Kerbal Space Program 2 (KSP2) is an unfinished space flight simulator, planned as the sequel to the 2015 Kerbal Space Program (KSP1) video game. KSP2, published by Private Division under Take Two Entertainment, was under construction for about 7 years, exceeding the initial 2-year deadline. The game’s total development costs are estimated to be $50 to $60 million, surpassing the $10 million budget, while KSP2 yielded only $26 million in revenue. Development started under Star Theory in 2017 and resumed under Private Division subsidiary Intercept Games in 2020. KSP2 was released for early access in 2023, with the final update in 2024. Covid-19 was blamed for the delayed 2020 deadline, but the pandemic doesn’t tell the full story. Poor development decisions, broken promises, misleading marketing, and an incomplete game all played a role in KSP 2 flopping. Read on to learn why Kerbal Space Program 2 failed and what this teaches game designers.
1. Issues with performance
Kerbal Space Program 2’s early access game suffered performance issues. Steam reviewers described the game as barely playable, even on hardware far exceeding the recommended specifications. KSP2’s improved graphics quality over its predecessor’s increased the performance demand of its specified and actual system requirements. The game had poor optimization that affected both CPU and GPU performance, further increasing the hardware usage. KSP2 user’s performance issues made the game barely playable, and included problems never resolved by updates.
Kerbal Space Program 2’s high system requirements included an RTX 2060 at minimum, targeting 1080p as the game’s Low Settings resolution. High Settings, including 1440p, required a RTX 3080 or equivalent GPU. Steam’s January hardware survey, a month before KSP2’s early access launch, revealed less than 35% of users met the minimum requirements, and below 4% exceeded the recommended specs. Players reported the game laboring even on recommended hardware. KSP2’s intensive graphics included higher texture resolutions and model qualities than KSP1, more complex terrain shapes, and realistic object scatter. The game used physically-based shading for terrains to provide realistic light reflection. KSP2 added a high level of detail, and lacked sufficient optimization.
Kerbal Space Program 2 had poor optimization. The game was notably made in Unity, rather than an engine suited to the efficient handling of such high graphics on a widespread scale, such as Unreal 5 or CryEngine V. KSP2 attempted to render a significant number of objects, which involved making multiple calculations about each object via the CPU. The version of Unity used was bottlenecked by relying on a single CPU thread for multiple complex scenes. Unity struggled with additional rendering challenges, such as rendering scatter. In-game calculations like fuel flow and delta V across multiple engines took a toll on CPU performance. Graphics cards with too low VRAM risked the assets being too large to load, resulting in copying between CPU and GPU RAM between frames and causing significant framerate drops.
Kerbal Space Program 2 was barely playable thanks to the scale of the game’s performance issues. Players of KSP2 encountered heavy framerate drops, falling below 20FPS. Game crashes, stutters, and failures to start were frequent complaints on subreddits, online reviews, and the KSP2 support forums. KSP2’s post-launch updates were insufficient to resolve launch issues like the game’s loading hitches.
2. Unfinished early access release
An unfinished early access release on February 24, 2023, contributed to Kerbal Space Program 2’s failure. Game-breaking bugs gave the impression of development being rushed and inadequate testing. Only one of 5 major planned updates was released after the early access launch, with the game now considered abandoned.
Kerbal Space Program 2 suffered bugs that affected the game’s physics and the structural integrity of rockets. Players had difficulties taking off, landing, and flying through space. Rocket parts wobbled even if excessive struts were used, leading to the vessel going off course, tearing apart, or even unexpectedly exploding. Parts of the rocket meant to be decoupled during launch frequently stuck to it. Pink cylinders replaced some parts in the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB).
Kerbal Space Program 2 received only one of the updates promised to players and is now considered abandoned. The game remains in early access despite the studio shutting down in 2024. Users have called for the early access tag to be removed, and the Steam store page is full of negative reviews and warnings to players not to buy it due to its incomplete state and cancellation.
