Honestly Disappointed....

[p331083]

1 hour ago, Chilkoot said:

There's a lot of frustration with the scope of the release, but as we sharpen the pitchforks, we need to bear in mind that the decision to go live Feb 24 as a scaled-down EA rests entirely with the publisher/producer (the money folks).  Take-Two's financial year end is March 31, and Private Division really needed to get something on the books for this project, as it's already years behind.

It's like the constant tug-of-war between engineering and sales in any company that makes something.  Engineers are scrambling to build something at least half usable, while sales is promising the world and wondering why it wasn't done yesterday.

That might make some sense if this was 6 months from announcement to release but in case youve forgotten its been 3 1/2 years since KSP2 was announced.

 

I really dont understand why so many here are making every excuse in the world for a product that has every red flag possible.

[HebaruSan]

4 hours ago, Wheehaw Kerman said:

A bit unrelated but have you considered what I call “reaction inflation”?  [...]

No, I had not considered that. Now I have considered it, and I don't think it's what I was seeing.

[Kerbart]

10 minutes ago, p331083 said:

That might make some sense if this was 6 months from announcement to release but in case youve forgotten its been 3 1/2 years since KSP2 was announced.

Yes, and then... something happened. I can't say what, or I get banned from the forum. But something happened. And then they restarted the project, took a good look at what was envisioned, and they had to design an architecture from the ground up to support that vision. That was never done for KSP1, which is why the game is such a mess in many ways.

10 minutes ago, p331083 said:

I really dont understand why so many here are making every excuse in the world for a product that has every red flag possible.

Because there's a lot that isn't a red flag. Discontent is mostly the result of bad communication, not because of gross ineptitude. The developers are passionate and vested into the project. Take Two hasn't cancelled it and is willing to bankroll 3 years (add another 2 for launch) instead of cancelling. And we haven't even seen what will be released on EA. Granted, we have a good feeling what it will be, and if YT is an indication 75% of the players will ask Steam for a refund as they can't get the game to run on their PC, but we don't know if that will happen and we don't know how Intercept will handle it. And so far I haven't seen an indication that they won't handle it.

[regex]

11 hours ago, Devblaze said:

What are your thoughts on Kerbal Space Program 2 so far?

I haven't played it yet so I'm not sure what to think of it yet.

From what I've seen it looks like an actual early access game, not a game released a little early. I'm okay with that. As for the sticker price, well, IMO games have been underpriced for a long time. Not saying I want to pay more it's just that some titles, especially something like KSP2 which clearly isn't some off-the-shelf Unity asset bundle, are worth more.

[Jarin]

8 hours ago, K^2 said:

You're only about half right on this. While you can get useful feedback from an early release that helps deliver a better experience on the full release, this does not replace dedicated testers, nor even reduce the numbers you need. QA department is staffed with professionals who know how to not only look for problems, but look for regressions, reproduction steps, do some early triage in terms of how severe the problems are, and so on. Yeah, your entry level QA employees might not have any prior experience with this, but people who manage them directly most certainly do, and it's not something you can outsource to fans.

See, you're completely correct, in a rational world. But corporate cost-cutting does not exist in a rational world. It exists in a world where someone who knows jack-all about actual development makes decisions based on the idea that some or all of the QA department can be outsourced to people who will pay them to do it.

[Klapaucius]

Perhaps the problem is expectations. Honestly, the game looks more finished than I expected. It is an early access release.  

I did not hear any disappointment in Scott Manley, and I heard a lot of positive from Matt Lowne.

[Wheehaw Kerman]

1 hour ago, HebaruSan said:

No, I had not considered that. Now I have considered it, and I don't think it's what I was seeing.

Fair enough.  I guess his wearing a leather pilot helmet and aviator goggles to play the game is just what he normally wears to parties then.  He does seem like a fun guy.

Edited February 23, 2023 by Wheehaw Kerman

[HebaruSan]

47 minutes ago, Wheehaw Kerman said:

wearing a leather pilot helmet and aviator goggles to play the game

I obviously do not know Scott Manley's daily routine, but I'm guessing he decided what to wear that day before he sat down at the computer to try the preview, so I would not interpret his wardrobe as part of his reaction to that experience.

[tg626]

2 hours ago, Kerbart said:

Yes, and then... something happened. I can't say what, or I get banned

Wait, we get banned for mentioning the world wide medical crisis of 2020? Even in the context of the massive disruption of all manner of software and entertainment development?

