Mako

Members
  • Content count

    97
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Mako

  1. The nice thing is if Squad did make a full priced KSP 2, and you didn't think it was worth the price tag, you wouldn't have to buy it. You would still own KSP 1 in whatever state they left it (or whatever state you have backups for) and it would still work and play just as it always has because Squad was reasonable and chose to release it with no DRM. Since, as you think there is not much to add to KSP, you wouldn't really lose out on potential updates to KSP 1 if Squad started KSP 2, and the people who are interested in whatever improvements might come with a KSP 2 would be looking forward to the opportunity to buy it. So it seems like a win-win situation to me. Win-win-win if you consider Squad making money to be a good thing. It's just a thought. I do understand what you mean, though. I do feel like there's not much that can be done to KSP at this point. There's been some design choices during the development of KSP that have put limits on what can actually be done without a lot of work undoing things. At the same time, the concepts and plenty of the implementation have a lot of potential. I see in a hypothetical KSP 2 the possibility of reaching some, maybe even most, of that potential.
  2. No offense perceived and no offense taken here. In fact, I mostly agree with you. I say mostly because in my experience those traits are hardly limited to gamers: people in general share these traits regardless of interests and hobbies. It only seems more prevalent amongst gamers when you are observing Internet forums. I see it on the internet, and also every time I drive my car on the 495 Beltway around Washington, D.C. I won't claim drivers are worse here than anywhere else, but I witness a lot of self-centered, self-important, inconsiderate driving almost every time I get in my car. Still, I'd rather have the roads even when people act this way, even when I have to deal with traffic that is often a result of inconsiderate or inattentive driving, than have no roads and be unable to go anywhere.
  3. You're absolutely right. When a company has very little idea what it's actually doing with its product then yes, they should not release too much information. It would not be good for sales to show that you're not really sure what you're doing but promise to keep banging on a thing for a while to an unknown end.
  4. @KSK and @Red Iron Crown My argument has never been that anyone is entitled to more information. My argument is that providing more information to the public, both current and potential customers, is a good thing. The only time it's not a good thing is when the information is that the company is choosing to do something that is not in any customer's best interest. I believe Squad wants to make a good product. I believe they would benefit from communicating more with the public. I fully admit people will do act in an unpleasant fashion, and they obviously do so whether you communicate or not. A company can gain something from communicating, but they gain nothing by not communicating, and since people act lousy either way why not choose to communicate and gain something?
  5. So since some people will speculate anyway, ignoring everyone and withholding information so everyone can speculate together is a better solution than attempting to prevent speculation with information and attempting to correct misunderstandings and finally just ignoring individuals who refuse to accept the truth? If that's the way to go, why do we even have this weekly KSP Weekly?
  6. I do agree that without a roadmap for context these types of reveals with little to no details are unhelpful to just about everyone until clarified. Until clarified these types of unexpected reveals without context make it feel like Squad is lacking direction and vision for KSP. I know that it has been said by Squad staff that there is an internal roadmap, but I don't believe that is the best way to to work on an community-involved, open-development model game. If Squad wants to produce KSP in a closed-development style that's their choice, but everything they do says that's not the case... except for the lack of public roadmap. I've always wanted to see Squad commit fully to an open-development style, or at the very least talk about the intent for KSP. Without that, it's very hard to forget that they're new to making games and very easy to believe they have no idea what they're doing and they're making it up as they go while crossing fingers and hoping for the best and refusing to discuss the matter with the people who care the most: this community that they have always seemed so proud of. And don't get me wrong, I stick around to see what Squad brings to the table in the hopes I'll be pleasantly surprised, because I really do like KSP. I just feel there is a not insignificant amount of unrealized potential but I don't see much from Squad to show that they see the potential and intend to realize it before they call KSP finished. I, like most people, don't usually enjoy being wrong, but this time I'd welcome it.
