Do you feel KSP is ready for 1.0?

[MartGonzo]

I don't get the argument, what does it matter to you?

We aren't worried for our own player experience, we are worried for squad's reputation and sales

Look at what happened with Rome 2 Total War, after 15 patches it's one of the best games CA ever made.

but that's not how it's perceived, it's perceived as it was in it's initial release state, buggy, unoptimized and generally broken.

[BrainiacBlue]

I don't get the argument, what does it matter to you?

We aren't worried for our own player experience, we are worried for squad's reputation and sales

Look at what happened with Rome 2 Total War, after 15 patches it's one of the best games CA ever made.

but that's not how it's perceived, it's perceived as it was in it's initial release state, buggy, unoptimized and generally broken.

This. This and much more.

KSP is often held up as a model of the Early Access system and it is about to remove itself from praise by rushing out of beta as Elite:Dangerous, Rome 2 and so many other great titles did. They are remembered for being sloppy at launch, however great they are by 1.4

[NFUN]

I have this suspicion that we might be misunderstanding what 1.0 means. They said that there are features they still want to implement later. It seems to me that 1.0 is an arbitrary line that they have drawn for no apparent reason. Also I think quite a few people are overreacting such as the ones who are going on how the games is now ruined for some reason now that the version number has changed to 1.0. They explicitly stated that this is no where near the last update and that everything after this update will consist of many community recommendations. Everyone that is freaking out needs to calm down. On the other hand it is unwise to release all these features in one update and call it finished. But if they have one or two releases with these features it will give people enough time to find the worst bugs and Squad can then focus all of their efforts on bug squashing. But I also think it is too early, as someone else in this thread stated, to call if these features will make the game ready. In my opinion, if their are very few large bugs (the krakens will have to be gone and several annoying problems, looks at deouplers) and 64-bit is ironed out, the game is ready.

A lot of the problem is that 1.0 means the game is moving out of early access. We* don't want new players who are interested in the game to be disappointed by bugs that could have been avoided.

*some of us, at least.

[klgraham1013]

Personally I would think that one more beta with the new features, and then a step up to V1.0 with a following bug fix release would be best, but I am not a programmer and trust that Squad know better than I do.

What game did Squad make before this? They're not exactly experienced. Correct me if some of them have worked on other games of note.

[Robotengineer]

The issue with going into 1.0 to early is people review it badly and forget about it. They won't really care if 1.5 is the complet version, because they had a bad experience with 1.0. You don't return to a restaurant that you tried and hated cause the service was bad, the food sucked, even if the restaurant got it's act together. Squad has one chance at a first impression, they should take their time and not blow it.

[Fleb]

What game did Squad make before this? They're not exactly experienced. Correct me if some of them have worked on other games of note.

I have no interest in debating with you tbh. Always the same people throwing doom and gloom around, every time Squad makes a statement.

[I_Killed_Jeb]

And what in your all knowing eyes constitutes as an actual 1.0?

If Squad listened to these threads, 1.0 would NEVER be released because there is apparently about 1400 things that need to be changed, fixed, and added before it would be considered an "actual 1.0".

1.0 has been, until this extremely recent and heavily disturbing landscape change in game development, a game that is complete. The very fact that there are things being pushed off to free updates (move to Unity 5, multiplayer etc) means the game is incomplete. The devs are saying they are moving to release because they've fulfilled the design document and are "uncomfortable" being an early access game, whatever that means. Guess what? That's beta phase that you use to polish all the content before 1.0.You can take your snark and shove it up your nose, for those of us who have been in gaming since the 80s we know what release means.

[Bloody_looser]

Due to lack of options I voted 'No'. If the poll had 'Kinda yes \ Kinda no' options, it would be 'Kinda yes'.

I've been playing since like 0.20. Back in that times I saw the game and thought "Oh, that's cool and stuff". Watched some videos, saw screenshots.

I bought KSP not for some potential or promised features, I simply liked it.

I've tried several mods, but currently play full stock. Stock game was greatly improved while I've been playing it. The main issue with the stock for me is atmosphere lacking, well "the atmos". But it's being redone. Also, re-entry heating would be really nice to implement. But if not - I won't have raging butthurt and won't cry all over the forums for refund. Refund guys, you're an embarrassment.

About bugs. I can talk only about my personal experience. Since 0.90 release I've been playing a lot. And before release too, due to the hype. And I didn't have a single crash. Maybe I'm lucky, but the game runs much more smoothly than it was in like 0.23. As for me, stock game has few critical bugs - grabber unit phantom forces and decoupler issues. I haven't seen the NaN Kraken for several months. *knocks on wood* Minor bugs - EVA jettisoning, ladder sliding, external seats problems are a bit annoying, but not utterly game-braking. Also, bugfixing is announced.

So, aside from atmospheric model there are no utterly broken game features. Except strategies of course

Trough I have a feeling some 0.99 release would be useful, the game is really near "the completion".

[Zuqq]

1.0 has been, until this extremely recent and heavily disturbing landscape change in game development, a game that is complete. The very fact that there are things being pushed off to free updates (move to Unity 5, multiplayer etc) means the game is incomplete. You can take your snark and shove it up your nose, for those of us who have been in gaming since the 80s we know what release means.

