KSP 2 Would Have Microtransactions

[DarkOwl57]

Guys, why are we even having this argument? KSP 2 won't exist! There's absolutely no purpose to make a new game 

[regex]

29 minutes ago, The_Rocketeer said:

[I've tried to make this point a couple of times now. I realise this is a sophisticated point, so please bear with me while I try to make it once more.]

From my POV there are only a finite amount of purchases to be made during any given day and the pattern of purchases determines what is a profitable action or product to produce. If enough people make their money unavailable by not purchasing a product then it is not worth the time making the product (no demand equals no supply, reduced demand equals reduced supply, etc...). There's an old taoist proverb to illustrate this (if I'm recalling it correctly): "Inaction is also an action." By not participating in the system you have, by default, participated in the system by depriving it of your potential purchase.

it's cool though, I'm not really trying to argue the semantics of not buying something, rather that something becomes unprofitable when no one buys it. How you frame that is up to you.

37 minutes ago, DarkOwl57 said:

KSP 2 won't exist!

Eh, it might. Not for a while though.

[klgraham1013]

15 hours ago, DarkOwl57 said:

There's absolutely no purpose to make a new game 

Money.

[cfds]

1 hour ago, klgraham1013 said:

Money.

Yupp, making a game costs money. Continue to sell a "finished" games earns money, especially when the "keeping the old game fresh" part is done by volunteers...

Edited November 16, 2017 by cfds

[DarkOwl57]

2 hours ago, klgraham1013 said:

Money.

Why would they make a new game?

"KSP 2! Now with more plane-"

"Uh.. Jim?"
"Yoo?"

"There's a mod that adds more planets."

"Aww dangit. Okay then!"

"KSP 2! Now with more KSC Facilit-"

"Jim?"
"Darn it again?!"
"Sorry..."

"UGH! Fine. Backup backup plan.

"KSP 2! Now with better physics! It'll be the great- OH WHAT NOW?!"
"FAR."

"I GIVE UP! GET SOMEONE ELSE TO DO YOUR STINKING COMMERCIAL"

[regex]

2 hours ago, DarkOwl57 said:

Why would they make a new game?

Different game engine (not sure if it needs it, but it's a reason).

Professional art assets.

Take advantage of better rendering processes (can already do this, but see below).

Much tighter career mode actually designed from the ground up.

Get more money from the above.

[NSEP]

22 hours ago, DarkOwl57 said:

There's absolutely no purpose to make a new game 

I agree. I don't see a 'KSP 2' coming anytime soon. KSP is not really a "sequellable" game.

But i do think a new and more realistic KSP-like game (bassicly Realism Overhaul) would be very amazing to see, that is less cartoony than KSP and more player-friendly than Orbiter.

[sh1pman]

3 hours ago, regex said:

Different game engine (not sure if it needs it, but it's a reason).

Professional art assets.

Take advantage of better rendering processes (can already do this, but see below).

Much tighter career mode actually designed from the ground up.

Get more money from the above.

Better engine would be great. It's really annoying when the game cripples my framerate down to 15 fps when two or three medium-sized vessels are loaded. Or one, but on a heavily modded install. 

[regex]

23 minutes ago, sh1pman said:

Better engine would be great. It's really annoying when the game cripples my framerate down to 15 fps when two or three medium-sized vessels are loaded. Or one, but on a heavily modded install. 

Better engine might or might not solve that given the unique nature of craft in KSP (which are basically a tree of individual parts that all interact via the physics model). For KSP right now it could be a situation where craft are unified into a single "part" to reduce physics load but that's not an engine problem it's an implementation of the engine problem (E: It's also a question of how that affects gameplay).

GC work would help from what I understand but Unity is getting updated all the time and I ?think? that's being addressed in the 1.4 KSP update by moving to a new Unity.

As far as mods slowing things down, well, you're adding additional things to the execution chain from random programmers who may or may not have any idea what they're doing, why the hell would you have higher expectations?

Edited November 16, 2017 by regex

[sh1pman]

2 minutes ago, regex said:

As far as mods slowing things down, well, you're adding additional things to the execution chain from random programmers who may or may not have any idea what they're doing, why the hell would you have higher expectations?

Well, I guess most of them have some sort of software development background.

