KSP as an evolution: a look at how early access was done right

[that1guy]

I really couldn't think of a better place to put this post than in the general discussion, so with that said, here we go.

Kerbal Space Program is a great example of how the early access model can be used responsibly and effectively to achieve a game that both fills the initial design scope and use fans to help improve and prioritize the goals of the game. For example, I have logged something near 1500 hours of KSP time, from about version 0.12 right up until now, which is more than any other game I have ever played (including any one Civilization game). I felt that when Squad asked for money to have access to the "full version", they did so in a responsible manner. When I bought the game at 0.14, I thought that the features they were had in the game were worth the asking price (I think it was about $10). This allowed Squad to get paid while the game was in progress and the fans to have a hand in debugging and directing the game. When more features would get added, the price would go up to match the amount of features in the game at the time, not what would eventually be added (as many games on steam early access would have you do).

The community surrounding this early game were dedicated fans who wanted to see KSP come to its full operational state. It was truly an amazing spectacle to behold. Then, KSP went onto the steam store, and opened the game to a wider audience, and more importantly, they did so when the game had enough working and implemented features to be fun and playable for the people who were just getting into the game at the time of the steam release. As such, the game community grew and was largely enriched by this and Squad was able to continue to make the game that most fit their vision and our desires.

However, this did come at a small cost. A few sentences ago, I mentioned that I have played close to 1500 hours of KSP. No matter how great a game is, early access has one flaw, people can and do get burned out before the game is released. This is not me saying that the game is bad or that I wanted something else from Squad. Quite the opposite actually, I feel that KSP was shaped just as much by Squad as it was me and the other community members, both old and new.

What all that was set up as was a method to convey this, Squad nailed the early access model on the head, but it comes with a small cost.

What are your feelings about this, am I way off base, or do you agree with me?

[HafCoJoe]

Nice post! I completely agree on your points and I'm glad that I've been able to see the evolution from demo to a well done pre-released title. I really am quite happy with how the SQUAD members and Devs have been connecting and contemplating with the community . Not many games have a dedicated enough team to be able to post weakly what they've been working on and why. Good on ya folks!

[Robotengineer]

I agree with the primary sentiment of the OP, however I don't think that drove the early access nail straight in. I think that when you have a long development cycle with a small team that has occasional turnover, and the fact that this is Squads first game, the original idea for the game can get lost or mixed up. Then again, I don't know exactly what HarvesteR had in mind when he first imagined KSP.

[Guest]

both fills the initial design scope and use fans to help improve and prioritize the goals of the game.

Implying that KSP had an "initial design scope" to begin with, or that players have had any real say in how the goals were prioritized until things came to a head.

OTOH, yes, I do think Squad did early access pretty darn well, all things considered. They've made some blunders and refuse to use their own official channels for news, preferring third-party sites, but otherwise I'm fairly happy with the money I spent. At least we've got a solid sandbox game to play at the end of the day.

[superm18]

I also agree, but what i got from early access in general, is that i'm done with testing out games for devs and starting over again and again.

Squad did good in making updates that was save-breaking only when necessary. But here i am again, waiting for yet another update for me to start over again, in the meantime i'm playing World of Warships closed beta and realizing that all my progress will get wiped, same as all the other games i have bought and applied for over the last few years.

I know this is the future of gaming (keep in mind that my first computer was the Commodore 64 with 5 1/4" floppy disk that i got for Christmas in '89) but i kinda miss the "good" old days.

[Sandworm]

Done right, but from which perspective?

Does done right mean making the absolutely best version of KSP possible? That hasn't happened. There are all sorts of inefficiencies that will never be dealt with, the first being KSPs insane approach to ram usage (loading all assets all the time) which seriously limits the potential scope of the game (number of planets and/or texture quality of such). The needs to issue new content regularly has buried such issues so deep in code that they cannot be reasonably removed this late in the process.

Does done right mean maximized return on Squad's investment? I might say "well done" but its certainly nothing close to minecraft's billion+ deal.

