Do you feel KSP is ready for 1.0?

[Vanamonde]

Firstly, some threads have been merged to keep the 1.0 discussion from spilling all over the forum.

Secondly, the argument about pros/cons of modding and worth of the modders has gotten rather heated, and is off-topic for this thread. Please leave that subject for another time, when tempers have cooled.

[I_Killed_Jeb]

In 500+ hours, I have had one Kraken attack, and that was caused by KAS pipes. I appreciate your coding knowledge, but KSP is remarkably stable for an Early Access title. Not that lineage really has any bearing on these arguments, but for the sake of context, I will say I have been beta testing games since since the 90's and Squad is in fine shape. Bugfixing always comes last.

well that's the crux of the whole can of worms now isn't it? it's not going to be able to hide behind that reason

[metl]

And that is certainly a valid fear. But let's sit back and actually look at what stock KSP is, not what we want it to be or think it should be, but what and where it is. If you take into account the 1.0 to-do list, the game is ready (or will be.)

[FlowerChild]

In 500+ hours, I have had one Kraken attack, and that was caused by KAS pipes. I appreciate your coding knowledge, but KSP is remarkably stable for an Early Access title.

I would propose that it's because you (and I both) know what to avoid. Will new players that just bought a released game be aware that landing on the poles of a planet, flying into the sun, or trying to land on Jool could effectively wipe out their save game? Is that a reasonable thing to expect from them, especially when for a new player those probably sound like fun things to try?

I think as a community we're habituated to knowing this kind of stuff and taking it for granted. We're used to using stuff like you mentioned about sepatrons for radial decouplers to work around bugs. We're used to rotating our viewpoint ad nauseum to place a maneuver node that's just refusing to show up on a trajectory for no apparent reason. We're used to continually hitting "F5" to back up our saves in case our ships decide to spontaneously disassemble and to avoid playing "hardcore mode" with no reverts because we know things could go haywire at any moment. We're used to our trajectories suddenly shifting onto a collision course instead of the intercept we painstakingly plotted with maneuver node tools that are at best clunky and at worst infuriating when we change SOI's, swearing a bit, and then just moving on.

New players do not expect these things, and particularly not ones that just bought a "released" title that is basically putting itself forth as a complete game. Many people avoid purchasing games in early access precisely because they don't want to have to deal with those kinds of issues.

Is it theoretically possible that Squad will somehow fix all that stuff and all the new bugs they are bound to generate for the next version while simultaneously rebalancing every part in the game to accommodate the new systems they are adding? Sure. Is it likely they will manage it given the course of action they've stated as planned? That is where I think many of us are saying "no" and are urging them to go through a more robust testing process.

Edited January 26, 2015 by FlowerChild

[bdito]

And that is certainly a valid fear. But let's sit back and actually look at what stock KSP is, not what we want it to be or think it should be, but what and where it is. If you take into account the 1.0 to-do list, the game is ready (or will be.)

I agree. I just think most people consider a proper 1.0 release to be both feature complete AND bug free. It appears that Squad are going for feature complete and sorting out the bugs later.

Mind you this is all speculation. For all we know the bugs could be minimal, although past history would make that a long shot. In their defense I think it was 0.23 or 0.235 that had updates the very next day due to some bugs being found.

[BrainiacBlue]

Hmm... looking at my posts here I've been running around like Jeb on Red Bull.

Therefore here is a summary of my concerns:

1) The critics

This game will get a lot of praise and rightly so. It has contributed to a resurgence in the popularity of space exploration. It gave a few NASA eggheads some neat ideas and it means we can't use the phrase 'It's not rocket science' - because thanks to KSP I can do rocket science and its really not that hard. However it takes more than physics and some lovable aliens to woo a critic. Take for instance Rock Paper Shotgun. They have a (good IMO) habit of distancing how they feel about a game from how good it actually is. For example most of RPS loves Elite: Dangerous. But their review of it was one of 'yeah this is still in beta wait bit before buying' because of bugs, lack of meaningful success and general lack of polish. The exact same criticisms apply to the proposed KSP at 1.0 - it lacks victory, it has a great many bugs (including the entire x64 version of the game) and has about as much polish as sandpaper. Take a look at its review of the Beta:

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/12/23/kerbal-space-program-beta-review/

Few of the issues raised have been fixed. They will not be kind. They will want to be, but they won't.

2) The product itself

KSP lacks victory. There is only so much achievement to be had. Once you've gone to the Jool system and back you are basically done. The contracts quickly become mindless busy work necessary to keep your progress afloat. The game lacks the parts for me to say 'look at my Laythe colony! Isn't it magnaflorious!?' because I can't really do that. I can't say 'look at my glorious space station' because it serves no function. It is an ornament. A 2 million funds ornament - and I cannot recommend that to a friend.

