FPS isn't the issue- interested in discussion

[VlonaldKerman]

One of these days, I'll make a short post. I promise.

(today is not that day, though)

 

Some of you may know that prior to the EA release I posted a very long, but reasonable (in my view) post honestly and dispassionately assessing the EA footage of the game, and the fact that the game seemed to be releasing in a VERY, VERY early state, which is not advantageous unless they need cash, imminently. (now in the pre-release discussion archives: https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/212173-reading-into-ksp-2-ea-featuresnon-features/). However, I was cautiously optimistic, and very open to being proven wrong. I've played just over 3 hours of the game, and I feel that the hysteria on this forum around the FPS is misplaced. In my view, EA games aren't optimized, ya just gotta deal with it. My post is not about poor performance. I suspect that both the people complaining about low FPS, and defending the game for having low FPS because it's EA haven't played much more than 2 or 3 hours yet, because, as the title of this thread states, FPS is not the issue.

I planned on spending the whole day and night on the game, low FPS be damned. But after 3 hours, I turned the game off and I'm doing other things (like posting on this forum I guess- I should really get more hobbies). The truth is this: the number of game-breaking bugs in this release is staggering. I haven't seen a livestreamer who didn't have a similar experience to mine: over the course of a 3-4 hour play session, I experienced multiple bugs that caused me to quickload, several bugs which appeared once I quickloaded, and finally a bug where the KSC spawned in on my craft and irrevocably followed me around everywhere, even in the tracking center and the KSC. This spawned version of the KSC even had collidable trees, which I found out when atmo drag slowed my spacecraft, causing it to crash into the tree at an altitude of 30km and explode. I tried saving and reloading the game, and I upon loading the save, I have a black screen. I had to force quit the game.

My issue is not poor performance. It's not even bugs, or game-breaking bugs. I'm fine with bugs, truly. I was LOOKING FORWARD to finding and reporting bugs. My issue is this: the sheer number, frequency, and variety of game-breaking bugs present in this release make the game virtually unplayable. Youtubers Beardy Penguin and Carnasa have agreed with this publicly- more will soon probably follow. To be clear: THERE IS NO GAME-DEVELOPMENT REASON TO RELEASE A GAME INTO EARLY ACCESS WHEN IT IS IN A NEARLY UNPLAYABLE STATE.

This sheer volume of bugs had to have been present and known about before the release. They said they were releasing in order to gather player feedback, and me and a few other forum members had what I thought was a nice, civil, intelligent discussion about the validity of this game, pre-launch. We agreed to wait and see. After waiting and seeing I can say this:

The game was NOT released because they were at the step of development where they needed community feedback. There are clear, frequent game-breaking bugs that need solving. Any playtester (were there paid playtesters? I'm given to wonder...) who spent 3+ hours with the game would tell them this. They say the've had tons of fun playing and experimenting themselves with the game- I find that hard to believe. My only conclusion is this: they needed an influx of cash. What to do with? Who can say. Maybe T2 has lost faith in the developers, and this is them cutting their losses. See my now-archived post about reading into EA features/lack of features for a full, logical explanation of why this is a plausible state of reality. Maybe, the upside of all of this, is that with this new cash they can pursue development whole-heartedly and finish the game.

However, judging based off of my personal experience, and the game's current Steam rating of 48% positive, which is heartbreaking to me, I wouldn't expect many players to have the game long enough to give good feedback. I suspect mass refunds are likely taking place, and I myself am holding out for a developer response to all this before I decide to do the same. The only reason why I haven't yet put in for a refund request is because I want to wait and see what the devs will say, and how soon the next patch rolls out, and because I'm fortunate enough to be in a position where $50 isn't a big deal for me. If it was... I would've refunded after my first hour.

 

So, as a community, what should we do? I'm not trying to preach- I'm posing an honest, good-faith question. I can think of two scenarios, which dictate two different actions:

1) T2 is looking for high EA sales to justify continue funding the project. In this case, we should NOT refund the game, and try to give the dev team the benefit of the doubt that they haven't lost faith in the project.

