Search the Community

No, we are just the cash cow to slaughter. The high Lords are not required to talk to the rabble, they already milked us and are now free to do with our money what ever they please.

I did a little sleuthing, and it's (I believe) the oldest parts in all of the mods. I may be interested in sprucing it up, though CardZ has first dibs if he is inclined, we'll talk about it. The Vostok in general is a sizing nightmare, unique because it so tightly integrates with the upper stage, and as it winds up at 1.44m ingame if you take the scaling flat. You will certainly end up with a few weird parts. But that's a problem after I release the Proton (maybe, idk what I'll do next). The Blok-E of course matches Card's new soyuz upper stage diameter 1.625m in game. The capsule would probably end up about 1.5m

I watched 2012 for the first time. I found it to be a pretty entertaining movie, which asks some interesting questions about morality when comes to saving the world, albeit perhaps not so original ones. It was refreshing to watch in 2024 when all the movies seem to be about relatively normal life, while the end of the world talk comes from IRL stuff (barring superhero movies which require a perennial doomsday to defeat). I can’t decide between the oligarch calling an Antonov aircraft Russian or the Chinese Mi-26s airlifting giraffes and other animals as the most funny part. Interesting to note, while the Chinese do not possess Mi-26s, they do operate a number of Sikorsky S-70s, which are partially depicted by way of Blackhawks with PLA insignia also used by the Chinese in the film. Given the neutrino “mutation” nonsense in the beginning, I was thoroughly surprised that the arks ended up being ships instead of spaceships. Considering the shipbuilding giant it is today I’d say the premise of building a massive ark for 100,000 people isn’t too far fetched, although doing it in the Himalayas and in total secrecy might be. I also found it funny that Japan, Russia, and China got stuck on the same boat together. I’m a Japanese person who has an interest in the Russian (well, Soviet) and Chinese militaries. I have seen a loosely similar concept explored in Japan Sinks: 2020, in which many Japanese refugees end up in Russia, Japan Sinks: 2023, in which a good portion of the Japanese population is evacuated to China, and I myself considered exploring the concept with the idea to conduct an amateur study of what kind of resources would be needed to relocate the entire population of Japan to new-built cities in the Russian Far East in the event of either a fantasy Japan sinks scenario or a climate disaster which renders Japanese summers unlivable. The latter is an idea I did not pursue. I also considered looking at the cost of moving the entire country into balloons on Venus, but I didn’t look at it either. My Mars city calculations over in the S&S section have now dissuaded me from taking a look at any such situation in a capitalist context. But I digress. As far as apocalyptic stories or movies go, I like this one in that it has a relatively happy ending. I feel that “man just tears itself apart” type stories are too rooted in Hobbes’ view of man’s “true” nature without civilization, which was never meant to be an actual sociological or anthropological take on humanity and was simply a philosophical argument. The truth is that we are very kind animals. It’s wrong to think that every man and woman would become a murderer the moment the kings and their courts were toppled; I think this idea focuses too much on the way law is used to restrain people and not enough on how morals do too. Yes, we can be violent. But if we were not primarily an altruistic species, I don’t think we would have gotten this far at all. “Men” (I use men in the sense of man vs. savage) created civilization, not the other way around. IMO, of course. Oh, and by the way, I now really feel like Moonfall was just an attempt to emulate what 2012 did but in an over the top way. I think 2012 works because the social phenomena of belief in that doomsday was popular. The idea of the Moon being an alien ark and it crashing in to Earth? At best a few dark web conspiracy lunatics know about it, at worst Roland just made it up himself and hoped people would be interested.

Does anyone know if Kerbal space program one enhanced edition for the PlayStation or other consoles is still getting support or updates? I just picked it up for the PlayStation and really enjoy the game but unfortunately things I see on YouTube videos I am incapable of doing. I was just wondering if we're going to get the same updates at some point. Forums from other locations people talk about the fact that there doesn't seem to be any support for the game and sometimes the last post is as far back as 2022. So I was just wondering I really enjoy the game but I'm wondering if I spent my money in vain due to the fact that I'm not kidding any more support for the game.

