EA - what is the actual state of the game? What would be a reasonable timeframe for release?

[Moons]

Since havent found much information and the EA page also doesnt say much on the actual state of this game i wonder if some of those questions could be answered since i think a lot of people would be interrested:

 

First of all a clip from 2019:

 

What i would really like to know is:

 

What is this EA build?

- is it pretty much everything that has ben developed up until now minus some assets that have no function yet?

- is it just a part of what is already there to show off parts of the product?

 

When will this game be released?

- what is a reasonable expectation for the 1.0 build?

-- 6 Months

-- 1 Year

-- 2 Years

-- 3 Years

-- 3+ Years?

What happened since this Alpha Build from 2019? Besides graphical changes and maybe better performance (new hardware would probably also run the old build better)?

Will the target systems specs drop dramatically - what is the plan?

What type of MP is planned for this game?

 

 

Some additional questions but probably harder to answer or maybe not something someone wants to answer (important for people still unsure about a purchase):

Why was the game released as EA and not as a pre-order with alpha/beta Access?

Is the funding of this game secured? Do the sales of the EA Version in any form impact the future of funding?

Why was the starting price for this EA game set so high - what are the chances of it going down to a more reasonable level before release?

[Periple]

I'll take a few somewhat educated guesses, I like guessing!

• I think the current build is about 6 months from production-ready, with the current feature set.
• I think the features listed on the roadmap are about 12-24 months away, depending on what their current state of readiness is. We know a lot of them are there; we don't know how far along they are.
• I think the 2019 alpha build was scrapped and what we're seeing is all-new codebase.
• Yes they will. There's a lot of "low-hanging fruit" optimizations there. I think GPU min requirements will drop to somewhere around the GTX 1060 neighborhood. CPU min req will probably not fall that much because the game is CPU-heavy. I also think it'll look a lot better than it does now!
• I think it's going to be straightforward peer-to-peer co-op/competitive multiplayer for up to 16 players, with some simple solution for the different timelines -- e.g. you can always see each other's game state as it is in their timeline, but if you want to interact, you need to sync your timelines
• It would be highly unconventional to have prepurchase with alpha/beta access, and Steam might even just not allow that. That's what EA is for. 
• I think funding is secured for at least FY 2024, starting April. Budgets for FY2025 aren't made yet although there likely are projections/plans. I think the publisher will keep supporting it as long as it's clear there's interest in the game; however if it looks like it's treading water or otherwise in trouble, I think the publisher will intervene e.g. by changing studio leadership, appointing some tough get-it-done producers, or similar. This will be very easy because the publisher owns the studio.
• I think the price was set high for a number of reasons -- because they don't want it to be too much lower than the final price, and also because they must have known the EA is rough, which means they didn't want too many people jumping in yet.
• I think it's extremely unlikely the price will go down before release, and if it sells like they're expecting, I think it'll likely stay pretty high for quite long.

Edited March 4, 2023 by Periple

[mcwaffles2003]

7 hours ago, Moons said:

What is this EA build?

- is it pretty much everything that has ben developed up until now minus some assets that have no function yet?

- is it just a part of what is already there to show off parts of the product?

 

When will this game be released?

- what is a reasonable expectation for the 1.0 build?

-- 6 Months

-- 1 Year

-- 2 Years

-- 3 Years

-- 3+ Years?

What happened since this Alpha Build from 2019? Besides graphical changes and maybe better performance (new hardware would probably also run the old build better)?

Will the target systems specs drop dramatically - what is the plan?

What type of MP is planned for this game?

 

 

Some additional questions but probably harder to answer or maybe not something someone wants to answer (important for people still unsure about a purchase):

Why was the game released as EA and not as a pre-order with alpha/beta Access?

Is the funding of this game secured? Do the sales of the EA Version in any form impact the future of funding?

Why was the starting price for this EA game set so high - what are the chances of it going down to a more reasonable level before release?

What is this EA build?

