Do you feel KSP is ready for 1.0?

[jedensuscg]

Here is one MAJOR question you all must ask yourselves. This single question will signify if the game is "scope complete" or ready for 1.0 release.

Install the game

DO NOT install any addons

Launch career mode

Now tell me...how much fun you having with the game? With no addon support at all. How about 5-10 hours into it, when the newness of early career wears off? Still having fun with the stock game, stock parts, stock features, grinding through career?

Imagine this as a new player. Using only stock craft grinding through career mode, lack of a useful tutorial and incentive outside of just getting more money to get a bigger hanger.

Doing this with no addons....that is a feature complete game when it is fun and playable long term with zero outside support.

You should not have to have players RELY on addons to complete the game for them. Addons should CHANGE functionality or add small things (like parts and such) . Addons should not be the only means to incorporate what many feel are required features, like rentry or life support or an ACTUAL list of parts. (Currently without addons, many many craft will look identical because there are so few options and only so many effective ways to make an efficient craft with such a small library of parts). SO your putting in a new aerodynamics model and refueling, that replaces two of the most popular mods. BUt what about Rentry? That is ignoring a huge portion of rocketry. I love the game, but what I really mean is I love that community of modders. Without them, I would not be around still. I always assumed that before release, the need for many of these larger addons would not be needed as things were rolled into the base game. I assumed wrong.

With the very lackluster career mode. It needs more. How about some GOALS to reach, long term that the player chooses and dictates the types of contracts he gets. The contracts are the means of funding, but something like 'Build a colony on the Mun'. Not the procedural 'Build a base on the Mun in this amount of time that must have this part' but a goal the player can choose, and contracts are geared towards that. If they want to build a Mun base, then they should be getting missions to explore the Mun, research it, start a small base, expand it, etc. Rather then the player deciding themselves they want to build a Mun base, but in order to get funds they have to fly way the hell to Eve, because that is what the game decided to throw at them. I don't care about eve now, I want to build a Mun base. If the player has no goal the want, then they can get whatever contract the game wants to give them.

Then there is career mode in general. It is far to grindy and random. Without my addons (and the contracts they bring with them) Career would be a really bad, and a disaster for new players..

Edited January 27, 2015 by jedensuscg

[Fourjays]

I wouldn't hold out for x64 before 1.0. As far as I know, it will be dependant on Unity 5 and, I presume, also dependant on Squad being able to convert KSP to Unity 5 while fixing any bugs that will occur as a result of that.

It is probably far more realistic for Squad to focus on optimising KSP so it performs better with a smaller memory footprint across all three platforms.

[Jonnyp]

The majority of games are 32bit... even AAA ones. It's only very recently on the biggest of big budget games where they are 64bit.

x64 has quickly become a buzz word which people use thinking that it's the holy grail of gaming... it isn't.

[birdspider]

The majority of games are 32bit... even AAA ones. It's only very recently on the biggest of big budget games where they are 64bit.

then again most AAA 32 bit games handle their memory more efficently, therefore have not need for x64 - contrary to KSP

[Broax]

x64 has quickly become a buzz word which people use thinking that it's the holy grail of gaming... it isn't.

Most people that play modded versions of KSP (which I imagine translates to a large portion of KSP players) encounter memory leak crashes sooner or later. Apparently this happens as 32bit applications can't address over 4Gb of RAM (or 3.5Gb or something along those lines). A 64bit version of the game would be able to make full use of the memory of these computers, thus solving a lot of problems for players.

64bit might not be the holy grail for most games but for KSP it would really be useful.

Of course this issue is not on Squad's hands but rather on Unity. Until we get Unity5 we'll have to make do with what we have.

This makes me wonder if having assets load on demand (there was even a mod that did this) would be a better idea. Or maybe Squad should consider using Unity5 beta? Some users on the unity forum report using it without horrible consequences. Maybe the gains would out-weigh the new issues. Maybe not...

But this only really addresses one issue. I think the game still lacks some content to be Gold worthy. Most "problems" can be addressed with mods, be it lack of content (plenty of content mods for every taste) or game bugs (there mods that fix stock game bugs like the decoupler bug, the EVA ejection bug, etc) but I don't think a game should rely so heavily on mods. It should be able to stand more firmly on its own and have mods enrich the experience. That's just an opinion though...

On the other hand maybe squad is addressing most of these issues in the form of undisclosed features for the upcoming update. Then I can't help but feel sorry for not trusting them enough.

