Shadowzone's findings on KSP2 history

[Westinghouse]

10 minutes ago, Temporal Wolf said:

Between a ton of unsupported conjecture and a healthy dose of factually incorrect bits, I find this difficult to even take seriously.

They were hiring college grads, not poaching FAANG devs. I do like the subtle dig that FAANG devs wouldn't know what hard work was though.

"They should have just hired driven, self-motivated people..." and those high performing people can be paid easily double working for FAANG. You're advocating for a very anti-worker "well they should just accept being exploited because they care so dang much about the IP..." instead of "if you want market rate work, pay them market rate... if you want more, pay more." With a $150k cap you're fishing in the bottom quartile of senior engineers in Seattle.

Speed, Quality, Price. If you're careful you can pick two, but you definitely can't pick all three.

I don't know about the FAANG companies specifically, but they definitely brought onboard people from outside the game development world. A quick check of LinkedIn confirms this. They also recruited a PhD from academia.

I'm not saying recruiting these kinds of people is wrong, it's absolutely not. In fact, bringing onboard people from different industries and fields can bring fresh perspective. But if you couple this however with these recruits not having any prior interest with KSP it can lead to the kinds of people who are going to flunk away to a cushy high paying job at Microsoft when the going gets tough.

For anyone with an interest in aerospace, rocketry and gamedev, working on KSP2 should have been a once in a lifetime opportunity. Yet they had key people leaving the project throughout, either enticed away by higher FAANG salaries or simply sick of working for a prat like Nate Simpson, we don't know. 

[Maxsimal]

Man it's unfortunate it went down this way - but I gotta agree with SZ, a lot of this was very predictable from an early stage.  The conflation of issues that generated problems on KSP2 was the reason I bowed out at the end of KSP1.

[Westinghouse]

Did anyone else notice the rather heartfelt story in the video about the meeting where Jeremy Ables and Paul Furio were told they were being let go?

Jeremy Ables was given the dignity of having a few weeks to get his work wrapped up, spend time thanking his team, leisurely getting his affairs in order and maybe have a nice farewell drinks party on his last day. Meanwhile Paul Furio was instead escorted out on the spot by security.

Assuming this is true, it really is an insight into the corporate culture at Take Two. The executive class look after their own. Jeremy Ables was one of them. While the software engineer Technical Director was turfed out and effectively scapegoated for the Early Access release, Jeremy Ables the clueless management goob, one of the people most responsible for the project management mess of KSP2, gets treated differently by his corporate pals.

It probably explains why the likes of Jeremy Ables have remained shtum about all this while Paul is on here probably slightly enjoying the schadenfreude (I don't blame him, I would be).

@WatchClarkBand, not trying to imply you don't have feelings for your old colleagues who've lost their jobs. But at least I hope it's brought you some closure now that KSP2 is done and dusted and you were somewhat vindicated.

[Yaivenov]

4 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

There was no evidence of any of this before ST was poached. If you wanted the game to fail before then, well you just wanted the game to fail and you weren't exactly working off of evidence.

Choosing a creative director with a track record of making grandiose promises and then not delivering was the second (huge) red flag.  The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior and Nate Simpson has I believe three different failed game titles to his name with KSP2 making his fourth.  One more failed project and he'll be an Incompetence Ace.

The first red flag was when an investment bank bought the IP.

[LittleBitMore]

25 minutes ago, Yaivenov said:

Choosing a creative director with a track record of making grandiose promises and then not delivering was the second (huge) red flag.  The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior and Nate Simpson has I believe three different failed game titles to his name with KSP2 making his fourth.  One more failed project and he'll be an Incompetence Ace.

The first red flag was when an investment bank bought the IP.

yet again, it is Nate's job to dream, and the programmers' jobs to tell him "no I don't think that's super reasonable". Nate was never the tech guy, it was not in the job description to think about code practicality

[Westinghouse]

8 minutes ago, LittleBitMore said:

yet again, it is Nate's job to dream, and the programmers' jobs to tell him "no I don't think that's super reasonable". Nate was never the tech guy, it was not in the job description to think about code practicality

Unfortunately, a game like KSP doesn't require "big picture" blue-sky guys like Nate. It requires a lead dev able to understand and get down and dirty with the fundamental code. HarvesteR is the template here; a person who can code and understands simulation games but who could also 3D model and art direct. Didn't he also compose the music? Maybe I misremembered?

As ShadowZone alludes to in his excellent video, Nate likely cooked KSP2's goose by promising game features he didn't have the technical skills to know how to implement himself. He was always relying on other people to come in later and solve the problems. "Oh, we'll figure it out later" mentality.

[Temporal Wolf]

21 minutes ago, Westinghouse said:

Unfortunately, a game like KSP doesn't require "big picture" blue-sky guys like Nate. It requires a lead dev able to understand and get down and dirty with the fundamental code. HarvesteR is the template here; a person who can code and understands simulation games but who could also 3D model and art direct. Didn't he also compose the music? Maybe I misremembered?

