It's in alpha, The fallback excuse

[Kerbart]

It's under development. Userbase would flak the #### out of Squad if they spend a couple of months on a release that "only" fixes bugs. Microsoft has done that a couple of times on a small scale and it didn't go over well (at one point they completely overhauled the internals of the calculator and then got to hear "you didn't even touch the calculator"--so much for users appreciation of "under the hood" work). The most "underwhelming" version of MS Office? Office 2K. They "only" made it nearly bug free (god I how I yearn for those days instead of having to work with bug-ridden Office 2010. But I digress)

More of a challenge, what one user calls "bugs" is considered "features" by another. "Unrealistic atmospheric re-entry". If you consider that a bug it should be fixed NOW. If you consider realistic atmospheric re-entry a feature, you'd rather see it implemented in a "real" update (and not half-ass patched in a "bugfix" release)

The game is sold under the "it's a work in progress, it's not perfect, it's not complete" premiss. Rather than throwing a fit over its shortcomings it's better to simply enjoy the crap out of the current version and be surprised how much better it is getting with each release.

[allmhuran]

There are two separate issues in the OP, I think one is legitimate but the other is not.

First, the illegitimate one: as mentioned by several people and mods already, buying KSP does not mean you are buying the final product, but rather the game as it was at the time of purchase. Anything Squad chooses to add to that, and give to you for free, is a bonus. So the "investment" complaint doesn't stand.

However, I do agree that many is the time that someone points out a bug or issue, and a whole raft of people float in with "It's in alpha". This is really maddening. What do they mean to say?

Do they mean to say that the criticism is invalid? No, it's pointing out some issue or bug with the game, and it is entirely reasonable and constructive to do this.

Do they mean to say that the particular issue raised is being worked on? Then do something useful: provide a link to a Squad post where they mention that they are working on that specific issue.

Or are they just being defensive and cluttering up and subsequently derailing a useful bug/issue report thread? This is usually what actually happens. It's one of the least useful, most inflammatory things to say, and I wish the mods would summarily delete every post that responds to a bug/issue/suggestion thread with "it's in alpha". The forum would become more productive as a result.

[Whackjob]

The main reason people respond to a complaint with "It's an alpha" is because the problem is never described or handled in the proper manner. To whit, people need to learn how to file a proper bug report.

Start with the nomeclature of the bug. What does it affect, and how? What is the mechanism that causes it? Can it be replicated on command? What is the severity level of this bug? What do you suggest as a way of resolving it? If you do not know how to resolve it, how do you work around it? How effective is the workaround? And of course, detail, detail, detail.

Just about every instance of the "It's an alpha" response was in return to a generalized gripe that provided little to none of the above. I call that a fair use of the comment. The best gripe is an articulate, specific, productive gripe. A generalized moan and/or groan deserves a general answer.

That's how I see it, anyway.

[allmhuran]

Why not respond constructively with suggestions on what specifics to provide, as you have done there? "It's in alpha" is not a constructive post, ever.

In any case, this doesn't always apply. For example, I would like further improvements to the maneuver nodes, since the handles are still pretty finnicky. The current state of them is not "buggy" per se, they're just difficult to use. Similarly for science collection... it's not buggy per se, but it's repetitive and tedious and not much fun. Action group symmetry in the VAB is buggy... when symmetrical parts with action groups are detached and reattached the action groups are not reapplied symmetrically, and it happens every time. That's a complete description of the issue and requires no further information. Not every bug report, even ones about actual bugs, must be submitted with bureaucratic overkill.

[Whackjob]

Not overkill, no, but remember, developers are usually developing. This is a small team. They do not have a specific antibug department. Therefore, the more detail you can give them, the faster they can squash that bug and get back to adding in other stuff. Who knows? Maybe the magic boulder would be back already if just one person was a bit more specific describing a bug.

As a techie geek who troubleshoots cable and internets with end users, I'll also chime in with "More data is more data". You can filter out useless data. You can't filter in missing data.

[razark]

Just about every instance of the "It's an alpha" response was in return to a generalized gripe that provided little to none of the above. I call that a fair use of the comment.

I'll also point out that "It's in alpha" is a valid response to complaints that "(X) doesn't work properly", where (X) is something the devs have mentioned as being a placeholder that they intend to revisit at a later time.

