Nate Simpson: KSP 2 will be supported over a decade!

[Lulzwhat]

Anthem: Hold my beer

[Dr.Bourinos]

Originally posted by Crescens:

Originally posted by Dr.Bourinos:

Lol.
Ship it and bag it.

That was deliberate, especially when I used

Originally posted by Crescens:

Yes, the terminology is confusing and "release" was being used in multiple contexts there.

Terminology sucks, I know.

Nope, but mental gymnastics do.

Is KSP 2 0.1.0 NOT released?
No, it is released.
So... It is released.

Is it the last version of KSP2 to be released?
Probably not.

Does it matter?
Also no.

[Crescens]

Originally posted by Dr.Bourinos:

Originally posted by Crescens:

That was deliberate, especially when I used



Terminology sucks, I know.

Nope, but mental gymnastics do.

Is KSP 2 0.1.0 NOT released?
No, it is released.
So... It is released.

Is it the last version of KSP2 to be released?
Probably not.

Does it matter?
Also no.

I am trying to figure out here if you are knowledgeable enough with software development and are just being wilfully ignorant, or if you do not know anything about software development and just want to try to incite some kind of response.
Well, that is irrelevant, but I would urge you to read up on the software development release cycle since your lack of knowledge is really showing here.

[Lulzwhat]

Originally posted by Crescens:

Originally posted by HashSlingingSlasher:

The game launched for 50 dollars, its so annoying seeing people saying "it didn't release, its early access!" Your playing it right? so it released, my god people what is wrong with you!

No, it is the simple fact that some of us are able to distinguish and navigate the confusing terminology.
To make it easier to understand, let's frame this in terms of the original KSP. 0.7.3 was the first public release of the game. However, it was not considered the release of the game. It wasn't until version 1.0 on 27th April 2015 that the game was considered released.
This situation is the same with KSP2. 0.1.0 was when the game was first publicly released, and it was released under the Early Access moniker. But it will keep this moniker and be classed as "prerelease" until the developers declare it to be of release quality.
Yes, the terminology is confusing and "release" was being used in multiple contexts there.

Then let me remind you that KSP 1 jumped from 0.23 right to 0.9 or so version.
So they can call it "release" even tomorrow. It's just a formality.
But players define thing like "beta", "early access", "release" by content. Not by version number or status like "Early access".

"Early access" definition become so rubber so devs just use it to avoid any claims. Just say "It's early access" and you safe.

[LoSBoL]

Ok, ok guys, we know, you've even got OP derailing his very own thread.

Topic was about Nate Simpson saying they want a decade of development. :)

[Crescens]

Originally posted by Lulzwhat:

Originally posted by Crescens:

No, it is the simple fact that some of us are able to distinguish and navigate the confusing terminology.
To make it easier to understand, let's frame this in terms of the original KSP. 0.7.3 was the first public release of the game. However, it was not considered the release of the game. It wasn't until version 1.0 on 27th April 2015 that the game was considered released.
This situation is the same with KSP2. 0.1.0 was when the game was first publicly released, and it was released under the Early Access moniker. But it will keep this moniker and be classed as "prerelease" until the developers declare it to be of release quality.
Yes, the terminology is confusing and "release" was being used in multiple contexts there.

Then let me remind you that KSP 1 jumped from 0.23 right to 0.9 or so version.
So they can call it "release" even tomorrow. It's just a formality.
But players define thing like "beta", "early access", "release" by content. Not by version number or status like "Early access".

"Early access" definition become so rubber so devs just use it to avoid any claims. Just say "It's early access" and you safe.

First, things like "Beta", "Early Access" and "Release" are defined by other things. Steam was what defined "Early Access". IIRC, IBM is what originally defined the terms "Alpha" and "Beta" to indicate progress and quality of their software. Finally, "Release" is a generally used term to indicate "Release to Manufacturing" or "General Availability".
Second, the term does indicate intent. For example, if we take a look at Windows 11 22H2 releases. These have the version numbers of 10.0.22621.xxx. The very first version of this released was 10.0.22621.1. This was around last June or July, and it was considered prerelease. It wasn't until last September, where it was around build 10.0.22621.600 that it was "Released to Manufacturing", aka "Released". At this point, Microsoft had decided that this version of Windows 11 was considered stable enough to allow anyone to use. So, does that mean that any version greater than this is considered released? No, currently 10.0.22621.1470 is a preview build, so it is there for end users to bug test if they want to.
Finally, yes, version numbers are arbitrary, but they are useful as monikers. As you saw, it allowed to identify a specific build of the software.

