Recommended Posts

I'm not a programmer, so this question may be somewhat naive and possibly misinformed, so fee free to correct me :-)

Over the last year I have been on this forum I have seen KSP updates regularly, the Mission Builder came out etc.  I've also read a lot of comments about bugs, fixes, underlying code etc.  While bugs are a fact of life, if I am reading comments correctly, KSP at this point is rather patched together and its architecture is getting old.  Would it not make more sense to  start over from scratch and create a KSP II or a KSP remastered?  Half the titles of games available have some sort of version number after their name, like Civilization VI or Simcity IV, so this is pretty par for the course.

KSP was the first game I bought off Steam before I knew about sales. Combined with the DLC, I spent around $50.  With 890 hours listed on my Steam account plus all the time spent on my planet pack copies that Steam does not record, I am well over 1000.  That works out to one dollar per 20 hours of play...not a bad deal.  So, I'd gladly put up money again for a new version, especially if that new version incorporated newer graphics and some new content.  I don't know what the challenges would be for making sure craft and missions built in the old version would be transferable, but hopefully that could be overcome.  I would not want it altered out of recognition, but rather given a facelift with a few features that really belong in stock (propellers, easier refueling on the ground--and I'd love to see a scenario in career where you can unlock new launchpads and airfields around Kerbin as you progress--but that is for another discussion) and a modern architecture that will ensure its continued existence for years to come.

I would think that would also make sense financially.  Right now, Squad makes no money off of most of its player base; they only make money selling new copies.  So why not put all that effort they do into updates into creating something new they can get a financial return on?

 

Anyway, just some thoughts. I'd be curious to hear what others think.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get the same feeling. KSP is clearly bumping into the edges of the engine's capabilities as well as suffering from a somewhat crusty codebase. This manifests as seemingly-irresolvable issues like

  • the memory leak that makes the game increasingly stuttery the longer it's run and the more scene switches there are
  • massive performance problems in certain circumstances that could be optimised away by tweaking physics (e.g. bases with multiple craft standing on a surface)
  • surface interactions -- wheels and legs still not working quite like they're supposed to, with bouncing, oscillation, and drift when craft are supposed to be staying put
  • the kraken rearing its tentacles in all kinds of circumstances
  • long load times

I think there's a lot of stuff that's really well done in KSP also, notably with the data model -- the .craft files, the way it's super moddable, the general modularity and so on. 

I for one would certainly buy it all over again if it was ported to a more powerful engine that put to bed at least some of these issues, and gave us something that looks better and performs better to boot. 

Sadly, it would wipe out the mod scene in a single fell swoop. I don't know how much of it would be willing to learn the ins and outs of the new engine and new codebase.

This would also be a massive undertaking. No doubt parts of the codebase could be ported over, but a lot of it would have to be written from scratch. And then there is the matter of the game engine -- which ones out there do the kind of physics modelling KSP needs? Is it economically feasible to use them? It's not an easy thing to do.

Under these circumstances I'm ... pessimistic. I think KSP is what it is, it'll be maintained a while longer while it pushes against its fundamental limitations, but what we're seeing now is more or less what we'll be getting until one day it fades into the pantheon of classic games with a devoted fanbase that continue to be played, even if they are no longer officially maintained.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd wager KSP's acquisition (Not Squad) by Take Two pretty much guarantees a KSP sequel.  It may even currently be in development by another team.  Surely Take Two wouldn't have made the acquisition just for the long tail of KSP1.  No matter how some might disagree with whether it needs to happen or not, this is a part of the industry.  Successful games get sequels.  The current code base must be a mess at this point.  For KSP2, the development team actually has an idea of the sort of game they're going to make, and what parts need to be in place from the beginning.  They could even have things known as development road maps and art bibles.  Something Squad claims to have, yet certain evidence can point to the contrary.

Edited by klgraham1013
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe KSP has a marketing potential that we are still to witness the full unleash. I do believe it will have at least one, if not many other iterations, and with good market penetration we are likely to see plushes and other toys back, and maybe more, like books for scientific education to go along KerbalEDU. Stuff like that would make me jump in joy.

KSP universe might lack a little more depth for that, right now, but with some work on the front we can see material deserving of animation movies. Kerbals would be much more charsimatic than minions, IMO. I can't help but hope Take Two has seen all of that...

"We view Kerbal Space Program as a new, long-term franchise that adds a well-respected and beloved IP to Take-Two’s portfolio as we continue to explore opportunities across the independent development landscape." http://ir.take2games.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=86428&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=2277633

On the other hand, Take Two is a ginormous corporation with no lack of interesting titles to worry about and invest money on. If the return to investment on KSP isn't what they expect, the future will be dark. But I believe even a moderately mediocre business model could make money with KSP, let alone one that comes out of the money-making machine that Take Two is...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys, long time reader of the forums but never felt the need to post, this post however peaked my interest!

