if someone honestly believes paying 10000 dollars for a pledge package means he or she is entitled to a game that's objectively 200 times better than the average PC game - then I could see why it would be a bigger deal, but that would mean the person in question is unreasonable.
Buying NMS is not a donation, it's buying a finished product that's been marketed as having a billion worlds worth exploring.
I do hope you are not seriously trying to suggest that people are paying such sums as $10,000 without expecting to get back something in return, as i am fairly sure that even those who only paid $50 are expecting to get a game in return. At the very least, those buying NMS are buying a game, hopefully the game they thought they were buying, at the moment, SC cannot make that claim as it doesn't have a finished product yet, and may still be several years away from doing so, the only real difference between the two products is that those who bought NMS bought a game, while those who bought SC are buying the promise of a game.
Why would I be suggesting that?
I'm saying the higher pledge packages are in place for optional support - if you have the means and the desire to support the game on a greater level.
Higher packages don't represent access to a better game than lower packages. That's plain as day. The "expensive ships" are really just tokens of appreciation for your support - nothing more.
What I'm saying is that if you pay 10.000 dollars to support the game - and you expect something other than the game in return - then you're being unreasonable. Not only because it's perfectly obvious to anyone with a brain - but also because it's been made clear on the website and by the developers time and time again.
No, you don't "buy" SC - you donate towards its development. That's what crowd-funding is. If you start confusing it with a pre-order - then you're already on the wrong path.
If you want to buy SC as a product, then you should wait until it's released. Then you can talk about having a right to what you were promised, and not before.
No man's sky, who did not take your money, failed in one promise and got this kind of heat.
Can you imagine Star Citizen who took 118 million dollars out of gamers pocket, fails to deliver?
Oh it will be glorious!
I don't know.
NMS is 60 euro/dollars - and Star Citizen is between 30 and 45 depending on when you buy. I actually believe I paid 25 euro for the initial pledge package, but I'm not sure.
If Star Citizen is released and ends up being no better than NMS - then there's no rational reason to make it more of a spectacle.
I think people forget that the 118 million dollars is made up of pledges - which means people have donated money in the hopes of getting something valuable in return. It's not 118 million dollars donated by a single person - so why would it be a bigger deal?
Obviously, if someone honestly believes paying 10000 dollars for a pledge package means he or she is entitled to a game that's objectively 200 times better than the average PC game - then I could see why it would be a bigger deal, but that would mean the person in question is unreasonable.
Buying NMS is not a donation, it's buying a finished product that's been marketed as having a billion worlds worth exploring.
I do hope you are not seriously trying to suggest that people are paying such sums as $10,000 without expecting to get back something in return, as i am fairly sure that even those who only paid $50 are expecting to get a game in return. At the very least, those buying NMS are buying a game, hopefully the game they thought they were buying, at the moment, SC cannot make that claim as it doesn't have a finished product yet, and may still be several years away from doing so, the only real difference between the two products is that those who bought NMS bought a game, while those who bought SC are buying the promise of a game.
Why would I be suggesting that?
I'm saying the higher pledge packages are in place for optional support - if you have the means and the desire to support the game on a greater level.
Higher packages don't represent access to a better game than lower packages. That's plain as day. The "expensive ships" are really just tokens of appreciation for your support - nothing more.
What I'm saying is that if you pay 10.000 dollars to support the game - and you expect something other than the game in return - then you're being unreasonable. Not only because it's perfectly obvious to anyone with a brain - but also because it's been made clear on the website and by the developers time and time again.
No, you don't "buy" SC - you donate towards its development. That's what crowd-funding is. If you start confusing it with a pre-order - then you're already on the wrong path.
If you want to buy SC as a product, then you should wait until it's released. Then you can talk about having a right to what you were promised, and not before.
I think you will find that many people think that the money they are paying, means that at some as yet undetermined time in the future, they will receive a copy of the game on that basis, hence why i said that they are buying the 'promise of a game' whether that 'promise' is fullfilled is a different matter entirely, i would hope for CR's sake that it is, because you can be very sure, if it isn't that people will be a little upset with the guy.
No man's sky, who did not take your money, failed in one promise and got this kind of heat.
