Take-Two going through layoffs, Private Division and other labels affected

[mcwaffles2003]

10 hours ago, The Aziz said:

Expensive Jedi Fallen Order was crap (IMO)

Thank god I'm not the only one. Game simply ripped DS mechanics, added little gimmicks like sliding down an ice luge and made them 10% of the game and dragged you through a boring story. Then came Hogwarts...

[TROPtastic]

On 3/7/2023 at 2:41 PM, Moons said:

Since i made another thread and im not sure if anyone will respond officially - i was wondering could you tell us if the EA version is the most recent version you have yourself or just a cut down stable version? It would be nice to know that the build in development is further ahead when it comes to features.

The devs have Intercept absolutely have builds (multiple) with more features than what we have access to as part of the KSP2 EA. I would bet $20,000 on this, since no game company does development work on the live build. Instead, what we see is a more stable, cut down version with only the features that are deemed ready for broad use.

In one of the recent interviews with Nate Simpson, he mentioned that he has already played a prototype version of colonies and really liked it. This makes sense when you think about it: developers have to test things and incrementally build up code to make sure it works, without immediately trying to build out a 100% polished version that might not even have the final game mechanics.

Edited March 8, 2023 by TROPtastic

[Pthigrivi]

On 3/7/2023 at 3:53 PM, Nerdy_Mike said:

In light of recent news, we at Intercept Games want to assure the community that KSP2's development is continuing as planned and we will continue to provide updates about the game throughout the coming weeks and months. Our first patch is scheduled to be released shortly and we will have more information on that in the coming days. 

Thats great to hear. Under the rough edges there’s such a great game there. 

[Nuke]

so game companies doing game company things. business as usual. 

 

and a fine reason why i buy fewer than 5 games a year. 

Edited March 9, 2023 by Nuke

[R-T-B]

On 3/7/2023 at 1:22 PM, The Aziz said:

You mean

You mean

[jwenting]

On 3/7/2023 at 11:37 PM, Nerdy_Mike said:

How much more official of a statement can I give you? Everything is "okay" and we are tracking to deliver the full game that was promised. You'll see more information from me and the rest of the tea, in the future.

On that note the future is very bright for KSP2 and I can't wait until everyone sees the work / progress we're making here at Intercept.

problem is that everyone who's ever worked in IT (or most any other industry) knows that corporate talk like that rarely reflects reality. "we are tracking to deliver" means absolutely nothing. Team I'm in at the company I work are "tracking to deliver" our current project as well. We KNOW it won't be done by the deadline, doesn't mean we're not tracking progress. 

Meanwhile the blame game is going on full swing, people are seeking to hedge their positions and make sure as many higher ups as possible view their contributions in a positive light so when heads start rolling it will be others getting the axe.

[blazemonger]

57 minutes ago, jwenting said:

problem is that everyone who's ever worked in IT (or most any other industry) knows that corporate talk like that rarely reflects reality. "we are tracking to deliver" means absolutely nothing....

... so when heads start rolling it will be others getting the axe.

Something something with mole and ant hill..

"tracking to deliver" may not be the best choice of words as some, like yourself, will be ready to pick it apart.. "on track to deliver" would be better and unless proven otherwise is what I'll go for.

If you actually read the relevant article, it quite clearly states that the lay offs already happened and so the "hedging positions to prevent getting axed" is pretty much baseless speculation. This was a correction for/on the growth spurt T2 went through, cutting some of the excess fat accumulated as they refocus their goals. Nothing more, nothing less.

All the doomsday scenarios now doing the rounds originate from people speculating, stating opinion as fact and basically parroting "what they heard" and not what they actually read.

Could the response we got here be a smokescreen? Yes it can be, but at the same time if you just blindly go for that option without any way to either back or justify that opinion, that is just making things worse and not helpful at all.

If you would say you thought the wording was a bit unfortunate and you'd love to get a clarification on what "tracking to deliver" actually means then I could certainly agree with  that. Just disregarding it based on what your personal experience in your employment seems to be says more about the latter than the actual concern IMO.

[uglyduckling81]

On 3/8/2023 at 5:40 AM, fragtzack said:

IMHO, Private Division took KSP2 to public early access about 6 months too early. 

I am still a fan and rooting for the dev team to get this train on the rails.

 

About 6 years too early. 

16 hours ago, Moons said:

[snip]

Some are more optimistic than others - some pretty much bought "Hope" and not a product etc.