30:37 ... I have messaged Nate Simpson cre creative director of ksp2 30:45 and I said look I know you're obviously going to be under some massive corporate NDA so you can't really talk but can you 30:51 tell me anything and all he was able to say was I'm very much looking forward to talking when I can thanks for 30:57 understanding ...

Worth listening to, interestingly Matt reached out to Nate to ask if he could say anything and he more or less just said what the others have been saying; "Can't talk now, maybe later".

When assign blame you have to look at those in key roles.. that why certain individuals have a tendency to shoulder a disproportionate amount of the burden for failure. Nate was the face of this product, for better or worse. I believe he genuinely thought this game would succeed bc the community would be impressed with his awesome vision, so much so that we would be willing to excuse ... certain deficiencies for extended periods of time. When everyone wanted something substantive be the foundation of all those "oooo... purdy!" It kind of fell apart a little. I understand the need for visual aide and demonstrative presentations, but you must find balance. When you hear people say things that are not accurate... they absolutely are going to get some blame for their misinformed position. If they say innacurate things without any clarification to those inconsistencies.. it seems willful. Regardless if that's the case.. the perception starts to shift to one of being intentionally misled. "Fully Funded" - massive lay off "Playable at Launch" "Actual Play Footage" These are what started to turn me off of Nate. Enthusiasm without Substance. I try not to watch any videos with him in it because of this bias. Regardless of what's really going on.. I can see some deceptive marketing material as anything but disingenuous now & view him a smarmy Narcissist. I can't help it.. I wanna be a better person with less judgement in my heart. But loading a bunch of visual content on a liquid poor foundation of code while the community that built the franchise was highly intelligent professional and gifted youths.. I had a step dad who was shaddy as he'll. He was a handyman that took jobs and never completed them.. boy he could talk a great game. I dispised his behavior growing up.. ans seem to now see him when I look at Nate. Sorry can't help it... Community Managers however were not to blame. A thankless job that was impossible to do, bc the proper tools (info) was not provided or allowed to be released.

I feel there was a balance they failed to hit (talking about direction as in the general sense of the finalized vision for the game). The heavy work on tutorials already tells you they were going for "we take this niche game and make it accessible to even more people, it'll definitely sell more." FS! followed on that by simplifying and linearizing the tech tree and having science be a single magic button, where you can absolutely skip even the timers so long as you hit it every time it flashes. Lastly, they also wanted to tell a semi-linear storyline through missions, discoverables and their lore. That part was really good, the new user onboarding was a magnitude better than KSP1. On the other hand, the game really required a strong technical foundation because by the time the difficulty curve of rocket launches and SSTOs is over, almost every player just goes big. Here is where to me they completely failed, by making a game that doesn't support this second bit. Of course now it'll all be woulds and coulds, but it's not hard to see that even without colonies we were already still finding the limits very easily (another example, another one, another). 8000 parts might sound like a lot on that bug report, but that's about a constellation of satellites, a couple rover missions, and a Jool 5 vessel. Meanwhile the game was supposed to allow you to do that on multiple star systems, whilst supporting trust under timewarp... and just no, the game could never be able to do that with the foundation it has. Also, as a last nail in the coffin, they forever handwaved the explanation of how Rask & Rusk (the binary system) were going to work. So yeah, we have a game built on flimsy foundations that they just outright refuse to talk about (remember the promises of HDRP and the system that'd replace PQS? I do), we have only the most basic stuff (yes, science and a tech tree is very basic, deal with it) implemented and none of the complex problems, and not just that but whatever little we have is already making those foundations quake... That's why you can google me saying "technologically bankrupt" multiple times. The balance they failed to implement in game by only including stuff for new people and nothing for veterans, was the same thing behind the scenes: they were doing only the easy stuff whilst completely neglecting the complex stuff and much less having the stones to talk about it. At this point I doubt they even had a plan past "cut everything down as manageable as possible", which is what net us all in one parts, gimped heating, the horrible coordinate reset on ground vehicles, and so on. I doubt they dropped anything in favor of a feature that probably never existed (yes, I saw the screenshot). I'm closer to believing they used multiplayer as an excuse to drop anything too complex/deep that might've further gimped the game's performance.

