PDCWolf
-
Posts
1,603 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by PDCWolf
-
-
3 hours ago, NexusHelium said:
Okay, first of all that video is over 10 months old. Long before most of the patches and FS!
And second, it's not just a game made ten years ago. It's a game men ten years ago that's also had 10 years of optimization and improvement. If KSP 2 is not better by 2029, then you can come back to this and dunk on me all you want but until then, I'm waiting.
I have sent at least 30-ish vessels to every planet and moon and the game still runs fine with me.
I can personally see everything fine. But I do agree with you that the UI could be a little crisper or smoothed but that should not be a priority in my opinion.
The last optimization for KSP1's loading was a GameDatabase system overhaul released in 2013 in version 0.20 . "Optimization" is not lineally correlated to time, it's not even guaranteed to happen as sometimes it's just not possible to make an algorithm better, or not worth it to pursue an overhaul/refactor under budgetary and practical limits. Don't sit out hoping for magic optimizations to come, specially when some very foundational systems can't really be optimized thanks to the way they have been designed.
3 hours ago, Scarecrow71 said:Although I'm a developer (automation jockey, to be specific) by trade, I'm curious to know what other solutions exist out there other than having a tree for identifying something and the things it contains. I'm no game designer, and the things I deal with in code are very straight-forward and don't involve something with hundreds or thousands of sub-parts, so this is a genuine question of me not knowing why it's primitive, as well as trying to understand what other solutions might exist.
It's primitive because parent-child systems have been as old as... the need to sort data. In the case of KSP1 a part has nodes, and anything that attaches to those nodes is a child, save for the node that attaches to a previous part which is the parent part, all the way up to the root. In the case of surface nodes, they're an arbitrary node created at arbitrary coordinates where another branch of the tree spawns as a child, pointing to the surface attachment node of the new child part. Almost every engineering game uses this method because it's proven to work, it's fast to cycle through all the nodes, and you do not need to check for recursions in circular structures.
As for alternatives, I can't just produce an answer because that goes beyond my skill level, but don't take that as "something different than tree based" but rather "let me use the 1 to 3 adapter, and then a 3 to 1 at the bottom without it not connecting 2 of the nodes." Currently, such a thing would mean that bottom adapter has 3 parents, something not possible as they're inheriting force, fuel flow, and other data from the parent part. It's also why the game dies when you dock vessels to themselves as it reconfigures the tree in real time.
3 hours ago, Fizzlebop Smith said:The graphics are better. A new coat of paint.. but I dislike the UI intensely.
Font
Part Manager
Staging Window Interaction
Maneuver Tool
Camera Controls
Ship Save (Filters or Options for Structure)
The PAW has to be one of the worst crimes against everything good in UI/UX design. "Let's make a UI that shows everything at the same time"... then they fond out it obviously lags the game to hell to load tooltips for all parts at the same time and that people are having a hard time finding something specific in a sea of parts that share the same names. The first is somewhat fixable... the other not so much, it's just one of those "we have to be different at any cost" things even if the cost is making an objectively worse feature.
That and the amateur navball design/positioning.
-
52 minutes ago, NexusHelium said:
What I meant is that it most likely wasn’t the majority of players. Because most of the people I read about here and on the discord do not trump on KSP 1 and all agree that it is one of the best games all times
But there’s always someone who has a wayward opinion and thats not a bad thing. They might have genuinely thought the first game was bad and went into the sequel game and found an overall genuinely more enjoyable experience.
they don’t have some sort of delusion that’s formed from a coping mechanism, they just think the sequel is better. I would also argue that the game has the type of foundation that isn’t strong at first but has a lot of potential, which in my opinion classifies as a strong foundation. Something that an amazing thing can be built on top is what I think is a strong foundation.
And the game has that and more
Gotta agree to disagree then, that was a painful read. Whilst you're free to like what you like, I fail to agree on any of the things you like, and some other things are plainly not a matter of personal opinion, like not being able to read the fonts on the UI, or loading times, or "potential" and so on.
