Actual quotes for substantiated arguments thread

[VlonaldKerman]

Often on this forum, people make reference to "the communication from the dev team," usually in reference to statements made in the distant (relative to the life of the game) past, without directly citing those communications. This results in arguments being a lot less grounded, not to mention actually making the legitimate points made feel considerably less powerful. This is a thread for links, quotes, videos, and transcripts that are pertinent to discussions occurring elsewhere on the forum. Discussion is also welcome in this thread, with the caveat that if you make a definitive claim about something, it MUST be substantiated with an actual source! As a courtesy, if you are going to post a quote or something of that nature, please begin your post with a big "QUOTE" so that if people just want to scroll through to see the quotes, they can do so. Please, if you have a video, interview, etc. in mind, do take the time to find it, and, if nothing else, post a link here. I think it will do a tremendous service to the community. I'm doing a detailed analysis of my first quote, but don't feel obligated to do the same. If my quote is anything to go by, I think that there will be things in this thread that merit a prompt and direct response from the dev team- much more powerfully so than vague arguments taking place in various disparate forum threads. If we want an explanation of what's going on, or for everyone to chill out and calm down, then in either case, posting here is likely the best course of action.  I'm not sure of the extent to which I can moderate responses/make sure that the above goals for this thread are adhered to (I'm not an expert on the rules/capabilities of this forum), but in my experience when people post rational responses in good faith on this forum, the conversation tends to stay that way, so I'm optimistic. Happy fact-hunting!

 

Okay, here's my first contribution:

 

QUOTE

 

I'll start with an excerpt quotes from this interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RHbvphmnyE&t=9s which was brought to my attention by forum user Yakuzi in one of my other threads. It is an interview of Nate Simpson, circa 06/24/2021.

QUOTE (emphasis added, some abbreviation, timestamp 00:09 - 01:13):

Q: It's been almost two years since KSP 2 was first revealed. How has the games development progressed since then and how much of it was affected by the pandemic?

A: Well, obviously there's been about two years of progress* since the last time we talked about the game. One big change is that we've been able to release more footage of the game actually working as opposed to assets in isolation. One of the nice problems we've had recently is actually members of the community feeling as though we're showing canned assets when it's actually the game; the game actually looks that good**...  /...   Obviously we're in the final stretch, we're releasing next year,*** so right now it's all about seeing these larger portions all get sewn together*** *into a cohesive whole, and it's sort of a culmination**** of a life-long dream seeing this thing actually become real.

ANALYSIS-

* If this is true, this disproves the popular theory that development on the game was restarted when T2 took over the project. This interview happened about a year after T2 took over the reigns- and there hadn't even been two years for two years worth of progress to be made on a new game. Additionally, it would obviously be misleading to say that "two years of progress" had been made "on the game" if it isn't the same game that he's talking about.

** I'll have to come back to this post and update it with the media that we had at the time of this interview, but many players are currently complaining that planet textures are lackluster when viewed up close. I believe that there are many photos/videos of things looking WAY better than they do now, such as better atmospheric scattering, higher-res terrain, etc. I'm not sure which in-game footage he is referencing, but this may be a misrepresentation- stay tuned for an update.

*** Notice he did not say "we're releasing into early access next year"- he said, "we're releasing next year". It is often said on these forums that "KSP 1 was buggy in early access, obviously KSP 2 is buggy in early access!" It is understandable that the community would expect KSP 2 EA to be LESS BUGGY than KSP 1 EA given statements such as this which seem to indicate that they believed that there was a reasonable chance (he didn't even say might, he said that it will) that KSP 2 would FULLY RELEASE in 2022. This is a real example of Nate Simpson SAYING SOMETHING OTHER THAN that the game would release into early access as part of a long road to an eventual distant-future release in order to get community input.

**** This statements intimates that large portions of the game (science, colonization, interstellar, multiplayer)  were themselves LARGELY FINISHED AS OF THIS INTERVIEW (June 2021, ~2 years ago), and therefore just needed to be woven together. Taken in context, this makes sense if the game was slated for a full release in 2022.

***** Maybe a redundant highlight, but I'm gonna point this out anyway. In certain contexts (recent blog posts) Nate often makes statements like, "we're in this for the long haul," or, "___ is the best decision for the long-term quality of the game," or, "we're taking our time to get it right." He is not hesitant to let us know if he thinks that things will take a long time, or be slow, and that quality takes precedent over speed. Yet in this interview, he goes out of his way to suggest that the game is almost done and to expect big, final results soon, talking about "the final stretch... weaving together [core components]... a culmination". There is simply no way to spin this: This statement is completely incongruent with the way the game released, and when it released. In fact, it is so incongruent that a reasonable person could only conclude that this statement was either a delusion, a mis-speak, or a deliberate lie. 

 

What other examples of contradictory or misleading statements can you find? Or, have I misinterpreted this quote, or taken it out of context? Have the issues raised in this post (or others that are yet to come) addressed in other communications made from the dev team? Please do post below.

