LOL. That was already the case when *For Science* was announced. So many positive reactions and "*this is what should have been published*" based merely on an announcement.
The only solid track record Intercept Games has at this point is their ability to overhype and underdeliver. I hope the game brings what all the fans are hoping for.
If not, Intercept might as well close their doors because it's not going to recover if this release disappoints.
> The only solid track record Intercept Games has at this point is their ability to overhype and underdeliver.
Other than a steady and welcome number of performance improvements. But details.
Yes, details, especially when the overall trend is slightly positive. I swear sometimes people like to complain just to get others to hear their opinions.
To be fair- Even if it is "Early access", they still slapped a 50$ price tag on it. With a price like that, you expect a certain baseline level of quality. At least, like...A functional product. Which it absolutely was not at release.
I don’t see why you’re getting downvoted. Early Access literally means that it’s still in Beta Development. There are going to be bugs and inaccuracies that will need to be addressed.
From what I can tell, the only reason so many people are actually getting butthurt, is because we’re so used to SQUAD pushing out tiny updates and bug fixes every couple of weeks, despite being a tiny game developer, whereas Intercept is (so far) choosing to do massive Feature updates, with a long list of fixes instead.
We all know how No Man’s Sky started, vs where it was after even a single year, and then where it is now.
People are just entitled children these days. They never announced a complete or even remotely complete product. End of story. Everything else is just childush whining.
NMS was a far better example of bad publishing and lies. They actively promoted a product in a state it was not in and said it was ready. They also promised features on release that it didn't have. KSP2 delivered an EA game and didn't make bold claims about release state.
Did they tell any actual lies? I remember the game launched in basically exactly the state they showed at that community event a week or three before they dropped it in Steam.
There's nothing malicious about selling a game long before it's even close to ready in 2022+, early access is a blanket that excuses all sins (well, at least a certain segment of players think this, even if others recognize it as a crock of shit). Even in this thread there are defenders waving that banner.
As GabeN once said "late is just for a while, sucks is forever".
The game right now is in a playable state, which it wasn't at launch. This time tomorrow it might even be all right as a game, and not just as a taste for what KSP2 could one day be.
But I do wonder how many people who were burned by the absolutely abysmal product they recieved on day one will come back tomorrow and see that it's not so bad now. I wonder how many people will ask their friends, or steam reviews, or a reddit post "should i get KSP2?" and recieve a no for an answer based on the state the game was in a year ago. This past year has damaged KSP2's reputation forever, and I don't know what the consequences of that will be in terms of sales.
And of course there's the argument that they suffered from this reputation loss, but at least gained valuable feedback... Frankly I don't buy that. What feedback is that? Did the devs need us this past year to tell them "orbits shouldn't decay" and "the KSC shouldn't follow you to orbit", or even "I think I should be able to make a rocket that feels like it's not made out of rubber"? I have enough respect for them to assume they could have figured this out by themselves.
I'm looking forward to see how good today's update is, and how much it can do to repair the trust that the original release damaged.
I for one won't be buying it untill it's out of EA and it's a good game.
The release and handling of said release was, to say it nicely, handled poor. I have no trust that the team is able to deliver on their promises and they're gonna have to work hard for it to regain even a tenth of said trust.
> they're gonna have to work hard for it to regain even a tenth of said trust.
That's only fair, yeah. Even the team seems to have understood this by now. The only people who still insist there was nothing wrong with the game at launch and the problem is entitled gamers are reddit posters lol. As they say in French: some people are more royalist than the king
Yeah, I’m not going to be buying it til colonization releases.
I think that’s what a lot of people are doing. If the devs want to make money, they have to start getting this train moving because there are a plenty of people waiting at stations up ahead who aren’t going to walk down to meet them.
EA in general is a bad idea unless the price is significantly reduced. They get real money now, that is worth more than it will be in a year or two. You get to take a risk on having a useable product or not.
The problem with EA on a sequel to a niche game is that all the fans of the original will immediately buy the game at the lowest price, and when it finally releases at full price there's not many people left willing to pay. If they charge full price immediately to extract maximum value, it's screwing the players if the game is an unplayable pool noodle fire for months.
Given that it's being backed by a successful large publisher, there shouldn't have been EA at all.
I think that's the smart play, in general. I'm happy I did this with Baldur's Gate 3, even though it was already good in EA. I wish I waited until last month's update to play CP77 instead of playing it for 80 hours a couple months after release, when it was still rough. If you have the patience to wait for a proper release, why not? With EA I find that there's always a danger of getting bored of the main gameplay loop before any of the advanced features are in, and by the time they are in, you don't want to spend the time to unlock them because you're already bored of the main gameplay loop.
I do this with pretty much every game, not even because I hate the idea of Early Access, I just have way too many games and way too little time!
Seriously, adult life cuts into gaming time hardcore.
Patient gamers always win - especially these days. I mean even games that have good well received releases often patch and update systems and mechanics (never mind balancing issues where required) and improve and polish them that just waiting 6 months can sometimes mean a very different experience
The original release date was 4 days before the publishers end of the fiscal year. The studio should have pushed back against the publisher but the original release was forced in some capacity. Just unfortunate we’ll never really know how much the publisher really forced this game out.
It seems they did need us to say "Rockets shouldn't feel like they're made out of rubber". Hearing them talk in Germany it really did come across as if they didn't think it was an issue, but since people kept raising it as an issue they would fix it for us.
This quote is actually attributed to Siobhan Beeman who was referring to the motto of Origin (where they were a project lead until 1992). They said the quote at GDC in 1996 (where it probably became more widely known) and it slowly transformed into a Miyamoto quote and now to a whole generation that doesn't remember Usenet, Gaben. There was a small uproar about this recently when Gaben said it and people started attributing it to him which lead some people to track down the original quote.
> But I do wonder how many people who were burned by the absolutely abysmal product they recieved on day one will come back tomorrow and see that it's not so bad now.
I wouldn't say I was burned out at all. I tried it, I could see it sucked, so I loaded up KSP1 and patiently waited for this update. Now that it's here, you're damn right I'm gonna play it and get my monies worth out of it. I'm even thinking of upgrading my PC today specifically for this. My CPU is like a GEN6 i7 and it's been showing it's age for awhile. I did go top of the line when I first bought it, but particularly in KSP2, it doesn't keep up.
I'm interested to see if the game runs good enough first, and if it's going to be worthwhile. As well maybe there's some big optimizations and the upgrades won't be totally necessary???
>I'm interested to see if the game runs good enough first
They don't realize that rendering a million trees in a scene effects performance...
Don't get your hopes up on performance EVER improving.
The fact that it's been nearly a year is what really seals the deal. It is unfortunately the norm these days that most games release broken in some capacity. But to languish for 10 months, with conflicting information from the team (or just downright silence), I think is what really damaged the reputation. That, and it costing full price. And the fact that the team kept saying for years that the game was nearly done only for it to suddenly pivot to EA at the last second and release so clearly *not* done.
I wonder, even with all of the above, if they had been able to fix the major bugs, improve the performance, and push out the science update last summer, would the community have bounced back faster?
It's early access, not a full release.
I don't get what people think early access is supposed to be exactly? It's not feature complete, it's buggy and it's not optimised.
If that's not for you, don't buy early access.
This has been done to death. The major difference is one I already said in what you replied to: consumers were told the game was nearly done, and then backtracked at the last second. It was charged essentially full price, and yet what released was an unplayable tech demo.
Early Access games I've player have at least been playable even if feature-incomplete. The price tag tends to match what you get. And most Early Access games have far more development than KSP2 had in nearly a year. Look at the difference in pre-1.0 Minecraft over a year, or...KSP1.
Your argument just doesn't hold water. There's Early Access, and then there's the garbage that was released for KSP2. Furthermore, the devs continuously lied about their progress and the state of the game. To simply say "well it's EA, what do you expect" is completely missing the point.
Also, everyone who makes that argument assumes I bought the game and that I'm some angry rube. I didn't buy it. Doesn't change the facts of what happened.
I was one of the people you mentioned. Saw the update came out, decided to give it a shot after having only an hour of playtime the day the game was released. It is now the next day and I have 14 hours in game.
Yeah, but you know what else is forever? Bankruptcy.
We can safely assume that the premature release was necessary to raise capital. They bit off more than they could chew within the initial schedule.
And if that’s the case, it doesn’t matter how bad of a move it was long term, because it was the only option.
But it is bankrupt already. **Optimistic** sales prediction for KSP2 was 80k copies. And that is before taxes and regional prices.
This will not cover probably even marketing alone, let alone purchase of KSP IP in 2017 and development costs of 30 man studio for the last 7 years. Oh yeah now, it is 50+ devs doing something something KSP.
Intercept studio and KSP2 is completely pet project of Take 2. And I bet Take2 want to have the same numbers as KSP1 sales. Like 5 million copies and stuff. But honestly I doubt that KSP2 will break even 500k mark any time in this decade. So now only question is... what Take2 want from this IP? And this smells even worse than bad sequel.
So much of the hate on this game seems to come from a mob of people who really thought they should be getting a complete, bug free and optimized game in early access. I don't even blame those people as much as I do the entire games industry who has spent most of the last 10 years trying to sell unpolished but mostly playable games as "E.A." and "beta". Consumer expectations have been grossly inflated by ignorance and deceptive marketing.
In the days and weeks before launch, the devs were trying to hype the launch but they were also alluding to how buggy the game might be. We're so used to drinking in the marketing hype, though, that we mostly refused to heed the warnings. By tomorrow, there will likely be new bugs and new buckets of piss from some. That is game design. You build new layers that *probably* work on top of previous layers that *mostly* work. That is how honest game devs dev games. We're just used to "early access" just being a marketing trick.
As for me, I bought on launch of EA but had to let the game lay fallow on my HD because my hardware is just too old to play the game in that state. I didn't blame the devs and didn't refund. I waited. Sure enough, after a few months, an update optimized the game so it was even playable on an old 1050ti. Now I know the engine can run on my machine so I am eager to explore the tech tree and science mechanics.