For loading times, on a new and clean game, the loading speed difference between KSP1 and 2 is minimal. Sure, the initial load is faster, but at the end of the day, a game made 10 years ago loads a whole *checks notes* 15 seconds slower from startup to flight. And that's with KSP2 still being in its incomplete infancy.
Potential does not define a foundation. Foundation is a word reserved for how well the codebase and the game systems are put together. If "what I believe this game can be" was a metric, then every game in development has infinite potential and thus the strongest foundation. That's just not how it works.
In reality KSP2 has the same engine as the prequel, the same middleware for some features, but a much heavier save system, and also a much heavier inactive-vessel simulation. KSP2 will be thwarted by that in the future. It also still builds and saves vessels as a tree, it still calculates fuel flow mostly the same way (something something "inspiration" from the code of the previous game), it still handles the atmosphere like the previous game, but thanks to that passive simulation and bad saving system, vessels popping into range still kill your game, orbits change randomly, and the game grinds to a halt with vessels and partcounts much faster than the prequel, to the point systems (like heating) have to be "streamlined", and part-counts have to be hammered down with new, revolutionary "all in one" science modules, station modules, and in the future colony modules too... or having the logistics layer be abstracted to numbers instead of seeing your vessels come and go.
Right now, saves are just a couple vessels for 99% of players, let alone making any vessel in the hundreds of parts for maybe the last couple missions, and most people play serially too (fully complete one mission before launching the next). So really, KSP2s limits haven't yet applied to most people and thus it's no wonder they really think the game is better off. When colonies and interstellar arrive, along with more resources to keep track of... it's gonna be a mess, yet devs refuse to address it and have let the bug report sit unattended, and only mentioned the problem once in the K.E.R.B. and that's... the opposite of potential.
So yeah, you might slowly start to realize why people who talk highly of the foundation, potential, and what not don't seem completely grounded in reality to me, and why the lack of proper technical talk in devblogs is worrying. I don't care at all for how they failed to replicate eclipses, or how they had to tesselate a line to draw a circle, I care to know why we're still stuck on something as primitive as tree based vessels, and how they plan to deal with high part counts, or even something as basic as what their target is.
-
8 hours ago, NexusHelium said:
KSP 1 was not bad, and no one I have ever met or seen has ever said that it was bad to justify KSP 2.
In my opinion, KSP had a far less enjoyable experience in a lot of areas compared to the sequel but that's my opinion. It's not an argument.
The only argument that involves KSP that I have seen was one that I personally agree with as well. And that is the fact that KSP during early access was bad, or at least not the greatest. And if one guy joined by a team of people could create one of the best games of all time in ten years, then KSP 2 can undoubtedly achieve the same or even more in the same amount of time. And they are on a fantastic track to do so, so saying the first game is bad is not a cope, it's not even really an argument.
It's just not true, and basically everyone that enjoyed the first game stands by that fact. Some people, including me, just look back on the first one's history and know that the sequel still has some time and deserves more than to be abandoned or looked at in disgust. But that's not fact. I cannot confirm the game's future, but that is the argument I uphold and stand by the strongest in regards to this game.
Well, then you aren't looking enough. Sure, those people don't post a lot anymore save for... one or two, but god if I didn't had to read people absolutely unloading on KSP1 to somehow justify the existence of KSP2 and how whatever we have now is better and provides a better foundation (even though it literally doesn't).
9 hours ago, MechBFP said:The only people giving it a pass are the people you have made up in your mind. No one is going to give it a pass if the game leaves Early Access like that.
I wish I hadn't read the literal opposite at least once.
-
8 hours ago, The Aziz said:
Oh the irony
So you want the game with 6 popular mods instead.
And the proper codebase to support them rather than self-destroying after a couple thousand parts like KSP2 does and will do for the foreseeable future. After all, isn't "bad foundation" one of the complaints for KSP1? Then why'd KSP2 get a pass being made in the same engine and including a timebomb as big as their current unloaded vessel simulation and save serialization are?
Oh right, because "wahh KSP1 was bad" is not an argument, it's a cope, and a double standard when KSP2 is part of the conversation.
