What's With The Hate?

[Nigeth]

"There is an ongoing paradigm shift with software development and distribution these days, and it's fair to say we are caught right in the middle of it. The line between unfinished and finished software is getting increasingly more hazy."

No it is not "getting increasingly more hazy". Just because it is easy to treat people - that have already paid on steam early access or kickstarter - to a game that is perpetually in alpha development doesn't mean that the lines have blurred. It just means that you are being unfair to your customers because you have to face no repercussions. Since they've already paid and have no recourse or refund options anyway. Also because the game is "technically still in beta".

The "technically this game is still in alpha/beta" philosophy is probably one of the more toxic new ideas in SW development. It treats people with legitimate complaints as if they had no legitimate reason to complain since the game is "technically still in beta" and therefore people can't resonably expect it to be finished. Combine that with early access or kickstarter and you get a game that is perpetually in an unfinished state that people have already paid for. This is even less reason for developers to actually finish and polish games. Then there's the "without early access you wouldn't even have a game like this" defense which completes the trifecta of "reasons why you can't reasonably complain about the state of our game".

Even worse it puts the developers in a mindset where they themselves are led to believe that they don't need to 'finish' or 'polish' their games since it's still "technically a beta" and therefore people should expect the product to be unfinished and buggy anyway.

This is not a paradigm shift. This is just an effect of a toxic development mindset combined with the fact that you can actually hold your customers hostage and string them along for the ride since they've already paid on the promise of you actually releasing a finished product eventually.

This shouldn't excuse any development studio from doing its due dilligence and actually delivering a reasonably finished and polished product. It does currently, but it does so on the backs of a very passionate and patient fan base. The more broken games that get never finished appear on early access the less people will be interested to actually buy one just for a promise that is usually never kept.

You can see it with AAA games already where the standard recommendation has become to buy it on steam 6 months post release or wait for the GOTY edition that includes all the DLC and has fixed most of the bugs. And steam greenlight and early access have already become a wasteland full of shoddy cash grabs released by developers who never intend those games to be finished ever.

Edited June 30, 2015 by Nigeth

[Temeter]

I do see your point, but I vehemently disagree with you that these issues cannot be projected forward to the continuation of KSP. These bugs have had no sign of being fixed, they continue to tinker with major aspects of the game, and are making rookie mistakes in development and community management with almost every update. Pointing out that this spells trouble seems eminently logical.

These projections failed until now: The bugs were probable to get fixed alone by Squads history of looking at the forums and taking note of the more serious bugs and issues. This attention is one of the main reasons aero and heat got so much rebalancing work! Pretty obvious, if you ask me, the devnotes constantly updated us on the current work. Honestly, I'd assume that the aero/heat was released this way at least to some degree to balance it with the help of the community. This idea was at least mentioned in some devnote.

This history and it's results (people seem to like the current atmo) generally make me believe that Squad, who made a very successfull game with a good community, do indeed understand how to develope a videogame. How many of the general critics can actually say that from themselve?

Especially using terms like 'rookie mistakes' is very incendiary language if more than half the forum is watching in wonder about the vigor in these criticisms in the first place. Or the community management part: It's kind of paradox, when the same fraction of people complaining about the CM leading to bad community reactions, when they're the main part that's reacting so negatively in the first place. Feels like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Edited June 30, 2015 by Temeter

[Jouni]

TNo it is not "getting increasingly more hazy". Just because it is easy to treat people - that have already paid on steam early access or kickstarter - to a game that is perpetually in alpha development doesn't mean that the lines have blurred. It just means that you are being unfair to your customers because you have to face no repercussions. Since they've already paid and have no recourse or refund options anyway. Also because the game is "technically still in beta".

The software crisis is an almost 50 years old term for the observation that the bigger and more complex a piece of software gets, the harder it becomes to keep the quality acceptable. The situation was probably the worst in the 80s and the 90s, when OS crashes were commonplace and people just had to learn to live with the bugs in their software, because patches were generally not available.

Since then, software quality has generally been improving, despite the fact that software continues getting bigger and more complex. There are several causes behind this trend. Computers are much more powerful than they used to be, so developers don't have to think as much about efficiency as they used to. Instead of writing code for the computer, they're now writing it for the other developers, decreasing the frequency of bugs and making the code easier to modify. Another cause is the ease of distributing patches over the internet. If you pick a random computer user at a random time, it's quite unlikely that they're using the first released version of any piece of software.