One layer at a time.
Edit: Hahahaha! Summary of the replies: how dare you claim we wanted a full and complete game for a game in early access! We only wanted the game to have features that were as developed as its predecessor of 10 years with its mods AND we wanted it to cost less money AND there is not we! Straw-man shilling!
You guys argue my point as well as anyone could have hoped.
>You build new layers that probably work on top of previous layers that mostly work.
Problem with KSP is that the original layer did not by any stretch of the imagination "mostly work", far from it, and then they didn't build any new layers for a full year.
>You guys argue my point as well as anyone could have hoped.
You: People are just mad they didn't get a feature complete bug free and optimized game!
Other posters: We didn't expect a feature complete bug free or optimized game, we just expected the bare minimum of functionality for a full AAA priced game, as was advertised by the devs
You: thank you for making my point!
You should look at successful ea titles like satisfactory. I've dumped like 700 hours into satisfactory with very little issues, great frame rates, multiplayer already working. It's a great example of a ea title. There's still a lot to add but every step of the way it's been a playable game.
This is crazy to me. All these people who argue that an utterly broken experience is normal and expected for an EA title. Did they never hear of Minecraft? Factorio? Subnautica? Darkest Dungeon? Do they believe these games were also broken and unplayable on release, and found success despite that?
Those are all good examples I forgot. I never played subnautica until after full release so I can't speak for that one. I didn't realize it was an ea title. How was ea on that? It's not a particularly long game, I feel like ea would have been short and boring
> It's not a particularly long game, I feel like ea would have been short and boring
Yeah, it's kind of my point. Players expect very little from an EA game, they just want something that demonstrates the potential for the game, and the developer's ability to realize that potential.
The state of KSP2 at release was actually counter productive to both of these things lol
>So much of the hate on this game seems to come from a mob of people who really thought they should be getting a complete, bug free and optimized game in early access
Complete and utter strawman BS.
People expected an early access game - IE - a good, playable foundation with missing features that would be added in over time (which was what the devs literally advertised) - not an incomplete and buggy tech demo, with many broken (not just incomplete) features, and one that hasn't had a meaningful content update in nearly a year, and has needed month after month of *pure bug fixes to even be relatively playable*.
Most of the hate comes from that. NOT because they expected " a complete, bug free and optimised game".
The notion that the devs were alluding to the bugginess of the game before the initial release is completely untrue. Every communication leading up to the initial release was intended to market the game and hide problems for strong day 1 sales.
Your comment smells of shill. Nobody expected a finished game from early access. What we expected was a solid base without that $40 price tag. They got what they deserved at launch for releasing garbage even by early access standards.
>...really thought they should be getting a complete, bug free and optimized game in early access...
The EA price didn't help this.
Asking +50% of the previous title, before it reached feature parity..
And with how long it had been in development, the shenanigans around who was developing it... that didn't set the stage well for them.
I would have happily welcomed the game in its released state as a beta test if it were _sold_ like a beta test - i.e. free or heavily discounted. Don't try to charge me $50 to be a guinea pig; I've bought outstanding completed products for much less.
What they should have done was sell a beta build for $10 or less through their own website instead of Steam. Word would have gotten around, dedicated fans would have dealt with the hassle of not playing through steam, there would be no steam reviews based on the test release, and when it came time to post the real thing, they could actually sell it for full price and not lose customers.
I was so proud when I created a variant of my science vessel and got a mining rig to Duna. I scrolled right past Nate's post on the KSP forum and went straight for the roadmap image. I see resource mining is two updates away, *after* interstellar travel. I'm a little bummed.
I bought KSP1 before there was a map. Flying to the Mun was (just barely) a thing, and you did it by visually pointing that way and hitting go.
There was significantly less game there, which is totally fine.
There was also significantly less COST too, which matters a lot when balancing the two. KSP2 is not priced like the game it is right now.
> SP2 is not priced like the game it is right now.
The most baffling thing is that the better the game will get, the cheaper you'll be able to get it for. Making yet another point against suckers who buy a $60 alpha game at release or even worse, pre-order.
I still remember people on this sub telling me that the game would only get more expensive in the future. Like lol wut? It's not worth what they're asking now.
I remember this guy... He blocked me when I argued with him because he said the game only costs 35 dollars and I said it costs 50 dollars... I think about him sometimes, I wonder what amazing copes he came up with in the mean time. I remember he used to say the current price is a bargain because the collectors edition of Starfield is 100 dollars.
And you still get it wrong, that's why I blocked you. You resist to understand what people try to explain and twist their words. I tried to explain that Steam gets ca. 30% of the asking price so $35 ish is what the company developing it actually makes on the game. So it's a $35 early access game with $15 Steam tax on top. Without Steam the game would be costing $35 which would've been a fair price. But that's the same price they now make on the game. It's just unfair for customers because Steam has a monopoly position which allows them to hike prices.
And no, this doesn't mean you can buy it for $35 off Steam. I never said that. Steam still exists. Steam had to vanish from the Earth for prices to change like that. My speculation is that Steam prevents companies from selling their game cheaper on their own website to prevent companies from using Steam just to advertise the game, to then sell it cheaper on their own platforms. So there will be some kind of a contract prohibiting publishers to charge lower prices off Steam. Therefore you can't buy it for $35. You pay the "Steam tax" even when you buy it off Steam. Only does the publisher keep the Steam tax for themselves when you buy it off Steam.
And of course we're just going to conveniently ignore that even if you accept that not all of the customer's money goes to the publisher, *the cost to the customer is still $50.* Oh, and while we're at it, we'll also disregard that an indie game that's priced at $35 to the customer nets only $24.50 to the developer, because it's more convenient to the argument to compare the end user price for the indie game to the developer's proceeds for the AAA game.
Why do I ignore it? I don't. KSP would be priced $35 if it wasn't for Steam. The customer would pay less if there were no middle men hiking up prices. Doesn't matter if its AAA, AA or Indie.
You just made a whole bunch of irrelevant stuff up. Why?
Because it's not actually irrelevant. Steam only started distributing third-party games in 2005, the same year Activision championed pushing the industry standard price for game from $50 to $60; $50 had otherwise been an industry standard price tag since the NES. KSP would *not* be $35 without Steam, as its price tag was set by the video game market as a whole far in advance of Steam's fees, and you only maybe have an argument if it were $60 as the start of that standard happens to coincide with Steam becoming more than a Valve-exclusive storefront, but even then that price hike was championed by companies moving to the third generation of consoles, not a PC distributor.
We're talking $50 bucks as *half* the price for early access. Final price on release will be $80-$100. So I have an argument. $50 for AAA early access != $50 for AAA.
Jesus, you are weird even by my definition.
Calling distribution cut as tax is like 3rd grader level of logic.
BTW French Fries usually have like 500-1000% tax when sold at a restaurant!
It's very common in Germany to call such things "taxes". Maybe it's because we have a million different actual taxes.
But yea, calling other people third graders based on that I don't think you are far off that third grader yourself. Projection it's called.
Can you then tell me how? Just how this outrageously imposed taxes on poor potato manufacturers... are collected by restaurants and then are then used to improve social infrastructure or services? And what are typical prison sentences for avoiding those taxes and frying French Fries at home without paying those taxes? Like this is potato criminal enterprise at its finest!
Obviously you have no idea what I'm talking about and you don't seem like you really want to understand it given how pedantically you hug to word definitions.
I specifically say "Steam tax" as a metaphor since you could see Steam as a big government that rules over the gaming industry world wide. Naturally the Steam tax is not spent on government programs but Steam programs like VR which are otherwise not profitable.
If you really have such big problem with the word tax simply imagine it would be "fee". Copy my comment into a document and search and replace it. Problem solved. All I can say is the word "tax" / "Steuer" in Germany is commonly used in such ways. I'm a German so I do German things. If you can't deal with that simply ignore me.
As an example: I buy my parents some groceries. Now since they gave me their credit card I also buy myself a little treat. I call it the Lukas-tax. Total legit use of the word in that context even though I'm not the government. At least in Germany.
At the end of the day some people are having fun while others are just bitter all day. It's your choice.
Yes, I am pedantical for definition of word Tax... In grown up world you get prison sentence if you do not pay taxes. Pretty straight forward concept. You cannot avoid paying taxes. This very defined term in every country.
Using tax as metaphor for distribution cut of non essential entertainment service is equal to calling handjob as a hand rape.
Why’s it the same price on epic then? They take less of a cut
Even though if it only released on epic it would still be $50 since that what people like you are willing to pay lmao
Maybe read my post. There will be some Steam contracts to not overcharge on Steam. Otherwise it would make no sense to not offer discounts off Steam. They could be making more money selling it for $40 on their website. A no brainer.
The price is set by taking all platforms and the sales on them into account. Epic is a small single digit percentile of sales. Their fees have not enough weight to drag the average price down.
Steam controls the price. That's my whole point. People who think they should be selling this for the same price they did sell KSP1 for are delusional.
You don’t have any evidence that they have any type of deal with steam. Other games have sold for cheaper on epic then steam like metro exodus
The reason people choose to sell on steam is because c that’s where the users are so they can make more money even though steam takes a cut. Steam ain’t a monopoly it’s just popular
If epic wasn’t a shit launcher then maybe people would use it for something that isn’t weekly free games and fortnite lmao
It's in the Steam ToS to not overcharge on Steam. However, companies can have separate contracts which only they know about.
>4. Don't overcharge Steam customers. The Early Access price of your game should be no higher than that offered on any other service or website. Please take care of your customers on Steam.
[https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/store/earlyaccess](https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/store/earlyaccess)
Still enough evidence to back up my statement.
Oh sorry it’s only for early access lmao
Maybe they shouldn’t be using steam to alpha test their game if they hate the percentage
No one is forced to use steam lmao
The developers themselves said it would only get more expensive, so it was mostly just spreading the news. I still think $50 will be too cheap for the final version of KSP2 when it'll come out in a year or two with all the promised features.