I believe it is just the absolute bare minimum most basic functions of the game with no purpose beyond giving us an idea of what the game is and finding the most basic bugs in the game. I believe that much of the upcoming features in the roadmap are already developed to a similar level of performance and polish (which isn't much but the basic features are there).

When will this game be released?

My absolute amateur opinion is that the game will complete the roadmap in about 2 years, I think the phase 1 we are in will last several months as we find bugs, receive patches, find more bugs etc until the base game is in a playable and performant state.

When Science is added I am assuming the patching process will take less time as I believe the science system will be less complex comparatively to phase 1.

I think the colonies update will put us in a similar situation as we are now. I think colonies will have an assortment of hilarious or frustrating bugs depending on your patience and sense of humor. I cant wait to see peoples colonies they've meticulously build get stomped like a sand castle by the kraken.

The Interstellar update I believe will go smooth as I don't think it will add many new systems, just new planets/star systems and engines which should all be dependent on systems in the game right now being fixed.

The exploration update adding resources and logistics systems I bet will be buggy as again, like the colonies update, it will be introducing new mechanics to the game. Supply routes will disappear and scouted patches dense in minerals will have nothing in them. The mechanics to retrieve resources will be be exploited to the utmost and a lot of balancing will occur.

Finally, the multiplayer update I think will be a hilarious crapshoot as connection issues become great concern and people phase in and out of others realities possibly destroying plenty of thing (it will be a great time and meme content will be heavy)

What happened since this Alpha Build from 2019? Besides graphical changes and maybe better performance (new hardware would probably also run the old build better)?

Possibly a lot, maybe even a near total rewrite of the game. Anything here from me would be purely speculation.

Will the target systems specs drop dramatically - what is the plan?

I think very likely. There seems to me a lot of inefficient processes going on and as those get worked out hardware requirements for the same performance should lower in kind. Some people on this forum I've talked to that work say they work in the industry have mentioned obvious graphical inefficiencies that can definitely be made more performant in time and the current state is predictable assuming its development stage. I think KSP 2 can either go the route of similar fidelity with greater performance, greater fidelity with a slight performance improvement, or somewhere in the middle (but I believe we are seeing the worst state the game will be in right now)

What type of MP is planned for this game?

They've already announced in the Matt Lowne interview that there will be 4 agencies players can play from and each agency can have up to 4 players working cooperatively. As far as time sync goes, anybodys guess still though many will argue for their preferred system no talk of the matter has been official.

Why was the game released as EA and not as a pre-order with alpha/beta Access?

no clue, semantics?

Is the funding of this game secured? Do the sales of the EA Version in any form impact the future of funding?

I doubt T2 will abandon a project they've sunk 10s of millions in so far very easily, I think we'll make it to 1.0 and sales after will tell us how much more we will get. I think if the game hits numbers like KSP 2 but faster after release we will see plenty of free updates and DLC made available in the coming years post 1.0 release. If sales don't show though I can see the game being left behind. (I don't work in the industry though so...)

Why was the starting price for this EA game set so high - what are the chances of it going down to a more reasonable level before release?

I think if they brought the price down too far a lot of people would just buy the game and ignore it only to play it closer to 1.0 at a steep discount hurting long term revenue. Also, I don't think IG necessarily wanted the game to get flooded with new players yet either as they probably want less total bug reports and ones of higher quality which would be more easily found amongst the more hardcore player base that would get this game at such a price tag knowing they will keep playing it no matter how it looks at the start. I think our community is uniquely capable of assisting the devs as a lot of people who play this game are engineers or engineering minded.. For instance, how many games have successful mods that introduce coding as a mechanic to play the game (kOS)? I think people like that will be of the greatest assistance to the devs as a whole and even the current community manager said our community is less likely to threaten murdering devs and instead write a short angry essay about a bug they encountered and how to specifically reproduce it with speculations as to what may be causing it (the entire forum right now).

