Will we ever see the finished game?

[Ghost13]

I understand that KSP is still in early beta stage. But giving the amount of bugs and problems with the game that raises a question if we ever going to see KSP competed as a retail game?

Currently things are going more or less "OK" during the early stages of the game when you have smaller ships and travel around LKO, Mun and Duna you have decent FPS rate and control over your ship. But when you start exploring more distant targets and bigger goals (and bigger goals means bigger and more complicated ships) the game becomes less and less enjoyable and more and more time consuming with poorer and poorer results not by the lack of your space engineering and or piloting skills but more and more due to the bugs and crippled FPS. In the end bugs was the factor that stopped me for playing KSP any further. Building the flawed lander design is one thing sad but encouraging in the way (to build a better ship) but inability to land your ship due to the faulty docking port is another, same with parts are dropping of the big ships for no apparent reason anomalous spinnding forse, lander legs falling off after save\load, ships get stuck in the surface of the planets, strange freezes when spacecenter becomes unrespondable, corrupted savegames after some bugs. Huge burn times for intraplanetary travel without any good way to speed up the process. Someone would say "It is space exploration it is not for the faint of the heart, it is supposed to be hard" but actually it is not space exploration it is a game about the space exploration and the game shuld be more fun and less annoing. It is especially worrying that even gameplay at the current stage is significantly flawed the dev team is now concentrated on R&D and other carrier parts of the game rather than ironing the countless bugs that can easily ruin dozen hours of gameplay. Maybe that’s one of the de-benefits of “Early access†concept that removes any hard deadline from the game developers. And even if say 3-5 years later the finalized version of KSP will be released will we (current players) will still be around and interested in KSP enouth to appreciate it?

[paleorob]

Considering that I still play original Starcraft and GTA: Vice City I would say, yes, the players will still be around in the future.

[xvdBanksbvx]

Beta?, are you some sort of time traveling wizard? I'm still stuck with .21.1 Alpha lol. But being serious now, bugs come with the alpha/beta periods and expecting all of them to be fixed ASAP like a full release game just ain't going to happen, I would recommend taking a break from ksp and skip a few updates then jump back in.

[HeadHunter67]

I understand that KSP is still in early beta stage. But giving the amount of bugs and problems with the game that raises a question if we ever going to see KSP competed as a retail game?

...

In the end bugs was the factor that stopped me for playing KSP any further.

...

Maybe that’s one of the de-benefits of “Early access†concept that removes any hard deadline from the game developers. And even if say 3-5 years later the finalized version of KSP will be released will we (current players) will still be around and interested in KSP enouth to appreciate it?

We could replace all instances of "KSP" in this post with "Minecraft" and it would sound like the same old argument I used to hear a few years ago. The fact is, early access results in an improved game, because it gives you a far greater base for testing and a lot more feedback, as well as generating an increasing fanbase. Don't fool yourself into thinking people get more excited for a game if it remains unreleased all that time instead.

Feel free to doubt me, but you cannot argue with success.

[dlrk]

Personally, I seriously doubt that any of these 'early access' games will ever be truly completed. It's much better for the developer to keep them in alpha or beta eternally, as that way, they never have to take responsibility for bugs, or be accountable in any other way.

[BostLabs]

I'm having a ball! I will certainly be here when they finish the game.

[sjwt]

Please try to keep such threads constructive with positive suggestions, this is not the place to air compalints.

[samstarman5]

You may want to take the time and research the development process for high-end games like Borderlands, Grand Theft Auto, and the like. Most of them have already a year or two of development put into them before they are announced, and even then people quickly forget until the next year's E3 when more is featured. Most of those games have closed Beta tests with the testers under strong NDA's. When you really don't know what is going on, you tend to not pay attention to its development time until it reaches open Beta or is released. KSP seems to be longer because we are following its development so closely, and the bugs are more noticeable because we are actually seeing them. Granted it also has a longer time because Squad has a smaller staff than the usual larger game.

A good many of those games come with plenty of their own bugs upon release. Any gamer has experience with 1st-day patches and/or the inevitable patch release a week after the game's release. No game is perfect, and KSP isn't about to break out the godlike powers to change that.

If you are feeling like KSP isn't doing so well, then it might be time you took a break for an update or two. Perhaps seeing big changes after such a vacation will help boost your optimism and faith. Squad has quite the staff of professional developers with plenty of experience under their belts, even if it is with smaller projects pre-KSP. With what they have done thus far, I see plenty of potential in the game, even if it comes with a bug or two upon release.

Relax, Squad isn't going to disappear overnight and not finish the game. They have every intention of seeing it through, and they have a firm plan to go by.

[Citriodora]

That's some good advice from Banks, maybe take it.

Attaching the term 'beta' to your leading statement is not 'understanding'.

