How long will Squid keep updating KSP?

[Jim DiGriz]

18 minutes ago, regex said:

I'm always kind of baffled by this sort of reasoning.  There's a lot of services that Steam provides to the developer so that the developer doesn't have to front those themselves, and those sorts of things cost money.  Things like an easy distribution route, bandwidth and hosting, search listings, branch management, etc...  In fact, in many cases it probably costs the developer much less money to give Steam a cut for those services than it does for the developer to pay for it up front.  I mean, there's gotta be a reason so many games are on Steam...

Also makes it really easy to sync my library of games between my laptop and my triple-boot linux/mac/windows desktop...   Of course there's maybe about 5 games that i really play on different platforms, but its still a convenient package manager for games...  If someone produced an open source package manager for games and it got traction like Steam has and had the games I want, then I'd use it instead.  But the bandwidth of requirements of handling an XCOM or Fallout launch couldn't be handled by a not-for-profit approach (the way that rubygems.org is run by donations would never work).  

[The_Rocketeer]

Yeh but it does nothing to increase the financial power or 'weight' of the up-and-coming companies to deal with a middle-man. If you can put the money directly in their hands, in the long run it's better for u both. Companies like Steam find a small niche, and force it wider than it would be otherwise.

[Caelib]

My guess would be at least another year.  The updates that were planned or discussed in the past have been:

1) Multiplayer
2) Improved graphics of some sort

 

[worir4]

The kraken is always developing KSP, if that is what you meant by Squid. XD

We know for sure that 1.2 is being developed. After that I think some patches for 1.2 and then after that , with some key developers that have left, i think KSP might take a new direction with fresh ideas. Either that or it gets bought by EA, or some other giant company, and we all despair.

[AbacusWizard]

3 hours ago, Vaporized Steel said:

First of all I would update your topic title and change "Squid" into "Squad".

I would rather update the company name and change "Squad" into "Squid." Squids are awesome.

[Archgeek]

22 minutes ago, AbacusWizard said:

I would rather update the company name and change "Squad" into "Squid." Squids are awesome.

They can fly, you know.

[AbacusWizard]

6 minutes ago, Archgeek said:

They can fly, you know.

Indeed. They had jet propulsion long before we did.

Maybe the sequel we really need is Kerbal Squid Program.

[worir4]

3 minutes ago, AbacusWizard said:

Indeed. They had jet propulsion long before we did.

Maybe the sequel we really need is Kerbal Squid Program.

Does the kraken count as a squid?

[Corona688]

2 hours ago, regex said:

I'm always kind of baffled by this sort of reasoning.  There's a lot of services that Steam provides to the developer so that the developer doesn't have to front those themselves, and those sorts of things cost money.  Things like an easy distribution route, bandwidth and hosting, search listings, branch management, etc...  In fact, in many cases it probably costs the developer much less money to give Steam a cut for those services than it does for the developer to pay for it up front.  I mean, there's gotta be a reason so many games are on Steam...

Your point about hosting services is quite well taken.  I'd always thought going direct would be a better deal for the publisher, but it's not necessarily so, especially when your little 50-meg indie game grows into an 800mb monster blob of content.

I've always been a bit suspicious of steam, though.

1. They're big.  Having or not having Steam can make or break an indie publisher.  I'm not sure I want to contribute to that trend, because:
2. Middlemen live by making themselves indispensable, even when -- especially when -- they're no longer needed.
3. It encourages various nonsense "exclusives".  Nothing too valuable in this case, but that's not always true.
4. It dictates where and how I can use things I've bought.

Edited June 23, 2016 by Corona688

[Superfluous J]

9 minutes ago, Corona688 said:

1. They're big.  Having or not having Steam can make or break an indie publisher.  I'm not sure I want to contribute to that trend, because:
2. Middlemen live by making themselves indispensable, even when -- especially when -- they're no longer needed.
3. It encourages various nonsense "exclusives".  Nothing too valuable in this case, but that's not always true.
4. It dictates where and how I can use things I've bought.