This only leaves the question of balance. The upcoming game makes so many changes I think it's hard to be perfectly balanced without a bit of (beta) testing. And while I can tolerate a couple of bugs and little content on a launch day of a title, an unbalanced experience is something that simply kills my perception of a game for me (and a lot of people).

I think that KSP stayed in alpha way too long. Maybe this scared Squad and they felt intimidated by their 4th anniversary. But the Beta phase is shaping up to be far to small and I fear this might have a negative impact on the popular perception of the game. I just hope I'm wrong.

Edited January 27, 2015 by Broax

[Yakuzi]

Even though KSP is close(ish) to go gold, releasing the 1.0 version with multiple massive new features without proper beta testing puts me in the definitely NO team. The reasons why the next KSP iteration should be a thoroughly tested beta version and not the release version have been mentioned numerous times throughout this thread, but let me summarise:

- Inclusion of multiple big features: e.g. aero, procedural fairings, in situ resource management and potentially re-entry dynamics

- Hammering out existing, and new bugs inherently associated with including new features

- Balancing new features

- Balancing existing features: e.g. career and science are not fun/grindy, exploration of new planets seems somewhat underwhelming and lacks stimuli, there are currently no functional incentives to build rovers/space stations/planetary stations.

- Optimisation of the software

I’d love to believe that Squad can address all these issues in version 1.0, but realistically this seems implausible without a thorough testing cycle, and this is what I believe worries the naysayers in this poll since it will inevitably damage the reputation of KSP/Squad upon release.

As mentioned eloquently by jedensuscg above, a new player that will launch career will most likely not have fun due to frustration/boredom/lack of incentive. And even though KSP is in a far better shape than other titles leaving Early Access, a player will expect a fun and captivating experience with (some) direction and feedback when buying a released game. This is currently not the case and won’t be without some serious tycoon-like system overhaul.

So why has Squad changed the pace of KSP development so drastically all of a sudden? We’ve hardly been in beta (heck, big new features are still being added in the 1.0 version so we still not in beta according to conventional standards), and we're now going gold? The reasoning by Maxmaps is somewhat obscure to say the least:

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.

I have no idea what Max is saying here, what does “not comfortable in EA†mean? Apparently it lead to rushing the product, but what are the underlying reasons for putting on the pressure if they’re not financial? Is it managerial? Is it a team burn-out? Are Harvester and his new wife expecting so the game needs to be released before Jebediah junior sees the light of day? Gotta love the speculations, however as The Joker phrased earlier:

All I can ask is why Squad is so rushed into releasing everything in 1.0. Why can't we have a .91? If it's a valid reason, I'll accept it without complaint.

Squad, so many things have been made better in KSP because you listened to the community. Do you want to turn your backs on them now?

Particularly after Maxmaps stated:

Edited January 27, 2015 by Yakuzi
fixed links

[Jouni]

The majority of games are 32bit... even AAA ones. It's only very recently on the biggest of big budget games where they are 64bit.

That's one of the things that continues to surprise me in gaming, and perhaps even in Windows software in general.

When I started playing KSP in 2013, I was surprised to hear that it was still a 32-bit program. In the world I lived in, the x64 transition was ancient history, and only legacy software was still 32-bit. Most of the Linux systems I used had not been able to run 32-bit software for years, and special effort was needed, if I needed a system to run some legacy 32-bit code.

[Robotengineer]

What if the reason for the big push is because Squad the marketing company wants Squad the game company to move on? x64 is one of the few things that isn't something Squad can fix.

[KerbMav]

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.

Better do. Flunking this will only get you bonus points when applying for a Job at EA.

Beyond saying to Squad that it may be a good idea to offer a more credible explanation to the community to cut down on such speculation, I don't think dwelling on it further serves any real purpose. Honestly, if they are having financial troubles, it's not the kind of thing I would expect them to share, I just think it's worth pointing out the explanation they gave doesn't really make much sense and I think that's contributing to the discomfort some of us are feeling over the 1.0 announcement.

They may even be burning some of the credibility they are counting on right now in putting things that way.

My fear exactly. They want to leave the no longer hugs and puppies early access area - and risk much by the way they are doing so.

SUMMARY:

Squad says that they will be ready to end Beta and Early Access with the next release of KSP (version 1.0).

Squad says the 1.0 release will include many new and improved features (see lists elsewhere).

Squad says there will be a massive stomping of bugs before release of 1.0.