I will see a 'complete' version of this game, you bet! Just like I will see a 'complete' version of Ancient Domains Of Mystery!

Yes, i am a Timelord from 1994 and i have come to tell you about the ADOM 1.2.0 Prerelease 16 now available for $40 !

Just short of 20 years in development with no publicly open source.. Now crowd funded and still buggy, highly playable as a troll with fishing skill to boot, it's awesome!

[regex]

I understand that KSP is still in early beta stage. But giving the amount of bugs and problems with the game that raises a question if we ever going to see KSP competed as a retail game?

Don't care, got my money's worth.

[Lohan2008]

KSP Beta ?? Where did you hear that ?

Beta means developers have rid product of bugs/glitches. KSP is in "beta" testing.

The 2.2 career mode has the promise of a "game" environment ==> end goal.

KSP is already "complete" in that you buy it understanding that a sandbox has no set goal.

<insert flame war here>

[Ghost13]

Beta?, are you some sort of time traveling wizard?

Well the most of the game mechanic is there, so late-alpha or early-beta.

Personally, I seriously doubt that any of these 'early access' games will ever be truly completed. It's much better for the developer to keep them in alpha or beta eternally, as that way, they never have to take responsibility for bugs, or be accountable in any other way.

It is the exactly my thougths about the whole concept of the "Early acccess". Who want to complete the game if you can still make the revenue from the unfinished project sound perfect for indie dev right?

Feel free to doubt me, but you cannot argue with success.

Finacially speaking both Minecraft and and KSP are succesfull, I'm talking about getting somewere with the game development. But I can't say that Minecraft was actually finished in the first place. And with KSP we are clearly going in this Minecraft road and I'm not sure if I'm happy with it.

far greater base for testing

Feedback maybe, but there is no actual tools available for usual players in order to test the game and report the bugs found. (see below)

Please try to keep such threads constructive with positive suggestions, this is not the place to air compalints.

I'm not complaining at all, the KSP gave me a lot of fun hours I spend around 400 hours playing it just in the recent few months, maybe more than any other game recently and it is totally worth spending your money. I just feel that after more than 2 years of development game is equally far from being finished as it was during it's first release. I also think that maybe before brining so many features such as the whole solar system it would be more reasonable to add planets slowly with proper testing of the each celestial body. Also the benifit of early access looses part of it's meaning if usual players can't report bugs (exempt this forum). The Squad shuld have bug tracker (or even ingame feature) where various bugs culd be reported by the community but instead of going this way Squad goes for the mod support. The mod support itself is good for a finished product, instead we have flawed buggy alpha with mods on top of it which makes it's own bugs and renders proper bug tracking virtually impossibler, since there is unique combinations of mods (interacting with eachother) in each players version of the game. More than that, each release makes mods incompatible or faulty. So every time new version is released the mod community need to adapt to it and the Squad itself have to resort to closed testing group with limited nubmer of tester. It all sound really poorly planned for me.

If you are feeling like KSP isn't doing so well, then it might be time you took a break for an update or two. Perhaps seeing big changes after such a vacation will help boost your optimism and faith.

Maybe I'll just leave KSP for 3-5 years and return than to see if I was wrong and the game was finally relised as big hit or maybe I'll find this place generally in the same state as today with version 0.88 something with tonns of features and bugs but still far from being finished.

[RSwordsman]

If finished means "No more updates" then no, I hope we never see it finished. Minecraft is a game that has technically gone from beta to gold (finished from a dev standpoint), and yet still gets updates.

[sumghai]

KSP, as it stands, is more than worth the $23 I paid for it. I'd like to think of new updates or bug fixes as privileges rather than a right.

The Squad shuld have bug tracker (or even ingame feature) where various bugs culd be reported by the community

KSP Official Bugtracker

The mechanisms for bug tracking are there; it's just that when the devs do implement fixes for bugs, most people fail to report back to confirm that the fixes work, which leaves the false impression of unsolved bugs.

[Pds314]

FPS won't be a problem in the future unless they add lag from what currently exists. Remember that we'll have better PCs by then.

Example: my old laptop, made in April 2010, runs KSP ok at normal settings with decent-sized ships.

My new similarly priced laptop (except for an SSD that ramps up the price somewhat) can run the same ships at around double to quadruple the FPS.

Also, why would we want it to be "finished?" I'd be perfectly happy in the far future playing version 0.150 and waiting for version 0.151.

Bugs just require bugfixes.

BTW: Beta does not mean it has no bugs/glitches. Even full releases typically have major bugs.

Beta means it no longer has bugs in critical, gamebreaking areas and has generally all of the fundamental features.

E.G. The Kraken isn't something restricting KSP from being in Beta, but the fact remains it is still in alpha to begin with.

For that matter, even ancient products that go into the no-longer-supported phase still have bugs.

