Moons

Just a suggestion since i doubt that many questions will be answered - how about a different approach - first off: Something like this - should be made way more visible to everyone: And my suggestion - if you dont want to and probably cant give clear information that easily - i get that its not that easy when speaking oficially how about doing something else: - do a Q&A with handpicked questions - just make a thread for people to ask questions take some and try to answer them officially? (especially now since lots of people are probably a bit worried) - show off what is there and show people that there is lots of progress -> simply pick some DEVs that want to and can show off the internal version of the game - what is beeing worked on - what works, what doesnt - just to show that there is lots of things going on and make development more personal - something like that most of the time can calm a community down a lot after a bad start And another serious suggestion - i think the price is still to high and the launch price at a higher price point wont work - in my opinion - would it be an option to: - for example make Interstellar a DLC - but give it to everyone that pre-ordered now - then reduce EA price and game price in general and have Interstellar as DLC? (i picked that since it probably would speed up development since i doubt its easy to implement and its probably also not the first thing most people would try) - a reduced scale probably could also help with getting 1.0 out sooner, get sales sooner and have a price point at which more people would be willing to buy and would expect less from EA?

I get some of your points - but the loading screen one i will never understand. I will never understand why thats so important to some people - i prefer better games, graphics etc. to fast loading times. In the end does it really matter if a game loads in 10 or 20 seconds -isnt it pretty bad to be so stressed that a few seonds more actually are an issue when enjoying your hobby? When a game has longer loading times i simply start it and do something elese while it loads. Also that you dont feel the same magic is probably normal - you can only play KSP for the first time once. And in general - when you lack free time - i doubt that this is the right game since compared to other games it probably requires way more time invested for results and it hardly makes sense to play it for a short ammount of time each session? People and their free time just changes - i was into games as complex as possible when i was younger - but as time passed and i had less and less time that changed.

I would keep it in 3D the only thing it would require is some random reason to have at least 1 person in it that actually can talk ^^ I also dont think that Anime could really capture what is important in KSP - showing off space, space flight and awesome planets etc. I sometimes wonder if Minions were inspired by KSP aswell - even their piloting skills are the same ^^ - I think a similar artstyle would be a perfect fit:

[snip] Some are more optimistic than others - some pretty much bought "Hope" and not a product etc. So from my point of view seeing how this is a published game by a big publisher the fact that they released the game like this at this price as EA and not Pre-Order and didnt delay etc. probably knowing reception would be negative could indicate that it was an important indicator and a test of how profitable the game is - the layoffs now and the technical director stopping working there (his post seems to indicate that they are cutting costs (not a good thing either when development already isnt that fast)) probably also isnt a good thing (you usually cant just switch leads without having a negative impact on development and i just hope that he was mostly organization and not more technical because that would be worse). It can also mean absolutely nothing since we dont have any insider information and we probably wont get such information. [snip]

Looking at the trailers of KSP2 i was wondering if it could actually work as some sort of animated movie similar to Minions - i think it could. Maybe that could also make the brand more important for the publisher and make investing more money in it a resonable business decision.

I dont think so - beeing overly positive isnt a good thing. There are lots of issues and they need to be adressed sooner than later - only that can help the game. When you make a bad decision but nobody tells you it is a bad decision and instead everyone tries to be nice - do you think that doing that helps more than it harms? Im really negative about the future of this game - but more in a way like - please change and rethink what and how you are doing it and i will instantly buy your game.

I did fish in the past - but a day without any bites would definitely not be as much fun as a day with bites and a big catch. I think we just dissagree - i neither think that people spending time automatically means them having fun - nor do i think it says much about the quality and vlue of the game. Looking at some friends they spend a lot of time on grindy mobile games in their spare time - neither does it seem as if they are having fun - nor is the quality of those games any good. I also wouldnt argue that someone sitting in front of a one-armed bandit for hours is actually having fun.