Edited March 4, 2023 by mcwaffles2003

[Moons]

On 3/4/2023 at 9:54 PM, mcwaffles2003 said:

Why was the game released as EA and not as a pre-order with alpha/beta Access?

no clue, semantics?

 

Thanks for the answers i hope we get some more official info soon.

 

Sadly thats not just semantics thats actually a really important detail from a consumer perspective.

 

As far as im informed EA means you actually purchase the product as is at the time of purchase without any further guarantees etc. meaning even if the game wouldnt change from that point you couldnt even complain get a refund etc.

This is also why i know almost no other EA game at this price since the price has to reflect what you actually buy at that point in time since everything else is out of your hands. If you look at it like that its even less than a Kickstarter.

If you pre-purchase something you actually are entitled to the finished product presented in the pre-order.

 

That can be a huge difference. Therefore its important to know the state of the game to assess the risk and make a somewhat informed decision. I doubt that many people even realise what they actually buy when they buy EA.

Edited March 6, 2023 by Moons

[Fullmetal Analyst]

On 3/4/2023 at 2:18 PM, Moons said:

When will this game be released?

likely 2025 or later

24 minutes ago, Moons said:

As far as im informed EA means you actually purchase the product as is at the time of purchase without any further guarantees etc. meaning even if the game wouldnt change from that point you couldnt even complain get a refund etc.

steam needs stronger policies on EA, people just keep abusing it

[TLTay]

Op: check back in six months to a year. It'll take them at least that long to get what was currently delivered in a playable state. That, or it will get the axe.

[Moons]

4 hours ago, TLTay said:

Op: check back in six months to a year. It'll take them at least that long to get what was currently delivered in a playable state. That, or it will get the axe.

I would like to do that but i also want to play the game - i was looking forward to KSP2 for a long time - i cant believe they made a launch so bad that i actually cant justify buying it ...

Which is why im trying to ask some questions (actual state of the game, development time etc.) - but honestly - i cant justify buying a product in this state for 50 Dollars knowing that i buy it as is and they wouldnt even have any obligation to update it or ever finish it since i actually just bought the game as is at the time of purchase according to EA ...

Not because i cant afford it - i think almost anyone can buy a single game -  but because it would just feel wrong on every level.

Edited March 7, 2023 by Moons

[TLTay]

27 minutes ago, Moons said:

I would like to do that but i also want to play the game - i was looking forward to KSP2 for a long time - i cant believe they made a launch so bad that i actually cant justify buying it ...

Which is why im trying to ask some questions (actual state of the game, development time etc.) - but honestly - i cant justify buying a product in this state for 50 Dollars knowing that i buy it as is and they wouldnt even have any obligation to update it or ever finish it since i actually just bought the game as is at the time of purchase according to EA ...

Not because i cant afford it - i think almost anyone can buy a single game -  but because it would just feel wrong on every level.

I feel you. I've been excited since the announce video, and have been with KSP1 since the first downloads were available. 

KSP2 is not doing well. If it survives, it'll be in development for years, most likely. In the meantime, there's always mods for KSP1...

[mcwaffles2003]

@Moons

Have you tried the game yet? Id say buy it and refund it if not. It's in bad shape, that much is obvious. But When I play it, it feels kerbal, and I know its only the first step.

As far as obligations go.. You're right, they can get your money and never refund it after the refund window and they have the legal right to do so. They may not have obligation, but they have a hell of a lot of incentive though. First off.. T2 wants their money back and that aint happening in the state it is in. 2nd, call me a sucker but Nate and some of the devs seem like they not only want to make this game for us, but they wanna play it too. Finally, what obligation do they have to nit improve it beyond this point?

[Moons]

17 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

@Moons

Have you tried the game yet? Id say buy it and refund it if not. It's in bad shape, that much is obvious. But When I play it, it feels kerbal, and I know its only the first step.

