Talk:Kerbal Space Program 2

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Screen-Shot-2019-08-19-at-2.46.39-PM.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Released

As far as I know, this game is currently only available in early access and very incomplete. Therefore it should not be said in the article that it is released. We should wait for the official, full release. Gial Ackbar (talk) 14:22, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Look at other early access games. They don't use future tense. Gamowebbed (talk) 14:26, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

For Science! Update

Should we mention the just-announced 0.2 update "For Science!"ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgDqXIriSf4&pp=ygURa3NwMiBmb3Igc2NpZW5jZSE%3D</ref> , due to release in December.<BlueBaritone21 (talk) 21:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

No. It's just a regular incremental release for a piece of unfinished software, it's not a new expansion/DLC/other it's just a continuation of standard development. Canterbury Tail talk

Potential end of development

Resolved

 – Reliable sources cited on this topic in article

Take-Two has likely closed Intercept Games. It remains to be seen if this is the end of KSP2, and no news sources have published on this yet, nor has there been an official announcement beyond the legally-required WARN notification, but I figured it prudent to add a few lines regarding this development. They should be updated as soon as possible to use actual news sources. LunarRegolith (talk) 07:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@LunarRegolith I've removed this for now as the text you added was original research based on primary sources. None of the sources you provided properly verify the text you added. Until we actually have a proper source saying that the studio has closed it should not be in the article. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 10:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Noted, will update when an official statement comes out. LunarRegolith (talk) 11:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

when can we change it to "was a game being developed by"?

The current article "is a game" and past tense "developed by" both suggest this game was finished, which it never was. This is misleading to readers. 2600:1700:8980:54F0:C1A8:603A:A41A:3E67 (talk) 05:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

When we have a reliable source that it is no longer under development. Currentyl the articel states "Take-Two announced it would shut down Intercept Games but continue to update Kerbal Space Program 2 under the Private Division label.", so it still seems be be active. Gial Ackbar (talk) 15:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of development state, KSP2 should be described using present tense; to my knowledge, the only time Wikipedia uses past tense for video games is when the servers have been shut down and there is no single player version- KSP (the original) still uses "is," and so do games like Halo 3 that have had their servers shut down, but still have a single player mode. LunarRegolith (talk) 15:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Steam review-bomb

The bottom of the 'Reception' section directly links to Steam as a source for an event happening 'on' Steam. This seems like a primary source and / or original research to me.

I think the main counter-argument is that Steam acts as a review aggregator, even though it only aggregates reviews posted to it's own platform.

Is there a historical precedent for citing Steam as a source for Steam reviews? Or should the source be removed? 130.195.253.26 (talk) 21:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not a ideal situation by any means; the article I cited re: the review bombing is out of date, as the rating fell further since. It still hasn't been updated so I doubt that it will be. I couldn't find any precedent for citing a source like this. I would argue that in this case Steam acts as a review aggregator, and the linking to the article as well means that this is not WP:OR. But I'm still pretty new here, so I could be wrong. LunarRegolith (talk) 15:29, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

At this point I think the "review bombed" language needs to be removed. I don't see anything indicating its current reviews are the result of a concentrated bombing effort. 71.245.173.66 (talk) 16:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Involvement of Scott Manley

At the beginning of Development section the involvement of Scott Manley is implied, but the source cited does not actually mention him, nor do the other sources in the paragraph. In a recent video by Shadowstone covering the development it is implied that he explicitly was not asked for input during development(Scott appeared in the relevant passage and did not contradict the statement). From a short google search about his involvement I found nothing more substantial than a developer interview and Scott's social media presence, none of which would constitute consultation with him as an expert. Iboter (talk) 22:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@Iboter: Consider reading WP:PROVEIT. It effectively states that any material lacking a citation that directly supports it may be removed, and also to not leave such material in an article if it might damage the reputation of someone. Consider removing the part not directly stated by the source or you can find one yourself. Also note to only add text that is directly stated by the source and not implied. Apenguinlover(🐧!) 21:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)