Does done right mean maximized enjoyment by players/customers? That's a case-by-case issue. Some say yes, others no. There is no answer there.

Does done right mean lots of great reviews in the gaming press? Maybe, but judging a game on its buzz factor is silly imho.

Does done right mean getting a community to take the lead in generating in-game content? Well ... mods have been the real drivers there. If offloading of content generation is the goal then I would agree KSP has "done right". But that is hardly laudable.

Does done right mean a game that adheres to all its original promises? Tycoon? A simulation? Few would argue that KSP hasn't moved from its original goals.

Let's see how many updates Squad issues post-1.0. Let us see how many bugs remain in the most final/done/complete version once the "it's alpha" excuse is truly dead. Then we can compare KSP to other games that followed different models. Prison Architect, Subnautica ... there are some that are getting things far more "done right" imho.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Sandworm

[Dizzle]

I'm just glad KSP delivered on most of its promises and kept a consistent release schedule. I'm also following The Dead Linger. *shudders*

[EtherDragon]

Done right, but from which perspective?

Does done right mean making the absolutely best version of KSP possible? That hasn't happened. There are all sorts of inefficiencies that will never be dealt with, the first being KSPs insane approach to ram usage (loading all assets all the time) which seriously limits the potential scope of the game (number of planets and/or texture quality of such). The needs to issue new content regularly has buried such issues so deep in code that they cannot be reasonably removed this late in the process.

This is true of every game that has ever been made, though. Balancing speed to deployment vs the most efficient engine has been the balancing act that all games make since the dawn of computer gaming.

Does done right mean maximized return on Squad's investment? I might say "well done" but its certainly nothing close to minecraft's billion+ deal.

How many companies in the last 10 years have pulled off Minecraft's return on investment? I can think of only ONE (Mojang). So, if that's your standard for "done right" then only one game, ever, has been "done right."

Does done right mean maximized enjoyment by players/customers? That's a case-by-case issue. Some say yes, others no. There is no answer there.

Again, this is the same issue with every game that has ever been released. There are always some people that say, "this game is no fun because..."

Does done right mean lots of great reviews in the gaming press? Maybe, but judging a game on its buzz factor is silly imho.

Unfortunately, you have a goose / gander situation. You have a set of arbitrary standards to judge whether a game was "done right" but this statement dismisses one of the key factors that the industry has used, forever.

Does done right mean getting a community to take the lead in generating in-game content? Well ... mods have been the real drivers there. If offloading of content generation is the goal then I would agree KSP has "done right". But that is hardly laudable.

This statement is hyperbolic, by its nature, all content in stock KSP belongs to KSP, no matter who wrote the content. It's well known that Mod-ability extends the life of any game by years.

Does done right mean a game that adheres to all its original promises? Tycoon? A simulation? Few would argue that KSP hasn't moved from its original goals.

So has every game that has ever been written. All original plans and goals are subject to change when placed into time/funding box.

Let's see how many updates Squad issues post-1.0. Let us see how many bugs remain in the most final/done/complete version once the "it's alpha" excuse is truly dead. Then we can compare KSP to other games that followed different models. Prison Architect, Subnautica ... there are some that are getting things far more "done right" imho.

Now that you've listed these other games that have it "done right" can you explain, specifically why you think they did better than KSP? I would be particularly interested in knowing how they did better in the reservations you listed above.

[Fel]

I'll say a few words.

The way squad marketed KSP was very tactical: creating a usable game as freeware, switching to a commercial license after gaining a sufficient following, introducing the game to a wider audience via steam after the game was more 'feature complete', introduction of KSPEdu and constant pursuits of 'free marketing' (interviews or mentions by others). Even curse is a strategic move to give KSP presence among the people who tend to enjoy the game (i.e. minecraft and "creators").

The thing is, this is just marketing. Even these forums are a form of marketing, the interactions we have with the devs and the strong notions of us having an influence over them with "suggestion" boards. These are small things that keep the community together, but also keep the sales rolling.

