641 posts in this topic

*Throws money at Squad* Shut up and take my money!

 

:D

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Curious if Squad would be willing to build DLC packs more on a crowd funding model?

set a target at which the pack becomes free, goals before that would knock the price down. Encourage a bit of extra investment out of the funders with some limited edition kerbal based rewards. 

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/17/2017 at 8:39 PM, Snark said:

Well, not being a Squad employee, I don't have any insider information on this, but based on everything that Squad has said over the last quite a while, my understanding is that the earlier-referenced "rocket parts revamp" is basically dead.  Porkjet's the one who was working on that, and he left back in October, along with a bunch of other devs.  They went ahead and released his stuff-so-far for free, as a separate downloadable package.  So, they're done with that.

That is the saddest excuse I've heard for a business not to finish something. People come, and people go, but the business plan ought to be fulfilled. It's indicative to Squad not really having a plan. It seems they have been riding the modding community for some time now to enhance the game - especially after seeing many mods and modders incorporated into the game. Also knowing that they have the talented and capable RoverDude makes me wonder why the revamp was not completed. According to Snark logic - if it's making money, it's finished enough - right? I don't know if mods have been a blessing in making the base game so much better as to promote it to its stellar success, or if the mods have been a curse in keeping Squad from creating a professionally polished game. Many of us bought in the game as early-access believing that all the unpolished things would be shiny one day. It seems we live in an era of never-ending beta software, so I hope Squad will polish up what still isn't yet so shiny. The burn comes when being asked to pay for more before that happens.

And just for the record: I'm all for buying DLCs for new shiny toys - given that it's not exploitative.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some off-topic content has been removed. Please, keep off the sociopolitical content and respect each other :mad:

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, regex said:

pleasing aerodynamic shape

Assuming it's an aircraft yes? Spacecraft are often ugly, patched together affairs. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, majNUN said:

According to Snark logic - if it's making money, it's finished enough - right?

Set aside your dashed hopes and dreams for KSP for a moment, and think about trying to make your own game. What would your goal be, to implement every conceivable feature with zero bugs, or to make it good enough that people like it enough to buy it?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, majNUN said:

That is the saddest excuse I've heard for a business not to finish something.

To be clear, nothing in what I wrote talks about an "excuse" for anything-- I was simply posting "here's my impression of what's happening", without any comment at all about the why behind it.

3 hours ago, majNUN said:

People come, and people go, but the business plan ought to be fulfilled. It's indicative to Squad not really having a plan.

*Shrug*.  Hard to say.  Bear in mind that since we're not inside Squad, we only get to see the tip of the iceberg there.  We only see the externally observable results of their decisions, not all the internal reasons that are behind them.  You could be completely right-- maybe they just don't have much of a plan or a vision.  On the other hand, there are plenty of other potential explanations.  I can think of three or four plausible ones right off the top of my head-- some of them fairly innocuous, others less so.  Not gonna speculate here, but I will say that in my own work, I've been in plenty of situations where the team or the company I was in had to do something for internal reasons that were not visible to outside observers, so there was a pretty big disconnect between "what someone outside would probably think" and "what really happened."

"Don't know" means "don't know," is basically all I'm saying.  It's generally a good idea to be cautious about jumping to conclusions.

3 hours ago, majNUN said:

It seems they have been riding the modding community for some time now to enhance the game - especially after seeing many mods and modders incorporated into the game.

Gotta say that I don't really buy that argument, myself.  KSP hasn't "incorporated" any mods into the game (probably the closest they've come was when they brought in the original Porkjet spaceplane parts).  They've added new features that happened to have been similarly implemented by mods, but that's not the same thing as "incorporating" them.

Look, Squad did a great job in making KSP moddable.  That's why we're able to have so many nifty mods.

And then, having made the game so moddable, Squad went on developing KSP, adding features and gameplay elements.  And what kind of features and gameplay elements did they add?  Space-flight ones.  Stuff like aerodynamics, reentry heat, fairings, communications, all that sort of stuff.  I mean, nothing surprising about that, right?  What else would they put into the game?

And, guess what modders produce?  Stuff related to space flight.  You know, stuff like better aerodynamics, reentry heat, fairings, communications, all that sort of stuff.  What else would they do?

So, I see this "Squad riding on modders' backs" argument pop up from time to time, but I really have trouble seeing the point of it.  Squad and modders both want the same thing -- to develop a cool space-flight game-- so what's so surprising that they implement many of the same things?

