Bought the game - Instant Regret - i hope this is a joke

[cocoscacao]

1 minute ago, Moons said:

There is a lot of things you can do - but that doesnt mean that they are okay.

Can you clarify please? (I'll post the rest after I read what you quoted)

[Moons]

7 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Then shouldn't you be arguing your point on the steam forums instead since you're unhappy that theyre the platform that allowed the sale? Maybe you can change their terms and there won't be any early access anymore! we would all be saved

Why shouldnt steam allow the product to be sold. Steam isnt a gatekeeper - and thats a good thing - i wouldnt want a gaming platform like that.

[mcwaffles2003]

Just now, Moons said:

Why shouldnt steam allow the product to be sold. Steam isnt a gatekeeper - and thats a good thing - i wouldnt want a gaming platform like that.

You literally just quoted their conditions and said the game didn't meet them... 

[Moons]

5 minutes ago, cocoscacao said:

Can you clarify please? (I'll post the rest after I read what you quoted)

You can for example make a new game of a series - put an alpha as Early Access - charge 200 USD for it and then simply quit development after some time. Depending on how and why you do it it will actually not be a problem - but that doesnt mean that its something i would think is okay to do. (obviously not talking about KSP)

Its the same with MTs and Gambling Mechanics, Loot Boxes etc. it wasnt against any rules to do that - but from a ethical point of view it was pretty unethical to use such mechanics at all - and even worse in games with a target audience that is pretty young. (obviously not talking about KSP)

3 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

You literally just quoted their conditions and said the game didn't meet them... 

Would you mind quoting that?

The only thing i said is that i think it should be taken off of steam - but i never said it didnt meet the requirements for EA.

Edited March 13, 2023 by Moons

[Kerbart]

6 minutes ago, RocketRockington said:

Half the community also says they like it - should @Moons be berated for at least checking it out and keeping an open-enough mind to view it?

It's not what he syas—most people will respect that. It's how you he says it. A lot of people take the gaeme for what it is, early access. Things don't work, and one can expect that.

Quote

i dont understand why people dont complain way more about this - sorry but at 50 USD i would call this a joke ...
how can anyone with any respect for his fans release a product like this
50 USD is beyond offensive to the fans of this game
performance was awful - and i actually have a rather high end PC
Im really sorry but EA is no excuse for such an utterly broken Alpha

So, anyone who doesn't find anything recognizable in these comments sees themselves portrayed as naive simps who lack proper judgement. That's quite offensive, and it provokes reactions that can be expected when provoking people.

Part of that comes from making exaggerated claims. “Awful performance?” Game runs just fine on my nearly 10 year old hardware. It's not 60 FPS but KSP never was. “Utterly broken?” I've flown around Kerbin, and landed on Mun and Minmus. I'm not saying it's without bugs, but utterly broken?

"I tried the game and ran into a lot of issues on my computer. I tried x, y and z and it all failed. The game is not for me." would have passed pretty silently, but stating that you can't imagine why anyone would be insane enough (not said, but implied) to enjoy the game is beyond me... yeah, that's going to get a reaction.

 

[cocoscacao]

@Moons I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that Loot Boxes were invented by Valve .
PS
I'm still working on reply, we can get to ethical stuff later

[mcwaffles2003]

I'm on a phone so currently unable to quote on multiple pages. Also, if this is not your wish then what is? Are you claiming it should be a free demo? 

[Moons]

12 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

It's not what he syas—most people will respect that. It's how you he says it. A lot of people take the gaeme for what it is, early access. Things don't work, and one can expect that.

So, anyone who doesn't find anything recognizable in these comments sees themselves portrayed as naive simps who lack proper judgement. That's quite offensive, and it provokes reactions that can be expected when provoking people.

Part of that comes from making exaggerated claims. “Awful performance?” Game runs just fine on my nearly 10 year old hardware. It's not 60 FPS but KSP never was. “Utterly broken?” I've flown around Kerbin, and landed on Mun and Minmus. I'm not saying it's without bugs, but utterly broken?

"I tried the game and ran into a lot of issues on my computer. I tried x, y and z and it all failed. The game is not for me." would have passed pretty silently, but stating that you can't imagine why anyone would be insane enough (not said, but implied) to enjoy the game is beyond me... yeah, that's going to get a reaction.

 

Where did i write that? Thats just what you made out of that and it explains a lot.

It seems as if a lot of people seem to take critique of this game pretty personal for reasons i dont understand.

 

 

If someone was to write "this is the best game ever - its way too cheap" that would also just be an  opinion -  would you seriously argue that by saying that the person who sais it is calling everyone with a different opinion a mindless hater etc.?

