It's in alpha, The fallback excuse

[Puddin]

I think the convo may have moved off track a bit. Like I said before I love this game and the concept it presents. It has absorbed more time than most other games. I do feel though that sqaud need to be a bit more open with the players that are spending their money on their game long before it was finished. When something is purchased that is still under development then it is more than reasonable to expect that the product will stay in development until it is done. Sure they have a messed up legal right to just opt out but I don't think they would do that. I was stating that it isn't deplorable or should even be frowned upon to have access to dates of which these things will be done.

Like I said even if they said it was done now I would be happy with it in it current state. That means no more bad save games and more stable mods. If they want to continue developing I'm cool with that as that means more features. But to be stuck in some sort of alpha limbo with no explanation of any actual plans to get out is by no means a good thing.

[shadowsutekh]

@alshain

I would propose you re-read the very first paragraph in this post.

@sal_vager

You are right that they do shy away from normal release standards and I applaud them for that. However they still say that the game in it's entirety is in alpha. I simply pose the question as to why. Trust me I know that these things take time as I extremely close to game development.If you bought a house that wasn't finished yet would you allow the contractors to not tell you their progress?

They actually do tell you their progress on a regular basis. They tell you what they've been working on and usually some of what they've had issues with in the weeklies.

[UbioZur]

Please note that all I am going to say is as a player and member of the community.

When you buy a game, you usually buy a finish product, but you buy a game as a player. When you buy an early access of a game, you buy the product as well as the right to play the game while it is not yet finished. You do not buy the right to be part of the development team and so add your idea into it. Of course the community can influence the design (as we have saw many time already).

Before you start into making a game, you will always have a design document (especially if you want to get investment, and Squad have invested into Harvested project) and a vision to know where you are heading. It doesn't have to be fully detailed, but you need to know all the feature you need and what are the goals of the player.

From how I see the update going and the few article from the developer, I can imagine than this is how Squad is doing it:

- They have the list of all the Core feature they need to consider the game complete.

- They choose which update would bring what feature, so they have a goal as to when considering an update done.

- They will create a fully design document for the feature of the next update (even may be 2 updates in advance)

- They will start working on the next update (spending probably 20% of time to advance the big feature of the later updates, like testing/probing how things works).

- Once a feature is done it will go under QA. and pushed to the main game once considered bug free.

- Once 90% of the feature are done (only small one, bug fixes are left), they will send it to the experimental team for a bigger testing.

- Experimental push the bugs, give them feedback, and the dev work on fixing all that. (more may go during that process, like tweaking and all that)

- Once the experimental are done, it mean that the feature are quite stable and considered as implemented (doesn't mean there is lot of content with it)

- It is then pushed to the community for them to play/try/test, and the dev to see how things can be tweaked/fixed

- Once all main feature are implemented (scope completion as they call it), they will probably start working on more tweaking and adding content, and may be consider the game as a beta now

- Once all the content is added, the game will certainly be considered as done and so release.

- Later update/DLC/etc... to be seen

During all this time, they will stay open and flexible to opportunities (NASA pack, edu version etc...) and community desire (Multiplayer) which sure could push some feature toward later update, but you have to take the opportunity while you can.

Now the choice of lack of transparency vs (pretending to) say a lot.

.Star citizen, you think they says a lot, but they only says what could make you pledge more, any Squadron 42 is redacted, etc.... But ships to pledge are quite transparent! They also have a planning for DFM december 2013 ......... fairly late.

.Squad decide to not say much, keep it silence, and never miss a deadline, They certainly have deadline in house, but bugs/opportunity could push it, and not saying to the community just avoid the late update.

.Space engineer have decided for a weekly update, it's great but how many thread saying, it's still not that feature...... and how many Friday hot fix patch or next week patch etc.....

Here you have 3 space related early development game with 3 different approach to updating.

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).

I am sure however than Harvester and then Dev (it's their Job) do not want to stop making the game he wants until it's release or even after.

