Jump to content

PDCWolf

Members
  • Posts

    846
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by PDCWolf

  1. 1 hour ago, Superfluous J said:

    To be frank, I don't "expect" KSP2 in that way.

    I mean, in the way that if they never come out with the game I won't be all "but you PROMISED" about it years later.

    That's why I asked "why". If you lurk/post here on KSP2 hype/feature/marketing threads without really expecting anything, why bother? I understand stoicism, I don't understand willfuly wasting one's time when you aren't taking any part of the information releases as holding any value.

    1 hour ago, t_v said:

    Because even though it isn’t a perfectly sound promise of features

    Then what is? Saying a feature is coming apparently isn't, showing it isn't either, giving a timeframe for it ("post 1.0 update") isn't either.

    1 hour ago, The Aziz said:

    Not to mention, all the features that appeared since 2015 were more important than MP.

    That's subjective at best, specially since they used MP coming as the biggest sales bait on linked public articles and their social medias.

    1 hour ago, pandaman said:

    No product, of any type, however often it may be 'promised' is ever guaranteed to actually get released until it hits the shelves.

    Doesn't detract from the fact that I can still tell people to not trust those promises based on the dev/studio history of not being able to keep them. Even if there's no legal accountability, there's public accountability.

    1 hour ago, pandaman said:

    I don't disagree that an 'Oops sorry, but we can't deliver after all' would have been nice, but can you imagine how many pitchforks with 'But you PROMISED ' notes attached would be flying around. 

    As many as they should, specially since it was used as sales bait, this is exactly why 10 years later we've still got people asking for the feature, and why the sequel was announced with a big "MULTIPLAYER AT LAUNCH" attached on social media posts and other publications. My only goal here is telling people to not believe that based on their history of using MP as bait and then silently failing to deliver.

  2. 3 hours ago, The Aziz said:

    Then they stopped working on it and plans were scrubbed. We also didn't get gas planet 2 and probably a dozen of other features. I see no promise here. Only plans.

    But how is that post from 7 years ago relevant now when a game that can most likely internally hold MP functionalities with ease is around the corner?

     

    16 minutes ago, pandaman said:

    With respect...

     'Working on it' and 'planned'  is not a promise that they can actually deliver, whatever their wishes or intentions may have been.  It is exactly what it says, nothing more, nothing less.

    I don't doubt for a minute that they would have liked to get MP working and included, but for whatever reasons they didn't.

    I plan or work on lots of things that end up not working  or proving practical.  

     

    I mean, if we dismiss words like that, why are we even expecting a game? They literally didn't say "we promise to deliver KSP2", which it is said in one of my linked articles for KSP1.

    They mentioned the word "committed" in  "committed to bring Multiplayer as a free post 1.0 update", they answered community members telling them it was coming, planned, and lastly, I challenge you to find any post that says "multiplayer for KSP1 has been cancelled".

    Found this one to add to the list too:

    https://www.facebook.com/kerbalspaceprogram/posts/pfbid02XaN4WXrPbKnYAJmMw6Lx3zNDMEAYxwJwu1B8qhB8PNgnYUyjpmek8wWFyLTtqWDwl?comment_id=978554832163741&reply_comment_id=978557518830139&__cft__[0]=AZVwiaMTGEh_cezOVANZ1-TfC7oeTZY4SWP6Rfi_rsdsenCI_J-p8VswhssfvtsvQanhtzno8KiH3YIjerixjBk9xHtnSmKvzfTqOgUvcda1tsXK41oXa25Me8BlS2Z4TmxTmBpiaSe_2Rsl9-LZqPsH&__tn__=R]-R

    Multiplayer was a last resource promise to give a boost to 1.0 sales. It never arrived, it was never cancelled either, just swept under the rug if anything.

    Like really, and I'm repeating myself, at that point we really shouldn't be here, or listening to any marketing if nothing they can ever say is ever to be considered as "promised".

  3. 6 hours ago, pandaman said:

    How come?  MP in KSP1 was NEVER promised, merely mentioned at best as something in mind that they would like to do.

    "Squad is committed [...]" 

    https://www.pcgamer.com/kerbal-space-program-committed-to-multiplayer-career-and-sandbox-modes/ 

    "We're working on it[...]" "Free update after 1.0".

