Jump to content

Kerbal Space Program DLC: “Breaking Gound” Grand Discussion Thread


UomoCapra

Recommended Posts

tlY1lQycBCT-qGDWTrEdqPfSmZo0RsFRuJ3Bym_v

Brand new downloadable content for Kerbal Space Program is on its way! Filled with new content and features, Kerbal Space Program: Breaking Ground Expansion will give new meaning to the Kerbal scientific endeavours.

Breaking Ground is all about exploration, experimentation, and technological breakthroughs. Study the soaring plume of a cryovolcano on Vall, mysterious craters on Moho, and even more new features on all of the other moons and planets of the Solar System. Deploy experiments for the long-term study of Minmus and let them collect data while you explore further sights. Test your creativity with a new suite of robotics parts. Breaking Ground will help you and the Kerbals reach new horizons, all in the name of Science!

These are the most significant features coming to Kerbal Space Program: Breaking Ground Expansion.

Robotic Parts

Brand new robotic will add a whole new level of creativity to your craft. These parts will include some new control mechanics and let you create all sorts of inventive vehicles and crazy contraptions to aid the Kerbals in exploring their Universe!

thNzgxVgkg8jB_HT8j8w07voBGJhPySw29TQ9ZhM

Surface Features

Scattered across the Kerbin System, you’ll find interesting Surface Features, like mineral formations, meteors, craters, and some even more curious planetary features. Study them and collect valuable scientific data with a brand-new Rover Arm!

 rOJm4dH7dUHrWKZXX0cgDsyFur3m_Kty9Bv0sqNV

Deployed Science

Bring equipment for experiments with you from Kerbin and deploy them on the surface of a celestial body to take measurements over time. Set up a science station and put your crew to work. From seismometers to weather stations, there are plenty experiments for you to try out!

Oq76nLhVnFABXGQexBTOWvThitS2KCIWTPuCsxc8

New Space Suit

Kerbals are also getting a fresh new space suit to wear for their scientific endeavors! This sleek futuristic suit will make your Kerbals look flashy while they explore the canyons of Duna, the shores of Laythe, or any other exotic destination.

0Vl9q0XK-AxsPQlg4rfGiRdvARSsxTCXkCjG4KWn

Kerbal Space Program: Breaking Ground Expansion will be released on May 30th for PC for $14.99 USD. And yes, we’re keeping our promise that all players who purchased the game through April 2013 will receive the expansion for free. We’ll provide more details on how that will work before launch.

Do you want to learn more about Breaking Ground? Then make sure to stay tuned for our next KSP Loading… where we’ll take a deep dive into the content and features of Kerbal Space Program: Breaking Ground Expansion!

Happy launchings!

 

P.S.: Click here to see the full High-Res screenshot album.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Answer is there in the announcement thread...
Do we need this thread, now?
Plus the title of this thread is VERY misleading, and too close to the title of the official announcement... vOv


 

Edited by Stone Blue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey all!

I want to discuss the DLC and why I don't necessarily think it's a good idea. I have spent the time to record a video and verbally explain the good and the bad about this update, as well as discussing a bit about Squad's update history. I hope you are able to agree with what I'm trying to say in this video. I'm not particularly good at this format since I have never really done it before, so I hope I don't ramble too much.

The points I will cover in more detail if you choose to watch the video include the following:

  • Squad's update history and why the part reskins haven't been a good use of their time considering mods do the same and in the case of Restock, a better job (which IS subjective!)
  • Overview of what the DLC aims to add
  • Explanation of the planet surface features and why I don't like the implementation of the DLC the way it has been done.

I did forget to cover a few points / not go into enough detail about the points in the video, so I will do here:

Firstly I want to stress that i like what Squad is doing, but their execution is what I have a problem with. In short, I don't think the DLC is worth the price from what we've been told about it. Obviously, this is subject to what you as a consumer want to actually pay for the DLC, which is why I explain it a bit better in the video.

The Infernal Robotics-esque features are awesome. I like them. I like the thought of them, the implementation to some extent, and the idea behind them and their uses. However, the actual mod "Infernal Robotics" already does exactly this, and although there haven't really been any other screenshots except hinges, I imagine I.R. does more than what Squad intends to add. Each to their own in terms of how detailed you would expect to see something like I.R. be implemented.

My main gripe is the planetary surfaces.

