What happened to increased communication?

[cocoscacao]

2 hours ago, The Aziz said:

If you can name any other company that did this months in advance

So... What happened to increased communication?

[Scarecrow71]

Got time to come up with yet another weekly challenge, but no time to get that internal calendar sorted and get us a KERB or an update on development.

Sigh.

[calabus2]

21 minutes ago, Scarecrow71 said:

Got time to come up with yet another weekly challenge, but no time to get that internal calendar sorted and get us a KERB or an update on development.

Sigh.

It's called PR...look it up.    /s

Keep the dwindling community engaged and playing your game to help the Steam numbers while they scramble to keep money coming in and try to fix a few bugs....that continue to be there since release....a year ago. All the while ignoring any calls for transparency and updates. It's almost like they released a AAA title at a AAA price, delivered a pre-alpha and think they hit three run homer. 

[Spicat]

1 hour ago, calabus2 said:

It's almost like they released a AAA title at a AAA price

Totally off topic but it's funny to me that everyone keeps saying that. Have you seen AAA price lately? They are at $70 (and now $80 on console) and it's not even talking about all the absurdity next to it, like with the ultimate edition that can crank the price up to $120 to have the full game.

There are some that still sell for $60 (still not ksp2 price tho) fortunately, but it's getting rarer.

[Scarecrow71]

7 minutes ago, Spicat said:

Totally off topic but it's funny to me that everyone keeps saying that. Have you seen AAA price lately? They are at $70 (and now $80 on console) and it's not even talking about all the absurdity next to it, like with the ultimate edition that can crank the price up to $120 to have the full game.

There are some that still sell for $60 (still not ksp2 price tho) fortunately, but it's getting rarer.

Well, the game is certainly overpriced for an EA title.  @HarvesteR just released Kit Hack on Steam, and it's $16.  Apparently, with multiplayer.  And mod support.  And a level editor.  You know, all the things we get told are coming soon?

https://store.steampowered.com/app/2107090/KitHack_Model_Club/

[Pthigrivi]

2 hours ago, calabus2 said:

It's called PR...look it up.    /s

Keep the dwindling community engaged and playing your game to help the Steam numbers while they scramble to keep money coming in and try to fix a few bugs....that continue to be there since release....a year ago. All the while ignoring any calls for transparency and updates. It's almost like they released a AAA title at a AAA price, delivered a pre-alpha and think they hit three run homer. 

I mean really love this team and I think things are coming along nicely but I believe even they see it as getting on base after a tough at bat. Unfortunately we're living in a really toxic gaming culture and its got to be hard for passionate developers and designers to gauge real reactions and actionable feedback in a clear and honest way. The atmosphere from a vocal player standpoint is to take all of these things really personally, or pretend to take them really personally, and then engage in an over-the-top Kabuki dance of feigned rage demanding groveling supplication from the corporate entities they've been wronged by because they think thats the only way games improve. But it's kind of like Cable news outlets constantly running BREAKING NEWS banners. If you're always turning everything up to 11 then people who might listen might as well just tune you out.  If players believe rage-bombing every title that doesn't meet their expectations is the only way to convince developers to improve their products then eventually developers are just going to take those flame-campaigns less seriously. I would guess they already are. They'll look to more balanced and genuinely informative heuristics to identify the worst problems and work their way up from there. 

As test case lets talk about Cyberpunk--widely dragged and laughed at when it first released and probably deservedly so. It probably should have incubated for a couple more years. And now all of the initial hard work of good writing and good VA and story can be capitalized on because they fixed most of the bugs and redesigned the core mechanics into something incredible. Which is great! I genuinely hope as colonies and interstellar and resources are phased in the folks at Intercept remain open to making big internal changes to game mechanics depending on how things play out. What matters in the end is how the 1.0 product actually plays. Is it fun? Is it deep? Are the actual mechanics well tuned? is QOL up to snuff? Thats what matters. In my experience most people in this world are doing their best to be good at what they do. They're already incentivized to do that. Heaping shame and vitriol on them usually makes things worse, not better. The changes Cyberpunk made weren't just because players dragged CDPR through the mud. In fact the more substantive changes outside of bug-fixes--police system, fixing drops and the tech tree, etc. only come from very specific and clear feedback on whats not working and then having the time and creative process to create new and better systems. I personally would argue if you as a gamer are dissatisfied you produce more specific and actionable feedback on whats wrong--and passionately so!--rather than focus on grievances. 