So from my point of view seeing how this is a published game by a big publisher the fact that they released the game like this at this price as EA and not Pre-Order and didnt delay etc. probably knowing reception would be negative could indicate that it was an important indicator and a test of how profitable the game is - the layoffs now and the technical director stopping working there (his post seems to indicate that they are cutting costs (not a good thing either when development already isnt that fast)) probably also isnt a good thing (you usually cant just switch leads without having a negative impact on development and i just hope that he was mostly organization and not more technical because that would be worse).

It can also mean absolutely nothing since we dont have any insider information and we probably wont get such information.

[snip]

I really hope the TECHNICAL DIRECTOR is more of a corporate role and less technical......???

[OnlyLightMatters]

14 hours ago, J.Random said:

Not really. You're not buying promises. Promises don't matter. There is no risk involved, it's not a gamble. You exchange money for what's in front of you, in the state which it's in at that moment. Any substitution of "current product" with "the promise of a better product in the future" is a fallacy. I'm not sure if I'm making the difference clear but there definitely is one.

I clearly do not share this point of view (and that's totally fine, we have the right to disagree). Of course promises have been made when a roadmap is clearly shared about the incoming steps! EAs are unfinished products, EAs are a way to catch some money to extend budgets so that the product could be finished. That's exaclty here the risk takes place, because it could never happen eventually. 

Edited March 9, 2023 by OnlyLightMatters

[KerikBalm]

On 3/7/2023 at 10:05 PM, Dakota said:

None of us on the community team were affected.

"On the community team"

Well, aside from sympathy for other humans that we interact with, I think most don't really care- we're worried about how the development team has been affected 

[Superfluous J]

17 minutes ago, OnlyLightMatters said:

I clearly do not share this point of view (and that's totally fine, we have the right to disagree). Of course promises have been made when a roadmap is clearly shared about the incoming steps! EAs are unfinished products, EAs are a way to catch some money to extend budgets so that the product could be finished. That's exaclty here the risk takes place, because it could never happen eventually. 

The roadmap is not a promise. It is a plan. That plan can fail for a ridiculous number of reasons, and very few of those reasons are "they're evil and hate us and just want our money."

You bought an incomplete product on the HOPE that it would get better, because you thought $50 was worth the risk. That is on no one but you if you now changed your mind and feel the risk isn't worth the cost.

[MarcAbaddon]

It's smart not to trust any promises about products until you have it in your hand.

But a lot of the statements here are just people normalizing common shady marketing techniques. If you look at the roadmap it is very much phrased as a promise: it's always "will include" or "we will release once...". At no point does the Steam Early Access Page for the game states that it's a plan that may or may not come to pass. 

[J.Random]

13 hours ago, Scarecrow71 said:

Wrong.  We were promised that, if we spent the $50 on the game in early access, it would eventually become the game they said they were producing.  We spent money on that promise.

You're subjecting yourself to the very fallacy I mentioned. You spent money on KSP2 0.1. That's it. You gave money, you received your money's worth. Neither developer nor publisher owe you anything further than that.

51 minutes ago, OnlyLightMatters said:

I clearly do not share this point of view (and that's totally fine, we have the right to disagree). Of course promises have been made when a roadmap is clearly shared about the incoming steps! EAs are unfinished products, EAs are a way to catch some money to extend budgets so that the product could be finished. That's exaclty here the risk takes place, because it could never happen eventually. 

EA is definitely not a way to catch more money. Ever since Double Fine incident, if any developer or publisher states anything even close to this, their own legal will tear them a new one. It's directly and very literally against EA terms. "Promises" in promotional materials may - at best - be viewed as a declaration of intentions, nothing more than that. As I said, there are two separate transactions taking place: one monetary, another emotional. If you're mixing them together, you're doing a disservice to yourself.

Edit:

21 minutes ago, MarcAbaddon said:

At no point does the Steam Early Access Page for the game states that it's a plan that may or may not come to pass. 

It doesn't have to, as long as it doesn't clearly and definitely promises a timeframe for the delivery of any feature. Which is why "roadmap" doesn't have any dates or even quarters or years in it. Also, read https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/store/earlyaccess

Edited March 9, 2023 by J.Random

[RocketRockington]

12 minutes ago, MarcAbaddon said:

It's smart not to trust any promises about products until you have it in your hand.

But a lot of the statements here are just people normalizing common shady marketing techniques. If you look at the roadmap it is very much phrased as a promise: it's always "will include" or "we will release once...". At no point does the Steam Early Access Page for the game states that it's a plan that may or may not come to pass. 

Indeed.  And I still go back to Nate's delay messages, for the sort of shady marketting techniques on display.

Here is one of them again for you to refresh yourselves.

