DunaManiac

Should there be DLCs in KSP2?

Should there be DLCs in KSP2  

112 members have voted

  1. 1. Should There be a DLC in KSP2?

    • Absolutely Not.
      14
    • Yes, but later on.
      87
    • Yes, as soon as it releases.
      11


Recommended Posts

Well, do you think KSP2 should have a DLC?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kind of early to ask that, but I'll bite. Yes, after it has been released for awhile and most bugs have been squashed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it should be nothing but DLCs.

The content they've delivered so far is clearly lacking, and needs a large amount of DLC just to even be playable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly don't care if it releases and everything after comes for free or if they make a dozen DLCs with a moderate price tag as long as they are content filled enough. What matters to me is that they don't try to suck our wallets dry but also don't run out of funding to keep evolving the game into all that it can be.

Would be nice if this section of the forum had anything going on other than a constant stream of filler threads acting as a constant reminder that we haven't gotten any new info in a long time. Now I'm not saying Star Theory should infodump like there's no tomorrow but a fun little trivia nugget once every few weeks until launch would go a long way to douse the flames of boredom and bring back some solid reality and relevance. Just enough info so nobody can say "there's no new info" - while not being more than a fun screenshot and some random notes that someone could whip up in 10 minutes so nobody can complain the devs are goofing off with the community instead of working on the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

totally not going with the crowd 

The game should be released in episodes, first one shouldn't contain more than 20% of the planned content.

More to that, I should be clearly visible in game, but locked until the appropriate episode comes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

totally not going with the crowd 

The game should be released in episodes, first one shouldn't contain more than 20% of the planned content.

More to that, I should be clearly visible in game, but locked until the appropriate episode comes.

No Kentucky route zero or Tell Tale type releases. That bs is annoying, and down right rude when the studio closes its doors before they finish it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they wanted to do a day-one DLC that had a full RSS makeover, I think that would work.  Other than something like that, I'd say any DLC should wait for a bit after the main game.  (I do think eventual DLC is likely a good idea.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm expecting the same business model as with current KSP: free updates to the base game for life + paid DLC. However, I'm not expecting the bargain bin pricing scheme as with KSP 1. These guys know their stuff.

I also expect the DLCs to be more mod friendly too.

  1. Remember the anticipation of building upon MH's Mission Builder and how that got extinguished by the failure of MH.
  2. Planet packs cannot place and mix BG's ROCs freely on their added planets. There is also no means to create custom ROCs.

Anyone who votes against DLCs is hoping for the business model where every major upgrade to the base game is paid. It's a fair scheme, when done right, but I bet that's going to go against Star Theory's promise to not shell-shock the whole player-base.

Edited by JadeOfMaar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really hate the dlc culture nowadays. It fragments the player base. Some play just the original version and some play with some of the dlcs and some with all of them. That makes forum competitions and craft sharing needlessly complicated. Also dlcs are often just a way to milk extra money from customers to unlock features that should already be in the base game...

Edited by tseitsei89

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tseitsei89 said:

I really hate the dlc culture nowadays. It fragments the player base. Some play just the original version and some play with some of the dlcs and some with all of them. That makes forum competitions and craft sharing needlessly complicated. Also dlcs are often just a way to milk extra money from customers to unlock features that should already be in the base game...

It's not the "DLC culture nowdays", it's the fact that nowdays the players want to play a game for years without having to pay for updates but development usually costs money.

The current DLC model of KSP is way better than the model that FIFA or other AAA games use, with a yearly update that you have to pay 70€.

Edited by Master39

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Master39 said:

It's not the "DLC culture nowdays", it's the fact that nowdays the players want to play a game for years without having to pay for updates but development usually costs money.

The current DLC model of KSP is way better than the model that FIFA or other AAA games use, with a yearly update that you have to pay 70€.

It most certainly is the DLC culture nowadays. Unfortunately most DLCs fall in to one of the following categories:

1. Developers leave out an important game mechanic/feature that should already be in the base game so they can sell it to customers as DLC and get more money.

2. DLC just adds some new equipment/parts/skills that really dont bring anything new to the game but are just slightly better versions of the original ones. So you have to buy the DLC if you want the best equipment/parts/skills but the DLC doesnt actually give you any new meaningful content.

Edited by tseitsei89

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I always say in these discussions... 

 

There is nothing wrong with DLC (inherently). 

 

The problem is either cheapscape customers wanting stuff for free or cheapscape companies providing too little value for money. 

In yeh olden days DLC was called expansion packs and they most often cost money. 

Of course enough value for money is subjective, but it is possible to satisfy it for a majority of people. 

Examples of expansions that cost money iirc possibly almost up to full original game price. Half life opposing force, blue shift, homeworld cataclysm. Probably many more. 

If a company makes good dlc that provides value for money. Great, I'll buy... 

If I don't get my moneys worth I won't... 

It's my (our choice)... Choose wisely. 

 

Ps: And for the cheapscape players... Part of being a grown up is you pay for three things you get. Grown ass men don't need handouts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, tseitsei89 said:

I really hate the dlc culture nowadays. It fragments the player base. Some play just the original version and some play with some of the dlcs and some with all of them. That makes forum competitions and craft sharing needlessly complicated. Also dlcs are often just a way to milk extra money from customers to unlock features that should already be in the base game...