[PopinFRESH]

Originally posted by Crescens:

...Finally, "Release" is a generally used term to indicate "Release to Manufacturing" or "General Availability"....

Sure seems to be generally available to me

[Crescens]

Originally posted by PopinFRESH:

Originally posted by Crescens:

...Finally, "Release" is a generally used term to indicate "Release to Manufacturing" or "General Availability"....

Sure seems to be generally available to me

It isn't, the fact that it has the "Early Access" moniker means that it isn't "Generally Available".
This is one of those industry standard terms where it means production ready. Again, going back to the Windows 11 example, the developer channel for Windows 11 is currently on version 10.0.23419.1000. Anyone on Windows 11 with a valid license can go into the system settings and enrol in the Windows Insider Programme and get this build. But it is not classed as being at "General Availability".
Again, I know it can be confusing. This terminology came about prior to the internet making things like public software testing feasible on this scale. At this point in time, KSP2 is squarely in the "Alpha" phase because it is not feature complete. But again, take this as a statement as where KSP2 itself is in development, and not any indicator as to my views on whether it should have been released in this state.

[Burntout]

https://youtu.be/uQvZuSQVXGc

Long video, but the general gist is that there are some common indicators for failed projects.

If you were so inclined, this video may raise an eye-brow as to some parallels with these alleged game development scams.

Not to say KSP2 is a scam, but I'm saying it sure as heck looks like one.

[vandalism]

Well they have nowhere to go except up. I hope the 500 people playing this game and the 50 watching on twitch enjoy all of the updates that they get.

[Eldi]

Originally posted by LoSBoL:

Ok, ok guys, we know, you've even got OP derailing his very own thread.

Topic was about Nate Simpson saying they want a decade of development. :)

'want'

Everyone cross your fingers.

[Diemex]

Originally posted by Eldi:

Originally posted by LoSBoL:

Ok, ok guys, we know, you've even got OP derailing his very own thread.

Topic was about Nate Simpson saying they want a decade of development. :)

'want'

Everyone cross your fingers.

'need'

They are gonna need that 10 years to fix this mess.

[LoSBoL]

Originally posted by Eldi:

Originally posted by LoSBoL:

Ok, ok guys, we know, you've even got OP derailing his very own thread.

Topic was about Nate Simpson saying they want a decade of development. :)

'want'

Everyone cross your fingers.

Getting the game expanded is not just in the players interest, they want to sell the game and it will, if they get it right, so they want to get it right like they also did with KSP expanding the market they can sell it to.

I'm not worried at all, because of Money. They bought the IP for that.

[LoSBoL]

Originally posted by Burntout:

https://youtu.be/uQvZuSQVXGc

Long video, but the general gist is that there are some common indicators for failed projects.

If you were so inclined, this video may raise an eye-brow as to some parallels with these alleged game development scams.

Not to say KSP2 is a scam, but I'm saying it sure as heck looks like one.

Jeeze, that is grasping for straws to get some confirmation bias.

[Eldi]

Originally posted by LoSBoL:

Originally posted by Eldi:

'want'

Everyone cross your fingers.

Getting the game expanded is not just in the players interest, they want to sell the game and it will, if they get it right, so they want to get it right like they also did with KSP expanding the market they can sell it to.

I'm not worried at all, because of Money. They bought the IP for that.

I'm slightly worried, becuase of the money.

Let's hope it's not added to the list of canned projects.
If your response is 'but they are invested' please go read up on previous cancelled projects.

[LoSBoL]

Originally posted by Eldi:

Originally posted by LoSBoL:

Getting the game expanded is not just in the players interest, they want to sell the game and it will, if they get it right, so they want to get it right like they also did with KSP expanding the market they can sell it to.

I'm not worried at all, because of Money. They bought the IP for that.

I'm slightly worried, becuase of the money.

Let's hope it's not added to the list of canned projects.
If your response is 'but they are invested' please go read up on previous cancelled projects.

I'm looking at the project T2 took on when they bought the Kerbal IP, and what came from that, how they handled that and where the highly praised KSP got in the end.