Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Master39

  1. Honestly it's a bit sad that nobody ever acknowledges small 2-8 people coop games as multiplayer or that is what multiplayer could possibly mean. And yet it's there where multiplayer really shines, same old friends of always, a private modded Minecraft server this week, a Factorio run the next and, why not, a shared KSP2 save in which anyone plays their own missions, some of which are collaboration on bigger projects. I certainly hope that no changes to the single player are made to make the multiplayer work, and that the effort goes mostly in guaranteeing the best single player game they can possibly make, with the option of playing it with friends.
  2. Keeping your shots for the marketing rush before release it's just standard practice across the whole industry. That doesn't mean that the aren't overly talkative devs out there, but it's not the norm. Is it? Transparency when you sell a product totally is, but months and years before said product launch is completely irrelevant.
  3. [snip] You completely missed the point, but I get it, ungratefulness and taking modders for granted is quite the standard position for the gaming community, the status quo. I can only wonder what the modding community for every game would be without all the burning out of good modders due to the community acting as entitled as if they paid for the mods. And instead here we are, with people barely tolerating even donation links. I'm not getting the idea that KSP won't have long term support, I hope it will have it and I suppose it will. I was merely telling you that when we talk about monetization and expansions we're not talking abot D1 DLCs, but thinking of a longer timeframe. I think we have a very different Idea of "perfectly fine". As much as I love KSP it's probably as far away as possible from the idea of a "perfectly fine" development cycle. After 10 years we still don't have a fully working wheel system and we have to play a lottery every time we approach a ground base with a lander, but yes, I guess that's "perfectly fine". 10 years later and half of the game is still in the "placeholder that I'll fix later" category. Or, maybe, I don't start from the viewpoint of being entitled to everything for free. But even if I didn't care about paying people for their work I would argue that, after 10 years of seing KSP struggle with even the most basic features and the update cycle being stuck chasing whatever shiny thing they could put in the marketing instead of less evident things like bugs, progression gameplay or balance, I'd prefer a model in which I pay for a new expansion every so often and the studio can afford to keep its attention focused on the game for longer and keep the talent they have employed. Go ask an Elite Dangerous fan how well it served to have an anemic monetization model, especially lately, after they just released a poorly developed FPS Planetside 2 clone DLC because they pretty much exausted the pool of possbly interested space flight players, and recently announced that the gamebrekaing bugs in the planet generation won't be fixet because they can't even afford to do the required background work (oh, and they just dropped the launch of said DLC for consoles, for the same reason).
  4. Your decision it's affected by price, ok, so you totally forgot that they didn't say anything of the gameplay or shown anything for years. No comunication at all 'till the last possible moment, and yet the game was a success. As I said, 1 minute after release and people, even the most vocal about it, completely forget about the marketing campaing or how the info of the game was revealed. The same will happen to KSP2, they'll start the marketing and this topic will be unpinned and end at page 10 within a few days. I'm not overstimanting the interest in KSP2, I'm using popular exampled because if I used smalled games half of the people talking here wouldn't know them. Elden Ring not releasing and the devs being silent almost became a meme before release, it's not about the size or popularity of the game, just about the kind of marketing campaing. If big, popular AAA choose to concentrate all their marketing in a few weeks before release, smaller games with smaller budgets for marketing will do even less, using the budget they have for marketing in a smaller window to maximize the amount of attention they can grab. Maybe you don't remember KSP2 reveal in 2019, but the trailer was served as an ad on most space-related subreddits and youtube channels, right now that kind of marketing is simply not present. The marketing machine is in standby. And you need to not know anything about other games marketing strategies to read something anomalous in KSP2's. There's nothing strange in not having everything on the table possibly almost a year before release, we're at the end of month 1 of a 9 months release window, there's time for months of silence and a standard 1-4 months marketing campaing before release. Even more if they don't plan to rely on preorders much and plan for a surprise release, but I doubt they would go for that. Private Division is a T2 label, they still have a product, they're still the publisher of KSP2. You're thinking about Star Theory, which never "had a product" or an idea, they were merely hired muscle. PD wanted to develop a KSP sequel but the don't have any internal studio since the original plan for the label was to interact mainly with third party small and medium studios (like publishing Outer Worlds for Obsidian or the console version of Hades for Supergiant Games) so they hired one, Star Theory. Then the crap happened and PD moved the project to a newly opened internal studio Intercept. T2 is in the fray only as it always is, it's the parent company of the label and it's basically designed as a magnet for all the bad press, when talking about GTA V, for example, it's either Rockstar's Masterpiece, or T2 Attitude towards modders or predatory monetization tactics, never the other way around.
