Jump to content

Kerbal Space Program 2 to be released in 2022 [Discussion Thread]


Arco123
 Share

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

I could afford Elden Ring right now and I want to play it, I'm not purchasing it till it drops at least to about 50% its current price in my region.

Your decision it's affected by price, ok, so you totally forgot that they didn't say anything of the gameplay or shown anything for years. No comunication at all 'till the last possible moment, and yet the game was a success.

As I said, 1 minute after release and people, even the most vocal about it, completely forget about the marketing campaing or how the info of the game was revealed. The same will happen to KSP2, they'll start the marketing and this topic will be unpinned and end at page 10 within a few days.

 

12 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

You also seem to grossly overstate the interest in KSP2, if you go outside the forum and subreddit, the game is pretty much unknown and everyone already forgot whatever they saw on the last big gaming event they showed it on.

I'm not overstimanting the interest in KSP2, I'm using popular exampled because if I used smalled games half of the people talking here wouldn't know them. Elden Ring not releasing and the devs being silent almost became a meme before release, it's not about the size or popularity of the game, just about the kind of marketing campaing.

If big, popular AAA choose to concentrate all their marketing in a few weeks before release, smaller games with smaller budgets for marketing will do even less, using the budget they have for marketing in a smaller window to maximize the amount of attention they can grab.

Maybe you don't remember KSP2 reveal in 2019, but the trailer was served as an ad on most space-related subreddits and youtube channels, right now that kind of marketing is simply not present. The marketing machine is in standby.

12 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

Only if you don't read into it. The marketing of Cyberpunk clearly reflected an extreme oversell, easy to see that the game wasn't going to be even close to promotion material, so much they had to start cancelling features 6 months before release, after 4 delays. Most of those features they cut, they didn't even manage to show once, whilst other appeared a single time in the whole years of marketing. Of course, the marketing granted them the most preordered game in history, but also the worst ever launch, multiple lawsuits, and the highest stock value drop ever for a game company. Even blizzard's "issues" didn't lose their stock as much value (40% loss for actiblizzard vs 80% for CDPR).

And you need to not know anything about other games marketing strategies to read something anomalous in KSP2's. There's nothing strange in not having everything on the table possibly almost a year before release, we're at the end of month 1 of a 9 months release window, there's time for months of silence and a standard 1-4 months marketing campaing before release. Even more if they don't plan to rely on preorders much and plan for a surprise release, but I doubt they would go for that.

 

12 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

Private division had a product and pulled the trigger, then T2 formed a new studio and poached their employees, sending KSP2 to this new studio and leaving PD in the dust. THEN Covid. 

Private Division is a T2 label, they still have a product, they're still the publisher of KSP2. You're thinking about Star Theory, which never "had a product" or an idea, they were merely hired muscle.

PD wanted to develop a KSP sequel but the don't have any internal studio since the original plan for the label was to interact mainly with third party small and medium studios (like publishing Outer Worlds for Obsidian or the console version of Hades for Supergiant Games) so they hired one, Star Theory. Then the crap happened and PD moved the project to a newly opened internal studio Intercept.

T2 is in the fray only as it always is, it's the parent company of the label and it's basically designed as a magnet for all the bad press, when talking about GTA V, for example, it's either Rockstar's Masterpiece, or T2 Attitude towards modders or predatory monetization tactics, never the other way around.

Edited by Master39
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

Otherwise there's another concern for my list: Why promise multiplayer 2 separate times when you had 0 idea how to work it out?

Because I've listened multiple times to all interviews and read all articles about KSP2, I can tell you that on the Purdue Space Podcast Nate specifically said ~ the main technical challenge of KSP2 was designing a game architecture that allows for time warp AND multiplayer.

I have no idea what that specifically means, but the fundamental decisions were probably taken in 2018-2019. So they know very clearly how the game is designed and implemented. But there's been this "it's classified top-secret" attitude for years. Why?

I don't understand this lack of transparency regardless of assumptions floating around. Why hide CORE features of the game for so long? Why avoid ANY statements related to multiplayer (and other stuff)?

"The game is not done" is not a valid argument. The fundamental decisions have been taken 4 years ago. Every single time they've been asked about it: "we can't talk about it right now, there will be an announcement in the future".