-
20 minutes ago, NexusHelium said:
I would argue that releasing the game in the state that it was it was a pretty big risk. But I would say something like KSP 2 doesn’t really need or even deserve risk. It’s a sequel to the OG. What risks exactly do you take?
Better engine, deeper simulations and features, life support, bigger planets, maybe different planets, better robotics with capacity to program routines or outright just write code for the game like kOS, a proper race to space type career, budgeting, literally anything that isn't just the first game with "better" graphics + 3 mods and thinking that's somehow ever gonna be worth $50.
-
9 hours ago, NexusHelium said:
Uh.... not sure about that. Chances are that if the community stop engaging with the game, they would cancel the project. One of the only reasons they haven't is that we are so passionate about this game (and the fact that they've likely sunk a lot of money into the project)
They aren't cancelling because KSP is really the golden egg goose, that's why they're taking literally 0 risks and only selling us a coat of paint and the top 3 most popular mods of KSP1.
-
5 hours ago, MARL_Mk1 said:
-snip-
Great writeup, good to see more people being realistic about the absolute disaster this project is on all fronts. Yes, they've got a game that somewhat works now and has something to do in it provided you're not mind-numbed after the 3rd time clicking that flashing blue light trying to harvest some dopamine.
5 hours ago, MARL_Mk1 said:I think I speak for everyone who paid $50 for KSP2's Early Access when I say that the only credibility that holds any real value when it comes to this game is Intercept Game's.
Sadly, you really don't speak for everyone. Some people are happy this mess is what it is and will seclude themselves in positive-chambers to repeat to each other that if they can wait more, and enforce positivity, it'll all be fine.
-
2 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:
Yeah. Alas, games don't tend to run well before they enter the optimisation stage.
At least you have something to do in them until that happens, and they're not so broken that a 4090 and a 12th gen i7 like the pcs at the media event chug when trying to run them.
2 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:But you are talking about it
Me, and maybe 100 more people, and we're really stubborn about the game, so really our input is a drop in an ocean of... not caring about the game, or having walked away already.
-
On 4/16/2024 at 11:09 AM, MARL_Mk1 said:
"Lithobraking near you in 2020", guessing everyone remembers.
Were they originally planning a re-skin of KSP1 somehow? Was this ever discussed and I'm just forgetting?
I just felt the urge to watch the original cinematic trailer, and I can't believe that was literally 5 years ago.
5 years ago. God this is depressing...The keen eyed quickly realized and tried to warn people that what they were showing were barely asset mounts, editor scenes, and pre-rendered stuff, and the stuff that wasn't was noticeably bad in performance, in a trailer. Warnings weren't heeded. That type of uninformed hype is also why people held a lot of hope that the next 4 delays would make the product nothing but better, and it's not like that wasn't exactly what the statements said again and again.
Of course, all that hot air made release a thunderous failure.
On 4/16/2024 at 1:26 PM, Spicat said:I don’t know which management
Star Theory's management is what survived the metamorphosis into Intercept Games, it's the same people behind this project. So has PD's management remained the same, and much more T2 (even though after thousands fired and 8 quarters of net loss that might change).
-
13 minutes ago, cocoscacao said:
Such as? I'm not familiar with game engines and their differences. Regardless of what we may think this game is, and how it's been developed thus far, I don't think different engine would help matters. Again, I'd need specifics on what you mean by Unity being insufficient.
Also, developing an engine isn't an easy task. It's a project for itself. Yes, earlier games had their own, but they were a lot simpler than games of today, where you're pretty much obliged to have physics simulations... So people go after off-the-shelf toolset for a reason.
Well, the joint system should be the obvious example here. Then there's the hard 2.5km limit if you want any semblance of precision (and even then we get kraken attacks), basic rigidbody physics being a mess (hello wheels), the default multithreading is unusable, updating your project's unity version will probably break it, the garbage collector is probably still broken (causing random frame spikes at times), and just you wait till we get multiplayer, we're gonna make so many amazing, fun discoveries on that netcode! Also this isn't going specifically into the limitations of the middleware.
