Intercept Games what if you give us the patch update for next week in the Betas Tab of Steam? We can help uncover any "show-stopping bugs" if they are there. Perhaps make it a regular thing?

[Anth]

Nate said, "Right now, our goal is to release that patch next Thursday (March 16th). Provided QA does not uncover any show-stopping bugs over the next few days, that date should hold."

It sounds like the patch is in its end stages. Thats a great time to have a prerelease and see if people who are interested can find "show-stopping bugs" before the real release day.

Doing this could speed up releases of official patches and get us to 1.0 sooner.

Just a suggestion for your consideration.

 

 

[The Aziz]

And have the date slip significantly? Because someone finds some strange new bug?

What we have is already a sort of pre release. Anything found in 0.1.1 will probably get resolved in the next one. No point in delaying more.

[Periple]

I don't think this is a terrible idea as such actually, just a little premature. Once they do get their release cycle on a solid footing it could make sense to have a "stable" and "latest" channel, with "latest" builds only having automated unit and smoke tests. This way people who want the latest things right now and understand that the build might not even start can opt for that, and everybody else has something that's pretty functional. 

This forum would have to have a strict "NO WHINING ABOUT THE LATEST BUILD" rule though

[Kerbart]

On paper not a bad idea. If Intercept had been upfront about releasing a buggy beta version (for$25) it would probably work, Not sure if at this point with the community turned toxic they want to have two bug riddled versions around.

The problem with those beta releases is that you tend to get a lot of downloads for the wrong reasons. I can already see Discord being inundated with “the patched version is even worse”

[LameLefty]

No Man’s Sky has been doing this for years with their “Experimentals” branch. During the lead up and immediate aftermath of point releases, it’s not uncommon to get 2-3 builds a week, sometimes more for a week or so while they fix the regressions. In the aftermath of major updates, we’ll get hotfixes almost daily for at least a couple weeks afterwards, fixing regressions, rebalancing some of the major changes based on player feedback, etc.

 

[Anth]

They have spoken already about the negatives of releasing lots of  builds per day or week.

I am more talking about a prerelease of a patch after most of the work has been done which is how the first patch's state seems to feels from what Nate has said.

[Periple]

23 hours ago, Anth12 said:

I am more talking about a prerelease of a patch after most of the work has been done which is how the first patch's state seems to feels from what Nate has said.

That’s not really realistic logistically. You’d need a second set of criteria to clear the prerelease for release, which would be confusing and make releasing even more complicated than it is.

Presumably they have a channel for builds going to QA. It would be very simple technically to make that an opt-in beta for everybody. This is a tough crowd though and given the reception the EA has gotten I doubt there would be much understanding for even less stable builds! So while I personally would love to opt in for that, I’m not sure it’s such a great idea.

[HebaruSan]

Multiple builds can work; for example, Satisfactory calls their builds "Early Access" and "Experimental." They show up as two separate products in the Epic Games Store (I bought when it was exclusive there). The devs treat the Experimental build as a testbed that can change and break things every few weeks, with Early Access getting the consolidated, more stable work in longer intervals.

On 3/11/2023 at 11:00 AM, Anth12 said:

people who are interested can find "show-stopping bugs" before the real release day.

Doing this could speed up releases of official patches and get us to 1.0 sooner.

However, this isn't realistic. Even ignoring the very low general quality of bug reports from rando gamers (someone submitted a "bug" report on the forum today complaining about the price), the experimental build bug tracker would be flooded with redundant reports of "show-stopping bugs" the team knows about and has deferred to a future patch. "They fixed X but not Y" syndrome. The signal to noise ratio would be near zero.

[Anth]

55 minutes ago, HebaruSan said:

However, this isn't realistic. Even ignoring the very low general quality of bug reports from rando gamers (someone submitted a "bug" report on the forum today complaining about the price), the experimental build bug tracker would be flooded with redundant reports of "show-stopping bugs" the team knows about and has deferred to a future patch. "They fixed X but not Y" syndrome. The signal to noise ratio would be near zero.

Maybe. if thats the case then they need to do what Squad did then. They had a small group of people from the public who also tested the game before release.

[darthgently]

Just now, Anth12 said:

Maybe. if thats the case then they need to do what Squad did then. They had a small group of people from the public who also tested the game before release.

In hindsight, a small group with a nondisclosure in place starting a year ago or so, would have been better than what is happening.  The price tag chosen is what is raising most of the dust

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

19 minutes ago, darthgently said:

In hindsight, a small group with a nondisclosure in place starting a year ago or so, would have been better than what is happening.  The price tag chosen is what is raising most of the dust

I'm guessing they either did

• a 'virtual beta' - where some kind of software ran the game through various combinations and reported data, or
• a paid-for 'beta testing service' of people who have no idea what KSP is and who did limited testing, said 'Everything is cool' and then published.

