Marketing for KSP 2

[Kerbart]

1 hour ago, GoldForest said:

But Early Access and Launch are well defined terms. There is a clear difference between them. There's no gray area. 

Early Access - Open Alpha or Beta of an unfinished yet to be released game.

Launch - The game is released in a 'full' state and is considered 'finished'. 

There might not be a grey area between those milestones, that doesn't mean that what the user base perceives as "The launch" is the moment the game gets out of early access. I'm pretty sure most people here will perceive February 24 as "The Launch," that's the reality.

And reality also has a very well defined term: it's perception.

[Vl3d]

If it's public, it's been released. If it's released, it's launched. I don't care what event the marketing team wants to invent.. if I can buy it and play it, that's the base product. Everything else is extra.

[KSACheese]

I don't see the problem with doing a marketing run on KSP 2 EA, really, as long as they market it as that. Really, I feel like a marketing campaign for the two "releases" would be appropriate, and would generate more attention at the same time.

If they market the early access release by saying it's early access, and then market the full release as a full release, I don't see any problem. Why only market one or the other?

Heck, Rockstar has limited marketing for every single GTA Online update. Why can't this be the same for the two largest milestones in KSP 2, early access launch and 1.0 release?

Edited January 23, 2023 by KSACheese

[mcwaffles2003]

1 hour ago, Gargamel said:

Launch is whenever the studio making the game says it is.  

1 hour ago, GoldForest said:

It's not just a "Ceremony" it's the "Official" launch. Doesn't matter that millions or tens of millions of people own the game before hand. EA is not the "Launch" of a game. No matter what you say. The LITERAL definition of EA is open alpha and/or beta, aka, not launched, aka still in development.

When I want to know what a word means and I find disagreement in the meaning of a word I typically look to the dictionary. Webster, Cambridge, google search... They all specify launch in this context is being synonymous with initialization, not completion. Now if you guys want to separate 1.0 launch from EA launch, then fine, but when the game reaches the hands of people who paid to play it then that is a launch.

That said, to everyone, this is a dumb argument over semantics.

Also, what's the point of running an ad campaign on a game when 1.0 releases if the EA has been out for months or years? By that time word of mouth and "let's plays" have already reached whatever audience you would want to reach and the company won't have had much of a word in setting expectations to the general public. The point of marketing is to draw attention to those who are unaware of your product and lets the company have a voice in what customers should expect out of your product while also giving the company a chance to show the game in its best light. If they release EA in a state so unfinished that it creates a negative reaction in the new community then that's on the company for shipping a broken game, regardless of it being in EA. In the end if T2, PD, and Intercept want to utilize their best chance to attract an audience, then that time is now, not way down the road when the game has been incrementally improved in the public eye and long lost the spotlight only to be thought of as old news. If the game isn't in a state to handle the backlash from marketing to new players then it shouldn't be released and they should delay it again for as long as needed to be in a functional and presentable state, even this close to the deadline.

[mcwaffles2003]

9 hours ago, Gargamel said:

And yet, here you are.   I’d say that’s a very successful marketing campaign.    

We have the forums here.  Reddit.   The YouTube channel.    Twitter.     TikTok.   Instagram.  Facebook.    All those sites are abuzz with talk of the upcoming game.    

[...]

Just because you haven’t seen a billboard along the I430 in Nebraskastan doesn’t mean they don’t have a marketing program going.    The fact you’re here talking about it proves the point their marketing program worked on you.   

But most of us are her because we play KSP 1 and love it. Reddit, YouTube, all the social medias all advertise to the community that is already going to buy it based on the fact that they've enjoyed the game so much they joined a community about it. This does very little to expand an audience though

9 hours ago, Gargamel said:

What do want them to do?   Waste money that could be otherwise be spent on production on Tv ads?   Oh yes, full page spreads in Nintendo Power might work.  

Marketing isn't a waste of money, it's an investment to increase revenue by more than the marketing costs. Also bilboards and TV ads? C'mon... 

Obviously at least run some youtube ads. Paid adverts go a long way in attracting new eyes. 

Edited January 23, 2023 by mcwaffles2003

[GoldForest]

We'll all just have to agree to disagree then. 

