Do you feel KSP is ready for 1.0?

[Superfluous J]

So... Have we gotten an official response from Squad yet?

They voted 'Yes'.

[LadyAthena]

Oh boy, bring it on. I can't wait to give this game a nice objective review with this monstrous Steam library of mine and a respectable 500+ hour play count... this is my time. Come on Squad, are you really ready for 1.0? You might want to think real hard on that one. It always makes me smile when someone tells me they bought a game because of my review... let's just hope I'm actually giving you guys a thumbs up, eh?

You thought the forum community was harsh... you don't know the Steam forums then. This game's 96% recommended rating is pretty tenuous if you ask me. Most people I know with KSP in their libraries have already given up on it after 1 or 2 hours.

"blahb lah blah it's not ready and bugs and yada yada" Yea yea we've heard it before.

Bottom line is, no game is ever going to be bug free completely.

-KSP Does have loads of content already.

- Has hundreds of hours worth of game-time.

- Has good mechanics that work

- Has good Gameplay that works

- Has quite humorous and fun situations that you can get yourself into. (This is the first game where failing was a huge enjoyment)

KSP has alot, no it won't ever be perfect, and the bugs are minimal, and I've yet to see the kraken playing the game as I should be playing it.

With 1.0 there will still be more updates still...

As for "but I know ppl who've played 1 hour and dropped it" yea, Iknow people who've played every game and dropped it after an hour. So what if this game isn't for them? It's better that a game doesn't try make a game for everyone.. we know where that goes right? Every MMO in existance has been destroyed because they attempt to meet the wants of everyone and the game ends up going nowhere.

[bakanando]

The only problem I see is that calling a scope complete game the 1.0 release version. Scope complete doesn't mean that the game's features are complete, and in all honesty there are many features that need completion.

On the other hand, it does deserve to get out of early access. KSP has been complete enough to be non early access for a while, but it is still a beta version.

[MircoMars]

if we take a look at the planned features, there's way too much new content that's added for 1.0. I believe they should have gone to 0.5 instead of .90 and implement the new features until they are satisfied with how they fit into the big picture. Then 0.9 as beta and "content polishing", then 1.0 "game complete".

I was afraid that they wanted to get to 1.0 because they wanna clone the cash cow by releasing expansion-packs and stuff. but I reread the terms of service, saw that I'm with the folks who bought the game early enough to have them included and stopped worrying.

[h4didact]

if we take a look at the planned features, there's way too much new content that's added for 1.0. I believe they should have gone to 0.5 instead of .90 and implement the new features until they are satisfied with how they fit into the big picture. Then 0.9 as beta and "content polishing", then 1.0 "game complete".

I was afraid that they wanted to get to 1.0 because they wanna clone the cash cow by releasing expansion-packs and stuff. but I reread the terms of service, saw that I'm with the folks who bought the game early enough to have them included and stopped worrying.

When was early enough?

[Red Iron Crown]

When was early enough?

Before May 2013.

[rcp27]

The more i think about it, the more i am convinced, that there simply is no way around introducing a proper time component to make the career mode really interesting. A space station makes sense, if each scientist there generates some science per period of time (say per day) - likely against his monthly payment in funds and capped in duration by lifesupport and how much science there is to get based on location and instruments...

The problem I have with time based mechanics is they fundamentally change the game from a "try it and see" game to a "carefully plan in advance" experience. At present, a mission that doesn't quit go to plan will result in something like a ship stranded somewhere that needs rescue. That in itself presents a fun challenge that may take months or years to figure out. With time based mechanics, a mission that doesn't quite go to plan will result in everyone on board dead, and possibly the bankruptcy of my whole space program.

If I'm going to be able to prevent this kind of monumental failure, I need far more tools at my disposal to plan missions so that I can be certain before launching to be sure it will work out. I can't just whack a bunch of components together in the VAB, launching and seeing what happens. Instead, I will have to scratch my head over delta-V measurements, transfer window planning (so that I know how much life support to pack) and construction schedules. To my mind, this change would drain the fun out of the game and turn it into a grind that feels more like the job I do by day rather than the game I play for fun.

[tater]

That's absurd. IF you play the way you play now, the only thing that would change is that you'd take X years to do everything in KSP instead of X days. LS would always be a toggle, anyway. Or you could add "invulnerable kerbals" as an option for EZ mode.

[Mr. Scruffy]

Well, there is a of course some truth in it. And i find it mainly in the ´tools´ that have been mentioned. I WOULD need more of these. I just take it as a given, that when something like meaningful time is to be implemented, it would come with things like a calendar with events-to-come-soon would auto-inserted and entries can be made by the player to plan stuff. Or (actually: and) an auto-pause function that would warp you to the next event at highest possible (even beyond cuttent max speed - as fast as your machine can handle it) warp, if you want it to. Possibly individual schedules for each flight.

As a convention, anything that has a date or time on it, should be added to the flight schedule (if flight related)/calendar (if program related) by simply clicking on said date/time. And they should be removable from these lists as easily.

That we have to eyeball transfer windows had no bearing on the relevance of time, but has its cause by the game simply not providing us with the exact data. There should be ways to acquire it, like an observatory building or something.

Flight tests can be done in sandbox mode, or by simply reverting, if that option is left on. Occasional failures should not result in instant game overs - there could be the option to acquire loans for example (which only makes sense with meaningful time). Limited periodic government payments, too, maybe - so that you can save & warp your way out. Which brings me to:

There needs to be a some sort of timelimit or timescore to the game. Like in XX years from game start some catastrophe will have to be averted (meteor strike to be repelled / sun going nova and being able to leave the system with a colony ship...), after which your score is tallied. Or you get score for the SCI you collect based on how soon you collect it. So, save up&warp will let you keep playing, but your score will suffer.

