Venting the 1.0 launch

[Red Iron Crown]

A lot of crying over spilled milk here. Any amount of criticism, constructive or otherwise, will not turn back time and prevent this version from being called 1.0.

More practically, it's difficult to call the 1.0 launch anything but a roaring success. The game is being reviewed very positively, it catapulted into the best sellers' lists on Steam and GoG, and we've seen an influx of thousands of new players and hundreds of new forum members.

Are there bugs? Yes. Are some long-time players dissatisfied with 1.0.x? Yes. Does that mean calling this version 1.0 was some sort of critical mistake? No.

[LN400]

If anything this and the previous thread show that it is impossible to express any kind of valid criticism on this forum without being charged by the assembled army of white knights with shields raised high, who made defending squad from any kind of negative feedback their holy purpose.

This is not about white knights with a holy purpose, no matter how rethorical and symbolic that was intended to be.

The visual and audio quality is bad even for a indie game. -> "Get over it they are placeholders, we are in alpha".

Look up [..] Days A Stranger. Great game, rotten graphics if photorealism is what you want. Just the right graphics for the style of the game. KSP is not Orbiter Meets Skyrim. Ok, tastes differ but rather than calling the graphics bad, just say you don't like it. Fair enough. I enjoy the cartoonish style. It's the right thing for a cartoonish 'world' like in KSP.

The game is released and it is still bad -> "Get over it the Gameplay is great".

They reached their initial set of goals. Not their final goals. Reaching the initial goals spells v1.0 in my book.

The update removed any kind of difficulty introduced by the new aerodynamics -> "Install FAR"

Tell that to the crowd coming here to ask why their rockets topple over every time, thanks to the new aerodynamics.

The game crashes because of the heat overlays -> "Well you can turn them off..."

Yep it's a bug and the turn it off thing is a _temporary_ workaround. It will not stay this way forever. Be patient.

The contract system is barely fleshed out -> "Go play science/sandbox mode"

Again , initial goals, nothing is set in stone. Nobody here except SQUAD have the slightest clue how they plan this further.

The game is 40€ and is practically released without sound effects -> "Install chaterer"

Plenty of sound effects here. No chatter but 'practically without sound effects' is just plain untrue.

...but it is no excuse to not even try

Where on earth did you get that from, that the devs aren't even trying? That, you did indeed pull out of nowhere.

Could it be better? Certainly. Lots of things in the game I think could be different. Can SQUAD please each and every one of us with more features? Not a chance. That is never going to happen. Noone can please everybody. So who are they going to please then? Me and not you? Or you and not me? Who can say they have more right to be satisfied?

[atraos]

But isn't it pointless to ask for an official acknowledgement if the criticism isn't unanimous? Otherwise the game also will get polished nontheless, the next updates, fixes, and unity 5/64 bit were already anounced. And really, it was known before.

E.g. for me, I noticed some minor issues (only because of experience tho), but at least my missions weren't affected a single time in 1.0 by those issues, and 101 came fast. Atm only the F10 memory leak is a serious problem, but that's about it. Nothing i'd ever ask an apology for. Heck, if I could decide to delay the release and get it later with my current knowledge, then i'd still say 'no, bring it on'.

Btw, agreed on the tutorials. Seems like a big improvement, but still needs some recherche on the internet. Not that recherche is bad, but I'd really like something like pressing F2 and getting a help overlay explaining the flight UI.

If criticism needed to be unanimous to be considered valid/worthwile, nothing would ever be addressed in anything. I don't want to make any assumptions about the fraction of the community that is frustrated, but I think that the dissatisfaction about this update is significant, especially compared to earlier releases, warranting an acknowledgment and a brief discussion.

[jfx]

It would certainly help the argument, if people learned to preface statements such as these, with a simple: "In my oppinion..."

This thread is in the 'General KSP discussion' forum. Prefacing a statement here with an 'In my opinion' disclaimer is tautological.

[passinglurker]

I just hope we the critics don't end up like the black knight. I agree with the rest of your post as well.

Because he's the hero Kerbal deserves, but not the one it needs right now. So, we'll hunt him, because he can take it. Because he's not our hero. He's a rather loud guardian. An advocating protector. A Dark Knight.

I would say with 1.0 I'm much more open to criticizing kerbal. I had held off because I was under the impression that squad would use the aero transition to fix the other balance issues. This unfortunately didn't happen, and what disgusted me even more was watching a prominent mod dev tear the author of a rebalance mod a new one because he felt that one mod changing another mods settings or stats wasn't "neighborly"

[Grunnt]

Try to have a little understanding, white knights: the black knights love this game as much as you do. The black knights have a right to criticize the game, and it is good to respect this. You can just let the criticism be if you have nothing of value to add to the discussion.

