What about pay more and then no more paying for dlcs ?

[White]

Im thinking about chance to pay like 50% more but then you would get free dlcs.

[Lo.M]

I see no need

Edited March 16, 2021 by Lo.M

[Guest]

DLCs are there to support extended development, I know people thinks they're living in some sort of gaming apocalypse caused by DLCs but "back in the good old days" you didn't have a decade worth of updates, just a mostly copy-pasted sequel a year at full price.

I prefer to pay 20-40 in DLCs a year while also paying for all the updates to the base game (even for people not buying those DLCs) than paying 60 every year or two for a "sequel".

In short extended support requires some way to make money on the long term, "free DLCs forever" often means "excrementsty support for a limited amount of time before we abandon the project for something else that actually makes money".

Edited March 16, 2021 by Master39

[kerbiloid]

How much is "50% more" by the end of 2022?

[pandaman]

What @Master39 said.

Or....   several thousand customers take up the option to pay an extra $30 for free DLCs...  then they decide not to make any. 

I expect/hope that updates/fixes will continue to be free, but I wouldn't pay extra for a promise of free future DLCs that may be few and far between at best.

[Dientus]

One thing I have seen in other games that I personally do not mind, is the cost of DLC's dropping over time to a rock bottom price.

[swjr-swis]

3 hours ago, White said:

Im thinking about chance to pay like 50% more but then you would get free dlcs.

I'm thinking at this point we still know extremely little about what we're actually going to get with the base game, let alone any potential DLC. How about we first see if they can deliver on the main product, before -effectively- pre-purchasing any add-ons.

I've become very pragmatic, perhaps to the point of cynical, about software in general and games in particular. The whole mentality that it's impossible to deliver a bugfree or feature-complete product (so why even try) is too damn prevalent and accepted in this industry. Which in turn makes me extremely reticent about committing ahead of time on what I am willing to pay for a product, or how much of it I will want to deal with.

I have all but stopped buying any pre-1.1 product anymore; I never buy any 'season pack' or 'deluxe version' until it's definitely clear what is going to be included or not in it. KSP2 isn't even in alpha state yet, let alone a playable demo of any kind.

Let's see what we actually get first; then we can talk about how much I'll spend on it, or if there's even any point at all in getting whatever DLC they come up with.

 

[adsii1970]

Okay, I will weigh in with my observations:

4 hours ago, White said:

Im thinking about chance to pay like 50% more but then you would get free dlcs.

Why? Generally, the average game now runs between $35 to $50 (U.S. dollars) for just the stock game. A lot of people have no problems paying that much for the standard game. But when you increase the cost of the base game too much, there are those who simply will not pay or cannot afford to pay between $60 to $75 OR MORE for a game. I know that having to shell out $75.00 for a core game would mean I would spend less money a month on games and related DLC.

3 hours ago, Master39 said:

DLCs are there to support extended development, I know people thinks they're living in some sort of gaming apocalypse caused by DLCs but "back in the good old days" you didn't have a decade worth of updates, just a mostly copy-pasted sequel a year at full price.

I prefer to pay 20-40 in DLCs a year while also paying for all the updates to the base game (even for people not buying those DLCs) than paying 60 every year or two for a "sequel".

In short extended support requires some way to make money on the long term, "free DLCs forever" often means "excrementsty support for a limited amount of time before we abandon the project for something else that actually makes money".

Yes, this. But DLCs do extend the shelf life of a game. Think of Cities: Skylines (2015) or more recently, Civilization VI (2016). Both of those games were released and have continued to thrive because of the continual development of DLCs. Sure, there are rumors that Cities: Skylines 2 is about to be officially announced soon^TM so development of additional DLCs for the original are probably finished (as in no more are being developed). There are also hints that Civilization VI might have one more set of DLCs as they previously had in their most recent Season Pass. And once development begins on Civilization VII (no official announcement made, but rumors are it will be released in 2025), there will not be any further additions to the current version.

With the base game of Kerbal Space Program, we have been very lucky the game has continued to be developed as it is, even with the DLC we already have. But we also have had updates which have added more to the stock game, too. In the gaming world, this is almost unheard of.

I'm not opposed to paying for DLCs, DLCS keep the software publishing company's lights on, pays for their staff, and allows for continued development of the game. There are times I will buy the DLC for various games just for that one reason - not because I need the DLC but I want to support the company making the game.

26 minutes ago, swjr-swis said:

I'm thinking at this point we still know extremely little about what we're actually going to get with the base game, let alone any potential DLC. How about we first see if they can deliver on the main product, before -effectively- pre-purchasing any add-ons.

