• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3,881 Excellent


About Kerbart

  • Rank
    Mun Marketeer

Profile Information

  • Location Array
  • Interests Array

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. No, that's not what you're talking about. Let me refresh your memory: I stand by my answer. The sense of current KSP 1.x announcements is that KSP 2 isn't here yet. If you feel like you need to stop playing 1.x for the next year and a half until 2.0 is released, fine. Don't mind the rest of use enjoying the existing 1.x version. As for mods becoming available for 2.0 -- sure. But that'll take time, as they will have to be developed against a completely new API. And it assumes the mod creator is willing to work overtime to rush out an update. I have mods that were developed for 1.4 -- there might not even be a 2.0 version. Is Toyota committing fraud by selling 2020 models knowing fully that they are going to sell 2021 models next year? How would that be different?
  2. Existing mods Existing game saves with hundreds of hours in it, not willing to give it up yet No desire to rush into a brand new version; let others find the bugs first Not willing to spend $60 on the new version Not willing to spend $800 on a machine that can actually run the new version And the biggest reason: KSP 1.7 is here, and KSP 1.8 will be here, long before KSP 2 will be here In the long run there will be little compelling arguments to play 1.x over 2.x. But for now, 1.x is all we have. 2021 is a long time away and if new DLC is announced in 1H20 I'll be more than happy to fork over $15 for that. If Squad would pack up right now, “what's the point with KSP 2 around the corner” you'd probably accuse them of "taking our money without doing any further work." Instead they continue to support the version we all love, and you accuse them of fraud because of that. Nice. Really, really nice.
  3. Please elaborate. I have a really hard time understanding why DRM would mean no mods.
  4. Exactly! Anyone who gets their panties in a bunch over Take Two being on a mission to “destroy the game” seems to think that KSP is the jewel in T2’s portfolio. And while it is for us, it’s not for Take Two. Whatever the motivation was for T2 to get into indie games, it’s most certainly not the bottom line, as it’s a rounding error in the books, at best. There are plenty of strategic reasons to have a game like KSP under its umbrella, and none of those require, for instance, the hated micro-transactions (and as they negatively affect the game, make it unlikely for MT to appear): the indie studios can act as a breeding ground for talent. Promoting that great coder to lead engineer? Maybe a bit risky for Counter Strike, but why don’t you lead a team in Private Division first? Less risk for Take Two, and with less pressure on the new lead also a better chance of success. there’s value in having non-violent, yes educational games in your portfolio. If public opinion turns against companies that produce mass shooter games (regardless of what the science says about games inducing violence; public opinion doesn’t work like that), then you don’t want to be that company that only sells violent games long term franchise development. KSP might not be a game for the masses, but the Kerbals most certainly can be. While there’s a certain hostility on this forum towards the LOLZ factor, it’s also a selling point, and you kinda expect them to be clumsy, stumbling, but endearing characters. If there’s a Minions movie, why not a Kerbal movie? T2 might see potential in developing a Kerbal culture that will spin off mobile games, Netflix movies, etc. Those are just a couple of the things I can come up with. For none of these, T2 will require the game to be a commercial blockbuster. Obviously they don’t want to hemorrhage money from it either, but I doubt it’s about maximizing profits. In fact, I suspect T2 wants the game to be a gaming success, much more than a financial success. And that would mean an exciting future,
  5. That is exactly the biggest issue; not the game engine or graphics interface. KSP in its current form is a software experiment that turned into a game, changing implementation direction during its development history multiple times. Hindsight is 20/20 and the game, without doubt, contains many architectural choices where everyone in Squad agrees that had they known they’d end up with 1.7 in its current form, they would never have made decision x or y. Even if KSP2 would use the same technology base as KSP1, it would be many times faster and more stable, because it would have an architecture designed to deliver exactly that, and not some Frankenware with dozens of extensions bolted on top of each other.
  6. It’s going to be somewhere in between those two extremes. The very attractive nature of KSP is that it’s not the software developers who decide how the game gets played, but the players. There will be deatmatches, capture-the-flag tournaments and what not, if there are enough players who like to do that. Why not, if people enjoy it? Having a mechanism that ensures a level playing ground (whitelisting mods, etc) seems a reasonable request in that context. The MSFS around-the-world relay races had a “Duenna” add-in that needed to run to ensure that no shenanigans were pulled. And perhaps that’s the way to go for it—mods. But well-written in-game infrastructure is usually more reliable and secure.
  7. You can undock a shuttle from a station, back up half a kilometer and go full throttle on the main engine.While a retrograde impact will carry much more kinetic energy, even a modest 50 m/s will cause sufficient mayhem. Griefers will find a way. As @Geschosskopfmentioned, the best way of preventing it is perhaps just to be sure about who you invent.
