Take Two Interactive (Rockstar, 2K, Private Division) canceling games, ending projects and laying off 5% of its workforce

[PDCWolf]

7 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Rose tinted glasses.

What is? believing such fundamental flaws [1][2][3][4] could be fixed by the same amateurs that thought loading every part infobox in a single window when they can have the same names was a good idea? Yeah, that's definitely rose tinted glasses.

KSP1 was iconic. It's so iconic it's the reason a multi-billion-dollar company, the literally biggest publisher in gaming, was interested in acquiring the IP and murdering 2 studios trying to get a sequel out.

Your personal vendetta with KSP1 or whatever they did with it that you didn't like, can't change the facts.

[Bej Kerman]

9 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

What [tangent]

KSP 2 has a lot of technical issues, but gameplay flow is pretty much all an improvement. That's not rose tinted glasses, it's 'HarvesteR had a vendetta against dV readouts and should not be put in charge of a space game'. Fortunately, he doesnt seem interested anyway. I also have to add that yall don't seem willing to concede that KSP 1 was a wad of feces, both technically and in terms of gameplay. Again, KSP 1 was the game to rack up complaints of technical debt, not KSP 2. KSP 1 had the developer who refused to give players an idea of their vessels' dV and would rather spend time making planets prettier than fixing the holes in the parts list or making the game run less bad.

[PDCWolf]

34 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

KSP 2 has a lot of technical issues, but gameplay flow is pretty much all an improvement. That's not rose tinted glasses, it's 'HarvesteR had a vendetta against dV readouts and should not be put in charge of a space game'. Fortunately, he doesnt seem interested anyway. I also have to add that yall don't seem willing to concede that KSP 1 was a wad of feces, both technically and in terms of gameplay. Again, KSP 1 was the game to rack up complaints of technical debt, not KSP 2. KSP 1 had the developer who refused to give players an idea of their vessels' dV and would rather spend time making planets prettier than fixing the holes in the parts list or making the game run less bad.

Vitriol doesn't make this argument any more sound, not that it had any substance to it to begin with. We can talk about which game you like all day, but if you wanna talk objective stuff like the technical side, there's no place for opinions there.

KSP2 is a broken, unplayable, badly designed mess, left incomplete and wincing painfully on the ground after being unable to gather interest, sales, or any sort of trust in whatever might come out of it long term.

This is not to say that KSP1 is perfect, far from it, but hey, one is still being played by thousands, with a myriad more playing hyper modded saves, making vessels in the thousands of parts, adding planets to it, clouds, obscene levels of detail, gigabytes worth of parts, mission packs, entire mechanics, and it refuses to break under all of that except for some very specific cases.

[Bej Kerman]

4 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

it refuses to break under all of that except for some very specific cases

So, all the time. As you said, there's no place for opinions on the technical side. I lost track of the number of times things have broken in stock and with few mods, and that's just my own playthroughs. There's a wealth of critical KSP 1 bug reports you can read through that wouldn't be filed for a competently made game. Denying this would only be introducing opinion into an objective line of discussion, which is that KSP 1 is objectively bad on a technical level.

[K^2]

2 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

I also have to add that yall don't seem willing to concede that KSP 1 was a wad of feces, both technically and in terms of gameplay.

I mean, KSP was basically a hackathon project by beginners in the industry, who managed to make a successful game despite all odds and sometimes despite of themselves. It's full of problems, but I think you're being too harsh on it. I get that you're annoyed that people want to pretend that there were no flaws, and HarvesteR and the rest of the team were game development savants who got it right on the first try. And I mean, even HarvesteR doesn't believe that, clearly. But you're still overcorrecting. You core statements are not wrong, but the way you're delivering them is antagonizing. You know that classic, "Soylent Green is people!" scene? It can be like that sometimes.

And HarvesteR did say something that's very much true about how KSP1 happened. He essentially said that the fact that they didn't know what they were doing has got them to try things that others would have discarded, but ended up working for the game. And that's sort of the value of an indy and hackathon projects. But on the technical side, yeah, KSP is one giant technical debt. Even some of the things they correctly stumbled into and talk about as learning experience, I could have told them on day one, because it's a fairly typical problem.

