Why I haven't bought KSP 2 (yet?)

[KerikBalm]

Surely there are a lot of people like me on these forums that don't have KSP2. I thought a thread giving our reasons might be of interest.

For me:

1) A personal reason unrelated to KSP2's content and quality: I don't have the time right now. As I am in no rush, I only buy games right now when there's a good sale.  When I have time, I would be willing to pay more.

2) I don't think my computer could run it, or it would run so slow that what little free time I have gets wasted

3) lack of new gameplay mechanics: so far, I haven't seen anything being done in any of the videos that I can't do (and with less hassle) in KSP1. I know it's early access, and this will change, but it's still a factor for me.

Anyway I think those are all my reasons (perhaps I am forgetting something).

*Edit* I did forget something:

4) the bugs: from what I see in videos and feedback, the bugs are also very off-putting 

 

 

 

Edited March 8, 2023 by KerikBalm

[RocketRockington]

All of the above, and then some.

First, because of the dishonesty.  Unfortunately, pretty standard in the games industry to overhype, but Kerbal is meant to be special - it's a game that inspired people to change their careers.  It had a large positive community.  The developers didn't need to lie about how awesome it was going to be, like it was COD:MW ver 68 or Madden 2142.  But instead they hyped and hyped with dev blogs and videos, while under the hood they were clearly not getting things done.  Every time a new delay was announced, most of the replies were 'take your time, make it right' and the posts from the devs were 'we're delaying to make it right'.  But they must have known they were massively behind schedule, and it wasn't about making it right, it was about getting anything working at all.

Second, because it's clear that no matter what was said by the devs, this is still just a product to them.  I genuinely feel like the Squad developers - both at the beginning and at the end - loved the product and did their best, despite their small size and inexperience.  Having a corporate behemoth buy it out - well, we knew it would turn into just a product in their lineup, but we were given the impression its still loved, in some fashion.  But that's clearly not the case, it was pushed out the door half formed and with silly things like wobble rockets, and now the community just has to hope that enough people paying a $50 'investment' will get T2 to finish it.  

I feel like the community is essentially being taken advantage of, and yet people still have hope, despite those hopes clearly being abused to sell a low-value EA for a premium price.

 

Edited March 8, 2023 by RocketRockington

[KerikBalm]

Well, for now, I am mostly giving them the benefit of the doubt/ Early Access. They showed us lots of colony models, they showed us planets in new solar systems - those assets exist in some form. 

Hhowever, giving them the benefit of the doubt doesn't mean that I don't have serious concerns.:

Before early access release, I thought they had made good progress on the new (gameplay and star) systems but that they still needed some polish.

After release, it seems core mechanics present in KSP1 need a whole lot of work, not just polish, so now I wonder how much progress they actually made on other elements: Do they have anything for colonies other than the 3d models?

They have certainly over hyped - they are a long way from slaying the Kraken, it seems like it is a massive step back on that front.

I also had high hopes for large optimization gains as they rebuilt the KSP game engine from the ground up. Well, they aren't going to be rebuilding the game engine from the ground up now, and whatever gains they may have made are not evident - but it seems that they recognize that they need to optimize more. We shall see

I understand that they have some massively unoptimized rendering calls to the GPU, and the graphics rendering is a problem.

Vessels with high part count shouldn't be that hard on the GPU to render (considering everything else that is being rendered). In KSP1 the limitation on part counts was due to the physics calculations being very demanding on the CPU.

So the GPU load of KSP2 doesn't really explain the slowness with higher part count vessels.

In an interview, IIRC, their performance goals were basically set considering that vessels of 100-150 part would be common. I routinely exceed that in KSP1 by large margins (granted procedural wings could have a large benefit to part count for many designs) - and in KSP2 I expected to make even more complex ships for interstellar travel - so this is also concerning.

They say they will optimize-fine let's see what they can do next. They say their goal is to have ~150 part vessels run smoothly enough. IMO that's a low number and even their goal is concerning.

It's s early access, KSP1 came a long way, we'll see how far KSP2 comes.

- that said, we waited a long time, we could wait more, why release it in this state? It suggests to me that someone in the company demanded that they start getting some revenue for the project. If there are funding concerns, then this is concerning given how much work is still to be done 

[Superfluous J]

I haven't bought it yet because there's nothing to do. The only things I can do in the game right now are things I could do in KSP1 for the past several years and haven't, so there's not much chance I'll be doing them in KSP2.