The third major cause is a philosopical one. Instead of seeing software as a product that is developed, finished, and released, people see it as a system that's constantly changing. In the old terminology, we had alphas, betas, release candidates, and releases, which all referred to the software product. These days, it's more useful to talk about the state of the development process. For example, a piece of software can be under internal development, released and under development, or abandoned.

[LordFjord]

No it is not "getting increasingly more hazy". Just because it is easy to treat people - that have already paid on steam early access or kickstarter - to a game that is perpetually in alpha development doesn't mean that the lines have blurred. It just means that you are being unfair to your customers because you have to face no repercussions. Since they've already paid and have no recourse or refund options anyway. Also because the game is "technically still in beta".

The "technically this game is still in alpha/beta" philosophy is probably one of the more toxic new ideas in SW development. It treats people with legitimate complaints as if they had no legitimate reason to complain since the game is "technically still in beta" and therefore people can't resonably expect it to be finished. Combine that with early access or kickstarter and you get a game that is perpetually in an unfinished state that people have already paid for. This is even less reason for developers to actually finish and polish games. Then there's the "without early access you wouldn't even have a game like this" defense which completes the trifecta of "reasons why you can't reasonably complain about the state of our game".

Even worse it puts the developers in a mindset where they themselves are led to believe that they don't need to 'finish' or 'polish' their games since it's still "technically a beta" and therefore people should expect the product to be unfinished and buggy anyway.

This is not a paradigm shift. This is just an effect of a toxic development mindset combined with the fact that you can actually hold your customers hostage and string them along for the ride since they've already paid on the promise of you actually releasing a finished product eventually.

This shouldn't excuse any development studio from doing its due dilligence and actually delivering a reasonably finished and polished product. It does currently, but it does so on the backs of a very passionate and patient fan base. The more broken games that get never finished appear on early access the less people will be interested to actually buy one just for a promise that is usually never kept.

You can see it with AAA games already where the standard recommendation has become to buy it on steam 6 months post release or wait for the GOTY edition that includes all the DLC and has fixed most of the bugs. And steam greenlight and early access have already become a wasteland full of shoddy cash grabs released by developers who never intend those games to be finished ever.

Well, what should I say?

Your latest posts all have been filled with exactly what the OP described. I am sorry that you faced some bugs and your save got corrupted in the update process.

However, you forget to see that the game indeed does work very well for many many others. If the game doesn't meet your expectation, try a steam refund or shelve it. There's NO need to keep on rumbling about it. You made your point, no need to repeat it in many different places. Won't help you, won't help Squad and certainly not the community.

And to your perfect image of game development... welcome to 2015. Times are indeed changing. Wheather you like it or not, that's how it's mostly done these days.

I prefer further development and constant updates instead of having to wait a lot of time for a lifesign from the devs.

You know the saying "time money quality pick two"?

Take a deep breath and maybe a step back, start a new save, try to achieve things in a different way. You might even enjoy the game again.

[Wallygator]

Having just now skimmed this thread, i find it interesting that a lot of folks expect Squad to have awakened yesterday (or some day prior) with the ability to be a perfect game software company - even though we all know that they didn't start out as one.

I myself have specific issues with the strategy, planning, development and release communication processes and policies (and/or lack there of) and I have posted my opinions in the past, but gosh, I would never characterise my issues as "hate".

Seriously, I've spent 30 years of my professional life in software and IT service development and even I would have a challenge to create a new game development company from scratch. So... I send the opposite of hate toward Squad :-)

That said, there is always room to improve even in the best performing companies. With Squad, the single best area of improvement (which will cost the least to achieve) is communication.

/drop mic

[rkman]

They are probably not talking about buggy AAA titles but more about smaller companies like Paradox Development Studios or Arcen games. Those companies develop DLC that will add a few new options to the game while at the same time a whole lot of new features will be released for free with the regular patches that the DLC helps to fund.

That does not sound like the model that Squad is following: we don't get DLC and a whole lot of new features, we get bug fixes and balance passes of features that were added at the last moment.

[thorgal]

i hate it is a very limited limitless game.

[Harry Rhodan]

That does not sound like the model that Squad is following: we don't get DLC and a whole lot of new features, we get bug fixes and balance passes of features that were added at the last moment.

But that sounds like a model they might try to follow post release. And my point was less DLC but ongoing development on the core game instead of calling it feature complete and stopping development at some point post release..