Those things that you say are being pushed off, are things that were not confirmed to be in the release by Squad regardles... Squad never implied, or said that Unity 5 will be used for the release of the game. The release is whatever they well please to put out as a release. Not what you think "as a gamer from the 80s" a release should be. If Squad stopped developing KSP today, 0.90 would be the "complete" release.

My snark is here to stay. I haven't seen one person thank Squad for the awesome development speed. It's all crying.

[cpast]

Frankly, and I'm being a bit selfish here, I think what reviewers say about KSP and how it affects Squad's reputation is Squad's problem, not mine. Squad deals with the consequences of a 1.0 release, just like they're currently dealing with the consequences of being in early access. KSP is what pays their rent, what lets them afford food, etc. - I'm sure they've thought about this before deciding to make a 1.0 release. If it's a bad idea, the consequences for that don't fall on me (I bought it at 0.23 based solely on the current state of the game without even considering future development, and have more than gotten my money's worth); they fall on Squad. It's a risk (it always is), but I think they know that, and since it's their livelihoods that are affected, I'm inclined to assume they made what they thought was the best decision they could using all the information at their disposal (which is much more than we have; it includes things such as development plans, financial state of the company, enthusiasm on the development team, the latest build, and a sense of how time-consuming it is to do certain things in the code).

As for the PR side: Isn't PR what KSP's executive producers used to do for a living? Since I can't imagine a scenario where they weren't involved with this decision in some form or another, they probably have some idea how the PR will work.

[Vallius]

I voted no, because with this big of a change, SQUAD has got to have at least 1 update purely for last minute balance and bug fixing.

If I were them, I'd go ahead an do all the features, but call this release 0.95.0 or something like that. That way, they'll have a chance to let us try out all these huge changes before the final release. If everything checks out, they can go to 1.0 in just a couple weeks. If there's unforeseen bugs--SQUAD will save themselves a massive marketing disaster.

Real life rocket companies, like SpaceX and ATK, always do at least 1 or 2 full scale tests before going to launch their customer's payloads into space. These tests cost millions of dollars--but you only get to launch once. Blow it, and you'll have a hard time staying in business.

[I_Killed_Jeb]

Those things that you say are being pushed off, are things that were not confirmed to be in the release by Squad regardles... Squad never implied, or said that Unity 5 will be used for the release of the game.

Get your reading comprehension up child, Unity 5 is priority 0 for them and has been mentioned repeatedly. More importantly, it's not whether they confirm something for release or not, it's whether it's important to ship a complete game. I'd think something that they themselves designate as priority 0 to be damn important.

The release is whatever they well please to put out as a release. Not what you think "as a gamer from the 80s" a release should be. If Squad stopped developing KSP today, 0.90 would be the "complete" release.

Hurdurr I can make tautologies.

My snark is here to stay. I haven't seen one person thank Squad for the awesome development speed. It's all crying.

I guess you decided to substitute reality with your own.

[Zuqq]

Get your reading comprehension up child, Unity 5 is priority 0 for them and has been mentioned repeatedly. More importantly, it's not whether they confirm something for release or not, it's whether it's important to ship a complete game. I'd think something that they themselves designate as priority 0 to be damn important.

Hurdurr I can make tautologies.

I guess you decided to substitute reality with your own.

My understanding was that KSP was planning moving to Unity 4.x something, not planning on Unity 5 for the foreseeable future. If I misread, or if new information has come to light... MY BAD. But it doesn't change my opinion that 1.0 is up to Squad, not to the players. No need to get all upset over it.

My tautology still stands. You playing games for 30 years (good for you!!!!111!!) imparts no effect on what a "complete" game is.

Obviously this is starting to get out of hand (personal attacks and all) so I will duck out.

[Drunken Hobo]

If you look at the rest of Steam, can anybody find an "Early Access" game that is more complete than Kerbal Space Program?

[klgraham1013]

If you look at the rest of Steam, can anybody find an "Early Access" game that is more complete than Kerbal Space Program?

I don't play to many early access games, but no.

For me, it's not that KSP isn't close to being done. Yes, I wish some of the features I want were included, but I can understand Squad may have different designs. What I'm worried about is a serious lack of polish in UI, tutorial, and career that will get KSP hammered by reviews.

[Robotengineer]

Nobody is denying that the 1.0 decision is up to Squad. We are debating whether or not it is to early. Squad is also known to be secretive, so they may have Unity 5, Clouds, x64, the whole shebang up their sleeves, and just like watching us whine and carry on. They have a 2/4 release record last year, with .23.5 and .24 both being pretty buggy and unbalanced. Their 2 most recent updates have been of relatively good quality. The main question is, has Squad considered the potential backlash from the general gaming community who will try/review KSP and be much more critical than current players.

[Jacke]

Here's something to consider in judging whether the next release of KSP should be v1.0: how many mods players play with. And how few players play and would keep playing KSP stock without any mods.