Edited April 15 by Pthigrivi

[Icegrx]

1 hour ago, Pthigrivi said:

As test case lets talk about Cyberpunk--widely dragged and laughed at when it first released and probably deservedly so. It probably should have incubated for a couple more years. And now all of the initial hard work of good writing and good VA and story can be capitalized on because they fixed most of the bugs and redesigned the core mechanics into something incredible. 

I don’t see this as a great comparison. 
yes Cyberpunk fell short of its initial promises, and lacked a few features that I should have had. 

However, even during its rocky release, Cyberpunk had 10x the playability that KSP2 currently has. Not to mention a full story, voice acting, AAA graphics and released on multiple platforms. 

They also kept communication way up, and were pretty darn transparent while rebuilding community trust and implementing promised features. 

KSP2 currently plays like an incomplete test demo. 
 

[PDCWolf]

1 hour ago, Pthigrivi said:

I mean really love this team and I think things are coming along nicely but I believe even they see it as getting on base after a tough at bat. Unfortunately we're living in a really toxic gaming culture and its got to be hard for passionate developers and designers to gauge real reactions and actionable feedback in a clear and honest way. The atmosphere from a vocal player standpoint is to take all of these things really personally, or pretend to take them really personally, and then engage in an over-the-top Kabuki dance of feigned rage demanding groveling supplication from the corporate entities they've been wronged by because they think thats the only way games improve. But it's kind of like Cable news outlets constantly running BREAKING NEWS banners. If you're always turning everything up to 11 then people who might listen might as well just tune you out.  If players believe rage-bombing every title that doesn't meet their expectations is the only way to convince developers to improve their products then eventually developers are just going to take those flame-campaigns less seriously. I would guess they already are. They'll look to more balanced and genuinely informative heuristics to identify the worst problems and work their way up from there.

That's being really hellbent on ignoring the multiple rounds of feedback they've received. They have received tons of well mannered, nicely written, interesting, centered and directed feedback from all skill levels. That you somehow wish to make a point by ignoring that is not helping your case, because literally everyone this point seems aimed at will tell you again and again that feedback has been provided in the best manner and interest already, and everything else came after.

As for the bombing, in this particular case, the game got absolutely bombed because it didn't work. People paid $50 for a product they had been told for 4 years was one thing, and then not only wasn't that but DID. NOT. WORK. That anyone, let alone someone not in the project expects anything different from the community to what happened is baffling, surprising and even a little bit saddening.

2 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

As test case lets talk about Cyberpunk--widely dragged and laughed at when it first released and probably deservedly so. It probably should have incubated for a couple more years. And now all of the initial hard work of good writing and good VA and story can be capitalized on because they fixed most of the bugs and redesigned the core mechanics into something incredible.

And whilst the game is good now, it's still missing all the features they publicly and stealthily cancelled before release, and it'll never go back to being what it was supposed to be. That developers or publishers expect people to just smile and open their wallets when they show something for years and then come out saying "woops, that feature didn't make it" is again, surprising. It really requires PR people to have a face made of unobtainium to just show a product for years and then still ask for money when whatever else comes out, let alone a non working product.

Again, to clarify: CP2077 is a great game, they had the gall to stick to it and fix it, and then sell us a great DLC tied to an update that elevates the game, but it is still missing a lot of stuff.

2 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

I genuinely hope as colonies and interstellar and resources are phased in the folks at Intercept remain open to making big internal changes to game mechanics depending on how things play out. What matters in the end is how the 1.0 product actually plays.

