J.Random

And there is a certain aspect of the forums which can't be discussed on the forums, and which probably played not an insignificant role in discussion drought. So now devs and folks wearing rose-tinted glasses are stewing in their own juices. Which is bad for the product but who cares at this point.

Oh, I remember KSP issues. But you do understand that this unironic comparison of yours is kinda ridiculous, right? On one hand you have a supposedly AAA sequel from a game studio led by somebody with a couple of decades of experience, bankrolled by a huge publisher, and, as claimed, building on top of previous success, taking into account all the previous errors and so on, on the other hand there's an actual indie game from a tiny inexperienced team, originally a single dev, branched off from an ad agency. And you had to add the "50 conflicting mods" strawman to the latter and, imo, still failed to make the comparison even remotely favorable towards KSP 2.

I mean, you're not _entirely_ wrong. KSP1 had a very rough development and at times developers made asinine decisions. There were phantom forces (leading to Kraken drives) and physical glitches. But I don't recall - ever - saving at KSC just to return later and on load see the game presenting me a scene with one of the previously launched satellites, pretending it's KSC. I can't recall such drastic trajectory changes, where warping to a circularization maneuver I would find ship's trajectory, instead of being hyperbolic, suddenly representing a free fall collision course. The ablility to launch the same ship twice existed in KSP1 since forever. But in KSP2? There is (or was last time I checked) no autosave of the vehicle when you press the "launch" button. So if you try and load previously launched vehicle, you'll end up with a weird half-complete autosaved version of it. Because screw you, that's why. And because devs don't play their own game. At best, they're playing _with_ it. Pretty sure I said it already in some other thread, but: correct. Don't expect anything. When you're buying an EA title, you're paying the price asked for whatever is available at the time. There is zero (repeat: ZERO, NONE, NADA, ZILCH) obligation to actually finish whatever promised (if promised). You're paying the asked price for whatever is available AT THE MOMENT. End of story. Expect nothing.. And if you don't like it, then don't buy it.

Well, he's too cautious to say it directly, of course. But he did say that the extra year is needed for QA and polish. Of course, he also said "quality and level of polish [the game] deserves". Maybe the EA release day kvolitea is what devs consider deserved by the title, idk.

Arguably, NMS devs never actually delivered on their promises. Instead of alien but believable planetary systems (instead of planets nailed to their positions) leading to alien but believable biomes leading to alien but believable creatures and their behavior and interactions (who else remembers the "predator plant snatching a bird in flight" claim?), they first retconned a "it's all just a broken dying simulation" plot into the game, then dangled the shiny in front of the players, basebuilding and multiplayer (these last two were enough for most of the braindead public to declare that NMS is good now) and went on to creating thematic (mostly boring) "expeditions", barely improving the underlying mechanics.

Were you playing with suspension settings? Because last time I checked, none of the wheels "appropriated" from KSP1 were rigged properly, so changing suspension stiffness would sink the wheel into the ground or raise the wheel above it, and steering would move parts of the model which aren't supposed to move, or those which are supposed to move but in the opposite direction. It's a clusterduck.

It can't be cancelled, it's in EA. It may be abandoned, development stopped and support dropped, but it would almost certainly get labeled as "1.0" at the same time. As in, "Oh, we're so sorry, I guess we were too ambitious and the technology isn't there yet, but, anyway, whatever we have now is 1.0, enjoy, GLHF and thanks for all the fish, we're done here, over and out".

The second question is kinda pointless and vague. It should probably be rephrased as "Do you think it will reach what you would consider 1.0-worthy level of quality". Otherwise it's just a question of whether IG will slap the "1.0 release" tag onto it at some point in the future, which they could do literally today, tomorrow, whenever their T2/PD bosses tell them to and nothing could stop them.

I don't care about their "never been done before" bs. Read the paper.

Erm. No? My understanding is that quads aren't going anywhere. CBT is just an algorithm for fast(-er) splitting/merging of terrain components at the LoD (PQS level) borders.

