KSP 2 Would Have Microtransactions

[Superfluous J]

1 hour ago, regex said:

Implementing a micro-transaction model for the current game would require a massive effort, and anyway we'd know in advance because Squad is the kind of company that loves hype.

"I can't tell you what's coming in KSP 1.7, but I can say it rhymes with 'schmicro-vransactions'."

[Spricigo]

32 minutes ago, cfds said:

...the steam's "shove every update down the user's throat" approach would make it trivial to implement it without the user's consent (unless he has a backup).

 

Backup is trivial to do, even with an 'stealth update' you can still revert to last stable version and get the game out of steam directory.

 

 

[regex]

13 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

"I can't tell you what's coming in KSP 1.7, but I can say it rhymes with 'schmicro-vransactions'."

Please don't remind me that Max worked here ever again.

Edited November 9, 2017 by regex

[Kerbart]

1 hour ago, MR L A said:

This should probably be moved seeing as it isn't KSP specific... No where in the article does it say that CURRENT games will be retrofitted with micro-transaction content. The article only suggests that all new games T2 will have micro-transactions... nothing else 

Not even that. Recurring revenue stream. Could be micro transactions, could be DLC. The claim that it’s only microtransactions came from a journalist who got what he wanted to have; attention.

[cfds]

10 hours ago, Spricigo said:

 

Backup is trivial to do, even with an 'stealth update' you can still revert to last stable version and get the game out of steam directory.

 

 

Sorry to go slightly off-topic here, but does this option actually exist? Steam did update a game last weekend where I would prefer to finish a savegame with the previous version and I did not found any such option (presumably because "the last stable version" is defined by the publisher as the one that was just installed on my system..).

[Superfluous J]

1 hour ago, cfds said:

Sorry to go slightly off-topic here, but does this option actually exist? Steam did update a game last weekend where I would prefer to finish a savegame with the previous version and I did not found any such option (presumably because "the last stable version" is defined by the publisher as the one that was just installed on my system..).

It exists for all DRM-free games, including KSP.

All you need to do is find your Steam KSP folder, mine is c:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\Kerbal Space Program\, into another folder. I copy mine to d:\ksp_* where * is something semi-descriptive. I have the following folders in my d: drive:

KSP_105
ksp_20161129
ksp_actualstock
ksp_contracts
ksp_current
ksp_current_121_bad
ksp_future
ksp_galileo
KSP_nh
ksp_stockish
ksp_stockish_old

I'll leave it to the reader to figure out what each one is.

[Harry Rhodan]

2 hours ago, cfds said:

Sorry to go slightly off-topic here, but does this option actually exist?

 

[The_Rocketeer]

Can someone explain to me how microtransactions are good for players? I have a very narrow experience of them because the handful of times I've actually gone in for games that utilised them I realised I was frittering away real money on things that were, in all practical senses, utterly worthless. So I cut that crap out, and now if I find a game has microtransactions (even if it doesn't depend on them for the game to be fair or enjoyable) I pretty much just switch off and do something else. I don't see how a 'finished' game could be enjoyable enough for me to invest my time and money in it at the same time as needing improvement enough for me to want to buy premium upgrades.

I mean, if you've got so much money that it doesn't matter if you blow a few grand a year massaging your ego/"collecting the whole set" that might be one thing, but most of the world doesn't have that kind of financial freedom and never will. So then microtransactions become a class division, and the days when all players were equals are done. Leaving morals aside, none of this feels like sound business to me, it feels more like draining the swamp.

[cfds]

2 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:

It exists for all DRM-free games, including KSP.

So, if the publisher would include DRM with one update it would not work any more? Besides, the game in question is not DRM free so this seems not to be an option...

[KSK]

1 hour ago, The_Rocketeer said:

Can someone explain to me how microtransactions are good for players? I have a very narrow experience of them because the handful of times I've actually gone in for games that utilised them I realised I was frittering away real money on things that were, in all practical senses, utterly worthless. So I cut that crap out, and now if I find a game has microtransactions (even if it doesn't depend on them for the game to be fair or enjoyable) I pretty much just switch off and do something else. I don't see how a 'finished' game could be enjoyable enough for me to invest my time and money in it at the same time as needing improvement enough for me to want to buy premium upgrades.

I mean, if you've got so much money that it doesn't matter if you blow a few grand a year massaging your ego/"collecting the whole set" that might be one thing, but most of the world doesn't have that kind of financial freedom and never will. So then microtransactions become a class division, and the days when all players were equals are done. Leaving morals aside, none of this feels like sound business to me, it feels more like draining the swamp.