I will say that, in terms of modding, Squad "did right" by giving us full and complete control over Unity. Those who are happy with the tiny "known" interface need not apply, but if you want to do something no one has done before, or people even said was impossible... you can. The interface is exceptionally powerful, and C#'s dirt horrible idea of "protected variables" and the ease of using reflection means you can do just about anything.

But, aside from marketing... what did Squad really do differently than other early access games? Not slow down updates? Not take your money and run? Not sell out to EA?

Squad could have released to steam, did an update or two, then turned tail and ran. It's happened so many times in early access; especially when a game "looks" more finished than it really is.

Perhaps though, the transparent fact that the modding community had great effects on the final product, is truly a "done right" aspect; though people are oft to disagree with which mods should, and should not, have made it in the final product.

But, what I mean to say is, what did Squad actually DO aside from deliver the terrific product we have today?

[waterlubber]

Another thing squad did---they were involved with the community. We have an excellent forum, KSPTV, and Squad often responds to request. Make an excellent mod? Here, stock integration. (Thanks, Porkjet!) Squad didn't hide, steal our money, and run, they made a great game that's come very far.

And now it's working with my computer again!

[Kerbart]

But, aside from marketing... what did Squad really do differently than other early access games? Not slow down updates? Not take your money and run? Not sell out to EA?

Squad could have released to steam, did an update or two, then turned tail and ran. It's happened so many times in early access; especially when a game "looks" more finished than it really is.

Perhaps though, the transparent fact that the modding community had great effects on the final product, is truly a "done right" aspect; though people are oft to disagree with which mods should, and should not, have made it in the final product.

But, what I mean to say is, what did Squad actually DO aside from deliver the terrific product we have today?

'Tis a sad world we live in when a game company gets commended for doing the right thing; for it implies that the standard is not doing the right thing. But here we are.

One of the things Squad has done right, I think, was constantly increasing the price of the game as it developed further. The "crappier" the version you "stepped in," the less you paid, reducing the risk of paying for a game that didn't deliver on the money you paid for it. Along its entire development history you pretty much got what you paid for right at that moment, with the added benefit that the game was only getting more developed from then on.

[Sandworm]

This statement is hyperbolic, by its nature, all content in stock KSP belongs to KSP, no matter who wrote the content.

Copyright vests in creators. Modders have not signed contracts with Squad to transfer all material to them. I've written some small mods (cfgs mostly) and have not signed anything over to Squad. Copyrighted material within mods belongs to the modders who create it, who then may give it to whomever via licenses. In many of those cases (open source licenses) Squad no more owns the mod content than I do. Now there is room for argument where modders modify content originally created by Squad (say, reworking a texture) but Squad cannot simply take material from modders without their permission.

Trademarks are another story. But many/most mods do not utilize and Squad marks and, where they do, they could be easily removed.

Stock content can come from a variety of sources and in fact may or may not be owned by Squad. For instance some have asked questions about the terrain of kerbin. It may not be a uniquely Squad creation. (see http://libnoise.sourceforge.net/examples/complexplanet/index.html). Content incorporated from mods may have been licensed to Squad, as opposed to being purchased outright, but we are not privy to those contracts. Still other content such as Nasa's logo clearly cannot belong to Squad and therefore has certainly been licensed. This variety of licensing really puts down any concept of KSP every being released to the general public as an open source project. Once upon a time Notch did talk of Minecraft being released into open source. He could have done that because unlike KSP it was not saddled by licenses.

Edited April 15, 2015 by Sandworm

[Columbia]

In all honesty, Squad deserves to become reputable in the gaming world. Sure, they may have made some mistakes during early access, but overall, they've done an amazing job at KSP. I mean, look at it;

They support players and what they want and desire for the game. I remember there was a KSP facebook post featuring Adjustable Landing Gear, and practically all the comments proclaimed about making it stock. Next thing you know - Squad is working with Porkjet on new landing gear.

