Do you guys feel like this is what the fan patience deserved?

[Periple]

1 minute ago, Alexoff said:

With the words - in a week we will sell in steam?

You'd be surprised 

[DwightLee]

8 minutes ago, Zozaf Kerman said:

Idk man, i think finding all the bugs and helping with the development process is kinda fun.
;-;

That is why I am in Early Access

[78stonewobble]

21 minutes ago, Alexoff said:

KSP1, 6 years after the start of development, was already an almost finished game. It's amazing how expectations from developers have fallen. Once upon a time, the regulars of the forum proved to me here that professionals with serious funding from one of the largest game publishers got down to business. And the first part was developed by only a few people from the advertising company, I don’t even know if they had the necessary education. And now, after many years of transferring the full game, getting such a terrible core is just outrageous.

 

And the most disgusting thing is the complete absence of any words from the developers. What kind of reaction did they expect? Maybe they think it's normal that ordinary fans like you, who have no fault at all, respond to the wave of hate? Did they know what state the game was in? Are they preparing another roadmap, where will it be indicated when the main features of KSP1 will be included? Or maybe an apology video?

Well, I think 3 days after first early access is a fair comparison to 3 days after first early access. 

 

Certainly more fair than the comparison of 3 days after first early access to 6 years in development (with 4 years in early access before full release). 

 

Especially considering I don't know what corporate shenanigans have taken place plus pandemic. 

 

Maybe that's just me... O.o but it does seem like I got my expectations more right than others. 

 

 

[mcwaffles2003]

14 minutes ago, Zozaf Kerman said:

Idk man, i think finding all the bugs and helping with the development process is kinda fun.
;-;

5 minutes ago, DwightLee said:

That is why I am in Early Access

If you bought it for another reason I think you're doing it wrong. As I've said in other threads I knew what I was getting in to after getting BG3 day one of EA.

Spoiler

 

A complete mess, and I just wanna help

[Alexoff]

14 minutes ago, 78stonewobble said:

Well, I think 3 days after first early access is a fair comparison to 3 days after first early access

KSP1 became available for download months after development began.

[78stonewobble]

And afaik. Ksp1 had bugs, lacked features and poor performance (in this case eg. poor graphics) far into it's 4 full years of early access. 

 

That is imho. very similar to ksp2 having bugs, lacking features and poor performance 3 days into it's early access. 

 

 

[atomontage]

4 minutes ago, 78stonewobble said:

And afaik. Ksp1 had bugs, lacked features and poor performance (in this case eg. poor graphics) far into it's 4 full years of early access. 

 

That is imho. very similar to ksp2 having bugs, lacking features and poor performance 3 days into it's early access. 

 

 

That's right. KSP 1 still has poor performance (although, you know, I'm starting thinking its way better optimized than I thought /sarcasm/).

However.

1. KSP 1 is indie (was indie). KSP 2 is not.
2. KSP 1 was initially developed by unskilled devs. I demand nothing: its an epic win that they created KSP 1. We didnt know how to get to Duna first time did we?
3. KSP 1 still has a lot of problems under the hood - thats a perfect way to learn something. Did KSP 2 devs learn something? Probably but why does KSP 2 have KSP 1 bugs then? Not one. Not two. More.
4. KSP 1 got a working prototype in, what, a year? After two years from 0.1 they've got the Kerbolar system working. After two and a half (still from 0.1) they've got Career, Science. https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Version_history
    After (lets say) 3 years of development KSP 2 is nothing of that. Don't tell me about clouds, updated VAB, tutorials, etc. Its 2023 and those in the dev team are experienced game developers (if they are not, what are they doing there then?).
    Also don't tell me about COVID: working from home and occasionally moving to the office is not that hard as someone explain.
5. KSP 1 was priced um... lets say WAY LESS than $50. $50 is a finished AAA price tag.
6. KSP 1 had way less people in the team than KSP 2 does (according to its Credits screen).
7. Now the fun part. The 'dont compare it to modded KSP 1 (in terms of graphics)'. Why not hire blackrack or gamelinx if you see that your developers ain't gonna make it? Okay lets assume they refused. Why not PAY them to help the KSP 2 devs do the most beautiful space game? In the end, those mods are open sourced. I don't say just copy the code, but WATCH how its meant to be done.

[Majorjim!]