This has gone long enough, yes, and if it goes on any longer the mods might have to take action, which I'm sure we all want to avoid.

We're all entitled to our opinions. Whether those opinions are right or wrong is not something to decide here. 

4 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Marketing isn't a waste of money. Also bilboards and TV ads? C'mon

Obviously at least run some youtube ads  paid adverts go a long way in attracting new eyes

Again, would you market an unfinished product? Personally. I want to know. 

If you designed a car and it JUST entered prototyping phase today, and prototyping was expected to take 1 to 3 years, would you market it? Knowing fully well that after prototyping, production would take another year or two to work out. So that's 4 to 5 years before people could get to officially own your car, would you market it? Or would you save your money and only advertise once production was in full swing and you knew you were able to ship a finished product?

[Vl3d]

4 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

Or would you save your money and only advertise once production was in full swing and you knew you were able to ship a finished product?

If it has a price, it's on the market and should be marketed. We're debating 101s.

[mcwaffles2003]

1 minute ago, GoldForest said:

Again, would you market an unfinished product? Personally. I want to know. 

If you designed a car and it JUST entered prototyping phase today, and prototyping was expected to take 1 to 3 years, would you market it? Knowing fully well that after prototyping, production would take another year or two to work out. So that's 4 to 5 years before people could get to officially own your car, would you market it? Or would you save your money and only advertise once production was in full swing and you knew you were able to ship a finished product?

As I said, I wouldn't release an item too embarrassing to market and if it's in that kind of state it should be further delayed and maybe a closed beta considered instead. Also, as I said, I think running an ad campaign months to years after it's initial release would be pointless as by then everyone has seen the product through other means without the company getting a word in about what customers should expect.

Also your analogy misses the mark, KSP EA isn't in the prototyping phase, it's not on the drawing board, apparently the devs believe it is in a playable and distributable state and players will own it the moment they purchase it, not 4-5 years down the line. 

[Drakenred65]

2 hours ago, Gargamel said:

Launch is whenever the studio making the game says it is.  

And lunch is when I say it is!

hmmmm

( looks at watch)

12 noon for today.

 

back on topic. Oh wait. Yah honestly I’d weather they spend money on getting it in shape to launch than Super Bowl adds

[GoldForest]

Just now, mcwaffles2003 said:

As I said, I wouldn't release an item too embarrassing to market and if it's in that kind of state it should be further delayed and maybe a closed beta considered instead. Also, as I said, I think running an ad campaign months to years after it's initial release would be pointless as by then everyone has seen the product through other means without the company getting a word in about what customers should expect.

Also your analogy misses the mark, KSP EA isn't in the prototyping phase, it's not on the drawing board, apparently the devs believe it is in a playable and distributable state and players will own it the moment they purchase it, not 4-5 years down the line. 

Early access doesn't see a lot of people playing the game though. There are a few outliers and exceptions, but for the most part, Early access is avoided. So why market a game that will see little to no player up tick? 

Eh, you're probably right, probably a better analogy or wording. But KSP 2 EA is kind of like prototyping in a way. Intercept is going to refine the game with each update. That's the process of prototyping, refining a product to make it better. And drawing boards are not prototyping. 

Playable? Yes. Fit for release? No. Hence Early Access. Early Access is a way to test the Alpha/Beta of each stage of the game. 

[mcwaffles2003]

Just now, GoldForest said:

Early access doesn't see a lot of people playing the game though. There are a few outliers and exceptions, but for the most part, Early access is avoided. So why market a game that will see little to no player up tick? 

Maybe for indie game devs with little to no reputation. Have you seen how many people got baulders gate 3?

Just now, GoldForest said:

 Eh, you're probably right, probably a better analogy or wording. But KSP 2 EA is kind of like prototyping in a way. Intercept is going to refine the game with each update. That's the process of prototyping, refining a product to make it better. And drawing boards are not prototyping. 

Playable? Yes. Fit for release? No. Hence Early Access. Early Access is a way to test the Alpha/Beta of each stage of the game. 

I hope it gets refined as we play but I think Feb 24th and the following week are going to see way more sales than 1.0. How much was the player base of factorio (a similarly niche but popular game) expanded when 1.0 dropped for it? 