    "Squad has promised other long-requested features, including an official multiplayer mode"

    https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/kerbal-10-release-women/

     

  4. I check these forums through RSS and the title really fricking got me.

    They still owe us updates from multiplayer in KSP1, and you think they're gonna say anything about multiplayer in KSP2? That's probably not coming till like a year after release, if it ever comes, no matter what they've said.

  5. 35 minutes ago, t_v said:

    My question is, given all that, should KSP 2 try to create specific real parts based on current space agencies, companies, governments, militaries, etc. and if so, how should they do it? 

    This'd be great, but requires a lot more effort than just a 3d model and its texturing job. Real motors have a lot of components not even close to being simulated in the original game: Inefficiencies from deep throttling, chamber pressure dropoff, myriad of fuel combinations, etc. Add to that the fact that the universe is 10 times smaller, and you get a whole level of inconsistencies that's unreconcilable. This is exactly why Realism Overhaul pretty much requires RSS and breaks everything in the game if you don't get the real solar system size. This means they have to rework the parts for the toy scale, add the missing systems, and then somehow find a way to translate that to a performance level that matches the real world. The level of compromises they'd have to take makes it pretty impossible for it to be anything more than a simple visual representation (which some parts already are).

    If we leave realism aside (which should be the point of something like this), I think it'd still be cool to see more real-life analogues, even if just visual.

  6. 2 hours ago, Alexoff said:

    We are just customers, not developers :/

    First off, sorry, I quoted the wrong post, I meant to quote this one:

    22 hours ago, Alexoff said:

    I think everyone will agree that KSP is not about graphics at all.

    Second off, I do agree with the statement if we're talking about KSP1, but definitely not KSP2, it has to at least live up to its contemporaries, they have one of the biggest publishers in gaming behind them, and a big enough team now as well. Those are my expectations as a customer obviously.

  7. 3 hours ago, Alexoff said:

    Looks great compared to what? Compared to KSP 1 from 2012? Besides one texture, multiplied to the horizon, and stones with the same textures, we don’t see anything else on the planets. There are cities on the planets in Starfield. The resolution of the surfaces of the planets corresponds to the quality of the textures in games 2005-2008. By the way, they also look great, crysis for example. Parallax is great, but the resource consumption of graphical mods is incredible, cyberpunk at max settings requires less.

    KSP is no longer an indie developed by an independent small studio. We need to do away with the lowballing.

  8. 1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said:

    How?

    That's already done

    How? 99% of planets are made of rock and have easily identifiable flat planes - Rask and Rusk still have cooler solid areas and you won't find a planet that is 100% made of quicksand. Care to give us a solution?

    Repeat for points 3-7. These demands are pretty unreasonable - especially 6 and 7 (with the exception of 5 which is fairly doable) which seem more fitting for a NASA supercomputer simulation of a space agency than a literal game that only incorporates some simulation for its gameplay. There's no avoiding the fact that if you can land on Tylo, you can land pretty much anywhere else. There will not be arbitrary barriers preventing a vessel with landing legs and RCS/SAS from landing anywhere else.

    If 2 really is done, then 1 is mostly done as well, they're pretty tight with each other.

    3 requires that legs and SAS stop being magically strong, once that is done, hills and such will become pretty hard to land on. Further on, proper aerodynamics (with consequences) will make packing legs a challenge, so you can't just add legs to anything and use those + magic SAS to plonk a vessel down anywhere. Those barriers would not be arbitrary, they'd be as realistic as they get. Real life rockets don't take off with unprepared un-aerodynamic parts hanging off the side.

    4 has been done by mods, don't really need to explain, just make the magic tracking station map not magic by blurring it or just showing a 2d image or something, until you send a mapping probe.

    6 has progress from breaking ground, they just need to iterate a couple times more on it to get a proper and engaging sample return experience.

    7 is again literally made by mods, requiring life support limits your choices in a meaningful way, as crew can't just land anywhere and spend any amount of time hanging out, missions suddenly require planning AND execution. Add to that a layer of wind/clouds/weather and you can't just land or takeoff whenever you want anymore, there are weather mods already for KSP1.

    It seems the issue is you grossly overestimating everything suggested as an atom level simulation, when it really doesn't need to be that.