The stock planets are awful in my opinion. I do have very strong feelings about them because I myself am a planet modder, but I will try not to include my work here because it's not a good idea to include myself when the subject is criticism of someone else's work. What the DLC intends to add are "terrain scatters" - essentially the proper name for what Squad is calling rocks, trees, cacti, crystals, meteorites, etc. These can all be added to the game with a mod, for free, and planet mods such as Galileo's Planet Pack already do this. Stock Visual Terrain, although as far as I'm aware doesn't add these scatters, improves the planets' terrain textures instead. This is all easily achievable for free and without much effort. My main critique in this video is that the entire terrain scatters are part of this DLC. The planets are bare and boring and barren and appear unfinished. This is why I suggested making them part of the stock game rather than locking them behind a DLC. The stock planets aren't even finished, never mind the DLC!

With that said, I mentioned that the mechanics that are going to be added to the terrain scatters should stay in the DLC, but the models for them should be in the main game. Basically "You can see them and crash into them, but you can get the DLC and interact with them". I genuinely believe the stock planets, especially their surfaces, need the same attention Squad seems to be putting into their part revamps.

Now, that will sound contradictory and in a way it is - saying Squad should stop the part revamps because a mod can do it, then saying they should do the same for the planets? Yes, in a way. Except the parts didn't need the revamp so much. The planets, however, are a key part of the exploration aspect of the game and there's nothing worse than exploring nothing at all. Since Squad has already gone ahead and redone the parts, that's why I'm saying the planets need the attention too - but they're in such a bad state, making the improvements to them a DLC is a joke.

Conclusion:

I like what Squad's doing, but their execution of it is bad. There was little need for this DLC since 95% of it is done through mods anyway - the only real addition we haven't seen before is the gameplay surrounding the rocks they're planning to add to the planets. Which will be pressing a button and seeing our science rise, give or take a couple of parts to achieve this. Do I think it's worth the price? No.

If I don't like it, I won't buy it - that's the motto people chant for these kinds of threads, and that's it really. I won't buy it, because it isn't worth buying imho. It comes down to you whether to support the developers by buying it or not, but since 95% of it can be done through mods, i'll stick to my mods, thank you.

Ultimate TL:DR:

Squad is re-inventing the wheel by adding things mods already add. They need to focus their time on things mods don't add - such as multi-core support, optimization, making the terrain scatters they so dearly want to charge for use GPU instancing instead of the inefficient way they currently use by loading every single one into RAM.

Spoiler

 

 

 

Please let me know if you agree or disagree, as i have quite strong feelings about this DLC and honestly do not think it's worth the $15 tag from what we have been told. Granted it might be better to wait until it's released, but for now I made do with what knowledge we have so far.

Thank you for taking the time to read and watch.

Edited by Gameslinx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/7/2019 at 9:36 AM, Gameslinx said:

Please let me know if you agree or disagree, as i have quite strong feelings about this DLC and honestly do not think it's worth the $15 tag from what we have been told.

Any chance of getting an executive summary, so we can get the gist without wading through a ten-minute video?

I get the impression here, from what you've written, that you think that the announced feature set is not enough to be worth $15 to you.

The feature set is,

  • "interact with a rock", sure, but also,
  • deployable surface experiments
  • stock robotics

For me, the latter one is the killer.  I don't really care about the interact-with-a-rock stuff so much, myself-- or at least, I don't think I do, will know better when I have my hands on the final product, maybe they'll impress me.  :)  But robotics has been something I've wanted since forever, and I want it in stock because it's a complicated enough feature that I simply don't trust any implementation in a mod, no matter how skilled and diligent the modder is (which is why something like Infernal Robotics is a non-starter for me).  So I'd be eagerly shelling out $15 for this DLC even if all it had was the robotics.

For me, the question of whether this DLC is worth it is basically the same as my decision about purchasing any product:  "What do I get for my money?"  For an entertainment product, such as this one, that is basically asking the question "How many hours of enjoyment per dollar will I get?"

I confidently expect to get at least dozens, more likely hundreds, of hours of enjoyment out of the features in this DLC.  So, "dozens or hundreds of hours of entertainment for $15" seems like a pretty darn good deal to me.  After all, that's less than the cost of a single movie ticket in a lot of places-- and that's just for two or three hours.

On 5/7/2019 at 9:36 AM, Gameslinx said:

I don't necessarily think it's a good idea.

Why is that?  I mean, as I describe above, I myself am solidly in the "shut up and take my money" camp, here.  I can't wait for this to be available.  From reading the posts in the main discussion thread, I gather than an awful lot of KSP players feel that way, too.