As far as obligations go.. You're right, they can get your money and never refund it after the refund window and they have the legal right to do so. They may not have obligation, but they have a hell of a lot of incentive though. First off.. T2 wants their money back and that aint happening in the state it is in. 2nd, call me a sucker but Nate and some of the devs seem like they not only want to make this game for us, but they wanna play it too. Finally, what obligation do they have to nit improve it beyond this point?

No and no. Thats not something i would pay f ull AAA price for. And beeing a "first step" isnt nearly enough for 50 Dollars - especially since its 50 Dollar for the game as it is and not fore something in the future i have no guarantee for.

I get what you are saying but sadly i think your last statement is wrong - there is no "we already invested so we will invest more until we can sell it" in business.

Also nice if the DEVs are passionate but its not a decision that they could influence and to be honest the way this was released into EA while everyone Publisher/DEVs must have known the state of the game combined with the price makes me a bit skeptical - you may call me a pessimist. What i read about the development process also doesnt sound good - sounds like a lot of time and money was already lost since switching developers probably isnt a task that will make development faster and cheaper.

Edited March 7, 2023 by Moons

[KerbalabreK]

Just watched a video by Shadow Zone. He has interviewed the devs and the devs said that they  were undergoing a steady dev cycle. It can also be inferred that many bugs reported are already known to the team because the devs themselves also play alot, according to Shadow Zone.

So I'm quite optimistic about ksp2. Keep going, devs!

Edited March 7, 2023 by KerbalabreK

[mcwaffles2003]

29 minutes ago, Moons said:

I get what you are saying but sadly i think your last statement is wrong - there is no "we already invested so we will invest more until we can sell it" in business.

 

You really think t2 would just drop the game out of nowhere after recouping no cost? 

I understand that companies understand sunk cost fallacy but now is a bit early to quit, it hasn't even been 2 weeks since launch.

32 minutes ago, Moons said:

No and no. Thats not something i would pay f ull AAA price for. And beeing a "first step" isnt nearly enough for 50 Dollars - especially since its 50 Dollar for the game as it is and not fore something in the future i have no guarantee for.

Which is why I said refund it... 

33 minutes ago, Moons said:

 you may call me a pessimist

Cynic but lets not get caught up in symantics :p

34 minutes ago, Moons said:

What i read about the development process also doesnt sound good - sounds like a lot of time and money was already lost since switching developers probably isnt a task that will make development faster and cheaper.

And that happened years ago, during the pandemic, both of which are not events that are conducive to productivity. The dev team is on a more stable course now which is conducive to higher productivity. 

 

Finally I'll cap it off with this statement. Cyberpunk 2077 and Fallout 76 both did not get dropped and instead got repaired and built up. Why would this game, which did not require near the resources nor have as bad a launch nor say that it is the full release, get dropped when those didn't?

[RocketRockington]

24 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Finally I'll cap it off with this statement. Cyberpunk 2077 and Fallout 76 both did not get dropped and instead got repaired and built up. Why would this game, which did not require near the resources nor have as bad a launch nor say that it is the full release, get dropped when those didn't?

Funny you mention those two.  Both are considered industry standards for 'bad launches'.

But Cyberpunk's original launch date was set for April 2020 - it actually launched... October of 2020.  In comparison, KSP2 got delayed by 6x as much as that.  

Cyberpunk's release was also considered buggy - and yet, you could play through the whole campaign, maybe people did.  Performance was 'bad' because reasonable target hardware was hitting 45fps instead of 60fps.  Save errors occurred very infrequently.  Same with full crashes

KSP2 - well, there's no campaign at all.  It's just a buggy sandbox, crashes all the time.  Compared to the launch of Cyberpunk, which was released in perhaps a 95% complete state, KSP2 is more like a 50% complete state.

Fallout76 wasn't delayed at all, at least not publicly.  It was launched in a pretty unfun state, but again, it wasn't missing nearly so much as KSP2.

Its hilarious how people compare these to put KSP2 in a good light somehow - KSP2 is MILES away in worse state and after more delays than either of these historically bad industry launches.  But another big difference is that the fan base for those two titles were far harsher to the poor launches than the Kerbal community is.