[Kerbart]

14 minutes ago, tg626 said:

Wait, we get banned for mentioning the world wide medical crisis of 2020? Even in the context of the massive disruption of all manner of software and entertainment development?

No, it was an internal thing about software studios. Which is a topic that is not allowed to be discuss on the forums. The medical crisis came after that if I have the timing right.

[GigFiz]

3 hours ago, p331083 said:

That might make some sense if this was 6 months from announcement to release but in case youve forgotten its been 3 1/2 years since KSP2 was announced.

The wild card there is the studio switch and how much was redone from scratch. Many (most?) major games have been in development for many years by the time they are announced, and we just see the last year or three of development. I can't name specific titles without going and looking stuff up, but I have distinct recollection of reading plenty of  AAA game announcements where says something like: it'll be released in two years, but also, it has been in development already for the last 6.

So if they had to pitch a lot of the work already done, or especially If they had to do anything remotely close to starting from scratch after the changeover, it would be more like seeing the full eight years of my nebulous example, rather than what usually happens, where we don't even know about it until it is quite far along. It would also mean that the first couple years that we are considering, from before the switchover, don't even count.

I'm no expert, but I suspect many people underestimate greatly how much time development can take, because we usually don't focus on (or even know, quite often) how many years of work go into titles before we even know they exist. 3.5 years from announcement to release is a long time; 3.5 years from work starting to release really isn't, at all.

[Wheehaw Kerman]

51 minutes ago, HebaruSan said:

I obviously do not know Scott Manley's daily routine, but I'm guessing he decided what to wear that day before he sat down at the computer to try the preview, so I would not interpret his wardrobe as part of his reaction to that experience.

The fun part, of course, is that we’re going to find out in less than (19 hours + download and install time).  I hope you’ll be pleasantly surprised :).

[p331083]

12 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

No, it was an internal thing about software studios. Which is a topic that is not allowed to be discuss on the forums.

Ok.

So after 2 1/2ish years of development all they have to show is essentially KSP1 at its .3 state. Thats abysmal output of content in that length of time. And its not like theyre starting from scratch, they have the entirety of KSP1 to work off of and use as a basis for KSP2.

  

2 minutes ago, GigFiz said:

The wild card there is the studio switch and how much was redone from scratch. Many (most?) major games have been in development for many years by the time they are announced, and we just see the last year or three of development. I can't name specific titles without going and looking stuff up, but I have distinct recollection of reading plenty of  AAA game announcements where says something like: it'll be released in two years, but also, it has been in development already for the last 6.

Name me a game that spent 6+ years in development that wasnt an absolute horror show. The most recent example of this is Cyberpunk 2077, and that game was absolutely horrendous at launch and 2+ years later it still has a distinct lack of polish.

Edited February 23, 2023 by p331083

[regex]

3 minutes ago, p331083 said:

So after 2 1/2ish years of development all they have to show is essentially KSP1 at its .3 state. Thats abysmal output of content in that length of time. And its not like theyre starting from scratch, they have the entirety of KSP1 to work off of and use as a basis for KSP2.

I can only conclude that you have exactly zero experience in or with software development. What I'm seeing looks pretty impressive for three years and some trouble.

[p331083]

1 minute ago, regex said:

I can only conclude that you have exactly zero experience in or with software development.

I dont need to be a software to see how long this has been in development v whats been promised v whats been delivered to see this has gone very badly.

1 minute ago, regex said:

 

What I'm seeing looks pretty impressive for three years and some trouble.

What is there to be impressed about? Every major feature they talked about has been cut and is now up in the air and nothing more than a promise it will be delivered. KSP2 "EA" is nothing more than a basic early .2-.3 version of KSP. That is not impressive in 2023 and 3+ years of dev time.

[Kerbart]

10 minutes ago, p331083 said:

Ok.

So after 2 1/2ish years of development all they have to show is essentially KSP1 at its .3 state. Thats abysmal output of content in that length of time.

Pray tell me, can KSP1 support multiplayer? Does it support resource management? Does it have integrated tutorials? Are you happy with the way Science and Contracts were bolted onto KSP1 to make a career mode whose only saving feature was "the alternative is nothing?" Are you able to conjure up a structure that will offer room for those kind of features, and more, in two months? And be confident that a team of paid developers, a year from now, doesn't have to go back to the drawing board to rethink those plans and scrap a years work?

10 minutes ago, p331083 said:

And its not like theyre starting from scratch, they have the entirety of KSP1 to work off of and use as a basis for KSP2.

