Forget about DLCs and create a new game instead

[_stilgar_]

I don't agree. There are games which used DLC model very well. Look at Crusader Kings 2 for example. Every few months a new expansion DLC comes along along with free patch with new features. Free patches are of course founded by the money from the DLC. Thanks to this CK2 is constantly improved and fixed for years. If they didn't sold the DLCs,  they would have stopped expanding the game long time ago. 

Compare this development cycle to Europa Universalis 3. It had 2 expansions and no free patches. Every expansion required you to own the previous one. They made two more expansions later, but that was it. 

CK2 from 2012 and 2016 are two completely different games, and thanks to DLCs you can get the game you want. I own every single CK2 DLC, I bought the game and DLCs on release, so I paid a full price and I don't regret a single cent. 

If Squad could give the KSP the same kind of development CK2 got from Paradox thanks to DLC model, it would make already great game into something amazing. 

[NSEP]

2 hours ago, _stilgar_ said:

I don't agree. There are games which used DLC model very well. Look at Crusader Kings 2 for example. Every few months a new expansion DLC comes along along with free patch with new features. Free patches are of course founded by the money from the DLC. Thanks to this CK2 is constantly improved and fixed for years. If they didn't sold the DLCs,  they would have stopped expanding the game long time ago. 

Compare this development cycle to Europa Universalis 3. It had 2 expansions and no free patches. Every expansion required you to own the previous one. They made two more expansions later, but that was it. 

CK2 from 2012 and 2016 are two completely different games, and thanks to DLCs you can get the game you want. I own every single CK2 DLC, I bought the game and DLCs on release, so I paid a full price and I don't regret a single cent. 

If Squad could give the KSP the same kind of development CK2 got from Paradox thanks to DLC model, it would make already great game into something amazing. 

But Kerbal Space Program is an easy to mod game. Paying DLC is useless when you can download the same content for free. CK2 is not a game that would be modded easily, thats why they have DLC.

[pandaman]

8 minutes ago, NSEP said:

But Kerbal Space Program is an easy to mod game. Paying DLC is useless when you can download the same content for free. ...

Firstly, I don't disagree with this statement ^^, but not everyone wants to use 3rd party mods (I would prefer not to, but some things I consider essential for 'serious' play are not yet included in stock, KER, KAC, and I also use SVE, not essential, but it looks gorgeous).  And some players (console users in particular) will possibly never have the option to use mods anyway, so official DLC may be the only real option available.

Paid DLC is also a way of continuing the revenue stream for current KSP for longer than would otherwise be possible, so it could be used to 'buy time' to get a new project developed rather than having no profitable product on the market for a long time, so DLC could actually make the production of another game viable.

Crucially though, for paid DLC to 'work' it must be of sufficient quality and value. A large number of existing players may well buy the first DLC release out of loyalty and curiosity, but if it doesn't make the grade the news will spread quickly and the next DLC release may well flop, so Squad do need to ensure they release good stuff as DLC especially if they are to compete with the free 3rd party mods.  For this reason I don't think Squad's DLC will be just 'mod clones', and I don't think squad want to stifle the modding community anyway, in fact I think they want to continue to encourage it as it helps maintain interest in the game, so I see paid DLC being much more substantial than most of the mods out there.  Of course they will inevitably cover the same things as some mods do, that can't be avoided and nor should it be, but Squad are in a position to do things differently as they can integrate stuff into the code in ways that simply are not available to 3rd parties.

 

[_stilgar_]

3 hours ago, NSEP said:

But Kerbal Space Program is an easy to mod game. Paying DLC is useless when you can download the same content for free. CK2 is not a game that would be modded easily, thats why they have DLC.

CK2 is very easily moddable. I think it has more mods than KSP. I've made mods for EU3, CK2 and EU4. It's piece of cake. 

 

And often, as in KSP, some expansion for ck2 added stuff that was already provided by a mod. And some people like the Paradox implementation, while other insisted that mod was better... but usually paid expansions provide quality, depth, music and graphics that would be very rare in a mod. 

 

People working for free in their spare time usually don't provide the same quality as paid workers. Sure, for small projects fans can make great things. For larger stuff, they usually lack the time, resources and patience. When main developer gets bored, your favourite mod may never be updated again, but you will get support for the DLC. 

[Peder]

It would be rather "easy" to create a kerbal 2.
Most of the code from kerbal 1 can be used again.

So a new ksp with updated graphics, larger universe and new planets ect. would not be rather easy to create compared to kerbal 1. And they can even use some of all the mods for inspiration for a ksp 2.

But when the above is said, then development of kerbal I have always thought was a rather slow process, but i hope that the success of ksp1 will allow them to get a larger developer crew that might speed up things.

[Tex_NL]

1 minute ago, Peder said:

It would be rather "easy" to create a kerbal 2.
Most of the code from kerbal 1 can be used again.

So a new ksp with updated graphics, larger universe and new planets ect. would not be rather easy to create compared to kerbal 1. And they can even use some of all the mods for inspiration for a ksp 2.

