Mako

Members
  • Content count

    78
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

58 Excellent

About Mako

  • Rank
    Bottle Rocketeer
  1. @Violent Jeb Let me try one more time to make it clear what I mean. Maybe I've said it too nicely for people to comprehend my opinion on the matter. Squad made a bad decision. I hope they have learned from it. It seems likely they have since they have chosen a new company to develop the port. It seems likely that at the time they must have thought FTE could do the job. Otherwise why would they give them money? That was my point with the remodeling analogy. You wouldn't give someone money to do a job they couldn't complete. They had more info at hand than we do to assess the situation. They also had most likely already signed the contract. Those typically have very real consequences if breached, so they may have had very little choice after signing. They probably had to hope for the best. I am by no means defending Squad's decision or action. I am only trying to understand it and explain it as I do. Everyone already knows they messed up. All I'm trying to point out is that it is unlikely they did so with malicious intent. It doesn't change the fact it happened, but at least they're now trying to fix the mistake. Would it have been better had they fixed it sooner? Absolutely. That could be said about every mistake by anyone ever, and in every situation it's really easy to say when uninvolved. My comment about being positive was cynical. I understand that often doesn't come across well in text form online, but what I truly meant was I hope FTE did not make off with a bunch of money for their poor quality work. I hope this makes it clear.
  2. You missed my point. I know that Squad chose FTE because they were the cheapest. It seemed likely at the time and it's obvious now. However, my point was: lowest bidder or highest Squad must have believed they would at least get their money's worth from FTE. Otherwise they would be so bad at business that they shouldn't be capable of still operating and it'd be a miracle they made it this far in any industry. Let's say you're remodeling your kitchen. You get quotes from various contractors. They all say they can do the work in the required amount of time. The prices vary, and the one with the best price is able to convince you that they can do the job. So you sign the contract with them. It makes sense to save the money because you believe the job will still get done, right? If the lowest-price contractor wasn't able to convince you, would you still sign a contract and give money them? @Red Iron Crown does have a point that i was hoping i didnt completely dismiss, and I appreciate the positivity in that post so I'll try to be positive too. Hopefully Squad paid FTE so little that whatever work FTE did, no matter how broken, was worth it.
  3. I do sincerely appreciate your positive attitude, and I've been trying harder in my personal life to be more positive, but I have to point out that FTE claimed they would get the job done, and they did part of it. Of course we should admit they got it running, but that's what they said they would do. I don't know if doing what you said you would do deserves much of a pat on the back, even if you finish the job. Also, any porting company wanting the contract would have said the same, and should have been able to deliver at least the same quality if unless they were complete frauds. Most importantly though: if Squad had any doubt that FTE could deliver a good port then why would they hire them in the first place? That scenario doesn't make sense; it is bad for the business and the product.
  4. You aren't wrong. And I can think of two examples where they did that in the past: the Round-8 tank and the Tier 0 Space Center. These two stand out as somewhat similar because they are examples of Squad trying to do things faster?, easier?, (cheaper?), the community called them out, and they took it into consideration. Of course it's possible that there are at least as many examples in the same time frame where community feelings seemed to go unnoticed. Again I will make an argument that the FTE choice was a bit of a different situation. Not only did Squad have people giving objective, negative reactions to the choice of FTE, they also had some (significantly) less than objective reactions to the idea that KSP could even work in on a console at all in any capacity, nevermind the people calling for Squad to focus on finishing the PC version before committing to new platforms. It is only a small stretch of the truth to say that these people were correct, as well, but only due to hindsight. At the time Squad also heard reactions from supporters of the cosine project. The case can be made that they did listen to one of the communities general reactions to the news of the console port and involvement of FTE. I remember looking into FTE after reading about peoples' concerns. Based on what I found I did not have a great deal of faith in FTE. I also remember thinking there's not much choice and we'll just have to see how it goes. We saw how it went. At this point all we can do is hope they learned from this lesson. If Squad truly wants to stick with the video game business they'll no doubt have opportunities for more lessons. Hopefully they learn from all of them do the right thing to make their product(s) great.