Had they done a traditional, Closed Beta with invitees from the Forums, Reddit or other long-established people who are invested in the success of the title... it would have been what we've seen over the last two weeks - but NOT PAINFULLY PUBLIC.

 

I'm thinking it will take them all the way through 1.0 to recover from the reputational damage at this point.

Compared to Satisfactory's EA launch/experience, this is painful to watch - and unfair to the dev team

Edited March 12, 2023 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[darthgently]

3 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

I'm guessing they either did

• a 'virtual beta' - where some kind of software ran the game through various combinations and reported data, or
• a paid-for 'beta testing service' of people who have no idea what KSP is and who did limited testing, said 'Everything is cool' and then published.

Had they done a traditional, Closed Beta with invitees from the Forums, Reddit or other long-established people who are invested in the success of the title... it would have been what we've seen over the last two weeks - but NOT PAINFULLY PUBLIC.

 

I'm thinking it will take them all the way through 1.0 to recover from the reputational damage at this point.

Compared to Satisfactory's EA launch/experience, this is painful to watch - and unfair to the dev team

There is a great documentary or book in the behind the scenes I bet.  Going from a small team to a big corp team had to have been interestingly socially dynamic to say the least.  Maybe too many cooks in the kitchen at some points, and not enough at others

[VlonaldKerman]

15 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Had they done a traditional, Closed Beta with invitees from the Forums, Reddit or other long-established people who are invested in the success of the title... it would have been what we've seen over the last two weeks - but NOT PAINFULLY PUBLIC.

I don't think they had a choice. I suspect they found out last October that no matter what, they were releasing something on Feb. 24. I think it's pretty clear given the state of the game that this was not the devs' decision (releasing the game right now).

I think that having an experimental branch would be unnecessary/unhelpful for the same reason that releasing the game at all was probably unnecessary/unhelpful: the game is in so early of a state, it doesn't really need player feedback! Not yet, at least. Given how much of the rest of the game has been made (see my thread about datamining) it seems pretty clear that the devs weren't intending on releasing an EA at all until recently. They rushed to "finish" basic stuff like the Kerbolar system and basic flight mechanics in order to hit the deadline imposed by T2 corporate. They know the stuff that needs fixing, they know what needs work, because the bugs are so frequent, obvious, and severe, and the lack of certain basic, key features (TWR  readouts, accurate dV information, burn times, better maneuver editor, etc.) is apparent even to the casual player. The devs don't need to hear about how performance is horrible, or the KSC teleports to vessels in flight, or that the maneuver editor has no skip orbit button. The only truly valuable player feedback they are currently getting is feedback on things like the UI feature which are actually in the game (parts manager, etc.), which they would have received at a later date anyway, had they chosen not to release until some time in the future.

In other words, the devs don't really need the community's help yet. Certainly not on bug reporting. Other than money, there's really no good reason for the game to be released just yet, and the same logic applies directly to the proposition of an experimental branch.

[cocoscacao]

18 minutes ago, VlonaldKerman said:

The only truly valuable player feedback they are currently getting is feedback on things like the UI feature which are actually in the game (parts manager, etc.),

Agreed... however:

18 minutes ago, VlonaldKerman said:

lack of certain basic, key features (TWR  readouts, accurate dV information, burn times, better maneuver editor, etc.

Why is this not present is something I can't put my finger on. For example, there has to be TWR info somewhere, otherwise the game wouldn't know what to do with the vessel when you fire the engines. I'm wondering why that readout wasn't included for the player. We have other readouts. Bugged up to boot, but still present. I'm focusing on TWR here, but there are many little details present.

[zeekzeek22]

Cue the people raging that EA is just a developer making *us* pay *them* for beta testing

Or the people saying that anyone who plays the EA should get the game for half price or free, in flagrant disregard for how "selling a product for a price that makes the development breakeven" works

[cocoscacao]

@zeekzeek22 Actually, developers should pay us instead. If there were no players for their game, all of them would be unemployed.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

Uh... 

[Anth]

I just had a thought. Early access is like a sort of crowd funding like Kick Starter.

They made the game available for purchase. Noone had to buy it. They said it wasn't perfect.

The next thing is the free beta testers thing.  Look at the following:

• The combined gizmo in the editor is  hard to use at times. The original one is better with 2: 1 for lateral, 1 for rotation. One of the people who went to the ESA event asked why they were combined and that separately they would be better which hopefully they get separated like KSP1 for easier use.
• Also the ability move parts further than normal is missing in the VAB. (Shift I think?)
• The ability to move around the new VAB like the SPH in KSP1 is missing. Thats why a lot of the more experienced KSP1 players used the SPH instead of the VAB.

They need experienced KSP1 players to make KSP2 get to its full potential. Not experienced QA Testers with limited experience with the game. This isn't a first person shooter we are talking about. KSP isn't just a pick up and QA type of game like others.

