A week in... 10% still playing

[RocketRockington]

23 minutes ago, RayneCloud said:

You know you're like the 3rd or 4th person to post something like this? Games drop off. Especially EA games. Do you know how many games on steam have above a 1000 players? Above a 150, out of nearly 60,000 games on team. 

Yeah oddly one of those 150 games happens to be KSP1.  So it's perfectly reasonable be concerned that the shiny brand new sequel has 40% 30% and falling of the 10year old, not meaningfully updated in 2 years, predecessor's player count.

Though I agree this could be merged with a prior thread.

Edited March 9, 2023 by RocketRockington

[schlosrat]

This is such a load of hooey. Space malarkey.

I bought the game on Steam, but do I show up as playing it on steam? I'm playing it right now, but of course I'm not counted as I (and many others) prefer to launch without the steam  loader. I just click the shortcut to go straight to the game.

Also, EA is basically sandbox mode, right? So there's only so much you can do in sandbox mode, plus - as has been noted ad nauseum, there are one or two bugs...

Here's my prediction. They'll release an update that squashes some bugs and players will jump back in to see what's new. Some will play for a bit to see what's new and possibly better, others may play a bit longer. Then there's the next round of bug squashing, and the next, until they start pushing out features. Each time a few more will come back to see what's up. The very reason there's so much nerd radge over the disapointing EA will bring them back. They want it to succeed, and they want to see it! If some of the improvements are on the performance end, that will bring back players who want to see if their potato plays better. So, sure, EA with bugs and poor performance, and missing features, and limited to sandbox mode will only hold your attention for so long, but that's only to be expected.

[Vanamonde]

Overlapping threads have been merged. 

[RaBDawG]

11 hours ago, RayneCloud said:

You know you're like the 3rd or 4th person to post something like this? Games drop off. Especially EA games. Do you know how many games on steam have above a 1000 players? Above a 150, out of nearly 60,000 games on team. 

LOL.  Games don't drop off THIS fast.  Why are y'all lying to yourselves?  This was one of the most highly anticipated games to be released for over a year by 100's of thousands of fans of KSP1 and we don't even have 1,500 people playing 10 days after launch.

Edited March 9, 2023 by RaBDawG

[stephensmat]

I admit, I'm not playing as much as I did with KSP1. That's not because of a lack of interest. It's purely because I'm lacking in direction. Career mode and science mode gave me a framework to shoot for. You build small craft to save costs and science points, you work your way up.

Sandbox, you start at the top. In my case, it's like giving a first-time driver a Ferrari. While navigating the bugs and glitches, that's hard. I haven't really gone beyond the Mun yet. And I can't save up too many pre-built ships for later versions, because sooner or later the science parts get unlocked, and I start again.

If the Devs are reading this, don't compare my 'hours played' with my interest and loyalty to the game. I'm raring to go, and trying to learn how to dock all over again.

[Siska]

Well, i bought ksp2 one hour after release.

Now, i returned to ksp1, because ksp2, is simply unplayable in this state.

I am quite ok with performance (Lenovo p15- gen2-32gb ram- RTX - A3000 graphics), but whatever you do in kerbal, except simple designs, you never know is it bug or bad engineering.

Instead of spending enjoyable few hours reaching other planets, it takes a whole day fighitng with bugs, savegames. Not to mention it is impossible to make complex craft, from what i see now, the game just doesent handle bigger ships and starts breaking.

I'm back on KSP1, which is after playing KSP2 a pure flawless enjoyment.

It would not be that bad for a game in early acces, but charging 50$ to make me not want to play the game sounds awkward.

[cephalo]

I bought it, but I need at least reentry heating if I'm going to get re-hooked. I'll wait.

[Wheehaw Kerman]

I love it when people call the game things like “unplayable” in spite of all the evidence in the form of hundreds of posts and screenshots here and on the discord and on Reddit and increasing numbers of vids on YouTube of people building, launching and flying spacecraft and airplanes and landing them in various places, i.e. doing the supposedly impossible, playing the game…  if people are finding the game unplayable, that’s a them problem.

