Moons

Well it would be easier to even think about buying it with more information. And recent news actually make me more concerend - especially when thinking about why and how this EA release went. I would have prefered a pre-order with Beta-Access that would at least have given me the guarantee to receive a finished product - with EA i actually only buy the alpha/beta as is without further privileges.

Just to be perfectly clear - weeks and months? I hope you mean years - since i doubt months is a timeframe in which this game wil realistically be the game presented with the roadmap? Is funding for KSP2 secured for the time it will probably take to finish the game - i doubt that will be less than 1-2 years? Im seriously more and more worried. I was already somewhat alarmed by how the release happened since it made no sense to me if everything was fine to release a game in this state and not just delay it and not only that but also at a completely absurd price - so i was wondering if the EA release actually would be some sort of indicator if the development is still worth it etc. (why else damage your own brand knowingly releasing a rather early build at the price of an AAA game?). I was also alarmed by the fact that a publisher funded game went EA in the first place instead of pre-order with beta-access etc. - which would have guaranteed customers that they will actually get a product. Im really getting worried that this EA release actually affects funding and decisions regarding KSP2s future ... Obviously i lack any information so i would really like some more official statements to reaffirm that everything is okay.

Yeah but RAM is cheap you just have to find the same ram since you shouldnt combine different RAM. Maybe you could look for a cheap used GPU since there is probably a lot of used sales from people that invested in Bitcoin mining and the price drop?

I doubt you will have much fun with KSP2 with your system - you can probably try it but i doubt its fun with heavy FPS drops and everything on low when you could just play KSP1 with mods. Watch out for the refund window. And i dont think i would upgrade for an EA game right now when you can simply buy better hardware cheaper when the game is actually way more developed. If you want a better PC for other games aswell thats a different story. But watch out - GPU and CPU need to make sense - for example buying a high end GPU for a low end CPU wont lead to good results because of bottlenecks.

I dont think so - Expectations are set by Marketing and the Publisher - why should i control what i expect? My expectations are set by a mix of marketing and mostly by the price. When i saw the price i was expecting a pretty stable EA release with lots of content already and a game nearly finished because thats what 50 USD suggests to me and what EA in general suggests. EA means setting a price for what you are selling in the time of purchase - if you set that price almost at full release price than thats what is to be expected since thats how EA works - you pay for the product given to you at the time of purchase with no rights to any further development patches etc. For the same reasons games like Sons of the Forest - also EA - have way more positive feedback even with lots of bugs and lack of content - the game is beeing sold for 30 USD at the moment in EA. I doubt you will have much fun - you can probably try it but i doubt its fun with heavy FPS drops and everything on low when you could just play KSP1 with mods.

I would agree if the game was cheaper - but at 50 USD the updates must be perfect and full of new content. I think they just set up expectations no one can satisfy. (Price+Trailers+KSP1) I do think its important to not voice opinions just once because that would mean that all the critique would dissapear just by time passing and not by improvements of the product. If a bad launch would only get negativity for a short ammount of time - wouldnt that mean that there is no reason to improve later on? Lets hope the game is further in Development than we see and that the EA Build is just a reduced stable build with lots of features cut. I also hope for a discount or general reduction of price soon. Make it 30-35 USD- with tax - and i wont even thnk twice about buying the game.

Honestly you should buy it now. If you dont have KSP1 buy that - its awesome with mods and DLC. You can still buy this game later on when its released and get new Hardware way cheaper at that point. The game probably wont run playable at all or playable in a good way in EA and upgrading now probably is way worse than upgrading when its released or near release.

Yeah you even have the same chaotic reply style i use of constantly adapting and extending your posts so that any further replys turn out to make less and less sense I think im just a bit less optimistic than you but in general i agree. Yeah i also think that didnt make it better. The Trailers were awesome and the marketing good but it was just way too soon and they pretty much killed all the hype they created with this release - if they would have delayed the EA it would have probably worked out for them perfectly. Im a big fan of that trailer: But whoever created it created way to much hype way to soon.

Just because people have different opinions doesnt make them toxic. And it was to be expected that people react in a negative way if you sell a game in a state like this at the price of a AAA full release. Also how does that make you any better - most people directed their critique at the product they bought - you directed your anger directly at the people that voiced their opinion - from my point of view that makes your post more toxic, hissy and bitey - as you would word it. And how is your posting not hostile,agressive, in bad faith etc.? I wouldnt call you cautiously optimistic - your post pretty much seem to suggest a standard development process with almost no issues to me and ending in a success. I on the other hand think that it will already be hard work to even get rid of the negative image and press the game already has. I know im overly negative - but im having a hard time understanding why the game was released like this when everybody knew the state of the game and how EA pricing works. It should have been pretty obvious that the release would be rather bad and that people would be very negative - so im concerend because the release was done anyways especially since the game is funded by a rather big Publisher so the use of EA (usually for funding etc.) doesnt make much sense to me. For example they could have just released the game at 1.0 in the future and used things like open/public alpha etc. to get feedback - or pre-orders with beta/alpha access, or EA release at an EA price etc. I dont think that you are in the right - when people are dissapointed and its about their hobby and a franchise they are a fan of for years their dissapointed obivously will become a bit emotional and exaggerated - i wouldnt assume that thats in bad faith - its just people beeing emotional about their hobbys and games they like. I also dont think that there is clear communication - we neither know the actual state of the game (is the EA build released just a part or everything except unused models etc?), we dont know what realistically is a timeframe for a release at all?, we dont know how much time and money is planned to be invested so we have no idea how a final product can even look - obviously they cant give definitive answers but some clues would be nice. And in the end - isnt that what makes a hobby a hobby and a fan a fan? People were like that way before the internet - just take a look at sports fans, drama in the chess world, how people react to news on stars etc.

