[angry] YOU TAKE 2!

[dlrk]

I think we can all agree that Take 2 and it's overpaid execs can go [do things]

[Flush Foot]

As much as I do want to blame love the corpos, others have fairly pointed out that our long-awaited game survived 4 years of delays from "will launch" to "barely came out in EA", across 2 studios, without having their funding revoked...

Of course, I would wish that by this point, they might figure there is only upside in pouring more money into the game [add another $1M USD, get $6M in sales for example], but apparently not .

[calabus2]

35 minutes ago, Flush Foot said:

As much as I do want to blame love the corpos, others have fairly pointed out that our long-awaited game survived 4 years of delays from "will launch" to "barely came out in EA", across 2 studios, without having their funding revoked...

Of course, I would wish that by this point, they might figure there is only upside in pouring more money into the game [add another $1M USD, get $6M in sales for example], but apparently not .

That would buy them very little since it is obvious the current team is not up to the task of delivering the roadmap promised.

[GGG-GoodGuyGreg]

Oh so you think T2 is at fault here?

They just do what they all do, they look at their portfolio and cut out the dying branches so that they don't go bankrupt or at least not right now.

KSP2 today isn't exactly a resounding success that can propel the T2 stocks upwards, and you can expect what we see as customers is only the tip of the iceberg and that it may very well look much worse when seen from the inside with more context.

[dlrk]

Yes, they are a greedy corporation that pays their execs millions - with the money that KSP2 early access victims believed would be used to finish the game

[AtomicTech]

Relax; there's no need for this sort of language for just a video game.

[DeadJohn]

11 minutes ago, dlrk said:

Yes, they are a greedy corporation that pays their execs millions - with the money that KSP2 early access victims believed would be used to finish the game

How many copies of EA do you think they sold? Multiply that by $50. Then compare it to the cost of paying a team of 70 people for more than a year.

They probably lost money on EA. In hindsight, it would have been financially better for them to have killed it prior to ever opening early access.

And the most profitable thing would have been to start EA, get a bunch of sales, then kill it a few weeks after EA. That would have been evil ... evil but profitable.

[steveman0]

8 minutes ago, DeadJohn said:

How many copies of EA do you think they sold? Multiply that by $50. Then compare it to the cost of paying a team of 70 people for more than a year.

They probably lost money on EA. In hindsight, it would have been financially better for them to have killed it prior to ever opening early access.

And the most profitable thing would have been to start EA, get a bunch of sales, then kill it a few weeks after EA. That would have been evil ... evil but profitable.

While it is true they are likely in the red, the decision to terminate a project only should look at the cost to finish and potential future revenue. Estimates put KSP2 at only about 300k sales and $15m. KSP1 sold 4m copies. There's still plenty of potential revenue to earn if the cost of finishing it and the confidence of traction to gain those sales covers the costs.

Killing the project guarantees virtually no additional revenue while completing the project to desired quality could mean $100m in potential revenue. There's room for profitibility yet unless they see no possibility to recover. This would be an odd assumption with some of the restored faith with FS! We don't know what it is lile internally though.

[PDCWolf]

3 minutes ago, steveman0 said:

While it is true they are likely in the red, the decision to terminate a project only should look at the cost to finish and potential future revenue. Estimates put KSP2 at only about 300k sales and $15m. KSP1 sold 4m copies. There's still plenty of potential revenue to earn if the cost of finishing it and the confidence of traction to gain those sales covers the costs.

Killing the project guarantees virtually no additional revenue while completing the project to desired quality could mean $100m in potential revenue. There's room for profitibility yet unless they see no possibility to recover. This would be an odd assumption with some of the restored faith with FS! We don't know what it is lile internally though.

But killing the branch and firing everyone in it cuts salaries and a lot of administrative losses, which is a very effective cost cutting measure. They can, after all, keep the IP eternally or even sell that for some extra cash.

It's clear the forecasts about KSP2 weren't good and if they did what we believe they did, it means they lost trust this current label was able to realize the project's potential.

[TLTay]

Forum mods and layoff-noticed community manager after seeing this post today:

"I'll allow it."

[NexusHelium]

7 minutes ago, TLTay said:

layoff-noticed community manager

Don't know where you got that but I completely agree with the title lol.

This is not okay behavior on TT's behalf (the layoffs. doesn't necessarily effect KSP 2)

Edited May 1 by NexusHelium

[AtomicTech]

8 minutes ago, TLTay said:

Forum mods and layoff-noticed community manager after seeing this post today:

"I'll allow it."

Yeah no kidding

[dlrk]

36 minutes ago, TLTay said:

Forum mods and layoff-noticed community manager after seeing this post today:

"I'll allow it."

Was counting on that

1 hour ago, AtomicTech said:

Relax; there's no need for this sort of language for just a video game.

Why not?

[Vanamonde]

Cleaned up some cursing. Keep it polite, please. 

[NexusHelium]

2 minutes ago, Vanamonde said:

Cleaned up some cursing. Keep it polite, please. 

Awwwww….

()

[AtomicTech]

I love the editing @Vanamonde 

[Icegrx]

10 minutes ago, AtomicTech said:

I love the editing @Vanamonde 

It’s honestly hilarious, and I appreciate them rather than deleting 

[Ryaja]

Remember there might be behind the scenes state policy that makes it very tax heavy to run their. They may be relocating development.

[Scarecrow71]

50 minutes ago, Ryaja said:

Remember there might be behind the scenes state policy that makes it very tax heavy to run their. They may be relocating development.

Let's also not forget that closing the office means savings on the building itself.  If TT owns the building, they can sell it and recoup some losses from the project.

[Ryaja]

10 minutes ago, Scarecrow71 said:

Let's also not forget that closing the office means savings on the building itself.  If TT owns the building, they can sell it and recoup some losses from the project.

Ya, coral states are expensive

[Stewcooker]

So this was a few years ago, but I saw in an article that was talking about starting your own game dev studio, and it said to budget "at least" $10k per worker per month. That would include HR and administrative staff. The cost has gone up since I read that, so lets say $15k per month. For 70 people thats 12.6 million a year. That's how much it costs, in very ballpark figures, to keep IG open. It became quite clear to TT that there's absolutely no way this game was ever going to offset that kind of expenditure if things continued as is. So they figured the best thing to do was axe the whole company. 

[Ryaja]

45 minutes ago, Stewcooker said:

So this was a few years ago, but I saw in an article that was talking about starting your own game dev studio, and it said to budget "at least" $10k per worker per month. That would include HR and administrative staff. The cost has gone up since I read that, so lets say $15k per month. For 70 people thats 12.6 million a year. That's how much it costs, in very ballpark figures, to keep IG open. It became quite clear to TT that there's absolutely no way this game was ever going to offset that kind of expenditure if things continued as is. So they figured the best thing to do was axe the whole company. 

I'm just hoping they relocate to a cheaper area.