This is a misconception. Branding a product as "Early Access" doesn't mean you get to do whatever until 1.0. For all practical matters, for customer retention, product placement and what not, the game already launched. What matters for everyone who saw the product at release is that, and maybe some will give it a second chance on subsequent updates, and some already gave it a second chance during the FS! release.

2 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

They're already incentivized to do that. Heaping shame and vitriol on them usually makes things worse, not better.

On the one hand, the wobble changes disagree, on the other, them refusing to change a font does agree.

2 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

The changes Cyberpunk made weren't just because players dragged CDPR through the mud.

CDPR wasn't just trashed by players and critics, it got a lawsuit from investors alleging they were defrauded (they settled last year for almost $2M), it got a stock value drop of more than 50%, wiping a lot of money from them and their investors, along with investor goodwill. Citing CDPR as an example doesn't bring up the human side, it brings up that you gotta hit them where they hurt: their pockets. Most big changes in gaming tend to agree with that too, like Halo infinite pushing prices down, or Darktide deobfuscating their currency, or OVW2 dying because they pretty much scammed their original purchasers.

As a closing, I'd say stop assuming people are mad for nothing, because people are mad at IG well within reason, as feedback has been ignored, IG has gone silent, and the stuff they put out whilst silent seems tone deaf to the community at best, and completely insufficient at worst.

[Pthigrivi]

1 hour ago, PDCWolf said:

As a closing, I'd say stop assuming people are mad for nothing, because people are mad at IG well within reason, as feedback has been ignored, IG has gone silent, and the stuff they put out whilst silent seems tone deaf to the community at best, and completely insufficient at worst.

But like, its still just a game, dude. You don’t have to buy it and you don’t have to play it. Purchases are voluntary and no one is dying here. This isn’t personal. All of the histrionic pearl clutching just seems so put on at this point. A lot of folks have given good feedback. Thats great. Thats useful. Continuing to whine for years and years on end about some apparent personal harm thats been done to you by a video game that didn’t live up to your expectations in the timeframe you imagined seems super weird to me. If you don’t have the patience to let the devs succeed or not that’s fine. Ymmv. If you’re really that mad just take your money and time to other games and move on with your life. 

Edited April 16 by Pthigrivi

[Pthigrivi]

2 hours ago, Icegrx said:

I don’t see this as a great comparison. 
yes Cyberpunk fell short of its initial promises, and lacked a few features that I should have had. 

However, even during its rocky release, Cyberpunk had 10x the playability that KSP2 currently has. Not to mention a full story, voice acting, AAA graphics and released on multiple platforms. 

They also kept communication way up, and were pretty darn transparent while rebuilding community trust and implementing promised features. 

KSP2 currently plays like an incomplete test demo. 
 

My question is: if all negative feedback is framed in the same tone of personally aggrieved apoplexy about process and promises rather than actual content and quality why and how should anyone take it seriously?  Why not skip the theater and performative anger of it all and just cut to the actual, substantive feedback? Because as far as I can tell the former achieves nothing and dilutes and distracts from the latter. 

Edited April 16 by Pthigrivi

[steveman0]

2 hours ago, Icegrx said:

KSP2 currently plays like an incomplete test demo. 

You mean the release version or the current version with For Science? Because if you mean the latter I have to hard disagree. It still has bugs, sure, but the exploration mode was a blast to play for over 100 hours before I got burnt out collecting a quarter million science and decided to detour to a few other games while I await colonies. The missions were great and the overall experience was far more compelling than KSP1. I still think I have a few dozen more hours clocked on the first than KSP2, but I have zero interest in going back to the original over just continuing off with the Moho mission I have lined up next.

The lack of communication is disappointing, but mostly because they hit it out of the park with FS and I'm really excited to start hearing how the design theory on colonies is turning into practical implementation.

