How do you judge its current status?

related market: https://manifold.markets/MichaelBennett/will-kerbal-space-program-2-be-as-g

Maybe relevant:

https://www.reddit.com/r/KerbalSpaceProgram/comments/11hvw16/all_ksp2_ads_have_been_pulled_from_meta_platforms/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf

"not reasonably maintained on or shortly after Feb 24, 2024". The game was rushed; it will take a lot of work to get it into shape. Most likely that in just one year, even if there's a lot of continuous effort being spent, it'd be too early to see the game itself as having "reasonable" quality even for EA. But it won't mean it won't get much better later down the line. So, what it would mean for this market? If it's something like "the game is still not looking good, but devs continue to say they are working hard", which is very likely even in the most optimistic scenario, how will you judge if it's "maintained to your expectation"?

@ValentinGolev It's alright if the game is still in a rushed state. "Maintenance" of the game is a process, and it should be judged based on the pace and quality of updates relative to typical early access titles. If it helps clarify, this market is mainly concerned with whether the developments will slow down because of the negative initial feedback / whether the team are capable of pulling the game through to completion, more than on the state of the game itself at any given time.

So for your specific scenario "the game is still not looking good, but devs continue to say they are working hard": In this case so long as the updates to the game had shown healthy / loosely regular momentum for an EA title, then this market would resolve to NO.

Does this look reliable as a resolution criteria with the added clarification?

@lukalot Their problem is rushing too much to get the game out as "EA", so IMO the solution would be to slow down and try to do deeper rework, which might not seem like much to the outside observer, that's a false positive that I'd most welcome. There's also a quite probable false negative: they continue to pile up random fixes that look like real maintenance is going on, but it's actually a desperate death march. It's all too fuzzy IMO.

I'd perhaps propose some kind of a specific feature-based criterion. E.g. - not a very proposal, but as an idea - "In one year, will KSP 2 have at least one (two?) of things at the quality level we'd expect from a mature EA (e.g., from the top of my head):

• working flight physics

• real variety of parts

• quest line

• graphics matching the trailers?"