Kerbal Space Program: First Contract - The FAQ

[dlrk]

As I said the last time we discussed the non-existent casual audience: MS Flight, Star Wars Galaxies SimCity 2013.

[IronGremlin]

I just skimmed the thread, but if Regex(or anyone else) is saying KSP is only a great game because of it's mods, I agree completely. Squad's chasing the non-existent 'lite' audience

I think it's unquestionably true that modders have created more gameplay content than Squad at this point. Which I will point out is utterly unsurprising, given that modders outnumber Squad by at minimum a dozen to one, and that they are focused almost completely on providing content, and not any of the rest of the million different things that go into being responsible for developing the core product.

I still remember the first time I pegged a solid Mun landing, or how the light-bulb really came on when I started understanding which directions to burn to have a given effect on my orbit.

I remember how much I learned about space travel, and how much of what I already knew about the history of manned spaceflight made so much more sense because this game gave me the chance to play with those concepts, and presented them to me in a simple, easy to understand manner.

Mods didn't do any of that. That was the core game all the way.

I think that you're also SEVERELY underestimating how much more difficult it is to make this game from the ground up than to mod it after the fact.

[tygoo7]

As much as I like mods, the game is still pretty fun to play stock. Sure it's lacking features, but not everything is implemented yet. If the game was done, then that's a different story. I don't agree with dlrk that stock players are non-existent because most players use stock while most players use mods. There's still a lot of stock players and a lot of mod players. I don't believe that none of the mods will be implemented, I just think that Squad is working on the base of the game. Once the core features are done, then they can add extra features.

[dlrk]

Where exactly is the line between the core game and the Unity engine?

[cpast]

Where exactly is the line between the core game and the Unity engine?

The rockets. And planes. And Kerbals. None of the orbital physics uses Unity stuff, it uses custom-written Squad code. Really, anything not also found in every other Unity game. Unity is pretty generic.

Edited July 17, 2014 by cpast

[tygoo7]

The rockets. And planes. And Kerbals. None of the orbital physics uses Unity stuff, it uses custom-written Squad code. Really, anything not also found in every other Unity game. Unity is pretty generic.

Yeah Unity is pretty generic, it doesn't have any premade scripts for any of this stuff. The only stuff in the standard assets are character controllers, textures, and I think like 2 scripts.

[Vanamonde]

It is entirely appropriate to complain about a game because of its lack/quality of features

Even when you were informed before you bought it that it was an incomplete, work in progress? "Complaining" (your term), being irate about it, and assigning blame doesn't make a lot of sense when you were pre-warned that these would be the circumstances you were agreeing to undertake when you bought a game that was still in an unfinished state.

[Seshins]

I have to agree with Regex in a way. To me - the stock game is fine, i mod extensivley however.

Now i cant pull up any real features that i can find, except for one on the wiki. One example of that was the Enhanced IVA and the discovery mechanic. These two features are ones that im really looking forward to, but there has been zero word from any dev about these features proper. To find a satisfying experience i need mods - the core gameplay features still aren't there, and with no word on either since we near "scope complete" i kind of get the feeling these are still just fantasies.

In my honest opinion - a roadmap would be a great way to provde some way of clarity.

*disclaimer - i Heart KSP and SQUAD, constructive criticisim is essential.

[allmhuran]

Yeah, I think the use of the word "complaining" is the issue here... or the actual act of complaining, when that is really what is going on. But the number of true "complaints" about lacking features is relatively small.

I think what we're really talking about here is more an anticipation, or hope, or wish, or perceived need, for more features in the stock game. I think everyone can get on board with this one and not feel like there's anything pejorative going on.

If this is true, then something that is a bit frustrating for players is the lack of any real indication from Squad as to which features are on the roadmap, which aren't, which might be, and so on. The "what not to suggest list" doesn't really cover this... it's primarily just a list of "oft-requested features" and the mods you can use to fill those gaps at the moment. It neither implies that those features will be implemented, nor that they will not be.

This kind of approach isn't unheard of in early access, but the degree of the approach in this case is somewhat higher than usual. Just checking a list of early access games on steam, most of them indicate some list of upcoming features, or state that the game is feature complete and in final polish, etc. If you want a specific, recent and high profile example, take Rust and the removal of the "placeholder" zombies. Everyone was informed that zombies were definitely a placeholder, everyone knew that they were going to be taken out and replaced with something else.

