Phoenix84

To follow up... there was an update to the game today, and there were no depot changes, but the launch options were changed to remove the PD launcher. I confirmed this by removing my custom launch options and launching the game. Thank you, mysterious benefactor, whoever you are! https://steamdb.info/app/220200/config/

Fair, though the update is only on the Steam side from what I understand, and doesn't require a new depot to be pushed.

I know how to work around it. I already have a custom launch option in Steam. I just shouldn't have to do that. None of the options provide the same previously flawless Steam integration experience we had before. Such as controller support, workshop, remote play. EDIT: My primary copy of KSP is from the OG Squad store, which is where it's still located (well, PV's site now). I had a spare Steam key for KSP, so I redeemed it years ago to gain aforementioned Steam integration. I know not everyone cares about that, which is fine, but that is something I value.

I read that as "we may provide the option to users to refund the game", not that it's just something they'd do automatically without input. If steam auto-revoked (even providing the money back) games from users' libraries, that would not be received well by the community. I don't care if I paid for a game, I don't want it removed without my input, even if I can get my money back.

Where'd you hear that? I have EA titles which have been delisted but I was never refunded for (Hellion). There are also dead EA games on Steam (Grav) still being sold. KSP2 can literally remain in its current state forever on Steam.

It's probably too late, but any chance the launcher could be removed from KSP1? Either way, I feel for the devs, and hope they land on their feet soon.

I was not aware GOG didn't allow them. I wish Steam would ban them. Hopefully the Steam Deck gives Valve more power to refuse that garbage. I started buying games on GOG recently due to more freedom. However now that I have a Steam Deck, I've changed my mind, and will prefer to buy from the Steam store wherever possible, because the integration is so much cleaner. Yes, I know I can install games outside of Steam on the deck, and I do. But they just don't integrate as nicely.

I disagree, the launcher is part of the game, and the game experience. If this were about something Private Division did outside of the game, then I would agree with you. It seems this launcher might not be as bad as like the one for Bioshock for example, where it doesn't work on the Steam Deck, but they have been known to interfere with the game experience, preventing users from playing. If they to want to shove ads down our throat, I'd rather they be done in-game, like Space Engineers. Launching the game outside of Steam also breaks integration, such as with Steam Controller/Deck input. If an update on Steam breaks the ability for me to launch the game on my platform, then I hope there's reviews to tell me that. As it is, I was already on the fence about KSP2, but it having a launcher makes the decision easy for me: I won't be buying it. Yes, I hate them that much.

You mean career? It's been so long since I've played anything but that mode. However if I have some time, I'll set up a sandbox instance for testing this. I'm a developer myself, so I understand the importance of testing, plus this is a very valuable mod for me. Thanks for the information!

Thanks, now I don't feel so bad for making a MM patch to "fix" them. I'm really looking forward to KISv2. It feels very "cheaty" right now to have two different inventories with unrelated volumes on the same part, and that's besides the lack of interaction between it and stock (which of course I don't blame you for one bit). I noticed it's in alpha now, but I'm not feeling too confident to use it right now. I'll be keeping an eye on it though. I recently picked up playing KSP again since before either DLC were released, but KIS and KAS were always my #1 and #2 mods.

Is there a reason certain parts have the inventory sizes they have? For example, both the ImC-800 and ImC-1500 have only 12 slots, but the SC-62 has 16. I would think the ImC-1500 would more or less have double the slots of the 800, and maybe 3-4x the SC-62.

