Yaivenov

I said the exact same thing to my friend when I saw the debris during final relight.

This is exactly why I refer to T2I as the investment bankers. They just specialize in a particular form of entertainment media for their investments. This is also why it was such a bad sign for the IP to be bought by them. Investment bankers simply have different motives and priorities which are typically in opposition to the motives and priorities required for the creation of quality art; the creation of quality art requires that profit be subordinate to other priorities, and that is simply not the case at a hedge fund.

Don't wait too long. My refund was refused due to purchasing it so long ago regardless of the lack of play time or the misrepresentation in their advertisements. Yes I did it through the "I have a question..." real person, not the automated denial system.

Perhaps I can summarize in neutral language. A chief director of game development should be intimately familiar with every facet of gameplay and game design and this should also be done without interposing any factors that could obfuscate the true state of these facets. Mr. Simpson's fidelity to this axiom appears to be in question.

The simplest implementation would be a co-operative/limited multiplayer style with guest players tied to the host's instance, but able to look around and take control of specific kerbals or craft within the physics rendering area. Time warp is controlled by host and use is deconflicted through player communication.

I'd be interesting in knowing how many players would have never purchased KSP2 if they had known it was a rip and not a rebuild. I certainly would not have.

It would seem like one of the motivations for secrecy was to conceal the fact KSP2 was a straight rip of KSP1 rather than a ground up rebuild; something the entire community of KSP1 knew needed to happen for any real advancement/expansion of the game mechanics. Any communication between subject matter experts like HarvestR, LGG, Scott Manley, et alii would have immediately revealed this fact and communication of such to the community would likely result in reduced sales of KSP2.

Choosing a creative director with a track record of making grandiose promises and then not delivering was the second (huge) red flag. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior and Nate Simpson has I believe three different failed game titles to his name with KSP2 making his fourth. One more failed project and he'll be an Incompetence Ace. The first red flag was when an investment bank bought the IP.

Indeed. Gabe for president?

The part that truly upsets me the most is the disruption to the KSP community and KSP1 playership. KSP2 didn't just flop. It also split the community against each other and drove away many people.

Valve putting an income cap on the early access program might be a fix. As in if the sum gross income of the studio and all associated parent corporations exceed a threshold they may not use Steam EA.

Full disclosure: bought KSP2 for $50 when it came out. Unplayable. Sat on it expecting development. Tried again after updates. Still unplayable. 4.8 hours total game time since purchase 15 months ago Finally requested a refund citing several reasons (especially the violation of EA policy by making explicit claims of future development) but I definitely mentioned the closure of the developer studio. The response? Lilian directed me to contact the developers. Yeah. Thanks Lilian.

Not wrong. I'd only believe the sincerity of the likes of Manley or Dodd. People who were rocket nerds first and just happened to fall into influencing.

Quite. With the now-indefinitely-delayed interstellar features of KSP2 I am now once again eyeballing whether or not I can somehow merge Interstellar Extended into my V1.23.3 RSS/RO/RP-1 build. Would anyone happen to know if there have been any major compatibility efforts in the last year?

I think an apt description of what KSP2 should have been would be the "optimization of the KSP1 physics and feature code on an improved engine allowing the implementation of features not feasible in the original program." Or at least that's what I always seemed to infer from the developer's statements. Logically, the very first thing they'd need to do would be to hammer down a fully functional and streamlined physics system, ie. KSP1 without the Kraken as all else would be living within that system, and then conjoin it with a likewise optimized graphics system. All else, art assets, feature code, etc. comes after these two most critical functions of the program are established. And it just doesn't seem like they got there with those aspects thus hamstringing all other development. I postulate that they perhaps didn't have enough math skills for those two tasks. Who were the coders assigned to this task, what is their level of mathematical literacy?