Bosun

These are some great vids and examples. We're still 'Work in progress' on the visual effect, so hopefully they end up with something more akin to this by the end. Seems like a solid start on it, anyway. I think fading the effect around the edges of the individual streaks will help, as well as a more 'ablative' effect, where parts behind others are shielded from creating thier own streaks. Honestly, I kind of like the KSP 1 effect still better, right now, because it feels like there is more an ablative quality to the leading edge of the part being re entered, based on the visual effect. The one they demo'ed looks like it is burning through the object, not around it.

I enjoy seeing the communication here. This is, by far, the most work that I've seen any developer put into keeping their clients updated on the status of the game. I know you're all not there yet - but it feels like you'll get there. That's a sea-change from when the EA launched. I was very cynical of the launch and the game's maturity at that point, not because it was unfinished, but because it also gave the impression of a team that wasn't up to the task at hand, and confused on how to communicate about it. I wasn't worried about it being in development stages, but worried it wouldn't ever make it to where we all wanted it to go. But you guys have put in the work, put in the communication and extra effort, and it shows. While I've not bought it yet - I look forward to it when the science milestone, reentry and atmospheric heating effects get in, bringing it up to where KSP 1 was when I first joined in 2011. Until then, I've been showing these blog posts to every other developer of every other game I play, and telling them, 'this is how you communicate with players.' Thank you, for all the work that goes into communication. I know it's a lot.

As a professional tallship sailor - 'Lines.' "You can at least see some of the lines we're hauling on every day. Lines are ropes that have a purpose, much like the tasks you work on, that also have a purpose. A rope is a task that you store in the back of the office, to break out when you need some random piece of code for some awkward task, at which point the moment you use that code, it goes from a rope, to a line because you've given it purpose. If you need any other advice on old sailing ships, their actual mechanics or rigging, let me know. As someone who often has a cynical attitude towards development, especially once it stretches beyond 5 years, I really appreciate your more candid discussions like this. I've seen a lot of games, mods and other programs reach year 5 and fizzle out as the enthusiasm, resources and overall drive run out of the teams. You're pushing through though, and proving my cynacism wrong. As the ole' shanty goes - Keep haulin, keep haulin...

Another point - and this is nitpicking - I'm a bit annoyed at the marketing team for producing such advanced promo videos. The first release video several years ago was great, and I can pass that as development launch trailer. Ok. It's a vision of what you want the game to be. But moving forward in time, we've got some very advanced animations, well within graphical capabilities for a game, being depicted in a game-annouce trailer, for a game who's graphical and playable scale are not close to matching. Taken out of context, the new trailer movie is fun, and I love it. Taken in context, it seems a bit narcissitic and presumptuous, showing a game that looks better than it ever could, with a stage of playability and engagement that it hasn't obtained yet. Again, nitpicking - but framing and marketing matter a lot in player expectations. Back in the 90s and early 2000s, I expected gameplay trailers to feature animation that was beyond the graphics of the game they depicted. Graphic technology simply wasn't advanced enough yet for that. Nowadays though, there is no reason to demo gameplay with anything other than actual gameplay videos. You can intersperse 'cut-scenes', but those scenes themselves can be from the game engine. As it was created, the last gameplay trailer had the feeling, in context of this release, as though the marketing team either had not seen the game yet, or it was created as a vision of the game they had wanted to make (but haven't yet.) In either case, it doesn't land well as a game trailer for me. It's simply a little too out of context for the game engine that I've seen so far, and the gameplay that exists.