2) T2 is looking to cut KSP 2 loose after finding themselves many years, and millions of dollars deeper into KSP 2 than they ever thought they would have to be, and with a product that is still sub-par and far from finished, and high EA sales will allow them to justify doing this. In this case, we ought to REFUND the game in order to force T2 to fund the dev team and finish the game, or accept a massive loss, likely at least on the order of tens, to even a couple hundred million dollars (reasonable estimate for what the game has cost them so far, including marketing, etc.).

 

I want to end this message by saying that I ADORE KSP, and it's not anger, but sadness that prompts me to write this post. I want to appeal to the KSP 2 development team: now is a critical time when you will likely either earn the faith of the broader KSP 2 community, or lose that faith entirely. It is imperative that you both 1) Communicate CLEARLY AND COMPLETELY how and why the game was released in this state, and why we, as a community, shouldn't back out of the $50 dollar promise we bought into: that the game would release in a state that, while unfinished, would remotely inspire the confidence eventually be finished, and 2) Begin solving these truly game-breaking issues as QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE, releasing game updates on a DAILY-WEEKLY, NOT MONTHLY basis. Yes, it is true that game development is chaotic and timelines are unpredictable. But that ship has sailed (or lifted-off ) - you have released the game, and are charging $50. This community is pretty intelligent, and generally showed understanding when the game needed to be delayed. Comment sections across the internet were dominated by the sentiment: "Take your time. Do it right." They stuck with the project because they believed in earnest that the game was being delayed so that when it released, at whatever stage of development, they were getting at least a playable, fun, promising experience. We as a community have held up our end of the bargain- we have bought the EA, evidently in large numbers, despite the price, and despite the poor performance we knew we were getting. When you take a step back you realize that this is truly remarkable- not many other fanbases have done the same. You have NOT held up your end of the bargain thus far- delivering a largely unplayable project despite the many delays, with a level of broken-ness that CANNOT be described as "understandable", or "forgivable", let alone "promising". Now it is time to make things right, by acknowledging the mistakes of the past, and beginning to deliver serious results. I suspect that if the next week or two go the right way, the KSP fanbase will probably be largely very forgiving. But changes will need to come fast. Again, totally susceptible to the "game development is chaotic, timelines are unpredictable" argument BEFORE you charged $50 for the game that was released. Despite the near-unrelenting negativity of this post, there are still some great additions/changes and it's clear that the dev team has a deep passion- it shines through in places like sound design, and UI improvements. Here's a link to a thread where people are listing all the things they love about the game so far, which I think is a nice counterpoint to this post: (https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/212492-praise-and-things-we-like/). I wish nothing but the best for to the KSP 2 dev team, and sincerely hope the project is not in nearly as dire of a state as it appears to be; that this post has all been an emotional overreaction, hyperbole that will soon fade and be remembered as a brief moment, overshadowed and invalidated by an incredible, successful game.

 

Tl;dr-

  

bugs, lots of bugs.

Edited February 25, 2023 by VlonaldKerman
Edited for balance, emphasis, and clarity.

[Flipflops]

I think you're missing a 3rd scenario. Devs know it's not ready for EA, we know it's not ready. T2 have demanded the release because it will then appear on 2022/23 corporate balance sheets.

[Kubas_inko]

11 minutes ago, Flipflops said:

I think you're missing a 3rd scenario. Devs know it's not ready for EA, we know it's not ready. T2 have demanded the release because it will then appear on 2022/23 corporate balance sheets.

The problem now also is that if they don't fix it soon(tm), it might disappear from those balance sheets and we might never get the KSP 2 we all wanted. Sadly T2 decides the faith of this, not the devs.

[VlonaldKerman]

1 hour ago, Flipflops said:

I think you're missing a 3rd scenario. Devs know it's not ready for EA, we know it's not ready. T2 have demanded the release because it will then appear on 2022/23 corporate balance sheets.

Yes, good point. This is another, more bureaucratic reason why T2 might have pushed for this release. Let's hope something as petty as this is the reason!

1 hour ago, Kubas_inko said:

The problem now also is that if they don't fix it soon(tm), it might disappear from those balance sheets and we might never get the KSP 2 we all wanted. Sadly T2 decides the faith of this, not the devs.

