KSP2 Hype Train Thread

[Scarecrow71]

50 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

Do you have graphics mods installed? Which mods are the most installed on CKAN? How many installs do EVE & EVE Redux have? Out of a total of ~5 million KSP sales how much is that?

Again, you are pushing your wants and desires onto the rest of the community.  I've said it before and I'll say it again:  What you want out of KSP2 will not necessarily be what anyone else wants out of the game.  Are graphics important?  Yes.  But they are not necessarily the first or only thing people want out of it.  To believe otherwise is simply wrong.

[Vl3d]

19 minutes ago, tstein said:

more important a good system under the hood than a shiny polish

I agree with this if we're talking about KSP1 players that know the gameplay is good and have very specific desires from the system under the hood. But we're already buyers. Marketing is promoting new tutorials and focusing on attracting new players. You need to promote good looking graphics to boost sales, not show the game on minimum settings.

Edited January 30, 2023 by Vl3d

[tstein]

13 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

I agree with this if we're talking about KSP1 players that know the gameplay is good and have very specific desires from the system under the hood. But we're already buyers. Marketing is promoting new tutorials and focusing on attracting new players. You need to promote good looking graphics to boost sales, not show the game on minimum settings.

I don't think the earliest part of EA will be very crowded with  new players. I really think in the first months we will see mostly people that played KSP1. Later  I think things start to change in the direction you  pointing to.

[Pthigrivi]

53 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

"promised to be delivered."

So ,first, Im not a big fan of this construction. Nate said they're setting a high self-driven bar for graphics. Nobody promised you anything. They're obviously trying to make this game both as good-looking as it can be and as performant as it can be. Those two things are very difficult to do simultaneously. We've already seen clouds and light scatter and terrain scatter that look incredible. Some of that has been dialed back recently. Nobody but the devs knows why. Maybe its for performance reasons. Maybe they're still merging builds and tackling bugs. A couple of weeks ago everyone was hand-wringing about anti-aliasing and now that seems smoothed up a bit. Other improvements will follow. I personally think these things will get ironed out over time and sometime between now and 1.0 things will look near as good or better than the earlier test renders we've seen. I don't care how long that takes because I don't care about graphics as much as I do about gameplay. You may feel otherwise and it's fine to have and voice that position. But your opinion is not a fact.

Edited January 30, 2023 by Pthigrivi

[obney kerman]

2 hours ago, Vl3d said:

I don't really see other people being wow-ed by the recent screenshots either.

I really don't want to jump in on the graphics debate, but my 2 cents are that I do feel pretty wow-ed by a lot of what's been shown to be coming this February. Looks aside, we get the new UI, new sound design, mechanics like constant thrust and easier VAB construction, all kinds of new tech, redone planets (Dres has rings!) and maybe (and this is a BIG maybe and I won't be disappointed if it doesn't come true,) a whole new addition to the Kerbol system. Graphics have never been my top priority anyway, and the screenshots we've seen look like they're definitely good enough for me.

[Vl3d]

4 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

But your opinion is not a fact.

Facts:

1. The words that came out of Nate's mouth.

2. KSP2 is releasing in 3 weeks after years of delays.

3. Most sales for a big franchise sequel happen at initial launch.

4. Marketing's job is to convince new players to buy the game, as we are already sold on the idea.

5. Graphics matter for people who have never played KSP before.

[Pthigrivi]

Just now, Vl3d said:

1. The words that came out of Nate's mouth.

I don't see the word "promise" in that quote. That notion is being supplied by you.
 

1 minute ago, Vl3d said:

5. Graphics matter for people who have never played KSP before.

Of course, but other things like the game running smoothly are more important. There's no point in getting a bunch of new players excited about snazzy graphics if once they get in the actual gameplay is janky. I'd much rather have a smooth play experience with simple clouds and low scatter density than the other way around. This EA is centrally about testing those fundamentals as a foundation for future improvements.  They're much smarter to focus their precious time and energy on things that actually matter to gameplay than photorealistic clouds.