So... if it's a really popular idea that lots and lots of people really want and are eager to spend their money on, then that sure seems like a pretty good idea.  If you happen not to like it, then you don't buy it, no?  So everyone wins.  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Charzy said:

If you don't think it's worth its price, surely the solution is to just not buy it? You haven't lost anything here.

Of course he isn't buying. What he is saying that he understands why they're doing what they're doing, and recognises the fact that they're trying to improve the planets, but locking such things behind a paywall is what he doesn't like.

I believe what you're trying to say is that making planets better isn't eye-candy or extra features, its is Quality of Life feature that should be made available for everyone. At the very least, he just wants the models within the stock game for use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless you believe that developers shouldn't be paid for their labour, then that argument doesn't follow. The choices here are "Further KSP development is unprofitable and will be shut down" or "People pay for more content for KSP".

This isn't bug fixes, or simple QoL additions like a radar altimeter on the UI. This is additional features, which require substantial developer-time to create. Developers need to be paid for their time, or they'll leave your company and go work for somebody who pays better. Paying those developers requires that the work they produce is profitable to the company, which requires that people pay for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Snark said:

Any chance of getting an executive summary, so we can get the gist without wading through a ten-minute video?

Done. Hopefully that's a bit easier to understand, i've updated the OP.

14 minutes ago, Charzy said:

Paying those developers requires that the work they produce is profitable to the company, which requires that people pay for it.

Hence why I said it's a complete waste of their development time. Mods have achieved what they're only just now achieving. The only real thing we're paying for is the option to get science from a rock in a different way, which will still just be pressing a button and watching the number go up.

I understand fully that they need to make money to fund development, but they are literally re-inventing the wheel in most of the cases here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, fulgur said:

I just find that Infernal Robotics crashed three times within about half an hour of me downloading it. The DLC should be less buggy.

I never had that problem myself, but yes the DLC should hopefully be more stable and that's always a plus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think one point that you did miss is that interactibility with science parts is covered by another mod. - 

And that even IR is getting updated -

Otherwise, its a good video. I do agree that adding the models would be nice, with colliders. I'm sure there's a bunch of things you could do with this, even without the DLC. 

The only really really new original content the DLC adds is the Tron-Suit, and i suppose there are people out there that would shell out 15$ for such a suit. . . but this community isn't one of them.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Gameslinx said:

Please let me know if you agree or disagree, as i have quite strong feelings about this DLC and honestly do not think it's worth the $15 tag from what we have been told. Granted it might be better to wait until it's released, but for now I made do with what knowledge we have so far.

6 minutes ago, Xurkitree said:

Of course he isn't buying. What he is saying that he understands why they're doing what they're doing, and recognises the fact that they're trying to improve the planets, but locking such things behind a paywall is what he doesn't like. 

Why not? Why should any software company continue to develop a program for free? Because of where I work and what I do, I have Microsoft Office Professional Suite, Adobe Photoshop, and  Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). And if I want to work from home, which I do, each software requires a license fee which I pay each month to keep the software updated.

With that said, I also own a bunch of computer games, PS2, and PS4 games. For the PS4 games, there are a few titles which have content added to them about once a quarter or so. And each of those "add-ons" requires anywhere from $5 to $14.99 to be able to use them. Some I buy, some I do not buy. There are several computer games out there, such as Cities: Skylines, which has added new features to the game about once a year. Those "new features" also run about $15.00 a pop. So having to pay $15.00 for new features for Kerbal Space Program certainly is not a dealbreaker.

I'd rather see that kind of development than what I see happening with a lot of games - no growth, no DLC, no nothing. In my box of stuff in the bottom of my closet, I have about 25 games on CD-Rom which weren't updated. They were pretty awesome games in their day, but once I purchased the software and installed it, there were no patches, no new content, nothing. Even now, in my Steam library, there are a handful of games which have also died - no new DLC, no new features, no software updates to make it "Windows" compatible. On some of those games, I spent hundreds of hours playing them. Now, they do nothing.

I'd much rather see this game create new DLCs to be able to continue development. We do a lot of wishing for things in version 2.0, but we rarely think of what it will take to get there. And if it takes another four years of DLC that I have to spend $15.00 on to do that, then I will do my part to help get the game to that point. I am sure Squad would love to be able to throw us some bones every once in a while. They've done that in the past. But for the continuity of the game, it cannot be expected that Squad will do nothing beyond the initial sale of the game to raise revenue.