And that's the bottom line. A game can be a technical and design disaster, and still be good, because it did things other games didn't. You really have to recognize both aspects of it if you want to try to replicate the success while cleaning out the debt, because it can be very hard to tell one from the other. The rocket wobble of KSP was clearly just a side effect of using Unity's joint system. But would completely, perfectly rigid rockets feel like playing KSP? I think the question alone can start a fierce debate between the fans and developers alike. And that's kind of where we are with the whole project.

[Infinite Aerospace]

4 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

Vitriol doesn't make this argument any more sound, not that it had any substance to it to begin with. We can talk about which game you like all day, but if you wanna talk objective stuff like the technical side, there's no place for opinions there.

KSP2 is a broken, unplayable, badly designed mess, left incomplete and wincing painfully on the ground after being unable to gather interest, sales, or any sort of trust in whatever might come out of it long term.

This is not to say that KSP1 is perfect, far from it, but hey, one is still being played by thousands, with a myriad more playing hyper modded saves, making vessels in the thousands of parts, adding planets to it, clouds, obscene levels of detail, gigabytes worth of parts, mission packs, entire mechanics, and it refuses to break under all of that except for some very specific cases.

Thing is, KSP2 isn't broken, I was literally playing the game last night and it wasn't in any way shape or form 'broken', and it was perfectly playable and I don't exactly have a high-end system.

[MechBFP]

3 hours ago, Infinite Aerospace said:

Thing is, KSP2 isn't broken, I was literally playing the game last night and it wasn't in any way shape or form 'broken', and it was perfectly playable and I don't exactly have a high-end system.

The main difference I find between the two is KSP1 is reliably janky while KSP2 is still unpredictable janky.

The first one is easier to play once you learn its flaws because they are quite consistent to produce and work around and that hasn’t changed much since about 1.3.

KSP2 as a result of being a work in progress is quite unpredictable between versions so anything you learned before about the jank can be thrown out the window and replaced with new stuff every update. 

[Fizzlebop Smith]

11 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

The two examples you showed me: a test payload which can be switched out for anything and was likely suggested by an employee who is in on the niche, and a brief reference in a show. Not convinced. In especially the former example, it's like saying Microsoft Flight Simulator and Vatsim aren't niche because a lot of real pilots are into it, as if that'd make it any easier to explain to a friend with different interests to you. It's not like Snoopy where the reference isn't lost on people outside the niche, people actually know what Snoopy is.

If you think any object placed into space is done so on whim or whimsy, I would seriously challenge that stance.

There was an entire team of people somewhere that agreed the payload in question is / was a worthwhile pursuit.

Or someone sacrificed their personal carryon. Either way show me a picture of He-man or a Ninja Turtle in space.. or whatever media the kids like today.

It may have been a niche product when it dropped into EA. As the game inspired a generation of youth to pursue STEM related fields.. it obtained international status.

Granted it may NOT be as internationally known as name like Chernobyl, Pearl Harbor or Taylor Swift but it sure as he'll made a mark.

I agree that this endeavor does not warrant a Nobel Prize or any grand celebration from the world at large, but there is not need to try undermine or diminish that accomplishment by trivializ-ing various minutea from development.

One thing I found quite wise from HarvestRs comments on KSP2 development. He commented on the need for the final vision being very maleable. The final product may not look like you envisioned from the start, but that adaptability and willingness to listen to the the idea of community or other developers in the team... makes a better game.

 

Edited May 15 by Fizzlebop Smith

[Bej Kerman]

15 minutes ago, Fizzlebop Smith said:

If you think any object placed into space is done so on whim or whimsy, I would seriously challenge that stance.

17 minutes ago, Fizzlebop Smith said:

There was an entire team of people somewhere that agreed the payload in question is / was a worthwhile pursuit.

A group of people deciding a plushie is safe to take into space is not the same as said group of people knowing its significance, and as I said, said group of people knowing what a Kerbal is by virtue of working jobs that overlap with flight simulator hobbies can hardly be described as "not niche".

26 minutes ago, Fizzlebop Smith said:

Or someone sacrificed their personal carryon,

And if it's a personal carryon, then one person whose job overlaps with FS hobbyism knowing what a Kerbal is and having a cherished plush doesn't make it not niche.

 

(This is like seeing someone try to convince me that Vatsim isn't niche because a lot of pilots know what it is...)

 

28 minutes ago, Fizzlebop Smith said:

Either way show me a picture of He-man or a Ninja Turtle in space.. or whatever media the kids like today.