[mcwaffles2003]

2 minutes ago, RocketRockington said:

Funny you mention those two.  Both are considered industry standards for 'bad launches'.

Not so much funny as the very intention of bringing them up

2 minutes ago, RocketRockington said:

But Cyberpunk's original launch date was set for April 2020 - it actually launched... October of 2020.  In comparison, KSP2 got delayed by 6x as much as that.  

It also launched as a full release with nothing but reassurances it was a fully working game

Spoiler

I present a fully working game as adevertised

1 minute ago, RocketRockington said:

Cyberpunk's release was also considered buggy - and yet, you could play through the whole campaign, maybe people did.  Performance was 'bad' because reasonable target hardware was hitting 45fps instead of 60fps.  Save errors occurred very infrequently.  Same with full crashes

Did you forget about the consoles?

3 minutes ago, RocketRockington said:

KSP2 - well, there's no campaign at all.  It's just a buggy sandbox, crashes all the time.

And they were transparent about that with multiple independent reviewers who played the game several weeks before launch and were allowed to tell the world about the game with all its faults a week before it was put out for purchase.

5 minutes ago, RocketRockington said:

Fallout76 wasn't delayed at all, at least not publicly.  It was launched in a pretty unfun state, but again, it wasn't missing nearly so much as KSP2.

"a pretty unfun state"

that's putting it a tad lightly, isn't it?

Spoiler

 

 

15 minutes ago, RocketRockington said:

Its hilarious how people compare these to put KSP2 in a good light somehow - KSP2 is MILES away in worse state and after more delays than either of these historically bad industry launches.  But another big difference is that the fan base for those two titles were far harsher to the poor launches than the Kerbal community is.

I actually wasn't doing that initially until you downplayed their failures to make KSP 2 look worse. My point was that these games had horrible launches and weren't abandoned, which was the initial concern of yours that I was responding to... please read it again.

48 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Finally I'll cap it off with this statement. Cyberpunk 2077 and Fallout 76 both did not get dropped and instead got repaired and built up. Why would this game, which did not require near the resources nor have as bad a launch nor say that it is the full release, get dropped when those didn't?

 

[Moons]

11 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

 

You really think t2 would just drop the game out of nowhere after recouping no cost? 

I understand that companies understand sunk cost fallacy but now is a bit early to quit, it hasn't even been 2 weeks since launch.

Which is why I said refund it... 

Cynic but lets not get caught up in symantics :p

And that happened years ago, during the pandemic, both of which are not events that are conducive to productivity. The dev team is on a more stable course now which is conducive to higher productivity. 

 

Finally I'll cap it off with this statement. Cyberpunk 2077 and Fallout 76 both did not get dropped and instead got repaired and built up. Why would this game, which did not require near the resources nor have as bad a launch nor say that it is the full release, get dropped when those didn't?

Yes in general - without a doubt - If T2 would lose its trust in a game and would come to the conclusion that from a business point of view any further investment would just increase losses im sure they would simply drop a project at some point. Its not about how much time has passed since a launch but about how much more investement is needed for release and what can be earned with the product realistically. And yes the time of release (why not simply delay the release to  avoid negative press?) -  the quality of the product released - and the price of the release (knowing the state of the game why sell it at 50 USD?) at least seem weird to me (everyone involved should have know that this release wont lead to a positive start - so why do it anyways?). Especially combined with the Fact that it was an EA release and not a pre-order etc. since EA actually means i buy the product as it is in the time of purchase which gives me as a consumer a lot of risk for 50 USD. Obviously thats just a worst case scenario that hopefully will never happen - i just wanted to point out that something like that can happen.

