Can too slow of development kill KSP?

[darkmuminek]

I think that's going a bit far, but I don't want to open up the "obligations/entitlements" discussion.

I'm sorry, english is not my native language and I might have said one thing while I meant something a bit different. Generally I don't think Squad is obliged to anything, it's their business and they can run it however they want but it would be nice if they listened to the community and started communicating with it in a better way than now.

[Red Iron Crown]

Some people in this thread need to read the User Agreement for KSP, Squad is under no obligation to release any more updates for it, 0.23.5 could be the last version if they decided to kill the project. Any development beyond what we have now is just gravy.

As for Squad's communication, they used to be much more interactive with the community, but I think the community itself has made that impractical. Every comment from the devs is taken as gospel, and some people expect them to stick to plans that were made months or years ago. If I started a thread suggesting a new feature, say mirrored visors for spacesuits*, and HarvesteR or another dev makes an offhand comment like "That would be cool, shouldn't be hard to do", suddenly it's on the planned features list with a link to that post and people start saying things like "The devs have said that mirrored visors are coming to KSP." So the devs have stopped making offhand comments and are much more cautious about what they say. It's understandable that they're reticent when discussing new features, because the community seems to squeeze every drop of implication from dev comments.

* Arbitrary feature to illustrate the communication issue. Mirrored visors may or may not be coming to KSP. There may possibly already be a mod for that.

[darkmuminek]

Some people in this thread need to read the User Agreement for KSP, Squad is under no obligation to release any more updates for it, 0.23.5 could be the last version if they decided to kill the project. Any development beyond what we have now is just gravy.

You do realize this is a poor, not to mention the worst possible, excuse?

As for the second part of your post. That's where the community managers come in. Their job is not only to close threads or watch out after the forums. They should be the voice of the developers. No one is expecting HarvesteR to take part in discussions because he's got more important things to do but some comments from Rowsdower or someone else from the community team would be much appreciated.

Also there are the dev notes/diaries/whatever you want to call them. This is a way of communicating with fans. Right now it's mostly rubbish with no specific information. Or better said: reading the dev notes we know they're doing something but we have no idea what it is and when will it be finished.

[Red Iron Crown]

You do realize this is a poor, not to mention the worst possible, excuse?

Not an excuse, a statement of the situation. There is no obligation on Squad's part to produce future versions, bugfixes or new features.

As for the second part of your post. That's where the community managers come in. Their job is not only to close threads or watch out after the forums. They should be the voice of the developers. No one is expecting HarvesteR to take part in discussions because he's got more important things to do but some comments from Rowsdower or someone else from the community team would be much appreciated.

Also there are the dev notes/diaries/whatever you want to call them. This is a way of communicating with fans. Right now it's mostly rubbish with no specific information. Or better said: reading the dev notes we know they're doing something but we have no idea what it is and when will it be finished.

They can't be very specific, because of exactly the issue I described. Look at the resources thing, it was a planned feature that the devs changed their minds about because they didn't like the way it changed the game. The community is still venting its disappointment about it and to some degree accusing Squad of going back on their word. Squad needs the freedom to change their plans when something doesn't work out like expected, and if they release specifics the player community starts assuming that those specifics are "promises" that aren't subject to change.

[rtxoff]

Well i bought the game and i already played it 300+ hours. There are many games i payed full price of 50€ and did not even got to 50 hours playtime and i am not complaining about them.

For me the game payed off no matter what people say, even if it is getting boring now i can do a break from it and return in a year and start a new career save and enjoy all the new additions again.

Maybe i am a fanboy? I do not care, the game is that good to be one.

As for the complains of some people, they just make me wonder. You are getting bored with this game? Well move on and try something else i say. How many more hours you want more to milk out of KSP?

I definitively do not like the character of some people, give them the small finger and they are grabbing the whole hand.

KSP deserves better then to be slagged like this.

