magnemoe Posted March 19, 2021 Share Posted March 19, 2021 On 3/16/2021 at 11:36 AM, 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". This, the concept of an dlc is nice, you spends years developing an game but are mostly done then it enters beta testing. As the framework was done years ago its pretty simple to add new content as sell as DLC. We had expansions earlier who was almost game sized packages but only for popular AAA games it fitted for as you had to sell and marked them like the original game. Today DLC are more common and you pretty much only finds expansions for MMO. Yes its shady DLC out there but the idea is good, game passes however is an way to sell the dlc with the main game without you knowing that you get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Empiro Posted March 20, 2021 Share Posted March 20, 2021 (edited) I don't mind spending money for more content, but I'm against DLC in a game like KSP. I want the gameplay experience to be all nicely integrated, and I feel like the DLCs for KSP1, while alright, have made the experience feel disjointed. Take Making History -- some nice new parts, but the real meat of the DLC, the mission system, is kind of just there. It doesn't integrate at all with the contract system or anything like that, even though it'd be super fun to have complicated contracts like what the mission builder can do. As a result, it just gets ignored and forgotten in most games. Breaking Ground was somewhat better -- the inventory system got added to the base game, so at least mods can make use of it. Still the deployable science and robotics and rotors just feel like they don't really fit in with the rest of the game. Edited March 20, 2021 by Empiro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 20, 2021 Share Posted March 20, 2021 2 hours ago, Empiro said: I don't mind spending money for more content, but I'm against DLC in a game like KSP. How should they finance the extended support we're all obviously expecting? Would be ok for you if after just some months of support the whole studio abandoned the project for another new game? 2 hours ago, Empiro said: I want the gameplay experience to be all nicely integrated, and I feel like the DLCs for KSP1, while alright, have made the experience feel disjointed. KSP1 is the worst example, even without any DLC the gameplay is disjointed. Even the stock game feels like a bunch of personal project and mods patched onto sandbox by different people without a single plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted March 20, 2021 Share Posted March 20, 2021 Like if buying every new game version (like Fallout 1,2,(76),3,NV,4 or TES ..., Mor, Obl, Sky, TES-Onl, TES VI) is better than buying DLC from time to time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Empiro Posted March 23, 2021 Share Posted March 23, 2021 On 3/20/2021 at 2:27 AM, Master39 said: How should they finance the extended support we're all obviously expecting? Would be ok for you if after just some months of support the whole studio abandoned the project for another new game? KSP1 is the worst example, even without any DLC the gameplay is disjointed. Even the stock game feels like a bunch of personal project and mods patched onto sandbox by different people without a single plan. Believe it or not -- I wouldn't mind if after a few years of KSP2, KSP3 came out with even more parts, features, and improvements. More realistically, I don't mind part DLCs, but any new systems that gets added (e.g. ground science, inventory, mission builders, etc.) needs to be integrated with the base game for everyone. When I look at KSP1, I just feel it's really a shame that a cool system like the mission builder just kind of gets left by the wayside because it's not integrated with the main game modes. I completely agree that KSP 1 has its share of cobbled together systems. KSP2 is the chance to fix that, and ideally, avoid gameplay fragmentation via lots of small DLCs poorly integrated into the main game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 23, 2021 Share Posted March 23, 2021 9 minutes ago, Empiro said: When I look at KSP1, I just feel it's really a shame that a cool system like the mission builder just kind of gets left by the wayside because it's not integrated with the main game modes. I completely agree that KSP 1 has its share of cobbled together systems. KSP2 is the chance to fix that, and ideally, avoid gameplay fragmentation via lots of small DLCs poorly integrated into the main game. The mission builder isn't left by the wayside because it's a DLC, it's left behind because it's bad and quite useless except for some niche applications. And KSP1 isn't fragmented due to its 2 DLCs added when almost all of the rest of the game was already in place, it is fragmented due to how it was developed. None of KSP1 problems comes from DLCs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lewie Posted March 23, 2021 Share Posted March 23, 2021 Just now, Master39 said: The mission builder isn't left by the wayside because it's a DLC, it's left behind because it's bad and quite useless except for some niche applications. It’s a shame, really. The missions are quite fun, it really stinks that the builder didn’t catch on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kernel Kraken Posted March 23, 2021 Share Posted March 23, 2021 On 3/16/2021 at 6:43 AM, kerbiloid said: How much is "50% more" by the end of 2022? About 4 more years of development, probably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts