Brikoleur

Blocker features in KSP2 -- what would stop you from playing it?

Recommended Posts

  1. Price
  2. Kerbal Aeroplane Progam*

(*The way KSP 1 became steadily more biased towards aircraft and further from 'space program')

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Pecan said:
  1. Price
  2. Kerbal Aeroplane Progam*

(*The way KSP 1 became steadily more biased towards aircraft and further from 'space program')

I would be the exact opposite on point 2... 

I don't really see where the part options for planes are biased (or even near) what is available for rockets.  We don't really even have a Mk3 airplane cockpit.  The singular shuttle cockpit being used for large transport aircraft is a stretch at best.  The bias in this game is very much toward rocket parts and engines. 

Why would having more parts for space planes take away from your gaming?  I maybe assume you feel there are additional rocket parts that are missing and somehow the existence of these extra plane parts is limiting the devs in some way from adding more rocket stuff?

Up until the recent 1.7.3 BG DLC...  I had always felt my space program was lacking rotorcraft for kerbal splashdown recovery.  I also felt my space shuttle was missing a robot arm.  For me, the game is finally starting to feel closer to complete in terms of parts, but still missing some airplane and helicopter stuff.  Mostly cockpits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/3/2019 at 8:06 AM, Shadowmage said:

Part-Count contributing to CPU load.  If part-count is the limiting factor for performance, that manifests as a CPU bottleneck, that's a no-buy from me.

They've explicitly stated that they're putting a lot of dev effort into optimizing the heck out of this.  They're aware of the CPU bottleneck pain point for KSP players, plus they specifically want to enable vessels with much higher part counts (interstellar ships are big).

 

On 9/3/2019 at 8:19 AM, DStaal said:

That said, I'm sure it can be optimized quite a bit over what KSP1 has so that practical limits are quite a bit higher than they are.

^ This.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/4/2019 at 8:15 AM, Tw1 said:

If they change the stock solar system and KSC too much and I feel alienated. 

I know these planets and these places. I want them improved, but if I turn up and they have drastically different maps, or are missing key features, I might be a little put off. 

They've explicitly said they're keeping the same home solar system.  Same planets and moons, in the same places, with the same physical properties.  Kerbin even keeps the same coastlines.  Minmus still has flats, Pol is still lumpy as heck, and so forth.  They know players are old hands and very familiar with this geography, and they don't want to intimidate players at switch-over by throwing them into an unfamiliar environment.

Everything's getting a massive facelift, but you ought to be fine on this score, since they're making it an explicit goal because they've anticipated precisely this concern from you and others.

On 9/4/2019 at 8:15 AM, Tw1 said:

If career is the same mediocre thing as now, or there is no equivalent to science mode. 

They've said that career is getting a significant overhaul.  They haven't released any significant details yet (that I'm aware of) about precisely how it would work, and when we asked them about it, it was mostly "no comment".  However, they did say that KSP's current "career" and "science" modes are being replaced by something called "progression" mode.

So it'll definitely be different from now.  Just how, we don't know yet.

On 9/4/2019 at 8:15 AM, Tw1 said:

Better implementation of exploration and science. Ksp1 has been a building and flying game. The planets have long been underdeveloped, as have the reasons for actually going to space, like discovering stuff, and doing experiments. 

They've explicitly said that they want the game to be about exploration, and that it will reward exploration in some way.  No details as to exactly how yet, they're being coy about it.  They've also said that science and R&D will still work pretty much like they do now.

On 9/4/2019 at 1:19 PM, ZAJC3W said:

N-body orbital mechanics are so much fun.

But won't be in the game.  They've explicitly said, there won't be N-body.

On 9/5/2019 at 12:59 PM, Brikoleur said:

Yeah, my main concern isn't that the game would be harder, it's that it would be more tedious and have more busywork. 

A valid concern, but my impression is that they don't want tedious busywork.  They want the focus to stay on building and flying rockets.  So we won't know for sure until we know more about the features and how they'll work, but my guess is that from the philosophy & attitude they've demonstrated thus far, we probably don't have to worry much on this score.

On 9/8/2019 at 8:52 AM, Voculus said:

Microtransactions of any kind. Leave that crap for AAA "Garbage as a Service" predators.

Sure, but they won't be doing this.  Have explicitly said no microtransactions, very unequivocally and definitely.