Yes, this is my concern. As I've said, I believe the devs truly do care about the project. It's obvious when they talk. My concern is really about the corporate forces at work here.

[p331083]

14 minutes ago, VlonaldKerman said:

As I've said, I believe the devs truly do care about the project. It's obvious when they talk. My concern is really about the corporate forces at work here.

If theyre so passionate why is the end result of 3 1/2 years of dev time?

And more to the point, how "passionate" someone is about something isnt important for the end result of a commercial product. They promised X and charged Y for it, the outcome should be based upon whether those two variables align, not how "passionate" they where.

 

  

1 hour ago, Kubas_inko said:

it might disappear from those balance sheets and we might never get the KSP 2 we all wanted.

Once they delayed the game 3 times it should have been obvious you where never getting the KSP2 you wanted.

End result of this is going to be some bug fixes and 1-2 content updates over the next year before all development is ended.

Edited February 25, 2023 by p331083

[dr.phees]

If at least the dev videos would have been honest. I feel a bit sad about the state of the game, sure, but what really gets me is that those videos apparently were simply lying about the game. This "we play it in our free time and cannot stop playing it - it is that good"-nonsense cannot be true. And by that it now feels like the whole thing was dishonest and only made to lure people into paying up.

I really think this must be addressed by T2/ the dev team / Nate. This community would probably have been fine with the state of the game, but it looks like we were simply lied to for money. That is a really bad start for a community that has proven to be very tight, loyal and special in the gaming world. I would like to see the devs not being liars again. Please come clean and then handle this mess transparently from now on.

[VlonaldKerman]

48 minutes ago, dr.phees said:

If at least the dev videos would have been honest. I feel a bit sad about the state of the game, sure, but what really gets me is that those videos apparently were simply lying about the game. This "we play it in our free time and cannot stop playing it - it is that good"-nonsense cannot be true. And by that it now feels like the whole thing was dishonest and only made to lure people into paying up.

I really think this must be addressed by T2/ the dev team / Nate. This community would probably have been fine with the state of the game, but it looks like we were simply lied to for money. That is a really bad start for a community that has proven to be very tight, loyal and special in the gaming world. I would like to see the devs not being liars again. Please come clean and then handle this mess transparently from now on.

This. I get a good vibe from the dev team; they seem to really care, and I want them to succeed. But the discrepancy between messaging like this and the product we received chips away at that image. In my mind, when it comes to a speculative project like this, the image of the devs (and the truth about them!) is paramount. I think at this juncture it's really important for the devs to take steps to restore trust in the eyes of the community. That is, assuming (which I have been/pretty much still am) that said trust is warranted.

[ZuluDoggy]

51 minutes ago, VlonaldKerman said:

I get a good vibe from the dev team; they seem to really care, and I want them to succeed. But the discrepancy between messaging like this and the product we received chips away at that image.

You know, I read what the dev team said. I even saw the same videos you and everyone else saw. But after spending multiple hours trying to get this clunky, bug-filled, unwieldy program to work today, I'm not so sure that the "good vibe" I got from the dev team was warranted, and I am starting to wonder if they really do care. I've heard EA described as beta testing. I've beta tested games before, and this is nowhere near to being a game in beta testing. The release we got today was mid- to late- alpha testing at best. 

I read the forums daily in the weeks leading up to today's release. I admit that I had some concerns, but I decided to keep them to myself until I could try the game and see if those concerns were justified (they were). I now ask myself how it could be possible that so many game-crashing bugs (see the reports of those elsewhere) and general glitches could manage to go unnoticed by the devs, and the only conclusion I can come to is that they couldn't. The devs had to know that the game was basically unplayable, and yet went along with the narrative that the game was THAT good.

Bottom line? I think the KSP community got sold a bill of goods. We definitely got an inferior product, and we had to pay $50 for the privilege.  I'm sure that there are those who will disagree with almost everything I said, and that's cool. I'm just expressing my opinion.

[snkiz]

2 hours ago, p331083 said:

If theyre so passionate why is the end result of 3 1/2 years of dev time?

