An Open Letter to Flying Tiger Entertainment

[Kuu Lightwing]

1.0 was a success. Some bugfixes and tweaks was required, but you won't ever get a bugfree release. Only in a fairy tale with ponies. And yet you think that the community that "was extremely skeptical" and predicted the doom of KSP was right? It was a "bad idea", but yet it worked, and worked fine. So, the only issue is that they "DIDN'T LISTEN TO US!!!" Oh, my! And yet you still don't know what is the real reason behind that decision and if it's physically possible for them to "listen" to forum users.

Also, why do you thing that Squad should provide you some "evidence"? The only proof they need is the successful release of the game on consoles. And really, you aren't even a target audience, because you play KSP on PC and don't care about consoles.

And, what are you going to achieve by threads like this? "Oh, almighty forum users, we were blind, we break our contract with Flying Tiger and do whatever you ask!" - that sort of thing?

[J.Random]

1.0 was a success.

Which one out of five of them? Just curious.

[Kuu Lightwing]

Incorrect question, because 1.0 is all of them.

[J.Random]

Are you saying that all of them were successful? Including 1.0.1 and 1.0.3, which had a lifespan of a mayfly? Or the one which left us with an impressive memory leak for two months? Again, just curious.

[severedsolo]

Are you saying that all of them were successful? Including 1.0.1 and 1.0.3, which had a lifespan of a mayfly? Or the one which left us with an impressive memory leak for two months? Again, just curious.

I don't know, the 1.0 release of GTA5 was missing half it's features (GTA online) and had a massive bug where cars would randomly disappear from your garage. They left us with that one for over a month.

[Kuu Lightwing]

Are you saying that all of them were successful? Including 1.0.1 and 1.0.3, which had a lifespan of a mayfly? Or the one which left us with an impressive memory leak for two months? Again, just curious.

You don't understand. 1.0 is 1.0.0 and its patches. The whole thing is sucessful. And if you're interested, 1.0.0 itself was very playable and fun.

[John FX]

You're proposing the glass has already increased in size while the liquid is still missing. At the moment though, I think the glass is still the original size and the liquid isn't here yet either. It is merely known that the size of the glass will increase in the future.

Now I'm confused, are the contents of the glass 50% liquid and 50% air or not?

You can't make a metaphor like saying the glass is half empty or half full and then say the glass isn't twice the size of the liquid...

My viewpoint on that particular metaphor is the glass is half empty if it's on its way to becoming empty and its half full if it's on its way to becoming full, so you can only accurately describe the current state of the glass if you know the future state of the liquid. Without knowing that, if half the content of the glass is air and half the contents of the glass is liquid all you can say is the glass is twice the size it needs to be at the moment.

Edit :

To get back On Topic though, I really don't see what all the fuss is about. I really don't think a third party company developing a KSP Port will affect my gameplay or gaming experience in a negative way at all. It might even be positive, who knows?

I have roughly the same amount of concern about whether the CPU of the Wii or the PS4 or the Xbox One can handle KSP as I have about whether a random forum members laptop has enough CPU power to run KSP at 60 frames a second or not, that being so close to none as to be indistinguishable from it.

Edited August 30, 2015 by John FX

[AlphaAsh]

I don't know, the 1.0 release of GTA5 was missing half it's features (GTA online) and had a massive bug where cars would randomly disappear from your garage. They left us with that one for over a month.

"Lots of other games release as 1.0 full of bugs, so it's fine if we do too. Because customers expect and accept that."

Obviously not an actual quote.

[severedsolo]

"Lots of other games release as 1.0 full of bugs, so it's fine if we do too. Because customers expect and accept that."

Obviously not an actual quote.

The point I was trying to make (and I admit it wasn't particularly well articulated) was that it's unfair to single squad out on this one.

[John FX]

"Lots of other games release as 1.0 full of bugs, so it's fine if we do too. Because customers expect and accept that."

Obviously not an actual quote.

The world seems to be a different place as far as software goes from the one that existed when I first started using software. In those days, you had to make your software perfect before release as there was almost no way of distributing any fixes to it later on.

In the modern world though, we have the Internet. This allows companies to release software at an appropriate time for the development of their company and at a point where the company will receive the most benefit for the release of software.

This means that we get new features, bug fixes and software is generally a more living thing than it used to be in the past where it was very fixed. It is not valid anymore to complain about bugs in software unless they are bugs that are not addressed by the developing company.

In the past, the first anybody would see of the game would have been just a few months ago when 1.0.0 was released. Instead of that we have had many years enjoying the software but for some people this gives them a sense of entitlement and a desire to complain in the hope that their desires and wishes will influence the future development of the game.