I think we've debated this before but here goes.

It's a bit tautological but whether micro-transactions are good for players, depends whether the players like what's been sold via the micro-transactions and whether it enhances the game for them. Nothing more, nothing less. If having that bobble-head toy on your spaceship dashboard (I do), fancy hat on your Team Fortress character or whatever, adds to your enjoyment of the game then arguably, that microtransaction was good for you. To other players, that hat, bobble-head toy or whatever, may indeed be utterly worthless. Then again, I'm not a big fan of 1st person shooter games, so there's an entire (very popular) genre of games out there that, in all practical senses, is utterly worthless to me.

There's an argument that all these cosmetic knick-knacks 'should' be rolled into the base game and in that sense, being charged extra for them isn't good for players. Unfortunately, players were their own downfall there. Once games companies discovered that players would fork over actual money for cosmetic trinkets, that was pretty much that. There's a clear market demand for said trinkets, so any company failing to meet that market demand is leaving money on the table.  So I have to disagree with you - microtransactions are very much a sound business, although personal opinions on the nature of that business may reasonably differ.

Regarding your last paragraph, most of the world doesn't have the financial freedom to indulge in gaming as a hobby at all. So I would say that microtransactions are no more, or less, a class division than gaming. For that matter, all gamers have never been equals and that's been true since the days of the first home computers. Want to play the latest games with the nice shiny graphics but can't afford an Amiga or Atari ST. Back to thy ZX Spectrum with you, sir! And you will enjoy your colour clashing sprites or monochrome graphics! (Fortunately for me, I did. Although that didn't stop me coveting my mate's ST.  )

The same is true today and we even see it on these forums. Some folks play KSP on their lovely high-end gaming rigs and enjoy ludicrous part counts and  shiny graphics mods. Others play it on 'potato' computers that struggle with modest part counts and chug along with low to medium stock graphics.  Yes, those players are playing the same game, but I would argue that they're getting rather different experiences from that game.

Edited November 10, 2017 by KSK

[cfds]

1 hour ago, The_Rocketeer said:

Can someone explain to me how microtransactions are good for players? I have a very narrow experience of them because the handful of times I've actually gone in for games that utilised them I realised I was frittering away real money on things that were, in all practical senses, utterly worthless. So I cut that crap out, and now if I find a game has microtransactions (even if it doesn't depend on them for the game to be fair or enjoyable) I pretty much just switch off and do something else. I don't see how a 'finished' game could be enjoyable enough for me to invest my time and money in it at the same time as needing improvement enough for me to want to buy premium upgrades.

I mean, if you've got so much money that it doesn't matter if you blow a few grand a year massaging your ego/"collecting the whole set" that might be one thing, but most of the world doesn't have that kind of financial freedom and never will. So then microtransactions become a class division, and the days when all players were equals are done. Leaving morals aside, none of this feels like sound business to me, it feels more like draining the swamp.

Games with micro-transactions work by "milking whales", at least in massive multiplayer online games: The bulk of player base only needs the base game (that might even be free) and keep the numbers up and the waiting times low while the money is earned off the small percentage of people that are willing to pay for visual improvements and short cuts to the grinding. For example, in the warthunder reddit are people who claim to have dropped four-digit dollar amounts on a free game....

So they are good for players because 90% of the players can play a game for free and have some idiots pay for it....

Edited November 10, 2017 by cfds

[The_Rocketeer]

2 hours ago, KSK said:

Unfortunately, other, wealthier or more gullible players were their own downfall there

Fixed this part for you.
 

2 hours ago, KSK said:

For that matter, all gamers have never been equals and that's been true since the days of the first home computers.

Except in the sense that the same game on the same system is, y'know, the same. Now it depends on whether you decided to part with more wealth for more pay-to-win upgrades or cosmetic detailing. I'll grant you this isn't that relevant to KSP(2?) but it sure matters in games with a PvP, or even just an MP, element.
 

2 hours ago, KSK said:

any company failing to meet that market demand is leaving money on the table

You need to read Nash. Leaving money on the table is excellent business if you understand the systems it sustains and the market stability and future certainty it provides to your particular niche. Smash and grab capitalism isn't and never has been sound business.
 

2 hours ago, cfds said:

So they are good for players because 90% of the players can play a game for free and have some idiots pay for it.

I don't buy into that. The whole premise of this relationship between consumer and developer lacks a basic integrity. I would rather not play a game, even a free one, even a really good one, if it's going to consistently remind me how 2nd class I am as a human being. I think this is the underlying problem I have with all micro-transactions games. They're fundamentally offensive/degrading.

