Jump to content

WelshSteW

Members
  • Posts

    282
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by WelshSteW

  1. 17 minutes ago, Scarecrow71 said:

    This is the tricky part.  If a new company purchases the IP, they are under zero obligation to provide any sort of discount or freebie for anything they produce with KSP.  Even if they called their new game KSP2, they have no obligation to give existing customers a discount.  Whether or not it's the right thing to do has no bearing here because, as you've stated at the end of your post, any sort of profit is a long-term thing.  And giving away the game at a discount to existing customers is eating into future profits.

    On top of this, you have to have some way of verifying if someone has a copy of KSP2 that they purchased and didn't refund.  And at that, how do you differentiate the people who paid full price ($50, or however many pounds/rubles/rupees/whatever your home currency is) vs. those who got it when it was on sale?  And if you got it on sale, what kind of a discount do you get?  Surely not equal to the discount someone who paid full price, right?

    Yeah, I kind of contradicted myself with this bit and the next bit of my post.

    17 minutes ago, Scarecrow71 said:

    Everyone who has a copy of KSP2 (or, rather, most people who have a copy) are pretty irked at it appearing to be dead and probably not going to be finished.  But I think you might be in the minority here about being irked if they came out with KSP3, provided that the new game is far more polished than the current one.  Heck, I think if we got a decent sequel at some point we'd all probably just forget about KSP2 and be pretty darned happy.

    Maybe I didn't make it as clear as I could have, what I meant was I'd be a bit annoyed about having "wasted" the money I'd spent on this current version of KSP2, but I'd be happy to pay for a new, actually decent and finished version.

    To try and be clear, I'd be delighted to have a new version of KSP2, or KSP3, whatever it'd be called. As long as it was done properly, and actually finished.

     

  2. I don't know how much the Kerbal IP would cost (and you'd want it all - KSP1, KSP2, and anything else that may have been in development). Once you've bought that, you have to basically write off what currently exists as KSP2, and start over. People who have already bought KSP2 aren't going to be happy about having to buy it again, essentially, so you'd have to work out some sort of offer for those (well, you wouldn't have to, but it'd be nice! :D ), so you'd be losing out there.

    But, I think that if the price for the IP was right, you'd be able to make it profitable long term.

     

    As someone who has bought and paid for KSP2, I'd be a bit irked at having it written off and redone, or done as KSP3. But, I'd buy the new game. Even if there was no deal for those of us who've bought KSP2.

    There's plenty of DLC that they could do, especially if the get interstellar and colonies working. Release a new star system every now and then for £5 or whatever. Could even do a real world one. I'd buy that.

     

    Then you've got spin off games involving Kerbals. Could have a racing one, where you build cars to a set budget or part count, then compete against other players?

    Merchandise could be something. Could look at some sort of deal with Lego, or some other brick toy maker...

     

    But yeah, any sort of profit would be long term. It'd have to be done by someone who's got money already, and doesn't mind waiting to see any return.

  3. That is a really annoying video to watch. So many poor decisions, so many chances to put it right, so much wasted time and money and effort.

     

    I love how passionate Nate is about the game, and how he wants it to be a visually appealing experience. But I feel he needed someone along side him who was focused more on the gameplay and the technical side.

    It's such a missed opportunity to make an amazing game. If they'd just focused on the basics - sticking to the Kerbal system, basically just doing a rewrite of KSP1, adding in the best of the mods that are available, and releasing that as the base KSP2 - I think that would have been enough. Once the underlying code and engine had been updated, and the basic game was running well and people were able to have 1000+ part ships without reducing the game to a crawl, the rest could have been done as DLC. Release the basic game as KSP2, for £30, then add colonies, interstellar, whatever as DLCs for £10 each, job done.

     

    But to be here now, 6yrs (or more) after being promised KSP2, and finding out that for all that time it was never going to be anything near what we'd hoped and dreamed for, it's sickening.

  4. 8 minutes ago, Flush Foot said:

    Uhh... Are you referring to when (I presume) Squad added a stock alarm clock function into KSP 1? [in a thread about IG / KSP 2's troubles]

     

    I am.

    If that was done by a different team of devs then fair enough, I'm wrong to bring it up.

  5. They didn't have the skills to do what they wanted to do.

    We should have realised this when they tried to put one of the best mods into KSP1, the alarm clock. They had everything they needed. They had a working version, with source code, and they still produced a version of it which was utter crap.

    And I think that's why so much time was spent on making things look pretty, because that's all they were able to do.

     

    They didn't fix the poor performance when you use more than a few parts, they didn't fix the wobbly rockets issue (in fact they made it worse), they didn't have re-entry heating, they had a broken aero system...

  6. On 1/12/2024 at 5:59 PM, hatterson said:

    The high def pictures would depend heavily on telescope technology, which doesn't need to follow human technology. I understand limiting it, but I think that was more of a game engine/game technology decision as opposed to a true gameplay one.

    The dV requirements and sphere of influence is basic mathematics and there's no reason for them to not be available from the start of a campaign.

     

    Basic mathematics based on what? The size of the planet? The mass? Ok, but how do we know what those are? We start the game having not sent anything to orbit, having not recorded any science in our own atmosphere. How do we know anything about other planets that would allow us to calculate dV requirements and sphere of influence?

     

    Obviously I don't have all the answers, otherwise I'd be a top tier game designer.

     

  7.  

    I haven't read the whole thread, so apologies if I'm rehashing ideas already given.