I've become very pragmatic, perhaps to the point of cynical, about software in general and games in particular. The whole mentality that it's impossible to deliver a bugfree or feature-complete product (so why even try) is too damn prevalent and accepted in this industry. Which in turn makes me extremely reticent about committing ahead of time on what I am willing to pay for a product, or how much of it I will want to deal with.

I have all but stopped buying any pre-1.1 product anymore; I never buy any 'season pack' or 'deluxe version' until it's definitely clear what is going to be included or not in it. KSP2 isn't even in alpha state yet, let alone a playable demo of any kind.

Let's see what we actually get first; then we can talk about how much I'll spend on it, or if there's even any point at all in getting whatever DLC they come up with.

 

Exactly. We are speculating about KSP2 - a game that's not going to be out for at least another year, maybe longer. I have a feeling the original game will have a lot of features many of us have through mods - but as stock. If you remember the interview done by @Snark with some of the developers and programmers, they are not strangers to the original Kerbal Space Program. I think this means that there will be a lot of us happy with the stock game. But I am also prepared to pay between $50 to $75 for it because that seems to becoming the baseline price of most newer games today. And with that said, I have expectations for the stock game that correlate to that price. At my age, I remember when $20.00 was considered reasonable for Silent Hunter and the original Civilization.

I agree about the beta releases and purchasing games still under development. I've been burned too many times, the most recent being this past January by buying a game in development.

[K^2]

I'm generally against pre-orders as a monetization strategy. So if some of the content is to arrive at a later date, I would rather it be priced separately and make decision on whether or not to purchase it when it becomes available.

That said, carving up content and deferring chunks to DLC so as to stretch out game's income generation has also become a bad pattern. But at least, DLCs are a good thing for most games on the net, and a lot of companies have managed to release good content post-launch without getting predatory about it. So it's still a much preferred route here.

[klesh]

The problem with Cities Skylines and the Paradox model is, if you want to step into that game in its fully fleshed  out state its going to run you well over $200.  If you just buy the $50 base version, you end up lacking so many should-be core components that you’ll be left feeling like you're playing a shell of the full experience.  Want nighttime?  Pay up.  Want industry, pay up, want shipping, pay up, want more public transportation, pay up.   
 

Want eva fuel, pay up.  Want parachutes, pay up, want wheels to rove somewhere after you’ve landed, pay up.  Want more than one antennae to transmit science, why you need the communications dlc $12.99

[Guest]

6 hours ago, klesh said:

The problem with Cities Skylines and the Paradox model is, if you want to step into that game in its fully fleshed  out state its going to run you well over $200.  If you just buy the $50 base version, you end up lacking so many should-be core components that you’ll be left feeling like you're playing a shell of the full experience.  Want nighttime?  Pay up.  Want industry, pay up, want shipping, pay up, want more public transportation, pay up.   

I'm playing Stellaris right now it was a year or so since the last time I played, I bought Federations for 20€ and started a new multi with a couple of friends, when I originally bought the game and all the DLCs (except Megacorp) when megacorp was released for 50€, now at this very moment the game is on humble bundle for 15€ with most of the old DLCs.

With these kind of games if you pay anywhere near that "almost 200" you're doing it wrong.

 

6 hours ago, klesh said:

Want eva fuel, pay up.  Want parachutes, pay up, want wheels to rove somewhere after you’ve landed, pay up.  Want more than one antennae to transmit science, why you need the communications dlc $12.99

My experience with both Stellaris and City Skylines but also with existing KSP1 DLCs makes me think you're grossly exaggerating the kind of features that goes into DLCs.

Eva fuel? Seriously? Why not engines at this point?

Edited March 17, 2021 by Master39

[Drakenred65]

That’s kind of an exaggeration. Both city skylines and survive shipped as complete games.  Skylines to be honest has turned into bloat ware, and to be honest surviving Mars is starting to tun into that, but they seem to be less greedy on the price for some reason, although that may be partly due to smaller teamsize .

[Drakenred65]

1 hour ago, Master39 said:

 

With these kind of games if you pay anywhere near that "almost 200" you're doing it wrong.

 

My experience with both Stellaris and City Skylines but also with existing KSP1 DLCs makes me think you're grossly exaggerating the kind of features that goes into DLCs.

Eva fuel? Seriously? Why not engines at this point?

The problem is if we are talking about some of the more outlandish monitization crap out there, and realize we’re talking about a game who’s top guy is Mr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss_Zelnick, the guy who was on record as saying there’s basicaly nothing wrong with pay per fight mechanics that The Culling  tried to introduce, it’s just needed a more realistic price point, and defended -Loot-box  mechanics saying there’s basicaly nothing wrong with them, and were less likely to be abused than other in game item acquisition methods.

