A Taste of Science

[PDCWolf]

42 minutes ago, cocoscacao said:

What point were you trying to make 

That it is not a cosmetic feature as you stated, and I clearly fail to understand where the game being finished comes into play into that argument, which is why I asked. Just in case you've gotten lost or want to clarify something I might've misunderstood:

1. You were the one to mention the cockpit has been made but incomplete for at least 3 years.
2. I mention that it could be either because they're juggling artists or are incompetent (which the former already implies, but hey).
3. You mention it doesn't matter because it is a cosmetic feature irrelevant to gameplay
4. It is clearly not, as it is a part of an actually promised gameplay feature that requires all IVAs be done.
5. You bring up colonies to (I guess) imply that IVAs are not relevant to anything "important" and that could be why they might not yet be done.
6. I feel compelled to remind you that it's not just "IVAs" and they're actually part of a feature.
7. You ask me if the game is done, which I guess implies we can't talk about anything being incomplete because the game is not done.

If I understood correctly, then that's gotta be the dumbest argument. If they don't actually complete things, the game will never be done, specially if they can't complete a cockpit in 3 years.

[Bej Kerman]

22 minutes ago, cocoscacao said:

30 minutes ago, Alexoff said:

You were told to wait

You're totally free to walk away, and never think about it. Your life doesn't depend on it. Be happy.

I've said before, but these people make games too important in their lives. Telling them to not make said decade revolve entirely around something they're waiting for is impossible.

[Xeiki]

You know, as long as people keep making up excuses for developers delivering unfinished alpha versions of their games at full price, that practice will continue. And because people refuse to vote with their wallets, developers keep pushing out unlabeled alphas and are rewarded for it, on the promise that, eventually, they will release the product you actually paid for. Which in pretty much every other industry would be considered a scam. And no, I don't care about the reasons. It's the developer's job to deliver a product in a somewhat finished state; I don't care how. My only duty is to pay for it if I want to play it. Or don't.

I do hope that KSP2 will end up better than Bannerlord, because Bannerlord, even after finally leaving alpha ... checks post above ... seven years late, is still missing lots of expected and promised features. Like vanilla diplomacy which is more than just window dressing. Beyond the graphics, its not a fundamentally better game than Mount & Blade 1, and while the first one's jankyness can be excused because small studio + little money, the second one's can not. Same goes for KSP. So far, all I see is pretty graphics, almost no features, and probably the worst performance out of a new release in ages. And some stuff is outright laughable. Like, we're back to wobbly rockets without an autostrut feature. I'm sorry, but there's just no excuse for stuff like that after a game has been pushed back three years from its original release date, and we went through that whole learning process once already. We're not talking about developing an actual rocket here - it's just a video game. Tackling problems which have been tackled and adressed before.  The Manhatten Project took less time than KSP2's development.

So I don't see why there's even a discussion here, including about the minutia of what didn't get finished when; it didn't get finished. That's what matters. The state of the game (and broad swathes of video game development in general) is ridiculous. And that doesn't change regardless of whether or not the game will be in a playable and feature complete state ten years from now. Which is also a ridiculous - but sadly not surprising - timeline.

Edited May 13, 2023 by Xeiki

[cocoscacao]

6 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

You were the one to mention the cockpit has been made but incomplete for at least 3 years

Yup. My original point was that science parts probably are not designed at this very moment.

7 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

You mention it doesn't matter because it is a cosmetic feature irrelevant to gameplay

We don't know when they're gonna become relevant.

9 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

You bring up colonies to (I guess) imply that IVAs are not relevant to anything "important" and that could be why they might not yet be done.

Yup. It's my best guess that's when IVA will arrive.

10 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

You ask me if the game is done, which I guess implies we can't talk about anything being incomplete because the game is not done.

 Yup.

10 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

If I understood correctly, then that's gotta be the dumbest argument. If they don't actually complete things, the game will never be done, specially if they can't complete a cockpit in 3 years.