A Kerbal plush went to space because a lot of people in the aerospace industry happen to be into aerospace-related niches.

35 minutes ago, Fizzlebop Smith said:

It may have been a niche product when it dropped into EA. As the game inspired a generation of youth to pursue STEM related fields.. it obtained international status.

Granted it may NOT be as internationally known as name like Chernobyl, Pearl Harbor or Taylor Swift but it sure as he'll made a mark.

It made a mark, but not a mark many people outside the KSP fandom or aerospace jobs will care about.

36 minutes ago, Fizzlebop Smith said:

I agree that this endeavor does not warrant a Nobel Prize or any grand celebration from the world at large, but there is not need to try undermine or diminish that accomplishment by trivializ-ing various minutea from development.

It's not trivializing anything to be realistic.

[NexusHelium]

1 hour ago, MechBFP said:

KSP2 as a result of being a work in progress is quite unpredictable between versions so anything you learned before about the jank can be thrown out the window and replaced with new stuff every update. 

Tears of the Kingdom be like

[Fizzlebop Smith]

If you think having been added to the "mundane excrements sent into space" list is not noteworthy your a simpleton.

A banal argument to support your personal feelings doesn't lend it credence. It seems petty.

It's rather easy to admit that some no name developer made a name for himself in the worlds  developement community.

Something like that is not subjective. 

The game had a fundamental impact on hundreds of thousands of people and encouraged them into stem related fields. 

The vast majority of US academic pursuits are humanities or social sciences. 

Several Prominent Awards. 

No one is saying the Game was plastered across the front page of AP pr Rueters articles for the world to read. But to try and say that it wasn't a revolutionary, genre defining game is asanine.

IIRC Typical Expectations for a niche game selling is less than 2 million copies.

This varies greatly depending.. some niches are rather big. There is a point where it grows behond a niche. 

I would go and compile some links to support 5+ million sales falling outside of niche.. I just think the other 4.5+ million players of KSP1 were much more discerning.. and did not buy the "sequel".

Besides the we know a huge portion of players NEVER use the launcher. Despite that on steam alone.. the game ranks 436 in concurrent player count. This is how many years after release?

 

Edited May 15 by Fizzlebop Smith

[PDCWolf]

17 hours ago, Infinite Aerospace said:

Thing is, KSP2 isn't broken, I was literally playing the game last night and it wasn't in any way shape or form 'broken', and it was perfectly playable and I don't exactly have a high-end system.

[snip] It seems the problem with the argument is KSP2 gets credited some utopian future where the absolute garbage they build has been reworked into being actually good, whilst ignoring what KSP2 is right now. That's not even going into how most saves in KSP2 are just mucking around with small stuff or it grinds to a halt.

This is why I'm pretty sure neither of you two is arguing based on reality, but rose tinted glasses.

That KSP2 was not going to be able to support half of the stuff you can do on 1 is, based on what's there, an undeniable fact. If you wanna keep ignoring bug reports to have some sort of argument go ahead, but don't quote me anymore on it.

 

 

Edited May 16 by Vanamonde

[Scarecrow71]

11 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

KSP 2 has a lot of technical issues, but gameplay flow is pretty much all an improvement.

The gameplay flow is "build rocket, launch rocket, repeat".  I fail to see how you can improve upon this as both games did this.

11 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

I also have to add that yall don't seem willing to concede that KSP 1 was a wad of feces, both technically and in terms of gameplay.

If you feel that strongly about the game, why on Earth did you ever come here?  And stay?  And keep playing?

11 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Again, KSP 1 was the game to rack up complaints of technical debt, not KSP 2.

Guess you haven't gone through the bug reports subforum.  Or been involved in any discussions about KSP2 since EA launch.  Or read anything regarding what's happening with Take Two.  Because I'm pretty sure we can all agree that some form of technical debt has racked up, to the point where the studio was shut down.

11 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

KSP 1 had the developer who refused to give players an idea of their vessels' dV and would rather spend time making planets prettier than fixing the holes in the parts list or making the game run less bad.

Because the music and height maps made KSP2 so much easier to play?  Throw the UI discussions, performance issues, the lousy part window, and the shoddy camera controls in the discussion.  Which game now is it where the developers were more concerned about it being pretty than functional?

[NexusHelium]

39 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

That KSP2 was not going to be able to support half of the stuff you can do on 1 is, based on what's there, an undeniable fact.

