Who really cares if the early access is on February instead of January?

It’s a real question. This silence bothers me. I feel like the devs might be so angry (to not reach) and I would like to collect people feelings in this thread to show them that we are the best community of the world : we are here for best and bad moments :wink:

Don’t worry !!


We appreciate it, we know you’re anxious and we’re doing everything we can to release it asap!


Of course I would be happier playing the dev version already. :grin:
Since I was lucky to have played it during the kickstarter campaign, the wait to play this awesome thing again is even worse, because I know how good it is.
Be lucky you don’t know what you are missing. :smile::stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:
I think with more regular updates and infos we can endure a few more weeks. And it’s not like they aren’t working very hard, I am sure the community is understanding.


Coming from over promising, under-delivering, never on time Star Citizen, it is a concern. But this is an entirely different game with entirely different DEVs so we should give them a chance, especially during their transition. Still, if it is put off for yet another month at the end of February, I might not be so understanding and would have to post unhappy faces all over the forums.


From a selfish point of view I don’t care about waiting an extra month. I’ve already waited over ten years so this is nothing new. In 2005 the game was two years away from delivery by the estimate of the single developer at that time. It has stayed fairly consistently two years away ever since.

Delays are expected and it isn’t worth believing estimated delivery dates. Supporting this project is an act of faith that something great might come out of it at an undetermined point in the future.


Its ok.
Just keep working guys i believe in you.


It is a bit disapointing even for us as we now have funding, we really wanted hard to be able to keep our deadlines. Of course that was assuming smooth sailing and everybody working as expected starting from december, which hasn’t been the case. It’s taking a lot more time to ramp up than we thought.


Considering how long I’ve been following this project already, the current ~month long delay works out at under 1% additional wait. :wink:

*(OH! you might want to update the kickstarter with info too, a lot of people who weren’t following the project before the kickstarter went live get their info on the game exclusively from there.)


As much as I am looking forward to playing, I’d rather wait an extra month than you guys working yourselves too hard to get it out on time. And I say this as our current project at work is pushed back once again!
Also, just got myself a new graphics card :slight_smile:


I’m a little disappoint because my schedule later this year is 90% underway (six months of underway time between late February and late October), followed by me very likely moving overseas and all the fun that will bring.

Something prior to now would have also been nice, as losing an entire third of your team should make it obvious that you won’t be making your deadline.

However, I backed at planet naming levels knowing that delays and setbacks were inevitable, and I’m not upset by the news.


Whilst it’s a shame we’re not going to get access to the prototype sooner, it doesn’t bother me too much, providing the devs keep communicating and being honest about delays.

Ideally, INS should be issuing updates at least every month, even if the update is “there isn’t really any update”. As backers I think we have a right to be kept informed of development, and should INS stop talking, that should be the point where we worry and press for information.


I really don’t care about a month or a few of extra waiting, will probably be here years from now.

However, I do care about INS giving dates that they continuously miss; and no the solution is not to not give dates, solution is to give a date and deliver. Maybe a few dozen of us fanatics on these forums don’t care about such things, but the public that has no attachment to this project might care, the public that we’ll need to keep the servers populated. Sure missing one date is fine, everyone misses a date, what most guys don’t know is that INS has been doing this for years, I just hope it doesn’t continue.


Not that I disagree, your opinion is perfectly valid, but the real question is: how could have it been avoided in the first place ? It’s not like we knew in advance people would be leaving or that ramping up would take so long. We needed to announce a date in the KS campaign, there was no way to avoid it, so “not giving dates” just wasn’t an option.


You should read my post again, “not giving dates” is bad, “giving dates and delivering” is good, solution to your bad history of missing deadlines is to give deadlines and make the deadlines, not to never give deadlines. Set a liberal date if you must and hit it is what I was talking about.

Also, how about some transparency, what the hell are you two guys coding for a month at 20 hour work days, that the initial “prototype” release needs? I mean, a damn text file on a server with some usernames and password hashes would have been enough for you to release the prototype within less than a week of starting that implementation. I just hope the marketplace doesn’t need to be implemented before you can release the prototype.

Anyway, sorry for that @inovaeflavien, just had to air that out. :confused:

Integrating authentication, account management, creating a patcher and bug-report system. Possibly an integrated crash reporting system too. Was all pretty openly stated back in December.

*Server browser and database merger of the kickstarter backer list too, but that was stated a bit later.


It’s not needed at the level they are coding it at for the first release, let me say what I said a few times on discord.

authentication - text file on server with usernames and password hashes
patching - download the whole thing (not many users and not many care)
bug reporting - use the forums

Would anybody here complain if that was released two weeks ago?


Well maybe they could do that… but do you and everyone else here absolutely promise not to complain about the lack of updates for a couple months when those systems get implemented later on AND whatever has to be re-written from being dependent on a bunch of temporary solutions? :stuck_out_tongue:

We’d probably be too busy playing the prototype to care :stuck_out_tongue:

But I have to agree with cybercritic (why the hell can’t I @ him Discourse?).

The first release for “Dev Access” could and probably should be the dirtiest possible cut to get some early feedback on the state of the game. Arguably there’s not much to be gained from that as some of that would have come out of the Kickstarter players’ feedback.

However, it doesn’t make sense to make a fully featured authentication system, patching system, etc. if you’re just going to be using Steamworks in 6-12 months time. You shouldn’t overengineer code you know you’re going to throw away.


I think you’re at a great shape. Delays are a thing the gamer/customer doesn’t want to see, but need to learn that its the most common thingy in the games industry. That’s why many publisher driven games are coming out at the correct date and are probably full of bugs. We have the great opportunity to “stretch” these dates a little, for a better sleep on both sides, having a good experience instead of endless launcher crashes or unexpected blockers/mem holes in the last second before the first build rolls out. Of course these dates should not be stretched into endless space.

I guess the user authentication is probably something that is not replaced later.
I quick and dirty release of the prototype would probably have made us happy, but I think there is no point in arguing now since the planned solution isn’t that far away. (hopefully)