It also lacks many of the physics required to call itself a physics based game about flinging kerbals. Water is either pastry or concrete (There is a great mod that fixes that btw). We will get atmospheric stuff so that will be fine. It lacks re-entry physics. I should have to think about the craft design just a little. If I am going to be punished for an out of place control surface I should be punished for sending my crew at 8000m/s vertically at Eve. It is illogical to include some features in great detail and ignore others completely. It breaks progression and it breaks immersion for any space enthusiast as much as flying through the pre-1.0 soup that constituted the air.

The game isn't ready from a gameplay point of view IMHO. There is too little to keep me thinking.

3) The bugs

Okay. So they will probably fix some of them. They will probably introduce as many as is often the way with any update of any software. However as much as I trust SQUAD to fix some bugs, others I think they simply don't know how. Case in point: memory leaks. Since the Big Bang the great civilisations of the galaxy have gone 'Wow, itsn't it great, the planets are so... hang on, I have to restart - the telescope is starting to tank'. Memory leaks are a serious problem affecting the game that SQUAD simply has not been able to crush. On the basis that the problem has never been fully resolved, just made slower, I do not think they will fix it on release. Then the x64 version. I could write a small book on why a working x64 version of any PC title is important. It needs to work.

Then the decoupler bug, something that can be worked around but still should not be there. A minor quibble, but it suggests SQUAD is not inclined to fix bugs with the urgency and efficiency that may be needed.

4) 'Placeholder'

There are too many assets, textures and some sounds that are just placeholders. The interior of the MK1 inline cockpit - 'placeholder' from the part's introduction to now. The outer planets of the Kerbol System... do not exist yet. And remain some forum posts on what the devs want to do before launch but because 1.0 needs to be out the door, that will not happen. What the devs themselves want won't happen in their game.

Nobody in their right mind would tolerate placeholder assets and textures in a finished product. From what I have read, I will not be able to tolerate 1.0

Overall: I want to love 1.0 - I want to celebrate. But I cannot, the critics will be divided, the game will be buggy, the game will be unfinished, the x64 version will not work, the gameplay will get old quickly. Those are not the hallmarks of a product ready for release and that is why the game is not ready under the proposed 1.0, to be released as the finished product that we will judge it for.

[FlowerChild]

Bugfixing always comes last.

Just to return to this post for a second I want to point out that development strategy is actually a recipe for disaster. I've been through this process many times, and reserving bug fixing for the end of a project instead of fixing as you go is a good way to create a living nightmare for your development team.

Yes, a certain period of intense bugfixing will ultimately be required, but IMO, that's a result of the failures of a development process, not something that should be expected or encouraged. Unless developers take a certain amount of time to self-test and fix their code as they go, bugs stockpile and exasperate each other until you end up with a horrendous tangled mess that can drive you to madness on large projects, where your attempts to fix one thing will often wind up breaking another, and the actual origin of a particular bug can be obscured by the magnitude of the code base you are now working with. Bugs are usually easiest and least time consuming to fix immediately after writing the code in question, as whomever is working on it is still intimately familiar with the way the logic works, and where the bug actually resides is easier to identify since you just put it there.

And really, I think that's part of why I lack confidence here. When something as readily apparent as the radial decoupler bug goes unresolved version after version I question the development principles at play here and how it will all play out when people are crunching like crazy trying to get the game out the door.

Edited January 26, 2015 by FlowerChild

[Bill Phil]

As long as Squad takes their sweet time and makes sure they get it all right. No need to rush as far as I know. This is a game-changing update, and it also marks the transition out of Early Access. Even if it takes 6 months or more, it's perfectly fine. Squad is more than capable of making this game amazing-er in one update, I trust them. And I wish them luck.

[metl]

Word is spreading already.

PC Gamer

[basic.syntax]

Bug fixing comes last... or at least get postponed, when insiders know that a feature is planned for overhaul. I'm sure that's why some known long-standing bugs are long-standing. If this was not put out for early access... we might not have known some of them existed.

But its generally true that the earlier in development a bug is found and fixed, the cheaper it is. Its easier to undo a snag in a ball of yarn, before it has grown into a ball of yarn Software testing is considered an expense to companies; testing staff can be reduced as more checks are pushed up the chain, into the development process. (Not that they appreciate this.) IDE's and Compilers are getting packed with more and more features to check code work as it is being created. Up until the day 1.0 ships, we are still in beta, I take them at their word that many long-standing bugs will be addressed in the coming months.

[Bill Phil]

Maybe small patches like 0.90.1 could fix the already present bugs that the players are currently dealing with, acting as an interim update, or a "snapshot" update. It would be a big help to get rid of some long-standing bugs first, and release that bug-fix. But it's not up to me.