Yes, Nate also said that this parallel workflow was speeding up subsequent releases versus the cadence of bugfixes... and that didn't happen, with 2 proposed bugfix releases before colonies having failed to even show up let alone have a date for the first one 4 months down the road. That's what I mean with "don't exist": They weren't there, even if under "muh parallel development" they were supposed to start working on stuff as soon as FS! left the dock. Once again, all they could show from colonies was static assets on editor scenes., same kind of hot air they were showing before release saying they had a full game. Allegedly, and that being considered only as a way to have some compassion to their work. Even if this is something they've actively denied and the people working on whatever was scrapped was... themselves still under the same leadership. Sure you could talk licenses, but it's useless if we don't know how much really was lost, that's a magnitude order more conjecture than whether KSP2 is currently dead. This + things like using the same middleware, and hitting the same walls as the prequel with the fuel flow calculations were heavily worrying.

Yeah, it's not so much about how much money the studio can make, but about how much money it can be making in the nearest future. If a studio made a ton of money in the past, but has just released a game and will release the next one in 3-4 years, they'll still get the axe. The problem is that over the past few years, borrowing money was basically free for large businesses. If you weren't borrowing to open up a studio and spin up another project, you were leaving money on the table. Over the past year and a half or so, the fed rates climbed to a fairly high level. Suddenly, all these studios aren't free anymore - you're paying significant interest against the money you've borrowed, and anything that's not generating revenue right now basically becomes a significant drain. Consequently studios get cut left and right despite the publishers taking in a lot of money from sales. The only real conclusion we can make about the IG situation is that nobody expected them to release a polished, revenue-generating game within a year or so. And we sort of knew that from the state of Early Access. There's a game there, but it's not ready for the main marketing push, and won't be ready soon enough to offset the ongoing development costs if you have to pay interest on it. It's hard to say what exactly this means for the future of KSP2 without looking at the overall cash flow of T2, and hey, look at that, earnings call is coming up in a few days. They'll probably talk about IG and R7, but even if not, based on what they have in flight, what's bringing in money, and how much is going to the studios they currently have operating, we'll be able to get an idea of how much money T2 has to spend on smaller projects. Two likely possibilities is that either a) they've cut enough to have a small stream to afford a smaller 3rd party studio to take on KSP2 or b) they are waiting for some upcoming releases to bring in more cash. At the latest, we're looking GTA VI release, as that will inject a lot of capital to spend on other projects. That would mean development resuming in 2025-2026, though, with v1.0 coming in in 2026-2028? But unless the game just straight up gets canceled, which right now it doesn't sound like it will be, that's the worst case scenario. A lot of things can speed it up, and there might be a smaller studio PD is already talking to in regards to KSP2. We should have some idea soon. There is a grim possibility that KSP2 is already effectively canceled, and T2 just didn't want to make the announcement before the earnings call. In that case, we'll also know about it soon. I don't think it's the most likely scenario, but I'd be remiss not to acknowledge it.

A digression about Factorio has been moved here. If you want to talk about that game, please take the discussion there.

Right. That's how business works. T2 will say nothing more until then, and there's no-one left at IG who is a position to talk: anyone still at their desk will be focused on tying up the loose ends and under a strict NDA. So - sad to say, but we have to twiddle our thumbs for at least another week.

TBH I do not understand this kind of stuff. A lot of people here talk like "the community" is a magical thing. I have read a lot of stuff how "this community is not toxic" or something. This community is not a static thing and changes because of external influences. Like the development of KSP2. Honestly the amount of praise "the communitiy" is giving themselves over here is next level cringe. And feels totally out of touch with realitiy.

The problem is that correlation between studio doing a good job with the resources they have and the revenue math is negligible. I mean, it's possible to very clearly and unambiguously be bad at things. If you took publisher money and went on a drinking spree and had absolutely nothing to show for it, yeah, sure. But drawing the correlation the other way, from failed projects to the quality of the team overall, is pretty much statistical noise. In practice, a lot more is determined by the conditions of the project and the IP. Did PD trust your project enough to give you a budget to hire the best people in the field? No? You're kind of boned. People the Intercept hired for physics were just out of academia and had very little game dev experience. They were good at physics, but very, very green in games. Networking engineers they had also never had to work with a game like KSP2. I don't think that's because Intercept just didn't know how to find talented people. They didn't have the budget to hire people who could hit the ground running on absolutely everything. Finally, the engine. The only reason it's a Unity game is because heavy reuse of the KSP assets and code was promised by Star Theory, like, seven years ago, and it's been sunk costs ever since. That limits people you can hire to a specific set of skills, because you make certain kinds of games on Unity, and they aren't KSP. It's a big part of why Intercept ended up having to hire modders. They knew how to work with Unity, how to make things for KSP, and they were probably within budget. Clearly PD wanted to make a game cheap. And the ambition they were sold on was not of a cheap game to make. Not a lot of it is on the studio that was created years after the decisions were made. Some of it is on the people who were at Star Theory from the start, but the majority of it has been PD decisions on how much they value the IP. And the game was still happening. It was a buggy mess, it was wildly off schedule, but we were seeing a game being built. Just not fast enough. Not selling enough EA copies. Not getting glowing enough reviews. Given the same constraints, I don't know if it was possible to do better. You can make a strong argument that people who ended up in charge of the Intercept should not have attempted to make KSP2 with these constraints. And, yeah, maybe? But to say they are a studio that deserved closing more than another studio because they decided to try is at a minimum a very cynical thing to claim. And I would argue unfair. And then there are so many factors on top of that. It's not just about money you've earned it's how much you're going to earn soon. Again, Tango Gameworks are a great example. Hi-Fi Rush went above and beyond. Critical success, glowing user reviews, and it recouped its development costs several times over. Studio gets shut down. At the same time, the studio working on Fallout 76, whose beta launch makes KSP2 EA look good and who are running a bill tens of times higher are allowed to keep going. Because they are maintaining a title that continues to make money, and Tango Gameworks would have to start working on another game that will maybe be as successful as Hi-Fi Rush four years from now. So a studio that performed great got shutdown, and a studio that's been making mediocre work, taking years to put 76 back on track and massively over budget is allowed to keep going. It ain't about the the studio's performance. It's about the resources, and IP, and a type of project, and what the higher management thinks it means in terms of revenue over the next couple of quarters tops. There are additional considerations and backroom talk that makes me think that some of the criticism towards Intercept leadership is deserved. But I would not have drawn this conclusion purely from how the development of KSP2 has been going. Knowing everything we've learned about the project over, eh, 2023 or so, they were always going to have to fight uphill. Some of it through more thorns than another studio, perhaps, but I have no reason to believe that any other studio working on the same budget would be able to make KSP2 good enough to not be cut at this point. And that's all that matters here. The rest is fluff and victim-blaming. [snip]

I totally agree, had another post above that Moonship was oversize for the initial landings. Now I would use another Moonship with an orbital module for the orbital moon station, it would be an fuel depot and even an rescue ship. But the BO lander is probably more practical but might likely more expensive / slower, SpaceX is testing Starship. Yes New Glen is less ambitions but its not SS more like falcon heavy as I understand. So you use your 18 wheel truck to buy an burger as its cheaper / faster than other options like taxi or meal delivery services. You obviously want SS for the base, they should also be pretty easy to turn into base modules. Then the talk ISRU and hydrolox become more relevant again.

Somebody had already ninja'd me on Reddit. But what about her box with husband's things. A pair of very small boots, and something like "He was fond of caring of this, could talk about them for hours" (at least in translation). Was her husband a leprechaun?