3. Overambitious scope
Overambitious scope set Kerbal Space Program 2 up for failure. The studio focused on lofty art and physics goals for maximum realism, without understanding what was involved. Feature creep overwhelmed development, with add-ons prioritized over a smooth core gameplay experience. KSP2’s tight budget and timelines further hampered the game’s development.
Lofty art and physics goals in Kerbal Space Program 2 increased the game’s scope. The team aimed to build an expansive and beautiful world with complex physics without understanding how much was involved. Game details involved solving complex real-time physics questions, such as relativistic speeds and interstellar travel. The studios, Star Theory and then Intercept Games, spent time and money consulting with astrophysicists to answer these questions. The team focused on creating unnecessary content like the Rask and Rusk planets that orbited each other and the new Debdeb star system, instead of focusing on core gameplay features, such as the ability to launch smoothly and travel through space.
Feature creep added to Kerbal Space Program 2’s scope. Take Two Interactive initially planned KSP2 as a revision of KSP1, reusing the original code while adding enhanced graphics and content. Players wanted the experience of the first game, with improved performance and graphics. The game evolved, however, into a full reimagining, promising additions like interstellar travel, colony building, and even a multiplayer mode. The game was later released without the extended features, which were promised in future updates, however their focus during development had impacted the core game’s quality. KSP2 failed to build the solid gameplay experience players wanted as a result, and exceeded the tight timelines and budget.
Overambitious timelines and budget affected Kerbal Space Program 2’s delivery. Take Two set a $10 million budget and 2-year timeline with studio Star Theory. The budget led to hiring mostly junior developers initially, and was exceeded by the time early access launched. The 2020 deadline was considered non-negotiable, despite the added feature scope. The timeline was later extended and blamed on Covid-19, but the pressure had led to corner-cutting and technical debt. The pressure from time and budget constraints caused additional disruptions, with key senior members exiting the company. Charles Noble, the only senior developer remaining since the project’s start and holder of a degree in aerospace, aeronautical, and astronautical engineering, left in 2019. Eric DeFelice, the most senior graphics engineer on the team, left in November 2022, just 3 months before the game’s launch.
4. Poor development strategy
Poor development strategy disrupted Kerbal Space Program 2’s creation. Insufficient planning around promised features made implementation difficult. Technological decisions affected the game’s performance on launch, as well as causing delays. Team management decisions hindered development. Take Two overhauled the development team while core construction was still underway, further delaying the game’s delivery and harming its quality.
Kerbal Space Program 2 suffered from poor feature planning. Inadequate development time had a notable impact on the game’s performance on delivery. The decision to release a limited-feature sandbox version for early access was made only 5 months before the final deadline. This meant the majority of development focused on developing all features simultaneously, and the game suffered further disruption by having to separate previously-integrated systems. KSP2’s development required developers to attempt to retrofit multiplayer – a notoriously difficult undertaking – due to extending the KSP1 code base, which lacked the feature.
Technological decisions played a role in Kerbal Space Program 2’s performance struggles and added to the game’s delays. The developers considered using the Unreal engine for the sequel rather than Unity. Unreal is better suited to running high-quality graphics and complex simulated physics within large game environments than Unity. Unreal’s integrated multiplayer and networking support were a significant additional factor in this consideration. Star Theory management refused to let the team use Unreal, insisting on reusing the initial code base and engine. Being unable to create the game from scratch meant significant refactoring, which continued until at least 2020. Team members later estimated that a year of development time was wasted due to refactoring existing code rather than rewriting it.
Team management decisions hindered Kerbal Space Program 2’s development. Developers weren’t allowed to disclose working on the new game to anyone. The lack of communication hindered the process of hiring new developers, and the team themselves had to manage the process rather than outsourcing, splitting time between recruiting and development. A mostly-junior team with little experience was hired initially, due to the low budget. The non-disclosure policy included an explicit prohibition from communicating with Squad, the creators of KSP1. The team had a lack of support on the codebase to be refactored and extended as a result. Higher management decisions led to team changes, further disrupting development.
