KSP2 Hype Train Thread

[GoldForest]

10 minutes ago, dave1904 said:

 Early access is a way to make money and an excuse to release an incomplete game.

Early access is also a way to make sure they find and squash bugs. What's better? A team of 50 looking for bugs, or a team of 1 million? EA isn't always about "We need money," or an excuse to 'release an incomplete game.'

11 minutes ago, dave1904 said:

Unacceptable and people defending developers with large publishers behind them are exactly why we have so many incomplete and broken games being released.

Yes, but KSP 2 is a passion project for the whole team at Intercept, most of whom are from this very community. They'll do right by us. I guarantee they will. Passion projects are seldom abandoned and seldom are broken. 

12 minutes ago, dave1904 said:

They told us they were releasing a feature complete game. 

Things change. They always do. They never once promised us a 'feature complete game.'  All they told us was a release date, that got delayed, then delayed again, and then they told us they are releasing the game in Early Access so the community can help test the core aspects as well as help them find bugs that need to be fixed before they move on to the next aspect. 

14 minutes ago, dave1904 said:

 I expect them to do so and the fact that we have early access is another sign that things are not going to plan and thats always a very bad thing. 

The fact we are getting Early Access is not a sign that things are 'not going to plan.' Like I said before, things change. They also are doing early access for another reason I mentioned in the first sentence. Bug finding and bug squashing.

15 minutes ago, dave1904 said:

Another big issue with early access is dlc. They release 1.0 in 1 or 10 years and then some dlc a month later. Half the community will go insane that they payed for the development of the DLC.

I can almost guarantee that DLC will not come 'a month after release.' If it does, I'll be fairly surprised. 

Your arguments are unwarranted. There has been no evidence that what you said has or will transpire. 

[Guest]

21 hours ago, GoldForest said:

Hmmmm. Don't know if real or if Matt is trolling us. 

If it's a mistake and he's really playing hykes, if it's trolling that's strike 2 for me from him.

I don't like when people that have power and visibility in a community are careless with it.

[Drakenred65]

There is a simple solution to 100% of your concerns about them exploiting you since that honestly seems to be your concern here.

Dont buy KSP 2. Or any sequels. Or for that matter anything from 

Ever. 

don’t look at there or there parents web sights , turn off any advertisement you see.

that way your money stays yours and you never have to worry about them.
 

Any you tube or Twitter or Twitch  or let’s play  (yes I’m dating myself)  or TikTok or any kind of video you come across just block them.

 

I’m sure you will be much much happier.

54 minutes ago, dave1904 said:

I factor in those things but they dont change anything. If the game is not performing well they are well aware of that and do not need us to tell them. The new features are things they knew we wanted from KSP 1 so they are aware of what we want. Early access is a way to make money and an excuse to release an incomplete game. Unacceptable and people defending developers with large publishers behind them are exactly why we have so many incomplete and broken games being released. They told us they were releasing a feature complete game. I expect them to do so and the fact that we have early access is another sign that things are not going to plan and thats always a very bad thing. 

Another big issue with early access is dlc. They release 1.0 in 1 or 10 years and then some dlc a month later. Half the community will go insane that they payed for the development of the DLC.

 

 

[The Aziz]

I mean

Scott Manley released a Kerbal Space Program 2 Rocket video, and unsurprisingly it grabbed a lot of attention. Famous names work with the hype.

[Snafu225]

39 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

I mean

Scott Manley released a Kerbal Space Program 2 Rocket video, and unsurprisingly it grabbed a lot of attention. Famous names work with the hype.

Are you talking about a recent video? As it would grab my attention (to prove your point) but I haven't see it and can't see a recent one. 

Edited January 22, 2023 by Snafu225
spelling

[GoldForest]

Just now, Snafu225 said:

Are you talking about a recent video? As it would grab my attention (to prove your point) but I haven't see it and can't see a recent one. 

It's a short, not a video.

[Snafu225]

Just now, GoldForest said:

It's a short, not a video.