It's not a fact if it's not proven. Can't put it more plain than that. You cannot say that anyone is not arguing based off of "reality" when everyone knows the reality. The game has problems. The stock first game was much worse than the sequel. The game was (is?) improving before reportedly having a massive hit to development time.

That's the reality and everyone knows it. No one is arguing against the reality. Some just choose to look at it in a more positive way and shun those who doom on the game and say they are denying the reality and some like to doom on the game and shun those who look at the game with a more positive outlook and say they are denying the reality. The only delusion of our outlooks is thinking the other side of the table is wrong or any different from your side other than their optimism based on the game's future.

No one is necessarily right. But most of all no one is wrong.

Edited May 15 by NexusHelium

[cocoscacao]

24 minutes ago, Scarecrow71 said:

I'm pretty sure we can all agree that some form of technical debt has racked up, to the point where the studio was shut down.

These days, even commercially successful games don't guarantee that the studio behind them will continue operating.... 

Edited May 15 by cocoscacao

[Bej Kerman]

3 minutes ago, Scarecrow71 said:

Throw the UI discussions, performance issues, the lousy part window, and the shoddy camera controls in the discussion.

KSP 1.

37 minutes ago, Fizzlebop Smith said:

If you think having been added to the "mundane excrements sent into space" list is not noteworthy your a simpleton.

*you're, also one astronaut having a Kerbal plush still doesn't make KSP not niche.

38 minutes ago, Fizzlebop Smith said:

IIRC Typical Expectations for a niche game selling is less than 2 million copies.

Not how a niche works.

43 minutes ago, Fizzlebop Smith said:

the game ranks 436 in concurrent player count. This is how many years after release?

~5e-8% of the population is definitely a number.

[PDCWolf]

18 minutes ago, NexusHelium said:

It's not a fact if it's not proven. Can't put it more plain than that. You cannot say that anyone is not arguing based off of "reality" when everyone knows the reality. The game has problems. The stock first game was much worse than the sequel. The game was (is?) improving before reportedly having a massive hit to development time.

*That's* the reality and everyone knows it. No one is arguing against the reality. Some just choose to look at it in a more positive way and shun those who doom on the game and some like to doom on the game and shun those who look at the game with a more positive outlook.

No one is right. But most of all no one is wrong.

No it's not. That's exactly the problem.

• Can you build 1000+ parts vessels without the game falling apart?
• Can you have a save with hundreds of active flights without grinding the FPS to a halt?
• Can you add graphical mods without the performance dropping further?
• Can you have dozens of mods loaded without the game exploding?
• Can you even have multiple saves without breaking the game?
• Can you dock 2 docking ports at the same time? Because maybe they didn't even fix that in 14 months.

In KSP1, you can do all of that.

No one is being a doomer, that's what people here fail to understand and why ultimately they decided to shut the doors and only listen to the discord. The game is literal technical garbage. You're free to like it, but liking it doesn't change that it's technically inferior, feature inferior and performance inferior to its prequel, and it has badly designed systems that are unfixable without being completely rewritten from scratch. You don't want to take that from me because I'm "a doomer"? Fine, go around and look at users with even more technical knowledge than me. Go listen to industry specialists posting on these same forums. The argument doesn't change because it's not an argument, it's a basic truth and the only hope for it is "maybe they would have fixed that in the future".

Edited May 15 by PDCWolf

[Bej Kerman]

Just now, PDCWolf said:

In KSP1, you can do all of that.

Be objective, nobody is building 1000+ part crafts in KSP with little performance hit unless they've literally picked the game apart so they can avoid unoptimised calculations like Stratzenblitz, which is a frankly stupid thing to have to do in a sandbox game. You aren't answering "In KSP 1, yes" for bullet points 1-4 without military-grade rose tinted glasses.

[PDCWolf]

1 minute ago, Bej Kerman said:

Be objective, nobody is building 1000+ part crafts in KSP with little performance hit unless they've literally picked the game apart so they can avoid unoptimised calculations like Stratzenblitz, which is a frankly stupid thing to have to do in a sandbox game. You aren't answering "In KSP 1, yes" for bullet points 1-4 without military-grade rose tinted glasses.

If you think 1 and 2 are bad in KSP1, then let me remind you they're objectively, proven, tested to be much worse in KSP2.

As for 3... you can run Parallax, Scatterer and EVE and still have a game about as playable as KSP2. Where you'd get this is wrong I'm not sure.

