Does Update v0.2.2.0 Indicate Anything about KSP 2's Future?

[Lisias]

9 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

I'm not entering the argument, I'm just trying to clarify if I misunderstood SZ's video, because what you write is certainly different.

Please develop. I failed to detect such difference. Quoting myself:

22 hours ago, Lisias said:

It was a bit more convoluted than that, but you didn't missed the bull's eye for too much.

Initially, still on the Star.Theory times, Nate convinced the boss that it would be worth the extra effort to really improve the game instead of just patching up bugs, add some visual features and launch whatever comes out of the oven as KSP2.

They bought it, the idea of having interstellar exploration, colonies and multiplayer was appealing.

But then, they came with the order to use the current KSP¹ source code as basis, instead of starting from scratch - but didn't rolled back to the original idea of a minimalistically improved KSP2. So they had to shove the new ideas they brought into the table using the old codebase that was not technically sound to take this hit.

And the rest, frankly, is just consequence.

Exactly what this is different  from

2 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

StarTheory's original pitch was to put a coat of paint on KSP1's code. Then they re-pitched that they could make a better, bigger sequel with more funding and time, whilst still reusing a lot of KSP1 stuff. However T2 turned them into a subsidiary to further secure their money and then didn't allow them to contact SQUAD or its former employees, or tell new hires that they were gonna work on KSP2.

except by not mentioning Intercept Games, that were created way after the events the original correspondent was talking about?

[PDCWolf]

12 minutes ago, Lisias said:

Please develop. I failed to detect such difference. Quoting myself:

Exactly what this is different  from

except by not mentioning Intercept Games, that were created way after the events the original correspondent was talking about?

To me the "they" on the second to last paragraph really makes it sound like T2 forced Star Theory to use KSP1 code, even though that was Star Theory's pitch, not T2's. After that, It was still (the now called) IGs idea to keep reusing or "looking at" bits of KSP1 as IG's pitch to T2 to get extra funding and time was to make a new game that they could expand more on.

That's what I got from SZ's video. T2's orders were just to be stupidly secretive about the project to the point of hindering their hiring and consulting processes.

[Lisias]

1 hour ago, PDCWolf said:

To me the "they" on the second to last paragraph really makes it sound like T2 forced Star Theory to use KSP1 code, even though that was Star Theory's pitch, not T2's.

What you understood from what I wrote wasn't the message I meant to transmit.

I understand "they" as the last entity I mentioned, Star.Theory. But now, I remembered you anglophones use a lot the terms "former and latter", so apparently the rules for implicit subject are way different between my mother-tongue and yours that I was aware.

In a way or another, I slightly edited my original post. Do you think it's transmitting the correct message now?

=== == = EDIT = == ===

Gee! The dude is Argentinian! (people knowing the infinite jokes between Argentinians and Brazilians - from both sides - are probably laughing their arses out!!)

Edited June 16 by Lisias
EDIT

[PDCWolf]

18 minutes ago, Lisias said:

I remembered you anglophones

I'm from Argentina, I'm ESL.

Edit: Checked your edit, it's clearer to me now.

Edited June 16 by PDCWolf

[Skorj]

Given the forced re-use of the KSP1 codebase, KSP2 reminds me of Windows 95.  Probably a lot of cleverness under the hood to make it work at all, but the result can only ever be a buggy mess.

[Stephensan]

drink water.. caught yall lacking

[MarcAbaddon]

On 6/13/2024 at 4:58 PM, Scarecrow71 said:

Categorically incorrect.  The launcher won't be removed from KSP1 because IG has nothing to do with KSP1.  And TT could care less about a launcher developed for a game they didn't develop themselves.

IG no, but Private Division does and that is likely getting shut down too.

[Scarecrow71]

1 hour ago, MarcAbaddon said:

IG no, but Private Division does and that is likely getting shut down too.

And why would they want to push out an update to a game that they have stated they are done updating simply to remove the launcher?

[dprostock]

3 hours ago, Scarecrow71 said:

And why would they want to push out an update to a game that they have stated they are done updating simply to remove the launcher?

Simply denial. So they say that "we are still working" and "WE ARE NOT GOING TO REFUND THE MONEY!" 

[Scarecrow71]

1 hour ago, dprostock said:

Simply denial. So they say that "we are still working" and "WE ARE NOT GOING TO REFUND THE MONEY!" 

Keep in mind that we are talking about removing the launcher from KSP1.  So that statement about "we are still working" doesn't fly.  So I ask again:

Why would they want to push out an update to a game that they have stated they are done updating simply to remove the launcher?

[HebaruSan]

4 minutes ago, Scarecrow71 said:

Why would they want to push out an update to a game that they have stated they are done updating simply to remove the launcher?

Are you looking for a possible reason they might do it, or the definitive reason why they absolutely have to?

If the former, then the same logic that led to its removal from KSP2 applies. People are still buying and playing KSP1, and it's not a good look if you click "PLAY" in Steam and get a pop-up with broken content from the soon-to-be-former PD web site.