Squad says they will continue development after 1.0... this is not an end.

The reaction of the forum members ranges from belief to utter incredulity that the above can be accomplished in the estimated timeframe with no additional Beta releases.

The main concern of many members is that the 1.0 label will open KSP to disastrous reviews, and that the Reviewers will rip Squad a new nozzle.

Some forum members claim that KSP could never be 1.0 ready without some particular feature (not on the list of features Squad plans to include).

Poll was 5 to 1 No/Yes, but has shifted to 4:1 No/Yes.

Human Sacrifice, dogs and cats living together...mass hysteria. You know...business as usual.

Thank you, this thread grew to fast for an office week for me to keep up!

And lovely reference!

[JimmyAgent007]

Personally I think at the very least they should have released it as .99 then waited a week or two just in case before going 1.0 just to catch a few things and give them some wiggle room in case something goes wrong. There are lots of good points on both sides of things. I think that 1.0 just means the ORIGINAL vision is finished and its time to move into all the other cool stuff they want to do. Lets just wait and see what the next devnotes say and if they answer any of our questions. It is also possible that many features people want like parachutes are kept for a surprise on release day.

[Yakuzi]

What if the reason for the big push is because Squad the marketing company wants Squad the game company to move on?

That's what my thoughts are, particularly after reading this 2014 article on the birth of KSP at Squad (thanks Streetwind), which mentions that Squad founders Adrian Goya and Ezequiel Ayarza will move from the original marketing division to the KSP division sometime later in 2014 to "assume a larger role in leading KSP to bigger and broader success" (under the aptly named "Go For Launch" section). Note that Goya and Ayarza gave Felipe Falanghe (HarvesteR) the chance and starting capital to develop the game.

This may be the reason why KSP development has experienced such an extreme change of pace and mode of operation lately...

Edited January 27, 2015 by Yakuzi
fixing links as usual

[Kelvin Kerbin]

easy "no" because as of now the game isn't even close (by Squad's own standards).

Adding a bunch of features and fixing an unspecified list of bugs (some really serious) doesn't inspire confidence that the game will be ready. My statement is a commentary on software development in general and not Squad specifically. No matter how talented the developers at Squad, things like that do not happen. As someone earlier said, bug fixes come last. It's not that you can (or should) only fix bugs at the end, just that you would have to have zero software development experience to not schedule time at the end for bug fixes.

That said, we are mostly on the outside looking in. This product was in "alpha" and is now in "beta" but both are superficial designations. For an "alpha" build, KSP has been remarkably stable (too stable IMO). For a first release "beta" build, KSP is remarkably feature poor but with expected (perhaps average) stability. If this were a "real" final beta build I would say the stability is not where it should be. I've experience game killing issues 40+ hours into every game I've played. Why say anything when the game is still in alpha as that is expected in alpha. But in beta I'm having the same problem with no solution and now Squad says they believe it's ready to go? So far, Squad has not shown a product close to feature complete (by their definition and most of those here) nor release stability (by everyone's definition). But there are development cycles internal to Squad as well as external to Squad (but still "inside" the general public release cycle). Any commentary on this board can only be on the clearly "fake" build information available to the board. From that perspective, the answer is "no" but Squad can do this if they change their development model (less back and forth with the customers and more behind closed door development cycles). Personally, that sucks because feeling like part of the development process has been one of the things keeping me interested. If Squad shuts their doors and disappears for 6-12 months to pull this off it will be a pretty disappointing change. Regardless, I'm still a supporter and would say:

-- Godspeed Squad.

[Yellowburn10]

You know, with almost 70 pages of discussion about this, I feel that we've discussed almost everything we could about the post, and more. We're "beating a dead horse," so to speak.

...I'd post a gif but I'm on the mobile version ATM.

[CaptRobau]

Even though KSP is close(ish) to go gold, releasing the 1.0 version with multiple massive new features without proper beta testing puts me in the definitely NO team. The reasons why the next KSP iteration should be a thoroughly tested beta version and not the release version have been mentioned numerous times throughout this thread, but let me summarise:

I voted Yes to the poll early after it was made and have been on the fence since the discussions really started, but you've finally convinced me to switch to No. The time frame wouldn't be much different either with a couple months dedicated to adding the new features and releasing it as version 0.91 and a few weeks after that for fixing all the issues that those big new features bring with before releasing it as 1.0. It wouldn't satisfy the people who want even more out of 1.0, but it'd be better than launching a game with unresolved issues. Those issues will pop up, because some people just hate Early Access and thus so 1.0 will bring in thousands of new players spending dozens of hours each on the game and breaking it in previously unknown ways.