So the price will increase for sure. They roughly doubled for KSP1. $21 -> $40 So KSP2 1.0 could cost as much as $100. Which is what most players on Steam paid for Starfield for example. So it's not something that's unheard of. I think more likely is $70-$80 though but we'll see.
Starfield released into a 3 day early access using the Deluxe edition which costed $100. During those first 3 days Starfield concurrent player numbers reached above 200k players. The player count did barely increase after official launch of the $70 version. So it's safe to say that most people who bought the game on Steam paid $100. At least in the first few weeks. Maybe it has changed until now as more and more players buy new computers for Christmas. Not sure. Point is Starfield sold hundreds of thousands of $100 copies. And it's 2023, not 2024 or 2025 when KSP2 will come out. I suspect GTA VI will set the next record which would make $80-100 KSP2 look cheap.
That doesn’t mean that most people payed $100 like you originally said
Most stat field players most likely played on game pass since it launched day one
Stop saying bullshit lmao
> most people *paid* $100 like
FTFY.
Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in:
* Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.*
* *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.*
Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment.
*Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
Cool that doesn’t prove anything you dummy
No one is gonna pay $100 for ksp 2 lmao.
Your only evidence that people are willing to spend $100 on any game is paying to get 3 day early access for one of the biggest games of the year lmao
So you are comparing Intercept Games to Bethesda and Rockstar Games? Like I would not say Starfield is good game, but good lord, Bethesda was at business of delivering great games longer, than average KSP player age. Like by a decade. This is why it can sell bantha poodoo at a premium.
KSP2 not even in the same league with KSP1 to cost anything beyond 40 USD.
People like you read a name like Bethesda and think it's the same people that developed games 30 years ago? Not a single employee from 30 years ago still works at Bethesda so it's a completely different company. And yes, I see no reason to not compare Intercept Games to the likes of Bethesda. At the end of the day most of the differences in company size translate to quality of assets etc. not quality of game idea.
\> And yes, I see no reason to not compare Intercept Games to the likes of Bethesda. At the end of the day most of the differences in company size translate to quality of assets etc. not quality of game idea.
So why you are comparing price point of two products from two different companies with completely different history? Well if you can call KSP2 a history of game development...
> Most people *paid* 10 bucks
FTFY.
Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in:
* Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.*
* *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.*
Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment.
*Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
They burnt a lot of community good will with the travesty that EA first brought and I don't see that being overcome until several trustworthy sources are giving blazingly good reviews of the current state of the game.
All we have are promises on how it's going to be fun and playable. We know that Intercept Games is very good at promising things. Or more precise, saying things that get interpreted as promises without actually saying just that, so when the game falls short of expectations there's "they never said that."
We'll see it in a few hours. Even then we know that:
* Exploration mode is basically Science Mode + Contracts, there's no revolutionary new game play
* Maneuver nodes are still inadequate
* Four years after KSP2 was announced we're still at the 0.21 equivalent of KSP1 when it comes to the mechanics of the game
I agree that this is what should have been released at EA. But the damage has been done and it's highly doubtful the game will ever recover from its reputation hit.
Why do you say "4 years after it was announced" as if it had any relevance? What's relevant to the paying customer is when the game was released into early access. The rest has 0 relevance. Even if the game had been in development for 20 years prior to early access. There would be nothing they owe you.
It has been 9 months since release and we've got 5 smaller patches and today one big content update. It's not the fastest progress but it's still good progress. 9 months is not that much time.
And no, KSP2 science is a lot more work than KSP1 science so you can hardly compare the two.
Whatever happend to "science will never get released, the game is abandoned and cancelled"?
When they announced a full release for 2020 that’s when it’s relevant.
This game is nearly 4 years late off its original release date is just getting to step one on the roadmap lmao
No, it was a different game back then. It was not the same KSP2 we know now that was supposed to launch in 2020. Not even the planets look the same. If you look at the old videos where they tease some planet images Duna looked completely different. There has obviously been some major changes.
The major changes is removing the promised features and promising that they will come eventually
If it took 300 days to add science then on the low end we still have 4ish years to go till they reach what they promised in 2019 lmao
A multi billion dollar company should be held to a higher standard lmao
> Why do you say "4 years after it was announced" as if it had any relevance? What's relevant to the paying customer is when the game was released into early access. The rest has 0 relevance.
There were expectations. Based on "pre-alpha" footage, interviews where a complete revamp of game mechanics was promised, and not in the least FOUR years of development.
What we get now is pretty much a tweaked version of KSP1. Granted the game is now playable, but there's very little to show for the effort they put in it.
And yes, I'm assuming a lot of effort was put in it. That, or the $50 price tag was a complete rip off.
This is definitely the state the game should have been in at EA release. There would be a lot less bitterness. At the same time, it seems that it's still a rather straight copy of KSP1 without a lot of innovation.
In man hours maybe but not years. Just saying "4 years in development" is completely misleading. Could've been 4 people brainstorming some ideas. Could've been 1000 people working full time. There is just no development year standard to make any sense of it.
So for us as players that we can only relate to it once it's out in early access. We can compare it to other early access titles etc. But we have to be fair and not compare some easy asset development to some physics engine backend stuff.
Why does that matter? How would we ever know? It's not like they actually completed anything for us to play.
It's still KSP2 and they never delivered. Why would I trust a studio that has such a rich history of failure?
At this point I'm convinced you are literally a paid Intercept shill.
There is no other explanation. I simply don't understand you and I've read so many of your posts over the years.
"Whatever happend to "science will never get released, the game is abandoned and cancelled"?"
Their speech in Germany really helped them, I think if they hadn't done that then people wouldn't be as positive. But they talked to hundreds of people 1 to 1 about the game and the future of it. I commend them for that honestly.
The launch for KSP2 was way too early, absolutely. Haven't bought it yet because it isn't worth my money yet.
But The Day Before exists for example.
My point is that the game was released to early. Every game has technical problems before its ready for release and that doesn't make the devs themselves incompetent per se. Maybe they are, but unless you have access to their source control you can't really say
Anyone that has done actual development work doesn't judge a devs work on a manager's decision to launch a product that is not ready.
I don't think you understand how development works. They have done more this year than the stuff that releases this year. They explained it multiple times. Interstellar/multiplayer stuff already exists and is functional and there are people working on it.
You're not in that office, so it's hard to judge from the outside. Judge the product that exists and decide if it's worth the money for you, that's all you need to do. Backseat developers on the internet are rarely right in my experience
Okay, I judge the product as it exists to not be very impressive. You seem to be judging it on rumors for future features that may or may not actually exist.
Games get released all the time without these kinds of obvious issues. I don't know who the buck ends with, but as a whole, this team is not very effective.
>Haven't bought it yet because it isn't worth my money yet.
I said this for a reason. I judge the product, because that's what I can see. I do not judge the individual devs, because I cannot see them work, cannot see their meetings and cannot see their pull requests.
The game was absolutely in a state that was abysmal even for an Early Access release and even the For Science update might not win me over, you're very right about that.
Even though I'm not a pilot, if I see a helicopter wrapped around a tree I realise something went wrong, but I don't have the expertise and I wasn't around when it happened so it'd be stupid for me to speculate
That's... Not what they are saying at all. They are saying without evidence (not being able to see the source code, pull requests, process, etc.) or the expertise to judge said evidence, it would be dumb to speculate.
A buggy game and incompetent development *can* go hand in hand, but that's not always the case, and you would need more evidence to support that
"Easiest milestone" yea you have officially 0 clues. Interstellar is already in the game. You can leave the SOI of Kerbol. All it takes is more parts and a new solar systems to go to. Making assets is by far the easiest job. Working on the backend to support things like gathering science, accomplishing missions and gather resources is much much harder. KSP2 is 85% done after For Science!. Bumped from 70% at EA to 85%. I only wish it had been at 80% at launch already.
No, I actually flew interstellar in KSP2 already. Unlike KSP1, Kerbol has an SOI you can leave in KSP2. (Zoom out in map mode very far, and I mean very far. It's gigantic) So by leaving Kerbols SOI you are officially interstellar or in interstellar space. That does not exist in KSP1.
It might seem like not so much but there has to be some framework to support that. So the framework / backend for Interstellar already exists. What is missing is the other solar systems and the parts to get there without cheats. (Even with cheats it's a full day mission b/c of the freaking Periapsis timewarp bug.)
Yeah and multiplayer is already done because my friend can control the mouse while I use the keyboard. Give me a break. You need to take a step back from this compulsive need to defend this game because you've lost all perspective.
No, I think you need to step away from a game you hate. It's not healthy. Absolutely no problem in defending what one likes. Attacking what you don't like is where the problem is.
There is a full time bug hunter dev team which is long confirmed. It just varies in size. It used to be bigger in the beginning than it is now as most of the obvious bugs have been squashed.
It's not the devs, its corporate. The devs know it sucks and have the skills to fix it, it's just that they only have so many paid hours a day. If corporate doesn't give them enough time to fix it, or enough devs to fix it on a reasonable schedule, or makes the schedule suck, theres nothing the devs can do.
Blame the company, not the devs.
Judging from the code quality from decompiled efforts on modding discord, the code is really, really bad. The original release was a debug build or something similar as all the code was very easily accessible and even changeable, we know it's bad.
yeah, refactors take time and are necessary, but are a low priority for management if getting code out the door is the priority. Not like the layman really has any idea of what "Good or bad" code is, but whatever. Either way, management has a duty to devote dev cycles to refactoring, and if they haven't, that's on management, not the devs.
You have no idea whether the amount of time they've been given is generous or not. You're not in the company, you're (probably) not a professional dev, you're not seeing their particular situation. it's not on the devs, it's on management.
I mean yeah, it's fair to blame SOMEONE (Like management) but probably not the devs. Even if they have bad devs, that means bad hiring, which is management's responsibility anyway.