I know but i honestly dont do that - especially since im one of those people that spend probably the first 2 hours optimizing the settings ^^

Yes i get your point on Cyberpunk 2077 and Fallout 76 but i wouldnt compare them to this since both were pretty much the flagship product of those companies and i doubt that CD Project Red could even have afforded to drop a project that probably was 80% of their work-output as a company. I also dont think Cyberpunk 2077 was nearly as bad as people pretend it was - i was able to play it at release with rather few bugs compared to its size and missing standard features were bad but still left the game in a playable state.

Edited March 7, 2023 by Moons

[Uuky]

On 3/4/2023 at 2:18 PM, Moons said:

Why was the starting price for this EA game set so high - what are the chances of it going down to a more reasonable level before release?

KSP2 is a once in a lifetime experience with a once in a lifetime price. :p

Edited March 7, 2023 by Uuky

[kerbiloid]

On 3/4/2023 at 4:18 PM, Moons said:

What is this EA build?

KSP 2.0: Fetus Edition.

Not a ready product, but wannabe.

On 3/4/2023 at 4:18 PM, Moons said:

When will this game be released?

- what is a reasonable expectation for the 1.0 build?

-- 6 Months

-- 1 Year

-- 2 Years

-- 3 Years

-- 3+ Years?

Announced 2022.10.21. The child is conceived.

First movement of the KSP 2.0 fetus: 2023.02.24. The "EA release", whatever it means.

Age 126 d = exactly 18 weeks, a little early but within the normal range, as it's a second edition.
(The first editions usually start moving at the 20th..22nd weeks.)

So, if everything is OK, it will be ready for release by the end of its 38th week, counting from 2022.10.21 = 2022.10.21 + 38 * 7 = 2022.10.21 + 266 = 2023.07.14, maybe two eeks later.

So, it will (if will) be born by the end of July.

On 3/4/2023 at 4:18 PM, Moons said:

What happened since this Alpha Build from 2019?

Miscarried.

On 3/4/2023 at 4:18 PM, Moons said:

Will the target systems specs drop dramatically - what is the plan?

The KSP: ZX Spectrum Edition is on the table but not in high priority.

Let it first run normally at least on something.

On 3/4/2023 at 4:18 PM, Moons said:

What type of MP is planned for this game?

No. It's a civil commercial application, so the Military Police has nothing to do with it. Only lawyers.

On 3/4/2023 at 4:18 PM, Moons said:

Why was the game released as EA and not as a pre-order with alpha/beta Access?

EA is Early Alpha. The next one will be EB, the Early Beta  EPB, the Early Pre-Beta  Pre-Better.

On 3/4/2023 at 4:18 PM, Moons said:

Is the funding of this game secured? Do the sales of the EA Version in any form impact the future of funding?

By getting negative, yes.

***

P.S.

I swear, the KSP devs yet don't know better, so you can take these answers seriously.

[silent_prtoagonist]

For what it's worth, I'm expecting ~6 months per milestone on the roadmap, if/when they can settle down into steady development cycle again.  So final release in 2-3 years, maybe. This is based on nothing other than gut instinct and experience with other EA titles.

Sadly, my honest advice is that if you have to ask the question "Should I buy KSP 2?" the answer right now is "No." If you aren't stupid dedicated enough to buy into it just because it has the name "Kerbal" there's not enough game here to really enjoy, especially not for $50.  I don't regret buying it, personally, but I'm also not getting $50 of fun out of it (mostly just frustration at this point) and I recognize that it's not guaranteed to get better. Wait and see if it survives long enough to become good before parting with your cash. 

[Moons]

34 minutes ago, silent_prtoagonist said:

For what it's worth, I'm expecting ~6 months per milestone on the roadmap, if/when they can settle down into steady development cycle again.  So final release in 2-3 years, maybe. This is based on nothing other than gut instinct and experience with other EA titles.

Sadly, my honest advice is that if you have to ask the question "Should I buy KSP 2?" the answer right now is "No." If you aren't stupid dedicated enough to buy into it just because it has the name "Kerbal" there's not enough game here to really enjoy, especially not for $50.  I don't regret buying it, personally, but I'm also not getting $50 of fun out of it (mostly just frustration at this point) and I recognize that it's not guaranteed to get better. Wait and see if it survives long enough to become good before parting with your cash. 

