Why does KSP need to be extremely expensive

[Corona688]

The questions were generally relevant.  But given preplanned flights, and the NASA way of thinking, also inevitably stupid.

The primary landing site is experiencing horrible storm conditions!  What do you do?

1. Die
2. Touchdown in Smedly Hogfarmer's hayfield like a boss
3. Divert to backup, stupid

The food rehydrator has failed!  What do you do?

1. Die
2. Crunch down your spacecream like a man
3. Use the backup, stupid

etc.

 

[Corona688]

...which reminds me of one of my great regrets in life:  That the Space Shuttle not even once used its backup landing site, which happened to be my hometown.

[DualDesertEagle]

On 10.12.2017 at 9:11 PM, Geonovast said:

It's also being consistently updated with new features and parts without asking for another penny.  You don't get Call Of Duty 17: Whatever We Grabbed Out Of The Scrabble Bag This Time when you buy Call Of Duty 16: Pwned By A 13 Year Old.

Nice to see another guy who finds their spamming of DLCs of the same game outrageous

[Lord Aurelius]

On 12/12/2017 at 10:44 PM, majNUN said:

On the contrary, many people as well as published game reviews often make a comparison to the price and number of hours a game provides, including re-playability. KSP becomes very affordable in both respects. Comparing a movie to a game is illogical - apples and oranges.

For "an experience" - I think you need 2 things: love of a challenge and a community spirit. Just look through the forums and you'll see people boasting about their accomplishments. And the fact that all players face the same challenges creates a great community. It's like a small town - everyone knows Eve won't let you go (easily), and most know where to find the Kraken corpse. Everyone can appreciate your accomplishments because we're all in the Kerbal solar system and we know what it takes.

I bought the game way back (0.18, I think) - back when there were no tutorials. But there are plenty of YouTube videos, and if you don't know Scott Manley, then you haven't even tried. The learning curve was difficult at times, but I did actually learn something about orbital mechanics and rocketry - as opposed to how just to beat the game. Making my first rendezvous and docking was exhilarating. We all chased science when it was released. We all did the contracts when career mode was released. We will all be building and doing missions with the DLC. And the mods provide many layers of complexity making the game as challenging as you like.

But maybe it's just not your game...

I'm very aware that people put price and hours of playtime together. KSP is a great game in this regard. However, my point is that the game is still incomplete and we're paying full release price for an unfinished product. I know, it's hard to define "complete" when it's a game that's in continuous development, but as a ballpark definition I expect a 1.0 release to be something that is a balanced, cohesive, complete experience with the necessary game system in place and working. Even after over two years of development since 1.0, I still feel that KSP hasn't reached this point. We're still missing any sort of official life support, which is one of the fundamental issues facing real world manned spaceflight and would help balance out how OP manned flights are in the game right now compared to probes. Part balance is still all over the place, there's holes in the stock part lineup, and career mode is still a mess. Even the part models are of wildly varying degrees of quality, and a lot of audio is still missing. I realize that things are slowly improving with the new devs, but until the game actually finishes these things I still consider this game to be an early access title in everything except name and price. Which gets back to my original issue with the price of the game.

I've had the game since 0.19 and been on the forums nearly as long. I know KSP has a great community, especially with modding, and that's what's kept the game alive in spite of the devs. Scott Manley's videos are great, but the game really should provide all the information the player actually needs to play the game. It's poor game design, especially in a "released" title, to expect the player to use the wiki for everything. Maybe that's part of the rationale for the new expansion pack, since it shifts the burden of creating decent tutorials off the devs and onto the player base so that's one less thing they have to do.

I can partially agree that it's not my game, at least not the current incarnation of the title. Especially since a huge amount of dev time (especially in that critical time leading up to 1.0) seemed to be eaten up by console development to the detriment of the rest of the game, and I have no interest in playing KSP on a console. The concept of KSP is extremely appealing and I've got lots of hours of enjoyment out of it, but I also cringe every time I see the stock career, tech tree and part balance and have to spend a bunch of time getting mods set up to make it my game.