Try to have a little understanding, black knights: the white knights love this game as much as you do. The white knights have a right to disagree with your criticisms and it is good to respect this. You can just let the disagreement be if you have nothing of value to add to the discussion.

[Dirty Bob]

I bet if we complain about the release more, there will be a tear in the time continuum and we'll be able to slip back to release day. Once there we can tell the devs how the release of 1.0 unleashed hellish doom on the masses and they must stop.

Unfortunately for humankind, Sqaud ignores the warnings saying, "The rockets must fly and Kerbals must die."

[atraos]

Look up [..] Days A Stranger. Great game, rotten graphics if photorealism is what you want. Just the right graphics for the style of the game. KSP is not Orbiter Meets Skyrim. Ok, tastes differ but rather than calling the graphics bad, just say you don't like it. Fair enough. I enjoy the cartoonish style. It's the right thing for a cartoonish 'world' like in KSP.

I can't speak for jfx, but I think you are unfairly conflating the criticism of graphics quality (i.e clean, high res textures and a uniform graphics style across similar parts etc) with the a dislike of the "cartoonish" or stylized graphic style.

Again , initial goals, nothing is set in stone. Nobody here except SQUAD have the slightest clue how they plan this further.

I don't think, that SQUAD's initial goal for a feature was to implement the base functionality, to be fully realized sometime later. Imagine skyrim had been released with the main quest comprised of 5 quests to kill 5 basically recolored dragons at different locations, but with the promise to flesh out the main quest line in later updates. Would you accept the goal of having a main quest met and ready for release?

Edited May 7, 2015 by atraos
Talked about the wrong poster

[Temeter]

Btw, to make clear what a lot of those 'criticism negative' response are, check the heat gauge memory leak thread. Someone makes a thread to mention a serious bug, all people agree. Then some people start telling others how to workaround the bug by a single button press.

Then someone suddenly snaps and claims all those talks about workarounds are implying (which funnily enough means nobody is actually saying) the bug isn't actually serious and doesn't need to be fixed.

Did we really have a single thread where relevant criticism about undeniable issues was shutdown because of bias? I dare you, just link us that thread. Otherwise this is just another bunch of childish whining how 'x is crap' isn't treated as serious discussion and word of god.

If criticism needed to be unanimous to be considered valid/worthwile, nothing would ever be addressed in anything. I don't want to make any assumptions about the fraction of the community that is frustrated, but I think that the dissatisfaction about this update is significant, especially compared to earlier releases, warranting an acknowledgment and a brief discussion.

That's not criticism, it's basically asking for the aknowledgement of a supposed failure. And when arguing for something of this scale then you should only be aimed at a very, very common attitude. Otherwise it's actually in a sense disrespecting the all other people who don't agree. Might sound picky, but that's really what this is about, said aknowledgement has no practical use and wouldn't actually make fixes come faster.

And no, criticism mentioned by a loud minority is not as important as criticism by a majority, and therefor shouldn't overrule anything.

[m4v]

This is just bikeshedding, and is time to move on...

[ColourOfFire]

If anything this and the previous thread show that it is impossible to express any kind of valid criticism on this forum without being charged by the assembled army of white knights with shields raised high, who made defending squad from any kind of negative feedback their holy purpose.

The visual and audio quality is bad even for a indie game. -> "Get over it they are placeholders, we are in alpha".

The game is released and it is still bad -> "Get over it the Gameplay is great".

The update removed any kind of difficulty introduced by the new aerodynamics -> "Install FAR"

The game crashes because of the heat overlays -> "Well you can turn them off..."

The contract system is barely fleshed out -> "Go play science/sandbox mode"

The game is 40€ and is practically released without sound effects -> "Install chaterer"

repeat ad nauseum.

I get it that the great gameplay excuses many flaws, but it is no excuse to not even try - especially after an early access phase where you sold upwards of two million units.

I think these are valid criticisms, they are of course subjective, but hey, that's why it's a forum, and a discussion place.