[Dodgey]

No it isn't a poor excuse, that's the way it is, and Red Iron Crown is correct, remember the way the forums exploded when rescourses were cut? Or how people even got mad the multiplayer was coming because they thought it had replaced rescourses. The community is a good one but the devs do have to watch what they say because it has backfired majorly in the past. Also just because we got the game early doesn't mean we have to get an inside look to the devlopment of said game. Squad used to be a lot more open with the devlopment of the game, but as the community grew this simply wasn't feasible so their communication methods changed. As to the amount of information we get on the dev notes I see it as this. We go buy a car and the dealer gives us 3 months warranty, just because they want to be nice. Another dealer gives us another different car with 6 months warranty, again same reason. Is it fair to say to the first dealer that they are cheep because that other dealer is giving out 6 months instead of 3? Honestly I don't see anyone complaining about not getting information on the devlopment on tripple A titles that are in devlopment. I'll say it again you bought the game in the state of it at the time of purchase, not an inside look at the devlopment process, we are consumers, not publishers.

[darkmuminek]

Also just because we got the game early doesn't mean we have to get an inside look to the devlopment of said game.

True, however it doesn't mean we should get nothing. And that's what's happening right now. Look at ARM. Everyone got to play it before the actual players. We've had streams of it, YT videos, previews etc when we couldn't even get a release date. And no, it doesn't mean we should get a date months prior to the update but when they're streaming it they could say: "You'll be able to play it sometime next week."

Squad used to be a lot more open with the devlopment of the game, but as the community grew this simply wasn't feasible so their communication methods changed.

That's what the community managers and dev notes are for...

We go buy a car and the dealer gives us 3 months warranty, just because they want to be nice. Another dealer gives us another different car with 6 months warranty, again same reason. Is it fair to say to the first dealer that they are cheep because that other dealer is giving out 6 months instead of 3?

Yes, it is. That's how it works.

Honestly I don't see anyone complaining about not getting information on the devlopment on tripple A titles that are in devlopment.

Maybe because we get information about AAA titles in development? We know what the next Call of Duty be about, in time we will know the multiplayer modes, weapons, etc.

I'll say it again you bought the game in the state of it at the time of purchase, not an inside look at the devlopment process, we are consumers, not publishers.

And because we are consumers we have the right to know what's going on with the game and to complain or ask questions. You mentioned triple A productions. Did you see the EA forums after launch of Battlefield 4? Or Bioware after people saw Mass Effect 3 ending?

In early access you get to play an unfinished product in exchange for your money which is used to pay for the development process. It doesn't mean you get to decide how the game will look like, nor does it entitle you to receive detailed reports about development progress. You do deserve to be well informed however and to the truth, Squad acts like they don't give a damn about the community.

I'll refer to Space Engineers once more. Everything Squad isn't doing is being done by Keen Software House. Yet they manage to deliver frequent updates, the game is doing great and there's no tragedy with anything. This is a matter of attitude, not what is possible and what is not.

[Red Iron Crown]

And because we are consumers we have the right to know what's going on with the game and to complain or ask questions.

I agree we have the right to complain and ask questions, but we have no right to know what's going on. Squad can choose to reveal as much or as little as they choose about the development process.

Everything Squad isn't doing is being done by Keen Software House. Yet they manage to deliver frequent updates, the game is doing great and there's no tragedy with anything. This is a matter of attitude, not what is possible and what is not.

You may want to look into how Keen's previous projects turned out. I'll take Squad over them any day and twice on Sunday.

[Dodgey]

Those making the YouTube videos of the game before we get it are part of the media team, it's their job to show us that. I don't know what you mean by everyone though. And you are right they could say that we will be getting it sometime next week. But by are doing that they are putting a noose around their neck and hoping that nothing goes wrong, sure it's a very short timeframe but it's still dangerous non the less.

I don't know what to say about the community managers and dev notes, we have a community manager and he does a good job. Yea I would like more information in the dev notes as well, but I understand that they are busy and don't want to make promises (no matter how vague) that might come back and bite them. See resources for a perfect example.

No that isn't how it works, firstly I said different cars, implying two different products with different strings attached to each. Secondly how can you make that assessment that the first dealer is cheep? Both are going above and beyond what is required of them, and don't know the situation of both dealers, the second might by making more money, therefor can afford to give extended warranty. My pont is that there isn't enough information given to make a fair assessment of both.

At what point do you find out about a tripple A title? How many tripple A titles do you see at e3 that get canceled. By the time we get the majority of information about those games they are already years into devlopment with the vast majority of features locked in. Personally I think you could of picked a better example than COD, I could probably tell you what the games will be like at the core for about a decade, just saying.

I don't think I need to rehash what Red Iron Crown already said.

