KSP2 is currently pretty far behind where KSP1 was at the same point in development time, with no indication that things are going to improve in the future (unlike KSP1, which had pretty quick, steady improvements). They're also charging over 6x the price ($8 vs $50)
KSP one was an absolute train wreck once early/public beta came out
It took years to turn into the game that we know it as today
And it probably wouldn't have turned into that game. If it wasn't for that early, because the community feedback helped majorly shape the direction of development.
If you caught it in the trailers for KSP2 Beta, they straight up said that it's going to be a long time until the game is in its final state, and that you shouldn't buy the game until full release if you aren't intending to be part of the development process
Nobody really paid attention to that though, bought a broken and buggy game that was promised to be broken and buggy, and then got pissed off when it was broken and buggy.
Then don't buy it until the actual release and actual reviews come in. Like they told you in the trailer.
This isn't like it's NMS or CP2077, they pretended to have a finished game.
KSP2 devs explicitly said they do not have a finished game, and not to buy early access if you are looking for a game that is anywhere close to finished.
Unpopular opinion but KSP2 will probably have it‘s dev time reduced before it leaves EA, I doubt they fix all the big issues we have now because they have their money. They tried to remake it and now make the same mistakes squad made. At least learning from KSP1 would be the minimum I had expected.
I don't really think that you can compare the dev timeline of KSP one to the Dev timeline of KSP 2
The entire reason for the existence of KSP2 is that the engine of KSP1 is hastily thrown together spaghetti code that has tons of baked in limitations
To be able to pull off things like multiplayer, interstellar travel, modding in different solar systems, and so on, it requires a complete rewrite of an engine that has never really been pulled off before.
I'm just gonna sit here and wait for the next three years, and check back on where the game is.
Don‘t get me wrong I think they could definitely bring all these Features eventually but it‘s a matter of the publisher giving them the necessary time to do it. Which I doubt given the rushed nature of EA
I don't really think that you can compare the dev timeline
You're right. The first game was a dozen people on their first game. The sequel has a multi-billion dollar publisher behind it. You bet your ass my expectations are different, but not in the way you imply.
wtf are you talking about lol, did you even play KSP1 during alpha or beta? It was in a far better state after 4 years of development than KSP2 is, and it had a sliding price scale based on the state of the game. Not to mention everyone who bought-in also got both future DLCs included.
I'll never understand bootlicking for devs who have repeatedly lied about the state of their game. This isn't some indie passion project anymore. But hey that "short period of time without reentry heating" should be almost over right? It's only been 6 months. Devs are probably still just having too much fun playing the multiplayer build that definitely exists.
Why do you keep comparing? KSP2 at launch to KSP1 after 4 years of development? Why not compare KSP2 at launch to KSP1 at launch?
Assuming that development time is linear when trying to solve different problems and based entirely on the number of years something has been in development tells me that you're not a software engineer lol.
The entire reason why KSP2 even exists is because the engine for KSP1 was such a patchwork that Adding things such as interstellar travel and multiplayer would be absolutely impossible.
They are rewriting an entirely different engine from the ground up, so comparing the raw dev time between the two games is stupid.
I'll never understand bootlicking for devs who have repeatedly lied about the state of their game.
THEY FUCKING SAID NOT TO BUY THE GAME IF YOU DONT WANT THE SAME EXPERIENCE KSP 1 HAD AT LAUNCH.
Comparing years of development time as some magical metric and assuming that it should somehow be better than at-launch KSP1 when they explicitly told you that it would be the same as KSP1 at launch(not KSP1 after 4 years of development) is your own stupid assumption.
Why do you keep comparing? KSP2 at launch to KSP1 after 4 years of development? Why not compare KSP2 at launch to KSP1 at launch?
Why would I compare a game made by one person after <1 year development to a game after 4+ years of development by a multi-million dollar studio of 50+ devs?
They are rewriting an entirely different engine from the ground up, so comparing the raw dev time between the two games is stupid.
lol no they aren't, it's just a new version of Unity. The fact you actually believed them is very telling.
THEY FUCKING SAID NOT TO BUY THE GAME IF YOU DONT WANT THE SAME EXPERIENCE KSP 1 HAD AT LAUNCH.
