Do you feel KSP is ready for 1.0?

[Bill Phil]

"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.

Okay, so they don't owe us anything? I'm okay with that. I don't play KSP that much, but I'm generally pretty busy, anyway.

But you don't quite see the point here, that was a statement for legal reasons, so no one can backlash them. Squad owes us a game, we owe Squad support. It's a trade. And I doubt that you don't understand that concept.

[I_Killed_Jeb]

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.

I think it's actually YOU who's confused what 1.0 means, which is defined, generally and in this case specifically by SQUAD itself, as the release version. You actually then mention release so it's curious where the confusion is

[FlowerChild]

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.

I'm one of those people that still thinks it likely comes down to funds, so I'll answer that at least for myself:

I just haven't come up with or heard a better explanation yet for this sudden change from a beta "period", to straight into release.

The explanation Max gave basically came down to "we've been in early access long enough". That just doesn't make sense to me. They've invested something like 4(?) years into a game and they don't want to do a single feature complete release and take advantage of the early access model they've been using this entire time to ensure a solid 1.0 release after all that time and effort, simply because they don't like being labeled as an early access game anymore?

I honestly just don't buy that, which leaves me wondering what is being left unsaid, and the best I've come up with in terms of an explanation is that funds might be running low. Heck, if there is another explanation, or even a reasonable theory, I'd love to hear it, but essentially what I've heard so far basically boils down to "because".

Edited January 25, 2015 by FlowerChild

[Robotengineer]

--Snip--

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.

If people kept their mouths shut, that would be fine. Word-of-mouth is an issue. Somebody purchases 1.0 thinking they are getting a release worthy version. They find it to buggy, unstable and the quality to be uneven. Let's say they are a nerdy college student. They complain to their fellow nerdy friends, nerdy friends who would otherwise have purchased KSP don't because of what their friend has said. Squad gets the money from one person, but they lose n number of buyers do to one persons bad experience. While many of you may say it is the guy/gal's fault, if squad does not provide a product that you would recommend to a friend, it's an overall loss for the Kommunity, the potential buyers, and Squad.

[archnem]

I just haven't come up with or heard a better explanation yet.

I'll take a shot at it. Just off the top of my head, maybe it's a marketing decision? Trying to cash in on the New Horizons/Dawn publicity? They know this release will take longer than usual, maybe that's aiming at a June release to coincide with imaging of Pluto? That would give them 5-6 months of solid bug squashing and polishing, which imo is enough for what Squad has announced they want to do.

But the real truth is, not you, not me, not anyone outside of Squad itself knows "why" other than the reason they've already stated: They feel they're ready. But please, everyone, continue with wild, baseless speculation. It's highly entertaining.

[rynak]

If people kept their mouths shut, that would be fine. Word-of-mouth is an issue. Somebody purchases 1.0 thinking they are getting a release worthy version. They find it to buggy, unstable and the quality to be uneven. Let's say they are a nerdy college student. They complain to their fellow nerdy friends, nerdy friends who would otherwise have purchased KSP don't because of what their friend has said. Squad gets the money from one person, but they lose n number of buyers do to one persons bad experience. While many of you may say it is the guy/gal's fault, if squad does not provide a product that you would recommend to a friend, it's an overall loss for the Kommunity, the potential buyers, and Squad.

To be fair, that's not really a matter of terms, so not really a contradiction of what he said. Personally, i think those terms stink - perhaps not for people who bought recently, but certainly for people who bought way way back. It's pretty much as bad as kickstarter: Projects are being portrayed, as if this were crowdfunding when in fact, all the failures should by now have taught even those who do not read terms, that it is plain DONATION, rather than funding. Actual funding and investment, put obligations on both parties, and there are rules about transparency. With KS and similiar "pseudo-crowdfunded" things, the supporters get all the obligations, while the creators only get instant-benefits.

This being said, your above argument is of course true regardless of terms. Luckily, word of mouth is not illegal yet, and it does often punish legal but unfair and dishonest actions - as for example happened recently for elite dangerous (braben even managed to make slashdot this way, and this time he has no gametek to blame for it).