I dont think ksp is the type of game that requires a sequel being that its one of those standalone games that remains a unique classic forever. 

However in saying that, a remastered version would be a great idea, a new engine including everything from the base game but with enhanced graphics, updated engine and new features / content. A sequel could very well take away from this classic, an inferior version which tends to happen when companys try to make a franchise out of a unique game like this. Not to mention at its core the gameplay, premise and in game features are perfect, just the game is limited by an old game engine, graphics and glitches.

A remastered version would keep the loyalists happy with their experience and understanding of the game not going to waste while newer graphics and more content will bring in a new generation of players.

Anyway thats just my opinion, what do you guys think?

Edited by Sav
Added content
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sav said:

Hi guys, long time reader of the forums but never felt the need to post, this post however peaked my interest!

I dont think ksp is the type of game that requires a sequel being that its one of those standalone games that remains a unique classic forever. 

However in saying that, a remastered version would be a great idea, a new engine including everything from the base game but with enhanced graphics, updated engine and new features / content. A sequel could very well take away from this classic, an inferior version which tends to happen when companys try to make a franchise out of a unique game like this. Not to mention at its core the gameplay, premise and in game features are perfect, just the game is limited by an old game engine, graphics and glitches.

A remastered version would keep the loyalists happy with their experience and understanding of the game not going to waste while newer graphics and more content will bring in a new generation of players.

Anyway thats just my opinion, what do you guys think?

I agree 100% with this. The gameplay is pretty much perfect as it stands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/4/2018 at 7:22 AM, klgraham1013 said:

I'd wager KSP's acquisition (Not Squad) by Take Two pretty much guarantees a KSP sequel.

I've given this idea a bit of thought and I wonder sometimes is TTI didn't just buy KSP so if it takes off (pun intended), they own it. I woudln't be surprised if a portion of any game company's investments are speculative, and further wouldn't be surprised if this was a case like it. It fits with their total hands-off approach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

I've given this idea a bit of thought and I wonder sometimes is TTI didn't just buy KSP so if it takes off (pun intended), they own it. I woudln't be surprised if a portion of any game company's investments are speculative, and further wouldn't be surprised if this was a case like it. It fits with their total hands-off approach.

I suspect they did it primarily for the customer information:

  • KSP already took off with 2M - 5M sales. We're well past the good part of the long tail. https://steamspy.com/app/220200
  • MH did 0 - 20k sales. https://steamspy.com/app/283740 With sales like that, we're not getting a second DLC.
  • The development budget doesn't appear to have increased a great deal, if at all.
  • If KSP 2 is in development by another team, why are new features being added to KSP 1? I'd bugfix and wind it up, because new features aren't likely to be easily portable to a new engine. The art assets, maybe.
  • The Red Shell fiasco.

I wish I could find the article I read a couple of weeks ago on just how valuable that amount of customer information is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, FleshJeb said:

KSP already took off with 2M - 5M sales.

I remember before they started hiding their numbers, they had sold over a million.  Yet people continue to call KSP a niche and small game.

19 hours ago, Sav said:

I dont think ksp is the type of game that requires a sequel...

You could say this about a number of games, but Civilization 6 still exists.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't logged into the forums in forever, but I've been playing KSP for about 6 years now.

I saw a video --  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUXChw_6plE about the current state of KSP, which inspired me to come back and post about this issue. I'm glad to see other people are concerned about stability and optimizations as well. Seeing the way most publishers have headed, putting profits before quality... I do not know if KSP will get the updates and overhaul it needs and deserves.

 

I hope it does, though. I really like this game.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I haven't logged into the forums in forever, but I've been playing KSP for about 6 years now.

I saw a video --  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUXChw_6plE about the current state of KSP, which inspired me to come back and post about this issue. I'm glad to see other people are concerned about stability and optimizations as well. Seeing the way most publishers have headed, putting profits before quality... I do not know if KSP will get the updates and overhaul it needs and deserves.

 

I hope it does, though. I really like this game.

That's a really interesting link, thanks for posting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@3_bit, good video, but could you please embed the link? It’s a bit tedious to copy/paste the link. No problems with the videos though, it’s just that I was going to bring it up myself, until I had that idea that you might have brought it up:P.

Anyway, I think it unlikely that Ksp will get the future development that it deserves. It just does not seem like a strategy that T2 would pursue. They probably just want to milk as much money from ksp with stuff like the making history expansion. Truly, I feel that though we all hope for a ksp 2, deep down I just don’t feel like that will happen. 

Just remember, we’ll always have RO in v1.3 and 10 minutes to load our mods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mabye if they switched to 4D, like how Simple Rockets is going from 2D to 3D.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/9/2018 at 5:52 AM, Sav said:

Hi guys, long time reader of the forums but never felt the need to post, this post however peaked my interest!

