frizzank

Concerning complaints about the cost of DLC

Recommended Posts

 

we don't even know what they're going to ask for it yet.

Edited by Kerbart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correcting myself here:  Per steamspy.com, KSP has sold over 1.7 million copies on steam alone.  

So yeah, easily over a million users.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surprisingly, I've never paid for anything related to mobile games except for the up-front cost of the game. But you are right. This is a growing issue. I myself would happily pay for even a $60 DLC, simply for the fact that @SQUAD needs the money, and I would hate to see KSP fall into a state of developmental death, or worse, it falling to the development of some Triple A company who will just use the game to make more money and completely neglect it until all of us here consider it dead. I personally support @SQUAD as a business, and would be devastated if it were to go bankrupt.

Edited by TopHeavy11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Slam_Jones said:

Apparently, after a bit of searching, it's this one:

Although the ambiguous title doesn't help.

As for the topic: why in the heck would I spend $20 for DLC when I can find thousands of perfectly good mods that do the same thing?

Thanks, although for me for some reason if I screw with KSP's files the game will stop working for a few weeks then magically opens up when I'm doing something else. Meaning that I cant use mods on the computer I have. Pretty weird, so for me new stock content is awesome (Despite the price which I really don't mind too much)

21 hours ago, regex said:

I have never done this, for the record.

No, I will not automatically pay for an expansion just because I enjoyed the original game, thank you very much. And I most certainly will not ignore issues of quality in said expansion should I buy it, if they exist. Much as your rant has some merit on the simple fact that "devs gotta eat" (I know this all too well like many others) it fails when you stoop to telling people how to spend their entertainment money.

The way I think about it is that the developers of KSP have been working for a long time on making this game fun for the players, there are problems here and there but for the most part I think the devs work as hard as they can to fix them. So in this case its the first DLC they have ever announced, it seems to have a neat concept and the money just goes towards the continued development of the game we all love. Frankly I like the idea, but I could understand why people could be cautious about paid content.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/22/2017 at 11:56 PM, archnem said:

Oh come on.  Almost everything in the game was a mod at one point or another.  For crying out loud, docking used to be only available through mods.  Should Squad have not added that?  ISRU? Comms?

And how do you know it's not worth paying for?  All we have is a brief announcement, not even a price yet.  What if it were $1?  Would it be worth paying for then? $5? $10?  We don't know, because...the DLC isn't out yet and this is all just wild speculation.

Personally, I wish Squad would shut up and take my money.

This guy, I like this guy,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, TopHeavy11 said:

@SQUAD needs the money,

how do you know this? They are a tiny company that have made millions from KSP, and remember they pay staff Mexican standard wages!

 They need the money like I need a hole in the head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Slam_Jones said:

As for the topic: why in the heck would I spend $20 for DLC when I can find thousands of perfectly good mods that do the same thing?

You raise an excellent point.  :) The answer is simple:

  • Because you think it's worth it, in which case you buy it.
  • Or else you don't think it's worth it, in which case you don't buy it.

Same as with any other product, by any company.

Different people want different things.  Different people come to different conclusions about what's worth their hard-earned dollars.  If you look at the thread where they announced Making History, there are lots of users there who are thrilled about this and are basically saying "Yay!  Please take my money!"

Part of the reason for the difference of opinion is this:

20 hours ago, Slam_Jones said:

the same thing

...It's not the "same" thing.  It's a similar thing, but there are, in fact, differences.  The question is, do you consider those differences significant enough to be worth the money?  Different folks have different priorities and will therefore come to different conclusions about that question.

Ultimately, of course, the market will answer the real question of "was this move a good idea on Squad's part?"  Either most folks will feel as you do and the expansion will flop, or else enough folks will consider it worth their cash to make it a success.  (Based on the reaction I'm seeing here in the forum, I suspect lots of folks will want to buy it.  I know I do!)  Time will tell.

It's also worth noting that the question "is this worth my cash?", though a valid one, is really a separate issue from the topic of this thread, which I gather was intended to address folks who think Squad has somehow done something underhanded or "wrong" in contemplating DLC at all.

