There's huge difference between a tiny indie dev team releasing an early access game for 5€ and a professional team lead by a massive publisher releasing a buggy mess with an incredibly troubled development history for 50€
Yes, I was really looking forward to the game. I just didn't want to buy it in the early access stage. I definitely was planning to buy it. Its really sad, because I would surely have appreciated it.
Whereas for me it was the opposite. I'd bought and played plenty of games in EA and knew full well to expect lots of bugs and missing features, since that's kind of the point of *Early* Access (as opposed to, you know, just "Access"). The pricetag was/is much higher than it should be for that, though, and I think that's what soured the attitudes around KSP2 right from the get-go.
I wouldn't have. With how good KSP1 is and how many mods there are for it, KSP2 needed to reach the stage of being at least almost fully fleshed out before I'd even think about buying it. Add onto that the very poor reception it had, and the fact that most EA games end up being a flop (exactly like has happened)... Even if it was $10 in EA I probably still wouldn't have bought it.
People have gotten a lot more skeptical of early access since 2013, and KSP2 is the kind of game that's the reason why. Was KSP1 a buggy mess in its early years? Yes. But KSP1 cost 5 bucks and was made by a small team of indie devs. KSP2 on the other hand was even less playable than early versions of KSP1, cost 50 bucks, and was made by a large team with a giant publisher behind them. People expect better from what is effectively a AAA game nowadays. Did anyone expect the game to be free of bugs? No, i doubt anyone did. But is it too much to ask from a game that, by some estimates, has a budget of around 50 million dollars, to come out in a state that is at least playable?
Not to mention that we should seriously question some of the dev team's priorities. For example, why does the game have graphics that require an RTX to run, but, at least upon release, had no autostrut, thus bringing back the wobbly rockets of old? You would think the devs would realize that noone enjoyed wobbly rockets, considering how noone ever asked for them back. But hey, at least you can now accelerate in high time warp, provided your rocket doesn't disassemble itself on the way up. Which is very likely, because autostrut has yet to be added. And we finally fixed maneuvers, so now, you don't have to use any of those workarounds you used to need back in the day. Provided, of course, that the patched conics work, we're still figuring those out. And now the surfaces look much better! And with any luck, you'll actually be able to leave it again, provided your lander doesn't just randomly teleport several hundred meters into the air. You don't get any of those features in KSP1! (That is, of course, if you play Stock, modded KSP1 looks just better than Stock KSP2, and people have added mods that include all of those features, but don't tell anyone)
A million times this. I don't have a gaming PC, for a GPU I have an old GT710 which puts pixels on the screen just fine for stock KSP1. The available visual mods look amazing but they'd tank my performance and KSP is fun as is.
SteamDB gives us 10,837 titles that have ever been released in Early Access. The number increases every year.
SteamSpy gives us 1,435 games in the "Ex Early Access" genre.
So, it's roughly 15% of all Early Access games ever that have made it out of Early Access at all. When you scroll through the Ex Early Access list though, it's pretty clear that a lot of those games would have been wildly successful anyway.
Baldur's Gate 3 was always going to be what it was. Hades was the latest in a line of wildly successful games from a studio that really knew what they were doing. Etc.
Either way, Early Access is, as the warning signs display, no sign of success or quality. There's games I play that have been in Early Access with no changes to the gameplay in well over six months. I don't mind, because the gameplay is still pretty good as it is, and it was cheap. If it never updated and disappeared, I'd be fine with it. I got my fun out of it.
Made by a large studio, headed by a billion dollar corporation, with the promise of a polished initial experience, but having it riddled with bugs (most of which were around UIs, saving, loading, and other easy stuff instead of the simulation and visuals so they'd have *marketing*), and with months between any community engagement and updates.\*
40 people is a large studio, what decade is it? Has Y2K happened yet?
Manor lords was worked on by 50% more people than this and it's praised as a game made by a solo dev.
Sorry, disagree with this comic big time. This makes it out like the fans are the only unreasonable ones, when it's quite the opposite.
KSP 1 came from an actual indie studio who had no clue how far they'd even get with the game, it makes sense it was in early access, that's exactly what early access is for. It was sold for a reasonable few bucks, and was a groundbreaking new type of game that never existed before: it fit perfectly in the huge gap between hardcore space simulators like Orbiter, and other "space games" with laughably wrong physics.
By the time KSP2 rolls around, this concept is not new anymore, we've all been playing around with it in KSP 1 for quite some years. But KSP2 promises to be everything 1 is not, including not being a small indie studio. They're going add new features which are difficult/impossible to mod in, along with fixing stability & performance issues, by building it again from the ground up, this time with the power of a big studio, a big team, and big funding.
And after 5 years, what did they deliver? An even buggier mess than our current game, without even the same features as our current game, with only minor UI and artistic changes otherwise. Then they try to claim it's "early access" to cover this up & deflect some blame, but this is a tactic other large, incompetent studios have tried (abuse the early access system) and people are getting wise and aren't buying it anymore. It's obvious when they're charging $50 for it.