Edited December 13, 2017 by Lord Aurelius

[Corona688]

I broadly agree with many of your points, but here:

2 minutes ago, Lord Aurelius said:

I realize that things are slowly improving with the new devs, but until the game actually finishes these things I still consider this game to be an early access title in everything except name and price.

A $10 indie game like FTL is clever and entertaining, but -- at some point you realize it's a barely-animated card game with spaceships and catchy music.  (And I'm saying this as someone who likes the game.)

Is it realistic to say there's four times as much value in a realistic, build-it-yourself 3d spaceflight simulator with persistent and explorable planets?  You're entitled to your opinion.

[Lord Aurelius]

36 minutes ago, Corona688 said:

I broadly agree with many of your points, but here:

A $10 indie game like FTL is clever and entertaining, but -- at some point you realize it's a barely-animated card game with spaceships and catchy music.  (And I'm saying this as someone who likes the game.)

Is it realistic to say there's four times as much value in a realistic, build-it-yourself 3d spaceflight simulator with persistent and explorable planets?  You're entitled to your opinion.

KSP is clever and entertaining, but -- at some point you realize it's an empty sandbox with a bunch of dull planets and poorly balanced mechanics and placeholder parts, and no real sense of purpose other than what you come up with to challenge yourself. Even career mode, once you've finished the tech tree, degenerates into sandbox with a few extra restrictions on funds.

Sorry, not trying to be snarky, but like I said, KSP still feels largely unfinished. That's kind of the core of my feeling on the price. The $40 price came when the game went to 1.0 and ostensibly represents a "released" product. When I play the game, it still feels largely the same as it did as of 0.90, although it is nice not having to install FAR and DRE to get a decent atmosphere. It's not so much about the actual dollar value, but about what the higher price is supposed to represent and how I feel the game doesn't actually live up to that representation.

Edited December 13, 2017 by Lord Aurelius

[Rocket In My Pocket]

Have you guys ever heard of a thing called "perceived value"?

When I was a younger man I worked at a small grocery store/gas station, doesn't really matter which one. Anyways the company sold a lot of it's own products to compete with big name stuff; like their own soda and drinks and such. I remarked to my boss at the time as we stocked the shelves how cheap our "juice" was and asked him why it was almost as expensive as the name brand. Surely this wasn't the best way to compete with them...an inferior product for about the same money?

He said that it cost the company 4 cents to fill each bottle, the bottle itself only cost 10 cents, they sold it for a dollar something. They could sell if for half that and still make a great profit...BUT here's the thing; no one is going to buy a 50 cent bottle of juice...it's TOO cheap; something must be wrong with it. It can't possibly be any good right? It had to be priced higher or it wouldn't be "perceived" as an equal product by the general public.

Edited December 13, 2017 by Rocket In My Pocket

[Lord Aurelius]

14 minutes ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

Have you guys ever heard of a thing called "perceived value"?

When I was a younger man I worked at a small grocery store/gas station, doesn't really matter which one. Anyways the company sold a lot of it's own products to compete with big name stuff; like their own soda and drinks and such. I remarked to my boss at the time as we stocked the shelves how cheap our "juice" was and asked him why it was almost as expensive as the name brand. Surely this wasn't the best way to compete with them...an inferior product for about the same money?

He said that it cost the company 4 cents to fill each bottle, the bottle itself only cost 10 cents, they sold it for a dollar something. They could sell if for half that and still make a great profit...BUT here's the thing; no one is going to buy a 50 cent bottle of juice...it's TOO cheap; something must be wrong with it. It can't possibly be any good right? It had to be priced higher or it wouldn't be "perceived" as an equal product by the general public.

Which kind of goes hand-in-hand with my point. There IS something wrong with KSP at $40... it's an unfinished game lacking a lot of basic polish, balance and completeness that would be expected from a "released" product. I'm not saying that it isn't the right business decision for them to price it like they have, but that I don't feel like it's actually representative of the true state of the game.

[Corona688]

29 minutes ago, Lord Aurelius said:

KSP is clever and entertaining, but -- at some point you realize it's an empty sandbox with a bunch of dull planets

I'm sorry, were you expecting aliens?

