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

[PDCWolf]

Big oof for him, big yikes for the future of KSP2, big LMAO for his petty corpo message.

Having my man promise a performant and complete product only for 2 years later deliver a broken, unplayable and almost hopeless mess is pretty much a valid reason for getting the boot, as much as he wants to hide under "cutting costs". Yeah, costs are being cut because you didn't do your job right. As a technical director, the state of the game is almost your direct responsibility, as you guide, shape and direct the team you yourself built.

This is why peppy, happy go lucky PR during a disaster never works, all you do is wear the clown makeup. Say it like it is and the players will support you, tell me everything is "okay" to my face when your game is unplayable and I'm refunding and sitting back to enjoy the show.

[caipi]

17 hours ago, Nerdy_Mike said:

we at Intercept Games want to assure the community that KSP2's development is continuing as planned

Which begs the question what the plan was or is. Cash in on a hype with low effort and maximum gain or provide a new and innovative game and game experience. Sorry, that was the cynic in my.

[twich22]

22 minutes ago, Periple said:

Bingo.

Steam is a handy way of distributing builds for that. You already have the pipes in place so you just give them the keys to the channel and they get them automatically.

How do I become an offsite tester.

[Periple]

9 minutes ago, twich22 said:

How do I become an offsite tester.

Apply for a job at a company that does it. We use these guys, they're really good! https://www.testroniclabs.com/about-us/

[Moons]

[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]

Edited March 8, 2023 by Snark
Redacted by moderator

[DerZerschneider]

I know that from my work with parents. At some point, the cooperation will decrease based on because you will be overwhelmed by the news.

we really get a lot of information regularly, everyone should be allowed to say whatever they want.  but pls relax

Thanks to the team, I think you're doing everything right. 

Edited March 8, 2023 by DerZerschneider

[Pthigrivi]

Im sure this isn’t the place for a political discussion. It just bums me out to see folks laid off. 

[VlonaldKerman]

7 hours ago, Periple said:

Publicly traded corporations and their investors are still way, WAY too focused on quarterly and annual results.

I think this is why T2 created Private Division in the first place- a higher volume of smaller projects to fill in the gaps when revenue is slow in between massive releases.

[AtomicTech]

17 hours ago, 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.

Thank you for the clarification of the reclarification of the clarification! 

In all seriousness though, I'm rooting for y'all!

[OnlyLightMatters]

4 hours ago, J.Random said:

You're exactly opposite of being right. When you're buying an EA title, you're buying it as is, in its current state, with no obligations from developers or a publisher to ever fulfill any promises they made in promotional materials.

This is exactly what has been written 2 sentences after.

[Periple]

I've been poking around LinkedIn and some other resources a bit, and it looks like other departments at T2 have been hit much worse than PD, and apart from Paul I haven't noticed anyone from Intercept getting laid off. That looks a little bit reassuring. Would be nice to get an official word on that though!

-- I also don't expect there to be more layoffs in the immediate future, corporations like to get it done in one go because they do know what it does to morale (and publicity). 

Man this industry sucks sometimes though!

[Starhawk]

Some personal remarks and bickering have been removed.

C'mon folks.  It is far more constructive to discuss the merits of points made than the personality or motives of those expressing their thoughts.
If you find yourself unable to post without letting your emotions lead to insults and bickering, please refrain from posting.

Thank you,
Forum Moderation Team

[J.Random]

1 hour ago, OnlyLightMatters said:

This is exactly what has been written 2 sentences after.

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.

[Hanuman]

4 hours ago, Moons said:

Yeah i dont think so at all.  A price is the perfect vaue for games since you can simply compare the price of diffent games with each other. Just for a second lets pretend gaming companys now use your metric as a metric to price and make their games.

That would mean - the game with the most grinding mechanics but addictive mechanics would be the game with the most value and that open world grind games are way too cheap - so modded skyrim should probably cost a huge ammount of money looking at the playtime of some players?

I also for example have mobile games i played a lot - you proabbly too - would you seriously suggest that snake etc. should cost a lot of money?

But looking at time per USD simply makes no sense to me. So lets take some random mobile game you probably play when bored - on your way to work etc. - do you really think time played compared to price is a good indicator to define its worth?

Your break in logic is that you are trying to apply it in all directions at once, and not thinking about the context.