Yes in general - without a doubt - If T2 would lose its trust in a game and would come to the conclusion that from a business point of view any further investment would just increase losses im sure they would simply drop a project at some point. Its not about how much time has passed since a launch but about how much more investement is needed for release and what can be earned with the product realistically. And yes the time of release (why not simply delay the release to avoid negative press?) - the quality of the product released - and the price of the release (knowing the state of the game why sell it at 50 USD?) at least seem weird to me (everyone involved should have know that this release wont lead to a positive start - so why do it anyways?). Especially combined with the Fact that it was an EA release and not a pre-order etc. since EA actually means i buy the product as it is in the time of purchase which gives me as a consumer a lot of risk for 50 USD. Obviously thats just a worst case scenario that hopefully will never happen - i just wanted to point out that something like that can happen. I know but i honestly dont do that - especially since im one of those people that spend probably the first 2 hours optimizing the settings ^^ Yes i get your point on Cyberpunk 2077 and Fallout 76 but i wouldnt compare them to this since both were pretty much the flagship product of those companies and i doubt that CD Project Red could even have afforded to drop a project that probably was 80% of their work-output as a company. I also dont think Cyberpunk 2077 was nearly as bad as people pretend it was - i was able to play it at release with rather few bugs compared to its size and missing standard features were bad but still left the game in a playable state.

I use Discord - just not very often and mostly for the things its meant for - small groups of friends, other smaller communities etc. - whenever i use it to look into an indie game that mainly uses Discord it just reinforces my views (at least any indie game with more than lets say 50-100 ppl in Discord). Yes but why does that matter - 15-30 hours is probably more than the average buyer spends on a game, and 15-30 hours would also be way too much time for people that just launch random rockets straight upwards.

I dont understand people like you - you call others "venomous reptiles" - probably people with a different opinion than yours - just to stir up more drama and toxicity? Sorry i really dislike it when people are so derogatory towards others ... I also dont understand how people can be so overly positive - the product sold now is the rather underwhelming "alpha" at a price of 50 Dollars - thats what you actually buy - everything else is something you have no right to according to how EA purchases work. Looking at the state of the game now and at the release i am not nearly as positive as you. I seriously wonder why the game was released like this at this price - since that was a deliberate decision and i am sure everyone involved knew the state of the game and how EA pricing usually works. I'm seriously worried that the future of the game could be tied to the success of the EA start. I'm really having a hard time to come up with a logical reason on why the game was released in this state - and if they really wanted to do that then why at this price. The reception would have been completeley different at 30 USD - i would also have instantly bought it and would have been okay with a buggy build with lots of features missing because the price would have reflected that.

50 Dollars still is a lot of money to many people - its enough to buy food for a week if you cook yourself. Sometimes i wonder if people that write something like that even have to work for their own money. I mean even if i can afford to to buy something for 50 Dollars - like probably most people - doesnt mean i wont expect something for it ... No you definitely dont know the words you are using - i dont feel anything about that - i just pointed out that you obviously used a term without knowing the meaning. Your next argument makes no sense aswell - so because XY costs X aswell the price-performance ratio of something else is not to be talked about?

No and no. Thats not something i would pay f ull AAA price for. And beeing a "first step" isnt nearly enough for 50 Dollars - especially since its 50 Dollar for the game as it is and not fore something in the future i have no guarantee for. I get what you are saying but sadly i think your last statement is wrong - there is no "we already invested so we will invest more until we can sell it" in business. Also nice if the DEVs are passionate but its not a decision that they could influence and to be honest the way this was released into EA while everyone Publisher/DEVs must have known the state of the game combined with the price makes me a bit skeptical - you may call me a pessimist. What i read about the development process also doesnt sound good - sounds like a lot of time and money was already lost since switching developers probably isnt a task that will make development faster and cheaper.

I would like to do that but i also want to play the game - i was looking forward to KSP2 for a long time - i cant believe they made a launch so bad that i actually cant justify buying it ... Which is why im trying to ask some questions (actual state of the game, development time etc.) - but honestly - i cant justify buying a product in this state for 50 Dollars knowing that i buy it as is and they wouldnt even have any obligation to update it or ever finish it since i actually just bought the game as is at the time of purchase according to EA ... Not because i cant afford it - i think almost anyone can buy a single game - but because it would just feel wrong on every level.

