UomoCapra

KSP Acquired by Take-Two Interactive

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, sarbian said:

Can those who keep talking about micro transaction and such explains where those fears from ? Because I keep looking at T2 published game list and most of them don't have any of that. Some seems to forget that T2 publish a bit more than GTA: Civilization, XCOM, Borderland, Bioshock...

Those games (last I checked) don't run on micropayment and are not minor games.

From Strauss Zelnick (CEO of Take Two) himself? He mentioned it after the TT acquisition of KSP.

Edited by Yakuzi
Zelnick didn't mention KSP directly for microtransactions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, sarbian said:

Can those who keep talking about micro transaction and such explains where those fears from ? Because I keep looking at T2 published game list and most of them don't have any of that. Some seems to forget that T2 publish a bit more than GTA: Civilization, XCOM, Borderland, Bioshock...

Those games (last I checked) don't run on micropayment and are not minor games.

Not to be a pedant, but I believe GTA Online has or at least at one time HAD micro transactions unless they've moved away from the "Shark Cards" they had on launch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ignath said:

Not to be a pedant, but I believe GTA Online has or at least at one time HAD micro transactions unless they've moved away from the "Shark Cards" they had on launch.

My post said that they do OTHER game beside GTA.

6 minutes ago, Yakuzi said:

From Strauss Zelnick (CEO of Take Two) himself? Apparently specifically about KSP.

Thanks, that s the kind of answer that bring something to the conversation :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Yakuzi said:

From Strauss Zelnick (CEO of Take Two) himself? He mentioned it after announcing the acquisition of KSP.

After reading the article, I wonder if future updates (say 1.5 or even 2.0) might require payment to upgrade. Also, for those of us who bought the game under the "early release" provisions where updates would be free, is that still the plan or has the selling of KSP to TT do away with that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, sarbian said:

Thanks, that s the kind of answer that bring something to the conversation :)

No worries :) 

He didn't mention KSP specifically for microtransactions though... My bad, I have corrected my previous post accordingly

Share this post


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

My post said that they do OTHER game beside GTA.

Yep, sorry...misread your post.  I thought GTA was included in that list, not the single exclusion.  The link from @Yakuzi, however, makes it seem like micro transactions are coming, at least for more TTI games (no specific mention of KSP though).

And just to be clear, I've got no real dog in this fight.  I am a proud fan of Paradox Interactive, so DLC and what could be called "micro transactions" aren't a huge bother to me.  If I don't want it, I just don't buy it...simple as that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ignath said:

Yep, sorry...misread your post.  I thought GTA was included in that list, not the single exclusion.  The link from @Yakuzi, however, makes it seem like micro transactions are coming, at least for more TTI games (no specific mention of KSP though).

And just to be clear, I've got no real dog in this fight.  I am a proud fan of Paradox Interactive, so DLC and what could be called "micro transactions" aren't a huge bother to me.  If I don't want it, I just don't buy it...simple as that.

Indeed, properly done DLC (Like Paradox does) is how you pay for continuous dev of your game after a release. Some seems to forget that devs cost money...

Also to make my position clear : I'm just wondering why some keep bringing the micropayment scarecrow. I do not express a position on the KSP deal.

 

 

Share this post


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

Also to make my position clear : I'm just wondering why some keep bringing the micropayment scarecrow. I do not express a position on the KSP deal.

If microtransactions come, then GOG is (with very high probability) dropped and KSP will be DRMed.

I strongly hope this does not happen.

From here:

Quote

Zelnick said that Take-Two wasn't maximizing its microtranaction business. ".... we are probably ... undermonetizing on a per-user basis. There is wood to chop ... (whilst staying) ... most creative and our ethical approach, which is delighting consumers."

 

Share this post


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

Indeed, properly done DLC (Like Paradox does) is how you pay for continuous dev of your game after a release. Some seems to forget that devs cost money...

Also to make my position clear : I'm just wondering why some keep bringing the micropayment scarecrow. I do not express a position on the KSP deal.