I was willing - last week when I had time off - to buy it anyway if I could get something unique and different in KSP2 via mods, however so far the only mods are QOL fixes that make KSP2 easier to play - and not any that make KSP2 different than KSP1. My willingness to buy it and mod it is gone now, however, as I have far less time to play.*

I fully expect I will buy the game the moment something unique appears in the base game, be it a refreshingly rethought and better implemented Science Mode, actual Interstellar travel, a modding API that allows for far more mods to be created, or something else. I'm sure something will come along, eventually.

And if not, hey there's always Cities Skylines 2 on the horizon.

*NOTE: I am not disparaging modders or mods here, just stating a fact. The mere fact that there already ARE mods even though there is no official support for them in the game is AMAZING and (as with KSP1) one of the most positive things about KSP2 right now.

Edited March 8, 2023 by Superfluous J

[Jacke]

I haven't bought KSP2 because when I saw the videos from the early February pre-launch demo at ESA, I saw alarming issues in a game I thought would be much further along in development.  Then a week before, the minimum and recommended specs came out and I was so disappointed.  Even with much improvement that would reduce the minimum, there was no way my old hardware could support KSP2.

Then in the week just before release, when there were more videos showing issues with KSP2, the feelings I'd been having got magnified.  I share many of the concerns that @KerikBalm, @RocketRockington, and @Superfluous J have.  I discussed these feelings with a good friend who used to play KSP1.  He lost hope when Kerbal Space Program was bought out by Take Two and even moreso when the bait-and-switch was done with Star Theory.  He won't ever be buying KSP2, though he has hardware that could run it.

I have similar qualms as my friend, though I might still buy KSP2.  But it won't be for a long while.  I won't be getting new hardware any time soon.  And I am worried what will actually happen with KSP2.  I'd hate to sink my hard earned money into a game that gets put into "maintenance mode" or for which the dev team gets cut to the minimum.  Or even cancelled.  I can't rule those out, not yet.

Until then, there's a lot I haven't done in KSP1.

[Moons]

6 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

Surely there are a lot of people like me on these forums that don't have KSP2. I thought a thread giving our reasons might be of interest.

For me:

1) A personal reason unrelated to KSP2's content and quality: I don't have the time right now. As I am in no rush, I only buy games right now when there's a good sale.  When I have time, I would be willing to pay more.

2) I don't think my computer could run it, or it would run so slow that what little free time I have gets wasted

3) lack of new gameplay mechanics: so far, I haven't seen anything being done in any of the videos that I can't do (and with less hassle) in KSP1. I know it's early access, and this will change, but it's still a factor for me.

Anyway I think those are all my reasons (perhaps I am forgetting something).

*Edit* I did forget something:

4) the bugs: from what I see in videos and feedback, the bugs are also very off-putting 

 

 

 

For me its pretty simple - the quality and content of the EA release does in no way reflect the price tag to me. The recent news about layoffs at their publisher and cutting costs at their DEV Team (Tech Director) arent reassuring to me at all. Im not buying into Hope because EA means im buying the game as it is now. Especially since there is no information on when this game is supposed to be finished and looking at how it looks now i doubt it will be finished any time soon (1-2 years+ seem realistic?)

I would be okay with most of the risk and the state of the game at a reasonable EA price - for example 30 USD. But i also have to say - even if the game becomes everything they want to do according to the roadmap - never would i buy this game for 60-70 USD (the FAQs state they want to raise the price even more at release). The game would need way more content and way higher quality in graphics etc. for me to justify such a price.

Edited March 8, 2023 by Moons

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Moons said:

I would be okay with most of the risk and the state of the game at a reasonable EA price - for example 30 USD. But i also have to say - even if the game becomes everything they want to do according to the roadmap - never would i buy this game for 60-70 USD (the FAQs state they want to raise the price even more at release). The game would need way more content and way higher quality in graphics etc. for me to justify such a price.

That's totally fair! Then don't buy it! I very much doubt the price for 1.0 will be below $60, most likely it'll be $70 or even more, so in which case they've clearly priced you out of the market. 

It will eventually be on discount of course, so you'll always have the option to buy it then.

[Moons]

10 minutes ago, Periple said:

That's totally fair! Then don't buy it! I very much doubt the price for 1.0 will be below $60, most likely it'll be $70 or even more, so in which case they've clearly priced you out of the market. 

It will eventually be on discount of course, so you'll always have the option to buy it then.

You dont seem to understand my primary issue - its not just not wanting to buy the game at this price but also the future of the game and this niche -  it was bad enough when the RTS genre pretty much died - there is even less games in this niche and i really want it to succeed.