Can you imagine Star Citizen who took 118 million dollars out of gamers pocket, fails to deliver?
Oh it will be glorious!
I don't know.
NMS is 60 euro/dollars - and Star Citizen is between 30 and 45 depending on when you buy. I actually believe I paid 25 euro for the initial pledge package, but I'm not sure.
If Star Citizen is released and ends up being no better than NMS - then there's no rational reason to make it more of a spectacle.
I think people forget that the 118 million dollars is made up of pledges - which means people have donated money in the hopes of getting something valuable in return. It's not 118 million dollars donated by a single person - so why would it be a bigger deal?
Obviously, if someone honestly believes paying 10000 dollars for a pledge package means he or she is entitled to a game that's objectively 200 times better than the average PC game - then I could see why it would be a bigger deal, but that would mean the person in question is unreasonable.
Buying NMS is not a donation, it's buying a finished product that's been marketed as having a billion worlds worth exploring.
I do hope you are not seriously trying to suggest that people are paying such sums as $10,000 without expecting to get back something in return, as i am fairly sure that even those who only paid $50 are expecting to get a game in return. At the very least, those buying NMS are buying a game, hopefully the game they thought they were buying, at the moment, SC cannot make that claim as it doesn't have a finished product yet, and may still be several years away from doing so, the only real difference between the two products is that those who bought NMS bought a game, while those who bought SC are buying the promise of a game.
Why would I be suggesting that?
I'm saying the higher pledge packages are in place for optional support - if you have the means and the desire to support the game on a greater level.
Higher packages don't represent access to a better game than lower packages. That's plain as day. The "expensive ships" are really just tokens of appreciation for your support - nothing more.
What I'm saying is that if you pay 10.000 dollars to support the game - and you expect something other than the game in return - then you're being unreasonable. Not only because it's perfectly obvious to anyone with a brain - but also because it's been made clear on the website and by the developers time and time again.
No, you don't "buy" SC - you donate towards its development. That's what crowd-funding is. If you start confusing it with a pre-order - then you're already on the wrong path.
If you want to buy SC as a product, then you should wait until it's released. Then you can talk about having a right to what you were promised, and not before.
I think you will find that many people think that the money they are paying, means that at some as yet undetermined time in the future, they will receive a copy of the game on that basis, hence why i said that they are buying the 'promise of a game' whether that 'promise' is fullfilled is a different matter entirely, i would hope for CR's sake that it is, because you can be very sure, if it isn't that people will be a little upset with the guy.
I'm not talking about what people believe - but what they're doing when they're pledging.
Also, we're not talking about people being upset - we're talking about them being MORE upset because the budget is larger.
If people are upset by an underwhelming game - then that's certainly understandable - but that doesn't make it rational or reasonable to make your personal donation into a reflection of what you can reasonably expect from the game.
It's never going to be more than a computer game, no matter how much you've pledged.
If you don't understand that, that's called being unreasonable.
Comments
The difference in GTA is that there's a system in place to search for and join your friends/crewmates. Without that system, you would just be thrown in with 30 random people, and those are the only people you would ever see.
I'm guessing when you load up NMS you get put in a lobby of local-ish people, maybe 30 or whatever, and you would only be able to see those 30 people if you happened across them in the massive universe.
That or they straight up lied and you can't see other people at all. It would be nice for the devs to just come out and clear it up once and for all, as there's no question they've been intentionally vague so far, and that shit is getting old real fast.
Can you imagine Star Citizen who took 118 million dollars out of gamers pocket, fails to deliver?
Oh it will be glorious!
New players can get a welcome package and old/returning players can also get a welcome back package and 7 days free subscription time! Just click here to use my referral invitation
That Whole article on Eurogamer is a non-issue. It was just a print error with the PEGI rating. That's it.
You have to look on the left side of that Box at the PSN icons, do you see a Multiplayer and PSN Subscription required icon? Do you see any of those being covered up with a sticker?
Because if they tried to cover up "actual" multiplayer, there would have been a PSN multiplayer icon on the left side.
There isn't one, so it's a non-issue. Go look on other PS4 boxes that have actual multiplayer and see the PSN icons there on the back and compare it with NMS. /Shrug
The fact that they haven't addressed the removal of multiplayer pre-release or even post-release is not helping their case at all. It makes it look like they're ignoring their customers, it makes it look like they said it for sales, it makes it look like they lied.