2 hours ago, Mantarochen said:

  

2 hours ago, 78stonewobble said:

Ah, well I never really trust people that try to sell me anything as a kind of principle. 

In any case. All I'm saying is that the current early access is about what I would expect for early access and about comparable (not the same, but comparable) to the earliest ksp1 early access.

 

Edit and ps: I think that basing one's expectations on intentions and month to multiple year long predictions from years ago is a recipe for  unrealistic expectations, especially if one ignores more up to date information for the sake of essentially wishful thinking. 

 

 

 

People are liquided because of what they where told by the people making the game. Expectations are mostly based on information. The information we where given by the devs. That information looks to have been at best not explained correctly at all or at worst been straight up lies. 

Edited February 26, 2023 by Majorjim!

[78stonewobble]

4 minutes ago, atomontage said:

That's right. KSP 1 still has poor performance (although, you know, I'm starting thinking its way better optimized than I thought /sarcasm/).

However.

1. KSP 1 is indie (was indie). KSP 2 is not.
2. KSP 1 was initially developed by unskilled devs. I demand nothing: its an epic win that they created KSP 1. We didnt know how to get to Duna first time did we?
3. KSP 1 still has a lot of problems under the hood - thats a perfect way to learn something. Did KSP 2 devs learn something? Probably but why does KSP 2 have KSP 1 bugs then? Not one. Not two. More.
4. KSP 1 got a working prototype in, what, a year? After two years from 0.1 they've got the Kerbolar system working. After two and a half (still from 0.1) they've got Career, Science. https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Version_history
    After (lets say) 3 years of development KSP 2 is nothing of that. Don't tell me about clouds, updated VAB, tutorials, etc. Its 2023 and those in the dev team are experienced game developers (if they are not, what are they doing there then?).
    Also don't tell me about COVID: working from home and occasionally moving to the office is not that hard as someone explain.
5. KSP 1 was priced um... lets say WAY LESS than $50. $50 is a finished AAA price tag.
6. KSP 1 had way less people in the team than KSP 2 does (according to its Credits screen).
7. Now the fun part. The 'dont compare it to modded KSP 1 (in terms of graphics)'. Why not hire blackrack or gamelinx if you see that your developers ain't gonna make it? Okay lets assume they refused. Why not PAY them to help the KSP 2 devs do the most beautiful space game? In the end, those mods are open sourced. I don't say just copy the code, but WATCH how its meant to be done.

Well, now you're comparing 3 days of early access to 1 year plus in early acces and your estimate of 3 years of development time of ksp2 kinda skips the changing developers and again pandemic (which didn't simply force people to work at home, there were other complications associated). 

 

But let me ask you this. 

 

Out of your approach and my approach to managing  expectations, which one most ended up most accurately matching the current state of ksp2 early access? 

6 minutes ago, Majorjim! said:

People are liquided because of what they where told by the people making the game. Expectations are mostly based on information. The information we where given by the devs. That information looks to have been at best not explained correctly at all or at worst been straight up lies. 

Willfull ignorance is certainly a choice. 

 

Personally I will always choose to go with the 1 day old weather forecast as opposed to the 5 day old one.

 

Frankly I find it crazy to defend picking the oldest one, considering how the accuracy of predictions fall off rapidly. 

[atomontage]

1 minute ago, 78stonewobble said:

Well, now you're comparing 3 days of early access to 1 year plus in early acces and your estimate of 3 years of development time of ksp2 kinda skips the changing developers and again pandemic (which didn't simply force people to work at home, there were other complications associated). 

 

But let me ask you this. 

 

Out of your approach and my approach to managing  expectations, which one most ended up most accurately matching the current state of ksp2 early access? 

Not actually, no. I'm comparing first two years of KSP 1 development by unskilled devs with zero examples of what and how to do with skilled devs, 3 years of development (one hinted that it was quite more than that though) and a great example of how NOT to do kerbal games.
The latter question is out of the context. I'm not asking what to do now or whether I was wrong with my expectations. But if you insist, I'll surely answer: my hopes were not THAT high but at least I hoped a base game (base = without colonies, etc) would be better than KSP 1.

Also some of us are quite angry because of the lies devs kept telling us (not raising expectations but lies). We may or may not believe it, its simply the fact of lies that makes some of us angry.