Share this post


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

how do you know this?

Because they're a business.  And every business, by definition, needs money, always, forever, regardless of how much they already have.  That's the whole point of a business.

1 hour ago, Majorjim! said:

They are a tiny company that have made millions from KSP, and remember they pay staff Mexican standard wages!

 They need the money like I need a hole in the head.

Here's how a business works:

  1. Business spends money to produce a product.
  2. Business sells that product.  For money.
  3. Then one of two things will happen:
    • It was a smart idea (or they get lucky and are in the right place at the right time), and they make back more money than they spent.  Profit!  Success!  Yay! :D
    • It was a dumb idea (or they get unlucky and are in the wrong place at the wrong time), and they don't make back the money they spent.  Oh noes!  Loss!  And if this keeps up and the loss is too bad, go out of business! ;.;

Maybe Squad is super-profitable.  Or maybe they're struggling.  From your quote above, you appear to be assuming the former; but the fact of the matter is that neither you, nor I, nor anyone outside Squad knows the answer, because their finances aren't public.

But regardless of how laden the ol' oak chest is (or isn't), over at Squad:  it's irrelevant.  Apologies if I've misinterpreted your meaning, but your statement, quoted above, appears to me to be implicitly assuming something along the lines of "They've already made lots of money so they have some sort of obligation to stop going after more money now."

It doesn't work that way.  Regardless of how financially successful a business has been up to now, they're always focused on making money in the future.  It's what businesses do.  (And personally, I'm pretty glad it's that way, because that's what pays my salary and buys my groceries.)

(Also, to be clear about the "pays my salary" comment above, in case it's not obvious:  that's not Squad I'm talking about.  I don't work for Squad.  I receive no form of compensation from them.  I have no affiliation with them at all, other than being a volunteer moderator in this forum.  Well, unless you count shelling out US$27 for KSP nearly three years ago, and then getting thousands of hours of entertainment out of it.)  :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Besides all this 'poor Squad needs support'-blahblah and the discussions about needing to pay money as you had so much entertainment here's my point of view: Squad is a supplier, I am the customer. If they do not meet my requirements for a certain product, they're out of business. So what are requirements you ask? Well, in my case it is quality (number of bugs), entertainment value (how long will I use it?), resource consumption (do I need a high end machine to be able to use it?) and finally the price. So let's go through it: Squad certainly provided an extremely high entertainment value with the base game, but from time to time their quality was crap (1.1.3 wheel issue, 1.2 terrain seems on the runway and the console bugs, which were at least to some extent  (QA) their fault). To be fair, they solved most of the quality issues with later updates, which makes me confident they will be able to fux their DLC issues as well. The resource consumption is low to average, I'd  say. So yeah I  am waiting for reports on the DLC and then decide if I think my requirements are met...  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Snark said:

Because they're a business.  And every business, by definition, needs money, always, forever, regardless of how much they already have.  That's the whole point of a business.

Here's how a business works:

  1. Business spends money to produce a product.
  2. Business sells that product.  For money.
  3. Then one of two things will happen:
    • It was a smart idea (or they get lucky and are in the right place at the right time), and they make back more money than they spent.  Profit!  Success!  Yay! :D
    • It was a dumb idea (or they get unlucky and are in the wrong place at the wrong time), and they don't make back the money they spent.  Oh noes!  Loss!  And if this keeps up and the loss is too bad, go out of business! ;.;

Maybe Squad is super-profitable.  Or maybe they're struggling.  From your quote above, you appear to be assuming the former; but the fact of the matter is that neither you, nor I, nor anyone outside Squad knows the answer, because their finances aren't public.

But regardless of how laden the ol' oak chest is (or isn't), over at Squad:  it's irrelevant.  Apologies if I've misinterpreted your meaning, but your statement, quoted above, appears to me to be implicitly assuming something along the lines of "They've already made lots of money so they have some sort of obligation to stop going after more money now."