[sal_vager]

...snipped...

That's the nature of early access though, and there's a reason Squad can't provide a date for completion, they don't have one.

Development is following a board plan that has no set dates, and that plan is occasionally modified when the Squad staff decide they want to expand on an avenue of the game.

It's not and never was a rigid road map, and is subject to change, this is not a bad thing as it means we can get features that were never even considered when KSP was first started, for example did you know that KSP was originally going to be a 2D side view game?

[Javster]

Also, why does squad have a "testing team" for a "alpha release" for "alpha" version of a "alpha stage game"?

Sig says everything.

Yeah, I noticed that too. It's pretty cheap, since we are technically the testers: we pay earlier, play earlier, and in return, get updates much quicker and help in fixing bugs.

And about not being obliged to release updates, yes, they could technically just stop, but the negative publicity would kill their business and reputation. It would be hard for them to start another project because no one would have any faith in them...

And why do they never give release dates or give us much detail about what they're working on? Sounds like the perfect recipe: "work" on an update, get more people interested in the game, wait until you gather enough cash, never release said update, close business, split the cash and leave, and avoid legal trouble because of a disclaimer.

This might be extreme, but the lack of a release date might be slowing them down. With no specific target, they can always drag out the work for a bit longer, since they are under little pressure to get anything out at all, except for the community they interact so much with (sarcasm).

About releases: we get the worst of both worlds: disadvantage of buggy updates (early access) and slow updates which are few and far between (finished games from large publishers)

[Whackjob]

I think the primary issue here is some folks don't have reasonable expectations. My hobby is beta testing. I've done about seventy of them over the years. I've done great betas, like Firefall, and I've done some insanely terrible betas like Hellgate: London. I've seen the whole breadth. I've seen the good, I've seen the bad, and I've seen every bloody can of treacle go into your inventory, and not stack, and be undroppable, and be unable to be used, until it fills your inventory and you can do nothing. Yes, I'm looking at you again, Hellgate London Beta! And they took MONTHS to fix that!

Squad's doing fine. I wouldn't call their transparency level excellent, but they're far better than the average, even before taking into account the tiny team they've got. Remember, this is a marketing company, not a games company. They didn't have the infrastructure in place for a gaming production type environment. We ought to be supportive of this kind of thing. Who knows how many other employees of non-game companies have awesome games they might wanna make? Wouldn't we want them to have the chance to make them?

Give 'em some love, folks. It's not often a team goes up for their first game dev at-bat and then not only knock it out of the park with the aid of boosters, but have the bat explode into shrapnel, peppering the faces of fans with splinters. We need more of this.

[Javster]

Yeah, I noticed that too. It's pretty cheap, since we are technically the testers: we pay earlier, play earlier, and in return, get updates much quicker and help in fixing bugs.

And about not being obliged to release updates, yes, they could technically just stop, but the negative publicity would kill their business and reputation. It would be hard for them to start another project because no one would have any faith in them...

And why do they never give release dates or give us much detail about what they're working on? Sounds like the perfect recipe: "work" on an update, get more people interested in the game, wait until you gather enough cash, never release said update, close business, split the cash and leave, and avoid legal trouble because of a disclaimer.

This might be extreme, but the lack of a release date might be slowing them down. With no specific target, they can always drag out the work for a bit longer, since they are under little pressure to get anything out at all, except for the community they interact so much with (sarcasm).

About releases: we get the worst of both worlds: disadvantage of buggy updates (early access) and slow updates which are few and far between (finished games from large publishers)

Maybe they should just release smaller updates more quickly, with bug fixes in each one, so every small update is an expanded bug fixing patch. Then they can work on the larger updates properly.

EDIT: whoops meant to edit the first post...

[moeggz]

Like I said even if they said it was done now I would be happy with it in it current state. That means no more bad save games and more stable mods. If they want to continue developing I'm cool with that as that means more features. But to be stuck in some sort of alpha limbo with no explanation of any actual plans to get out is by no means a good thing.

