Delay

Here's a thread for you to revive, I think it would deserve it!

As far as I can tell, rendering has been left mostly untouched. That's probably where the most amount of optimization is still hiding.

It already happened several times...

A studio created by Take2 is not the same as T2. To further explain, let's put it this way: A project by IG implies that PD is involved, which in turn implies T2 is, but a project supervised by T2 does not need to involve either PD or IG. Re-read, that's exactly what I said. The build we have access to is I-don't-know-how old. It could have been compiled last December for all we know! What we can speculate is that while this was the build that would eventually be released, development didn't stop and attempts to address the issues were probably already on their way. They just wouldn't be integrated into the EA build and be supplied as a first patch instead, which would also allow a greater scope of bugs to be fixed and improvements to be implemented whilst also allowing for more rigorous and thorough testing because the EA release date is not on the line.

It's probably for the better if you don't. Because IG is not PD, much less T2. As for hotfixes, I reckon they were already working on solutions in the background (that's the patch we're waiting for right now) while still having their eventual EA build locked in. You wouldn't want to risk breaking your release candidate a week before launch with no chance of going back.

If you read a little past the section you marked in bold you'd understand that this release date is not set in stone and will be subject to change if massive problems arise during testing. As for the bugs in the current release, I think I, as well as plenty of other people, will have to re-evaluate our stances a bit. It turns out @ShadowZone interviewed Nate a week prior to release. This reveals that the devs most likely knew about the state the build is in, which among other things also implies that QA is indeed doing their job sufficiently well. The interview changes quite a lot about what we thought of the history of this build. I'm honestly surprised it doesn't seem to have been mentioned before!

Now you're just being passive aggressive. Just wait until the next version of the game and decide then, based on the difference between the two versions, if the speed and trajectory of development suit you. That's what I'm doing right now, before considering buying the game in the first place. Being patient is a valuable ability to have. A very useful skill. Besides, no one is forcing you to play the game simply because you have it in your Steam library. You've still got the entirety of KSP 1 to bridge the gap between versions. How many games are only touched once or twice in there, anyways?

No, but I did have wings come off of flying aircraft after quicksaves, meaning that my crew was doomed and there is nothing I could do, not even a quickload could save them. Oh, sorry. That happened in KSP 1. I love that one.

KSP 1 is following the exact same graph, so I presume that game is dying, too.

Not if your argument is "it doesn't work". This implies a complete failure of the game to function, which is objectively not the case.

Are you not going to acknowledge the first part of that response where I addressed the frequency of the event? This was to suggest that the problem is more specific than "stuff broke". There are so many components, both in and outside the game, that can randomly cause crashes. A game (any game) that runs fine on one machine may completely refuse to work on another. Because of this, I refused to assign a potential culprit and left things at that. I noted it more as a curious observation than a dramatic point of failure. You should, too.

Not to excuse any one failure, but given the apparent rarity of the event I don't think you can say that it doesn't "work", as in "completely non-functional". A crash like this can be caused by any number of things. This is the first version. The. First. Version. The first. Of many. Let's check how quickly the game will develop in the future before making such statements, yes?

But they have plenty of gameplay. An entire KSP 0.17 release worth of gameplay! With several improvements to UI, graphics and certain gameplay elements (Wings, for instance)!

Not sure that's the best criterion. Sure, some are capable of this and possibly had the fix in the pipeline for a while at the time of release, but you're implying all companies that don't do that are not good, which is absurd.

You just described that the game is functional, just not as ready as you may wish it to be.

The game launches, the VAB works, you can go to orbit, you can reach all planets in the Kerbol system. I'd say the game works. [snip]

Here's something quite essential that could be broken: As of right now, the game launches. What you want here actually is at odds with Steam's guidelines for what qualifies as Early Access: EA is not for finished releases, but for games still in active development:

...After testing them and making sure that they actually improve the quality of the game instead of making the game divide by zero all the time. They should release fixes as soon as possible, but no sooner.

Then maybe, just maybe, let him do his job.

I'm sorry, what? You're complaining about the current state of the game while acknowledging that rushed fixes could force the devs to go back to an earlier version? That is, go back to this current one if it messes the game up too badly because it wasn't tested? Why not save everyone from that disaster, the devs and us as the players (and potentially the project itself!), by thoroughly testing the candidate version so that a rollback is not necessary? In general, I find your arguments quite funny: The worse the quality of the current build is, the earlier you want the next update. I don't think this has very high potential to dramatically increase the game's quality. I'd rather wait three weeks and get a ton of tried and tested fixes, than wait one day and have the patch notes read "By the way, there's a slight possibility this update is even more broken than the previous one". Fixes should never come with a "use at your own risk" kind of warning attached.

Okay, so if they did release too early (a stance I'm inclined to agree with), why should they rush things further? Think of this as the normal progress that would've happened behind closed doors if we weren't waiting for the second early access version by now. I'm sure your outlook would have been different if that were the case.

Now it's a can't opener.

Can't recall Half-Life 2 or any of the episodes being an early access game, still in development... ...ninja'd.

So basically you'd be okay with "Launch Pad and other structures move with rocket" being fixed if it means the game has a 50% chance of crashing on the menu screen.

Thanks! I can honestly not see how KSP 2 violates any one of these points. If anything, I will grant that under specific circumstances, one could argue that the game... somewhat bends the rules a bit in places. It all depends on what a "playable" experience is defined as in the context of this document, really.