     

    I like the science / exploration mode, it's how I played KSP1, and it's how I'm playing KSP2. But it could, and should, be better than it is.

    Science needs to be more than a way to get points to unlock new bit for building things. It needs to actually be a way of finding things out in the game. I shouldn't start the game knowing exactly how much dV I need to get somewhere. I shouldn't start the game and be able to go and look at every planet in the system, have high def pictures of them, know where the sphere of influence is etc etc etc. I should have to find all of that out.

    And I know not everyone will like that, so why not have difficulty options which let you choose how much knowledge you start the game with?

     

    There needs to be a reason to do science, outside of getting points to unlock things.

     

  8.  

    I've waited a little while before posting my thoughts, just so I can be fairly sure I've given it a good crack before spouting off.

     

    So far I'm LOVING it. I love the science concept even though I'll agree it needs tweaks, I love the missions / contracts and the structure / path it gives you. It's honestly like this is now KSP3. It's a huge step forward. Yes there are still bugs, and yes it's nor absolutely perfect - but so what? The game is still in development, I don't expect it to be perfect. I can play it, and I can have fun.

     

    So after many messages where all I did was moan, this one is intended as a massive 'thank you'. Oh, and a 'well done' too.

     

  9.  

    HYPE!!!!!!

     

    I'm SO looking forward to this. I swore I'd never let myself get hyped up for anything ever again, I got burnt with KSP2 and Cities Skylines 2, and it hurts man. But here we are, and here I am bouncing around the place :D 

    I can't wait.

     

  10. On 11/21/2023 at 3:14 PM, WelshSteW said:

     

    I imagine they'll all want a decent Christmas break, so I guess they'd want to release early enough to be able to fix any major bug(s) that slip(s) through? If we guess that they'll finish for Christmas on the 21st, I'd imagine they'd be aiming for release on / around the 8th, or very early the following week. Maybe.

     

     

    I'm still sticking with this.

    And I'll add that we'll get a release date sometime next week.

     

  11. On 11/15/2023 at 8:27 PM, Twipsy said:

    Could you incorporate a solar system into the game, enabling the Kanbara people to return to the ancestral home of Earth? Since the game originally planned to introduce new galaxies, why not include the entire solar system among them? If the game features its own solar system, it would be a marvelous addition. Moreover, considering the multitude of game mod authors, they might contribute rich creativity and content. Earth's environment could be configured as a parallel universe, either in a state before or after the emergence of humanity. In any case, Earth would exist in an undeveloped state. I wonder if this concept is feasible.

     

    To answer your question, yes it is possible. It's been done for KSP1 already.

     

    I tried using the Real Solar System mod for KSP1, but it really bugged me that the cities / roads etc weren't actually modelled. It's the same with EVE (I think it's Eve), which adds city lights to Kerbin, but if you actually go to one of the cities, it's not there. It's just the picture of a city over the terrain.

    A dream scenario would be a real solar system, with something like whatever Microsoft Flight Simulator uses to model the terrain / cities / roads. But I think that's only ever going to be a dream.

     

  12.  

    There needs to be a happy medium. I wouldn't want it to be all automatic and not have to be involved in it at all, but I also don't want to have to click on every single experiment in every single biome. So for me, it sounds like what they have is pretty much spot on.

    If it's all automatic, it makes it almost pointless, imo. I could find myself collecting science 'by accident'. If I plan a trip to one of the poles to carry out some experiments there, and I momentarily pass over some other biome, should I really get science from there? Ok, if I'm in the other biome for a good few minutes, and I notice it, happy days. But to get that 'extra' science without any involvement kind of feels a bit like cheating?

     

    But again, we need to have a base set up and let mods appear to get the game exactly how each of us likes it. The ideal KSP2 will be different for nearly every user. As long as things aren't hard coded or locked, there'll be someone who creates a mod to play with it. We just need to wait.

     

  13. 7 hours ago, Just Jim said:

    Yeah, that does read a little awkward, now that I look at it. Unfortunately it's a little too late to do any string polishing for the For Science! release, so I might not be able to do anything until the first science patch.

     

    7 hours ago, Scarecrow71 said:

    I don't see what is wrong with the way it is worded.

     

    It should be -

    "The GSCM-01 is a favorite for smaller satellites and landers. Designed to be completely configurable, the 'Science Jr.' can be outfitted with everything, including the kitchen sink, if the kitchen sink had scientific value."

     

    Or maybe -

    "The GSCM-01 is a favorite for smaller satellites and landers. Designed to be completely configurable, the 'Science Jr.' can be outfitted with everything but the kitchen sink - luckily the kitchen sink has no scientific value."

     

    But yeah, as it is at the moment, it doesn't work.

    If this is the level of things we have to worry about, I'm delighted, btw :D :D 

     

  14.  

    So, I tried making a rover. It was.......fun?

     

    It started like this -

    Spoiler

    ic84IZP.png

     

     

    And then I tipped it, and it looked like this -

    Spoiler

    1njyfSs.png

     

    The back wheels were being dragged along as if they were still attached, even though they clearly aren't :D 

     

    (no idea if those pictures will work. fingers crossed! )

     

  15.  

    I get what you're saying, and it's a valid point. But! :D The For Science! update probably isn't just going to be adding science bits, it'll almost certainly contain bug fixes as well, and we might even get another bug fix patch before For Science! comes out (although it's unlikely, I think devs have said it's 1.5.0, then For Science!).

    So the bugs you talk about could be fixed in the For Science! update.

     

×
×
  • Create New...