It's actually seventh (not even counting PSP and other platform spinoffs).

It's called a bullshot. I think I recall somebody mentioning that the scenes were made in the editor and prerendered for the trailer, so no fizzicks, no real-time lighting, just a bunch of parts set in a way to suggest that the game could handle it. In other words, a lie and a fake. You can actually notice that the lighting is quite a bit off in the second shot (look at the shadow "terminators" on the round tanks, leftmost tanks are about "half-moon", while the rightmost ones are so obviously in a "waning moon" state): it seems that whoever made it used point/omnidirectional light and put it way too close to the contraption.

No, no, that part is obvious. I was commenting on the "sponsored" part. I'm assuming that it means that IG paid for their devs to appear, so topic being "interesting" doesn't really matter much. As for what they were working on: well, it was PQS+, the stuff they released. I don't recall them mentioning [snip] CBT at all before the release. So I still have no idea what they were doing for the past 3-5 years.

So I was right in my [snip] prediction. This. Is. Pathetic. And judging by "Format: Sponsored Session", it was probably a management's brilliant idea, agreed upon months before the release. Probably thought up as a "success story" or something. When the video inevitably emerges, here's something to compare it to: 2013.

So devs didn't solve the precision issue as iirc they claimed?

It doesn't really matter what's shown on screen as long as the game is loading in parallel at the same time. Now if it just wastes time when showing all the stupid intros - that's a problem.

I cannot understand how anybody would think that part manager is an improvement, bunching stuff together by type. It works for a three-part craft, but it will be a mess for a 1000-part one. At the very least there should be a way to divide the groups by stage. And it would be better (but also worse in a way) if player could define the zones/modules manually - say, "from this docking port on, it's a lander, keep its parts separate" (and maybe have a separate AG tab for it, which could be toggled on and off) or "from this part to that one is a propulsion module of the craft, keep everything between them in the part tree in a separate area of the part manager".

It's not 2-3 week period though, is it? The current build is very much the same as the one "influencers" used in that promotional event, the videos of which have been released on Feb 20th, and at least once I recall somebody mentioned that the event itself happened about 2 weeks before _that_. So that's close to 5 to 6 weeks for the first patch. Of course, it's impossible to judge how much has been done in those 5 to 6 weeks until there's a changelog and the patch itself.

Kinda OT, but not really, since it's part of UI, kinda. Aren't the "wings" on the floor pointing the wrong way?

Yup. With something like 50% sale literally a day or two before the announcement of "we're done with it, it's 1.0 now, sooooorry."

That phrase in Early Access rules about "not using EA as a funding source" has been added after Double Fine dropped Spacebase DF-9 mid-development and admitted publicly that that's what they were using EA for. Pretty sure they got into trouble with Valve/Steam over that

Well, sure, it won't hurt if you go above and beyond when covering your butt.

You're subjecting yourself to the very fallacy I mentioned. You spent money on KSP2 0.1. That's it. You gave money, you received your money's worth. Neither developer nor publisher owe you anything further than that. EA is definitely not a way to catch more money. Ever since Double Fine incident, if any developer or publisher states anything even close to this, their own legal will tear them a new one. It's directly and very literally against EA terms. "Promises" in promotional materials may - at best - be viewed as a declaration of intentions, nothing more than that. As I said, there are two separate transactions taking place: one monetary, another emotional. If you're mixing them together, you're doing a disservice to yourself. Edit: It doesn't have to, as long as it doesn't clearly and definitely promises a timeframe for the delivery of any feature. Which is why "roadmap" doesn't have any dates or even quarters or years in it. Also, read https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/store/earlyaccess

None of that takes place during the actual exchange of money for the product. That's a very different transaction you're talking about: trust and good will in exchange for promises and diligence. This transaction is deeply personal and emotional, the amounts spent and received on both sides are variable because they're perceived and evaluated subjectively on both sides, and this kind of exchange is not regulated by Steam EA rules (at least not until we all have tracking bugs in our heads). And these two transactions should be kept separate in your mind. They aren't interchangeable.