Spoiler

We knew we were taking on an immense technical and creative challenge when we started this project.

We’ve heard time and again from this community that quality is paramount, and we feel the same way.

It’s not enough to deliver a bunch of new features – those features have to be woven together into a stable, polished whole. We’re creating a reliable foundation on which players and modders alike can build for another decade or more. That involves solving problems that have never been solved before, and that takes time.

https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/197934-kerbal-space-program-2-to-be-released-in-2022/

So, the way that's written isn't a promise, but it's a clear implication that what they had at the time of the announcement of that delay was the issue with release wasn't 'none of our new features are even alpha ready'.  No the implication was that they had them and needed to improve the quality, stability, and performance.

That was posted on Nov 5, 2020.  2.5 years ago.

If Nate was talking about the build that was released NOW and saying that, it would be a stretch, since the new features aren't even in the game to be 'woven together'.  What the heck was he looking at 2.5 years ago - which according to many of the KSP2 hopefuls was a recent restart of the project.

I am a dev.  I do give devs the benefit of the doubt.  But this is just bald face misrepresentation.

[MarcAbaddon]

11 minutes ago, J.Random said:

You're subjecting yourself to the very fallacy I mentioned. You spent money on KSP2 0.1. That's it. You gave money, you received your money's worth. Neither developer nor publisher owe you anything further than that.

EA is definitely not a way to catch more money. Ever since Double Fine incident, if any developer or publisher states anything even close to this, their own legal will tear them a new one. It's directly and very literally against EA terms. "Promises" in promotional materials may - at best - be viewed as a declaration of intentions, nothing more than that. As I said, there are two separate transactions taking place: one monetary, another emotional. If you're mixing them together, you're doing a disservice to yourself.

Edit:

It doesn't have to, as long as it doesn't clearly and definitely promises a timeframe for the delivery of any feature. Which is why "roadmap" doesn't have any dates or even quarters or years in it. Also, read https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/store/earlyaccess

Not saying they are obligated too to be clearer on it being plans instead of promises, but I want to point that a lot of other Early Access titles are more clear on it. 

For example: https://store.steampowered.com/app/1326470/Sons_Of_The_Forest/ is more cautious about it being plans. So is https://store.steampowered.com/app/1657630/Slime_Rancher_2/ and so do a lot others like Thrive (not going to link all of them). 

[J.Random]

4 minutes ago, MarcAbaddon said:

a lot of other Early Access titles are more clear on it

Well, sure, it won't hurt if you go above and beyond when covering your butt.

[KerikBalm]

4 hours ago, J.Random said:

You're subjecting yourself to the very fallacy I mentioned. You spent money on KSP2 0.1. That's it. You gave money, you received your money's worth. Neither developer nor publisher owe you anything further than that.

They owe you KSP2 0.2, 0.3, ... 1.0 etc *IF* they get made. That IF is important. I have heard some references/allusions to a dev that basically sold an EA game, and then when it was ready to leave early access, they changed the name and released it as a different game.

In such a scenario, I think that you are owed the finished game (since it exists in this scenario).

Then we have other intermediate scenarios, that nearly became an issue for KSP1's early adopters.

Buying the game in EA doesn't give you the right to future DLCs(KSP1's terms were ambiguous, and they did the non-jerk thing and interpreted the terms broadly instead of splitting hairs). They could take stuff from the roadmap, and release them as separate DLCs.

I wonder what would happen if they made a "colonies" DLC, and an "Interstellar" DLC, and EA buyers didn't get them

4 hours ago, J.Random said:

EA is definitely not a way to catch more money. Ever since Double Fine incident,

What is this incident that you speak of?

They didn't say "more money" overall, but rather it changes the timing of when they get money, potentially allowing the dev budget to be extended 

4 hours ago, J.Random said:

if any developer or publisher states anything even close to this, their own legal will tear them a new one 

[...]

at best - be viewed as a declaration of intentions, nothing more than that.

I agree, however, the way they phrase things does tend to mislead a lot of people, and I am sure that they know that

4 hours ago, RocketRockington said:

Indeed.  And I still go back to Nate's delay messages, for the sort of shady marketting techniques on display.

Here is one of them again for you to refresh yourselves

[...]

 it's a clear implication that what they had at the time of the announcement of that delay was the issue with release wasn't 'none of our new features are even alpha ready'.  No the implication was that they had them and needed to improve the quality, stability, and performance.

That was posted on Nov 5, 2020.  2.5 years ago.

If Nate was talking about the build that was released NOW and saying that, it would be a stretch, since the new features aren't even in the game to be 'woven together'.  What the heck was he looking at 2.5 years ago 

Yea, I have never gotten good vibes from Nate.