Ah, I've seen it now. For whatever reason I don't get shorts promoted on my "YouTube Homepage" even though I'm subbed to Scott for example. Though I also don't really miss shorts.

[Bej Kerman]

1 hour ago, dave1904 said:

I factor in those things but they dont change anything. If the game is not performing well they are well aware of that and do not need us to tell them. The new features are things they knew we wanted from KSP 1 so they are aware of what we want. Early access is a way to make money and an excuse to release an incomplete game. Unacceptable and people defending developers with large publishers behind them are exactly why we have so many incomplete and broken games being released. They told us they were releasing a feature complete game. I expect them to do so and the fact that we have early access is another sign that things are not going to plan and thats always a very bad thing. 

Another big issue with early access is dlc. They release 1.0 in 1 or 10 years and then some dlc a month later. Half the community will go insane that they payed for the development of the DLC.

Please explain how it is unacceptable

1 hour ago, Master39 said:

If it's a mistake and he's really playing hykes, if it's trolling that's strike 2 for me from him.

I don't like when people that have power and visibility in a community are careless with it.

What difference would it make if Matt is just having a laugh?

[GoldForest]

7 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

What difference would it make if Matt is just having a laugh?

That's what I'm wondering. Nothing wrong with a little fun.

[gussi111]

2 hours ago, dave1904 said:

I factor in those things but they dont change anything. If the game is not performing well they are well aware of that and do not need us to tell them. The new features are things they knew we wanted from KSP 1 so they are aware of what we want. Early access is a way to make money and an excuse to release an incomplete game. Unacceptable and people defending developers with large publishers behind them are exactly why we have so many incomplete and broken games being released. They told us they were releasing a feature complete game. I expect them to do so and the fact that we have early access is another sign that things are not going to plan and thats always a very bad thing. 

Another big issue with early access is dlc. They release 1.0 in 1 or 10 years and then some dlc a month later. Half the community will go insane that they payed for the development of the DLC.

 

I mean they probably had 2 options either delay release again or give us EA, and I think they did the right thing.

[dave1904]

1 hour ago, GoldForest said:

Early access is also a way to make sure they find and squash bugs. What's better? A team of 50 looking for bugs, or a team of 1 million? EA isn't always about "We need money," or an excuse to 'release an incomplete game.'

Yes, but KSP 2 is a passion project for the whole team at Intercept, most of whom are from this very community. They'll do right by us. I guarantee they will. Passion projects are seldom abandoned and seldom are broken. 

Things change. They always do. They never once promised us a 'feature complete game.'  All they told us was a release date, that got delayed, then delayed again, and then they told us they are releasing the game in Early Access so the community can help test the core aspects as well as help them find bugs that need to be fixed before they move on to the next aspect. 

The fact we are getting Early Access is not a sign that things are 'not going to plan.' Like I said before, things change. They also are doing early access for another reason I mentioned in the first sentence. Bug finding and bug squashing.

I can almost guarantee that DLC will not come 'a month after release.' If it does, I'll be fairly surprised. 

Your arguments are unwarranted. There has been no evidence that what you said has or will transpire. 

A team of 50 qualified testers are better than 1 million unqualified players. Developers hire testers because it works. Early access by definition is publicly funding your game development. After 4 years of development someone is not to keen on continuing financial support for the game and that is a bad sign. They are releasing the game to get a return for their investment man and when it comes to money they do not care about passion anymore. 

Maybe KSP2 is going to be the best game ever but dont tell me my arguments are unwarranted. You are making emotional arguments about passion and making guarantees about a developer that has never sold you a game and a publisher that has a history of exploiting their playerbase. 

Hype is good when it comes to games but more often than not you have a devastated playerbase and the forums become toxic. Honestly I hope I am wrong about everything because I really like this community and do not want it to be disapointed. 

Just now, gussi111 said:

I mean they probably had 2 options either delay release again or give us EA, and I think they did the right thing.