  7. I agree that there is a failure to communicate that only Squad can remedy, so therefore they hold the blame. I disagree that Squad is solely responsible for unrealistic expectations drempt up by community members. Squad only has the blame for the disappointment anyone might experience when their wish doesn't come true if Squad officially announces it will definitely fulfill that wish and then refuses to deliver. Even in that situation I would argue that the user, while not causing the hope and subsequent disappointment directly, would be learning valuable life lessons: things don't always go as planned and life isn't always fair. Lastly, my argument with the swing set analogy is that Squad is reacting to the potential behavior of some community members regarding the reason for lack of public roadmap. Your argument seems to be that Squad is to blame for inciting negative behaviors. They are related, to be sure, but are not the same arguement. However I think we can both agree that Squad's prevention of negative behaviors from some members of the community by keeping any hint of a direction or fragment of public roadmap comes at the cost of some of the community's understanding, interest, and goodwill.
  8. Squad has not decided to employ a software as a service model for its product. So outside of that model for software development and sales, new major product numbers have a long history of being developed and sold as seperate products to the preceding versions. It is not at all strange to think that if Squad intended to make significant changes/advances to KSP that they would do so as a new product to earn money for all their hard work. After all, as you point out, there's very little meaningful lore or directed storytelling within KSP, so why should we consider it a narrative getting a sequel when it would more closely resemble a new major version release of a popular software title? If you propose that KSP will just be constantly updated, well, unless Squad has a plan for the slow trickle of long-tail sales or numerous paid DLC to provide the revenue I just don't see how that makes one darn bit of good business sense. Even if that were the case, I would suspect the current code base would eventually severely limit what additions they could make.
  9. @Terwin First, I accept your point about additional languages being a minor update. That is reasonable. I also accept that people would desire an easy way to share info with only a select group based on certain factors. This, however, was not even remotely what I was suggesting. I was suggesting a roadmap that is public and open to all, and that individuals who persist to misunderstand the purpose and information of the roadmap (whether intentionally or not), after being reasonably presented with clear and accurate information, should be disregarded by devs and peers for the duration of their misunderstanding(s). I believe that most of the community is capable of understanding the nature and intent of a roadmap. Squad seems to believe that no one should be given the privilege of a roadmap because it is sometimes misunderstood by a limited number of individuals. While I will agree that it is probably easier for Squad to refuse a public roadmap, I do not agree with anyone who might suggest that refusal is the best solution. Furthermore, I believe the best solution, releasing a public roadmap to all and ignoring individuals who persist in misunderstanding the roadmap, is relatively easy to implement and manage. At the very least I suspect it to be a break-even proposal: complaints about the direction of the roadmap could increase while rampant speculation, confusion about direction, and any related discussions would decrease. Also, your post seems to imply public roadmaps are not used in games development. Maybe I'm misreading or misinterpreting your post, but I will be happy to provide references and links upon request of games which have (or had during active development) public roadmaps. I can think of a few off the top of my head, and I'm sure if I do some research I can find even more. Having not previously done research on the reception or success of public roadmaps for in-development games, I cannot say with certainty that roadmaps are a net positive tool. I believe they are: the truth, whatever you may think of it, is still the truth and it is better than nothing. I can offer anecdotally that the still-in-Early-Access game Subnautica has had a public roadmap and its community was seems to have in general acted reasonably and favorably when deviations or changes to the roadmap were announced and explained in advance. Good PR isn't always easy, but I don't believe it has to be hard. I feel like Squad is making it harder for themselves, now more than ever.
  10. There has never been a guarantee that Squad would continue to work on KSP beyond what they were working on at any given moment. This has always been the case even when KSP was in Early Access. New versions have always been built and provided in such a manner as to be the final version even if more work was planned. Furthermore, Squad is currently working on KSP in a manner which implies they are focusing on revenue producing updates (localization to sell additional copies in newly available languages) and paid add-on content (the Making History Expansion). There's no way to know if this is motivated by necessity or not. If it's out of necessity, and the localization efforts and paid expansion do not provide as much revenue as expected/needed, it is not much of a stretch to picture Squad discontinuing work. This doesn't seem to be the most likely scenario, but we have no way of knowing for sure. All any of us can do is speculate. My speculation is 1.4 will mostly consist of more work on localization since Squad originally mentioned a desire to translate KSP to more languages than what we know is coming in 1.3. There would be a lot less speculation if there was some kind of public roadmap. I understand that Squad feels that since some people can't handle a roadmap no one should have one, but I feel like this is like removing the swings from the playground because a few children were injured when they used it improperly. I tend to strongly disagree with restrictions to privileges for everyone based on the actions of a small number of individuals. In this particular instance, I believe it's a privilege, not a right, to have a roadmap, but I also believe that most problems that can happen can be mitigated or resolved with clear and accurate communication. If excellent communication does not prevent or correct misunderstandings caused by a roadmap, it is likely that the problem is not with the existence of the roadmap but rather with the person viewing the roadmap (at which point there's not much anyone can do besides hoping the individual chooses to understand how the world works).
