Scarecrow71

Newfoundland

If you know the character, you know.

N 51

Doesn't man he has anything good to say, either. Taken at face value, his statement is literally "I've got something to say, but I can't say it now. I am, however, looking forward to finally getting it off my chest". Could be good, could be bad, could be indifferent. All we know is it is something, and he can't say it now.

I am enjoying it. Juno is presenting a challenge in the early game so far that I don't get out of KSP any longer, and that's the engineering challenge. KSP is way too easy to "game" early on, farming science points and being able to do more and more with so much less. Juno is forcing me to put actual skills to use instead of "Well, I'm going to roll out this science thing and get all the points from the launchpad so I can unlock another node". So I am quite enjoying it right now. Will I continue to enjoy it once I've unlocked more? I don't know. But I haven't landed on any other celestial bodies yet, and I certainly haven't gotten outside of Droo's SOI (beyond Brigo and Luna, of course). So there's the excitement there of exploring that solar system. I also haven't gotten into doing anything with Vizzy, and as a software developer in real life (ok, automation jockey, but I do have to do scripting), I'm looking forward to seeing what types of flight programs I can create, and which processes I can automate through that. As far as being invested in the long term...maybe? The one thing that has kept me involved/invested in KSP for so many years is the community here on the forum. Which Juno entirely lacks. I mean, they have a Discord server, and they've got the community on Steam. But it's this forum here, outside of Discord, outside of Steam, independent and on its own that has kept me coming back for years. I get just as much, if not more, out of the forums than I do the game itself. And it's hard to say whether I will need that with Juno, or if I'll continue to game along and drop into the Discord every so often. That's why I have hobbies beyond gaming/computers. Whenever I get bored or can't stay focused on a game, I switch hobbies for a while. I'm lucky in that I work from home, so I'm able to do a lot of stuff during the day that a lot of other people don't get the chance to, such as continue to improve my guitar playing skills. And in a typical day, I can go from KSP to Juno to NHL 20 to cranking out a few songs in a matter of a couple hours. To me, it's all a matter of keeping my mind occupied, and when I find that I'm getting bored with one thing, I just pick something else up. I'm in the same boat. Part of the allure of the game, to me, were the Kerbals themselves. Campy and cartoony and weird-looking, sure. But they are part of the game, and they are one of the things I like about the game. As I mentioned above, I just keep cycling until I get to something that keeps me involved. As far as games go, right now it's Juno. Although, if you look at my Epic library, you'll wonder how I can even play half of the games I own, let alone get occupied enough to not say "Well, let's try this other one now". You and me both. I'm not so much heartbroken over KSP2 as I am just sorely disappointed. Disappointed in what should have been, what we got, and how much I was emotionally invested in something that never was. And like you, kinda like my first marriage. Ah, to be young and have the ability to feel love's keen sting.

Been diving into Juno the last week or so. It was on sale on Steam for like 60% off, so it only cost me $8. And it isn't all that different than KSP. There are differences for sure, such as Droo being bigger than Kerbin, and there being procedural parts of all kinds. But it's still the same concept, and the same principles of engineering, rocketry, rocket design, and flight still apply. In my current career save, I've gotten into the SOI of both Brigo and Luna (both of Droo's moons, which are akin to Mun and Minmus at least as far as distance goes), and I've got a craft orbiting Luna. I only have the Village launch pad unlocked, which limits you to a rocket height of 10 meters and a rocket width of 3 meters. No part or mass limits, but you have to take cash (funds) into account. Which means the Caveman Challenge has served me well. The rocket I used to get into Luna's SOI has way more fuel than it needs, so I'm going to put some legs on the upper stage and see if I can't land it on Brigo at some point.

For the same reason that it took months after launch for heat: they never did any actual work on it. Keep in mind that the only things they've shown us regarding colonies are models in an editor environment. No actual gameplay.

The odds are next to...zero. They sold the rights to KSP to Take Two, and I don't think they even exist any longer.