Quote

placeholder parts

The placeholder parts are in the island airport.

Quote

and no real sense of purpose other than what you come up with to challenge yourself.

If you don't enjoy sandbox games, you're not obligated to buy sandbox games.

Quote

Even career mode, once you've finished the tech tree, degenerates into sandbox with a few extra restrictions on funds.

Right, you don't like sandbox games.

You just want them to cost less.

Edited December 13, 2017 by Corona688

[Rocket In My Pocket]

14 minutes ago, Lord Aurelius said:

Which kind of goes hand-in-hand with my point. There IS something wrong with KSP at $40... it's an unfinished game lacking a lot of basic polish, balance and completeness that would be expected from a "released" product. I'm not saying that it isn't the right business decision for them to price it like they have, but that I don't feel like it's actually representative of the true state of the game.

I can't really disagree with those points; it is an unpolished, unfinished, buggy, place-holder filled mess of a game. For some reason though, it has that special something; and I love it anyways.

You must admit though, Squad has supported this game long, long after it's release and continues to do so; surely that was worth some portion of that 40$?

I think that instead of viewing this negatively and saying it's not worth 40$, we should focus on what needs to change for it to be worth that money to every player and not just the crazy ones. I don't think lowering the price is the right answer in the long run; you may get some impulse buys but it makes the product look cheaper, if something has diminished in asked for value...then hasn't it's actual perceived value diminished as well?

Edited December 13, 2017 by Rocket In My Pocket

[nascarlaser1]

39.99 is a very reasonable price for this game. I got a few years ago and have been happy ever since. My only annoyment came from when I got the game, and then a week later it went on sale , but that's just my bad timing. I think 39.99 is pretty generous really, since as @Geonovast pointed out, there are many games just as good, or sometimes not as good, that cost even more.

[Lord Aurelius]

53 minutes ago, Corona688 said:

I'm sorry, were you expecting aliens?

The placeholder parts are in the island airport.

If you don't enjoy sandbox games, you're not obligated to buy sandbox games.

Right, you don't like sandbox games.

You just want them to cost less.

Why not aliens? We've already got crashed flying saucers in multiple places, strange monoliths, and a dead Kraken scattered around the system. I'm not expecting live aliens, but more anomalies and at least more interesting terrain scatter (preferably with collision meshes) would go a long ways to making the planets feel like more than mostly featureless rocks.

Some of the placeholder parts are in the island airport. The rest are still in the VAB/SPH.

I bought KSP way back in 0.19 before career mode was solidified with the expectation that we would get a great career mode to complement the sandbox. You are correct that pure sandbox games aren't necessarily my favorite. They're fun for awhile and to come back to occasionally, but I do end up burning out on them after awhile.

It's really not about them costing less. It's about devs actually finishing them. As much as I like what Minecraft did to spur the market for these types of games, I also despise what it did in terms of making people more tolerant of devs who release unfinished games. Minecraft for all its good points has many of the same problems of KSP with being unfinished long after it was "released". If a someone makes a great open world sandbox that manages to put in a great story and overall goal as well and actually finishes the game and properly balances and polishes it, then I would gladly pay AAA prices for it.

42 minutes ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

I can't really disagree with those points; it is an unpolished, unfinished, buggy, place-holder filled mess of a game. For some reason though, it has that special something; and I love it anyways.

You must admit though, Squad has supported this game long, long after it's release and continues to do so; surely that was worth some portion of that 40$?

I think that instead of viewing this negatively and saying it's not worth 40$, we should focus on what needs to change for it to be worth that money to every player and not just the crazy ones. I don't think lowering the price is the right answer in the long run; you may get some impulse buys but it makes the product look cheaper, if something has diminished in asked for value...then hasn't it's actual perceived value diminish?

I do agree that I can be quite negative on this whole issue. When 1.0 dropped, I was not happy with the state of the game or the developer's apparent priorities (marketing gimmicks and a disastrous console release). I'm glad the devs are still supporting the game, but I would much prefer if they were expanding on a completed game instead of playing catch-up to a premature release.