Compare this with KSP: A lot of people assume that the aerodynamic system is a placeholder, but does anyone have a quote from Squad that explicitly states this? Several people think (or hope) that science mechanics will get a rework, but nobody knows whether or not this is true. And so on. We don't really get any feedback in the suggestions forum. Someone on reddit said Maxmaps responds to suggestions over on the SA forum. Why not the official suggestion forum?

The response to this is usually along the lines that if squad does provide this kind of information the community gets filled with Squad-hate when they change their mind on something. I have a couple of thoughts on that.

First, one could argue that if there's a lot of mind-changing going on, then the design team probably need to improve and solidify their vision for the game, or we risk ending up with a patchwork of features that don't really mesh together very well. Ie, the contention is that by now perhaps it's reasonable to expect that Squad should have a pretty solid plan regarding what they want to do.

Second, I don't really buy the initial proposition. We repeatedly hear how nice the KSP community is compared to many others, but other communities don't turn into hate machines when their developers talk about changes to upcoming features. The feature-that-shall-not-be-named experience is misleading. The community wasn't upset by the removal of some particular announced feature, but rather the fact that focus seemed to be turning away from something more fundamentally important. The announcement was of the form "We have removed (specific feature) which was planned to fill (general gameplay void), and we have no plans for anything to replace it". The second part of that sentence was the killer.

Edited July 17, 2014 by allmhuran

[Sky_walker]

Regex, perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but

seems to suggest that the game is lacking without mods. Since a number of us play stock and consider that to be sufficient and satisfying, this isn't a point that I agree with.

True.

though keep in mind that people play stock not because it's sufficient, but for many different reasons.

I don't find stock game to be sufficient, it lacks a lot in many areas, but I play it stock because that's where I find challenge and I want to play the game I paid for as it's devs intended to make it at this point of time.

[regex]

Even when you were informed before you bought it that it was an incomplete, work in progress? "Complaining" (your term), being irate about it, and assigning blame doesn't make a lot of sense when you were pre-warned that these would be the circumstances you were agreeing to undertake when you bought a game that was still in an unfinished state.

I understand completely that the game is in an unfinished state. What I am saying is that, given what we know about the direction the game is going in (barely anything), KSP will never amount to much more than a modding platform to make the game you want to play. If you're satisfied with the stock game, fair enough, but I'm not and I would like more information on what I can expect from Scope Completion and next year's development beyond "it's going to be awesome." Details are not needed, line item goals would be appreciated (by more people than me, I imagine).

Almhuran sums it up pretty nicely re: complaining and even the direction this topic has taken. As far as I can tell SQUAD doesn't have a clue what they're going to do long-term. That doesn't give me much hope for the finished game beyond it being a good platform for modding. If it remains so, that's fine, I can still build the space game I want to play, but the lack of information is pretty terrible.

[Sky_walker]

KSP will never amount to much more than a modding platform

It is already much more than a modding platform, so I don't see a problem you do.

As far as I can tell SQUAD doesn't have a clue what they're going to do long-term.

Sad truth

[KN_Namida]

Heh, I wish Squad gave us a list of features they, as of now, intend to implement before the final release, so speculation and hatred would, for the most part, stop.

Even a yes/no list would be fine, darn it!

More celestial bodies? Revamped science mechanics? Re-organized tech tree? Addition of more structures on Kerbin? Life support for manned missions?

You decide which to work on and which to scrap and throw in the paper bin, but at least, give us a definitive YES/NO on some frequently asked features.

[Rassa Farlander]

I like mods, I use them. Many of them in fact. But that being said, I would still play KSP without any mods if they didnt exist. I think KSP is an awesome game on its own, unlike any other Ive ever seen. Dont get me wrong, it definitely a work in-progress but we have come a long way. A roadmap to Scope Completion would be a great idea, but Im not sure if Squad want to release something like that, just because of the potential backlash if a few loud people dont agree with it. It would be like the Resources fiasco all over again I will continue to support Squad and I enjoy KSP If I never get a new version of KSP, I would still play the one I have now

[KN_Namida]

On the contrary, if Squad states once and for all what they intend to work on, this debate will settle. People who don't like where the game's going will stop playing it, or just play it sporadically, while the rest of the community will keep playing KSP happy that the features they'd like to see will, sooner or later, see the light of day.