Does he or anyone else have the right to play this game without buying the new DLC? Yes, they do. But to complain that the cost of the DLC and the principle of having to pay for new shiny toys to use within the game...

24 minutes ago, Xurkitree said:

I believe what you're trying to say is that making planets better isn't eye-candy or extra features, its is Quality of Life feature that should be made available for everyone. At the very least, he just wants the models within the stock game for use.

Again, I understand this.

One of the other games I have enjoyed is Sid Meyer's Civilization series. The newest incarnation of it. Civilization VI, the core of the game, is around $59.99 last time I checked on Steam. And each of the new DLC package, which adds things such as active volcanoes, new natural disasters, and global warming to the game is $39.99. There has been another DLC which added some new empires and a completely new gaming tree to the core and that expansion was $29.99. Although I would love to see volcanoes, plate tectonics, and the weather added to the stock game, the game studio decided to add it as DLC. The game's producer, Firaxis, has decided to put it behind a "paywall" as the OP said. But here's the thing, it is again, my choice on whether to buy the DLC or not.

Squad has set it's DLC price as $15.00. I am willing to pay for this and any other DLC they do for a straightforward reason. In early 2012, I came across the demo of KSP and fell in love with it. It was crude, and it was far from what even the stock game offered at the time. But it was a new concept which I saw the many unlimited possibilities. I bought it in Steam when it was on sale for $5.00 as a greenlight (early release) sale. A few weeks later, I bought the KSP store version thinking there would be additional parts, that version was .22.

Now, on Steam, I currently have 2,387 hours on KSP. The store version, I do play (it is on version 3.0), and I probably have at least another 1,000 hours there. Oh, then I also have a lightly modded version which has 75 hours as I try to develop my planet mod. So, based on that, I have around 3,500 hours of gameplay of KSP. If I take what I paid for the game, which is about $25.56 for both copies plus local sales tax. I purchased Making History (the first expansion pack), and it adds another $15.00 to the cost of the game: $41.46

Based on simple math (amount paid/dollars spent), that comes out to $0.0118 for each minute of gameplay. And typically, I play for about two hours at a time, bring the amount of money spent per game session to about $1.42. That's not a bad investment for something purely fun. And the more I play the game, the lower the amount per game session becomes as the number of hours I spend playing the game increases.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, adsii1970 said:

The game's producer, Firaxis, has decided to put it behind a "paywall" as the OP said. But here's the thing, it is again, my choice on whether to buy the DLC or not.

Although I agree with the majority of your response I want to respond to this - 

Although it's completely up to the consumer whether they want to pay extra for some extra features, we're not being offered anything new. Arguably, Squad is reinventing things that already exist. Infernal robotics, science mods, KIS, etc. If it's something that already exists, nobody who spends their money wisely will want to pay for it rather than the die-hard fans or unless Squad adds stuff that hasn't been added before.

I called it a "paywall" because that's what it is. It's what it feels like. The DLC about volcanoes and tectonics you mentioned sound well thought out, and a good addition to what would otherwise be a completed game. The stock planets are definitely not "completed".

And I have grounds to say this because I do not charge for my mods. Nobody on this site does. We mod not only because we enjoy it to bits, but because we see the flaws in the stock game and want to build / improve upon them. What Squad's doing is in essence us charging for our planet mods. But if we did that, nobody would be happy in the slightest, and not many people would buy it despite the quality being slightly better than what was already offered for free. That is exactly the point behind my OP - it's not complete in the first place, hence why the functionality of the DLC should be a DLC, but the objects it applies to should not.

 

Tl;dr - People can spend their money on what they like where they see fit, but because I am an academic with next to no money, no job, etc, I care a lot about the stuff I spend it on. This DLC is nothing more than a timesaver. I might as well install the mods myself for a better experience now.

Edited by Gameslinx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Making the scatters part of the update and the functionality part of the DLC is a great suggestion. I really like that approach. I do respectfully disagree with the rest though.

Relying on mods to fill in the gaps where Squad is lacking... and what if mod development halts, for reasons? Then you’re stuck with an incomplete game. I’d rather see the reverse: popular mods show us where the game is lacking, and Squad should focus on that, so that mod developers can focus their unpaid time on true innovation and not on maintenance that should be done by Squad in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually mostly disagree with you, OP.