If I'm going to take a step back and ask myself what KSP would need to be worth $40, here's what I would say it needs:

1. A proper tutorial. Could even be some kind of career mode, but the important part is that it should guide players step-by-step through all the game mechanics like interplanetary transfers, orbital rendezvous, and precision planetary landings.
2. Life Support to balance probes vs Kerbals. Should be toggleable on a per-save basis like the comm net feature is.
3. Some basic KER/MechJeb functionality. At the very least a dV readout. Some basic autopilot (another difficulty option perhaps) would be great. IRL people don't fly rockets by hand.
4. Art pass on all parts for style and quality consistency, and to fix odd design choices like the Mk1-2 pod with the hatch on a diagonal.
5. Graphics pass on overall game to incorporate some of the features of the more popular graphics mods without raising the minimum game requirements
6. Audio pass to add missing sounds and better quality music (some of those audio tracks get really repetitive and annoying, plus no music when in atmo for some reason), plus some chatterer type functionality
7. A rethinking of career mode. Maybe even something as simple as putting something along the lines of the Anomaly Surveyor contracts into the game, with a few cinematics when discovering anomalies and some kind of overall story to go with them.
8. A no-holds-barred full balance pass of everything. Part stats, missing parts, tech tree, contracts, game systems, all of it. Don't worry about breaking save games, each update ultimately ends up doing that to some degree anyways.
9. Polish, polish, polish.

I agree, lowering the price isn't the answer. What I would prefer to see (likely along with everyone else here) is the game improved to match the price. Which the devs are (very) slowly doing. Hopefully some day (soon) I'll actually be able to look at the game and not feel the urge to mod the living daylights out of it just to fix these issues and make it enjoyable for me.

Edited December 14, 2017 by Lord Aurelius

[wumpus]

[tl;dr] download the demo.  Spend a few hours on it and decide if you think $40 (or sale price) is worth unlocking the limitations.

1 hour ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

I can't really disagree with those points; it is an unpolished, unfinished, buggy, place-holder filled mess of a game. For some reason though, it has that special something; and I love it anyways.

You must admit though, Squad has supported this game long, long after it's release and continues to do so; surely that was worth some portion of that 40$?

I think that instead of viewing this negatively and saying it's not worth 40$, we should focus on what needs to change for it to be worth that money to every player and not just the crazy ones. I don't think lowering the price is the right answer in the long run; you may get some impulse buys but it makes the product look cheaper, if something has diminished in asked for value...then hasn't it's actual perceived value diminished as well?

Unfortunately, the early access system that paid for game development paid for features first and bug fixes eightynineth.  I had great hopes when harvester announced he was re-doing the GUI, only to find out that he only touched the in-flight GUI (which is wonderfully better) instead of the rocket design GUI (which is the source of my real frustrations).

One thing that is ignored about questioning the cost of KSP is that they (unlike virtually all games shipped since 2007 or so) include a demo.  While the demo isn't available right now from either Squad or Steam, I think there are links in this forum to at least one of these (Squad's website had one based on 0.18, Steam's was based on 1.0.0).  While we have been arguing that KSP might be "worth" vastly more than $40 (although I'd expect it on sale off and on, try putting it on a Steam wish list for notifications), this is likely because all of us have sunk significant amounts of time into the game.  If you want to know if it is worth it, download the demo and put in several hours and see if you want to spend $40 worth of time expanding beyond the demo's limitations.

I've spend >$300 ( in small chunks ) on at least one MMO without regret, and might be half that on another.  The reason I spent this was I had tried the game and was hitting various limits and needed the expansions/upgrades.  I doubt I'd pay that site unseen (and started "late" on it when I *could* try before I bought).  I'd recommend trying the demo before plunking down *whatever* you think is "extremely expensive" (I'm sure I've seen a $25 sale this year).

On 10/11/2017 at 6:52 AM, Rocket In My Pocket said:

[the demo is] still available at plenty of 3rd party download sites like softonic.

https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/131906-the-earliest-versions-of-kerbal-space-program/  [contains links to KSP version 13.3 and earlier.  That might be a little too primitive (I've never tried it)].