Well it would be easier to even think about buying it with more information.

And recent news actually make me more concerend - especially when thinking about why and how this EA release went. I would have prefered a pre-order with Beta-Access that would at least have given me the guarantee to receive a finished product - with EA i actually only buy the alpha/beta as is without further privileges.

 

Edited March 7, 2023 by Moons

[Periple]

7 hours ago, Moons said:

And recent news actually make me more concerend - especially when thinking about why and how this EA release went. I would have prefered a pre-order with Beta-Access that would at least have given me the guarantee to receive a finished product - with EA i actually only buy the alpha/beta as is without further privileges.

A prepurchase with beta would give you no such thing. If they run out of money they can simply designate the current build as 1.0 and go “there, done.” If they haven’t made any direct, actual promises (as opposed to hopes and plans) about what’s in 1.0, there wouldn’t be a thing you could do about it. You wouldn’t even be entitled to a refund.

Gamedev is inherently uncertain. You can’t know for sure what the game will be and when it’ll be ready until it is. Anything else is a plan, and plans change for all kinds of reasons.

Edited March 8, 2023 by Periple

[Moons]

4 hours ago, Periple said:

A prepurchase with beta would give you no such thing. If they run out of money they can simply designate the current build as 1.0 and go “there, done.” If they haven’t made any direct, actual promises (as opposed to hopes and plans) about what’s in 1.0, there wouldn’t be a thing you could do about it. You wouldn’t even be entitled to a refund.

Gamedev is inherently uncertain. You can’t know for sure what the game will be and when it’ll be ready until it is. Anything else is a plan, and plans change for all kinds of reasons.

Sorry but you are wrong - if you buy a normal pre-order you are guaranteed a product according to descriptions, marketing etc. in the store you bought it combined with official statements. "Hopes and Plans" actually are legally  binding if you sell a product as a pre-order with those things in the product description. Even marketing statements etc. are binding depending on how you word them.

There is a huge difference between EA and Pre-Purchase - but to be honest i wonder if EA would actually be binding in all details in court since consumer rights tend to overrule lots of things for good reasons.

 

Yes and that is why most games either sell a cheaper EA with where nothing is binding besides giving out the version at the time of purchase or dont do that at all. The main difference between consumers and companys is business risk and business profits. You cant just push your risk to consumers without boundaries.

 

 

Anyways the recent news (general layoffs and Technical Director cost cutting) seems awful to me - getting rid of the engineering lead is a really bad sign to me. I'm now sure i wont take the risk at 50 USD. Especially not without way more information and guarantees that i will actually get a game. Things would look different if the price would go down - i would be willing to risk more at for example 30 USD.

Edited March 8, 2023 by Moons

[Periple]

5 minutes ago, Moons said:

Sorry but you are wrong - if you buy a normal pre-order you are guaranteed a product according to descriptions, marketing etc. in the store you bought it combined with official statements. "Hopes and Plans" actually are legally  binding if you sell a product as a pre-order with those things in the product description. Even marketing statements etc. are binding depending on how you word them.

There is a huge difference between EA and Pre-Purchase - but to be honest i wonder if EA would actually be binding in all details in court since consumer rights tend to overrule lots of things for good reasons.

I don't get it, what's the huge difference with EA? You're not allowed to advertise plans as features in EA either. 

8 minutes ago, Moons said:

Yes and that is why most games either sell a cheaper EA with where nothing is binding besides giving out the version at the time of purchase or dont do that at all. The main difference between consumers and companys is business risk and business profits. You cant just push your risk to consumers without boundaries.

How is the KSP2 EA different from this? And what would have been different had they called it a public beta with preorder?