 

 

Paradox has a great system. Fairly cheap base game and spam that well made and appropriately priced DLC that adds things that feel like they weren't exactly needed but now you don't know how you played without them. (I'm looking at you EU4: El Dorado)

Edited by Spartwo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 31/5/2017 at 8:29 PM, Spartwo said:

Forza, Halo(including Bungie's), and Age of Empires come to mind immediately as Microsoft games that are terrific.

Title that comes to my mind after reading Microsoft is Freelancer :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, sarbian said:

I'm just wondering why some keep bringing the micropayment scarecrow.

Because "You can expect Take-Two's future games to continue to make use of microtransactions." and KSP is now a Take-Two game.

 

EDIT : Although he also said "So you can expect Take-Two to try to walk the line of making more money per user, but in a way that doesn't negatively impact the user experience."

So there's that

Edited by John FX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But what happened to Take-One Interactive?

Conspiracy-Keanu-745x559-5176787edc95968f.jpg

I hope that KSP will continue to thrive under the care of Take-Two Interactive, and pray that it shall outlive us all...OK, that might be a bit extreme. Best of wishes Dev Team. Happy Landings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I kinda prefered KSP to be in the hands of its original makers, but this is how life goes. I'm unfortunately part of the skeptical Kerbals here. Yes, Take-Two has a nice track record, but it is the other stuff and changes that concern me (and others). I also had some ideas on the outside, and now I can pretty much trash that I think ,_, ;.;

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at the cost/benefit of adding microtransactions/DRM to KSP.

The game is highly moddable and always has been, which sets an expectation for the userbase that they can mod the game (and, in fact, I would argue, future major KSP titles). If you suddenly take that away you can expect reduced profit from the IP.

The game has no DRM and never did, which sets an expectation for the userbase that they don't need it. If you suddenly add it, you can likely expect reduced profit from the IP. For future titles it really depends on the expected benefit of adding it, but that can be included as an early development cost rather than something that needs to be shoe-horned into an existing codebase.

Microtransactions in a game that isn't DRM'd would probably imply a lot of sharing around, although I've heard Unity Asset Bundles can help keep the IP secure (at least insofar as extracting those assets?). Regardless, there's a lot of dev time wrapped up into adding both microtransactions and DRM. In KSP's case it probably isn't worth the time to add those things. There is little, if any, benefit to gain from the established userbase. The best way for TTI to make a profit is to encourage more DLCs (content) from Squad while looking towards other games or products to maximize their investment in the IP (hopefully by finding another studio to make KSP2, the "Actually, You Are Directing A Space Program And We Spent Time At Least Making It Look Like We Thought About Designing The Gameplay Game.").

In short, it's probably way too much effort for TTI to have Squad put microtransactions or DRM into KSP, not only due to an enormous technical hurdle but also in the face of a possible backlash of a very passionate, and large, userbase. The cost for benefit just doesn't add up.

Now, for future products in the IP all bets are off.

Edited by regex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yes. It will be for the better in the end. And if anything - and this may sound weird at this point - I would pay for DLC because KSP deserves it. The only thing that I don't like about it is that there will a lot more bureaucracy and splitting between the community and devs at some point. And usually, things can easily go a way different path because somebody up there thinks it is better. It happens all the time. I know I'm doing a bit of a doomsday thing, but I really liked SQUAD being on its own legs. 

But just to be clear. I'm just a minion! I don't want to be painting the devil on the wall, but it does feel a bit like there's a deal with him - making the painting all but unnecessary! lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Business tend to quantify decisions based on data, not on numbers pulled out of where the sun don't shine, if possible.

2) The potential revenue stream from DLC can be projected within reasonable boundaries based on sales figures

3) Revenue from micro-transactions is totally unpredictable as it is alien (no pun intended) withing the KSP gaming culture

4) Whatever micro-transactions would unlock, there's a good chance it can be circumvented by mods. To counter that, mods will be restricted in some way (either by TT "signing off" on them, limiting the API, etc. obviously this will severly reduce the attractiveness of the game.

