Dragging Along

[cocoscacao]

2 hours ago, Meecrob said:

Not one single person has said "this game is worth $50 USD" Even the fanboys.

Most of us that bought it thought so. If not... well... learn how to handle your money. No one will do it for you.

Actions speak louder than words. Being vocal about the price does nothing. The seller determines it (in most cases).  If it's too high, the people will just skip the product, and then  the price will be lowered. Otherwise, no reason not to continue with the current one. Business is business.

Edited June 6, 2023 by cocoscacao

[Wheehaw Kerman]

3 hours ago, Meecrob said:

Not one single person has said "this game is worth $50 USD" Even the fanboys.

I’m north of 100 hours played.  On a dollar per hour basis $50 is peanuts (we’ve done the $50 is an appetizer at a good restaurant/complaining about the game’s price is a self-pwn debate to death).

It’s not the fractions of a penny per hour entertainment bargain of the century that KSP was, but I’d buy it for $50 again, even knowing it’s current state.  Of course it’s incomplete and buggy.  It’s in EA.  
 

Worth it?  I thought so - still do.  Things are going to get better.

Edited June 6, 2023 by Wheehaw Kerman

[Meecrob]

I think people are mis-interpreting what I said. I did not say that the game is bad, or unworthy of attention. If you guys are happy with your purchase, then cool. I'm not here to rain on your parade. What I mean is that if I pick up a copy of say PC Gamer magazine, I can guarantee you there will not be an article saying "KSP2 is in the contention for 'most bang for your buck' award"

 

My comment was not aimed at you fellow players, or the dev team, but rather aimed at the beancounters who chose the current price point.

 

Edit: Why am I saying this? I feel that if the price was more in line with what was offered, more money would flow into the dev team so they could get on with making this game good. As it stands, I think it is a losing argument to try to ask people to pay this amount of money for a game that is fairly niche, at this point in development. I want KSP2 to have a steady stream of income, and I think that the high price is impeding that. To re-iterate, I am not trying to say that individual players made a poor financial decision to purchase this game, I am not trying to say that at all. I also don't think the devs were the ones who chose the price point.

This update basically says "we are doing the things we said we are doing, but we have nothing to show, other than some engine renders." Which I understand is how development goes sometimes. I get that you can't squash all bugs instantly.  I have this feeling that the biggest impediment to this game being good is the internal conflict between making money now and making more money later.

Edited June 6, 2023 by Meecrob

[RocketRockington]

It's pretty clear from player data - both play counts but also most specifically reviews over time - that KSP2 saw strong early sales.  Most obviously powered by hype and  brand loyalty to the franchise.  And then once it became clear what people were getting for their money, it stopped being bought. A few people here may claim it was worth the money, but the player base data clearly indicates otherwise.  Contrast it to KSP1 which has seen much steadier player counts and growth in reviews and followers.  Anyway, this is an old argument, so I'm surprised people still want to claim KSP2 is worth the money despite all evidence to the contrary.  I guess personal anecdotes trump data when it aligns with your world view though.

[gussi111]

98 players today.

[razark]

50 minutes ago, RocketRockington said:

I'm surprised people still want to claim KSP2 is worth the money despite all evidence to the contrary.

How does one determine who is arbiter of what product is worth the money or not?

You do not think it is worth the money.  Other people do.  Simply declaring it isn't is as valid as declaring "X is absolutely the best flavor ice cream, and anyone that disagrees is wrong."

[Meecrob]

There is still something to be considered in looking at what other comparable products are charging.

[darthgently]

19 minutes ago, Meecrob said:

There is still something to be considered in looking at what other comparable products are charging.

Exactly.  Prices don't emerge in a vacuum.  And just because some paid X doesn't mean X is optimal for syncing with market potential.  I still think a lower price tier for what we have now and a $50 tier for mod and other devs and designers who'd sign nondisclosures and get access to the code and paid as contractors for accepted patches fixing bugs or some other similar mechanism to leverage those with skills and skin in the game to get this out of EA and making real money pronto

Sorry for that last endless sentence.  OMG it is ugly

[TackleMcClean]

@Dakota/dev team, are you able to give any thoughts on the overall timeline of the remaining development?