Just my opinion.

[wumpus]

On 11/8/2017 at 3:27 PM, JK_Kerbineer said:

First off, there will be no KSP2

Name one thing that can't be added to normal KSP or can't be added with mods.

To be honest, I'm pretty sure that KSP2 will be developed.  I'm less sure about release and being supported better than console KSP.  But don't expect a major publisher to buy a game without the intention of milking the IP to death.  I just can't imagine what I'd want in a "new improved KSP",  maybe if VR takes off enough to expect to be a standard UI we could have a cockpit KSP-VR but I really doubt KSP needs a harder learning curve.

The "Elder Scrolls" games from Bethesda (and presumably the related "Fallout" games) work well with both mods and DLC/microtranslations, but they seem to have given up on the "horse armor" mods of Oblivion (the previous Elder Scroll game).

55 minutes ago, The_Rocketeer said:

You need to read Nash. Leaving money on the table is excellent business if you understand the systems it sustains and the market stability and future certainty it provides to your particular niche. Smash and grab capitalism isn't and never has been sound business.

One point that you are missing is that if the income/wealth distribution of game players is anything like the income/distribution of the rest of the world (or even those with computers capable of playing KSP) there really isn't much sense in catering to the poorer n%  where n is likely around 2-3 (and once you do this you can balance how much you are catering to each percentage).  Of course, this type of strategy works better with online games where dropping four figures or so on a single game gives a significant advantage over the rest.  I'm not sure what you could sell in KSP that would attract that type of money. But there are obvious reasons for "going after the whales" that have more to do with current economics and nothing to do with the games themselves.

The other issue is that games really don't lend them to a "sustainable market", they grow old.  WoW might be an exception, but the rational course would be to start with a sustainable  system for growth and then gradually move to "smash and grab" as the game becomes obsolete.  I personally observed this in "Dungeons & Dragons Online".  It was said to be the first growing "free to play" MMO and was built on a model where you either subscribe (as it was originally launched) or buy each part a la carte (and it seemed to be a prorated system compared to the subscription).  This worked great as it was similar to the proven Apogee/Id system of "give 1/3 the game away and charge for the rest" and also appealed to any (pen and paper) Dungeons and Dragons players who were familiar with buying all those pre-made adventures.  When launched, the game only included two "pay2win" features that were available to reasonably high level players through adventuring (+2 tomes of experience and starting with 32-point characters.  Creating a drow character was also available (effectively something like 34 points) but for most of the game that really worked out to "pay to lose").  As the game progressed, "pay2win" became more and more widespread (the easiest was "manapots", potions that increased spell casting and became more and more required to complete raids).  Currently (and has been since the game started to die) the whole point is to milk the whales for as much as possible.

For KSP I'd assume that your "Nash" strategy would be to allow mods and build fairly large DLC.  There really isn't much point expanding the base game, and 1.3 makes sense as it merely makes the same game available for more people (who don't want an English only game).  I'd really hate to have a "upgrade your engines' Isp by microtransactions", but fortunately lack of DRM makes that nearly impossible (and why I expect KSP2 to be partly developed and canceled).

 

[KSK]

1 hour ago, The_Rocketeer said:

Fixed this part for you.

Actually you didn't. You don't see any value in microtransaction sales - that's fine. Other people clearly do and calling them gullible doesn't advance your argument at all.

1 hour ago, The_Rocketeer said:

Except in the sense that the same game on the same system is, y'know, the same. Now it depends on whether you decided to part with more wealth for more pay-to-win upgrades or cosmetic detailing. I'll grant you this isn't that relevant to KSP(2?) but it sure matters in games with a PvP, or even just an MP, element.

Yes - but that wasn't my point. The same game on different systems is far from the same. Should I feel degraded because my KSP experience isn't as good as somebody who decided to part with more wealth to buy a better computer?

1 hour ago, The_Rocketeer said:

You need to read Nash. Leaving money on the table is excellent business if you understand the systems it sustains and the market stability and future certainty it provides to your particular niche. Smash and grab capitalism isn't and never has been sound business.

Point me at a citation and I might. You'll also notice that I was careful to refer to cosmetic microtransactions. Offering purely optional transactions that don't have any material effect on gameplay or ability to compete within that game - I would hardly call that smash-and-grab capitalism.

