KSP Postmortem at GDC 2015.(Now Cancelled)

[Robotengineer]

I saw this article a while ago in my Google News newsfeed, at the time I didn't think much of it, but now that 1.0 has been confirmed, it makes sense. In the article it says that HarvesteR will be giving a talk about the active development of KSP. What do you think this means for the KSP community? Does it mean KSP is leaving active development?

Link.

Edited March 6, 2015 by Robotengineer

[Musil]

Why would you think that? There is nothing of the sort in the article. HarvesteR is just going to give a speech about how early access went. They have claimed development is going to continue after 1.0.

[Alshain]

Does it mean KSP is leaving active development?

Everything they said suggest the exact opposite. Do you know what the difference between Early access/Beta and release is?.... the version number starts with a 1 instead of a 0.

[Robotengineer]

Yes I know what it is. I am not suggesting that KSP will leave active development, I am simply inferring from the title of the speech.

[Sirrobert]

Everything they said suggest the exact opposite. Do you know what the difference between Early access/Beta and release is?.... the version number starts with a 1 instead of a 0.

Also a released game opens itself up to full critisism, and can no longer be forgiven for missing key features

[Sampa]

I saw this article a while ago in my Google News newsfeed, at the time I didn't think much of it, but now that 1.0 has been confirmed, it makes sense. In the article it says that HarvesteR will be giving a talk about the active development of KSP. What do you think this means for the KSP community? Does it mean KSP is leaving active development?

Link.

I say, no, Full Release just means that, the full, OFFICIAL Release. I have a feeling that this game will continue much the same way as Minecraft, with continuous updates.

[Robotengineer]

I say, no, Full Release just means that, the full, OFFICIAL Release. I have a feeling that this game will continue much the same way as Minecraft, with continuous updates.

Most of the time I would agree, but with Squad not being created for the sole purpose of making games, as Mojang was, the owner(s) of Squad may decide to move on to a new game or project if/when KSP stops making money. As it is that the speech is about the success and challenges that KSP has faced as a 'paid alpha', I wonder if they will continue creating content if leaving early access is not as successful as KSP was in early access.

[merendel]

Most of the time I would agree, but with Squad not being created for the sole purpose of making games, as Mojang was, the owner(s) of Squad may decide to move on to a new game or project if/when KSP stops making money. As it is that the speech is about the success and challenges that KSP has faced as a 'paid alpha', I wonder if they will continue creating content if leaving early access is not as successful as KSP was in early access.

As I recall the KSP dev's were originally going to quit the company so they could peruse this idea for a game that they called Kerbal Space program. That company wanted to keep their talent around enough that they bankrolled the program themselves, a decision that seems to have paid off quite well. To me that shows that the owners greatly value the KSP devs and I dont see that changeing in the near future. If the devs wana stick with it keeps makeing money I dont see the owners messing up a good thing. As minecraft has shown money can keep rolling in for a long time on a good game.

I wouldnt be surprised if the team shrinks a bit and some devs are pulled off onto another project eventualy but I doubt there are any plans to compleatly pull the plug in the near future.

[KasperVld]

As we've stated multiple times in many places already, 1.0 will by no means be the end of development. 1.0 means that we feel we have a game that can stand on its own merits and that fulfills the original design document that was drafted four years ago when development started. The game will come out of early access but continue to be developed and receive support as it is getting now. One example of an update that will come out after 1.0 is multiplayer.

TL;DR: No, KSP is not leaving active development.

[razark]

Why would you think that?

Well, it is labeled "Postmortem: The Active Development of Kerbal Space Program".

Postmortem means "an examination of a dead body". The title could be read as meaning an examination of the active development of KSP after it has ended.

A better title could have been found. Such as "Postmortem: The Early Access Development of Kerbal Space Program".

[vexx32]

I hardly think it is right to hold Squad to account for someone else's choice of title.

EDIT: Oh, I see what's going on... well, that is a bit odd. Oh well.

[Sirrobert]

Well, it is labeled "Postmortem: The Active Development of Kerbal Space Program".

Postmortem means "an examination of a dead body". The title could be read as meaning an examination of the active development of KSP after it has ended.