4... hard to test given not even modders wanted to do much for KSP2. I'm running about 54 mods right now in KSP1 and it's just fine, no impact save for initial load and occupied RAM, but the game still runs without an impact to FPS.

[Flush Foot]

12 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

KSP 1 was a wad of feces

Finally found the straw that broke the camel's back... <ignore-list++>

[Stephensan]

12 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

• Can you build 1000+ parts vessels without the game falling apart?
• Can you have a save with hundreds of active flights without grinding the FPS to a halt?
• Can you add graphical mods without the performance dropping further?
• Can you have dozens of mods loaded without the game exploding?
• Can you even have multiple saves without breaking the game?
• Can you dock 2 docking ports at the same time? Because maybe they didn't even fix that in 14 months.

• most of the time
• not really but from what ksp 2 team has said the crafts need everything active for resources, and improvements have been made but is still WIP, still in EA.
• only if there was actual modders to actively mod the game  from ksp 1 so we could have visual mods (almost no one wants to mod ksp 2)
• with how limited ksp 2 mods are, yes you can pretty much mod it with all current version mods you can do that, nearly instantly. and little to no issues besides 1-2 mods that are poorly made.
• I'm up to 84 different saves working, just lower fps for some reason
• known bug. besides the other over 1,000 bugs that was fixed in one year alone, some are lower priority

ain't reading the rest, just adding input.

[Scarecrow71]

29 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

KSP 1.

I'm not sure how you can harsh on KSP1 for all the problems KSP2 is having.  I get that KSP1 had/has its share of problems, but a lot of them - not all, but a lot - have been resolved.  I just don't get why you are giving KSP2 a free pass on the same things you are bashing KSP1 over.

30 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

also one astronaut having a Kerbal plush still doesn't make KSP not niche.

Agreed.  This IS a niche game.  It just happens to be in a genre/area of interest that does at times get a lot of attention.  And you have to admit it's gotta be pretty cool to have something you (not you, but the developers) worked on actually make it into space.  Come on, man!  A plushie from a game about rocketry and space flight makes it into space?  You have to appreciate that.

31 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

~5e-8% of the population is definitely a number.

Not sure where this comes from as 434 people is certainly NOT 5-8% of the total copies of KSP1 being sold.  It isn't even 5-8% of the highest player count in the last 12 months.

8 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Be objective, nobody is building 1000+ part crafts in KSP with little performance hit

Again, you are giving KSP2 a free pass for the things you claim KSP1 fails at.  Or are you simply indicating that KSP1 has the same problems KSP2 has, but failing to mention those problems do in fact plague KSP2?

[Stephensan]

also i was summoned due to feeling like someone was about to use me as an issue, its a bug that anth has tested but hasn't proved, there is rumors that others have the same issue but it isn't no more than a suggestion other than me

(I'm able to find phantom bugs that don't exist but actually exist for me)

[NexusHelium]

23 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

You don't want to take that from me because I'm "a doomer"? Fine, go around and look at users with even more technical knowledge than me. Go listen to industry specialists posting on these same forums. The argument doesn't change because it's not an argument, it's a basic truth and the only hope for it is "maybe they would have fixed that in the future".

I never argued against that. That was the whole point of my post, that the game is not in the best state right now. Design wise it is inferior (for now at least)

I am saying that no one really says anything against the problems. And that hope you speak of is exactly what the proclaimed "doomers" shun. And that's just not necessarily right. And neither is holding on to that hope.

Everyone accepts the truth of the situation. The only difference is who has hope and who doesn't, so there's no reason (or point, quite frankly) to fight against anyone.

Edited May 15 by NexusHelium

[Bej Kerman]

1 minute ago, Scarecrow71 said:

I just don't get why you are giving KSP2 a free pass on the same things you are bashing KSP1 over.

Um, no? People are giving KSP 1 a free pass despite how bad it is because they see KSP 2 underperforming. I'd rather give neither a free pass.

2 minutes ago, Scarecrow71 said:

36 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

~5e-8% of the population is definitely a number.

Not sure where this comes from as 434 people is certainly NOT 5-8% of the total copies of KSP1 being sold.  It isn't even 5-8% of the highest player count in the last 12 months.

You did read the bit you quoted, right?

7 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

I'm running about 54 mods right now in KSP1 and it's just fine

Very scientific.