I do however think it's ridiculous that there are people asking/demanding apologies from Squad for releasing this version as 1.0. That is something completely different than saying this version is fine or that I have no point that I'd like to see addressed. We all love this game, otherwise we wouldn't be here, but by no means are we entitled to anything. Early access does not mean the production process suddenly becomes democratic. This is Squad's game, they have the right to release it how they want. 1.0 is not perfect, but business wise it was a very successful move for Squad and whether we like it or not, they are a business. For all we know this 1.0 was a necessity to keep development going, but even if it wasn't, I can't for the life of me understand what would warrant an apology. Pointing out flaws is perfectly fine, continuously complaining about a version number and demanding apologies is ridiculous IMHO.

Edited May 7, 2015 by ColourOfFire

[Champ]

That's it, I quit. One can not play KSP if you can actually go to Mun. Why wasn't this fixed?

Ok, jokes aside. Is this rage I read in this topic for real? Like seriously for real? I don't get it. I really don't get it. Who the flippin heck do some people think they are? Talk about pretentuous, pompous sense of entitlement. I will bite my tongue here, almost bite it right off so I won't get banned for delivering too much of a broadside here but guys, you really are a find. Why don't you trundle off and play Daggerfall? Now there you have bugs. The bugs here? They're nothing. And furthermore, who ever said SQUAD won't fix it in due time? Not SQUAD, I can tell you that. The ragers, that's who. /rant

I think you misunderstood me : it was in answer to somebody who said 1.0 was so bad that you couldnt even launch or reentry. I just say it's wrong, because you could launch and you could reentry.

[LN400]

*snip*

To address the last point first. Daggerfall was only (mostly) playable well after v2 came out, after what must have been the World Record in bug fixing and patching. Initial goals are not always polished.

For the first point: We are probably not seeing eye to eye on this but I believe style is very much at the heart of the graphics arguements. In one of the topics someone said (something to the effect of) "this is the most realistic representation of Kerbals I have ever seen" and I totally agree while laughing at it. As for uniform/non-uniform style across similar parts, I can honestly say I haven't seen anything that totally throws overboard the rest, or even comes close to that. Could be my eyesight is getting poor with old age but could we have an example of parts which styles conflict in any way?

EDIT: Champ: I was merely poking a bit of fun of the ragers, quoting you followed by a joke over the bug rage

Edited May 7, 2015 by LN400

[atraos]

To address the last point first. Daggerfall was only (mostly) playable well after v2 came out, after what must have been the World Record in bug fixing and patching. Initial goals are not always polished.

For the first point: We are probably not seeing eye to eye on this but I believe style is very much at the heart of the graphics arguements. In one of the topics someone said (something to the effect of) "this is the most realistic representation of Kerbals I have ever seen" and I totally agree while laughing at it. As for uniform/non-uniform style across similar parts, I can honestly say I haven't seen anything that totally throws overboard the rest, or even comes close to that. Could be my eyesight is getting poor with old age but could we have an example of parts which styles conflict in any way?

EDIT: Champ: I was merely poking a bit of fun of the ragers, quoting you followed by a joke over the bug rage

Let me preface this with the fact that this is very subjective and because I have no clue about modeling I might have problems putting it into words properly:

I feel that the biggest discrepancy exists between parts of the same type across different sizes, especially fuel tanks. I think that they should show a clear progression or evolution among them, but to me look totally unconnected (except for being cylindrical). Something similar happens when I look at the buildings, level 1 to level 2 share enough characteristics (likely because they were produced together) but level 3 doesn't seem to be an upgrade but rather completely different buildings standing in the same place. (All of this might be exagerated by me knowing which parts were produced together ) .

Then there are small issue like the textures on the NASA parts being asymmetric etc. Again, fluff but something that should have been caught in a final polishing pass before release.

As for Daggerfall: do you think it should have been released like that, just because it was patched into something playable afterwards?

[LN400]

As for Daggerfall: Yes. I think it was right and I will explain. The TES games are published by a major publisher, and at that level it's either "meet the deadline or we will scrap this project". If the devs had held it back, I sincerely doubt we would have had Daggerfall at all. Furthermore, one can speculate what would have happened if the publisher had pulled the plug on the game. Would we have had Morrowind, Oblivion and Skyrim? Look at the Ultima series. There it was the publisher who forced a release that effectively killed an entire gaming franchise. The failure of Ultima 9 was the direct cause we did not get any more Ultima games. Ultima Online was released later but that was a title that was already well under developement and killing that, well I'm not EA but they did release UO and that was the last Ultima game released.

Another example of a release that should have been worked on but was published is Elite 2 Frontier. The release was forced, again it was the publisher, and it took a very long time (Elite Dangerous is just out and that took a kickstart to get done) before the series was revived.