 

and to be fair I’ve seen stamina mechanics that make ones like they shoved into dungeon keeper seem to be non existent by comparison.

and to be fair I have donated far more to modders for fallout than 200.

I’ve also dealt with companies like this to realize that while they woul love it if everyone actualy spent close to the limit the reality is that in 2000 the average active wow player spent $19.71 a month not including expansions, including people buying or using the tokens or subscriptions.

2 minutes ago, [email protected] said:

 

[Basesixty]

But paying for the dlc down the line helps them keep paying people so they don’t have to leave a game for another one just to make money

[Drakenred65]

The problem is ranting about how they plan to monitize the game is kind of pointless at this point. The game will not even be out for just over a year, they have said nothing about it at this point, if they Cary out there commitment to are the game modifiable, whell Nexus and the creation club somehow manage to exist side by side.

 

granted Bethesda keeps making noises about modding 76. Aparently they don’t seem to realize your not suposed to talk out of that hole, because that’s also not where you inset pie.

[Guest]

26 minutes ago, [email protected] said:

The problem is if we are talking about some of the more outlandish monitization crap out there, and realize we’re talking about a game who’s top guy is Mr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss_Zelnick,

The CEO of the firm that holds the label that publishes the game, I'm sure he's in the studio micromanaging the every single feature every day for every single game for all the 20-30 studios of the 3 labels T2 is composed of.

31 minutes ago, [email protected] said:

and defended -Loot-box  mechanics

Lootboxes that the devs said multiple times aren't planned for KSP2 and, last time I checked, aren't implemented or planned for any of Private Division games.

 

34 minutes ago, [email protected] said:

they shoved

"They" means nothing, which of the 22 studios or half a dozen third parties T2 works with? For which of the 3 labels T2 owns? How such studio is involved with Private Division, Intercept or KSP2?

 

37 minutes ago, [email protected] said:

and to be fair I have donated far more to modders for fallout than 200.

I’ve also dealt with companies like this to realize that while they woul love it if everyone actualy spent close to the limit the reality is that in 2000 the average active wow player spent $19.71 a month not including expansions, including people buying or using the tokens or subscriptions.

And? What all of this has to do with the fact that for most Paradox games is dumb to buy DLCs at full price when the game and the DLCs are often discounted? I have most of Cities Skylines DLCs due to a bundle a while ago and right know there's a bundle for most of Stellaris DLCs, plus the base game, for 15€.

And the same can be said for KSP1, the game and its DLCs are often discounted, you know? The game managed by the same publisher that's making KSP2.

 

[PlutoISaPlanet]

I would like a season pass of sorts. New planets and asteroids and stuff. Idk that would be cool.

[Drakenred65]

6 hours ago, Master39 said:

The CEO of the firm that holds the label that publishes the game, I'm sure he's in the studio micromanaging the every single feature every day for every single game for all the 20-30 studios of the 3 labels T2 is composed of.

Lootboxes that the devs said multiple times aren't planned for KSP2 and, last time I checked, aren't implemented or planned for any of Private Division games.

 

"They" means nothing, which of the 22 studios or half a dozen third parties T2 works with? For which of the 3 labels T2 owns? How such studio is involved with Private Division, Intercept or KSP2?

 

And? What all of this has to do with the fact that for most Paradox games is dumb to buy DLCs at full price when the game and the DLCs are often discounted? I have most of Cities Skylines DLCs due to a bundle a while ago and right know there's a bundle for most of Stellaris DLCs, plus the base game, for 15€.

And the same can be said for KSP1, the game and its DLCs are often discounted, you know? The game managed by the same publisher that's making KSP2.

 

I know all of this. Hell one of the worst offenders with loot boxes and monetization has released multiple games that did not have any  level of monetization beyond the box price.

 

that does not stop people from having what is basically a well founded fear that someone is going to find a way to shove in abusive monetization. After all gaming corporations do have owners who want there “ 14 % “ profits and ceos who are blatantly CEOs because they think or say they can make money and have repeatedly promised to deliver more money than the other guy even if the other guy is himself.

 

they also know the value of good PR, Of having loss leaders, And supplying nich markets because you never know where your next The Sims, Final Fantasy,  Fall guys,  among us, or WoW will come from. 

Just now, [email protected] said:

I know all of this. Hell one of the worst offenders with loot boxes and monetization has released multiple games that did not have any  level of monetization beyond the box price.

