KSP 1.9 in face of KSP 2

[Vegatoxi]

5 hours ago, Master39 said:

Because there's no way they could fund the development of those features with DLC money.

I really don't understand people not wanting a sequel, this game always needed a complete code rewrite to optimize things from the start and get rid of all the spaghetti-code, the features and ships shown in the trailer only would be too heavy for most PCs and bugged as hell on KSP1.

But can fund the entier new game?

Logic...

[Sidestrafe2462]

5 minutes ago, Vegatoxi said:

But can fund the entier new game?

Logic...

It's a different corporation, making a new game with a new investment.

KSP2 is not being coded with funds from KSP1 DLC.

 

Edited February 13, 2020 by Sidestrafe2462

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, Vegatoxi said:

But can fund the entier new game?

Logic...

A new 60$ game making less money than a 15$ DLC that half of the community gets for free? Yep, logic indeed.

 

[Vegatoxi]

5 minutes ago, Master39 said:

A new 60$ game making less money than a 15$ DLC that half of the community gets for free? Yep, logic indeed.

 

New game vs game with already formed and known playerbase

Also who say 15$? Why not 30$?

And you can make new DLC's every year or even every half year.

[sturmhauke]

KSP 1 is an old game now; most people who were ever going to buy it have already bought it. There might be a few new players here and there, but only a trickle. DLCs can bring in a little more money, but they also have to pay for themselves.

KSP 2 is much more likely to attract new users, plus a significant portion of fans of the original. I mean, the video game business is always a bit of a gamble, but this honestly seems like a no-brainer.

[έķ νίĻĻάίή]

9 hours ago, Vegatoxi said:

Think.

You have 2 almost same games with 1 of it having more and newest features.

Simple choice.

Ahem? Not really simple. Because say if KSP2 takes longer to load,my obvious choice would be to play KSP1 in the little extra time I have.

 

7 hours ago, Vegatoxi said:

And can you explain why devs strat another same game with just few improvements if they already have great game?

Why not just add these improvements to it?

Even as DLC.

No?... KSP's base code was made by squad, who, quote wikipedia-

Quote

The main business of Squad is to provide digital and interactive services to customers like The Coca-Cola Company, Hewlett-Packard, Sony, Samsung and Nissan, including creating websites, guerrilla marketing, multi-media installations, and corporate-image design.

They didn't have much experience in video games untill Kerbal. They've added so much stuff onto Kerbal's base code, that if they even wanted to change a slight piece of Kerbal, they'd have to rewrite almost everything.

Spoiler

If I'm wrong, then sorry. 

It's like a tower. If you wanted to remove the foundations of the Shard, then that would be near impossible.

Spoiler

Also, in other thoughts, Wikipedia said - "Felipe Falanghe announced that he would no longer be the lead developer of Kerbal Space Program on May 30, 2016; this was so he could pursue a currently unspecified project."

It's this game - https://store.steampowered.com/app/977920/Balsa_Model_Flight_Simulator/

" Developed by the creator of Kerbal Space Program" it said.

 

Edited February 13, 2020 by έķ νίĻĻάίή

[έķ νίĻĻάίή]

19 minutes ago, sturmhauke said:

KSP 1 is an old game now; most people who were ever going to buy it have already bought it. There might be a few new players here and there, but only a trickle. DLCs can bring in a little more money, but they also have to pay for themselves.

Yep. I bought KSP in January 2019. It's still amazing, which is quite impressive, since all other games only got me for a few weeks at most.

 

50 minutes ago, Vegatoxi said:

New game vs game with already formed and known playerbase

Also who say 15$? Why not 30$?

And you can make new DLC's every year or even every half year.

No. DLC's can't be made too often with a game that can be modded, as mods can usually make up for DLC's.

Take Breaking Ground. Infernal robotics?

15 hours ago, Vegatoxi said:

Also i'm check KSP 1.9...

  Reveal hidden contents

 

These terrarin textures make me cry

As bugs too.

Spoiler

-.-- --- ..- .----. ...- . / --. --- - / - --- / -... . / -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. / -- . .-.-.- / ... . .-. .. --- ..- ... .-.. -.-- ..--.. / - .... .- - .----. ... / .--- ..- ... - / .-. . .- .-.. .-.. -.-- / ... .- -.. .. ... - .-.-.- / .-- .... --- / .-- --- ..- .-.. -.. -. .----. - / .- .--. .--. .-. . -.-. .. .- - . / .- -. / ..- .--. -.. .- - . ..--..

