Poll: Are you buying the "Making History" DLC?

[GoSlash27]

Other. I'm staying stock to keep commonality with the majority of players.

Best,

-Slashy

[Snark]

2 hours ago, Johnny Wishbone said:

I have absolutely no interest in the mission builder aspect of the DLC. I haven't from the start. Initially, this meant that I would definitely NOT buy the DLC. However, they seem to keep adding more and more parts into the DLC that will not be included in the 1.4 stock update, and I like a lot of these new parts. So, I'm on the fence about buying the DLC because I want the new parts (and still don't care about the mission builder stuff), but I'm not sure all these new parts are worth the cost of the DLC.

Yep, that right there is basically what the question is about, for any product sold by any company, right?  They have a product, they set a price on it, then the customers get to vote with their wallets whether they think it's worth the price or not.  For example, in my own case, the answer's a resounding "yes".  $15 is less than the cost of a couple of movie tickets, so if I get even a few hours' worth of entertainment out of it, it's a bargain, in my book.  And I like the idea of the mission builder (not just making my own mission, but getting to try out other folks') enough that I'm fairly confident I'll get quite a few hours of playtime out of it.

Someone else who has a different set of likes/dislikes would come to their own conclusions, of course. 

2 hours ago, Johnny Wishbone said:

I also feel no obligation to Squad or Take Two to "support" them and their development of this product by purchasing the DLC, especially after the recent hubub over the new TOS and Privacy Policy. Take Two is a massive company with a lot of cash and plans to supplement that cashflow via microtransactions, so they have no business trying to guilt trip a community like this into funding development of this product as if it was stll an indie title.

Huh?  Nobody's saying that's a thing, are they?  I mean, it's a product.  For sale.  Either you think it's worth it (and you plunk down the ol' hard-earned doubloons), or else you think it isn't (and you don't).

How does "obligation" or "support" enter into it?  It's a business transaction, like buying a pair of shoes or a movie ticket.  Not seeing any moral dimension, here.  Who's "guilt tripping" anyone?  Citation please?

2 hours ago, Johnny Wishbone said:

I was hoping there would be a much bigger backlash within the various KSP communities (here, Reddit, Steam, etc) about moving more of these DLC parts into the 1.4 stock update. Unfortunately that hasn't happened.

Why would it?  And why would they?  They've been working on this stuff.  They're a business, not a charity.  They work on stuff in order to make money, which implies selling stuff rather than giving things away for free for no reason.  So of course they're charging for new stuff, why wouldn't they?

2 hours ago, Johnny Wishbone said:

there are a lot of other "basic" parts (fairings, service modules, etc) I believe should be in the stock game

What reason would they have to do a bunch of work, spending a lot of money in the process, to add a bunch of parts like that and then give it away for free?  They're a business, they're here to make money, right?

Consider.  They own a product that has basically run its course, commercially speaking.  KSP has been out for years now, and I'm guessing that most of the folks who would be inclined to buy the stock game have already done so.  And of the folks who haven't already bought the stock game but may be considering it... I doubt that adding a few more stock parts would be the make-or-break factor in most folks' purchasing decision.

So, in a world like that, as a business, they basically have two options:

1. Decide that the well has run dry for KSP, and pull the plug, and go move on to other games and products.  No new KSP releases, or DLC, or even just bugfixes, ever, because it's not paying the rent anymore.
2. Decide that there's still money to be made in KSP, and spend money to make stuff, and then charge money for the stuff that they make.

That's basically it.  You'll note that I did not include any option 3, "Keep making free stuff forever", because that's not how a business works.

I certainly agree that as a customer, it would be great to receive cool stuff for free forever... but it's unrealistic to expect such a scenario if there's not a business model that supports continued profit for the company.

1 hour ago, Dafni said:

Only interested in the parts, and sad they moved so many of them into the DLC.

Yah, I can certainly see that for someone who's only interested in the parts, then the value of the DLC would be diminished-- basically, you have no way to buy the bit that you do want, without also being able to buy the bit that you don't want.

About the only other thing they could have done, though, would have been to break it up into two DLC packs-- one with the mission-builder stuff, the other with the new parts.  That way if you wanted to buy just the parts, you could do so.

From a customer's perspective, that would be nice.  However, I have no idea what it would be like from the business side of things-- e.g. their marketing/sales strategy, the costs that go with any release (which are non-zero, and don't get smaller if the thing being released is smaller), the estimates of market size for each piece, etc.  I don't work for Squad and therefore am not any more privy to their internal business decisions than you are ... but I wouldn't be surprised if they considered that option and decided not to do it for business reasons.

