Do you feel KSP is ready for 1.0?

[brdavis]

Moving straight to 1.0 is a foolish move...

I'm not disagree or agreeing with this (or a lot of other positions) here. But there are a lot of quotes like this. Stating this is/isn't a good decision, and they should move forward / immediately reverse their decision. And an awful lot of these statements are being made with apparently a lot of confidence and conviction.

So I thought it might be good to ask:

How many commentators here have personal experience with either the alpha-beta-early release process from the inside (not outside), -or- have direct inner knowledge of the inner decision-making mechanisms within Squad?

Is it just possible… the Devs know and understand some things we don't? This being, very literally, their job?

[rynak]

How many commentators here have personal experience with either the alpha-beta-early release process from the inside (not outside), -or- have direct inner knowledge of the inner decision-making mechanisms within Squad?

Argument from authority, but i'll bite:

*raises hand*

EDIT: To elaborate - programmer and designer, and was part of the closed (non-public) tester team of two games, with direct communication to the devs (Chat).

Edited January 25, 2015 by rynak

[FlowerChild]

While KSP may not have the massive community as Minecraft does, it still does have a pretty big and supportive community as evidence of us talking about this right now. I just put that out here to show a botched 1.0 doesn't mean the end of the world.

You can easily point to counter examples like Spacebase DF-9 though to indicate that it can be.

I don't think KSP has any chance of bottoming out at that level, simply making the point that Minecraft really doesn't prove anything one way or another here.

How many commentators here have personal experience with either the alpha-beta-early release process from the inside (not outside)

Yup, I'll raise my hand there as well. Around 15 years commercial game industry experience with around a dozen or so released titles in multiple roles (mostly programming and design with some project management here and there).

That's largely why I think this is such a bad idea. Honestly, I suspect there's a pretty strong overlap between the developers on these forums and those asking "what the heck are you guys doing here?" as we know what a disaster it can be from experience

Edited January 25, 2015 by FlowerChild

[NathanKell]

Frankly I take it as a sign of strength of this community that so many are concerned on behalf of Squad and KSP itself, rather than their own financial/ludic interest. Let's not belittle that love and affection for a game that deserves such a family.

[Superfluous J]

I do think that a certain amount of nervousness is in order given how unstable Squad's releases tend to be. My impression is that the game has actually been getting more unstable with each of the past few versions, which is pretty alarming for a game that we're now told is about to release.

I am under this same impression. While the game was in Alpha this was outright expected. In Beta, it's tolerated but you expect stability to increase, bugs to decrease, and critical things like memory footprint and FPS to get better. As we have not seen this (mostly because in spite of their phrasing the game still isn't actually in Beta) we are concerned that the "final" product will not deliver on these point. We've seen a graph slowly rising through each update and are now told to trust that it will suddenly drop precipitously. I want to believe. I really do. But I just can't until I see it.

"Providing feedback" means relaying your impressions/ thoughts/ concerns. "Throwing a hissyfit" is dictating to them what they should or should not do.

Not sure I agree with that but I'm not saying Squad must take such drastic, Draconian action as ... you know ... fixing bugs and optimizing graphics. I'm just saying that during Alpha when they said they would do that, I was willing to speak highly of them with the caveat that "they're still in Alpha."

When If the game hits 1.0 and still has dozens of bugs and UI interface issues and I'm still afraid to go Ironman in case the game simply crashes for no reason, I will not recommend it to friends. I will say it's a great, fun game but it has serious issues that they haven't addressed and maybe my friend should wait until we see what Squad's actually going to do.

Edited January 25, 2015 by 5thHorseman

[FlowerChild]

When If the game hits 1.0 and still has dozens of bugs and UI interface issues and I'm still afraid to go Ironman in case the game simply crashes for no reason, I will not recommend it to friends.

Yeah, the hardcore mode thing is a good point. I feel the same way, and I tend to advise people playing BTSM to avoid hardcore mode for precisely the reason you mentioned, despite being all about challenging gameplay.