  5. A job they can do literally one minute before opening the preorders and wouldn't change much for anyone. Let's suppose they don't say anything, they stop interacting with the forum altogether and then, suddenly, they release all the info in a week culminating with the actual launch of the game at the end of that week, would any of us do anything different only because they choose to inform us when they started to sell the game and not months before? My answer is nope, I'm going to buy Elden Ring after they were tight lipped till the last possible minute (I still haven't because I'm playing other games), I'm going to buy Starfield regardless the fact that we only saw concept art and we'll probably see gameplay only in the weeks before the launch and I'm going to do the same for KSP. The marketing strategy they choose for the game is not at all relevant for the quality of the game, it's not going to affect the result in any way, and most likely it's not even in the hands of the devs, being the game backed by a big publisher. Blizzard is not exactly an example of a good developer I would make, especially lately, but look on their comunication department regarding Overwatch 2, they did show 2 or 3 things, still no release window, delay after delay, no updates. When the game will drop the whole community will forget about the wait and the hype, as always with all games.
  6. A lot, and nope. But now answer my question: Do photos of the Starship advance in any way the launch date? The only influence the popularity of the program had on it is the fact that the FAA is taking forever for the environmental assessment due to all the attention on it. Also consider that, differently from a videogame, the Starship is a very big and very visible physical object, quite difficult to hide and thus mostly reported by third parties. If we could spy KSP2 code from half a Km away we would have an army of stalkers updating the forums too.
  7. Why? To cut people out of content for no reason at all? There's no reason for it and, at least for me, it would be the fastest way to a guaranteed refund. That kind of crap shouldn't be a thing in any game. MMO implies "Massive" with orbital mechanics there's no way to gain the kind of audience to make even a dent in the MMO genre. Anything more difficult to fly or pilot than a GTA San Andreas plane is not going to gather a "massive" amount of player no matter how well written your tutorials are.
  8. Do you plan to pay for mods? Otherwise what you're saying here is "Devs shouldn't wasting time and we shouldn't wasting money, there's those idiots doing all the work for free". I want the devs to support the game, not third parties fixing it for free. The only think I can demand and expect from devs on modding is that the game is moddable, and modder-friendly, nothing more. I don't want the plan to be hinging on taking for granted a stil non-existing modding community. I want the game to have long term support, in 5 years, 10 years from now I want to be here on the forum speculating on what the next big expansion will contain, this is an open ended sandbox game, not a story driven one, let's make the comparison with similar games, it's useless to make comparisons with RPGs and shooters. Oxygen not Included, Rimworld, Factorio, Stellaris, Cities: Skylines, Europa Universalis, Timberborn, Dyson Sphere program (the last two are still in Early Access). Those are games similar in model and scope to KSP2, different genres and settings, yes, but all games on which you can spend thousands of hours and for which big expansions are still the main monetization model and sequels only seen when there's some real technological gap to cover. Monetization needs to come if we want to talk about a long term for this game, I don't think anyone here is talking about launch-day DLCs, but probably not even expecting them in the first year after release. KSP1 lasted for a decade, that's the kind of timeframe in everyone's mind here. I wasn't very active here prior to KSP2 discussions, but my forum account will be 9 years old in a month, when I think about KSP2 I think about the next 9, not the few months after launch, and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one.
  9. Yep, the lack of base parts in KSP is not a design choice driven by gameplay but by the simple fact that the game doesn't like to load multiple crafts sitting on the surface near each other.