[Moons]

13 hours ago, Wheehaw Kerman said:

I love it when people call the game things like “unplayable” in spite of all the evidence in the form of hundreds of posts and screenshots here and on the discord and on Reddit and increasing numbers of vids on YouTube of people building, launching and flying spacecraft and airplanes and landing them in various places, i.e. doing the supposedly impossible, playing the game…  if people are finding the game unplayable, that’s a them problem.

What  a weird argument. You probably know very well that "unplayable" is a hyperbole to describe a game with lots of gamebreaking and general bugs and that it doesnt mean that nobody on this planet can play this game for even 1 minute ...

 

Playernumbers really arent looking good:

KSP1: 4540

KSP2: 1160

 

I think they should try to push out patches faster - too much quality control at this point probably isnt efficient at this point in time. I think they will lose more players by doing that than by pushing out patches that may or may not add some extra bugs while fixing others. Also wouldnt that be the point of EA - let players test?

Edited March 11, 2023 by Moons

[LoSBoL]

13 hours ago, Wheehaw Kerman said:

I love it when people call the game things like “unplayable” in spite of all the evidence in the form of hundreds of posts and screenshots here and on the discord and on Reddit and increasing numbers of vids on YouTube of people building, launching and flying spacecraft and airplanes and landing them in various places, i.e. doing the supposedly impossible, playing the game…  if people are finding the game unplayable, that’s a them problem.

If KSP learned me anything, it's perseverance. In KSP it's mostly me failing, but with KSP in its current state, it adds the game failing on top of me failing. So you can play the game, if you can handle and work around the failures on top of your own. 

I'm having fun with working around it, but I can imagine that others aren't.

I'm eager to find out what the updates bring, it should have an effect on the amount of concurrent players. We'll know within a few days. 

[MarcAbaddon]

I think the player counts will remain relatively low compared to KSP 1 until we have a progression mechanic (e.g. at least science mode) in the game. So I don't think the relatively lower count is really concerning, if there's something concerning with the number it is the quick fall-off.

[NippyFlippers]

I can't play, the bad performance is making it impossible for me, but I'd like to play, I really do.

[Wheehaw Kerman]

5 minutes ago, NippyFlippers said:

I can't play, the bad performance is making it impossible for me, but I'd like to play, I really do.

It can be played, and funnily enough, it’s playable in exactly the way KSP1 is.  Design build fly fail analyze iterate until you don’t fail.  The bugs add a layer of challenge that went away years ago for the veteran KSP1 community.

1 hour ago, Moons said:

What  a weird argument. You probably know very well that "unplayable" is a hyperbole to describe a game with lots of gamebreaking and general bugs and that it doesnt mean that nobody on this planet can play this game for even 1 minute ...

Hyperbole, especially repetitive hyperbole, is another ineffective and self-sabotaging argumentative tactic.  It highlights that you don’t have any better tools at your disposal than obvious exaggeration.  Objectivity is always the best choice.

The Steam numbers argument is better, but it’s already been discussed and dismissed for a variety of reasons (it being partial sampling of the actual player base at best and comparing an EA in its early weeks to its well established, polished and much beloved predecessor 10 years in) and thus is based on a poor metric.  Since you seem fussed about it, why don’t you check back in here a year and see how those numbers look?

[Moons]

17 minutes ago, Wheehaw Kerman said:

It can be played, and funnily enough, it’s playable in exactly the way KSP1 is.  Design build fly fail analyze iterate until you don’t fail.  The bugs add a layer of challenge that went away years ago for the veteran KSP1 community.

Hyperbole, especially repetitive hyperbole, is another ineffective and self-sabotaging argumentative tactic.  It highlights that you don’t have any better tools at your disposal than obvious exaggeration.  Objectivity is always the best choice.

The Steam numbers argument is better, but it’s already been discussed and dismissed for a variety of reasons (it being partial sampling of the actual player base at best and comparing an EA in its early weeks to its well established, polished and much beloved predecessor 10 years in) and thus is based on a poor metric.  Since you seem fussed about it, why don’t you check back in here a year and see how those numbers look?