 

Edited May 21, 2023 by VlonaldKerman

[VlonaldKerman]

QUOTE

 

Okay, I promised an update on my evaluation of the statement: "One of the nice problems we've had recently is actually members of the community feeling as though we're showing canned assets when it's actually the game; the game actually looks that good". Below are each of the Show and Tell pages on the forum that existed at the time of the interview that aren't obviously test scenes:

- https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/202735-show-and-tell-the-kerbal-space-center/ The KSC looks roughly the same in the game as it does in the video. I give this a rating of TRUE.

- https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/202101-show-and-tell-mun-terrain-work/ From orbit the Mun looks similar to the video but there is a brief view of the Mun's up-close terrain which looks much more detailed than what we currently have, 2 years after the interview with Nate Simpson. Additionally, if Nate was claiming that the stuff in these videos is in the game, it stands to reason that he meant that it was in the game with a frame rate of >5fps. However, it is unclear if this is a test scene, and he may not have been referring to this video. Therefore, I tentatively give this 3/5 pinocchios.

- https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/201765-show-and-tell-pol-terrain-work/ The same analysis for the Mun video above applies to this Show and Tell about Pol. 3/5 pinocchios.

- https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/201418-show-and-tell-clouds/ In my opinion, the clouds in this video look (though it is brief) better than the clouds we have in-game. There appears to be fewer lighting/shading issues, and there are multiple cloud layers with a variety in the type of cloud. Again, unclear if this is a test scene. If it isn't, then I would say 3.5/5 pinocchios.

- https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/200806-show-and-tell-new-engine-exhaust-effects/ It's been a while since I played KSP 2 and saw the exhaust effects, but based on my memory, these look much more HD and better overall. These exist in a test scene, but still. Until I boot up KSP 2 again and look for myself, I'll hold off on rating this one.

 

Edited May 21, 2023 by VlonaldKerman

[TLTay]

Yes, you're over the target, so expect flak and possibly thread-be-gone. 

Yes, they did make a lot of grandiose statements that turned out to be laughably unbacked by a deliverable product.

Yes, Nate's language communication style is somewhat expected of a team lead, all the more so if things are less than ideal in terms of morale and product viability.

Yes, many in the community felt deceived and misled by the marketing and undelivered promises.

Yes, the game is likely to be cancelled despite all of the encouraging talk of funding.

The only real matter of import is whether or not T2 will try to shut out mods from KSP1 and implement a locked ecosystem for paid mods. They do not care for competition as has been seen in cases of modders remastering certain of their IP better than their developers did. They may come to see KSP1 modders as eating into profit possibilities if they cancel KSP2.

 

And then maybe they just thought since KSP1 was "early access" with tons of people super excited to play from day one (I was there, Gandalf), they could abuse the crap out of it and charge 50 bucks for bugcity and take (potentially) years in EA and we'd beg for more? Free development at player expense! Suits approve! Didn't work out like that, though...

And no, to those who weren't there, KSP1 was NOT this half-baked and unfun, even in the earliest states I played. It was fun and refreshing. Everyone was excited. Bugs? Some. Features? Some. But even with it running at 15fps on my potato at the time, the best game I ever played.

One person dreamed up KSP1 and delivered a large part of it themselves after other employees were added later. I've seen one or two dedicated and inspired devs produce some of the best  games I've ever played. They've got 50 people working on KSP2... the heck happened? 

[VlonaldKerman]

26 minutes ago, TLTay said:

Yes, many in the community felt deceived and misled by the marketing and undelivered promises.

It seems inevitable in the modern era that a debate which boils down to testable/provable statements will nonetheless feature people talking about how they "feel." Believe me, I understand that people feel this way, myself included, and I understand why. The purpose of this thread is to talk less about how we feel and more about why an impartial third party SHOULD rationally feel a certain way. I'm sure you have many examples of marketing and undelivered promises- would you like to contribute to more substantive discussion by directly posting one?

26 minutes ago, TLTay said:

The only real matter of import is whether or not T2 will try to shut out mods from KSP1 and implement a locked ecosystem for paid mods. They do not care for competition as has been seen in cases of modders remastering certain of their IP better than their developers did. They may come to see KSP1 modders as eating into profit possibilities if they cancel KSP2.

I believe that there are some clauses in the EULA that claim all player-created mods as property of T2. I don't have a quote ready for this, and I'll probably look to find one. In the meanwhile, do you have a source to back up your claims that T2 would be within their rights as set out by the EULA to do what you're describing? Or, better yet, a link to an example of it happening with another game?

26 minutes ago, TLTay said:

Yes, you're over the target, so expect flak and possibly thread-be-gone. 

For those who are concerned that they will spend time finding evidence only for this thread to be taken down, if you would like me to, mention it in your post and I can make a backup of it in a word doc to post onto reddit or something in the event that this thread gets canned. However, whenever I see moderator intervention, it's usually because someone is being abusive, aggressive, or unreasonable- in other words, the opposite of the nature of this thread. They seem to allow for even the sharpest of respectful criticism of the game. I would think that they would be happy to see reasonable, substantive discussion as a counterpoint to the very posts which they have to remove. I'm not worried about them taking this down.