I'm not 100% convinced they'll actually do it, but it's not a ridiculous idea.

[dprostock]

2 hours ago, Scarecrow71 said:

Keep in mind that we are talking about removing the launcher from KSP1.  So that statement about "we are still working" doesn't fly.  So I ask again:

Why would they want to push out an update to a game that they have stated they are done updating simply to remove the launcher?

Are you from LATAM?

You would have to have the contracts with the suppliers and read the fine print. As long as it appears that you are still working, you will not have to respond if you are required to return for cancellation. I would not be surprised to see quarterly "updates" so as not to be forced to return money and maintain expectations to see if someone deranged appears who wants to put millions of dollars in order to make it disappear in the accounting books.

In LATAM it is used to these procedures.

It is called a "financial bicycle".

[Scarecrow71]

11 minutes ago, dprostock said:

Are you from LATAM?

You would have to have the contracts with the suppliers and read the fine print. As long as it appears that you are still working, you will not have to respond if you are required to return for cancellation. I would not be surprised to see quarterly "updates" so as not to be forced to return money and maintain expectations to see if someone deranged appears who wants to put millions of dollars in order to make it disappear in the accounting books.

In LATAM it is used to these procedures.

It is called a "financial bicycle".

And you are STILL not listening to what I'm talking about.  The question was posed about removing the launcher from KSP1, not about continuing updates on the IP as a whole.  And my answer to that - which, by the way, is entirely speculative and has no actual factual data behind it to support it - is that the company probably won't update KSP1 as they stopped updating it after 1.12.5.  There is little to no financial motivation to do so, especially when there is a workaround that requires zero coding effort (you can launch the game without using the launcher).

So, cost of development vs. financial gain here.  It costs money to do the work, and they'd get almost no return on that investment.  What would you do?

[ColdJ]

8 hours ago, dprostock said:

It is called a "financial bicycle".

From the Band "Queen"

Bicycle bicycle bicycle
I want to ride my bicycle bicycle bicycle
I want to ride my bicycle
I want to ride my bike
I want to ride my bicycle
I want to ride it where I like

(Disclaimer: This post is for pure entertainment puposes, the poster does not support or refute any posts within this thread by any posters on any side of any disputed topic. If any member of the International Monetary Fund is caught or killed then the Forum will disavow any knowledge of their existence.)

Edited June 18 by ColdJ

[Lisias]

On 6/17/2024 at 6:07 PM, Scarecrow71 said:

And you are STILL not listening to what I'm talking about.  The question was posed about removing the launcher from KSP1, not about continuing updates on the IP as a whole. 

No, you missed the point. He's talking about "faking" work to deflect responsibilities. At the same time, one would want to avoid "real" work to prevent wasting money handling change requests, as people would be incentivized to engage again.

On this assumption, keeping the Launcher would create a facade faking the franchise is still alive by just feeding some nonsense on whatever feeds the Launcher news. By removing the Launcher, they would not only lose this loophole, but also would create an expectation that there're people back on development, increasing the load on the support guys, that costs money.

Corporates don't work using common sense, they work by the letter of the contracts (or the absence) disregarding any common sense.

I don't know if he's right, but it makes sense.

 

On 6/17/2024 at 6:07 PM, Scarecrow71 said:

So, cost of development vs. financial gain here.  It costs money to do the work, and they'd get almost no return on that investment.  What would you do?

Almost. It's the cost of development vs financial gain vs losses by not doing the work.

Yeah, it costs them to do the work. Yeah, there's no financial gain on doing the work. But there's also the financial losses by not doing the work.

Paying someone to spend a couple hours every week to give the appearance of development is way cheaper than refunds in the short and medium run. And the long run will be someone else's problem.

Now, this is what they are doing? I don't know.

The removal of the PD-Launcher from KSP2 is surely an evidence that they are going another route at least with KSP2. It would be nice if they decide to go the same route with KSP¹ and free us of that pesky thing.

Edited June 21 by Lisias
tyops. as usulla.

[dprostock]

The real world is so hard...

18 hours ago, Scarecrow71 said:

So, cost of development vs. financial gain here.  It costs money to do the work, and they'd get almost no return on that investment.  What would you do?

CIRCUS! So that no one tells me that everything is over and asks me for refunds.

[Vanamonde]

Please return the discussion to the thread's topic. Some comments removed for irrelevancy. 

[LameLefty]

I don't know what this version means for the future of KSP2, but with a week or so to go until the WARN notice layoffs of the final folks go into effect, SteamDB is still showing 3 different dev branches getting updates daily, most recently 2 hours ago. I expect we'll get one more patch late next week and then it's sayonara, as the lights get turned off and the keycards stop working.  

[MarcAbaddon]

On 6/17/2024 at 3:01 PM, Scarecrow71 said:

And why would they want to push out an update to a game that they have stated they are done updating simply to remove the launcher?

Just could not resist pointing out that this is exactly what happened.