It doesn't work that way.  Regardless of how financially successful a business has been up to now, they're always focused on making money in the future.  It's what businesses do.  (And personally, I'm pretty glad it's that way, because that's what pays my salary and buys my groceries.)

(Also, to be clear about the "pays my salary" comment above, in case it's not obvious:  that's not Squad I'm talking about.  I don't work for Squad.  I receive no form of compensation from them.  I have no affiliation with them at all, other than being a volunteer moderator in this forum.  Well, unless you count shelling out US$27 for KSP nearly three years ago, and then getting thousands of hours of entertainment out of it.)  :wink:

You didn't answer my question. 

 How do you KNOW they are in such need of money. I posit that they have made bucket loads from KSP alone. I very much doubt they are in need of more money as you implied. In fact you then went on to say you hope they don't go bust. Lol, that will never ever happen. They made so much money from the base game! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Majorjim! said:

How do you KNOW they are in such need of money. I posit that they have made bucket loads from KSP alone. I very much doubt they are in need of more money as you implied. In fact you then went on to say you hope they don't go bust. Lol, that will never ever happen. They made so much money from the base game! 

Businesses do not say, "Wow, we made way more money than we expected last year, so let's continue paying rent, salaries, and equipment costs to work on projects that we will give away for free." That manager will be fired regardless of how much money they made last year. Even if SQUAD is sitting on giant piles of cash (which is pure speculation to us on the outside), development will cease if it has no prospect of further income, regardless of its previous earnings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Majorjim! said:

How do you KNOW they are in such need of money

Answered here:

6 hours ago, Snark said:

Because they're a business.  And every business, by definition, needs money, always, forever, regardless of how much they already have.  That's the whole point of a business.

You go on to say,

59 minutes ago, Majorjim! said:

I posit that they have made bucket loads from KSP alone.

There are two problems with this statement:

  1. You don't actually know that.
  2. Even if you're right, it's irrelevant.

Neither you nor I nor anybody outside of Squad has any idea how financially successful they may be.  You can guess, but you don't know, unless you happen to be privy to their total income, and their total expenses, and you're an accountant.  Which I doubt.

But that's begging the question, because it's completely irrelevant how much money they have.  They still need money.  Because that's what a business is.  They could have $10 billion sitting in the bank, and they'd still be looking to figure out how to get to $11 billion.

Perhaps the problem is that you're using the word "need" here in a way that doesn't apply to business.

My impression, based on the statements you're making, is that your mental model goes something like this (apologies if I'm misinterpreting you):

  • There exists some "right" amount of money for a business to make.
  • If they're making less money than that, they should charge more money, and their customers give it to them out of pity, and out of a sense that they deserve it.
  • If they're making more money than that, they're being somehow "greedy", and it's wrong of them to ask people for more money.  Customers should be outraged that they're trying to get more.
  • A business "needs money" if they're running low on cash and are in danger of going out of business.  Or, at least, if it's making less than that "right amount."

It doesn't work that way.  None of the above bullet points are the case.

Here's how it actually works for a business:

  • There is no such thing as "enough money".  More is always better.
  • Every thing the business does is with the sole purpose of getting more money.
  • A business that leaves a money-making opportunity lying around on the floor isn't being "nice".  It's being incompetent.
59 minutes ago, Majorjim! said:

very much doubt they are in need of more money as you implied.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to imply anything.  I was trying to bluntly flat out say it explicitly.  They need more money because every business is always trying to have more money.  There's no such thing as enough.  Does the business have infinite money now?  No?  Then they need more.

And you should be really happy that they don't have "enough".  Because if they did, what reason would they have to stay in business and keep making shiny toys to sell to us?  They'd just close up shop and go home to roll in the cash.

59 minutes ago, Majorjim! said:

In fact you then went on to say you hope they don't go bust.

Where did I say that?

For the record, I've never been particularly worried that they'll "go bust."

I do have concern that they will at some point decide that the cost of "keeping the lights on" in KSP is more than the continued value in doing so, and therefore turn the lights out and move on to other things (since they're a business, not a charity).  That's what all software products do.  KSP is already 5 years in, which is a really long time in computer-game terms.