[Eric S]

True, however it doesn't mean we should get nothing. And that's what's happening right now. Look at ARM. Everyone got to play it before the actual players. We've had streams of it, YT videos, previews etc when we couldn't even get a release date. And no, it doesn't mean we should get a date months prior to the update but when they're streaming it they could say: "You'll be able to play it sometime next week."

Did you not actually watch those streams? In several of the streams I watched, the player either hit a bug, or explained that he was doing something in a way that avoided a particular bug. They were playing a version of the game that was not deemed stable enough to release to the public. As a programmer, I can tell you that sometimes the "simple" bugs are a nightmare to track down or to fix, sometimes both. I've had more than one occasion when just writing up a description of the problem and possible solutions took more time than my non-programming boss thought it would take to fix the bug because what appeared to be a simple bug was actually a complex interaction of multiple subsystems.

When in this kind of position, you can play it safe and not announce a release date until you actually have something you're willing to release, or you can announce a release date and hope your estimate for fixing bugs isn't too low. As good as this community is, it still tends to blow up if Squad fails to deliver on something that it perceives to have been a promise, and a missed release date would definitely meet that criteria. With that in mind, I don't mind that Squad's release dates are usually either "Not yet" or "Now."

[LaytheAerospace]

No offense, but the people who aren't actually software engineers (no, knowing a programming language doesn't make you a software engineer) should probably just stop posting in this thread. Software development is hard.

Criticize the direction the game is taking, or the game itself all you want. But telling people doing a job you don't understand they aren't doing that job fast enough, or can't predict future developments well enough, is madness.

[Vanamonde]

The game's been in development for three or four years and yet most functionalities come from mods.

The mods are free to deal with the other things you mention because Squad has already made the planets, the rocket engines, the pilot figures, the struts, the fuel tanks, the engines, etc. All the stuff that actually makes the software work.

The science system is completely broken.

It's also the second-draft of a system which is still under development.

but I don't understand how one person (or even a group of them), working for free, in their spare time can do a better job than a studio of professional developers.

Modifying a sub-component of a game, whoever excellent, can hardly be said to be "a better job" than creating the game in the first place.

Everyone got to play it before the actual players.

"Everyone" being a handful of people chosen for their ability to help publicize the game. And keep in mind that what you're lobbying to get in this case would be a buggy, incomplete draft of an update which Squad doesn't feel is yet ready to give out to players. Why would you want that?

we are consumers we have the right to know what's going on with the game

When you buy a Honda, it does not come with an invitation to their shareholders meetings. Also, look once again at the purchase terms you agreed to before buying the game: "Squad is under no obligation to maintain any level of communication with the player community, choosing to do so at their own discretion." You are getting more than what you agreed to accept.

[Rowsdower]

As for the second part of your post. That's where the community managers come in. Their job is not only to close threads or watch out after the forums. They should be the voice of the developers. No one is expecting HarvesteR to take part in discussions because he's got more important things to do but some comments from Rowsdower or someone else from the community team would be much appreciated.

Also there are the dev notes/diaries/whatever you want to call them. This is a way of communicating with fans. Right now it's mostly rubbish with no specific information. Or better said: reading the dev notes we know they're doing something but we have no idea what it is and when will it be finished.

There's also a certain amount of planning and approval that goes behind revealing bigger pieces of info. I can't simply drop tidbits of upcoming features every time a request is made. There's procedure behind it. Perhaps the best chance to get more of the info you may desire in a more rooted way (ie. not a major, community-wide announcement) will be things like the devnotes or squadcast. Those sources will tell you what's been worked on each and every week. Not every installment will contain earth-shattering information, as they're meant to let the community know the progress that the entire team makes in their various endeavors. Sometimes it's big, sometimes it's small, but rest assured the major info will always get out when it's good, ready and the whole picture's ready to go.

True, however it doesn't mean we should get nothing. And that's what's happening right now. Look at ARM. Everyone got to play it before the actual players. We've had streams of it, YT videos, previews etc when we couldn't even get a release date. And no, it doesn't mean we should get a date months prior to the update but when they're streaming it they could say: "You'll be able to play it sometime next week."

The people on the media, KSP-TV and testing teams are "actual players," too. It's a small subset of community members who enjoy playing KSP for the pure fun of it. They help test the pre-release builds and promote the game accordingly. It's a practice that's been in motion for a while without major incident and will continue through the foreseeable future. Generally, the videos and streams to come out of this process are released closer to the release of an update, but if you read THIS post, you'll see why it was unfortunately not the case for ARM. We've also taken measures to make sure that lengthy of a time gap doesn't happen again.