Notes in case you try the demos.  As mentioned, one is based on .18, that is "classic KSP".  The souposphere is in full force and aerodynamic stability isn't much of an issue ("pancake designs" were popular).  1.0.0 is probably harder and more poorly balanced (things weren't really fixed until 1.0.5), but nearly all of your hard earned lessons will go straight to 1.3.x.  This isn't quite true with learning on .18, you will have to relearn nearly the entire game (just like the rest of us did between .25->1.0).  Supposedly there is a demo based on 1.3 in the works, but it seems to have a terribly low priority (1.3 has been out for months, and I think the demo has been under maintanence for a year).

[Corona688]

1 hour ago, Lord Aurelius said:

Why not aliens?

...

 

Quote

Some of the placeholder parts are in the island airport. The rest are still in the VAB/SPH.

That word you keep using, I don't think it means what you think it means.

Quote

You are correct that pure sandbox games aren't necessarily my favorite. They're fun for awhile and to come back to occasionally, but I do end up burning out on them after awhile.

That's fair enough:  You didn't get what you wanted.  I'm pretty sure you didn't pay $40 for it, though.

Also, not being your cup of tea doesn't mean it's not worth $40.

Quote

It's really not about them costing less. It's about devs actually finishing them.

I cannot comprehend your priorities.  Sure, you can fly straight from the launchpad to a distant planet with realistic physics all 10,000,000km of the way, land by the seat of your pants, then mine around in a rover of your own design without having any of it cutscened for you or even leaving the flight simulator.  But the ground scatter makes the gameplay hollow.

Most of what you want sounds very hollow.  Five ways of saying "make it look nicer" with an explicit "at no performance cost" and an implicit "and all for free".

You can get better graphics for $40, but it won't come with this.

 

 

 

Edited December 14, 2017 by Corona688

[Starman4308]

2 hours ago, Lord Aurelius said:

 

1. A proper tutorial. Could even be some kind of career mode, but the important part is that it should guide players step-by-step through all the game mechanics like interplanetary transfers, orbital rendezvous, and precision planetary landings.
2. Life Support to balance probes vs Kerbals. Should be toggleable on a per-save basis like the comm net feature is.
3. Some basic KER/MechJeb functionality. At the very least a dV readout. Some basic autopilot (another difficulty option perhaps) would be great. IRL people don't fly rockets by hand.
4. Art pass on all parts for style and quality consistency, and to fix odd design choices like the Mk1-2 pod with the hatch on a diagonal.
5. Graphics pass on overall game to incorporate some of the features of the more popular graphics mods without raising the minimum game requirements
6. Audio pass to add missing sounds and better quality music (some of those audio tracks get really repetitive and annoying, plus no music when in atmo for some reason), plus some chatterer type functionality
7. A rethinking of career mode. Maybe even something as simple as putting something along the lines of the Anomaly Surveyor contracts into the game, with a few cinematics when discovering anomalies and some kind of overall story to go with them.
8. A no-holds-barred full balance pass of everything. Part stats, missing parts, tech tree, contracts, game systems, all of it. Don't worry about breaking save games, each update ultimately ends up doing that to some degree anyways.
9. Polish, polish, polish.

A lot of your points here run straight into the fact that Squad has a different vision for the game than you do. For example, at least Harvester disliked the idea of delta-V readouts (and presumably autopilots), because he preferred a more seat-of-the-pants, trial-and-error sort of gameplay.

On the Mk1-2 pod, I don't think they'll change the diagonal, since so many legacy craft have been built around that oddity.

On graphics "without raising the minimum game requirements"... what do you take Squad for, an AAA studio? You cannot wave a magic wand to improve performance; you have to invest a lot of coder-hours finding little tweaks to make, and you get strongly diminishing returns on investment there as you approach the point where you're perfectly utilizing the graphics chip, without a single wasted cycle.

EDIT: To perhaps further elaborate on where we're coming from: Squad has already put an enormous amount of effort into KSP. Most video games these days are mostly art jobs, with a little bit of coding and scripting. Squad, meanwhile, has had to put into code orbital mechanics, atmospheric effects, thermal effects, and countless other complicated features that are far from commonplace in video games. The sort of art passes you're suggesting are major investments, and Squad may not even have the talent to get those working; a coder might have had no prior experience making 3D models or textures, but that's what they had to deal with.

