What value do timegates add to video games?

Well, if taming dinos in ARK was instantaneous, it would massively change the game, and turn it into nothing but a constant stream of t-rex (or other large predator monster) battles. Those 1-hour countdowns are a time-gate for balance.

If reloading in CS:GO was instantaneous, there would be no tactical decision around when you do it, or danger presented by it happening at an inopportune time. Those 3-second reloads are a time-gate for balance.

There are tons of time-gated mechanics across all sorts of games. You just don't like this one.

How does the user experience improve or degrade if the wait is [less]?

Well, it means that other players may have to contend with them too-quickly returning to a fight as though nothing happened, which would be pretty crappy if you just got finished killing them. It would mean that if you fly across the solar system in a ship with a very fast Quantum Drive, you could potentially just summon your large, slow ship at your destination, effectively obviating the difference in travel time.

What’s the difference between acceleration humans can’t survive and wait times? What’s the line we can’t cross to suspend disbelief?

It's not about realism, it's about game balance. Your ships are something you need to take care of. Dying is and will have major consequences (loss of items, for instance). Do you think that Eve's manufacturing timers are about realism, or that they are disrespectful to the players? Should a tiny shuttle take the same amount of time to build as a Titan (the largest ship class in the game)?

It's game balance.

In spite of your short attention span, these are good questions. The point of a proper simulation isn't to be fun, and game that wants to be fun is usually not a perfect simulation. A game that wants to be a fun simulation has to find the middle ground. I've heard it referred to as "the good suck": It sucks to have to wait for something in a game to happen, but it contributes to a larger, sometimes desired feeling of immersion. But yeah, there's always a line where the suck outweighs the fun.

In the case of SC, if the game literally makes you sit and do nothing for 10m, that's one thing. But my guess is it doesn't. My guess is you can do other things in the meantime. So it's basically like any game: you can't just do anything you want at any time, otherwise it's not a game, it's a skinner box.

It gives combat stakes.

TTK is obviously substantially longer than an FPS, so instead of the 15 seconds you need for an objective mode there, you need something more substantial for battles to fundamentally work.

Time is the one thing we all suffer through equally.

It doesn't matter if you're a whale gamer with 100 ships or a normal person with 1 or 2.

Those 10 minutes pass the same for us all. And it's that consequence upon death that gives real weight, meaning and purpose to your choices.

It's what's meant to keep you from going, "hurr durr guns go brrrr" and shooting everyone you see on sight like a neanderthal.

The only thing I don't agree with is the current durations given the state of the game.

Often your ship explodes through no fault of your own. They should incrementally increase wait times as the game stabilizes more on my opinion.

But in a game where death is not permanent like real life time is one of the few things that weighs on us all the same.

And yes, ofc owning more ships b/c you're wealthier than other players does give you an advantage over other players, doesn't invalidate my point.

If anything that's making it more realistic, and some day 200 years from now when they implement "Death of a Spaceman" there will be harsher penalties to death that you can't whale your way out of, forcing you to prize your life and take action accordingly.

It's not meant to appeal to everyone. Nothing is meant to appeal to everyone.

If you don't like it, that's fine, don't play, no one is forcing you.

If you disagree with the game mechanics, that's fine, don't play. No one is forcing you.

If the devs need to do x, y, and z to appease you as an individual or you're going to quit, that's fine, don't play. No one is forcing you.

Like it or not it does have an effect, which is to raise the stakes. If everything is instant gratification there are less lows, but also less highs. You may prefer games that are less punishing, and that's fine, most people do. It does have an impact on the experience that creates value for people who like a more punishing experience, though. It doesn't create that value in the moment you're waiting, it creates it when you're debating whether a risk is worth it somewhere else in the game. If there was no punishment for a mistake, there's no reason to debate the risks, and that removes the high of taking a risk and having it pay off.

This isn't a good argument, though. You replied to somebody stating the intention with a description of a game that's in alpha.

Generally, they want everybody to have a good time, but that's not realistic right now. Star Citizen isn't being marketed as a fully functional game is being marketed as an alpha where people can see features that are being worked on.

Getting mad about one thing working as intended because something else isn't right now just sounds like your expectations aren't aligned with reality.

Or, you know, you could

a) do stuff there since the landing locations are not just empty waiting rooms,

b) use another ship that you bought (in-game),

c) use another ship that you rent (in-game), or

d) fly/ get a ride with someone else.

There are like 14 people who play the current iteration seriously, everyone else are just trying to keep up to date on the status of SC.

At this point you are just flailing.

If you actually had any clue about SC or had bothered to Google it, you'd know DAU numbers (50,000 average daily players across all regions, in 2022), and you'd never have made such an inane claim.

And no, CIG does not call it a tech demo, they call it an alpha, the 2 of which are not remotely similar.