I feel like folks with industry experience keep trying to pretty politely say you're misunderstanding the situation and you keep confidently repeating that you know you're right.
 

Quote

Nate likely cooked KSP2's goose by promising game features he didn't have the technical skills to know how to implement himself.

You just described every creative director, and said that's why Nate is a bad creative director.

[Westinghouse]

6 minutes ago, Temporal Wolf said:

I feel like folks with industry experience keep trying to pretty politely say you're misunderstanding the situation and you keep confidently repeating that you know you're right.

Well, I wouldn't say I know I'm right. There's a ton we don't know. I'm just putting the dots together based on available information. And how do you know I don't have industry experience myself?

You replied above saying I'm basing it on 'conjecture'. Aren't we all doing that? @ShadowZone in the video he created is basing what he tells on anonymous sources. Isn't that conjecture too? Some of his sources will have an axe to grind against Intercept games and T2. But he's doing a good job investigating with what information he has available to him. Most of what he says tracks with what we've all heard and observed over KSP2 development.

One thing I really like about ShadowZone's video is that it's not casting blame or looking for scapegoats. It has more of an Inquiry feeling - investigating the reasons for KSP2's failure and lessons to be learned from it.

[Lisias]

1 hour ago, Westinghouse said:

You replied above saying I'm basing it on 'conjecture'. Aren't we all doing that?

Yes. But some with more solid grounds than others.

It's not uncommon that laymen could hit the bull's eye on something they don't have too much knowledge - sometimes common sense is enough.

But, usually, the more seasoned someone is on a field, better are their conjectures.

And this is the point you apparently is missing.

[Westinghouse]

43 minutes ago, Lisias said:

Yes. But some with more solid grounds than others.

It's not uncommon that laymen could hit the bull's eye on something they don't have too much knowledge - sometimes common sense is enough.

But, usually, the more seasoned someone is on a field, better are their conjectures.

And this is the point you apparently is missing.

Like I said, we are all basing  our opinions on conjecture. ShadowZone is doing exactly that with his video - using the best information sources he has available to him. Plus a good dose of common sense.

Let's consider this case example: Rask and Rusk.

Knowing that KSP2 uses the same patched conic system as the original game, how was the binary system idea ever meant to work? Would the two bodies pull the craft towards each other? Would there be some sort of barymetric center between the two bodies? Would the craft be pulled to and fro between the two planets?

My conjecture is this - Nate Simpson drew up the Rask and Rusk idea on Photoshop, not knowing whether it would be possible using the game's framework, but because the concept looked 'cool'.
Artwork he created influenced the PD/Take 2 executives to award the KSP2 contract to his company (Uber) over more competent developers.

As i said above - "We'll figure it out later" attitude.  It's been five years, and  we still haven't been told how on earth that binary system would work with patched conics.

[Lisias]

37 minutes ago, Westinghouse said:

<...>

My conjecture is this - Nate Simpson drew up the Rask and Rusk idea on Photoshop, not knowing whether it would be possible using the game's framework, but because the concept looked 'cool'.

Artwork he created influenced the PD/Take 2 executives to award the KSP2 contract to his company (Uber) over more competent developers.

This is the part in which you are probably right.

 

37 minutes ago, Westinghouse said:

As i said above - "We'll figure it out later" attitude.  It's been five years, and  we still haven't been told how on earth that binary system would work with patched conics.

This is where you may be missing the point.

You see, this is like buying a car: if you buy a used car after the seller says you that the vehicle was being able to do 100 miles per gallon after installing some "special device", and then the vehicle (obviously) is not able to do a fraction of it, who is the real responsible for the mistake?

The seller needs to sell the car, and it's not a crime to over promise. It's up to the buyer the decision between buying the car from the seller saying the car is miraculous,  or from another seller that says "this car is a crap, but it works for your needs and it's the best I can do for the money you have".

You get what you promote; you get what you pay for.

The whole industry is addicted to this "fake it until you make it" mentality because people who tell the naked truth don't sell their car.

Edited May 26 by Lisias
quit trying to type on the mobile, going to the computer now!

[Uuky]

6 minutes ago, Lisias said:

You see, this is like buying a car: if you buy a used car after the seller says you that the vehicle was being able to do 100 miles per gallon, and then the vehicle (obviously) is not able to do a fraction of it, who is the real responsible for it?

The seller. Fraud and swindle unless there is an exception for car's dealers. 

This kind of legal "stunt" you describe is to be made by trained professionnals. Please don't try  at home.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Dakitess]

"This focus of visuals resulted in more fundamental design and gameplay decisions to take the back seat"

 

LMAO, sorry, won't elaborate any further, I spilled my coffee while hearing this xD

Actually I'll repeat here what I've said elsewhere : it's a GREAT video, thanks @ShadowZone for that investigation and this quality of content / neutrality on this very sad subject.