  10. I think there's a misunderstanding on the purpose of the system, the automation here is needed to have a more complex resource system without having to manually fly every single supply run. Any other solution implies to completely remove manually flying from the equation or oversimplify the resource system (one magic ore that can be mined everywhere). Finding a way to gather a valuable and rare resource from Eve to bring it to your Gilly refinery before sending the resulting goods to Kerbin for a profit is a good flying and designing puzzle, expendable parts of the Eve lander will need their own supply lines to be constructed, maybe built on Duna with resources mined on Duna, Ike and partially imported from Kerbin. Such a complexity would make flying everything manually a chore, and make the game a micromanaging hell, I'd love to design, build and fly that Eve lander and miner, especially if I have constraints given by what fuels and parts I can build and use to make that specific craft, but after flying it a couple of times the fun part of that gameplay is exausted, I just want it to be a "x resource/day" value in my production table for the refinery, so I can use that resource in my next mission. Even the most abstracted system in which it's just all magical resource transfer after you prooved the route is going to allow for a more complex system, more spread in the resource placement and, by consequence, more different missions to fly and design specialized crafts for. And, if you actually like repetition you can just continue to improve the existing routes by iterating on the design and trying to shave a bit of overhead from the recorded transfer.
  11. I hugely depends on what kind of support we want post-launch for the game, if it's only bug fixes and then the studio starts working on something else completely different immediately then I guess that no-monetization is the way to go. Personally I'd like to see new content being developed over the years, with updates and expansions, but that needs to be paid for in some form or the other.
  12. Nope, such an argument would be pointless since most 60$ games don't last for a literal decade of playing, if we were to make a "dollar per our" argument games like KSP would be out of scale. Yes, the good old "let's arbitrarily connect something I put in your mouth with the worst thing I can think off". Just to clarify the point, I'm not scalping, I've not bought from scalpers, I'm still on my old 1070, and I don't plan to sell my Q1 Steamdeck even if I could get 2 or 3 times what I paid for it. I did not suggest such a price, but it's fun you called it "entry fee" and not "product price", it doesn't quite sound right, doesn't it? Can't call it a product price if you're expecting years of additional content and support with it, right? 100$ for KSP2 would be quite outrageous but, at the end of the day, it would still be worth it for the amount of entertainment I plan to get out of that game, KSP1 outlived 2 PCs I used to play it, quite the feat for 15€. Without context is like asking me if i'm pro screwdrivers. Microtransactions in KSP2? Hell no. Instant refund. But I've seen people calling big expansions "microtransactions" and others asking for no monetization on F2P or cheap 5 or 6 years old live-service games.
  13. My bar is admittedly low, I just want a better KSP1, but you never know, I did refund Breaking Ground after a few minutes playing around with it when it first came out, only to buy it again a few weeks later after some updates and fixes.
  14. I'm not one to make a "dollar per hour" argument, but after almost a decade playing KSP1 for over 2000 hours I think the selling price it's not that relevant, even at 100$ it would be worth it. On the idea of waiting for reviews I have a core problem, whom? KSP Youtubers have a conflict of interest, they mostly all failed when they tried to diversify, their existence as channel depend on KSP success, and that will transfer over for KSP2. Gaming journalist and reviewers, even the best, are not equipped to deal with a game like KSP, their review is either going to be them misunderstanding the game or them giving it a 10 just because it's an educational game, no middle ground. My plan is just to cut the middlemen, go into radio silence as soon as the game drops and use the 2 hours refund window on Steam to do my personal review of the game, I'm not scared of being an early adopter for KSP2, as I already was for most of my play time on KSP1.
  15. Look back in Nate's forum account, I don't remember if it was under one of the Dev diaries or under a show and tell but someone was speculating about the idea and he quoted the speculation saying "that's pretty much how is going to work" or something similar. Right now I can't search for it.
  16. And a KSP equivalent of the standard intermodal container, that would cut off a lot of repeated validation flights. "This rocket can bring 10 containers to orbit" is way better than flying it 4 times to demonstrate how much iron, copper, supplies and monoprop it can carry each time.