I dont get it either - i dont know how they did it but they actually made me invest into an - sorry but - insane way to big idea of an awesome game - and im okay with them taking their time as long as i get the feeling that they are working on it. I just recently looked into it since i have the version with Squadron 42 - i think it was "released in 2014"? ^^ I hope that even if it fails some of that awesome tech will just get used by new games. But even so - even Star Citizen with its insane scope is and was cheaper than the EA of KSP2 ... I think i paid 45 USD for Star Citizen including Squadron 42 Trailers like this still make me want to play the game - and thats already 8 years old: But its the same with KSP2 (when it comes to trailers making me want to play the game) i really liked this trailer - cant believe its already 3 years:

I participate in the forums, told friends about how great the game is and recommended it to them - thats probably more than most people do that buy a game.

One of the first mobile games? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snake_(video_game_genre) I wouldnt say that the ammount of time i spend in a game is a good measurement of how much i enjoy the time actually playing it. People spend a lot of time in game with grind-mechanics - does that mean they enjoy the game more than a shorter game where the shorter individual time spent is way more fun? I have games where i spent hours ingame trying to mod and optimize them - is that a good measurement of fun? People spend hundreds on hours on games with loot boxes or even virtual slot machines - is the time spent really an objective measure of how much they enjoy it? Also you called it "objective" - it isnt - if at all its highly "subjective". If you fish for 8 hours and dont catch a single fish that day (not even a bite) - does that mean its still a great fishing day you enjoyed because you spent 8 hours?

Jedi Fallen Order was to expensive for what it offered - because other games at a similar price offered more. Terraria had a good price-content ratio and was priced the way it was because it was cheaper to produce since it doesnt use very advanced graphics etc. I think the more appropriate way to use it is picking similar games in similar states. For example Sons of the Forest - game after The Forest - graphics look good, lots of features missing, lots of bugs - es beeing sold at 30 USD at EA - seems reasonable and in line with most other EA games that sell at a way lower price than release and in a rather early state. When looking at KSP2 i dont see many other EA games at that price - especially not that early in development - at 50 USD id can actually buy full release games - even AAA games therefore the price doesnt seem appropriate for the game as it is now.

Its not the job of consumers to do something for a product they purchase. But looking at modern software i probably do more involuntarily for software than i want to since it has become normal to simply take a consumers money and personal data and statistical data without an option to opt out or compensation (i still dont understand why so many people accept that) ... So what did consumers do - they gave money in exchange for a product. The only question to me is - did the company do enough for the price they charged. Also - its probably modders and the community that made KSP1 the success it is and that built up the community and playerbase for KSP2.

Yeah i dont think so at all. A price is the perfect vaue for games since you can simply compare the price of diffent games with each other. Just for a second lets pretend gaming companys now use your metric as a metric to price and make their games. That would mean - the game with the most grinding mechanics but addictive mechanics would be the game with the most value and that open world grind games are way too cheap - so modded skyrim should probably cost a huge ammount of money looking at the playtime of some players? I also for example have mobile games i played a lot - you proabbly too - would you seriously suggest that snake etc. should cost a lot of money? But looking at time per USD simply makes no sense to me. So lets take some random mobile game you probably play when bored - on your way to work etc. - do you really think time played compared to price is a good indicator to define its worth? Looking at KSP2 in its current state - would you seriously argue that the product is worth its price right now just because you spent some hours playing it in this state? Would you argue that if they stopped development right now and never release a patch it would have been worth it due to your metric?

I dont get that? If you buy a released game and it is buggy you can simply refund it. I also dont see games as an investment of my time - since i play games to have fun not to invest time. To me that argument makes no sense at all. So the best purchase you ever made is your doormat since you use it daily for a decade? Or your work-office chair since you sit on that 8+ hours a day? Or that nail you used to hang up that picture that holds that picture 24/7 365 days a year? If a purchase is worth it to me is defined by: - am i having fun with it - how are the costs compared to other similar items - how is the quality of the product But may i sell you your next chair for 5k? Because if you use it for lets say 7 years 6 hours a day - that would mean you only pay 0,32 USD per hour - what a bargain! Sorry i really dont understand when people started with this weird metric for buying games - especially since this pretty much makes grind-mechanics seem like a good thing.