And I agree a more open discussion of a time table would be nice. I would also be upset if they just stopped development tomorrow, though we both don't think that will happen.

I believe it was you that used the contracting company repairing a leaky roof as an analogy. I like that analogy, particularly since I work at a roofing company and have repaired leaky roofs for them. For the analogy lets make the contractor squad, the customer us, and the leak your desire to play a fun game. A full roof is a full release game, a patch is a game like KSP. A fixed leak is when your desire is satisfied and you have a fun game to play. A leak that was not fixed means your desire remains, you are not fully satisfied with a game yet. IRL if you have a leaky roof most contractors will suggest you get a new roof and not a patch since they can make sure the roof won't leak when the job is completely done. The company I work for fully guarantees full roofs. There is more accountability there, just like with full games. However, we cannot guarantee patches, leaks are often caused by improper installation and that is very hard to detect with shingles on the roof. So if a customer asks for a patch as it is the cheaper option and still has a good chance of fixing the leak, we tell them outright that we cannot guarantee it. If a leak sprouts up after the first repair then we go back. This could take multiple returns as we could not guarantee that the first patch would completely fix the leak. However, we go back until the leak is fixed. This is kind of what squad did; they said here try this. we think you will have fun however its not a full job yet so no guarantees and it may take awhile to find that sweet sauce to make it awesome. So it may be slower than you'd want but as long as you call us back we will come.

Now asking squad to redefine the game as a 1.0 to have the extra accountability would be like asking the roofing company to redefine their patch as a full roof after they did the work for the patch. It doesn't make sense. And I don't think that was what you meant. I think your point was that squad should let us know what to expect. And on that note, I agree. It would be like you calling the contractor to come redo the leak and he does it without telling you when he would do it, what he did or what to expect. Is it required by law? No, but you start to lose customers when communication breaks down. Or what if they just can't find the leak and walk away? They have the right, but it still would make you rightly upset. While I do think more communication would be a good thing, I am more or less content with the current state of affairs. You want a little extra, and as you paid for the patch/alpha game I believe you are allowed to ask for better customer relations irregardless of whether they were assured to you in a contract. And so, while I don't agree on the need for more communication I wholeheartedly agree with your right to request such. All I disagree with is asking for a full release for accountability after agreeing to the terms and before the game is ready. To do so would, IMO, be illogical and counterproductive to what I consider to be a worth while goal.

Thank you for this discussion. Made me think about my stance and I think it has been productive.

Edited July 6, 2014 by moeggz
spelling error. today is not my day

[Vahal]

I think the primary issue here is some folks don't have reasonable expectations. My hobby is beta testing. I've done about seventy of them over the years. I've done great betas, like Firefall, and I've done some insanely terrible betas like Hellgate: London. I've seen the whole breadth. I've seen the good, I've seen the bad, and I've seen every bloody can of treacle go into your inventory, and not stack, and be undroppable, and be unable to be used, until it fills your inventory and you can do nothing. Yes, I'm looking at you again, Hellgate London Beta! And they took MONTHS to fix that!

Squad's doing fine. I wouldn't call their transparency level excellent, but they're far better than the average, even before taking into account the tiny team they've got. Remember, this is a marketing company, not a games company. They didn't have the infrastructure in place for a gaming production type environment. We ought to be supportive of this kind of thing. Who knows how many other employees of non-game companies have awesome games they might wanna make? Wouldn't we want them to have the chance to make them?

Give 'em some love, folks. It's not often a team goes up for their first game dev at-bat and then not only knock it out of the park with the aid of boosters, but have the bat explode into shrapnel, peppering the faces of fans with splinters. We need more of this.

I can't agree more

People forgot what early access means, what alpha/betatest imply. It has to be a finished game that is not finished... cm'on! The first game of a not game company and guys wait that everything has to be perfect, fast with no mistake and debugged before each update. So why buy early access game in this case?

