• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

325 Excellent


About LoSBoL

  • Rank
    Fortuna favet fatuis

Contact Methods

  • Website URL http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/160439-whats-your-motivation-of-keep-playing-ksp/&do=findComment&comment=3053455

Profile Information

  • Location Off Wandering http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/160439-whats-your-motivation-of-keep-playing-ksp/&do=findComment&comment=3053455

Recent Profile Visitors

973 profile views
  1. That's way cool! Coming home from wandering in Norway to have a TOTM hope the topic helps others to interest in playing multiscreen, the only way to play
  2. Ok, stop... I asked for a viable business model and at the very first agenda point you've managed to allienate the complete 'already on its toes' playerbase from spending a dime on KSP, bringing down KSP's value for T2 to near zero... Do you really think that everybody is just going to roll over, die and accepts this? I'm not seeing it, just that you have a bit of an weird sence in how money is printed...
  3. I didn't ask for T2's ceo's statement, I can read that for myself. I asked you how your fears would become reality in the real world of KSP, how would you get a complete community to all of a sudden be leached when they were able to get everything youve mentioned in 1.3 for free. Like I said a few posts before your reaction, they'll flip em the bird. See example below Are you right? Is this how it will work? For real? Who's gonna buy that? Are we really thinking/believing this is a viable option for T2 to empty our pockets? Why not add the statement? "Take-Two's actions were not specifically targeting single player mods. Unfortunately OpenIV enables recent malicious mods that allow harassment of players and interfere with the GTA Online experience for everybody. We are working to figure out how we can continue to support the creative community without negatively impacting our players."
  4. Yes, You keep repeating that, and I completely agree that they can do whatever they want, Just like VAG could decide to stop making Audi's or Intel stops making Core I5's. At the same time you keep agreeing that it would be very unlikely to do so from a business perspective, so why keep emphasizing on it? Ask yourself the question, is the modding community of GTA their customer base? They literally make millions with GTAO, I'm not saying they don't have a huge amount of players that Mod the game, but it's not the core of GTA's money making machine. They even could completely ban modding GTA (which they haven't) and it would not effect them making money in GTAO. Now look at KSP, which has modding the game within its core foundation since early development. Up to the point that KSP can be considered a placeholder for you to make your own game(play), for free! You bet your behind that they would hesitate highly to change even a single bit of the modding possibilities. They don't have to deal with a niche part of the playerbase like in GTA, they have to deal with the whole and complete playerbase of KSP. There is only one thing I can image happening, the complete playerbase would flip them the bird. They won't pay a single dime for a microtransaction partspacks in 1.4 if they could have had that in 1.3 for free from the modding community. It is not impossible, its murdering your own investment shutting down modding KSP. I really don't think GTA and KSP have any resemblances in the way they are or can be monetized within the future. T2's money is in the Kerbal franchise, not in KSP itself.
  5. That's a very good answer, You've just made very perfectly clear where the money is within the Kerbal franchise. And it's not within the current KSP, DLC could kill of mods, but is pretty unlikely to monetize. A KSP2 makes perfect sense as they can make the game much more accessible and broaden the viable buyerbase by making it 'simpler', the same goes for making more games involving Kerbals. SQUAD doesn't even have to deal with this, T2 can go to any developer they please to further develop any Kerbal game they want. So where does that leave KSP(1?), right where we are right now, mod friendly and DRM'less, KSP2? could be a completely different beast, but that doesn't have to do anything with what we already got. And you can always decide not to buy that for whatever reason. Not moddable? Microtransactions? Just vote with your wallet when that time comes, and keep enjoying what you have within KSP.
  6. As you raised your voice, YOU DON'T KNOW EITHER. You are right that T2 is in the lead, and can basically do what they want with mods. Yet nobody (as of yet) has expressed any critical succes factors for T2 to do so. So, I have a question... Sell it to me... How would T2 make money out of KSP? How will they leech us? Envision me a business model in which the community, which has made KSP with modding, will be prone to empty their pockets? And don't just reap 'microtransactions!', If you think it is? Then give it a foundation.