I feel like Early Access was a bit too early. The game did not appear to work, and it wasn't the community driving direction and final input - it was the community discovering core elements of non-functionality that made the gameplay impossible. Basic gameplay is building a rocket and launching it - and in that regard there were several glaring and game-breaking issues that made gameplay impossible. Not as a nuisance, but as a regalar occurrence. If I was building a car, I take early access as being, as if I asked for community input on the color of the finish, the type of seats I go with, or the final shape and placement of the shifter knob for best ergonomic feel. But in this example, we've handed users an early access car where the core engine under the hood isn't working, the wheels aren't always there, and sometimes it just turns off. That's not an early-access car - that's a car that hasn't been built to be drivable yet. That is an Early-Investor stage. At this stage, you're asking people to help fund the remainder of your development cycle until an Alpha release is ready - not asking them for final input and direction on an upcoming 1.0 release. Early-Investor stages mean that those who sign on will get some incentives for being a part of the development team without being employees. Things like exlusive titles or content, a significantly reduced price, free product merchandise, or other similar things. This is an important framing mistake. Framed as early access, this game was not ready. Framed as Early-Investor, with the understanding of the game still being deep within development stages, and asking the community to help continue development towards an alpha/beta release, it is ready. More to the point, the community would have come with more realistic, optimistic expectations. Early Access titles are generally expected to be further along in the process, than this title seemed to be. I think the community was collectively shocked at many of the core functions of physics (like not having any re-entry heat/physics) or landing and just falling through the ground, were not possible at what should have been a highly advanced stage of development. Imagine, if you will, an early-access First Person Shooter where the guns had not been modelled to reload yet, and the bullets passed right through targets. I don't think anyone would argue it was at early-access quite yet. It was an advanced concept, and could be at an early-investor level, as a proof of concept, but it is not Early Access for community feedback pending a full release. That is reserved for, essentially, a Beta-build. Finally - I would not have released it as Investor Stage on Steam. I would have waited to post to steam, until there was a 1.0 release. Advertise the game among your core on the forums and offer codes to access the download from your PD account. This would also have cut down the PR negativity. All in all - I remain optimistic for the game, and the developers are working very hard, but I am once again facepalmed by the choices of the marketing teams and producer, as yet another game fails to properly advertise itself to the stage of it's development. These types of mistakes happen - but at the frequency they happen now, its disheartening to look at these examples and know that people with years of experience and marketing expertise are still making very, very rookie mistakes. Framing is part of managing expectations and is a very basic, very fundamental part of a 'sell.' Why 'Framing' is included in the Part Manager of the VAB is beyond me, because it isn't rocket science.

This is my feeling, and what made me back down from purchasing yesterday. I saw so many long-time modders, representing 1000s of hours of time in the game, who were accustomed and familiar with buggy and incomplete modules because they are modders and it hasn't stopped them before - coming out and saying it wasn't there yet. And when those people say it isn't there - you can rest assured it isn't. When the core of your audience is so invested in the game that they spend hours building content for it - when the people who have interfaced with the Devs during the whole process, during the original game, and right up until the launch are excited - pick it up and say, "Hm, this isn't there yet", it's not because they're mad at 50 dollars. It's because they know exactly what an early release is, and what the work entails, and have a very educated opinion on where the game should be based on timeline and decision to release. And it isn't where their educated and experienced analysis would put the game, were it actually ready.

I admit, reading and seeing reviews of people falling through Minmus, among issues, is disheartening. Early Access was supposed to have the core game relatively solid, with the originally-promised features 'to-come.' I feel like falling through planets, exploding at random FPS, should have been things discovered during a Beta, or even Alpha test of the objects. My concern, is that after 5 years of development (longer, if you count that the genre was already ground-broken once by the same title), all they have to show for it, is a simple rocket-launcher with customizable parts, that is still in what looks to be "Alpha" stages. Early-Access is ok, but at this stage of development, my only real complaint is that $50 is for a finished module. This is not a finished module, and $50 is too steep a price for where the level of development currently is. What $50 is - is an early-investor price. This is a different kind of marketing that may have saved a little face. Had they marketed two years ago, say, as "$50 for early-investor status - get merch/gear, early access and status-of-some-kind" or extra content in game at official launch, say, that would have made sense. $50 for early access only, however, without any kind of kickback recognizing that you're an investor, not just a player, at this stage, is an oversight on their part. Not too late for them to recognize it, but they should make that tack soon to avoid hitting the rocks.

That last part of the image could totally be a bearded Nate Simpson waving hello next to the Kerbal.

This is the KSP2 Development Process: Launches off of KSP Meets Kraken Kraken breaks the ship. Rest of ship left after kraken (after studio changes) go on a long journey (long dev cycle) Finally, they approach final destination (KSP 2 launch) Aliens from Black Star/Void (The forums - us, as players) visit And meet Kerbals.