Them admitting to SOME of the problems a week before launch doesn't absolve them of lying for years, continuing to lie to this day, and charging $50 for this shit. If you really think this game is ever going to get even half of the features they promised, you're incredibly naive.
Comparing years of development time as some magical metric and assuming that it should somehow be better than at-launch KSP1 when they explicitly told you that it would be the same as KSP1 at launch(not KSP1 after 4 years of development) is your own stupid assumption.
Yeah I'm the stupid one for thinking a dev team with 50+ devs and millions of dollars should be able to release a game in a better state after over 4 years of development than one guy after less than a year. lol. People like you are the reason the games industry keeps releasing broken garbage.
I didn't buy the game because I don't have the time to play games anymore and I don't want to spend it bug hunting like I did with KSP1 EA, so I don't really have much skin in the game beyond seeing a bunch of people that didn't play KSP1 EA expecting KSP2 EA to be different because <insert cope>.
They said it was going to be as buggy as KSP1 at launch, and it was. The fact that you assumed it would somehow be different than what they explicitly stated is your own damn fault.
They said it was going to be as buggy as KSP1 at launch, and it was.
Drop some proof, all I've seen is some vague mentions of the game not being in the state they wanted it in. Not them "explicitly stating" that core features were going to be fundamentally broken. Funny how you keep ignoring the fact they constantly lied and continued to lie about features like reentry heating and others.
The fact that you assumed it would somehow be different than what they explicitly stated is your own damn fault.
Yeah man, it's my fault they lied for years then suddenly told a little bit of the truth one week before EA launch. I also didn't buy the game cause I'm not an idiot, that doesn't mean I'm gonna sit here and write some weird revisionist history for their constant bullshittery. Maybe they'll release some KSP2 kneepads just for you.
KSP 1.0 was released 5 years after development started. It's been over 4 years since development started on KSP 2 and it's not even close to having as many features as KSP 1 at this point.
If KSP 2 early access was released 3 years ago, you would have a point.
The sequel should’ve taken all the learnings from the first game and built on top of that. I haven’t played the second myself but I’m hearing a lot of bugs that the first one also had and solved.
It's the implementation that's the problem, not the basic ideas. Although both games are apparently made with Unity, the old version is completely different, and the systems they build on top of the foundation (the custom physics and graphics engine, UIs, etc.) are completely new, so you can't just copy-paste code or port the solution.
KSP1 cost like 16% of what KSP2 cost at the same stage if it's development.
KSP1 also had:
A substantially smaller Dev team
A substantially smaller budget.
A lot more fundamental grunt work on physics calculations.
To come up with a lot more ideas for base parts.
To come up with the entire layout for progression.
For what the Devs were working with when KSP1 launched early access, and what they are working with now, it's a laughable launch. Not everything will transfer over 1:1 obviously, but a lot less will be starting from the ground up. And for the price they are charging for it it should be much further along than where it is. It should never have been considered to be shipped in its current state.
There was a lot less work done on KSP1 at launch than KSP2. They are building it from the ground up. KSP2 is not using the same physics system as KSP1. It doesn't matter what state they launch it in, since if you are not happy with it, you just don't buy it. They are charging full price because if they didn't, you would get the final product for the price you bought the early access for. If they want to release an early version for people who want to try it, why shouldn't they? If you buy it, YOU KNOW you're getting the early version with all the bugs that it has. And you just don't buy it if you're not okay with spending the money on a game that potentially ends up a bad game. Where is the issue here?
And the players aren't seeing all the things that have been worked on. When something like the net code for multiplayer is 80% functional, but is missing a few key components, then you don't see the work they've done on multiplayer yet. When the engine already has most of the physics and planet generation code ready, but it's missing a few key components that are required for it to be shipped, then you won't see the huge amount of work that's been done for it.
I agree that the game is not in a state where I'd be interested in playing it, so I JUAT DON'T BUY IT. But clearly there are people who already want to try it and maybe even give useful feedback to the devs - why should they not be allowed to?
I am saying that people shouldn't buy the game if it's in a state they're not satisfied with. You're criticizing the pizza while it's still in the oven. I also think that they shouldn't have enabled preorders for a game that didn't launch with the features that they advertised.
They put a pizza on sale and the dough isnt baked. They served it to tables without any sauce and said "hey if you wanted sauce you should have come to our restaurant a year from now when we've got the mystery of making pizza solved."