What's the big announcement? Are they concerned about the player-base's reaction to something?

People who today keep saying "the quiet treatment is OK, be patient" tomorrow will probably throw a fit because they were not told earlier of some major decision for the game (like KSP2 being a MMO or similar).

Transparency about the most fundamental design decisions related to gameplay is GOOD communication practice.

I'm asking for a general description of the core gameplay features, things that have been known internally for years, not to be shown a 100% finished product.

Edited by Vl3d
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

I don't understand this lack of transparency regardless of assumptions floating around. Why hide CORE features of the game for so long? Why avoid ANY statements related to multiplayer (and other stuff)?

"The game is not done" is not a valid argument. The fundamental decisions have been taken 4 years ago. Every single time they've been asked about it: "we can't talk about it right now, there will be an announcement in the future".

What's the big announcement? Are they concerned about the player-base's reaction to something?

Keeping your shots for the marketing rush before release it's just standard practice across the whole industry.

That doesn't mean that the aren't overly talkative devs out there, but it's not the norm.

 

8 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

Transparency about the most fundamental design decisions related to gameplay is GOOD communication practice.

Is it? Transparency when you sell a product totally is, but months and years before said product launch is completely irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Vl3d said:

People who today keep saying "the quiet treatment is OK, be patient" tomorrow will probably throw a fit because they were not told earlier of some major decision for the game (like KSP2 being a MMO or similar).

This is a good example. Given that MMO means different things to different people (and would be a silly way to handle multiplayer) for them to tell us that without showing a pretty polished demonstration would cause most people here to roll their eyes. It would likely mislead many, and demonstrate an unserious approach to solving this problem, undermining rather than lending confidence in the rest of the project. On the contrary if they were to announce that it was definitively not an MMO without giving you a clear visual of how it would work you’d feel disappointed without having anything concrete to assuage you. Sometimes in design and presentation you want a fully polished complete thought to show people what they’re really getting, not undermine confidence by overpromising or showing something half-baked. 
 

ForsakenNearFantail-max-1mb.gif

Edited by Pthigrivi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the KSP should have multiplayer mode, because the time warp problem was unsolvable in multi-mode.

You either don't get real multiplayer, or you don't get real time warp.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, shdwlrd said:

I'm reading you just fine. It's very hard to follow to take anything you say seriously when your statements are akin to a text version of a tantrum. Ok? Probably not. You have valid questions, but I had to ignore half of what you wrote because the writing you used is causing an immediate anger response. That isn't helpful in any type of discussion or argument.

Your questions are, in no specific order; Why did Squad/PD stop developing KSP? Why even make KSP2 when those resources could be used to fix KSP1? Why isn't PD answering for the sin of destroying ST? Why isn't Intercept trying to win me... PDCWolf over as a customer? Many people have either given you the answers from either the staff themselves or logical answers from life experience of being professional software developers or sources outside of this forum. But you don't care. I have a funny feeling that even if Nate himself answered all your questions with absolute candor ignoring the NDA's he surely had to sign, you still wouldn't care. You would still find fault in what would be said. I hate to say it, there is no answers for you in this forum. Just let it go.

You're reading me just fine and then warp my questions by including your own assumptions of what I'm thinking into them. Just to clarify: All those questions are literal, and I'm sure that whilst related, they can be answered separately, enough that I don't need to assume and imply things like the ones you assume I did. On top of that, as I said, I'm free to do with the information provided, or lack thereof, as I see fit. Will I take the devs at face value? Will their answers end up creating more questions instead of solving issues? who knows, but I think any answer is better than no answer.

[snip]

9 hours ago, Master39 said:

Your decision it's affected by price, ok, so you totally forgot that they didn't say anything of the gameplay or shown anything for years. No comunication at all 'till the last possible moment, and yet the game was a success.

As I said, 1 minute after release and people, even the most vocal about it, completely forget about the marketing campaing or how the info of the game was revealed. The same will happen to KSP2, they'll start the marketing and this topic will be unpinned and end at page 10 within a few days.

Your first assumption is completely incorrect:

KSP2 is a product I am interested in, and a franchise I've been a part of for more than a decade, with enough investment as to create and publish mods for the game, and buy every DLC that's come out. Thus I'm heavily invested in the future of the franchise and the next sequel.