 

[Death Engineering]

I have Guild Wars 1 and Guild Wars 2. I only play Guild Wars 1 because I prefer the gameplay of that game. KSP 2 promises to be so different that it will play different than KSP 1.x, and some folks might prefer one over the other.

Newer isn't always better, just different. 

[klgraham1013]

1 hour ago, Death Engineering said:

I have Guild Wars 1 and Guild Wars 2. I only play Guild Wars 1 because I prefer the gameplay of that game.

This person is smart, attractive, and well liked among their peers. 

[Raptor9]

Let's review some underlying facts.
1) Just because a sequel to a game comes out, doesn't mean it will be better.
2) Businesses must have a positive money flow to survive.  If they do not, they will close.
3) Business strategies to accomplish said positive money flow vary, and sometimes are only known to the individuals making such decisions.
4) The version number assigned to any game is irrelevant and has nothing to do with a title.

When two different developers are designing separate games, even if the publisher and intellectual property owners are the same, the artistic and game mechanic views of the development teams can be quite similar, or quite different.  However, even with quite similar artistic design and game mechanics, the slight variances can make a difference in a player's overall satisfaction with the game.  I've played several video game series where follow-on sequels were quite horrible (I'm looking at you Jetfighter), despite the huge jump in graphics.

Just because you have two different development studios, there is nothing wrong with having two different games being developed in parallel sharing the same overall Kerbal concept and lore.  As long as the intellectual property right owners allow the development, and both products continue to make money for all involved, it is usually a safe bet such a business practice will continue.  There will undoubtedly be some players out there that will only ever play KSP 1, some will have only ever played KSP 2, and there are others that will play both (either sequentially or concurrently).  We don't know what the strategy is for the powers-that-be, and we probably will never know.

I think it is reasonable to assume that KSP 1 will see noticeable drop in revenue when KSP 2 is released.  However it is very possible KSP 1 will continue to evolve in it's own direction, and continue to enjoy financial prosperity.  Especially if future DLC's are planned that "break new ground". 

Lastly, KSP 1 was in alpha-state when I bought it at v0.13.  That doesn't mean I was playing KSP Zero version 13.  You can have KSP 1 v2.8, and you can also have KSP 2 v1.0.

[archiebald]

I for one will hold off on even considering KSP2 unless and until;

1. The physics problems that continue to plague KSP1 are well proven to be missing from KSP2.
2. The performance requirements are less than or equal to my current KSP1 setup.
3. KSP2 out of the box can match my current KSP setup with the 70 or so mods I currently use (in terms of visuals and game play).
4. Something about KSP2 significantly enhances my gaming experience.

Also, I have absolutely zero interest in a multiplayer option.

We have seen so many times that when it comes to software, an "update" is not always desirable (looking particularly at Microsoft and Adobe products) and in my gaming world, Silent Hunter 3 is still far better supported than Silent Hunter 5 which was a dog of a game.

Edited February 14, 2020 by archiebald

[kerbiloid]

Just one question: why let start a clone of your product currently keeping being bought & sold, causing a competition between two almost similar products, unless you are going to drop the current one once the clone gets popular?

Just another one: why do this for absolutely different software developer rather than the current team?

I can see only one reason: as KSP-1 in its origin is an overgrown pet project of an amateur developer, T2 wants it to be rewritten from scratch (probably done in KSP-2) and treats Star Theory as more experienced team. So, I guess KSP-2 is a replacement, while KSP-1 will become LTS release with limited development and funding, just to keep the user base and softly push it to the KSP-2.

Edited February 14, 2020 by kerbiloid

[sturmhauke]

39 minutes ago, archiebald said:

I for one will hold off on even considering KSP2 unless and until;

1. The physics problems that continue to plague KSP1 are well proven to be missing from KSP2.
2. The performance requirements are less than or equal to my current KSP1 setup.
3. KSP2 out of the box can match my current KSP setup with the 70 or so mods I currently use (in terms of visuals and game play).
4. Something about KSP2 significantly enhances my gaming experience.

2 is completely unrealistic, and 3 isn't much better. No serious game developer is going to make a brand new game optimized for 10 year old hardware, and the odds that KSP2 will recreate and surpass your exact collection of mods is fairly low. 