Please stop using this metric. Years is a meaningless number. How many people were working on it during that time? How much idle time was there? Did they start over after the incident? Years doesn't tell you anything about that. Man hours does. We can possibly make an estimate of that number but we'll never know. All I can say is T2 is marketing this as AAA. It isn't there yet, I'd hesitate to even call it beta yet. But many if not most AAA titles have five plus years in dev. Not counting those yearly games that only get minor tweaks year over year.

[Nuke]

there is a reason its early access. ive found all kinds of bugs so far. i cant get back into my ship while on eva, crossfeed ignores decouplers when the engines are side mounted (spider, twitch, etc). those are the two big ones. i just want to do a basic minmus run, which i could do in my sleep in ksp1. 6 hours later and i cant board my ship! sorry bill, you live on minmus now. and why bill? jeb wasnt default? oh well nobody will miss bill. 

Edited February 25, 2023 by Nuke

[VlonaldKerman]

I've seen some others make an interesting point along these lines; seems relevant:

Usually AAA game devs pay QA testers to find bugs, etc., when a game is this early in development, the exception being indie studios who can't afford to do so. Intercept is not an indie studio- they are billed by T2. But, instead of paying QA testers, evidently, they're charging us to be QA testers. Not beta testers- there's a difference.

 

Lots of good points have been raised, please keep sharing your thoughts. It'll be interesting to see how intercept responds to all of this. I think the next week or two will be make or break for the game in more ways than one.

[p331083]

1 hour ago, snkiz said:

All I can say is T2 is marketing this as AAA

You dont release triple a games to early access.

[snkiz]

@p331083 you must be new to the internet.

[p331083]

29 minutes ago, snkiz said:

@p331083 you must be new to the internet.

Only been playing them since before the internet existed.

 

[RocketRockington]

6 hours ago, Flipflops said:

I think you're missing a 3rd scenario. Devs know it's not ready for EA, we know it's not ready. T2 have demanded the release because it will then appear on 2022/23 corporate balance sheets.

There's another possibility.  And this happens in game dev a lot.  The higher ups think that by setting a hard date and not budging on it, the developers will finally stop futzing about, focus and finish it,. Because giving endless extensions gives the impression that you'll always be able to get more time by not finishing.

I think after the 3 public release date changes ( and who knows how many internal ones) that this happened.  Because publishers have changed the due date for titles that are announced in a financial call, those predictions are guidelines - though it is embarrassing for the CEO/CFO so that's not done lightly.

My own guess is that the devs were told they have to ship, no more ifs ands or buts, but clearly despite the public PR, it was not being cooked extra long to make it perfect, but in a (at best) alpha state even now.

[Cailean_556]

Gone are the days when developers held more influence over the game's development and developers/publishers made good games for the sake of making good games for their customers to enjoy and keeping them happy and their reputation as developers/publishers intact. And it bloody shows, not just for KSP2.

Obviously, if Intercept Games outright told us that Take Two Interactive forced them to release it in this state, there'd be some very swift backlash from the publisher - such as the "Oh no, we have to make some staff cutbacks...Oh no, we can't afford Intercept Games so we're shutting down the studio" type corporate BS. So they wouldn't do that, even if it were the 100%, provable-in-court truth because of the risk to their livelihoods and the franchise. I very much believe that Nate and most of the more active developers truly are fans and want KSP2 to succeed backed by the legacy and lineage from which it comes. You can see it in interviews when Nate drops his guard a little bit and gets very passionate, very quickly.

However, on the back of that, this was slated for launch in 2020. It was then delayed - twice. What we're seeing here (in the EA release of KSP2) seems very odd for a game that has spent an extra 3 years in developmnent... What were they intending on releasing in 2020 then? Passionate people can sometimes be the worst kind of people to work for, or with. Especially when it comes to managing expectations or having to cut content they are passionate about. I should know, I am one of those passionate people (in a different discipline and work environment, but I can sometimes be a bit overbearing because of my passion - I will even go toe-to-toe with my bosses, and have to varying degrees of success, if I believe the compromises we make/paths we take are damaging/dangerous to our core product).