  9. 1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said:

    KSP 1 has that as well - Duna has a paper thin atmosphere, so you adapt your vessels for that. Mun has low gravity and rough terrain, so you need to design rovers around that (low COM, wide base). KSP is an engineering game first and foremost, and the planets and part selections are varied enough that you can spend years topping yourself in your engineering skills. Science not having the depth of a real life mission is a nitpick at most, besides the fact that sandbox mode is right there for you to indulge in better, less limited gameplay.

    If you have any suggestions for making planets less boring (even though they really aren't), without resorting to simulating the entire history of the Universe and allowing you to dig up the ground with all the physics of that simulated enabling you to dig up rocks from the planet's ancient history and infer the planets' past from what you can see on the rock, do tell us.

    That's a wide berth you have to take to go from "planets are uninteresting" to "the only way to fix that is simulated geology and meaningful voxel terrain". On top of that, the challenge you mention applies once per body, thus again back to my argument: You have no reason to visit more than once. 

    What I'd suggest is they look at planets from a level design perspective and not just a collection of PQS parameters to form a homogenously boring collection of hills and craters.

    • Moho has the mohole, and other than that is just a brown Mun;
    • Eve is probably the only one you visit more than once trying a return mission but outside the difficulty of returning, again, a purple Mun with metal oceans
    • Minmus lets you play with marginal gravity, but it is such an easy body to do whatever you want in that its huge contrasts of flatness and mountains matters zero;
    • Duna is everybody's first target, but it is no more than an orange Mun with its poles being interesting, yet they offer no difference in gameplay;
    • Dres has an amazing canyon, which you'll land in or around once and then never visit again, if anybody ever visits in the first place;
    • Joolian moons offer an oversized Mun, an ice Mun, a smaller and geology-lacking Kerbin, and 2 asteroids which offer no difference between each other (or with the other asteroid, Gilly);
    • Lastly Eeloo offers a challenge in solar panels being mostly useless, but its geology is again really uninteresting.

    If you really want a collection of suggestions, here:

    1. Make the biome system meaningful: More biomes, and actually visually different from one another, instead of random, arbitrary boundaries. The most visually varied biome collection, where you can actually discern you're in a different biome, is the KSC right now.
    2. Manually design planets with its geology in mind, PQS and other procedural systems are great to spam, but they've got a very limited number of planets, with even some gas giant wildcars they don't even have to model.
    3. Make landing challenging: If I can literally land anywhere with enough legs/SAS, then examining the geology of a landing site becomes meaningless. I'd prefer planets with obvious landing targets and accesible science on those than just rocket hopping, which again is only a choice because landing is no challenge.
    4. Planets shouldn't be completely identifiable at first glance. This has been "fixed" by many mods, you shouldn't be able to just look at a planet and chose a landing site with magic tracking center map data, you should need to at least send a mapping probe first.
    5. Meaningful atmospheres. Atmosphere density was barely played with in KSP, and there was no wind either, let alone clouds or weather. Those make landings and launches hard, as you can't just land or launch anywhere and anytime.
    6. Sample returns should be meaningful, and so should be probe science. Breaking Ground added some good changes to that system, the trend should continue.
    7. Life support. Not all planets are supposed to support life, most don't even give a place for grass to grow, sustaining anything from landed vessels to colonies should be a challenge, and this would greatly tie in with all the previous points.

     

  10. 5 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

    KSP 1 (and probably 2) has geological formations - Kerbin has many rivers and the Mun is home to many valleys and funny-shaped craters, and there's no reason to assume KSP 2 won't do the same.

    Alas, planets in real life are barren wastelands. Don't expect to see anything like this in KSP 2 (or outside of a single planet / the endgame, if the devs choose to pursue NovaSilisko's scrapped KSP 1 narrative).

    54 minutes ago, intelliCom said:

    I think the word PCDWolf should've used is bland or uninteresting. For it to not be "barren" by Wolf's definition, it needs actual geological landscapes instead of a bunch of smooth hills, which KSP2 has already shown.

    Alright, let me put it like this:

    KSP1/2 planets (for KSP2 seemingly) have no organic reason for me to come back, and that's organic as opposed to forced. "We made biomes so you can farm more science although the planet still looks exactly the same anywhere" is forcing me to come back, because even if the text from the experiments is different, the rest looks exactly the same. This is the opposite to the absolute myriad of missions we've sent to the Moon, Mars, and all those we've designed for other bodies, where each of them has a different profile, goals, and study subject.

  11. 53 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

    Why would a planet not be barren?