I know that its too early to say that - i just wanted to say that in my opinion if things continue like this i doubt that it will be a success. Also i wouldnt worry if it wasnt a niche game i enjoyed a lot. Lets be realistic - without KSP - is there even a remotely similar game for that niche? Also those quotes - its always easier said than done - and thats probably also the reason why 80% of all Kerbal creations fail

Its not "agove my range" its just not a price im willing to pay for a game - except if a game would have an exceptional ammount of content and quality. Also you dont seem ot get my main issue - its not the price its the game actually flopping. And i wont buy it later on at a discount since if they do it like this the game will probably flop anyways and never get the modding/community KSP1 has which is what makes KSP the game it is to me. Im not going to buy crumbs afterwards. I could even play the game right now with my hardware but i wont and i simply hope they will realize sooner than later that they cant continue like this if they want the game to be a success.

You dont seem to understand my primary issue - its not just not wanting to buy the game at this price but also the future of the game and this niche - it was bad enough when the RTS genre pretty much died - there is even less games in this niche and i really want it to succeed. It also makes no sense to me to buy it later at a discount since if the game flops even the discounted game wont be worth much to me since there wont be a big modding scene etc. to make this game actually as great as KSP1. I think at 70 USD this game would definitely flop hard. Even modern AAA games had awful launches at this price point - for example Forspoken. The problem is - they pretty much destroyed a lot of potentially better ways to sell the game right now. Not sure if someone reads this but an idea to save the game and keep the price reasonable: - Make for example interstellar a DLC (its not like the first thing ppl will do is interstellar it would also speed up development since i doubt that Interstellar is easy to implement) - Give that DLC to anyone that bought it in EA - sell the main game at a cheaper price without it - make a free version of the game with very limited functionality (for example just a few basic parts and things to do to get people interrested) From my point of view this game needs to get people to switch from KSP1 and needs to gain a new audience - since KSP2 needs lots of players that attract modders.

They should since the recent news actually are a huge problem for EA sales. Also they could - "Funding of KSP2 is secured for the next 2 years and EA sales have no effect on the future of the funding of this game" and/or "no further layoffs are planned in the KSP2 team to ensure constant and fast development of the game" etc. or "we decided to adjust the price to 30 USD to reflect the state of the game sold at the moment" or "we decided to change from EA to a pre-order" etc. I have lots of EA games - and i have no problems with supporting any of them - i even supported Kickstarter games. But in this case the price/product ratio simply isnt good. And i am concerend about the games future if it continues like this because i am a fan of the game and was looking forward to KSP2 for a long time - i also seriously want to play it ... People may not believe that but i seriously would be extremely dissapointed when this game would be canceled or flopped hard - since i enjoy this niche and there isnt much besides KSP to fill it so this game has to become a success - but i cant see that success right now without a lot of changes. Normally yes - but if you sell as EA and pretty much let consumers carry a lot of your business risk its different. EA to me is more like an investment in a game (my profit is a great game and my risk is never getting a full game) than a simple purchase.

For me its pretty simple - the quality and content of the EA release does in no way reflect the price tag to me. The recent news about layoffs at their publisher and cutting costs at their DEV Team (Tech Director) arent reassuring to me at all. Im not buying into Hope because EA means im buying the game as it is now. Especially since there is no information on when this game is supposed to be finished and looking at how it looks now i doubt it will be finished any time soon (1-2 years+ seem realistic?) I would be okay with most of the risk and the state of the game at a reasonable EA price - for example 30 USD. But i also have to say - even if the game becomes everything they want to do according to the roadmap - never would i buy this game for 60-70 USD (the FAQs state they want to raise the price even more at release). The game would need way more content and way higher quality in graphics etc. for me to justify such a price.