It also makes no sense to me to buy it later at a discount since if the game flops even the discounted game wont be worth much to me since there wont be a big modding scene etc. to make this game actually as great as KSP1.

 

I think at 70 USD this game would definitely flop hard. Even modern AAA games had awful launches at this price point - for example Forspoken.

 

 

 

The problem is - they pretty much destroyed a lot of potentially better ways to sell the game right now. Not sure if someone reads this but an idea to save the game and keep the price reasonable:

- Make for example interstellar a DLC (its not like the first thing ppl will do is interstellar it would also speed up development since i doubt that Interstellar is easy to implement)

- Give that DLC to anyone that bought it in EA

- sell the main game at a cheaper price without it

- make a free version of the game with very limited functionality (for example just a few basic parts and things to do to get people interrested)

 

From my point of view this game needs to get people to switch from KSP1 and needs to gain a new audience - since KSP2 needs lots of players that attract modders.

Edited March 8, 2023 by Moons

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Moons said:

From my point of view this game needs to get people to switch from KSP1 and needs to gain a new audience - since KSP2 needs lots of players that attract modders.

Mine too! Only difference is I'm quite optimistic about that!

[KissSh0t]

For me it's the price.. $78 is just way too much for a bare bones early access game.

If it was priced like the first game at it's release that would then make sense.

[kerbiloid]

6 hours ago, RocketRockington said:

First, because of the dishonesty.

KSP 2: Dishonored 3

6 hours ago, RocketRockington said:

it's a game that inspired people to change their careers. 

Some decided to cancel the job, distracting from game; some were caught by their manager, while playing at the workplace; some failed university trials, and had to join the army.

6 hours ago, RocketRockington said:

Having a corporate behemoth buy it out - well, we knew it would turn into just a product in their lineup, but we were given the impression its still loved, in some fashion. 

At the moment it looks like the behemoth was for seweral several years giving milk without pretending to anything but a part of the future profit.

Yet nobody complained about changes forced by the behemoth, in-game commercials, or microtransactions.

The only thing the behemoth is blamed for, is that they forced to release the game too early, after just four years of successful development.

6 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

They showed us lots of colony models, they showed us planets in new solar systems - those assets exist in some form. 

The design is ok, the code looks isn't. These are different people.

6 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

After release, it seems core mechanics present in KSP1 need a whole lot of work, not just polish, so now I wonder how much progress they actually made on other elements: Do they have anything for colonies other than the 3d models?

If they had, how could they test it? A wobbling planetary base?

6 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

they are a long way from slaying the Kraken,

At least, they have successfully ported Kraken from KSP-1.

The colonies can wait, but Kraken is a mascot, it's a Kerbal must-have.

6 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

I understand that they have some massively unoptimized rendering calls to the GPU

presume

Maybe, this is exactly what's optimized.

6 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

Vessels with high part count shouldn't be that hard on the GPU to render (considering everything else that is being rendered).

And that's the answer about the colonies.

Btw, some colonies are put on ground. What about the FPS on the ground view at KSC?

6 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

They say they will optimize-fine let's see what they can do next.

They'll talk to T2.

6 hours ago, Superfluous J said:

I fully expect I will buy the game the moment something unique appears in the base game, be it a refreshingly rethought and better implemented Science Mode, actual Interstellar travel, a modding API that allows for far more mods to be created, or something else. I'm sure something will come along, eventually.

Futile excuses. 
You're just haggling over $50, and thinking out some unrealistic, fantastic, impossible requirements.

***

I haven't purchased this game exactly for the reason I said a couple of years ago. Only when the essential KSP-1 mods will be ported to KSP-2 it will make sense to migrate.

But looking at the system requirements and the game itself, I think that once I have upgraded my hardware to the requirements of KSP-2, I will better add 50 more mods to my KSP-1.

Edited March 8, 2023 by kerbiloid

[Superfluous J]

44 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Futile excuses. 

I don't even know what that means, so I can't address it. I'll just assume it was a joke I don't get, as most of the Internet is these days

[Monger]

I played hundreds of hours of KSP1, and then my son started playing it. So I was eager trying out KSP 2, but then I refunded. 

First of all, I didn't upgrade for ages. I bought multiple laptops that could play medium games, because, well, the family was growing. I thought I could make KSP2 work on lowest settings, but I couldn't. And looking at a few official statements I decided it was unlikely I could play this anytime soon. 

