Earlier quoted context omitted.
Star Citizen is trying to handle physics for objects in stations/planets/ships, debris, asteroids etc. A couple orders of magnitude more objects, I think. Note that I don't play or follow either game, but I think you're making an unreasonable comparison.
I'm only referencing EVE because OP did, but I don't think the comparison is unreasonable: using a simpler architecture doesn't mean you don't use beefy machines and write your code in C instead of Stackless Python to get better performance in your physics simulations. It just means that instead of being overly clever in your network infrastructure from the get go, you pick something simple that works and iterate fro…
SC was from the start supposed to be a giant multiplayer world, yet they picked cryengine, which can barely handle simple shooter multiplayer gameplay. Half of the updates Chris has given on development are just over-explaining simple multiplayer game engine functionality that they've had to implement from the ground up, while you can download unity or unreal and replicate it in the next hour.
I've always found him to be full of bullshit. The kickstarter video had him spend like ten minutes waffling on about how the ships have thrusters on them and all the physics are calculated off those actual thrusters, as if 1) that's not just a useless implementation detail that changes nothing about the actual game, 2) as if that's impressive in 2012 instead of the exact thing the rest of the industry was doing, 3) as if that was hard work instead of just a normal thing a video game developer should be comfortable building, 4) AS IF IT MAKES THE GAME MORE FUN
I don't understand how he sold anyone off that video. The sales pitch wasn't even aspirational, it was clearly and obviously a grift, though maybe unintentionally, from the very beginning.
It's a great example of someone thinking "more simulation detail === more better". Every game developer should really attempt to take a class on the human psychology of games.