9 minutes ago, Moons said:

Anyways the recent news (general layoffs and Technical Director cost cutting) seems awful to me - getting rid of the engineering lead is a really bad sign to me. I'm now sure i wont take the risk at 50 USD. Especially not without way more information and guarantees that i will actually get a game.

You absolutely shouldn't take the risk at $50 or at $5 at this time if you just want to play the game rather than get a front-row seat of the inherently messy business of finishing one!

[Moons]

23 minutes ago, Periple said:

I don't get it, what's the huge difference with EA? You're not allowed to advertise plans as features in EA either. 

How is the KSP2 EA different from this? And what would have been different had they called it a public beta with preorder?

You absolutely shouldn't take the risk at $50 or at $5 at this time if you just want to play the game rather than get a front-row seat of the inherently messy business of finishing one!

EA by the definition of Steam is selling the version at the time of purchase as is. You just buy that and nothing else. Even if they would never do an update or never release the game you would have no grounds to get a refund/sue etc.

Therefore Steam states in their FAQs that:

https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/store/earlyaccess

Quote

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. Read more about Pre-Purchasing on Steam.

 

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.

So yes you are not supposed to do roeadmaps etc. and sell hopes because thats not what EA is and it creates a false image of what people are actually buying and probably could become an issue at some point if everything goes wrong - which we probably all hope doesnt happen.

 

So the main difference is what you buy. EA means you buy the BETA etc. sold to you at the time of purchase and nothing else - therefore the price should reflect that. Most games obviously will continue to develop but you have no guarantees etc.

A Pre-Order is the purchase of a future finished product according to the product descriptions and officiales messages by the company. So they actually have to deliver a the product they are describing and selling in the future. You also also request a refund at any time prior to the release of the title when doing a pre-order.

Thats the reason why 99% of all other EA games sell EA at a big discount - because its a form of purchase where the individual consumer suddenly carrys the business risk.

 

 

For example:

Developer X develops Game A:

1) sells it as EA but at some point of development stops funding and never releases the game because of business reasons

2) sells it as pre-order but at some point of development stops funding and never releases the game because of business reasons

 

As a consumer i can do almost nothing at 1) i still have access to the last EA version and thats it. In case of 2) i simply do a steam refund since its before release and get my money back - nothing lost - nothing gained. Thats my opinion and how i understand that mechanic.

 

Edited March 8, 2023 by Moons

[Periple]

Okay, now I see what you're getting at.

The thing is, no sane studio would put a game out under the terms you're describing – not unless they were REALLY desperate for the cash, in which situation they'd just go under if development failed, and you'd STILL be SOL. No way to get refunds if the money for refunds is gone!

In other words it really sounds to me like your issue is with the EA system in general. It's a legitimate concern and open to abuse although in my opinion much less so than, say, crowdfunding. 

[Moons]

Just a suggestion since i doubt that many questions will be answered - how about a different approach - first off:

Something like this - should be made way more visible to everyone:

 

And my suggestion - if you dont want to and probably cant give clear information that easily - i get that its not that easy when speaking oficially how about doing something else:

- do a Q&A with handpicked questions - just make a thread for people to ask questions take some and try to answer them officially? (especially now since lots of people are probably a bit worried)

- show off what is there and show people that there is lots of progress -> simply pick some DEVs that want to and can show off the internal version of the game - what is beeing worked on - what works, what doesnt - just to show that there is lots of things going on and make development more personal - something like that most of the time can calm a community down a lot after a bad start

 

 

And another serious suggestion - i think the price is still to high and the launch price at a higher price point wont work - in my opinion - would it be an option to:

- for example make Interstellar a DLC - but give it to everyone that pre-ordered now - then reduce EA price and game price in general and have Interstellar as DLC? (i picked that since it probably would speed up development since i doubt its easy to implement and its probably also not the first thing most people would try)

- a reduced scale probably could also help with getting 1.0 out sooner, get sales sooner and have a price point at which more people would be willing to buy and would expect less from EA?

Edited March 8, 2023 by Moons