A better title could have been found. Such as "Postmortem: The Early Access Development of Kerbal Space Program".

Sure, but that's not as catchy

[BudgetHedgehog]

It's a very odd choice of words, but seeing how 'post-mortem' can be used in a technical sense, it kind of makes sense, though only just. It still should imply that the post mortem documentation is regarding the Early Access/Alpha development of KSP, not the development of KSP as a whole. "A project post-mortem is a process ... to determine and analyze elements of the project that were successful or unsuccessful" - given Squads statements that KSP will continue after 1.0, this is pretty clearly aimed at the EA side of things. Still, awful and misleading wording though..

[r4pt0r]

As we've stated multiple times in many places already, 1.0 will by no means be the end of development. 1.0 means that we feel we have a game that can stand on its own merits and that fulfills the original design document that was drafted four years ago when development started. The game will come out of early access but continue to be developed and receive support as it is getting now. One example of an update that will come out after 1.0 is multiplayer.

TL;DR: No, KSP is not leaving active development.

My issue is that to the public(people not actively on the forums or other ksp sites) dont always know that. Reviewers will review the game based off of 1.0.

When jimmy hears this KSP game has been released, but he sees it has no multiplayer, why would he think that multiplayer is still coming? It really should not be called 1.0 until all that is left are occasional bugpatches.

This thread is the perfect example of how people will see this.

[Robotengineer]

Clarification, I did not see the title of the session this way, but I thought I would bring it up as it could/will cause issues when the session is given. Postmortem is literally afterdeath in Latin IIRC, so the title does kind of imply KSP's active development will be dead by the time GDC comes.

[numerobis]

In my circles, we use post-mortem and retrospective interchangeably. We do a post-mortem/retrospective after every significant event, and after every sprint (which is currently monthly, but we'll get biweekly as soon as the team gets more stable).

[Robotengineer]

In my circles, we use post-mortem and retrospective interchangeably. We do a post-mortem/retrospective after every significant event, and after every sprint (which is currently monthly, but we'll get biweekly as soon as the team gets more stable).

Even retrospective sounds like an after the thing is over type thing. Retrospective: Looking back or dealing with past events or situations. Even that would imply that KSP's active development is over. You might as well do 'There and back again: a retrospective on the active development of KSP.' The main issue is that it is past tense. If it were, 'Postmortem: The active development of Kerbal Space Program's early access development." That would be looking back at the Alpha/Beta stage of KSP that we are leaving. It may seem to be just a nitpick, but it could have repercussions.

[KerBlam]

It is an interesting choice of words, but I don't think it's necessarily indicative of the death of anything..

(Is is just me, or are the forums gone really morbidly depressing. Cheer up guys.)

[Robotengineer]

Just remembered this would have happened today. Except it got cancelled.

Edit: Just informing forumers that it was cancelled. KSP lives!

Edited March 6, 2015 by Robotengineer

[Albert VDS]

1.0 will bring in more people who didn't buy KSP because, for whatever reason, don't buy early access games.

So there should be enough sales to keep development going.

[Guest]

As we've stated multiple times in many places already, 1.0 will by no means be the end of development.

That does not necessarily change any potential public perception of the fact that Squad is calling the game "in production" or "out of beta".

1.0 means that we feel we have a game that can stand on its own merits and that fulfills the original design document that was drafted four years ago when development started.

That's a bold statement considering the consistent floating point errors, lag-inducing oceans, and terrible memory management, not to mention the many other bugs/issues that others could undoubtedly mention. Certainly Squad has come a long way, IMO, with their "growing up" into an actual game-development company, but this move towards calling KSP a "complete product" is pretty bad for the perception of the product. Even the CTO of the company I work for, who is an avid stock player, thinks this.

Honestly, how many threads will we endure where long-time players and early-access funders bring up the perception of KSP at this point in time? 1.0 needs to be one hell of a (literally) stellar release if that perception is going to change, and I certainly hope it is...

[Kelderek]

My issue is that to the public(people not actively on the forums or other ksp sites) dont always know that. Reviewers will review the game based off of 1.0.

When jimmy hears this KSP game has been released, but he sees it has no multiplayer, why would he think that multiplayer is still coming? It really should not be called 1.0 until all that is left are occasional bugpatches.