US$15 sure seems pretty cheap to me for the entertainment value, though.  Out of curiosity, how much would you have paid for a DLC that had just the parts in it?

2 hours ago, Dafni said:

Kinda contradicts the whole KSP feeling/philosophy IMO.

How's that?  (Not a rhetorical question, it sounded like you were about to start an interesting discussion and then stopped right at the start of it, am interested in your thoughts.) 

[joacobanfield]

I don't have enough Kerbucks. Maybe I can get some if I launch a model rocket from the top of the building?

[Gargamel]

1 hour ago, Gaarst said:

I'm an old KSP player so I'll get it for free.

I don't know if I would have bought it if I had to: I'm not that interested in the Mission Builder thing and I've seen the historical parts done better (IMO) elsewhere. I'd probably have bought it if it had become a requirement for other mods; either way I paid a grand total of $15 for KSP so it probably wouldn't have hurt me too much to pay 10 more.

Same here.  I don't know if I would or not.  But since it's free, my eagerness to get it is hard to compare to other people.  To me, it's just another mod. 

[Greenfire32]

I'll be getting it for free, but because of the new EULA I will not be getting it right away. I don't agree to the terms, and thus I'll wait and see how T2 handles KSP's immediate future.

[Johnny Wishbone]

Apparently, my point of view touched a nerve here, necessitating a point by point attack that amounted to little more than "your opinion is wrong, mine is right."

Thank you, Snark, for your rebuttal. I stand by what I said and how I feel about this upcoming DLC.

[Tyko]

45 minutes ago, Greenfire32 said:

I'll be getting it for free, but because of the new EULA I will not be getting it right away. I don't agree to the terms, and thus I'll wait and see how T2 handles KSP's immediate future.

Is the EULA tied exclusively to the DLC? I thought it applied to 1.4 too

[severedsolo]

1 hour ago, Johnny Wishbone said:

Thank you, Snark, for your rebuttal. I stand by what I said and how I feel about this upcoming DLC.

You must be new around here. That's just Snark being Snark. He likes to write essays. Usually they are interesting to read, so we allow it. (Just in case anyone actually thinks I'm being serious, here's a pokey-out tongue face )

[Mako]

3 hours ago, Snark said:

Huh?  Nobody's saying that's a thing, are they?  I mean, it's a product.  For sale.  Either you think it's worth it (and you plunk down the ol' hard-earned doubloons), or else you think it isn't (and you don't).

How does "obligation" or "support" enter into it?  It's a business transaction, like buying a pair of shoes or a movie ticket.  Not seeing any moral dimension, here.  Who's "guilt tripping" anyone?  Citation please?

I don't believe Take-Two or Squad have said anything, but some proponents of KSP's ongoing development use the reasoning of purchasing DLC to support Squad/Take-Two so development will continue. I have a neutral stance on the issue, much like you're advocating here, but I do recognize the business sense that if sales don't meet expectations further expenses/development of any kind might be reduced.

In this time of crowd-funding and Early Access, things are not so simple as a product that's for sale. These new software development models work directly on support, and in the case of crowd-funding often no product will exist without it. While KSP isn't in this boat anymore, it's very easy to see how some folks would translate the recent trend in indie development to a game that was until relatively recently an indie title.

Regardless of the reasoning, it's still reasonable to assume that if Take-Two believes KSP's sales are underperforming, they will be less likely to take risks (such as further development) with the property. If someone is hoping that existing KSP will eventually add some feature or content they want, they might decide to buy products they dont necessary want in hopes of voting with their wallets enough to encourage more development of things they do want. Of course there's no actual official statement saying that spending $15 now will bring more stuff in the future.

So while no one official is saying the DLC must be bought to support KSP's development, it's easy to see why some would feel that way. For what it's worth, I agree that you should pay what you feel something is worth to you for what exists right now. That's why as cool as some game may seem and as much as developers will say they want to accomplish, I can't really justify purchasing it for anything my thing other than what it is at that moment.

Edited March 5, 2018 by Mako

[Greenfire32]

2 hours ago, Tyko said:

Is the EULA tied exclusively to the DLC? I thought it applied to 1.4 too

It's 1.4 and forward.

[Snark]

2 hours ago, Johnny Wishbone said:

Apparently, my point of view touched a nerve here, necessitating a point by point attack that amounted to little more than "your opinion is wrong, mine is right."