 

[VlonaldKerman]

7 hours ago, zeekzeek22 said:

Cue the people raging that EA is just a developer making *us* pay *them* for beta testing

Or the people saying that anyone who plays the EA should get the game for half price or free, in flagrant disregard for how "selling a product for a price that makes the development breakeven" works

I love when the number of people predicting there to be irrational outrage and complaining about it outnumber the people who are raging irrationally. We get it, you're level-headed and galaxy brained. Why can't people have taken their rage too far, but still be justified in their complaints? Nuance?

 

4 hours ago, Anth12 said:

I just had a thought. Early access is like a sort of crowd funding like Kick Starter.

Please, don't mistake me for a thoughtless hater of the game. But...

From Steam's Early Access Guidelines (https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/store/earlyaccess)*: 

 

What is Early Access?

Steam Early Access enables you to sell your game on Steam while it is still being developed, and provide context to customers that a product should be considered "unfinished." Early Access is a place for games that are in a playable alpha or beta state, are worth the current value of the playable build, and that you plan to continue to develop for release.

Releasing a game in Early Access helps set context for prospective customers and provides them with information about your plans and goals before a "final" release.

What Early Access Is Not

Early Access is not a way to crowdfund development of your product.
You should not use Early Access solely to fund development. If you are counting on selling a specific number of units to complete your game, then you need to think carefully about what it would mean for you or your team if you don't sell that many units. Are you willing to continue developing the game without any sales? Are you willing to seek other forms of investment?

Early Access is not a pre-purchase
Early Access is not meant to be a form of pre-purchase, but a tool to get your game in front of Steam users and gather feedback while finishing your game.

Early Access titles must deliver a playable game or usable software to the customer at the time of purchase, while pre-purchase games are delivered at a future date. Read more about Pre-Purchasing on Steam.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------Quote ends------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I'm not suggesting that KSP 2 should be pulled from Steam, but I think it's worth noting that it seems violate some of these terms, namely, " Early Access is a place for games that... are worth the current value of the playable build". Say what you will about the pricing of KSP 2, but the current build is unambiguously not worth even approximately $50... if Juno, New Origins is worth $20, how much is a broken game with less features that barely runs on most people's PC's worth in current value? $10? $5? $2? 

 

 

* Bold, underline is emphasis that is already on Steam website (bold, subject headings). Italics are emphasis I added.

[cocoscacao]

14 minutes ago, VlonaldKerman said:

if Juno, New Origins is worth $20

KSP is a brand at this point. They've probably reasoned it could be sold for 50$. After all, games industry is... industry.

[VlonaldKerman]

1 hour ago, cocoscacao said:

KSP is a brand at this point. They've probably reasoned it could be sold for 50$. After all, games industry is... industry.

Agreed- while I am willing to pay a markup for Jeb's stupid googly eyes but not a $30-$40 one xD 

[Superfluous J]

12 hours ago, cocoscacao said:

I'm focusing on TWR here, but there are many little details present.

It's pretty likely there was SOMETHING wrong with it. Likely that something was small (the font was weird, it was incorrect sometimes, it word wrapped in its box, who knows what) and so they disabled it to fix it later, and didn't have time by the release date to revisit it.

Why? Because it wasn't a show-stopper bug. They had to fix all the show-stopper bugs first, so the game was launchable and playable. Even so, some players don't consider the game playable in its current state which tells me they JUST got the game launchable and playable. The TWR display was the least of their worries as they skidded, on fire, over the release deadline.

[cocoscacao]

11 minutes ago, Superfluous J said:

they JUST got the game launchable and playable

I get that... and here's another probably unpopular opinion... hiding away implemented features can be complicated. Finance department got their early access release. I'd be more than happy to live in the dark for the next few months, then to know a certain part of the dev team has been reallocated to keep us happy by addressing bugs that probably shouldn't exist in the first place due to rushed EA build.

But now I'm entering the dangerous zone of "I'm the all knowing game production and selling expert".... so take what I've said with a mountain of salt.

[zeekzeek22]

VlonaldKerbin's quoting of the STEAM EA guidelines and definition actually do sway my opinion on the whole discussion a bit. If those are Steam's rules, I feel like 1. TT/PD likely violated them with their motivation for pushing IG into an EA they weren't planning for (if that's what happened), 2. the "worth the current value of the playable build" part is probably violated right, no matter how much of a fanboy I am (the gap there will probably close a lot with tomorrow's patch), 3. I have been wrong in preaching that EA is a "Pre-Purchase+". I do think it is *literally* that, but if Steams rules say it is not that, then it should not be on Steam. Still fine for them to sell this EA directly and such, but...if Steam's rules say "you can't price an EA like it's a discounted pre-purchase if the EA build is not worth that discounted price", they shouldn't have sold that version on Steam. Again, tomorrow's patch may bring the whole thing into a much better position, but as of right now, reading those terms, I'm happy to admit my perspective has been mostly wrong (as it related to selling on Steam).

[didkodidko]

We're already testing the experimental branch