[klgraham1013]

Having just now skimmed this thread, i find it interesting that a lot of folks expect Squad to have awakened yesterday (or some day prior) with the ability to be a perfect game software company - even though we all know that they didn't start out as one.

I myself have specific issues with the strategy, planning, development and release communication processes and policies (and/or lack there of) and I have posted my opinions in the past, but gosh, I would never characterise my issues as "hate".

Seriously, I've spent 30 years of my professional life in software and IT service development and even I would have a challenge to create a new game development company from scratch. So... I send the opposite of hate toward Squad :-)

That said, there is always room to improve even in the best performing companies. With Squad, the single best area of improvement (which will cost the least to achieve) is communication.

/drop mic

There has always been the opportunity for Squad to bring in more experienced developers. Just because Squad is new to game development doesn't mean it's employees need to be.

[Temeter]

Having just now skimmed this thread, i find it interesting that a lot of folks expect Squad to have awakened yesterday (or some day prior) with the ability to be a perfect game software company - even though we all know that they didn't start out as one.

I myself have specific issues with the strategy, planning, development and release communication processes and policies (and/or lack there of) and I have posted my opinions in the past, but gosh, I would never characterise my issues as "hate".

Seriously, I've spent 30 years of my professional life in software and IT service development and even I would have a challenge to create a new game development company from scratch. So... I send the opposite of hate toward Squad :-)

That said, there is always room to improve even in the best performing companies. With Squad, the single best area of improvement (which will cost the least to achieve) is communication.

/drop mic

Yup, I can sign this one! That's a reasonable stance to criticise, especially coming from someone with actual experience.

There has always been the opportunity for Squad to bring in more experienced developers. Just because Squad is new to game development doesn't mean it's employees need to be.

I want, while this is not directed at me, to point out Squad has like 10 employees and based in mexico? Not sure if it would be reasonable to hire an experienced dev to do communication, and a PR firm might also not be the greatest thing, since it might probably result in much less direct communication. One might dislike the faults, but Squad is very communicative for a developer.

Edited June 30, 2015 by Temeter

[Wallygator]

There has always been the opportunity for Squad to bring in more experienced developers. Just because Squad is new to game development doesn't mean it's employees need to be.

Fair enough and very well stated. Now, and with no intent to counter your truth---> finding "qualified" developers is usually straightforward, "available" can be challenge, yet nonetheless attainable with appropriate investment. BUT... having a mature leadership cadre in place to leverage the talent is a critical success factor. Frankly, there is a bevy of talent out there in the modder space - go get it Squad! Oops, if the leadership and vision is not effectively directing the resources, then it will likely be a waste of effort anyway.

So let me amend my "communication" statement and add to it "Leadership" :-)

- - - Updated - - -

Yup, I can sign this one! That's a reasonable stance to criticise, especially coming from someone with actual experience.

I want, while this is not directed at me, to point out Squad has like 10 employees and based in mexico? Not sure if it would be reasonable to hire an experienced dev to do communication, and a PR firm might also not be the greatest thing, since it might probably result in much less direct communication. One might dislike the faults, but Squad is very communicative for a developer.

So my aspiration for squad to "communicate" more effectively is not so far fetched considering it started out as a media/event based entity. Hmmm...

[Starwaster]

Frankly, there is a bevy of talent out there in the modder space - go get it Squad! Oops, if the leadership and vision is not effectively directing the resources, then it will likely be a waste of effort anyway.

So let me amend my "communication" statement and add to it "Leadership" :-)

Squad historically has long made use of the modder community to add talented developers to its ranks.

[rkman]

And my point was less DLC but ongoing development on the core game instead of calling it feature complete and stopping development at some point post release..

They already have called it feature complete some time back, and the main reason for the updates over the past months is bug- and balance fixes that should have been ironed out before release.

[Stargate525]

They already have called it feature complete some time back, and the main reason for the updates over the past months is bug- and balance fixes that should have been ironed out before release.

They called it feature complete BEFORE ADDING RE-ENTRY HEAT...

[LtWigglesworth]

They called it feature complete BEFORE ADDING RE-ENTRY HEAT...

And mining. And heat management. And an atmospheric model that wasn't a placeholder.

[Guest]

A closing statement.

Don't get me wrong here, I only complain about this game because I love it. I'm pretty sure everyone here feels the same way.