  17. When the trailer dropped and the speculation started we had a very vocal portion of the community pointing out that the whole colony system and fuel production could rapidly turn KSP into a "Milk run simulator". Then, at some point, Nate Simpson confirmed that a "Supply route system" is part of the game, allowing the player to "record" supply runs to repeat them automatically in the background. We don't have much details on how it's supposed to work, but even the most basic one just allowing you to transfer resources automatically would remove all the tedium and repeated resource grind and turn even the most complex resource and life support system into a one time set-up. That pretty much opens the door to have the "resource to rocket" chain as complex as they want without the player having to move every single load of iron and copper manually between Minmus Mines and Mun Orbital Shypyards. It doesn't even matter too much how complex the initial set-up is, it's going to be way less boring and pointless than mining useless magic ore from Eve and bringing it to Moho or launching the nth 16-seat-strapped-to-a-tank station in Duna orbit. And sure enough it's not going to require you to scavenge 5 years old google spreadsheets to understand the ratios between resources like some KSP1 mods. Also consider that every KSP1 mod is mostly "Kerbin-centric" even with colonies and extraplanetary launchpads, from every bit of information we have it seems that in KSP2 Kerbin is going to be the starting point of a journey, not the source of everything and every mission. We don't know everything but we already know a lot, I suggest you read this topic: KSP2 Knowledge repository
  18. I played MMOs, I play MMOs and I will play them in the future. Nope, it's not about reputation, it's about knowing what "Massive Multiplayer" means, the required logistics and the downsides of what it would mean for the single player. Again, Intercept is not big enough as a studio to create and manage an MMO.
  19. This is getting ridiculous, Starfield is going to release in November and Elden Ring just dropped a month and a half ago, both games are huge AAA games, from popular AAA studios and both games probably have a marketing budget that's bigger than the overall KSP2 Budget. For both games the strategy has been to keep their mouth shut until the last possible moment, filling the silence with the same teaser trailers served as ads and vague interviews talking about the principles behind the design of the game. On the other hand we have two examples of games that flopped hard (regardless of their quality as games) due to overhyping and over-sharing ideas and features that then got cut in the final version, NMS (pre "redemption") and Cyberpunk 2077. It's not like KSP2 is the only game around, before complaining about something that seems strange at first glance we should check with other games to see if such a strategy is a thing. Even if we stick to Indie games or games coming from small studios, 2021 (at least for me) has been the year of Timberborn and Dyson Sphere Program, two games that basically came out of nowhere with a release that, despite being an Early Access, offered a polished and refined experience.
  20. It depends on who's hosting them, multiple 800 private servers? No problems, Minecraft has multiple such realities, privately hosted, managed and funded. Hypixel way a big one back when I still followed that game. Multiple regional servers managed by Intercept or PD? That would basically suck all KSP2 budget and studio resources, look at GTAV, Rockstar couldn't afford to make any new SP due to the MP sucking all the attention and resources, what make you think that a studio that's like 20 times smaller could do better? Multiple 800 people servers hosted by the developers means that all the focus and resources will go there, at the expense of the single player and that the game would need a solid monetization scheme, being it microtransactions, a subscription or both.
  21. An MMO is not just a multiplayer game with a bigger player count, there's a whole lot of asterisks attached to such a game. After a few hundred players multiplayer games start to spiral out of control in complexity, server costs, instancing problems, maintenance. A live service game with small instances is already an order of magnitude bigger and costlier than your average coop game, but an MMO is even bigger than that. It's like we're all arguing about what's better between a SUV and a compact car and you come in saying that an aircraft carrier surely can hold more groceries. Not only disregarding the scale and the type of vehicle but also the fact that we're having this discussion a thousand Km away from the nearest ocean.
  22. That's a low bar to clear, even no multiplayer at all is a better scenario than KSP2 being an MMO.
  23. I'm not talking against procedural generation as a tool, I'm talking specifically about procedural galaxies like Elite or NMS. In KSP exploration is slow, a handcraftet planet designed with a specific set of challenges in mind is going to provide way more gameplay than a hundred systems that are going to take you years to reach. As I said, most player haven't explored the full Kerbolar system yet and, even if you have, the new terrain generation means that you basically have a whole new system to explore, and this time around the terrain variability seems to be way more granular and better, making multiple missions to the same body way more interesting.
  24. Which doesn't matter outside of roleplay. You know how rare of an edge case it is to have someone to choose the same exact place in a whole solar system to make a base in the timeframe of the final approach before landing? And even then you just have to put an alert to that player screen with a message like: "WOW, you're the unlickiest player in gaming history, someone just landed here while you were reentering the atmosphere, your craft has been teleported 50m to the left". Even with your totally impossible MMO dreams having someone making a base right before you're touching down in the same exact place is something not worth banging your head around, it's probably way easier to find edge cases to brake the vanilla single player.
  • Create New...