There's definitely more, and a lot of it stems from being an engine made for the greenest of the green. It's an amazing engine but it's never been suited to big projects without severely limiting what they can do, and "spaceflight physics simulator with lots of simulated subsistems" is not a thing Unity is fit for.
-
4 hours ago, cocoscacao said:
Maybe just theoretically, and I would put that under a giant maybe. I don't think writing your own engine would help much either.
Unity does come with a lot of features that are outright insufficient if you want to do a game like KSP. However, in reality, I'm 100% sure a custom engine runs contrary to what seems to be the very concept KSP2 is built upon: cash out fast by delivering a quick "modernization" of a very successful indie game. The franchise is made, the game is done, you can even reuse the off-the-shelf toolset like Unity and the same middleware, add 2 or 3 of the popular mods in a non committal way (Resources, Colonies, Multiplayer but no LS as to not force players to use any feature) and sit back to watch the cash flood in.
Meanwhile the community wanted KSP2 to be almost entirely different and to wipe away the errors of the first one... how the turn tables.
-
After the brand damage that was firing Paul Furio, the engineering lead of a project that had just gone under the public eye, I doubt we'll know anything unless they actually axe the project, which doesn't seem to be the case.
Imma link a more in-depth analysis that I agree with, and why I believe this project isn't affected. TL;DR they bought Gearbox but fired people they didn't need, on top of gearbox firing their own earlier this year.
https://www.gamesindustry.biz/a-double-take-on-take-twos-layoffs-this-week-in-business
-
22 hours ago, RileyHef said:
Correct! Here at around 15:40. "Significantly shorter turnaround time," with, of course, an large asterisk including everything Nate said in the minute prior to the timestamp about not wanting to make concreate guarantees.
In my eyes, a 6 month period between 0.2 and 0.3 would definitely be a significant difference. We will see come June.
We're not waiting for 0.3 currently, the next expected patch is a fix pre-colonies. I do believe colonies will arrive faster than science, maybe july/august.
-
2 minutes ago, RileyHef said:
ook at 0.2. That was not fully announced until a month before its release and we had very little info prior to that.
Wrong.
By half of the year we knew:
- It was coming near the end of the year.
- It was gonna include "lots of fixes".
- It was going to be the first iteration of the heating system.
- A heating system we already had a devblog for and not "here's how I failed to make an eclipse".
- Some parts had been shown.
- The concept that parts were gonna be an all-in-one solution was explained.
- We were told the system was going to be incomplete, as it was going to be partly carved out by resources and colonies.
- Heating itself had not just a devblog, but 3 iterations of VFX demoed.
Then after all that info, FS! was barely a remix of KSP1 in the end, and people got blindsided by a horrible surprised because they never showed proper gameplay up until like a month before release, kinda like how after 4 years the game changed from full release to barebones early access. THAT is why they don't have the community's trust.
And we know lots of theory stuff about colonies already as well, allegedly, provided they don't go back on their previous words and we don't get another surprise like FS! where the boxes are checked but it is just bad.
-
3 hours ago, Icegrx said:
This entire post has become pointless, it’s the same loop of conversation over and over with the words slightly tweaked. This post holds no value for the team itself. Nothing positive will happen from repeating one’s selves like a broken record.
I get excited when I see activity in the discussions thread, and then all that excitement disappears when I see that it’s this post with the activity.
I am also disappointed, but venting here is not constructive anymore. I was upset when the eclipse post got locked, but I totally see why it happened and think it’s time to lock this one up as well.
Short of FS!, which did nothing but add new complaints and concerns for a lot of people, most feedback hasn't been addressed (addressed as in game changes, not words on a forum) for 14 months. It's no wonder every thread ends in the same spot.
2 hours ago, Nerdy_Mike said:I wanted to hop in here to say that most of the stuff the players are asking for will be addressed soon. Now I know in the past soon has been treated as a "sure three months" but this time I am working as fast as I can with team to get the asks you all have addressed.