As mentioned eloquently by jedensuscg above, a new player that will launch career will most likely not have fun due to frustration/boredom/lack of incentive. And even though KSP is in a far better shape than other titles leaving Early Access, a player will expect a fun and captivating experience with (some) direction and feedback when buying a released game. This is currently not the case and won’t be without some serious tycoon-like system overhaul.

How interesting career mode is to new players is hard to pin down by the community, as the members generally forming the debate are people who have been with KSP for a while. Jedensuscg joined in July 2013, so he's probably evaluating the current state of career mode with some experience. The veterans experienced much of what the game has to offer solely through sandbox and people who've been with us for a year or so experienced it through the career mode now called 'Science Mode'. Only those who've played it starting with 0.90 have some inkling on what it's like for a newbie to play 1.0's career mode. Personally I find career mode boring, simply because I've experienced everything already through career mode or mods. I'm wondering if it's possible for veterans to assess how much fun career mode is for those who will join us with 1.0, since we've had a different experience with the game.

[Avicorn]

No. I don't think the game is ready. You calling it 1.0, but it's still 0.27

[kcs123]

My answer - No. Plenty of new features are introduced in next release. I'm sure that Squad did their best to make it work properly, but I think that it will be better to release at least one beta version before going to 1.0.

That will provide much wider testing population and it will alow moders to prepare their mods properly. That beta don't need to last long, but after 2-3 weeks, this comunity will provide a lot of feedback, so you will be able to iron out some bugs that was sliped in game and polish some new features before going to full release.

[rosenkranz]

I don't know about Unity 5 but I know a hype train when I see it. I wouldn't expect it to answer all our prayers folks.

What I am concerned about and why I voted no is this. It just got to beta. Beta is where you flesh out the features you have. Its where you do your balance passes (plural) and bug squashing.

Having just one beta release and jumping into final just seems rushed. If they're going to push it to final, I'd say do the balance passes and leave the new features for a future DLC. Otherwise, if they're going to add new features, like new aerodynamics and mining, they need a few more beta releases to bug fix those features and do game play balancing.

Plus, I think we all expected more optimization. I've been using ATM now for a long time and I always thought they'd get around to make it or something like it stock. As it is, since .90, my sons machine will no longer run it due to memory.

Just my two cents i suppose. I certainly hope it works out for the better.

[Robotengineer]

This thread has slowed down, everyone is trembling in anticipation of the dev notes...

[sal_vager]

This thread has slowed down, everyone is trembling in anticipation of the dev notes...

I don't know about you but my knees are knocking and my nerves are frayed, what could they say this week do you think?

[Red Iron Crown]

I don't know about you but my knees are knocking and my nerves are frayed, what could they say this week do you think?

The update following 1.0 will be 2.0.

[Robotengineer]

The update following 1.0 will be 2.0.

They're going to skip 2.0, no need for it. Straight on to 3.0!

[monstah]

Before people start saying "KSP is ready!" I invite you to go look at reviews of other games. A reviewer is NOT going to give the game the benefit of the doubt.

I didn't read the whole thread for it is already huge in a few days. My point may have been said already, and may have even been refuted; my two cents may therefore be worth less.

I just want to say that I completely distrust website reviews. And, as far as I have noticed on Steam, user reviews tend to be very permissive of bugs which do not break the game enjoyabillity, while bashing unoriginal games and boring, bland gameplay. Which is to say I personally believe KSP is very safe on that regard.

-edit-

having read this last page, this is a very good point:

What I am concerned about and why I voted no is this. It just got to beta. Beta is where you flesh out the features you have. Its where you do your balance passes (plural) and bug squashing.

(emphasis mine) Edited January 27, 2015 by monstah

[TheFactory]

This thread has slowed down, everyone is trembling in anticipation of the dev notes...

Exactly. I can't see how they could not address this.... Somehow I feel like they are just going to crack on regardless.

[Robotengineer]

Exactly. I can't see how they could not address this.... Somehow I feel like they are just going to crack on regardless.

That would actually be kind of funny if they said nothing of this, and did their usual, 'We're working on something, but we can't tell you what...' etc.

[monstah]

That would actually be kind of funny if they said nothing of this, and did their usual, 'We're working on something, but we can't tell you what...' etc.

Would be sad, but still kinda funny!