 

I've gathered that the roadmap presented with the EA announcement still stands.

With the PQS rework and the current development speed - as much as an outside perspective can tell that is - I have a slight worry on the time it will take to achieve the complete roadmap.

If I would have to guess, I'd bet my money on the science update being released, and perhaps tweaked/bug fixed into something stable at december 2023.

From there it becomes harder and harder to predict of course but it would perhaps spell out that the full roadmap won't be met within 2-3 years at least.

Since there's a bunch of us that has bought the game already and are eager to enjoy a more playable and moddable product, would it be possible to get some info on the development team's view on what's reasonable to expect time-wise?

[asmi]

39 minutes ago, Meecrob said:

There is still something to be considered in looking at what other comparable products are charging.

This might influence a decision, but ultimately it's still in the eye of a beholder, err, a buyer if it's worth the money or not.  Basically if someone bought it and did not return (got a refund), then he/she thinks it's worth the money. One can debate the rationale different people used to justify this decision, but everyone's probably got a different one so there is no point debating it.

[cocoscacao]

1 hour ago, TackleMcClean said:

and the current development speed

One of my assumptions is that development will get faster once core gameplay bugs are resolved.

[Wheehaw Kerman]

23 minutes ago, cocoscacao said:

One of my assumptions is that development will get faster once core gameplay bugs are resolved.

Given that they’ve been progressing other Roadmap elements in parallel, this is likely.

[James M]

Such a great update. Thank you to @Nate Simpson and the rest of the KSP team for getting a wrangle on all those nasty bugs and continuing to make great content. The future is looking brighter every day :D

[RocketRockington]

5 hours ago, razark said:

How does one determine who is arbiter of what product is worth the money or not?

You do not think it is worth the money.  Other people do.  Simply declaring it isn't is as valid as declaring "X is absolutely the best flavor ice cream, and anyone that disagrees is wrong."

That's why I cited all the statistics available?  Did you bother to read what I wrote?

3 hours ago, Wheehaw Kerman said:

Given that they’ve been progressing other Roadmap elements in parallel, this is likely.

Allegedly progressing.  There's no real evidence of that.  As we know from KSP2s history, some random screenshots is evidence of nothing.  In early threads on this forum, many people expected science to already be out.  All we've got is a blender renders of a single science part - that's evidence of next to nothing. We have many many more screenshots of colonies and interstellar parts - from years and years ago - and those features are not out yet either.

This is why people like me are here - to remind others who read these threads of how dubious claims by the hope-springs-eternal crowd are, given the history of the project.  

Edited June 7, 2023 by RocketRockington

[razark]

12 minutes ago, RocketRockington said:

That's why I cited all the statistics available?  Did you bother to read what I wrote?

And yet there are those who think it is worth the money, no matter what you think they should think.

The numbers may be heavily on the side of people that don't think it's worth the money, but there are still people that do.  They may not be people who are buying it now, so the sales don't reflect it, but they still think it's worth the money.

 

You're making an objective statement about a subjective opinion. 

[Wheehaw Kerman]

9 hours ago, RocketRockington said:

That's why I cited all the statistics available?  Did you bother to read what I wrote?

Allegedly progressing.  There's no real evidence of that.  As we know from KSP2s history, some random screenshots is evidence of nothing.  In early threads on this forum, many people expected science to already be out.  All we've got is a blender renders of a single science part - that's evidence of next to nothing. We have many many more screenshots of colonies and interstellar parts - from years and years ago - and those features are not out yet either.

This is why people like me are here - to remind others who read these threads of how dubious claims by the hope-springs-eternal crowd are, given the history of the project.  