You shouldnt use terms if you dont know the meaning. Also what are you even talking about "if your unhappy keep it to yourself or say something positive"? The only one toxic seems to be yourself calling people unhappy voicing their opinions "toxic twits" ... I took that for the regular exaggeration in internet discussions - like people boycotting a game by writing that they boycott it while pre-ordering it and playing it on release I get what you mean - havent bought it yet either. Just feels like an awful release - the price and the state of the game feels like a punch below the belt by a brand i actually liked ... Yes and i also think the main issue is people dont even seem to understand what they buy when they buy EA. Most of them seem to think they did a pre-order when in reality the contract pretty much is that you pay for the version as it is at the time of purchase with no rights to any further content/updates.

Yes its a game - and a game is a product. When you pay money for a product - do you have no expectations? Also its their own fault that people react the way they do - they sold a game as EA - which means people pay for the product they receive now with no guarantee for future updates etc. so they will rate that - and they sold the product as it is for the price of an AAA game - what did they expect would happen? If i go to a restaurant and order a 8 Dollar meal i obviously expect something different than in a restaurant wher ei roder a 80 Dollar meal. And yes if the product isnt of the quality it should be according to the price i wont just accept it and move on.

Doubt that - its not casual at all which is why its a niche game. Yes everyone can launch a rocket streight upwards but that doesnt mean its a casual game since many of the mechanics are mechanics you have to learn and understand - doing landings actually is a rather difficulty task if compared to other games and nothing for casuals. Lets take KSP1 for example - do you think a random casual player could land on one of the further away planets or even the moon and fly back to Kerbal without reading into the mechanics of the game and watching youtube videos etc. within a reasonable ammount of time? Also i think you are underestimating the market for simulation games - a lot. Microsoft Flight Simulator has over 10 Million players. The main problem of modern RTS, Simulation games etc. isnt the potential player base but that many games of that niche simply werent good. By the same logics you could say any flight simulator is a casual game since any casual player can start the game and crash his plane. Wikipedia quote: KSP is pretty much the exact opposite.

Thanks for the answers i hope we get some more official info soon. Sadly thats not just semantics thats actually a really important detail from a consumer perspective. As far as im informed EA means you actually purchase the product as is at the time of purchase without any further guarantees etc. meaning even if the game wouldnt change from that point you couldnt even complain get a refund etc. This is also why i know almost no other EA game at this price since the price has to reflect what you actually buy at that point in time since everything else is out of your hands. If you look at it like that its even less than a Kickstarter. If you pre-purchase something you actually are entitled to the finished product presented in the pre-order. That can be a huge difference. Therefore its important to know the state of the game to assess the risk and make a somewhat informed decision. I doubt that many people even realise what they actually buy when they buy EA.

I probably express myself misleadingly - i meant it more in a way of - how can it only have progressed as far as what we see now when it was already in a state like this 3 years ago (if there really were 50 people working on it for the last 3 years). I didnt mean to say it was in a better state - obviously not.

Looks like a launch to me - and its called "alpha gameplay" so i doubt its just some sort of cinematic video.

Just picking your graphics rating - have you played any new game in the last 10 years? Have you ever played KSP1 with mods that improve graphics especially planets? A+ seems way over the top. That for example is probably top notch modern graphics - that would be my A+:

Since havent found much information and the EA page also doesnt say much on the actual state of this game i wonder if some of those questions could be answered since i think a lot of people would be interrested: First of all a clip from 2019: What i would really like to know is: What is this EA build? - is it pretty much everything that has ben developed up until now minus some assets that have no function yet? - is it just a part of what is already there to show off parts of the product? When will this game be released? - what is a reasonable expectation for the 1.0 build? -- 6 Months -- 1 Year -- 2 Years -- 3 Years -- 3+ Years? What happened since this Alpha Build from 2019? Besides graphical changes and maybe better performance (new hardware would probably also run the old build better)? Will the target systems specs drop dramatically - what is the plan? What type of MP is planned for this game? Some additional questions but probably harder to answer or maybe not something someone wants to answer (important for people still unsure about a purchase): Why was the game released as EA and not as a pre-order with alpha/beta Access? Is the funding of this game secured? Do the sales of the EA Version in any form impact the future of funding? Why was the starting price for this EA game set so high - what are the chances of it going down to a more reasonable level before release?

What really is weird to me is the old footage: This is footage from 25.08.2019 - and its probably a bit older than that. It already has lots of things in the game we see now - how can the EA state of the game right now be at the state as it is now when it was already in this state more than 3 years ago? I would really like to know what happened? Is the EA now just a part of what is already developed? Because if thats most of it besides some more models etc. from cinematics etc. i really wonder when this game is supposed to be finished?

Sounds like a very niche-MP to me (not working for anyone beyond a few very dedicated friends) - and the same could be achieved by simply sharing your crafts via steam workshop communicating via Discord and having one person stream the flight since its not like everybody can do much at the same time. Im not saying its not interresting at all or couldnt be fun - but in reality how many people would do this how often and how much fun would it even be since most people would be passive 90% of the time - so i wonder - is this really worth a lot of development time - especially if it could also limit SP features?