They should just stand up and address it with no ambiguity, people would be pissed but they would also respect them for setting the matter straight.
They never said the game would have full blown multiplayer, just that in theory you could meet eachother, but they never said you could communicate and play together (PVE. PVP, that kind of stuff).
I have been very critical about this game and it's lack of meaningful gameplay features, but even I knew what the game would contain and that was definitely NOT multiplayer.
If HG are lying about this, they WILL be found out. Yet they continue to actively hint at the existence of multiplayer features:
“We added a ‘scan for other players’ in the Galactic Map to try to encourage this happening. We wanted it to happen – but the first day?” - Sean Murray on launch day
I cannot believe that any developer would be so stupid as to keep lying about something that they can't possibly hope to get away with.
So, yes, players are disappointed, but the game is playable and by all accounts people are having fun, its lack of multiplayer is probably not that significant.
That's exactly what we did last night and were actually having a blast. Constantly updating eachother what we have found, if we unlocked something or found something interesting, etc.
So you don't actually have to see eachother ingame to have fun.
Sean Murray confirmed the existence of multiplayer features TWO DAYS AGO !:
“We added a ‘scan for other players’ in the Galactic Map to try to encourage this happening. We wanted it to happen – but the first day?”
Nor did I say they would have full-blown multiplayer. I said multiplayer (of a fashion) by which I mean you might be able to meet up but not group up, you might be able to shoot stuff or explore together but not have any bonuses for doing so, nor would there be any co-op quests that you could do together. Something more along the lines of what is available in Journey.
Murray did say that you would be able to communicate.
To be honest I couldn't care less, I just think the way its been handled is really piss poor. They should have got on top of the situation asap instead of letting it build to the ridiculous levels that it is now.
Exactly. I just mentioned the PS4, since I am playing it on PS4. ;-)
NMS is 60 euro/dollars - and Star Citizen is between 30 and 45 depending on when you buy. I actually believe I paid 25 euro for the initial pledge package, but I'm not sure.
If Star Citizen is released and ends up being no better than NMS - then there's no rational reason to make it more of a spectacle.
I think people forget that the 118 million dollars is made up of pledges - which means people have donated money in the hopes of getting something valuable in return. It's not 118 million dollars donated by a single person - so why would it be a bigger deal?
Obviously, if someone honestly believes paying 10000 dollars for a pledge package means he or she is entitled to a game that's objectively 200 times better than the average PC game - then I could see why it would be a bigger deal, but that would mean the person in question is unreasonable.
Buying NMS is not a donation, it's buying a finished product that's been marketed as having a billion worlds worth exploring.
When NMS got to Steam page It sead clearly singleplayer game, there were no MP tag or MMO tag just ONE player.
At the very least, those buying NMS are buying a game, hopefully the game they thought they were buying, at the moment, SC cannot make that claim as it doesn't have a finished product yet, and may still be several years away from doing so, the only real difference between the two products is that those who bought NMS bought a game, while those who bought SC are buying the promise of a game.
I'm saying the higher pledge packages are in place for optional support - if you have the means and the desire to support the game on a greater level.
Higher packages don't represent access to a better game than lower packages. That's plain as day. The "expensive ships" are really just tokens of appreciation for your support - nothing more.
What I'm saying is that if you pay 10.000 dollars to support the game - and you expect something other than the game in return - then you're being unreasonable. Not only because it's perfectly obvious to anyone with a brain - but also because it's been made clear on the website and by the developers time and time again.
No, you don't "buy" SC - you donate towards its development. That's what crowd-funding is. If you start confusing it with a pre-order - then you're already on the wrong path.
If you want to buy SC as a product, then you should wait until it's released. Then you can talk about having a right to what you were promised, and not before.
Also, we're not talking about people being upset - we're talking about them being MORE upset because the budget is larger.
If people are upset by an underwhelming game - then that's certainly understandable - but that doesn't make it rational or reasonable to make your personal donation into a reflection of what you can reasonably expect from the game.
It's never going to be more than a computer game, no matter how much you've pledged.
If you don't understand that, that's called being unreasonable.