Losing a complicated mission that you've put a lot of time in due to player error is cool. Losing it due to the game bugging out is totally uncool. I don't personally consider hardcore mode playable at present as a result, as to me having that kind of thing happen is just an exercise in frustration to an extent that doesn't compensate for any added immersion you get out of playing hardcore.

That kind of game mode really requires nigh-100% stability to be reasonable, and unfortunately a lot of systems in career mode require it in order to have any meaning.

Edited January 25, 2015 by FlowerChild

[Vanamonde]

Actually, Squad does owe is something...

You've already gotten exactly what you agreed to buy with the purchase terms you clicked upon when you got the game. We'd all like more than that (and we've gotten more than that), but don't make the mistake of claiming that you are entitled to something more.

[Yellowburn10]

You can easily point to counter examples like Spacebase DF-9 though to indicate that it can be.

I don't think KSP has any chance of bottoming out at that level, simply making the point that Minecraft really doesn't prove anything one way or another here.

Since I've never played spacebase, I wouldn't know how that went down. Also, I wasn't saying "if Minecraft can make it, so can KSP." I knew KSP couldn't bottom out even if 1.0 turns out to be a flop (well, technically it could if it went super bad, but I doubt that's gonna happen), I was just trying to find an example more people would be familiar with where a game has come through.

[Bill Phil]

You've already gotten exactly what you agreed to buy with the purchase terms you clicked upon when you got the game. We'd all like more than that (and we've gotten more than that), but don't make the mistake of claiming that you are entitled to something more.

Never said I was entitled to more. I said we are all entitled to the product as a full release, and we all want to see it grow into an amazing game, which it has. But the room for improvement is rather large, and one update doesn't seem to cut it.

[curtquarquesso]

First off, I feel like I've gotten my money's worth and more for what I've taken away from KSP. (Friends, education, loads of fun...) Soooo, I don't feel like Squad owes me anything. They're not one of those indie dev that hype-up a really interesting game concept, and end up half-@$$ing it and totally fails to deliver. I'm not concerned about that happening. However, I would like to see Squad fulfill the scope of the game they want to make, just because I want to see Squad finish this baby and just have fun driving it around until the wheels fall off. I don't want KSP to turn into that project car in your garage that never really gets finished and never runs reliably.

That all being said, KSP is in no way remotely ready for a release version. The game is horribly unstable, and can really only handle a few mods at a time. The fact that they're focusing on new features and more parts worries me a bit. To quote a blog post from a few months back:

"Scope completion means that every big system that the game needed is there, some closer to completion than others, of course, but they’re all there. So, what’s next then? This is the good news: After Scope Completion, development focus shifts towards completing those unfinished features, balancing and adding some smaller stuff. No more groundwork, no more laying down infrastructure. We’ve finished building the kitchen, it’s time for us to start cooking."

I'm not convinced that the kitchen is done yet. The sink is leaky, the fridge freezes the produce, and the oven keeps catching on fire. KSP is going to be a cathedral built on a foundation of sand if they don't start focusing on performance and light a fire under the guys at Unity to make the game more stable.

I feel like Squad is just throwing all the ingredients into the pot, rendering the game unplayable for a time, then down the road, fixing all the issues once all the ingredients are in. Which, I guess is ok, I can bare with that for a while, but it does make me a bit nervous. (Seriously, if this is a legitimate strategy, someone in the industry tell me.)

P.S. Love you guys. This game has made a relatively motivated (albeit exhausted) Aero/Mech major out of me, and has made me friends that will last for a very long time.

P.P.S. Sorry for all the analogies. I can't help myself sometimes...

[chaos_forge]

I agree that while the game has all of the features that I could reasonably expect, the level of polish is not nearly close enough to what is expected of a game that has hit 1.0. I want to see this game get the fantastic reviews it deserves, and I'm worried that releasing so soon might impact the game's reviews negatively.

Some things I would consider necessary polish are a second gas giant system, clouds and city lights, delta-v displays, a revamped science system, and more interesting planetary surfaces.