No they didnt because they didnt have the money to delay it again. Its business. 

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

1 minute ago, dave1904 said:

A team of 50 qualified testers are better than 1 million unqualified players.

Thus Closed Beta.  The 'million unqualified players' provide lots of data... and really random things that can be picked up in bug reports and game logs, thus EA.

Edited January 22, 2023 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[dave1904]

Just now, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Thus Closed Beta.  The 'million unqualified players' provide lots of data... and really random things that can be picked up in bug reports and game logs, thus EA.

they provide alot of useless data. I agree. 

[The Aziz]

23 minutes ago, dave1904 said:

team of 50 qualified testers are better than 1 million unqualified players

No 50-strong team in the world no matter how talented could come up with all potentially gamebreaking scenarios. Millions of people will because their combined imagination is limitless.

[Drakenred65]

1 hour ago, Snafu225 said:

Are you talking about a recent video? As it would grab my attention (to prove your point) but I haven't see it and can't see a recent one. 

He launched a number 2 into orbit. I tried to do the same, and I think I should have customized fuel use because it became uncontrollable 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said:

Please explain how it is unacceptable

What difference would it make if Matt is just having a laugh?

The fact that we're talking about it here is testament of the visibility he has in the community.

I just don't like when people that have a microphone and a stage to talk from and are careless with it.

[MechBFP]

18 hours ago, Missingno200 said:

On a serious note, this is surprisingly common. It's gotten less common over the years, but game boxes used to almost ALWAYS contain screenshots from an earlier version of the game. Command and Conquer Generals has screenshots what appear to be just a little bit after the E3 reveal, featuring a red GLA with a prototype Scorpion tank meant for China back when China was green and hit n' run.

In terms of Steam, Valve's Team Fortress 2 still has screenshots from the era where they just recreated Team Fortress Classic in Source. Counterstrike 1.6 shows screenshots of the game from before 1.4, AND 1.4 was way before Steam itself!

Ya I understand back in the day when you needed to get material to a manufacturer, they then need to review it, the back and forth needed for any potential changes, then the factory has to be geared up for the printing process, then the time to manufacture the boxes, and likely lots more other things that adds a lot of overhead to the time required in which things could change so the material is inaccurate.

Existing games showing screenshots of old versions on Steam is definitely laziness on their part, but thank you for the examples. That was appreciated.
 

At this point I am pretty much in a holding pattern with fairly minimal expectations. Usually that serves me well as I would rather have my expectations exceeded. If they manage to fix the apparent performance problems (without sacrificing a lot of visual features) before Feb 24th I’ll be happy. 

Edited January 22, 2023 by MechBFP

[Kerbart]

24 minutes ago, dave1904 said:

A team of 50 qualified testers are better than 1 million unqualified players. Developers hire testers because it works. Early access by definition is publicly funding your game development. After 4 years of development someone is not to keen on continuing financial support for the game and that is a bad sign. They are releasing the game to get a return for their investment man and when it comes to money they do not care about passion anymore. 

True, but you're making it sound as if it's normal for a company to not care about making money. T2 put a considerable amount of investment in KSP. They bought out Squad, abandoned the Star Helix (or whatever the name was) initial KSP2 attempt and then did go on a serious spending spree with Intercept. Nowadays sunk cost fallacy is well understood in business but instead of killing the project, they're sticking with it. Surely EA wasn't the original plan but plans change. Things could be much worse than that.

I'm not even sure how bad EA would be for KSP. One of the things I found exciting about KSP were the continuous upgrades and finding out how the game would expand and improve this time. Sure, it also turned into a game held together by duct tape and chicken fence but I'm confident that the basic architecture of the game is now a lot more robust and built with far more in mind than KSP1 ever was.

24 minutes ago, dave1904 said:

Maybe KSP2 is going to be the best game ever but dont tell me my arguments are unwarranted. You are making emotional arguments about passion and making guarantees about a developer that has never sold you a game and a publisher that has a history of exploiting their player base. 