Roadmap exists. They're getting there. I don't know what hiccups happened in development. But we have EA now, and things are moving forward. I also don't know how many parts will have interiors. I'm assuming this rover part has low priority, and it will be finished with colonies (?)

[Bej Kerman]

16 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

they can't complete a cockpit in 3 years.

Or they can complete several cockpits fairly quickly, but won't right now because it's not important.

[MechBFP]

4 minutes ago, Xeiki said:

You know, as long as people keep making up excuses for developers delivering unfinished alpha versions of their games at full price, that practice will continue

Early Access, not full price, irrelevant comment detected.

[Xeiki]

Just now, MechBFP said:

Early Access, not full price, irrelevant comment detected.

>50€ is not full price
Oooooof ... Yeah, I think we might be living on different planets.

[Bej Kerman]

3 minutes ago, Xeiki said:

>50€ is not full price
Oooooof ... Yeah, I think we might be living on different planets.

You paid for EA, you got EA. Beggars can't be choosers nor can you complain about getting what you paid for. It really should go without saying that buying into EA is a risk. I think KSP 2 is good enough for what I bought it for, but if it's not good enough for you, that's your cross to bear.

[Alexoff]

[snip]

6 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

You paid for EA, you got EA. Beggars can't be choosers nor can you complain about getting what you paid for. It really should go without saying that buying into EA is a risk. I think KSP 2 is good enough for what I bought it for, but if it's not good enough for you, that's your cross to bear.

If the buyer does not like something, then this is his problem. I think game companies should tell customers more about this.

Edited May 14, 2023 by Vanamonde

[Xeiki]

Just now, Bej Kerman said:

You paid for EA, you got EA. Beggars can't be choosers nor can you complain about getting what you paid for.

En contraire, mon fraire, I didn't pay anything, because I didn't want what was being offered. So I guess I can complain as much as I want now.

[LoSBoL]

9 minutes ago, Alexoff said:

If the buyer does not like something, then this is his problem. I think game companies should tell customers more about this.

How come that I exactly knew what I was going to get on the 24th of Februari 2023?

[Alexoff]

3 minutes ago, LoSBoL said:

How come that I exactly knew what I was going to get on the 24th of Februari 2023?

Did you know that it would be a descent alpha, and that the entire space center would fly behind your craft?

[Bej Kerman]

3 minutes ago, Alexoff said:

Did you know that it would be [buggy]?

Like EAs tend to be?

[LoSBoL]

Just now, Alexoff said:

Did you know that it would be a descent alpha, and that the entire space center would fly behind your craft?

Yes, because there was an EA ESA insiders launch event organised and you got to see the real deal form popular content creators in what you would be getting, no bandages attached.

The EA announcement video 4 months earlier already told me what I'd get on features, what the (prognosed) roadmap would be and at what price it would go for.

 

[PDCWolf]

1 hour ago, cocoscacao said:

Roadmap exists. They're getting there. I don't know what hiccups happened in development. But we have EA now, and things are moving forward. I also don't know how many parts will have interiors. I'm assuming this rover part has low priority, and it will be finished with colonies (?)

1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said:

Or they can complete several cockpits fairly quickly, but won't right now because it's not important.

Funnily enough a lot of the "important" things, even the ones Nate and Shana confirmed on their AMAs, are not on the roadmap: Re-entry heating (or just the whole temperature stack), Procedural Rads/Solar, Biomes, Adventure mode, Asteroids, VR support, Orbital colonies, ISRU, Alternate launch sites, Hotas Support, and so on. Some are part of greater systems, some aren't. I don't think any of us has the complete authority to define what's important and what isn't, with the only exception being stuff as glaring as performance work or re-entry heating that needs to be in ASAP. Conversely, not having science parts done after 3 years (or however longer the game has been in development) is a problem in itself, but that's not what we're discussing. This is why it is important to dig around and ask about the stuff, as if it was in the roadmap much further ahead, there's no reason to ask for it until that point.