I'm fine with a few, big, well thought out DLCs. But not so keen on the "Crusader Kings" type of situation where there are dozens of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, tseitsei89 said:

It most certainly is the DLC culture nowadays. Unfortunately most DLCs fall in to one of the following categories:

1. Developers leave out an important game mechanic/feature that should already be in the base game so they can sell it to customers as DLC and get more money.

2. DLC just adds some new equipment/parts/skills that really dont bring anything new to the game but are just slightly better versions of the original ones. So you have to buy the DLC if you want the best equipment/parts/skills but the DLC doesnt actually give you any new meaningful content.

Making a generic argument about "most DLCs nowdays" makes no sense, the point is: do you think Making History or Breaking Ground falls in the two categories you described?

I'm not saying the AAA market has not abused the concept of DLC or expansion, I'm just stating the obvious, people now expects a game to last for years, KSP is 9 years old and yet we see people arguing if it is a good idea to develop a sequel instead of updating the first game, you cannot expect that kind of extended support without paying for it in a way or another.

When you realize that you will understand that there are only 3 ways of dealing with extended support for a game:

  • Making a "sequel" every year, just like sport games
  • paid updates, either with a subscription model or directly paying for the patches
  • DLCs

Between these i prefer the DLCs model, maybe with DLCs that fills some niches that are not the main focus of the game (the robotic DLC is a great example).

 

I also just think the term "DLC" is too generic for this kind of argument, I'm totally behind Skyrim's "Dawnguard" kind of DLC but I'd hate a "Horse armor for your SSTOs parts pack" kind of DLC.

 

Edited by Master39

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I work somewhere that does a lot of software development, and I have a slightly different view on the DLC paradigm. I think that DLC is mostly a side effect of the shift in software development practices over the last 20 years, and the flexibility provided by (mostly) everyone being connected to the internet. 

With the shift to agile software development trickling down to everyone, the idea is that you prioritize features that offer the most value to your customers, and you release early and often to receive feedback and constantly re-prioritize the next features. In the long run, this provides more value to the customer (and by extension, more money for you) than fronting the entire cost of development, but releasing features that it turns out nobody likes. This is partly why we see so many "early access" games these days. The cutoff for when to release the game is a decision that companies are making based on a number of different factors; and of course, in general, these people are all trying to make money. So they're trying to strike a balance between what gamers are willing to pay for, versus how much profit they will make, and how long they can pay to continue developing the game. Of course, they have to pay the development team to continue working on the game. People are expensive. Releasing DLC can be seen as an infusion of cash to keep developing the game for longer. I personally think gamers would be much more upset if companies released games, fixed a few bugs, then stopped doing anything to them and moved on to the next project. 

This being said, I have my limits as well. I don't buy Paradox Interactive games, for instance. 

The point I'm trying to make here is this; DLC is the result of fundamental shifts in the way the software industry works. Because of that, it's not going away. KSP 2 will have DLC. To me the question of whether or not it should is completely irrelevant, because it will. Period. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wait, did someone chose Absolutely no DLC's? Why? :/

Share this post


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

wait, did someone chose Absolutely no DLC's? Why? :/

Because they don't like it when development continues after the game is released, I guess.

Share this post


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

wait, did someone chose Absolutely no DLC's? Why? :/

I'm poor.

Of course, they should set up a donation page as well, so people can fund their development.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Xd the great said:

--they should set up a donation page--

Oh my, what a blast from the past, donations. They sound good enough in theory but in reality generate almost no money for anyone ever, barring some extreme cases - which this wouldn't be for sure. Something else that actually works instead is to sell a small thing at a very inflated price, many game companies sell stuff like old concept art and other halfway-behind-the-scenes things in small packages that don't really do anything to the game itself, these things are essentially like donations that grant the donor a small token of appreciation in return. However I doubt that Star Theory would get anything out of that because there is a major common factor among games companies that do this kind of thing; most don't sit under the thumb of a publisher that will simply take most of the profit. I'm not averse to buying extras when most of the money goes directly to the developers. I'm highly averse to generously filling the pocket of a publisher in hopes that some of it will go to the developers.

Please note I'm not looking to start any squibbles about publishers, some of them are literally murdering entire game series just to squeeze profit but I'm not in the know when it comes to T2/PD. Publishers are not always automatically evil, they can provide massive initial funding for studios and let them make a 10 times as good and profitable game, it's just that they take a giant chunk of the profits from sales and we gamers who want to support the devs directly just can't get most of our money to go where we want. Studios under publishers essentially exchange "high risk, high reward" for job security, an understandable choice and it's no surprise studios tend to get absorbed by publishers eventually. Egosoft is the only studio I've ever heard of that instead got rid of a publisher and gained the freedom to set their own policies, they pretty much immediately got on much better terms with their community and the fans are more devoted than ever...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/16/2020 at 9:51 PM, razark said:

I think it should be nothing but DLCs.

The content they've delivered so far is clearly lacking, and needs a large amount of DLC just to even be playable.

We're talking about KSP2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see any reason why not.

While I hope they add KSP's Breaking Ground and Making History stock, they could also be a "Nostalgia DLC" with them both as a single unified DLC. And I think a DLC with moar star systems would be something profitable.

Share this post


Link to post
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.