Each year, as the 'bleeding' of the edge gets gushier, the consumer base shrinks. 5 years ago, bleeding edge was around $800-1000. Now it's approaching $3,000 and climbing fast. Already, we've seen reports of scalpers unable to get rid of them, and a slump in the sales where, despite selling out, a majority of folks that want one still don't have it, in part because of scalpers, but also because they're just too expensive. I think, if the price trends hold for the 50-series, and they ship the same number as the 40s, they'll be lucky to see them all sale. Scalpers don't think it's a great deal any more, and most consumers simply can't make it there until the prices drop back down. That's what I was referencing. Are there folks who'll pay for bleeding edge? Absolutely. I'm one of them. I didn't blink at $600. I splurged for $1200. But I'm priced out now. I cannot justify spending 3-4k on a GPU, because I'm not a professional gamer who can write that gear off of my taxes. So there are folks willing - yes. But as a business model, every iteration, you're only hooking a smaller and ever decreasing consumer base. As an investor - I'd be worried about my return with a business model like that. nVidia can do it because GPUs are not their main source and money maker. But they've effectively blockaded the Intel-based GPU market. I'm super excited to see where Intel's ARC chips go. They're not massively competitive yet - but I bet the will be, and I hope they make nVidia rethink the market when they are.

I feel that most developers now are running up against a wall GPU pricing as well. While there are cutting-edge things that could go in game, likely 70% of their playerbase cannot afford GPUs with the newest specs. Likely 40% or more cannot afford GPUs in even the 2nd-to-latest specs. Right now, nVidia has just released 40 series. They're booking in at over $2,500 retail, over a 1k more than MSRP. They're also setting up the 50 series for 2023 release, which will see GPUs skyrocket into the 4-5k range for a single card. Neither the 40-series, nor the latest 50-series about to release next year, will be available for regular consumers to purchase at reasonable prices, until 2024/2025. Part of nVidia's strategy has been banking on this. By the time the 30-series hits the 600-700 price range for the really good iterations of it, we won't blink twice at paying it, overpriced as that may actually be, because we're seeing consumer extortion so blatantly paraded with the 40/50 series prices, that it seems like a screaming deal. (It isn't.) About that time, the 30-series will drop below their original MSRP, to become 'affordable' for the vast majority of folks needing to upgrade. This means that, in designing a game for mass-reach, you've got to keep it low enough to run at least 3-4 years behind the current technology curve, because that's where most consumers really are. So don't worry about it being compatible with your system. If they're developing the game in a smart way, it will be. Only a fool developer would try to create a game that locked out folks playing 'older' systems. It's a bit of an incorrect idea, that new technology means a new system. A 'newer' computer system, spec-wise for the common consumer this year, would be a 10/11th gen processer, with a 2070/2090 graphics card. "Cutting Edge" cards like the 30 series or 40 series, are simply not commecially available for most poeple yet, and won't be for another year. They've been printed, and they're on market the way a luxury mega-yacht is on the market. No one buys it, and no one plans on having one any time soon. Truly - the newer cards and processors coming out are really a lot like science articles saying "We've finally acheived fusion!" Well, technically, yes, they did get a positive fusion reaction....to be commercially viable and available, they still haven't figured out how to do it. In a graphics-card or processor comparison - just because gen-13/14 processors, or 40-50 series cards exist - doesn't mean they're available or commercially viable for the market to digest yet. So when we articles about fusion and dismiss them from our mind with a thought of that being terribly not relevant to anything important in the next 20 years, because it's still this nebulous thing that no average person will interact with in any way, that's what new graphics cards are like to the market. The 40 series is out - but I wouldn't bank on getting one until another year or two, because the 50 series needs to knock the price of the 40s down quite a bit before it's approachable. (I've never understood the computer-gear market. In any other industry, if you made a new product to release to only 10% of your consumer base, through price exclusivity, your model would fail and you'd be out of business - but somehow, it works with GPUs and processers. It baffles me.) So game developers will still be developing for systems running on 9th/10th gen processers, and 10-20-series graphics cards, as their 'Full Graphics' capability. No one wants to buy a game they cannot fully enjoy with a house downpayment to build a new computer.