I'm pretty sure they tried that back in 2019, and after a year figured out that building out KSP1 wasn't going to work. If there ever is a KSP3 they can likely do that, as KSP2 is built with expansion in mind. But KSP1 was a 2D simulation not quite intended for publication that morphed over dozens of generations into what we have now. There's no way that's the solid foundation for what we want in the future.

Edited February 23, 2023 by Kerbart

[HebaruSan]

12 minutes ago, Wheehaw Kerman said:

The fun part, of course, is that we’re going to find out in less than (19 hours + download and install time).  I hope you’ll be pleasantly surprised :).

While it is technically "early access", for the features that interest me this version would be more of a pre-order. But I'll be watching the forum with interest to see how folks are getting on (unless somebody donates it to me in the hopes of spurring CKAN support).

[TheOtherDave]

1 hour ago, Wheehaw Kerman said:

Fair enough.  I guess his wearing a leather pilot helmet and aviator goggles to play the game is just what he normally wears to parties then.  He does seem like a fun guy.

I met him once, at a talk/KSP event he was doing at the Chabot Space & Science Center. AFAICT, your impression of him is accurate. He was a great and gracious event host, too. This was back when the Lego Saturn V had just come out, and he let me look through his instruction book to see how it was constructed internally (I'm pretty sure I was the only person more interested in that than in seeing the completed model ).

[KerikBalm]

It's... early access.

There's not too much to be excited with yet. It seems like KSP1 with better stock graphics, improved planet detail, and a different UI.

The more exciting stuff is in the roadmap.

That's fine, that's what early access means.

I am disappointed with the lack of optimization. I was under the impression that they were rebuilding the KSP engine from the ground up with an eye on optimization.

The engine has clearly been rebuilt from KSP1, but no optimization gains from the rebuilding process are evident. This concerns me, I don't know how much they can optimize it from here. A 10% improvement would not be sufficient.

We shall see 

[p331083]

3 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

Pray tell me, can KSP1 support multiplayer? Does it support resource management?

Does KSP2? No it doesnt. Its "promised" that it will be added at some later date that the devs have zero idea when that will be.

Shockingly at their little "launch" expose, a dev said they dont an actual plan for delivering the promised content that was cut. They will focus on whatever the community wants the most, see this;

 

 

[GigFiz]

29 minutes ago, p331083 said:

Name me a game that spent 6+ years in development that wasnt an absolute horror show. The most recent example of this is Cyberpunk 2077, and that game was absolutely horrendous at launch and 2+ years later it still has a distinct lack of polish.

That's a really cheap question: for one, we hear about the disasters far more than the successes, and two, that's a monstrous amount of work to go look up development lengths, one by one, for any decent percentage of modern era AAA games. And really, dev time is massively dependent on size and scope of game vs. budget and team size. So development time alone, without context and additional info, tells us very little.

Now, I will be fair and say my random made up example of 8 years was probably too high and saying that 'most' games do that is most likely overstating it, though it really isn't even a 1:1 example, because AAA titles have much higher budgets and much bigger dev teams (do we know how big the KSP2 teams is? Genuine question), generally.

That said

Starcraft 2: 7 Years

Doom (2016): 9 years

TF2: 9 years

RE4: 6 years

FF15: 10 years

Edited February 23, 2023 by GigFiz
added sentence

[snkiz]

20 minutes ago, p331083 said:

I dont need to be a software to see how long this has been in development v whats been promised v whats been delivered to see this has gone very badly.

Some people would call this the Dunning Kruger effect.

[GigFiz]

Just now, snkiz said:

Some people would call this the Dunning Kruger effect.

With a nice hefty dose of confirmation bias

[regex]

3 minutes ago, GigFiz said:

Starcraft 2: 7 Years

Doom (2016): 9 years

TF2: 9 years

RE4: 6 years

FF15: 10 years

KSP1: 0.7.3 - June 24th 2011 first release (uncited development time before that) to 1.0.5 - November 9th 2015. We continue to have new versions and iterate what is ultimately a fairly crunchy base game for the next seven years, only getting a delta-V counter in the game in 2018.

[Jarin]

9 minutes ago, p331083 said:

Shockingly at their little "launch" expose, a dev said they dont an actual plan for delivering the promised content that was cut. They will focus on whatever the community wants the most, see this;

So that's a terribly bad-faith interpretation of what was said. They can't give a timeframe because the first EA phase may have more things in it that get prioritized, depending on player response, and projected dates will be able to be estimated more accurately a bit after launch.