Samurai ban. A Banurai, if you will.

Using the past tense is cheating.

5/10, as software can be programmed to both have an interest in AND be about science and space. In fact, you might be a Kerbal. I have the capacity to interact with chat bots, so I've got to be human.

Scythia Minor https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythia_Minor

And they only "fixed" wobbly rockets after the community complained enough about them. Don't forget that we were literally told that the wobbly rockets were a design decision, in spite of us telling them that they weren't fun at all. It was part of Kerbal DNA, if I remember the quote correctly. That isn't hard development; that's lousy and unfounded development. Don't forget that those timelines should have been more than reachable after multiple years of development. Yes, there was a studio change in...2019, if I am correct? But still, 4 years after that and they can't even fix core foundational issues? That's not a timeline issue - that's a "we don't know what we're doing" issue. There is no reason, short of incompetence, that the developers couldn't reach any development milestones. Yep, they care about getting working features out. But they certainly didn't care about making sure the core systems were working before pushing some features out. And even if they did care about features, they certainly weren't prepared to craft them, were they? How long did it take heat management to hit the scene? And weren't there issues with parts overheating inside of fairings? I guess I need to restate my first sentence: they care about getting features out. Whether or not they cared about them working is another story. You are right - what we have does not change the quality of the game. And the quality of the game is poor. It's a buggy mess, and performance is still a major issue. Got a craft with over 100 parts? Perhaps multiple craft in orbit at the same time? Sorry, you don't get good performance, then. I still haven't seen anything north of 20 FPS on my mid-range equipment. User-friendly is subjective. Some people like the UI, some don't. Some people can find what they want easily enough, others can't. And that's not even taking into account the stuff that doesn't work, like maneuver nodes, or orbital lines, or even SAS. A lot of people have to fight with the controls to get anything to work. As far as progression goes...pfft. The story missions are far too rigid, there aren't enough of them, and once you finish the main story, there is ZERO reason to keep playing that career. Oh, you found all the monuments and got all those science points? Great. But we're out of missions to give you, and the developers have stated that they aren't going to change that. So, no replayability here! I agree that the game is moddable. I use(d) mods in KSP2. I wrote one. But the game shouldn't have to rely upon mods to be playable; it should be playable out of the box without any help from the modding community. Mods should enhance gameplay, not fix it. Bugs. Lack of communication. No replayability. Missing core features. Should I go on? The issue on communication isn't what is being said, but rather the entire lack of being told anything. EA is supposed to be a back-and-forth between the developers and the community, and while we provided feedback, we got next to nothing in return. That's what the issue is. Quite possibly the only part of your post I agree with. We've been at each others' throats over this, and we really should be banding together to show our support for the IP. We all want the same thing - a great playable sequel to a great game.

And we are already 7 years and 2 studio closures in. How much more time do you think we should give them? This entire community would care. And if this boils down to bad business practices, I'm sure someone at the FTC might care. Or the SEC. Or several other gaming companies that might see an opening to come in and either perform a hostile takeover OR to start worming into buying the IP. And at the time of release the game was barely a passable alpha tech demo. Gameplay was horrid, bugs galore, and performance was rotten, even on higher-end machines. The pace of bug-fixes/patches was pretty slow for an early access release, and we got 1 piece of new content prior to For Science - grid fins. Oh joy, we can try to control our craft that wobbles all over the place even though SAS shouldn't be that broken to begin with. For Science didn't fix much, and it actually hurt the game because of how dumbed-down the actual gathering of science was. And how rigid the contracts/missions were. And how broken some of the science-gathering parts were (such as the automated sample collector constantly being "blocked" by some mysterious force that couldn't be accounted for). Not to mention that, even after FS, we still had day 1 game-breaking bugs present that they still couldn't fix (orbital lines disappearing, for example), and a maneuver node gadget that simply didn't work. I want to believe that if they released the game with FS in February things would have been different, but after 10 months they still couldn't fix core, foundational issues. Again, how much time do you think we should give them? It's been 7 years since announcement, we've had multiple studio changes, multiple rounds of developers coming and going, and they still couldn't give us a game worth buying or playing. SEVEN YEARS. Let me ask you: how have we been impatient? Or are you talking about Take Two forcing a release on a game that wasn't ready (presumably; we don't know for sure if that is what happened or not)? Are we just not supposed to ask questions and try to figure out how this all happened? Should we just wait indefinitely for this? Do you think we should just look the other way on all of this, heads stuck in the sand, and say to ourselves "It will all be fine if we just shut up"? Impatience didn't kill this game. Bad development decisions, an over-hyped non-existent product, and lousy management all killed this game. If anything, being impatient was the only thing that brought most of this to light.