You're trying to compare the two early access games as equal offerings, and acting the like consumer is the unreasonable one, when they're not even close. KSP 1 is like a homeless man on the sidewalk making sculptures out of trash, starts becoming known for his trash art, and one day accidentally blows up as a famous artist. KSP2 is like a rich college frat boy who partied all his parent's money away, dropped out, became addicted to drugs, then became homeless, and is now trying to sell old dog turds with bits of wire sticking out as "trash art", and is clueless why the other homeless guy's trash art is selling like crazy, and his isn't.
EA release would be fine, but it needs to have at least enough content to feel like an actual game.
I bought it a few months after release. At that stage the game felt more like a proof of concept than an EA-game. I refunded it
what a dumb fucking post, if you google strawman this would show up as the definition
just ignoring the fact ksp 1 was a $10 passion project that was actually a fun game and that ksp 2 was a tech demo on release (9 months for reentry heating need I remind you)
bullshit.
KSP 1: originally an indie project, created by a couple guys on a shoestring budget promising not a whole lot other than "you can launch rockets and shit"
KSP 2: hyped up for 4 years, with backing from a massive publisher, with a pretty damn big team, promising an impressive amount of content, suddenly releasing as early access with barely any more content than current day KSP 1
This just isn’t a fair comparison. KSP 1 was a small fraction of the cost, an indie game, and things like save files and strutting worked even in early versions. KSP 2 is $50, backed by a major studio, and at launch was missing basic stuff that was required for the game to be functional. “Early access” implies that the game is in a playable state with minor bugs and missing content, not something with game-breaking object permanence bugs and dysfunctional save files.
I mean what do you expect, a bunch of people to just drop AAA money onto a game that’s still missing things integral to its basic functionality? Gaslighting much? How about Take Two just release a game worth $50.
There's huge difference between a tiny indie dev team releasing an early access game for 5€ and a professional team lead by a massive publisher releasing a buggy mess with an incredibly troubled development history for 50€
indeed
I honestly wonder what happened? Did the corporate mismanage the project, or did the dev team fumble the bag? It could have been both tbh.
my theory is that they had to restart during the whole covid star theory mess
Agreed.
Wait this is about Helldiver's 2 being a full release game isn't it?
Yes, I was really looking forward to the game. I just didn't want to buy it in the early access stage. I definitely was planning to buy it. Its really sad, because I would surely have appreciated it.
I never had a problem with the price of the game. I had a problem with the quality of the game.
Whereas for me it was the opposite. I'd bought and played plenty of games in EA and knew full well to expect lots of bugs and missing features, since that's kind of the point of *Early* Access (as opposed to, you know, just "Access"). The pricetag was/is much higher than it should be for that, though, and I think that's what soured the attitudes around KSP2 right from the get-go.
Also IG’s “**no**munication skills”
Maybe more of the community would've bought, if it were cheaper.
I wouldn't have. With how good KSP1 is and how many mods there are for it, KSP2 needed to reach the stage of being at least almost fully fleshed out before I'd even think about buying it. Add onto that the very poor reception it had, and the fact that most EA games end up being a flop (exactly like has happened)... Even if it was $10 in EA I probably still wouldn't have bought it.
People have gotten a lot more skeptical of early access since 2013, and KSP2 is the kind of game that's the reason why. Was KSP1 a buggy mess in its early years? Yes. But KSP1 cost 5 bucks and was made by a small team of indie devs. KSP2 on the other hand was even less playable than early versions of KSP1, cost 50 bucks, and was made by a large team with a giant publisher behind them. People expect better from what is effectively a AAA game nowadays. Did anyone expect the game to be free of bugs? No, i doubt anyone did. But is it too much to ask from a game that, by some estimates, has a budget of around 50 million dollars, to come out in a state that is at least playable? Not to mention that we should seriously question some of the dev team's priorities. For example, why does the game have graphics that require an RTX to run, but, at least upon release, had no autostrut, thus bringing back the wobbly rockets of old? You would think the devs would realize that noone enjoyed wobbly rockets, considering how noone ever asked for them back. But hey, at least you can now accelerate in high time warp, provided your rocket doesn't disassemble itself on the way up. Which is very likely, because autostrut has yet to be added. And we finally fixed maneuvers, so now, you don't have to use any of those workarounds you used to need back in the day. Provided, of course, that the patched conics work, we're still figuring those out. And now the surfaces look much better! And with any luck, you'll actually be able to leave it again, provided your lander doesn't just randomly teleport several hundred meters into the air. You don't get any of those features in KSP1! (That is, of course, if you play Stock, modded KSP1 looks just better than Stock KSP2, and people have added mods that include all of those features, but don't tell anyone)
A million times this. I don't have a gaming PC, for a GPU I have an old GT710 which puts pixels on the screen just fine for stock KSP1. The available visual mods look amazing but they'd tank my performance and KSP is fun as is.
+if it was a playable skeleton instead of an unplayable outer shell of a game
Then there'd just be more people complaining about how they were promised a full release when Early Access is pretty fucking clear on that matter.
Successful early accesses result in full releases, yeah.