On 9/8/2019 at 1:22 PM, Yakuzi said:

To be fair, I don't venture beyond minmus either. Not because I can't, but because there's no real challenge/incentive/discovery for me to go to any other planets (I've been waiting in Kerbin SOI forever for a planet update. Got my hopes up for breaking ground, but alas, same ol boring planets but now with slightly more grindy science clicking). I fully realize I'm a minority here, but please don't assume we're all too incompetent/undevoted to visit other planets.

From what I've seen, it's pretty clear you're not a minority-- you're actually more likely the majority, by a wide margin.  It just happens to be a mostly-silent majority, so it's not necessarily obvious if one is simply forming impressions by reading the forums.  ;)

On 9/8/2019 at 2:20 PM, ThatGuyWithALongUsername said:

The devs said they're going to leave the basic layout of the Kerbolar system untouched, and it isn't really clear if adding to it would count as changing it, but I hope they do add to it.

They won't.

I explicitly asked them "even though you've said you're leaving the current planets and moons alone, will you be adding anything to the system, such as new planets at the outer rim?"

Answer:  a definite no.  Other than the facelift to make everything prettier and more interesting, they're not otherwise touching the home solar system.  No new planets there, sorry.

23 hours ago, Greenfire32 said:

an always-online requirement.

They've explicitly said that there will be no requirement for a network connection to play KSP2, at least not in single player.  They're aware that the ability to play the game disconnected is important to people, and don't want to break that.  (One of them commented "I have a buddy in the merchant marine, and KSP is the only thing that keeps him sane during long weeks at sea.  He'd kill me if we did that.")  ;)

No word yet on how multi-player will work; that whole area is still "no comment" to everything.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the only real deal-killer for me would be a very limited set of parts from what is currently available in the current stock+DLC with some sort of pay-per-part DLC scheme just to get me back to where I am in KSP1 right now.  I would hope our starting point for "stock" KSP2 parts would include, at a minimum, the parts I bought in KSP1 along with the 2 DLC packs.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Snark said:

A valid concern, but my impression is that they don't want tedious busywork.  They want the focus to stay on building and flying rockets.  So we won't know for sure until we know more about the features and how they'll work, but my guess is that from the philosophy & attitude they've demonstrated thus far, we probably don't have to worry much on this score.

I don't have many doubts about their intentions either. My concerns are about the execution. They're a small team with limited time, and their colony gameplay is highly ambitious. I hope they'll pull it off as what they're trying to do sounds wonderful, but I do think there is a possibility they've bitten off more than they can chew. Keeping my fingers crossed!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, XLjedi said:

I don't really see where the part options for planes are biased (or even near) what is available for rockets. 

A few thoughts on this, in a spoiler since this is starting to get off-topic from the main point of this thread.  If folks want to have a rockets-vs-airplanes debate, probably another thread would be best.  ;)

Spoiler

I joined the game in 0.23.5, and there was a steady drumbeat of more, more, more stuff for planes and almost nothing for rockets, for several years-- I suspect that's the source of the sentiment (which I very much share myself, I'm a rocket guy).  KSP finally started giving rockets some love in the last few recent updates, but they were neglected for a really long time.

59 minutes ago, XLjedi said:

We don't really even have a Mk3 airplane cockpit.

Sure you do.  The shuttle cockpit.  That's literally exactly what it is.  You might say that you think it's too specialized and want more of them... but bear in mind that there's no 3.75m rocket cockpit (or passenger cabin) at all.  Yes, airplanes have gotten a whole lot of love that rockets haven't.

59 minutes ago, XLjedi said:

Why would having more parts for space planes take away from your gaming?

It takes away when we get airplane parts instead of rocket parts.  Dev time is finite, and time spent working on one thing means time not spent working on something else.

It was enormously frustrating for rocket players to watch, for year after year and update after update, as the game kept adding plane part after plane part without rockets getting anything significant.

 

27 minutes ago, XLjedi said:

I think the only real deal-killer for me would be a very limited set of parts from what is currently available in the current stock+DLC with some sort of pay-per-part DLC scheme just to get me back to where I am in KSP1 right now.  I would hope our starting point for "stock" KSP2 parts would include, at a minimum, the parts I bought in KSP1 along with the 2 DLC packs.