I don't agree, to be honest. DCS is a great example of this. Their modules have to meet certain standards and criteria, and they have policies and procedures for how to implement them, that the 3rd-party contributor must meet. That game is a stellar success, not in spite of those, but because of them. The Freespace Mod community is also a great example of this. For the last two decades, they've been modding that old engine, and have done truly impressive work. The Diaspora stand-alone, featuring the Battlestar Galactica universe was, simply put, undersold. That could have been put out by a studio with investors. It was a team of volunteers. DCS was never a complete game when it was released, it was released in 'modules', similar to KSP's timeline. It worked because the modules came at a frequency quick enough to keep interest, and the community did not feel like a half-finished game was released and then half-worked on. That's a huge and difficult impression to maintain. Loss of interest has killed so many titles on launch, and KSP has a very, very real danger of getting some negative feedback on EA release, given the time it's taken them to get just the bare minimum done for it. If we can help float interest and positive feedback with a vibrant contributor community, officially, and not just random modders, then it will be a massive asset to the development team, and the longstanding of the game. The modding community is what made KSP 1 have the community and longevity it still enjoys today, and I feel that in order to produce KSP2 in a timeline that meets interest, and to continue that interest, that community needs to be at the table, with the devs, as the development continues.

Seeing that KSP2 will allow modding from day one, with a very incomplete game, I have to consider that the modding community will quickly outpace the rate of official development. Modders can build sub-systems, parts, even overhaul the graphics, and there's every reason to feel that the community, as enthusiastic as it is for a release-ready game, will get to work quickly to make it one. I would posit that modders need to be able to attain "3rd Party Contributor" status. Digital Combat Simulator (DCS) does this with their modules. In fact, over half the modules available in the game are made by 3rd-party developers and modders. They all get vetted, of course, and tested, but this effectively doubles the rate of their development, and allows the game to reach a breadth it would never reach otherwise. The Early Access version of the game will certainly be bug-fixed, added too, and embellished the way the original was, and I think that add-ons need to have a procedure and policy in place to be tandem to official development, sanctioned and vetted by the dev team, for release in official updates. The current timeline of 2024 for the 1.0 release and 2025-2026 for the complete game, based on extrapolation of current development speed, could be halved if this approach is encouraged. It has worked very well in other games, and indeed is essential to any large-scale game in this modern era of technology. The modules, the coding, are all too complex for any one development team to complete in any timeline that renders them relevant to the platform ability of their age. What was started as a Unity 5 project, under a single development team timeline, would be 3-4 versions of game technology old by the time it was released. This represents a larger shift in the industry, as well. Many companies are recognizing that it's not feasible to field a complete game on their own anymore, and this, I believe, is why modding is allowed from the start (along with precedent and tradition in KSP). I think, to officially recognize these contributions as being not just add-ons, but essential core-game developments in their own right, is essential to completing the game.

My big concern, is that modding will absolutely outpace development. In fact, I expect modders to be able to finish the core components of the game well ahead of devs reaching a 1.0 status. The concern around it I have, is that by allowing mod access from day one, you're essentially crowd-sourcing the rest of your development. In that, there needs to be a defined policy for mods being adopted in to future releases of the game, with recognition and monetary compensation provided for the coders doing the work. The first thing that comes to mind is seeing Kerbin from orbit in the videos - it looks worse than the first versions of Environmental Enhancements mod. Someone will very quickly make it look better, and it would behoove their development to be able to incorporate that mod in to the final, future release. But they need to have defined policies and procedures in place for that. They have a tremendous opportunity here to really speed up their development cycle with this kind of crowd-sourcing, which will be imperative to good reviews and a timeline that doesn't further alienate players. DCS does this with their 3rd-Party contributors, and honestly, the game's a huge success in the sim crowd because of it.