  11. @John FX The main difference I believe I've seen mentioned by Squad personnel is that missions are capable of complexity far exceeding that of contracts. I assume (and I know how evil it is to do that, but I have little choice) that since they're building the missions as a different system they cannot be shoehorned into the contract system without a lot of work on the contract system in stock KSP -- work which doesn't seem (to me) to benefit stock KSP and probably delay the release of the expansion. So complexity of missions versus simplicity of career mode contracts seems to be the only main difference.
  12. @XpertKerbalKSP If I were you I would look into using Space Engine for your movie. Nothing against KSP, but Space Engine is designed to allow you to set up planetary and solar system scenarios and watch them play out. Instead of using KSP's fictional solar system, you can use more realistic models from our solar system. It would probably be a less fun but more instantly recognizable and more accurate presentation. However, if you wish to continue to use KSP, as Street wind mentioned Kerbals speak recorded Spanish played backwards. I would perhaps consider using some mods, like Real Solar System, and Hyperedit to set up your scenes easily. I haven't really played with either, so I can give any more advice other than looking onto them. As a scene suggestion, since you asked, the first thing that came to mind was using Real Solar System and setting up the movie as the Kerbals have come to our solar system and are checking it out and trying to determine how it formed. Scenes can be Kerbals visiting various planets/asteroids and talking about the formation of these objects and their influence in our existence. You can show how Earth is in the "Goldilocks" just right orbit around the Sun, and show off Mars and Venus to point out what happens if a planet is just a little too close or a little too far in relation to the Sun. If you think that mods would make it too complicated, you can do the same kind of thing as if the Kerbals are exploring their fictional system and wondering where they came from. Then you can compare the Kerbals and their system to us. These are just a couple of quick ideas. Hopefully others can be of more assistance. Good luck with your project. Let us know how it goes.
  13. Unity also gets blamed for issues involving robotic parts like those from Infernal Robotics and the horrible PhysX wheel collider that appears to have been designed with one single use case in mind and is so inflexible that it took months upon months to implement and crazy workarounds to get to a point that's functional for KSP. These are things I'd love to see resolved, along with the inability to have part branches attach to other branches/main trunk. I don't know if robot parts can be implemented well under Unity or not, but the other two items could likely be fixed without changing engines. It would require a ton of work for very little actual gain, so I don't ever expect it to happen, but these are the kinds of improvements (along with general performance) I would most like to see. Obviously the impossible, perfect world scenario is the one where KSP is remade from the ground up on custom-built graphics and physics engines that are tailor-made for its specific needs. It is practically impossible that KSP would ever be moved to a new engine, so it's a moot point, but I wouldn't be surprised if some other engine exists that would better meet KSP's needs than the one-stop shop that is Unity. Ideally it would be an engine that allows the developer to have access to all parts of the engine and make changes as they needed. This is all pie-in-the-sky wishing, but so is entertaining the idea of an engine change and (I think) so is enertaining the idea of any major performance improvements to KSP.
  14. In the hypothetical situation that a engine change would be possible, the only reason I'd care to switch is if there would be a definite and significant performance increase. Graphical bells and whistles are nice, but a higher frame rate with a higher part count would be just about the only thing that would really interest me. That said, I'm not complaining about the state of things now, rather I'm saying I welcome improvements if and when they're possible.
