Fizzlebop Smith

The issue is "proof is in the pudding" so to speak. The scenario you suggest requires a degree of foresight, every body involved might not possess. I agree? An abyssmal failure may prevent future EA by same developer from succeeding. Some people might not view that as a small sum and even if it were, that is side stepping the issue of accountability. As laws continue to push for more and more corporate rights what single action could assist the consumer in using their money to make such an impact? I think Allowing for refund for extenuating circumstances, like flagrant misuse of the EA platform would be a great feature. This would of course need to be backed up with some objective statement that can be evaluated. Depending on how they proceed will depend on whether I push for a refund. I have made a hand written letter that I am trying to clean up. It will accompany the digital version. If they rubber stamp a 1.0 on this game.. I will reach out to customer support weekly.

I think I rapidly cycle through the various stages of grief on any given day.. anger does seem to be the most present emotion. Always had trouble deflecting sadness into anger. I've started my meditation routines again.. I don't want to get angry over the progress [or lack] for a video game. For Christ's sakes.. it's a GAME. But I LOVE kerbals.. inlove KSP. 93% IIRC of all KSP1 reviews are positive...somebody excrements all over the penultimate singularly favorite form of digital entertainment. ALL over it. I just want to know who I can rightly blame. The only person I can seem to focus on is Nate. There is the face of Kerbal kind ATM and the person that made the promises and decided on creative direction. Where the hell are the engineers? ugh

Most of the EA indie titles I've followed have good relations and do rather well. I was unaware that it was abused by the little guys .. but makes perfect sense now that inam looking at it through a wider lens. What @PDCWolf brought up has been my biggest issue with this title. Follow Through

I was trying to think of various things Valve can to to help preserve the integrity of what Early Access was intended. If you read the missions statements from the EA program, it's seems clear it was intended to promote small companies without the means to fund a good idea. EA would be proof of concept & the launch would essential be a proposal to potential investors. This may not be a perfect analogy, but there needs to be something in place to help prevent bloated major gaming companies from gobbling up this section of the market space. It reminds me about the decline of small business in America as corporate lobbying power continues to initiate changes geared at supporting big corpos. Anything my inexperienced mind could imagine could be circumvented. Revenue Caps, Developement Team Size could all be navigated with loops holes or work around. Hope there can be enough consumer related impact. I know I will not join TT backed EA again. Nor will I get excited by any hype delivered by Nate Simpson.

I use this mod In addition to a few parts / contracts mods to establish a more colony type playstyle. The contract mods assist in creating some mission content to build bases and use rovers to explore.

That was one of my biggest gripes when FS dropped. Science disparity over Mission. Somewhat mitigated a bit later on with certain science unlocks.. but by an large the early aspect of exploration gameply is essentially placed behind a wall. Select appropriate next stage booster or fail to maintain the curve &get locked out... seems to run completely counter to the style of play fostered by the first. There is a slider that can adjust rewards, but it easily creates imbalance once you reach certain gains. If more effort we taken to balance that exploration gameplay loop.. I think you would have had more people content to play during that long period between updates.

I agree... about the products serial super hyper I have no idea how nate behaves to those around him. People have praised him with their comments, but a couple things have put a sour taste in my mouth. It seems there is a distinct specific image for what KSP2 was supposed to be and that there is little room for anything else. This could just be me desire to attempt and foist the blame on an individual.. but I guarantee if someone were to sit down with Mr. Simpson and ask them "do you think KSP2 was a succes, if not why?" You would here "yes" and this is why.. we pushed the bounds of ... blah blah Or No.. every reason under the sun that does not suggest personal accountability (E.g. I do not think "I could have done *this* better would be something he ever says) They didn't burn / tar & feather snake oil salespeople simply for selling the oil. No the anger amd frustration resulting in a mob mentality came when the oil failed to deliver on its promised restorative abilities.

My own personal thought regarding the failure of this title. largely revolves around community engagement & follow through, but boils down to mismanagement. They mismanaged community interactions, for sure. I know Jack excrements about the internal workings of the developement game, but I know what BS smells like & know you don't end up with the situation we had without internal prioritization being off. There was definitely a disproportionate amount of effort focusing on visual effects VS strong foundation of code. I could care less about a title taking 10 years to leave EA . There are many communities that do not engage with game developers. KSP is not one of those communities I cannot help but feel if there were more technical dev blogs, timely KERB reports, a willingness to let the CM engage the community in a more meaningful way... that We would have forgiven much and united behind the KSP2 banner. It felt the information we did get was disconnected, disingenuous and in most extreme situations outright deceptive. Community love & hate can flip back and forth with the drop of a single patch. Trust Is a much more difficult quantity generate.