[Icegrx]

14 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

My question is: if all negative feedback is framed in the same tone of personally aggrieved apoplexy about process and promises rather than actual content and quality why and how should anyone take it seriously?  Why not skip the theater and performative anger of it all and just cut to the actual, substantive feedback? Because as far as I can tell the former achieves nothing and dilutes and distracts from the latter. 

It’s a bit of both. 

I see people yelling about the CM making a post rather than “updating the game” which is silly as the CM has nothing to do with the development itself. Those are 100% personally aggrieved people. 

I’ve also seen people post really in depth bug reports, very well thought out development ideas, and very valid criticism with details. These people typically get labeled as grandstanders and “standing on a soapbox” 

as with everything in life, it’s not black and white. 

[Pthigrivi]

14 minutes ago, Icegrx said:

I’ve also seen people post really in depth bug reports, very well thought out development ideas, and very valid criticism with details. These people typically get labeled as grandstanders and “standing on a soapbox” 

as with everything in life, it’s not black and white. 

No I completely agree. The latter is exactly what folks should do, and I haven’t been shy in voicing my own view on missing game elements that are sorely holding the game back (primarily flight and transfer planning tools, but also the lack of planetary mapping, no plans for LS, etc. ) I also acknowledge that Im just one data point among many and thats my personal perspective. I guess I think the genuine substance of the critique is enough and can only be muddied by dredging up personal slights. 

Edited April 16 by Pthigrivi

[Fizzlebop Smith]

34 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

But like, its still just a game, dude. You don’t have to buy it and you don’t have to play it. Purchases are voluntary and no one is dying here. This isn’t personal. All of the histrionic pearl clutching just seems so put on at this point. A lot of folks have given good feedback. Thats great. Thats useful. Continuing to whine for years and years on end about some apparent personal harm thats been done to you by a video game that didn’t live up to your expectations in the timeframe you imagined seems super weird to me. If you don’t have the patience to let the devs succeed or not that’s fine. Ymmv. If you’re really that mad just take your money and time to other games and move on with your life. 

I am going to ask that you stop acting like the majority of this commentary is somehow without merit.

When the points you attempt to make are so eloquently rebutted, you shift the goal post to "its just game"
I do not think that "its just an X,Y,Z" is as acceptable excuse for the very last point that @PCDWolf made. It is not about patience. The majority of the rebuttal addressed that very issue and the last year we have been actively attempting to gain insight on the direction this game plans to take.

They have been tight lipped because the community was promised for years that this game would have a certain goal. KSP PLUS.
It was immediately apparent that a different direction was chosen and we clamored for something of substance regarding this.

The stuff that does come out is pure PR content and nothing of merit with regard to game direction.
The only thing worth a dang at all on the future of this game was completely compiled by @The Space Peacock... with much of it dated. How much of these old conversations and ideas are going to stay?


You are not understanding how long it took for took to get them to even consider certain important things seriously...
Like Wobble
Font
UI
TimeWarp Constraints

Things that are not "official' bugs are often ignored when we question specifics or insight in decisions.

Official Bugs (Up Until Recently) has been difficult to navigate with key word searches not always resulting in success.  This compounds with many redundant postings and ignored issues

NO ONE can say that this game was playtesting in an organic manner.  EA is not for Alpha State drops.. not traditionally.

This leaves us guessing as to why and what.. with the track record our imaginations see "the best prediction for the future is the past" WE want this game to succeed.
But we also want that success to be within some realm of what we enjoyed about the first game...

People would talk about other things than how crappy "radio silence is" if we were given something to talk about.

 

[Pthigrivi]

20 minutes ago, Fizzlebop Smith said:

I am going to ask that you stop acting like the majority of this commentary is somehow without merit.

When the points you attempt to make are so eloquently rebutted, you shift the goal post to "its just game"
I do not think that "its just an X,Y,Z" is as acceptable excuse for the very last point that @PCDWolf made. It is not about patience. The majority of the rebuttal addressed that very issue and the last year we have been actively attempting to gain insight on the direction this game plans to take.