I also wonder, what the heck was he looking at.

What the heck have they been doing.

It seems like its KSP1 with some graphics mods and a planet pack oh and worse performance, more bugs, and other features removed

[snip]

Edited March 9, 2023 by Snark
Redacted by moderator

[J.Random]

13 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

What is this incident that you speak of?

That phrase in Early Access rules about "not using EA as a funding source" has been added after Double Fine dropped Spacebase DF-9 mid-development and admitted publicly that that's what they were using EA for. Pretty sure they got into trouble with Valve/Steam over that

[Snark]

Some jokes and trolling in incredibly poor taste have been removed, along with the responses of various (no doubt well-meaning) people who would have done better to simply report the matter and let the moderators handle things.

The topic of this thread is about the layoffs at T2 and PD.  It's a legitimate topic of interest to forum members here, because of our concerns about ongoing KSP2 development.  That's why the thread is okay to be here, and is left open for discussion.  It's not a vehicle for making mean-spirited jokes about real people's livelihoods.  Furthermore, trolling is against the forum rules (specifically 2.2.n), as is spreading disinformation (2.2.h).

Thank you for your understanding.

[Superfluous J]

3 hours ago, J.Random said:

That phrase in Early Access rules about "not using EA as a funding source" has been added after Double Fine dropped Spacebase DF-9 mid-development and admitted publicly that that's what they were using EA for. Pretty sure they got into trouble with Valve/Steam over that

I'd forgotten about Spacebase DF-9, which is funny because THAT game is the EXACT reason I have the opinion about EA that I do.

I bought that game based on the promise, and we all know what happened there.

And to any that don't know what happened there, it went from active development to abandonware in the blink of an eye, and a very buggy but promising game whose "promise" was well worth the ... whatever I spent on it went from that promise to a stain on my Steam Library in exactly that amount of time.

Edited March 9, 2023 by Superfluous J

[J.Random]

5 minutes ago, Superfluous J said:

from active development to abandonware in the blink of an eye

Yup. With something like 50% sale literally a day or two before the announcement of "we're done with it, it's 1.0 now, sooooorry."

[Moon Goddess]

Well we do know they are still doing something, new builds were uploaded to steam testing this morning https://steamdb.info/app/954850/depots/

[twich22]

42 minutes ago, Moon Goddess said:

Well we do know they are still doing something, new builds were uploaded to steam testing this morning https://steamdb.info/app/954850/depots/

  

On 3/7/2023 at 3:53 PM, Nerdy_Mike said:

...KSP2's development is continuing as planned...

Assuming this statement is true and accurate, right now they have every intention of completing KSP 2 as intended. The only question is are they actually capable of doing so.

Given that KSP 1 already provides proof of concept, at least for the basics of the game, and also a template they can build on, and given that they have invested so much time already solving the new challenges of KSP 2  like interstellar and multiplayer, I think its a fair assumption to say that it will be technologically possible for them to complete KSP 2 as intended.

If that is true, the mystery left is, how long will the process take? The first drop should give us a good indication of the speed with which they are capable of changing things and making improvements. It will give us a benchmark with which we should be able to estimate how long it will take for the game to reach a 1.0 build. Of course, that also all depends on how ready all the new features are like colonies and multiplayer and resources. Presumably these all have already been worked out and developed, and are just waiting for a stable base game to then be added in and optimized. 

[Moons]

9 hours ago, uglyduckling81 said:

About 6 years too early. 

I really hope the TECHNICAL DIRECTOR is more of a corporate role and less technical......???

Well usually any leading position is usually more  corporate management etc. and less similar to the job of the people lead.

[RocketRockington]

2 hours ago, Moons said:

Well usually any leading position is usually more  corporate management etc. and less similar to the job of the people lead.

It depends. On the studio, and even the person, how much a lead keeps a hand in. 

 But there is a trend in the industry, albeit this being anecdotal, that the 'director' role, as a part from the 'lead' role, is now above doing anything directly within the project and just directs others.  Typically this is a questionably necessary role even on larger AAA projects, as I've found once someone gets divorced from day to day development, they tend to also suffer from lack of awareness.

This is yet another reason I'm pessimistic about Intercept, as they had at least 6 'directors' on the project that I could find, before Paul's departure..  For a project that's only roughly 40-50 people, that's a lot of dead weight- though it may just be a case of title bloat.  Director roles also tends to come with salary expectations that are constraining thier ability to hire two other working developers 

Edited March 9, 2023 by RocketRockington