I think if the devs are confident enough to release the game to the public at full cost then it should be advertised accordingly. Include that is EA in the ad, show what can be expected day 1 and sell the dream of what's to come following, but make people who aren't already in this community know it exists. Reach out to the potential customers. 

[GoldForest]

7 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Maybe for indie game devs with little to no reputation. Have you seen how many people got baulders gate 3?

I hope it gets refined as we play but I think Feb 24th and the following week are going to see way more sales than 1.0. How much was the player base of factorio (a similarly niche but popular game) expanded when 1.0 dropped for it? 

I think if the devs are confident enough to release the game to the public at full cost then it should be advertised accordingly. Include that is EA in the ad, show what can be expected day 1 and sell the dream of what's to come following, but make people who aren't already in this community know it exists. Reach out to the potential customers. 

KSP 2 is still technically an indie game. Private Division is TT's indie publisher. 

The concurrent player base tripled on release of Factorio according to SteamDB. It went back down to about double, but yeah. Triple the players on release. Kind of proves my point that most people wait for official release (1.0).  

Well, 10 dollars off during EA (Supposedly 10, could be 20 or whatever.)

I agree that they should advertise the game... but when it's in a state closer to official release. Start advertising during the Exploration update. 

Edit: Just took a look at KSP 1 SteamDB page. The concurrent players quadrupled on launch day. So again, proves my point a little.

Edited January 23, 2023 by GoldForest

[MechBFP]

1 hour ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Also, what's the point of running an ad campaign on a game when 1.0 releases if the EA has been out for months or years? By that time word of mouth and "let's plays" have already reached whatever audience you would want to reach and the company won't have had much of a word in setting expectations to the general public.

You are vastly underestimating the amount of potential consumers that is still completely untapped, even a year later. 
The longer development drags on though does entail risk that even people who would have been interested originally don’t bother because the product has aged so much. 

Keep in mind this game is not releasing on consoles, probably until version 1.0. 

[Kerbart]

15 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

 hope it gets refined as we play but I think Feb 24th and the following week are going to see way more sales than 1.0. How much was the player base of factorio (a similarly niche but popular game) expanded when 1.0 dropped for it? 

I think if the devs are confident enough to release the game to the public at full cost then it should be advertised accordingly. Include that is EA in the ad, show what can be expected day 1 and sell the dream of what's to come following, but make people who aren't already in this community know it exists. Reach out to the potential customers. 

I agree that what we're seeing is a rational two-tier approach. There's an enthusiast crowd (us), of who a good chunk will buy the game practically unseen. To sell to those, you don't really need to sell the game, just make aware it's available.

Then there's the wider audience that is currently an untapped market. Those you don't want necessarily to be reached through EA. Get the bugs out, get feedback on the tutorials (always have been an Achilles heel for KSP). In addition, the "official" launch allows you to reinvigorate interest in the game from channels like PC Gamer. At that point console releases should also be much closer on the horizon.

From the various dev-videos we know there's been a lot of things that have been overhauled. As a dev team you're convinced those are good overhauls. Otherwise you wouldn't put them in. But the real test is to see how players react to it. Another reason to go EA, and to keep the marketing spending limited until the 1.0 release.

[Alexoff]

Early access advertising should be. Simply because if a hundred thousand people buy the game, then T2 may decide to close the project, which will never pay off.

[mcwaffles2003]

7 hours ago, GoldForest said:

KSP 2 is still technically an indie game. Private Division is TT's indie publisher. 

Yes, but I think we can agree that KSP 2 isn't exactly in the same league as most indie titles with a single dev.

7 hours ago, GoldForest said:

The concurrent player base tripled on release of Factorio according to SteamDB. It went back down to about double, but yeah. Triple the players on release. Kind of proves my point that most people wait for official release (1.0).  

Steam charts shows active players, not new players/purchases, and being involved in that community at the time, I can assure you that the majority of those playing on official release were seasoned players who wanted to see what the big update to 1.0 had in store. It's this experience that guides me in this conversation. 1.0 was big for us who have had the game and wanted to play with the official release which had a HUGE update of new content (it's when they brought white science in that allowed indefinite upgrades to the factory).