Maybe because we get information about AAA titles in development? We know what the next Call of Duty be about, in time we will know the multiplayer modes, weapons, etc.

And because we are consumers we have the right to know what's going on with the game and to complain or ask questions. You mentioned triple A productions. Did you see the EA forums after launch of Battlefield 4? Or Bioware after people saw Mass Effect 3 ending?

While you may not personally like the information we give or the way in which it's dispensed, the fact of the matter is that we still deliver it to the community in a number of different ways. Go read HarvesteR's last few Devnote entries and various forum articles from the last few months for examples of exciting and specific pieces of info that's already been managed. The community also most certainly has the right to ask questions and offer valid criticisms on things that may be a concern. Community opinion has shaped things in the past and continues to do so, however, it must be remembered that the decision on directions and the depth of access ultimately lies with Squad.

Squad acts like they don't give a damn about the community.

We care about the community. Flat out. If we didn't, there'd be no care taken into the quality of updates. If we didn't, I wouldn't want to find the best points in even the harshest of criticisms to make the team aware. If we didn't, we wouldn't constantly glow to the gaming community at large how great the KSP community is and what it's all about. Even when it may be a tough choice to make, we always have the interests of the community at heart.

I'll refer to Space Engineers once more. Everything Squad isn't doing is being done by Keen Software House. Yet they manage to deliver frequent updates, the game is doing great and there's no tragedy with anything. This is a matter of attitude, not what is possible and what is not.

We're also not them. What works for one will not always work for everyone. Now don't get me wrong, there's always, *always* room for improvement, but the size and scope of their game, their community and other factors is not a one size fits all type of situation.

[Skyler4856]

Relative to half-life 3....

[Jean Deaux]

Yeah. Right. Squad will write a new engine for "KSP 2". And pigs fly and fairies are real and I'm actually a two-thousand-ton bagel with little hands to type with on a keyboard.

You may not be aware, but there are other engines out there.

, for example, is much more powerful, and not free, but could bring a whole new level to the game in KSP 2, The Kerbal Initiative!

[Rowsdower]

You may not be aware, but there are other engines out there.

, for example, is much more powerful, and not free, but could bring a whole new level to the game in KSP 2, The Kerbal Initiative!

I, for one, would love for KSP to become the gaming benchmark and heir to the phrase "Yeah, but can it run Crysis?"

[phoenix_ca]

You may not be aware, but there are other engines out there.

, for example, is much more powerful, and not free, but could bring a whole new level to the game in KSP 2, The Kerbal Initiative!

I'm fully aware there are other engines available. People were suggesting that Squad write their own engine, not license a different one. That just isn't going to happen unless Squad loses their collective minds or they get a huge influx of cash. Making your own game engine takes years of development by a fairly large team of skilled programmers, minimum, and it's a pointless exercise most of the time now anyway because there are so many better options available.

In short, your response is a classic case of missing-the-point.

On top of all that, switching to a new engine would invariably mean Squad would need to re-learn non-trivial portions of their workflows, as well as rendering prior learned knowledge obsolete. It's not impossible; CryEngine's licensing costs are only $10 per user now, but if Unity decides to take the same route, I don't see how it'd be very practical.

Edited May 30, 2014 by phoenix_ca

[LaytheAerospace]

I, for one, would love for KSP to become the gaming benchmark and heir to the phrase "Yeah, but can it run Crysis?"

You know, KSP is the reason I give these days for overclocking my computer. It's good to finally have a reason to run at 5+ GHz, though none of my friends can fly my biggest ships (~1000 parts).

[Dodgey]

I, for one, would love for KSP to become the gaming benchmark and heir to the phrase "Yeah, but can it run Crysis?"

I second this motion. All in favor say I.

[Javster]

I think it can, as 0.23 was last December, 0.23.5 was a half-update, depending on how you look at it.

[pxi]

0.23.5 was a half-update, depending on how you look at it.

To a Discordian, the version number positively jumps out at you.

In fairness though, we very nearly did have an update. Sometimes these things take as long as they take.