The CMs certainly are not at fault. They only acted within the scope of their abilities at any given time. Thay must have been a pretty excrementsty burden to bear... wanting to talk about really cool stuff thay was almost ready .. just need to figure this out or that.. and not getting to talk about it at all. I feel like the CMs kinda got the crappiest deal of all. The industry has exploded since early 00's. A vote based system to enter EA is longer relevant. And I know nothing is perfect.. a large group of angry incels could still slam whatever feature and initiate unfair action. But with people behind the oversight, this would be obvious. This sentiment has been fermenting for a bit over a couple (one) other titles I wanted to be excited about but feel developers employed less than genuine approach to EA. It may shape up to be alright in the end.. the massive breach of trust doesn't occur in the community over singular incidents. It's not like we freaked out over price, or routine delays in communication, then postponed delays of communication, lack of technical dev blogs, incinere AMAs... it was a culmination effect. @chefsbrian obviously titles with awesome customer relations and positive review rating would not be one brought to question. im not asking anyone to adopt a unilateral set of qualifiers for EA. Merely adhere to the standard each puts forth on their own EA store page. Each one answers certain questions about what EA means to them & how they intend to approach various benchmarks for the guidelines. There isn't even a scope set forth in the guidleines with a set of minimum acceptance criteria.. beyond game must be playable & not provide blatantly inaccurate info. There is no minimum required engagement for the community feedback nor a set bar for how frequent we should get announcements of any kind. But the development staff sets that expectation when they fill out the little questionnaire & it enters into writing. That is the first step of a relationship where trust Is a factor. That trust is based on what we read on that page. (Very few read anything outside the Steam page)

That is my biggest upset. Since I have started this conversation on a couple mediums.. I heard steam had a Greenlight requirement for EA. People keep tossing the EA agreement in my face.. but I'm trying to bring attention to the individual developers respective commitment to those EA guidelines. Each title in Early Access has a section where the developer addresses various bullet points and essentially lays out their Early Access modus operandi. This is what i think should be the criteria to determine if violations occured bc this is where that relatuonship of trust begins read this page.. if i give you my money, i am trusting you to do those things your promised.. right thete in writing. what did they ever say they were going to get the community involved? Was it bc they thought it was going to be all golden atta-boys at launch? If they playtested with actual gameplay.. they should have known better, right? I mean ever step of the way IG tripped over communication.. because they are the ones to make the promise. And therefore should be held to it. Other games i feel violate for other reasons.. promising a rapid patch cadence with subsequent hotfixes.. and several months pass without any reason why. not wanting everyone to get shut down for this or that.. just a way to make the voices heard and have a push notification that says "EA warning received - do better"

The idea is to get a company to adhere to the promises they make on their store page when they enter into EA. The community is an important part of EA.. right there on the Steamworx page. It is up to the developer to determine the level communication and what method that takes. Once they have put their proposed commitment to EA.. they should be upheld to thay standard. I promise my client / customer / boss a report each week.. I'm quite certain they would wonder why I had failed to deliver something that was promised. I am not Advocating that we require each and every developer to start an in depth q&a process. However, they should be held accountable when they fail to deliver things that were promised during EA. I am not referring to content / feature we failed to receive, but those commitments regarding EA itself that were violated. Steam does not put the writing in stone but instead provide guidelines. I am suggesting steam hold those accountable if they do not honor their own commitments. And as insensitive as it may sound.. as a type 2 bipolar I understand all to well shutting down when I am unable to cope. However, my customers expect me to honor the letter of our agreements regardless of the fragility of my current state. We already have a method and manner for registering complaints regarding the title in question.. I am proposing a way to register complaints against the developing party. Corrective action is requested in various fields all the time. A report is logged.. steam requests internal review. No resolution steam conducts review. "I have been so depressed over excrements posting I cannot bear to continue the title" still goes a long way to repairing trust. Regardless, 7 years of zero developement if coinciding without any communication at all absolutely should be grounds for a refund.

Thank you @Scarecrow71 for the suggestion. It resulted in a discussion instead of just an attempt to gain support. Which is always preferable. My thoughts focus on the communication aspect mostly, bc it is easiest to point and cry foul. I have no clue if everything was legit at the start of EA, but I sure as heck know it fell apart somewhere along the way.. and we'll before the WARN notice. They can point to the dev blogs and claim meaningful content.. i disagree but realize the subject matter relevance is .. well subjective. Some may have felt it was meaningful. I can absolutely point to the KERB reports as A failure for the developer to honor the commitment they set forth regarding timely communication cycles. The days of EA being strictly indie titles is over but we must try and preserve them integrity for those other precious gems in the rough. Most indie developers are so passionate you get tons of info on what's going on. I feel Skylines community was similiarly disillusioned.

That has to do with internal politics regarding the parent / publisher / developer. I am talking about whether people feel Intercept Games approached Early Access in the spirit it was intended : primarily two way communication between community / developers. I feel it was handled as a big title launch, not ground up EA.