Some of the reasons are subjective, some less so.

1) I'm glad they are adding stuff mods do. If I can choose between stock and mods, I'll choose stock nearly every time. Nothing compares to stock integration and level of support. This is also a benefit for when you are teaching someone to play. You have something common to everyone. You can teach to a common set of steps, without needing to be like "oh, also get this mod, and here's how to install mods."

2) Adding multi-core support or optimizations doesn't sell. New shinies sell. Optimizations aren't tangible, robotics are. Don't get me wrong, I want better multi-core support and more optimizations as well. Also, this should be a standard, base-game update. Trying to sell multi-core support separately will not go over well with most people. What should happen is that optimizations are made along with, or in support of, whatever new DLC is added. Of course, subject to what's actually possible in the engine. Use the DLC to provide funding and support for backend core work. :-D

3) Regarding the new terrain scatters, Space Engineers did something similar recently with their DLC. They allow everyone to see the new blocks, but not use or place them. I would equate that option with what you suggest. Many people disagreed with that, and considered it more "in-game advertisement." "Oh look, something new I can see, but can't do anything with, I'd rather not see it at all." Now they did mitigate that post-DLC release by letting everyone also use them, just not place them. IMO this is a decision Squad won't win either way. Add scatters, or don't add scatters, people will be upset. Personally though, I agree here with you, I wouldn't mind them being present, as it makes the world more consistent for players. However if they still don't add them, I won't be upset.

4) You didn't mention cost, but others have: I got the game super early, so I don't have to pay for it. However, if I did, I feel this expansion is much more worth the cost than Making History, which I still haven't played to this day. If I had to buy it, I probably wouldn't have gotten MH. This, though, I would get, hands down.

Edited by Phoenix84
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gameslinx said:

I called it a "paywall" because that's what it is. It's what it feels like. The DLC about volcanoes and tectonics you mentioned sound well thought out, and a good addition to what would otherwise be a completed game. The stock planets are definitely not "completed".

And I have grounds to say this because I do not charge for my mods. Nobody on this site does. We mod not only because we enjoy it to bits, but because we see the flaws in the stock game and want to build / improve upon them. What Squad's doing is in essence us charging for our planet mods. But if we did that, nobody would be happy in the slightest, and not many people would buy it despite the quality being slightly better than what was already offered for free. That is exactly the point behind my OP - it's not complete in the first place, hence why the functionality of the DLC should be a DLC, but the objects it applies to should not.

To a point, I agree. Kerbal Space Program is a game which is set in the space race and ends, for the most part, where we are at now. Sure, there's shuttle parts, both American and Soviet space parts, and a general hodge-podge of parts which are generics. And that's the problem which Kerbal Space Program has: very little wiggle room for DLC.

Making History was about adding the Apollo equipment to the game. And to be honest, there were a few new part concepts. But by far, most of the DLC had already been achieved through free mods.  But the developers also added a mission creator so users could create missions - which was a neat concept. 

It shouldn't be surprising that the next DLC offers some planetary beautification and more science gathering options. In my 1.3.0 game, I have ten mods which do the same thing - make the planets more aesthetically pleasing and exciting. In the future, we may see that Squad will include a DLC which will add more stuff to the solar system, such as an additional gas giant, binary planetary system, etc. I could also see a DLC which would contain aircraft part, boat parts, and maybe even underwater exploration and habitation parts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Xurkitree said:

locking such things behind a paywall is what he doesn't like.

In the same sense that a restaurant puts food behind a paywall?  It's the product they're selling, so they charge money for it.

It all comes down to business model.  The only reason Squad has to ever touch the base game, at this point, is one of the following:

  1. New features that they think will sell more copies of the base game.
  2. Necessary changes in order to support new DLC that they want to sell (e.g. part variants in 1.4).
  3. "Keeping the lights on" stuff to keep the player base engaged during the year-long wait for the next DLC.

I'm having trouble of thinking of anything else that would help them make money, which after all is the entire point of the exercise, here.

So, about those three things:

Concerning #1 (new features to sell KSP):  I suspect that the well has mostly run dry, at this point-- KSP is kind of a "niche" game, it appeals to a particular type of user that I suspect is a somewhat narrow demographic, and I'd guess that probably most of the people who are ever going to buy KSP have already done so.  Therefore, I'm guessing there probably aren't many dollars to be had from #1, so I'd guess it's not much of a factor in their business decisions here.

