How much work of squad is showed in updates

[KasperVld]

Small point of order there Kasper. Pointing out a logical fallacy in an opponent's argument is not, itself, a fallacy.

Unless that's not what you were saying at all, in which case I'm far too tired for my own good.

It may not be a fallacy but it is off-topic.

Back on topic

[luchelibre]

And YOU are strawmanning. Nowhere does he say that Squad is lazy. You said it, then proceeded to yell at him with a verbose equivalent of 'HOW DARE YOU!?'

Indeed, I'm glad he's not lame enough to simply say "Squad is lazy." Still, you need to comprehend.

...

[AAA teams] aren't just showing up and browsing Reddit for half the day and then deciding that since it's been three months they should put in a science archive screen.

...

Sorry but 'when it's done' is an excuse that flies with procrastinating teenagers, not anyone who actually has a real job. Squad's updates are outrageously slow and chronically offer extremely little content relative to the time investment involved. In three months I would expect you'd have been able to do more than to add two new parts and make some experiments a one-time affair. v1.0 of the game is so far away at this pace that I honestly wonder if anyone will even still be playing this game enough to care when that happens.

...

If you don't stick to schedules and milestones, you slip a little. One feature doesn't get into update because it wasn't done in time. Then next time, you let the release date slip a little because you had another feature not done. Then next time, you just keep your delayed release schedule since people didn't get too upset last time, and besides, now you have more time to get more features done. So now you're developing three months of content in four months. Then you get a little lazy, maybe burned out on this project that you've been dragging out for three years, and you slip another feature, and decide to hold the next update for that feature. Now you're on five month schedules for three months of content.

I'd say it's quite evident I'm not beating on a strawman.

We paid money to them. We are entitled to complain AS MUCH AS WE WANT, just as you are entitled to defend them as much as you want. And how does their wealth or former occupation make a lick of difference?

Squad: "Luche, we're making a rocket game but need money. We're not entirely sure what direction it'll go and may not even finish it."

Luche: "I see."

Squad: "Here's our free demo of what we're working on."

Luche: "This is good stuff. I'm enjoying it."

Squad: "Is $23 a price you'd be willing to send our way to get the latest updates and get in on some bugtesting, if that's your thing?"

Luche: "That sounds reasonable to me."

*400 play-hours later*

Squad: "Hey Luche, we've decided to scrap the rockets bit and make something more like Kerbal SimCity."

Luche: "Well, that's a bummer. Can I keep what I've got from you up to this point?"

Squad: "Yeah."

Luche: "Thanks. $23 for 400+ hours of fun and 'dammit-I-forgot-the-antenna-again' was a really great trade. Not to mention all the mods you worked hard to provide a framework for. Good luck on KSC. I'll check out the demo."

Yes, I paid money. I'm also an adult who paid attention to what Squad told me in the first place about themselves and the game. It makes my defense rational and contexually-aware and your whining...not. It also means Squad is much more likely to listen to me if I did make a suggestion.

Just because portal took two and a half years does not mean that it wasn't scheduled. It was. It was scheduled to release with the Orange Box, and that was their deadline. They made it. It was NOT a 'when-it's-done' game.

And there's the fallacy. The two are not incompatible with each other (and generally don't have much to do with each other). 'When it's done' is not laziness. Valve gave themselves an extensive deadline for something they already had the base for. Why? So when it was done it was 'done.' A little puzzle game they could be proud of. And even if that were not true, Valve's track record shows that if Portal was not up to their snuff by the deadline, they would take some more time on it. And their buyers will give them consideration because they've shown that quality is worth waiting for.

Yes, but I (and Gordon Ramesey and Robert Irvine and pretty much any other successful chef) will be very, very angry if it spends thirty minutes being futzed over in the kitchen and arrives at the table without the sides that were promised on the menu.

If I'd ordered sides, yes. But I didn't, I ordered 0.13 and Squad's determination. Don't pretend you ordered anything more than that.

Besides all of this, I will make a concession. There is one particular group of people for which deadlines are particularly necessary, regardless of the final quality. 3D modelers and animators. Why? Because they are most assuredly NOT lazy. They will work on and rebuild and work on the same scene or model forever and never think it's done. They're like an OCD trying to trim his sideburns evenly. Eventually, you need to stop him from shaving sidewalks into his temples.