This thread is the perfect example of how people will see this.

This may have been true 10 or more years ago when games came in a shirnk-wrapped box at your local retailer, but in today's digital market the situation is very different. Games evolve over time and development can more easily continue after an official release. Squad has made clear that 1.0 represents everything they had initially planned to have for release (plus a few extras perhaps). It will be good enough to call "released" and will stand on its own merits just fine. Other planned features don't have to be in this version for this to be called 1.0.

New people who see KSP for the first time as well as reviewers will judge this version for what it offers. It won't be hard to find out what else might be planned for future updates, people will learn about multiplayer and anything else that Squad tells us. To say that a game can't be called 1.0 until all that is left are bug fixes is just not in line with what you see in today's game market. Making a 1.0 release will create a new sales opportunity for Squad that differs from their early access offering, new people will buy the game who usually avoid early access titles. By having planned future updates with more features, Squad is allowing for additional sales and marketing opportunities to keep the cash flowing in from new customers. These things are not planned to be DLC, but simply updates to the game so we will all gain from it, including new customers. The 1.0 version could stand on its own just fine even if there were no more updates planned as it has plenty of features to be a full, solid game - for this reason the 1.0 version number is justified and the game will do just fine with new customers and reviewers.

[klgraham1013]

I could say why I think 1.0 is important, but it's all be said before.

The bottom line, in relevance to this thread, is that Squad is not halting production, and has continuously stated this point.

[boxman]

Everything they said suggest the exact opposite. Do you know what the difference between Early access/Beta and release is?.... the version number starts with a 1 instead of a 0.

They have said alot of things in the past that never ended up the way they claimed. Like certain features that should have been included before release, unity 5, continuing to improve 64bit version and that they would add features for quite some time in beta before moving towards full release and so on.

My personal feeling is that dropping sales is what is pushing them towards rushing it towards release in the hope that will give them a influx of new players.

It does not even make sense for them to release it now as that will affect reviews and it makes even less sense that they are not doing at least a few more beta releases to make sure that the new features they are adding wont cause any issues.

Releasing it now will for sure lead to quite a few new bugs with release version which WILL affect reviews negatively. It is also still unoptimized and have some serious bugs like memory leaks which is something that would make sense to fix before release since you wont get a second chance when it comes to reviews.

Also it was stated before that they wanted most of the game features to be frozen and finished by release so that things like game saves and mods would not break with future patches. If this is true then they wont really be adding any significant new features or changes and things like unity5 will probably never happen either. If this is not true then it will break peoples save games and mods which is something that players will be less forgiving about now that it is out of alpha/beta.

It was only a few months ago that they stated on ksptv stream that they would pretty much cease all other development and concentrate fully on porting it to unity5 as soon as they got their hands on it which they said would mean they could add multicore support.

Either they are running out of money or they are really having some management issues.

Edited March 7, 2015 by boxman

[Hanuman]

I just don't understand it, at all. Have the guys at SQUAD ever been dishonest in the slightest bit? Even the tiniest portion of a reason to distrust anything that they say? No. They have been 100% honest and above board all the way, in all the time I've played. How many times, and how many ways do they have to say that they are NOT stopping development, before it sinks in?

I'm not going to name any names, but some of the biggest naysayers in this very thread are the same people I've noticed going on and on about their own little personal grievances that they want changed for a while now. I can understand if you don't realize that is their thing, that you might think 1.0 is a bad thing. It simply is not the case, though. Neither am I saying that everyone with a complaint is just a naysayer and aren't legitimate. The reality, like it often is, is much more complicated, and there are people all across points in the spectrum.

At the end of the day, you gotta figure out who it is that you can trust when they write something. All I'm saying is that for me, I trust the guys at SQUAD to deliver. They've earned that kind of faith about a hundred times over. Take a look around at the posts of people who think they haven't paid enough at full price, for the enjoyment they've had. Take a look at the kinds of hours some guys have, or the tons of youtube video series from people, or the any of the hundred bajillion praises and positives. If it's a choice for me who to believe about the readiness of the 1.0 stock game between Forumgoer123 who never breaks stride in picking it apart and looking down on it, or SQUAD, then it's a pretty easy choice.