I’ll point to what the dataminers have found, and various statements from the devs, who are the only informed and credible sources as to the state of the game.  As we’ve seen from the recent dev updates, IG has actually been developing the game along rational and entirely predictable lines, despite the dubious claims to the contrary from the all-is-woe crowd.

I expect this will be borne out by the next patch, which, contrary to the first couple of patches, is likely to be a better executed, less rushed job.  I also expect Nate and team are actually underselling it.

Love your mission statement, by the way.  

[J.Random]

1 hour ago, Wheehaw Kerman said:

informed and credible sources as to the state of the game

I mean, informed? Sure. Informative? Credible? Hell no.

Edited June 7, 2023 by J.Random

[Wheehaw Kerman]

2 hours ago, J.Random said:

I mean, informed? Sure. Informative? Credible? Hell no.

More credible than anybody else here, that’s for sure.  They’re the only people who have actual knowledge of the state of development and their plans beyond the roadmap.  Anybody else is just speculating at best.

[J.Random]

28 minutes ago, Wheehaw Kerman said:

More credible than anybody else here, that’s for sure.  They’re the only people who have actual knowledge of the state of development and their plans beyond the roadmap.  Anybody else is just speculating at best.

I sure hope they do have actual knowledge on the state of the project. But that's the "informed" part. How can anybody call them credible is beyond me. According to Nate, the game was on track to be released in, iirc, 2020, then it was almost done in 2021 (minor setback re: studio hijack, all talent has been headhunted, no worries, etc.), then they just needed time to polish it in 2022, it was ready to be released in 2023, then it became EA and what came out can't be described adequately without resorting to obscenities. Come on.

[Wheehaw Kerman]

44 minutes ago, J.Random said:

I sure hope they do have actual knowledge on the state of the project. But that's the "informed" part. How can anybody call them credible is beyond me. According to Nate, the game was on track to be released in, iirc, 2020, then it was almost done in 2021 (minor setback re: studio hijack, all talent has been headhunted, no worries, etc.), then they just needed time to polish it in 2022, it was ready to be released in 2023, then it became EA and what came out can't be described adequately without resorting to obscenities. Come on.

Note that I said “more credible than anybody else here”.  That isn’t a high bar - in fact, you can barely slide a piece of paper between it and the floor, but they’re still clearing it.

While their deadline skills are on a par with Musk’s, their communication since the EA announcement hasn’t been that bad (although a bit more warning re the minimum specs would have been nice), and the increased transparency over the past few weeks has been nice.  They never weren’t doing what a reasonable observer would have expected given the state of the EA, and now that they’re telling us what they’re up to, confirming that the reasonable observers were right, it’ll be easier for all of us to manage our expectations.

Basically, once the EA was announced I knew that all bets were off, and dialled back my expectations to realistic levels.  I’m still a bit disappointed by the EA (I was hoping we’d get the Putt-Putt), but it’s still very playable and a good deal IMHO, and now that the devs have clarified that they’re doing what we all should have known they were doing, I think there’s more cause for optimism than the contrary.

[RaBDawG]

More words.  5 MONTHS since launch and no Heating , No new substantial content(please spare me the 3 engines lol), NO science, and the game is still a hot mess big wise. 

[The Aziz]

Yeah you said that already, it's just more words.

[LoSBoL]

10 minutes ago, RaBDawG said:

 5 MONTHS since launch

Select image, press Cntrl+P, press enter, profit.

[razark]

11 minutes ago, RaBDawG said:

5 MONTHS since launch

Gosh, is it late July already?

[Spicat]

6 minutes ago, RaBDawG said:

More words.  5 MONTHS since launch and no Heating , No new substantial content(please spare me the 3 engines lol), NO science, and the game is still a hot mess big wise. 

Why does everyone inflate the number of months since the game has been released? We’re not even 4 months in.

Beside that, you can’t have everything, and the game need fixes now. I don’t want science in the state we’re in.

However, you may not want them but I want some words on heating, I do suspect them to have postponed it to release it at the same time as science.