Yakuzi

While I appreciate your commitment, we all have biases so I'm genuinely curious how you decide what is bad faith and what is not. On this forum for instance, have you noticed bad faith arguments from KSP2 critics only, or also from its praisers and its developer?

Right, that's why professional dev teams don't use your random definition when developing software. It seems like you're somewhat curious about why people keep mentioning the ~6 year dev time of KSP2. I'll give you my perspective: Unsurprisingly, I was quite shocked at the state of the game when KSP2 released in EA. Between the original planned release date of the full game, the multiple subsequent delays and ultimately the shoddy EA release, it is clear something has gone very wrong during the development process. Since KSP is my all-time favorite game, I wanted to know if this was due to one or more isolated events or a more structural concern, which would give some insight into future development/viability of KSP2. Discussing the lack of progress has been difficult on the forums due to persistent mocking, gaslighting, white knighting and other forms of toxic positivity. One of the excuses that keeps coming up is that KSP2 has only been in development for a couple of years, because [insert random unsubstantiated reason here]. So until the forum community accepts that KSP2 has been in development for as long as it has, I'm afraid the rehashing is here to stay (or until all critics give up and leave I guess ¯\_(ツ)_/¯). In June 2021 Nate claimed these events didn't affect progress substantially: Ozzie: "It's been almost two years since KSP2 was first revealed. How has the game's development progressed since and how much of it was affected by the pandemic?" Nate: "Well that's a good question. Uh, well, obviously there's been about two years of progress since last time we talked about the game." So according to the developer, KSP2 progress has been as expected since work started in 2017.

So development has yet to start? Jokes asides (?), that's one subjective definition. Whatever fits your narrative I guess ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Everything you describe above is part of the development cycle. Again could you clarify what "serious" development work is?

Your post doesn't clarify much. Hiring the necessary talent, requirements engineering , financing, etc are part of the planning phase of software development. Additionally, Take-Two outsourced KSP2 to an existing studio that would likely have most of the needed experience in-house to produce the desired product. Could you clarify what this "serious" development work is you're talking about?

We do know. Work on KSP2 started in 2017: Source

"Star Theory began work on KSP2 in 2017, after Take-Two purchased the rights to the popular flight sim game from another independent studio, Squad." - source "In 2017, Star Theory began working with Take-Two on its most high-profile project." - source So at the time of the EA launch KSP2 had been in development well over 5 years, even if work on KSP2 started on the 31st of December 2017. EDIT: If work started a couple of months after Take Two acquired the KSP intellectual property in May 2017, then today we're looking at ~6 years since KSP2 development started.

[snip] What do you think development means? Sure. Again, do you have any reliable info which would indicate that the Bloomberg or Videogameschronicle articles are not credible? [snip]

There's no quibbling on my end, I'm solely referring to sources that state that development of KSP2 began in 2017. Additionally, why are you now including assumptions about the 'credibility of sources' and 'quantity and quality of ST's work'? Unless you can provide any sources that prove otherwise, it seems like you're just trying to move the goal posts.

Before you continue to make baseless assumptions and accusations I suggest you actually read the sources (edit: again source1, source2) I included in the very post you're quoting: Appreciate the irony of your post though. The forums definitely have become more... interesting... since KSP2 has been released.

Not sure what you're on about. KSP2 started development in 2017 after Take Two acquired the IP in May (source1, source2). Even if they started on the 31st of December 2017 that puts development well over 5 years before they went into EA.

This is a bad faith argument. The development of the two games is vastly different in multiple ways. If you still insist on comparing them, you should do so from the start of development to get some indication of relative progress made per unit of time: KSP1 went into EA less than 1.5 years after one passionate dude started development and the game was generally received well. KSP2 went into a EA after 5+ years of development by a dedicated professional software studio with nearly 50 employees, which had full access to KSP1's source code and the backing of a multi billion dollar producer, and clearly it's a mess. Early Access KSP1 was a buggy mess too you say? Sure thing, but after 5 years of development KSP1 was fully released and had received multiple additional updates (v1.0.5 ), after 5.5 years we had KSP1 v1.1.3 and were well on the way to KSP v1.2.