Also, another reason for KSP2: implementing all of the great ideas from mods by people who actually know what they're doing!

[klgraham1013]

10 hours ago, cfds said:

snip

 

9 hours ago, DarkOwl57 said:

snip

 

I'll go ahead and let all the game companies currently working on sequels your thoughts on the matter.

[John FX]

On 11/11/2017 at 5:33 PM, Van Disaster said:

People satisfied with what they have is anathema to capitalism

Happiness, health, and contentment are bad for profit.

EDIT :

3 hours ago, regex said:

GC work would help from what I understand but Unity is getting updated all the time and I ?think? that's being addressed in the 1.4 KSP update by moving to a new Unity.

I had heard the new Unity had improved a fair amount on GC and if so, I hope that version is the one KSP will be put onto. GC is my current major bug-bear.

Edited November 17, 2017 by John FX

[Mako]

18 hours ago, DarkOwl57 said:

Why would they make a new game?

I don't believe that KSP was started with the plan that it would grow into what we have today. As such, it's likely there's a lot that could be improved if it were designed from the beginning for the scope, scale, and potential that KSP has. For example, as things like rovers and planes were added, KSP grew in ways that were beyond the original design and required things like wheel colliders and better aerodynamics. Things got bolted on to an already working and released core of a game instead of remaking the core with those features built in. This was the right decision for KSP to survive and be successful, but bolting unplanned things on as needed is not the best way to build a complex game.

If everything that KSP is today was planned upon from the start we might have less trouble with wheel colliders, for example. Knowing that eventually (relative to the start of the KSP project) there would be a whole solar system of celestial bodies to visit might have meant that we'd have axial tilt built in from the start or possibly even stock user-selectable solar system scale from toy-scale up to RSS-scale when starting a new save. It's likely that there would be better part balance and probable that we'd even have a unified design for in-game assets. Maybe career mode would offer a sense of progression in a way that felt more thought out and less slapped on.

There have been a lot of lessons learned from the making of, the success of, and the difficulties/problems of KSP. Wouldn't it be great if a game was designed and built from the ground up to be everything that KSP has/can become while taking advantage of improvements in software tech/design and using all of the lessons already learned? It would take a lot of time and money to make such a thing, and it's well beyond what would be possible as a free update and beyond the scope of a paid expansion. That amount of work would require a new purchase.

That's why you make a new game.

Edited November 17, 2017 by Mako

[cfds]

These are all reasons why we would like to have new game, but none for somebody to actually make one...

[klgraham1013]

2 hours ago, cfds said:

These are all reasons why we would like to have new game, but none for somebody to actually make one...

Potential profits.  You might think there aren't any.  I think there are millions.

[John FX]

4 minutes ago, klgraham1013 said:

Potential profits.  You might think there aren't any.  I think there are millions.

I also think that a new game, with more `accessible` gameplay, possibly an autopilot, driven by a large marketing campaign based on the reputation of the first game would lead to a fair amount of profit before people realised it was just a dumbed down version of the first game with less modding capabilities and more cartoony graphics and simpler gameplay. At least career would be sorted.

There are millions of reasons for KSP 2, all of them are some form of currency.

[Mako]

3 hours ago, cfds said:

These are all reasons why we would like to have new game, but none for somebody to actually make one...

Would you buy it if they did? I know would.

KSP was not designed from the beginning to get to where it is. It seems likely that because of that there is a limit to what can be done to KSP. It was certainly not designed and started from the beginning to be ready to go to consoles. Even with an engine that was designed to make it easier to build console versions alongside PC versions, it was still too difficult for one company to do correctly and has now taken another company a significant amount of time to complete. It's only speculation, but it seems reasonable to think that if console versions were intended from the beginning those versions would have had fewer problems and taken less time and money to develop.

If there's no money to be made on a new, better KSP, then of course there's no reason to make it. I just don't think that's true, though. Update the graphics and get it in front of some mainstream streamers and I think it would sell itself.

[KSK]

2 hours ago, John FX said:

I also think that a new game, with more `accessible` gameplay, possibly an autopilt, driven by a large marketing campaign based on the reputation of the first game would lead to a fair amount of profit before people realised it was just a dumbed down version of the first game with less modding capabilities and more cartoony graphics and simpler gameplay. At least career would be sorted.