There has been a lot of petitions on removing the Google Plus system on comments that Google would've certainly seen at least one. What do they do? It's just the users anyway.

They've supported the players in their creations, mods, and even gives them kudos for their work. Modding's practically illegal in some software, but Squad's too nice to do that.

This, along with a passionate, friendly and amazing community, collaborations and hardwork, have made KSP what it is until today.

They may have made a few mistakes here and there, but if you look into the bigger picture, they've done an exceptional job at their first game, and deserve everything they've worked for.

A big kudos to Squad for their exceptional work!

Edited April 15, 2015 by Columbia

[Fel]

'Tis a sad world we live in when a game company gets commended for doing the right thing; for it implies that the standard is not doing the right thing. But here we are.

That is exactly what I wanted to say.

It's not like I believe squad doesn't deserve praise for doing the right thing anyways (I am a believer in positive reinforcement) but I also realize that almost all of what we praise them for is stuff that is formulaic "how to run a good gaming company that doesn't screw the customers"

[rcp27]

Squad has certainly demonstrated how the early access model can work well, and it looks like KSP will be a pretty good game. It won't be "perfect", but it will definitely (in my mind it has already) exceed the "good enough" threshold. I've played games for enough years to have encountered loads of games that released with far bigger flaws than KSP 0.90 has.

I think the most important factor of KSP using the open access model has been to free the devs from a lot of the issues of making the game too hard. Making it hard allows it to offer the potential to do really cool things, which is great, but without a community offering support, discussion and demonstrations of those cool things, I think a lot of newcomers would just give up at the "I can't reach orbit" stage. The community offers the motivation to newcomers with examples of cool things you can do, and it offers the assistance to newcomers to get them from the "I can't get to orbit" to the "I can land on Mun" stage. That community would not exist without early access.

[EtherDragon]

But, what I mean to say is, what did Squad actually DO aside from deliver the terrific product we have today?

Not a daaaaaam thaaaaaang! =p

- - - Updated - - -

Copyright vests in creators. Modders have not signed contracts with Squad to transfer all material to them. I've written some small mods (cfgs mostly) and have not signed anything over to Squad. Copyrighted material within mods belongs to the modders who create it, who then may give it to whomever via licenses. In many of those cases (open source licenses) Squad no more owns the mod content than I do. Now there is room for argument where modders modify content originally created by Squad (say, reworking a texture) but Squad cannot simply take material from modders without their permission.

Trademarks are another story. But many/most mods do not utilize and Squad marks and, where they do, they could be easily removed.

Stock content can come from a variety of sources and in fact may or may not be owned by Squad. For instance some have asked questions about the terrain of kerbin. It may not be a uniquely Squad creation. (see http://libnoise.sourceforge.net/examples/complexplanet/index.html). Content incorporated from mods may have been licensed to Squad, as opposed to being purchased outright, but we are not privy to those contracts. Still other content such as Nasa's logo clearly cannot belong to Squad and therefore has certainly been licensed. This variety of licensing really puts down any concept of KSP every being released to the general public as an open source project. Once upon a time Notch did talk of Minecraft being released into open source. He could have done that because unlike KSP it was not saddled by licenses.

We also don't know what licenses KSP is bound to, for sure. (Other than Unity, and probably NASA) Usually, in the terms and agreements, any modded content created for a game is by default property of the game's publisher - done by T&G fiat, so they can incorporate the ideas without risk of litigation. But you are correct, we don't know how SQUAD handled this case.

I like that there is a robust mod community, and that Squad has support deep modability from early on in the project. That's something very few companies do.

- - - Updated - - -

'Tis a sad world we live in when a game company gets commended for doing the right thing; for it implies that the standard is not doing the right thing. But here we are.

I take a different spin on the sentiment.

Lots of people complain - they do so because they aren't having fun with the product they wanted to have fun with, but can't, and instead take some of that time writing about not having any fun.