  8. I look forward to it. Mostly because it will put the constant begging and "still no multiplayer" posts to rest. On a more serious note: I'll admit that there's a certain amount of glee and schadenfreude when it comes to issues like time-warping. MP supporters always claim that it's the easiest aspect of multi-player to solve, followed by five different solutions, each completely incompatible with any of the other ones. Griefing seems to be a common theme in multi-player sandbox games. Astroneer seems to suffer from it really badly. Someone will have developed a game (solo) for weeks, invites someone over to join their world and sees it destroyed in a matter of minutes. At the same time, I can look at the MS Flightsim community where multi-player has been a source of unbridled creativity in ways Microsoft probably never imagined but enabled by keeping the interface open. Navigation and flight management software would use the multi-player interface to exchange data with the game, traffic controllers could manage multiple simmers, and I've always enjoyed the round-the-world relay races between the various large flightsim websites. I'm sure the KSP community can come up with some creative ways to use an open multi-player interface!
  9. I agree that the trailer looks really good; suspiciously good. But, implementation, while not unimportant is usually not the weakest link in game development (there are exceptions, *cough Flying Tigers cough*), and the trailer does seem to show an understanding of what it is that we want—the hard part. Granted, this can be worrisome, but I suspect (ok, “hope” is a better word) that it doesn’t involve FTL travel but rather the ability to travel/activate custom solar systems, which might or might not be modded. A built-in Kopernicus with choice of what system you want, basically. I’m not a big fan of multi-player, but if there’s one requested feature... I think it’s a key component of a commercial success for the game, and a major Reason To Buy. We all benefit from more copies of the game being sold, as it generates more cash for ongoing development. Part of the territory. If anything, it’s more part of the game trailer culture than anything else. Again, if it helps to sell the game, I don’t care, when it doesn’t influence the game content. Time will tell, the biggest risk I see is hype and ridiculous expectations from the existing player base. The fact that TakeTwo is willing to roll the dice on the game and develop a sequel major update from scratch is very, very encouraging.
  10. Astroneer got developed “out of nothing” and did pretty well, as far as I’m concerned. Not every customer thinks that way though, but on the whole they did pretty well in delivering what was envisioned. There are always caveats but I have reasons to be optimistic (besides having low standards): The developer might be new, I get the impression they have some old hands and experienced KSP players on board. Astroneer had a published roadmap that changed a couple of times. The roadmap for KSP2 will be a lot clearer; we already have KSP 1, and we know where it works and where it doesn’t. The game-play mechanics, what works, what doesn’t, and what’s missing are well understood. That doesn’t mean some of the lacking issues are easy to solve (multi-player game mechanics, no single-player storyline, etc) but it will surely get attention. And it’s probably the area where we can expect ongoing development; I doubt the game will be “done” when it goes on sale, and I think we’re moving into a world where that’s not expected either. Starting from scratch will allow the developers to develop this as the game it currently is, not a toy proof-of-concept 2D game turned 3D with all kinds of things bolted on along the ride. Issues that are not easy to solve right now can be addressed with a game that is much smoother, richer and colmplexer than the current game is, even when running on similar hardware (but I expect that you really want a high-end rig for it). T2’s agenda is unknown. Obviously they want to make money in the long run, but they have their cash-cows, and this isn’t one of them, and I don’t fear that they are going to pull crazy stunts to do so. In my mind, it’s much more likely that they set up an “Indie” label which covers various studios for a much more strategic reason: to diversify the range of games the company relies on. If that’s the case, you can be glad about T2; their goal is to make this a success, not to squeeze every ounce out of it, that will only come once a KSP franchise has been established.
  11. If you think the $60 is an issue, wait until people realize they need a full gaming spec rig. ”Oh, but I already have that.” — then the $60 isn’t an issue. I’m always amazed how a lot of people seem to expect that software engineers will work for free.
  12. The ISO can update the definition of the second as “684x the time that passes between a T2 KSP announcement and somebody whining about micro transactions.” Pray tell, the wide selection of games offering micro transactions in real currency? I can come up with a plethora of reasons why no one who wants to run a sane business wants to expose themselves to that. Currency conversions might require a banking license. Holding real money in player accounts might require regulations. Of course, you can bypass that by storing CC data in player accounts; now that is a liability likely not worth the headache. I’m pretty sure “no in-game currency” is game-industry code for “no in-game micro payments.” But I could be wrong.
  13. Right from the get-go, before Take-Two was even involved (per-emptive anti evil-overlord snark), it was made very clear that any promises to the community were towards the current version of KSP, not any future versions (which at that point was highly debatable anyway). so while there might be a discount, any entitlement towards “you owe us a discount” is completely ungrounded. If anything I’d expect that those who paid the full amount are more entitled to a discount; if you bought KSP and both DLC’s as a bundle, you’d get a discount. THAT would make sense to me.
  14. Nestor was in it. And I had the feeling a few others were, too.
  15. Guido van Rossem: “And with 2020, I mean 1 minute after midnight on January 1.” Private Division: “LOLZ Bro, December 31st is still 2020.”