I know the speed is not what is being asked, but next week we will have some news to share with more to come in the following weeks. We don't want everyone to get tiny bits of information and we're working to deliver more as quick as possible.
On that note I just ask to be patient just a little while longer.
See, normally I'd absolutely buy a statement like this, and I applaud your effort whilst definitely not envying your position. Where we are now, this statement sounds like one more for the pile. Promptly hoping to be proven wrong.
-
2 hours ago, Scarecrow71 said:
Now, if you want to break down what I'm really talking about, let's do that. Felipe - who was the original author of KSP1, and who coded and released multiple versions in its history during his free time and without really being paid - has put together, once again, a game from scratch where no other space really existed before, and he's doing it with a very small team and very little funding.
Having played only 90 minutes of it, I had a blast and it was clear to me there's a lot of stuff he has learned from and made better. From simple details like center-of and node indicators not being spheres for extra precision, to internal views, a very deep controller interface config screen, and keeping what works and not making it different just because (looking at you VAB controls). Building is more detailed but not more cumbersome, physics are more detailed but without all the scary ghosts of scaring users away some here were seeing.
2 hours ago, Scarecrow71 said:So why does KSP2 get a free pass here?
In the grand scheme of things, sales numbers, reviews, community sentiment, KSP2 hasn't gotten a pass. It's only people here and on the discord that are ready to give it the pass because either they genuinely like it, or they really feel bad about having spent $50 on it or some other reason...
1 hour ago, Fizzlebop Smith said:The wheel physics of kithsck is on point. That is an area where they have put a great deal of effort. Fully building suspension systems, with gearing differential.
This is what makes KSP wheels so whack, you're forced to either build a whole suspension system dealing with the wacky physics, or you'll have to use the single-piston, non-coordinated, default suspension, and at the speeds we work with in KSP, that just doesn't cut it, so it feels like you're skating on ice.
-
31 minutes ago, Scarecrow71 said:
Been more than a month since the last KERB, and the only thing we've gotten is that Mike is working on their internal calendar to determine when timing starts. And Darrin stated it's one KERB in a month, not one every 30 days. Throw onto this that there are changes coming to PD with the layoffs, and I'm just not feeling too warm about this title any longer. Just rip the band-aid off, already.
Also, we don't have hope any longer on communication.
"one kerb in a month" is, at least logically, capable of resulting in 2 K.E.R.B.s spaced by ~60 days, provided one shows up the first day of month A, and the other at the end of month B. Funny coincidence? Thought that statement is probably just a way giving themselves some leeway, as it's technically correct so long as they release a K.E.R.B. before the 30/31st of X month. Some months the K.E.R.B. might come faster, in others they might have absolutely nothing until the very last day when there's no chance but to post what they have.
It's laughable that we have to go to these extents to skirt around their non-statements and incapability of producing a periodic report.
-
12 hours ago, Icegrx said:
Since you don’t have to open steam to actually play KSP2 it’s hard to draw any useful information from this. I have less than 6 hours logged, yet I’ve dumped at least 200+ hours into KSP2
Reviews don't care about you opening the launcher or not. You can leave a positive or negative review with 0 hours logged. The reason I choose the 2 hour mark is because it happens to be the refund window, so you can see how many people leave a negative review (one which most probably converts to a refund) inside that window. If you're going to keep playing without logging hours, it doesn't affect the result. Further on, logging hours also doesn't matter for the review influx.
-
I want this tracked and updated, Anth hasn't provided further updates past 0.1.4 and neither has any other user. This is a fundamental design quirk (don't wanna label it a flaw because it has functionality) that's gonna severely limit saves once colonies hit. It's probably why we won't have real ships doing logistics and just numbers moving.
this one is pretty fatal too for craft that happen to be tightly engineered.
Stop booing the thread, this is a great idea and is being done on discord as well.
-
8 hours ago, Spicat said:
Well then "AAA price" is a nonsensical term that doesn’t mean anything because that mean $3 is AAA priced.