Edited December 14, 2017 by Starman4308

[Nightside]

On 12/10/2017 at 8:31 AM, Hans Kerman said:

Why Does Kerbal Space Program Need to be THAT Expensive, $39.99 Wont get you anywhere playerwise, Somewhere around $24.99 Would be more Reasonable

@Hans Kerman,The very first time I heard of KSP I knew it was the video game I'd been waiting for since I toggled my first joystick. 

But I didn't buy it for at least a year because  I didn't have a computer that could run it! Now, 3 years later the game has evolved and improved and I still play it, whereas I don't even have a way to play my playstation anymore (no TV). 

So, if you think KSP is a game you will LOVE, not just like for a couple of weeks, get it and it will lots of entertainment.

Otherwise, if you like hearing  people griping about software, the forum is free for all (pending net neutrality ruling).

[Lord Aurelius]

6 hours ago, Corona688 said:

...

 

That word you keep using, I don't think it means what you think it means.

That's fair enough:  You didn't get what you wanted.  I'm pretty sure you didn't pay $40 for it, though.

Also, not being your cup of tea doesn't mean it's not worth $40.

I cannot comprehend your priorities.  Sure, you can fly straight from the launchpad to a distant planet with realistic physics all 10,000,000km of the way, land by the seat of your pants, then mine around in a rover of your own design without having any of it cutscened for you or even leaving the flight simulator.  But the ground scatter makes the gameplay hollow.

Most of what you want sounds very hollow.  Five ways of saying "make it look nicer" with an explicit "at no performance cost" and an implicit "and all for free".

You can get better graphics for $40, but it won't come with this.

 

 

 

I think we'll have to agree to disagree for the most part.

Technically yes, a placeholder is a part that is intended to be replaced at some point with the final version. When development gets rushed, sometimes the placeholders end up unfortunately being the final versions. This doesn't mean that they aren't still poor quality parts that drag the overall quality of the game down until they're upgraded.

Fair enough, for me, the game isn't worth $40 in its current state. I got it at the early access price, and the price I paid at the time was worth it, although I'm more than a little disappointed at how the development has gone since then. The value of a product is always in the eye of the buyer, and if I were to go and buy the game right now I wouldn't pay $40 for it and would wait for a significant sale.

You're putting words in my mouth here. I said that the planets are dull and boring once you actually get there, and was trying to give some ideas on how they could be improved. Ground scatter is simply one easy way to make them somewhat more interesting barring larger additions like many more random anomalies or a more robust surface science system.

You're putting words in my mouth again. There's such a thing as graphics settings and optimized (read: lower resolution) textures. What I was trying to say is that basic graphics could be what they are now with just having the textures redone to be a more consistent style, and the higher graphics settings could utilize the more demanding graphics options that some of the mods enable.

Orbiter is free, and has significantly better graphics than KSP.

6 hours ago, Starman4308 said:

A lot of your points here run straight into the fact that Squad has a different vision for the game than you do. For example, at least Harvester disliked the idea of delta-V readouts (and presumably autopilots), because he preferred a more seat-of-the-pants, trial-and-error sort of gameplay.

On the Mk1-2 pod, I don't think they'll change the diagonal, since so many legacy craft have been built around that oddity.

On graphics "without raising the minimum game requirements"... what do you take Squad for, an AAA studio? You cannot wave a magic wand to improve performance; you have to invest a lot of coder-hours finding little tweaks to make, and you get strongly diminishing returns on investment there as you approach the point where you're perfectly utilizing the graphics chip, without a single wasted cycle.

EDIT: To perhaps further elaborate on where we're coming from: Squad has already put an enormous amount of effort into KSP. Most video games these days are mostly art jobs, with a little bit of coding and scripting. Squad, meanwhile, has had to put into code orbital mechanics, atmospheric effects, thermal effects, and countless other complicated features that are far from commonplace in video games. The sort of art passes you're suggesting are major investments, and Squad may not even have the talent to get those working; a coder might have had no prior experience making 3D models or textures, but that's what they had to deal with.

