Jump to content

after seeing what happened to Cyberpunk... I hope KSP 2 takes their time


Would you rather  

115 members have voted

  1. 1. delayed KSP 2 or glitchy/unplayable KSP 2



Recommended Posts

title is self explanatory. I hope the KSP 2 doesn't try to rush the released. That's why I'm kind of glad the developers pushed the game back to 2022. Because hopefully the game will be way better than what it would have been if it released in spring 2020.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said multiple times, delays for games fully backed by publishers (or shareholders in Cyberpunk case) mean more money put in the game, not less.

We should really worry if they rush to release, not if they get more time to work on the game. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was one of those hit hardest by the bugs of CP2077, to the point I made a stand and got a refund. I've had it with games releasing in a horrible state, this has been getting on my nerves for more than a decade.

That said, I don't think for a single instant that this thread is going to do anything to affect the actual timetable of KSP2, it seems completely pointless in that regard since it's a business decision of how long the game is allowed to stay in development. However it doesn't hurt to let the devs know that we're on their side in wanting KSP2 to be all it can be, even if that means it's gonna take much longer until we actually get to play around with our green friends. Developers are typically also humans to the best of my knowledge, humans have this peculiar trait that they feel better about making a very tough right call if they get confirmation from others that they are in fact doing the right thing. So yeah hey devs, at least this clown right here is supporting your plan, I'm confident you have a better grasp on this than any backseat experts like us and you're very likely already on as good and clear a path as can be when it comes to game development.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, paul_c said:

I'm giving it a couple of months at least, for Cyberpunk 2077. That's if I ever buy it - not sure its worth spending £50 on a game. £20 is fair enough.....£50 possibly not.

Well than I have bad news if you plan on buying KSP 2...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree and am also pretty happy they did such heavy delays up front. It hurt at first to hear the game was delayed, but I'm happy they told us earlier rather than later as was the case with CDPR slowly tip-toeing the release further back as the release date got much closer, causing public rage.

That said, I dont expect a bug-free or even minimal bug launch. It seems today with large games that encounter a giant variety of scenarios expecting this doesn't seem very feasible as time progresses. I hope they have a healthy sized beta in development as opposed to using early adopters as beta testers. 

I, personally, like the early access route just so those early adopting know what it is they are getting into. I would say the recent Baldur's gate 3 release was far more buggy than what I have experienced in cyberpunks release but was less off-put and more understanding of such due largely to knowing I was purchasing an unfinished game and am happy to help in bug reporting knowing every little bit can help accelerate its development. I understand that once an early access title is released it shrinks the window of what can be changed in the game as has been discussed in other threads, but none the less I feel there is a point in development where enough has been done to where that window will have shrunk anyway.

Pretty sure the days of buying a solid copy of a game at gamestop and plugging the cartridge into your console and the experience is nearly bug free is largely gone by now, at least with games expanding a broad variety of features.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Doodling Astronaut said:

1. delayed KSP 2 or glitchy/unplayable KSP 2

Easy vote. Delayed.

8 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

I agree and am also pretty happy they did such heavy delays up front. It hurt at first to hear the game was delayed, but I'm happy they told us earlier rather than later as was the case with CDPR slowly tip-toeing the release further back as the release date got much closer, causing public rage.

It just means there'll be more polish at the end if the devs can be upfront. If the devs try to be shady and opaque, it probably means they're hiding something, like a horribly broken game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mind you, many people who shout at CDPR for releasing unfinished game, were also mad at CDPR for their delays. You can't have both. Imagine what would happen to PR if they again just said a week before release "hey we actually need more time"

Now, for ksp, for any game the answer is obvious, however, any further delays (past current mark) could really hurt, by 2023 I'll be much older than today.

Edited by The Aziz
Link to post
Share on other sites

I strongly believe that the correlation coefficielnt between the final quality and the duration of development is ~0.6.

"The shorter - the worse" doesn't mean "the longer - the better".
Usually, "the longer" = "as much as needed" + "unexpected problems", and the former is constant.

(That's also why developers miss with the deadline estimations. They can estimate the first member of the formula, but rarely the latter.)