 

And yes to me an EA game is utterly broken if i cant even do the most basic stuff without running into multiple gamebreaking bugs (the simple launch of my first rocket had all that issues - and i didnt even add the bugs i had in the VAB (some parts not connecting when mirrored or some parts uddenly duplicate in a weird way when mirrored (for example - i see 4 boosters (mirror options) but the game suddenly shows another 4 in some weird fashion))). And yes my expectations are bound to the price charged. This is why most other EA games with a normal EA price of 20-35 USD have good ratings even with lots of bugs and problems.

 

11 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

I'm on a phone so currently unable to quote on multiple pages. Also, if this is not your wish then what is? Are you claiming it should be a free demo? 

No im claiming that it should had never been released and should have been delayed or at least have been released at a reasonoable price - reflecting the product at this moment  to some extent - which would have made community reaction and expectations completely different.

 

This game could probably have had a great launch at a lower price or with a few weeks delay to fix obvious gamebreaking bugs. I would even complain way less if it was a pre-order with alpha access at full price. (okay i would complain at 70 USD)

 

I even tried to be optimistic and productive by stating what i think would be a way to fix all those problems to some extent (reduce scope of the game and put things in DLC that people that already bought it at 50 USD would get for free since it was in the roadmap etc.).

Edited March 13, 2023 by Moons

[mcwaffles2003]

17 minutes ago, Moons said:

 No im claiming that it should had never been released and should have been delayed or at least have been released at a reasonoable price - reflecting the product at this moment  to some extent - which would have made community reaction and expectations completely different.

 

This game could probably have had a great launch at a lower price or with a few weeks delay to fix obvious gamebreaking bugs. I would even complain way less if it was a pre-order with alpha access at full price.

You're now saying it shouldn't have been released. Please make up your mind. Also just because you don't like the game doesn't mean everyone else that does shouldn't be allowed that experience. You don't think the game is worth $50, then don't buy it. Some of us do and it's not our place to set the price. I think all video games should be $5, now what? Should all the Developers listen to that and price according to how I want to pay for the game? I think I'll go down to the local GameStop and tell them that their PlayStation 5 should be $20 and include three games , do you think that they should make the PlayStation 5 $20 and include three games because I requested that? Pretty sure that's not how our society works.

 

You [saw] the game before you had it, you said it wasn't worth it, you said the game was too incomplete to be worth it to you, yet you still bought it. And now you say it's not worth it still, yet you won't refund it. I hope you understand how ridiculous that is, a genuine comedy of errors.

Edited March 13, 2023 by Vanamonde

[cocoscacao]

Quote

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.

@Moons I think You and I have very different perspectives on the term playable here. My definition of playable is... I can fire up the game, and mess around with it until it crashes to desktop. I'll need clarification on what you consider as playable.

Quote

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. 

Here's my problem with their statement above:

Do not make specific promises about future events
combined with
Do not ask your customers to bet on the future of your game

It's a bloody paradox 

Customers should be buying your game based on its current state

There was a preview with famous YouTubers playing it. It was clear that it is currently ridden with bugs. Whether you accept that or not, is your choice.

Quote

Sometimes things don't work out as you planned, and you may need to discontinue development of your game... [ a bunch of text] ...and we may offer refunds to any users who purchased it

I need a clarification on who is doing the refund here. Steam or game studio?

Edited March 13, 2023 by cocoscacao
Edited according to moderator's suggestion

[Moons]

4 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

You're now saying it shouldn't have been released. Please make up your mind. Also just because you don't like the game doesn't mean everyone else that does shouldn't be allowed that experience. You don't think the game is worth $50, then don't buy it. Some of us do and it's not our place to set the price. I think all video games should be $5, now what? Should all the Developers listen to that and price according to how I want to pay for the game? I think I'll go down to the local GameStop and tell them that their PlayStation 5 should be $20 and include three games , do you think that they should make the PlayStation 5 $20 and include three games because I requested that? Pretty sure that's not how our society works.

 

You complained about the game before you had it, you said it wasn't worth it, you said the game was too incomplete to be worth it to you, yet you still bought it. And now you say it's not worth it still, yet you won't refund it. I hope you understand how ridiculous that is, a genuine comedy of errors.

Why should i make up my mind - i never made a different argument? Its weird how emotional these arguments become - i criticized the game and the way it was published - you on the other hand seem to mainly criticize me for some reason. I also cant follow your argumentation since to me it doesnt seem like you actually react to what i wrote.

Edited March 13, 2023 by Moons

[Vanamonde]

Guys, we get that everybody is angry right now. But please stop telling each other what the other party was thinking when she/he said something, because you do not actually know, and please stop characterizing each other's statements as "complaining" and "whining" and the like. 

[Moons]

8 minutes ago, cocoscacao said:

@Moons I think You and I have very different perspectives on the term playable here. You probably expected you'll be able to launch stuff without getting glitches that make your rocket explode for no reason. My definition of playable is... I can fire up the game, and mess around with it until it crashes to desktop.

