About KSP2 on Steam (split from another thread)

[PDCWolf]

5 hours ago, AVaughan said:

Then their use of release date varies from game to game.  Eg see https://store.steampowered.com/app/427520/Factorio/  (On that page they use the 1.0 release date, but Factorio was in steam early access before that.

That's not for me to scrutinize, I'm just talking both from first hand experience, second hand experience, and basic public information like the bottom line on this little known E.A. title:

It's a chore but you can absolutely put in a dollar or two for some no name early access and try it yourself. Release date is the date the product goes public, early access or not. I DO know that when a game reaches 1.0 the release date is -reset- to the date 1.0 launches.

[Skorj]

On 2/9/2025 at 9:21 AM, PDCWolf said:

I think once a game is out in the public and money has exchanged hands, none of those scenarios should be an excuse for a dev to walk out on a game, save maybe declared bankrupcy, which should still trigger automatic refunds. Abandonment should just not be an option, period.

In the US, the 13th amendment prevents this.  It's similar in most countries.  You can't force others to work for you.  Steam EA has never been a contract to finish the game, it's an offer to  sell an unfinished game.  Seems perfectly reasonable to me: you're warned up front that the game is unfinished.

Steam tells players to buy an EA game only for what it is now, not what you hope it may one day be.  It's good advice.

8 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

If you publish a game, you will make a game, and if you cancel it, the money is given back. At this point I'm pretty sure such a statement should sound like common sense for anyone save for people actively trying to game the system and EA gamblers trying to somehow land good games for cheap (and price increases as versions move forward is almost completely phased out by now as a model).

I get that's what you want EA to be.  But EA is simply something different.  There are no future promises involved in EA; instead it's a way to buy unfinished games.  What's you're talking about goes directly against Steam's rules for developers for EA!  EA is not a crowdfunding model.  EA is not to be used to get the funds to finish a game.  EA games must not include concrete future promises for features or other work (KSP2 has always broken that rule by having their roadmap on the store page).

On 2/9/2025 at 9:21 AM, Fizzlebop Smith said:

Just because a small percentage of the population actively seeks to harm others, does not mean steps should not be taken to make the act of harming other more difficult... or in this case less profitable for the risk.

I certainly wasn't suggesting such.  I was responding to the idea that the new notification won't work because devs are malicious and will push fake updates.  But 99.9% of abandoned games aren't malicious, the dev just moved on.

9 hours ago, Lisias said:

Steam is powerful exactly because they succeeded in being a middleman. Don't ever forget that, they ARE a middleman and this is the source of their power.

Steam is successful for the same reason Gabe started it: there's good money to be made by making it easier to buy a game than pirate it.  Steam's continued success depends on that being true.  They add value by adding convenience in finding, buying, patching, and launching games.  I prefer to buy from GOG, but their recommendation engine sucks and Galaxy is annoying.

 

[PDCWolf]

1 hour ago, Skorj said:

In the US, the 13th amendment prevents this.  It's similar in most countries.  You can't force others to work for you.  Steam EA has never been a contract to finish the game, it's an offer to  sell an unfinished game.  Seems perfectly reasonable to me: you're warned up front that the game is unfinished.

Believe me, nobody's forcing anyone to pick up KSP2 and continue it, what's being asked for is that if you say you're gonna make a game, either you do make the game (basic "action backing up words" stuff), or you give back the money when you decide you're no longer making the game (basic human decency). No one is being forced to work here, rather people would only be forced to not take money for something they didn't do.

1 hour ago, Skorj said:

Steam tells players to buy an EA game only for what it is now, not what you hope it may one day be.  It's good advice.

Absolutely. It also guidelines devs into not making promises, yet if you open the KSP2 store page, there's a roadmap right there, and that's just the store page... We're in the worst place for repeated, egregious, in-your-face violations to that guideline.

This is another thing that needs to be addressed and fixed: Legally binding disclaimer for me, but only suggested guidelines for thee.

Of course, this -grossly- ignores the whole rest of a contradicting mess that the guidelines and disclaimers are, honestly it's probably the most shameful thing you can pin on Steam right now, probably second to enabling gambling with marketplace items. It just happens to be a much less openly discussed topic, as every EA game community tends to be its own thing.