Edited January 26, 2015 by rynak
spelling

[FlowerChild]

But the real truth is, not you, not me, not anyone outside of Squad itself knows "why" other than the reason they've already stated: They feel they're ready.

And contradicted their previously stated plans in the process.

But please, everyone, continue with wild, baseless speculation. It's highly entertaining.

What's wild and baseless about thinking that an early access game that is rushing to release for unknown reasons may be running into financial trouble? There's a rather large precedent for that happening.

I'm not even saying that's the case. All I'm saying is that in the absence of a more reasonable explanation for why they've suddenly changed their plans and seem to be rushing the game out the door, it seems to be the most reasonable theory.

Heck, I'd even have found something like "we can't share the reasons at this time, but don't worry, we're not in financial trouble" to be a more reassuring explanation than "enough with the early access already", because yes, then it opens the door to stuff like you were talking about being a distinct possibility.

Edited January 26, 2015 by FlowerChild

[BudgetHedgehog]

Heck, if there is another explanation, or even a reasonable theory, I'd love to hear it, but essentially what I've heard so far basically boils down to "because".

A well-reasoned argument. I guess what with them adding new aero, resources and whatnot, the game has all the features they intended it to have and as such, aren't comfortable with being EA, but still.. jumping into 1.0 full release with those does sounds a bit weird. I hope there is something more substantial behind it than 'just because', I am with you there.

If people kept their mouths shut, that would be fine. Word-of-mouth is an issue. Somebody purchases 1.0 thinking they are getting a release worthy version. They find it to buggy, unstable and the quality to be uneven.

That's a different thing entirely and completely acceptable - the issue is people are complaining they want a refund because.. I don't honestly know why. They bought the game at a time when the EULA states any release may be the last and that Squad is under no obligation to communicate or make anything new. What you're on about is people purchasing KSP 1.0 and finding it unsatisfactory - nobody knows what it'll be like, how many bugs will be present whatever and until they do, they have no right to expect a refund for buying 1.0 because no-one has done that yet - it's literally impossible to buy KSP 1.0 so expecting a refund from it doesn't make sense.

You're conflating buying an EA game and expecting a refund off of it and buying a full release game and it being too buggy to cope. These are two different things - one entitles you to a refund, the other does not. I don't think KSP hasn't yet reached a stage where it entitles anyone to a refund based on satisfaction (stuff like 'I don't like the imbalance of Outsourced R&D, I want a refund'). When 1.0 drops and people buy it and aren't satisfied and want a refund, that's Squads fault for shipping a buggy or whatever release (and for not listening when we say have at least 1 update before then). But, as things stand now, no-one is really entitled to a refund based on future updates not meeting expectations simply because there may not be any future updates - this is what the EULA states as of now.

Edited January 26, 2015 by ObsessedWithKSP

[AngusJimiKeith]

I'm still at the point where I feel the need to delete my save and start over after every update. The game is at a point where every update breaks saves in at least a minor way. That doesn't qualify as "ready for 1.0" to me.

That's not even counting the other issues like major systems being obviously incomplete, heaps of bugs, and the fact that, by any software development terms I've ever used they should still be in alpha.

KSP, despite its flaws, has been one of my favorite games (ever). But I won't be updating to any "release version" until it's actually complete enough to call a proper release.

[Yellowburn10]

May I ask why people are talking about a buggy, crappy quality, unstable version of KSP 1.0 when 1.0 has only just been announced?? Honestly, I'm about as confused as you are as to why squad decided to do this, but this is just jumping to conclusions here. We really have no idea how 1.0 will turn out until we actually have the update in our hands.

[rynak]

May I ask why people are talking about a buggy, crappy quality, unstable version of KSP 1.0 when 1.0 has only just been announced??

Read the thread - has been explained countless times. Well, or don't read it, if you don't want to see it.

EDIT: Short version - they cannot add all the planned features, and do all the fixing and balancing, in 2-4 months.