But when the above is said, then development of kerbal I have always thought was a rather slow process, but i hope that the success of ksp1 will allow them to get a larger developer crew that might speed up things.

So you will take the core code from KSP and update graphics, physics and things like that? How would that be different than let's say .... updating the exact same features in the game we already have? Building the same game again is a waste and can only be justified as being a blatant money grab.
Yes, it would be rather easy to build a KSP2 that way. But doing the same to the current KSP would be even easier, faster and cheaper.

[Vaporized Steel]

I completely agree.

However, isn't it kinda trendy for developers of a game to draw a line where they will start to milk out any income gain by selling expansion content. 

This are often items of secondary interest, and often no interest at all unless you want to show your fanboyism.

This is a likely route for any game developers team.

The question is when will we hear the first hint of a new game. A new game by Squad is definitely something I want. It could take a year, 5 year or never. 

[Wjolcz]

1 hour ago, Peder said:

It would be rather "easy" to create a kerbal 2.
Most of the code from kerbal 1 can be used again.

So a new ksp with updated graphics, larger universe and new planets ect. would not be rather easy to create compared to kerbal 1. And they can even use some of all the mods for inspiration for a ksp 2.

But when the above is said, then development of kerbal I have always thought was a rather slow process, but i hope that the success of ksp1 will allow them to get a larger developer crew that might speed up things.

The problem with this is the code of KSP being messy. We can't even disable one of the currencies in career mode. Not until recently, at least.

It feels like KSP's first developers were learning as they were developing the game. I'd rather if that didn't happen again.

[Wjolcz]

Aaaaand since that DLC was finally announced and confirmed and it seems to be just more parts and Contracts Configurator with an in-game UI I think this is relevant.

Talking about reusing KSP's code for a new game being a blatant money grab: can this DLC also be considered one?

[ShotgunNinja]

They are trying to open up revenue streams: localization open new markets, DLC extract more from already exhausted markets. This is a 'money grab' (what else businesses do?), but there is nothing inherently evil in it.

[Superfluous J]

1 hour ago, Veeltch said:

Aaaaand since that DLC was finally announced and confirmed and it seems to be just more parts and Contracts Configurator with an in-game UI I think this is relevant.

Talking about reusing KSP's code for a new game being a blatant money grab: can this DLC also be considered one?

After trying my hand at several coherent UIs over the years, I don't consider an in-game UI to Contract Configurator to be anything even remotely resembling a "just." Also, as far as I can tell, the Mission Editor thing has nothing to do with contracts.

Though I hope I can with Contract Configurator create a contract that says to perform a specific mission.

Edited March 22, 2017 by 5thHorseman

[Red Iron Crown]

3 hours ago, Veeltch said:

Aaaaand since that DLC was finally announced and confirmed and it seems to be just more parts and Contracts Configurator with an in-game UI I think this is relevant.

Talking about reusing KSP's code for a new game being a blatant money grab: can this DLC also be considered one?

You are of course welcome to vote with your wallet and not buy it. Can't grab what you don't give.

[Wjolcz]

6 hours ago, Red Iron Crown said:

You are of course welcome to vote with your wallet and not buy it. Can't grab what you don't give.

I'm getting it for free because I bought the game in 2012. I would happily pay for something to support them. I just wish this something wasn't an unfinished game or paid mods.

[evileye.x]

1 hour ago, Veeltch said:

I would happily pay for something to support them. I just wish this something wasn't an unfinished game or paid mods.

https://www.shapeways.com/shops/kerbalspaceprogram

For your suggestion - there are lot of KSP fans that never build planes. Like... at all....

Edited March 22, 2017 by evileye.x

[Wjolcz]

3 hours ago, evileye.x said:

https://www.shapeways.com/shops/kerbalspaceprogram

For your suggestion - there are lot of KSP fans that never build planes. Like... at all....

Then it would be a suggestion for the ones who do and post in the FAR/BDA threads their creations. And this community wouldn't be the only one to buy it. I'm sure such game would bring the WarThunder playerbase in large numbers.

Plushies, mugs and such won't enhance the game. I guess you could say that the money goes to the devs which keeps the development going. Fair enpugh, but I'd rather pay for a product (not a plushie) not send the money and pray for more updates.

Edited March 22, 2017 by Veeltch

[klesh]

DLC for KSP 1 to fund KSP2.  Learn from mistakes, make more money, make more fun to play games.

[mattinoz]

On 17/10/2016 at 9:45 PM, NSEP said:

But Kerbal Space Program is an easy to mod game. Paying DLC is useless when you can download the same content for free. CK2 is not a game that would be modded easily, thats why they have DLC.

 

Except that mods are in the end unreliable. They can go away at the next update never to return. Making it hard to expand on the expansion.

Even if the DLC is covering the same ground it then represents a commitment to that feature going forward. Making it a reliable base for other mods. Instead of 20 life support mods, one could be stock, some more complex system mods could expand in one way without having a full implementation. Other could expand in completely different ways and both would be compatible by nature of working with the same core. Same of DV calculators, flight data, science mods, habitation, kerbal pilots having basic autopilot skills but allowing a base for a mod autopilot.