[vexx32]

As a techie geek who troubleshoots cable and internets with end users...

My deepest sympathies.

But, more on-topic; what has already been said has really covered most of the argument. I don't think there's much that has not been said. In simplest terms, the game simply does not stringently follow the alpha/beta/etc model of game development.

[Tripzter]

To be honest, I find the lack of progress disturbing.. This is a 3 year old game now.

[Guest]

To be honest, I find the lack of progress disturbing.. This is a 3 year old game now.

It's progressed a lot in the last three years! Sure the updates may be slow, but they have more features and very few bugs. The devs went into a "small, quick updates" development plan, but they went back to the long updates. This is good because we have not needed a bug-fix update since then.

Also don't forget that progress is not always in terms of new parts, planets, or gameplay. There's a lot of back-end changes that have been in the updates, including ones that made modding much easier. This game could be called complete right now and I won't care. All the gameplay is pretty much there (and has been for quite a while).

[Jouni]

To be honest, I find the lack of progress disturbing.. This is a 3 year old game now.

Three years isn't that much for a game that's probably going to stay in development for as long as the developers still have new ideas to implement. It took around 15 years for the NetHack DevTeam to run out of ideas, with most major changes happening during the first five years.

[Puddin]

Like I said before my issue isn't really with how long it is taken. It could take another three years and that just means more parts and features. My issue is that in the past three years lots and lots of people have participated in the early release and for the past 3 years no sort of game plan or schedule has been produced. This causes issues with modding as I would love to start making mods for this game but don't want the next update around the corner to break it. Not only that they keep the release secret so I can't even try to plan around it. The content of the update release is important so you can make sure you don't implement something that they are already including.

And then the save breaks. It is pretty unsatisfying to have save games break especially if you were in the middle of a long flight or something. This is something I figured would happen being in this state of alpha release but I would at least like to see light at the end of a tunnel where the game is considered finished and save breaking updates are pretty much non-existent.

[Seshins]

Like others - i sometimes feel frustrated with what seems like stagnant development, but at the same time im fully aware of the situation, and just carry on patiently.

One theme ive noticed, at least of late, and have started a thread on this, is the KSP roadmap/scope completetion/call it what you will. I for one, and im sure others are very interested in where this game is going. 100s of hours of your life, playing a single game, says alot about the concept, the developers and even this amazing community, where these discussions are rather more civilized than other parts of the wilderness/internet.

However i feel a sense of commitment to the game, it provides me with a means to somewhat fulfill a fantasy ive had since i can remember, and that is to see and explore the solar system and maybe the star. I would like an actual word from Harv on what HE vstill envisions for KSP, what does feature complete actually mean? What does he see after feature complete? I don' think thats unreasonable to ask, surley?

[Jouni]

Like I said before my issue isn't really with how long it is taken. It could take another three years and that just means more parts and features. My issue is that in the past three years lots and lots of people have participated in the early release and for the past 3 years no sort of game plan or schedule has been produced. This causes issues with modding as I would love to start making mods for this game but don't want the next update around the corner to break it. Not only that they keep the release secret so I can't even try to plan around it. The content of the update release is important so you can make sure you don't implement something that they are already including.

There are two fundamentally different approaches to developing software. In one approach, the eventual goal is to deliver a finished product. When it's done, there may still be bug fixes and support updates, but no new features. The developers just move on to another project.

In another approach, the developers just keep adding new features and fixing old ones, until they lose interest and move on. In this approach, software is never finished, but it will eventually be abandoned. Some people following this approach tend to joke that 'stable' is synonymous with 'dead'. Taking NetHack as an example, the first years see many updates that often change the game significantly and break old saves. Then, as the game matures, the time between major updates increases, ultimately becoming several years.

It seems that Squad is mostly following the second approach.

[TNM]

I'm going to have to stop you there, indeed you paid for a product but you paid for it as it was when you bought it. Nowhere does Squad give their word that it will be finished. In fact when you look at the terms of service you agree to when purchasing the game it says:

(full terms of service available here.