8 hours ago, GoldForest said:

Well, 10 dollars off during EA (Supposedly 10, could be 20 or whatever.)

I agree that they should advertise the game... but when it's in a state closer to official release. Start advertising during the Exploration update. 

Edit: Just took a look at KSP 1 SteamDB page. The concurrent players quadrupled on launch day. So again, proves my point a little.

I wasn't here for KSP 1.0 but again steam charts doesn't show how many people purchased a game, it shows how many are concurrently playing. I think if the ad campaign is smaller and over a greater duration after launch it will have less of an effect in reaching new audiences and will come after lets players already send out their impression of the game which puts Intercept on the back foot as many normies probably won't understand the expectations intercept intends people to have approaching EA.

 

8 hours ago, MechBFP said:

You are vastly underestimating the amount of potential consumers that is still completely untapped, even a year later. 

this point conflicts with:

8 hours ago, MechBFP said:

The longer development drags on though does entail risk that even people who would have been interested originally don’t bother because the product has aged so much. 

which is my primary concern

7 hours ago, Kerbart said:

I agree that what we're seeing is a rational two-tier approach. There's an enthusiast crowd (us), of who a good chunk will buy the game practically unseen. To sell to those, you don't really need to sell the game, just make aware it's available.

Then there's the wider audience that is currently an untapped market. Those you don't want necessarily to be reached through EA. Get the bugs out, get feedback on the tutorials (always have been an Achilles heel for KSP). In addition, the "official" launch allows you to reinvigorate interest in the game from channels like PC Gamer. At that point console releases should also be much closer on the horizon.

From the various dev-videos we know there's been a lot of things that have been overhauled. As a dev team you're convinced those are good overhauls. Otherwise you wouldn't put them in. But the real test is to see how players react to it. Another reason to go EA, and to keep the marketing spending limited until the 1.0 release.

This is largely why I hoped that intercept went the route of a closed beta before they did an open beta so they can be assured the game is in an embarrassing state. I am hoping that the game is not in such a state though, and in the case it isn't I think the game should be advertised heavily to the public acknowledging it is not finished, but selling the vision of what it looks to become. This would set expectations and get a lot of new people interested while fostering a long term community looking forward to update iterations that constantly improves peoples enjoyment of the game which will foster more long term players.

[Kerbart]

8 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

This is largely why I hoped that intercept went the route of a closed beta before they did an open beta so they can be assured the game is in an embarrassing state. I am hoping that the game is not in such a state though, and in the case it isn't I think the game should be advertised heavily to the public acknowledging it is not finished, but selling the vision of what it looks to become. This would set expectations and get a lot of new people interested while fostering a long term community looking forward to update iterations that constantly improves peoples enjoyment of the game which will foster more long term players.

I'm not an expert in game dev, but my suspicion is that the launch date for EA was set once the closed beta was found fit for publication. Why not publish straight away? There's probably a marketing plan with gradually building up hype (you have to be blind to not notice the ever increasing rate of photos and videos being released). and those videos need to be shot and edited, NDA's need to be signed before distributing to key youtubers, game magazines need time to schedule their publications, and so on. Meanwhile the dev teams can polish the software, fix typos, color schemes, sound glitches, and so on; something that always takes more time than you want. There will be plenty of goofs for us to find but it's not going to be a building with wet paint on the walls and "under construction" corridors (aside from the features that, in line with the roadmap, we know are missing).

[mcwaffles2003]

8 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

I'm not an expert in game dev, but my suspicion is that the launch date for EA was set once the closed beta was found fit for publication

What closed beta? When did this happen?

8 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

Why not publish straight away?

What do you mean? Like launch it as "feature complete"?

8 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

There's probably a marketing plan with gradually building up hype (you have to be blind to not notice the ever increasing rate of photos and videos being released). and those videos need to be shot and edited, NDA's need to be signed before distributing to key youtubers, game magazines need time to schedule their publications, and so on. Meanwhile the dev teams can polish the software, fix typos, color schemes, sound glitches, and so on; something that always takes more time than you want. There will be plenty of goofs for us to find but it's not going to be a building with wet paint on the walls and "under construction" corridors (aside from the features that, in line with the roadmap, we know are missing).