I mean, fair enough, it kinda is nonsensical to assume every game is worth the same just because "reasons". AAA itself is a very badly defined term. Is it budget? team size? depth and complexity? Something to do with publishers? It probably had a meaning at some point, now all "AAA" means is "I'm throwing my money away for a subpar, rushed, MTX ridden product", save for very counted exceptions, of which none I remember are above $60, much less on sales.
Again, you can price an "AAA" product at whatever price, you can collude with other publishers and media to normalize said price (specially since they're mostly on a country with no laws against that), but if people don't believe it's worth that, they're not gonna pay that price, and it is kinda what's happening. The only exception will probably be GTA VI, but that game has been so overhyped it stands no chance of matching expectations.
4 hours ago, steveman0 said:There are multiple ways to interet reception. Static metrics like a Steam rating is just one and it is plagued with it's own issues
Like being a place where people can write their opinion without 50+ messages being deleted.
4 hours ago, steveman0 said:It should come as no surprise that many still did not update their Steam reviews as the game is still not finished. This is a huge factor for many who rate on Steam. You have to dig deeper to isolate feedback specific to the patch itself and thaf was quite positive.
Since the FS! release to today, if you filter by 2 hours playtime (the refund window), 57% of the people that bought the game, or hadn't opened it till then, left a negative review. And from the total (2000 reviews in that timeframe), 500 of them kept their review negative, or made a negative review.
4 hours ago, steveman0 said:Keeping their heads down in face of all of the unreasonable vitriol makes sense as no amount of communication will alleviate emotions originating out of pure impatience.
Ah yes, "14 months to change a font" is vitriol and impatience.
-
18 minutes ago, Spicat said:
No that’s a fact, AAA games are not $50.
I don’t care that millions are buying indies, or during sales, that doesn’t mean AAA are not priced at best at $60 and at worst at god know how much.
You can price an AAA release at $300, your sales will be very near 0, thus the obvious conclusion that AAA games are not $300, the seller wants that, it's not gonna get it, just like PD is not getting $50 for KSP2 in its current state from a lot of people.
For the record, in my region they priced it at $3.
-
9 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:
But like, its still just a game, dude. You don’t have to buy it and you don’t have to play it. Purchases are voluntary and no one is dying here. This isn’t personal. All of the histrionic pearl clutching just seems so put on at this point. A lot of folks have given good feedback. Thats great. Thats useful. Continuing to whine for years and years on end about some apparent personal harm thats been done to you by a video game that didn’t live up to your expectations in the timeframe you imagined seems super weird to me. If you don’t have the patience to let the devs succeed or not that’s fine. Ymmv. If you’re really that mad just take your money and time to other games and move on with your life.
People aren't in this forum or protesting KSP2 perpetually, I check maybe twice a day tops for example, most "pearl clutchers" and "whiners" are not crying on the streets about it, that's just consistent hyperbole trying to handwave complaints and criticism away to force the tone of the forum into a desired one.
Most "pearl clutchers" just actually left their negative review and left probably forever. Others came here and provided feedback, got ignored like 99% of feedback and left, again probably forever. And the rest that stuck around this far still have some semblance of hope, or at least want to see where this ship is going because they keep giving developers another chance, which is exactly what some are asking for, but since it's easier to label people as whiners than to actually read what they post about, we end up in the same overacted hyperbole.
That's what seems super weird to me, it's always this demonizing and hyperbolic short-of-personal attacks to anyone who dares say anything without "dear devs", "please" and "thank you", specially because people have actually tried that. In fact, I remember some people asking very nicely about the UI and fonts after release because they can't read. And where did that feedback end 14 months later? And somehow some expect people to just say "oh well, that's $50 and a year of my time on a game I can't read the font of" and go without saying anything? They're at least gonna have some colorful thing to say, probably on their reviews.
9 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:My question is: if all negative feedback is framed in the same tone of personally aggrieved apoplexy about process and promises rather than actual content and quality why and how should anyone take it seriously? Why not skip the theater and performative anger of it all and just cut to the actual, substantive feedback? Because as far as I can tell the former achieves nothing and dilutes and distracts from the latter.
