An Open Letter to Flying Tiger Entertainment

[DuoDex]

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.

A common and severe misconception that I have seen (and have indulged in myself) is that being a licensee of KSP entitles one to have a say in development. You are not an owner of the game, or a shareholder. You have purchased a license to play the game.

The entitlement issue that seems to occur repeatedly here is that people assume they can say stuff and have Squad immediately act on it. While SQUAD, as any game company, welcomes suggestions and constructive criticism, they are neither required to listen nor act upon your well-meant complaints. You bought the game to play it, not develop it. Should Squad decide to act upon a suggestion or complaint it is because they feel it is necessary, not because the forums or subreddit are bringing it to their attention (and often making a nuisance of themselves while doing it ).

Finally, the unprecedented level of dev communication (that allows us to engage in these speculations and suggestions) we enjoy is not, I repeat not, the normal in the games industry. Any major developer's fans would be ecstatic to see the level of engagement Harv, Mu, Porkjet and the like have with us - but we, as a community, don't thank them for their work, instead pouring down ridicule and accusations of laziness. It's a gift we have, not a right.

Edited August 30, 2015 by DuoDex

[basic.syntax]

Kasper has made 6 posts so far in this thread - Thanks Kasper! I've noticed quite a few of your postings lately in various topics; Squad is clearly keeping tabs on forum community concerns.

[Robotengineer]

A common and severe misconception that I have seen (and have indulged in myself) is that being a licensee of KSP entitles one to have a say in development. You are not an owner of the game, or a shareholder. You have purchased a license to play the game.

We are stakeholders though.

[regex]

Finally, the unprecedented level of dev communication (that allows us to engage in these speculations and suggestions) we enjoy is not, I repeat not, the normal in the games industry.

For a team the size of Squad it's actually fairly typical. In my experience, however, most other developers usually have a published roadmap and go into much more detail about their development.

E: And they generally engage on their official forums rather than scattering communications to the four winds.

Any major developer

Ah, yeah, well, if we're talking major developers then Squad is pretty talkative by comparison, but they're not exactly a major development house. Edited August 31, 2015 by regex

[Randazzo]

We are stakeholders though.

Which is, essentially, meaningless.

The term has been broadened to include anyone who has an interest in a matter.

The only thing purchasing the game entitles the purchaser to are the rights in the EULA, and I would be willing to wager (Since I'm irresponsible and have not read it) there's no provision for directing development. Every other privilege Squad is gracious enough to grant us (such as the privilege of using these forums to berate them) is just that, a privilege.

[softweir]

We are stakeholders though.

The whole concept of "stakeholder" is a very feeble one: it has very little effect except as a marketing or management gimmick. Quite often, when somebody uses the word "stakeholder" as in "we value all our stakeholders", there is a liberal dose of BS being applied.

In any case, a customer is only a stakeholder in those goods and services he buys or is likely to buy. The owner of a Rolls-Royce car has no stakeholding in Rolls-Royce jet engines, only in that car and other RR cars he may purchase later. Aircraft manufacturers have a stakeholding in jet engines, but not cars. A Rolls Royce car owner who sent angry letters to the CEO about the pricing of a jet engine has no stakeholder's right to do so because he has no stake in that market, and RR will ignore him. Similarly a Boeing executive who criticises a motor car for its looks only has a stakeholder's right to do so if he is an owner or prospective purchaser.

We are not stakeholders in the console market, only in the PC market. As and when console versions are released and you buy any of them, then you will become a stakeholder in Flying Tiger's ports and will have a stakeholder's right to criticise that port. Until then, you have the right to your opinions, as any person has, but no more.

As stakeholders in Squad's PC game, our only interest is that Squad make money from this and use it to further development of KSP. They will.

[Greenfire32]

We are stakeholders though.

Let's be real. We're customers, nothing more. Customers with opinions. Opinions which Squad has every right to listen to or ignore.

Just because you buy gas, does not mean you get a say in how the gas station is run.

[Columbia]

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.

Um, worked fine? The issue was that there were easily many bugs noticed within minutes of playing for some players, which could've been addressed during Experimental stages instead of having to release four patches. If it's inevitable to be buggy, then at least minimize it as much as you can.

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.

Oh my god, not this again.

1) If they had an actual reason, then at best they could've made an announcement to the community about their motives as to why they'd make such a decision. Maybe more people might rage, but hey, at least we know why they did it instead of having to repeatedly contend with the same "1.0 was a bad decision" argument.

2) That doesn't mean that they have no right to "protest" (I have no better word ._.) against Squad's decision.

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?