The very real risk here is that, due to the consistently BS "Must make profit now for shareholders" mentality of almost every company means that Take Two may very well cut their losses, even if it is in the vicinity of $100 million. Companies these days, with only a few exceptions, are afraid of funding long-term projects or absorbing a loss despite the projected long-term success of a thing. The idiots in charge of Take Two don't care about established franchises, dedicated fanbases and keeping them reputable. They care about money and getting more of it as quickly as they can. So the OP is right in that if we starve this project of funding, they're likely to stop funding Intercept Games and KSP2 along with it. Conversely, if we fund it, we're also saying that releasing games in this state, after this long in development - after delays to improve the quality of the product - is okay, when it really kind of isn't...

So then we, as the fanbase of a franchise devoid of the sequel we were promised but haven't been delivered, get out our pitchforks and light our torches. So we need to ensure that we start aiming it at the right entity: are we angry at Intercept Games for what could reasonably be assumed is "dragging their heels" on development (honestly...if this is what EA KSP2 looks like now, after an extra few years in development, what did they intend to release in 2020!?) or do we circle the wagons around Intercept Games and demand Take Two give them the time and funding they need to deliver the sequel we all non-verbally, universally signed on for in all its visually impressive, interstellar-spanning glory? I'm very much in favour of the latter, obviously, however the truth is always a three-sided sword: Your side, their side and the objective truth. I don't think Intercept Games is entirely innocent when it comes to the state of the EA release. But I know, based purely on gut feeling and an understanding of how publishers use legal contracts to the detriment of developers, that Take Two Interactive have pushed for a release to recoup losses already incurred from acquisiton and project funding so far.

EDIT: Of course, Intercept Games could have been hamstrung by Take Two, and have done what they can with the funding they've been given - very rarely will the people with the money give a project the money they believe they need - "do more with less" permeates every level of consumer-based profit.

Edited February 25, 2023 by Cailean_556

[Periple]

1 hour ago, VlonaldKerman said:

But, instead of paying QA testers, evidently, they're charging us to be QA testers. Not beta testers- there's a difference.

Bug reports from non-professional testers in an open beta are worse than useless. They will be badly written, a lot of them won’t even be bug reports but just venting about something at random, there will be dozens of duplicates, and it’ll be a lot of work to find the occasional good one in the lot.

It’s much cheaper to use a professional QA team than to try to filter the signal out of the noise. If there even is a public bug tracker it’s there for the players so they feel they’re contributing and to remind them that the game isn’t finished, not because it does anything useful for the team.

[RocketRockington]

A few things from the Steam Early Access guidelines might be relevant here.  I feel like they point out that people who have issues with the state of the EA are not just being whiny babies, that this is not the intended use of an EA status.  Full guidelines link on steam's site

"Early Access is not a pre-purchase

• Early Access is not meant to be a form of pre-purchase, but a tool to get your game in front of Steam users and gather feedback while finishing your game.
• Early Access titles must deliver a playable game or usable software to the customer at the time of purchase, while pre-purchase games are delivered at a future date. "

A lot of people are treating this EA as a prepurchase.  T2 can't stop this, but I don't think they're discouraging it either.

Under 'Rules'

• "2. Do not make specific promises about future events. For example, there is no way you can know exactly when the game will be finished, that the game will be finished, or that planned future additions will definitely happen. Do not ask your customers to bet on the future of your game. Customers should be buying your game based on its current state, not on promises of a future that may or may not be realized."

Yet KSP2 has publisher a roadmap that seems to controvert this.  I guess this guideline is often not followed because I have seen other projects publish some roadmap - KSP2's seems awfully specific though.

• "5. Make sure you set expectations properly everywhere you talk about your game. Be transparent with your community. For example, if you know your updates during Early Access will break save files, make sure you tell players up front. And say this everywhere you sell your Steam keys."

This seems to be one of the bigger sticking points, as the dev videos have often stated things like performance being better/less buggy than KSP1.

• "Don't launch in Early Access without a playable game. If you have a tech demo, but not much gameplay yet, then it’s probably too early to launch in Early Access. If you are trying to test out a concept and haven't yet figured out what players are going to do in your game that makes it fun, then it's probably too early. You might want to start by giving out keys to select fans and getting input from a smaller and focused group before you release in Early Access. At a bare minimum, you will need a video trailer that shows gameplay. Even if you are asking for feedback that will impact gameplay, customers need something to start with in order to give informed feedback and suggestions."