If I didn't love the game, I wouldn't bother to complain about it, I would simply uninstall it and never play it again.

Some people see complaints as hate, but I see it as an affirmation of love. We complain, not to spread hate, but in the hope legitimate criticisms will be taken seriously and lead to work being done by the developers.

I do believe the game development has been horribly mismanaged, and I have stated that opinion here as well as elsewhere.

That being said, I've learned my lesson. KSP will be the last early access game I ever buy.

I love it to death, but I just can't handle all of the stress.

[TMS]

Too many reasons why things may have gone sour, but from a largely dispassionate observers perspective:

Management

• The suspicion that decisions are being driven by clueless managers (anyone want a mobile with their gamers edition?)
  
• The assertion (dig it out of the article archives) that there would be multiple beta releases, only to have that retrospectively reduced to one
  
• The immediate and largely inexplicable (in development terms) jump to 1.0 release
  

Communications

• The irritating shotgun approach to PR, which basically amounts to an uncoordinated mess, lots of misunderstandings and mixed messages (correcting this is a low-cost no-brainer)
  
• The weird reluctance to share development tangents in fear of community backlash if they don't come to fruition, yet...
  
• The inappropriate hyping of largely inconsequential developments, leading to community over-estimation, frustration and, arguably, contributes to...
  
• The simultaneous increase in introversion of the Devs, where communication is limited to a weekly note and 'on spec' communication is almost none-existent (compare to other games with low staff numbers and you'll be shocked at how badly KSP does this relationship management)
  

Development

• The constant community warnings against rushing to release, driven largely by concerns about QA capacity, only to be ignored and sadly proven correct
  
• The knee-jerk and ill-considered adjustments to the game based on community trends (aero balance, 64-bit hack)
  
• The loss and lack of replacement of competent staff, despite the huge financial success of the game and assurances that development is not nearing the end
  

Content

• Long-standing bugs that are still unresolved (why is Claw's thread even necessary?)
  
• Added features are often wafer-thin and bug-prone
  
• The direction and structure of career mode remains a patchwork of features that, with regret, don't particularly add up to a compelling experience (I think someone, quite accurately, referred to it as being 'rudderless' earlier). The denial of this is as frustrating as the amount of time spent developing it.
  

A lot of the above is par for the course in some ways. I can accept wafer-thin features, financially-driven decisions and slow development, providing the base game is stable enough for modders to provide the depth of content we crave. To that end, I'm sitting KSP development out until I see a stable Unity 5 x64 release, with several bug fixing patches following it.

However, Squad, above all else, need to sort out their godawful communications strategy. I figure that they can head off a lot of critique they get by taking a slightly more honest and open approach to dealing with their customers.

[kiwi1960]

Everything you just posted supports the view that the mods here are doing a remarkably good job.

Possibly, but I would argue that the old team was doing TOO good a job. Maybe I should point out that I don't really have a problem with the new team, as such...

I was given a mild warning for circumventing the profanity filter, but I never did that, I just used a word in use in every day language here... so, it was unintentional. I did say in a reply that was the case, but I'd try and not use that word seeing as its against the rules. And about that, sure, rules are rules but the society here isn't the same as the society anywhere else... so accidents do happen.

I have taken the warning in my stride, I did screw up but... hey... I never meant to.

The mods here do a good job, I never said otherwise. Some in the past may have gone too far but, hey, this is 2015, not 2013.

[Sandworm]

However, Squad, above all else, need to sort out their godawful communications strategy. I figure that they can head off a lot of critique they get by taking a slightly more honest and open approach to dealing with their customers.

I more or less agree with the entire post. Almost all the issues with KSP boil down to poor project management. What we are seeing is technical dept coming home to roost. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_debt)

But I disagree with the characterization of Squad's communications strategy. Once a product has been released, admitting the existence of bugs drives down sales. Customers delay until officially acknowledged bugs have been squashed. It's now all about public reputation. They need to keep potential customers happy. We past customers come second. Whether it's EA, Microsoft, they all keep silent about bugs until the patch is ready for deployment. The only other option is to pull the product and attempt a re-release (see Batman). So Squad's strategy of keeping quiet is not awful, it just doesn't suit our purposes.

Edited July 1, 2015 by Sandworm

[kiwi1960]

Sorry for the double post, but I want to change the tone of this thread totally... meaning, my last post wasn't up to scratch but it is a reply.