Fair enough, but Harvester doesn't work for Squad and isn't involved in the game's development anymore. Developers sometimes make mistakes, and given the popularity of KER and MechJeb even with players who otherwise play completely stock, I would suggest that it was more of a mistake. A seat-of-the-pants trial and error approach to spaceflight is fun for the first little bit, but then gets extremely annoying when you realize that the game is arbitrarily hiding critical information from the player (but still displays that little dV readout for maneuvers) for "reasons".

Which is a classic example of a placeholder part that should have been replaced but wasn't.

Like in my reply to Corona688, there is such a thing as graphics settings. You simply leave the higher graphics options disabled for slower PCs so they're doing exactly the same graphics they are now, but the ceiling is higher now for players with the extra performance.

I do realize that Squad has put a tremendous amount of effort into KSP and don't dispute that it still is likely a lot of work to really finish the game and polish it up nicely. That doesn't change the fact that the game as it stands now is still pretty rough and unfinished in many ways despite being "released", which has been my point all along. Again, I'm not advocating photorealistic 4K graphics. Fidelity improvements would be nice, but the biggest issue is the lack of consistency that makes a lot of rockets look pretty terrible with all the mismatched textures.

Edited December 14, 2017 by Lord Aurelius

[Epicdreamer]

I agree with Frostedshoe (last reply on page 1)  It's not a mainstream game.

I "get" the game. And therefor KSP is the cheapest game I ever bought, if you put the price against playtime. I wouldn't be surprised if i have put a few thousands of hours into it...and still going strong....

I've paid less per hour gameplay in KSP than in any other games....ever....

Edited December 14, 2017 by Epicdreamer

[wumpus]

10 hours ago, Starman4308 said:

On graphics "without raising the minimum game requirements"... what do you take Squad for, an AAA studio? You cannot wave a magic wand to improve performance; you have to invest a lot of coder-hours finding little tweaks to make, and you get strongly diminishing returns on investment there as you approach the point where you're perfectly utilizing the graphics chip, without a single wasted cycle.

There have been a few comments from users who have trouble with the graphics issues (presumably laptops with integrated GPUs).  Another issue is building the game on Unity.  Squad wasn't willing to ditch the physics calculations of unity (which did all the calculations in single point on CPUs easily capable of doing double precision just as fast [single point floats were the source of the original Kraken and still manifest themselves in wobbly orbits].  I'm assuming that Squad is doubly disinterested in ditching Unity for better graphics.  If you want prettier graphics, keep modding till it crashes!

The problems I have with KSP tend to be in the VAB-GUI and weird bugs (often not seen in 1.2) that seem to delete things (I'm shocked silly you still need a mod to fix issues with Jeb either stowing away or refusing to fly if you put him in the seat).  More intractable issues are that career mode really isn't well integrated (the original vision was obviously a sandbox: career is ok, but obviously tacked on).  I'm curious to see what the DLC will look like (it looks like I bought the game a month or two late, still no complaints about cost or paying for the DLC).

As far as comparing to a "AAA" game, I'd compare it to a Bethesda "AAA+" Elder Scrolls game (Oblvion, Skyrim, etc).  Wide open, more gameplay than you can play in years, desperately needs a ton of mods (nearly all of which are available) and quite buggy.  So even "AAA" games are often like KSP (and I'll buy Elder Scroll game with or without a review, although often months after release to avoid gamebreaking bugs).

[Corona688]

11 hours ago, Lord Aurelius said:

I think we'll have to agree to disagree for the most part.

We don't have to agree to disagree about things that are factually untrue, like this --

Quote

When development gets rushed, sometimes the placeholders end up unfortunately being the final versions. This doesn't mean that they aren't still poor quality parts that drag the overall quality of the game down until they're upgraded.

Saying so doesn't make it so.  They're 100% functional and many have been redone twice or more.

KSP - and any game which builds objects or worlds out of many individual parts - treads a fine line between performance and graphics.  They've already thrown away improvements to avoid going over that line.