Well, truth be told I may be taking a little shortcut. We're getting close to whatever the end is, and frankly it's just more efficient if the main people who need to talk next can do it in the same room. Especially when getting visual effects right can mean an hour of flying people around in jetpacks, dealing with helmet bugs, and trying to orient bridge sets sunny-side up for better lighting etc., for just a couple of panels. If there's any concern about continuity etc., well I did hang a lampshade with the thread title. I was considering having Evil Bob throw even more snark than his "abusing crew transfers" comment by pointing out that the "turbolifts" are just part-clipped lander cans, and why couldn't he just transfer into a docked landing craft? Well if he could do that, why did the boarding parties have to burn through bulkheads etc. to get aboard? I'm certainly not going to explain it! This is why the author's crew compartment is as well-stocked with lampshades as KSP craft are with flags and EVA propellant. Who's to say? A couple of thoughts from a similarly mirrored situation: (1) It is far easier for civilized [kerbs] to behave like barbarians than it is for barbarians to behave like civilized [kerbs], BUT, (2) ruthlessly evil or not, it is possible to be a "[kerb] of integrity" in more than one universe.

The $20M is for just the launch, not the payloads. Several years ago, a SpaceX engineer giving a talk at a conference said their marginal internal cost was ~$25M a launch (I posted the vid here at the time, but it was pulled down—possibly because he talked about those numbers). This was long before they were flying 20 times+, and before they recovered fairings much if at all. So $20M seems pretty reasonable as a current ballpark.

This is something I and others said multiple times throughout EA. I think a lot of anger at the communication/CMs was misplaced disappointment with the development speed. If the game was fun and developing quickly they could’ve talked as much or as little as they wanted. You don’t really need to have a big dev interview once a month if there’s a content update once a month to show what the devs have been up to. A KERB update post is easily replaced by weekly patches with detailed patch notes. Then they can talk a lot, nearly not at all, be sassy like the Wendy’s Twitter, be very proper or whatever other style they want and it wouldn’t really matter. The frustration always stemmed from this being the slowest progressing EA game I think any of us have ever played. With the devs not active (for the most part) interacting with the community that frustration was expressed to the CMs, and eventually it became (unfairly) frustration at the CMs.

Did you really put the "Terrain Implementation" along the Pros of this game ? Damn, it looks so aged, so outdated, so clunky, so weird, inhomogeneous, unaesthetic, etc. Especially with the harsh lightning which got quite improved by the last Blackrack efforts, but I find the terrain to be so 2015, technically speaking, and very not beautiful as an art decision (which is more personal opinion). The only way to get it "OK-Ish" is to compare it to Stock KSP1. But doing so, well, I won't elaborate further, it is nonsense to me as it's just the literal bare minimum. Terrain is very precisely what I was expected the most, because it would mean a LOT for this game, even gameplay wise, with proper collision, scenery, landscape to discover, etc etc, I've already repeated that so many time and now there no point to get to it again. Really, terrain and scenery is the key for a proper KSP2... Everything else fade out compared to what it can bring to the table. Look at the trailer again if you want to talk about it, I don't find much people sharing my opinion so I would gladly elaborate again, finally, if there is some people who want to debate that subject.

So I have a question. The financial call for TT happens on the 16th. People here talk as if it is a public call people can listen in on. Is that the case? If so, how do we listen in, and at what time? My assumption is that we can't, but that the call is made public shortly after it happens. If someone can confirm this, I would greatly appreciate it!

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)

Nice, I didn't see any other obvious install issues. I don't really know much about the B9 error, but your log is way cleaner. Hopefully someone else can help pin down the specific error. Personally, I'm side-eyeing IFS just because I hear so many people talk about incompatibilities with it, but I don't have an experience with it myself.