[evileye.x]

I still prefer XCOM Enemy Within with Long War (aka XCOM1) over XCOM 2 (WOTC or not, doesn't matter much) 

 

Edited February 14, 2020 by evileye.x

[Klapaucius]

I think, at least for the near future, that the two games will scratch slightly different itches. I look forward to base building and trying out interstellar flight. I think bases and planetary exploration will be far more rewarding in KSP2. But...with Breaking Ground KSP1 has a killer DLC that will be challenging folks for ages to come. I cannot see all the engine, robot, VTOL etc folk just dropping KSP1 completely.

Longterm, KSP 1 may fade, but that really depends on how far the two diverge.  Plenty of folks still play Civilization IV even thought VI is now out. And some folks enjoy both V and VI as they play differently.

 

So who knows?

[archiebald]

2 hours ago, sturmhauke said:

2 is completely unrealistic, and 3 isn't much better. No serious game developer is going to make a brand new game optimized for 10 year old hardware, and the odds that KSP2 will recreate and surpass your exact collection of mods is fairly low. 

Why is No.2 unrealistic?  Who said I have 10 year old hardware?  I have a 6 month old high spec notebook and an eGPU, but I play KSP1 at 4K on just about the highest available quality settings.  If I can do that it KSP2, then fine.

As for No.3 I am simply pointing out that I will not jump ship until KSP2 can match my current gameplay achieved with the mods that I have.  Depending on a) the out of the box spec and b) the speed at which modders catch up, that might take weeks or might take years.  Until then I will stick with KSP1.

[klgraham1013]

4 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

why let start a clone of your product currently keeping being bought & sold, causing a competition between two almost similar products, unless you are going to drop the current one once the clone gets popular?

Because the long tail of the current product is coming to an end.  Only so much income can be gained at the end of any products life cycle.  For a company to stay afloat, it must invest in a future product in hopes that it's sales can pay for the R&D invested along with keeping the lights on post launch of the new product.

4 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

why do this for absolutely different software developer rather than the current team?

4 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

T2 wants it to be rewritten from scratch (probably done in KSP-2) and treats Star Theory as more experienced team.

I'm going to be blunt here.  Feel free to call me bad names.

Squad stumbled upon a unique idea.  Being the only true game of it's kind, KSP has garnered a high reputation based on it's uniqueness more so than it's quality.  Squad has a history of implementing ideas, seemingly without refining them before hand, and than abandoning them whether or not the idea was good to begin with.  Career mode is the prime example.  A hodge podge of unrelated/unconnected ideas thrown together for the sake of added gameplay.  Each piece nearly forgotten and untouched since introduction.  The UI has always left something to be desired.  When gizmos were added, they slapped on place holder UI buttons instead of integrating them.  To this day, those gizmo buttons float randomly in the VAB UI.  The PAW menus have always had that "stock game engine" UI feel.  Instead of accepting that Unity's wheel code would not work for their game and programming their own, they slapped on bandaid after bandaid, making Kerbals phase through wheels and adding UI so the player can "fix" the wheels in game.  The first 6 years of KSP introduced artist after artist with an obvious lack of direction and guidance.  To this day, it's a blessing from the Kraken if all the whites on a ship match.  I could write an essay, but I'm just a handyman.  So what do I know.

It is more than possible that Take Two decided Squad wasn't the development studio they wanted for KSP moving forward.  Maybe I've just been disillusioned after 8+ years of seeing squandered potential on such an amazing concept.  Maybe I'm just a grumpy middle-aged man.

4 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

So, I guess KSP-2 is a replacement, while KSP-1 will become LTS release with limited development and funding, just to keep the user base and softly push it to the KSP-2.

As with every sequel.  I don't know how this is a surprise to anyone.

Edited February 14, 2020 by klgraham1013

[kerbiloid]

24 minutes ago, klgraham1013 said:

Because the long tail of the current product is coming to an end.  Only so much income can be gained at the end of any products life cycle.  For a company to stay afloat, it must invest in a future product in hopes that it's sales can pay for the R&D invested along with keeping the lights on post launch of the new product.

The new clone (KSP-2) is almost same niche game for nerds with some improvements.
Unlikely it can attract much wider range of gamers just by changing the number and adding some locally known stuff like stock Orions and bigger colonies.