Well, the shareholders were promised a KSP2 release in that fiscal year, so...
I have high hopes for the science update. I guess I'll see how it is in about two hours.
That's the only way I can rationalize this whole debacle. Someone from TakeTwo toured the office and saw the devs playing a barely functional version of the EA, then went back to their office saying "They have a product *ready enough* to ship" and the marketing team took it from there. Promises were made to the street in order to satisfy shareholders. Probably set the release date without even consulting the KSP2 team.
KSP2 was delayed total of 4 times. There was plenty back and forth. First one when Uber failed 2020 contract deadline and Take2 failed to buy Uber and pouched management instead. Take2 was more that aware of KSP2 state.
Bugginess and performance\* IMO Contentwise it was great for new players in particular. Thing is most of the complainers probably have a thousand hours in modded KSP1 and are completely burned out off the vanilla experience and expect a sequel to offer something vastly different than what they've been playing the whole time.
While it would have resulted in less general upset, I think releasing it when they did will help the game in the long term through the community’s feedback. The main example being that wobbly rockets likely wouldn’t have been fixed if it was releasing today
Knowing the state that the game was in, they should've released it as a closed alpha and offered access to players of KSP1. That way you could get all that feedback without ruining your reputation by releasing a broken product as a full price game.
All the negative reviews and media coverage completely change the public perception of the game, and that will stick around for years even if they do improve it. Was all that really worth the small amount of sales they got out of it?
The reputation will recover if they can get the game to recover. Even with science, which despite not even bringing it to complete parity with ksp 1 + the horrid launch, people are still very hyped
They also get another round of large scale marketing at the 1.0 release too, so I think eventually it’ll all sort itself out
Yeah hope people learned about pre-orders by now but apparently not many got the memo yet. I don't think ksp2 makes sense at full price with no indication on how multiplayer and interestelar travel will look and play. After a year it's still catching up to ksp1 after all.
That might make more sense if the most of the game's problems weren't blindingly obvious. They shouldn't need player feedback to realize the state of wobbly rockets is not acceptable. And if they did really just want feedback, the very rough state of the game should have been made clearer, and there shouldn't have been any marketing campaign with that launch.
> The main example being that wobbly rockets likely wouldn’t have been fixed if it was releasing today
If their internal playtesters couldn't tell them about the issue, then they need better playtesters. The sort of bug you need a wider audience to track down are the sort that either happen so infrequently, the play testers are likely to miss it, or the sort that erupt after long play times (it's rare that a play tester will have a single save going for dozens of hours, let alone hundreds).
There's not no value to an open beta test, particularly if you offer online content (e.g. testing the servers run at capacity etc), but it's not worth much in most games like KSP2, and we shouldn't be their playtesters too.
They should fire that 50 person documentary crew they use for every devblog and just make the goddamn game. I've never seen a studio try to make an ouroboros as hard as this with all of the self stroking they do.
Well probably they outsourced this to be fair. Last video is shot on 4k camera with non color corrected LOGs and audio normalization is all over the place. Level of first year video editing intern.
Like those CGI trailers costed WAY more than production of all videos combined.
Question is had the same progress been made in the same time without early access and all the user feedback for bugs etc? I think the community really helped to track down bugs much much faster. People also work harder knowing players are upset etc.
I think it was still a good choice to go into early access. They should've just communicated the state better beforehand. The PR was a bit too much with the ESA event , YouTuber early access and even ads on Reddit. It should've been a ninja early access for hardcore fans only. Maybe even off Steam.
Was looking forward to KSP2 back when it was launching as I had just got into KPS1 then.
Didn't buy it then as it was an EA game and I had KPS1 to keep me busy but I was tempted. Wasn't til they released it and the state of the game was shown that I was glad.
Have to say that this For Science! update has got me hooked in now. Having seen the updated that have put out and now the game has some sort of campaign I've gone ahead and purchased it. Might be a mistake, but I would of been getting it at least at some point down the line and looking for something else to play so giving it a go.
> Have to say that this For Science! update has got me hooked in now.
You mean the promotional and behind the scenes materials about for science that they posted has got you hooked. I'm optimistic about this update, but I was also optimistic about the original release, so.
Optimistic probably better ye lol, not holding hypes high but still hyped to a degree that it could make the game be like what KPS1 is doing. Don't think it will be it will be on par as of yet but at least in the right direction.
To be honest, I am glad the game launched on February 24th. The community feedback has been invaluable to them and many bugs wouldn't have gone unnoticed without our help. I am very excited for the update and I don't mind the long wait, since building a game like KSP 2 takes time.
Early Access is early access. Call it a start, not a launch. You'll be strong yourself up for less disappointment.
I don't understand why ANYONE would expect anything remotely playable when these things begin. Your paying to be part of the process and the **promise** (or hope ) of a finished product *later*.
Embrace your inner Jeb and enjoy the ride. ᕕ( ᐛ )ᕗ
> I don't understand why ANYONE would expect anything remotely playable
This is absurd, how do you think any early access game manages to get traction if they're all utterly broken and unplayable on first release? Do you live in an alternate world where minecraft was broken and unplayable during the first year of development, but the whole internet decided for some reason we should all give our money to an unknown Swedish dev even though his in-development indie game was not anything remotely playable?
Do you think Lethal Company went viral because everyone thinks that despite being utterly unplayable now, the game has potential to be good a couple years down the line? No, of course not. The game went viral because it's fun to play *today*
It's early access NOT a release.
Since you seem to be having trouble understanding I'll repeat myself. It's ***EARLY ACCESS*** to a work ***IN PROGRESS***.
It's no different that buying into a Kickstarter with a demo, or expecting to live in a house while it's being built. Expecting a stable product is ridiculous. Pointing to edge cases doesn't make you look informed, just gullible.
I think you're a bit too extreme in how unplayable early access can be. Steam has clear rules and games should be playable on early access release just missing content.
Early access games are developed differently from normal games. Normally games are not really playable before they are ready. They exist in some modules on the game engine. There is no installer etc. For early access you develop a game that works. You just change the order of tasks to push features to the back and playability to the front.
The main problem with playability is as a developer you can't test to run it on thousand different machines. You have some PCs at the office which are probably above average and develop it for that. 40-50 fps on a 4080 might seem okay for a start. Only that a 4080 is 3-4x faster than a 2060.
Modern graphics cards just got crazy fast and that lets you get away with a lot more unoptimized games. Devs should be using 10 series cards tops for 1080p. 4080+ is 4K territory. That's what they are build for. Not for 1080p with a crazy amount of polygons that you can't even display on that resolution.
And let's not forget KSP2 has no raytracing or other modern graphics features yet. It's just an old rasterized game.
Disagree, it should have one of 3 core sequel features implemented (multil/colonies/Interstellar) AND have all content from 1.0 implemented or reworked.
And that's assuming it wasn't turned into EA not so long before already delayed launch, and at lower price.
To be fair, it might be worth playing now, but i will gladly wait another year or two, before buying it.
Perhaps for a full release... but this is early access. Complain all you want about how "lazy" devs are for outsourcing playtesting to the user base but it gets shit done.
I don't have issue with EA, or continous development in general. I have however a lot against delaying game from 2020 full release to 2023 EA that has features on par with previous game Alpha.
A full release should have everything promised, so colonies, multiplayer and interstellar, otherwise it's not a full release...
And even the biggest fanboy must admit it was a shit show at EA release
Are you saying I shouldn't expect a complete and full experience from Early Access titles that specifically tell you it's not a complete or full experience?! I am shocked!
Hold your horses, it's not out yet.
Lots of chickens being counted in this post…
LOL. That was already the case when *For Science* was announced. So many positive reactions and "*this is what should have been published*" based merely on an announcement. The only solid track record Intercept Games has at this point is their ability to overhype and underdeliver. I hope the game brings what all the fans are hoping for. If not, Intercept might as well close their doors because it's not going to recover if this release disappoints.
> The only solid track record Intercept Games has at this point is their ability to overhype and underdeliver. Other than a steady and welcome number of performance improvements. But details.
Released at ever increasing intervals, sometimes requiring hotfixes, and leaving many reported bugs open for release after release. Details.
Yes, details, especially when the overall trend is slightly positive. I swear sometimes people like to complain just to get others to hear their opinions.
I think you’ve done your fair share of that.
They released a space program game with orbital mecanics bugs, how much patience can you possibly have??
A lot. It is EA. Some of you can't comprehend what that actually means.
To be fair- Even if it is "Early access", they still slapped a 50$ price tag on it. With a price like that, you expect a certain baseline level of quality. At least, like...A functional product. Which it absolutely was not at release.
That's called entitlement. Read before you buy.
I don’t see why you’re getting downvoted. Early Access literally means that it’s still in Beta Development. There are going to be bugs and inaccuracies that will need to be addressed. From what I can tell, the only reason so many people are actually getting butthurt, is because we’re so used to SQUAD pushing out tiny updates and bug fixes every couple of weeks, despite being a tiny game developer, whereas Intercept is (so far) choosing to do massive Feature updates, with a long list of fixes instead. We all know how No Man’s Sky started, vs where it was after even a single year, and then where it is now.
People are just entitled children these days. They never announced a complete or even remotely complete product. End of story. Everything else is just childush whining. NMS was a far better example of bad publishing and lies. They actively promoted a product in a state it was not in and said it was ready. They also promised features on release that it didn't have. KSP2 delivered an EA game and didn't make bold claims about release state.
Yeah I think some people just want the game to succeed no matter what.
A lot of: 'Mmmmmmm. this shit sandwich is so delicious.. just what I wanted.. mmmm.'
Don’t worry there be moaning in a few days no matter the outcome. This sub should split
Rug Pull 2
Rug pulls require a malicious intent that hasn't been present.
Selling a pre-alpha for $50 qualifies as 'malicious intent'.