[poopslayer78]

On 1/23/2023 at 7:44 PM, Missingno200 said:

I'm a weirdo who thinks AA is a bit of a waste of time unless I'm recording it or trying to max out my video settings.

My blurry CRT monitor performs "Hardware Accelerated Anti-Aliasing" without a GPU.

[Stoup]

I know for me at least, part of the apprehension from looking at the roadmap comes from the fact that, it's telling us more about what's not in the game yet rather than about what is. So it's easy to feel a little burnt when I see things that have been in the original KSP for millennia, still on just a road map after so many years in the cooker.

But that's got more to do with the fact that it's impossible to balance what is known versus what's not! There's bound to be a lot in KSP2 that for spoiler reason or others will outweigh the hyperfocus on the few things we do know

[Scarecrow71]

33 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

Facts:

1. The words that came out of Nate's mouth.

2. KSP2 is releasing in 3 weeks after years of delays.

3. Most sales for a big franchise sequel happen at initial launch.

4. Marketing's job is to convince new players to buy the game, as we are already sold on the idea.

5. Graphics matter for people who have never played KSP before.

Fact:  I continue to tell you that what you want is not necessarily what other people may want, and you continue to ignore that.

Fact:  Not everyone believes that graphics is the most important thing.

Fact:  You continue to push your fears onto the rest of the community in the face of us telling you to calm down and wait to see what actually happens.

Dude, please see this for what it is:  we agree with you on what Nate said, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the entire community believes that graphics is the most important thing.  YOU want graphics to be the most important thing.  That's on you, not us.

[Pthigrivi]

Anyhoo new instagram image. Is it me or is the lighting looking better and better?

https://www.instagram.com/p/CoDAINlsonU/

[Minmus Taster]

That skybox tho 

[Xelo]

25 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

Of course, but other things like the game running smoothly are more important. There's no point in getting a bunch of new players excited about snazzy graphics if once they get in the actual gameplay is janky. I'd much rather have a smooth play experience with simple clouds and low scatter density than the other way around. This EA is centrally about testing those fundamentals as a foundation for future improvements.  They're much smarter to focus their precious time and energy on things that actually matter to gameplay than photorealistic clouds.

I think @Vl3d's point is more graphics are the fancy packaging on products. It gets the product noticed, and gets people to try it for the first time. With a focus towards onboarding this is more essential then in KSP1 and thus needs more attention/effort given. Obviously the product itself (i.e the game play) is what gets what people to come back and that's not disputed. But better graphics would help sell the game better initially, pay dividends to the publisher in proving KSP2 is a viable product, and ultimately allow more resources to develop the game in the long term. Its not an either or thing, a candy bar with a blank packing doesn't exactly sell, and neither does a bad tasting candy in fancy packaging. It is generally of my opinion that people here are deemphasizing the graphical aspects too much in a game about engineering to explore, whereas they should be considered holistically and an essential part of the experience of the game. c:

[Royalswissarmyknife]

Just now, Minmus Taster said:

That skybox tho 

Nooooooo the trees are gonna die 

[Pthigrivi]

2 minutes ago, Xelo said:

I think @Vl3d's point is more graphics are the fancy packaging on products. It gets the product noticed, and gets people to try it for the first time. With a focus towards onboarding this is more essential then in KSP1 and thus needs more attention/effort given. Obviously the product itself (i.e the game play) is what gets what people to come back and that's not disputed. But better graphics would help sell the game better initially, pay dividends to the publisher in proving KSP2 is a viable product, and ultimately allow more resources to develop the game in the long term. Its not an either or thing, a candy bar with a blank packing doesn't exactly sell, and neither does a bad tasting candy in fancy packaging. It is generally of my opinion that people here are deemphasizing the graphical aspects too much in a game about engineering to explore, whereas they should be considered holistically and an essential part of the experience of the game. c:

Totally. There's a balance. Im just saying for this particular release if they're erring on one side or the other it should be substance over flash, because at the end of the day it's the substance that matters.  Word of mouth from friends to friends and community to community is where the real growth will be and that only works if the game itself is great. It looks like the devs have been dialing things in for the last few months. Im guessing they have a better idea what the real issues are than we do.