24 minutes ago, klgraham1013 said:

As with every sequel.  I don't know how this is a surprise to anyone.

Was somebody going to surprise somebody?
I just guess that the "1.x 4ever" optimism is a little excessive, and once 2 starts being bought, 1 development will be stopped.

Upd. The modding will be running on that version which gives better performance, so less modder headache. Likely, it will be 2, just because it's written from scratch with no backward compatibility.

Edited February 14, 2020 by kerbiloid

[razark]

4 hours ago, Klapaucius said:

Plenty of folks still play Civilization IV even thought VI is now out.

Why is it always Civ4 vs. Civ6?

Some of us are still happily firing up Civ3 for our empire building fix.

[Curveball Anders]

I will buy KSP 2 as soon as it's available on Linux.

But I'll most likely play KSP 1 for a long time after that.

 

[steuben]

In this corner hailing from deepest darkest Mexico, trained in the old Aztec ways, the current Champion... Kerbal Space Program!

In this corner hailing from mysterious American northwest, trained in Grizzly Style, the challenger... Kerbal Space Program, TWO!

And now ladies and gentlemen. It's time. It's The Ultimate Showdown! of Ultimate Destiny! LET'S GET READY TO RUM~~ML~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~LE!

*cough*

 

Now to answer the question(s) at the top.

Quote

[It's obvious] when KSP 2 is out, nobody will play KSP.

It's not terribly obvious, nor automatic. Several counter examples to the implied logic exist in several fields. Finding them will be left as an exercise for the reader, some in gaming have already been supplied.

 

Quote

And i'm [interested] - what's next? KSP 2.0?

This can almost be answered with "mu".  The question is similar to, "Are there USA ports?" and "Were IPv5 and IPv3 ever released?"  Within a few versions, yes there will be KSP 2.0. Which will be disjoint and distinct from KSP 2. Finding an explanation of version numbering, again will be left as an exercise for the reader.

 

Yes... I'm a little bit grumpy. My nice hot freshly brewed tea was steaming nicely when I left the local coffee place. Was sweet iced tea with crushed ice when I sat down at my desk at the office. Yes, it is/was that cold this morning.

[Lisias]

5 hours ago, sturmhauke said:

No serious game developer is going to make a brand new game optimized for 10 year old hardware, and the odds that KSP2 will recreate and surpass your exact collection of mods is fairly low. 

I beg to differ.

Quote

Halo 2600 is a 4 KB game inspired by the Halo series of games.^[26] It was written by former Microsoft vice-president Ed Fries, who was involved in Microsoft's acquisition of Halo creator Bungie.^[27] Other 2600 demakes include the Portal-inspired Super 3D Portals 6 and a demo based on the Mega Man franchise.^[28]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_2600_homebrew

All that matters are the intended target audience. You are not the one defining the hardware constraints of your project - your target audience is.

[sh1pman]

16 hours ago, Death Engineering said:

I only play Guild Wars 1

There are still people playing GW1!?

[kerbiloid]

Spoiler

  

  

1 hour ago, steuben said:

In this corner hailing from deepest darkest Mexico, trained in the old Aztec ways, the current Champion... Kerbal Space Program!

In this corner hailing from mysterious American northwest, trained in Grizzly Style, the challenger... Kerbal Space Program, TWO!

https://www.travelmath.com/halfway/from/Seattle,+WA/to/Mexico+City,+Mexico

The halfway is Albuquerque, New Mexico. Is there something KSP significant there?

 

 

Edited February 14, 2020 by kerbiloid

[DeadJohn]

On 2/13/2020 at 2:40 AM, RealKerbal3x said:

My analogies may be imperfect, but the point is, why not continue developing the original game to keep longtime players happy? KSP 1 and KSP 2 are being developed by different companies, so it's not like continued development of KSP 1 will affect KSP 2 in any way.

Where will money to pay the KSP 1 team come from? New and most old players will shift to KSP 2; too few people will be buying KSP 1 and its DLC. I fully expect KSP 1 development to stop shortly after KSP 2 comes out. It's a fair, reasonable, sane, and smart business decision.

KSP 1 has been around a long time and met its obligation to customers. It will continue to run forever (until operating system changes break it). KSP 1 development could theoretically continue if they go to a subscription model, but I don't think there would be enough subscribers to make it feasible.