I've been working on a CubeSat for the past 2 years, mostly software and testing, and we uploaded the final code onto it yesterday, it is flying to Texas for integration in a few hours, and will be launching into space on Cygnus NG-21 probably sometime in August, and ejected from the International Space Station probably in Fall or early Winter. (picture was very zoomed out, that's why it is a bit fuzzy, I zoomed in) This is CySat-1, a mission to prove the viability of measuring Earth's soil moisture levels using a software defined radiometer (and also to prove that an undergraduate led satellite program at our university is viable). There's many subsytems involved: Endurosat OBC, tells everything else what to do Endurosat UHF antenna and transceiver, how we talk to the satellite, has the worst documentation of any of the modules and took us a long time to figure out how to use. CubeSpace ADCS, has magneto-torquers, star trackers, Earth sensors, a magnetometer, GPS, and a reaction wheel to figure out where the satellite is and point it in the right direction. Endurosat EPS, manages power collection, the batteries, and power distribution throughout the satellite A breakout board with numerous electronic components soldered onto it for toggling power and converting voltages PumpkinSpace solar panels, we bought them (really expensive) after failing to build our own Analog Devices AD9361-Z7035 FPGA/SDR/SOM/whatever you want to call it. Power hungry computer that is only on sometimes, and runs our scientific program using GNU Radio and Python on an Analog Devices Linux Distro Analog Devices ADRV1CRR-BOB Carrier Board, holds the other Analog Devices board and distributes power and data to and from it Mini-Circuits Low Noise Amplifiers and Bandpass Filters to amplify the signals from the radiometer antenna A custom antenna for the radiometer And on the ground: An Ubuntu desktop computer running a GNU Radio flowgraph to talk to the satellite A software defined radio and antenna (we will get a bigger antenna in the next few months, the one we have is temporary) A Windows laptop running a python program (the ground station front end/GUI) to communicate with the Linux server I have been a programmer for CySat-1 for the past four semesters, programming lead for the past three semesters, and the only programmer for the last semester. My job has been to get these 7 computers made by 4 different manufacturers running 3.5 different operating systems in 2 separate programming languages talking with each other seamlessly. For the most part, we have succeeded, and the satellite has worked during short term ground testing. Unfortunately, we ran out of time for long term testing due to an issue with charging the batteries. This project has been one relentless string of failures and setbacks and frustrations, so long I'll probably make a video essay about it at some point. It felt like bashing my head up against a wall repeatedly only to find another wall on the other side, over and over and over again. I'm not very optimistic about our chances for successfully completing the mission, we have at least one possibly unresolved critical bug with no leads (and no time to fix), and given that we were discovering bugs literally up to and including the very last day, there's probably more we don't know about. But I learned a lot, enough that success is one of the possible outcomes. While it is supposed to do a lot more than beeping, I will be happy if it beeps. I'll be even happier if it will beep on command. Anything after that is purely bonus in my mind, especially given that half of university CubeSats don't even get a beep back, so I'm told. I'm proud of how much we managed to overcome, and that this thing finally got shipped off after years of delays, the satellite having been originally conceived sometime between 2002 and 2017 depending on what you take as the start date. That picture is an expression of equal parts "We finally finished it!" "Oh boy, what if I forgot something? What if it fails because I forgot to change a line of code, and I won't know for another six months!" and "What now? This has been my big thing for 2 years, where do I go from here?" In a really roundabout way, KSP is one of the reasons I found myself on this project. Part of that was just because it awakened my love for space, but another part of it was that the organization that manages CySat has a bunch of other project teams, one of which was a KSP simpit. I was on that project for one semester because a friend told me about it. When the KSP simpit project shut down, that same friend invited me to join CySat. It has certainly been an adventure that took me far outside my comfort zone. When I started, I didn't know a lick of C, and barely knew two licks of Python. I came in wanting to do structures/CAD stuff, as I felt that would be what I would suck the least at. But through a quirk of fate, got put on programming instead, something I did not at all feel confident doing. After a lot of pain and a lot of learning , the inter-computer links fell one by one, and we got it to a point where everything (discounting the single use stuff we weren't able to test) works in short term ground testing. While obviously we would have preferred to do more extensive testing, at this point, for a variety of reasons, we've just got to send it. About eleven years and about two weeks ago, I launched my first Kerbal into the sky, and now, a spacecraft I worked on is getting launched for real. Hopefully, when it gets up there, it shows up as a probe and not as debris!

Which sounds nothing like what they did back to Star Theory. Remember, if it was that, we already know what it looks like. The fact they got offered re-hiring was communicated instantly, and so was that another studio was to continue the game's development. They also got a message warning of this with a lot of time, they were not gagged and were able to talk right then and there. It's a totally different news that we got now, they did not communicate anything similar. "We're firing people and closing projects." Read above. People really like to not look back it seems.