Kubas_inko

Luckily we can use statistics (and generalization in this case) so we can apply the steamdb data to the entire player base who bought the game. The only outliers might be people who bought it from PD as they are probably bigger fans than average. But still, the steamdb is mostly accurate regarding the percentage, not the actual player count.

I can't speak for myself as I have no idea, but if this post has at least some truth to it, it can explain a lot.

They should've acquired a good dev team too. Uber Entertainment seems to miss the mark all the time.

Considering that they gave them 3 extra years already, I don't think T2 will give them a "good chance". They might give them some chance...

Considering how "much" was added since 2019 I think the game has a long future in front of it. Depends how successful though.

Unless they fix it ASAP (so that people will actually play it Kerbal Space Program 2 Steam Charts · SteamDB), T2 won't be skimming KSP 2 market and will just pull the plug.

How can you make this fun when less than 25% of player base meets the minimum requirements and even playing on that is pain? Your average Joe is not forgiving when he paid 50 bucks for a buggy game with bad performance (and no, EA is not an excuse).

People forgive KSP 1 because it was started by a single guy, became a passion project, and ended with a small team, which had control over it for the most part. KSP 2 on the other hand is made by a large team (who don't have control over it) and a giant publisher. That's why people forgive KSP 1.

Probably because Take Two (the publisher) wants some returns finally and wants to see if it will be worth it. So far it does not look that good.

Steam does, do you?

The Unity bit was obvious as they are Unity devs. But it was pretty limiting for KSP 1 and I doubt that it changed for KSP 2. I am sure that they can work their magic around it (if T2 lets them). But there is a reason why bigger games are in UE.

Yep. What we got is not worth 50 bucks for the average joe (a friendly reminder that around 25% of the possible player base has the minimum hardware to play the game and it is not a pleasant experience).

And that's bad. GPU should be at 100% unless you are hitting your FPS limit (or are limited by CPU).

i7 13700KF 1080ti 32GB DDR4 1080p low: just shy of 60 FPS on launchpad with the 48 part rocket (default view, not moving the camera). 1440p high: just shy of 40 FPS on launchpad with the 48 part rocket. Launching and looking at KSC or Kerbin, the FPS tank down below 20 on 1080p low and below 10 on 1440p high. Looking at the sky gives about 70 on 1080p low and 50 on 1140p high.

Would be nice to know the specs and framerate. I always see "it runs fine on my machine" and then I find out that their machine has 4080 or that fine is 30fps while looking at the sky...