All in all, micro transactions would be an incredible shortsighted revenue maker. TT publishes excellent games without micropayments, why would they introduce it to KSP and jeopardize the revenue stream of their investment? Spinoffs might have micropayments, but I doubt KSP will have them. It doesn't make sense.

Contrary to popular believe, CEO's and decision makers are not out to buy the rights to a game for the only goal of ruining it. Surely money will have to be made and the logical way to do that for KSP is to develop DLC and charge for it. And that's a win for everyone; if you expect DLC expansions to be free you can expect very few of them, regardless of TT taking over KSP; developers need to get paid.

TT will get the most money out of KSP DLC if they sell a lot of them and that will only happen if it's high quality. I don't have a problem with high quality DLC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

...

why would they introduce it to KSP and jeopardize the revenue stream of their investment?

Because some of us lack trust in outsiders (or their meddling in any way). Probably it is just acute pessimism.

Then again. Some of us actually care more about SQUAD and SQUAD only. And there is always some change or thing that leads to somebody getting the short end of the stick. 

Gonna stage myself off, since I don't want to kill the board with my blatheringies. 

 

 

 

... I don't know why, but I need to buy the GOG version asap.

Edited by Spraki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope TAKE TWO is keeping KSP free from any kind of unreasonable celebration of violence, thats all i have to say.

Congrats to the KSP dev team to this promising happening!
TakeTwo, good luck to all of you!

Share this post


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

KSP2, the "Actually, You Are Directing A Space Program And We Spent Time At Least Making It Look Like We Thought About Designing The Gameplay Game."

I would buy that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/31/2017 at 10:56 PM, Benjamin Kerman said:

I think all i can say at this point is

081.jpeg

So long, and thanks for all the science!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hehe, rant time :)

 

"...walk the line of making more money per user [while not] negatively impact[ing] the user experience" = get away with as much an increase in prices/microtransactions as they can, while still making a net gain in profits, even if they lose some customers (meaing you, the current audience). This also means more "mainstreaming" of the game. Mass-Market compability. And that means removing features that may inconvenience users or turn away potential customers.* I am not sure what would get cut - but I can never imagine beforehand.

Let me explain with a seemingly unrelated example: The Elder Scrolls.

Lets start with TES II: Daggerfall. Came out in 1996. Visionary game, to date the largest landmass of any open world game. Mostly randomly generated content though, kinda like No Mans Sky, really, but apparently not so excrementsty. Built around the D&D Role Playing System. Minimal Graphics (of course), and intended for a specific audience, namely Pen&Paper players who want to play something on the PC as well. A niche product, but still reasonably successfull. Introduced most of the background story to the games, and garnered some Mass-Market appeal.

Next came the much more well known TES III: Morrowind. Came out in 2002, and change a whole lot of things. Everything is handcrafted now, graphics are at the forefront of their time, the background story is hugely expanded, the game world itself is strange and unfamiliar, even compared to the previous games. Many things are streamlined: Less skills, not able to buy houses anymore, far fewer factions, map significantly smaller (like ... 1% the size of Daggerfall), easier controls, etc. But many things stay the same: Combat is still based on dice-rolls, as are most skill checks. Character creation stays pretty complex, learning curve is still high. You are still required to read and understand what is said to you (no voiced dialogue). Garners huge mass market appeal and praise from ciritcs and players alike.

Now fast forward to 2011 and Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim. Game-world-size is still the same, or even slightely less (depends on your metric). Graphics got a huge upgrade. Dialogue options got reduced massively, thanks to fully voiced characters. Character Creation is simplified (to the extreme, some might say). A third of the skills is axed, as are classes, attributes, meaningful background information (200 years have passed since the last game, yet there are almost no new books, for example), and first and foremost: Everything is streamlined. You are not required to read - just follow the pointer. You don't need to explore anymore, everything gets marked on your map beforehand. Equipment slots on your character are down from 15 to 9, the first thing you are introduced to is the fast travel menu, weapons don't degrade anymore, potionmaking can not fail, etc. etc. There are comprehensive lists out there. Oh, and it was developed with consoles in mind, so the UI is utter garbage as well.