It's unclear whether #2 is at all relevant to this DLC or not, so I'll skip that.

As for #3, that's what I assume is the reason for adding the various new toys they've given us after 1.4 (e.g. part revamps, dV meter, ASL/AGL toggle, etc.)

 

So, none of the above things feel like they'd particularly justify taking stuff out of the DLC and making it freely available.  What would the reason be?

 

2 hours ago, Gameslinx said:

Although it's completely up to the consumer whether they want to pay extra for some extra features, we're not being offered anything new.

If that's true, why are so many people (including myself) shouting "Shut up and take my money"?  As far as I'm concerned, this is huge and I am super jazzed about it.

Certainly, tastes differ.  Different people want different things.  If what they're offering here makes you go "meh", then I assume you simply won't buy the DLC, right?  It's not offering you anything new.  But it's offering me all kinds of new stuff, so I'm super excited.

2 hours ago, Gameslinx said:

Arguably, Squad is reinventing things that already exist. Infernal robotics, science mods, KIS, etc.

Given how exquisitely moddable the game is-- which is that way because they've taken the trouble to make it so and actively encourage moddability-- then that's hardly surprising.  Virtually anything that can be done, already has been done in a mod somewhere.  So, does that mean they should just not do anything new ever?

I mean, even if you're right and this is actually some sort of "problem", then it's a self-solving one, right?

  • If they're just shilling some sort of rehash of free mods, such that nobody has any reason to shell out $$$ for the DLC... then nobody will, right?  And then the DLC will flop and they'll take a bath on it and learn their lesson and ship something next time that people actually want to spend money on.
  • On the other hand, if they're selling something that tons of people are super eager to spend money on (as I am, and as you aren't)... then they'll sell like hotcakes and this will turn out to be a great idea.

So, what's the concern, then?  You're worried that it won't sell well because people won't want it?  Because that's not the vibe I've been getting from the announcements thread.

2 hours ago, Gameslinx said:

I called it a "paywall" because that's what it is. It's what it feels like.

Everything in life is a paywall.  You walk into a McDonald's, all the burgers are behind a paywall.

People who do work need to get paid, companies have to charge for their products.  Why should KSP be any different?

2 hours ago, Gameslinx said:

The DLC about volcanoes and tectonics you mentioned sound well thought out, and a good addition to what would otherwise be a completed game. The stock planets are definitely not "completed".

You'll have to be explicit about what you mean by "completed", since that's a loaded term with no objective definition in this context.  It'll mean different things to different people.

For example, I'd say the stock planets are completed.  They finished them up many KSP versions ago, they haven't given any indication that they intend to do significant additional free work on them in the stock game, so that pretty much sounds like they're done, to me.  So, "complete."

Now, a different definition of "complete" that I suppose one could use would be the subjective definition of "it has everything that I, personally, want it to have".  At the risk of putting words in your mouth, it kinda sounds to me like that's the definition that you're using here.  "I have some particular mental list of features that I think the game must have in order to be 'complete', so if it doesn't have all those for free as part of the base game, then it's not complete."

That's fine-- there's nothing wrong with having that mindset.  But of course it's completely subjective, since different people have very different ideas of what "complete" means.  No matter what the game has in it, there will always be someone who wants something that isn't there.  Personally?  Given the relatively small player base, the huge amount of play time the game provides, and the relatively low cost... I think KSP delivers extraordinarily high value-for-money.  I ship software for a living, so I've got some idea of just how incredibly expensive it is to develop it, so personally I'm amazed that they managed to hold out as long as they did before they needed to pull the "DLC" lever.

In the end analysis:  they gotta have cash flow, and like any company, everything they do needs to be in service of that goal.  If you want to argue for putting more stuff for free into the base game, fine, but unless you can back that up with some reasonable numbers as to how that would work in their business model, I gotta say it sounds like a bit of an uphill climb.

[EDIT] Whoops, made this post when I hadn't yet seen that you updated the OP. More later. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Snark said:

Given how exquisitely moddable the game is-- which is that way because they've taken the trouble to make it so and actively encourage moddability-- then that's hardly surprising.  Virtually anything that can be done, already has been done in a mod somewhere.  So, does that mean they should just not do anything new ever?

I swear you're me. I said literally that exact same thing a month ago over in the Space Engineers forums. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Gameslinx said:

the only real addition we haven't seen before is the gameplay surrounding the rocks they're planning to add to the planets. 