Team changes caused disruptions and delays to Kerbal Space Program 2. Take Two had discussions in 2019 about acquiring Star Theory, the studio hired for development, but decided to replace the studio instead. Take Two hired a third of Star Theory’s original team and created a
new studio, Intercept Games, in 2020 under their subsidiary Private Division. KSP2’s development further suffered under Private Division due to the loss of existing senior leads, as many of the re-hired developers were juniors. Intercept Games’ entire team was later laid off on June 28, 2024, less than 1 ½ years after KSP2’s early access launch.
5. Overpriced
Kerbal Space Program 2 was considered overpriced for an early access game, at $49.99. The performance issues and missing promised features led to players feeling ripped off, posting negative reviews on Steam and complaints on the game’s subreddit. Basic gameplay, like reaching the main moon, was difficult or impossible due to issues such as rockets going off course. KSP2 is still sold for the same full price on Steam, despite the studio being shuttered.
6. Misleading marketing
Misleading marketing around Kerbal Space Program 2’s progress led to players feeling cheated. The team advertised an enhancement of the original, with new features and content, smoother performance than the prequel’s choppiness, and modern, high-quality graphics and physics. The early access game fell short, lacking even core gameplay functionality. Players had to deal with performance issues that caused lag, missing promised features like advanced tutorials, and bugs that disrupted take-off, landing, and even the game starting up. KSP2 promised 5 feature expansions in future early access updates, and ended up delivering only 1 of them.
7. Alienation of the core community
Alienation of the core community contributed to Kerbal Space Program 2’s failure. Players suffered years of delays when it came to the game’s delivery dates. KSP2’s final delivered features were lacking, compared to what players had been promised. A lack of transparent communication by the publisher and studio about the game’s future left players in the dark, further alienating KSP2’s community.
Years of delayed delivery dates eroded players’ trust in Kerbal Space Program 2’s development team and studio. Players were initially promised in 2019 that a full release of the game was coming in 2020. The deadline was later extended to the 3rd quarter of 2021, attributed to the Covid-19 pandemic. A further delay was announced in November 2020, moving the release date to 2022. A tweet on X, then Twitter, promised a PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series X/S launch in 2022. Yet another delay was announced in May 2022, stating that the game planned to launch on PC in early 2023 and on consoles later the same year. Intercept Games then updated the release date to February 24, 2023, but stated that it was an early access version, falling short of the full game players were promised.
Undelivered promised features made players of Kerbal Space Program 2 feel ripped off. The broken early access game at a high price was seen as a downgrade from the initial game. The console release never happened, and only 1 of the game’s promised 5 feature updates arrived on early access, with performance issues and bugs, such as save file corruptions, never being fixed. Players were disgruntled by the lack of promised quality and felt misled by the lack of transparency in response.
The lack of transparent communication about Kerbal Space Program 2 being abandoned during the Colonies update made players feel that publishers and the studio had mismanaged development and lied about progress. A WARN notice appeared on April 28, 2024, to disclose that Take Two’s Seattle office, Intercept Games’s location, was closing. The notice indicated 70 people – the approximate size of the KSP2 team – were being laid off from June 28. Minimal communication followed until November, besides KSP’s X account claiming the team was still hard at work and Take Two denying shuttering Intercept Games and reaffirming KSP2’s continued development. Take Two refused to give further information. Media reports in November confirmed Take Two’s sale of Private Division, Intercept Games’s parent company, to an unknown buyer, with Take Two finally admitting Intercept Games’ closure.
8. Lack of progress post-launch
A lack of progress post-launch eroded players’ trust in Kerbal Space Program 2’s development team and publishers. Players were left relying on promised updates to fix existing issues with the game’s broken, unoptimized, and barebones early access version. KSP2 planned to add 5 updates with major features, but only delivered one update, the For Science! Module. Players had been promised the Colonies, Interstellar travel, Exploration, and Multiplayer feature updates post-launch, however these were never delivered.
Kerbal Space Program 2’s only delivered feature update of the promised 5 was the For Science! module. The update was an enhanced version of KSP1’s Science mode, called Exploration mode. For Science! contained new discoverables, user experience enhancements, re-entry heating, and additional new content. The update was popular thanks to Exploration mode, and the patch included fixes that improved quality compared to KSP2’s initial launch. Its release improved the game’s ratings temporarily, although recent reviews on Steam show as Overwhelmingly Negative, due to the failure to deliver the remaining updates.