The longer they went without charging money for something other than KSP itself, the more nervous I got.  That's because KSP has been around long enough that I rather suspect that most of the folks who might be inclined to buy it, have already bought it.  Which would mean Squad would get zero financial benefit from continuing to update the game for those people for free.  The only financial reason (and, therefore, the only reason period, since financial reasons are the only reasons that businesses have) to keep on updating the core game would be if doing so attracts a new stream of new users, and that's gotta peter out eventually.  So I was really worried that they were just trying to eke out the last little bit of new KSP users, and that we were pretty close to seeing KSP finish, and Squad just move on to something completely else.

Which is why I'm so thrilled to see them offer an expansion that costs money to people who already have the game.  Why?  Because that means Squad is viewing KSP as a viable future income stream.  If they have a financial incentive to keep working on it, that means that KSP just got a massive "shot in the arm" and we can expect it to stick around for a good while longer.

Unless, of course, the expansion flops because the community simply doesn't want to spend more money on KSP.  In which case Squad would quite properly abandon KSP as "it's done now", and no more shiny kerbalness from them, ever.  Which as a player would make me sad, of course, but that wouldn't change the fact that it would be the right thing to do from a business perspective.

59 minutes ago, Majorjim! said:

Lol, that will never ever happen. They made so much money from the base game! 

Irrelevant.

All that matters is, are they making money NOW.  And, more to the point, do they believe that they will continue making money into the future.

Even if they made a billion gajillion squintillion dollars from the base game... what do you think they would do if it stopped bringing in the cash?

They'd do what any business would do.  Turn out the lights, take the cash, and go home.  The only reason to keep paying people and doing stuff is if they make more money by doing so, regardless of how much they already have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst I agree with the general sentiment, @Snark, it's not quite true that all businesses only exist to make money. Most of them, probably yes. But there are also businesses set up as hobbies by the owners, and they make little to no money and the owner doesn't mind. There are also businesses where the owners feel that all they need is a steady enough income to pay their employees, and they aren't interested in expanding to get more money. Then there are businesses where the owners are more interested in investing all profits into R&D for a certain field, even if they don't benefit from it directly.

It all depends on the mentality of the owner. But there are few people who would say "we've earned enough money now, so let's just keep paying our employees to keep working even though we'll get nothing back from it."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a problem paying for DLC for this game, it's just this DLC is stuff we can do with mods.  There are plenty of classic mission replica parts out there, and as for the mission creator, well I don't even see that as remotely useful.  I don't need to make a mission to do what I want to do, I just do it.  In general, I don't like being shoehorned by those requirements.

I would have expected a DLC to be a major addition that adds something new, and this doesn't.  It also comes a bit late, don't get me wrong, I love this game... but it is in it's waning period now.  I haven't played a lot lately, I will play again, but not likely ever to the extent I already have.  It seems to me like this won't get a lot of takers.  Sure the absolute enthusiasts you find on these forums will buy it, but not the average gamers that own the game already.  Not this late.  It seems it would have been a better idea to invest in the next project in the franchise, whether it be KSP2, or Kerbal Flight Program, or Kerbal Nautical Program... Kerbal Motorsports Program.

Edited by Alshain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/22/2017 at 6:08 AM, frizzank said:

You paid what $20, 5 freaking years ago for a game with hundreds of hours of game-play and now EXPECT EVERYTHING AFTER THAT TO BE FREE???

This game has given Way, Way,Way,Way,Way,Way,Way,Way,Way, more back to its fans than any game I can think of in recent history. Yet you  still find it absurd that after 5 years of free stuff they want you to finally pay for extra content!

Yes, and I payed the asking price for that product that was in early access and that had made promises to keep developing the game in exchange to me paying for it in advance.

Now, I will concede and say that Squad has made more than it was obligated to with updates after 1.0.5 and I am thankful for that.