 

They've said that pretty much all of the KSP1 stock parts will be in KSP2.  They've also indicated that the DLC parts will generally not be in there.  They didn't get too specific, but their answers indicated that the Breaking Ground robotic stuff will basically not be there, and that the Making History parts will mostly not be there but that they'll likely keep some of the most "vital" parts (my read on this, from stuff they've said, is this most likely means the engine plates).

 

16 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

I don't have many doubts about their intentions either. My concerns are about the execution. They're a small team with limited time, and their colony gameplay is highly ambitious. I hope they'll pull it off as what they're trying to do sounds wonderful, but I do think there is a possibility they've bitten off more than they can chew. Keeping my fingers crossed!

Absolutely a valid concern, and as you say, we just have to wait and see.

Speaking for myself, I'm fairly optimistic about this, for the following reasons:

  • My guess is that they have a lot more funding than Squad did in the early days.  They're selling the game for $60 right from the get-go, a much higher price point than KSP, especially given the cheap early-access prices when KSP was young.  Also, KSP was initially developing for a tiny and uncertain market, whereas KSP2 has a large and enthusiastic developed user-base to draw on.  So I'd guess that they've got a fair amount of confidence about likely revenues and therefore can afford to fund development at more generous levels.  (To be clear, this is entirely just my speculation based on the same info that everyone else has available-- I don't have any special knowledge here, at all.)
  • They're a game studio; this is not their first rodeo (as opposed to Squad, who prior to KSP had never released software before).  Therefore I suspect they're probably going to be more accurate about estimating just how much they can chew than Squad was in the early days, and therefore ought to be able to take better-calibrated bites.

In short:  I'm optimistic that they'll have the funding to take bigger bites, and the experience to better gauge how big a bite they can take.

Share this post


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

They've said that pretty much all of the KSP1 stock parts will be in KSP2.  They've also indicated that the DLC parts will generally not be in there.  They didn't get too specific, but their answers indicated that the Breaking Ground robotic stuff will basically not be there, and that the Making History parts will mostly not be there but that they'll likely keep some of the most "vital" parts (my read on this, from stuff they've said, is this most likely means the engine plates).

I will definitely miss the BG robotics parts, KAL-1000, and rotors...  That's really disappointing to hear. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, XLjedi said:

I will definitely miss the BG robotics parts, KAL-1000, and rotors...  That's really disappointing to hear. 

Fair 'nuff, can't argue with that.  ;)

However, just speaking for myself (and as a software engineer)... I'm actually encouraged that they won't, even though I too really love the robotics and would love to have it.  Rationale:

Including the BG robotic parts isn't just about "add some parts".  It's about the entire robotic-system code behind those parts, including the ability to have movable joints and all the rest.  That's a big investment of development time, as in really large.  We're talking something that took nearly all of Squad working full-time on it for months.

For me, robotics in KSP2 would be a nice-to-have... but there's something else that's far more important to me as a player, at the make-or-break level.  It's absolutely crucial that they nail the basics.  The game has to be great, right out of the box.  They have to nail all the core mechanics, and it has to perform well, and it can't be too buggy.  As such, I really, really don't want them to try to bite off more than they can chew.

My guess is that if they wanted to include Breaking Ground type robotics in KSP2, that would take them approximately as much engineering time as it took Squad to produce Breaking Ground in the first place.  Maybe a little faster, but we're talking months of full-team effort at least.

So if they tried to add that from the get-go, my guess is that either other parts of the game would suffer (i.e. cutting dev time for other features to make room for robotics), or else they'd have to slip the ship date by months in order to fit it in.

I played KSP happily for many years, before Breaking Ground came out.  Much as I love BG, I can live without it.  I'd rather get KSP2 this coming spring, without robotics and with a full-fledged set of features and manageable bug level, than have to wait until the fall (or maybe even 2021) and/or get short shrift or lower quality to core game features.  And maybe have to cost more than US$60.

Remember... nothing's free, and everything's a tradeoff.  Adding more of one thing means having less of something else.

So that's why I'm okay with the "no robotics in KSP2", even though I'd really, really love to have them:  because other things are more important to me than that.  And the fact that they've made the choice not to do it encourages me, because in my software engineer's eyes, it gives them more credibility-- i.e. it helps me have more confidence that they know what they're doing and are more likely to hit the target that they're shooting at.