People can't live in the shade, we need certainties.

[KerbMav]

Heh, I wish Squad gave us a list of features they, as of now, intend to implement before the final release, so speculation and hatred would, for the most part, stop.

I too would like to know this, but I never would want this list to go public!

Squad would either be condemned to do things that they might not want for KSP anymore later or feel the full wrath of the players (oncemore..)!

But whenever they like to share some intel, they can send me an email via the forums account and always will find open ears/eyes and a well closed mouth.

[Dunbaratu]

In my honest opinion - a roadmap would be a great way to provde some way of clarity.

*disclaimer - i Heart KSP and SQUAD, constructive criticisim is essential.

I waffle back and forth on this a lot. On the one hand a roadmap helps decide what mods have longevity (they fill a gap that SQUAD will never fill) versus which ones should be developed as temp stopgaps (they fill a gap that SQUAD will fill in a different and incompatible way themselves soon). On the other hand, an official, rather than fan-made, roadmap always looks like a promise from the developers, no matter how many disclaimers are put on it saying it's not. That makes it hard to back out of a bad idea or an unworkable idea later. It's a PR nightmare to have the fanbase think you backed out of a promised future feature on a game that has been bought by some people on the expectation of what it will look like later (i.e. "Early Access").

(One should NEVER buy an early access game based on the expectation of what it will become later. Only buy it if you feel that what's already completed is enough to be worth the price as-is and the future additional changes are just added gravy. Too many companies have made promises about early access games and then took the money and run.)

[SaSquatch]

Yeah, I think the use of the word "complaining" is the issue here... or the actual act of complaining, when that is really what is going on. But the number of true "complaints" about lacking features is relatively small.

I think what we're really talking about here is more an anticipation, or hope, or wish, or perceived need, for more features in the stock game. I think everyone can get on board with this one and not feel like there's anything pejorative going on.

If this is true, then something that is a bit frustrating for players is the lack of any real indication from Squad as to which features are on the roadmap, which aren't, which might be, and so on. The "what not to suggest list" doesn't really cover this... it's primarily just a list of "oft-requested features" and the mods you can use to fill those gaps at the moment. It neither implies that those features will be implemented, nor that they will not be.

This kind of approach isn't unheard of in early access, but the degree of the approach in this case is somewhat higher than usual. Just checking a list of early access games on steam, most of them indicate some list of upcoming features, or state that the game is feature complete and in final polish, etc. If you want a specific, recent and high profile example, take Rust and the removal of the "placeholder" zombies. Everyone was informed that zombies were definitely a placeholder, everyone knew that they were going to be taken out and replaced with something else.

Compare this with KSP: A lot of people assume that the aerodynamic system is a placeholder, but does anyone have a quote from Squad that explicitly states this? Several people think (or hope) that science mechanics will get a rework, but nobody knows whether or not this is true. And so on. We don't really get any feedback in the suggestions forum. Someone on reddit said Maxmaps responds to suggestions over on the SA forum. Why not the official suggestion forum?

The response to this is usually along the lines that if squad does provide this kind of information the community gets filled with Squad-hate when they change their mind on something. I have a couple of thoughts on that.

First, one could argue that if there's a lot of mind-changing going on, then the design team probably need to improve and solidify their vision for the game, or we risk ending up with a patchwork of features that don't really mesh together very well. Ie, the contention is that by now perhaps it's reasonable to expect that Squad should have a pretty solid plan regarding what they want to do.

Second, I don't really buy the initial proposition. We repeatedly hear how nice the KSP community is compared to many others, but other communities don't turn into hate machines when their developers talk about changes to upcoming features. The feature-that-shall-not-be-named experience is misleading. The community wasn't upset by the removal of some particular announced feature, but rather the fact that focus seemed to be turning away from something more fundamentally important. The announcement was of the form "We have removed (specific feature) which was planned to fill (general gameplay void), and we have no plans for anything to replace it". The second part of that sentence was the killer.

Then you have Ken Levine say the words "multiplayer" and people start talking about how they cut multiplayer from BioShock Infinity.

I would also recommend DayZ as an example as well (dean hall also started the CSS mod... kerbal connections). The amount of time between the mod (albeit "free" but most people bought arma for it... so that's besides the point) and the standalone release was rather lengthy and still incomplete... Even slowed by a certain dev lead climbing Everest and a couple being detained by Greek officials.