They have been tight lipped because the community was promised for years that this game would have a certain goal. KSP PLUS.
It was immediately apparent that a different direction was chosen and we clamored for something of substance regarding this.

The stuff that does come out is pure PR content and nothing of merit with regard to game direction.
The only thing worth a dang at all on the future of this game was completely compiled by @The Space Peacock... with much of it dated. How much of these old conversations and ideas are going to stay?


You are not understanding how long it took for took to get them to even consider certain important things seriously...
Like Wobble
Font
UI
TimeWarp Constraints

Things that are not "official' bugs are often ignored when we question specifics or insight in decisions.

Official Bugs (Up Until Recently) has been difficult to navigate with key word searches not always resulting in success.  This compounds with many redundant postings and ignored issues

NO ONE can say that this game was playtesting in an organic manner.  EA is not for Alpha State drops.. not traditionally.

This leaves us guessing as to why and what.. with the track record our imaginations see "the best prediction for the future is the past" WE want this game to succeed.
But we also want that success to be within some realm of what we enjoyed about the first game...

People would talk about other things than how crappy "radio silence is" if we were given something to talk about.

 

The point is that the tone of personal aggrievement is so wildly overstated given the actual stakes of the situation that it just can’t be taken seriously. The actual things you mentioned: wobble, font, UI, orbital decay and I would add my own list absolutely were of the highest priority and everyone was pretty clear on that. Again those are genuine substantive issues and 100% fair game. They have and are tackling those things as they should be. 
 

You’ve got to realize though by focusing instead on “but you promised!” complaints you’re actually disincentivizing transparency, because any sneak peak or WIP or planned feature leak just becomes fodder for more accusations of false promises, even if features are cut or altered for legitimate reasons. If fans are going to throw a fit every time their expectations aren’t met its best to just not say or release anything until its fully ready. 

 

 

Edited April 16 by Pthigrivi

[Fizzlebop Smith]

I would like to point out that you are the one focusing on the "but you promised complaints"

The rest of us are rallying behind common complaints among of which that isnt even one.  (Its where the heck  is Real Information of State of Game Developement)
The fact that there are many does not dismiss the right of the individual to express similar concerns.

It would be silly for the corporation ignore its current rating of reviews (the metric to project future earnings) or that so many are being changed.  Some as recent as yesterday. 
Many of those voicing similar concerns.

To think that a review rating in the red or hundreds of comments on an official aren't going to be heard, that is just silly.

Whether or not they choose to listen is another matter.

Regardless of what the perceived wrong was. The fundamental right being exercised, is the right of the consumer. Which thankfully is protected in much of the developed world.

These will also be the conversations i remember when next i see a PD or T2 product. It also has changed the way in which i review products.  Instead of just looking at release cadence and skimming reviews, i specifically look for discussions where the developers actively engage with the community.  When a couple people complain on an official platform for the product, i look at the metrics of a few disgruntled people.

When long term members of the community with protracted histories of helpful and insightful posts start to say something, its something else. Something more than just poodleing or just being a misanthrope. Its usually indicative of something larger for which this is the symptom.


What i think truly dilutes the merit of the topic is silly quibbles over whether its a valid topic.

If i sold you a bottle of (Yellow) liquid and told you it was beer..

If it was so yummy you wanted more.. you would likely be upset if i refused communication
If you determined it was (Yellow) liquid.. you would also likely be uspet you could not find me

The degree of distress is relative to the subjective nature of the individual

Edited April 16 by Fizzlebop Smith

[Spicat]

6 hours ago, Scarecrow71 said:

Well, the game is certainly overpriced for an EA title.  @HarvesteR just released Kit Hack on Steam, and it's $16.  Apparently, with multiplayer.  And mod support.  And a level editor.  You know, all the things we get told are coming soon?

https://store.steampowered.com/app/2107090/KitHack_Model_Club/

Oh I’m not disagreeing, it’s currently not worth this amount of money. That’s why I didn’t put a review (good or bad) yet despite having 400 hours into the game.