EA by the definition of Steam is selling the version at the time of purchase as is. You just buy that and nothing else. Even if they would never do an update or never release the game you would have no grounds to get a refund/sue etc. Therefore Steam states in their FAQs that: https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/store/earlyaccess So yes you are not supposed to do roeadmaps etc. and sell hopes because thats not what EA is and it creates a false image of what people are actually buying and probably could become an issue at some point if everything goes wrong - which we probably all hope doesnt happen. So the main difference is what you buy. EA means you buy the BETA etc. sold to you at the time of purchase and nothing else - therefore the price should reflect that. Most games obviously will continue to develop but you have no guarantees etc. A Pre-Order is the purchase of a future finished product according to the product descriptions and officiales messages by the company. So they actually have to deliver a the product they are describing and selling in the future. You also also request a refund at any time prior to the release of the title when doing a pre-order. Thats the reason why 99% of all other EA games sell EA at a big discount - because its a form of purchase where the individual consumer suddenly carrys the business risk. For example: Developer X develops Game A: 1) sells it as EA but at some point of development stops funding and never releases the game because of business reasons 2) sells it as pre-order but at some point of development stops funding and never releases the game because of business reasons As a consumer i can do almost nothing at 1) i still have access to the last EA version and thats it. In case of 2) i simply do a steam refund since its before release and get my money back - nothing lost - nothing gained. Thats my opinion and how i understand that mechanic.

I would really like to know how important that DEV was since looking at his job description and at what people write here it sounds like this was a big decision that could actually harm the game a lot. They already arent that fast and have already delayed and now they get rid of the guy that "Lead the engineering team that built Kerbal Space Program 2" their Tech Director weeks after EA release? This obviously isnt a good sign since changing the lead will normally always slow down development and depending on how much he was involved in the actual technical development this sounds really bad. Honestely the last thing this game needs at this point is cut costs - they need to deliver as fast as possible to compensate for the bad launch and the high EA price. Im becoming more and more concerend since i was always wondering why they would even release the game right now knowing its state and at that price ... (if funding wasnt an issue a delay of the EA release or a way cheaper EA release would have been the obvious choice) - i dont think that they gained anything by releasing the game in this state in EA.

I want information that actually makes me feel secure about a purchase for 50 USD. I know what he said but i also found it weird how he said it which is why i pointed at the things i wanted more clarity about. If there are layoffs coming and the general reviews are negative its not very reassuring when someone writes "continuing as planned and we will continue to provide updates about the game throughout the coming weeks and months" - at least to me when the game is probably far away from a release within the next year. But yes maybe im reading to much into it - who knows. Also messages as "KSP2's development is continuing as planned " isnt very reassuring to me when the next news i read is that the Technical Director leaves because of cut costs. The person that "Lead the engineering team that built Kerbal Space Program 2". If t his wasnt EA i would have way less questions but EA means that consumers suddenly take a business risk at almost full AAA price - people should have questions. I do realize that he probably doesnt know everything and cant say everything still - when the purchase of a product actually inclucudes a lot of risk since its not a pre-order its obvious that i want more clear answers - but thats probably not his job - but maybe he can talk internally and maybe they can make some official statements to reassure their customers and potential customers. This would be different if it wasnt an EA release.

Sorry but you are wrong - if you buy a normal pre-order you are guaranteed a product according to descriptions, marketing etc. in the store you bought it combined with official statements. "Hopes and Plans" actually are legally binding if you sell a product as a pre-order with those things in the product description. Even marketing statements etc. are binding depending on how you word them. There is a huge difference between EA and Pre-Purchase - but to be honest i wonder if EA would actually be binding in all details in court since consumer rights tend to overrule lots of things for good reasons. Yes and that is why most games either sell a cheaper EA with where nothing is binding besides giving out the version at the time of purchase or dont do that at all. The main difference between consumers and companys is business risk and business profits. You cant just push your risk to consumers without boundaries. Anyways the recent news (general layoffs and Technical Director cost cutting) seems awful to me - getting rid of the engineering lead is a really bad sign to me. I'm now sure i wont take the risk at 50 USD. Especially not without way more information and guarantees that i will actually get a game. Things would look different if the price would go down - i would be willing to risk more at for example 30 USD.

I get that - still you probably also understand that we want as much information as possible but it makes sense that you probably cant give us that. Since i made another thread and im not sure if anyone will respond officially - i was wondering could you tell us if the EA version is the most recent version you have yourself or just a cut down stable version? It would be nice to know that the build in development is further ahead when it comes to features.

I think at this point the train feels more like someting like this: or this (somewhat stuck): Lets hope the rest of development will run smoother than the launch and that the first few patches will be huge and good.