Few people compliment - they don't compliment because they are too busy having run with the product!

This can lead to a negative bias - with more people seeming to complain than compliment. For me, it's always good to compliment, so that everyone sees a more accurate distribution of complaints vs compliments.

[Octa]

Until now, KSP is definitely one of the betters examples how early access should work:

- price is ok

- good communication between developers and community

- constantly new releases

- focus is kept on the main game mechanics during development

DayZ is at the other end of the scale, in my opinion.

[Lord Aurelius]

KSP is definitely one of the better early access games, but Squad has made (and still is making) a lot of mistakes. I think it's a bit of a stretch to say it's early access done right.

First, the game doesn't really have focus. It's an excellent sandbox, but I don't think Squad really has a plan on how to "finish" this game.

Second, Squad really isn't a very good software developer. The idea behind Kerbal Space Program is brilliant, but the actual game implementation leaves a LOT to be desired. Tons of bugs that went unfixed release after release as Squad prioritized adding new content over actually building a solid foundation. They also don't seem to really grasp the concept of software testing, the next release is slated to be 1.0 but in reality it will be more like 0.27, .90 was not really a beta in any meaningful sense and now they're jumping straight to release, all while adding new features at the last minute during the testing phase (go read the devnotes for this week).

Third, Squad really hasn't been very good at interacting with the community. I'm very grateful for the weekly devnotes so we can at least have an idea of what they're working on, but they don't really listen to community feedback in any meaningful way and have made a lot of major decisions behind closed door (curse, .90, and now 1.0) and when the community objected, Squad basically said nothing (I got the impression that they really didn't know how to react and just kept quiet with the hope that things would eventually calm down) and kept on doing what they were doing. This may have been better in the early days before I played KSP, but in my time on the forums the game the community has been more or less sidelined on the important issues.

Still, this is one of the most enjoyable games I've ever played and the forum community and the mods are excellent and the issues I have with Squad appear to be more a result of inexperience in game development and community management than anything else. I hope Squad can learn from all of this and ultimately end up with an excellent game (even if it takes an embarrassing 1.0 release and several patches to get there).

For a game to be considered "early access done right", the game needs to have a solid plan BEFORE the game enters early access, a team of experienced developers, and the ability to work hand-in-hand with the community to develop and balance the game as it's being developed, with enough self-control to avoid feature creep. With a solid initial plan and a disciplined approach to feature creep, the game will have an obvious point where it is ready to leave early access after the initial plan is complete and it has been extensively beta tested. After release, development can still continue (even with major new features) on a beta branch, but by staying focused on the initial plan the game will avoid getting stuck in development forever.

Edited April 15, 2015 by Lord Aurelius

[Sandworm]

We also don't know what licenses KSP is bound to, for sure. (Other than Unity, and probably NASA) Usually, in the terms and agreements, any modded content created for a game is by default property of the game's publisher - done by T&G fiat, so they can incorporate the ideas without risk of litigation. But you are correct, we don't know how SQUAD handled this case.

I like that there is a robust mod community, and that Squad has support deep modability from early on in the project. That's something very few companies do.

That really isn't the case. Squad has not in any way limited modders, nor can they. Squad can only incorporate "ideas" without risk of litigation because "ideas" are not copyrightable and therefore are not protected automatically. No tos/eula is needed for that. But copyrighted material within mods (code/art/models ect) belongs to the modders and cannot ever be incorporated by Squad without permission.

That isn't to say that a mod creator couldn't receive a patent. Some truly novel idea, perhaps a novel means of simulating some aspect of space travel (heat/radiation pressure/N-bodies etc) could be patentable. If I created a mod involving a novel means of modeling radiation pressure I could file and receive a patent for that technology. I don't mean the idea "lets do X". I mean a truly inventive technology that I develop and turn into a mod. The KSP-comparable mod would be just a display, the copyrightable expression, of my patented technology. Squad in such a case would be forbidden from incorporating my radiation pressure simulation technology, as would anyone else, without my permission. Such a scenario is not hard to imagine given some of the people writing mods. (FAR is one of the few mods that may have risen to the level of patentability imho, but only if someone bothers to seek a patent.)

