• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Mako

  1. Well, to answer your question: I think this in an idea that has been asked for quite a lot by quite a few people for quite a while now. People have wanted to have more of a guiding as opposed to reacting influence over their unique space program experience. So I'm not too sure what resistance you are sensing; I believe people have just been pointing out that what you're looking for is probably not what's coming in this DLC based on the few details that have been provided. By all means, you and everyone else should continue to voice your opinions and desires. From what has been said, Squad looks to be still in the design phase of this DLC production. Now is the time when it's easiest to make any changes to the design. However, right now we only have a very general picture of what is being implemented and our ideas may not fit what Squad is planning quite as well as we think. This is not a blanket endorsement of Squad's decisions; this is just the reality of the situation. And if in the end you are dissatisfied with what Squad presents then do not purchase it. That's all any of us can really do.
  2. @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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. I was Ninja'd by razark.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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."]
  14. 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?
  15. 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.
  16. 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).
  17. I remain unconvinced that Squad saying absolutely nothing about its intent for KSP is the best way to proceed. The community has literally no idea what Squad intends to do. I'm not talking about release dates. I'm not talking about when features are implemented. I'm talking about a broad idea of what Squad can see happening before it calls KSP complete. We used to have at least that, but since KSP has reached that mark where does Squad see it going? Do they have any actual direction or is it just a bunch of loose ideas with no real focus. Are there even any ideas? I'd guess that there are, but really we don't know. People lose interest when they have no idea what is left to be interested in. Squad might not care about that since they already made the sale, and that would be a cynical, yet valid approach that I wouldn't hold against them as a business, but since they mention how great the community is I would think they'd want to keep it around. I'm not saying it's doom and gloom. I'm just explaining what I observe. I don't doubt that the new team wants to do good work. I think most people who care about the work they do want others to recognize and like all the hard work that's been done. I'm do believe the localization work will be good. Apart from that I have no idea what Squad is still work for. It would make since they have some kind of plan, but right now they are a video game one-hit wonder. There's no reason to believe that KSP will go farther or other projects will be successful. Especially when most/all the people who brought about the one and only success are no longer with Squad. Personally, I'm not upset or discontent. I will wait to see how it all plays out. And no matter what we will absolutely still have what we have now (as long as we've made our own backups, of course).
  18. Absolutely. We never had one before, as you well know, but we did have some idea of what KSP was intended to be. Harvester and team did hint at goals from time to time. Now that KSP has reached a good enough point that the previous team has moved on, the community has absolutely no hint at what is intended beyond the coming update. All we've been told is people have been hired and Squad is continuing to work on KSP. For all we know "continuing to work on KSP" could mean that they will continue to create and hold various KSP-related contests for various KSP-related prizes. I doubt that's truly the case, but no one outside of Squad can say with any certainty. Until the community is given some kind of idea about Squad's intentions for KSP I'm sure we'll continue to see a lot of discontent. Even if you don't agree with something, it's easier to accept it and move past it if you know what it is. Until then imagination makes you fear the worst, and without anything to stop that fear you feal uneasy and discontent. Squad is asking the community to trust them without offering anything to base that trust on beyond what has been previously delivered by people that no longer work for Squad. I am not good at having faith in something unproven; I like to wait and see how people prove to be. Past Squad proved capable of delivering a fantastic, unparalleled experience despite its flaws and limits. I am curious how current Squad will prove itself to be.
  19. If people choose to be disappointed then no amount or rhetoric is going to change that; it'll probably just exacerbate it. I get what you're saying, but if the upcoming update only includes the already announced features and nothing else it seems like that's enough for some people to choose to be disappointed. However, your point is not invalid: we don't know exactly what we're getting until we get it. We really don't know much of of what the future holds (especially following this update) because we have too little information to go on. It's not a complaint; it's just the facts.
  20. I am not endorsing any comments (except my own of course), but I'm guessing the community was smaller and closer to the devs then. I think a lot of the frustration would be alleviated if the current community had a better understanding of Squad's intentions for KSP. Right now all we have is (paraphrased): we're going to keep working on it. That is such a nebulous commitment and it's coming from a team with whom we are now mostly unfamiliar. It remains to be seen what kind of work this team will do and what goals they have for KSP. I believe most of the apprehensions that people are expressing are directly related to the doubts that are born out of the currently unknown KSP plans and leadership. Right now the community is being asked to trust Squad, and it seems that some people in the community do. But we're being asked to trust Squad by people who have less interaction with the community than the past team, who have been working on KSP for a relatively short amount of time compared to the past team, and who have not yet released any work on which the community can form opinions. The only work we can judge at this time is the Weeklies and the Contests, and I don't believe either of those are what brought most of the community together in the first place or are responsible for keeping it together now. I don't mean this as an attack of any kind; it is simply the truth. I hope for good things to come, but right now I just have no way to assess the likelihood of that happening. Time will tell, of course.