KSP is developed by an indie developer but I would be surprised if they didn't feel the knife on their throats, demands that they had to release v1 as it came out.

Then it's back to what does v1 really mean? We just need to look at a few titles to realise v1 does not equal a final, flawless product.

[DoToH]

We just need to look at a few titles to realise v1 does not equal a final, flawless product.

Maybe, but releases SHOULD be almost flawless. If you buy a car, a smartphone or a fridge with malfunctioning parts or even severe desing flaws, you'd ask for repair or refund. Why is software different?

Edited May 7, 2015 by DoToH

[Red Iron Crown]

Maybe, but releases SHOULD be almost flawless. If you buy a car, a smartphone or a fridge with malfunctioning parts or even severe desing flaws, you'd ask for repair or refund. Why is software different?

Because it is much easier to apply fixes after purchase. Unlike most physical products, software often gets significantly better after initial public release and purchase.

[MacroNova]

Maybe, but releases SHOULD be almost flawless. If you buy a car, a smartphone or a fridge with malfunctioning parts or even severe desing flaws, you'd ask for repair or refund. Why is software different?

Hardware is very different from software, but cars still break all the time and get recalled. Whenever Apple releases a new smartphone or iOS there are numerous bugs that get patched out. A few people in various corners of the internet point out that such shoddy quality control is totally unacceptable, and hey, they must be right because Apple is barely making a profit right now. In fact, their CEO is staying on my couch and eating Ramen every night.

[LN400]

First, let's look at different class of products and the importance of flawlessness. A car with flaws obviously pose a greater threat to life and health than a flawed game. The consequences are worlds apart. The Comet jetliner v1. The Challenger disaster. Serious flaws that should not be accepted, and I certainly don't accept one should knowingly "release" seriously flawed products but the key point is, these disasters did happen. And that was when the stakes were as high as they were. To demand flawless releases of a game created solely for harmless entertainment, to me, sounds unreasonable to the extreme. We can wish, and I do wish but I can not demand it or even expect it.

[DoToH]

I agree. But that doesn't mean that we, as customers, are not allowed to complain because "software is easier to fix". Being easier to fix/improve doesn't mean it's not broken.

I'm OK with some bugs, I didn't expect a flawless product. I'm not Ok with so many people telling me to stop asking for fixes/improvements because "releases always have bugs". I want fixes and I'm entitled to ask for fixes for a released (= not early access any more) game.

[Red Iron Crown]

I agree. But that doesn't mean that we, as customers, are not allowed to complain because "software is easier to fix". Being easier to fix/improve doesn't mean it's not broken.

I'm OK with some bugs, I didn't expect a flawless product. I'm not Ok with so many people telling me to stop asking for fixes/improvements because "releases always have bugs". I want fixes and I'm entitled to ask for fixes for a released (= not early access any more) game.

You asked why software is different from physical products, we answered. No one is saying you have no right to point out flaws.

[DoToH]

If you buy a car, a smartphone or a fridge with malfunctioning parts or even severe desing flaws, you'd ask for repair or refund. Why is software different?

I asked why I can't ask developers to repair my malfunctioning software. Maybe I didn't express it correctly (english is not my native language).

Edited May 7, 2015 by DoToH

[LN400]

I do agree that we can, and should, ask for fixes. Better still, we can report bugs and glitches as we find them, make the devs aware of these bugs and glitches then trust the matters are looked into. Even better still, we can do testing, give the devs all the clues we can give them as to how the bugs appear and which part of the code the bugs are associated with.

There are very few who are happy with sending out a flawed product only to abandon all work to fix anything. It's apparent to me Squad is not among those. I don't think they are happy with the bugs at all, perhaps even less happy with it than we are.

I guess the bottom line is, we should continue to give good bug reports with good clues about the bugs and wait for the next patch to come out

[Jouni]

Maybe, but releases SHOULD be almost flawless. If you buy a car, a smartphone or a fridge with malfunctioning parts or even severe desing flaws, you'd ask for repair or refund. Why is software different?

Because nobody in the world really knows how software should be written. The human brain can't handle vast, complex, abstract constructs with the necessary level of logical precision. The human race has been getting better in developing software over the decades, but we're not there yet.

It's also not very cost-effective to spend a lot of effort polishing the software before release. You get much better results for the same effort by releasing early and letting early adopters weed out bugs and other problems.

[DoToH]

You get much better results for the same effort by releasing early and letting early adopters weed out bugs and other problems.

Ok, but then, LET them ask for fixes improvements and stop the "releases always have bugs, deal with it" and "stop whining".