So to start off I will say I do love your mods. They're gorgeous! I'll also preface by saying what we have now is little more than a teaser from squad so we have very little information on how deployed science and surface feature interaction will work and how it will be different from currently available mods. That said I do think 'interacting with rocks' is worth unpacking a bit.

The current blandness of the planetary surfaces isn't just an aesthetic problem, its first and foremost a gameplay problem. When you first land on a new world there's essentially no reason to land in any particular place, and even after that there's no reason to land anywhere so long as you haven't already mined out the science from that biome. That means there's very little incentive within the game to do things like scout landing locations, learn to land precisely, bring and explore with rovers, or build long-term bases. Because of this the base game is essentially about flags-and-footprints missions. Science gathering is really just a matter of putting your experiments on an action group and clicking around for a few seconds before going home. The two exceptions to this are the mining and prospecting system (which is actually quite good, but only really matters when you're deep into the game) and the current anomalies, which are so sparse and so time-consuming to scout they might as well not exist. 

Like I said, we don't yet know how the new surface features and experiments will work exactly, but the promise they hold is to vary not just the appearance of the landscape but the gameplay value in going to specific places. They're not just another thing you can click, they create a topography of incentives that drive players to scout, explore the surface, and set up shop in places that hold more value, which in turn drives players to create much more inventive mission profiles and vessels to accomplish them. If you add all that to stock robotics we're talking about a pretty significant extension to gameplay, and one thats well worth 15$ to me and a lot of other players.

 

Edited by Pthigrivi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Gameslinx

 

First of all, I love your planet packs. And I love the fact they all work with EVE, SVE and Scatterer.  They are just stunning.  You are the best at it, and they are a blast to explore. Well done!

 

A few things I need to take exception to:

 

1.  In your video you made a comment about a moderator taking something out of context and then went on to say you don't like moderators on the KSP forum.  Now, I may not have understood your gist correctly (so correct me if I am wrong), but if I am taken out of context, I answer the post and most often misunderstandings are cleared up. If I am taken out of context, sometimes it is because I was not clear in the first place.  This is the ONLY forum online I spend any time on other than Adobe tech support.  I even quit Facebook six months ago.  Why? Because it is heavily moderated and I get to chat about fun things without it degenerating into fruitless and nasty political discussions or flame wars.  If I had a children, I would happily allow them on here because I know this is a polite and supportive space. So, I think the moderators do a stellar job and this forum would not be what it is without them.

 

2.  I agree about the reskinning of parts. That was not important to me either, but when the recent reskins were introduced, I was amazed how many forum members were really excited about them and thought they were long overdue. So it was a valuable thing to do for a large segment of the community, and I think we need to remember that we all have different priorities and Squad cannot respond to all of them all of the time.

 

3. I agree the planets are quite dull but will terrain scatterers really solve that problem?  It would be great if they could either start over one by one from scratch (or if that will mess up too many missions) create a new celestial body with diverse flora (including underwater) as well as caves, arches, holes, waterfalls, etc. I'd love to see wind implemented like in Simple Planes.  I'd love it if underwater looked like Subnautica--but I am not, er, holding my breath.   Again though, that is a big amount of work and has to be funded somehow.

 

4. @Snark made a very good observation in the other thread about stock vs mod features and what that means for gameplay. I won't reiterate the whole thing, but he (I'm assuming he?) made the valid point that once something becomes stock, it becomes a part of the game. We don't have to worry about modders no longer supporting it, and Squad will make sure these features play well with each new update.

 

What would probably be quite enlightening is for some Squad staff to open a thread about what a day/week/month at the office looks like. I imagine they spend a lot of time in the background not even trying to optimize the game but just keeping up with Windows and other OS updates and changes.  An anecdote: I work in a large public library, and I remember several years ago a member of the public was incredulous that we did not offer Firefox on our public computers. "I just install it in 2 minutes."  Except that that was on his home computer where Firefox did not have to play nicely with a proxy server, Deep Freeze, a public network firewall and numerous other applications. It took our IT project guy a full week to get Firefox to work.  So I imagine things that seem simple to us on the outside are not so simple.

 

So I am going to pose two questions for you:

 

1. You acknowledge that the developer needs to make money and also that they have probably already sold most of the base games they are going to sell, so what would you do instead?

2. If you were president of Squad, what kind of DLC would you release? What would it contain and why?

 

BTW: I think you have asked good questions, but ultimately, for me the DLC is worth it.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Klapaucius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...