Week One Adventures

[Kerbart]

2 hours ago, Delay said:

Oh, I thought you were going to give a section in the text that was violated. Something concrete, you know?

They'll probably quote Rule 6:

 

Quote

 

Rules

1. You must include Steam Early Access branding and information about the current state of your game on any third-party sites where you are distributing Steam keys for your Early Access game. We work very hard to make sure that customers understand what they are buying when they get an Early Access title on Steam, and this expectation continues wherever Steam keys are distributed. You must include the Steam Early Access branding as well as current information on the state of your game, and a link to the Steam Early Access FAQ on any site where you are selling Steam keys for your Early Access title. Additionally, you should also include a copy of the Early Access questionnaire. You can read more in the Steam Branding Guidelines.

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.

3. Steam Early Access titles need to be available to customers through Steam. If Steam enables your Early Access game, we expect you to have the Early Access game available for sale on the Steam store. Do not offer it for sale on Steam any later than you offer it anywhere else.

4. Don't overcharge Steam customers. The Early Access price of your game should be no higher than that offered on any other service or website. Please take care of your customers on Steam.

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.

6. 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.

7. Don't launch in Early Access if you are finished with development. If you have all your gameplay defined already and are just looking for final bug testing, then Early Access isn’t right for you. You’ll probably want to send out some keys to fans or do more internal playtesting instead. Early Access is intended as a place where customers can impact the final game.

Of course, it comes down to what is playable? And they will conveniently leave out Rule 5, which implicitly states that, for instance, "game save" not working properly does not count as "unplayable."

 

[Pthigrivi]

On 3/3/2023 at 2:40 PM, Nate Simpson said:

What a week!

Man all I wanna say is dude you're the best and everyone at intercept has done an incredible job. The game looks amazing and there are so many great touches. Yeah, it's a little rough right now but we all believe in you and cherish all of the thoughtfulness and hard work. I super appreciate how much has gone into KSP2 already its great to see it getting cleaned up and optimized so more folks can dive in. We're all psyched to see science and colonies and new planets and the rest. The best things take time. 

Edited March 7, 2023 by Pthigrivi

[Wheehaw Kerman]

7 hours ago, BmB said:

That an Early Access game must be in a playable state, it should be a finished product unto itself. You can't sell hopes and dreams on Steam Early Access, I didn't buy a patch in two weeks and promises made on a forum. The patch should be today, maybe it can't be today, that's reality, then it should be tomorrow. But not in two weeks on a roadmap. Fixes need to come out as they are made until it's stable enough to justify waiting for QA.

As I said to the last person making this claim in spite of the fact that the game being on Steam is prima facie proof that he was talking through his hat, why don’t you go complain to Steam about this and let us know how that works out for you?

[jebycheek]

Hello nate,may i ask, is There Any chance that we can double the frame rate （across mid to high perform machines）on the next release？

PS: the current FPS is just unacceptable for me.im using i7-12700  RTX3070,and i get 24fps on average

Edited March 7, 2023 by jebycheek

[Periple]

8 hours ago, Kerbart said:

Of course, it comes down to what is playable? And they will conveniently leave out Rule 5, which implicitly states that, for instance, "game save" not working properly does not count as "unplayable."

The bar for "playable" in EA is really low in practice, much lower than what we're seeing in KSP2 v0.1. It just means that the game starts up, gets past the main menu, and you can do something. If all you could do is build a rocket out of three functioning parts and launch it, that would count as playable -- even if you couldn't control it in flight, couldn't save the game, it crashed when you tried to go into map view, etc etc etc. By Steam EA standards it's more than "playable." 

The problem here really is expectations management and it's hard to argue that that went optimally. People were expecting, effectively, KSP1's sandbox mode, at a comparable level of stability and performance. They got something that's a lot rougher than that. Intercept/PD clearly failed to communicate just how raw the first EA build is. 

I think the vibe would be pretty different if they had said "hey kerbonauts, it's rough, the Kraken is back big time, performance is kind of terribad, some stuff in the map view may not work, you might lose control of your rocket, and OBTW don't trust your saves, but we're working on all of that and more, but we can't wait to let you start slapping together rockets with fancy new paint jobs so we're launching it anyway -- we promise that if it blows up on the pad we'll keep trying until it doesn't."

[Vexillar]

54 minutes ago, Periple said:

I think the vibe would be pretty different if they had said " ... "

Exactly.

Personally, I was expecting something - for EA - well short of the final game. As I said in a pe-release post "There will be bugs. There will be performance issues" (well, Duh!).

If my comments thus far sound unduly positive, it is because I am enjoying dialling the res up to 4k, turning up the volume and experiencing the sights and sounds the game is intended to provide once it's complete. I can appreciate (to a degree, as it's beyond my skillset) the graphical, animation and sound design elements of the game already.

