Jump to content

Release Date Update from the KSP2 Team


Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Master39 said:

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

Weird enough... it may be! Negative Marketing works.

It's tricky,  it may backfire on you painfully, but when well executed it works very well.

Everybody loves the underdog that manages to win. Check "The Hero's Journey" by Joseph Campbell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Lisias said:

Weird enough... it may be! Negative Marketing works.

It's tricky,  it may backfire on you painfully, but when well executed it works very well.

Everybody loves the underdog that manages to win. Check "The Hero's Journey" by Joseph Campbell.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

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

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

SgJgqkW.jpeg

 

Edited by The Aziz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

The other verifiable gameplay footage dates from before this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRewAKMllVo

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.

9 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

Anything else doesn't qualify as gameplay, as it lacks a person clearly playing the game.

How did you decide that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Aziz said:

SgJgqkW.jpeg

 

Actually the main reason procedural radiators were shown and told was because of the Interstellar video that was going to reveal them (with the participation of Nertea). It was just a way to preempt questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

Actually the main reason procedural radiators were shown and told was because of the Interstellar video that was going to reveal them (with the participation of Nertea). It was just a way to preempt questions.

May I politely ask...     so?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's just like if they haven't shown a bunch of other unknown parts in the feature video. Can't see too many questions about them.

"Actually" so you know this for a fact, cool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
54 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:
1 hour ago, Vl3d said:

Actually the main reason procedural radiators were shown and told was because of the Interstellar video that was going to reveal them (with the participation of Nertea). It was just a way to preempt questions.

May I politely ask...     so?

So it was a good idea for show & tell.

32 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

"Actually" so you know this for a fact, cool.

It's one of the reasons, yes. You cannot argue the opposite. You could argue that maybe it's not "the main" reason. But what would that reason be, @The Aziz? Just showing off how cool procedural radiators are? Who ever really requested procedural radiators so specifically? It was just a size & complexity improvement over the regular radiators that were getting spammed on interstellar vessels (the cinematic trailer shows this) - surely not something specifically requested by the user base.

Edited by Vl3d
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Vl3d said:
52 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:
1 hour ago, Vl3d said:

Actually the main reason procedural radiators were shown and told was because of the Interstellar video that was going to reveal them (with the participation of Nertea). It was just a way to preempt questions.

May I politely ask...     so?

So it was a good idea for show & tell.

...your point being?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bej Kerman said:
3 minutes ago, Vl3d said:
55 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:
1 hour ago, Vl3d said:

Actually the main reason procedural radiators were shown and told was because of the Interstellar video that was going to reveal them (with the participation of Nertea). It was just a way to preempt questions.

May I politely ask...     so?

So it was a good idea for show & tell.

...your point being?

I was answering @The Aziz who used Will Smith to indicate the team presented procedural radiators as an answer to this joke:

3 hours ago, The Aziz said:
12 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

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

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

So the point is that Procedural Radiators was an important feature to show because:

1. It was featured as a new part in the approaching Interstellar Travel Feature Video.

2. It was linked to Nertea.

3. It was a major change from the vessels presented in the Cinematic Trailer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Thread is again open for discussion.

Let's remember that we need to keep it civil.  The game has not yet been released, and pretty much all arguments to that point are moot.   If you do have a point to make, and you've said your piece, then you've said it.   If somebody offers discussion on that issue, then feel free to continue to discuss.   Bringing up the same point over and over again is merely banging everyone's head against a wall.   Yelling louder won't make your point any more valid or theirs any less. 

Edited by Gargamel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, PDCWolf said:

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".

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
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".

Edited by PDCWolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, PDCWolf said:
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".

I still don't really care all that much. It's just a game at the end of the day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said:

I still don't really care all that much. It's just a game at the end of the day.

Yeah same here at the end of the day its a game that we all like and waiting for

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/7/2022 at 5:45 PM, obnox twin said:

Yeah same here at the end of the day its a game that we all like and waiting for

and, most important at all, still willing to put money on it. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/12/2022 at 1:03 PM, obnox twin said:

When it becomes avaible for preorder or releases I am getting it no matter the reviews say

Please don't do that. I can't stop you, but preordering creates preverse incentives for game publishers. It encourages the release of games that aren't feature-complete or playtested properly. KSP2 is not immune to this.

Edited by RyanRising
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, RyanRising said:

Please don't do that. I can't stop you, but preordering creates preverse incentives for game publishers. It encourages the release of games that aren't feature-complete or playtested properly. KSP2 is not immune to this.

While I agree that the developers and publishers have bad habits and practices that's nothing compared to the sorry state gaming journalism is in.

Buy the game when you want but don't trust the press or the rage (or hype) fuelled noise you find in forums and Reddit. 

Buy the game for yourself and actually try it out, to see if it's up to your personal standards, if its not just refund it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Master39 said:

 

Buy the game when you want but don't trust the press or the rage (or hype) fuelled noise you find in forums and Reddit. 

Buy the game for yourself and actually try it out, to see if it's up to your personal standards, if its not just refund it.

Two hours (at least on Steam) is not enough. I detected that some games are trimmed to be almost flawless on the initial stages, and you just find the really bad problems way after playing the game for two hours as Steam allows us to refund.

On that matter, I find GOG way more user friendly: they have a 30 days refund policy, no questions asked. Lovely. :) 

So, unless the game is being sold on GoG or some other similarly user friendly shop, we need to rely on forums and reddit somehow in order to have an idea to what to test first, in a rush, on the very few time is usually available to check it. (at least, without resourcing to non-forum-neither-law-compliant practices).

So I'm planning to spend some months reading that exactly non trustable press (no one is so distrustful that could not tell the true now and then), and then cross check the facts or opinions with some influencers that I learnt were usually right in the past.

Edited by Lisias
Ugh. Grammars… Hate that thing...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For a game like KSP2, I am confident that watching someone play it for a couple hours on YouTube is more than enough to know if I will enjoy it, so long as I pick the correct videos. 2 hours of someone crashing starter rockets into the VAB isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about someone knowledgeable building an interstellar ship and using the interface to pilot it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I have a feeling that this game was more than I thought it was going to be. Great job of going beyond expectations!
i now worry my computer might die due to this game lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...