I feel that some people seems to be hanging on to this outdated model of software development and release which is not necessarily the best viewpoint to have in the modern world.

Alongside other people I hope but the third party developer of the ports does a good job because I wish squad all the success in the world because of the sheer amount of Joy and fun they have given me over the years for what was a very very small investment of $23 as far as I can recall.

Edited August 30, 2015 by John FX
Fixing voice recognition errors

[cantab]

1.0 was quite probably a commercial success, but in my view it (counting the whole 1.0.x series) has been the worst KSP release in a long time. The only reason I haven't gone back to 0.90 is mods, notably Kopernicus.

[basic.syntax]

I found 1.0, and especially the final set of adjustments in 1.0.3, to be a much better KSP experience than what I went through in .90, with its noticeably worse garbage collection frame stutter, and a memory leak on scene changes which invariably crashed my game after 15-20 trips VAB <> Launchpad. I count part heating bugs and some problems with parts placement in service bays as less severe stuff than what I put up with in .90.

[AlphaAsh]

The point I was trying to make (and I admit it wasn't particularly well articulated) was that it's unfair to single squad out on this one.

I wasn't particularly articulate either chap. My point is that it shouldn't be unfair.

...I feel that some people seems to be hanging on to this outdated model of software development and release which is not necessarily the best viewpoint to have in the modern world....

Uh huh. I disagree that it's outdated or that it isn't the best viewpoint. And I live in a modern world too.

[windows_x_seven]

How many times has Squad actually taken Kommunity advice on development and business strategy? AFAIK, never.

I think I've reached 'frankly, I don't give a damn.' status on Squad side development. Squad doesn't listen, or doesn't appear to listen, so why waste words?

Yeah, I'll have to agree with that.

The Great Forum Crisis of Spaceport showed that. Somehow, they reacted to the ROUND-8 crisis, but now they won't care about what we think about their ports, and more recently, the new Devnotes Tuesdays format.

[Bill Phil]

1.0 was quite probably a commercial success, but in my view it (counting the whole 1.0.x series) has been the worst KSP release in a long time. The only reason I haven't gone back to 0.90 is mods, notably Kopernicus.

Can you please explain why?

IMO 1.0 was not worthy of the title, but it was the best update I had seen since before .19. ( when I started playing)

The amount of content was good, and performance was at an all time high for my machine.

[Renegrade]

1.0 was quite probably a commercial success, but in my view it (counting the whole 1.0.x series) has been the worst KSP release in a long time. The only reason I haven't gone back to 0.90 is mods, notably Kopernicus.

There was an uptick in Steam players around the release of 1.0 (one of the biggest in recent history), but it's only about double the normal background levels, and it really only happened in May and fell down to normal background levels again in about thirty days.

Not really the picture of a runaway success, despite PC Gamer giving it a 98. Oh wait, they gave Duke Nukem Forever a score of 80.. so rescaling based on that known sample point, about 49 overall (ouch, I would have given KSP a solid but unexceptional 70 - some bonus points for innovative game, many points taken away for QC issues).

[DuoDex]

Yeah, I'll have to agree with that.

The Great Forum Crisis of Spaceport showed that. Somehow, they reacted to the ROUND-8 crisis, but now they won't care about what we think about their ports, and more recently, the new Devnotes Tuesdays format.

Squad have no obligation to listen to their customers on development matters. They're the ones producing the game, not us.

While Kommunity advice is always well-intentioned, it's not always the best. Making a video game by committee just doesn't work.

[qromodynmc]

Can you please explain why?

IMO 1.0 was not worthy of the title, but it was the best update I had seen since before .19. ( when I started playing)

The amount of content was good, and performance was at an all time high for my machine.

Some people just like to complain. Imo 1.0 was pretty good, every update was pretty good, they always get better and better. Only difference in 1.0 was aerodynamics, but this is a game, everything changes, get over it.

[KasperVld]

Yeah, I'll have to agree with that.

The Great Forum Crisis of Spaceport showed that. Somehow, they reacted to the ROUND-8 crisis, but now they won't care about what we think about their ports, and more recently, the new Devnotes Tuesdays format.

We often take advice from the community, perhaps not directly or visibly but if you look at the changelogs it's definitely there. We may not take all advice, and perhaps not the advice you personally would give to us. Development time is limited (especially for a small team like ours), business decisions play a role (time is money, after all), and ultimately we have to account not only for what the diehard fans would like to see in the game, but what newcomers or more casual players want as well.