This of course doesn't say or even imply that the game won't be finished, but my point here is merely that you did not buy a full game, nor did you 'invest' in one. You paid for KSP as it was at the time you bought it, and nothing else

Wait a sec....you know that was different for Steam Early Access when you released it there yes? Only recently Valve changed the terms for the worse, accomodating exactly what you describe above, in the process probably destroying the EA-process (what a shame). I repeat, that was NOT the case 2011-June 2014, there was a clear expectation for the devs to finish, but as usual some think themselves clever and run with the money once they have it. I'm surprised hearing you stating the exact same sentiment above, basically "be happy we do finish, we don't even have to". Thats why we can't have nice things...well, just remember, next time you will have to find a publisher, convince him what/how/when, he will give you money and then be on your back the whole time till you finish, if you don't he will sue you into oblivion.

This passage that is NOW in the FAQ is only from June 2014, you can't refer to it from before.

“Its up to the developer to determine when they are ready to ‘release’. Some developers have a concrete deadline in mind, while others will get a better sense as the development of the game progresses. You should be aware that some teams will be unable to ‘finish’ their game. So you should only buy an Early Access game if you are excited about playing it in its current state.â€Â

-----------------

About the EULA and no obligation from Squad.

Let's say they don't include that in the terms, and for any reason Squad decide to shut the project from Harvester, or go bankrupt (probably not a decision) or any other (bought by another company etc...). Then all the player could send them to court to get their money back. That simple line removing any obligation from actually finishing the game, just secure them that in case of problem, they player base will not send them to court and make it worst (especially if it's a financial problem).

And thats exactly the sentiment that will kill EA once customers realize it. It has just become "another scam". Devs KNOW publishers will sue them if they don't finish, now they can avoid that by going EA, taking money wihtout any responsiblity. In the process they are destroying the system that still is a good idea (giving exotic projects a chance that get rejected by publishers).

Edited July 7, 2014 by TNM

[liweih]

I agree with the devnote part. It needs to be more solid and informative. Many times I found I was reading a long text but found there was only a few sentences that really matter to game develop. Some people's devnotes were just bull.

[Justin Kerbice]

I think IMHO OP and some people here forgot an important detail: KSP is an indie game, so there is no evil publisher who can look other he dev shoulder and say "You DON'T respect your contract, your game have to be delivered for the ..., you're fired !" and any investors who put money in it have to be fair and acknowledge all investments are kind of bet and some may lead to loose all money put on the table.

[MockKnizzle]

I agree with the devnote part. It needs to be more solid and informative. Many times I found I was reading a long text but found there was only a few sentences that really matter to game develop. Some people's devnotes were just bull.

There is no obligation for Squad to communicate with the community in any way, please read the terms of service. It would be nice to have more details, and I'm sure everyone would like to get more information in the devnotes, but you are not entitled to anything.

[TNM]

I think IMHO OP and some people here forgot an important detail: KSP is an indie game, so there is no evil publisher who can look other he dev shoulder and say "You DON'T respect your contract, your game have to be delivered for the ..., you're fired !" and any investors who put money in it have to be fair and acknowledge all investments are kind of bet and some may lead to loose all money put on the table.

See, i have been closely watching EA since its conception, and i'm comming to the conclusion that publishers are not such a bad thing...they keep DEVs on their toes to finish stuff. They are also some kind of "reality check" before starting a project. EA has become a pool of badly thought out ideas and badly executed projects.

I'm still a fan of the "idea" of EA, but it turned out not to work. It would be better to just make a "donation" system, at least that word describes what EA/kickstarter really is. You donate money and hope something good will come out of it, but it probably won't, its more for yourself to feel better.

[Lilleman]

I agree with the devnote part. It needs to be more solid and informative. Many times I found I was reading a long text but found there was only a few sentences that really matter to game develop. Some people's devnotes were just bull.

A complete changelog between each release, sort of?

Don't know, people will then probably say "why did you spend so much time on (X) thing instead of (Y)?".

I've seen almost the same discussion a few years ago about Minecraft, when it was still in development: "more release", "more things in each release", "hire more developpers", "The development is too slow, I paid for it two years ago', "you're lazy","I don't agree with the dev anymore and I already paid", etc...

Just replace Notch by Squad here and you get the idea. I'm sure it's the same thing with other indie games in development. This could seems slow, but I think the current system (give some time to get an interesting and polished update) is the best for a early access game. See too big and this might never be released (it's a small studio, after all), too small and players will complain. It's about finding a solution that will please everyone.