I ran into this same issue. The USBasicMicroSatWedge seems to be the right part, but I didn't know what it was in the part editor. I think this is the "USBasicMicroSatWedge", but it doesn't show that it has "Simple Temperature Scan" or "Simple Atmospheric Scan." I also thought it was a probe core, based on its name, which is why I skipped over it before. It's poorly named IMO. So, I edited the part I did know, the ThermoBaroWedge to use the US experiment instead of the stock one. In the end, I made a ModuleManager patch to change the "Atmospheric Science Unit" part to use the US science experiments, and that worked. I was able to complete my contract at that point. This is the logical part, since it says "Atmospheric" in it. @PART[USThermoBaroWedge] { @MODULE[USSimpleScience]:HAS[#experimentID[temperatureScan]]:FINAL { @experimentID = UStemperatureScan } @MODULE[USSimpleScience]:HAS[#experimentID[barometerScan]]:FINAL { @experimentID = USbarometerScan } }

Intersteller, MP, and $60? That's a hard pass. The graphics look amazing (assuming those actually are gameplay, and not just pre-renders), but that and what's listed is not worth the price tag to me. If the performance is significantly better for crafts, I might revisit it in a few years time. Oh, and it's not Squad. Never heard of this other game studio before. (Ok, this last bit is mostly for nostalgia )

I would agree with that. As long as the game can't be much better with newer technology, and people are willing to buy it, I don't really see a problem. If the technical debt comes to a point where it's becoming a real problem (some say it is already), then it might be worth starting over. IMO the issue isn't the amount of DLC available, it's the company, and their intentions. Take Cities: Skylines, for example. With all the expansions and DLC they offer, it leaves little doubt that expansions were part of their goal since the beginning. They intended to have expansions, and as such, likely left stuff out of the base game on purpose, so they could flesh it out better as an expansion. That is the business decision they made, and I can't fault them for that. Though if they didn't do it this way, then if they wanted to release a game with all the features the DLC offers in the base game... it would have been under development for 10 years, and still wouldn't be released. However the game itself is very well made, and looks fantastic, so there's no reason IMO for a Cities: Skylines 2. Honestly, if they did add a new one, that would irritate me. It's like with The Sims. You buy, say, Sim 3, and all it's expansions, now when Sims 4 comes out, you have to rebuy everything again, since the base Sims 4 won't include even half of what Sims 3 + Expansions had. This example is taken to the extreme, but it is a real possibility, since it happened. Squad, on the other hand, had no intention of offering DLC/expansions at the start of development (as evidenced by their poorly worded EULA back then). Note, I own both games, but only buy the DLC when it's on clearance sale. I only have a few of the Cities DLC.

To flip that, at what point do you feel development should begin on a new game instead? Would you rather have KSP 3 or 4 instead? Keep in mind newer games have no guarantee that they'll still include features in the previous ones.

Back when I played more, you wouldn't want a ship with more than 200 parts. So, that's not surprising. Last I played, physics reached the limit at that amount.

Yeah, that's why I never get past Duna. I always start over and never make it far, even though I spend hundreds of hours playing. I think it mostly spawned from when I used a lot more parts mods, and the mods were never updated by the time I wanted to play, so I'd lose crafts.

Sorry, I phrased that poorly. I wasn't addressing your points. I meant I had several points myself to lay out in relation to your post. And I see, you weren't meaning using them without credit or permission, you just meant "at all" even with modder help.

Great, I'm glad that was cleared up. To address your inspiration remark, I can see both sides of it. 1) Squad should do something original, vs 2) Squad should add what people want 1 & 2 aren't always the same thing. They tried #1 with MH IMO. This DLC is more targeting #2. Personally, the way I look at is this: there are mods that add significant gameplay value, and really affect how players interact with the game. Some of these mods also have a lot of problems, because they have to hack their way around the game to do things (which is why the Kraken happens so much with IR or SEP). I see this as an opportunity for the developers to focus on one aspect of gameplay a mod adds (before, it was RemoteTech, now it's IR), and really make that gameplay a first-party, supported gameplay experience. To phrase it inaccurately: "I look forward to playing with IR without the infernal breakage that always happens." Doing something like this requires core engine fixes and improvements we can't see, but quite possibly will affect the actual mod itself in a positive way. Changes which could very well be in the base game, so players using IR can take advantage. Now I don't mean the extra APIs and whatnot for the stock robotics, I mean engine stability changes. Such as the robotic parts (stock or non-DLC modded) being properly strutted without problems, deploy without problems, and actually work with aerodynamics without problems. What this means is even if you don't buy the DLC, IR could work even better than it does now. Of course, this is speculation, and we won't know how much is in the core engine until we see it. However I don't doubt there will be some core non-DLC game benefits. Other people mention planet surface mounting stability fixes as well, which may very well improve SEP even if you don't get the DLC.