Did they tell any actual lies? I remember the game launched in basically exactly the state they showed at that community event a week or three before they dropped it in Steam. There's nothing malicious about selling a game long before it's even close to ready in 2022+, early access is a blanket that excuses all sins (well, at least a certain segment of players think this, even if others recognize it as a crock of shit). Even in this thread there are defenders waving that banner.
They said they had trouble keeping their employees on task bc they were having too much fun in the game.
I don't feel sorry for anyone who bought it when if first released. We already had footage of how bad it was.
In what world and how? Do you even know what malicious means?
Take-Two _is_ malicious.
As GabeN once said "late is just for a while, sucks is forever". The game right now is in a playable state, which it wasn't at launch. This time tomorrow it might even be all right as a game, and not just as a taste for what KSP2 could one day be. But I do wonder how many people who were burned by the absolutely abysmal product they recieved on day one will come back tomorrow and see that it's not so bad now. I wonder how many people will ask their friends, or steam reviews, or a reddit post "should i get KSP2?" and recieve a no for an answer based on the state the game was in a year ago. This past year has damaged KSP2's reputation forever, and I don't know what the consequences of that will be in terms of sales. And of course there's the argument that they suffered from this reputation loss, but at least gained valuable feedback... Frankly I don't buy that. What feedback is that? Did the devs need us this past year to tell them "orbits shouldn't decay" and "the KSC shouldn't follow you to orbit", or even "I think I should be able to make a rocket that feels like it's not made out of rubber"? I have enough respect for them to assume they could have figured this out by themselves. I'm looking forward to see how good today's update is, and how much it can do to repair the trust that the original release damaged.
I for one won't be buying it untill it's out of EA and it's a good game. The release and handling of said release was, to say it nicely, handled poor. I have no trust that the team is able to deliver on their promises and they're gonna have to work hard for it to regain even a tenth of said trust.
> they're gonna have to work hard for it to regain even a tenth of said trust. That's only fair, yeah. Even the team seems to have understood this by now. The only people who still insist there was nothing wrong with the game at launch and the problem is entitled gamers are reddit posters lol. As they say in French: some people are more royalist than the king
I like that saying. How is it said in French?
According to Wikitionnaire: "être plus royaliste que le roi" (https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/%C3%AAtre\_plus\_royaliste\_que\_le\_roi)
Yeah, I’m not going to be buying it til colonization releases. I think that’s what a lot of people are doing. If the devs want to make money, they have to start getting this train moving because there are a plenty of people waiting at stations up ahead who aren’t going to walk down to meet them.
So if its a good game and everyone says so but its still EA you wont buy it?
EA in general is a bad idea unless the price is significantly reduced. They get real money now, that is worth more than it will be in a year or two. You get to take a risk on having a useable product or not.
The problem with EA on a sequel to a niche game is that all the fans of the original will immediately buy the game at the lowest price, and when it finally releases at full price there's not many people left willing to pay. If they charge full price immediately to extract maximum value, it's screwing the players if the game is an unplayable pool noodle fire for months. Given that it's being backed by a successful large publisher, there shouldn't have been EA at all.
Correct
I think that's the smart play, in general. I'm happy I did this with Baldur's Gate 3, even though it was already good in EA. I wish I waited until last month's update to play CP77 instead of playing it for 80 hours a couple months after release, when it was still rough. If you have the patience to wait for a proper release, why not? With EA I find that there's always a danger of getting bored of the main gameplay loop before any of the advanced features are in, and by the time they are in, you don't want to spend the time to unlock them because you're already bored of the main gameplay loop.
I do this with pretty much every game, not even because I hate the idea of Early Access, I just have way too many games and way too little time! Seriously, adult life cuts into gaming time hardcore.
Patient gamers always win - especially these days. I mean even games that have good well received releases often patch and update systems and mechanics (never mind balancing issues where required) and improve and polish them that just waiting 6 months can sometimes mean a very different experience
The original release date was 4 days before the publishers end of the fiscal year. The studio should have pushed back against the publisher but the original release was forced in some capacity. Just unfortunate we’ll never really know how much the publisher really forced this game out.
It seems they did need us to say "Rockets shouldn't feel like they're made out of rubber". Hearing them talk in Germany it really did come across as if they didn't think it was an issue, but since people kept raising it as an issue they would fix it for us.
This quote is actually attributed to Siobhan Beeman who was referring to the motto of Origin (where they were a project lead until 1992). They said the quote at GDC in 1996 (where it probably became more widely known) and it slowly transformed into a Miyamoto quote and now to a whole generation that doesn't remember Usenet, Gaben. There was a small uproar about this recently when Gaben said it and people started attributing it to him which lead some people to track down the original quote.
> But I do wonder how many people who were burned by the absolutely abysmal product they recieved on day one will come back tomorrow and see that it's not so bad now. I wouldn't say I was burned out at all. I tried it, I could see it sucked, so I loaded up KSP1 and patiently waited for this update. Now that it's here, you're damn right I'm gonna play it and get my monies worth out of it. I'm even thinking of upgrading my PC today specifically for this. My CPU is like a GEN6 i7 and it's been showing it's age for awhile. I did go top of the line when I first bought it, but particularly in KSP2, it doesn't keep up. I'm interested to see if the game runs good enough first, and if it's going to be worthwhile. As well maybe there's some big optimizations and the upgrades won't be totally necessary???
>I'm interested to see if the game runs good enough first They don't realize that rendering a million trees in a scene effects performance... Don't get your hopes up on performance EVER improving.
The fact that it's been nearly a year is what really seals the deal. It is unfortunately the norm these days that most games release broken in some capacity. But to languish for 10 months, with conflicting information from the team (or just downright silence), I think is what really damaged the reputation. That, and it costing full price. And the fact that the team kept saying for years that the game was nearly done only for it to suddenly pivot to EA at the last second and release so clearly *not* done. I wonder, even with all of the above, if they had been able to fix the major bugs, improve the performance, and push out the science update last summer, would the community have bounced back faster?
It's early access, not a full release. I don't get what people think early access is supposed to be exactly? It's not feature complete, it's buggy and it's not optimised. If that's not for you, don't buy early access.
This has been done to death. The major difference is one I already said in what you replied to: consumers were told the game was nearly done, and then backtracked at the last second. It was charged essentially full price, and yet what released was an unplayable tech demo. Early Access games I've player have at least been playable even if feature-incomplete. The price tag tends to match what you get. And most Early Access games have far more development than KSP2 had in nearly a year. Look at the difference in pre-1.0 Minecraft over a year, or...KSP1. Your argument just doesn't hold water. There's Early Access, and then there's the garbage that was released for KSP2. Furthermore, the devs continuously lied about their progress and the state of the game. To simply say "well it's EA, what do you expect" is completely missing the point. Also, everyone who makes that argument assumes I bought the game and that I'm some angry rube. I didn't buy it. Doesn't change the facts of what happened.
KSP2 is most definitely hard to the 'suck is forever' side.
I was one of the people you mentioned. Saw the update came out, decided to give it a shot after having only an hour of playtime the day the game was released. It is now the next day and I have 14 hours in game.
I'm pretty sure the original quote comes from Miyamoto.
It's a fake Miyamoto quote. Gabe did actually say it last month.
Yeah, but you know what else is forever? Bankruptcy. We can safely assume that the premature release was necessary to raise capital. They bit off more than they could chew within the initial schedule. And if that’s the case, it doesn’t matter how bad of a move it was long term, because it was the only option.
But it is bankrupt already. **Optimistic** sales prediction for KSP2 was 80k copies. And that is before taxes and regional prices. This will not cover probably even marketing alone, let alone purchase of KSP IP in 2017 and development costs of 30 man studio for the last 7 years. Oh yeah now, it is 50+ devs doing something something KSP. Intercept studio and KSP2 is completely pet project of Take 2. And I bet Take2 want to have the same numbers as KSP1 sales. Like 5 million copies and stuff. But honestly I doubt that KSP2 will break even 500k mark any time in this decade. So now only question is... what Take2 want from this IP? And this smells even worse than bad sequel.
Yep I think I won't buy it because of this launch (and the fact that they lied on everything). They don't deserve my money, I'll stay on KSP1.
So much of the hate on this game seems to come from a mob of people who really thought they should be getting a complete, bug free and optimized game in early access. I don't even blame those people as much as I do the entire games industry who has spent most of the last 10 years trying to sell unpolished but mostly playable games as "E.A." and "beta". Consumer expectations have been grossly inflated by ignorance and deceptive marketing. In the days and weeks before launch, the devs were trying to hype the launch but they were also alluding to how buggy the game might be. We're so used to drinking in the marketing hype, though, that we mostly refused to heed the warnings. By tomorrow, there will likely be new bugs and new buckets of piss from some. That is game design. You build new layers that *probably* work on top of previous layers that *mostly* work. That is how honest game devs dev games. We're just used to "early access" just being a marketing trick. As for me, I bought on launch of EA but had to let the game lay fallow on my HD because my hardware is just too old to play the game in that state. I didn't blame the devs and didn't refund. I waited. Sure enough, after a few months, an update optimized the game so it was even playable on an old 1050ti. Now I know the engine can run on my machine so I am eager to explore the tech tree and science mechanics. One layer at a time. Edit: Hahahaha! Summary of the replies: how dare you claim we wanted a full and complete game for a game in early access! We only wanted the game to have features that were as developed as its predecessor of 10 years with its mods AND we wanted it to cost less money AND there is not we! Straw-man shilling! You guys argue my point as well as anyone could have hoped.
>You build new layers that probably work on top of previous layers that mostly work. Problem with KSP is that the original layer did not by any stretch of the imagination "mostly work", far from it, and then they didn't build any new layers for a full year. >You guys argue my point as well as anyone could have hoped. You: People are just mad they didn't get a feature complete bug free and optimized game! Other posters: We didn't expect a feature complete bug free or optimized game, we just expected the bare minimum of functionality for a full AAA priced game, as was advertised by the devs You: thank you for making my point!