Cf. feature creep

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, the only thing that would be a deal-breaker is if they got rid of sandbox mode. When I first started playing KSP all there was - sandbox mode. But I doubt they get rid of it. :)

Share this post


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

So that's why I'm okay with the "no robotics in KSP2", even though I'd really, really love to have them:  because other things are more important to me than that.

Hope they add the missing pieces back...  I can most likely play happily reverting back to and possibly rebuilding (if no craft porting feature is offered) all of my stock pre-BG designs.  So that's a good 95% of my hangar.  And I'm sure there will be some new things to tinker with and keep me busy for a while, like setting up networks of bases, supply lines, near-future tech craft, and so forth.

So although a bit disappointed, I do remain optimistic overall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, adsii1970 said:

For me, the only thing that would be a deal-breaker is if they got rid of sandbox mode. When I first started playing KSP all there was - sandbox mode. But I doubt they get rid of it. :)

They've explicitly said that it'll still be there, so no worries on that front.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, it'd be the abandoning of general rocketry. I find that to be a massive part of modern rocketry and what should be the heart of the game. Though rewarding players with use of more advanced technology doesn't hurt either but when you've got a sandbox game- any combustion engine rocket is going to seem childish in comparison to a Orion drive or other near future technology. Instead locking them off by collecting key resources to make them and fuel them is a great alternative without breaking the balance of stock rocket components- but I also fear that they'll give us rocket parts and leave them as is- no expansion, no development. 

Share this post


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

I would be the exact opposite on point 2... 

I don't really see where the part options for planes are biased (or even near) what is available for rockets.

From a couple of versions before 1.0 it became clear that more and more people want to concentrate on aircraft, spaceplanes and Kerbin ground vehicles.  That's fine, for them.  However, it was also clear after that that a lot of effort was being put into making planes easier and comparatively little into rocketry/space exploration.  I'm thinking here of the period where we got the Mk2 series, all sorts of air-breathing engines, all the wings, etc.  At the same time part-balance, especially engines, was changed to make atmospheric operations easier.  As we know, most people (~90% IIRC) never go beyond Kerbin SOI and some even never passed LKO.  Again, that's fine for them but I think "Kerbal Aeroplane Program" should be a different game.

Similarly, the distant-sci fi interstellar stuff is fine, for those that want it.  I'm all for different solar systems so we can fly 'classic' Kerbal, real Sol or anything else so I suppose it makes sense to tie them together with some handwavium.  It's probably better than loading a new solar systems from scratch.  The thing is, neither Kerbin ground or atmospheric nor interstellar travel are the focus I'm looking for in a 'real science' (sort of) 'space' game/simulator.  Both KSP 1 DLCs were exactly what I was looking for - real(ish) historical parts and more exploration stuff.

It is of course good that a company try to give its customers what they want but there's room for T2 to just treat KSP as a milk-cow and keep doing cash-grabs by dumbing it down more and more to appeal to masses of people who aren't interested in a space science game.

TL;DR "We choose to do these things ... not because they are easy but because they are hard".  I don't think it's likely but I worry that KSP 2 could become "hey kids, why not fly to Altair in this simple spaceplane".  Rip-off pricing and T2's reputation don't reassure me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Pecan said:

.TL;DR "We choose to do these things ... not because they are easy but because they are hard".  I don't think it's likely but I worry that KSP 2 could become "hey kids, why not fly to Altair in this simple spaceplane".  Rip-off pricing and T2's reputation don't reassure me.

I don't mind selling dumbing down devices to milk the cow, as long one is not locked on playing using such devices.

One potential mistake on KSP 1 was easining the atmospheric flight for everybody, instead of creating an "Easy Atmospheric Game Option" for the easy going, and letting the masochists enjoy themselves suffering hard aerodynamics. :D Some grind would had been prevented, I think.

There's a reason TT2 is a 2B USD Company that buys Indie games, and not vice versa. And there're bills to be paid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Pecan said:

It is of course good that a company try to give its customers what they want but there's room for T2 to just treat KSP as a milk-cow and keep doing cash-grabs by dumbing it down more and more to appeal to masses of people who aren't interested in a space science game.

Do bear in mind that the game's not being designed by T2, or by Private Division.  It's being designed by Star Theory.  The creative director, Nate Simpson, works for Star Theory and not PD or T2.  And he's a huge KSP nerd, has been for a long time.  He's been into KSP longer than I have, and is absolutely nuts about it.