On 3/22/2017 at 6:08 AM, frizzank said:

It takes hundreds of man hours to create just one hour of gameplay. Game devs have to eat and pay our bills just like you. Don't like the game, then don't buy the expansion. But if you do like it you better sure as heck cough up that $15 for the DLC and not say a freaking word about how your not getting your moneys worth.

and what about my bills? Just because I liked the game dosnt mean I'd like the expansion and if I am ok with not getting any extra content why should I buy it? would you be OK if every time you bought a game you were forced to by a 50$ Season pass in addition to your 60$ game? I dont think so, there's a reason these are called expansion and why they are separate from the main game.

Oh and BTW I'm planning on getting the expansion if it's not just the mission creator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of people are saying the DLC will do what mods can do already, can someone point me to a mod that does this?

Quote

Using an intuitive drag and drop node interface, you can easily create new and exciting new missions for yourself or others to enjoy. Creators can also add constraints such as time, fuel and parts limits; as well as unexpected mission events.

If they do this right and make it simple enough for non-coders this could be a big deal- imagine user made campaigns either integrated or apart from career mode. This could be a pretty cool thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Waxing_Kibbous said:

A lot of people are saying the DLC will do what mods can do already, can someone point me to a mod that does this?

If they do this right and make it simple enough for non-coders this could be a big deal- imagine user made campaigns either integrated or apart from career mode. This could be a pretty cool thing.

The mods are the other half of it, arguably the only part that matters.  People have been replicating real world historical missions since the beginning of KSP, there are mods out to add more specific parts for it.  This that you are discussing will interesting a very small minority of people.  Most people don't need missions to tell them what to do in KSP, this is a sandbox style game.  So either it does what mods do, or what few will care about.

Edited by Alshain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I for myself see this a two sided way...

I am not intending to pay for a DLC in KSP that is mine by word of squad and that has been confirmend by squad again. (The 2013 thingi which harvester announced at that time...)

 

On the other hand without fresh money ksp is dead in the future somwhere...

So why not have a donate button for the DLC i would donate gladly what i can.... not pay!

 

My point is:

Its a simple a matter of staying true to their word.

I will not pay any bugs for a KSP DLC.

But i gladly donate and that is something i whish to be respected here.

Point taken?!

Edited by Nightmare

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The expansion is wonderfully optional. I think parents with kids might enjoy setting something up with the proposed mission builder.  Even without it, every current player continues to benefit from ongoing updates to the base game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Alshain has pointed out there is a major flaw with purchasing something you can get for free in a legal way... As far as the mission editor goes - don't we already have our challenge section on the boards? I disagree a bit with the 'too late' statement. Squad currently expanded to overseas markets and now hopes to cash in a little extra from those customers. For them the DLC will be just in time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, something said:

As Alshain has pointed out there is a major flaw with purchasing something you can get for free in a legal way... As far as the mission editor goes - don't we already have our challenge section on the boards? I disagree a bit with the 'too late' statement. Squad currently expanded to overseas markets and now hopes to cash in a little extra from those customers. For them the DLC will be just in time.

And that's where opinions differ. Consider, for instance, the Flightsim market. There are many simmers who've spent 10-20× the value of FS9/10 (or Prepar3d) on DLC. And the funny thing is... most of the planes they've bought are available for free!

So why do they spend $50 on, say, a P51D Mustang they can download for free? The magic words are added value; and for them the added value the DLC offers easily outstrips the price. Here's a couple of reasons:

  • Insane quality. DLC can represent many more hours in design and build time than most modders are willing to invest in their products. Why would a modder painstakingly improve features of her mod she doesn't care about? For commercial DLC the incentive is quite obvious. This likely will not apply to Squad's DLC, although one can argue that consistency in design style and guaranteed integration in current and future game features could be considered something similar.
  • Continuity. Love Porkjets inflatable habitats? I do! With each release they work less and less satisfactory. If you're building a long running career you will care if your mod will be there three releases from now. A modder can quit for many reasons (career, study, ragequitting due to modpacks/ckan or users in general, and so on). Commercial DLC is much less likely to suffer from those effects.
  • No dependencies on mods that might disappear. “This mod requires parachutes X, or VarySizeY mod”—adding functionality and/or parts you're not asking for. And those mods might quit on you, one day (see above).
  • Setting standards. If a mod/DLC is popular enough, the added functionality it is adding might be picked up by other mods. It's not unreasonable to expect mission packs based on the first DLC pack.