1) So what if they aren't a target audience? Much of the community is skeptical because they feel that KSP does not seem to be good on platforms, especially in it's current "unfinished" state. They're only trying to pave the way for future audience.

2) Another thing to remember is that many of them know (or for that matter.. feel) what would be the best for Squad. If they screw up.. their reputation would be ruined to smithereens, and they'd lose a lot of revenue.

3) ..Eh, I can't argue with that last sentence. I kinda feel the same.

[cantab]

We're not even that. We're former customers. Squad's current and future customers are almost all the people who haven't yet bought KSP. Those are the people Squad want to sell the game to, not us who've long since handed over our money.

Of course Squad know that a good fanbase helps sell the game. They're unlikely to do anything seriously obnoxious.

[Plume & Akakak]

We are stakeholders though.

This growing obsession of taking part in a product's governance is absurd, as is the sort of mini-vigilantism spirit it can come with.

I love this game and I'm comfortable with being just a KSP user. This forum is mainly a showcase for Squad, and I'm all fine with that too.

Like CloudlessEchoes, I'm here because I'm interested in seeing what people are building in this game, and to meet people with whom I share a common enthusiasm, certainly not to claim any right over the land. Squad can go on their merry way, I'll follow the show with affectionate curiosity.

Edited August 31, 2015 by Plume & Akakak

[Robotengineer]

The whole concept of "stakeholder" is a very feeble one: it has very little effect except as a marketing or management gimmick. Quite often, when somebody uses the word "stakeholder" as in "we value all our stakeholders", there is a liberal dose of BS being applied.

In any case, a customer is only a stakeholder in those goods and services he buys or is likely to buy. The owner of a Rolls-Royce car has no stakeholding in Rolls-Royce jet engines, only in that car and other RR cars he may purchase later. Aircraft manufacturers have a stakeholding in jet engines, but not cars. A Rolls Royce car owner who sent angry letters to the CEO about the pricing of a jet engine has no stakeholder's right to do so because he has no stake in that market, and RR will ignore him. Similarly a Boeing executive who criticises a motor car for its looks only has a stakeholder's right to do so if he is an owner or prospective purchaser.

We are not stakeholders in the console market, only in the PC market. As and when console versions are released and you buy any of them, then you will become a stakeholder in Flying Tiger's ports and will have a stakeholder's right to criticise that port. Until then, you have the right to your opinions, as any person has, but no more.

As stakeholders in Squad's PC game, our only interest is that Squad make money from this and use it to further development of KSP. They will.

I don't see how this is much different from what the OP is saying, though I disagree with the tone of the OP. Since the ports are a way of Squad making money to further the development of KSP, we should have an interest in their success.

Let's be real. We're customers, nothing more. Customers with opinions. Opinions which Squad has every right to listen to or ignore.

Just because you buy gas, does not mean you get a say in how the gas station is run.

Except that you do. If a large enough group of people took issue with the way a company is run, they can boycott said company, thus causing financial damage and potentially causing management to change its mind. However the boycott model is void because we have already purchased the game, and aside from some merchandise, there isn't anything we can refuse to buy that would cause financial harm. Of course, we could post disparaging things on the web about KSP, but that likely wouldn't have an effect either.

This growing obsession of taking part to a product's governance is absurd, as is the sort of mini-vigilantism spirit that it can come with.

I love this game and I'm comfortable with being just a KSP user. This forum is mostly a showcase for Squad, and I'm all fine with that too.

Like CloudlessEchoes, I'm here to enjoy how creative people can be with this game, and to meet people with whom I share a common enthusiasm, certainly not to claim any right over the land. Squad can go on their merry way, I'll be following the show with affectionate curiosity.

Mini-vigilantism? And what of this growing obsession of taking part in a products governance? Last time I checked, Squad practically asked me to take part when they offered an Alpha version.

We're not even that. We're former customers. Squad's current and future customers are almost all the people who haven't yet bought KSP. Those are the people Squad want to sell the game to, not us who've long since handed over our money.

Of course Squad know that a good fanbase helps sell the game. They're unlikely to do anything seriously obnoxious.

cantab is right, IMO, except for one thing.

Why, may I ask, did Squad decide to do Early Access if they didn't intend on receiving input that would help shape the game and things related to it? While technically I am a former customer, I'm also a former Alpha/Beta tester. IIRC, there was nothing saying that Squad no longer wanted input after 1.0. So why bother taking issue with players who are concerned about the future of KSP?

[Plume & Akakak]

Mini-vigilantism?