> Gotta polish the game, you know, its quite complex and we still need a bit more time (2022-2023).
Yeah, sure.
 

[Majorjim!]

6 minutes ago, 78stonewobble said:

Well, now you're comparing 3 days of early access to 1 year plus in early acces and your estimate of 3 years of development time of ksp2 kinda skips the changing developers and again pandemic (which didn't simply force people to work at home, there were other complications associated). 

 

But let me ask you this. 

 

Out of your approach and my approach to managing  expectations, which one most ended up most accurately matching the current state of ksp2 early access? 

Willfull ignorance is certainly a choice. 

 

Personally I will always choose to go with the 1 day old weather forecast as opposed to the 5 day old one.

 

Frankly I find it crazy to defend picking the oldest one, considering how the accuracy of predictions fall off rapidly. 

Sorry, are you calling information the developers gave us about the state of the game, ‘predictions’?

Just now, atomontage said:

Not actually, no. I'm comparing first two years of KSP 1 development by unskilled devs with zero examples of what and how to do with skilled devs, 3 years of development (one hinted that it was quite more than that though) and a great example of how NOT to do kerbal games.
The latter question is out of the context. I'm not asking what to do now or whether I was wrong with my expectations. But if you insist, I'll surely answer: my hopes were not THAT high but at least I hoped a base game (base = without colonies, etc) would be better than KSP 1.

Also some of us are quite angry because of the lies devs kept telling us (not raising expectations but lies). We may or may not believe it, its simply the fact of lies that makes some of us angry.

> Gotta polish the game, you know, its quite complex and we still need a bit more time (2022-2023).
Yeah, sure.
 

Agreed, it really does look like they just flat out lied about the state of the game they where releasing. At no point before release did they say anything about the game being completely broken, massively underdeveloped or having performance requirements that would make Cray computers blush… 

[Gorby1]

10 hours ago, RocketRockington said:

Do you feel that the quality the community asked for has been met?  That a lot of features have been woven together?  That it's stable and polished?

After about 8 hours of playing I feel like I'll give them a month before I answer that question. If they can't get things together a bit better than this, and rather quickly, then I'm going to be worried.

[Profugo Barbatus]

Right now, yes, I think this is what the patience deserves. Mostly because we only had two settings enabled at the same time - demanding the game to be 10x better than the prior game, at any cost, in every aspect, and also demanding the game come out ASAP let me play it right now dear god I can't wait.

So naturally, the scope ballooned out, and there was a constant building pressure to give us something, anything at all. The scope expansion and associated delays would have also put management pressure to get out and get something. KSP2 was starting to threaten to look like a money pit from which nothing was coming. Lockdowns would have amplified this, cratering productivity for 2-6 months as teams suddenly learn a new way of working and coordinating, and team members develop techniques and spaces to properly focus while working at home. Eventually, it snapped, and the call was made that its gotta release by a drop dead date. This call was probably made too late for the team to prioritize away from building 'all the things' and shift over to "Ok we just need KSP1 functions". The sense of poor prioritization is from the people suddenly dropping colonies and modloaders and resource harvesting, to fix the VAB serializer, and implement science and heat and other stuff that simply wasn't a priority when the goal was "Finish the game". Which is why my litmus test of how much of a disaster this is will come from the first couple patches - both cadence, and focus. If they're relatively prompt (Measured in weeks, not months) up to the science release, then it indicates they were really just spread out and only had to focus on polish and the 'start' point very recently. If they're also of good quality and fix more issues than they introduce, then it reinforces the idea that they just didn't focus much on the quality at the time - it was 'good enough' implementation to support the other core pillars they were working on, so the assorted issues weren't as important as getting X working.

We got what we wanted, a huge game super early in development, and its a disaster. I'm not gonna blame them for giving us what we wanted, I was out here with pitchforks last year in salt after the delay. I'll eat my crow here and move on. And if the upcoming patches aren't fixing things, are making it worse, then I'll start to be genuinely concerned. As it stands, all the disabled content and floating hooks I see in the game tell me there's a lot here, and they were just hacking things out in a panic to get it working for release, not that they haven't been doing anything all this time.

[Alexoff]

44 minutes ago, 78stonewobble said:

That is imho. very similar to ksp2 having bugs, lacking features and poor performance 3 days into it's early access.