And I'm sure there are other reasons (based on personal preferences/opinion).

Are these valid reasons to run out and buy the DLC? That depends on how you quantitatively judge the added value, and on what Squad will be charging for it. Obviously $5 will resonate “worth it” with a lot more users than $25 will. But there are undeniable intangibles that offer extra value for Squad DLC over free mods and depending on the price point I expect it to sell well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to buy the DLC because I've gotten more than my money's worth. In about a year and a half, I've gotten somewhere around 750 hours in KSP. If you account for the US$40 initial purchase price, KSP has cost me about a nickel an hour, which is beyond a good deal. SQUAD has done a fantastic job with this game, and I'll pay for DLC regardless of what can be achieved with mods.

I've also got a question for some of the naysayers: If you postulate that no DLC will be better than mods, are you going to pay modmakers for their trouble? Many have Patreon or Paypal, and yet it seems as if an infinitesimal portion of users donate even a dollar or two. Most users can probably afford it, yet they aren't willing to support people who make things they like. Just an observation. 

Edited by ottothesilent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some questions: Will @SQUAD lock some part/feature of its game in order to prevent mods from doing the same as the DLC would do? Usually, in my opinion, mods do a much better job than what @SQUAD has always come up with: Visual improvement, telecommunication, parts pack, contracts pack, and so on... My doubts are that this DLC will only look bad and could actually be "against" @SQUAD own interest: KSP has always played the "we're a new game maker company" card and the "the game is in dev" card. Now having DLC's around forbid @SQUAD to play those cards again. So if the DLC's are not a game changer, I fear that the players won't forgive errors like they used to due to those cards played by @SQUAD. The game costs now 40€, add on top of that a DLC (let's say of 10€ for instance), we will be in the same price category of any other game from the big cheeks companies. Is @SQUAD sure to be able to play in that league? Having finally my keyboard language after 4 years is typically the things that makes me fear this game is not ready for DLC's...

Bear my words: I want @SQUAD to succeed in his every undertaking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Majorjim! said:

How do you KNOW they are in such need of money.

Because they're about to start selling DLC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Benoit Hage said:

Some questions

No way to know for sure without a direct statement from the company, of course, but one can take a pretty good stab at it.

26 minutes ago, Benoit Hage said:

Will @SQUAD lock some part/feature of its game in order to prevent mods from doing the same as the DLC would do?

I would say "almost certainly not."  I would be flabbergasted.  Not only would it be a pretty dumb thing to do, but also it would be completely at odds with everytihng they've ever done, and there's no reason I can see for it.

They've never "locked" anything.  If anything, they've gone out of their way to make the game as open and moddable as possible.  I can't find one single instance of their ever taking a thing that was moddable at some point, and then making it not moddable.  On the contrary:  the game has gradually become more moddable over time, as things that once weren't, become so.

29 minutes ago, Benoit Hage said:

KSP has always played the "we're a new game maker company" card

How so?  Where?  What's the concern here?

I mean, they're small, sure, which means they're not going to be able to turn out a game at the same scale or polish as an EA or a Blizzard, but that's always been the case and seems likely to remain so for quite a while.  The advent of DLC doesn't change that at all.

30 minutes ago, Benoit Hage said:

KSP has always played ... the "the game is in dev" card.

No it hasn't, "always".  It played that card up until April 2015, when it released 1.0.  Since then it's been doing some bugfixes and feature updates, but in what aspect was it "playing the game-is-in-dev" card that has you concerned, here?

33 minutes ago, Benoit Hage said:

Now having DLC's around forbid @SQUAD to play those cards again.