To me that commitment makes buying DLC a better spend than spinning a few funds to a modder.

[Razorforce7]

@Veeltch

As per your Ideas, I would add them to the game, not create a new one. They will never go for that anyway, since it is to much work.
And if it is the same concept as KSP then not the same amount of people would buy it as it would basicaly be a improved copy.
Usualy sequals take years, so don't expect it to soon.

I agree completely with "EVERYTHING" you say though, and I like most of your suggestions. I would even like to think and add to them.

However, let's be down to Earth for a moment.
KSP is audience specific. The audience target this game appeals to has been reached. The game is out now in its full release for some time now and the sales are starting to fall.
Marketing is a psychological game. And whether Squad says, agree or comment upon what I say doesn't really matter. The following is true for anybody selling a product.

Companies have salesman, business (wo)man and as for KSP the appropriate departments have one of each, of that I am sure.
When they make money off of something and the sales plummet the producer of any product will do everything to fill their coffers. Whether it's the government tax collectors or KSP's SQUAD.

This "DLC Stuff" is one of such examples to fill those coffers to the limit. It's perfectly obvious that this is a money harvester as I like to call it.
Doing nothing really of importance and great achievement but harvesting up the profits on their couch.

Now don't get me wrong. Like I said, everyone does this. So this is not a insult to any of the developers of KSP.
I'm even sure Veeltch would do this in a similar scenario (assuming he got a product for mass sale)
Although I'm sure hes morally superior if he didn't.

 

Edited March 23, 2017 by Razorforce7

[Wjolcz]

1 hour ago, Razorforce7 said:

@Veeltch

As per your Ideas, I would add them to the game, not create a new one. They will never go for that anyway, since it is to much work.
And if it is the same concept as KSP then not the same amount of people would buy it as it would basicaly be a improved copy.
Usualy sequals take years, so don't expect it to soon.

I agree completely with "EVERYTHING" you say though, and I like most of your suggestions. I would even like to think and add to them.

However, let's be down to Earth for a moment.
KSP is audience specific. The audience target this game appeals to has been reached. The game is out now in its full release for some time now and the sales are starting to fall.
Marketing is a psychological game. And whether Squad says, agree or comment upon what I say doesn't really matter. The following is true for anybody selling a product.

Companies have salesman, business (wo)man and as for KSP the appropriate departments have one of each, of that I am sure.
When they make money off of something and the sales plummet the producer of any product will do everything to fill their coffers. Whether it's the government tax collectors or KSP's SQUAD.

This "DLC Stuff" is one of such examples to fill those coffers to the limit. It's perfectly obvious that this is a money harvester as I like to call it.
Doing nothing really of importance and great achievement but harvesting up the profits on their couch.

Now don't get me wrong. Like I said, everyone does this. So this is not a insult to any of the developers of KSP.
I'm even sure Veeltch would do this in a similar scenario (assuming he got a product for mass sale)
Although I'm sure hes morally superior if he didn't.

 

Well, when it comes to what I would do my answer would be: I simply don't know. I never was in such a situation.

But I think making a DLC probably is the cheaper way. Working on a sequel vs DLC would seem like a no-brainer, but since I have no idea how to make a game I shouldn't say which one is the best way to go.

However, I can say what I would like to see and buy as a customer. That is: an aeronautics prequel.

What makes KSP special and so successful is the fact that it's a one of its kind. It's not perfect yet there's something to it that draws people in. Now, I think SQUAD could easily achieve a similar success releasing a game of a still fresh genre, which would be the aeronautics game I'm talking about. The only thing like this is SimplePlanes right now. It's still fresh enough for SQUAD to jump in and compete against it. SimplePlanes started as a mobile game so it has its disadvantages even on PC. If this KSP prequel was released straight to the PC platform SQUAD wouldn't have to care about all the limitations SimplePlanes devs have to consider and easily surpass its success.

If they played their cards right they could easily have another bestseller, which I would gladly support.

Oh man, this post is messy because I've already had a few odd ones but let's continue:

When it comes to the audience: Everyone seems to like these sandbox games. Now why shouldn't SQUAD try something new-ish? We have a game about space exploration, but the atmospheric part is ommited on the purpose (and I'm not against it because it's just the theme this game is set in). So why not focus on atmospheric stuff a little bit more? Do that and I guarantee you that not only the current community but also most of the WarThunder/World of Warplanes players will happilly join in. We already have a few of them here on the forums and they seem to be posting in the BDA/FAR threads a lot of their creations. It's just a really good opportunity and I think SQUAD should go for it instead of DLCs (actual new content versus paid mods).

Edited March 23, 2017 by Veeltch

[juanml82]

I think they could expand and do both a Kerbal Aeronautics Program and a KSP 2. Who knows, maybe there is even a market for Kerbal Nautic Program, starting all the way from Kerbals' prehistory to modern yatchs, cruisers and cargo ships.