GGG-GoodGuyGreg

I would take KSP2 fully featured without multiplayer any day, vs KSP2 with multiplayer and less features or simpler features.

They were open about patches coming on when they are ready and not on a fixed schedule. so I wouldn’t hold my breath for hot fixes

Pretty sure Nate mugged the OP and stole the patch notes after a leak.

I got 1$ that says it won’t.

Wow, a lot of optimism here. I think 1.5 years, because you mentioned the "stable" and "minimal" characteristics which I don't think will come easy and fast. I don't think we'll see KSP2 1.0 sooner than 3 years due to the complexity of the complete roadmap (colonies, multiplayer, etc), but that's only true if both the fans and investors gradually believe more and more in KSP2. Fingers crossed. I think 4 weeks because they managed to shut up a lot of people (including me) with the release of the first patch which was quite featured imho, so maybe now they will have the space they need to accomplish more, for which they would need more time. Or, maybe now they just release more often and with less fixes. We'll see.

+1

Boy, now with the layoffs starting this first update is even more important.

I'm 50 short

Nate, thank you for putting yourself both in our shoes as well as telling us how it looks like from the team's side, it takes balls. Now, before this thread which gave us the long awaited context of specifics about the update 1st update, there has been quite a bit of secrecy around the update and each time "in the coming weeks" was repeated without any extra information, both I and many others didn't appreciate it, up to the point where I must say if there would have been some kind of refund program I would definitely have considered it. I'm one of the ones that don't mind waiting if I know for what and for how long, and "in the coming weeks" along with 4 generic bullet points just doesn't cut it for me, whereas "a couple weeks" gives me a more clear idea when to expect this, and along with the specifics of what has been done already I think it's the cherry on top. So again, thank you for finally sharing the specifics around the update, hope this becomes a habit, and best of luck for you and the entire team to, together with feedback, evolve KSP2 into the game it deserves to be.

Then what would KSP 1.0 cost when that day hopefully comes? as the EA is already 50$. Also, if it backfired in EA because of the asking price, you maybe got two options, either you slightly lower the entry price (which would angry the ones that kept it) or you give some stuff like DLC's for free and hope you covered enough of the progress to entice people to pay for base game + DLCs.

I'm not concerned by what's been there on day one. I understand Early Access, I've played KSP1 and I'm optimistic about KSP2's future. fingers crossed My concern lies with the price, and how much it arguably lowered the sale numbers and how much it potentially increased the expectations and left much more room for criticism and negative reviews from people who expect their moneys worth and who look at what they get today for that amount of money. I'd also argue that this chosen pricing and launch strategy doesn't put the future of KSP2 in the best light, for both us and for Take2. Sure, most people (I hope) know what to expect from an EA, but there are some other EA's out there that had much more of the planned features and polish since day one. A more recent example of that is Sons of the Forest. So the way this launch has been handled just brings more questions: Why did they take this risk of being one of the most expensive EA in recent history ? It goes without saying if you sell something more expensive than the majority expect, you'd better sell something that's better polished and more feature complete than other less expensive EAs Was this price tag a higher up decision? Was this to test the loyalty of the fan base? How much more expensive they expect this to be when (if) it reaches version 1.0?

I hope the idea isn't that we ONLY get a similar progression type as in Factorio or Terraria where you build stuff to gather (new types of) resources that allow you to build the next thing. I remember in those games having tons of gold and no use for it because I didn't mine this new type of resource found in this new type of place. Now this is all fine for people who are looking for a more involved type of progression combined with resource gathering/mining, but I've always felt like running a real Space Program is also dependent in many ways by managing/acquiring/negotiating funds through contracts, besides science progression, and I still think this seemingly outdated metric, this could prove useful both in Single Player where it brings back the fun and meaning of tweaking the design of a rocket to fit in a budget and optimizing the design to meet parts count or size/weight constrain. I believe funds could also prove useful in competitive Multiplayer. I think being able to choose between "classic career mode with funds" and this newer way would be best of both worlds instead of having just one or the other.

We have to wait and see how the devs intend for the progression to be like. Personally, I'm not as eager about this mechanic, imagine carrying your money newly gathered resources to your home base and you fumble your landing after a long trip and no more resources for you and essentially getting stuck not being able to continue.

I only now noticed there is no Career mode with money coming. I was under the impression science progression goes hand in hand with that. I hope this stuff can be easily added with a mod if the developers are keen on not having money as a constraint, for me that's the charm of career mode, managing both funds and science progression.