 

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, HebaruSan said:

Set aside your dashed hopes and dreams for KSP for a moment, and think about trying to make your own game. What would your goal be, to implement every conceivable feature with zero bugs, or to make it good enough that people like it enough to buy it?

That's a silly argument - I have no dashed hopes or dreams to put in X feature. Seriously - play the vanilla game. What's missing? What's done poorly? More importantly - what did Squad say they were going to do then abandoned because they hired a modder who then quit? What do you think was happening when you started seeing the modders being hired to finish the game?

Edited by majNUN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

46 minutes ago, Snark said:

So, I see this "Squad riding on modders' backs" argument pop up from time to time, but I really have trouble seeing the point of it.  Squad and modders both want the same thing -- to develop a cool space-flight game-- so what's so surprising that they implement many of the same things?

 

Snark is right and to give him some more bluebeans for his Colt.

Great minds think alike.

Squad gave us a platform to be creative. And our modders look through and think about how they can make it more pleasant for them self to play.

And lastly here come we the MDU's (more demanding users) and begin to Salt around:)

We only need to be cunning and talk with euch other and more Stuff will come from one or other.

Look at this DLC? If you read the Forums you see many posts in Stock Plays with Comment "no Dead kerbals" and yes it is a Mode for it.

But for Stock? Squad give use personal Parashutes. Im happy with it because i need to install a mod lower. And the modder have time to Play self and Invent something New and may be Genius?

I realy like the way that Squad and Modders coexist and grow with each other. 

Funny Kabooms,

Urses

Edited by Urses
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who better to hire than someone who's already done amazing things with your API? Modders are familiar with at least one part of the codebase already. Their portfolio is on display. Heck, if HR really wanted to cherry-pick, they could look at prospective employees' source code and judge based on readability (and therefore maintainability).

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Snark said:

To be clear, nothing in what I wrote talks about an "excuse" for anything-- I was simply posting "here's my impression of what's happening", without any comment at all about the why behind it.

*Shrug*.  Hard to say.  Bear in mind that since we're not inside Squad, we only get to see the tip of the iceberg there.  We only see the externally observable results of their decisions, not all the internal reasons that are behind them.  You could be completely right-- maybe they just don't have much of a plan or a vision.  On the other hand, there are plenty of other potential explanations.  I can think of three or four plausible ones right off the top of my head-- some of them fairly innocuous, others less so.  Not gonna speculate here, but I will say that in my own work, I've been in plenty of situations where the team or the company I was in had to do something for internal reasons that were not visible to outside observers, so there was a pretty big disconnect between "what someone outside would probably think" and "what really happened."

"Don't know" means "don't know," is basically all I'm saying.  It's generally a good idea to be cautious about jumping to conclusions.

Gotta say that I don't really buy that argument, myself.  KSP hasn't "incorporated" any mods into the game (probably the closest they've come was when they brought in the original Porkjet spaceplane parts).  They've added new features that happened to have been similarly implemented by mods, but that's not the same thing as "incorporating" them.

Look, Squad did a great job in making KSP moddable.  That's why we're able to have so many nifty mods.

And then, having made the game so moddable, Squad went on developing KSP, adding features and gameplay elements.  And what kind of features and gameplay elements did they add?  Space-flight ones.  Stuff like aerodynamics, reentry heat, fairings, communications, all that sort of stuff.  I mean, nothing surprising about that, right?  What else would they put into the game?

And, guess what modders produce?  Stuff related to space flight.  You know, stuff like better aerodynamics, reentry heat, fairings, communications, all that sort of stuff.  What else would they do?

So, I see this "Squad riding on modders' backs" argument pop up from time to time, but I really have trouble seeing the point of it.  Squad and modders both want the same thing -- to develop a cool space-flight game-- so what's so surprising that they implement many of the same things?

 

I've seen many games with great modding communities - KSP is not special there. And I've seen game companies incorporate mods - by paying for them or by implementing the feature in their own way - no need to hire the modder. KSP is the only game I've seen so far where features are constantly dropped because someone left. And it's the only game I've seen where the developer hired so many modders. If it happened once or twice, your argument might be convincing, but it seems to be common practice at Squad. It could be that it's because they aren't a gaming company but a marketing company at heart. It's not casual synchronicity that the mods, modders, and Squad have fused their work - Squad needs them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paid content ... so we came there, finally. It's not that KSP wasn't worth it or it was no fun or whatever. For me there's a more fundamental question. Am I willing to pay for something, or am I just going to download another mod? I mean there are countless part mods out there. So the only thing which I would purchase is the mission editor, and there are lots of missions in the challenge forum, complete with ranking etc. Some of the most remarkable and long running challenges do completely fine without it *K Prize Challenge* *cough*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, majNUN said:

It could be that it's because they aren't a gaming company but a marketing company at heart. It's not casual synchronicity that the mods, modders, and Squad have fused their work - Squad needs them.