I have seen the ramping up, but who is seeing this? People who already play KSP and have joined their social media platforms, that's who. And almost all of us are already aware of the game and made our decisions about buying the game. We aren't the appropriate target for an ad campaign who's goal is to reach potential new players. Meanwhile, most of the non-fans and general gaming audience are oblivious to this game even coming. Without a direct ad campaign streamers will be the ones setting the tone for whether or not the general public will want to play this game and I think intercept needs to make expectations and future planning well known before the EA gets out.

Edited January 24, 2023 by mcwaffles2003

[GoldForest]

10 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

What closed beta? When did this happen?

What do you mean? Like launch it as "feature complete"?

I have seen the ramping up, but who is seeing this? People who already play KSP and have joined their social media platforms, that's who. And almost all of us are already aware of the game and made our decisions about buying the game. We aren't the appropriate target for an ad campaign who's goal is to reach potential new players. Meanwhile, most of the non-fans and general gaming audience are oblivious to this game even coming. Without a direct ad campaign streamers will be the ones setting the tone for whether or not the general public will want to play this game and I think intercept needs to make expectations and future planning well known before the EA gets out.

Sometime in August if SteamDB is to be believed. 

https://steamdb.info/sub/311459/

[mcwaffles2003]

7 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

Sometime in August if SteamDB is to be believed. 

https://steamdb.info/sub/311459/

Thank you, wonder who play tested it

Edited January 24, 2023 by mcwaffles2003

[GoldForest]

1 minute ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Thank you, wonder who play tested it

Matt Lowne was caught on discord playing KSP 2 closed beta. Check the hype thread for my screen cap. We still don't know if it was a troll or real tho.

[tstein]

22 hours ago, MStefan99 said:

Agreed, I have yet to see a "1.0 full game" release that actually changes much about the game or its community, aside from maybe adding a few extra features, completing the story and raising the price. 

Check ultimate admirals Dreadnoughts then... early access was just an arena of ships...  release has capaigns, projects, politics, trade routes, alliances,  20 times more ship parts etc.. it is very normal to have a large expansion durign the EA period.

 

Other such game would be kenshi that is unrecognizable from the EA start to  release.

[MechBFP]

1 hour ago, tstein said:

Check ultimate admirals Dreadnoughts then... early access was just an arena of ships...  release has capaigns, projects, politics, trade routes, alliances,  20 times more ship parts etc.. it is very normal to have a large expansion durign the EA period.

 

Other such game would be kenshi that is unrecognizable from the EA start to  release.

Satisfactory and Dyson Sphere Project to name a couple more. They aren’t even out of EA yet and already very different from their initial release. 

[Kerbart]

9 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

What closed beta? When did this happen?

Whenever the announcement was made, I doubt they're releasing a product without a closed beta.

9 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

What do you mean? Like launch it as "feature complete"?

No, like "ready for launching early access." IG set a very hard date and they're campaigning hard for ir it. I'm pretty sure that a date was picked and announced when they deemed the game ready to ship in what was then its current form. Surely there's always work to be done, but if some of that work wouldn't get done, for whatever reason, it wouldn't be a showstopper that would incur delays. Or they've started wotrking on the roadmap to release those quicker. But I doubt there's a mad dash towards February 24 to get the product in a shippable state—I'm pretty sure it already is, they're now working on making it more shippable.

[Stephensan]

2 hours ago, tstein said:

Check ultimate admirals Dreadnoughts then... early access was just an arena of ships...  release has capaigns, projects, politics, trade routes, alliances,  20 times more ship parts etc.. it is very normal to have a large expansion durign the EA period.

 

Other such game would be kenshi that is unrecognizable from the EA start to  release.

i play it. UAD, 800 hours

 

huge storm of issues, and it seems that after release there wont be much support with how updates/beta is going

 

things like multiplayer, aircraft carriers, an option to remove the darn subs because of how absolutely unbalanced they are in the game and ZERO action make it better, etc etc will not be added due to not wanting that "artistic direction"

 

ultimate dreadnought has alot of downloads but not alot of returning players...

 

but thats another game... and guess what, i didn't find it by an ad, i watched "ship games to play 202X" not an ad.