Colonies was the 2nd planned feature update for Kerbal Space Program 2. The update was meant to let players build and manage colonies, automate resupply flights, add orbital construction, and build launch sites. Players hoped to receive the Colonies update in mid-2024, based on an interview where the creative director Nate Simpson mentioned the feature was already under construction and likely to have a shorter waiting time than the For Science! Update. The update was never delivered, due to the studio’s closure, which happened around the time hypothesized.
Interstellar was Kerbal Space Program 2’s 3rd intended feature update to early access. The Interstellar update was planned to add parts to enable interstellar travel. The new Debdeb system, containing multiple planets and other celestial bodies orbiting a star modelled after Alpha Centauri, was part of the planned but never-delivered Interstellar release.
Exploration was the 4th update scheduled to follow Kerbal Space Program 2’s early access release. Two star systems, Qeg and Tuun, were discovered by u/DartFrogYT on Reddit in the game’s files, though not announced as part of Exploration’s release. Qeg was a planned red giant with no planets, according to the game files. Tuun was an F-type star with habitable planets and possible life. The Exploration update was never added.
Multiplayer was Kerbal Space Program 2’s 5th and final intended early access feature update. The Multiplayer update was planned to let players connect via dedicated multiplayer servers and create space agencies. Intended gameplay involved being able to compete for resources in space races or to share resources and work cooperatively. Multiplayer had initially been intended for KSP1, but failed to be released for either game.
What can game designers learn from Kerbal Space Program 2 failure?
What game designers can learn from Kerbal Space Program 2’s failure is the role of effective team management and technical strategy in a game’s development, as well as the importance of player-facing communications. Effective team management empowers developers with the resources needed to get work done efficiently. Technical strategies must be well-developed through open dialogue, rather than imposed on a team without understanding of technical concerns. Effective communication with players involves avoiding overcommitting on timelines and features, actively updating the community, and maintaining transparency to keep players’ trust.
Team management must empower developers with the resources needed to get work done. The critical resources that Kerbal Space Program 2’s game development teams failed to receive were support from the KSP1 on the existing code base, sufficient senior developers to mentor the mostly-junior early team, and a consistent development team that wasn’t shuffled around. The team required more strategic planning and open dialogue with management, rather than the imposed and underdeveloped technical strategy that led to the game’s failure.
Technical strategy must be well-developed through open dialogue between management and technical teams. Kerbal Space Program 2’s technical strategy was imposed by managers who failed to listen to and understand the problems raised by the development team. Developers’ recommendations to start the game from scratch, given the different requirements, were rejected. The request to use the more appropriate Unreal Engine for the game’s performance needs and multiplayer support was denied, with the insistence that the team use Unity. The game’s performance on launch was riddled with issues as a result of the poor technical strategy. Development was delayed due to refactoring and working with ill-fitting tools, and multiplayer was never able to be retrofitted into the KSP1-inherited codebase. Overcommitting to new features without considering the technical requirements set development up for failure.
Avoiding overcommitting is crucial. Timeline delays erode players’ faith in the team to deliver. Adding non-trivial goals when already struggling to meet the current timeline is a recipe for disaster. Kerbal Space Program 2 promised new cross-platform launches when already behind time, and those launches never happened. Kerbal Space Program 2 overcommitted not only on timelines but on features, leading to players rightfully feeling betrayed by broken promises and misleading advertising. Resisting the pressure to make promises and telling players from the get-go that certain desired features aren’t under consideration manages expectations early and retains trust. If players have already been prepaid for something, they feel particularly upset by a delay or change in promised features and are more concerned about a lack of communication.
Transparent and active communication is important to players, rather than ignoring concerns. Being unable to give the answers that players want or the timelines players desire isn’t a good reason to ignore communication. Responding to concerns and being available shows accountability and commitment to a project. Players become concerned and lose trust if the team goes radio silent in response to delays or raised concerns.