Second,while trying and seeing the first previews, I realized that the magic from the very first impression of KSP1 isn't repeating itself.

Third, my life has changed. Time is very precious. If I have time to play, every minute in a loading screen is lost time. 

Fourth, this team is different than Squad. I would have loved to give them more money, as a thank you to the years of KSP. But giving Private Divisions this kind of trust upfront feels wrong.

Fifth, my experience with Early Access hasn't been good so far. So many studios misuse this to fill their money chests. Far too many players lost too much money in EA for broken promises. For the sake of better games, we should raise that bar. 

 

[Moons]

17 minutes ago, Monger said:

I played hundreds of hours of KSP1, and then my son started playing it. So I was eager trying out KSP 2, but then I refunded. 

First of all, I didn't upgrade for ages. I bought multiple laptops that could play medium games, because, well, the family was growing. I thought I could make KSP2 work on lowest settings, but I couldn't. And looking at a few official statements I decided it was unlikely I could play this anytime soon. 

Second,while trying and seeing the first previews, I realized that the magic from the very first impression of KSP1 isn't repeating itself.

Third, my life has changed. Time is very precious. If I have time to play, every minute in a loading screen is lost time. 

Fourth, this team is different than Squad. I would have loved to give them more money, as a thank you to the years of KSP. But giving Private Divisions this kind of trust upfront feels wrong.

Fifth, my experience with Early Access hasn't been good so far. So many studios misuse this to fill their money chests. Far too many players lost too much money in EA for broken promises. For the sake of better games, we should raise that bar. 

 

I get some of your points - but the loading screen one i will never understand. I will never understand why thats so important to some people - i prefer better games, graphics etc. to fast loading times. In the end does it really matter if a game loads in 10 or 20 seconds -isnt it pretty bad to be so stressed that a few seonds more actually are an issue when enjoying your hobby? When a game has longer loading times i simply start it and do something elese while it loads.

Also that you dont feel the same magic is probably normal - you can only play KSP for the first time once. And in general - when you lack free time - i doubt that this is the right game since compared to other games it probably requires way more time invested for results and it hardly makes sense to play it for a short ammount of time each session? People and their free time just changes - i was into games as complex as possible when i was younger - but as time passed and i had less and less time that changed.

Edited March 8, 2023 by Moons

[Bej Kerman]

19 minutes ago, Monger said:

Third, my life has changed. Time is very precious. If I have time to play, every minute in a loading screen is lost time. 

Entering the VAB isn't very fast, but launching, entering the tracking station, and entering the game itself are all faster than in KSP 1, not to mention the in-game menu lets you enter these facilities instantly, while KSP 1 had you going through redundant loading screens. Really, this is more a point against 1 than it is 2.

11 hours ago, RocketRockington said:

I genuinely feel like the Squad developers - both at the beginning and at the end - loved the product and did their best, despite their small size and inexperience

Their negligence says otherwise.

[TheSaint]

12 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

Surely there are a lot of people like me on these forums that don't have KSP2. I thought a thread giving our reasons might be of interest.

For me:

1) A personal reason unrelated to KSP2's content and quality: I don't have the time right now. As I am in no rush, I only buy games right now when there's a good sale.  When I have time, I would be willing to pay more.

2) I don't think my computer could run it, or it would run so slow that what little free time I have gets wasted

3) lack of new gameplay mechanics: so far, I haven't seen anything being done in any of the videos that I can't do (and with less hassle) in KSP1. I know it's early access, and this will change, but it's still a factor for me.

Anyway I think those are all my reasons (perhaps I am forgetting something).

*Edit* I did forget something:

4) the bugs: from what I see in videos and feedback, the bugs are also very off-putting

I haven't bought it yet. It's mostly #1. After my mom passed away in January I've had a lot of time consumed with cleaning up all the mess that left behind. And some other personal projects have come up.

And, in the vein of #3, after playing KSP for almost ten years now, I think I'm just kind of done with it. At least for a while. And KSP2 just seems like more of the same, without any mods to spruce it up, and a ton of bugs to make it frustrating.

And you can add for me a #5: The recent news is starting to make it seem like Take-Two has KSP2 on the bubble. My personal rule is "Never spend more than $10 on a video game." Why would I dump $50 into an EA game that may never see 1.0?

I have to admit: It is very pretty.

[R-TEAM]

Have it just Refunded ......

It is not general his "suboptimal - even for EA games" state ..... but i see an to big risk it will not finished for 50€ ......

So it was an mix of to high price for an not proven thrust in the future of the game from an unknow studio .....