Edited by kerbiloid
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Rejected Spawn said:

That said, I don't think for a single instant that this thread is going to do anything to affect the actual timetable of KSP2, it seems completely pointless in that regard since it's a business decision of how long the game is allowed to stay in development.

...

So yeah hey devs, at least this clown right here is supporting your plan, I'm confident you have a better grasp on this than any backseat experts like us and you're very likely already on as good and clear a path as can be when it comes to game development.

Let's be honest, most threads here in the KSP 2 subforum don't ever actually change the game. They are here for discussion after all. (Also  if it's just me then fine but I kind of don't like being called a clown)

16 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

That said, I dont expect a bug-free or even minimal bug launch.

I don't either, and I agree. I do like the early access route too, but I don't know if that would be the best way how to release this game. Maybe they have a small-ish trustworthy group. From my experience making a few video games, the best improvements that came to my games where when people who had no experience playing it at all played it and gave me feedback. I improved a lot of my game thanks to people who did this (still don't recommend it tho lol).

7 hours ago, The Aziz said:

Mind you, many people who shout at CDPR for releasing unfinished game, were also mad at CDPR for their delays.

Yeah that's the sad part of all of this, they where just trying their best. That's why i'm kinda glad that KSP 2 delayed like 10 months before release, hurts less now then later.

7 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

"The shorter - the worse" doesn't mean "the longer - the better".
Usually, "the longer" = "as much as needed" + "unexpected problems", and the former is constant.

Oh yeah 100% agree.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, The Doodling Astronaut said:

Let's be honest, most threads here in the KSP 2 subforum don't ever actually change the game. They are here for discussion after all. (Also  if it's just me then fine but I kind of don't like being called a clown)--

Well I didn't even address my post to you, would have used a quote or tag otherwise so no I haven't called anyone but myself a clown, that entire section was directly from my heart to the devs how I feel about their work. As for the ability of a forum thread to affect the outcome of KSP2 that depends on how well thought out it is compared to what the devs already had in mind, at no point have I said that I think any impressive percentage of threads posted in this section of the forum actually bring anything useful to the table but in most cases the truly useless ones can't be salvaged by any means in my sight and I simply don't get involved with them or even talk about them. This one looks like it spawned out of frustration and began by asking a loaded question to which no serious and sane person would say they would prefer the game to be unplayable, rather than getting on your case about this and flat out asking why you're posting a joke poll I opted to change the direction of my own message towards broad strokes and being supportive of the devs since they already set a far future deadline which must have been a tough call to make with all the pressure. I'm not interested in locking horns with anyone, if I see a huge problem somewhere I'll usually call it out if it's bad enough to make me itch but my main interest is in being a generally supportive and constructive person and if given a good reason to praise someone I'd much rather do that even if it makes me look like a cheesy dork.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What's happening with CyberPunk is the reason I don't get excited about game releases anymore and always wait to see the reviews before buying. (I wasn't planning on buying it anyways.) But at least you can change the question "does it run Crysis?" to "does it run CyberPunk?" now. Lol

Link to post
Share on other sites

My fear is that KSP 2 will delayed to death by implementing more features than they can handle, the virus helps too but an initial release date of spring??? to fall, to next fall, and till 2022. I don't want to sound nitpicky and I know there is a big let the devs take their time and chill mentality but hopefully you can see why I'm worried. 

Plus, I could be totally wrong, I don't think they have much on their plates either, they're essentially rebuilding the game  but not really changing it, no new physics system, maybe new lighting. The only thing that I can see as brand new is the colony system and the near future sci-fi engines but, both of these things have been done before by modders.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, SpaceFace545 said:

My fear is that KSP 2 will delayed to death by implementing more features than they can handle, the virus helps too but an initial release date of spring??? to fall, to next fall, and till 2022. I don't want to sound nitpicky and I know there is a big let the devs take their time and chill mentality but hopefully you can see why I'm worried. 

I'm reasonably sure they're making a very different game now than what was planned prior to the reveal at 2019 E3, not to mention the fact that the team changed.