1. A lot of companies are big. I find that those that are the biggest are that way because their customers like them and they provide a service valuable enough to use.
2. "Cutting out the middleman" only assures 2 things: You'll make it harder on yourself, and you'll make it harder on the person the middleman was supposed to come between you and. If you need a recent example of this, the whole prerelease debacle was not fun for either side. Except those on Steam.
3. Companies will try to make money any way they can. It doesn't matter if they're producing something, distributing something, or purchasing something. Saying middlemen will try to finagle things to their benefit is like saying the CEO of Steam breathes air.
4. Not if you don't let it. I have never - ever - not been able to launch any game from Steam no matter the circumstance. And I am offline a LOT. And with KSP it's even better. I don't even launch it through Steam.

I bought from the KSP Store back in 2013, because I wanted to support Squad and give them "more money." I know now that it was wrong* to do so, in the same way that it's wrong to drive to the local utilities and pay them in cash. Far better to use the middlemen credit card companies and mail or websites to do this job, so the utility companies can get about their business of providing me utilities.

*Okay wrong is a strong term. Less efficient is more what I'm going for.

[regex]

9 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

I bought from the KSP Store back in 2013, because I wanted to support Squad and give them "more money." I know now that it was wrong* to do so

It's not that it was "wrong" or "less efficient", it's just that the sentiment was incorrect.  Squad doesn't necessarily get "more money" from Store sales than from other distribution routes because the other distribution routes handle things that Squad would otherwise have to pay for themselves.  If Steam were a detriment to end profits no one would use it.  Clearly they're doing something right for the developers.

[Superfluous J]

2 minutes ago, regex said:

Squad doesn't necessarily get "more money" from Store sales than from other distribution routes because the other distribution routes handle things that Squad would otherwise have to pay for themselves.

Well said. I obviously didn't like my own choice of words (hence the aside, which I'm prone to*) and these match what I was going for.

*See?

[kBob]

If I was writing game software, I'd most likely chose Steam for distributing it, I'd say saving the hassle of trying to find my own servers etc. version control and individual sales would be worth the fee.  But what I do like is I'd have a choice, I don't like the closed one site only things like Apple does and Microsoft would like to: that's too closed for my tastes, choice is good.  When I first joined Steam years ago I was very suspicious it just seemed another type of DRM probably as bad as all those others that kept me from playing my legitimately purchased games, but fortunately I was wrong. 

There had been one bad downside to steam however, it has made the move to download only games much faster, for those of us in rural or just poorly served areas this is a problem, there is just no way I'm going to spend 40 hours downloading a 40GB game (and I only get those speeds between 1am and 7am), so I've had to pass up several recent games since the copies they sell in stores are just either stub DVD's with maybe a few gigs on them or just a steam code  .  For games the size of KSP it's not such a problem (in fact I can sometimes get 2GB/hr in off hours especially on low use days like Friday nights).  On the other hand updates from steam (at least the ones I usually get) are most often Δv...oops I mean Δ change which does save quite a bit of time (it seemed like before that most often game publishers would just reissue the whole thing).

OP: In addition to the continued activity of Squad also  take a look at the huge amount work going on in the KSP modding community (and thanks to Squad for making adding mods to the program so easy) which I suspect will continue to thrive even if Squad/Squid disbands (gets turned into calamari?) after version 10 or 12 (we are on 1.1.3 now).

[Nathair]

17 hours ago, Vaporized Steel said:

So it is in some way my personal opinion, but I know others that think the same.

Sure enough, but the same can be said by people who think the Earth is flat.

I'm going to have to go with regex on this one.

[THX1138]

19 hours ago, Vaporized Steel said:

 

You may not be a native English speaker, neither am I.
But "Squid" is a scold word, and I don't think it's appreciated, although we probably all know it was your typing error.

 

 

Squid is not a "scold word". I've never heard it used as an insult.