I dont think ksp is the type of game that requires a sequel being that its one of those standalone games that remains a unique classic forever. 

However in saying that, a remastered version would be a great idea, a new engine including everything from the base game but with enhanced graphics, updated engine and new features / content. A sequel could very well take away from this classic, an inferior version which tends to happen when companys try to make a franchise out of a unique game like this. Not to mention at its core the gameplay, premise and in game features are perfect, just the game is limited by an old game engine, graphics and glitches.

A remastered version would keep the loyalists happy with their experience and understanding of the game not going to waste while newer graphics and more content will bring in a new generation of players.

Anyway thats just my opinion, what do you guys think?

Welcome to the Forums.

Peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/8/2018 at 8:02 PM, Cataclism said:

By the powers that be, whichever they are, the fun part is that KSP doesn´t even appear in the T2 games list. :ph34r:

https://www.take2games.com/games/

.............
I know, I know... :D

 

Thats because Take Two handed it over to their Indie branch, Private Division.  Its featured prominently there:

https://www.privatedivision.com/

Albeit prominently advertising the Making History DLC expansion, whose reception and I presume sales were so poor that it has to factor in to KSP2 discussion plans, no?  At least temper sequel intentions with some cold hard sales data. Though, they were obliged to give away that dlc for free to a bunch of game owners that may've otherwise bought it, probably vastly skewing the sales figures.

 

Quote

Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements

The statements contained herein which are not historical facts are considered forward-looking statements under federal securities laws and may be identified by words such as “anticipates,” “believes,” “estimates,” “expects,” “intends,” “plans,” “potential,” “predicts,” “projects,” “seeks,” “should,” “will,” or words of similar meaning and include, but are not limited to, statements regarding the outlook for the Company’s future business and financial performance. Such forward-looking statements are based on the current beliefs of our management as well as assumptions made by and information currently available to them, which are subject to inherent uncertainties, risks and changes in circumstances that are difficult to predict. Actual outcomes and results may vary materially from these forward-looking statements based on a variety of risks and uncertainties including: our dependence on key management and product development personnel, our dependence on our Grand Theft Auto products and our ability to develop other hit titles, the timely release and significant market acceptance of our games, the ability to maintain acceptable pricing levels on our games, and risks associated with international operations. Other important factors and information are contained in the Company’s most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K, including the risks summarized in the section entitled “Risk Factors,” the Company’s most recent Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, and the Company’s other periodic filings with the SEC, which can be accessed at www.take2games.com. All forward-looking statements are qualified by these cautionary statements and apply only as of the date they are made. The Company undertakes no obligation to update any forward-looking statement, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

 

Edited by klesh
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, klesh said:

 

Thats because Take Two handed it over to their Indie branch, Private Division.  Its featured prominently there:

https://www.privatedivision.com/

Albeit prominently advertising the Making History DLC expansion, whose reception and I presume sales were so poor that it has to factor in to KSP2 discussion plans, no?  At least temper sequel intentions with some cold hard sales data. Though, they were obliged to give away that dlc for free to a bunch of game owners that may've otherwise bought it, probably vastly skewing the sales figures.

  

 

Oh, now I got it!
....
and.....


indeed as well! :D
In fact, the time I´ve discovered KSP it has already avaiable the Making History, and I was impressed about how relatively cheap it was to buy both the game and the DLC (here, in Brazil, through GOG).

Thank you for the info. (y)

Edited by Cataclism

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could be failing to see an important point here, but...

Don't we 'in effect' already have KSP 2, 3 etc? 

When i look at CoD or Civilisation for example, yes, they release a 'new' version every so often (pretty much yearly in CoD's case), but they are very much still the same game as the previous version.  A different time period perhaps, which changes the weapon types and maps etc visually, and then just tweak the numbers a bit to make the 'new' weapons perform a little different.  But the essence of the gameplay is the same.  Running around shooting stuff or exploring a blacked out map and building stuff to get the upper hand. So, why not just call the 'new' game an update to last years?

Over the years KSP has done a similar thing.  Added major new features, that add new elements to gameplay.  They even re-wrote a lot of code to update to new versions of the game engine.  But the game is still essentially the same, build rockets and explore the planets.  But they just didn't 'call' it KSP 2, 3, 4 or whatever.

Share this post


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

I could be failing to see an important point here, but...

Over the years KSP has done a similar thing.  Added major new features, that add new elements to gameplay.  They even re-wrote a lot of code to update to new versions of the game engine.  But the game is still essentially the same, build rockets and explore the planets.  But they just didn't 'call' it KSP 2, 3, 4 or whatever.

My point was more about a complete re-release with a total update of the underlying architecture. More like what they did with Homeworld.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now