[Vallius]

I had my fears about whether SQUAD could do this. I worried that they were getting over their heads, and would blow it.

I initially said NO, but now I'm preparing to eat my words. Is KSP ready for 1.0 now? Absolutely! (as long as you awesome guys quit fiddling with it very soon.)

I can't speak for anyone else, but to quote the great Thorin Oakenshield.

"I have never been so wrong in my life."

[Bill Phil]

Before May 2013.

Good thing I got in 2012...

On topic:

I think it's ready to go pre-1.0 release. It's probably the biggest update in a long time. But it should be a beta release. Too late now, but seeing how the community reacts to the whole update, and not the devnotes/squadcasts/other things, would give you a pretty good set of suggestions. Then 1.0.

But it's too late now.

[GusTurbo]

I've changed my mind. Based on what I've heard from the devs recently, I think it actually is ready for 1.0.

[OrbitusII]

Since I can't word my thoughts on the matter correctly, I'll be brief and say that yes, I believe it is ready for 1.0.

[HafCoJoe]

Full on yes now!

[DundraL]

No, its not ready. But I think it will be next monday. Thats what the patch is for.

But then again, its not my call, or your call, its squads call.

[tntristan12]

Not 100% just yet. I still really really believe squad could benefit from releasing this as 0.99 and using the next update to incorporate feedback. However, I really do feel like the game is as close to ready as it could possibly be in the time Squad allowed themselves. Here's hoping for post release patches and updates!

[Merinsan]

KSP 1.0 will be out next week. The last Dev notes before release have said how they are still adding features, so in my opinion the game is not ready. I'll be happy if I am wrong, but I suspect there will be bugs/problems that will be obvious on da

[RyanRising]

Y'know what, it looks like it will be ready. I have changed by mind.

Just so long as the chutes don't clip.

[Thomas988]

I was thinking no before, but man things have changed! 1.0 looks incredible beyond words. Monday, here we come!

[klgraham1013]

Y'know what, it looks like it will be ready. I have changed by mind.

Just so long as the chutes don't clip.

I think you'll be disappointed.

[basic.syntax]

Some people changing their minds on the subject shows how this poll thread was a product of its time. An announcement of moving from the first beta straight to "1.0", created a huge shock. (I was surprised, too.)

At that time, you had no idea except by the results of past updates, if Squad might be able to deliver on their goal statements in the "beyond beta" article. I looked at what they had done, and given time, I thought they could do it. "They are not shipping .90 tomorrow, and calling it 1.0." - post 151. I'm on the record with a Yes vote in post #124. I'm looking forward to next Monday

[ArmchairGravy]

A lot depends on if they've filled in all of the big, glaring holes. Do we have a tier 0 KSC? Are all of the IVA's in place? Have the code optimizations, bug fixes and rebalancing actually done anything? Do all of the new features work, and work well? A "No" answer to any of these means they should not be 1.0, and reviews of the game will reflect this.

[basic.syntax]

Post #1000! Seems an appropriate place to cross-post this, from reddit (link)

(Note: the post quoted below is in reply to a detailed, interesting observation that is also worth the read. Click the link above to read the below, in original context.)

---

By KSP_HarvesteR, 2015 April 11

Very well put!

There is an ongoing paradigm shift with software development and distribution these days, and it's fair to say we are caught right in the middle of it. The line between unfinished and finished software is getting increasingly more hazy.

In our case, for what it's worth, there is a purpose in the 1.0 version tag. It means our departure from the Early Access program, to be counted as a pblished title. And this is worth stressing: it means nothing else but that.

Moving out of Early Access should be good for both us and players. It helps define the extent of the game and manage expectations, and it also puts us in a more established category for games (many gaming 'hubs' still don't accept Early Access titles as eligible).

As for the future, post-1.0, I'm looking forward for that quite a bit. For the first time in the game's history, we are looking at a phase of development where the pressure on us isn't an order of magnitude greater than the previous phase. Looking back:

Before we went public, there was pressure from the uncertainty of how the game would be received.

After 0.7.3, the pressure increased tenfold as players now expected more features and more quality.

After 0.14, the pressure increased even more, as the game was no longer free and we had to match the expectations [of] a payware product.

After 0.19, as we moved to Steam, the pressure increased tenfold yet again, as the number of players started to simply explode, and we were now being put up on a scale against multi-million AAA games.

As we neared Beta (and entered it), pressure increases yet again, as everyone becomes frantic at the idea of the game reaching an end in development (which is untrue in our case, see the start of the post).

Now with 1.0 looming ahead, the pressure is at an all-time peak. Even though we know full well 1.1 is going to follow jsut as 1.0 followed 0.90, this release is fraught with an impending sense of doom and dread, which stems from that same notion you wrote about, that once software reaches 1.0, it's burned to disks, wrapped in plastic and trucked to stores.

Needless to say, that is an obsolete way of looking at things, especially with EA software like KSP. However, because like I said earlier, we are caught in the middle of this ongoing paradigm shift, we justcan't rid ourselves of the expectations and stress associated with going 'Gold'.

On that same token though, 1.1 promises to be a much deserved period of decompression. I am very much looking forward to it.

Cheers

[Fel]

Post #1000!

You were waiting for that, weren't you?

[ArmchairGravy]

...especially with EA software like KSP.

OMG, they did sell to EA!