Weren't a gaming company for sure. I have a feeling they have gone over a turning point in that respect. We're only starting to see the effects of that turn become visible.

They haven't been vocal about this, but I have understood that the PR Squad and KSP Squad were split apart into separate unrelated companies some time ago. The recent hires include at least one developer with actual commercial game development background. (This was mentioned in the weekly where his hiring was announced.) And a couple of months later they announced the first DLC. I don't think this is entirely coincidental - YMMV.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On 3/17/2017 at 1:52 PM, regex said:

Also Vostok. since the capsule didn't have parachutes.

Hope this isn't too pedantic - but the Vostok descent module did have a parachute - just not enough to keep from turning an occupant into goo.  Some weight savings in not needing to install a crash couch for land impact, I imagine.  

Could be an interesting kerbal gameplay element there - contract specifies occupant must not exceed 6 Gs at any time before recovery, etc.

Edited by fourfa
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's all the fuss about paying a bit for a DLC? KSP is already amazing value for money, and I'd be more than glad to pay a few bucks because I feel bad at how many fun hours I got for the money I paid... It's rediculous, we all go dining and are willing to spend (I'm making this up) 60 bucks on it, but 10 dollars for a DLC, oh noes.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do those who don't obtain these expansion packs still get those personal parachutes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Jimmy Stiff-Fingers said:

*Throws money at Squad* Shut up and take my money!

 

:D

06588567f5bf0b57bcd5389328d7d35c.jpg

 

:D I wish I could say the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, fourfa said:

Hope this isn't too pedantic - but the Vostok descent module did have a parachute - just not enough to keep from turning an occupant into goo.  Some weight savings in not needing to install a crash couch for land impact, I imagine.  

Could be an interesting kerbal gameplay element there - contract specifies occupant must not exceed 6 Gs at any time before recovery, etc.

Tourist dont like the G's.... mostly:)

But it may be the thoghtsfull Aspekt why the parashutes for Kerbals come along.

LandIngs like Gagarin? Go through heat Phase and Jump out. Or make A New KSP easteregg?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, something said:

Paid content ... so we came there, finally. It's not that KSP wasn't worth it or it was no fun or whatever. For me there's a more fundamental question. Am I willing to pay for something, or am I just going to download another mod?

I'm willing to pay for DLC, if I want it.

I'm also willing to pay for a mod, if I want it.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, fourfa said:

Hope this isn't too pedantic

Never, it's a welcome correction, thanks.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

What do you think was happening when you started seeing the modders being hired to finish the game? 

Some of Squad's earliest hires were modders, and a significant proportion of the team has always been recruited from modders. There's nothing new about that. 

Quote

... features are constantly dropped because someone left... 

"Constantly"? 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/17/2017 at 8:30 AM, Woodstar said:

Why april, why not just 2013, Kinda makes me mad, made my purchase Dec. 2013.


Edit: nice one on the word change. wouldn't want any of our resident children seeing any curse words. HAHA

 

I hear you... you think you feel screwed? try having bought it in May 2013

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/03/2017 at 10:19 PM, NoMrBond said:

While the current LF/O and mono would stand in pretty well for the first stage (S-IC) and the LEM/CSM engines (respectively), will the MH-DLC have any concession for these lighter/less-dense yet more efficient cryo fuels?

I could get behind a DLC that revamps the fuel choices in KSP. I'd like to see some options for higher performance engines using fuels that suffer boiloff. It would encourage thinking a bit more about mission timing, currently time is pretty much free in Kerbal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it very interesting that the majority of people who are in support of paid DLC are the ones who DONT HAVE TO PAY IT BECAUSE THEY GET IT FOR FREE!! You guys wouldnt be chirping so highly if you were in the same boat as the rest of us, admit it. You guys got lucky.. some of us didnt have a choice..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the majority is more people who understand the economic reality of running a video game studio.

But what do I know, I get the expansion for free.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now