    Note that with "Barren" I don't mean "lacking life/civilization/aliens", but rather "lacking anything interesting other than random scattered models you'll look at once and never have any reason to go back to said world". When your worlds are procedural, with the same recolored texture over them, there's literally no reason to revisit, this is why career forcefully coerces you to do the same thing over and over in different "biomes", which again are no different from one another.

    In SpaceEngine for example you get interesting constructs, hints of activity (even if geological), and can look at many different geographical formations, along with a full suite of astrophysical data. In No Man's Sky every planet might be a single biome, but at least has its own flavor of generated native constructs to have anything different from other similar bodies, plus a whole system of derelicts from other spacefaring individuals/races, and then the two tech tree unlocking facilities, plus some specific planets set aside to be entirely different from the rest tying into the sentinel narrative. KSP1 (and seemingly KSP2) do none of that.

  12. I think the last trailer was a negative for anyone who's played the previous Bethesda (not necessarily fallout) games. The group I was watching SGS with instantly recognized the classic "beth rpg" gameplay and engine mechanics. This adds up on top of negative articles coming out. Now, for your apples to apples:

    • Starfield's ship building looked like a direct repurposing of FO4/76's base building, with building (ship in this case) blocks interconnecting to provide bonuses/maluses. Shape really didn't seem much relevant in what they showed, because neither were physics relevant in what they showed.
    • Base building: Again, they literally have no reason to do anything different from what they did in 4/76, those systems were liked, even when limited and buggy, and it seems they've really gone and done nothing but new assets.
    • IVA in Starfield is probably limited to walkable "interiors" and first person flying. With this I mean that you'll be able to move inside your ship only when your ship isn't being flown (so, only after you land, or if they maybe have some "in flight" phase). KSP2 seems to have nothing different from KSP1 in regards to IVA.
    • Planets in KSP1 were absolutely barren and KSP2's are looking no different, other than maybe some heavily planned and worked geographical accident I don't really expect anything but random scatter. Beth probably will do the same, with either small explorable zones as "maps", or ME's Barren giant maps with some scattered POIs.
    • As for environments, they've gone for the magic space clouds and stars with 0 realism, and magic space particles to visualize movement in controllable flight. Combat really looks no different than NMS in that it is the most simplistic "dogfighting" you could come up with without having people learn how stuff actually would work in space.

    Outside of that, Starfield will literally be FO4/76 with fake air combat. Bethesda clearly has no intention of stepping up their elementary school writing, or give up bad systems like "infinite quest generation" composed of "grab X from Y after killing Z". Another show of wasted potential until modders decide to switch to it and maybe make something out of the game.

     

  13. 1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said:

    Does it matter? It shows new things are being added either way, and frankly I don't care t osee playtester #71's blank face in the corner of an otherwise pretty shot for the sake of verifying that it wasn't a script performing some menial function (set 100% throttle, do nothing else) that a human could have done.

    There's a bit more nuance to the topic, and the presence of a human face is not needed. See for example the demos shown at places like E3 where you have a human holding a controller, performing motions that have nothing to do with the running demo on screen, that's non verifiable, even with a human right there, specially since those demos tend to have a lot of movement and camera smoothing, and sometimes they've been found out to be completely scripted. This ties into scripting having the possibility to show stuff in a way you won't experience, 

    If you show me a hudless static building with a camera turning around it you could definitely write a whole article around the colony building system, but really the only thing we can all unequivocally agree has been actually shown working is the models of buildings. Heck in that specific shot even the terrain is up to question. That's why the concept of verifiable gameplay exists, because companies have, for decades, really tried to play around every angle and setting to pass their bullshots for actual products. That's why the requirement is simple: human input (which can easily be shown under a scripted camera) or human perspective (as opposed to a scripted camera), or a mix of both (best possible case), otherwise it gets the label of "not real gameplay".

  14. On 6/1/2022 at 8:28 PM, MechBFP said:

    Although to be fair no recent gameplay footage of conditions which could cause bendy rockets. Don’t expect we will see that again one way or the other till the marketing campaign starts again. 

    No recent gameplay footage of any conditions has been shown, other than non verifiable bits of ships using their engines.

    On 6/2/2022 at 12:38 AM, Forked Camphor said:

    I know, I remember shadowmage and others were talking about it in the SSTU thread, but that was years ago. Why you say that wobbly rockets are heavily implied to be in the game? I don't understand, nobody likes them, makes building large vessels almost impossible and there are not 1, but 2 fixes already that work well (Both KJR).