[Corona688]

15 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:

1. A lot of companies are big. I find that those that are the biggest are that way because their customers like them and they provide a service valuable enough to use.

You're a bit naive, no offense.  Ask how much people loved Standard Oil.

[THX1138]

19 hours ago, Vaporized Steel said:

@Nathair

Because... well, the problems relating to experience having a useless KSP folder if it auto updates to a newer version. One answer to your question was already in my reply. While we then do advise to backup your folder I think it's bad to even take the risk in case you might forget.
Personally I don't like investing into a company that distributes games and a simple platform app that makes millions off of it, so I don't think they deserve to be further administered money or attention. If you have Steam related issues besides KSP their service is appauling, and I have alot of personal experience with this.

So it is in some way my personal opinion, but I know others that think the same.

You can easily disable updating of any individual game or all games in your library.

[kBob]

5 hours ago, THX1138 said:

 

Squid is not a "scold word". I've never heard it used as an insult.

Go down and look at the slang definition here it's a pretty mild insult though.  I've also heard it applied to marines (as in the military) as a mild derogatory.

Edited June 24, 2016 by kBob

[Carraux]

Steam gets its share but on the other hand it is a great distribution platform. I doubt that Squidsquad would have sold that many copies without Steam. And in quantity lies profit too.

[SpacedCowboy]

Sorry, but I had to laugh when I envisioned a squid with an army helmet on!

[Superfluous J]

7 hours ago, Corona688 said:

You're a bit naive, no offense.  Ask how much people loved Standard Oil.

None taken. Standard Oil is a great example of a company that provided an extremely popular product. If their product was not popular, they would not have been in the situation where they got dismantled by the Government.

[Corona688]

That you're aware of them means you understand my point.  All right them.

[Cairol]

On 23.6.2016 at 7:53 PM, 322997am said:

Squid never developed KSP. But squad plans on doing it for most of the foreseeable future. I'm guessing 10 years at least.

Well, "Squid" could be a reference to the Kraken. Seems legit to me.

The game has a modding API, which means, even if Squad at some point stops updating it, we can still mod the hell out of it.
Which means, KSP will probably live and prosper a good while.
Don't hesitate to buy it. It's worth every penny in it's current state and Squad has alrrady informed us about future plans.
No need to worry that they will skip development or support soon.

[Draco T stand-up guy]

On 24/06/2016 at 5:55 AM, Vaporized Steel said:

Either buy it from the KSP site directly or at gog.com.

Did you note that he said that it was on special on Steam? It's presently half the price that you would pay on GOG.

[Hevak]

On June 23, 2016 at 1:32 PM, The_Rocketeer said:

Yeh but it does nothing to increase the financial power or 'weight' of the up-and-coming companies to deal with a middle-man. If you can put the money directly in their hands, in the long run it's better for u both. Companies like Steam find a small niche, and force it wider than it would be otherwise.

I'm sorry this is utter and complete bs.  I would have never bought ksp if it wasn't on steam, and I know a few others who wouldn't as well. 

And please if squad or any company was really being hurt by doing this they wouldn't. Squad sold thousands of more copies of ksp on steam. They made a lot more money because of steam. In fact I'm willing to bet the only reason squad still exists and is still developing ksp is because of steam and gog. Squad was a complete unknown, and still is to many. They never would have sold as many copies from their own storefront.

So,yeah it did absolutely nothing to increase the financial power of squad. In fact I'm sure they lost a ton of money by using steam. That's why practically every game developer is on steam cause it's so evil and horrible. 

yep you've nailed it. Lmao

Also anyone who was in early access and says don't buy ksp from steam cause they take money from squad. Why don't you go send squad an extra $20-30 since you didn't pay $40 for your game like they are charging now. Since you're so concerned with them losing money.  Because you took a lot of money from squad by being early access.  Surely you should pay full price now that you have a full game to play.

Edited June 25, 2016 by Hevak