[Lisias]

8 hours ago, Uuky said:

The seller. Fraud and swindle unless there is an exception for car's dealers.

You know, it was easier to make use of a rhetoric device (100 miles per gallon by installing a device) than trying to describe the convoluted (but still legal) scam used by dealers to earn an edge over the buyers by exploiting their own greed.

You would be surprised about how many things that the common sense calls "fraud" are, in reality, legal.

You know, the terms of the sell are in the contract. Once you sign the contract, whatever is written on it is what bounds you to the contract, not what you were told in the process. It's the very reason we sign contracts.

So, if the seller says to you "this car do 100 miles per gallon" in a jocose voice tone, but in the description of the car in the contract says explicitly that the car is doing in average exactly what the manufacturer says it should do, how do you plan to sue the dealer for fraud?

Spoiler

You are aware that it is perfectly legal to sell "fuel saving devices" that... do nothing, aren't you?

https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a15122068/fuel-saving-devices-debunked/

 

Edited May 26 by Lisias
additional argument

[Siska]

12 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

There was no evidence of any of this before ST was poached. If you wanted the game to fail before then, well you just wanted the game to fail and you weren't exactly working off of evidence.

No, i was very excited about it, that's why I bought EA the first day.

After half a year after EA, it was obvious that something is not well with the development of the game. I think most of the people realised it at about the same time.

That is when it all begin to go downards regarding opinions. Heck, game was not playable at all for the first 6 months.

[J.Random]

On 5/25/2024 at 4:28 PM, Bej Kerman said:

There was no evidence of any of this before ST was poached. If you wanted the game to fail before then, well you just wanted the game to fail and you weren't exactly working off of evidence.

Actually, red flags started with the inconsistency between declared scope and original release deadline. But people pointing it out were immediately branded toxic doomers-gloomers-fudsters-haters [snip] and pretty much expunged from the forum over time. You won't even find those old threads anymore, as if it never happened.

Edited May 27 by Vanamonde

[TLTay]

21 hours ago, drhay53 said:

This was for the other, unannounced game that was being worked on. Not for KSP2.

Point was: they still had most of the 70 working on KSP2  and it still took nearly a year to deliver science, that should have only taken a few months tops.

[MechBFP]

8 hours ago, J.Random said:

Actually, red flags started with the inconsistency between declared scope and original release deadline. But people pointing it out were immediately branded toxic doomers-gloomers-fudsters-haters [snip] and pretty much expunged from the forum over time. You won't even find those old threads anymore, as if it never happened.

Dude, how do you manage to show off that victim card when it is the size of an entire state?

Edited May 27 by Vanamonde

[J.Random]

There is no victim card. Just pointing out that the "we have always been at war with Eastasia" line simply won't work when there are people with good enough memory around.

[MechBFP]

*wheeze*.meme

[PDCWolf]

Lmao @ some people acting like the game was free. $50 is $50 and most aren't seeing those back. Thankfully I didn't pay anywhere near that so I not only feel vindicated but can look back and laugh. Other people really don't have that luck.

[Bej Kerman]

17 minutes ago, J.Random said:

There is no victim card. Just pointing out that the "we have always been at war with Eastasia" line simply won't work when there are people with good enough memory around.

You're claiming every single thread that supports your theory went missing. Tell me who has good memory again?

[Superfluous J]

1 hour ago, J.Random said:

Actually, red flags started with the inconsistency between declared scope and original release deadline. But people pointing it out were immediately branded toxic doomers-gloomers-fudsters-haters (by people like you) and pretty much expunged from the forum over time. You won't even find those old threads anymore, as if it never happened.

You got us. We were in on it all along. High five everybody, another clean sweep of a game community!

 

[WatchClarkBand]

15 hours ago, Westinghouse said:

not trying to imply you don't have feelings for your old colleagues who've lost their jobs. But at least I hope it's brought you some closure now that KSP2 is done and dusted and you were somewhat vindicated.

I wanted the game to succeed. I'm generally not the type of person who takes extreme pleasure in the failures and pain of others.

I think my largest frustration is the number of times I said "Folks, if we do Thing X, then Bad Thing Y will happen. We need to do Z instead," and other people replied with "no, we always do Thing X, we'll just fix it later," or some equivalent, and sure enough, Bad Thing Y happened.

Do I feel vindicated? No. But I am aware that upon exiting myself and Jeremy, nothing really changed much, so perhaps that was another case of doing X when someone should have done Z.

[calabus2]

54 minutes ago, Superfluous J said:

You got us. We were in on it all along. High five everybody, another clean sweep of a game community!

 

And this folks is the reason why the community engagement here dropped significantly after EA. "If you don't have anything nice to say about the studio or the devs, then your criticism doesn't matter. You're just a hater and a shill." 

There are just as many toxic supporters in this community as there are those that question the decisions of the studio and the developer. 

Edited May 26 by calabus2