    Hey, "nobody likes it" includes me as well, I hate them with a passion, but so far a lot of verifiable gameplay shown outside the vab includes wobbly rockets. Check the following sources:

     

    On 6/2/2022 at 5:39 AM, Bej Kerman said:

    There's literally nothing that sets this apart from the dev posts here and the Interstellar Travel video on YouTube. Your criteria for what counts as "qualified" gameplay footage seems to be merely random and not a logical process.

    How did you decide that?

    Since this follows more or less the same line as the other posts: Verifiable gameplay shows human input, or a human perspective, or a mix of both. If you can attribute scripted qualities to a footage (hud-less scripted camera movement being the most used by KSP2 media shown to date) then you can't really, scientifically, can't verify that a human was actually playing a videogame. This is why "in-engine" cutscenes/footage don't qualify as gameplay. This is exactly why they had changed their approach from labeling footage "pre-alpha gameplay" to "not real gameplay".

    On 6/2/2022 at 4:17 AM, Master39 said:

    Yep, but here we're not only talking about the marketing, there's the whole paying for it to take into account. The game was supposed to be released 6 months or so after the announcement, that's what they expected for the marketing campaign.

    It's a bit disingenuous to expect that 2 and a half years of delay means that they go on and on with the marketing for the whole time when there's no reason to do so. Again, Starfield is following a similar path, delay to 2023 included, and even for that, a huge AAA title not only important for Bethesda but also for Microsoft, the marketing at the moment is pretty much low and composed of sporadic leaks and statements from devs or concept art pictures. 

    There's simply no reason to focus the attention of the public on something that is not going to be available for almost another year.

    Starfield, even with the delay, has more than 3 times the following of KSP2, yet they do engage in those marketing avenues you mentioned and public/gaming media are still pretty much interested enough in what the game is actually about to produce both articles about it and traffic to them. KSP2 enjoys none of that, along with a much smaller following that's also been allowed to peter out for almost 3 years. It's really not as similar as you might want to put it.

    There would be no reason to focus the attention of the public, but I believe there pretty much is once you consider the running numbers. 

  15. 11 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

    But they do

    Under very specific circumstances and only in very specific ways, not as a wet noodle which is what the game shows. Further on, real life structural flexibility has nothing to do with in-game bending either. You sold me two false equivalences for the price of one. I refuse to relate the in-game wobbliness with any real life event, they're not the same, they do not represent the same, and they do not happen for the same reasons.

    11 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

    What I mean is if a rocket tumbles over I know I don’t have the aerodynamics right, insufficient stabilization or pushing too fast too low in the atmosphere. If it suddenly explodes on staging I know I need to adjust sepratrons or decoupling force or manage some other conflict. Wobble and bending is usually structural: the rocket is too long or there are payload problems or Im just pushing too hard at max q. I don’t personally care that the visuals are exaggerated compared to real life if its communicating important information about a flawed design. There’s a limit of course and at some point it looks ridiculous, but a subtle wobble and flex before RUD is a helpful visual cue. 

    Wobble can happen on a short, balanced rocket so long as you mismatch node sizes (which is why it tends to happen on the payload side), it can be (and most times is) completely unrelated to real life events, this is not at all equivalent to staging related complications which work pretty well as a real-life abstraction and the same goes for aerodynamic tumbling, they're well simulated and communicated, wobble isn't.

  16. 10 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

    And Ive also never really had a problem with bendy rockets. If something I’ve built starts bending it lets me know Im either designing or flying it wrong, and seeing it wobble and flex communicates the nature of the problem better than a spontaneous explosion. There’s a limit of course but this just seems like a fine-tuning problem rather than something to be eliminated entirely. 

    They implemented a hacked fix to sidestep their own gameplay fix, that's enough of a clue that it's not really a programmed mechanic. Nowadays if your rocket is bendy you can just right click > autostrut to X. Further on, most bending is caused by how dumb the joint system is (weakness being a result of different sized joints interacting). It is not really a gameplay feature, shouldn't be, and shouldn't be considered as one either. 

    On this same hand, rockets don't bend in real life, just check Proton's most popular failure, where it even went completely lateral against the airstream and disintegrated first before visually bending.

  17. 9 hours ago, Vl3d said:

     

    in the end these are bugs.