Ironically claims of Intercept being machiavellistic beancounters who do not care about the game can be refuted with exactly the same arguments. As for T2 involvement, we've been told by "concerned citizens" right from the start that the only, only reason "the suits" bought Squad was so they could ruin the game and destroy the franchise before it even started. There'd be micropayments required for every launch and realistic physics would be abandoned so that a dumbed down version would be "fit for the masses." By the looks of it, the optimists are getting more right about how the game is developing than the pessimists.

24 minutes ago, dave1904 said:

Hype is good when it comes to games but more often than not you have a devastated playerbase and the forums become toxic. Honestly I hope I am wrong about everything because I really like this community and do not want it to be disapointed. 

But sometimes it feels the nay-sayers want to be disappointed, because that's what they're yearning for. "I told you so!"

24 minutes ago, dave1904 said:

No they didnt because they didnt have the money to delay it again. Its business. 

Surely it's business, but it's also business to make the game a success. If EA was a terrible idea it wouldn't be done. Consider this:

• Contrary to popular belief, software development is not free. Even if Nate and his gang want to work passionately on this project, they still need a place to sleep, food to eat and clothes to wear and those are expenses that need to be paid for. Not to mention rent, office equipment, and so on. The sooner the game can financially support itself the less pressure there is on staff to release against unfavorable deadlines.
• For big game studios a full release is standard, for KSP it's not. Surely EA was a cash-flow decision but the ability to see the public's reaction on new features and tweaking further implementations based on that feedback is, at the very least, a positive side effect. Changing the story line of Red Dead Redemption or Fallout 76 isn't really an option and Early Access doesn't bring benefits there, but seeing how science pans out is kind of engrained in the culture of the game.
•  

[snkiz]

3 hours ago, Master39 said:

If it's a mistake and he's really playing hykes, if it's trolling that's strike 2 for me from him.

I don't like when people that have power and visibility in a community are careless with it.

We are less then a month from release. Cynical me says this is planed, with the blessing of intercept. Nothing like a little controversy over leaks to drive interest.

[Stephensan]

i enjoy some tomfoolery from time to time, i really doubt that KSP 2 Closed Beta was a real thing, or it was real but wasn't that way, just him saying he got access early without breaking NDA..

 

i doubt they would make the closed beta have a name that shows it ksp 2 CB in discord, or in name for security reasons..

 

and again NDA reasons.. but in the NDA they COULD say they got early access but nothing about it can be said, just said they got access.

 

that would be my input.

 

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

8 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

a full release is standard, for KSP it's not. Surely EA was a cash-flow decision

Quibble; Full Release used to be the standard.  For at least 10 years, some form of EA or extended beta are becoming more common.  While I think complexity has a part of this, and cash flow (early monetization) another... it's just becoming kind of a habit within the industry.

(Outside of Reskinned Generic First Person Shooter Fifteen - Now With Extra Powerups and UberUBERarmor!!!!!111!)

I think those of us who have been gaming since the 90s are acculturated to thinking games need to be 'finished' on release... my kid has very little expectations of the current industry; standards don't seem to be 'standard' or mean much.

[Bej Kerman]

32 minutes ago, Master39 said:

The fact that we're talking about it here is testament of the visibility he has in the community.

I just don't like when people that have a microphone and a stage to talk from and are careless with it.

I don't understand how this hurts anyone.

1 hour ago, dave1904 said:

A team of 50 qualified testers are better than 1 million unqualified players. Developers hire testers because it works. Early access by definition is publicly funding your game development. After 4 years of development someone is not to keen on continuing financial support for the game and that is a bad sign. They are releasing the game to get a return for their investment man and when it comes to money they do not care about passion anymore. 

Maybe KSP2 is going to be the best game ever but dont tell me my arguments are unwarranted. You are making emotional arguments about passion and making guarantees about a developer that has never sold you a game and a publisher that has a history of exploiting their playerbase. 