[The Aziz]

What happened to green nebula

[tstein]

12 minutes ago, Xelo said:

I think @Vl3d's point is more graphics are the fancy packaging on products. It gets the product noticed, and gets people to try it for the first time. With a focus towards onboarding this is more essential then in KSP1 and thus needs more attention/effort given. Obviously the product itself (i.e the game play) is what gets what people to come back and that's not disputed. But better graphics would help sell the game better initially, pay dividends to the publisher in proving KSP2 is a viable product, and ultimately allow more resources to develop the game in the long term. Its not an either or thing, a candy bar with a blank packing doesn't exactly sell, and neither does a bad tasting candy in fancy packaging. It is generally of my opinion that people here are deemphasizing the graphical aspects too much in a game about engineering to explore, whereas they should be considered holistically and an essential part of the experience of the game. c:

The vast majority of the public do not buy games in EA, EA is not the moment to worry about marketing to people that never heard of KSP before.

[Stephensan]

13 minutes ago, Minmus Taster said:

That skybox tho 

 

just for reference

 

the game looks better the further out you are...

 

and the purpleish greenish hue is still there.. 

[tstein]

Mostly important. Are these trees 2m  or 1.875m parts?

[Kerbart]

1 hour ago, Vl3d said:

I agree with this if we're talking about KSP1 players that know the gameplay is good and have very specific desires from the system under the hood. But we're already buyers. Marketing is promoting new tutorials and focusing on attracting new players. You need to promote good looking graphics to boost sales, not show the game on minimum settings.

Exactly. Graphics are a ticket-to-entry. Experience players likely will, in general (there's always exceptions), care less about it. But new players who wonder what the game is about will mostly be turned off if the game looks like it's two decades old.

1 hour ago, tstein said:

I don't think the earliest part of EA will be very crowded with  new players. I really think in the first months we will see mostly people that played KSP1. Later  I think things start to change in the direction you  pointing to.

First of all I doubt polished graphics is something you can turn on with the flick of a switch, second as much as experienced players care less about the graphics doesn't mean they'll be thrilled with a "it looks bad now but eventually we'll fix it" release. And third, a lot of the videos created on YT and other channels will have those graphics when the 1.0 release comes out. Someone searching for KSP2 will likely come across dozens of EA videos and base their impression on that.

[Stephensan]

1 minute ago, Kerbart said:

Exactly. Graphics are a ticket-to-entry. Experience players likely will, in general (there's always exceptions), care less about it. But new players who wonder what the game is about will mostly be turned off if the game looks like it's two decades old.

First of all I doubt polished graphics is something you can turn on with the flick of a switch, second as much as experienced players care less about the graphics doesn't mean they'll be thrilled with a "it looks bad now but eventually we'll fix it" release. And third, a lot of the videos created on YT and other channels will have those graphics when the 1.0 release comes out. Someone searching for KSP2 will likely come across dozens of EA videos and base their impression on that.

worse due to thats when all the videos of how ksp 2 will work will come out, there will be alot more buzz around ksp 2 while in beta, but after release its going to be a different story.

 

in beta there is alot of new things going along in ksp 2, but afterwards, you get ksp 2 1.0, and that is XX amount of time after beta came out.

[Xelo]

Just now, Pthigrivi said:

Totally. There's a balance. Im just saying for this particular release if they're erring on one side or the other it should be substance over flash, because at the end of the day it's the substance that matters.  Word of mouth from friends to friends and community to community is where the real growth will be and that only works if the game itself is great. It looks like the devs have been dialing things in for the last few months. Im guessing they have a better idea what the real issues are than we do.