So that feels like the game's in good hands to me.

Admittedly, that doesn't mean that the publisher couldn't make requirements / stipulations on the game, in theory, I suppose.  But I have yet to see any evidence that T2 is "leaning on the scales", here-- quite the contrary.

For example, the things that people worry about from other T2 titles, like microtransactions and such, have explicitly already been asked and already answered.  And the answers have been ones that KSP fans would like, e.g. "no microtransactions".

Also-- and this is admittedly subjective, so you'll just have to decide for yourself how much weight to give my personal observations, here-- Nate's really passionate and excited about this project.  Spend even five minutes face-to-face with him, and it immediately becomes clear that he's just tickled pink at the chance to design the sequel to his favorite game ever, a game that he's been bonkers about since 2012.

This is a game being designed from the ground up by a guy who's an absolute raging fanatic about KSP, i.e. someone who's going to have the same sorts of likes as KSP fans... and he's visibly delighted, like a kid in a candy shop.  In short, not only is this not the kind of person who'd be likely to "mess up" the game, but he's also not acting (in my opinion) like someone who's having his arm twisted to do something distasteful to a game he loves.

In short:

  • T2 made the choice to go with Star Theory as the developer (they could have gone with someone else)
  • Star Theory chose to put a total raging KSP fan in charge of designing it
  • All the information we have so far points towards a company that's working to make KSP2 as awesome and worthy a sequel as they can

It's true that we have limited information thus far, so there are large zones of uncertainty-- giant "no comment" zones.  And of course it's natural for players to be wary of that uncertainty, and I understand the temptation to pessimism, i.e. to assume the worst about the not-yet-announced stuff.  The unknown can be scary, I get that.

But in the absence of any actual evidence of anything untoward yet-- and given that all the info we do have thus far is pretty encouraging-- then Occam's razor inclines me to believe that yeah, it'll be designed in a way that appeals to KSP fans, at least until and unless information emerges to the contrary.

You can make up your own mind about that, of course.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Pecan said:

[snip]

It is of course good that a company try to give its customers what they want but there's room for T2 to just treat KSP as a milk-cow and keep doing cash-grabs by dumbing it down more and more to appeal to masses of people who aren't interested in a space science game.

TL;DR "We choose to do these things ... not because they are easy but because they are hard".  I don't think it's likely but I worry that KSP 2 could become "hey kids, why not fly to Altair in this simple spaceplane".  Rip-off pricing and T2's reputation don't reassure me.

So not really plane parts then... but just dumbing-down of the game.  I can see that.

Yeah, I wouldn't want that either...  I thought the latest implementation of props and rotors struck a pretty decent balance between complexity and playability.  I did see there were some folks who wanted a simple snap-on engine and I'm glad they went with variable pitch blades and controllers.  On the other hand, they skimped a bit on the cyclic implementation.  Maybe not as RL-tech as I might like, but in the end I can build a controllable helo that fills the mission role, so I'm happy.

Edited by XLjedi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Snark said:

For example, the things that people worry about from other T2 titles, like microtransactions and such, have explicitly already been asked and already answered.  And the answers have been ones that KSP fans would like, e.g. "no microtransactions".

I agree with your post in general, but on this point, they haven't ruled out MTX as a whole, just lootboxes and in-game currency. Don't get me wrong, not having those things is way better than having them but if it were as simple and as clear as "no microtransactions", they would be saying that.

Edited by BudgetHedgehog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, BudgetHedgehog said:

I agree with your post in general, but on this point, they haven't ruled out MTX as a whole, just lootboxes and in-game currency.

Citation please?  Because I actually asked them this, face to face, and they were quite unequivocal that there will be no microtransactions of any kind.

I asked them specifically because of an earlier statement in the forums that had only mentioned "lootboxes and in-game currency", and people in the forums were concerned about that (i.e. precisely the concern that you just now expressed), so I wanted to get something clear and unambiguous.  And they gave it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Snark said:

Citation please?

zbwrk7pc4hh31.jpg

That's not ruling out MTX, that's explicitly ruling out certain kinds of MTX (e.g. directly buying a planet pack or texture variants etc would be just fine - its not a lootbox, and it's not in-game currency).