But it’s just not "AAA priced" nor "full price". 

[cocoscacao]

3 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

The point is that the tone of personal aggrievement is so wildly overstated given the actual stakes of the situation that it just can’t be taken seriously

Of course. If we only "overreacted" when a hungry lion is in the immediate vicinity, I don't think we would come a long way as a society. A car is just a car, after all. So is money. Music. Computers. Biology.. Whatever tickles you... But it tickles, and that's a good thing. I'm fully aware that I have a first world problem. But if there was no such thing at this point, that would mean that all of us here would be in a nuclear wasteland, fighting over remaining canned food. So I'm happy to battle over opinions 

 

@Dakota Maybe this exists, and has slipped my attention... Is there a chance to at least get an overview of how news/updates are done? If you have a feature X, when do you post it as a sneakpeek? How decisions are made to share it at all? What's allowed and not allowed to talk about? I'm having troubles to form a proper question here.

Edited April 16 by cocoscacao

[steveman0]

8 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

If fans are going to throw a fit every time their expectations aren’t met its best to just not say or release anything until its fully ready. 

This is honestly probably the most accurate picture of the situation as I see it. For Science felt like it came out of the blue and really nailed a lot of what they were going for with the update. It was remarkably well received and yet there are still people who downplay its success and the accomplishment of the team to move the game in the right direction. I can't really blame the devs and team as a whole at IG to not want to engage with the community right now when the overarching atmosphere is one of extreme impatience.

I personally have always been one to champion quality over speed. I'm happy to see the devs focusing heavily on quality in their current approach and this shows in the results of the FS release. If they keep this up, each milestone will win favor back bit by bit.

[PDCWolf]

9 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

But like, its still just a game, dude. You don’t have to buy it and you don’t have to play it. Purchases are voluntary and no one is dying here. This isn’t personal. All of the histrionic pearl clutching just seems so put on at this point. A lot of folks have given good feedback. Thats great. Thats useful. Continuing to whine for years and years on end about some apparent personal harm thats been done to you by a video game that didn’t live up to your expectations in the timeframe you imagined seems super weird to me. If you don’t have the patience to let the devs succeed or not that’s fine. Ymmv. If you’re really that mad just take your money and time to other games and move on with your life. 

People aren't in this forum or protesting KSP2 perpetually, I check maybe twice a day tops for example, most "pearl clutchers" and "whiners" are not crying on the streets about it, that's just consistent hyperbole trying to handwave complaints and criticism away to force the tone of the forum into a desired one.

Most "pearl clutchers" just actually left their negative review and left probably forever. Others came here and provided feedback, got ignored like 99% of feedback and left, again probably forever. And the rest that stuck around this far still have some semblance of hope, or at least want to see where this ship is going because they keep giving developers another chance, which is exactly what some are asking for, but since it's easier to label people as whiners than to actually read what they post about, we end up in the same overacted hyperbole.

That's what seems super weird to me, it's always this demonizing and hyperbolic short-of-personal attacks to anyone who dares say anything without "dear devs", "please" and "thank you", specially because people have actually tried that. In fact, I remember some people asking very nicely about the UI and fonts after release because they can't read. And where did that feedback end 14 months later? And somehow some expect people to just say "oh well, that's $50 and a year of my time on a game I can't read the font of" and go without saying anything? They're at least gonna have some colorful thing to say, probably on their reviews.

9 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

My question is: if all negative feedback is framed in the same tone of personally aggrieved apoplexy about process and promises rather than actual content and quality why and how should anyone take it seriously?  Why not skip the theater and performative anger of it all and just cut to the actual, substantive feedback? Because as far as I can tell the former achieves nothing and dilutes and distracts from the latter. 