    • I hate part clipping with a passion, but since they denied us advanced tweakables there's no other way to get the parts you want unless you mod the game and make the part yourself. There should be a middle ground here, or rather a proper implementation of "there's X volume inside this part and you can fill it with whatever you want".
    • Yes, at that point it is just plain exploiting.
    • This extends building capabilities without being cheating per se, the only advantage is based on the dumb way they manage drag (empty nodes + bounding box).
    • High lift low drag describes all the wings, they're absolutely broken like the whole aerodynamic system. I have no idea why they gave such aggressive stats to heat shields, considering they don't offset the CoM to allow controlled descents.
    • That's entirely on the devs, they made parts that magically attract, along with a whole hacked-in system of force dispersion.
    • The whole physics management during unpacking on all scenarios is royally broken, and there's a myriad of mods that attempt to fix that and expand functionality, I'd be really disappointed if they made the same mistakes again.
    • Unity's crappy default joint system.
    • Wobbliness should not be a feature, rockets would explode before visually bending anyways.
    • They're weak, sloppy, buggy, and left unfinished. I regret paying for them every single day.
    • Didn't know this one lmao.
    • The whole part resistance system is completely out of balance and was never looked at again. Again, would be really disappointed if they made the same mistake.

    Most of the things on your list are attributable to Unity's crappy physics, or stuff the devs overlooked or outright didn't bother fixing/polishing, but hey, they had to prove us wrong that the game was ready for release :^)

  18. 46 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

    We don't actually lack gameplay footage. There's plenty out there.

    This is the only verifiable hands on gameplay we have yet: https://youtu.be/Vmgm8L4QlCE?t=266. The other verifiable gameplay footage dates from before this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRewAKMllVo love how even VGC calls it "first real gameplay". Anything else doesn't qualify as gameplay, as it lacks a person clearly playing the game.

     

     

     

    28 minutes ago, Master39 said:

    Crowdfunding isn't marketing, it's a tool to find funds to develop a future product. And it's embarrassing when used by big companies or, like in this case, studios backed by giant publishers.

    This is an opinion. Getting a real product in people's hands, even a broken one, is marketing, and has been used as marketing since ever, EA just gave a new way to do that other than demos or shareware CDs in ye olde days. We do agree that a big studio using it is kinda cringe, but at this point I'd take any signal that KSP2 has progressed along.

    34 minutes ago, Master39 said:

    KSP2 EA Would be the biggest red flag so far.

    Yes and no, as I said, it'll at least be a life signal. I do agree going EA after 3 years of delay would be a red flag for many, but it's also a way to actually get something out before people completely forget and the product underperforms due to that.

    35 minutes ago, Master39 said:

    It's not something I do, it's something companies do when a product get delayed. People forgetting about KSP2 is way better than wasting millions to put the focus on the delays.

    "Hey people, look at how late we are!" It's not a sound PR strategy.

    "Hey we're delaying because we're trying to get this particular feature we promised to work"

    "Hey it's us, we've gotten this other feature to work now"

    "Hey it's us, we're still developing something"

    Those are all examples of stuff they could do whilst not leaving their customers in the dark. Delays alone are an even worse pr strategy than saying something. People spend their money somewhere else (now we'll probably get starfield before KSP2), look away, or just outright forget the game exists. KSP2 doesn't have too much people to forget about it before it's just usual forumgoers waiting for it, and that's how you get an underperforming product, ending up in a shortened lifespan, and bitter feelings towards the franchise from the studio/publisher.

    39 minutes ago, Master39 said:

    Then you may have missed the marketing campaign that run for the announcement, and how it was interrupted for the change in studio.

    I expected whoever is in charge now to continue the marketing campaing, instead they've first slowed it down to a video every few months, and since the last video to total silence. They played that little moon rocket landing easter egg game on their videos and it only ended up in a delay, so that's yet another loss of goodwill. You don't market something and then forget about it, because that's what customers will do.

  19. 2 hours ago, MechBFP said:

    Keep in mind that gameplay footage was from when the game was being developed by Star Theory. At this point I pretty much ignore everything from that time period because who knows what has changed between now and then.

    I would not be surprised if bendy rockets are no longer a thing in KSP2, although I wouldn’t be surprised either if they still were too. Entirely depends on design decisions that may have changed during the studio change. 