 

that does not stop people from having what is basically a well founded fear that someone is going to find a way to shove in abusive monetization. After all gaming corporations do have owners who want there “ 14 % “ profits and ceos who are blatantly CEOs because they think or say they can make money and have repeatedly promised to deliver more money than the other guy even if the other guy is himself.

 

they also know the value of good PR, Of having loss leaders, And supplying nich markets because you never know where your next The Sims, Final Fantasy,  Fall guys,  among us, or WoW will come from. 

They as in the same Corporate heads who run those company’s. 

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, [email protected] said:

I know all of this.

If you did you wouldn't have written the things I was replying to.

 

9 minutes ago, [email protected] said:

that does not stop people from having what is basically a well founded fear that someone is going to find a way to shove in abusive monetization.

"Founded"

I remember when the "founded fear" was that they would stop making single player games and all we would have to pay would be MOBAs.

 

 

[Alexoff]

KSP 2 will cost 60 bucks, therefore + 50% - 90 bucks. To get me to buy a game for such a price, I will have to seriously convince me that the game is really no worse than in the 2019 trailer, that a rocket of a thousand parts does not slow down performance, and that the colonial system is fine-tuned and works. Otherwise, I don’t understand why buying the game is more expensive than anything I bought before. As for the dlc, we don't know much yet, perhaps we will find out that the corresponding game will only be available after purchasing 5-10 add-ons, where additional star systems, parts for interstellar ships and planetary bases will be sent. In short - first you need to show the product and only then discuss its price

Edited March 17, 2021 by Alexoff

[pandaman]

Personally, I would prefer to evaluate and chosse whether to buy each DLC as  and when it is available.

This gives them an incentive to produce stuff of interest and quality that we will want to spend more money on.  

Edited March 17, 2021 by pandaman

[Drakenred65]

3 hours ago, Master39 said:

If you did you wouldn't have written the things I was replying to.

 

"Founded"

I remember when the "founded fear" was that they would stop making single player games and all we would have to pay would be MOBAs.

 

 

Ok, someone other has blatantly not been paying attention to my comments here and elsewhere or something.

 

when they, as in the people over at take two, are the ones making puff statments to there shareholders on the one hand about getting more and more aggressive about monitization. At the same time many of the same people talk about the need to cultivate there IPs, both new and ongoing, and matching them to the monitization scheme that makes the most sense for them from one time sales,  to  regular sequels / dlc / micro transactions / loot boxes / collectible “ card “ sets, and that any changes to monetization was basicaly undesirable in the fact that it would alienate part of the audience, and increasingly you need to get buyin on any change to micro transactions. 
 

(but, realize the reality is part of the audience for a game is subject to churn simply because over time changes in the audience is inevitable. And the acceptance of and the perception of that’s ok to do changes as well. Take me. I don’t have a problem with them making payed DLC for KSP for example.

 

Given the behavior of the industry as a whole it becomes way too easy for people to ascribe the worst motives to corporate behavior when they see the people above there team acting in ways that seem to be Shady at best.

and to say the industry as a whole  Is a hive of scum and villainy at best seems to be an understament.

And by that I mean the At every level

 

personaly I suspect something like Fallout 4 / city skylines In That we get to mod it, and we get DLC and a season pass. 

[Guest]

6 hours ago, [email protected] said:

And by that I mean the At every level

Ok, you use Yongyea as a source, that for me is a showstopper.

Have a nice day.

[kerbiloid]

The KSP-2 declared price is 60 USD, like KSP-1 together with both DLC.

It would look a little strange to release it without all current features of KSP-1 at once after all KSP-1 videos using BG/MH or similar mods, to not look intentionally limited.
Imagine you release now an exact clone of any game mentioned above, but lacking a half of its features to buy them for additional money.

So, a KSP-2 DLC should add something rather specific to be worthy of it, especially since they've declared it easily moddable, so any DLC will be easily bypassed by mods for free.

Especially, since the game still is not a real-time strategy about Kerbals where you can possess any of them to control him directly, but a single-Kerbal game with others frozen around and smiling.

***

The main killer feature of KSP-2 are multipart crafts.
(Actually, the only thing really needed is getting KSP-1 without bugs and bottlenecks, and the multipart ships are a visual manifestation of that).

We have seen KSP-1 videos with >800-part ships.

It would be relevant to watch a KSP-2 gameplay video of a multithousand-part ship assembling and landing on a big lunar colony and riding a heavy rover around it.
As KSP-2 was going to be ready 1.5 years ago, probably they did it many times.

[shdwlrd]

I'd rather pay the asking price then buy dlc later. I've been burned on the whole pass antics before. Most dlc I won't touch unless it's on sale anyway.