I'm well into the double digits of mods and there's more I'd add except they conflict with my current career play. Sure, some of them are really simple (like DefaultThrottle), but a lot of them are complex. And there are at least 10 or so I wouldn't play KSP without.

The only games I've played that are as heavily modded as KSP are Europa Barbarorum, a total conversion of Rome Total War (for the original v1, now based off of Medieval II Total War for v2) that turns a poor unhistorical game in a fantastic accurate one, and Silent Hunter 5, a completely broken and abandoned game made into something first workable and then fantastic by a strong community of modders and players. As with KSP, I wouldn't play the base unmodded games. This level of modding indicates a game lacking in its subject representation or otherwise very limited.

I personally think stock KSP is nowhere near the level of bad that unmodded Rome Total War and Silent Hunter 5 are. It's a great game--for something that's barely beta. Because the devs enabled and documented how to mod KSP, a lot of modders have given it the polish to make it fantastic. But the shear breadth and depth of serious mods that many players consider essential indicates stock KSP still needs a lot of work, more than can be put into one release.

Edited January 24, 2015 by Jacke

[klgraham1013]

snip

Completely agree.

[Drunken Hobo]

I don't play to many early access games, but no.

For me, it's not that KSP isn't close to being done. Yes, I wish some of the features I want were included, but I can understand Squad may have different designs. What I'm worried about is a serious lack of polish in UI, tutorial, and career that will get KSP hammered by reviews.

That's a pretty good point, especially regarding the tutorials. At present the solution to any problem is "check the forums" or "watch a Scott Manley video"

I think one of Minecraft's biggest failings is the complete lack of in-game help, which means you constantly have to check the wiki. Would be best if KSP didn't follow that route.

[cpast]

...

I'd bet money that the proportion of people who play with mods is *much* smaller than most forum members seem to believe. I often see people talking about forum members as if they're a representative subset of KSP players, and acting like because modding is common among frequent forumites, it's common among players. If KSP is like any other product I've ever seen, they're not and it's not; I'd guess a sizeable majority (really, probably at least 75%) of players play all-stock, cap out at <=20 hours of playtime (that's a perfectly respectable amount for a $60 game, let alone a $30 one), and don't know or care about the forums. Any consideration of the typical player that starts with a frequent forumgoer is likely to be far removed from an actual typical player.

[Wallygator]

If you're accessing the game in a beta version, it's inherently an "early" access, I'd say.

I am completely open to being schooled by an expert in what the stage definitions may or may not be since my software development experience dates to way back in the 1980s and was not gaming or mass market sector based.

But my opinion still is that KSP is not ready for a full "ready for critical review" UNLESS the devs have something up their sleeves which has not been revealed that deals with all the bugs at once. From a user perspective, I see no evidence of a robust testing process or any results so far. That is not to say that bug fixes have occurred in the background. Its that from a user perspective the response and effectiveness of defect repairs is poor.

SO... It's a NO on the one point OH.

[Captain Vlad]

I'd bet money that the proportion of people who play with mods is *much* smaller than most forum members seem to believe. I often see people talking about forum members as if they're a representative subset of KSP players, and acting like because modding is common among frequent forumites, it's common among players. If KSP is like any other product I've ever seen, they're not and it's not; I'd guess a sizeable majority (really, probably at least 75%) of players play all-stock, cap out at <=20 hours of playtime (that's a perfectly respectable amount for a $60 game, let alone a $30 one), and don't know or care about the forums. Any consideration of the typical player that starts with a frequent forumgoer is likely to be far removed from an actual typical player.

Yep. If my case is typical, it's a 5:1 ratio, too. Most people know better than to get on webforums where they can start arguing about crap.

[Frank_G]

A game is complete, when the developer says it is. And KSP has pretty many nice things to do, especially for people playing KSP for the first time.

The problem is all that early access stuff. As an early access gamer, you follow a game from an incomplete state and the more you see it advance, the more wishes you have,, the more mods you test and the more you feel, the game isnt complete when feature xyz isnt added. If KSP would be a game that would have entered the market in the state it will be at 1.0, no one would have complained that much.

The only thing i really hope is, that Squad will carefully polish everything to a shiny and satisfying state before releasing.

My only two wishes left open for final release are clouds and some more detailed data output during flight and construction.

[Jouni]

The main question is, has Squad considered the potential backlash from the general gaming community who will try/review KSP and be much more critical than current players.

I guess Squad doesn't really care about the general gaming community, assuming that you mean the minority of gamers, who self-identify as gamers and spend a lot of time playing many different games. KSP has always been a game for a niche audience, because learning even the basics takes more time than most gamers are willing to invest into a single game.

[Robotengineer]

I agree with Jacke, but cpast's argument is baseless. Look at how many times FAR has been downloaded on Kerba Stuff. 405,000. There have been 11 versions of FAR posted to KerbalStuff, so if 405,000/11 is the number of players who use FAR, that's still a large number of players. NEAR has been downloaded 100,000 times. It has had 6 updates. RemoteTech has been downloaded 260,000 times. RealChute 189,000 times. Thes aren't small numbers. The truth is the majority of players mod.