Edited December 29, 2013 by luchelibre

[Stargate525]

For the last time, NO ONE is calling a 'when it's done' production schedule laziness. However the two do tend to go hand-in-hand, especially when you have no one to hold you accountable for a final product.

And there's the fallacy. The two are not incompatible with each other (and generally don't have much to do with each other). 'When it's done' is not laziness. Valve gave themselves an extensive deadline for something they already had the base for. Why? So when it was done it was 'done.' A little puzzle game they could be proud of. And even if that were not true, Valve's track record shows that if Portal was not up to their snuff by the deadline, they would take some more time on it. And their buyers will give them consideration because they've shown that quality is worth waiting for.

Go to wikipedia, give me a link to the fallacy I'm using, because I don't see it.

As for the rest of your... paragraph; Valve has a consistent track record of making excellent games. Squad does not. They have not released a single finished game. None of the developers, as far as I am aware, have released a single finished game. We have zero reason to trust anything but what we see right now.

If I'd ordered sides, yes. But I didn't, I ordered 0.13 and Squad's determination. Don't pretend you ordered anything more than that.

That's where the main divide is. There are some people who, justifiably, believe they bought .13 (or .15 or .18.1 or whichever) and the promise of future updates. There are others who, also quite justifiably, believe that they pre-ordered 1.0 with the bonus of an ongoing alpha to play. To the former group, anything else they get is gravy. To the latter, every update is a step closer to them getting the actual thing they paid for and were promised.

This discrepancy is impossible to reconcile without an official clarification from the developers, which we're never going to get. It's also a byproduct of this trend in the indie industry to completely fund their endeavor with early purchases. Like so many things in the games and tech world, this has completely blown past corporate and legal precedent. Until one of the companies actually gets a class-action, buyers will continue to have this argument over any game of this model whose devs haven't explicitly said one way or the other.

[Dante80]

That's where the main divide is. There are some people who, justifiably, believe they bought .13 (or .15 or .18.1 or whichever) and the promise of future updates. There are others who, also quite justifiably, believe that they pre-ordered 1.0 with the bonus of an ongoing alpha to play. To the former group, anything else they get is gravy. To the latter, every update is a step closer to them getting the actual thing they paid for and were promised.

This discrepancy is impossible to reconcile without an official clarification from the developers, which we're never going to get. It's also a byproduct of this trend in the indie industry to completely fund their endeavor with early purchases. Like so many things in the games and tech world, this has completely blown past corporate and legal precedent. Until one of the companies actually gets a class-action, buyers will continue to have this argument over any game of this model whose devs haven't explicitly said one way or the other.

I don't really think there is a divide man, especially if you read what you signed up for. Its really an entitlement problem for some people, stemming from this.

Terms of service

By purchasing Kerbal Space Program, you are entitled to the following:

<section id="main_body">

- Access to the software in its current state.

- Access to all updates for the software.

By 'updates' we mean software updates including content, features and bugfixes, released as a new version for the same title, before or after the official ("1.0") release of the software.

If you've purchased KSP before May 1st, 2013, you are entitled to the above, plus any Expansion Packs released for KSP.

By 'Expansion Packs' we mean software released as a separate title, but that requires and ties into the original KSP software to expand the game by adding content, features and bugfixes.

Regardless of purchase date, your purchase of KSP does not entitle you to the following:

• Other "Kerbal" titles, such as sequels, prequels or any other works based on KSP or any subset of the KSP IP, even those that integrate with the original KSP (but do not require it).
  
• Other titles released by Squad.
  
• Other goods and services offered as complements to any Squad title, such as Merchandise (t-shirts, mugs, mousepads, etc.), 3D printing, etc.
  

Please keep in mind:

• Squad is not under any obligation to release any updates, expansions or titles at any time. Each release may very well be the last one.
  
• Squad is under no obligation to implement any given set of features prior to the final release for KSP or any future title. All posted lists of planned features are unofficial and do not imply a promise by Squad to deliver anything listed in them.
  