I want to change this thread to one of love.... not hate or complaints.

Squad, you are awesome, keep up the good work. You're onto a winner here and I appreciate it.

The Mods, I love you guys too. It may not be said often enough, but you do an awesome job!

Come on people, lets share the love... leave the "H" word behind us and lets share the "L" word.

You catch more flies with honey than you do vinegar. Those that want a perfect game, well ... encourage Squad to keep making the effort.

And most of all... Ya just gotta love the members of this forum, everyone has a different opinion, its what makes life exciting. So, share the opinions but do it in a loving way.

[Jouni]

The simultaneous increase in introversion of the Devs, where communication is limited to a weekly note and 'on spec' communication is almost none-existent (compare to other games with low staff numbers and you'll be shocked at how badly KSP does this relationship management)

Internet forums are by their nature extremely toxic environments. This forum isn't among the worst, but the culture is still hostile enough to keep the developers away. If I were a KSP developer, I would definitely stay away. Participating in the discussion would just ruin my mood and kill my productivity.

[Kuu Lightwing]

Internet forums are by their nature extremely toxic environments. This forum isn't among the worst, but the culture is still hostile enough to keep the developers away. If I were a KSP developer, I would definitely stay away. Participating in the discussion would just ruin my mood and kill my productivity.

Honestly, with all that attitiude at forums and Reddit, I'm surprised they provide some feedback - like those devnotes at all.

[basic.syntax]

Too many reasons why things may have gone sour, but from a largely dispassionate observers perspective:

Well-written, organized post!

Management

• The suspicion that decisions are being driven by clueless managers (anyone want a mobile with their gamers edition?)

  
  

Not the best example to choose. That one is a matter of personal preference. I think the mobile is cool and representative of what happens in KSP. Stuff just tends to float off in all directions, and hanging it up in a corner somewhere, is a way of professing the "LoLsoKerbal" meme to your visitors

• The assertion (dig it out of the article archives) that there would be multiple beta releases, only to have that retrospectively reduced to one
  

Yup. No argument there.

• The immediate and largely inexplicable (in development terms) jump to 1.0 release
  

But, they have explained it. Some simply don't accept the explanation. Whether this has resulted in problems worse than player irritation is a subject that could be analyzed, but mostly what I see in the forums is stuff like this thread of frustration and speculation about doom-and-gloom scenarios. Meanwhile KSP gets glowing commercial reviews, causing more irritation that reviewers "just don't get it - game is bug-ridden and incomplete." These things may be true to some extent, but both commercial and player reviews [ Positive (22,589) Negative (448) ] on Steam seem willing to *forgive* faults that other writers find unforgivable. The development of KSP continues, just as they promised it would in the Beyond Beta article at the beginning of the year.

Communications

• The irritating shotgun approach to PR, which basically amounts to an uncoordinated mess, lots of misunderstandings and mixed messages (correcting this is a low-cost no-brainer)

  
  

The key word is irritating. At times I agree with you, but I want to offer this link about a related subject, where Kasper explains that they choose to do PR across a variety of platforms. They are a business that wants to reach the widest possible audience; they will go where the people are. Meanwhile, various employees will tweet stuff that might be news-worthy, but anything "important" gets cross-posted by people who think it is important, just about everywhere. It can be a matter of preference; I like the small-company feel, compared to press portal corporate PR reviewed by lawyers.

• The weird reluctance to share development tangents in fear of community backlash if they don't come to fruition, yet...
  

I agree and wish for more sharing of development news. Unfortunately, the fear has been explained, and is sadly "why we can't have nice things."

any lists we publish can only result in leaving people disappointed. The problem here is that no amount of disclaimers and notices will keep everyone from taking every feature on a list as a commitment from us. We don’t want to commit to anything we’re not sure about ourselves, so if we do have to leave something out, we should be the only ones to be disappointed. It’s not great, we know, but it’s for the best.

I think many of us would like to see the mysterious "road map," no matter what changeable format it is in. I can imagine forum threads discussing the merits or total wrongness of each thought they have penciled and doodled. And then the scenario described in the quote above, when the next major update comes out.

• The inappropriate hyping of largely inconsequential developments, leading to community over-estimation, frustration and, arguably, contributes to...
  

Hype can be unfortunate, but it's partially on us, as you write. We are the ones who get overly excited by various announcements, and ought to learn to view hype through special sunglasses. What is important to Squad can work out to be unimportant to many player groups.