[razark]

Squad announces planned release dates: People get their panties in a wad if they miss one because they're trying to make the game better.

Squad doesn't announce dates: People get their panties in a wad because they don't know any planned dates.

Squad makes small, quick releases: People get their panties in a wad because things don't get tested and the updates don't have much "substance" they can see.

Squad makes larger, more substantive releases less frequently: People get their panties in a wad because Squad is moving too slow and there's not enough new stuff to play with.

Y'all paid for an unfinished game with an undefined schedule. Don't complain when you get exactly that.

[KerrMü]

this game is squads baby. ergo they can call it whatever they like. And if they say "this game isn't finished yet", then I assume, that they have something on their minds, what the finished game will look like and how to get there. not every step may be superexiting, but in the end it will pay off. They did a pretty amazing job so far, so why not trust them a bit?

[Sandworm]

They did a pretty amazing job so far, so why not trust them a bit?

Because they have made a couple moves in recent months (resources) that broke some people's trust. They thought a feature was being worked on only to learn that not only was it not, but that Squad and the community had very different concepts of that feature --> lack of proper communication.

At the moment I am trusting Squad to produce a 'contacts' system that is open to mod creators/authors. I had hoped the same for the tech tree and was let down. Everyone has something they hope and believe is going to happen one day. That's good for Squad because it keeps people interested, but most will be disappointed because, in all likelihood, they and Squad are not on the same page. Squad should do more to communicate its intentions and temper expectations, rather than spew vague notions meant only to drive speculation.

Edited July 6, 2014 by Sandworm

[mike9606]

Just to clear this up now, in the times when devnote Tuesdays don't give much info this is what it means. Before a big Update: The devs are most likely just working on boring stuff not worth mentioning. After an Update: The devs probably haven't started working on new stuff yet.

[Pecan]

Puddin is making some good points that deserve closer reading than I think most people are giving them. Note, specifically, that he is NOT moaning about KSP and clearly says he already thinks he's got value for money. Respect to the OP! (And look at how quickly this thread has filled up ^^).

I bought KSP 'as is', in alpha, with the implication that the developers were working to improve it, if they could. A few months later an update was released - had Squad called that 'final' then a) obligations would have been met, my free-update entitlement would end!!!, c) like Puddin, I still would have had value for money. Love to Squad!

Now 'alpha', 'beta', etc.: "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to meanâ€â€neither more nor less."

These are not legal terms, they are used by development teams, as they choose, to organise their work. In as much as they mean anything - and admittedly, they ought to when used outside the team (such as to us) - they only mean; a) alpha - we know this isn't finished yet, beta - we think it's finished now, c) release - we're finished even if it isn't.

Squad make it pretty clear, I think, that there is more/different functionality planned for KSP before they will consider it "feature complete", therefore it is still unfinished (alpha), however well what we already have works. Once it's complete-but-not-"right" they will presumably call it 'beta' and have a round or two of polishing and bug-fixing (More Love To Squad!) before saying "OK, that's what we wanted to give you" and making it *dramatic chord* Version 1.0 ;-0

None of this is a bad thing, I think. What we have is "under active development" and keeps getting changed. We still keep getting updates for free - contrast that with The Sims, as a legendary example, where it is far buggier than KSP but "expansions" are costly and a "new" version is released every couple of years, requiring a whole new bank-loan ^^.

In the end it's semantics and expectation-management. I really do think we can be thankful that Squad so obviously wants to produce a comprehensive, quality-but-fun, game/simulator. I also think Rowsdower and the team do a very good job of keeping us as informed and involved as they do, given that they could probably get a bigger client-base and more cash right now if they just dropped the guilltotine. Face it, KSP already gets great press.

