Star Citizen has proven one thing to me, and that is that dreamers (Chris Roberts) who are developing incredibly ambitious need to be held in check by good PMs who are willing to push back when necessary. This thing has been developed for so long, and it seems like there's always excuses as to how there's something new to be added and that's why it's taking so long to even get to 1.0 status.
It's a problem across the artistic genres. Authors who become too famous to be edited often have a bad decline in their later years, because they really need to be edited. (One of the things I respect Larry Niven for is his insistence that he be edited, even though within his niche he reached the point where he could have done the same thing.) Movie directors that become too big to say no to often turn out to not quite have been the raging individual talents they thought they were, but instead have been the front person for a talented team; I think there's good reason to believe that this is what happened to Star Wars, for instance, that George Lucas is in fact not on his own a supreme talent but instead turned out to be a good person to have on the team. A whole HN thread could be filled naming the flabby, overcomplicated, self-indulgent movies that directors have made when they got large enough to be allowed to do whatever they wanted. It would be a much smaller thread naming such movies that ended up good in the end. I think there's a few. But in my opinion, as much as we complain about studio meddling and such, the track record on just writing a blank check to a creative isn't actually that good either.
I'm not sure it's possible, no matter how good you are, to ever get to the point that you don't need someone else assessing what you're doing and willing to be critical, at times even harsh if necessary. You will always be too close to your own work. Cultivating a dispassionate attitude can help, but you'll still be too close to your own work.