I see this as a result of the different update schedule that they've taken this year from previous years. There have been, almost, two updates this year with hypothetically 3 for the entire year (my guess based on past holiday updates). Much slower then years past. However some features take longer to implement and double backing on code adds even more time. And feature creep. This game is almost the definition of feature creep.

To be perfectly honest... I don't see any of that as a problem. We knew what we were getting into when we bought the game and I would say we all have got more then our money worth out of this game. Mods or not. I just think, we've all landed everywhere, we've all been everywhere, we're just looking for more things to do. And we have no idea what is next... only we actually do know because they've told us as much. Contracts and budgets now, contract generator and kerbals after (a failure to communicate?).

I just wonder if the forums are going to implode when KSP is "complete" and squad moves on to the next paid product. They took my money(i gave it to them willingly) over two years ago and I've put hundreds of hours into KSP at this point. A pretty good investment in my book. Compared to MGS V: Ground Zeroes... a REALLY good investment(shots fired?).

So in the end... we're just bored... and waiting.

[monstah]

(One should NEVER buy an early access game based on the expectation of what it will become later. Only buy it if you feel that what's already completed is enough to be worth the price as-is and the future additional changes are just added gravy. Too many companies have made promises about early access games and then took the money and run.)

THIS. I saw a trailer of KSP and I thought "I WANT to play that game". It was the 0.17 days, fresh on Steam. I only found it wasn't finished when I was already buying it, but it's a game I enjoy as-is. I feel a roadmap will be more beneficial to modders wondering about their mods' life expectancy, but other than that I install mods to suit my needs as if I'd always need them, and if the game evolves to render them obsolete, I'm winning.

[Cleric2145]

THIS. I saw a trailer of KSP and I thought "I WANT to play that game". It was the 0.17 days, fresh on Steam. I only found it wasn't finished when I was already buying it, but it's a game I enjoy as-is. I feel a roadmap will be more beneficial to modders wondering about their mods' life expectancy, but other than that I install mods to suit my needs as if I'd always need them, and if the game evolves to render them obsolete, I'm winning.

This. I'd absolutely be willing to shell out more money to the devs. I paid $30 for this game over a year ago and I've gotten well over a thousand hours of play from it. I've paid twice as much for games I've gotten %1 as much gameplay from. What's the better purchase? I can't bring myself to pay $10 for a two hour movie as much as I would pay $10-20 for a KSP expansion that fleshed out the realism aspects (i.e. a Squad official RSS/DRE/FAR that integrate much better than the mods) that would yield at least another 200 hours.

[Jean Deaux]

This. I'd absolutely be willing to shell out more money to the devs. I paid $30 for this game over a year ago and I've gotten well over a thousand hours of play from it. I've paid twice as much for games I've gotten %1 as much gameplay from. What's the better purchase? I can't bring myself to pay $10 for a two hour movie as much as I would pay $10-20 for a KSP expansion that fleshed out the realism aspects (i.e. a Squad official RSS/DRE/FAR that integrate much better than the mods) that would yield at least another 200 hours.

While I do a agree, this is a slippery slope. Earlier on the development that was the plan, to charge more for additional development but there was a player base "UPROAR" over that, so much so Squad made all future updates free. Yes a few of us are willing to pay for quality stuff, but the masses will disagree. It's also the down side of the jumpstart program, you pre-sell seats at a discount to raise funds at the cost of getting full price (or additional) funds down the road from those already vested. Nature of the beast.

[SaSquatch]

While I do a agree, this is a slippery slope. Earlier on the development that was the plan, to charge more for additional development but there was a player base "UPROAR" over that, so much so Squad made all future updates free. Yes a few of us are willing to pay for quality stuff, but the masses will disagree. It's also the down side of the jumpstart program, you pre-sell seats at a discount to raise funds at the cost of getting full price (or additional) funds down the road from those already vested. Nature of the beast.

They did clarify what those updates actually mean https://kerbalspaceprogram.com/terms.php. But can't please all the people all the time... there will be a time when the "free" stuff comes to an end. The inevitable 1.0

[Sun]

502 errors are coming again!

[Woopert]

KSP First Contract is now available! Just saw the announcement from the Steam group (even though I don't play on Steam). Woot!

[xmaslightguy]

Omg yesh!!!!!