Edited January 26, 2015 by rynak

[archnem]

Heck, I'd even have found something like "we can't share the reasons at this time, but don't worry, we're not in financial trouble" to be a more reassuring explanation than "enough with the early access already", because yes, then it opens the door to stuff like you were talking about being a distinct possibility.

But Max has said basically exactly this. Twice. Shrug. I actually voted "No" in the poll, I'm just saying that any reasons we think Squad might be doing this are nothing more than speculation unless you happen to be a member of the dev team. In which case you're probably violating your NDA.

[AngusJimiKeith]

May I ask why people are talking about a buggy, crappy quality, unstable version of KSP 1.0 when 1.0 has only just been announced?? Honestly, I'm about as confused as you are as to why squad decided to do this, but this is just jumping to conclusions here. We really have no idea how 1.0 will turn out until we actually have the update in our hands.

Well, for one, they aren't waiting for Unity 5 before jumping to 1.0. SQUAD has talked about just how important Unity 5 will be...but they're jumping to 1.0 without it.

For another, they've had a history of putting of bugfixes for features...and with the feature list for this update, I'd be concerned about that.

For yet another, they're doing some seriously major things this update without a beta release first!

That doesn't paint a very optimistic picture.

[klgraham1013]

Are people asking for a refund now? A) That's crazy. I must of missed those posts. Is it a situation where one or two people said it and now it's being blown out of proportion?

edit: This thread is moving to fast. I can't keep up.

Edited January 26, 2015 by klgraham1013

[Yellowburn10]

Read the thread - has been explained countless times. Well, or don't read it, if you don't want to see it.

Dude, this update will be in development for several months or more, way more time than any other update. Anyone who says what the game will turn out like when it's finished, that's just their theory.

[rynak]

Dude, this update will be in development for several months or more, way more time than any other update

So, like every other update? Or do you mean more than 2-4 months? Where did you get that information? And if it were so, why would they announce 1.0 half a year in advance? Why would there be no interim build?

With no information on the releasedate, i would say that 2-4 months is a reasonable estimate, because obviously this will take more than a month, yet announcing half a year in advance would be weird. Got anything to back up a better estimate? I bet no.

[Rainbow-Dashie]

Even if it's not ready for release (i personally think its okay, and ready to go), it couldn't be much worse then other "Finished Games" (I'm looking at you AC:Unity).

[Yellowburn10]

Well, for one, they aren't waiting for Unity 5 before jumping to 1.0. SQUAD has talked about just how important Unity 5 will be...but they're jumping to 1.0 without it.

For another, they've had a history of putting of bugfixes for features...and with the feature list for this update, I'd be concerned about that.

For yet another, they're doing some seriously major things this update without a beta release first!

That doesn't paint a very optimistic picture.

1. I think we can all agree a unity 5 update is a bit overdue, though. If one of the main reasons of them waiting was for unity 5, they might of gotten tired of waiting. By the looks of it, they can survive without it for now.

2 and 3. Yes, they have a history with the bug and features, but bugs are almost an inevitability with new features. But they are taking a longer time for this update, quite possibly the longest ever, which gives them more time to flesh out any bad bugs.

[FlowerChild]

But Max has said basically exactly this. Twice.

Please reference then, because the explanation from Max I've read is the same one that is in the OP:

I know the Early Access environment has so far been... well, not great, but I like to believe that we have so far delivered and will continue to do so. There's no financial motivations or limitations hampering the team. We simply are not comfortable being an Early Access game anymore. If the game at 1.0 is truly at a state where bugs and balance issues outshine the gameplay to the point that critics slam us, then so be it. Frankly, I believe we can do better than that, and I will do my best to deliver on that promise.

With the actual explanation part of it bolded, and is the part that makes no sense to me. Throw in the fact that when someone says to me "this is not the reason I'm doing such and such but here's an alternate explanation which makes little sense" (e.g. "I'm not here to rob your house I'm just going door to door selling these handy glass cutters") my natural inclination is to suspect the denied explanation is in fact the one that applies, and it pretty much explains why I'm rather suspicious here.

Edited January 26, 2015 by FlowerChild

[Yellowburn10]

Where did you get that information?

Got anything to back up a better estimate?