I don't think KSP2 is just a tech demo - but for a game without objectives, without much of a game loop, without a lot of core features that are meant to add this game loop... arguments could be made.  Certainly its not like KSP2 is the first 20% of the game with removed content that impacts things later (eg like if it just released without interstellar/other planets).  

Now, you could say, well, KSP1 also didn't have a game loop during its early days, and had many of these issues - but KSP1 was kickstarted, plus it was an arguably revolutionary game, and the early access period shifted the game dramatically,  devs changed their roadmap considerably based on player feedback.  Also it wasn't priced like a AAA release.

Does anyone believe such dramatic shifts will happen during KSP2?   That the roadmap as published will be drastically altered based on feedback?   I for one am skeptical on that, especially since a bunch of the early part of the roadmap must be 'get it up to KSP1 useability/playability standards'.

 

Edited February 25, 2023 by RocketRockington

[Cailean_556]

1 hour ago, RocketRockington said:

A few things from the Steam Early Access guidelines might be relevant here.  I feel like they point out that people who have issues with the state of the EA are not just being whiny babies, that this is not the intended use of an EA status.  Full guidelines link on steam's site

"Early Access is not a pre-purchase

• Early Access is not meant to be a form of pre-purchase, but a tool to get your game in front of Steam users and gather feedback while finishing your game.
• Early Access titles must deliver a playable game or usable software to the customer at the time of purchase, while pre-purchase games are delivered at a future date. "

A lot of people are treating this EA as a prepurchase.  T2 can't stop this, but I don't think they're discouraging it either.

Under 'Rules'

• "2. Do not make specific promises about future events. For example, there is no way you can know exactly when the game will be finished, that the game will be finished, or that planned future additions will definitely happen. Do not ask your customers to bet on the future of your game. Customers should be buying your game based on its current state, not on promises of a future that may or may not be realized."

Yet KSP2 has publisher a roadmap that seems to controvert this.  I guess this guideline is often not followed because I have seen other projects publish some roadmap - KSP2's seems awfully specific though.

• "5. Make sure you set expectations properly everywhere you talk about your game. Be transparent with your community. For example, if you know your updates during Early Access will break save files, make sure you tell players up front. And say this everywhere you sell your Steam keys."

This seems to be one of the bigger sticking points, as the dev videos have often stated things like performance being better/less buggy than KSP1.

• "Don't launch in Early Access without a playable game. If you have a tech demo, but not much gameplay yet, then it’s probably too early to launch in Early Access. If you are trying to test out a concept and haven't yet figured out what players are going to do in your game that makes it fun, then it's probably too early. You might want to start by giving out keys to select fans and getting input from a smaller and focused group before you release in Early Access. At a bare minimum, you will need a video trailer that shows gameplay. Even if you are asking for feedback that will impact gameplay, customers need something to start with in order to give informed feedback and suggestions."

I don't think KSP2 is just a tech demo - but for a game without objectives, without much of a game loop, without a lot of core features that are meant to add this game loop... arguments could be made.  Certainly its not like KSP2 is the first 20% of the game with removed content that impacts things later (eg like if it just released without interstellar/other planets).  

Now, you could say, well, KSP1 also didn't have a game loop during its early days, and had many of these issues - but KSP1 was kickstarted, plus it was an arguably revolutionary game, and the early access period shifted the game dramatically,  devs changed their roadmap considerably based on player feedback.  Also it wasn't priced like a AAA release.

Does anyone believe such dramatic shifts will happen during KSP2?   That the roadmap as published will be drastically altered based on feedback?   I for one am skeptical on that, especially since a bunch of the early part of the roadmap must be 'get it up to KSP1 useability/playability standards'.

 

Kudos for bring up the Steam rules on EA games. Very interesting. However, considering it has been made widely known that the price will go up upon v1.0 release, I can see why some people may be treating this as a 'pre-purchase'. I don't see it that way myself, but I can see where they argument is in that.