Here's my problem with their statement above:

Do not make specific promises about future events
combined with
Do not ask your customers to bet on the future of your game

It's a bloody paradox 

Customers should be buying your game based on its current state

There was a preview with famous YouTubers playing it. It was clear that it is currently ridden with bugs. Whether you accept that or not, is your choice.

I need a clarification on who is doing the refund here. Steam or game studio?

How is that a paradox?

You shouldnt make future promises because you shouldnt ask your customers to bet on the future of your game?

The way its stated is probably mostly because of legal reasons - if you sell a product marketing etc. can actually be legally binding so it would be pretty bad if some indie dev sold EA - made lots of public promises and then stopped development or had lots of promises he can never fullfill. Also the only thing that actually is important to consumers is statements on the store page and by representatives of a company.

 

You also have to differentiate the second FAQ is mainly for Developers/Publishers.

Edited March 13, 2023 by Moons

[cocoscacao]

1 minute ago, Moons said:

How is that a paradox?

Well, if a game studio can't promise anything, player base can only hope the game will be finished. In other words, we're betting on the positive outcome. Unless (I'll quote again for easier reading)

Quote

Sometimes things don't work out as you planned, and you may need to discontinue development of your game... [ a bunch of text] ...and we may offer refunds to any users who purchased it

I need a clarification on who is doing the refund here. Steam or game studio? Do they have some refund contract in between them? If a studio gives up, and has to refund the money, then it isn't a bet. If Steam refunds the money, it's not a bet for player, but I doubt Steam would take such risks. Any source of info on this?

[TackleMcClean]

32 minutes ago, Moons said:

*stuff, quoting here to mark as a reply*

You had this quote about EA from Steam:

Quote

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.

Looking at the early access announcement video and how they phrased it, it kinda seems like they are strongly contradicting that guideline.
To me at least, I guess it's open for interpretation. But the gist for me that I took away from the video was that "we release as early access, you will get presents in form of updates, you can buy in now and you WILL get all these things later".

I haven't read every single post in this thread (sorry) but I take it this was contested? Well there's my two cents on it.

Do I personally think it's wrong though? Do I think the game should not be released as EA at all? No, but it hinges on delivery from the dev team, and if it's lackluster, then I'll of course be disappointed.
I think it's probably good for the game to be put through the wringer of public opinion, as long as the team is open to shape the game after said opinion. Which the team has said they will, so I'm optimistic!

There were at lot of problems with the release, the biggest one for me was probably seeing literal ads for this game online to boost sales. This should only be bought with a strong disclaimer that you are taking a gamble as a customer on that the team will deliver. Most die hard fans probably know what they're buying into. A new player should hopefully be warned by the current reviews to fully understand what they're buying but it's not fool proof. In that sense I would argue that them selling the game in its current state is not 100% "unproblematic".

So naturally, there are complaints about the state of the game. It is in my opinion self inflicted by the publishers/developers combo.
Personally I'm rooting for the game and I think the devs are basically doing and saying what they can currently, putting their heads down and doing the work.

Will the team eventually deliver? I think... yes. Hopefully we'll see the first shift this tuesday! And if it's delayed, no biggie, cause that's development and how development works.

[Jacke]

1 hour ago, K^2 said:

I completely understand the situation with some games where the trust erodes over time, but Intercept [Games]....

While there may be a degree of concern about Intercept Games, I think it's Take Two in who people are lacking trust.  Sure TT want's an ROI on their costs of purchasing KSP and redeveloping it.  But we all know if there isn't enough ROI within some time limit, at some point those at TT will figure KSP is a lost cause, then terminate it and write it off.

This has all happened before and this will all happen again.  I've already been through this roller coaster with City of Heroes.  It was still profitable but not enough to withstand whatever process went on inside NCsoft that lead to its termination being announced in August 2012 and enacted on November 30th, 2012.  Only by a supreme act of the power of friendship was that not the last day I played City.

Sure, if TT pulls the rug out from KSP2, we'll all still have the KSP versions we've downloaded and there'd still be the 3rd-party infrastructure.  But it could happen that KSP1 and these forums would end too.  And pressure could bear on that 3rd-party infrastructure.  This community is about the size of City's community in 2012.  I saw what Shutdown did to that community, did to my gaming guild and my friends.

I hope we never see that happen.  But as things are now, there is still a risk of that happening.

Edited March 13, 2023 by Jacke

[mcwaffles2003]

31 minutes ago, Moons said:

Why should i make up my mind - i never made a different argument? Its weird how emotional these arguments become - i criticized the game and the way it was published - you on the other hand seem to mainly criticize me for some reason. I also cant follow your argumentation since to me it doesnt seem like you actually react to what i wrote.