[basic.syntax]

Word is spreading already. PC Gamer

the game will soon be officially releasedâ€â€a somewhat strange designation as it's been both available to buy and brilliant for a long time now.

He could have led off with a comment like "Despite its flaws..." but nope, just praise.

[Yellowburn10]

He could have led off with a comment like "Despite its flaws..." but nope, just praise.

I don't think the problem that people are discussing here isn't so much about it's current flaws, as it is it's potential flaws. Like, any potential game breaking bugs the mountain of new content might have, and that it won't have any other updates to back them up or fix them before official release. Of course, we don't know if that will actually happen or not.

[NovaSilisko]

I don't think the problem that people are discussing here isn't so much about it's current flaws, as it is it's potential flaws. Like, any potential game breaking bugs the mountain of new content might have, and that it won't have any other updates to back them up or fix them before official release. Of course, we don't know if that will actually happen or not.

In the best case scenario, you'd go through some release candidates first, iron out problems, and then at some point simply promote the last RC to the "final" build. As few changes as possible when going into the big 1.0

But I'm repeating stuff that's been said a hundred plus times on this thread...

[r4pt0r]

Read some of the comments on PC gamer. they think multiplayer isnt coming. thats the kind of rumor you get by calling your unfinished game v1.0

[Robotengineer]

Read some of the comments on PC gamer. they think multiplayer isnt coming. thats the kind of rumor you get by calling your unfinished game v1.0

Aye, that's waht I was talking about when I was saying that many people in the comments have been waiting for 1.0, and then they think this is it and it won't be what they are expected. Kind of their problem, but Squad should do what they can to make 1.0 as good as gold. Not that they wouldn't of course.

[NecroBones]

I'm still catching up on this thread... fall a day behind, and you can easily stay a day behind.

But yeah, I voted "no" just from the standpoint that this next update is still adding/overhauling major features. They may be squashing bugs too, but I would prefer a relatively stable release dedicated to bugs, balancing, and beautification, before putting the "1.0" stamp on it. But that's just me.

The thing I found curious was how Maxmaps worded it; that they're not comfortable being in early access anymore. Since they've said there are no financial pressures driving this, that makes me wonder if they're trying to avoid being lumped in with all of the badly-executed early access games, or if there's a licensing agreement or outside contract that they're seeking that simply can't be done in a pre-release setting for some reason.

I'd love to hear more of the reasoning, just beyond hitting the last check mark on the original design document.

But don't get me wrong, I'm not really sweating it. It's up to them as to how they want to proceed. We have a fantastic game already, and I'm looking forward to the next update as always.

[Jacke]

Bug fixing comes last... or at least get postponed, when insiders know that a feature is planned for overhaul.

That is a recipe for disaster.

Even if you have "placeholding code", like the old aero model (at that scale a problem in itself), you have to debug the code because what else is that bug masking? And how do you know it's actually in the feature planned for overhaul until you find it?

Prioritize the bug fixing according to how serious it is. But you can't afford to ignore them. Nor forever give an excuse that resources weren't available for debugging.

I'm still catching up on this thread... fall a day behind, and you can easily stay a day behind.

Yeah, the pace and tone of the commenting here has been...rather intense. Lots of good thoughts too. And a lot of people showing they really care about KSP.

But yeah, I voted "no" just from the standpoint that this next update is still adding/overhauling major features. They may be squashing bugs too, but I would prefer a relatively stable release dedicated to bugs, balancing, and beautification, before putting the "1.0" stamp on it. But that's just me.

The thing I found curious was how Maxmaps worded it; that they're not comfortable being in early access anymore. Since they've said there are no financial pressures driving this, that makes me wonder if they're trying to avoid being lumped in with all of the badly-executed early access games, or if there's a licensing agreement or outside contract that they're seeking that simply can't be done in a pre-release setting for some reason.

I'd love to hear more of the reasoning, just beyond hitting the last check mark on the original design document.

A lot of us are wondering what's truly driving the decision to make the next one 1.0. Good point about being lumped in with other early access games.

But does Squad really want KSP to be lumped in with all of the badly-executed released games ?!? Because to a lot of us, with a lot of experience of game development including as developers, there's a large risk of that happening.

[briansun1]

I'm wondering the same thing. Why exactly are the pushing out 1.0 now? As for if it's ready or not I'd have to say yes and no. They plan on adding a lot of new stuff next update and as has been repeated multiple times there are going to be issues. So, that's the no part. The yes part is how the game stands right now. It could be released as is and be more or less fine (IVAs I'm looking at you.). So, basically I'm just afraid there rushing things a bit with this next update.

[EnDSchultz]

I'll open this question up to anyone else here who's up in arms about this:

Why should I (or anyone else here) be concerned about whether KSP goes open now or not?