Yea, absurd mini-vigilantism. The gnomish militias of Pixel-Land, the People's Liberation Army of Sandboxes, Battalions of self-proclaimed popes & ayatollahs of video games...

as in :

If a large enough group of people took issue with the way a company is run, they can boycott said company, thus causing financial damage and potentially causing management to change its mind.

[Robotengineer]

Yea, absurd mini-vigilantism. The gnomish militias of Pixel-Land, the People's Liberation Army of Sandboxes, Battalions of self-proclaimed popes & ayatollahs of video games...

as in :

So you got an issue with people collectively voicing their opinions?

[jwenting]

So you got an issue with people collectively voicing their opinions?

I've got serious issues with nincompoops mindlessly blathering about how bad things are, deliberately or through stupidity spouting lies and FUD (either stuff they made up themselves or mindlessly copied from someone just like them they consider for whatever reason to be an authority).

I've no problem with reasoned, well founded, evidence based, opinions. But most of the negativity we see isn't such.

Sure 1.0 wasn't perfect. Anyone with half a brain should be able to realise that perfection doesn't exist, that there is no such thing as bug free software, especially software designed to run on a massive range of disparate hardware and software environments (PCs, hint, hint, hint) and has an open modding engine built in.

I've encountered bugs myself, sometimes somewhat annoying ones. But I've been able to track most of them down to mods or combinations of mods. Most people don't bother. They claim that something MUST be a bug in the core game because it happens when they by their reasoning aren't doing something to a mod (like claiming that a problem with the aerodynamics can't be caused by a purely visual mod).

[Kuu Lightwing]

Um, worked fine? The issue was that there were easily many bugs noticed within minutes of playing for some players, which could've been addressed during Experimental stages instead of having to release four patches. If it's inevitable to be buggy, then at least minimize it as much as you can.

And yet it was playable, had lots of cool new features and main issues were fixed relatively fast. It was rated good by reviewers and even regex liked it So, the decision to go for the release worked fine.

Oh my god, not this again.

1) If they had an actual reason, then at best they could've made an announcement to the community about their motives as to why they'd make such a decision. Maybe more people might rage, but hey, at least we know why they did it instead of having to repeatedly contend with the same "1.0 was a bad decision" argument.

2) That doesn't mean that they have no right to "protest" (I have no better word ._.) against Squad's decision.

Why should they do "announcements" about their business plans and strategy? Because some forum people want to know? I don't think that's enough of a reason to justify doing so. I'm pretty sure there's also some rules inside SQUAD that don't let employers do that.

Also, "protesting" against a decision that was already made and set in motion is meaningless.

And no, that's not the same as toroidal fuel tank - that was a relatively minor thing which is easy to change and that was all about the game itself.

1) So what if they aren't a target audience? Much of the community is skeptical because they feel that KSP does not seem to be good on platforms, especially in it's current "unfinished" state. They're only trying to pave the way for future audience.

2) Another thing to remember is that many of them know (or for that matter.. feel) what would be the best for Squad. If they screw up.. their reputation would be ruined to smithereens, and they'd lose a lot of revenue.

Much of the community doesn't care about consoles, so that's just none of their business. It's weird to see people demanding every single piece of info about console port development when they don't even plan to play it on consoles.

And it's quite strange to assume that community knows more about what's good for Squad and cares more about Squad's reputation than Squad is. I would like to see a reasoning behind that statement. People may feel whatever they... feel, that's not necessary true. I bet most people in the gaming community before KSP would say "A game about realistic rocketry? No FTL drives? Orbits? That's just boring - who would even play that?!" - that sort of thing.

[asheft]

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?

A couple of follow up comments to this. I never said it wasn't a success. I also never said that they predicted the doom of KSP, or that they were completely right. All I said is that they thought that KSP 1.0 would have a lot more bugs and be in a lot more unfinished state than it ought to be. And, I think they were somewhat right (meaning, more than Squad originally thought). And the primary point of that post was to express that Squad has been giving us contradictory statements and reusing arguments for/against certain things for the last several months. I don't think that can be disputed. I think you make several good points, and I think that other people have made good points as well. No one person is clearly right, the truth likely lies somewhere in between. And I don't expect Squad to turn around their business plan completely because of a couple of forum posts. I just think that the community has had some validity to it's skepticism the last several months, and I don't think it should be ignored completely. The primary points of my original post (not the OP) were to point out the frame of reference for the statements Squad has made regarding the ports, and to try to point out some communication shortcomings with the community. And yes, I think that given what I pointed out some concrete evidence would go a lot more to easing some of the community concerns than what they have said.

[kreutzkevic]

Well, this is an interesting discussion but ultimately it is moot. It's based on rumour, hearsay and hope.