(if it gets better - i buy it again for 50€ .... and i hope so ..... but as other have wrote ... to many EA trash and failures dont help here ...)

Regards

[miklkit]

I will probably buy KSP2 sometime in the future when it has the features I want.  There is no reason to buy it now in its current condition.

I have done early access in the past and will not do it again.  There is no upside to being a beta tester.  As for the price, with all the price gouging going on everywhere, it is no surprise that T2 is doing it too.  As for that launcher, it may not be harmful now but that means it will not be changed in the future. T2 can not be trusted, so I will wait.

[Caerfinon]

I haven't bought KSP2 as yet because as a general rule I tend to get games years after they are first released (as either Early Access or Full release). I just prefer my games "burned in". 

My more specific rational is that it doesn't have the features that are my main focus in KSP1, namely the  creation of sites/bases and the ability to make a contract/mission to make use of those sites. This is the mechanic I like the most and KSP2 is not yet there.    

[Monger]

3 hours ago, Moons said:

I get some of your points - but the loading screen one i will never understand. I will never understand why thats so important to some people - i prefer better games, graphics etc. to fast loading times. In the end does it really matter if a game loads in 10 or 20 seconds

I'll give you that this is my weakest argument. It's actually not so much about loading times, but rather the whole onboarding process: loading the game, loading the save, going to tracking station to get an idea what is actually going on, switching to a vehicle...

There are games that make it incredibly straightforward to get into action.

But this is not something specific to KSP, the whole genre is currently not sufficiently approachable to me. 

[RocketRockington]

6 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Their negligence says otherwise.

What negligence?  Do you have some pet peeve bug that never got fixed and you're calling that negligence?   

[Bej Kerman]

4 minutes ago, RocketRockington said:

What negligence?  Do you have some pet peeve bug that never got fixed and you're calling that negligence?   

"some pet peeve bug" is putting it lightly.

[RocketRockington]

14 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

"some pet peeve bug" is putting it lightly.

So, to be clear, you believe that a game that is built by a small team of devs and currently has a 94% positive on Steam, and is beloved by a large community, is the product of negligence.

But you're making excuses for the developers of KSP2 in other threads,  a game that was built by professional developers and currently has a 49% positive rating, which is tearing that community apart.

[Bej Kerman]

10 minutes ago, RocketRockington said:

28 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

"some pet peeve bug" is putting it lightly.

So, to be clear, you believe that a game that is built by a small team of devs and currently has a 94% positive on Steam, and is beloved by a large community, is the product of negligence.

Fine then. How would you describe adding nuclear engines without implementing persistent thrust - which is well within Squad's capabilities - nor adding a suitable fuel type to curb the misbalance you get when a 700isp engine can consume a dense liquid fuel as if it were hydrogen? What about the many bugs that Squad left unfixed until Shadowzone addressed their negligence and technical debt issues? The many bugs people selectively forget because they don't want to tarnish their precious indie home-made game? Squad just kept adding nothing more than novelty features even when modders demonstrate it's possible to make the core of KSP 1 better than it is now, that's nothing but negligence. KSP 1's positive ratings are little more than the result of rose-tinted glasses, and just about everything I hear people say about KSP 2, KSP 1 is guilty of as well. Even more inexcusable on Squad's side because they're over a decade in and have put ZERO EFFORT into revamping critical parts of the game, instead leaving KSP 2 to mop up the mess Squad made. KSP 2 has dropped with many adjustments to the very foundation of the engine that I've been waiting on Squad to do for years. Not to mention the fact Squad asks money for what is, for many intents and purposes, an incomplete product, given the lack of (just to make it an example again because it's so critical to low TWR missions) persistent thrust, among other things. Take the ratings and throw them out, they're irrelevant and subject to lots of bias. The fact you rely on the ratings to make a point for KSP 1 rather than the game is a point in of itself.

10 minutes ago, RocketRockington said:

But you're making excuses for the developers of KSP2 in other threads,  a game that was built by professional developers and currently has a 49% positive rating, which is tearing that community apart.

History repeats itself and KSP 2 is not an exception. We've seen a lot of games drop in a rough state and bounce back, give the game some time.

Edited March 9, 2023 by Bej Kerman

[jnbspace]

Putting it simply/ The recommended hardware requires a 3070. That mans spending €700 on a graphics card, and then spending €50 on KSP2 and I am not going to pay €750 for something that is not only less functional than KSP1 but by all accounts bug ridden.

 

Edited March 9, 2023 by jnbspace