  21. You're absolutely right, and at the same time you absolutely understand my thought process. Thank you. So let me just try to make amends and say again: you're right. I undersold the very smart, very deliberate design choices that Harvester and others made when I said "the rest is just programming." Those choices are definitely part of the magic just as much as choosing fun little green aliens as the protagonists. I did say "the lighthearted nature the game puts forth" is part of the magic, and that encompasses the good design but totally does not gives the devs the credit they deserve. Thank you for calling me out on that. I will just say that I made those comments in response to someone saying a sequel would just be a cookie-cutter project and therefore kill the magic, but just as I don't believe that poster did my idea justice, I didn't do the devs justice on their design and cleverness. If it were so easy to program such a game as this I believe we'd have seen clones pop up by now, and to be fair I doubt those clones would have the same, if any, magic that KSP has.
  22. I know what you mean, but let me just say your words made me think this: Squad is mostly unknown. Sure, there are a few team members we know from the community, but all the new hires we only know through a short bio that was relayed to us upon their being hired. Also, the current team has yet to release an update. I'm not speculating that the upcoming release will be bad or anything like that. I just want to point out that we really don't know current Squad apart from the little information they've chosen to give us. I feel like even the current PR people are mostly unknown to us. Say what you will about Maxmaps or other past public facing representatives, but my feeling is that Squad was more approachable and more interactive with its community in the past. I'm not accusing Squad of anything, just sharing my perception (which may be biased because I mostly lurk, but I lurk a lot and what I've seen has affected my perception). So when people say things like what I suspect motivated your comment, I think it's a symptom of the apprehension some of the community is feeling since we're waiting to find out more about this team (through their hard work [because I understand the hesitance to be too directly involved in the community even if I don't exactly agree with the choice]), more about the updates, and more about future plans for KSP. The teasing of announcements and secret projects that can't be discussed has not helped the feeling that the community really has very little information by which it can form an idea or opinion of Squad and the future of KSP. That's not doom and gloom, it's just facts. In some way it doesn't matter too much, because KSP already exists and is worth its price. The present of KSP is pretty darn good, so the future of it only matters because Squad keeps saying they're working on it... ...we just have no idea right now what that actually means...
  23. I'm not saying someone should start churning out KSP clones left and right. I'm saying that a second KSP built from the ground up on a better foundation while learning from the creation of the original sounds very appealing. There are definite limits to what can be achieved with the current code base. Unity was a good choice given the circumstances at the time. I believe there are better options now available because KSP has been successful. I believe the magic you speak of comes from the Kerbals and the lighthearted nature the game puts forth. The rest is just programming. In KSP's case, what made it successful was its approachable nature and its accomplishments despite the engine it was built on. I would love options like axial tilt, a solar system size that could be chosen for each new save, a building system other than the strict parent-child configuration. KSP works as it is. The concept would continue to work just as well if those improvements (and others) could be added. However, after coming as far as KSP has, I don't see any way for anything like my few suggestions to be implemented. I don't think it would be effective to try to wrestle significant changes into what currently exists. The first time you create something is not likely to be the best version of that thing that you'll ever create. If I draw a picture of a horse for the first time, it won't be good because I'm a terrible artist. The second time I try to draw that horse I can look back at my first attempt and see what worked, what didn't, and try to improve on it. Maybe I bring better tools to the table (better paper, pencils, etc.) based on what I learned from my first experience. But I can tell you this: if I try to erase parts of my previous drawing and correct problems it certainly won't look as good as if I start fresh with what I've learned from my first attempt. The choices I made for the first drawing will be impossible to get away from entirely. And yet, that first drawing will have some magic to it because it was the first. It will not be my best or most impressive creation, but that doesn't change the fact that it was the start of something even bigger and better. And as I said before: I don't see it happening, but it's certainly possible and it's certainly fun to dream.
  24. I'll clarify my position: A talented team could spend a lot (years) of time and a lot of money working with what already exists while limited by Unity and its physics engine and expand KSP. That is well within the realm of possibility. However, I think it would be far more effective and productive for that team to take what was learned from the creation, implementation, reception, and growth of KSP and its mods and start a new project from stronger foundation. Hopefully the profits of KSP would be enough to fund such a project.
  25. I understand what you're saying, but let me explain why there is a demand for a sequel. KSP as it is right now is fantastic. Certainly there are some improvements that can be made. However, using Unity as it's base engine does mean that there are limits to what KSP can grow into. I'm sure there are arguments to be made about various other engines and their respective pros and cons when compared to Unity, but the truth is none of that matters to KSP. The only way an engine change would happen would be if a new project was started. The idea of a new project built from the ground up on a more capable (or even custom designed) engine by team of experienced devs using KSP as a proof of concept holds a great amount of appeal to me, and it seems to others as well. To be clear, I don't expect this to happen at all, but I would happily wait the 4+ years of development and pay the standard AAA game $60 price for that game. Knowing what a game like KSP can become, and focusing direction and development with those goals in mind, a game that is built from a more capable beginning could give us a something that holds even more possibilities than we have now. It seems unlikely, but it's nice to dream. All that said, I am happy with KSP. I just don't think there is too much more room to grow what currently exists. However, I certainly wouldn't be upset if I were proven wrong...