Moreover, based on those expectations, there's no way I'd be trying to start a grand tour or building "bases" on Eeloo with the first EA release.

That's not to say there have been many frustrating bugs - decoupling destroying a ship I've spent a couple of hours coaxing into Duna orbit - my Mun lander falling over because I got Bill to type a full stop into the flag text and the game went into time warp - manoeuvre plans that send my ship way beyond where I wanted - fuel drained from my transfer stage by the launch engines - yada yada,, But one of the things - looking back - I enjoyed with KSP 1 was getting a new version drop and getting in to try out the fixes, improvements and new features. SO perhaps I'm not typical.

TLDR - it all comes down to expectations. 

[Fixoo]

Nice ! Can't wait to see those updates. Hoping there will be more, and regularly
(docking is my favorite thing in KSP, I also hope the bug that destroys your ship when decoupling will be fixed soon too... )

Edited March 7, 2023 by Fixoo

[RocketBoy1641]

2 hours ago, Periple said:

The bar for "playable" in EA is really low in practice, much lower than what we're seeing in KSP2 v0.1. It just means that the game starts up, gets past the main menu, and you can do something. If all you could do is build a rocket out of three functioning parts and launch it, that would count as playable -- even if you couldn't control it in flight, couldn't save the game, it crashed when you tried to go into map view, etc etc etc. By Steam EA standards it's more than "playable." 

The problem here really is expectations management and it's hard to argue that that went optimally. People were expecting, effectively, KSP1's sandbox mode, at a comparable level of stability and performance. They got something that's a lot rougher than that. Intercept/PD clearly failed to communicate just how raw the first EA build is. 

I think the vibe would be pretty different if they had said "hey kerbonauts, it's rough, the Kraken is back big time, performance is kind of terribad, some stuff in the map view may not work, you might lose control of your rocket, and OBTW don't trust your saves, but we're working on all of that and more, but we can't wait to let you start slapping together rockets with fancy new paint jobs so we're launching it anyway -- we promise that if it blows up on the pad we'll keep trying until it doesn't."

I agree.  We saw phenomenal videos and knew ksp1 had really tackled a lot of things and expected based on videos and lack of warning of kraken city that it would be further developed.  I think that there can be some said about both sides (players and studeo) not doing the best on meeting up in the middle.  But, the bar we had set for our expectations was pretty agressive.

[oro]

Has anyone noticed a really high aerodynamic drag or it is just me? Is this change in the physics simulations wanted or a unespected result (aka bug)?

[BmB]

There is no "meeting in the middle" for a 50€ game that has been delayed multiple times for years. They are not your friends, you don't owe them excrements.

12 hours ago, Kerbart said:

Of course, it comes down to what is playable? And they will conveniently leave out Rule 5, which implicitly states that, for instance, "game save" not working properly does not count as "unplayable."

You conveniently twist rule 5 to be about something it's not, it has nothing to do with playability or saved games, but has to do with setting expectations, which were set by the marketing videos, blog posts, and trailers for the game. As we've established, they lied about the state of the game in these marketing materials.

[Kerbart]

7 minutes ago, BmB said:

There is no "meeting in the middle" for a 50€ game that has been delayed multiple times for years. They are not your friends, you don't owe them excrements.

You conveniently twist rule 5 to be about something it's not, it has nothing to do with playability or saved games, but has to do with setting expectations, which were set by the marketing videos, blog posts, and trailers for the game. As we've established, they lied about the state of the game in these marketing materials.

I never said that they were in accordance with rule 5, and that would be a far better point to bring up. However the point was made that the game is “unplayable,” a hyperbole often seen here on the forum. Terms like “broken” and “unplayable”get tossed around a lot, and lose meaning when they’re used to describe annoying, yes even annoyin bugs.

Had the point been made that IG didn’t properly disclose the state the game was in, then that would have been hard to argue with, but no, “the game is unplayable,” when we have plenty of YT videos of people landing on every planet. How is tat unolayable!

[BmB]

Having to spend hours working around bugs to do anything is unplayable, even if some are far enough gone to expend that effort.

[Wyleg]

5 minutes ago, BmB said:

Having to spend hours working around bugs to do anything is unplayable, even if some are far enough gone to expend that effort.

Okay, you won, game is bad and unplayable. Everything is ruined, things are unexcusable. Now, what you're gonna do about it? Yell at devs and demotivate them even more to bury all the hope of getting a decent game someday?

[Periple]

14 minutes ago, BmB said:

Having to spend hours working around bugs to do anything is unplayable, even if some are far enough gone to expend that effort.