Well, I'd say this whole topic of 1.0 has pretty much been bludgeoned to death but I'm going to contribute anyway.

The question a dev should ask themselves about 1.0 is this: If catastrophe struck the day after the release, and no more development could be done, would they be happy? Would they say the program is up to snuff and safely stands on its own as a complete product? Are the features all been implemented with sufficient depth? Have the bugs been squashed? Is it polished and shined up and refined?

How favorable an impression would an impartial, unbiased newcomer have of the game? This is crucial. A 1.0 release is going to attract a lot of publicity, a lot of new customers, and a lot of scrutiny. Regardless of how much the devs intend to expand the game post-1.0, this will likely be the point of judgement.

So, as for your question, here's why we should care: By my estimation, the financial success- or failure -of the 1.0 milestone is going to have a direct and significant impact on how much development and expansion Squad will be able to afford moving forward. And that, in turn, is going to determine how much bang we players will ultimately get for our buck. And the financial success of 1.0 is going to be determined by how complete and polished it is as a game at that point.

And I don't think it's complete and polished enough to be called a complete, "finished" game. Not yet.

[Brotoro]

Did Squad say if we get a new Demo version with 1.0?

[archnem]

And Lab IVA too! With option to do all experiments internally or remotely.

I think Lab should incorporate all currently known experiments internally, and, in IVA, scientists should be able to take all the measurements without leaving it.

That will reduce part counts and unneeded hassle.

I like the cut of your jib, sir.

[Yellowburn10]

This is what I like about our community; most of the people who chose "no" did so with valid reasoning, and because they care for KSP and it's developers, and not out of hate for the announcement. Sure, a bit of flaming may have started here and there, but it hasn't heated up to anything too serious. Of course, the "yes" side has shown it's valid opinions as well.

But there are still some questions that many people still want answers to, like:

"What's the motivation to jump to 1.0 besides just getting out of ErAc?"

"How are you going to make sure everything works without another update?" (e.g. 0.91)

"How will this update's development cycle work compared to other updates?" Etc. etc.

Well, Devnote Tuesday is tomorrow, perhaps harvester or someone will shed some more light with these questions.

[Merinsan]

KSP is fun, but it's hardly ready for full release...

A major platform for KSP is Windows, and most Windows machines these days are 64 bit, yet the 64 bit support is still not really there. This in my opinion needs to be addressed before the game is considered ready.

As well as that, some sort of overarching objective would be good - like an end game win condition. Even Minecraft had that (admittedly it was fairly lame), so surely there could be something in KSP.

[csebal]

Yes, almost and no, not really.

Confused? Good.

Here is what I'm thinking.

Yes, because:

The game is awesome already. I do not count the hours I spent with this, suffice to say, I am still playing it and having a blast with it. For me, it was the contract system and economy that was needed to push me over the edge in terms of wanting to play this, as it gives just the right amount of framework to your space exploration. With the amount of mods available, virtually all the flaws of the game can be amended and eliminated and the few remaining are more than outweighed by the sheer greatness of KSP. With that said, if squad want this game to success out of the box, they really need to look to the modding community (I know they do it already, and thats also awesome) and with their help, cobble together a package of mods endorsed by them that can fill the gaps between their 1.0 features.

and

No, because:

The lack of a proper 64 bit version in 2015 is hardly excusable and it is severely limiting the extensibility of the game due to memory constraints, also the game is a little bland in itself and has to rely on mods to make it a complete experience.

Some stuff that I think should really be part of the game that I did not see in the 1.0 list:

- Constructions taking time, limited use of revert functionality and instead the reliance on testing and simulations (aka. Kerbal Construction Time)

- Probes that make sense and antennas that are meaningful (aka. Remote Tech)

- An autopilot that allows you to get from A to B without having to eyeball and guesstimate your burns (mechjeb)

- Procedural / scaleable parts, as it reduces clutter a lot

- Crew ribbons and achievements (Final Frontier)

- Proper (at least some) re-entry heat simulation and handling (Deadly Reentry)

- Life support (make your pick, I prefer TACLS, but snacks might be more in line with the KSP theme)

That is really just the things I think is still missing from the BASE game. The actual version I play has 71 mods - 14 part mods, mostly procedural, plane and USI parts, 3 science mods and 54 mods that enhance the way you play (mostly the editor tools, but some in flight tools as well) Not writing this to brag about it as I am sure there are many using way more mods than I do.. Just to illustrate, that most of the mods I use actually are intended to fill in for missing game features or to further enhance the user experience (either in editor or in flight).

This is my only concern with the game going to 1.0. Its not THAT awesome out of the box and 90% of the players will not go the extra mile to make it great by adding all these mods, especially as making these work needs a bit of technical know-how, looking through the log to figure out which ones you need to remove to make your game stable