And you're right...Developer roadmaps do seem to contradict the "Do not make specific promises" (not just for KSP2 but for every game I have that has been in EA and provided a developer roadmap at some point in its development cycle). However I suppose a "roadmap", like a real map, is a guide on where to go - not how it's going to get there, or even if it will. Which is ominous in itself, really, if Take Two decides to pull funding before KSP2 is feature complete.

However, as a sequel, I feel there is an unspoken, unwritten rule that KSP2 will expand, improve and go beyond the scope of KSP1 and players/fans are buying based on this unpsoken/unwritten rule. Like if KSP2 was about playing as a Kerbal on Kerbin with no ability to build rockets and such, as opposed to space, rockets and such...I would not have bought it, based on what can be done (both stock and with mods) in KSP1. 

I wouldn't say KSP2 is a tech demo. I also wouldn't say it's not a playable game. There's a playable game there, it's just not what some/all of us wanted/expected. To me, KSP2 right now (as of today) is KSP1 in 2011, but with better graphics and more stuff to build with. There's stuff to do (build a ship, get to the other planets, explore, try to have fun doing so in sandbox with no real objectives outside what you set for yourself) and to be clear, that aspect is fun to me but everyone has different definitions of 'fun' though. However I must admit even I've had to curb my expectations dramatically, and I didn't really have any outside of "KSP1 but better".

I don't see any dramatic shifts in the roadmap of the features it promises to deliver, however I do see - based on feedback - an expansion or addition of features, primarily based off of what KSP1 does have, that KSP2 currently does not have.

Edited February 25, 2023 by Cailean_556

[J.Random]

That roadmap is anything but specific. Or a promise.

[cfds]

I have the nagging feeling that the Steam EA rules apply only to indy developers, not to publishers who could remove the Civilization or GTA series from Steam..

[VlonaldKerman]

8 hours ago, RocketRockington said:

"Early Access is not a pre-purchase

• Early Access is not meant to be a form of pre-purchase, but a tool to get your game in front of Steam users and gather feedback while finishing your game.
• Early Access titles must deliver a playable game or usable software to the customer at the time of purchase, while pre-purchase games are delivered at a future date. "

A lot of people are treating this EA as a prepurchase.  T2 can't stop this, but I don't think they're discouraging it either.

Under 'Rules'

• ... Do not ask your customers to bet on the future of your game. Customers should be buying your game based on its current state, not on promises of a future that may or may not be realized."

To me, the "playability" requirement has arguably not been met. MAYBE if all we were getting was the Kerbin/Mun/Minmus system then I could call the game playable. I simply cannot imagine conducting a Jool mission, for example, due to the bugs/wobble while launching large crafts, and bugs that happen seemingly every time you try to quickload. It would be almost impossible. I would argue that a substantial fraction of the content (other planets) is not actually playable in the games current state. Thus, it fails the "early access is not a pre-purchase" condition 2.

Additionally, the piece "Do not ask your customers to bet on the future of your game" is really key for me. I don't necessarily agree with this being a requirement, but I think the spirit of this rule is important. It is inarguable that the current state of the game is not worth $50... it's probably worth like $10 max. Thus, $40 of what you are paying is speculative value, a "bet on the future of [the] game." While some amount of betting on a promise is acceptable to me, in my view, it shouldn't be 80% of the price of the release, which I think it is here. This is why a lot of people have a sour taste in their mouths about the price. I think the community outrage would be much less if the game cost $20-$25 in its current state, which seems reasonable to me- $10 for current value, so a ratio of ~50% speculative value seems appropriate for an EA title, if a little too large even still for a game in this early of a state.