Well, they didn't take the nicely framed feedback seriously either. At least nothing to show for it yet. All we got from the feedback on the heat devblog was never seeing another in depth devblog about a proper core feature and none of the important questions addressed, just a tantrum-ish stomp on the floor.
9 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:Again those are genuine substantive issues and 100% fair game. They have and are tackling those things as they should be.
14 months and counting to change a font. No more questions your honor.
9 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:You’ve got to realize though by focusing instead on “but you promised!” complaints you’re actually disincentivizing transparency, because any sneak peak or WIP or planned feature leak just becomes fodder for more accusations of false promises, even if features are cut or altered for legitimate reasons. If fans are going to throw a fit every time their expectations aren’t met its best to just not say or release anything until its fully ready.
God forbid devs actually have any semblance of value for their words... If they can't show anything because not even they know what's gonna end up in the game, what are we even doing here? Plus, they put themselves under such a scrutinizing eye by being, themselves, unfaithful to their own dates, and promises first. Again, more hyperbole to blame the community and completely sidestepping what's been done wrong by the devs.
33 minutes ago, steveman0 said:This is honestly probably the most accurate picture of the situation as I see it. For Science felt like it came out of the blue and really nailed a lot of what they were going for with the update. It was remarkably well received
You can absolutely like the update and have fun and hundreds of hours in it, but reception is a measurable fact and oh boy. Reviews barely budged up to mixed from mostly negative, and there was another influx of negatives with that. The subreddit started automatically (by humans, not bots Dakota) downvoting KSP2 content again, media coverage was null. Sure, the player numbers jumped, but only to a quarter of the peak, and rapidly went back to <5% of original players, and half of KSP1. Also, the constant "complaining about complaining" and dwindling of activity tells you that even here the reception wasn't that good.
Again, nothing to do with you liking it, nothing against you liking either.
7 hours ago, Spicat said:Oh I’m not disagreeing, it’s currently not worth this amount of money. That’s why I didn’t put a review (good or bad) yet despite having 400 hours into the game.
But it’s just not "AAA priced" nor "full price".
This is a fallacy.
Publishers colluding to jack the price of their products and sending money under the table to gaming media to agree, even though the market cap has gone so high games are more profitable than movies and music combined (and adult entertainment too!), makes no economical sense other than to further pad their pockets. The decrease of sales in blockbuster AAA titles will easily tell you that no, games aren't $70, except for a select few million players that live well enough to throw $70 away without a second thought.
As evidence fresh in my mind, the fastest selling and most played game in the last 2 decades is a $15 indie (15 million copies in a month, 19 million active concurrent players). And I'm sure you don't need me to link anything about the general sentiment towards the AAA industry, how many jobs/studios have been lost (10000 last year, 8000 more in just this quarter of 2024), and how franchises are dropping like flies because the AAA machine is destroying itself by failing to understand what the public wants.
-
1 hour ago, Pthigrivi said:
I mean really love this team and I think things are coming along nicely but I believe even they see it as getting on base after a tough at bat. Unfortunately we're living in a really toxic gaming culture and its got to be hard for passionate developers and designers to gauge real reactions and actionable feedback in a clear and honest way. The atmosphere from a vocal player standpoint is to take all of these things really personally, or pretend to take them really personally, and then engage in an over-the-top Kabuki dance of feigned rage demanding groveling supplication from the corporate entities they've been wronged by because they think thats the only way games improve. But it's kind of like Cable news outlets constantly running BREAKING NEWS banners. If you're always turning everything up to 11 then people who might listen might as well just tune you out. If players believe rage-bombing every title that doesn't meet their expectations is the only way to convince developers to improve their products then eventually developers are just going to take those flame-campaigns less seriously. I would guess they already are. They'll look to more balanced and genuinely informative heuristics to identify the worst problems and work their way up from there.
That's being really hellbent on ignoring the multiple rounds of feedback they've received. They have received tons of well mannered, nicely written, interesting, centered and directed feedback from all skill levels. That you somehow wish to make a point by ignoring that is not helping your case, because literally everyone this point seems aimed at will tell you again and again that feedback has been provided in the best manner and interest already, and everything else came after.