Nonsense.  How does having DLCs make any difference in that regard?  It's simply more Kerbal stuff, is all.  You think they won't release bugfixes and such for DLCs?

Look, there's nothing special about DLC.  It's just a software product.  Same as the original KSP is just a software product.  A company is free to make whatever decisions it likes about development, release, marketing, etc. for DLC, same as with any other software product.

Squad made KSP for money, and sold it for money.  Squad's making "Making History" for money, and will be selling that for money, too.  What's the big deal?

36 minutes ago, Benoit Hage said:

I fear that the players won't forgive errors like they used to

...Sorry.  I had to take a moment to have a little chuckle, there.  "Forgive errors."  Heh.  (I hope you'll bear with me, but as a forum moderator, I have always had to spend a fair amount of time every week donning an asbestos suit and strapping on a fire extinguisher to go deal with the latest spasm of "error forgiveness" in the forum...)

The fact is, people love playing KSP.  People spend thousands of hours playing the game.  They spend hundreds or even thousands more hours posting about it here in the forums.  It's a hit.  It touches some chord in the soul of people and just won't let go.  This is clear to me.

There are folks who are happy and enthusiastic and willing to forgive stumbles along the way, because they OMG KERBAL FUN YAY SQUEEEE.  (I'm pretty much in that category myself, in case it's not obvious.)  :wink:  People like that tend to be fairly forgiving.  It's a part of who they are.  They've always been that way, and I expect they probably always will be.

And there are also folks who get angry at what they see as Squad dropping the ball, or being unresponsive to players, or whatever other complaint they have.  They're mad a lot.  (Sometimes with good reason, as with the flap over the initial console release.)  They're a small but very vocal minority here on the forums.  They've always been inclined to anger, and probably always will be.

That's not to say that individual people can't change over time, of course, and a person can shift from one category to the other (to the extent that one can actually "categorize" people, which is a gross oversimplification, of course).  But the point is:  that mix of happy and angry has been remarkably consistent over time.  Certainly in the few years I've been on the forums.  I honestly don't see that changing any time in the foreseeable future, DLC or no DLC.

The moment I heard "Squad's going to be selling an expansion", the very first thought that went through my moderator's brain was: "Oh, okay.  The forums are going to erupt.  There are going to be a whole bunch of users going 'Yay! This is awesome! Please take my money!'  And there are going to be a whole bunch of users going 'Evil bad Squad! How dare you ask for money!', or 'This is a stupid idea for an expansion, because <reasons>, they should do <other thing> instead!'"  In short:  "It's the same reaction that happens any time something new happens in Kerbaldom."

Lo and behold, that's exactly what happened, and is continuing to happen.  No surprises there.

And I expect the same will be true when "Making History" actually comes out.  And, if it's successful, hopefully future additional expansions as well.

 

49 minutes ago, Benoit Hage said:

The game costs now 40€, add on top of that a DLC (let's say of 10€ for instance), we will be in the same price category of any other game from the big cheeks companies.

No, that's still two separate products that can be purchased separately.  They're still selling the base game, and that hasn't changed.  And given the insane number of hours that legions of KSP players sink into this game, I'd be hard-pressed to see them balking at a measly 10€ for shiny new stuff.  Certainly there seems to be an enthusiastically positive reaction here on the forum, for example.

Also, you don't know what price they'll be charging.  Unless there's reason to assume otherwise, it seems reasonable to suppose that Squad knows their business, can look at sales, and can make a reasonable choice about sales price.

Since neither you nor I nor anyone else knows yet what the price point is going to be-- either initially, or going forward-- then it's fairly pointless to speculate about the pricing model.  I think it's safe to say that the company will make a point of setting up the prices in such a way that lots of KSP players will want to buy it.  I mean, if the company wasn't confident that they could do that, they would have had to be pretty stupid to consider producing DLC in the first place, wouldn't they?

 

53 minutes ago, Benoit Hage said:

Having finally my keyboard language after 4 years is typically the things that makes me fear this game is not ready for DLC's...

How so?  What does localization in particular have anything to do with the decision to release DLCs or not?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.