Any update of when to expect new content?

[Alexoff]

15 minutes ago, K^2 said:

But if you simply wanted to stuff new features into the existing game, you could have used KSP1 as a base and take some shortcuts. It would look very much like KSP with some visual mods, though. So I'm glad that the concept was pushed a lot further than that.

Where can we see the technology that will allow KSP2 to make colonies and other stuff better than if it were implemented in KSP1? There is only talk that for those features that we were shown in the 2019 trailer, the KSP1 core would be too weak. But where is the advancement in the core of KSP2, which will cope with these features better?

[Sylvi Fisthaug]

On 4/28/2023 at 1:01 PM, Ferio said:

Nate even said they almost finished the game... and we get this? 

When did he say this? 

[Ferio]

On 4/29/2023 at 11:10 PM, Sylvi Fisthaug said:

When did he say this? 

Back in 2021 

[Alexoff]

Hello, all.

Gonna rip the band-aid off fast here: Kerbal Space Program 2 will release in 2022 instead of fall 2021. I
know this is frustrating, especially considering that this isn’t the first time we’ve adjusted our schedule.

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.

We’ve got a team of talented people working every challenge from every angle, and because I’m lucky
enough to get a front row seat, I can see the huge leaps we’re making. It’s killing us how much of this we
have to keep under our hats until the game is released. We can’t express how much we're looking
forward to soaking up all your reactions and discoveries on that day.

In the meantime, we’ll keep posting cool images here to give you a taste of what’s in store. We will also
continue to release feature videos and developer diaries that go more in-depth on specific areas of the
game, and hopefully those will help 2021 to go by a little faster. Stay tuned for a new dev diary coming
soon, as well as a new Feature Video this winter.

Thanks as always for sharing our commitment to making KSP2 as great as we all know it has to be.

-Nate Simpson, october 2020

[dr.phees]

Maybe they are just trying to write a great "turn-around" story as a huge PR stunt? Having a great game ready, releasing a bad, years old pretend-alpha, then release, step-by-step, one old dev build after the other until the actual, already ready game is released.

This does not make very much sense, but, who knows, maybe they are just leaning back in their deck chairs, downing one cocktail after the other, giggling about how no one gets it...

Edited May 1, 2023 by dr.phees

[cocoscacao]

1 minute ago, dr.phees said:

maybe they are just leaning back in their deck chairs, downing one cocktail after the other, giggling about how no one gets it...

That would be Illuminati...

[darthgently]

16 minutes ago, cocoscacao said:

That would be Illuminati...

Yep, that would be Level 2 overly-clever.  I think at one time they honestly thought they could make the timeline, then it kept slipping given this, that, and other stuff.  Now it is semi-burnout after much sweat, tears, and some desperation.  Vacations were likely a necessity at this point to prevent psychoses

[Wheehaw Kerman]

On 4/26/2023 at 8:57 PM, K^2 said:

Remade it in 3, and that's closer to the real development time of this game. Which sounds like a lot of time, but not when the team is as small as Intercept.

I know that saying that Intercept started from scratch isn't entirely correct. A lot of the same people came over and a lot of the assets were available. But given the project rescoping, company re-org, etc, for the purposes of thinking of how long it took to make this game, you can think of it as entering pre-production when Intercept took over, and starting full scale production when they were fully staffed. So summer 2020 is when real work on what we now know as KSP2 would have begun. Again, asterisks and caveats, but for the purposes of discussion, that'll do.

Also, just FYI, the games are always buggy late into the development. The kinds of bugs can vary, and certain kinds of bugs later in the development can be an indicator of poor organization in some cases or insufficient resources in others, but here's the relevant bit. KSP2 isn't finished. If KSP2 was released into early access and had no significant bugs - either the game should have been shipped as complete, or the scope should have been greater. Given the roadmap, you're playing an alpha build. It looks like an alpha build and it plays like an alpha build. And that's a reasonable condition for the game to be in if it's not getting released in the next 2-3 months.

A lot of indy games are released into EA in what plays more like a beta. That's because they're trying to raise money to increase the scope of the game, and they know that an alpha build won't do that, and the game might never leave EA. Intercept knows that they have money to finish the game, presumably. KSP2 EA only needed to be playable enough to get feedback, and that's what we see.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. It's unsustainable for developers.