• The simultaneous increase in introversion of the Devs, where communication is limited to a weekly note and 'on spec' communication is almost none-existent (compare to other games with low staff numbers and you'll be shocked at how badly KSP does this relationship management)
  

I think the Dev weekly communications strategy was worked out a long time ago. They like it. They point out that the very popular, and rare, feature development articles are very time consuming. Every company finds something that works for them, what is important to me is that they are consistent with it. The recent PS4 picture-devnote was an anomaly, quickly followed up by words explaining that they just didn't have much else to talk about that week.

Development

• The constant community warnings against rushing to release, driven largely by concerns about QA capacity, only to be ignored and sadly proven correct
  

Every release is a release, and is subject to its own problems. What is important to me is that Squad does follow up on serious release problems, often kicking out patches within a week. Concerns about QA are largely a perception that more is better. Squad has countered numerous times that more QA requires more filtering, e.g., the noise ratio goes up. Some problems are on Unity, and out of Squad's control. I agree that some others in Squad's control, to their regret, weren't addressable before release. (I'm quoting a specific example, but it has happened before, and will happen again. (BSG reference) ) Circular discussion; move back to first sentence.

• The knee-jerk and ill-considered adjustments to the game based on community trends (aero balance, 64-bit hack)
  

Phrases like knee-jerk and ill-considered, are a matter of personal opinion. We don't know how much time and snacks were consumed thinking and creating both the original concepts and adjustments to them. Some facets of the Aero/heat balance efforts turned critics into converts; one can no longer decry the monolithic "soup-o-sphere," now we have so much more to talk about Squad's support of the Modding community is both acknowledgement of this, and a relief valve for players who don't agree with the balance that Squad chooses.

• The loss and lack of replacement of competent staff, despite the huge financial success of the game and assurances that development is not nearing the end
  

It's sad, but also nice that Squad allowed departing staff a final word in their Devnotes. They are working on it.

Content

• Long-standing bugs that are still unresolved (why is Claw's thread even necessary?)
  

Claw is out in front, working without a test team, releasing his own personal view of how to solve various problems, as he sees them. Claw's workarounds and fixes are generally awesome and I use them, too. Squad may not choose to roll out his solution, because they could have a different idea or are working on a completely new system. That is especially relevant now that development is moving fully onto the Unity 5 platform.

Asking Squad to stop and just fix (less catastrophic) bugs is a very popular idea, I see bugs that bother me all the time. Squad has to juggle development time to address the worst bugs: crashing and unplayable-no-workaround bugs should be addressed; while moving forward with new systems and features. Intermittent bugs are the worst. I see bugs in the tracker asking and waiting for a consistent method to reproduce them.

Is the developer's time better spent on bugs - or advancing the entire game, such that old bugs might become obsolete? The forums will debate this juggling act to the end of time.

• Added features are often wafer-thin and bug-prone
  
• The direction and structure of career mode remains a patchwork of features that, with regret, don't particularly add up to a compelling experience (I think someone, quite accurately, referred to it as being 'rudderless' earlier). The denial of this is as frustrating as the amount of time spent developing it.
  

A lot of the above is par for the course in some ways. I can accept wafer-thin features, financially-driven decisions and slow development, providing the base game is stable enough for modders to provide the depth of content we crave. To that end, I'm sitting KSP development out until I see a stable Unity 5 x64 release, with several bug fixing patches following it.

However, Squad, above all else, need to sort out their godawful communications strategy. I figure that they can head off a lot of critique they get by taking a slightly more honest and open approach to dealing with their customers.

[Temeter]

I love it to death, but I just can't handle all of the stress.

Thanks for your honesty, I think that's the issue. You, and some others, are taking the whole thing far too personal and loose view of the bigger picture. Which leads to overly emotional posts, which don't really help anyone.

[I_Killed_Jeb]

However, Squad, above all else, need to sort out their godawful communications strategy. I figure that they can head off a lot of critique they get by taking a slightly more honest and open approach to dealing with their customers.

Nailed it. Truth be told I haven't touched the game since 0.90. When they announced that they were "uncomfortable" with the early access label, and that was the primary reason given for moving to 1.0, I stopped playing. I'm glad I have because if I had a post-release craft go from fine to unflyable I'd be pretty pissed. I'm going to continue sitting out KSP, possibly forever, unless I see some really focused improvement and understanding of what a released game is.