1 hour ago, Skorj said:

I get that's what you want EA to be.  But EA is simply something different.  There are no future promises involved in EA

They are made constantly and consistently by most devs/pubs involved in an EA project. A disclaimer keeps that from being legally binding, and acting deaf and blind to what pubs/devs do outside their store page helps a lot to keep the suspension of disbelief that legally no promises were made. But the fact is the fact. And we here are mostly adults... Steam is mostly used by teenagers and kids, which are much more susceptible to these dark patterns.

1 hour ago, Skorj said:

What's you're talking about goes directly against Steam's rules for developers for EA!  EA is not a crowdfunding model.  EA is not to be used to get the funds to finish a game.  EA games must not include concrete future promises for features or other work (KSP2 has always broken that rule by having their roadmap on the store page).

What's written on paper is probably the furthest from reality. EA is actively used by devs/pubs to probe for interest, to crowdfund future development, and whatever other dark pattern you can imagine, even including pre-purchase-like bonuses to EA participants, which is also heavily advised against by the Steam EA guidelines.

Those same guidelines mention EA is a way to get feedback, and even there has KSP2 failed grossly to adhere. Hello, unreadable font, still there... And that's an accessibility issue, not even a feature wishlist.

1 hour ago, Skorj said:

But 99.9% of abandoned games aren't malicious, the dev just moved on.

I know this wasn't addressed to me, but the guidelines you mention also clearly state what happens when devs "move on":

Quote

• Q: What happens if I don't complete my Early Access game?

  A: Sometimes things don't work out as you planned, and you may need to discontinue development of your Early Access game before you are ready for a V1.0 release. If this happens, you can contact Valve to figure out the next steps. There are two options:
  
  If your Early Access game is playable and well received, but you're unable to develop it to the point where you feel it warrants a full V1.0 release, then we can keep your game on the Store, but otherwise remove it from Early Access. This will remove the Early Access tag and Early Access Q&A displayed on your game’s Store Page, but not start the launch visibility that comes with definitively releasing your game out of Early Access. This would be a permanent change; we aren’t able to reenable Early Access again later, so please consider this option carefully before contacting us with the details. In this case, you should let your community know about your decision to leave Early Access via a forum post or news event.
  
  Alternatively, we can remove your Early Access game from Steam. Before reaching out, you should read about the process of removing a game from Steam and take a moment to carefully consider whether or not pulling your game down is actually the right choice. Are you acting based on an emotional response to negative feedback, or is retiring your game the appropriate next step? We take our relationship with customers seriously, so if you choose to cancel development of a game and retire it from the store, we will not republish it again later and we may offer refunds to any users who purchased it. Treating customers fairly is the most important thing to us.

However, Steam, in their sometimes very questionable and anti-consumer laid back and hands-off stance, has left no guidelines related to developers not slotting their game into either of those two options, thus we get KSP2 and other games where the dev has "moved on" without properly taking out their garbage and having the basic decency of not pocketing money for something they're not going to work to 1.0

Again, everything discussed here would simply go away if IG or Haveli pushed an update that said "hey, this is 1.0 now, see ya", but their human decency doesn't even reach THAT level.

[Fizzlebop Smith]

Everyone is so quick to point out the little bit of text about purchasing the game "as is" but the reams of text where a developer outlines their commitment to the Early Access programs.

Where they literally talk about how they will integrate something like customer feedback into the development process.

Or the steamworks documentation where it says you are supposed to be consistent and uniform in the manner you address you consumer base / the public.. not to make promises that you do not keep.

Something as simple as failing to deliver bug reports / dev blogs / communications .. with any consistency to what was "promised" violates steam works best practices.

"My bad we will get them when we can was the honest answer.. but active deception was employed"

I'm not saying community managers were complicit, merely doing the best they could... but we are trying to tie specific text outlined in the Early Access information and how that should align with ones expectations.

The game is supposed to deliver a playable game that's somewhat stable. That part fell short by a few weeks too.

As far as Early Access and expectation of refund.. 

The sold the studio instead of stamping it 1.0

Which is also covered under "when development stops or cannot finish" 

Pretty much everything Take Two did violates either the wording or the spirit of the Steamworks Early Access Documentation.

Edited yesterday at 04:07 AM by Fizzlebop Smith