Snipped for brevity, but this is credible - possibly the most credible bit of forum speculation I’ve seen so far.  A lot of the more toxic Karen-whinging complaints, theories, and prognostications of doom we’re seeing depend on unreasonable or downright silly premises that don’t map to reality - actual reality or the commercial realities of making a game, and presuppose gross incompetence (and sometimes evil) at all levels, from coders to CEO, at a multi-billion dollar publicly traded game company.  Anybody who thinks the shareholders would stand by and let that sort of organization waste millions letting a bunch of incompetent devs half-ass a game waste months going on vacations and playing a buggy MP alpha just to spite a successful property’s fans is just displaying their own ignorance.

Of course, Enrons happen, project timelines do slip, and major entertainment properties do bomb, but overall, the odds that IG has a realistic plan that TT and their accountants think is achievable enough to continue funding it is the most likely hypothesis.  And the chimping in this particular small ball pit full of angry monkeys isn’t going to affect that.

Things can only get better, and I look forwards to the next update.

[Meecrob]

9 hours ago, Wheehaw Kerman said:

Anybody who thinks the shareholders would stand by and let that sort of organization waste millions letting a bunch of incompetent devs half-ass a game waste months going on vacations and playing a buggy MP alpha just to spite a successful property’s fans is just displaying their own ignorance.

I very much doubt anyone thinks T2 is doing anything to "spite a successful property's fans."

More likely, people have seen the results when a mega-conglomerate such as T2 tries to prioritize a return on shareholder investment over a quality product, and have concerns this may be happening here. To be clear, I am not saying these companies release bad products on purpose, but a quick glance at the last decade of games shows that bad products get through in what seems to be an accelerating rate.

I doubt T2 would waste millions letting a bunch of incompetent devs half-ass a game but that becomes foggy when the realities of business are applied. To become as large as T2, you cannot oversee all your projects directly; you become an integrator. T2 is figuratively managing a supply chain. They have a large pool of excellent talent, but that does not mean it all magically comes together in the end. Every industry has had issues with supplier oversight. There are some egregious examples of suppliers outright lying for profit, but usually it is all in "good-faith" and the realities of the world intrude, priorities shift based on market trends, etc.

I would say, however, that it is hard to believe that a company like T2 can oversee the quality of all their releases, or we wouldn't have releases like GTA: Definitive Edition. I doubt someone at T2 saw that finished product and said "Perfect! The kids will LOVE this!" rather I am guessing a certain timeline and budget was set for the project, and when it became clear the quality was not there, someone had to make the tough call to cut losses and release, or drag it out possibly throwing good money after bad/starting over with quality in mind and making way less profit than releasing the poor quality version we got. Realities intruded onto what presumably had a realistic plan before starting the project. Why would T2 tarnish the reputation of its tentpole franchise for a few bucks when a few months of people buying shark cards for GTA Online would be more profitable? Yes, they wanted to tide fans over a bit because GTA6 is a ways out from release, but I think we can agree the execution could have been better.

 

9 hours ago, Wheehaw Kerman said:

Of course, Enrons happen, project timelines do slip, and major entertainment properties do bomb, but overall, the odds that IG has a realistic plan that TT and their accountants think is achievable enough to continue funding it is the most likely hypothesis.  And the chimping in this particular small ball pit full of angry monkeys isn’t going to affect that.

I believe that IG/T2 have a realistic plan...on paper. I very much hope it translates to reality, however there are signs that point both directions. I am hoping for more detailed communication specifically to reduce speculation. I do not enjoy this ball pit of angry monkeys either. I think that without communication, a ball pit is inevitable, though, because without information, all we have to rely on is speculation and emotions. With the available information, you can just as easily come to the conclusion that everything is under control, or that the plug is about to be pulled. The fact that there is no common ground to me makes it logical that the discussion devolves into what we have here.

Edited May 2, 2023 by Meecrob

[Alexoff]

1 hour ago, Meecrob said:

T2 tries to prioritize a return on shareholder investment over a quality product

In fact, high-tech companies pay almost no dividends, they prefer to tell investors that stock prices are rising. That is, profit in the speculative resale of shares, and not in payments. And share prices are rising on good news, there is news that GTA6 is being actively developed - investors' capital is growing, they are satisfied. If the news about KSP2 would be released on all TV channels, then investors would become impoverished overnight. It's more a matter of faith than a profit from the sale. GTA5 will probably pay back twenty KSP2 developments every year. But bad news like "the publisher decided not to bring to the release of KSP2" investors' faith in the safety and growth of capital is undermined, because the game will be brought to 1.0 one way or another

1 hour ago, Meecrob said:

I would say, however, that it is hard to believe that a company like T2 can oversee the quality of all their releases, or we wouldn't have releases like GTA: Definitive Edition.

The big bosses in T2 are doing big things - GTA5, GTA6, RDR2, buying a mobile games manufacturer. And this remaster and KSP2 is a by-product, like building ships for a Boeing. They do something, they bring some profit, and that's okay, as long as they don't making problems.