  15. Staffing. Developers are often more fluent in one engine or the other, even if they have used them all. Most likely all of Squad is fluent in Unity, but have little, if any, experience in Cry or Unreal. But that really just comes back to money. Hire new people who know the new engine, or keep the same people and take even longer. Either way, any move that is going to take years is going to cost a lot for very little return. It's not a good investment. I do agree with you that the only way an engine move is likely to occur is if they decide to make a sequel. That's something new and people would be more likely to pay full price.
  16. Moving to a different engine would take a long time. I'd guess it'd take at least two years. And for all that time and work, there'd be very little other progress. The main reason comes down to money: Squad won't make much money from new sales in the 2+ years it takes to move, and they probably would not see much sales after the move either. Not many people line up to buy an 8+ year old game at full price. And in those two years of no progress and little to no income, they'd have all the cost of salaries and keeping the lights on at the office. There is no financial reason to move. And there's no guarantee moving to a new engine would improve anything. As to why Unity: no one involved with the creation of KSP had ever made a commercial video game before. They had a small team, I believe just HarvesteR himself, and a small budget. Unity provided a full engine and editor that was fairly easy to use at a great price. I wouldn't be surprised if Unity's cross-platform nature had something to do with it as well. And originally KSP set out to be a 2D game. It's very likely that by the time the limitations of Unity really started to be a problem, so much work had been done that starting over would have killed KSP completely (see above paragraph about moving engines). At this point there are game and physics engines that might be more capable at handling everything KSP needs, but I would guess that KSP is going to be a bit of trouble for most/all of them. It's one of the first modern 3D games that had "planet-sized" planets that are not only circumnavicable, but also able to be orbited, and a solar-system sized solar system able to be explored, all seemlessly and without pausing the action to load. That is not a thing that many (if any) existing engines are set up to handle right out of the box. I would guess that if not for Unity none of would have a KSP to play.
  17. If they're going to do it through Steam Workshop then they might as well forget about Steam Workshop and just do it through their "official" mod repository, Curse. Why do work twice, once in a way only part of your audience can benefit from, and agan in a way that all of your audience, including Steam users, can use? That's why I suggest building it completely into the game. Then no one, steam user or otherwise, would ever have to go anywhere at all to get missions for the expansion. @Azimech Actually, I hadn't considered distributing required craft files for missions, but that makes sense, too. My original suggestion was for the base game to be updated to allow for both expansion and non-expansion users to share craft files from within the game, and the expansion could use that infrastructure to make missions available as well. I realize this is a lot of work and the faster and easier way is to have a place external to the game where players upload and download missions for the expansion. I don't say that as a dismissive judgement; the amount of work involved is incredibly different between the two methods. I mention all this again because I believe keeping everything in-game is the best solution for players. I suspect this is entirely outside what Squad is trying to accomplish with the Making History Expansion, but I'd love to be wrong.
  18. I realize that the Making History Expansion with the Mission Builder is still quite a while from release, but there is one question I haven't seen asked, and subsequently answered yet: What is the plan for sharing missions? There is currently no infrastructure built into the game to handle sharing or aquiring any assets or data from peers, so will something of a sort be implemented in-game along with the mission builder? I think the best implementation of the mission builder system would allow the user to not only build the missions in-game but also test, post/upload, browse, search, add/download, and play them all in-game. Is this a possibility at all in the current design? If not, what is the currently intended process for one user to build a mission and another to fly it? I suspect that this would need to be implemented completely in-game at least as part of the expansion if there was ever to be hope of building and sharing missions on consoles. I realize saying such a thing implies a PC/console parity that has yet to exist. Furthermore, I can't recall any specific mentions that Squad intends for consoles to have the exact same experience as the PC (within the reasonable fixed hardware limits of the consoles, of course). So, maybe this in-game mission sharing is not a thing that will be needed if consoles won't receive the expansion. If I've missed discussion of how missions will be shared or discussions on whether or not the consoles will get the expansion, I do apologize and ask someone to kindly point me in the right direction. I can imagine it is very much not insignificant effort to get this working in-game, but I can also imagine the possibilities of building it into the base game to share things like craft files...
  19. 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.
  20. @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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. 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.