I am reacting to exactly what you wrote. And my criticisms are on your logic or what I perceive to be a lack thereof. This isn't emotional, bit it seems a bit ridiculous. But that is an all right way to brush off anything I've just said, whatever floats your boat.

[Kerbart]

26 minutes ago, Moons said:

Where did i write that? Thats just what you made out of that and it explains a lot.

Welcome to the internet. Written communication misses the verbal queues that face-to-face provides. What you think you say, if you're careless, is not what other people think you say. That might be wrong, there might be something wrong with them, but the reality is, that that's how it works. Marketing has a saying for that: “perception is reality”

As a communicator it's your job to ensure that people understand what you're saying; it's not the receiver's job to try to figure out what you meant. Unfair? Yes. Learning that lesson here beats learning it by getting chewed out by the VP in a meeting room full of people though.

Quote

If someone was to write "this is the best game ever - its way too cheap" that would also just be an  opinion -  would you seriously argue that by saying that the person who sais it is calling everyone with a different opinion a mindless hater etc.?

Not automatically, but yes, there's a difference between saying "I think that the game is a steal at $50, it offers 10× the playing time compared to other titles at that price point" and simply saying "the game is too cheap." Context matters. When presenting personal anecdote as pure facts you risk portraying those who report something different as misguided at best and likely a lot worse than that. The thing is, how they interpret it is outside your control. If you don't want your statement to be interpreted as "those who don't agree, are mindless haters" then it makes sense to ensure it doesn't come over that way.

You'll find that people will react a lot more favorable when you separate fact from opinion, and provide reasoning behind what you say. Disagreement can certainly be respectful, but you cannot engage in a conversation when you angrily start shouting. Keep in mind that you're making claims in an environment where it's not uncommon to make inflated, unreasonable claims. Certainly you're not the type to make those, but those who read what you write don't know that. So when you make an unsubstantiated claim of "awful performance," is there anything that makes a reader stop and think "great, another kid who wants to show off that he has high standards and who considers anything less than 120 FPS unworthy?" Consider "When I launch a small rocket (less than 30 parts) I don't get more than 12 FPS after launch. That's awful!" It's hard to argue with that, and people don't agree with you, will argue on what their expectations are, instead of feeling attacked.

It's the tone that makes the music, not the lyrics

[Scarecrow71]

54 minutes ago, Moons said:

The way its stated is probably mostly because of legal reasons - if you sell a product marketing etc. can actually be legally binding so it would be pretty bad if some indie dev sold EA - made lots of public promises and then stopped development or had lots of promises he can never fullfill. Also the only thing that actually is important to consumers is statements on the store page and by representatives of a company.

Actually...no, it isn't.  Marketing isn't legally binding if the claim being made isn't believable by reasonable people.  The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled as much in Leonard vs. PepsiCo exactly that, denying the plaintiff a harrier jet that was part of a marketing campaign run in the 90s with Pepsi points.  The judge ruled that, because the advertisement was not believable by reasonable people with reasonable expectations of delivery, it was not legally binding.

Edited March 13, 2023 by Scarecrow71

[RocketRockington]

27 minutes ago, Jacke said:

While there may be a degree of concern about Intercept Games, I think it's Take Two in who people are lacking trust.  Sure TT want's an ROI on their costs of purchasing KSP and redeveloping it.  But we all know if there isn't enough ROI within some time limit, at some point those at TT will figure KSP is a lost cause, then terminate it and write it off

I think you're right about most people's opinion.  But fwiw I think based on what I've read and heard most of the issue lies with KSP2 project management.

Take2 isn't an extra-evil publisher.  They actually weren't that bad with KSP1 compared to what most publishers would have done with it.  And I expect they would fully keep Kerbal going if KSP2 had been doing ok. 

Thier primary sin is trusting KSP2 to Uber entertainment.  I wasn't in the room when they made that decision, but I expect they were sold a bill of goods that Uber failed to deliver on.

And they gave KSP2 more chances to succeed despite that rocky start.  They started a new studio up to do it - but unfortunately they kept the same project management.  

I wish they'd let Squad continue working on KSP1 rather than shut it down, but I see why for business purposes they'd clear the decks for the sequel to take over.

I don't blame the devs in general, of course.  But the project managers who got carried over from uber/star theory, everything I see smacks of people who's optimism and passion far exceed thier competence.

I can only hope that T2 realizes this and still has faith in the brand...but I doubt that will happen.

Edited March 13, 2023 by RocketRockington

[cocoscacao]

19 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

when you angrily start shouting

Honestly, I'm guilty for that as well

[Vanamonde]

OP can try to stick with the game or can put in for a refund. However, the rest of the thread has turned into people telling each other they're wrong, sundry off-topic digressions, and yet another rehash of it-should/it-shouldn't be early access. This thread is no longer serving a purpose and we're closing it before we have to start issuing warns over the arguments in it.