  5. I understand that you feel Squad does not listen to their community enough, but whether there's truth to that or not I don't believe that really applies in this case. I think it's far more likely that by the time the announcement was made and the community could react it was already a done deal. All we can hope for the future is that Squad does listen and doesn't make decisions based on saving as much money as possible. They learned a lesson with FTE, and hopefully it sticks. But to your point specifically, until they announce plans in advance (which they have rarely, if ever, done) the community -- however vocal -- will have very little influence in these types of decisions.
  6. Made me tear up just reading your post. It sounds like Pumpkin had the best friend in the whole world and a wonderful life. I wish you many more moments of remembering fond memories of such a special family member. To Pumpkin and non-human family members everywhere: we love you and thank you for everything you do for us. @AlamoVampire - Thank you for sharing this moment with us. Kerbal Space Program - Thank you for inspiring special moments of all kinds for so many people.
  7. Do you want Squad to continue to make content for KSP? No, seriously, you paid for what already existed and anything they could continue to produce from existing sales. I feel pretty confident saying that new purchases must have dropped off by now, and without new income there is no more development. Squad isn't a group of modders working on KSP for fun in their spare time. That said, I'm a bit sad that this probably means very little/no new base game content. With a small team I doubt they can work on base game content and add-on content at the same time. And if they need to try to increase sales with localization and add-on content, they're probably needing to focus heavily on revenue earning content (which is not base game, free update features). That's just business. In fact I'm a bit surprised Squad's still going in video games since they only have one product and it's only been successful on PC platforms. I'm certainly not upset they're still going, but, even though KSP has been very successful on PC, until they announced DLC I really didn't understand how they could afford to hire new staff, keep the lights on, and continue updating KSP.
  8. Obviously we'll have to wait and see, but I don't expect a season pass (or DLC bundle) will be announced until after the Making History DLC comes out. A "season pass" type bundle could be nice moving forward, but I don't think Squad is there yet. And I'm guessing they don't think they're there yet, either. I don't mean any of this negatively, but one DLC add-on does not need a bundle and the development of more DLC may be very dependent upon the sales of this DLC.
  9. I was Ninja'd by razark.
  10. I've seen plenty of indie developers who have public roadmaps. Astroneer, recently released as early access, has a Trello page, as does Subnautica, just to name two bigger, higher profile titles. Then I've seen devblogs and roadmaps for a few other indie titles hosted on developer websites. So it most certainly happens for games, and unlike your example of Microsoft's Office, it's usually by smaller developers that I would put on par with Squad. Public roadmaps don't usually exist for traditionally developed games since the public only ever interacts with the game upon completion. With the recent trend of games being released and playable while under active, heavy development, developers begin including their customers in the development process - including roadmaps.
  11. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, and that's okay. But I do want to say I don't think Squad should say specifics of what they plan to release or give dates for anything, and I do think they should say what they hope to accomplish by continuing to work on KSP. I'll be blunt and honest with you: I don't see the business sense in continuing to upgrade the current product for existing customers with no way to monetize it. We're not paying a monthly fee for a service, as some software tends to do these days, and there's no microtransactions or paid DLC, so I'm really not sure what Squad plans to do. I understand localization efforts because it can open the game up to new sales for a new audience. I can certainly understand it if those are the kinds of business-focused KSP updates Squad is working on from here on out. Unless Squad has some way to keep making money on games development, I'm not sure how they're planning to keep the lights on and employees paid. That's why I'm so curious to hear about what Squad wants to do with KSP. They need to work on things that will make them money, or they won't be working for very long. The only way Squad can keep making major feature updates to KSP without a revenue source is if they've already made so much money that they can afford to keep hiring and paying people from the previous profits. That is definitely not a sustainable business model, but it would gain them a lot of loyalty with existing customers and probably earn them some new ones if they announced that as the plan. The only way Squad loses by announcing what they want to do with KSP is if what they want is bad for KSP and/or its