The game was always built for "future computers", but then, that was ten years ago. They're really putting a lot of money and effort into reporting on their progress, after a few years of radio silence. But then, they have a lot of money to burn.
Have you built anything comparable? It's in alpha, making performance/presentation comments seems really out of place. If you were well-informed on the project, you would know that they intentionally put performance optimizations on the backburner, because optimizing tech they intended to replace is not a good use of time.
Besides, in the last 6 months performance has drastically improved, as anyone that actually plays will tell you. I play regularly, do a variety of delivery/bounty/mining/recovery missions, explore planets/stations, have funny interactions surrounding all of that with other players, etc. Rome wasn't built in a day.
Do I have to build something comparable to be able to comment on the performance issues I have witnessed? I don't think so.
Do I have to accept all those excuses, which like those pictures of ships never run low in this company, to comment on the performance? I don't think so.
They promise a lot. They don't deliver. They break things which were already working and I'm still waiting. Those are clear signs of terrible Project Management and I think, I don't have to know all those cool insiders-excuses to be able to comment on this failure.
So please. Spare me your epigrams. They won't change anything about the facts.
That sounds like a good thing. Artists rarely care about what critics say, and when they do it's seen as an obsession to get rid of. I would hope Kurosawa didn't waste time listening to critics and instead took feedback from those that made films.