So let me get this straight: based on your social media searches you're suggesting that an official spokesman from the company that makes KSP2 lied?

I find it somewhat surreal that being critical about the UX and functionality of a tool apparently means it will get abolished. It's especially surreal since it concerns a tool which is integral for getting your software in a decent state, and extra especially surreal since KPS2 was released as EA because the community needed to "provide feedback to shape this exciting game through development" (and fork over $50). * Bonus surrealism that this is coming from a mod.

Do either of you have any sources or are these just assumptions? AFAIK there's no evidence supporting a "fresh start" or discontinuation of management or the game after the Take-Two poached Star Theory's KSP2 team. The sources I found (which includes a statement by a T2 spokesman) described that more than 50% of the development team working on KSP 2 made the move from Star Theory to Take-Two, including three leaders who immediately made the move (source 1, source 2):

3. Some bugs were already fixed before launch, but didn't make it to the release for whatever reason, but made it to the first two patches. And now we're being shown the actual development pace cadence.

Counterpoint: IVA perspective is a gamechanging mechanic. You have a lot less overview than a chase cam and you have to pay more attention to maintain situational awareness of your surroundings.

I take it you meant 17,500-ish?

Nate Simpson replying to concerns/criticism on the Human Resources kickstarter (since the earlier released Planetary Annihilation was still underdeveloped and had major issues, link to thread ): Nate Simpson replying to the fallout when Human Resources got cancelled (link to thread): Nate's rhetoric seems quite similar to what he's been using to describe the pre-release and current state of development of KSP2. As such I don't think anyone would be over-cautious to take anything he says with a proverbial grain of salt.

Everything goes according to plan.

I agree with most of the OP, especially the main point. I was also primarily looking forward to a KSP2 with a performant and relatively robust codebase. A game engine that could run interstellar motherships bearing landers and satellites, while managing the logistics of a host of colonies and space stations on and around multiple planets and moons in different star systems through high-fidelity physics simulations... of 16 players in multiplayer. This has effectively been what Take2 and its subsidiaries have been communicating over the years. The state the game was released in after over half a decade of development does not... to put it mildly... give me much hope to ever see that vision realised. I disagree here. Based on what the company has been hinting at KSP2 will have a similar science experience as KSP1, which wasn't good at all. Are there any sources that support the claim that KSP2 development was restarted? The only source I could find, that June 2021 interview , hints at quite the opposite. When asked about KSP2's development since its reveal in 2019 (prior to the poaching of Star Theory devs by Take2), Nate Simpson mentioned they made about 2 years of progress. He didn't mention anything about regress, discontinuation or a restart. Here's the relevant part of the dialogue:

Seems like KSP2 is more on a Planetary Annihilation-like trajectory.

If you're willing to take the risk of not being able to refund... x_x Green Man Gaming sells KSP2 at 15% discount. Click IndieGala sells KSP2 at 13% discount. Click Edit: also available at Fanatical at 13% discount. Click Guess Space_Scumbag aka SWDennis was right after all: EDIT: Changed the title to indicate that these sales are not on behalf of Private Division.

I agree, it is kinda amusing comparing KSP1 to KSP2: KSP1 went into EA less than 1.5 years after one passionate dude started development and was generally received well. KSP2 went into a EA after ~5 to 5.5 years of development by a dedicated professional software studio with 48 employees (as per Intercept Games LinkedIn page), which had full access to KSP1's source code and the backing of a multi billion dollar producer, and it's a mess in more ways than I can be bothered to sum up here. Early Access KSP1 was a buggy mess too you say? Sure thing, but after 5 years of development KSP1 was... *checks notes*... fully released and had received multiple additional updates (v1.0.5 ), after 5.5 years we had KSP1 v1.1.3 and were well on the way to KSP v1.2. Amusing but also a bit sad don't you think? People have some really short memories indeed and will resort to some hefty mental gymnastics to keep ignoring the red flag parade.

There's dozens of üs!