Elden Ring is a product I did not follow, and though I do own DS2 and DS3, really didn't care about (you can search my steam profile and check my playtime). However, I do have friends that are heavily interested and invested into the franchise, the kind that can't shut up about every single detail, and want me to purchase the game to play with them. I wasn't even interested in communication from the devs, I took the other route and just gave people months to play the game to make an informed decision. I can however attest that my friends have been acting like I do for KSP2, they've followed every single bit of news and leaks.

5 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

ForsakenNearFantail-max-1mb.gif

Just chiming in over the gif here: The glass broke because they hit the doors with a sledgehammer first, which they didn't account for when they tested the ball bearing against the glass before the presentation. Integration test vs unit test. If they did half-bake anything, it's the order of the tests.

Edited by Snark
Redacted by moderator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

More content has been redacted and/or removed.

Folks, once again, please refrain from personal remarks.  Please address the content of what people said.  For example, if someone says something that you disagree with, then feel free to 1. quote them, and 2. explain what your disagreement is.

But if you find yourself addressing the character, behavior, intentions, or attitude of the person... then you're over the line and you need to rein it in.  It's understandable that emotions can run high on a topic that people really care about a lot, but that's not an excuse for trying to blow off steam by going ad hominem.

This was already explained less than 24 hours ago, just a few posts up, but apparently some folks aren't quite clear on what "personal remarks" entail, so here are a few examples:

  •  Making comments on other people's behavior (e.g. accusing them of having a "tantrum").
  • Demeaning language directed at the person themselves (e.g. "I can't talk to someone like you").
  • Putting words in their mouth by speculating on what you think they would do in some hypothetical situation.  No, sorry, you don't get to do this-- you only get to comment on what they said, not on what you think the person "would do".  That's their concern, not yours.

Those are just a few examples.  Look, if you're passionate about a topic, great.  If you like to argue, that's fine, too.  But if you can't manage to do that without making personal jabs at people, that's a pretty good sign that you've hit the limits of your actual argument.  It's also a pretty good sign that you're posting angry, which is almost never a good idea.  Best to either step away from the conversation, or at least take a step back for a while until you've cooled off enough to post like a civil adult.

(Also... kindly do not presume to tell anyone else what to do or what not to do.  How they choose to post is their business, not yours.  If you think that someone's behavior is sufficiently egregious that it's violating forum rules, please report the post and the moderator team will have a look as soon as we can.  Short of that, though, it's not your place to make accusations or give people orders,  so please don't do that.)

We understand that people feel strongly on this subject, so we've been trying to be as accommodating as we can, here.  This is the second time in a short period that this has been an issue, however, so please, everyone, try to take it down a notch?  Further personal remarks will be dealt with more sternly.

Thank you for your understanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Vl3d said:

Because I've listened multiple times to all interviews and read all articles about KSP2, I can tell you that on the Purdue Space Podcast Nate specifically said ~ the main technical challenge of KSP2 was designing a game architecture that allows for time warp AND multiplayer.

I have no idea what that specifically means, but the fundamental decisions were probably taken in 2018-2019. So they know very clearly how the game is designed and implemented. But there's been this "it's classified top-secret" attitude for years. Why?

I don't understand this lack of transparency regardless of assumptions floating around. Why hide CORE features of the game for so long? Why avoid ANY statements related to multiplayer (and other stuff)?

"The game is not done" is not a valid argument. The fundamental decisions have been taken 4 years ago. Every single time they've been asked about it: "we can't talk about it right now, there will be an announcement in the future".

What's the big announcement? Are they concerned about the player-base's reaction to something?

People who today keep saying "the quiet treatment is OK, be patient" tomorrow will probably throw a fit because they were not told earlier of some major decision for the game (like KSP2 being a MMO or similar).

Transparency about the most fundamental design decisions related to gameplay is GOOD communication practice.

I'm asking for a general description of the core gameplay features, things that have been known internally for years, not to be shown a 100% finished product.

what this guy said! Seems awful funny no word on anything multiplayer? They promised multiplayer in KSP1 as well and we all know how that turned out right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Redneck said:

They promised multiplayer in KSP1 as well and we all know how that turned out right?

