KSP2 EA Grand Discussion Thread.

[Starwaster]

On 10/2/2023 at 11:18 AM, regex said:

My dude(ette), we're talking about KSP2 here, where the developers are at least trying to construct a coherent game with inherent challenges and actually thinking about what they want that game to look like, not a decade-old barely-designed set of poorly-integrated incoherent ideas someone called "a game". Let's stay on the same page.

Try to avoid generalizing. I was precise and specific and I expect the same if you’re going to reply back. Also that comes off as snarky and condescending. 

[Guest]

39 minutes ago, Scarecrow71 said:

This hasn't really been the prototypical early access release

I don't feel that way at all and that's probably the disconnect. Once a company rep said "early access" I knew what to expect, whatever expectations they set through hype or interviews beforehand (which I didn't pay much attention to tbh). But yeah, that's me.

16 minutes ago, Starwaster said:

Try to avoid generalizing. I was precise and specific and I expect the same if you’re going to reply back.

And I was precise and specific about bringing autostrut, a feature I feel completely trivialized an already badly designed game, into KSP2, so maybe try taking your own advice.

[Alexoff]

48 minutes ago, Spicat said:

They even said the opposite:

What could this mean? Do the developers have any separate data on the number of players? Do they have any information collectors in the game besides the steam counter?

[Scarecrow71]

14 hours ago, TLTay said:

In the month of September 2023, how many people were working exclusively on KSP2 and no other title for 40 hours or more per week?

As long as the answer is non-zero - that is, > 0 - it doesn't matter how many were working on it.  Per Nate, the game is funded for years, they are releasing bug- and hot-fixes, and they should be working towards releasing Science.  The going is slow, and is certainly not the speed with which a lot of people would prefer.  But there is nothing to be gained from asking how many people are working on this other than to be continued in being frustrated for not having an answer that you want to hear.

[Meecrob]

33 minutes ago, Scarecrow71 said:

As long as the answer is non-zero - that is, > 0 - it doesn't matter how many were working on it.  Per Nate, the game is funded for years, they are releasing bug- and hot-fixes, and they should be working towards releasing Science.  The going is slow, and is certainly not the speed with which a lot of people would prefer.  But there is nothing to be gained from asking how many people are working on this other than to be continued in being frustrated for not having an answer that you want to hear.

Its a valid concern given the price of the "game." What is being funded? The money we tossed at this project was supposed to help it get developed. We have seen very, very little progress after almost a year.

 

Edit: I'm not sure why anyone trusts Nate on anything. I mean I get you have done a born again KSP2 enthusiast thing, but it is fact that what Nate says has little bearing on reality.

Edited October 11, 2023 by Meecrob

[Scarecrow71]

20 minutes ago, Meecrob said:

The money we tossed at this project was supposed to help it get developed.

Again, no answer short of "Every employee we have is working around the clock on this game" will satisfy people.  So why ask?  As long as the answer is non-zero, that should be enough of an answer.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not happy with the game in its current state.  I haven't even fired it up since 0.1.4 dropped, and at that it was only to test the mod I created to make sure it was still functioning.  I probably won't fire it up again until after Science drops (which should then be 0.2.0, but I have no clue how their numbering will work with roadmap features).  But asking how many people are working on this game won't get anyone a satisfying answer.  Period.  Some people are going to be upset no matter how many people are working on this.  And still more will be upset at the state of the game until it hits whatever milestone they are waiting for (the vast majority of which are, based on my potentially incorrect research, waiting on multiplayer, which is A LONG WAY OFF). 

24 minutes ago, Meecrob said:

I mean I get you have done a born again KSP2 enthusiast thing

Wrong.  I'm not a born-again KSP2 enthusiast.  I'm just trying to be more civil about how I feel about the game.  Trying to get my point across while not being a complete PITA about it.  I still don't like the game, I still don't like the cadence, I still think we got jobbed, and I still think that the company needs to do something quickly before the IP dies.  I'm just trying to be less d-baggy about it.  I can get my point across being civil, which is what I hope I'm doing.

[Meecrob]

1 hour ago, regex said:

I don't feel that way at all and that's probably the disconnect. Once a company rep said "early access" I knew what to expect, whatever expectations they set through hype or interviews beforehand (which I didn't pay much attention to tbh). But yeah, that's me.

And I was precise and specific about bringing autostrut, a feature I feel completely trivialized an already badly designed game, into KSP2, so maybe try taking your own advice.