As for the bombing, in this particular case, the game got absolutely bombed because it didn't work. People paid $50 for a product they had been told for 4 years was one thing, and then not only wasn't that but DID. NOT. WORK. That anyone, let alone someone not in the project expects anything different from the community to what happened is baffling, surprising and even a little bit saddening.
2 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:As test case lets talk about Cyberpunk--widely dragged and laughed at when it first released and probably deservedly so. It probably should have incubated for a couple more years. And now all of the initial hard work of good writing and good VA and story can be capitalized on because they fixed most of the bugs and redesigned the core mechanics into something incredible.
And whilst the game is good now, it's still missing all the features they publicly and stealthily cancelled before release, and it'll never go back to being what it was supposed to be. That developers or publishers expect people to just smile and open their wallets when they show something for years and then come out saying "woops, that feature didn't make it" is again, surprising. It really requires PR people to have a face made of unobtainium to just show a product for years and then still ask for money when whatever else comes out, let alone a non working product.
Again, to clarify: CP2077 is a great game, they had the gall to stick to it and fix it, and then sell us a great DLC tied to an update that elevates the game, but it is still missing a lot of stuff.
2 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:I genuinely hope as colonies and interstellar and resources are phased in the folks at Intercept remain open to making big internal changes to game mechanics depending on how things play out. What matters in the end is how the 1.0 product actually plays.
This is a misconception. Branding a product as "Early Access" doesn't mean you get to do whatever until 1.0. For all practical matters, for customer retention, product placement and what not, the game already launched. What matters for everyone who saw the product at release is that, and maybe some will give it a second chance on subsequent updates, and some already gave it a second chance during the FS! release.
2 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:They're already incentivized to do that. Heaping shame and vitriol on them usually makes things worse, not better.
On the one hand, the wobble changes disagree, on the other, them refusing to change a font does agree.
2 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:The changes Cyberpunk made weren't just because players dragged CDPR through the mud.
CDPR wasn't just trashed by players and critics, it got a lawsuit from investors alleging they were defrauded (they settled last year for almost $2M), it got a stock value drop of more than 50%, wiping a lot of money from them and their investors, along with investor goodwill. Citing CDPR as an example doesn't bring up the human side, it brings up that you gotta hit them where they hurt: their pockets. Most big changes in gaming tend to agree with that too, like Halo infinite pushing prices down, or Darktide deobfuscating their currency, or OVW2 dying because they pretty much scammed their original purchasers.
As a closing, I'd say stop assuming people are mad for nothing, because people are mad at IG well within reason, as feedback has been ignored, IG has gone silent, and the stuff they put out whilst silent seems tone deaf to the community at best, and completely insufficient at worst.
-
2 hours ago, The Aziz said:
We're here to give feedback on what's already planned
If only they'd tell us what's planned. It's like, after 14 months, people have caught enough of a hint that KSP2 is not going for a better KSP1, but a KSP1 redux focused on telling a story, with some popular features thrown in because they need differentiation and a hook. However, since they actively refuse to tell us what the KSP2 is about, we can only guess from contextual clues we have to force out of them by making exceedingly spiraling questions on AMAs and livestreams or on discord.
Don't you think that is why people give feedback that's all over the place and that they certainly have no use for and thus ignore?
Some Improvements on the Way
in KSP2 Dev Updates
Posted · Edited by PDCWolf
Loving the fixed engine effects, the concave pyramid was a sight for sore eyes knowing it was just wrong, also blackrack's clouds are gorgeous, hooray for both better looking and more realistic. Kerbin's atmosphere is barely more compact than ours in its first layers so I don't see why it wouldn't be more similar in looks rather than simpson's-ish clouds.
Whilst I see the possibility of crashing into colonies and having them be destroyed like ships as definitely fun, I'm exceedingly worried about the mounting pressure on the serialization and non-active vessel simulation systems. Any reassurance we can get on that front that giving active physics to colonies is a worthy endeavour? are they the same physics as spacecrafts? any part # target for colonies?
Also what about the font issue?