I can appreciate you have closer access than me but considering the above statement is quoted verbatim every time its asked by someone that isn't you, and T2 doesn't have the best reputation in this area, I hope you can understand what I mean.

 

Edit: if they have ruled out MTX of any kind, it would be wise for them to say so publically - I know I'm not the only one with reservations.

Edited by BudgetHedgehog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, BudgetHedgehog said:

I agree with your post in general, but on this point, they haven't ruled out MTX as a whole, just lootboxes and in-game currency. Don't get me wrong, not having those things is way better than having them but if it were as simple and as clear as "no microtransactions", they would be saying that.

I was once offered the chance to join in on a class action lawsuit against Netflix.

They said "No late fees" in their ads, but continued to charge the agreed upon monthly fee to customers who got mailed a DVD and then never mailed it back.

To me, and every other reasonable person in the world, this is fine. But someone got it in their head to sue Netflix and the blanket "no late fees" statement was vague enough that a lawyer agreed with that person.

I've no idea if they won. I declined to participate. But I always think about that when some company answers what seems to be a simple yes/no question with an oddly specific answer.

TL;DR companies aren't the only unscrupulous jerks out there looking for an easy buck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, BudgetHedgehog said:

That's not ruling out MTX, that's explicitly ruling out certain kinds of MTX (e.g. directly buying a planet pack or texture variants etc would be just fine - its not a lootbox, and it's not in-game currency).

Sure, but this citation is missing a few key bits of information:

  • Where did you get it from?
  • When was it?

Here's the original post that started people speculating ("oh noes he only mentioned loot boxes and in-game currency"):

On 8/19/2019 at 1:55 PM, UomoCapra said:

There will not be an in-game currency for purchasing loot boxes or anything similar.  Please note that we are in active development and still working on many aspects. Which is why at this we do not have any announcements or can get in specifics regarding this. For now, we’re focused on a great launch and will announce more about post-release support in the future.

And people were worried about that.  So when we were there, face to face with the developers, I specifically asked them, for purposes of sharing with the forums (and they knew that):  "So, people are really worried about having any kind of microtransactions whatsoever, especially in view of some other T2 titles.  And the announcement thus far only mentioned loot boxes and in-game currency, but didn't actually rule out microtransactions in general.  So, can you confirm whether there will be any microtransactions of any sort, in the game, at all?"

And the answer was a firm, immediate, and unequivocal hard no.  No microtransactions.  At all.

That's an answer given in direct reply to exactly the question you're asking, with the explicit context provided about why it's a concern, and with the express knowledge that I was asking so I could share it with the forums.

So that seems pretty darn definite to me.

15 minutes ago, BudgetHedgehog said:

I can appreciate you have closer access than me

Except that I just now told you, as I've told the forums before.  So you have that info too, now.

15 minutes ago, BudgetHedgehog said:

the above statement is quoted verbatim every time its asked by someone that isn't you

Quoted by whom?  Define "every time"?  Examples please?  Links?

Call me crazy, but I take "definitive, unequivocal statement from the game's creative director directly to me in front of several witnesses who are streamers with very large audiences, in the presence of representatives from Private Division" with a bit more weight than vague statements that "everyone" is quoting "something".  Citation please?

15 minutes ago, BudgetHedgehog said:

I hope you can understand what I mean.

No, I'm having trouble following.  You're saying that they're deliberately and blatantly lying, in a way that's easily disproven later and would seriously bite them on the butt, instead of just saying "no comment" the way they did to tons of other questions we asked them?  That would seem pretty improbable to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be very worried if they were including the BG parts from the get-go, and I am absolutely and utterly besotted with the BG parts.

If it gets a good launch and is a success though, I would very much hope they'll add robotics to it in a DLC however. I'd be delighted to pay for it all over again. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gets locked behind an exclusive storefront

No mods

Not worried considering these things have been noped to death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BudgetHedgehog said:

Edit: if they have ruled out MTX of any kind, it would be wise for them to say so publically - I know I'm not the only one with reservations.

Publicly, huh?  You mean, like, for example, inviting a bunch of widely-followed streamers and such into their offices, offering free access to ask whatever questions they like, giving interviews where people can ask them questions?

And then when people ask them specifically about microtransactions, expressly for purposes of public dissemination, they give a firm and unequivocal statement that no, there will be no microtransactions of any kind?

Something like that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.