• Squad reserves the right to add, remove and modify content on any of its software at their own discretion, without prior notice.
  
• Squad is under no obligation to maintain any level of communication with the player community, choosing to do so at their own discretion.
  
• The minimum hardware specifications are posted for reference purposes only. KSP is a work-in-progress, and as such, may not perform as expected under any given hardware configuration.
  
• The Software is made available as-is, and may contain bugs and/or manifest undesirable behaviour. Squad does not guarantee any level of stability or performance for the Software, and takes no responsibility in the event of data loss or damage ocurred as a direct or indirect result of using the software. Use at your own risk.
  

</section>

EULA

5. NO WARRANTIES.

Electro Chango S.A. de C.V. expressly disclaims any warranty for the SOFTWARE PRODUCT. The SOFTWARE PRODUCT is provided 'As Is' without any express or implied warranty of any kind, including but not limited to any warranties of merchantability, noninfringement, or fitness of a particular purpose. Electro Chango S.A. de C.V. does not warrant or assume responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of any information, text, graphics, links or other items contained within the SOFTWARE PRODUCT.

Can it get more clear than that?

Edited December 29, 2013 by Dante80

[Dodgey]

That's where the main divide is. There are some people who, justifiably, believe they bought .13 (or .15 or .18.1 or whichever) and the promise of future updates. There are others who, also quite justifiably, believe that they pre-ordered 1.0 with the bonus of an ongoing alpha to play. To the former group, anything else they get is gravy. To the latter, every update is a step closer to them getting the actual thing they paid for and were promised.

If you had taken the time to read the terms of service, and I quote Please keep in mind:

Squad is not under any obligation to release any updates, expansions or titles at any time. Each release may very well be the last one.

Squad is under no obligation to implement any given set of features prior to the final release for KSP or any future title. All posted lists of planned features are unofficial and do not imply a promise by Squad to deliver anything listed in them.

You didn't buy the full game. You bought the game as is, any further updates are technically a bonus. Please stop thinking that squad ows you 1.0

[Tuareg]

i think they show all what they do. its not too much but that's it...

[TheGeoninja]

From my experience with coding which is not much but I still get somethings Squad releases somethings in the next update possible while other things they are slowly working on overtime and waiting to complete them. If I recall correctly they do have volcanoes working but they are implemented yet they tested them and they work quite well.

[luchelibre]

For the last time, NO ONE is calling a 'when it's done' production schedule laziness. However the two do tend to go hand-in-hand, especially when you have no one to hold you accountable for a final product.

Since you're just repeating yourself. I'm moving on.

Go to wikipedia, give me a link to the fallacy I'm using, because I don't see it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Don't_Know_What_I'm_Talking_About

You're right, no where on that page does it say that's a fallacy. My bad.

As for the rest of your... paragraph; Valve has a consistent track record of making excellent games. Squad does not. They have not released a single finished game. None of the developers, as far as I am aware, have released a single finished game. We have zero reason to trust anything but what we see right now.

All admitted and consented to when I bought the game.

That's where the main divide is. There are others who, also quite justifiably, believe that they pre-ordered 1.0 with the bonus of an ongoing alpha to play. To the former group, anything else they get is gravy. To the latter, every update is a step closer to them getting the actual thing they paid for and were promised.

As the last few posts have shown, these people are either willfully ignorant or lied to Squad when they said they consented to their conditions. It makes me sad that Squad banning these people is considered wrong or unjust.

It's also a byproduct of this trend in the indie industry to completely fund their endeavor with early purchases. Like so many things in the games and tech world, this has completely blown past corporate and legal precedent. Until one of the companies actually gets a class-action, buyers will continue to have this argument over any game of this model whose devs haven't explicitly said one way or the other.

It's a good thing we're not in that situation then.

I think I'm done. I'm getting smart-assy in response to your nonsense and it's making the XKCD comic not look so funny anymore.

Edited December 29, 2013 by luchelibre

[sal_vager]

And this thread is done, criticism is fine until it turns into this, people just picking each other apart over any little thing.

See you in the next criticism thread, maybe that one will stay civil and on topic.

Closing!