When I was in Mexico we discussed possible features for the upcoming updates, and I relayed some of the feature requests that the community put forward. They were discussed, a few of them set aside and a few made it to our list. From the pool of developers, Felipe especially seemed to be very much aware of what the community wanted and had a clear idea of what was and wasn't possible, and for which reasons (all of which of course I sadly cannot discuss).

Finally, I think that a step back is long overdue when we start referring to the round-8 discussion as a 'crisis'. That's hyperbole at its finest, and it would be good for us to place it into perspective a little. We're all here because we love KSP. I was an active community member for 3 years before I was hired and several people on the developer team started out that way, be it as moderators (Ted and Myself for example) or modders (Mu, C7, Bac9, Roverdude, Porkjet, [...]). We all love this game but part of this community seems to treat it as a dangerous biochemical wasteproduct at times.

Edited August 30, 2015 by KasperVld

[jwenting]

Some people in the Community (I agree Kommunity sounds kind of stupid, ) may know better.

And 99% does not. You don't and can't know who if anyone Squad has asked for advise because those people would be under an NDA almost certainly.

And even if not, the type of people Squad would want to ask for help aren't the kind of people to brag about it here. In fact were I one of them I'd keep my mouth shut in public just so I'm not constantly badgered by [people] spouting abuse and harassment at those they perceive are "the cause" for "bugs" and other things that aren't quite the way the [people] would want them to be.

Which is the way "kommunities" on the internet tend to react to those among them who aren't negative and condescending.

Edited August 30, 2015 by KasperVld
play nice!

[CloudlessEchoes]

This thread is shameful. The only open letter should be to the mods requesting that they close and delete threads like this.

What is it about the internet that makes everyone an expert about coding, development cycles, marketing, porting, etc? The people giving advice aren't experts, and their advice is worth what was paid for it. If you were you'd be out doing it somewhere and not writing about it here.

KSP is a great game, which is why I come here to read about what others are doing in it. IMO the banterers, haters, and know-it-alls should be relegated to reddit or elsewhere. The current forum environment certainly wouldn't look great to any newcomers.

[mythbusters844]

This thread is shameful. The only open letter should be to the mods requesting that they close and delete threads like this.

What is it about the internet that makes everyone an expert about coding, development cycles, marketing, porting, etc? The people giving advice aren't experts, and their advice is worth what was paid for it. If you were you'd be out doing it somewhere and not writing about it here.

KSP is a great game, which is why I come here to read about what others are doing in it. IMO the banterers, haters, and know-it-alls should be relegated to reddit or elsewhere. The current forum environment certainly wouldn't look great to any newcomers.

Because we paid for this game with our own money so we're entitled to state our opinion about how Squad should use our investment.

[sal_vager]

You certainly can have an opinion, that is true at least

But your payment to Squad only entitles you to a license to play KSP, but that doesn't entitle you to any influence over Squad as to how they use that money.

Truth is many of you are formulating rather strong negative opinions based on little information, all we know has been covered in the devnotes, squadcasts and similar channels, the rest is conjecture.

Take for example the aptitude of Flying Tiger, we're aware that they were involved with some older games, some which a few of you have played and didn't think much of, the rest form opinions based on reviews of these games or worse, on their titles and cover art alone.

None of that tells us how much work went into these games or what Flying Tiger has done in the mean time, they have not only worked on the projects from the Wikipedia page as that alone wouldn't have kept them in business.

But like most companies, their dealings are largely unknown to the public, not through any malice, just through the simple fact that they don't need to tell everyone what they are doing all the time, Flying Tigers business is such that they would be subject to NDA agreements with many if not all of their clients, and to maintain their business they couldn't make everything they do public knowledge.

Squad has reason to trust Flying Tiger with these ports, technical demos likely exist that show this is feasible, but Squad is a business as well and like Flying Tiger, doesn't have to make all their decisions open to public or even customer scrutiny.

We'll find out more as time goes by, when there's something to show you can bet Maxmaps won't want to wait

[cantab]

But like most companies, their dealings are largely unknown to the public, not through any malice, just through the simple fact that they don't need to tell everyone what they are doing all the time, Flying Tigers business is such that they would be subject to NDA agreements with many if not all of their clients, and to maintain their business they couldn't make everything they do public knowledge.

Flying Tiger are a game development studio, right? For a game to be successful it's required that it be released. I was under the impression development studios generally want credit on released games they have worked on.

[sal_vager]

When studios make their own games sure, Flying Tiger seems more of an outsourcing developer, and I just knew someone would post what you posted

Flying Tiger do hardware testing, porting, themes and translations for other companies, on top of their game development, and it seems they tend to make engines for other studios rather than their own work.

And yes I know that hook-ups game is on that page, no need to tell me.