[spett]

From what i know KSP was released as a alpha when it was clearly a tech demo, now that the game is starting to feel done(maybe a few more big patches untill its called a beta) it must be complete (in some peoples minds). Lets all keep in mind this company has never made a game before and took a chance on an employee with a great idea. WE ARE ALL LUCKY TO EVEN HAVE THIS GAME! p.s. game developers have no obligation to talk to the community it just feels good to here from them.

[r4pt0r]

From what i know KSP was released as a alpha when it was clearly a tech demo, now that the game is starting to feel done(maybe a few more big patches untill its called a beta) it must be complete (in some peoples minds). Lets all keep in mind this company has never made a game before and took a chance on an employee with a great idea. WE ARE ALL LUCKY TO EVEN HAVE THIS GAME! p.s. game developers have no obligation to talk to the community it just feels good to here from them.

this is the best first post from anyone ive ever read. lets stop the entitlement http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/63548-stop-being-an-entitled-prat

[deadshot462]

The main issue is that the original intent for "Alpha" was to let the whole community contribute with testing the new versions. Since the forum meltdown of 0.14, that input got removed but the title "Alpha" remained.

I agree that there should be a known timeline. Since the scope of the game gets changed every year, there's no way to prevent Squad from keeping the game in Alpha indefinitely.

[Lysergic]

I've purchased several games in alpha state. I never do so unless I would be content even if it was called complete the day after my purchase. I bought this game in .20, which for me was a complete game. I expect no more, no less, than what it was when I bought it. Anything else is a bonus.

480 hours and counting, love every minute of it. For me, were at version 1.40.

TL;DR if you buy a game in alpha, your expectations should be that the developers walk away the next day. Be happy they haven't.

Edited July 7, 2014 by Lysergic
TL;DR

[rodion_herrera]

I play DayZ Standalone, and that game is also still in "alpha", but it does have a rough roadmap and schedule of "deliverables". The users know that the game will most likely be in "Beta" by November 2014, and the final game might be out by March 2015. I've always wondered if Squad has a similar schedule of deliverables or that their own roadmap is very very flexible?

[Halcyon25]

Not sure if its been said already, but I remember reading a while back that the Dev's were waiting for a 64 bit engine before they took it out of alpha... Not sure how true it may be but it calmed me down then...

[mike9606]

Not sure if its been said already, but I remember reading a while back that the Dev's were waiting for a 64 bit engine before they took it out of alpha... Not sure how true it may be but it calmed me down then...

Well .24 will be 64-bit for windows. Here comes the beta!

[Guest]

I feel like I've seen this entire argument before, like right before 0.23 ... and 0.22 ... and 0.21 ...

[Vanamonde]

When something is purchased that is still under development then it is more than reasonable to expect that the product will stay in development until it is done.

And it is still in development, so what's the problem?

It's pretty cheap, since we are technically the testers: we pay earlier, play earlier, and in return, get updates much quicker and help in fixing bugs.

Being a on the test team is not a privilege. It's a job. They don't just do whatever they want to do in the game. They try to break it, and if they succeed, they're obligated to sit down and make out a report, in the proper format, and insert it into the bug tracker. The "experimental" version of the game is updated frequently, up to several times per day, and when it is, the testers have to patch their advance copies or download a fresh one and start over. It's not all fun and games. As a moderator, I am welcome to participate in that, and I choose not to. Why? Because it's a job and more than a little of a pain in the behind.

[Warmblood]

Major features are being added/still need to be added. The game is being built as we play it. Therefore, it is still in alpha.

Personally, that's fine with me so far as this game goes. Once all major features are in, I'll expect refinement, but for now, I don't feel it's realistic to expect polish on some features while others are still being built.

[Whackjob]

I agree that there should be a known timeline. Since the scope of the game gets changed every year, there's no way to prevent Squad from keeping the game in Alpha indefinitely.

Keep the game in development permanently, with new stuff being added all the time, Dwarf Fortress style? Tell me whose knees need to be broken to make that happen and I'll get my crowbar.

/this is all metaphorically speaking