Kubas_inko

Luckily we can use statistics (and generalization in this case) so we can apply the steamdb data to the entire player base who bought the game. The only outliers might be people who bought it from PD as they are probably bigger fans than average. But still, the steamdb is mostly accurate regarding the percentage, not the actual player count.

I can't speak for myself as I have no idea, but if this post has at least some truth to it, it can explain a lot.

They should've acquired a good dev team too. Uber Entertainment seems to miss the mark all the time.

Considering that they gave them 3 extra years already, I don't think T2 will give them a "good chance". They might give them some chance...

Considering how "much" was added since 2019 I think the game has a long future in front of it. Depends how successful though.

Unless they fix it ASAP (so that people will actually play it Kerbal Space Program 2 Steam Charts · SteamDB), T2 won't be skimming KSP 2 market and will just pull the plug.

How can you make this fun when less than 25% of player base meets the minimum requirements and even playing on that is pain? Your average Joe is not forgiving when he paid 50 bucks for a buggy game with bad performance (and no, EA is not an excuse).

People forgive KSP 1 because it was started by a single guy, became a passion project, and ended with a small team, which had control over it for the most part. KSP 2 on the other hand is made by a large team (who don't have control over it) and a giant publisher. That's why people forgive KSP 1.

Probably because Take Two (the publisher) wants some returns finally and wants to see if it will be worth it. So far it does not look that good.

Steam does, do you?

The Unity bit was obvious as they are Unity devs. But it was pretty limiting for KSP 1 and I doubt that it changed for KSP 2. I am sure that they can work their magic around it (if T2 lets them). But there is a reason why bigger games are in UE.

Yep. What we got is not worth 50 bucks for the average joe (a friendly reminder that around 25% of the possible player base has the minimum hardware to play the game and it is not a pleasant experience).

And that's bad. GPU should be at 100% unless you are hitting your FPS limit (or are limited by CPU).

i7 13700KF 1080ti 32GB DDR4 1080p low: just shy of 60 FPS on launchpad with the 48 part rocket (default view, not moving the camera). 1440p high: just shy of 40 FPS on launchpad with the 48 part rocket. Launching and looking at KSC or Kerbin, the FPS tank down below 20 on 1080p low and below 10 on 1440p high. Looking at the sky gives about 70 on 1080p low and 50 on 1140p high.

Would be nice to know the specs and framerate. I always see "it runs fine on my machine" and then I find out that their machine has 4080 or that fine is 30fps while looking at the sky...

You can consider it DRM free even from steam and epic, as the game does not check anything and just runs (I moved it to a different PC after buying it on steam and it launched)

The problem now also is that if they don't fix it soon(tm), it might disappear from those balance sheets and we might never get the KSP 2 we all wanted. Sadly T2 decides the faith of this, not the devs.

Love the tool in VAB for selecting specific axis to view the ship from. Like the new KSC. Procedural wings are really nice. Finally some good tutorials. Like the UI style/design, but it is otherwise very clunky. Forgot to add. Kerbals pass out with high Gs. Love that detail.

And then there are comparisons to "early" KSP 1 which was more of a passion project of a small team vs KSP 2, which is a project of a large team and a giant publisher. But people seem to miss that for some reason...

Entire 8% of the possible player base can enjoy crisp 4k at 30fps+ (for 50 bucks). Perspective much?

Luckily we got the stats to back it up e.g. steam reviews (people are not happy with it and some, not all, are getting a refund just like me) and steam hardware surveys (if you can't run it, why listen to recommendations?) I don't know if I am alone with this, but I don't mind paying pretty much anything, if it is worth it. What we are getting now is not worth $50. It might be worth it in the future once it is fixed and patched, but that is not now.

I can't stress this enough, but people seem to not understand that only like 25% of the possible player base meets the minimum hardware requirements. And even playing on that is bad.

I have flat +-20fps difference between 1080p min and 1440p max. It is not proportional to anything, it is just somewhat flat reduction (but calling it a good experience even on 1080p min with even smaller ships is far fetched).

But you are missing one big thing. KSP 1 was more of a passion project. KSP 2 is made by a big team and funded by a giant publisher. So $50 EA is not an excuse for what we got right now. The EA we have now is just a joke. The steam reviews are speaking for themselves... And dude. I have 1080ti (more than minimum, 2017, so no idea what you are packing that runs it so well, but it must be 10 series or lower) and can't get it to stable 60FPS on launchpad (1080p min) and dipping below 30 when looking at Kerbin (and launching the 48 part rocket). That is, objectively, not good. This is bad from someone so big. For someone who does not know KSP, this is just a perfect example of the standards we are now accepting. Games that work on the release are praised and $50 EA that run are accepted. It is important to realize, that KSP 2 is now made by an AAA publisher, so we kinda can't have the same standards we had for the previous game...

Stop using EA as an excuse. Performance is the one thing everyone always wants. And devs want it too, as they want people to play(test) it. But they won't be getting that many players if only something like 25% of the possible player base meats minimum requirements (and the performance is abysmal with that). Of course, worse performance is expected with EA, but this is the extremest of extremes.