All you have to do to fix it is allow for more context, like adding in the phrase "the things they want."  Watching the films they want, streaming what they want,  playing whatever games the person wants.

In your exact examples, it would mean the game with the most grinding and addictive mechanics would be the one with the most value for the people that wanted to play that kind of game.   If I want to play a different kind of game,  obviously your grinding mechanics don't work to make it the best for me for any value.  But if you're playing a game you want to play, then the whole calculation starts to make more sense.  It's all Entertainment time spent, but you get to be the one still to rate whether it was wisely or unwisely spent.   A two hour movie that cost $10, is like 8 cents per minute.   Is the movie good or not?  You decide.   10 hours spent inside a $50 game, is the exact same amount of money, 8 cents per minute of those 10 hours.

And yes,  if you spend 500 hours in some goofy mobile game that you paid $2.99 for,  then you got a pretty fair bargain to keep you entertained during those otherwise boring 500 hours.  It would stand king amongst the goofy mobile games,  and then not be relevant at all when I'm talking about entertainment in a different context, like a full PC game, or even other kinds of entertainment. 

 

[Scarecrow71]

1 minute 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.

You are clear in the difference/distinction you are making.  The issue here is that the community was given a promise by the developers.  When EA was announced, they stated that they knew there would be bugs, but the promise they made was that they'd clean up the bugs and get the game to a playable state with all the features they spelled out on the road map.  So yes, it does in fact matter that we were told up front that we would get a full game at some point in the future.

[Turtlegirl1209]

Will these layoffs comprimise the 1.11 and 1.12 updates for KSP 1 Enhanced Edition? They're already extremely late as is.

Edited March 8, 2023 by Turtlegirl1209

[J.Random]

39 minutes ago, Scarecrow71 said:

You are clear in the difference/distinction you are making.  The issue here is that the community was given a promise by the developers.  When EA was announced, they stated that they knew there would be bugs, but the promise they made was that they'd clean up the bugs and get the game to a playable state with all the features they spelled out on the road map.  So yes, it does in fact matter that we were told up front that we would get a full game at some point in the future.

None of that takes place during the actual exchange of money for the product. That's a very different transaction you're talking about: trust and good will in exchange for promises and diligence. This transaction is deeply personal and emotional, the amounts spent and received on both sides are variable because they're perceived and evaluated subjectively on both sides, and this kind of exchange is not regulated by Steam EA rules (at least not until we all have tracking bugs in our heads). And these two transactions should be kept separate in your mind. They aren't interchangeable.

 

Edited March 8, 2023 by J.Random

[IronGremlin]

4 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Anyone know why they're (or any studio) posting changes and candidates to Steam? 

Why not do the work in house and then distribute a final approved patch just the one time? 

Because it's a good idea to test the build/distribution system as well as the software, and leveraging Steam solves some logistical challenges too, so it's a win/win.

You always want your QA interacting with an 'authentic' end user experience as much as you can for final testing and approval, so working that kind of thing in is a good idea when you can.

[Scarecrow71]

1 hour ago, J.Random said:

None of that takes place during the actual exchange of money for the product. That's a very different transaction you're talking about: trust and good will in exchange for promises and diligence. This transaction is deeply personal and emotional, the amounts spent and received on both sides are variable because they're perceived and evaluated subjectively on both sides, and this kind of exchange is not regulated by Steam EA rules (at least not until we all have tracking bugs in our heads). And these two transactions should be kept separate in your mind. They aren't interchangeable.

 

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.

[Haustvindr]

After all the noise I've been reading... I actually think that many people don't really know the implications of an early access game, and can't (or won't) understand what is expected from the "player" in EA. I feel they are accostumed to the many studios that nowadays use EA as an early marketing platform. KSP2 is a "real" EA, and KSP1 was as well. People seriously need to deal with it already.

You don't get in an EA to play earlier, you don't get in an EA to save money, and you don't get in an EA to have fun (though we will obviously try).

You get in an EA to lose hours trying to find how that bug can be replicated, you get in an EA to try to break the game in wathever way you can imagine, you get in an EA to test to the limits the game loops and find imbalances, you get in an EA to review over and over the same points, and then you go over them again. You get in an EA because you want to help, and you do that on your own good will. If someone is not ready to do at least some form of helping work, EA is not for them.