I have been saying that a 6-10 year development time line is not only normal, but expected in most games nowadays. This further confirms it. I also stated several times that the developers would be well within a normal development cycle if they released the game before 2025-26. I think this is a more realistic time line, given the resources they have, and a confirmed timeline, given the status of the game as stated in the video. I would expect most of the core functionality of the game to be fleshed out over the rest of the 2023 year, to be completed at a 1.0 stage in 2024, perhaps mid-to-late year. I expect the larger interstellar modules and resources to come sometime between 2025-2026. This fits with their current development speed, if you extrapolate how long it took them to get here, incorporating all the various shake-ups that happened. There's absolutely no data to support them having an influx of resources to speed of development, so currently, this time table fits best within observed game status'. Finally - well done on the team. This is exactly how you market a release date, whether EA or otherwise. Very early on, the game promised things before they even knew what it would take to get there. Several times along the way, the date was pushed, but still given. Furthermore - the game was 'announced' when it was at the paper-napkin stage, which was a terrible mistake. But now, you've got a small, manageable, achievable goal that you can clearly meet. You've given a date close enough at hand to be exciting, but far enough out to give you time to meet it. Had you announced the game upon EA being ready for release, instead of announcing it in 2017, that would be have been the proper way to handle marketing. I think this means the team is finally being able to properly evaluate their own potential and ability in regards to their timeline and goals, which speaks to a higher functioning in the team, and that's a good thing. Thank you, for waiting to announce this until you had a scaled-down, achievable goal that you'll be able to deliver on. Please keep doing that. Any other big announcements - wait until you're already at beta stage before announcing them publicly. A lot of the backlash I see here surrounds broken promises and over-extended hype. By waiting and being more discrete with announcements, you can prevent that effect in the future. I'm looking forward to the game, though undetermined if I'll participate in EA. Like many others, I'd rather not burn myself out on this game as a beta-tester, especially if I'm going to be paying a lot for it. Final note - as others have mentioned - This has a real chance in EA with mods being allowed, to take off well past the development team. Already in KSP1, modders were able to take the game places the original team had never imagined. My worry is that this is going to supplant actual development of the game. The Kerbin that was shown was a worse rendering, from the land, to the clouds, than some of the better mods for KSP 1, and if modders come along and fix that - they'll have less incentive to build it in to the game for release. So my only plea - as modding takes off, I hope the team will have a policy/procedure in place for adopting mods to become core components. That will be critical, but it will also be critical to have a model in place to compensate financially the mods you incorporate - because the modders will, in effect, be finishing your modules for you in Early Access.

This is one of the dangers with a long development cycle. You can get stuck in loops playing catch up to new technology so the game is relevant when it drops. You can finally release the game on an outdated engine that caps it's potential relative to it's contemporary peers. You can have modders beat you to the punch, releasing your game as a series of mods to it's predecessor You can have any number of things happen that will ultimately lead the final release to be less spectacular than you promised investors. The studio, in this case, has shot an interstellar ship across the development void - and while we know when it might arrive, no one's done a trip this long before, and if any calculation was off, even a little, they'll miss their goal of when and what the game is to be, by a large gulf. However, if they pull it off, and there's no evidence we have to be certain they're on course to intercept their goals, it will be a feat of engineering and design that is legandary.

Controversial opinion, but this is why, as much as I love space travel, I'm not a fan of the privatized efforts. The beauty and glory of space exploration, for me, is not just the cool technology. A large part of it is the unity it can build in a country, in the world, and even down to among the group of astro- and cosmonauts that venture forth for it. You don't get that same sense of unity, of an entire, collective people throwing their resource, pride, and effort behind it, in the private sector endeavors. While they may be pioneering technology that could revolutionize many different industries, it's silo'd in to a private group of individuals, in particular, one man, for all it's glory, and shared sense of accomplishment. The reason that the 1960s space race was such a unifying force, is that every countryman was paying taxes into their government, and got to see the fruits of their investment build something they could all be proud of. Every person could say they were a part of it (I acknowledge that racial tensions did not actually allow every person to be a part of it, and still are barriers today). I'm excited for the upcoming Artemis missions, and I hope that it sparks a new era of pride in a unified, country-led effort. But for those that say private is doing what public cannot - that is only due to the country deciding that it did not want to fund a public effort, nor properly scale taxes to invest in public works, including a space program. When you have large, corporate interests that can throw their influence around, the easiest way to clear a path for your own company's success, is to get senators to defund the public institutions that would undermine your product or service, or compete with it. /rant