Thank you, Snark, for your rebuttal. I stand by what I said and how I feel about this upcoming DLC.

Sorry if that seemed to be the case-- certainly that wasn't my intent.  Everyone's entitled to an opinion, and nobody's opinion is any more valid than anyone else's.  If some company is in the habit of manufacturing cars, say:  one customer might look at it and say:  "Wow, that car's awesome, I want one."  And another customer could look at it and say, "Wow, that car sucks, I would never want that."  And both points of view are equally valid, and nobody's in any position to say that one is "better" than another.  There's no such thing as a wrong opinion.

On the other hand... if one of those two customers were to say:  "I hate this car company because I think they should give me a car for free" ... well, there's certainly a component of opinion there, but it also runs up against some cold, unyielding economic realities.

If a person's opinion is "it would be nice to have free cars," then that's certainly a valid opinion.  And nobody can argue with that, really.  Heck, I'd like a free car, myself. 

But it's also not practical, for empirical reasons that have nothing to do with opinion.  Someone who has some familiarity with the car-manufacturing biz might point out that "cars cost money to manufacture, so it's not economically possible for a company to give them away for free, if it wants to keep being a company for very long".  And they'd be right.  And they're not attacking the person's opinion that "free cars would be nice", they're just addressing the practicalities of why cars can't be free.

So, please understand that I'm not trying to belittle or rebut anyone's opinion, including yours.  Everyone likes what they like, and wants what they want, and there's nothing wrong with that, and far be it from me to argue.  But I've been shipping software for a living for a few decades now, and there are certain harsh economic realities that any software company needs to deal with if they want to continue existing, and that places practical constraints on what customers can have.  So I was simply attempting to inject a practical note.

The product has to meet the customer's needs; but the math has to work for the company, or it has no point to continue taking part in the dance.  That's all I'm saying.  If either side is unhappy with that-- if the customer's needs aren't being met, or the company's math doesn't work out-- then the dance ends.  So, as long as either side wants the dance to continue, they really can't ask something that would cross the other side's red line.

The company can't reasonably expect customers to keep buying a product, if it doesn't appeal to them.  And the customers can't reasonably expect a company to keep giving them stuff for free.

[Tyko]

12 minutes ago, Greenfire32 said:

It's 1.4 and forward.

That's what I thought..thanks for clarifying...that being the case, this whole discussion around not buying the DLC to avoid the EULA is kind of a moot point unless the user is going to stick permanently with 1.3.1

[harrisjosh2711]

This stinks, I was super excited about the new DLC. I for one love DLC and have no problem paying for it as long as you aren't trying to charge $300 for 15 DLC's (like some people.) Seeing how worried everyone is about the new EULA certainly has me re-thinking making the purchase. I don't see myself continuing to play KSP if I don't make the purchase. It's not that I'm truly worried about Take 2 taking my stuff. Its more the fact that they are looking in everyone's face and saying we are the big company. We don't care how hard you worked to make your mods. Its not yours its ours! Yea, I don't roll like that........

[Greenfire32]

1 hour ago, Tyko said:

That's what I thought..thanks for clarifying...that being the case, this whole discussion around not buying the DLC to avoid the EULA is kind of a moot point unless the user is going to stick permanently with 1.3.1

Correct. In order to stay away from the new EULA, you'd have to also remain on 1.3.1

I think a lot of people are just saying they won't get the DLC to avoid the new EULA because the DLC is being "bundle" released with 1.4. So by saying "not getting DLC" they really mean they're just not going to update.

That's my plan anyway. I'm not going to update or download the DLC, even though its free for me, until I get a good feel for how T2 is going to treat KSP.

[Yakuzi]

41 minutes ago, Greenfire32 said:

Correct. In order to stay away from the new EULA, you'd have to also remain on 1.3.1

That's incorrect unfortunately. When you bought KSP you payed for a software license not a product, by playing any version of KSP (whether it's 1.3.x or 0.7.3 or anything in between) you accept the new EULA:

Quote

THE SOFTWARE IS LICENSED, NOT SOLD. BY OPENING, DOWNLOADING, INSTALLING, COPYING, OR OTHERWISE USING THE SOFTWARE, AND ANY OTHER MATERIALS INCLUDED WITH THE SOFTWARE, YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT WITH THE UNITED STATES COMPANY TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE, INC.

For more info, have a look at the Updated Terms and Service thread here, or read the new EULA.