1 hour ago, The_Rocketeer said:

I don't buy into that. The whole premise of this relationship between consumer and developer lacks a basic integrity. I would rather not play a game, even a free one, even a really good one, if it's going to consistently remind me how 2nd class I am as a human being. I think this is the underlying problem I have with all micro-transactions games. They're fundamentally offensive/degrading.

I would play the really good game and ignore the stupid optional microtransactions, but each to their own. If it was a free game, I may even spend some money on microtransactions up to the value of what I thought the game was worth.  If the game is genuinely unplayable without microtransactions, I might think differently but in my experience 'genuinely unplayable' is a pretty high bar.

[The_Rocketeer]

@KSK I think you missed my point. Players like me are not at fault for the choices of others. If I choose to call those others gullible, that's because it's accurate from my perspective - likewise from theirs I could probably be called cynical. None of that matters (and honestly I'm kinda surprised you took it so much to heart). What matters is that they are the reason this happened, not people like me.

I realise you're talking about different criteria for sameness than I am, so you should realise the same thing. You are attempting to say that nothing has changed - that game experience has always varied with the player. I am saying that it's more accurate to say that game experience has varied with the system/platform than with the individual player. Game developers are shipping a product - if the basic product wasn't broadly similar in most respects for most players, that would make it very difficult to market. Microtransactions make the product experience richer for the rich, and in juxtaposition poorer for the poor. I can tell that for players like you this isn't a very big deal, but for players like me this stops it from being a game I want to play - that's about the biggest deal there is in videogaming.

[John FX]

I don't microtransact and if microtransactions are the only way to progress in a game then I do not play that game, it really is that simple for me.

Of course, TT do not own the rights to all games based around making rockets in a solar system and flying them, just ones that mention Kerbals.

Should they go down that route then there will be an opening in the market for such a game, a game which is the one we all want, not the one TT would have made by then.

They will have to either not do that to KSP, or risk someone else just making the game they should have.

EDIT :

On 08/11/2017 at 8:27 PM, JK_Kerbineer said:

Name one thing that can't be added to normal KSP or can't be added with mods.

Individual planetary inclinations, which would allow us to have Earth at 28 degrees and Uranus at closer to 90.

Edited November 10, 2017 by John FX

[klesh]

20 hours ago, DarkOwl57 said:

Mods

Mods

 

Let's face the facts here guys! KSP with transactions would never work for 2 reasons. 1) I bet it would be the biggest pain in the butt known to programming/coding history, but the almighty #2 is this: The community would hate it. They'd stop buying/playing! And where would that leave the company? No money, no employees, no profit, no nothin'. Mini rant kinda over.

 

 

Look at what Bethesda is doing though.  They have microtransactions in their singleplayer games that offer you exactly the same stuff that mods offer for free.  Their community hates it too.

[JK_Kerbineer]

On 11/8/2017 at 3:27 PM, JK_Kerbineer said:

 

Name one thing that can't be added to normal KSP or can't be added with mods.

Even if there are some things, they would not be enough to make KSP2  its own game.

 

 

@John FX

Edited November 10, 2017 by JK_Kerbineer

[KSK]

1 hour ago, The_Rocketeer said:

@KSK I think you missed my point. Players like me are not at fault for the choices of others. If I choose to call those others gullible, that's because it's accurate from my perspective - likewise from theirs I could probably be called cynical. None of that matters (and honestly I'm kinda surprised you took it so much to heart). What matters is that they are the reason this happened, not people like me.

Oh I'm not taking it to heart and I can respect it as your opinion, I just don't think it's especially helpful. I expect that most, if not everyone buying a cosmetic piece of dlc knows exactly what they're getting and choose to buy it anyway. That doesn't make them gullible. It does mean they place a different value on such things than you do.

Incidentally, non-cosmetic microtransactions are a whole other can of worms and for that I think we'd be closer to agreeing. For competitive games (especially games deliberately marketed as e-sports) I agree that the basic playing field should be level for everyone. I might disagree with you about which games I'd call competitive, or care about 'competing' in though.  

1 hour ago, The_Rocketeer said:

I realise you're talking about different criteria for sameness than I am, so you should realise the same thing. You are attempting to say that nothing has changed - that game experience has always varied with the player. I am saying that it's more accurate to say that game experience has varied with the system/platform than with the individual player. Game developers are shipping a product - if the basic product wasn't broadly similar in most respects for most players, that would make it very difficult to market. Microtransactions make the product experience richer for the rich, and in juxtaposition poorer for the poor. I can tell that for players like you this isn't a very big deal, but for players like me this stops it from being a game I want to play - that's about the biggest deal there is in videogaming.

