kerbiloid

Banned for feeing.

Floor 3307: The volcanic smoke.

When one of your favorite first books in early childhood was How the atom is constructed.

"Am I the 1st here or a 1 of the 1sts?"

Any mation studio.

Graned. You have a multi-pipe vuvuzela. I wish for RD-0411.

Thor is too Marvellous to join us. Waitender! A helmet and something heavy. I for wish a proper Tequila Boom.

Just reload an even number of times.

... for the Last of Us.

Vanillawood Films

An online game with ~100 mln users vs the KSP niche game with ~3 mln sold copies?

All current low-end KSP-1 users have already bought KSP-1 and don't care if it's available. The new ones will face the 50 USD fact regardless of their preferences. The question is not if the KSP-1 market viable. The question is if the KSP-2 market can become viable. And the existence of KSP-1 is a significant obstacle on its way. Because why pay 50 + upgrade when you can pay 10. *** Many goods in the airport are sold for higher price than in a city. And they don't sell cheap equivalents aat the same place just to make poor passengers happy.

If 20% of the low-end player base has robbed a bank got a third job sold a kidney gained a jackpot tried their best and got some money, it will paye for the absence of the other 80% low-end customers. High-end customers will pay 50 (and probably upgrade). So, the user base will shrink but the income will stay same. And as KSP is now far beyond a childish game about little green men, but a math thing, the low-end is probably less important than the high-end. The nerds who don't want to upgrade will just keep playing their KSP-1, which they already have paid for, and won't buy KSP-1 again in any case.

KSP can be a niche, a sanctuary, or whatever else. For the customer. When he had bought it. The only thing which interests the publisher is the customer's money. Once the money is paid, nobody cares about the customer personal beliefs. So, there is no problem if four little nerds will be crying without the 10 USD game if one sysadmin has paid 50 and upgraded his hardware. Also, you can fire that coding guy who is being paid for Windows 7 and Unity'2012 compatibility in the code. That's all the publisher wants to know.

I'm looking from the tradesman-consumer perspective.

They just changed the world, so now your money are had by them.

Playing KSP-2 is cheating. Literally.

Xanadu Hill

You can buy a 10 USD game and not upgrade it (and have numerous mods as a bonus) or buy a 50 USD and have a top computer. Many people will prefer the 10 USD even if they can pay 50 and upgrade the hardware. Five persons buying KSP-1 are equal to just one buying KSP-2. And you can drop the backward compatibility in the code development, using fast and easy solutions. One of five yous will buy KSP-2 and upgrade. The publisher won't lose anything. 5 x 10 = 1 x 50.

The hardware doesn't get cheaper as I can see for the third decade. Just better hardware appear for the same price, while the old hardware disappears from the shelves. Can you legally purchase Windows 7 now? MS Office 2003? KSP is just a good. A good good but just a good. KSP-1 is a 10 USD game for a decade old hardware. KSP-2 is a 50 USD game for the top hardware now. Every sold copy of KSP-1 is an unsold copy of KSP-2, a 40 USD loss. So, I guess, immediately once the stock KSP-2 will be as good as the stock KSP-1, the first thing they will want to do is to remove KSP-1 before one copy of it gets sold instead of KSP-2. The lack of mods is not the publisher's problem. The mods for KSP-1 have played their role in publicity, but their existence is not critical now. I believe, most of users don't use mods, and there is no moddable alternative to KSP. So from now on the publisher unlikely dramatically depends on the mods. Afaik, it's still unclear if the modding will be possible at all, there is no substantial info on this. The top hardware requirements looks essential. 1. Possible but I'm not insisting. The publisher company may have an interest in hardware business. 2. Obvious and inevitable. You have to pay for the the most relevant platform code development. The last Unity, the last videocards, Windows 11, etc. It's much cheaper than spend the worktime on obsolete platforms. As we can see, the EA KSP-2 is carpet bombing the users with tons of absolutely silly and visible bugs like "a popup window doesn't disappear", "hotkey is working in an unexpected manner", etc. Someone could think that it's a normal KSP development tradition, to test on users, but this doesn't play a role. What plays a role is that most of these bugs are actually insignificant, minor, cause by unattention and absence of testing. And the avalanche of the user reports gives the developers a good chance to broom out "99%" of these bugs by the next release, It looks possible to guess that the next release will traditionally happen three months later, and the three months look enough to fix the stupid bugs reported by users. If the next next release happens six months later, it will probably be devoted to basic optimization, to remove the most shameful slideshow at ground. After that, KSP-2 will probably reach the level of the stock KSP-1, and can be suggested as a replacement. Since then, KSP-1 will be a cheap alternative, dumping the KSP-2, an obstacle on its way. As six months later the publisher will be planning the next year budget, they very possibly will decide to remove KSP-1 from sale either immediately, or next year. But anyway in this case the KSP-1 will be doomed, so the new users won't be buying it, and the modders will switch from KSP-1 to something more perspective. Some modders will likely close or remove their github projects (say, to reuse their code somewhere else), some will model and draw something else but KSP-1 parts. So, I guess, six months later KSP-1 will get doomed very likely, three months later will get doomed not unlikely. So, for me, I see one month as a reasonable time to backup everything needed before it disappeared or corrupted, three months are alarming, six months are dangerous.

That's exactly why I said "not today". Software goods are just goods. *** Also. While KSP-1.0 and KSP-2 are almost the same, the former doesn't motivate to upgrade the hardware. While KSP-2 is forcing to do that. Another reason to extinguish the former and force the latter. Say, I feel good with KSP-1 on my NVidia GT 440, and am not going to upgrade it while it's alive. So, I'm lost for KSP-2 and videocard manufacturers.

No reason to make an obsolete good too cheap for dumping. Obsolete goods are taken away from shops.

Once the KSP-1 income starts decreasing the expected income from KSP-2 by distracting the potential buyers from the flagship product, the locomotive becomes an obstacle.

The bringing this up now is highly relevant, as KSP-1 is currently a more successful competitor of KSP-2, which they may want to remove not only from development, but also from access. And this can be done by several clicks. Just unlikely they will hurry up with this before falling into despair about the KSP-2 sales. So, probably not today. I like your sense of humor. It was developed just to create a beautiful mummy before burying it.