No its just normal human behaviour especially when the product you bought was sold to you at the price of a full AAA title and you obviously had different expectations because of that.

Objectively that launch was a disaster - the price is absurd and the state of the game doesnt reflect the price tag of 50 USD at all.

So you have the authority to say what cant be discussed anymore and what is "dismissed" - good to know ...

Neither is there a problem with a partial sampling since Steam is probably the biggest part of the community since steam is the biggest store - also steam obviously is a very representative sample. Just because its a reality you dont want to accept doesnt mean its not reality.

Your argument also doesnt make sense in general since you can easily compare KSP EA to similar EA and you will instantly see that the player drop is way beyond the norm.

 

Sorry but to me you are just trying to cope with this for whatever reason (sunken cost fallacy etc.) and im sure you will come up with something to tell me why this actually isnt a bad launch no matter the argument presented.

So yes obviously steam is a bad metric since 90% of players are on other platforms where obviously everyone is happy and playing, players stop playing because all of them want to play a 10 year old game and its completely different from any other EA that had an old game yet has way more players in the new game in EA because of reasons.

 

 

I wont take that year thing - but i will quote your post in 2 Months - if there arent huge patches and a price drop im pretty sure this game will be almost out of players.

Edited March 11, 2023 by Moons

[MechBFP]

9 minutes ago, Moons said:

No its just normal human behaviour especially when the product you bought was sold to you at the price of a full AAA title and you obviously had different expectations because of that.

Objectively that launch was a disaster - the price is absurd and the state of the game doesnt reflect the price tag of 50 USD at all.

So you have the authority to say what cant be discussed anymore and what is "dismissed" - good to know ...

Neither is there a problem with a partial sampling since Steam is probably the biggest part of the community since steam is the biggest store - also steam obviously is a very representative sample. Just because its a reality you dont want to accept doesnt mean its not reality.

Your argument also doesnt make sense in general since you can easily compare KSP EA to similar EA and you will instantly see that the player drop is way beyond the norm.

 

Sorry but to me you are just trying to cope with this for whatever reason (sunken cost fallacy etc.) and im sure you will come up with something to tell me why this actually isnt a bad launch no matter the argument presented.

So yes obviously steam is a bad metric since 90% of players are on other platforms where obviously everyone is happy and playing, players stop playing because all of them want to play a 10 year old game and its completely different from any other EA that had an old game yet has way more players in the new game in EA because of reasons.

He said come back in a year, not 10 minutes. 

[Moons]

22 minutes ago, MechBFP said:

He said come back in a year, not 10 minutes. 

Sorry i didnt know that he has full authority - i will now logout and come back in a year sorry to bother you.

[purpleivan]

17 hours ago, Wheehaw Kerman said:

I love it when people call the game things like “unplayable” in spite of all the evidence in the form of hundreds of posts and screenshots here and on the discord and on Reddit and increasing numbers of vids on YouTube of people building, launching and flying spacecraft and airplanes and landing them in various places, i.e. doing the supposedly impossible, playing the game…  if people are finding the game unplayable, that’s a them problem.

If players are finding that their gameplay is abruptly hindered by the many mission ending bugs that are in the game currently (and I'm speaking from personal experience), then the game for them is unplayable.

If others are lucky somehow, or have the huge patience to push through the bugs and mission resets, then yes the game is playable (for small values of playable) for them. However, to be so dismissive of the great many players who have bought the game, expecting a fun and at least vaguely reliable playing experience, only to find that it is very far from that, is not a good look.

[KSK]

7 hours ago, Wheehaw Kerman said:

It can be played, and funnily enough, it’s playable in exactly the way KSP1 is.  Design build fly fail analyze iterate until you don’t fail.  The bugs add a layer of challenge that went away years ago for the veteran KSP1 community.

Well I suppose that's one way of looking at it but let me offer you a personal counterexample from playing KSP1.

This was a good few years ago now, so I can't remember what I did or didn't try and I'm not looking for a troubleshooting session here.

I was trying to build a very early tier plane, probably to knock over a few contracts.  Long story short, I could not get that thing to fly for love or money. However I set up the centre of lift / centre of mass, whatever I did with the undercarriage, that plane would veer off to one side,  sooner or later a wing would hit tarmac, and that would be all she wrote.