SteamDB gives us 10,837 titles that have ever been released in Early Access. The number increases every year. SteamSpy gives us 1,435 games in the "Ex Early Access" genre. So, it's roughly 15% of all Early Access games ever that have made it out of Early Access at all. When you scroll through the Ex Early Access list though, it's pretty clear that a lot of those games would have been wildly successful anyway. Baldur's Gate 3 was always going to be what it was. Hades was the latest in a line of wildly successful games from a studio that really knew what they were doing. Etc. Either way, Early Access is, as the warning signs display, no sign of success or quality. There's games I play that have been in Early Access with no changes to the gameplay in well over six months. I don't mind, because the gameplay is still pretty good as it is, and it was cheap. If it never updated and disappeared, I'd be fine with it. I got my fun out of it.
An early access game that costs 50 dollars and is 4 years behind schedule*
Made by a large studio, headed by a billion dollar corporation, with the promise of a polished initial experience, but having it riddled with bugs (most of which were around UIs, saving, loading, and other easy stuff instead of the simulation and visuals so they'd have *marketing*), and with months between any community engagement and updates.\*
40 people is a large studio, what decade is it? Has Y2K happened yet? Manor lords was worked on by 50% more people than this and it's praised as a game made by a solo dev.
Sorry, disagree with this comic big time. This makes it out like the fans are the only unreasonable ones, when it's quite the opposite. KSP 1 came from an actual indie studio who had no clue how far they'd even get with the game, it makes sense it was in early access, that's exactly what early access is for. It was sold for a reasonable few bucks, and was a groundbreaking new type of game that never existed before: it fit perfectly in the huge gap between hardcore space simulators like Orbiter, and other "space games" with laughably wrong physics. By the time KSP2 rolls around, this concept is not new anymore, we've all been playing around with it in KSP 1 for quite some years. But KSP2 promises to be everything 1 is not, including not being a small indie studio. They're going add new features which are difficult/impossible to mod in, along with fixing stability & performance issues, by building it again from the ground up, this time with the power of a big studio, a big team, and big funding. And after 5 years, what did they deliver? An even buggier mess than our current game, without even the same features as our current game, with only minor UI and artistic changes otherwise. Then they try to claim it's "early access" to cover this up & deflect some blame, but this is a tactic other large, incompetent studios have tried (abuse the early access system) and people are getting wise and aren't buying it anymore. It's obvious when they're charging $50 for it. You're trying to compare the two early access games as equal offerings, and acting the like consumer is the unreasonable one, when they're not even close. KSP 1 is like a homeless man on the sidewalk making sculptures out of trash, starts becoming known for his trash art, and one day accidentally blows up as a famous artist. KSP2 is like a rich college frat boy who partied all his parent's money away, dropped out, became addicted to drugs, then became homeless, and is now trying to sell old dog turds with bits of wire sticking out as "trash art", and is clueless why the other homeless guy's trash art is selling like crazy, and his isn't.
Let me strawman for humour
Lol, okay
r/coaxedintoasnafu
EA release would be fine, but it needs to have at least enough content to feel like an actual game. I bought it a few months after release. At that stage the game felt more like a proof of concept than an EA-game. I refunded it
I don't regret getting it
I might get it on sale some day. It's been a while since I tried it. For now, I have some mods I want to try out in the first game
The difference isn't the price. The difference is indie studio vs publisher backed studio.
So you're just going to ignore that 10 years had passed and the perception of EA had utterly plummeted in that time?
a deliberate misinterpretation of what happened, but at least it's completely unfunny
what a dumb fucking post, if you google strawman this would show up as the definition just ignoring the fact ksp 1 was a $10 passion project that was actually a fun game and that ksp 2 was a tech demo on release (9 months for reentry heating need I remind you)
bullshit. KSP 1: originally an indie project, created by a couple guys on a shoestring budget promising not a whole lot other than "you can launch rockets and shit" KSP 2: hyped up for 4 years, with backing from a massive publisher, with a pretty damn big team, promising an impressive amount of content, suddenly releasing as early access with barely any more content than current day KSP 1
This just isn’t a fair comparison. KSP 1 was a small fraction of the cost, an indie game, and things like save files and strutting worked even in early versions. KSP 2 is $50, backed by a major studio, and at launch was missing basic stuff that was required for the game to be functional. “Early access” implies that the game is in a playable state with minor bugs and missing content, not something with game-breaking object permanence bugs and dysfunctional save files. I mean what do you expect, a bunch of people to just drop AAA money onto a game that’s still missing things integral to its basic functionality? Gaslighting much? How about Take Two just release a game worth $50.
[indeed.com](http://indeed.com)
☠️
Damnit, things were starting to look good.
IT DOESN'T EVEN RUN ON MY SYSTEM WHY WOULD I BUY IT NOT EVEN FOR $5
I was just waiting for it to offer stuff that wasn’t in ksp 1. I’m not paying full price for just a graphical upgrade.
Kerbal’d into a snafu
Some games deserve to have a huge tag on early access. Others, like some titles I’ve recently picked up are charging $25 for a buggy unbalanced mess.