For all that we know, Interactive IVAs could be vital to science instead of colonies, meaning their incompleteness is actually much more alarming, or they're so irrelevant they were planning to cancel them, specially with the performance problems their overblown, improperly culled models brought.

You have to remember we have EA now after 3 years of being promised a full release. You are in your right to give them a free pass for lying to your face, I won't, at least not until the problems are properly acknowledged outside sweet PR speak and we get proper transparency. Until transparency is there, their words clearly hold no value, since they've already promised things they didn't plan to deliver on, which is more than enough of an excuse to bring it up again and again until addressed officially.

17 minutes ago, LoSBoL said:

Yes, because there was an EA ESA insiders launch event organised and you got to see the real deal form popular content creators in what you would be getting, no bandages attached.

The EA announcement video 4 months earlier already told me what I'd get on features, what the (prognosed) roadmap would be and at what price it would go for.

 

Please link me to any creator that showed the game breaking bugs that were there at launch on their media event videos, the ones I follow(ed) didn't.

Edited May 13, 2023 by PDCWolf

[Bej Kerman]

Just now, PDCWolf said:

You have to remember we have EA now after 3 years of being promised a full release

Stop thinking of development as a completely linear sequence of events with a solid ETA.

[Alexoff]

5 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Like bad EAs tend to be?

Yep

5 hours ago, LoSBoL said:

Yes, because there was an EA ESA insiders launch event organised and you got to see the real deal form popular content creators in what you would be getting, no bandages attached.

So the game is not very good, but is that enough for you? Should the rest be silent?

5 hours ago, cocoscacao said:

 I'm having troubles getting quotes from different pages, so you'll have to verify integrity yourself.

[snip]

Edited May 14, 2023 by Vanamonde

[PDCWolf]

Just now, Bej Kerman said:

Stop thinking of development as a completely linear sequence of events with a solid ETA.

I'm not thinking of anything they didn't tell us to think about. I.E. a full release, for 3 years.

[Bej Kerman]

Just now, Alexoff said:

35 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Like EAs tend to be?

Yep. You summed up my quote and fixed the wording I used to make the KSP 2 EA sound like it is more broken than it has the right to be, but I outright misquoted you, claiming you said "bad EAs". I apologise for that.

It's alright

[Alexoff]

1 minute ago, Bej Kerman said:

Stop thinking of development as a completely linear sequence of events with a solid ETA.

What is the line of the development of KSP2? Can you picture it? Or will it be an indecent picture?

[Bej Kerman]

1 minute ago, PDCWolf said:

3 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Stop thinking of development as a completely linear sequence of events with a solid ETA.

I'm not thinking of anything they didn't tell us to think about. I.E. a full release, for 3 years.

Development isn't a completely linear sequence of events with a solid ETA regardless.

[PDCWolf]

Just now, Bej Kerman said:

Development isn't a completely linear sequence of events with a solid ETA regardless.

But I'm not the one asking for ETAs and firm dates, they were the ones telling me release dates for a full release for 3 years.

[Bej Kerman]

Just now, PDCWolf said:

2 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Development isn't a completely linear sequence of events with a solid ETA regardless.

But I'm not the one asking for ETAs and firm dates, they were the ones telling me release dates for a full release for 3 years.

And you expect the developers to magically pluck a complete product out of their bottoms if they can't keep up with T2's ridiculous deadlines? Again, get that daft idea out of your system. You're in the real world and things take time. Sit down.

[LoSBoL]

5 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

Please link me to any creator that showed the game breaking bugs that were there at launch on their media event videos, the ones I follow(ed) didn't.

ObsidianAnt, Matt Lowne, Scott Manley, SWDennis, EJ_SA

 

5 hours ago, Alexoff said:

So the game is not very good, but is that enough for you?

I have over 100 hours in it, what do you think? Offcourse I'd like it to be better, and I can understand people find it unplayable for them.

[snip]

Edited May 14, 2023 by Vanamonde

[Bej Kerman]

14 minutes ago, Alexoff said:

They wanted to develop the game for 3 years

Which is impossible, but go on.