There are millions of reasons for KSP 2, all of them are some form of currenc

[KSK]

2 hours ago, John FX said:

I also think that a new game, with more `accessible` gameplay, possibly an autopilot, driven by a large marketing campaign based on the reputation of the first game would lead to a fair amount of profit before people realised it was just a dumbed down version of the first game with less modding capabilities and more cartoony graphics and simpler gameplay. At least career would be sorted.

There are millions of reasons for KSP 2, all of them are some form of currency.

I see absolutely no reason why more accessible gameplay implies simpler gameplay, or any sort of dumbing down, or any lack of modding capacity. A simple, if rather shop-worn example would be a delta-V readout added to the current stock game. Presto - the game is now more accessible because you now have some metrics to drive your spacecraft designs if you choose to use them, rather than relying on trial and error. The more casual 'struts-and-boosters' crowd doesn't lose anything, folks that prefer a more planned approach to the game gain a great deal.

As for cartoony graphics - fine. After all we're talking about a game where all the protagonists are cartoony green aliens anyway. I wouldn't regard a well executed, uniform but cartoony graphic style as any sort of problem, especially if the whole game, terrain graphics, information readouts and everything were done to match.

Edit: Sorry about the double post - you can blame the wonderful mobile forum experience for that.

 

Edited November 17, 2017 by KSK

[Spricigo]

58 minutes ago, Mako said:

Uf there's no money to be made on a new, better KSP, then of course there's no reason to make it. I just don't think that's true, though. 

I also think there's money to be made with a new KSP. But the question is quite not that.

KSP II will make more money than anything else that can be done with the same investment? 

For that questio, I think, the answer is no. It may change in the future but...

[regex]

2 hours ago, Spricigo said:

I also think there's money to be made with a new KSP. But the question is quite not that.

KSP II will make more money than anything else that can be done with the same investment?

This right here.

Let's say Squad puts out their first DLC and while it doesn't tank, sales aren't nearly what are expected. Clearly mods have flooded the ability for Squad to put out fresh gameplay options and their early bumbling on the matter means that the earliest adopters haven't even paid for the DLC. Take Two and Squad take a look at this evidence while also keeping in mind the literal mountain of suggestions that players have made regarding KSP and decide to take a chance on the development of a sequel (of sorts). They stick a fork in KSP at 1.4 and the DLC, that community lives on with mods, while the companies move forward with the development of a new game, this time with professional development staff and an eye towards a completed, fully-designed game built from the ground up. There's a lot you can keep from the original codebase (orbital mechanics don't change and it's trivial to move those calculations to a new code language or engine if needed) so there's a leg up on getting a demonstrator out. Past that it's all design and gameplay choices. Two or three years down the road and you're putting out a new release product to much fanfare because it's a much tighter game. If Squad makes the same dedication to the modding community that they historically have they can pretty much rely on a strong, existing community to show up to buy this new game, plus they already have the experience to help that community and can do so from the beginning, which makes it an attractive choice as opposed to cranking out more DLC that may or may not sell.

On the other hand, the DLC might sell like gangbusters and Take Two and Squad instead decide to focus on leveraging their existing assets for more cash. We get more DLC over the years until people just get burnt out on going to Jool for the nth time.

Also, the DLC could tank and Take Two could fire Squad, take the IP, and make some phone games that better "monetize the playerbase".

It all really depends on what is forecast to make the most money, and there are a lot of factors that go into such calculations, including public opinion.

Edited November 17, 2017 by regex

[John FX]

6 hours ago, KSK said:

I see absolutely no reason why more accessible gameplay implies simpler gameplay, or any sort of dumbing down, or any lack of modding capacity.

I only say this because it is what always happens to games. Every game series I have played has had the same done to it. The graphics become more cartoon like but more polished, the gameplay becomes simpler to make it accessible to those less able to play at the current level of skill thereby increasing the possible player base and so sales, a reason to restrict modding is that it increases possible revenue for paid DLC etc.

You are probably right that milking DLC will be the next phase and that future decisions will be based on how that does but back on topic, I reckon KSP 2 will be more story driven, with simpler gameplay, possibly simpler physics to speed it up, and better graphics. If there are micro-transactions I will not be buying it, if there are not, depending on how they make it, I might.