Are you going to pay that? I most certainly am not fronting that kind of cash. Even if we were to cobble together 15,000 signatures, someone has to pay the retainer. And although the cost per person would be less than $1 ($0.67 per person, to be precise), how many people do you think are going to put any money towards it? Ok, so maybe the retainer isn't prohibitive when you start getting down to having, say, 5000 people pitch in $2 each. Ok, no big deal. Oh, wait - now there are active ongoing costs for this thing. Oh, less and less people are going to pony up? Ok, so some people continue to front cash. And when the whole thing is over, assuming a win...everyone on the petition wants to get whatever their share is. Even those who didn't pony up are going to be out there with their hands face up asking for their share. And that's AFTER the lawyers get paid. Look, I think a lawsuit is a damned fine idea. I think consumers have every right to defend themselves from shady business practices, and if it takes a group of people to prove it in court, then I'm all for it. But someone has to actually pay for this to happen. And while I do have some cash on hand, I'm not going to front the majority cost. Especially not if I'm not going to be the face of the case, or if I'm not going to be very involved in the case as a whole.

This...isn't really a secret. The earnings call for Take Two is on the 16th, and we are all speculating that we may hear something on that call.

While it is nice knowing there is a case....that retainer is prohibitive. Eesh.

I don't just say it. I have personal experience stemming from my own poor performance in the very first job I ever got. 16 years old, got hired at McDonald's, thought it would be a cakewalk and they'd just hand me a check. Boy, did I ever find out differently 2 months in. Walked in for a shift, got called into the office before I clocked in, was handed my final paycheck and told, in no uncertain terms, that "...your performance doesn't meet the McDonald's standard..." and was told I was no longer a part of the McDonald's family. Poor performance in ANY industry can cause employees to get fired, or businesses to close. But we are talking about game dev so...just because you haven't seen it means it hasn't happened? Your personal experience does not mean others haven't had other experiences or seen/heard other things. Your narrow view of what can happen is simply that - your own narrow view. I have been in the same industry my entire career, and I've seen the company I work for gobble up multiple smaller insurance firms. Promises are made, nobody is getting the axe...and then the smaller company ends up just getting gutted, employees laid off, and systems integrated. It happens. Poor performance can, and almost always does, lead to revenue hits.

I've gone through disbelief. And anger. And confusion. And back to anger. And I've skated through the "the game is canceled" stage. Right now, as of today, I am in the "I've got nothing other than stating the facts and hoping that the community can stay together through this" stage. I could not agree more. This whole debacle has caused this great community to fracture right down the middle, with insults and anger hurled from both sides to the other. I just want us all to get along again, no matter what happens or what people think.

My guess is that if we are to hear anything, it will be either during or after the financial call on the 16th. [snip] While I agree with this sentiment, I doubt it will change. Not to mention that you have to wonder how many games in EA from big publishers/companies would never even sniff release without EA.

I think what a lot of people are forgetting is that Steam isn't the only place the game was sold. Myself, much like others, purchased the game on Epic. Which means it isn't just Steam's terms that need to be checked, but Epic's as well. And if the game is canceled, BOTH could be on the hook for refunds.

Did you see where I stated, quite plainly, that I an aware there are people who have an issue with it? Or are you simply just looking for a reason to argue?