I never did figure out whether the problem was my design, a build problem (parts not quite symmetrical or undercarriage not quite vertical, maybe?), or a bug. I do remember giving up, not with a pleasant sense of motivation to keep iterating through the 10,000 ways that weren't going to work (to paraphrase Mr. Edison) until I found an answer, but with a sense of 'well that's three hours of my life I'm not getting back.'

TL: DR.  I found the whole design, build, fly, fail, iterate, thing to be really damn annoying when I couldn't tell if I was actually failing or just being defeated by a bug.

[Ekerci]

I see many positive comments about this game but it wont change the fact that this game has one of the worst EA, one of the worst pricing, one of the worst development and one of the worst time spending on development. I can add that one of the worst lunch.

if you check EA games, you can play them. somewhat bugs and crashes but you can still play. this game at EA has nothing to play. there is nothing more than KSP1 actually it is worse than KSP1. when you buy version 2, you expect to get better performance, better game play better content. they advertised the game with so many features and non of them are here and I'm afraid it's not gonna be here for 2 more years.

pricing point, I don't need to tell anything about it. it is god damn expensive.

development point: i can't count how many years they were developing. looks like they will need 2 more years to bring KSP2 to live and enjoyable. maybe they will never. there are companies they sell their game and goodbye.

this game is thresh to me at this stage and i paid a lot. I would be okay if the content comes in a short time but if you see the bugs that people are having, they will need a lot of time to fix these bugs because the game is not at EA stage. it is still alpha.

during the interviews they were saying we are having productivity issue because everyone is playing. I can see that this was a lie. if they were playing the game, they would see bunch of bugs.

[Ligator]

Well I spend more time doing bug reports and discussing bugs than playing, so... :-) I trust the devs. But they should have announced a closed Alpha testing with a few 1000 players before they released the EA.

 

[IBCrashing]

On 3/3/2023 at 8:57 AM, Tazooka said:

I'm one of the people who dropped off. I want to play KSP 2, but its so damn frustrating and annoying to play. My friends who play also are doing the same.

Every ship launch is almost impossible to complete without something major breaking. I don't have the patients anymore, not until its patched anyway

I share the same sentiments.  KSP2 looks great but is frustrating to play due to coding issues and wonky physics.  It may be  the game we all hoped for sometime down the road but right now it's marginally playable.    

[Siska]

On 3/10/2023 at 10:02 PM, Wheehaw Kerman said:

I love it when people call the game things like “unplayable” in spite of all the evidence in the form of hundreds of posts and screenshots here and on the discord and on Reddit and increasing numbers of vids on YouTube of people building, launching and flying spacecraft and airplanes and landing them in various places, i.e. doing the supposedly impossible, playing the game…  if people are finding the game unplayable, that’s a them problem.

Well, you can technicaly play it. If i had a youtube channel that depends on making content, i would play KSP2.

But i think game should be about joy and fun, not spending x4 ammount of time, just to get over frustrating, gamebreaking bugs that make you cry blood out of your eyes.

Cyberpunk was as much playable as KSP2 was. And it was the same money, same release.

If you ask me, it was a hard cake to eat programming this stuff. When KSP2 was announced, it had a date  of release in 2020 with interstellar travel promised, multiplayer, etc... We are 4 years from announcment and game has less content than mid ksp1 had.

I just hope that KSP2 is repairable. It really gets to the core of the game. If base programming model and architecture was well made, than ok. We wil see what we wanted.

But as i see now, we a re not going to get multiplayer or interstellar travel for over a year or at least two years from now.

So it's like crypto of somesort, or stocks. You buy something in hope that it will be better. 

 

[K33N]

Player count was in the 400s the other day...

[Mutex]

49 minutes ago, Siska said:

frustrating, gamebreaking bugs that make you cry blood out of your eyes

If KSP2 had a physical release that'd be a quote for the back of the box.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

Let's see what happens Thursday-ish.  If the patch is good, the weekend might show a spike.

If not?

400 might be a daily high