My classification of projects:

Proof-of-concept: a test, rarely playable in a normal sense, simply sees if the idea is feasible.

Alpha: working version with core features not yet cemented. likely bug-ridden.

Beta: working version with core features cemented, but content lacking and may still have some bugs.

RC: potential version of the full release, has every feature and content item of the full release. Bugs have been fixed to the point that it no-longer has any known major bugs.

Full release: all fundamental concepts and content are done, most added features simply update them and add additional content. Minor bugs are likely to be discovered even still.

Regular updates and expansions: updates to add new content as it is thought up and/or requested.

Occasional updates: updates follow no schedule, development no longer occurs, updates only there to provide support by patching bugs.

Support: a period, usually many years, when all external framework (websites, forums, online matchmaking, DRM-checking (if applicable), etc are maintained and left up. The devs may still do things during this phase, but it typically doesn't involve updating the game.)

Post-support: anarchy reigns, the devs have no active role in the process, can happen suddenly and unexpectedly for solo projects due to concerns of real life, such as death. Websites and forums are often un-maintained and eventually shut down.

Endangered: long afterward, the project may not be obtainable from the original or any other long-lived, reliable source, at any point, it is possible that there could be no copies of it accessible on the open web.

Extinct in the wild: no copy exists on the open web, though someone could upload a copy.

Irretrievably endangered: No uploadable or transferable copies exist in the entire world.

Extinct: The software has no useable installer or copy of the software itself on any machine or removeable media that is useable.

Legendary: No piece of the software exists anywhere in the world. No content identifiable to it exists either.

I currently have software on my computer that is as far as being extinct in the wild.

Edited October 3, 2013 by Pds314

[suzin.felipe]

May I suggest something?

Get a copy of Total War Rome II, which was just released as a finished game, from a massive studio with a dozen years of experience under their belts and an astronomic budget. Then make a note of all the bugs, incompetente IA, imbalances between units and come back to compare with KSP.

Squad has 6 dudes, with no budget and 0 experience in making games.

Does KSP look better now?

Don't meant to offend, but your criticism is a bit unfair as they are not even in the stage where they can iron out bugs as they are still adding content. What is the point of fixing bugs if new system full of them will still be implemented?

[Ghost13]

Squad has 6 dudes, with no budget and 0 experience in making games. Does KSP look better now?

You would certanly have a point if the game would be free but it cost : 23.00$ and the developers have a significant financial income from this project. So ya, I'm bitching about the game development and bugs since I paid for it. It was not crawd funding it was "early access" to the playable game. That playability part was little bit less than I expected and no solid plans for game completion makes me even more frustrated.

[sumghai]

[Ghost13,] your criticism is a bit unfair as they are not even in the stage where they can iron out bugs as they are still adding content. What is the point of fixing bugs if new system full of them will still be implemented?

As someone who has been involved in a handful of software development projects (mostly medical device firmware), I'm in agreement with suzin.felipe's sentiments.

Very rarely does a software consist of purely mutually-exclusive pieces of code that can be debugged and optimized individually to perfection; instead, you get a structured "web" of calls to common functions/subroutines which are often interrelated to each other. If one tries to optimize each individual feature independently as they are right now, more likely than not one would break other subroutines further down the track.

Also, in development builds there will often be extraneous code dedicated to debugging messages, internal "flag" variables etc which are important to both developers and add-on authors. If one tries taking those out right now, sure, the game would be just a bit more optimized, but if some other bug crops up, the devs will have no way of telling which functions/subroutines/threads borked.

Finally, the feature list is constantly evolving and changing - there's no point removing today (to the battle cry of "optimization!!1!!") what may be needed tomorrow. Or next week. Or next month. Or some post-official release patch years from now.

Edited October 3, 2013 by sumghai

[Ghost13]

Squad has 6 dudes, with no budget and 0 experience in making games. Does KSP look better now?

You would certanly have a point if the game would be free but it cost : 23.00$ and the developers have a significant financial income from this project. So ya, I'm bitching about the game development and bugs since I paid for it. It was not crawd funding it was "early access" to the playable game. That playability part was little bit less than I expected and no solid plans for game completion makes me even more frustrated.

[allmhuran]

For games like KSP identifying a release as "alpha", "beta" or "final" doesn't make a lot of sense. The whole lifecycle is out of date when we have easy download and distribution of releases and patches with everyone connected to speedy internet. Gone are the days when people bought a "final" release on a CD.

This has advantages and disadvantages for both developers and consumers.

Pro for developers: Revenue stream starts much earlier (this is, by far, the #1 reason to adopt this model). Useful early feedback, enormous test base.

Con for developers: Mostly misunderstandings about how this new model works, resulting in threads like this, which can be demotivating, but also "overfeedback" as players suggest all manner of things that were never on the original path.