 

EDIT: I'm not sure if this post comes across as combatitive- that is not my intention. I just don't want things to snowball until this becomes yet another broad discussion thread.

Edited May 21, 2023 by VlonaldKerman

[TLTay]

16 minutes ago, VlonaldKerman said:

would you like to contribute to more substantive discussion by directly posting one?

I don't really have anything to gain and only stand to lose hours of time scrounging through threads and videos for false promises and specific statements.  Since I'm not filing suit and will not be party to one, I've no gain in the non-trivial use of time. Venting frustration makes me feel good, working on the weekend not so much. 

Good luck, tho.

[VlonaldKerman]

3 minutes ago, TLTay said:

I don't really have anything to gain and only stand to lose hours of time scrounging through threads and videos for false promises and specific statements.  Since I'm not filing suit and will not be party to one, I've no gain in the non-trivial use of time. Venting frustration makes me feel good, working on the weekend not so much. 

That's fair- obviously you are under no obligation. I have too much time on my hands, so it's not a big deal for me.

 

5 minutes ago, TLTay said:

Good luck, tho.

I appreciate the support.

[TheOrbitalMechanic]

QUOTE:
Here's some from this Dev Diary: 

Quote: "...I have two jobs. First, make sure all the code that makes up Kerbal Space Program 2 does what we expect it to do, delivers amazingly fun features, is highly performant and stable, and ships on time.
I don't think this requires much explanation: obviously, KSP 2 is neither "highly performant and stable", nor did it ship on time.

Quote: "But we’re also working with people behind some of the biggest Unity features and plugins so that we can offer incredibly detailed stellar body surfaces from approach, through orbit, right down to surface landing, all while maintaining a smooth frame rate for our brave green astronauts."
The game's performance and frame rate have been widely panned thus far. Also, the graphics quality is debatable.

Quote: "With interstellar travel being so important for Kerbal 2, we’ve solved this by implementing a Spacial Scene Graph at Interstellar Scales, which allows us to arbitrarily “break off” sections of space and simulate them with a high degree of precision while still fully understanding their physical and positional relationship to the stars and planets around them, and all while not sacrificing compute performance that might slow down frame rates or lead to spaceships that are more wobbly than our Kerbal Engineers intended!"
Where to begin? Obviously, interstellar travel just straight up isn't in the game (yet, early access, yadda yadda), but we also get another mention of the frame rates they claim to have worked so hard to keep at a decent level, as well as wobbly rockets, which are most definitely still in the game.

There was a whole paragraph in here about Rask and Rusk and their associated programming details. As the coding details described affect only Rask and Rusk, and those planets could plausibly still be added at a later date, I won't say this is an outright lie, but as of right now, this bit is completely irrelevant to the current state of the game.

There's another bit here I did not take any specific quotes from about multiplayer, which I will withhold judgement on as we haven't actually seen multiplayer in action yet. No verifiable lies here (unless you count the implication that multiplayer would be included on initial release).

Quote: "Of course, delivering all of this in a stable, high performing manner, across multiple platforms, takes time. At launch, we want to ensure that the only crashes we experience are the onscreen “Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly” of our Kerbal-commanded ships."
I mean... do I really have to elaborate? Obviously, the game has suffered from both performance issues and crashes, meaning somebody dropped the ball here.

 

 

[Alexoff]

19 hours ago, VlonaldKerman said:

such as better atmospheric scattering

Fact - no atmospheric scattering, only distant fog

By the way, look at this

 

[Spicat]

12 hours ago, TheOrbitalMechanic said:

as well as wobbly rockets, which are most definitely still in the game.

Hate to break it to you but wobbly rocket will always be a thing (the amount of it, that can be discussed), source in the video linked by Alexoff:

https://youtu.be/Jw42iC-mlZM?t=1031

12 hours ago, TheOrbitalMechanic said:

Also, the graphics quality is debatable.

This is a bit of a subjective question but don't forget, at the time, the parallax mod didn't exist and if ksp 2 didn't change too much when they said that, it was in fact highly detailed compared to what we had (and the terrain (heightmap and all) still is compared to ksp1, if you want some info here is the GDC about it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvytgzvqlgQ)

 

Edited May 22, 2023 by Spicat

[Gargamel]

This thread has been locked.  
 

It has no specific topic of discussion.    We do not allow general chat threads. 
 

If you want to quote the devs on, say, colony building, feel free to do so in a thread about colony building.   Likewise about any quote about a topic.    
 

If you want to build a compendium thread of dev quotes you can find, then do so.    But including propaganda/spin/analysis about the quote makes it into a discussion with no topic, and those aren’t allowed.  
 

 We have a whole forum full of topic specific threads where you can quote and discuss as you wish.