I'm not going to sit here and tell you that it definitely won't get delayed again, but I think they've settled on a scope now. The 2022 schedule is realistic based on what Intercept has been saying they're working on, the studio size, and progress we've seen so far. I don't think it will slip significantly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just heard on the main news that Sony have pulled Cyberpunk from the Playstation store (and are doing no quibble refunds), due to the number of bugs/glitches. Clearly, something went wrong with the development, testing and release of Cyberpunk, much more so than is usual for "normal" releases of games (I think we all accept that a v1.0.0 of something might have a few issues which reveal themselves with much wider usage by customers etc, and it normally takes a few weeks/months to iron them out).

I am still convinced that its possible to write software mostly bug-free, and release it on time and on budget. Its just that there are some companies who are better than others at it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, paul_c said:

due to the number of bugs/glitches.

It's due to the ridiculous Sony refund policy, CDPR promises a refund to anyone asking it but Sony denies a refund if you started to download the game. 

(Sony may not want light shed on their refund policy since it's most likely illegal in a lot of countries)

 

4 minutes ago, paul_c said:

Clearly, something went wrong with the development, testing and release of Cyberpunk, much more so than is usual for "normal" releases of games

Management and shareholders pushing for a return of investment, feature creep on the developers side.

If you see the 2018 E3 demo and the released game you'll discover that Cyberpunk is one fo the few games day looks way better than the demo.

 

6 minutes ago, paul_c said:

I am still convinced that its possible to write software mostly bug-free, and release it on time and on budget. Its just that there are some companies who are better than others at it.

Yes, sport titles, but that's only because they release only slightly upgraded versions of previous games. 

Basically all openworld RPGs had disastrous launch, Cyberpunk is going to be the new New Vegas, everybody hates it until suddenly it becomes the RPG of the century. Probably we'll see the U-turn as soon as Bethesda's Starfield releases.

 

Personally I'm 60 hours in (no KSP2 to claim my "one D1 a year" token) and while I'll not say this is one of the best RPG I've ever played (I'll wait after the second run to say that) I can absolutely say that's a pity that management had to drew things this big because under the rushed release and the technical mess there is a very well crafted RPG.

Give it some months, maybe even a year or two and people will say that "they pulled a NMS" while ignoring that most of the things they'll say they like are already here now.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cyberpunk 2077 is an open-world RPG that leans heavily on loot, stats, and quests. These are hideously complicated. There’s a near-infinite amount of permutations and interactions that are inherently messy, because the entire appeal of the game derives from them. That makes them extremely difficult to QA. Add on top of that a simultaneous multiplatform release on two different generations of hardware, a company that clearly has scoping/planning issues that lead to mandatory crunch, and everything in-house including the engine, and you’ve got a recipe for a really messy launch.

KSP2 is a much, much simpler beast and if the development team is competent and knows their QA, there’s no reason it ought to be particularly glitchy.

(FWIW Cyberpunk isn’t at all that flaky ... on reference hardware, namely an up-to-date Windows 10 PC rocking a GTX 1080 or better and a CPU to match. The real issues are with current-gen consoles. Releasing on them at  launch  was a mistake — but I expect CDPR may have had contractual obligations to do so, and deferring launch by another three months to get it shipshape on them would have had its own downsides.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, paul_c said:

Clearly, something went wrong with the development, testing and release of Cyberpunk, much more so than is usual for "normal" releases of games

Part of it is console manufacturers getting entirely too comfortable with day-one patches and so they let problems slide during cert. Cyberpunk shouldn't have passed certification on consoles, but Sony expected CDPR to patch the game to playable state, and so they allowed a bunch of exceptions without doing proper review. So did Microsoft, clearly, to be fair. Unfortunately, this is becoming pretty common.

11 minutes ago, paul_c said:

I am still convinced that its possible to write software mostly bug-free, and release it on time and on budget.

Well, on an adequate budget. There's an old adage: it can be done well, cheap, fast - pick two. And the budget is a stumbling block, but probably not in the way you expect.