Hype is good when it comes to games but more often than not you have a devastated playerbase and the forums become toxic. Honestly I hope I am wrong about everything because I really like this community and do not want it to be disapointed. 

No they didnt because they didnt have the money to delay it again. Its business. 

What is this based on?

[dave1904]

57 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

True, but you're making it sound as if it's normal for a company to not care about making money. T2 put a considerable amount of investment in KSP. They bought out Squad, abandoned the Star Helix (or whatever the name was) initial KSP2 attempt and then did go on a serious spending spree with Intercept. Nowadays sunk cost fallacy is well understood in business but instead of killing the project, they're sticking with it. Surely EA wasn't the original plan but plans change. Things could be much worse than that.

I'm not even sure how bad EA would be for KSP. One of the things I found exciting about KSP were the continuous upgrades and finding out how the game would expand and improve this time. Sure, it also turned into a game held together by duct tape and chicken fence but I'm confident that the basic architecture of the game is now a lot more robust and built with far more in mind than KSP1 ever was.

Ironically claims of Intercept being machiavellistic beancounters who do not care about the game can be refuted with exactly the same arguments. As for T2 involvement, we've been told by "concerned citizens" right from the start that the only, only reason "the suits" bought Squad was so they could ruin the game and destroy the franchise before it even started. There'd be micropayments required for every launch and realistic physics would be abandoned so that a dumbed down version would be "fit for the masses." By the looks of it, the optimists are getting more right about how the game is developing than the pessimists.

But sometimes it feels the nay-sayers want to be disappointed, because that's what they're yearning for. "I told you so!"

Surely it's business, but it's also business to make the game a success. If EA was a terrible idea it wouldn't be done. Consider this:

• Contrary to popular belief, software development is not free. Even if Nate and his gang want to work passionately on this project, they still need a place to sleep, food to eat and clothes to wear and those are expenses that need to be paid for. Not to mention rent, office equipment, and so on. The sooner the game can financially support itself the less pressure there is on staff to release against unfavorable deadlines.
• For big game studios a full release is standard, for KSP it's not. Surely EA was a cash-flow decision but the ability to see the public's reaction on new features and tweaking further implementations based on that feedback is, at the very least, a positive side effect. Changing the story line of Red Dead Redemption or Fallout 76 isn't really an option and Early Access doesn't bring benefits there, but seeing how science pans out is kind of engrained in the culture of the game.
•  

I agree with everything you say but fundamentally I am a pessimist and you're an optimist haha. No worries though, I am aware that what I am saying is based on assumptions and not evidence so I will not be saying I told anyone so. Believe it or not I actually think the game is going to be good in the end. The gameplay looks great and the visuals are amazing. There is no point in this discussion anyway. We will know soon enough. 

[TLTay]

It would make sense to give access to youtubers early enough to create videos to drum up hype for EA release. If it's timed right, video releases could make a significant and free impact on initial sales. I'd expect videos a week or so out from release. 

[Stephensan]

6 minutes ago, TLTay said:

It would make sense to give access to youtubers early enough to create videos to drum up hype for EA release. If it's timed right, video releases could make a significant and free impact on initial sales. I'd expect videos a week or so out from release. 

i would say giving them 1-2 weeks heck even 3 weeks will be perfect..

a super novice yt creator like me (literally training for ksp 2 videos) taking 20 minutes worth of high content info crunching it down to 10 minutes took me well over 13 hours, due to learning alot of information, and then my second one which was 40 minutes only made 8 minutes took 9 hours.. and that was on another game. Only thing i did was add Captions, some "memes" (it was nothing but memes) and i even some text/photo tracking etc. (davinci resolve) 

 

i can see 10-18 hours of content on a closed beta only making 2-3 videos, and people that do "funny, goofy stuff" have even less amount of content. i can totally see 1-3 weeks early access being "cutting to the limit" for high end content creators creating videos.. for high end EA content, with videos and stuff.

 

i can see weeks for testing, seeing your limits, editing the video and then a day or two for youtube to do 4k60fps.