Edited April 15, 2015 by Sandworm

[comham]

I don't agree. My main objection is that pre-release games should not be touted and sold like finished products are, and I suspect KSP will end up with more sales pre-gold than post-gold, ceteris paribus.

[FOARP]

Until now, KSP is definitely one of the betters examples how early access should work:

- price is ok

- good communication between developers and community

- constantly new releases

- focus is kept on the main game mechanics during development

DayZ is at the other end of the scale, in my opinion.

DayZ has actually become an "old" game whilst still in development, which is pretty unbelievable IMHO. Still, not as bad as Star Citizen, which is still milking punters for money without having actually delivered anything yet.

[Lord Aurelius]

StarCitizen actually has a pretty well developed tech demo, but I agree that what is currently available isn't much of a game yet. My view on the matter is that the devs have succumbed to the feature creep virus and keep promising more and more features (which does bring in more cash) but keeps pushing the release back (hopefully not indefinitely). I would have been much happier if the extra stretch goals would have been implemented as free expansion packs once the core game was finished instead of dragging out the development like they've been doing.

[Renegrade]

Does done right mean maximized return on Squad's investment? I might say "well done" but its certainly nothing close to minecraft's billion+ deal.

While I agree with a lot of your other points, I don't agree with that minecraft comparison. Having a doddering old dying monopoly blow their last load on you is more like dumb luck than skill. Sorta like inheriting from a rich uncle or winning the lottery. Especially when you're already at market saturation.

Squad's definitely not the "doing it right" people. They aren't really the "doing it wrong" people either though. Sorta more like.. "doing it well enough to get along" people. Which is okay, I guess...but a real waste of potential. (C'mon guys, you're in at the ground level of a new genre! GO GO GO!)

[FOARP]

StarCitizen actually has a pretty well developed tech demo, but I agree that what is currently available isn't much of a game yet. My view on the matter is that the devs have succumbed to the feature creep virus and keep promising more and more features (which does bring in more cash) but keeps pushing the release back (hopefully not indefinitely). I would have been much happier if the extra stretch goals would have been implemented as free expansion packs once the core game was finished instead of dragging out the development like they've been doing.

I was interested when I first heard of it, but everything I saw when I looked into it raised massive warning flags - 2500 USD pay-to-win features (what idiot paid for these?), tens millions raised from contributors over years of dev-time with still no real delivery: it has some of the flavour of a cult or pyramid scam, but obviously not as bad.

DayZ kind of perplexes me. I was a big fan of ARMA and ARMA 2, despite their obvious, glaring, massive faults they clearly had potential (which wasn't realised due to crappy AI, poor mission-design, spammy in-game warnings, and terribly, terribly ropey control systems), but they're the last game I would try to base an FPS/MMORPG on, even if the original mod came from there. I really don't get how it ended up blowing up like it did: I mean, at the very least, how did it sell more than ARMA? Anyone who bought into it got a raw deal - the game won't be complete until 2016, by which time the underlying base-game will be 7 years old.

[EtherDragon]

Star Citizen is an interesting study in the model, too - as yet they don't have much of a "game" to play, and it's a hugely successful crowd-funded title, already!

Compare to Elite: Dangerous which many people might argue is firmly in the "done wrong" category for standard release games (Frontier arguably made a bunch of promises that are ultimately only being delivered many months after release.)

To me, Elite: Dangerous has way more value than Star Citizen, because - despite it's flaws, E: D a fully functional game. Both of which were crowd-funded with backers being granted early access.

KSP is more of the new generation Early Access game, and I think a lot of companies will be looking at how Squad did it as a solid basis to start from for their own Early Access games. Other companies will surely improve on the model that Squad put forth, but to me, this Early Access effort is the gold standard, to date.