Lets keep things abstract. Lets say your project has 3 tasks, A, B, and C, each one taking 2 months to complete. But because of inter-dependencies, you can't do all of them at once. You can't start on C until B is half-way done, and you can only do second half of A after B is finished. So you quickly realize that you can only have two of these being worked on at the same time, so you assign two engineers to start working on A and B right away. Call them E1 and E2. One month later, you have to stop work on A, but you can start work on C. So you re-assign engineer E1 from A to C. Another month passes and B is finished. Now you have a choice. You can either return E1 to finish A and have E2 jump into C, or you can let E1 finish C and have E2 work on A. Either way, one of the projects, A or C, is started by E1 but finished by E2. And if you've ever had to work with half-finished code written by another person, especially if it was done on a tight schedule, you probably know that this is how a lot of bugs happen.

You could avoid that, certainly. You can have 3 engineers working on the tasks. But then they're only doing critical tasks 2/3 of the time. You can keep the 2 engineers, but extend the deadline, but you're still not being efficient about the engineering time, and therefore, about how you spend your budget.

So game studios have gotten pretty good about juggling tasks like that. Trying to make sure that people stay within their area of expertise, that there are hand-offs, that people who started the project are available to consult. And that works up to a certain size. And that's honestly the worst part. Imagine that you're one of studio heads for CDPR and you've been doing this kind of juggling to ship the three Witcher games and DLCs. What are the odds that you're going to do things differently with Cyberpunk? Yeah, not great. And technical debt accumulates and tends to come crashing down near the end of the project. On larger project, it's harder to know what other people are working on. Impossible to learn all of the code. And with more people working on the game, more people leave the studio mid-project, taking with them everything they've learned. There is a critical mass where that approach of hot-swapping your resources to stay efficient just doesn't work anymore, and you aren't going to learn that until you've dealt with it.

I've recently been involved in shipping a game with comparable budget for a studio that made its biggest game yet by a wide margin and that resulted in nearly as troubled of a launch, and you know what? Most of us believed to the last moment that it's somehow going to work out. 'Cause it always did in the past. And when you are shifting between different parts of the project, you get used to the fact that you don't see the big picture, and everything looks a million times worse than it actually is, so even as everything around you is on fire, you just go through your bug list, trusting your collogues to fix their pile, and that it will all be in working shape on the launch day. And then it's not. And it's somehow a surprise to absolutely everyone from grunts in the field to studio heads. And that's when you start damage control, PR, and road maps, while also trying to figure out how to actually salvage the game.

And games like these are usually salvageable. You just end up pushing back any other projects the team might have worked on and burning a lot more budget when you thought you were already done with it. 

It is possible to make  a big game that's bug free, on time, and on the budget. You just can't micro-optimize it the same way you did smaller games. As the studio and its projects grow, it must become more compartmentalized and modular to maintain that flexibility of moving resources around while still making sure that each portion of the game is taken care of by the people who really understand how it works. And for some studios it's going to take a giant flop to accept that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, K^2 said:

critical tasks

You could ask, what's critical, in a game? 

Compared to MANY other areas, for example TSB's core banking system; ABS module in a car; the control software of a life support machine or an airplane, that critical needs to be taken in context, that's why we see bugs. The cost-reward ratio is clearly not that great, compared to the other cases (where putting aside a real safety risk, there is a regulatory risk eg banking systems, non-approval of an airplane system etc etc)

Also, we tend to remember the exceptional - everyone remembers TSB's banking computer system upgrade fiasco, but nobody remembers Bank of America's system 2 upgrade which generally went smoothly. Or Airbus' first A320 which crashed at an airshow, or the 737MAX problems.

At the end of the day, its about management and adequate oversight so that the risk-reward is balanced, the thing meets expectations and is generally positively received by its customers without attracting headlines for the wrong reasons.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, paul_c said:

You could ask, what's critical, in a game?

Creative directors come up with abstract criteria for what needs to be in the game to ship. Designers figure out what features must function for these criteria to be met. Making these work are critical tasks for the engineering team.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The point I was making is, 'critical' for a game is basically down to commercial success (and keeping out of the news headlines). Apparently the creators of Cyberpunk have lost quite a considerable amount.

I used to work in effluent treatment plant (designing), where the criteria was often "CATNIP" - Cheapest Available Technology Not Incurring Prosecution.

Edited by paul_c
Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...