[Andrew Hansen]

KSP is being developed as fast as possible by the developers. They've hired several new additions to the team recently (Jesus, Lalo, Rogelio, Hugo). And KSP is becoming more and more popular - it was recently featured on the Guardian, as you probably know. Currently the game is in good standing, and there's no reason why that would change very soon. You said you really wanted multiplayer, and that's just what Harvester wants to work on after one or two more updates. I think in about a year we will have some sort of Multiplayer existing.

That said, I really believe that KSP's development could be drastically sped up if a few mods were implemented. Kethane is an example of a really high-quality mod, in my opinion. It's very polished and quite bug-free. I think it would be a great idea to implement it into the game. In the past, SQUAD has implemented some mods into the game (all the spaceplane parts we have now were originally a mod), and I think they should do that again. The only thing they might change is to put the Kethane Scan Map pop-up window into the actual GUI of the game.

Another mod that would be awesome to partially implement into the game would be Engineer Redux. It is the #1 most essential mod in my opinion, because it shows you the delta-V of your craft. I really think that with KerbalEdu being developed and stuff, delta-V and TWR readouts will become more and more needed additions to the game. Adding these would probably be a lot more difficult than adding Kethane, though, since you'd also probably want to put a delta-V map into the game in the Tracking Station, and create custom GUI windows for the TWR and delta-V readouts so you don't get "flooded with numbers."

[Jean Deaux]

I'm fully aware there are other engines available. People were suggesting that Squad write their own engine, not license a different one. That just isn't going to happen unless Squad loses their collective minds or they get a huge influx of cash. Making your own game engine takes years of development by a fairly large team of skilled programmers, minimum, and it's a pointless exercise most of the time now anyway because there are so many better options available.

In short, your response is a classic case of missing-the-point.

On top of all that, switching to a new engine would invariably mean Squad would need to re-learn non-trivial portions of their workflows, as well as rendering prior learned knowledge obsolete. It's not impossible; CryEngine's licensing costs are only $10 per user now, but if Unity decides to take the same route, I don't see how it'd be very practical.

In the off chance you were right, I went back and re-read all those posts previous to your original comment "within this thread" and nobody made any mention about Squad writing their own engine. Everyone does state that Unity is a poor engine and hoped that they would get a "real" engine. I get my facts wrong from time to time, I'll admit, but where ever it is that I'm missing the point from, I can't find it in this thread. Perhaps you read it in another thread elsewhere in this forum and assumed this thread was following suite. Regardless, I fail to see where I'm missing a point here and seriously doubt any future arguments will persuade me otherwise.

[Valley]

It could kill KSP. Look at Dwarf Fortress. Its development is slow as heck and it died years ago...no, wait, that's not right. It has a huge following, with a ton of information going back and forth begin the creators and the fans, weekly updates, creator fueled polls, tons of feedback and so on. Hmmm...so KSP should be able to survive....as long as the fans stay interested in it, there is a ton of feedback, allows for many different styles of play, and it continues to be free...oh wait.

[DoToH]

The game's been in development for three or four years and yet most functionalities come from mods. Reentry effects and damage? There's a mod for that. Better atmospheric model? Try FAR. Basic flight and orbital data? Yeah, go and install Kerbal Engineer or MechJeb. Kerbal Alarm Clock, Crew Manifest, KAS, Infernal Robotics, Kethane... these should be stock.

..... Scansat, Procedural Fairings, RemoteTech, TAC life support ...

I Bought KSP when 0.18 was released and I'm satisfied with my purchase. I've played KSP much more than other AAA games and I can't help wanting more content.

That's why the game is so great. I keep one KSP install for each release and only have to run my 0.18 to see how much the game has changed. The game's been in development for more than three years, so many changes done, and still has a lot of potential.

I think KSP developers are prisoners of their own success. We want MORE, and we want it NOW. Nobody asks for more from a crappy game, people just uninstall it and cry for the money lost.

I just love it when someone criticizes KSP and the fanboy police arrives in seconds with no arguments at all.

Now, before someone else arrives to call me fanboy, let me tell you that I don't like the direction of development. I would like some features from my "essential mod list" added to stock, but not having the same preferences as the developer team or wanting more information about planned features doesn't make KSP a bad game. If KSP were a bad game, I would have it uninstalled long ago.

In fact, you are here criticizing because you want more from KSP instead of playing any other game. Why would you waste your time if you don't like the game?