RockyTV

They could've tested both qualities in both cards. It shows to me and other skeptical players that they don't care at all and they are just continuing with deceiving players and constantly disappointing us.

Care to explain why the benchmarks were performed in two different graphics card from two different brands? Why not test low and high specs on the same card? This is literally not informative at all.

I don't know why this showed up in KSP2. What is Intercept doing different from KSP1 that we never had a problem like this back then? Are they literally storing object information to the registry and using the instance ID as the subkey, which as others pointed out, it changes every time the game is launched? As for the data they're storing, is this a consequence of not using ConfigNodes as KSP1 used? Why store this information on the registry and not on files? And lastly, this just adds more fuel to the fire that Intercept Games don't even know what they're doing, as pointed out by other members. This is shameful. And mark my words, it will take a week for this hotfix to be released, because it's critical but not critical enough that it should be fixed on the next day after confirming and reproducing this bug. Judging from the past where Take2 doesn't like Linux, I don't believe this will be a problem for them. Even then, the PlayerPrefs docs page on the Unity website list the location for each OS where this class is saved to: so if they ever release a Linux client, if they use PlayerPrefs it will be saved to a different location other than the registry. (and interesting observation, UWP games store it in a file inside AppData, why are standalone games using the Registry?)

3 weeks later and it's finally here. ETA for next patch?

They are. IG is a studio created by Take2 after they cancelled the contract with Star Theory (which was contracted to develop KSP2 and Take2 attempted to purchase them, only for the CEOs to refuse and Take2 poach half of its employees). How well this worked out in the end? The EA release is completely broken. Because the same way everyone tries to say T2 is to blame for the rushed release, they are also saying they are to blame for delayed patches. The patches are up to the developers to release, aren't they? They should've released a patch by now already, at least to fix some severe bugs (hello UI calculations being reduced by 50%???). And judging from the interview @Delaylinked, the devs knew exactly how the game was and decided to not do anything about it (not even release a day-1 hotfix/bug fixing patch) makes them responsible for the state the game's currently in. So, yeah, we're not disagreeing that it's T2 fault for the rushed release but the devs knowing it and deciding to not do anything to polish the release, or release in this state and release a bugfix maximum a week later, they are also the ones responsible for the crappy state the EA release is in. My point is, they know exactly what's going on and the way they handled it just tells me and other fans that they shouldn't be trusted at all. It feels like they're dropping an F-bomb to fans while trying to not make it look obvious by releasing occasional updates to pretend they're working on something.

If this is true then this just made me not trust IG anymore. If they knew the state of the build that was released to the public, why the hell did they release it anyway and not release a hotfix, if they knew about these bugs a while before the game was released to the public?

In other words: we can expect patch 1 to be as buggy as the EA release because the same QA team that, for some reason, didn't find the game breaking bugs we've reported since release, is doing the QA for the patch, and back then those findings didn't allow for the release date to be pushed back. It's not like IG is a contractor hired by Take2. They are owned by Take2. They aren't a small studio. Anyone with a multi-billion dollar company behind their funding and resource management is not "small". If you'd ask people in these forums they would say it's not fair to compare Wube Software with KSP2 devs and they might even say Wube is not a small indie company. Because yeah Wube has a multi-billion publisher behind them and they can use their resources whenever they want, right? Yes they can. David Vonderhaar from Treyarch went public saying it wasn't their fault (3arc) that Black Ops 3 (or 4) was riddled with loot boxes. They went public saying those decisions weren't theirs, but Activision's. So yes. Unless IG is actually scared of being removed from KSP2 development, there's no reason to think they aren't accomplices to this excrementsty behavior in the games industry. Let's not forget that Take2 "fired" the original KSP2 devs and poached them to work for Take2 instead: https://www.videogameschronicle.com/news/2k-allegedly-pulled-ksp2-from-its-developer-then-poached-its-staff/ The thing is, they can be public about it to a certain extent, I agree with you they must have a NDA or something. But Take2 taking "revenge" on them for revealing the excrementsty publisher practices would just look bad for them. I started to question whether it would be a good thing that KSP was bought by Take2 (and I expressed my opinion here) and now we can see that it's definitely not a good idea.

Wanted to chip in that I just requested a refund on Steam, if anyone bought it on release day and don't like the fact that it's been 2 weeks and IG just confirmed on their discord that the patch is not coming this week (and probably next week), I'd suggest you do the same. Will check back in 1-2 years time; if the game gets good I'm buying it again. But I'm really inclined to not give money to them anymore after this crappy attitude towards launching bugfixes in a EA game...

I have to agree with you that they do bend the rules in their favor, but these are definitely not reason enough to justify a removal from the Steam store.

Oh this is interesting: They gave us a EA roadmap with colonies and other solar systems. They promised things that might end up not happening during the EA cycle. Also: literally doing the opposite, charging a higher price and then claiming the game will have a price increase just so no one can say they are being shady by charging a AAA price for an incomplete EA release.

Well, early access is literally open beta testing. If they want to withhold patches until they are stable enough, might as well change the release state from Early Access to released. Then done, no problem, they can withhold patches for how long they'd like. They have a huge user base to do a huge amount of QA. They can definitely skip QA for some trivial fixes like KSC being dragged with your rocket, or performance issues. But no, they want to internally "test" it (which is a bit worrying since their internal testing didn't pick up any of the issues everyone reported) before releasing it to a testing public. From the documentation itself at https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/store/earlyaccess

Well that's clearly what happens with KSP2, if they had a minimal amount of QA or testing the game breaking issues everyone is reporting wouldn't be there in the first place.

Well, it technically is if we look at its price, $49.99 SRP makes it qualify as a complete product, I guess. If by hearing more you mean frequent patches then yes, otherwise just coming to the forums once in a week and saying "hey! we added more fixes to our list of fixed issues for the next patch which will be released sometime soon!" doesn't really do anything to get people to restore their trust in the devs. Also, for those that argued with me and pretty much said it's a dumb thing to demand a more-or-less working, decent product in EA: I realized this type of releasing half-baked products is the industry standard now and not just for games. I was talking to a few coworkers of mine today and they told me that my company does the exact same thing I'm complaining about for IG and KSP2. They promise a ton of things and then they have to deliver. The problem is, it's not me, you or casual, random players. Other huge companies depend on the products the company I work for is promising/developing, so things get more complicated. So, yeah, the industry itself has a problem where there are lots of promise and lack of delivery. We're talking about a EA product here so we can take it a bit easier, but there were SEVERAL AAA games released recently that were literally half-baked games because they promised too much to create hype, get people to buy the game, then they could slowly polish the game whilst also trying to maintain the hype up so people won't lose interest in the game. Which doesn't seem to be happening with KSP2, honestly.

No, I'm treating the game they way it should be: it's unacceptable that there are several game breaking bugs at this state and the least we get is a dev saying it will take up to 3 weeks for the first batch of patches to be released when I've paid 50 euros for a broken, open-beta game. EDIT: in case it's not obvious, thanks to this, ahem, high game complexity and development story, the game is losing players day by day, for the past 4 days it couldn't even maintain an average above 4k players, while KSP1 has 2x the amount of players.

HarvesteR's way worked for their limited resources. IG has an infinitely amount of resources at their disposal and still manage to be worse than the small team that made KSP1. Anyway, it's difficult to convince people that had lots of copium doses that what's going on is unacceptable for a company this size and with lots of resources and new tech at their disposal compared to 12 years ago when KSP1 released. I'm waiting for the first patch and if there are still game breaking bugs and the second patch will be released 2-3 weeks later I'm fighting my way for a refund on Steam.