KSP1 still has bugs, poor performance (not as bad as KSP2) and few interesting things outside of the hangar. Should the next 8 years of KSP2 be the same?

[Alexoff]

33 minutes ago, atomontage said:

Now the fun part. The 'dont compare it to modded KSP 1 (in terms of graphics)'. Why not hire blackrack or gamelinx if you see that your developers ain't gonna make it? Okay lets assume they refused. Why not PAY them to help the KSP 2 devs do the most beautiful space game? In the end, those mods are open sourced. I don't say just copy the code, but WATCH how its meant to be done.

As far as I understand, almost all the details in the game were made by modders from our forum, two or three dudes. What were the other 30 developers doing? Apparently multiplayer and bases, about which we do not know anything definite, which means we can get indefinitely little.

[atomontage]

2 minutes ago, Alexoff said:

As far as I understand, almost all the details in the game were made by modders from our forum, two or three dudes. What were the other 30 developers doing? Apparently multiplayer and bases, about which we do not know anything definite, which means we can get indefinitely little.

Exactly. And its more than 30 AFAIK.
And people dug out a few assets out already (like habitats, base assembly building, etc).

But there's infinitely long road between having assets there and have a finished feature. So we can't even speculate how far are they into developing those.
(Nate said they already play multiplayer, however, I don't really care now as most of stuff he said before turned out to be lies.)

[Vanamonde]

Things got heated there for a while. Some personal comments were removed. Keep it polite, please. 

[Barral69Gaming]

8 hours ago, RayneCloud said:

A lot of people in here have never worked on a game and it shows. 

* You';re ignoring a 2+ year long pandemic.
* You're ignoring what it's like to have to move an in office team to a remote work environment and back again.  (If that happened, I don't know if it did for certain>)
* The situation with the first studio seems to be glossed over as well.
* Game dev is an iterative process that is constantly moving and changing. 
* Stop treating the dev team like they're no longer human beings, it's disgusting. People make mistakes, and while I would like some more communication and information, insults and attacks on their character are childish at best and incredibly toxic and hurtful at worst.  

YOU are IGNORING they promised a playable decent game at launch and did NOT deliver that. We paid for a demo. We PAID FULL price for a DEMO!

[atomontage]

33 minutes ago, Barral69Gaming said:

YOU are IGNORING they promised a playable decent game at launch and did NOT deliver that. We paid for a demo. We PAID FULL price for a DEMO!

(Now you will be told that they said it would be EA and we knew what we were going to pay for.)

[BobbyDausus]

36 minutes ago, Barral69Gaming said:

YOU are IGNORING they promised a playable decent game at launch and did NOT deliver that. We paid for a demo. We PAID FULL price for a DEMO!

for a DEMO that is unplayable on most PC's 

[Steve7893]

My perspective isn't what most folks here are, for reasons mentioned earlier in the thread.   $50 is (what did the guy say?) a couple of crates of eggs?  Or less to me.   Also, a few folks chimed in about having many years of experience as a software developer and that the developers should be ashamed.

I've been a software developer a long long time.   I've worked with a wide range of skill levels.   

What most likely happened is that the people who pushed the marketing hype were very non-technical and vastly underestimated the technical challenge.   Thats what likely caused the first release date to be 3 years before now.  As release dates get pushed, a lot of political deviltry arises within a company, and pressure increases not to let it slip again and again.   I've been in the position of trying to reign in marketing's unbridled optimism.   "Don't tell me I must go and tell the public we are pushing the release date a 4th year."   Most of the time upper level management gives them more clout, and trying to put a stop to such disasterous optimism gets you tarred.

But this is exactly the same effect that occurred when the decision was made to launch STS on that fateful cold Thursday morning back in 1986.

All that said, as a developer, I'm personally feeling like the guy above who said he was having fun testing it.    But I also sincerely feel for folks to whom the $50 is a painful amount to spend on this, and they have a right to be angry.   I do hope that updates come soon to change this.

I was considering if I would have personally rather have had them delay another year, or do what they did......and while I recognize it would not be the case for the majority of folks, as a dev myself, I'm glad to have access, so long as they will eventually get these things fixed.