This is why I've never understood the current environment of announcing releases. Most all the studios I know are releasing announcements on their upcoming projects before they ever have a clear idea of whether not 1) What they said they would do is feasible with the resources they have, and 2) What they said they would do is achievable in the timeline they've given Now, I would imagine it would make sense, integrity-wise, to let only investors and a limited public base know that development is underway, and give no release dates at all until: 1) The game was in or close to the Beta stages of development so that 2) You could accurately estimate how much time was left on development, because there would be a small enough, manageable amount of development left to speculate a timeline for. It would fit a good PR run to announce the release date about 6 months (or so) from when the game would be finished, unless some major breakages happened in Beta - but Alphas are where you ideally discover those, if you're doing it well. If you don't have a version of your game that is playable by a mass public, even with a few minor glitches - you shouldn't be promising a release date, because you simply don't know, and promising a customer a product that you don't have, in a timeline you don't know, in a production you're not even certain is possible yet - seems like not an ideal model for salesmanship. If I had a kid came to me, to pitch their idea of a product, or project for the shipyard, and they gave me even a range of time it may take to develop or finish, it's too easy to ask one or two questions about very real possibilities, and get them entirely flubbed on further estimation. Most PMs are happy to give a time estimate as if nothing will go wrong, or give you an 'outside' estimate as if they know what the outside even is. "Ok, what happens if you find out that part is not available until the following week, or the shipment is delayed...or this subcontractor has to reschedule to the afternoon?" They flail, their timeline falls apart, over a simple question that they have no control over the variable of. I ask those questions not to discourage them, but to help them understand that, at the stage of planning they are at, any estimate of time they give is fairly moot. It's better to tell the customer, at that point, things they can reliably claim, like, "I can tell you that once the labor and part are on site, and together - it will take them 2 days. However, we won't know when that will be, until the product ships and we get a tracking number for it...because I can't schedule the labor until I have a day picked out to install, which I can't pick until I know the product will be here within a reasonable doubt - which requires the product ship first, and I get a tracking number that is valid and gives me updates. Make the small, reliable claims first. You'll meet those claims, and as you get closer, you can focus your final date one notch at a time, until you're ready to tell folks when it will be. Until you start the process, you have no idea how long it will take, because there are simply too many variables to account for. Even if you've done it a thousand times. Ask any ship captain how often they get out of a dry-dock on time per the initial estimate of the work. It simply isn't possible to estimate a timeline for work until you have a regular pool of progress data to draw from, and estimate from. That will need to be, at a minimum, a measured 50% of total development needed before you even have a rough ballpark on a napkin, of how much time it's gonna take to do something that is unique, and not just an exact copy of a project that's already been done. But, alas, they can keep on saying release dates, and we'll keep on waiting because it's an awesome game. But it will also just keep being a mosquito near my ear, that the game industry will keep breaking the core tenants of salesmanship, project management PR, and taking the trust and faith of their fanbases for granted... and no one ever does it differently.

I mentioned several other spots, that as long as they released the game before 2025, they're still well within a normal dev cycle. Glad they're taking their due time and polishing it. In other news, I'm thinking of opening a Sports Betting website, centered around game release dates. You have to project your bid on when a game will actually release, when it is first announced, and betting closes 4-6 months after the initial announcement. I'm going to retire in 2 years on this. I suppose this comes from working in shipyards, where any ship in lay will be delayed, by default, by a mathematical factor times the length of their anticipated stay. (No, you cannot have the formula, but yes, there is one.) It's so eerily accurate that I've made many a Captain blush, but it's just mathematics at this point, I can't even call it bet. Same for game design. (The reason I'm not giving this formula out, is that I am seriously wondering if I can make a business model out of consulting about cycles similar to these. This cannot just be some weird party-trick talent, like folding your tongue over. So help me, I'mma make some money on this.)

I mean, I've postulated that if they release before 2025, they'll still be within a normal development time line. Things just take longer nowadays. You can't just crank games out the way you used to. Most complex games, and movies, can even take dec ::coughTopGun2cough:: ades ::coughAvatarcough:: to come to fruition. I think the lesson here is to appreciate KSP 1, and keep the modding community alive. If anyone is bound to release a KSP 2, it's going to be modders, who want to keep the game alive.

Ok now make the Firefly Season 2 interactive Timeline

It's on a timeline to be released before 2025. The game hasn't even gotten a working beta yet, further more, they do not have an alpha build yet. Their only assets and modeling so far, are considered 'pre-alpha', as corresponds with the labels in all the dev correspondence. Once they get through alpha - and build a beta - that would require at least 4 -6 months of solid testing with another 2 or more to likely bang out any dents. Being that they'd need to hammer through an Alpha build first, that puts us, at the earliest, in 2023. Likely pushing 2024. So, we're looking at 2023 and beyond at the earliest.