All I know for sure is that €25.00 bought me hours and hours of fun and great gameplay. It is still the game I play the most, even after 3 years.

I advocate patience, as always. It is much easier to complain using specific arguments than unfounded whining. Which doens't imply people should refrain from airing their views in a civilized and constructive manner.

We are all greatly in love with this product, or we wouldn't be here. But I'm pretty sure Squad still is, too. Otherwise, they wouldn't bother with an engine upgrade after release, which is no mean feat.

They could have taken the DF-9 route, after all...

[SelectHalfling0]

I'm planning on waiting for the console editions to come out, watch the inevitable reviews, and if they are bad I won't buy it, if they are good I will buy it (probably Wii U because of the gamepad).

Simple as watching a 20 min youtube video.

[Lukaszenko]

So the other day this freakin' store pops up next to where I live. wth is the meaning behind it?

[Randazzo]

Squad stopped truly caring what the community thought a long time ago. I think C7 Chad Jenkins leaving the team marked that point. He was a community member whose insight gave us something in KSP we could never imagine living without. Space-planes.

Squad used to take community feedback like this and even have significant members join the team (C7). But that has never again happened from my knowledge. When C7 left the team the community also left the team. We can complain or support this but no matter what it won't change anything at this point.

Roverdude, Arsonide, Porkjet, and Nathankell don't count?

SOMEBODY who works for Squad will see a lot of the suggestions made; I won't suggest they see everything, they're only human.

[_stilgar_]

we could never imagine living without. Space-planes.

But that has never again happened from my knowledge.

What about Porkjet, Arsonide and Roverdude? And all those new parts for spaceplanes?

[Moach]

I read and I read...

come to the realization that this thread may (or not, who am I to tell?) have had an original purpose other than to simply instir mayhem into the minds of the poor victims that fall into it's merciless jaws of endless, meaningless, fruitless, oh dear god ever so hopeless back and forth about ANYTHING that can be burned for heat in the longest few posts of it's previous page..... dear god, what have we learned here?

I think I grow stupider with each post.... oh no! some of my brain is dripping on the floor!

I'm not cleaning that up! (even though I live by myself) -- hey Dog! stop licking that, that's the piece of brain where I remember my.... wait, what was that again?... I forget

I'm feeling a strange urge to lock it, despite not actually really knowing what for... I just feel we as a group might be somehow better off without this... uh... whatever this is about

this just may be one of the weirdest growing threads I've ever come across... there's something off here, but I cannot for the life of me put a finger on it...

before someone loses an eye or some such... please folks, behave -- be nice to each other, think happy thoughts!

somehow it feels this is critical advice to this debate in a near future

this thread scares me, I'm outta here

good luck!

Cheers

Edited September 4, 2015 by Moach

[Pax Kerbana]

There is only one issue I have with the OP:

Why? Nobody on this forum is ever going to buy a console port of KSP*. We are PC gamers; that we are even here is proof of this. To divert resources from development and marketing in their target market would be (at best) silly and contentious. Why contentious? Because every scrap of text they post here will be analysed and creatively misunderstood and will create friction and bad feeling all round. They wouldn't dare to report anything or answer any questions without spending hours second-guessing how the critics and haters will interpret it. It would do nothing for their sales into the console market, would waste time, and would potentially create bad publicity.

I think the very best approach they can have on these forums is the one they have adopted: a dignified silence.

Such brilliance. So 100%. I commend you on your eloquence! Rep for you, Sir.

[r4pt0r]

I'm feeling a strange urge to lock it, despite not actually really knowing what for... I just feel we as a group might be somehow better off without this... uh... whatever this is about

this just may be one of the weirdest growing threads I've ever come across... there's something off here, but I cannot for the life of me put a finger on it...

I hate PSA's and open letters on principal, even when I agree with them. They just come across as uppity or pretentious(and I know that was not upsilons intention)

Why? Nobody on this forum is ever going to buy a console port of KSP*.

I see your asterisk but still wanted to argue I play my PS4 and my PC almost equally. I look forward to ksp on PS4 since I play stock anyway.

[herman]

We're not even that. We're former customers. Squad's current and future customers are almost all the people who haven't yet bought KSP. Those are the people Squad want to sell the game to, not us who've long since handed over our money.

Of course Squad know that a good fanbase helps sell the game. They're unlikely to do anything seriously obnoxious.

Ever heard of recurring revenue? KSP could easily have a sequel, DLC, etc. attached to it. The "former customers" (I like the italic sneer) on this forum are the easiest future customers for Squad to get.