I posted this in a couple threads before someone suggested I Start one. In the past, a couple threads were moved into more obscure areas bc they threads did not openly discuss KSP2. So I had a thought.. do you feel KSP2 violated the spirit of Early Access? Did they make false claims at all? Did they honor their own commitment to the EA standard as described by the words posted on steam store page? There have been too many amazing titles produced through EA to dismiss it. But I feel that others may use it to recoup developement costs before it is ready. Some developers treat EA as the same as 1.0 & maintain radio silence. I ask those of you who wish to challenge the current paradigm to please sign this petition to encourage an option to initiate Valve Review. There should be some way the community has to ensure that those they placed their trust in.. do not blatantly abuse the trust. I understand things happen, studios die, games do too...the nature of things. This petition is not to address games that fail.. or have subjectively terrible gameplay. This is all about trying to establish some form of accountability when there is a perceived violation of EA tenets. I have my personal feeling and think communication was NEVER genuine after the dev blog on heat effects. https://www.change.org/p/steam-early-access-reform-advocating-more-oversight-accountability I want to hear from you both ways. Do you feel like IG did its parts or not?

Pretty much done. Something like this only gains relevant attention if it's in right subthread. As it does not pertain directly to KSP2, I would have to post it somewhere next to my fan fiction. (OR My reasoning for injecting into 3 conversations) Considering how many concurrent threads were discussing identical subject matter I used *spam* I'm a very loose sense. However, like with all posts.. you / or others are welcome to report.

Trying to drop a link in a few of the threads where this is being discussed. My hopes for KSP2 are kinda squashed, and my biggest gripe is a lack of clear and open communication. We largely received PR & marketing material as our forms of communication. I am attempting to initiate change with Steams EA policy. I am Advocating an EA oversight / review committee. Once enough people have lereaged legitimate complaints, Valve would be *compelled* to actively investigate and take some form of action This is probably blind optimism regarding anything actually happening... but please sign it. If you feel that EA has gotten away from the intended communication / fund indy goal. I think it is more often used to gauge market viability but that's just my own thought. Here is the link https://www.change.org/p/steam-early-access-reform-advocating-more-oversight-accountability If you know of other communities of gamers disillusioned with a certain developer.. please pass the link among those circles as well. I am hoping that there can be some avenue outside of the customer support / chain of links to fill out. Just a simple pipeline to register complaints, submit argument / proof.. with this potentially viewed on the page as well.

If there are other EA titles that have glacial pace / zero communication to their community.. please pass this link among those circles.

I don't want to Spam the link around and liquid everyone off.. But I am going to drop it in a couple threads I feel are relevant and spread to steam / reddit. I have started a petition that I want to submit to Valve eventually. It requests an oversight process on EA that allows the consumer to report (specifically) a violation of EA spirit / tenants developer proposed on their EA statement. https://www.change.org/p/steam-early-access-reform-advocating-more-oversight-accountability (Link was Acting Up)

https://www.change.org/p/steam-early-access-reform-advocating-more-oversight-accountability I do not know if this will pick up traction or not.. I have started a petition in will submit to Valve once there are enough signature present. It is requesting that they reevaluate their EA policies and implement some type of oversight / review community. This is not intended as a way to voice grievances about price or current state of KSP2. It is instead me attempting to feel productive regarding the situation. I am Advocating More transparency & avenue open to the consumer to report violation of EA agreement / spirit. Please pass the link along and help me get some signatures

I disagree. I think the fact that the entire developer was pruned, proves the point of @Yakuzi. If they came in and cleaned house to clean up general inefficiency, you would have seen a reduction intercept staff. The fact that the WARN noticed extended to the entire company.. and the comment about the *label* will continue to support KSP2 & tales from the shire.. is a sure sign that the developer as a whole was underperforming.

That not against EA standards of practice. There is a somewhat length account of what EA is supposed entail. https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/store/earlyaccess Notice the first two line items under the heading *Best Practices* Your store page should ALWAYS reflect: 1. The current state of your early access game. 2. Most up-to-date planes for the eventual release of 1.0 I cannot think of an EA game that does not discuss roadmap plans with the consumer. Do not do so would violate the spirit of steam early access. The majority of the page discussed publisher / developer responsibility to maintain accurate communication throughout all steps of the EA. That is the primary reason (I feel) KSP2 has had such a rocky EA experience. https://www.pcgamer.com/gaming-industry/marketings-dead-and-i-can-back-this-sht-up-larians-publishing-director-says-players-just-want-to-be-spoken-to-and-they-dont-want-to-be-bamboozled/ This was an interesting article discussing the current paradigm shift about marketing tactics angering the gamer. Apparently we just want an open line of communication.

I am inclined to agree that it is a bogus account. Official communique from companies like TT will always deliver them in some form of legal ease / "corpo" tongue that few outside of those insular circles will be able to understand. One thing i am fairly certain, they would never come out and say that KSP2 was canned to ensure that the newest GTA title was *bug free*. That just doesn't make much sense to me. There will likely be many such fake news in the days / weeks to come.

Ah. I think you can get around it my selecting "paste in plain text format" but I'm not certain. Thay may only be a PC option though. There's enough speculation you can probably kill the next hour.

There are several thread discussing variations of speculation & fact. Also.. typically avoid copy & paste from discord if you could. Due to the way this forum takes that paste.. it captures the background & dark theme users on the forum see nothing at all in your post. The post you pasted predates the announcement of lay offs. Essentially.. no one really know. About 10 different theories

I agree with you. [Snip]