Edited March 5, 2018 by Yakuzi

[panzer1b]

Im pretty much gonna wait and see what TT actually does in terms of the future, but if its clear they have no intention of screwing anyone over then ill get it just to support future development.  As nice as the DLC is, there are literally just a FEW of the parts that id really like to get (namely the structural parts like triangular panels, service bay things, ect), but i really dont think just that is worth 15 bucks, and the vast majority of the rest of the expansion is honestly just creating an issue with community sharing where some people may have the parts and others wont (so id still have to stick to 100% stock parts if i intended to share something i wanted anyone to load up).  Mission builder looks neat, but like career and science mode is completely pointless for someone who has the imagination to create their own missions/scenarios and sandbox makes doing that far easier (not to mention the stock game as well as the expansion doesnt really support stock combat, pretty much the only thing that im truly interested in these days with KSP).

That and the biggest issue is the whole internet connection and TT being able to do anything with data they collect BS in the EULA that could theoretically make its way into the game at some point.  I dont really care if TT adds some sort of spyware (if you can get past my firewalls then you can have my data), but i really dont want it to be any sort of DRM or anything like it that requires activation, or at worst a constant connection to the internet to play (that alone would make me instantly stop updating).  DRM free is one of the main reasons i bought the game with actual money and i really really hope that doesnt change with the expansion and 1.4 (not liek DRM actually stopped pirates but thats irrelevant to this discussion).

Ill defenetely give 1.4 a try (and if it looks good i might get the expansion lateron), but at least i can rest assured that i have 1.3, and well, regardless of whether i accept the EULA or dont, noones gonna take 1.3 (or any older version i have saved) off my multiple backup drives...

Edited March 5, 2018 by panzer1b

[razark]

I refuse to buy the DLC.

Simply put, I believe that Squad is acting in a manner that is completely unfair.  I'd fully intended to acquire the DLC, and complain long and loudly about some vague, unfounded concerns I have, and then demand my money back because it didn't live up to my completely baseless preconceptions, but since I get it for free, I am not able to do so.

 

Damnit, Squad, I want valid reasons to complain, too!

[Dafni]

16 hours ago, Snark said:

Yah, I can certainly see that for someone who's only interested in the parts, then the value of the DLC would be diminished-- basically, you have no way to buy the bit that you do want, without also being able to buy the bit that you don't want.

About the only other thing they could have done, though, would have been to break it up into two DLC packs-- one with the mission-builder stuff, the other with the new parts.  That way if you wanted to buy just the parts, you could do so.

From a customer's perspective, that would be nice.  However, I have no idea what it would be like from the business side of things-- e.g. their marketing/sales strategy, the costs that go with any release (which are non-zero, and don't get smaller if the thing being released is smaller), the estimates of market size for each piece, etc.  I don't work for Squad and therefore am not any more privy to their internal business decisions than you are ... but I wouldn't be surprised if they considered that option and decided not to do it for business reasons.

US$15 sure seems pretty cheap to me for the entertainment value, though.  Out of curiosity, how much would you have paid for a DLC that had just the parts in it?

Oh, please dont get me wrong Snark. I merely stated my main interest lies in the parts, as I dont see myself messing with the mission builder much myself. I am a sandbox player at heart.

As for how much value I attribute to these new parts, or KSP entertainment in general. For what its worth, I bought a fresh copy of KSP for everyone near me who showed some interest in the game, and would do it again. Just to support the devs. I am fully aware I could just share my own folders. I myself keep on playing old installs and own and hoard many of them. Cherish every bit of KSP history if you will.

On top of that I donated multiple hundreds of dollars to mod developers and maintainers over the past few years. Out of respect and gratitude for all their work. And obviously I am prepared to do the same to Squad as well. The parts look great and I am glad for the continued support.

15 bucks is a bargain in my eyes, even just for the parts. And the initial 30 bucks I paid for KSP was some of the best invested money i ever spent.

[Johnny Wishbone]

16 hours ago, severedsolo said:

You must be new around here.

Not really.

16 hours ago, severedsolo said:

That's just Snark being Snark.

When someone deconstructs an entire post and attacks it sentence by sentence whilst demanding citations and evidence, they aren't trying to have a conversation or foster discussion about the topic. They are starting an argument; they are trying to pick a fight. I expected a forum moderator to be above that kind of behavior, and trying to justify it with "that's just Manny being Manny" doesn't make it any better. And yes, I see that Snark responded with an explanation/pseudo-apology claiming he wasn't trying to belittle me, followed immediately by another 6 paragraph diatribe about how right he was in the first place, which completely undermines everything he said in the first sentence. So...thanks, I guess.