Edited January 25, 2015 by chaos_forge

[RazorWolf19]

As much as I trust Squad with releasing quality content, it's always safe to have an extra version to sort things out more-so. We've waited this long, we can wait another patch.

Additionally, I understood that Beta would refine current game mechanics and then expand on what is there already (Namely, a larger solar system with feature-packed landforms on its bodies), but all we got was one patch (A great patch, by the way, I just expected more).

Just my two cents, thanks for reading.

[metl]

47 pages later, the main argument for not releasing 1.0 has remained the same, with no actual grounds.

First, people STILL list aero, despite that being part of the next update. To go along with that, they mention re-entry heat, which Maxmaps countered with by stating the new aero model that MU has came up with has worked out so well that re-entry heat will take less than half a day to add.

Second, people point to memory issues due to loading too many mods. If you heavily mod the game, what happens at that point really isn't Squad's problem. It is their job to release a base game that meets all design goals and functions relatively bug free, which also depends on the Unity engine outside of Squad's control.Which brings us to point 3.

"It's too buggy" response despite Maxmaps once again stating this release is going to contain a massive amount of bug squashing. More than has ever been thrown out at one time. Sounds to me like they are on top of that.

The next complaint is that Squad is bailing out, or has a lack of funding. Again, Squad has made it clear that this has nothing to do with financial issues. It rests solely on the fact they they have hit what they consider to be the point where they originally envisioned the game as being completed. Nothing has given any indication of any other hidden motives.

Other complaints include people not "getting what they paid for," which is completely asinine and doesn't even deserve a response. Others point to how Squad should add this mod or that mod and not release the game until every possible, conceivable mod, feature, function or tool is implemented as stock. I will call this "feature creep", and I have seen many other games fail simply because they get stuck in the never-ending "feature creep" development cycle and don't realize it until people have long moved on to other things. I certainly don't want that to happen, and I doubt many other do either.

Did I miss anything? So should they release? Yep. It's time.

Edited January 25, 2015 by metl

[Vanamonde]

... I said we are all entitled to the product as a full release...

No, you aren't. That was made explicitly clear in the purchase terms. "Access to the software in its current state... Squad is not under any obligation to release any updates... Each release may very well be the last one... The Software is made available as is... "

[Brotoro]

Um... and "Access to all updates for the software".

I'm entitled to that. And that's it.

[Bill Phil]

Really, I think the best thing to increase the beauty of planets would be clouds and much more interesting terrain a la Space Engine. I know it seems like it's random, but procedural is entirely dependent on the seed. So, procedural generation of the terrain should be an option.

- - - Updated - - -

No, you aren't. That was made explicitly clear in the purchase terms. "Access to the software in its current state... Squad is not under any obligation to release any updates... Each release may very well be the last one... The Software is made available as is... "

And the next update is a FULL release.

They aren't entitled to update it, yes. But they are trying, and that is what the trade is.

[Vanamonde]

Um... and "Access to all updates for the software".

"Squad is not under any obligation to release any updates... " You get updates, new versions, and expansions, if they make any, which they're not obligated to do, and that includes any "completed" version, however one might define that.

Seriously people, read those terms, and understand them, before you go around claiming what you are and are not entitled to.

Anyway, I won't keep repeating the point. Take it up with a lawyer if you're still not getting it.

[Robotengineer]

I think this is the most relevant part.

Squad is under no obligation to maintain any level of communication with the player community, choosing to do so at their own discretion.

Edit: At least in relation to Squad.

[FlowerChild]

First, people STILL list aero, despite that being part of the next update.

Errrr....dude, the next update IS 1.0 release, and the major objection I've seen to the new aero here is that it will go into the release version largely untested as a result.

And this is when new aero is going to affect the balance of (and potentially create bugs in) every part in the game and will likely have different effects based on which planet you go to. IMO, that's way too heavy a testing load to put on a limited number of testers, especially in an open-ended creative game where the combinations of different parts and the way people use them are virtually limitless.

Throw in that they'll probably be in a rush trying to get the game out the door to match up with whatever marketing plans are made to coincide with release, and I think it's a recipe for chaos.