 

 

[Nuke]

it was released as early access. this was clearly disclosed that the game was to be released in an incomplete state. the funds earned will likely be re-invested into the game to get it ready for prime time. now having just released id give them the benefit of the doubt while eagerly awaiting the first round of bugfixes.

i know other devs use this kind of thing as an excuse to drag their heels for the better part of a decade and never really make any progress. private division i don't think has a reputation for doing that, and i hope they don't end up falling into that trap. what you see is typical of early access games and should not be seen as a sign of doom and gloom for the future. 

[DwightLee]

4 hours ago, Alexoff said:

KSP1 became available for download months after development began.

Yeah and you could not even get into orbit when it first came out

[ZuluDoggy]

1 hour ago, Nuke said:

it was released as early access. this was clearly disclosed that the game was to be released in an incomplete state.

True, it was indeed released as an "Early Access" game. And yes, we knew it would be incomplete - at least, incomplete as far as what we had been promised for years. However, "Early Access" does not mean a game so riddled with bugs and glitches as to be almost unplayable. "Early Access" does not mean a game that is in a mid to late alpha testing stage - which, combined with the lack of features we were previously told the game would have, is where we seem to be. I don't know what you (or anyone else) were expecting, but I knew there would be bugs. I didn't expect that the bugs would be random and as non-repeatable as these are. I didn't expect that certain keystrokes would work fine now, and not at all five minutes from now. I expected a more playable game - not perfect, not complete, but at least mostly playable. I certainly didn't get that, and from reading these forums and comments elsewhere, it doesn't seem as if too many people did either.

 

1 hour ago, Nuke said:

 ...the funds earned will likely be re-invested into the game to get it ready for prime time. now having just released id give them the benefit of the doubt while eagerly awaiting the first round of bugfixes.

I hear this comment (or similar comments) being made quite often. What proof do we have, what evidence do we have, what anything do we have that suggests that the EA "funds" will indeed be reinvested into the game? All I can see is a company so seemingly starved for income off of KSP2 that they forced a vastly inferior product into release, all the while claiming how great the game was, how the devs had trouble working because they were spending so much time playing the game instead, and bombarding us with pretty videos showing all the new(!) and improved(!) graphics and gameplay. Honestly, I'm concerned that KSP2 was forced into release so that the game would generate some income before it's kicked to the trash heap. We might see a bugfix or two in a few months, but I have grave misgivings about ever seeing the game we were told this would be.

[selfish_meme]

I have 22 hours (some of that may have been left on overnight one night) so far on the new game, I have not been dumped to desktop, had the game freeze on me or been unable to do what I have set out to do. Honestly it's been loads of fun so far and the  bugs are very kerbal. Yeah, I can see if I set out in a ship that took me hours or days to build and I spent the hours or days getting it somewhere incredible to have it lose all it's fuel or be unrecoverable is frustrating. It happens in KSP 1 too, after a decade of development, whether they were a major studio or not if you could iron out these problems easily they would have done it.

I see people misunderstand the underlying game mechanic of KSP and say Kerbal 1 errors are brought over.  No this is new code, if KSP 2 has an issue similar to KSP 1 it's that they both model physics joint's between parts. I don't know another game that does this to the extent KSP does, especially the sheer number, 100's to thousands. It makes for wobbly rockets, things being ejected at light speed and the Kraken. It's what made Kerbal the game it is, probably the most realistic space engineering simulator game. It also made KSP 1 very CPU bound, KSP 2 is like a heavily environment moded KSP 1 which has finally started stressing the GPU too, the fuel system also is part of the physics. In KSP 1 it was having issues as well, years after release, it's easy to find the posts, as were part counts, which often went up and down according to the latest patch, or fairings glitching, wheels not working correctly, they had a whole release just around adding a  new wheel plugin and then spent forever tuning it. I just flew to Duna in KSP 1 the other day as a farewell, had to wait for 15 minutes for my craft to stop sliding down a very minor slope.

The nature of KSP says that the game is going to have these sorts of issues, it straddles the border of simulator and game. I think it's popularity derives from a dozen different things, but usually people call it crap for only failing whichever one they are most interested in.

Take a step back, it's a game, it's going to get better, and probably more expensive, if you buy it now you are not getting ripped off, the fixes and features will eventuate, probably not all of them, you would have to be naive to believe that, but at least things like game modes (science etc), possibly interstellar. But mainly because it is a much newer base the community content is going to come for it. What the developers don't deliver the community probably will.