Wait, they did? I don't remember...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Redneck said:

what this guy said! Seems awful funny no word on anything multiplayer? They promised multiplayer in KSP1 as well and we all know how that turned out right?

This is a very valid concern and if you look at people's response to the post you quoted, people recognize that lack of conclusive information and a prediction for how the game will be is bad. The main issue is that everybody understands that, but there is debate over how best to go about revealing the game. People are reasonably concerned that the lack of communication indicates problems with the game, the company, the people, or some combination of those things, and others are reasonably predicting that this is another example of a large trend of non-disclosure in games. Not fun for everybody, certainly, but not necessarily good or bad. It is fine to be concerned, as I am, but it is also important to curb speculation, either on the optimistic or pessimistic side. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, t_v said:

This is a very valid concern and if you look at people's response to the post you quoted, people recognize that lack of conclusive information and a prediction for how the game will be is bad. The main issue is that everybody understands that, but there is debate over how best to go about revealing the game. People are reasonably concerned that the lack of communication indicates problems with the game, the company, the people, or some combination of those things, and others are reasonably predicting that this is another example of a large trend of non-disclosure in games. Not fun for everybody, certainly, but not necessarily good or bad. It is fine to be concerned, as I am, but it is also important to curb speculation, either on the optimistic or pessimistic side. 

and

 

Just now, KSP_linux0191 said:

When?

look it up. 

Just now, PDCWolf said:

they promised it even before then

4 minutes ago, t_v said:

This is a very valid concern and if you look at people's response to the post you quoted, people recognize that lack of conclusive information and a prediction for how the game will be is bad. The main issue is that everybody understands that, but there is debate over how best to go about revealing the game. People are reasonably concerned that the lack of communication indicates problems with the game, the company, the people, or some combination of those things, and others are reasonably predicting that this is another example of a large trend of non-disclosure in games. Not fun for everybody, certainly, but not necessarily good or bad. It is fine to be concerned, as I am, but it is also important to curb speculation, either on the optimistic or pessimistic side. 

well you have to know how to see through the BS. Also i dont think KSP2 will be ready in 2022 either. I could be wrong, but basic systems are still being worked on, then its all got to be put together, then sent out for marketing and all that stuff.....i just dont see it happening in 2022

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Redneck said:

and

Not sure if you cleared your text accidentally, but I'll respond to this at face value. The point of this is that drawing a connection between the development of KSP 1 and KSP 2 can give some insight, but can also be irrelevant or speculative. For example, we have seen connections to everything from Elden Ring to Cyberpunk, which just like KSP 1 can help inform our expectations, but aren't conclusive evidence that KSP 2 will be developed in a certain way. Essentially, your point is informative but not indicative or conclusive, and I was hoping to invite you to build an argument out of it. 

And by the way, I apologize if that came off as rude, I didn't mean to imply that you didn't have an argument already, I should rephrase that as "I was hoping to invite you to develop your argument further"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, t_v said:

Not sure if you cleared your text accidentally, but I'll respond to this at face value. The point of this is that drawing a connection between the development of KSP 1 and KSP 2 can give some insight, but can also be irrelevant or speculative. For example, we have seen connections to everything from Elden Ring to Cyberpunk, which just like KSP 1 can help inform our expectations, but aren't conclusive evidence that KSP 2 will be developed in a certain way. Essentially, your point is informative but not indicative or conclusive, and I was hoping to invite you to build an argument out of it. 

ive been on these forums long enough to know that none of it matters. The devs are going to do what they want anyways doesnt really matter. what i DONT like is being played for a sucker and im still very bitter about squad lying to us about KSP1 AFTER i had already bought the game because i bought it BECAUSE of future multiplayer. So yeah I pay real close attention to what is NOT being said. And with that Ill end my 2 cents here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

@Redneck Can I ask what interests you about multiplayer? Its not one of my major interests but Im curious what you’d like to see in an ideal world?

Edited by Pthigrivi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

@Redneck Can I ask what interests you about multiplayer? Its not one of my major interests but Im curious what you’d like to see in an ideal world?

simple! To be able to share the experience of a rocket launch to space with another person, a landing on a planet, building a space station, and just generally being able to share in discoveries and exploration of our universe even if its fictional with near future BELIEVEABLE tech and with all the trials and tribulations of successes and failures that make us human.