Yeh I definitely agree there's a balance. I just feel the veterans here keep downplaying the notion that the graphics are a part of the 'gameplay' experience. Like you can detach graphics from game play so easily. Why travel to other planets if its just recolored spheres kind of deal? Raw physical gameplay cannot cannot sustainably support sales alone.  People explore for the cool vistas :D, make excessive ships bc it looks cool, and for that you obviously need graphics to sustain the immersion. The graphics alone provide a significant chunk of this gameplay incentive! 
I also think you underestimate the importance of graphics in organic marketing like 'word of mouth'. If you think about it, visually unimpressive games dont make for good thumbnails for creator videos (meaning sharing it with friends would accrue less interest), get skimmed over in steam, etc. Your friend may simply forget if it looks bland over other games they may wish to buy. People tend to think space is pretty, and if the game contradicts that expectation, people may think twice. :3 

 

 

Just now, tstein said:

The vast majority of the public do not buy games in EA, EA is not the moment to worry about marketing to people that never heard of KSP before.

Why bother with marketing at all then, why not just a closed beta with prominent members of the community? To say EA is not for general purchase is quite an assumption to make I think, and a radical departure from how its typically  used to sustain funding for remaining development.

[tstein]

4 minutes ago, Xelo said:

Why bother with marketing at all then, why not just a closed beta with prominent members of the community? To say EA is not for general purchase is quite an assumption to make I think, and a radical departure from how its typically  used to sustain funding for remaining development.

KSP is a niche game, a sequel to a niche game. Marketing for this type of game is completely different from an eye candy  game.   the vast majority of people that will buy  in February, be  sure of that, will be returning KSP players.

To exemplify, Dwarf Fortress on steam  sold half a million copies in 15 days..   do anyone bought it because it looks amazing? No, because there is already a player base. It is a completely different marketing from  a RPG or FPS. Also  , now a bit of personal feeling so might be off, I really think that on average people that like complex building and mechanics game are less likely  to  care for high end graphics as people that play games that have almost nothing but graphics to care about. So much  that a lot of people that play KSP  do not even have a dedicated  GPU.

Edited January 30, 2023 by tstein

[Xelo]

4 minutes ago, tstein said:

KSP is a niche game, a sequel to a niche game. Marketing for this type of game is completely different from an eye candy  game.   the vast majority of people that will buy  in February, be  sure of that, will be returning KSP players.

While I dont disagree with the last part, I feel that's more due to a failure of marketing then part of the strategy, in that the main ones interested are just diehard fans. If they wanted to onboard as hard as they claim, and use EA primarily as a time for feedback as they also claim, the best feedback comes from new players, not veterans. This marketing for this game is also nothing unique holistically, again its a odd claim to make, along with the claim that the game is so niche it deserves special treatment. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for this game, but I want a more objective view of this. 

[Kerbart]

Just now, tstein said:

KSP is a niche game, a sequel to a niche game. Marketing for this type of game is completely different from an eye candy  game.   the vast majority of people that will buy  in February, be  sure of that, will be returning KSP players.

Clearly it's not COD or GTA, at the same time I doubt T2 intends to keep it as limited as a niche game as KSP1 was. They've invested way more into the game to limit themselves on just that. The emphasis on improved tutorials, but also the push on social media to promote the game is outside the regular KSP1 crowd.

To what extend the EA sale will be limited to KSP1 players? Surely a lot, but I'm sure then IG hopes to interest new players as well. Tutorials would be a part of th roadmap if that weren't the case. I suspect that there's a public that just needs that little nudge to try the game, and good looks plus a reduced EA price might be just that nudge. Of course they need to know about the game, but the current level of activity suggests that once EA is available on Steam, the publicity machine will pivot in that direction to create more interest in the game.