The studio may compensate your good will in some form, but they are absolutely not obligated to do so. So, it is typical to see things like offering a cut on the price, unique cosmetic items, places named after contributors, exclusive merchandising, etc. And the most obvious compensation is that when the game starts to stabilize and have all systems in place, you actually can start having fun before the full release.

[blazemonger]

Having read some the actual publication, not the speculative remarks posted here by people who appear to not have done the same, It seems to me that what is happening is that after a period of growth, where often a lot of fat is accumulated, said fat is now being cut again.

So this has all the signs of being mostly corporate level layoffs which will generally not affect production all that much, if at all.

 

[twich22]

47 minutes ago, Haustvindr said:

After all the noise I've been reading... I actually think that many people don't really know the implications of an early access game, and can't (or won't) understand what is expected from the "player" in EA. I feel they are accostumed to the many studios that nowadays use EA as an early marketing platform. KSP2 is a "real" EA, and KSP1 was as well. People seriously need to deal with it already.

You don't get in an EA to play earlier, you don't get in an EA to save money, and you don't get in an EA to have fun (though we will obviously try).

You get in an EA to lose hours trying to find how that bug can be replicated, you get in an EA to try to break the game in wathever way you can imagine, you get in an EA to test to the limits the game loops and find imbalances, you get in an EA to review over and over the same points, and then you go over them again. You get in an EA because you want to help, and you do that on your own good will. If someone is not ready to do at least some form of helping work, EA is not for them.

The studio may compensate your good will in some form, but they are absolutely not obligated to do so. So, it is typical to see things like offering a cut on the price, unique cosmetic items, places named after contributors, exclusive merchandising, etc. And the most obvious compensation is that when the game starts to stabilize and have all systems in place, you actually can start having fun before the full release.

You are right, for the most part. Except this game doesnt need to be in EA right now. Its still got very obvious completely broken aspects to it, fundamental aspects that you would expect this game to not have be broken at this stage of development. So the reason everyone is upset, and the question we want answered, is why did they release it when they knew just how poor of a state the game was in.

Did they just want us to bug test it and give them feedback so they could fix it? If so, how were they so unaware of the problems with core foundational aspects of their game? And why not be upfront about it. The buildup to this game was obviously designed to attract as many people as possible. Why would they do that when they knew this was going to be the response? 

Did they not know about the problems with their own game? If so, very concerning.

Did they need money? If so, why not do this in a much better way that didnt end up liquiding off the entire community. Many of us were there for KSP 1 early access. We have no problem with it, so long as we know what we are signing up for and what the expectations are. Expectations did not come close to reality. Maybe it was just really bad PR. but dont set expectations you have no intention of meeting. 

Were they forced to release by the publisher (if thats how these sort of things work i dont know). If so, why, and what went wrong, and how were they not prepared for this anyways since they must have known this day was coming. 

Ultimately, there are just a lot of questions and not a lot of answers. While many of us are well aware of the game development process from an early access standpoint and are confident that one day the game will be in a playable state, we are still confused and concerned about how this release has gone so far. 

I think it is extremely fair for the community to react the way it has and be concerned for the future of a game they love so much and want to see succeed so much. 

Edited March 8, 2023 by twich22

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

1 hour ago, Haustvindr said:

You get in an Alpha to lose hours trying to find how that bug can be replicated, you get in an Alpha to try to break the game in wathever way you can imagine, you get in a Beta to test to the limits the game loops and find imbalances, you get in an Beta to review over and over the same points, and then you go over them again. You get in an EA because you want to help, and you do that on your own good will. If someone is not ready to do at least some form of helping work, Alpha/Beta/EA is not for them.

FTFY

44 minutes ago, twich22 said:

The buildup to this game was obviously designed to attract as many people as possible...

...how were they so unaware of the problems with core foundational aspects of their game? And why not be upfront about it.

These two points should not be ignored.  They ran a hype train and overpromised what people should have expected given the state of the game.  If it were truly EA, I would expect something along the lines of Satisfactory; a functional game that is still lacking some of the features the team want to present before calling it finished.  Sure, some major overhauls could be included along with the added content - but the core aspects of the game are presumed to function in a true EA.