So basically you expected a turd of a game?  Thats cool bro. Most people get upset when they spend $50 on a turd. You can say "EA" all you want, but after all this time, there is not any noticeable movement on the roadmap. I honestly wouldn't even be upset if they came clean and said something like "we need 2 years to fix this" then at least we would have a real roadmap. Don't abuse your fans. Tell them the truth. Its not difficult.

[Scarecrow71]

1 minute ago, Meecrob said:

So basically you expected a turd of a game?  Thats cool bro. Most people get upset when they spend $50 on a turd. You can say "EA" all you want, but after all this time, there is not any noticeable movement on the roadmap. I honestly wouldn't even be upset if they came clean and said something like "we need 2 years to fix this" then at least we would have a real roadmap. Don't abuse your fans. Tell them the truth. Its not difficult.

Yeah, that's what I was trying to convey when I said this wasn't prototypical for an EA release.  The expectations that were set did not match the game when it came out, and although there are comparables in the market to this one (NMS, Factorio, to name a couple), this is the exception and not the rule.  Thank you for stating it far better than I did!

[Bej Kerman]

31 minutes ago, Scarecrow71 said:

58 minutes ago, Meecrob said:

I mean I get you have done a born again KSP2 enthusiast thing

Wrong.  I'm not a born-again KSP2 enthusiast.  I'm just trying to be more civil about how I feel about the game.  Trying to get my point across while not being a complete PITA about it.  I still don't like the game, I still don't like the cadence, I still think we got jobbed, and I still think that the company needs to do something quickly before the IP dies.  I'm just trying to be less d-baggy about it.  I can get my point across being civil, which is what I hope I'm doing.

You've nailed the problem this game's community has had since KSP 2 dropped. The cynicism wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't shoved in everyone's faces. Pretty much every thread contains some variant of someone liquiding on someone else's bonfire cause they're unhappy with the game, and I see sweet FA being done about it.

[Guest]

28 minutes ago, Meecrob said:

So basically you expected a turd of a game?

No, I expected a game in active development. Big difference. And I won't make my judgement over whether it's a "turd" until they claim it's been released.

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Meecrob said:

Its a valid concern given the price of the "game." What is being funded? The money we tossed at this project was supposed to help it get developed. We have seen very, very little progress after almost a year.

EA isn’t crowdfunding nor is it a finished game. It’s what it says on the label: early access to a game that’s in development, no more, no less.

[Guest]

10 hours ago, shelshok said:

It's the silence that is causing concerns that there's nothing (or not enough) going on over there.

I don’t think it’s the silence, in fact I don’t think there is any silence, I think they’re communicating quite a lot really. I think it’s simply that progress has been slower than expected.

[Strawberry]

12 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

As for the OP's question: They're not gonna tell us. We know from their linkedin that IG is working on another project simultaneously. So either KSP2 is on a skeleton crew, or they really aren't cut for the position. Sadly time has ran out and there's no other way about it, unless they magically showed up with a complete game they had been developing in DBZ's Hyperbolic Time Chamber.

Offically, these teams are kept seperate and honestly at least when it comes to engineers I have no reason to disbelieve this stance. Like, I wouldnt be suprised if early on for the second game some artists and designers came along and helped kickstart it, but artists and designers just arent the speed limit for ksp2 so like okay. For most of the engineers, it just doesnt make sense to have them work on the second game because the type of engineers ksp2 has arent cheap.
 

We dont know much about the second game besides its science themed and probably level based, but its a safe bet that the technical implementation of it is far easier then ksps because most games are. Paul Furio (former tech director who has hired most of the current engineers) approach was as far as i can tell to hire select very talented engineers, you can look at their linkedins and theyre impressive. These types of engineers arent cheap, and using these engineers you hired to focus on incredibly technical issues to do stuff your average unity dev can do is just throwing money down the drain, which seems counterproductive to being a cashgrab. 

[Lyneira]

A somewhat tangential question, but I've seen mention of software engineer positions at IG with different roman numerals in them such as:

• Software Engineer II, Visual Effects
• Software Engineer III, Multiplayer
• Software Engineer III, Audio

I imagine there's also a Software Engineer I. What's the significance of the roman numerals?

[Alexoff]

5 hours ago, Periple said:

I don’t think it’s the silence, in fact I don’t think there is any silence, I think they’re communicating quite a lot really. I think it’s simply that progress has been slower than expected.