I believe they said in the "beyond beta" blogpost that they said this update will take longer than the others, and saying each update takes about 2-3 months, it's a pretty safe guess that it'll take a month or two longer than the others.

[rynak]

I believe they said in the "beyond beta" blogpost that they said this update will take longer than the others, and saying each update takes about 2-3 months, it's a pretty safe guess that it'll take a month or two longer than the others.

That's interesting but again a bit weird.... say it is 4 months.... that still would be very tight to implement the features they mentioned AND balance them... no time for any serious bugfixing and optimization (which they never mentioned, so perhaps they do not consider optimization relevant to call it "release worthy"). Let's add another month so we got 5 month of dev... that would barely be enough to address the "low hanging fruits" with regards to optimization and bugfixing... but not enough to tackle major issues.

IMO, they need at least half a year to implement the new features, and do fixing, balancing and polish. But again, if the release were half a year away, why would they announce it now? Half a year is a lot of time... it would make more sense to rush in the new features as placeholders, then release a second beta at the 4.5 month mark... then reserve 1.5 month for fixing, optimization and polish only. In short, if the release were this far away, there would neither be a reason to announce it now, nor would there be a reason to not do an interrim beta after "feature complete".

EDIT: My bet is 4 months. Just enough to get in the new features in a semi-stable state - no time for anything else.

Edited January 26, 2015 by rynak

[archnem]

Please reference then, because the explanation from Max I've read is the same one that is in the OP:

Well, the first reference is literally the sentence before the one you bolded.

[FlowerChild]

Well, the first reference is literally the sentence before the one you bolded.

We seem to be going in circles here. Yes, I realize that Max has denied financial issues being why they're releasing early. What I was explaining previously was why I still think it's the most likely explanation despite him saying it's not.

When I said this:

Heck, I'd even have found something like "we can't share the reasons at this time, but don't worry, we're not in financial trouble" to be a more reassuring explanation than "enough with the early access already", because yes, then it opens the door to stuff like you were talking about being a distinct possibility.

I was saying that "we can't share the reasons at this time" being something I would find to be a more reassuring explanation than him saying they just don't want to be in early access anymore.

In other words, I'm less suspicious of:

I can't tell you yet why we're releasing on this schedule, but it's not financial issues

Which I find more credible than:

We are not having financial issues, but want to release now because we're sick of early access.

Edited January 26, 2015 by FlowerChild

[Yellowburn10]

That's interesting but again a bit weird.... say it is 4 months.... that still would be very tight to implement the features they mentioned AND balance them... no time for any serious bugfixing and optimization (which they never mentioned, so perhaps they do not consider optimization relevant to call it "release worthy"). Let's add another month so we got 5 month of dev... that would barely be enough to address the "low hanging fruits" with regards to optimization and bugfixing... but not enough to tackle major issues.

IMO, they need at least half a year to implement the new features, and do fixing, balancing and polish. But again, if the release were half a year away, why would they announce it now? Half a year is a lot of time... it would make more sense to rush in the new features as placeholders, then release a second beta at the 4.5 month mark... then reserve 1.5 month for fixing, optimization and polish only. In short, if the release were this far away, there would neither be a reason to announce it now, nor would there be a reason to not do an interrim beta after "feature complete".

EDIT: My bet is 4 months. Just enough to get in the new features in a semi-stable state - no time for anything else.

Now, keep in mind, a number of features they've mentioned we're already in the works before the announcement. Aerodynamics have made good progress already it looks like, female kerbals have been in the works for a while now, landing gear and the barn were almost done for .90, and a few other things I may have forgotten that were partially worked on. This will cut their work time down significantly, down to the possible 4-month time.

[Brotoro]

"There's no financial motivations or limitations hampering the team"... does NOT mean that the decision to release 1.0 couldn't be financial. It just means they are claiming no lack of money to continue the project.

Squad may have just done the calculation and determined that they would make EVEN MORE MONEY by ending Early Access in the near future. That's a financial decision...but not some ominous one portending possible economic collapse of the project.

I don't need to know the details. I just hope they do well with the game I love.