[AtomicTech]

On 4/20/2023 at 5:45 AM, Ferio said:

Is there any word yet on when we expect new content?

Your guess is as good as mine

[Meecrob]

^^^I'm not trying to rag on the publishers, I'm trying to find a middle ground. I don't think T2 is trying to pull a make a quick buck scheme, I think that what they planned for did not line up with reality. And I think they could reduce this dissonance by providing information.

Edited May 3, 2023 by Meecrob

[Observe]

20 minutes ago, Meecrob said:

 And I think they could reduce this dissonance by providing information.

Seems to me that they've pretty much  said "leave us alone while we work on the game".  Recent information provided, explains that bug-fix patches are taking away from the bigger picture and that's why they have reduced patch cadence in favor of continuing to build the overall framework that continued feature development will require. Their feeling is that this is the most productive use of their attention. At least that's what I got out of their communication. Not much solace, but understandable given the delayed state of the game. Early access players are really unpaid beta testers (or alpha) and they can only follow the direction of the developers and patiently wait for new stuff to test.

[Meecrob]

26 minutes ago, Observe said:

Seems to me that they've pretty much  said "leave us alone while we work on the game".  Recent information provided, explains that bug-fix patches are taking away from the bigger picture and that's why they have reduced patch cadence in favor of continuing to build the overall framework that continued feature development will require. Their feeling is that this is the most productive use of their attention. At least that's what I got out of their communication. Not much solace, but understandable given the delayed state of the game. Early access players are really unpaid beta testers (or alpha) and they can only follow the direction of the developers and patiently wait for new stuff to test.

I get this point of view, but as other commenters have explained how game development works, some on this board are experienced in public relations. Let me be frank; If they want to pull a "No Man's Sky" and have us leave them alone, then they should express that. Only NMS can do what they did, after they did it, you are second..or third...or 20th...so just own up to it. The "novelty" has worn off.

Edit: I'm not disagreeing, I'm just saying that certain situations attract crap if you do not explain them, but are totally understandable if you do explain them.

Edited May 3, 2023 by Meecrob

[K^2]

1 hour ago, Meecrob said:

I think that what they planned for did not line up with reality. And I think they could reduce this dissonance by providing information.

No plan survives contact with the enemy. But I agree, they needed to communicate this better. More frequent, more detailed, and not stepping on the same rakes over and over.

I get that there is probably some tension between Intercept and PD on what should be communicated, how, and when, but that's true of basically any developer-publisher relationship, and a lot of them find a way around that to deliver a more consistent narrative.

[Meecrob]

I totally agree, @K^2, and I will declare that I do not hold anything against anyone for their plans being messed up by reality...I probably have as many plans messed up by reality as anyone else

 

  

6 hours ago, Alexoff said:

 building ships for a Boeing.

Wait you mean like how 737 hulls are contracted out, or like marine vessels?

Edited May 3, 2023 by Meecrob

[Alexoff]

3 hours ago, Meecrob said:

Wait you mean like how 737 hulls are contracted out, or like marine vessels?

No, I'm talking about the fact that the Boeing Corporation has a couple of shipyards for ships, but this is a drop in the ocean of their business.

[hansen]

8 hours ago, Meecrob said:

I get this point of view, but as other commenters have explained how game development works, some on this board are experienced in public relations. Let me be frank; If they want to pull a "No Man's Sky" and have us leave them alone, then they should express that. Only NMS can do what they did, after they did it, you are second..or third...or 20th...so just own up to it. The "novelty" has worn off.

Edit: I'm not disagreeing, I'm just saying that certain situations attract crap if you do not explain them, but are totally understandable if you do explain them.

I find your stance very understandable. It just comes across shady and disrespectful if you promise an amazing product and sell it for full price, when people get it in their hands it is not even decent but rather horrible, and then you go quite with barely any info about how the product that was just sold using far fetched marketing promises will come together in the near future. NMS was an exception in the software world I'd say, many games are just dropped if failing at launch.

[AtomicTech]

On 5/1/2023 at 1:06 PM, dr.phees said:

Maybe they are just trying to write a great "turn-around" story as a huge PR stunt? Having a great game ready, releasing a bad, years old pretend-alpha, then release, step-by-step, one old dev build after the other until the actual, already ready game is released.

This does not make very much sense, but, who knows, maybe they are just leaning back in their deck chairs, downing one cocktail after the other, giggling about how no one gets it...

As awesome as this could be, I think this would irreparably damage their standing in the gaming industry and here in the KSP community.