This is just my opinion, I am hoping reality will prove me wrong but it so rarely does. If you recall I posted in the weekly that main game development had stopped for months before Squad told us that was right and they were now working on DLC instead of new main game features.

At least they have continued bug fixing and the new Unity will be nice.

[Diche Bach]

There was "no reason to make" Blade Runner 2049, or a long list of other unnecessary sequels . . . Even when the general trend of such stinkers seems to be mediocre at best, you'll still find people chasing after the potential to capitalize on a popular brand.

Hell, at this point, with the major changes in processing power, distribution mechanisms, the market(s) (meaning the extent and diversity of customer bases primarily but other factors too, such as the various "niches" for small quickie cheapo products ranging up to "AAA" products . . .), social media, etc., etc., I'd say that: virtually ANY game that has ever been made and did not well and truly KILL any semblance of possibility for a "sequel" is ripe for a sequel. Not only that, but plain and simple REMAKES!

Jagged Alliance 1: as far as I know it was fairly popular, but not tremendous. From today's perspective, looking at it is about as much fun as watching the lights inside your refrigerator flicker.

Jagged Alliance 2, didn't do so well and the company went out of business (partly because of the crash dynamics that afflicted so many developers in the late 1990s). Nonetheless, there is STILL to this day an active community of fans and modders and new releases to the Jagged Alliance 2 versions 1.13 mod are still being released routinely.

Despite the commercial failure of Jagged Alliance 2, there have been something like a half-dozen spinoffs and sequels, including Hired Guns: the Jagged Edge; Jagged Alliance-Unfinished Business; JA-Crossfire, etc., etc.

Coming forward to "recent years" (2012 being the last entry into the "series"):

 

[Mako]

12 hours ago, Spricigo said:

I also think there's money to be made with a new KSP. But the question is quite not that.

KSP II will make more money than anything else that can be done with the same investment? 

For that questio, I think, the answer is no. It may change in the future but...

That is a very good and very fair point that I had not considered. It is indeed how a large company like Take-Two would evaluate spending.

Following that line of thought through does leave me wondering why Take-Two bought KSP. Unless you're buying something to control it so it is not competing with your own products, I would think you'd buy it to make money from it. It certainly doesn't seem like KSP is competing with other Take-Two products, but on the other hand I can't imagine what significant earnings potential this single-game "franchise" has outside of more games.

If it's not a sequel or possibly a spin-off, are the Kerbals such a significant part of the success of KSP that Take-Two would think adding Kerbals would make a different game appealing? Unless Take-Two wants to make KSP, why wouldn't they just make whatever games they wanted without spending a dime on the IP? I just assumed they wanted to make and sell more KSP, because I can't see much other use in aquiring the property other than the Kerbals themselves. Admittedly I'm making crazy assumptions here, but I imagine the Venn Diagram for people who are really attached to Kerbals and people who want XYZ project from Take-Two is smaller than the amount of people who are interested in more and better KSP. I would play another game with Kerbals in it, but not just because it had Kerbals. It would have to offer some interesting gameplay not unlike what KSP did. I do recognize that there are plenty of people who have some attachment to Kerbals, but I find that outside of story- and/or character-based games most characters tend to just be window dressing to me.

I guess I'm still left wondering what reason there would be to buy KSP if not to make more KSP games while agreeing that it probably doesn't make as much financial sense for Take-Two to make more KSP games instead of games with more widespread appeal and with more opportunities for microtransactions.

[John FX]

4 hours ago, Mako said:

I guess I'm still left wondering what reason there would be to buy KSP if not to make more KSP games while agreeing that it probably doesn't make as much financial sense for Take-Two to make more KSP games instead of games with more widespread appeal and with more opportunities for microtransactions.

I do not know how much money is being made from selling things like Kerbal plushies, Kerbal 3D printed models, etc

When you buy the rights to `kerbals` and all things kerbal that opens up many more options for monetization than just selling the game.

It also opens up options for mobile games that are nothing like KSP.

Kerbal Crush anyone?

Angry Kerbals?

Kerbalcraft?

and so on. But with less copyright infringement.