    Yeah, for sure, however we have so little actual in-game footage that I'm really not comfortable with just ignoring anything.

    2 hours ago, The Aziz said:

    Sorry, what did you expect? Preview version of a preview version? The whole 2011-2015 was an EA era and whatever they released back then was yours to test, and potential fixes would come with next number. That's kinda how it works.

    Never had, never will, never would, no matter the business model. Your average gamer will look at whatever AAA title "oh this is a shooter, cool!" "Racing game, nice!" "And RPG, I can make my own character, that's dope!" I could go on, and then your average gamer with little to no previous interest in spaceflight will look at KSP "oh my god a REALISTIC space simulator? Do I need to have a degree in astrophysics to play that? Do maths? Hard pass." Now of course none of the above assumptions is true but Kerbals will never get the same amount of attention as yet another CoD or Assassin's Creed. So please compare it to a different game for nerds.

    No, I expected a buggy early access game with rapid delivery of updates, like most EA. On the other hand, we got slow and dry updates which they wanted to "internally test" to polish for months before delivering to their... early access customers. This is exactly what lead to people claiming for a "public test branch" (on an EA GAME!) to actually have an early access experience, but the original devs insisted on closed testing cycles before releases to achieve an X level of "polish" before public releases... on an EA game.

    1 hour ago, Master39 said:

    No not "originally", that's the objective of EA, it's a middle point between crowdfunding and outsourching beta testing for free.

     

    You very conviniently ignore the whole "fund ongoing development" part of my argument, which is the most important part, here:

     

    Having people testing things is only secondary, especially with KSP2, since they already have a blueprint for the main gameplay loop and data on what works and what doesn't from KSP1.

    Not anymore, you might want to go with dictionary definitions but EA has taken off into so much more than just "let people test for free and fund development".  This is basic marketing stuff that people have already realized, thus not every early access includes the customer as a tester (like how, you know, KSP1 didn't). Neither "funding development" and "have the public do testing" are the only goals of Early Access launches, together or separate.

    The rest of your post feels like you put marketing on an on-off switch to judge it... "their marketing can't be crap if its not being done", yeah no, that's called crap marketing, they've just gone and got free advertising by a real life space program and did nothing with it. The rest is wishful thinking... "you'll see this and that", yeah, when I see it I'll see it, otherwise it's just a wish.

  20. On 5/31/2022 at 3:13 AM, Master39 said:

    -snip-

    Originally? Sure, EA was a way to outsource testing to paying customers, however this hasn't been the case for long and not even KSP1s EA had that approach to the model, as we were unable to test anything, only report bugs on "polished" builds that went through a closed testing cycle first, that's why we had the Public Testing Branch and Youtuber-Preview outrages, as they were actively holding back updates on a game that was supposed to be early access, unless you were famous enough.

    "They don't need the views" is a big difference in perspective. I've already posted data that they don't have views anywhere close to any AAA title in their pre-release marketing cycle. Average gamers (i.e. not long term franchise customers that exist in these threads) don't know the game is coming out, or at this point with the delays, don't care anymore, that's why I used the phrase "[With early access] the game stops being an abstract concept", as that's all that is now except for us 50 to 100 avid fans arguing to and fro in these threads.

    On 5/31/2022 at 4:29 AM, Forked Camphor said:

    As long as they make a good game that fixes every problem KSP1 has (Wobbly rockets, low performance on high part count vessels, etc) they could take all the time in the world to release the game and I would be ok about that. I much rather prefer to wait years to have an awesome KSP experience than for them to launch the game tomorrow only to deliver some half-cooked cash grab sequel

    I'd urge you to check footage compilations for shown gameplay, as wobbly rockets are heavily implied to still be a feature. As much as I hate them.

    On 5/31/2022 at 4:54 AM, AVaughan said:

    -snip-

    Internet is a tool that helped expand gaming from basement nerds to mainstream people, you wouldn't have the grossly oversaturated market and thus the endless demand we have today if it wasn't for the internet. Further off, the only other thing I'd answer to your post is: If we assume the worst, then the best case is to not make a videogame and stay at home. Sure, EA can go horribly wrong and kill the product, but so can 3 years of delays with loose information released inbetween that has had 0 repercussion in gaming media (until Boeing threw a huge but heavily underplayed helping hand and took jeb to space), even the latest stunt only had 3000 likes on twitter, that's nothing.