Well, they didn't take the nicely framed feedback seriously either. At least nothing to show for it yet. All we got from the feedback on the heat devblog was never seeing another in depth devblog about a proper core feature and none of the important questions addressed, just a tantrum-ish stomp on the floor.

9 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

 Again those are genuine substantive issues and 100% fair game. They have and are tackling those things as they should be.

14 months and counting to change a font. No more questions your honor.

9 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

You’ve got to realize though by focusing instead on “but you promised!” complaints you’re actually disincentivizing transparency, because any sneak peak or WIP or planned feature leak just becomes fodder for more accusations of false promises, even if features are cut or altered for legitimate reasons. If fans are going to throw a fit every time their expectations aren’t met its best to just not say or release anything until its fully ready. 

God forbid devs actually have any semblance of value for their words... If they can't show anything because not even they know what's gonna end up in the game, what are we even doing here? Plus, they put themselves under such a scrutinizing eye by being, themselves, unfaithful to their own dates, and promises first. Again, more hyperbole to blame the community and completely sidestepping what's been done wrong by the devs.

33 minutes ago, steveman0 said:

This is honestly probably the most accurate picture of the situation as I see it. For Science felt like it came out of the blue and really nailed a lot of what they were going for with the update. It was remarkably well received

You can absolutely like the update and have fun and hundreds of hours in it, but reception is a measurable fact and oh boy. Reviews barely budged up to mixed from mostly negative, and there was another influx of negatives with that. The subreddit started automatically (by humans, not bots Dakota) downvoting KSP2 content again, media coverage was null. Sure, the player numbers jumped, but only to a quarter of the peak, and rapidly went back to <5% of original players, and half of KSP1. Also, the constant "complaining about complaining" and dwindling of activity tells you that even here the reception wasn't that good.

Again, nothing to do with you liking it, nothing against you liking either.

7 hours ago, Spicat said:

Oh I’m not disagreeing, it’s currently not worth this amount of money. That’s why I didn’t put a review (good or bad) yet despite having 400 hours into the game.

But it’s just not "AAA priced" nor "full price". 

This is a fallacy.

Publishers colluding to jack the price of their products and sending money under the table to gaming media to agree, even though the market cap has gone so high games are more profitable than movies and music combined (and adult entertainment too!), makes no economical sense other than to further pad their pockets. The decrease of sales in blockbuster AAA titles will easily tell you that no, games aren't $70, except for a select few million players that live well enough to throw $70 away without a second thought.

As evidence fresh in my mind, the fastest selling and most played game in the last 2 decades is a $15 indie (15 million copies in a month, 19 million active concurrent players). And I'm sure you don't need me to link anything about the general sentiment towards the AAA industry, how many jobs/studios have been lost (10000 last year, 8000 more in just this quarter of 2024), and how franchises are dropping like flies because the AAA machine is destroying itself by failing to understand what the public wants.

[NH4Cl Enthusiast]

9 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

 

You’ve got to realize though by focusing instead on “but you promised!” complaints you’re actually disincentivizing transparency, because any sneak peak or WIP or planned feature leak just becomes fodder for more accusations of false promises, even if features are cut or altered for legitimate reasons. If fans are going to throw a fit every time their expectations aren’t met its best to just not say or release anything until its fully ready. 

 

 

This point of view has a few interesting undertones. First you seem to be assuming that any or at least most of the negative responses are by default overreacting and uncalled for, instead of justified. If they did promise something and did not deliver, why should the response not be calling them out?

It also seems to me that your assumption is that because the feedback so far to the communication has been mostly negative, it must be the fault of the people giving the feedback instead of the communication itself causing this. 

You also do seem to think that by default if there are previews or sneak peaks communicated, there will be a significant amount of things shown in those communications which will be cut or altered to the point of aggravating the audience. And this to me is really interesting. In fact you don't seem to think that they are capable of communicating in a reliable and truthful manner. Because if you did, you wouldn't be presenting your argument in the first place. I want to point out that you are specifically talking about people's reaction to a situation where the devs are showcasing stuff that ends up being cut or altered or fail to meet expectations. To me it sounds like a pretty legitimate thing to complain about.