Aziz, this is is the kind of development time line I reference. While I wholeheartedly believe that most games aim for, have a goal for, a 5 year or less development, and maybe some of them meet that, there are several more that have development drag in to the decade marker. This is much more common now, because of crowd-funded studios instead of private producers and investors. The game has to be announced at the 'we don't even have money for this yet' stage, in order to get the money, to hire a programmer, to make what was just shown in a trailer. But that's part of it. The 'new engine,' yes, it's still Unity, but Unity has improved leaps and bounds in the last 6-7 years, and if you started making a game in Unity around that time, finalizing it now, you'd have so many different things you could do, could improve on, and some of the things you've done may not even be guaranteed to work in newer versions of Unity, in the same way. Heck, in 2015, Adobe CS changed a lot of their UI design from previous CS releases. As a professional designer, it took me a long time to re-work my workspace and remap my desktop layout to accommodate the changes. That was just for the UI, not to mention macros that were things I put in, that were now covered by tools that came included, or things that I had to do outside the program, that I now were in the program, etc. If Unity, which I haven't used in a long time, is any where near that kind of evolution, which I bet it is similar, working in a timeline of 5-6 years, even, would be hitting roadbumps just based on the software and systems used to make the game, not even considering the consumer expectations that you'd have to continually meet, as those expectations evolve with technology. Just 10 years ago, for example, a flat plane object with a tiled texture that had a corresponding object oriented toward the viewer, that was shaped like a puff, was the height of in-game cloud technology. Look at IL-2 Battle of Stalingrad now. If you started out making IL-2 1946, and it went into 5-6 years development, you wouldn't have a game that would sell, unless you revamped a lot of things that were probably very core parts of the game, and that's just graphics. Not to mention computational systems and physics advances. So what would become 5 years, hits about 5 years, and suddenly, you've got another year, maybe 2, or 3, of development to overhaul and modernize the game that has taken so long to build, it's obsolete. That's the development cycle I am accustomed to seeing, based on the games I get interested in. I'd be stoked if the games I wanted to play, took less than 4-5 years to develop and release, but I still don't have a good analog for X-wing Vs. Tie-Fighter, because as flashy as Squadrons was, it was released in less than 5 years because there was nearly 0 content to it, and it's already dead because they dropped support as soon as they released it. Given that KSP2 would likely be well supported if the predecessor is any indication, a development cycle of less than 5 years does not fit within the profile of a well-supported game, but in the profile of a "Squadrons" where the content is minimal and the game is not well supported.

I've said it elsewhere, but they'd be well within the normal range of development to release before 2025, which leaves them plenty of time. The game isn't dead, but it isn't coming out this year, most likely, or there would be some sort of attempt by the developer to at least put a statement out that they're still on track, at this point. They risk losing the narrative and interest, and by release, having an underwhelming response due to lack of consumer awareness, if so. Also, most development cycles just take longer now with all the tech involved. Look at television shows. When Star Trek: TNG was running, it was 30 episodes in a 'season', every single year. In the early 2000s, shows like Battlestar, Eureka, or Warehouse 13 had 10-12 episodes a season. Now, you have shows like Upload, Resident Alien, Picard, which have 7 episodes, half the length each, every other season. Our development cycles have just gotten longer, and that means production is more than halved, and this goes for games, movies and TV. Why do you think we have 9 Fast and Furious movies? Or 20 Marvel Movies? Because half the production has already been done on them already by every other movie before. The digital assets are there. The processes. The procedures. The props. It's just cost-effective and easy. They can actually roll it out in a reasonable time to keep public interest. Making a brand new game with a new engine, new processes, for new technology - it's staggering, daunting, and would take a programming team that could rival the 5 armies of Mordor, to roll out in the normal timelines we've grown accustomed too.

This sounds like it sets up for colonies, long-haul travel and other features that allow for remote management and persistent-world dynamics for ships and structures without having to 'pilot' them in active control. For instance, controlling and monitoring a long burn from an interstellar, from the mission control on Kerbal....or.... automated resupply missions....