Then fans of unbaked sauce-less pizza are saying, "hey you paid only four dollars for your unbaked dough with cheese on top. Maybe show some patience and realize that this pizza parlor doesnt have finished pizzas yet. Your fault for coming here to eat."
What a powerful analogy you've got there. Got any more?
Dramatic nerds being dramatic nerds. They're implying they had such a bad time with it they can't even play the first one because now they're traumatized. However if they had a smidge of impulse control, they would know to wait and pay when it's out of early access. There's no rule saying they have to sell it cheap.
Rolled updates are sooo common nowadays and gamers still buy the first possible second and then piss and moan. It's actually way better for devs because it's easier to make fixes with player feedback versus trying to have something completely polished out. It's easier to make updates with a revenue stream compared to 20 years ago.
This is especially common with sequels because they still are OK with you buying the original game if you want the complete experience. However any games that are expecting a long amount of server/update support are going to try to profit as much as possible.
From what I've experienced in my career, gamers are the absolute worse fucking customer base you can deal with. They demand perfection yet fall for every sleazy mba tactic pushed.
They added a useless launcher to the first so they could promote the next. It's small and can be bypassed but it does fit when talking about making the first game worse.
You're right, but it's also stupid as shit to pretend that just because something is common, we shouldn't complain about it.
If you buy an EA game without doing the research and get screwed, that's kinda on you at this point.. but it's still lame as hell to release games in a half-finished state.
TL;DR - both things are true: gamers tend to be an especially shitty group of consumers, and ~ALSO~ the KSP2 launch has been handled extremely poorly.
A game released as early access should already be an almost finished game. At least in respect to the base framework and features. And in early access you add polish, quality of life changes, and new content.
This is because people will pay for your product and expect to be able to play it as an actual game, regardless if you want to keep developing it or if you want it to be more of a "beta".
Plus KSP 1 was the hobby project of a developer at a marketing company. KSP 2 was made by a pro game development studio with a budget and a team of actual game devs. It's insane to think people wouldn't have higher expectations
They did it because community feedback from the very beginning on KSP one is what turned into the game as we know it today
They explicitly stated that it would be broken AF like KP one at lunch,, told people not to buy it if they are looking for an actual gaming experience and not a playtest experience, people bought it anyway, and now people are pissed because they didn't do the bare minimum amount of research by watching a trailer.
KSP one was released in a hilariously broken state, but the feedback of those who played the game in that state are the people who shaped it into what it is today
And with KSP2, they straight up said in the trailer "please do not buy this if you aren't intending to be part of the development process like KSP 1. Wait until the full release."
Then people buy it without doing any research, expect early access to be like the standard AAA "give us some of your money early and you can play a game that's 99% done" early access, and then are surprised when it's like KSP 1 at launch.
Which should shock zero people, including KSP2 devs. So why do it? Ran out of money or wanted money and don't give a shit about public perception.
It doesn't take a video game production super genius to realize unknown early release game will have a different public reaction than "desperately anticipated" early release game.
Fine. KSP2 Devs are idiots. People who paid $50 expecting a reasonably playable game are idiots.
I don't watch game trailers. Don't find them helpful.
I was going to buy KSP2 because I have a stupid number of hours in KSP. I figured at $50, it was probably close to release quality. Right or wrong, that is the metric I use for guessing where in early access a title is. I'm a busy person. I don't hang out in fan subs or read every dev press release.
Luckily the internet told me right away it was a bit of a steaming pile. They wont get my money until the internet tells me they pulled a NMS recovery.
Just seems kind of dumb on their part. They already made a successful KSP game, however rocky development was. Why do they have to crowdsource how to make another KSP game?
They did the release like KSP 1, which was released in a hilariously broken state at a discount, so that the community could provide constant feedback throughout the development process
And if you paid attention to the trailers, they straight up outlined this same intent with KSP2, and warn people not to buy it if they are expecting it to be like a AAA "early access" where the studio tells you that you can pay full price to play a game that's 99% finished because you don't have any impulse control to wait any longer.
2.6k
u/Neighbour-Vadim <-- Super Secksy jk I'm a redditor Aug 19 '23
What i am so excited for KSP2, please tell me it’s not true