 

So, what has all this meaningless banter to do with KSP? Well, thats really simple. When Bethesda Softworks, who develop Elder Scrolls to this day, started out, they had a vision, a goal: To create the Pen&Paper experience for the PC. But over the years, something changed, and that was that they were acquired by ZeniMax Media due to financial troubles. Now they got cash, allright, and they still could develop their game, but they also had to deliver. To create a game that wouldn't sell would be a serious concern. Create two in a row that don't sell, and you are out. Forever. Mind you, they at least still own the IP-Rights to the franchise. So they did the only thing they could: They changed their target audience. And naturally, they targeted the biggest audience they could. And that was not the Pen&Paper crowd. It was the casual, instant-gratification-but-zero-attention-span crowd. Granted, that process took some time, but it happened. Just look at Fallout 4, their latest and greatest. And the same thing will, without fail, happen to KSP. You all who proclaim "We are the community", are the target audience for the game that was originally envisioned. So while the practically guaranteed KSP-2 may still please you (larger budget, much more polished, more comfortable to use, but basically the same game, with some features missing), KSP-3 will not be your game anymore. Because you are not the target audience, and TakeTwo wants to make money. Of course, they are a buisiness. They are not evil, they just do what is best for buisiness. And while you, or we, the current core community, is very vocal, because we care about the game - we are still very few. Lets say, a few tenthousands. KSP sold what, 2 million kopies? Drop of water on a hot stone. We just don't have the financial power to make the developers and publishers do what we want, not anymore at least, with a big publisher behind it all.

And please, don't buy into that "KSP development remains independent from TakeTwo" talk. It can't be, since T2 owns the property now, and they decide what to fund. Oh, and another point. Yes, ElderScrolls is extremely modable, and mod friendly. Some even go so far as to say that the base game is purposefully bad, because "Mods will fix it". But mods can't fix everything. Let's say, for example, the Aeromodel is not modable in a future KSP release. Out the window go all the better athmosphere or realism mods. Or that you can't add planets anymore - because those are a paid feature of an expansion pack. The possibilities for limitations are endless. And you have to realize, that it does not matter to TakeTwo what kind of game KSP is, just how well it sells. If it were a tree growing simulator, where you just watch trees grow in real time, but half the planets population buys this - T2 does not care - even if the vocal minority is begging for features like "Let us choose which trees to grow!!" and the old guard is whining all day about missing features.

So no, in the long term, I don't like this at all, because I can see where it is going already. Maybe I am wrong, I sure do hope so. Maybe there is enough of a niche-market, like there is for the Paradox Grand Strategy Titles, which still make a profit, mainly due to very pricey add-ons. Europa Universalis with all addons costs about 150$ right now. Maybe TakeTwo is going that route. Or they focus on the "fun" and "child friendly" aspects of the game: Plushy Kerbals with big eyes, they are so cute, after all. Then it becomes the next Spore.

 

Well, I am done, lets just hope for the best.

 

*There is one well known and financially successful exception to this rule, which is the Dark Souls franchise, which is entirely built around high difficulty and a steep lerning curve. I am excluding multiplayer games that are built solely for competitive play here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, John FX said:

I would buy that.

Get Firaxis to make it? 

Sid Meier's Kerbal Space Pirates! Program.

Edited by Orionkermin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mmmm.....after reading every comment in this thread I see both sides of the coin however where I was not bothered before I'm starting to feel the end of KSP as we know it is soon approaching.

Maybe this is a bad thing...maybe a good thing.

For me though Im starting to feel that maybe I should stop here at 1.2.2 before things change too much away from where we are right now.

SOOO many mods already that I haven't used or experienced will give me years of enjoyment.

Will be watching closely but I'm not prepared to give my favourite toy to someone else to play with right now.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.