EDIT: Also as far as the accuracy of multiplayer everybody talking about how multiplayer would work. Man there is no way you can simulate in a game all the special relativity and time dilation and all that complicated stuff...i get that! It dont have to be perfect in those regards for one it cant be. And for those who cant get past that then choose "offline mode" but for those of us that CAN deal with it then we shall be allowed to do so. Why does everybody think in terms of no multiplayer versus multiplayer? Why cant there be both a "online" mode and a "offline mode"? Then everybody is happy! I dont get why all the debate over this. To me the solution is simple....do what the hell you want 

Edited by Redneck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Redneck said:

simple! To be able to share the experience of a rocket launch to space with another person, a landing on a planet, building a space station, and just generally being able to share in discoveries and exploration of our universe even if its fictional with near future BELIEVEABLE tech and with all the trials and tribulations of successes and failures that make us human.

EDIT: Also as far as the accuracy of multiplayer everybody talking about how multiplayer would work. Man there is no way you can simulate in a game all the special relativity and time dilation and all that complicated stuff...i get that! It dont have to be perfect in those regards for one it cant be. And for those who cant get past that then choose "offline mode" but for those of us that CAN deal with it then we shall be allowed to do so. Why does everybody think in terms of no multiplayer versus multiplayer? Why cant there be both a "online" mode and a "offline mode"? Then everybody is happy! I dont get why all the debate over this. To me the solution is simple....do what the hell you want 

Not to get all ot but I agree, the problem is not trivial but its also not unsolvable. Luna seems close to the mark. So long as you can maintain causality and let people warp when they want it’s doable. I was just curious what you were hoping to see. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Pthigrivi said:

Not to get all ot but I agree, the problem is not trivial but its also not unsolvable. Luna seems close to the mark. So long as you can maintain causality and let people warp when they want it’s doable. I was just curious what you were hoping to see. 

agreed! luna and dark both did a hell of a job with what they had to work with (mainly the positioning system) With the new positioning system in KSP 2 I hope they are able to exceed what theGimp,GoDarkLight,Dagger were trying to achieve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Redneck said:
9 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

@Redneck Can I ask what interests you about multiplayer? Its not one of my major interests but Im curious what you’d like to see in an ideal world?

simple! To be able to share the experience of a rocket launch to space with another person, a landing on a planet, building a space station, and just generally being able to share in discoveries and exploration of our universe even if its fictional with near future BELIEVEABLE tech and with all the trials and tribulations of successes and failures that make us human.

To which I would add, as usual for public server online mode:

A common persistent universe for players where we can all build individually and together (either intra or inter agency) and discover what other players build by seeing their craft and colonies in the game world.

Plus a trading and contracts inter-agency collaboration interface + being able to design and plan complex missions through co-op.

Plus a inter-agency space race option (but this would be emergent gameplay anyway).

Plus a lot more:

For offline single player mode or for private / small / co-op servers I generally agree with most other players that insist on alternative KSP1 multiplayer solutions.

But big KSP2 multiplayer will not be like KSP1 multiplayer (Luna or Dark), i believe this deeply.

PS: I don't want to talk about time warp, it's not a fun discussion.

Edited by Vl3d
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me multiplayer in KSP2 is main reason why I am waiting for the game. It's better to have time warp by voting (where actual time warp is slowest of all players' time warps), than to not have multiplayer at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, pwatx1 said:

I don't think the KSP should have multiplayer mode, because the time warp problem was unsolvable in multi-mode.

You either don't get real multiplayer, or you don't get real time warp.

 

I think Private Division could treat multiplayer function as a DLC, it have several benefits:

first we could get the KSP2 earlier.

second people don't like multiplayer function only need to buy the game

third people like multiplayer function also get their desire, the only cost was waiting a bit more time and a little money for dlc.

forth Private Division could earn additional money from DLC.

Perfect! Everyone is happy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read as: PR catastrophe.

We promised you multiplayer in the game from the very start BUT NOW YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR IT!

imagine the backlash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...