Typically, early access games have a high level of communication. In the end, two community managers were hired for this. But perhaps they really have nothing to tell in terms of development progress

[Safarte]

39 minutes ago, Lyneira said:

A somewhat tangential question, but I've seen mention of software engineer positions at IG with different roman numerals in them such as:

• Software Engineer II, Visual Effects
• Software Engineer III, Multiplayer
• Software Engineer III, Audio

I imagine there's also a Software Engineer I. What's the significance of the roman numerals?

It usually corresponds to the seniority level of the position (i.e. larger roman numeral means more experienced position).

It's not really a standardized system though, each company kinda does its own thing with this.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Safarte said:

It usually corresponds to the seniority level of the position (i.e. larger roman numeral means more experienced position).

It's not really a standardized system though, each company kinda does its own thing with this.

Yeah it's not really standardized but it's something more or less like this (with a grade or two above VI for senior management and sometimes a grade 0 for trainees):

I - Associate/Junior
II - Mid-level
III - Senior
IV - Principal/Lead 
V - Director

[VlonaldKerman]

20 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

Thankfully we have sources that point to this not being the case. Development started 2017.  Why people keep hiding under the same scapegoats time and time again when they've been told by T2, PD and IG that the game started being developed in 2017, that COVID wasn't a problem and that EA was gonna be updated in weeks not months is beyond me.

The fact that development started in 2017 does not mean that large parts of the game were not scrapped at one point. I don’t think it’s a scapegoat- I think it constitutes mismanagement and also dishonesty when they didn’t come out and talk about it and continued to promise that the full game was temporally close.

20 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

It doesn't even fit as coping, it's either maliciously spreading misinformation, or outright refusing to accept reality.

Personally, I’m maliciously spreading misinformation.

[Alpha_star]

Yeah, but to me endlessly arguing on this is not going to help the development of KSP2 anyways, just creating more keyboard conflicts. Just my answer here: 15-50 developers currently working on the game and we do not know anything specific about the "work-in-progress game".

[VlonaldKerman]

8 hours ago, Periple said:

EA isn’t crowdfunding nor is it a finished game. It’s what it says on the label: early access to a game that’s in development, no more, no less.

Why did KSP 2 release when it did if it wasn’t about getting sales revenue at that time? Several long forum threads have been about this- but I think it’s pretty clear that the game was pushed out by corporate, possibly because it was taking too long and they wanted to be reassured that there was actually a market.

If it was released because they wanted $$$, then it’s probably crowdfunding!

[MechBFP]

12 minutes ago, VlonaldKerman said:

If it was released because they wanted $$$, then it’s probably crowdfunding

That’s nots how crowd funding works.

Needing money, and wanting money, are two very different things. 

[VlonaldKerman]

10 minutes ago, MechBFP said:

That’s nots how crowd funding works.

Needing money, and wanting money, are two very different things. 

Not if the continuation of your project is contingent on your corporate overlords being satisfied with sales.

This is the big budget version of an indie dev trying to get a loan. “Look, the EA is popular, fund me!” Except T2 corporate is the lender.

I suppose it’s not literally crowdfunding, but it’s close.

Edited October 12, 2023 by VlonaldKerman

[PDCWolf]

1 hour ago, VlonaldKerman said:

The fact that development started in 2017 does not mean that large parts of the game were not scrapped at one point.

Which is conjecture at best since, like it's always been the problem, they haven't mentioned anything about this. In fact, you can go and check their communications back then and everything was very clearly doing just fine... right?

[Guest]

3 hours ago, VlonaldKerman said:

Not if the continuation of your project is contingent on your corporate overlords being satisfied with sales.

That's not how it works. It is true for MMOs or franchises (a sequel is unlikely to get funded if the first game didn't sell well and an MMO will get canned if it doesn't have players) but EA sales are really unlikely to factor into a decision to continue funding a game. 

If KSP2 does get canceled it won't be because of EA sales. And the threshold to cancel a game that's in EA (or even officially announced) is pretty high!

4 hours ago, VlonaldKerman said:

Why did KSP 2 release when it did if it wasn’t about getting sales revenue at that time? Several long forum threads have been about this- but I think it’s pretty clear that the game was pushed out by corporate, possibly because it was taking too long and they wanted to be reassured that there was actually a market.

There are all kinds of reasons but without knowing more about it, anything we can say is speculation. 

It's possible that the publisher did indeed feel that the studio was spinning their wheels and needed a hard deadline to focus their minds. If so then that was clearly a bad call, or rather they should have paid proper attention to managing expectations.

Edited October 12, 2023 by Guest

[Vanamonde]

Since the question about how many devs work on the game has turned into a repetition of existing discussions, it has been merged into the main discussion thread.