I don't care if the game is still in development for 2 or 3 years: it means MOAR UPDATES!

As for development time: getting ideas, find a way to implement them, and finally properly code them takes a LOT of time. You're not just writing code 24/7, you spend most of that time thinking about what you will write.

Let's be honest, this is not a fast development, but it could be so much worse: not only we have regular updates, but we don't have an alpha, we have an early-access to a game, as polished as it can be.

[CaptRobau]

I noticed a few people saying that three years is a long time for KSP to still be in development. In reality three years is pretty much an average for the development of complex games in this day in age. Star Citizen and Elite Dangerous have also been in development for that time (Elite kickstarted in 2012, but they developed the engine before that).

[Albert VDS]

Something that might be over looked is that KSP isn't an other cookiecutter game. It's a unique game which is treading on new grounds.

Sure there are elements in the game that can be traced back to others, but overall it can't be compared to anything else.

You can't rush a game like that, slap an "it's done" sticker on it and expect it to be a great stable game.

It's like driving a prototype, it runs, brakes and steers and is just what you expect of a prototype.

But you don't ask for a sunroof if they are still working on it's structural components.

[rkman]

KSP has made the top 5 selling list on steam so obviously people think the software is done enough to pay for.

No so sure; peope who pay for it know they pay for early access, not for a game that is anywhere near finished.

So why keep the alpha stage going for so long?

There is no decision to keep the alpha stage for a long time, it just is in alpha stage for a long time because reasons (small inexperienced dev team, limited budget, novel game concept).

What gets me mainly is that there is no timeline or contract with a purchase like this.

You knew that in advance, didn't you?

[liweih]

I found people here so easily to be defensive when someone mentioned something about devnote. It is a good channel for game developer to show player how hard and well they are doing. I read it every week and try to translate it into Chinese so some players on the other side of the planet can also know what is going on in game development. But many times, I found what I really need to do was focusing on the first paragraph which written by Harv. That part contained important information about update. What about the other parts? People care little about it. I am not expecting a changelog, it would be too much. But I am hoping those people who just wrote 1 or 2 lines in the devnote could write more. Seriously? What you spent one week to do worthed just one sentence? A kid can do better in his diary.

[Corw]

So the op is proposing to stop calling it alpha/beta/not-feature-complete/..., switch it to "released" and that would change what? You can then start ing how broken/incomplete/bugged it is for a completed game?

There is a list of features that devs have planned for full version (check wiki.) The list is not complete and some of systems that we do have is placeholder and not final implementation. So it is not feature complete. Simple as that.

As it has been mentioned a lot of times before, game is developed by small indie team and it is research and develop. There is no master design document describing all in detail. A lot of things are changed once they start working on it and see what is wrong with it, for example resources (yes, you can throw a tantrum about resources and what you want and don't want, but in the end it is their project and their vision). There is no written-in-stone plan so there can't be a equivalent written-in-stone deadline.

From what I've seen, the devs are passionate about their project and you can count on them they will do the best they can. The principle that the most neglected feature gets on top of the todo list is equally interesting and maddening, depending on who you ask. One of the consequences is that all defects that float out from current implementation might wait quite some time till they get another pass (for examples check all the treads about drag implementation).

What most of the users do not fully realize is the amount of work required to make all of this work. This is a colossal project for a very small team that is learning on the job. No second tries, whatever has been found to not be good enough must be fixed in this version with all implications and dependencies. From what I understand the game engine had at least major rewrite with parts module and user wouldn't know the difference from the outside.

Just because something looks trivial to you does not mean it is trivial to implement. Just because something is already available as a mod does not mean it is easy. Go ask mods how much work they have thrown into their pet projects for free. Really, check 5 top used mods thread, see how long they have been running and how many changed and fixes was added to them.

[Javster]

Just a question now: what would it take Squad to make the game "complete"? I mean if they had to finish it now, how much work would they have to put in to polish the game so it could be sold as "complete"? I don't mean "get all the features we really want into the game quick", I mean a polish/bugfix of 0.23.5 and a re-labeling of the game so it can be called complete? Obviously, there are half-implemented features, since they work on the weakest bits of the game first, but ignoring those, would the bugfixing be a lot of work?