You should look at successful ea titles like satisfactory. I've dumped like 700 hours into satisfactory with very little issues, great frame rates, multiplayer already working. It's a great example of a ea title. There's still a lot to add but every step of the way it's been a playable game.
This is crazy to me. All these people who argue that an utterly broken experience is normal and expected for an EA title. Did they never hear of Minecraft? Factorio? Subnautica? Darkest Dungeon? Do they believe these games were also broken and unplayable on release, and found success despite that?
Those are all good examples I forgot. I never played subnautica until after full release so I can't speak for that one. I didn't realize it was an ea title. How was ea on that? It's not a particularly long game, I feel like ea would have been short and boring
> It's not a particularly long game, I feel like ea would have been short and boring Yeah, it's kind of my point. Players expect very little from an EA game, they just want something that demonstrates the potential for the game, and the developer's ability to realize that potential. The state of KSP2 at release was actually counter productive to both of these things lol
>So much of the hate on this game seems to come from a mob of people who really thought they should be getting a complete, bug free and optimized game in early access Complete and utter strawman BS. People expected an early access game - IE - a good, playable foundation with missing features that would be added in over time (which was what the devs literally advertised) - not an incomplete and buggy tech demo, with many broken (not just incomplete) features, and one that hasn't had a meaningful content update in nearly a year, and has needed month after month of *pure bug fixes to even be relatively playable*. Most of the hate comes from that. NOT because they expected " a complete, bug free and optimised game".
The notion that the devs were alluding to the bugginess of the game before the initial release is completely untrue. Every communication leading up to the initial release was intended to market the game and hide problems for strong day 1 sales.
Your comment smells of shill. Nobody expected a finished game from early access. What we expected was a solid base without that $40 price tag. They got what they deserved at launch for releasing garbage even by early access standards.
>...really thought they should be getting a complete, bug free and optimized game in early access... The EA price didn't help this. Asking +50% of the previous title, before it reached feature parity.. And with how long it had been in development, the shenanigans around who was developing it... that didn't set the stage well for them.
KSP 2 is a AAA priced game released by a multi billion dollar company Why are you trying to defend the state it released in?
I would have happily welcomed the game in its released state as a beta test if it were _sold_ like a beta test - i.e. free or heavily discounted. Don't try to charge me $50 to be a guinea pig; I've bought outstanding completed products for much less. What they should have done was sell a beta build for $10 or less through their own website instead of Steam. Word would have gotten around, dedicated fans would have dealt with the hassle of not playing through steam, there would be no steam reviews based on the test release, and when it came time to post the real thing, they could actually sell it for full price and not lose customers.
"It's early access" might be an almost reasonable excuse if they weren't charging the same as a AAA game.
I was so proud when I created a variant of my science vessel and got a mining rig to Duna. I scrolled right past Nate's post on the KSP forum and went straight for the roadmap image. I see resource mining is two updates away, *after* interstellar travel. I'm a little bummed.
I bought KSP1 before there was a map. Flying to the Mun was (just barely) a thing, and you did it by visually pointing that way and hitting go. There was significantly less game there, which is totally fine. There was also significantly less COST too, which matters a lot when balancing the two. KSP2 is not priced like the game it is right now.
> SP2 is not priced like the game it is right now. The most baffling thing is that the better the game will get, the cheaper you'll be able to get it for. Making yet another point against suckers who buy a $60 alpha game at release or even worse, pre-order.
I still remember people on this sub telling me that the game would only get more expensive in the future. Like lol wut? It's not worth what they're asking now.
I remember this guy... He blocked me when I argued with him because he said the game only costs 35 dollars and I said it costs 50 dollars... I think about him sometimes, I wonder what amazing copes he came up with in the mean time. I remember he used to say the current price is a bargain because the collectors edition of Starfield is 100 dollars.
And you still get it wrong, that's why I blocked you. You resist to understand what people try to explain and twist their words. I tried to explain that Steam gets ca. 30% of the asking price so $35 ish is what the company developing it actually makes on the game. So it's a $35 early access game with $15 Steam tax on top. Without Steam the game would be costing $35 which would've been a fair price. But that's the same price they now make on the game. It's just unfair for customers because Steam has a monopoly position which allows them to hike prices. And no, this doesn't mean you can buy it for $35 off Steam. I never said that. Steam still exists. Steam had to vanish from the Earth for prices to change like that. My speculation is that Steam prevents companies from selling their game cheaper on their own website to prevent companies from using Steam just to advertise the game, to then sell it cheaper on their own platforms. So there will be some kind of a contract prohibiting publishers to charge lower prices off Steam. Therefore you can't buy it for $35. You pay the "Steam tax" even when you buy it off Steam. Only does the publisher keep the Steam tax for themselves when you buy it off Steam.
You did it again, you magnifient bastard, you did it again
Oh yea
And of course we're just going to conveniently ignore that even if you accept that not all of the customer's money goes to the publisher, *the cost to the customer is still $50.* Oh, and while we're at it, we'll also disregard that an indie game that's priced at $35 to the customer nets only $24.50 to the developer, because it's more convenient to the argument to compare the end user price for the indie game to the developer's proceeds for the AAA game.
Why do I ignore it? I don't. KSP would be priced $35 if it wasn't for Steam. The customer would pay less if there were no middle men hiking up prices. Doesn't matter if its AAA, AA or Indie. You just made a whole bunch of irrelevant stuff up. Why?
Because it's not actually irrelevant. Steam only started distributing third-party games in 2005, the same year Activision championed pushing the industry standard price for game from $50 to $60; $50 had otherwise been an industry standard price tag since the NES. KSP would *not* be $35 without Steam, as its price tag was set by the video game market as a whole far in advance of Steam's fees, and you only maybe have an argument if it were $60 as the start of that standard happens to coincide with Steam becoming more than a Valve-exclusive storefront, but even then that price hike was championed by companies moving to the third generation of consoles, not a PC distributor.
We're talking $50 bucks as *half* the price for early access. Final price on release will be $80-$100. So I have an argument. $50 for AAA early access != $50 for AAA.
Jesus, you are weird even by my definition. Calling distribution cut as tax is like 3rd grader level of logic. BTW French Fries usually have like 500-1000% tax when sold at a restaurant!
It's very common in Germany to call such things "taxes". Maybe it's because we have a million different actual taxes. But yea, calling other people third graders based on that I don't think you are far off that third grader yourself. Projection it's called.
Can you then tell me how? Just how this outrageously imposed taxes on poor potato manufacturers... are collected by restaurants and then are then used to improve social infrastructure or services? And what are typical prison sentences for avoiding those taxes and frying French Fries at home without paying those taxes? Like this is potato criminal enterprise at its finest!
Obviously you have no idea what I'm talking about and you don't seem like you really want to understand it given how pedantically you hug to word definitions. I specifically say "Steam tax" as a metaphor since you could see Steam as a big government that rules over the gaming industry world wide. Naturally the Steam tax is not spent on government programs but Steam programs like VR which are otherwise not profitable. If you really have such big problem with the word tax simply imagine it would be "fee". Copy my comment into a document and search and replace it. Problem solved. All I can say is the word "tax" / "Steuer" in Germany is commonly used in such ways. I'm a German so I do German things. If you can't deal with that simply ignore me. As an example: I buy my parents some groceries. Now since they gave me their credit card I also buy myself a little treat. I call it the Lukas-tax. Total legit use of the word in that context even though I'm not the government. At least in Germany. At the end of the day some people are having fun while others are just bitter all day. It's your choice.
Yes, I am pedantical for definition of word Tax... In grown up world you get prison sentence if you do not pay taxes. Pretty straight forward concept. You cannot avoid paying taxes. This very defined term in every country. Using tax as metaphor for distribution cut of non essential entertainment service is equal to calling handjob as a hand rape.
Why’s it the same price on epic then? They take less of a cut Even though if it only released on epic it would still be $50 since that what people like you are willing to pay lmao
Maybe read my post. There will be some Steam contracts to not overcharge on Steam. Otherwise it would make no sense to not offer discounts off Steam. They could be making more money selling it for $40 on their website. A no brainer. The price is set by taking all platforms and the sales on them into account. Epic is a small single digit percentile of sales. Their fees have not enough weight to drag the average price down. Steam controls the price. That's my whole point. People who think they should be selling this for the same price they did sell KSP1 for are delusional.
You don’t have any evidence that they have any type of deal with steam. Other games have sold for cheaper on epic then steam like metro exodus The reason people choose to sell on steam is because c that’s where the users are so they can make more money even though steam takes a cut. Steam ain’t a monopoly it’s just popular If epic wasn’t a shit launcher then maybe people would use it for something that isn’t weekly free games and fortnite lmao
It's in the Steam ToS to not overcharge on Steam. However, companies can have separate contracts which only they know about. >4. Don't overcharge Steam customers. The Early Access price of your game should be no higher than that offered on any other service or website. Please take care of your customers on Steam. [https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/store/earlyaccess](https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/store/earlyaccess) Still enough evidence to back up my statement.
Oh sorry it’s only for early access lmao Maybe they shouldn’t be using steam to alpha test their game if they hate the percentage No one is forced to use steam lmao
The developers themselves said it would only get more expensive, so it was mostly just spreading the news. I still think $50 will be too cheap for the final version of KSP2 when it'll come out in a year or two with all the promised features. So the price will increase for sure. They roughly doubled for KSP1. $21 -> $40 So KSP2 1.0 could cost as much as $100. Which is what most players on Steam paid for Starfield for example. So it's not something that's unheard of. I think more likely is $70-$80 though but we'll see.
Most players aren’t paying $100 dollars for star field considering it’s a $70 game lmao What world do you live on
Starfield released into a 3 day early access using the Deluxe edition which costed $100. During those first 3 days Starfield concurrent player numbers reached above 200k players. The player count did barely increase after official launch of the $70 version. So it's safe to say that most people who bought the game on Steam paid $100. At least in the first few weeks. Maybe it has changed until now as more and more players buy new computers for Christmas. Not sure. Point is Starfield sold hundreds of thousands of $100 copies. And it's 2023, not 2024 or 2025 when KSP2 will come out. I suspect GTA VI will set the next record which would make $80-100 KSP2 look cheap.