Quote

The value of a product is always in the eye of the buyer

Look.  I can't dispute that the game doesn't fit your preferences.  "This is what it needs to regain my interest" is also true.  "I would not pay $40 for this game" is also indisputable.  It's not that valuable to you.  End of story.

I only dispute what you imply over and over:  "Their graphics standards are lazy".  As a programmer, low-end gamer, and amateur artist, that's nothing but insulting.  Read below.

Quote

Orbiter is free, and has significantly better graphics than KSP.

That's nice.  I bet it can even do that on some of the cheaper graphic chipsets.

Now, can it render seven of those strapped together with flex physics, at quadruple speed, on the cheapest GPUs and processors available today?

That's what has to happen every time KSP physwarps through a launch.  Modular part games limit their graphics for a very good reason.

Quote

I do realize that Squad has put a tremendous amount of effort into KSP

I really don't think you do.  You take a lot for granted.

P.S:  You also take for granted that a terrific texture will still look terrific when downscaled.  That's often not true.  Something which looks better than stock in your settings, may look a lot worse to a low-end gamer.  It's not always possible to please everyone.

Edited December 14, 2017 by Corona688

[Lord Aurelius]

@Corona688

I apologize if you took any of what I said as an insult, that was not my intent. I'll try to clarify where I stand with graphics in KSP.

The visual fidelity is fine. If the devs have time eventually to add some extra eye candy for people with the PCs to handle it, great.

My issue with the graphics as they stand is the inconsistency. With the exception of the 1.25m and 3.75m parts, all of the rocket tanks have textures that don't really go together. Mixing 2.5m with anything else looks pretty awful, and the giant orange tank doesn't even fit within the 2.5m family. This particular issue is probably my biggest peeve with the current graphics since 2.5m parts are some of the most commonly used, yet they have some of the worst textures. The smaller SRBs also don't really fit with anything. When I'm talking about placeholder parts, this is the kind of thing I'm referring to. Visually, it looks like Squad started to put together a consistent art style with the 1.25m, 3.75m, and spaceplane parts, but then ran out of time/gave up/etc with the other parts. To me, they look like placeholder parts that were intended to be improved at some point.

Take a look at Ven's Stock Part Revamp. See how all the parts have a nice, clean, consistent style. It's not any higher resolution than stock and doesn't really impact performance, but it IMHO it looks much better. This is what I mean when I talk about consistency, and is what I would want to see an art pass accomplish.

In my mind, the graphics issue that you're picking a bone with is actually secondary to the atrocious part balance and broken career. All I was saying in my previous comments about graphics is that better graphics would be nice, but the real need in the graphics department is consistency. Squad has shown that they can make good looking textures for some of the parts (3.75m and the new/overhauled spaceplane parts), and I would like to see that work finished for all the parts instead of having the inconsistency we have now.

 

Edited December 14, 2017 by Lord Aurelius

[Corona688]

Ah, fair enough.   I agree that there's room for improvement in a lot of areas, but you mentioned graphics four or five times in one list of gripes, it looked like your main objection.

[Shadowmage]

Fairly relevant to the OP (at least temporarily) -- steam has just put KSP on sale for 50% off....

http://store.steampowered.com/app/220200/Kerbal_Space_Program/

So now, it is 50% less 'extremely expensive'.

[JadeOfMaar]

KSP has at least as much replay value as any game that people will stand in-line and wait 24+ hours outside the store to bust their wallet on...And still costs less than them. The infinite mods you can get to remix your game are free, every game update afaik has been free, and the price of KSP very regularly dips to below half?

If anything, KSP is way under-priced and doesn't sell well (being a niche game, catering to a narrow audience, and having no built-in visual pack).

[Greenfire32]

Me personally, I think the amount of depth KSP offers is only worth between $15-20. Once you figure out how to break orbit, there is...well...not much. You can always manufacture your own fun of course, and there are mods to satisfy, but...

Now if there was actual stuff on all these planets and things to do with them (stuff like colonization), then I could see a $40 price tag being justified.

However, on the flipside, I also don't think that KSP in its current form is "extremely expensive."