Nothing has given any indication of any other hidden motives.

Well, other than the dubious labeling of 0.9 as a beta, when it really isn't by any common definition, and the sudden shift from statements about multiple beta versions (plural) to going straight to release from the not-even-beta.

Edited January 25, 2015 by FlowerChild

[BudgetHedgehog]

47 pages later, the main argument for not releasing 1.0 has remained the same, with no actual grounds.

I think the point people are actually making is that while this bugfixing and new aero and stuff is all very well and going to be done, Squad are betting on it being completely and entirely balanced and bugfree upon release to the public. Given the current track record (I'm sure QA and experimentals folk are lovely people but damn, you guys missed a fair amount of bugs), I think it would behoove Squad to release at least one update with the current upcoming features under the EA banner and use player feedback to rebalance and bugfix for the actual 1.0 release. Being Early Access is great, things can be unbalanced, bugs can exist and the reviews will still be positive. But once they leave it, critics will be harsher and the excuse that 'it's in Beta at the moment, that'll be fixed' doesn't work any more.

New aero - great! But does it break game balance? We don't know - it's being introduced in the same update as leaving early access.

Bugfixes? Great! But did they fix all the important ones? What about the small but annoying ones? What bugs have appeared, but weren't discovered? Again, we don't know, and Squad are potentially shipping a buggy full release.

Financial concerns, yeah, I'm with you on that, I don't know why people keep thinking that's a thing because Max has denied that at least twice. Same for stability - if people make KSP use more RAM, Squad aren't entirely to blame for that. The stock game works fine and doesn't run out of memory (did they fix the memory leak bugs?), that's fine. And they're jumping in Unity 5 as soon as possible which will mean x64 support which means stability won't be an issue for modded installs either.

People complaining about wanting refunds or not getting what they're entitled to can go take a long jump with a short rope as far as I'm concerned. The ToS and EULA were and remain pretty clear on what they get when they give Squad $15.

[metl]

Errrr....dude, the next update IS 1.0 release, and the major objection I've seen to the new aero here is that it will go into the release version largely untested as a result.

We are not the true testers. We just get to play with the releases and give some feedback. The aero will get a thorough workout by their test teams before it is pushed out the door (Hopefully they don't have Wasteland 2's testers, which were apparently on vacation for six months before release.)

[Starhawk]

I think this is the most relevant part.

Squad is under no obligation to maintain any level of communication with the player community, choosing to do so at their own discretion.

That wast the most significant and insightful post on the entire thread.

[BudgetHedgehog]

The aero will get a thorough workout by their test teams before it is pushed out the door

The point people are making is this: the test teams aren't perfect, as evident by all previous versions. What will they miss that players catch? Maybe nothing, maybe a lot of things, maybe one big thing. We just don't know and that is why it'd be prudent to have at least one update in EA with the intended 1.0 features.

[GoSlash27]

Errrr....dude, the next update IS 1.0 release, and the major objection I've seen to the new aero here is that it will go into the release version largely untested as a result.

Yeah, I'll go along with that one. Aerodynamics overhaul, plus karbonite, plus procedural fairings, plus a 100% part rebalancing. That's an awful lot of major changes all at once to not have a beta cycle prior to release.

Best,

-Slashy

[diegzumillo]

I have the impression this whole thread is fueled by the misunderstanding of what 1.0 really means, which is nothing really. There is no standard on what each number means, (most games released are in 1.x or even 2.x) so we should really be talking about what the next version will look like and how that relates to removing it from early-access category.

They think the game is developed enough that it can be removed from early access category. It has all the planned structures in place and a fair amount of content and features. According to them the game will continue being developed like it has, fixing bugs and adding features to the existing structures. Seems reasonable to me to remove it from early access. If nothing else, at least to stop making other early access look bad.

Slightly off-topic but since some moderator decided to go willy-nilly locking every other 1.0 thread, it goes here now. The first thing I'll do in 1.0 is SPACE PLANES! It has been my main activity in KSP for a while and I can't wait for the revamped aerodynamics model.