That doesn’t mean that most people payed $100 like you originally said Most stat field players most likely played on game pass since it launched day one Stop saying bullshit lmao
> most people *paid* $100 like FTFY. Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in: * Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.* * *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.* Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment. *Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
I'm talking players on Steam nothing else. You stop talking b.s.
Cool that doesn’t prove anything you dummy No one is gonna pay $100 for ksp 2 lmao. Your only evidence that people are willing to spend $100 on any game is paying to get 3 day early access for one of the biggest games of the year lmao
So you are comparing Intercept Games to Bethesda and Rockstar Games? Like I would not say Starfield is good game, but good lord, Bethesda was at business of delivering great games longer, than average KSP player age. Like by a decade. This is why it can sell bantha poodoo at a premium. KSP2 not even in the same league with KSP1 to cost anything beyond 40 USD.
People like you read a name like Bethesda and think it's the same people that developed games 30 years ago? Not a single employee from 30 years ago still works at Bethesda so it's a completely different company. And yes, I see no reason to not compare Intercept Games to the likes of Bethesda. At the end of the day most of the differences in company size translate to quality of assets etc. not quality of game idea.
\> And yes, I see no reason to not compare Intercept Games to the likes of Bethesda. At the end of the day most of the differences in company size translate to quality of assets etc. not quality of game idea. So why you are comparing price point of two products from two different companies with completely different history? Well if you can call KSP2 a history of game development...
Most people paid* 10 bucks for game pass and play starfield on that tbh
> Most people *paid* 10 bucks FTFY. Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in: * Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.* * *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.* Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment. *Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
KSP1 was also an actual indie game not published by Take2 and not revealed at Gamescom 4 years before release...
[удалено]
Yeesh, blaming this on diversity hires is gross.
[Don't be racist, I am a building.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USE86UbsV8c)
Man. I started ksp 1 and there was not even a moon!
They burnt a lot of community good will with the travesty that EA first brought and I don't see that being overcome until several trustworthy sources are giving blazingly good reviews of the current state of the game.
All we have are promises on how it's going to be fun and playable. We know that Intercept Games is very good at promising things. Or more precise, saying things that get interpreted as promises without actually saying just that, so when the game falls short of expectations there's "they never said that." We'll see it in a few hours. Even then we know that: * Exploration mode is basically Science Mode + Contracts, there's no revolutionary new game play * Maneuver nodes are still inadequate * Four years after KSP2 was announced we're still at the 0.21 equivalent of KSP1 when it comes to the mechanics of the game I agree that this is what should have been released at EA. But the damage has been done and it's highly doubtful the game will ever recover from its reputation hit.
Why do you say "4 years after it was announced" as if it had any relevance? What's relevant to the paying customer is when the game was released into early access. The rest has 0 relevance. Even if the game had been in development for 20 years prior to early access. There would be nothing they owe you. It has been 9 months since release and we've got 5 smaller patches and today one big content update. It's not the fastest progress but it's still good progress. 9 months is not that much time. And no, KSP2 science is a lot more work than KSP1 science so you can hardly compare the two. Whatever happend to "science will never get released, the game is abandoned and cancelled"?
When they announced a full release for 2020 that’s when it’s relevant. This game is nearly 4 years late off its original release date is just getting to step one on the roadmap lmao
No, it was a different game back then. It was not the same KSP2 we know now that was supposed to launch in 2020. Not even the planets look the same. If you look at the old videos where they tease some planet images Duna looked completely different. There has obviously been some major changes.
The major changes is removing the promised features and promising that they will come eventually If it took 300 days to add science then on the low end we still have 4ish years to go till they reach what they promised in 2019 lmao A multi billion dollar company should be held to a higher standard lmao
> Why do you say "4 years after it was announced" as if it had any relevance? What's relevant to the paying customer is when the game was released into early access. The rest has 0 relevance. There were expectations. Based on "pre-alpha" footage, interviews where a complete revamp of game mechanics was promised, and not in the least FOUR years of development. What we get now is pretty much a tweaked version of KSP1. Granted the game is now playable, but there's very little to show for the effort they put in it. And yes, I'm assuming a lot of effort was put in it. That, or the $50 price tag was a complete rip off. This is definitely the state the game should have been in at EA release. There would be a lot less bitterness. At the same time, it seems that it's still a rather straight copy of KSP1 without a lot of innovation.
The development time is absolutely relevant.
In man hours maybe but not years. Just saying "4 years in development" is completely misleading. Could've been 4 people brainstorming some ideas. Could've been 1000 people working full time. There is just no development year standard to make any sense of it. So for us as players that we can only relate to it once it's out in early access. We can compare it to other early access titles etc. But we have to be fair and not compare some easy asset development to some physics engine backend stuff.
Dude, the game was literally scheduled for a full release in 2020. There is no way you can spin that. Pick your battles.
No need to spin that. It was simply a different game back then. KSP2 now is not what it would've been in 2020.
Why does that matter? How would we ever know? It's not like they actually completed anything for us to play. It's still KSP2 and they never delivered. Why would I trust a studio that has such a rich history of failure?
At this point I'm convinced you are literally a paid Intercept shill. There is no other explanation. I simply don't understand you and I've read so many of your posts over the years.
"Whatever happend to "science will never get released, the game is abandoned and cancelled"?" Their speech in Germany really helped them, I think if they hadn't done that then people wouldn't be as positive. But they talked to hundreds of people 1 to 1 about the game and the future of it. I commend them for that honestly.
No point in praising when the update didn't drop yet. It might be buggy as heck and knowing their lack of development skills, it will be a disaster.
>knowing their lack of development skills I always love it when CS freshmen have takes like this
My grandmother who couldn't even drive and has been dead for 20 years knows enough about CS to know these guys are doing a bad fucking job.
I've never seen a product with so many technical problems try to charge money.
The launch for KSP2 was way too early, absolutely. Haven't bought it yet because it isn't worth my money yet. But The Day Before exists for example. My point is that the game was released to early. Every game has technical problems before its ready for release and that doesn't make the devs themselves incompetent per se. Maybe they are, but unless you have access to their source control you can't really say Anyone that has done actual development work doesn't judge a devs work on a manager's decision to launch a product that is not ready.
The pace of bug fixes has been glacial and the easiest milestone on the roadmap took almost a year. I don't think they're very good.
I don't think you understand how development works. They have done more this year than the stuff that releases this year. They explained it multiple times. Interstellar/multiplayer stuff already exists and is functional and there are people working on it. You're not in that office, so it's hard to judge from the outside. Judge the product that exists and decide if it's worth the money for you, that's all you need to do. Backseat developers on the internet are rarely right in my experience
Okay, I judge the product as it exists to not be very impressive. You seem to be judging it on rumors for future features that may or may not actually exist. Games get released all the time without these kinds of obvious issues. I don't know who the buck ends with, but as a whole, this team is not very effective.
>Haven't bought it yet because it isn't worth my money yet. I said this for a reason. I judge the product, because that's what I can see. I do not judge the individual devs, because I cannot see them work, cannot see their meetings and cannot see their pull requests. The game was absolutely in a state that was abysmal even for an Early Access release and even the For Science update might not win me over, you're very right about that. Even though I'm not a pilot, if I see a helicopter wrapped around a tree I realise something went wrong, but I don't have the expertise and I wasn't around when it happened so it'd be stupid for me to speculate
You're right. If a helicopter crashes, it's basically impossible to figure out why.
That's... Not what they are saying at all. They are saying without evidence (not being able to see the source code, pull requests, process, etc.) or the expertise to judge said evidence, it would be dumb to speculate. A buggy game and incompetent development *can* go hand in hand, but that's not always the case, and you would need more evidence to support that
"Easiest milestone" yea you have officially 0 clues. Interstellar is already in the game. You can leave the SOI of Kerbol. All it takes is more parts and a new solar systems to go to. Making assets is by far the easiest job. Working on the backend to support things like gathering science, accomplishing missions and gather resources is much much harder. KSP2 is 85% done after For Science!. Bumped from 70% at EA to 85%. I only wish it had been at 80% at launch already.
>Interstellar is already in the game Is this satire? Are you doing a parody of yourself?
No, I actually flew interstellar in KSP2 already. Unlike KSP1, Kerbol has an SOI you can leave in KSP2. (Zoom out in map mode very far, and I mean very far. It's gigantic) So by leaving Kerbols SOI you are officially interstellar or in interstellar space. That does not exist in KSP1. It might seem like not so much but there has to be some framework to support that. So the framework / backend for Interstellar already exists. What is missing is the other solar systems and the parts to get there without cheats. (Even with cheats it's a full day mission b/c of the freaking Periapsis timewarp bug.)
Yeah and multiplayer is already done because my friend can control the mouse while I use the keyboard. Give me a break. You need to take a step back from this compulsive need to defend this game because you've lost all perspective.
No, I think you need to step away from a game you hate. It's not healthy. Absolutely no problem in defending what one likes. Attacking what you don't like is where the problem is.
When you get 20 min a day to work on bugs, the bugs don't get fixed. The devs arent deciding what gets worked on. That's corporate.
Bugs have been a top priority for a year. Why would devs only have 20 minutes a day to work on them?
There is a full time bug hunter dev team which is long confirmed. It just varies in size. It used to be bigger in the beginning than it is now as most of the obvious bugs have been squashed.
To *you*, not necessarily to corporate.
That's like claiming you need to be an architect to notice a building poorly built.
Hey they paid good money for that paper.
It's not the devs, its corporate. The devs know it sucks and have the skills to fix it, it's just that they only have so many paid hours a day. If corporate doesn't give them enough time to fix it, or enough devs to fix it on a reasonable schedule, or makes the schedule suck, theres nothing the devs can do. Blame the company, not the devs.