I think the exact Steam rules are less important than the general ethos of the rules, which speaks to what EA really ought to mean. I think, as a community, our definition of EA is off- it is not appropriate to charge a price for an EARLY EA title that is based on future value to this extent. Just because it is EA, doesn't mean it's okay for many (most?) of what little game features we do have to be unusable/unplayable due to bugs. That is not what EA is for, from a moral/principle standpoint.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the comment sections of KSP 2 videos made by Youtubers who haven't really touched the KSP franchise before. The audience of those videos is mostly people who have never heard of KSP, and this release is their first impression of the franchise as a whole. These are unbiased, outside observers, and their opinion is near-unanimous: "The game has potential, and it would be fair to charge $20 for it in its very, very young EA state. However, $50 feels like robbery" (that last sentence is actually a direct quote). Again, these are outside observers- they know what an EA is supposed to be and they know this isn't it- at least not at a price point of $50. Almost all the positive or cheery comments in their comment section are KSP fans who are excited that someone new seems to be trying the game, which speaks to the level of rose-colored glasses/the bubble which some of the KSP community seems to be living in. I would be surprised if these "new KSP players" will be playing the game for long, at least if the state of the game doesn't improve quickly and dramatically.

I really, really hope we get some kind of statement from the devs about this. I'm still grasping onto the threads of the trust I had in them, and I'm eager for that trust to be restored. I feel that for the sake of the game, that has to happen, soon.

[tstein]

12 hours ago, VlonaldKerman said:

This. I get a good vibe from the dev team; they seem to really care, and I want them to succeed. But the discrepancy between messaging like this and the product we received chips away at that image. In my mind, when it comes to a speculative project like this, the image of the devs (and the truth about them!) is paramount. I think at this juncture it's really important for the devs to take steps to restore trust in the eyes of the community. That is, assuming (which I have been/pretty much still am) that said trust is warranted.

Being passionate rarely means you are the best to do a job. Being passionate sometimes  can lead you into focusing on things that are NOT priority and that  is very bad. For example, why in hell waste a SINGLE SECOND working on the many kerbal face expressions, when there is so many  CRITICAL foundation issues in the game?  Some of the best developers I worked on hated the software they were working on,  maybe exactly because they focused in the important stuff first. TO be fair this might be to blame on someone else, like  a manager, marketing or producers, but there seems to be a CLEAR issue of bad focus. They spent so much time in their new gui, launchpad, KSC, kerbal faces, rendering kerbals even inside the ship, while  the basics were not ready.. not even remotely ready. It might even be the case of a studio with too many content creators and too few senior developers ?

[dr.phees]

> It might even be the case of a studio with too many content creators and too few senior developers ?

Sounds right.

What irritates me is that in some way KSP 2 is a straight copy of a pre-release KSP 1 with some visual bling. Where something was actually changed, it was done for the worse (my opinion). Somehow all the learned lessons of KSP 1 have apparently been ignored and changes were only made where not necessary!

 

Examples of unnecessary changes:

- VAB controls

- part management (in-flight and in VAB)

- The UI in this game needs do deliver masses of information without cluttering the screen - it does not.

- Overloading the graphics engine with pre-lord-of-the-rings-amounts of trees.

 

The two changes that everyone hoped for but which have not been touched:

- Solid physics engine: no wobble, no necessity for autostruts, no creeping of landed craft, proper wheel dynamics, no loading-in jumps

- Embracing procedural parts (tanks, landing gear, maybe habitation modules, solar panels...)

 

So. KSP 2 currently is a copy of KSP 1 with a weird selection of changes. It really hurts to see this, focusing visuals over a solid base game. I really had hoped for a better selection of parts, more flexibility, I was ready for a proper EA experience, trying new build methods, finding out what is possible with a new parts system etc. Instead I have the same as KSP 1 with an even more cluttery parts catalogue but worse controls. And worse performance.

I wish the best for the game and the team, but I don't think it will make enough money to allow development to whatever lofty goals had been stated until now. If I wanted to develop something that radically larger with bases, logistics routes, mutliplayer etc. I would have started a proof of concept and not a visual GPU banquet. I don't think the engine can handle any bases of even a fraction of the scale we saw in the advertisement videos.

Let's hope and see what comes around. In the end KSP 1 has been in development for a really long time and look what we got today!

Edited February 25, 2023 by dr.phees

[pmborg]

To be honest I felt the same, I paid ok I dont regret it , but the current state is more a lack of respect, than a beta is more like an alfa or something worst.

In the end I just closed the KSP2 and was very angry and very irritated spend 1hour trying to do something that in KSP1 I do in 1min... no that is too much...

And I was not prepared from passing from one very realistic simulator to just a game...

Edited February 25, 2023 by pmborg