Okay. So using that reasoning, what's the difference between microtransactions and say, adjustable graphics settings on a PC game? I would argue that those do exactly what you dislike about microtransactions - they make the product experience richer for the rich (who can afford a computer capable of running the game at higher settings) and in juxtaposition, poorer for the poor.

[JK_Kerbineer]

1 hour ago, John FX said:

 

Individual planetary inclinations, which would allow us to have Earth at 28 degrees and Uranus at closer to 90.

 

 

Either way , that can and has been done with mods.

 

[The_Rocketeer]

1 hour ago, KSK said:

Okay. So using that reasoning, what's the difference between microtransactions and say, adjustable graphics settings on a PC game? I would argue that those do exactly what you dislike about microtransactions - they make the product experience richer for the rich (who can afford a computer capable of running the game at higher settings) and in juxtaposition, poorer for the poor.

Scenario 1 - no microtransactions: On my land there's an tree full of fruit, but I only own a small step ladder so I can only pick the low-hanging fruit. If I choose to buy a new ladder, I can pick more fruit from this tree, and from all my other trees too.

Scenario 2 - with microtransactions: On my land there's a tree full of fruit, but due to the terms of sale when I bought the land I only own 1 in 5 of the fruits scattered randomly over the tree. I can still only pick the low fruit unless I buy a longer ladder, but even if I buy a long ladder I won't be allowed to pick the fruits without paying a premium for each one.

Scenario 3 - competetive play, with microtransactions: As above, except I make a living pressing the fruits for juice. Turns out the terms of sale mean I can only have 1 in 5 fruits, starting with the smallest least-juicy fruit - all the ripest fruits with the most juice are tied up and cost a premium. My rivals are in the same boat, so really we're in an arms race to buy up the fruits just to stay competetive. In the end the only person who makes anything out of this will be the middle-man, and me and my rivals will still be on the same relative footing, but with smaller margins. That or we'll just have to quit the industry altogether.

 

[Superfluous J]

7 hours ago, cfds said:

So, if the publisher would include DRM with one update it would not work any more? Besides, the game in question is not DRM free so this seems not to be an option...

Correct, but you could still play the backed-up non-drm version.

2 hours ago, JK_Kerbineer said:

 

Either way , that can and has been done with mods.

 

Please point me to this mod. I've wanted individual planetary alignments for years.

Edited November 10, 2017 by 5thHorseman

[regex]

3 hours ago, John FX said:

Individual planetary inclinations, which would allow us to have Earth at 28 degrees and Uranus at closer to 90.

Already done through mods, check out Principia. Sure, you can argue that it makes the game harder or something silly related to "I'm not going to play with N-body physics", but the fact is that mods have already covered it.

Quite well, I might add.

9 hours ago, The_Rocketeer said:

Can someone explain to me how microtransactions are good for players?

They give players the option to purchase things that other players might not have for actual cash. Clearly the individual players have the choice to either not play the game at all or not engage with the micro-transactions. If you cannot play the game successfully without engaging the micro-transactions then you may end up with a situation where the available players for the game cannot afford to play, resulting in lower sales. Eventually companies will figure out the sweet spot for their games, which may be a combination of only the full game, the full game plus DLC, the full game with micro-transactions, the partial game with DLC, the partial game with micro-transactions, etc... This is how business works, you find something that you can sell for money and you try to maximize your profit on that product. Whether that situation is a good, bad, or neutral thing is up to the individual, as you have said.

Which kind of begs the question why you asked since you already seem to have the answer.

Edited November 10, 2017 by regex

[Superfluous J]

5 minutes ago, regex said:

Already done through mods, check out Principia. Sure, you can argue that it makes the game harder or something silly related to "I'm not going to play with N-body physics"

Thanks, I didn't actually know that Principa did that, though on reflection it makes sense.

Though I'm one of those toy players so yeah, I was hoping for a mod that only added axial tilt.

[regex]

2 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

Thanks, I didn't actually know that Principa did that, though on reflection it makes sense.

It took some time to get it into the code. You might want to check out the accuracy that they've achieved with eclipses as well, even if only out of curiosity. They achieved the 2017 eclipse after integrating in-game for over 50 years.

2 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

Though I'm one of those toy players so yeah, I was hoping for a mod that only added axial tilt.

It's cool, it's not for everyone (I know I've struggled with it myself). The code is open so someone with more maths could probably take the relevant parts and integrate them into Kopernicus or something.

It's pretty telling that mods can literally rewrite how the physics work, that's how open KSP's code base is to modders.