The ironic thing is that he was successful in picking a fight; here I am having to justify and explain myself and being sucked right back into this petty nonsense. Honestly, I see no real good resolution to this other than to simply stop, which makes me look like I'm pouting. So be it.

Again, thank you Snark for your rebuttal. But I stand by what I said and how I feel about this upcoming DLC.

 

 

 

Footnote: For those of you unfamiliar with the phrase "That's just Manny being Manny." see this: http://www.espn.com/espnmag/story?id=3644816

[MechBFP]

SorryJohnny, but discussions are meaningless drivel without facts unless you are having a philosophical discussion. 

Someone deconstructing your post is completely valid. If you don’t want to validate your opinion with facts, that’s your decision, but to complain that someone else disagrees with you instead of just allowing you to spout whatever you want unchallenged? Seriously? The world doesn’t work that way. 

Edited March 6, 2018 by MechBFP
Typo

[A Soviet Tank]

I never really update ksp now I've found my nice little mod setup, so I'm gonna leave it for now. I'll probably pick it up eventually though. 

[GrandProtectorDark]

Most likely gonna get it. Through I do gonna wait a bit to see Scott Manleys(or any other Youtubers) Review.
I personally don't care about the whole "The evil Take Two is  gonna make everything bad" discussion. I judge it after it comes out. Not based on speculations.   

Edited March 6, 2018 by GrandProtectorDark
Correcting a few bad typos.

[dlrk]

The EULA dispute is stupid.

I'm not going to get Making History or 1.4 because I don't want to wait for all my mods to get fixed it for it.

[The_Rocketeer]

On 05/03/2018 at 5:19 PM, Snark said:

On 05/03/2018 at 2:51 PM, Johnny Wishbone said:

I also feel no obligation to Squad or Take Two to "support" them and their development of this product by purchasing the DLC, especially after the recent hubub over the new TOS and Privacy Policy. Take Two is a massive company with a lot of cash and plans to supplement that cashflow via microtransactions, so they have no business trying to guilt trip a community like this into funding development of this product as if it was stll an indie title.

Huh?  Nobody's saying that's a thing, are they?  I mean, it's a product.  For sale.  Either you think it's worth it (and you plunk down the ol' hard-earned doubloons), or else you think it isn't (and you don't).

How does "obligation" or "support" enter into it?  It's a business transaction, like buying a pair of shoes or a movie ticket.  Not seeing any moral dimension, here.  Who's "guilt tripping" anyone?  Citation please?

On 05/03/2018 at 2:51 PM, Johnny Wishbone said:

I was hoping there would be a much bigger backlash within the various KSP communities (here, Reddit, Steam, etc) about moving more of these DLC parts into the 1.4 stock update. Unfortunately that hasn't happened.

Why would it?  And why would they?  They've been working on this stuff.  They're a business, not a charity.  They work on stuff in order to make money, which implies selling stuff rather than giving things away for free for no reason.  So of course they're charging for new stuff, why wouldn't they?

In my opinion, it's fair to say, @Snark, that conventional wisdom on the forum about KSP's development is that a lot of stuff in the game has been (and remains) sub-par, a lot of stuff should have been more 'finished' for a game at release and is still waiting to be updated, and a lot of hubub about DLCs and expansions has been about the funding and support of future development, including the fixing of some of these issues. I don't think @Johnny Wishbone is saying anything that a lot of people haven't been thinking for a while/at least thought at one time. For old hands who literally did support this game from it's infancy, it's a bit of a slap down to tell them their baby's all grown up and is selling it's own product that we can decide either buy or not buy. We're emotionally invested in this, and the direction of future development (of DLCs and core content) is a personal issue for many of us.

For many of us, the relationship with Squad/KSP hasn't been transactional for a really long time, and it's a tough call whether that's something we'd want to welcome back, especially once you've seen what's actually being offered.

Edit: FWIW, I'm an old enough player that I don't have to buy the DLC either. If I'm impressed, I'll probably buy a copy for a friend.

Edited March 6, 2018 by The_Rocketeer

[XB-70A]

I will wait to see the new content of 1.4 about the parts. I have to admit that the stock-alike R-7 booster parts made me drool, but on another hand I like the current way that we have to build and modify the parts by "tinkering" them.