There are lots and lots of other companies which do just fine with this. Besides a game developer can't be a snowflake who throws their toys out of the pram just because their customers don't complain in a way the company would like. If for nothing else, for every loud complainer there's usually a hundred silent people who just read the news.

But the core issue with IG is that they consistently overpromise and underdeliver. That's why people react so poorly.

[Fizzlebop Smith]

1 hour ago, steveman0 said:

This is honestly probably the most accurate picture of the situation as I see it. For Science felt like it came out of the blue and really nailed a lot of what they were going for with the update. It was remarkably well received and yet there are still people who downplay its success and the accomplishment of the team to move the game in the right direction. I can't really blame the devs and team as a whole at IG to not want to engage with the community right now when the overarching atmosphere is one of extreme impatience.

I personally have always been one to champion quality over speed. I'm happy to see the devs focusing heavily on quality in their current approach and this shows in the results of the FS release. If they keep this up, each milestone will win favor back bit by bit.

I personally feel like FS was mediocre at best.

That is the problem with subjective interpretation. I would like to build some to support my stance.

 

The overwhelming success attributed to FS on steam used the 79% recent review rating as the benchmark.

That was 79% of 343 Reviews. A woefully small sample from the total 17k 

Currently that sits at 71% of 265 

 

People had a chance to change reviews with For Science and increase the overall metrics to support an idea of success.

From my personal perspective the biggest failure of ForScience was not adopting a more robust contract mechanic that offers a sustained replay gameloop mechanic.

Exploration was *asvertised* as the culmination of Science & Career yet failed to capture ANY aspect of career.

The sheer amount of bug present at launch essentially guarantees a problematic approach to content addition.

I found my particular flavor of enjoyment by embracing the mission mechanic & so far there is zero evidence that they plan to support anything like KSP1 missions.

I am not enthusiastic about *additional* missions.

I want a program where I can "choose" a mission or "reject".

I want to be able to earn enough plane parts to fly around Kerbin without having to blast by Jool for the points.

I understand inam not the community. But it is also in the same vein to say something was a great sign of success when it barely would shift the overall totals by less than 5%.

[Scarecrow71]

2 hours ago, steveman0 said:

I personally have always been one to champion quality over speed. I'm happy to see the devs focusing heavily on quality in their current approach and this shows in the results of the FS release. If they keep this up, each milestone will win favor back bit by bit.

And at what point should we start to expect some kind of speed then?  Remember that this game was beyond delayed multiple times for YEARS.  And now, in the span of 14 months - and in the face of being told "we are working on it!" - we have seen a handful of patches, grid-fins, and 1 content update.  If they were going any slower, they'd be moving in reverse.  How much leeway are we expected to give them after the endless promises of "it's almost ready" and "you are gonna love when we release [insert update here]"?

I agree that quality should be provided over quantity.  I also agree that you can't just go fast-fast-fast because people want you to.  But at some point they need to move with haste.

[MechBFP]

25 minutes ago, Scarecrow71 said:

And at what point should we start to expect some kind of speed then?  Remember that this game was beyond delayed multiple times for YEARS.  And now, in the span of 14 months - and in the face of being told "we are working on it!" - we have seen a handful of patches, grid-fins, and 1 content update.  If they were going any slower, they'd be moving in reverse.  How much leeway are we expected to give them after the endless promises of "it's almost ready" and "you are gonna love when we release [insert update here]"?

I agree that quality should be provided over quantity.  I also agree that you can't just go fast-fast-fast because people want you to.  But at some point they need to move with haste.

For all intents and purposes in my mind the game has only been getting properly developed for 2 years.  So take that how you will regarding timelines. 

[Flush Foot]

6 minutes ago, MechBFP said:

properly developed for 2 years

Uhh... when did you start counting for that? About a year before EA came out?