  7. We keep running around in circles here, advocating that people are informed that it's not outside the realm of possibility that T2 can do whatever they want is not really helpful. It just feeds the underbelly reasoning we've already seen so much off. Microtransactions will never work with the current KSP, there is no business model in that when the complete basis has been modding KSP, DLC was already announced before the KSP franchise was sold to T2. Please don't pull my example totally out of its context, it has nothing to do with cheating emissions here. On a side note, VAG only got caught, BMW is under investigation and the French government actively stopped further investigations in the PSA (Peugeut Citroen) group, they all do it, VAG just got caught.
  8. Not a famous quote, but one that will stay with me after hearing an interview of some stunt team pilots which do awesome stuff together. It went something like this. "All these stunts need perfect timing, half a second early or half a second to late and we've got a disaster on our hands. So when we're doing stunts and need to time perfectly, we just go 'One banana, Two banana, Three banana' "
  9. You are right, it doesn't make sense to make decisions that don't make sense from a businesspoint perspective, so why are you trying to reason sense into such decisions? Now that's not very nice, 'please state your worries, but don't ask us to rationalize or further explain those worries and ignore the discussion and just let us worry'
  10. The Volkswagen Audi Group could decide that from tomorrow that they won't be making Audi's anymore... Now where's the business model in that? Could you explain the business model for Take2 if they choose to C&D modding of KSP? Where's the money? Take2's money isn't in the current KSP, it's in the Kerbal franchise as a whole. They gain nothing in C&D'ing modding for the current game called Kerbal Space Program. There is no comparison in the way GTAO vs KSP can or is being monetized. Basing your fears on 'yeah, but they could!' is not rational, not at all...
  11. That's basically the problem, people aren't aware. They just hear 'something' and go total paranoid. Take2 hasn't shutdown GTA modding, they shut down development of a tool, which in near future could be easily used to hack into GTAO by others who are willing to do so. That is not only in Take2's interest in 'making money', but it's not in the interest of the players who plays GTAO either. There is also no resemblance in GTA's businessmodel vs KSP's businessmodel. KSP isn't bringing in money in Online Multiplayer, calling on modders to C&D in KSP is not going to gain anything for Take2.
  12. That's a very good thing, just like we need people wanting (or needing to buy) second hand stuff, we also need people with your preference for new. Someone is going to love your old I5-4460 machine for years and years to come, slap in a new graphicscard and you've got a mainstream PC that can play everything. In the past you basically NEEDED to upgrade every 2 to 3 years, but those times have changed. The second hand market is really good at this moment, because the last years there is virtually no gain in performance. Computers have become so fast over the years that you get a lot of second hand computer for little money . Just upgrading graphicscards once in a while makes most sense if your gaming. My personal experiences on second hand parts breaking down, apart from a broken harddrive, I can't recall any, (and buying regularly since 386), but you are right, of course you take a risk. Most breakdowns on me were new or fairly new parts, an mainboard (NF7-S, which has become known for its bad capacitors) broke down within the warranty period. Also I have had my far share of DOA (dead on arrival) deliveries. I think its just like with everything that has been newly developed or marketed, the changes of failure are higher within the first weeks to years of use. It's also much better to filter out the 'duds of the market' once they've been out a while, like you pretty much knew you shouldn't buy a second hand NF7-s. You've basically repeated what you've quoted
  13. We have a saying that translates to: A cat in a corner makes weird jumps. Like you can see in @TotallyNotHuman_ 's post with Linus's video. But it's good for the competition and ultimately, good for us consumers. Other than that I think about the same as for AMD's threadripper, only useful in specific applications. I can't see many advantages for consumers of having 16, 24 or even 32 cores. Only specific workloads can benefit, and games isn't going to be one of those. I'd much rather see some revolutionary step in IPC gain, we've been bottlenecking and making incremental steps for the last 5 years. But that seems to be the biggest problem hence the development to 'more cores'.
  14. whohoo, Japanese rocketparts confirmed!