The game we got with KSP2 was an Alpha-Beta hybrid with EA elements.  Not at all what people thought they were signing up for when they shelled out $50

Further the communication strategy has been woefully inadequate.  Nate's one week 'whew' message was well received but five days too late.  We should have had that on Monday after all the initial kerfluffle.  Then again at least twice more in the intervening 10 days we should have had some kind of original communication.  The Nerdy Mike message, attached to the whole 'layoffs doomandgloom fest' thing where he said that we'd get word on the patch 'in a couple of days' was likewise well received - but should have been an original post, not a 'don't panic' response to an already ongoing and unrelated thread.

Edited March 8, 2023 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[Haustvindr]

29 minutes ago, twich22 said:

You are right, for the most part. Except this game doesnt need to be in EA right now. Its still got very obvious completely broken aspects to it, fundamental aspects that you would expect this game to not have be broken at this stage of development. So the reason everyone is upset, and the question we want answered, is why did they release it when they knew just how poor of a state the game was in.

EA is what it is: an early access for people who want to help, don't try to look for things that aren't there. It is not linked to any state of development, it is not earlier than alpha or later than beta, it is something completely independent. You can do EA at any point, even with a tech demo barely working. It you want to do an EA in some platforms, they (the platforms) may put some constraints, but that's an artificial constraint decided by the platform. E.g. Steam requests the EA to be playable (i.e., to run), which it's something they ask for to prevent crowfunding schemes. Does KSP2 run right now? Well, reading the forums, it certainly does for many many people. Point checked.

Quote

Did they just want us to bug test it and give them feedback so they could fix it? If so, how were they so unaware of the problems with core foundational aspects of their game?

They knew, and they know. They probably know far more bugs than those reported in these few days. Do you really think they don't?

Quote

And why not be upfront about it. The buildup to this game was obviously designed to attract as many people as possible. Why would they do that when they knew this was going to be the response? 

Did they not know about the problems with their own game? If so, very concerning.

Did they need money? If so, why not do this in a much better way that didnt end up liquiding off the entire community. Many of us were there for KSP 1 early access. We have no problem with it, so long as we know what we are signing up for and what the expectations are. Expectations did not come close to reality. Maybe it was just really bad PR. but dont set expectations you have no intention of meeting. 

Were they forced to release by the publisher (if thats how these sort of things work i dont know). If so, why, and what went wrong, and how were they not prepared for this anyways since they must have known this day was coming. 

 

I knew perfectly well what was in the EA package. Why? Because Steam warned me about it being incomplete and probably having issues. Pretty sure similar disclaimers are found in other platforms. That's sure quite enough, right? After all "incomplete" means something like "not completed", "things missing", "things can fail", and so on. Even without lurking in the forums, I think it is a pretty clear message. And that is just the Steam default message for EAs. Really, I can't think on any way that said message can be reinterpreted as something like "it should work fine and dandy because my expectations says so".

So, you don't like the state of the game right now? That's fine, get a refund, breathe, come back at a later point if you want. Nobody is holding a gun to your temple. But please don't go telling that your expectations for an EA is what an EA needs to be. News flash: you dont't get to define what an EA for this or that game should be, the studio in charge decides that.

Quote

Ultimately, there are just a lot of questions and not a lot of answers. While many of us are well aware of the game development process from an early access standpoint and are confident that one day the game will be in a playable state, we are still confused and concerned about how this release has gone so far. 

I think it is extremely fair for the community to react the way it has and be concerned for the future of a game they love so much and want to see succeed so much. 

I may be wrong, since I've been lurking over this forum for... a number of years and at least a couple redesigns, but... most people who are long term users are just chilling, testing and submitting, and letting the studio work (pretty sure with some popcorn nearby while watching the fire). That should be pretty telling since they are, and have been, at the core of the community. Heck, I'm pretty chill about the whole ordeal and I can't even get to play due to the dreaded pumping sim. Do you know how enervating it is for the people sharing this bug when we read about people karening away because their running game don't fully cover their expectations? Really, people need to chill out, enjoy what the game has to offer for now, and dream with the things to come.

And... I'm sorry if I came a little rude, not really my intention, just venting a little frustration. Because really, it is becoming pretty tiring.

[Vanamonde]

Overlapping threads have been merged.