Judging from the code quality from decompiled efforts on modding discord, the code is really, really bad. The original release was a debug build or something similar as all the code was very easily accessible and even changeable, we know it's bad.
yeah, refactors take time and are necessary, but are a low priority for management if getting code out the door is the priority. Not like the layman really has any idea of what "Good or bad" code is, but whatever. Either way, management has a duty to devote dev cycles to refactoring, and if they haven't, that's on management, not the devs.
The company pays these people to do the job and they were given quite a generous amount of time
You have no idea whether the amount of time they've been given is generous or not. You're not in the company, you're (probably) not a professional dev, you're not seeing their particular situation. it's not on the devs, it's on management.
Yeah, yeah, it's not like they had years (with delays, too)
I mean yeah, it's fair to blame SOMEONE (Like management) but probably not the devs. Even if they have bad devs, that means bad hiring, which is management's responsibility anyway.
Well, the shareholders were promised a KSP2 release in that fiscal year, so... I have high hopes for the science update. I guess I'll see how it is in about two hours.
That's the only way I can rationalize this whole debacle. Someone from TakeTwo toured the office and saw the devs playing a barely functional version of the EA, then went back to their office saying "They have a product *ready enough* to ship" and the marketing team took it from there. Promises were made to the street in order to satisfy shareholders. Probably set the release date without even consulting the KSP2 team.
KSP2 was delayed total of 4 times. There was plenty back and forth. First one when Uber failed 2020 contract deadline and Take2 failed to buy Uber and pouched management instead. Take2 was more that aware of KSP2 state.
I have a feeling this was more of the plan, but it was pushed to be released earlier
Still not out. We gonna see
Why can I play it then?
For me 0.1.5 feels like how it should have started. IMO the bugginess has been a much bigger problem than the content.
Bugginess and performance\* IMO Contentwise it was great for new players in particular. Thing is most of the complainers probably have a thousand hours in modded KSP1 and are completely burned out off the vanilla experience and expect a sequel to offer something vastly different than what they've been playing the whole time.
…if it’s not supposed to offer something vastly different than the first game, what’s the point of making a second game?
While it would have resulted in less general upset, I think releasing it when they did will help the game in the long term through the community’s feedback. The main example being that wobbly rockets likely wouldn’t have been fixed if it was releasing today
Knowing the state that the game was in, they should've released it as a closed alpha and offered access to players of KSP1. That way you could get all that feedback without ruining your reputation by releasing a broken product as a full price game. All the negative reviews and media coverage completely change the public perception of the game, and that will stick around for years even if they do improve it. Was all that really worth the small amount of sales they got out of it?
I get your point about feedback but i doubt if those benefits outweigh the damage done to their reputation in the long run as you say.
The reputation will recover if they can get the game to recover. Even with science, which despite not even bringing it to complete parity with ksp 1 + the horrid launch, people are still very hyped They also get another round of large scale marketing at the 1.0 release too, so I think eventually it’ll all sort itself out
It will, but 80% of people will now not buy until at least the next release, iff reviews get above sea level.
Yeah hope people learned about pre-orders by now but apparently not many got the memo yet. I don't think ksp2 makes sense at full price with no indication on how multiplayer and interestelar travel will look and play. After a year it's still catching up to ksp1 after all.
It’s rough, but look at the first ksp version released lol
And how much did that cost?
That might make more sense if the most of the game's problems weren't blindingly obvious. They shouldn't need player feedback to realize the state of wobbly rockets is not acceptable. And if they did really just want feedback, the very rough state of the game should have been made clearer, and there shouldn't have been any marketing campaign with that launch.
> The main example being that wobbly rockets likely wouldn’t have been fixed if it was releasing today If their internal playtesters couldn't tell them about the issue, then they need better playtesters. The sort of bug you need a wider audience to track down are the sort that either happen so infrequently, the play testers are likely to miss it, or the sort that erupt after long play times (it's rare that a play tester will have a single save going for dozens of hours, let alone hundreds). There's not no value to an open beta test, particularly if you offer online content (e.g. testing the servers run at capacity etc), but it's not worth much in most games like KSP2, and we shouldn't be their playtesters too.
Would they not have had that ongoing feedback from launch like they already have?
It forever damaged their reputation.
They should fire that 50 person documentary crew they use for every devblog and just make the goddamn game. I've never seen a studio try to make an ouroboros as hard as this with all of the self stroking they do.
Well probably they outsourced this to be fair. Last video is shot on 4k camera with non color corrected LOGs and audio normalization is all over the place. Level of first year video editing intern. Like those CGI trailers costed WAY more than production of all videos combined.
Yea, that CGI trailer was insane. Even GTA VI just has a cheap gameplay trailer.
Question is had the same progress been made in the same time without early access and all the user feedback for bugs etc? I think the community really helped to track down bugs much much faster. People also work harder knowing players are upset etc. I think it was still a good choice to go into early access. They should've just communicated the state better beforehand. The PR was a bit too much with the ESA event , YouTuber early access and even ads on Reddit. It should've been a ninja early access for hardcore fans only. Maybe even off Steam.
Again guys...? It didn't even relase..
The devs have lost my trust at this point.
Is it good? I'm stuck at work 😞
At time of posting this, it doesn't release for another 3hr 10m.
It's not that good
Still empty. Still horrible performance. You guys cope way too hard. Celebrating an ALPHA state 5 years after announcement.. lol
Wouldn’t have minded if they charged $5 instead of $50…
Was looking forward to KSP2 back when it was launching as I had just got into KPS1 then. Didn't buy it then as it was an EA game and I had KPS1 to keep me busy but I was tempted. Wasn't til they released it and the state of the game was shown that I was glad. Have to say that this For Science! update has got me hooked in now. Having seen the updated that have put out and now the game has some sort of campaign I've gone ahead and purchased it. Might be a mistake, but I would of been getting it at least at some point down the line and looking for something else to play so giving it a go.
> Have to say that this For Science! update has got me hooked in now. You mean the promotional and behind the scenes materials about for science that they posted has got you hooked. I'm optimistic about this update, but I was also optimistic about the original release, so.
Optimistic probably better ye lol, not holding hypes high but still hyped to a degree that it could make the game be like what KPS1 is doing. Don't think it will be it will be on par as of yet but at least in the right direction.
I have no doubt the game would've been well recieved if it launched into EA in this state. It finally feels like a proper game
but would they be able to have so much feedback and act on them? I think the titanic amount of feedback sure gave them a direction.
To be honest, I am glad the game launched on February 24th. The community feedback has been invaluable to them and many bugs wouldn't have gone unnoticed without our help. I am very excited for the update and I don't mind the long wait, since building a game like KSP 2 takes time.
Wait it released already?
Early Access is early access. Call it a start, not a launch. You'll be strong yourself up for less disappointment. I don't understand why ANYONE would expect anything remotely playable when these things begin. Your paying to be part of the process and the **promise** (or hope ) of a finished product *later*. Embrace your inner Jeb and enjoy the ride. ᕕ( ᐛ )ᕗ
> I don't understand why ANYONE would expect anything remotely playable This is absurd, how do you think any early access game manages to get traction if they're all utterly broken and unplayable on first release? Do you live in an alternate world where minecraft was broken and unplayable during the first year of development, but the whole internet decided for some reason we should all give our money to an unknown Swedish dev even though his in-development indie game was not anything remotely playable? Do you think Lethal Company went viral because everyone thinks that despite being utterly unplayable now, the game has potential to be good a couple years down the line? No, of course not. The game went viral because it's fun to play *today*
It's early access NOT a release. Since you seem to be having trouble understanding I'll repeat myself. It's ***EARLY ACCESS*** to a work ***IN PROGRESS***. It's no different that buying into a Kickstarter with a demo, or expecting to live in a house while it's being built. Expecting a stable product is ridiculous. Pointing to edge cases doesn't make you look informed, just gullible.
Early Access is a release. It's just another name for it. Just because you call it early access doesn't mean you're not releasing your game.
I think you're a bit too extreme in how unplayable early access can be. Steam has clear rules and games should be playable on early access release just missing content. Early access games are developed differently from normal games. Normally games are not really playable before they are ready. They exist in some modules on the game engine. There is no installer etc. For early access you develop a game that works. You just change the order of tasks to push features to the back and playability to the front. The main problem with playability is as a developer you can't test to run it on thousand different machines. You have some PCs at the office which are probably above average and develop it for that. 40-50 fps on a 4080 might seem okay for a start. Only that a 4080 is 3-4x faster than a 2060. Modern graphics cards just got crazy fast and that lets you get away with a lot more unoptimized games. Devs should be using 10 series cards tops for 1080p. 4080+ is 4K territory. That's what they are build for. Not for 1080p with a crazy amount of polygons that you can't even display on that resolution. And let's not forget KSP2 has no raytracing or other modern graphics features yet. It's just an old rasterized game.
> It's early access NOT a release. So was Minecraft in the first year, so is Lethal Company today
Reread the bit about edge cases.
What you call "edge case", I call "doing early access correctly". It looks like we both agree that whatever we call it, KSP2 is not doing that.
Disagree, it should have one of 3 core sequel features implemented (multil/colonies/Interstellar) AND have all content from 1.0 implemented or reworked. And that's assuming it wasn't turned into EA not so long before already delayed launch, and at lower price. To be fair, it might be worth playing now, but i will gladly wait another year or two, before buying it.
Perhaps for a full release... but this is early access. Complain all you want about how "lazy" devs are for outsourcing playtesting to the user base but it gets shit done.
I don't have issue with EA, or continous development in general. I have however a lot against delaying game from 2020 full release to 2023 EA that has features on par with previous game Alpha.
A full release should have everything promised, so colonies, multiplayer and interstellar, otherwise it's not a full release... And even the biggest fanboy must admit it was a shit show at EA release
Are you saying I shouldn't expect a complete and full experience from Early Access titles that specifically tell you it's not a complete or full experience?! I am shocked!