"Unplayable" just means "you're not able to play it." At all. As in, doesn't start, CTD from the main menu screen, freezes on scene change, etc. If you're able to build a craft, take off, and fly it, you're playing the game, viz. it is not unplayable.

[MarcAbaddon]

I think that's an overly strict definition, in the same sense that a toast burnt to charcoal or spoiled food is not literally inedible. After all you can still put it in your mouth and consume it.

I'd argue if bugs prevent you from reaching natural milestones in the game you'd be justified (with maybe mild hyperbole) to call the game unplayable. Even if I might not use the term myself I understand people calling a game with frequent savegame corruption, including both hard corruption (game does not load) and milder cases where an substantial amount of progress is lost on reloads, unplayable.

Edited March 7, 2023 by MarcAbaddon

[BmB]

15 minutes ago, Wyleg said:

Now, what you're gonna do about it?

I'm going to tell them that delaying fixes is not a good idea.

[Wyleg]

3 minutes ago, BmB said:

I'm going to tell them that delaying fixes is not a good idea.

Oh. I assure you, they get that. Anything else?

[Periple]

28 minutes ago, MarcAbaddon said:

I think that's an overly strict definition, in the same sense that a toast burnt to charcoal or spoiled food is not literally inedible. After all you can still put it in your mouth and consume it.

That's arguable, but here we're discussing Steam's definition. It's a low bar. Beyond that it is to a significant extent a matter of opinion. I can understand that somebody would consider KSP2 v0.1 "practically unplayable." 

25 minutes ago, BmB said:

I'm going to tell them that delaying fixes is not a good idea.

I think they would reply that cutting corners on QA on a patch is also not a good idea!

Edited March 7, 2023 by Periple

[Fixoo]

KSP 2 is more than playable. Sure it's buggy, but for my first 3 hours game, I could build a ship, land it on the Mun and get it back to Kerbin.
It worked (with bugs, yes), and I'm now waiting for updates and Science !!

[LameLefty]

1 hour ago, BmB said:

I'm going to tell them that delaying fixes is not a good idea.

Boy, that’ll show ‘em! 

I expect the first patch minutes after your sternly-worded missive. 

[BmB]

1 hour ago, Periple said:

I think they would reply that cutting corners on QA on a patch is also not a good idea!

And I'm saying the current bugs are more critical than whatever you're afraid of introducing by accident. QA for a patch makes sense when you're trying to maintain some kind of baseline stability, but this live version does not have that. So any delay is for no reason. Hotfixes that circumvent the normal patch development process to get critical fixes out fast are not some foreign alien concept I just invented.

Let's look at how an actually good company handles this stuff, I bought Half-Life 2 Episode 2 on release, it had a game breaking bug in the antlion caves, later that afternoon a fix was released and I could continue playing. I didn't have to read excuses on a forum about how QA takes so much time and they need to test everything properly so it'll probably maybe come somewhere down the roadmap in some weeks, they just fixed it, that's what we should expect with issues like this.

Edited March 7, 2023 by BmB

[Delay]

1 minute ago, BmB said:

And I'm saying the current bugs are more critical than whatever you're afraid of introducing by accident.

So basically you'd be okay with "Launch Pad and other structures move with rocket" being fixed if it means the game has a 50% chance of crashing on the menu screen.

[Periple]

34 minutes ago, BmB said:

Let's look at how an actually good company handles this stuff, I bought Half-Life 2 Episode 2 on release, it had a game breaking bug in the antlion caves, later that afternoon a fix was released and I could continue playing. I didn't have to read excuses on a forum about how QA takes so much time and they need to test everything properly so it'll probably maybe come somewhere down the roadmap in some weeks, they just fixed it, that's what we should expect with issues like this.

The key word here is "on release." HL 2 Ep 2 was a full release, based on a mature and stable game engine, and the third instalment in a series built on the same gameplay, UI, and even assets. If I'm not missing any, Episode Two was the fifteenth game Valve released. If they hadn't gotten their process and pipelines ticking away like clockwork by then they would have been doing something pretty wrong!

KSP2 on the other hand is Intercept's first game, it is built from scratch, and it is in EA. 

I'm sorry BmB but comparing the two is just unrealistic! You have to learn to walk before you can fly, and while it is totally fair to have expected the EA v0.1 to be in better shape out of the gate, it's unreasonable to expect that Intercept has its pipelines and process as stable and well-sorted on their first game entering EA as Valve had on their 15th game at full release!

[Delay]

40 minutes ago, BmB said:

Let's look at how an actually good company handles this stuff, I bought Half-Life 2 Episode 2 on release

Can't recall Half-Life 2 or any of the episodes being an early access game, still in development...

...ninja'd.

Edited March 7, 2023 by Delay

[BmB]

As we've already discussed, Early Access is not an excuse, it's still a release that is not exempt from quality standards.