existing customers. And if that was the plan Squad would lose in the long run anyway. I doubt that's the plan. Please don't take this the wrong way, but it seems like you haven't read anything else I've posted in this thread. I was only answering your question; I was not endorsing or defending Squad's choices. I do believe that a Squad employee at one time or another has said something along the lines of what I said, but I could be wrong. I don't have a quote to reference. If you've read anything else I've said in this thread, you'll see that I'm advocating for Squad to share more information. In fact I've said several times that I think providing a general idea about what Squad wants to do with KSP from this point out would do more good than harm. I may not feel as strongly as you do about all of it, but I have only ever agreed with you so far in this thread. I suppose my earlier response by itself didn't make this explicitly clear, but in the context of every other post I've made in this thread you'll see exactly what I meant.
  12. Honestly, my wording was influenced just a little bit by Star Citizen. Good catch. I'm not interested in a roadmap with specific dates or specific parts like engines and decouplers. I don't think the community needs that. I'm interested in what Squad would like to work on before they call KSP complete. I would guess, and it's been hinted at, that there is an internal plan. I believe sharing that plan would do more good than harm. (Unless the plan was to do something that would not be in the customer's best interest. If that happened to be the case we'd be screwed either way, but I'd still welcome the advanced notice.) [Also, just to be clear, the part in the parentheses is not meant to be taken seriously. I don't think Squad is "out to 'get' us."]
  13. First, I'm sure if I gave Squad 10 years and a $100 million there's a lot of things they can do to KSP. We don't know what time constraints and financial limits Squad must operate under; we don't know what they can or cannot do, so your quote is meaningless as a public roadmap. Second, I don't want a roadmap to tell me what Squad can do, I want it to tell me what they want to do and hope to attempt. And I want Squad to understand that a roadmap doesn't mean they're guaranteeing anything and to stop being concerned about upsetting people via roadmap. I believe a roadmap would do more good than harm. People who want a certain feature might be upset if it's not included on a roadmap, but those people would be upset in the long run anyway when Squad finishes KSP without said feature. Some people who want a specific feature that is on the roadmap might be upset if Squad never completes said feature, but I think most people would be understanding, especially if Squad provided an explanation. However, I think most people would be happy to have a roadmap from Squad that roughly outlines its intentions for the future of this game we all love. I could be horribly wrong about all this, but I don't think so. No public roadmap made a lot more sense back when it was just Harvester and very small team working on a project that could get cancelled at any time by the people paying the bills. Today, with Squad expanding its team and pledging to continue working on KSP, a roadmap makes a lot more sense. What does Squad want to do with KSP?
  14. The reason that's always been given for why Squad doesn't share information regarding planned, specific, long-term features or release dates is they don't want to upset people by cancelling features or missing deadlines. I don't exactly agree that it's the best approach to alleviate discontent, and I believe that it brings about its own amount of discontent as I've mentioned previously in this thread. I personally wouldn't say it is rude, per se, though I do understand how you could feel that way. And I'm not presuming to tell you that you should feel different about it. I will say that telling us nothing causes it's own problems. I will recognize that the situation does have an element of "darned if you do, darned if you don't." I will also recognize that some companies in the same position as Squad take the same approach, and some others seem to find a way that I would argue is better. Rocket science might be easier than finding a better way, but isn't finding a better way a core part of KSP? Isn't trial and error, iteration, and tweaking designs fundamental to building your own vessels? Isn't all of that part of what draws a lot of us to this lovely game? Maybe Squad can apply some of these same concepts to community interaction and public relations. And based on small things I've noticed I will give Squad the benefit of the doubt and say maybe it's already happening. I can only hope that's the case.
  15. If it was complete Squad would have stopped working on it. If it were complete we wouldn't have 1.1, 1.2, or the upcoming 1.3. Complete is complete when work is finished. What they said at 1.0 was KSP was at that point feature complete compared to the original features they set out to have. They also said the list they actually wanted had grown beyond the original list, so they were continting to work on KSP. The people who said that have all left though, so what does current Squad actually want for the future of KSP (beyond 1.3 and all the contests, of course).