Pro for consumers: The ability to get the game early on at a low cost and provide feedback.

Con for consumers: The game is never "final", which means it is *never* certified 100% bug free (but, let's face it, NO software ever meets this objective, even stuff that *is* release on CD, so the expectation is unrealistic to begin with).

Sure, at some point squad will say "The game is now version 1.0", but that will be purely nominal. It won't actually represent any difference from any other "release", except insofar as it is the release that squad has finished everything they believe "should" be finished. Development is an ongoing loop until the company says "enough" (ie, when the company decides further development is no longer profitable)

Edited October 3, 2013 by allmhuran

[loknar]

As someone who has been involved in a handful of software development projects (mostly medical device firmware), I'm in agreement with suzin.felipe's sentiments.

Very rarely does a software consist of purely mutually-exclusive pieces of code that can be debugged and optimized individually to perfection; instead, you get a structured "web" of calls to common functions/subroutines which are often interrelated to each other. If one tries to optimize each individual feature independently as they are right now, more likely than not one would break other subroutines further down the track.

Also, in development builds there will often be extraneous code dedicated to debugging messages, internal "flag" variables etc which are important to both developers and add-on authors. If one tries taking those out right now, sure, the game would be just a bit more optimized, but if some other bug crops up, the devs will have no way of telling which functions/subroutines/threads borked.

Finally, the feature list is constantly evolving and changing - there's no point removing today (to the battle cry of "optimization!!1!!") what may be needed tomorrow. Or next week. Or next month. Or some post-official release patch years from now.

Well then I guess I disagree with you both, then.

You have to build code that is optimized and stable on the first try. If you think a method is not perfect as you're coding, keep working on it. Not in a multi-year project with public releases! Because you'll end up wasting time later.

That is the traditional programming way. Of course other strategies like Agile are adapted to profit-making and modern pace of business: quick initial demo/alpha, regular functional updates. But it is unusual to start selling this unfinished product.

However, what I think to be the "problem" with Squad in this project is not code/bug-related or even strategy related.

Maybe:

1) Restrictions using 3rd party engine or components which cause bugs and performance issues they can't control.

2) Can't afford a big team/long dev time without income, so they release an unpolished product.

In spite of everything, I think the vast majority of players are delighted by the personal choices/sacrifices Squad made, compared with the cold and inhuman releases from big-name companies.

[sumghai]

Well then I guess I disagree with you both, then.

You have to build code that is optimized and stable on the first try. If you think a method is not perfect as you're coding, keep working on it. Not in a multi-year project with public releases! Because you'll end up wasting time later.

That is the traditional programming way. Of course other strategies like Agile are adapted to profit-making and modern pace of business: quick initial demo/alpha, regular functional updates. But it is unusual to start selling this unfinished product.

"Traditional" doesn't automatically mean "the right way".

The method you speak of is known as the waterfall method - linear progression with little chance for prototyping test code or feed back on incremental builds. That's fine if feature set of the final product is set in stone right from the start, but as evidenced by some of Harvester's earliest development blogs on Tumblr, the original concept and vision of KSP has evolved and changed to what it is today.

Sure, it's safer and more predicable for folks like you and Ghost13 if the first and only version that came out was completely bug-free, but what if the problem didn't lay with bugs, but that the overall direction of the game wasn't what people wanted in the first place? All the optimization would have gone to waste, and then they would have to start again completely from scratch with little to no public feedback until practically too late into the product lifecycle.

Edited October 3, 2013 by sumghai

[Axder]

Okay I realy dont get whats everybody has with game so full of bugs. In my years of playing KSP (and i play since 0.12) I came across 2 bugs like literaly two .... once a docking buff destroyed my station over minimus in 0.19 and in 21.1 i lost my roverbase on minimus due to glitch that game thougt its about to crash despite being parked on surface so it deleed iit. But exept thus two i think games run perfectly. Yes squad tinkers a lot and i kinda doubt we will see building bases and launching things from other planets. (At least i hope we can see it in expansion which i will happily pay for) ...... well i also consider buying KSP again on 2 year anyversary to support sqad. Becouse seriosly I never had so much fun for 18 dolars ...... well maybe Gothic 2 i bought that one for 10 and spend large portion of my childhood on it

[sumghai]

Okay I realy dont get whats everybody has with game so full of bugs.

That's because many of them have been squashed by the experimentals team before each release.

I've encountered the occasional bug too, and have plenty of feature requests yet to be addressed/fulfilled, but that doesn't mean I'll pull a

on SQUAD any time soon.

[Bishop149]

Don't care, got my money's worth.

As much as I obviously want to see it all polished, finished, fully featured and working beautifully I have to partially agree with the above.

The amount of time I've spent playing this so far more than makes it worth the relatively small amount of money I paid.