    I'll die on this hill: The average gamer never knew, or lost interest, in KSP2. The only hype that exists right now, only exists in this forum and the subreddit (and it's much smaller on the latter).

  21. 6 minutes ago, MechBFP said:

    It’s truly a wonder games ever existed at all before the Internet, since early access is apparently a prerequisite to make a successful one. 

    You're missing some clear context to make that wrong assumption. Internet today is what prevents the gross oversaturation of the market from creating a second industry crash, as demand has now taken gaming off the original minimal numbers of geek and nerd rejects (not sure how old are you but I do remember getting myself beat at school over only playing videogames) and put gaming into a market with much more space for saturation, yet notice how I keep using the word "saturation": Average global paytime is 8 hours a week, barely more than a single hour a day. If your game is not on people's minds, if it's not relevant enough, you don't get to access that massive market. Add to that the fact that KSP's inaccessibility, and indie status, keep it further from said market, and then you'll have your explanation: Small, niche indie titles need early access (or at least a very active marketing campaign), that's why it's such a successful model.

     

  22. 6 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

    And how exactly early access would help with that? 

    The game stops being an abstract concept, for starters, which means a possible storm of user generated content, a mod scene kicking into gear, mp servers if they managed to implement that, etc.

  23. 6 hours ago, The Aziz said:

    The sequel doesn't need that.

    Allow me to differ very hard on that. 113k followers in 3 years since the announcement, and a twitch visibility of less than 900 people. For comparison, elden ring had 350k followers before launch, Starfield got 100k followers in just 7 months.

    KSP2 might not be an indie anymore, but they're still dealing with indie+ levels of visibility/accesibility/following.

    Edit: Followers as people who hit Follow on steam.

  24. 5 hours ago, jost said:

    Well a community manager needs to communicate not just with the community but the developers/project managers etc as well. So I would assume, that any (former or now) community manager actually has a lot more insight how software development works than some  guy/girl in a forum thread. 

    I myself didn't worked as community manager or software developer in video games ever. But I was part of a team responsible for the infrastructure in a large software project for a car manafacturer.  We had a lot more developers than the KSP2 team, non the less a lot of features were removed (after approval from our customer) and datelines shifted because it turned out, that things are not so easy as they seemed. 
    Were our customer happy about it? No. Were our managment happy? No (since we would only get payed by the customer after the released of the product aka the first cars were deployed with our baby on it).  Did we manage to finally finish the project and deliver a working software to the customer? Yes, we did. Any in later releases the removed features were to be added via updates (At least this was the idea when I left. I left before Covid though so I don't know how the pandemic situation made things worse. I would at least accept some problems since part of our infrastructure relied on a local network for performance. However: Since I know the abilities of my former coworkers I assume that they managed  to deliver the planned additional features, propably with pandemic induces delays.)  
    We didn't had to argue with angry gamers though, which was propably a big advantage. Angry customers and their project managers are worse enough :)

    So sorry to disagree with you: Due to my own experiences (although with different software than games)  I think the arguments of RayneCloud are actually more convincing than your complaints about some conspiracy. 

    [snip] I don't know how to disagree any harder with the idea that I'm criticizing a yet non existent final product, or calling the developers inept or incapable or whatever words a lot of people insist on putting in my mouth. Here's my list of concerns.  You'll easily understand that I do not mind so much the deadlines themselves being missed, but rather the lack of general communication, including the lack of provided reasons for the delays, along with the rest of the concerns.

    [snip] I'll probably have to repeat myself even more as people quote me to respond to a single nitpick instead of the whole argument: I do not believe the devs are inept or incompetent, I do not believe there's a conspiracy, I firmly believe they've left a lot of unclear stuff hanging around. It's not weird that people believing and hoping are ok with waiting in silence and people who like to see stuff with their eyes are not. I like tangible, shareable and analizable evidence [snip] plus once you add that list of concerns I have, it should at least be understandable for me to be... concerned, and wanting answers.

    Lastly, since somehow I also need to spell this out: I'm not demanding answers, they can chose to completely ignore me, other posters that agree, and controversies raised on their socials, discord and the subreddit. They have complete freedom to do that. I'll just rest easy knowing there's evidence of complaints existing somewhere. This however does not make me a megalomaniac, misanthropic, problem customer, emotionally unstable, attention hungry, a troll, or whatever else has been implied along this thread.

×
×
  • Create New...