I don't want to take a side in this, but I have a couple a points to address: 1) Do you have proof? Ideas are not protected, actual implementation is. 2) Given we haven't seen the update, there's no way to know for this release if it's true (unless you have special access, and can address #1). IANAL, but making a statement like that I believe is libel if you are incorrect. This is why proof is required, or this discussion is meaningless. Keep in mind, the idea of something cannot be protected. Only the actual implementation is. For example, "a communication network for ships to be controlled over" is an idea. Actually taking code directly from RemoteTech and inserting into the base game is protected, and cannot be done without the copyright owner's permission (unless the KSP/Squad/Take2 EULA says otherwise).

I'm an older millennial. Old enough to grow up without a computer until about 12.

Here's what usually happened to games for the past 40-50 years: Company releases a complete game, no changes, no bug fixes, nothing. It's immutable, out and done, and on to the next game. As games came to PC (and other non-permanent media), more or less the same happened, but if you were lucky, you got bugfixes. If you were very lucky, the developer decided to release an expansion pack (ala Brood War). Even then, it was usually just one. If the game was popular, and the developers wanted to continue the franchise, they just made more games (Command & Conquer). More games you paid full cost for. Now we get the benefit of continual fixes and improvements for many games, but that continuous work comes at a cost. That cost is additional expansion packs (now called DLC) that we pay for. So right now, there's basically a choice: Would we rather have the current game maintained, and added to, or would we rather halt all development and have the devs start work on a new game, say, KSP 2. This of course means KSP would die (maybe get some critical security or crash fixes if we're lucky, but that's it), as there's no reason for Squad to continue development on a game that has a successor. A new games means everyone starts over. New saves, new crafts, new mods. Starting from zero. The only thing that might carry over is part of the player base. Also, you have to re-buy it at full price (as a discount is not common in the industry). Personally, I prefer option 1. EDIT: If you think about it, with all the changes being made to the game, it's actually quite a different game now, than it was at 1.0. You could almost call it KSP 2.

I agree with this. DLC has two meanings, one is more like parts/cosmetics. The other is more akin to the traditional "expansion pack" style. CIties: Skylines also does the same thing, they add new features and gameplay with expansion packs/DLC. Same for The Sims (I know, evil EA, but still), which has "stuff packs" and "content/gameplay packs." Heck, even the original Starcraft did it. KSP is kind of doing a mix, last DLC was more of a "stuff pack (parts)" with a little gameplay (missions), while this DLC is more gameplay oriented with parts to support that. The "base" game is done, has been for some time. It may not be done for everyone, but it is "done" for Squad. It met the internal and external goals it was designed to accomplish. Everything after this is extra and may or may not be free. Now they are wanting to expand the game past their original vision. This may include gameplay changes. It's not like this is a multiplayer game, they have a lot more options available to them for expanding the game. No, I don't really like DLC, but I do understand the business reasons behind it. If it means one of my favorite games continues to receive support years after release, then I'm for it.

I don't understand the issue. If you don't like it, don't buy it. If someone doesn't it like it, then who cares? Leave them to their opinion. It's obvious people on both sides are not going to change their mind. Everyone wants something different from this game, and that's not wrong. However arguing about it doesn't help. Just leave your opinion on what you like, and what you don't, and what you'd like to see instead, if you want, and leave it at that. This applies to everyone (I know the OP in the original thread did that). Next DLC might be something you like instead, and that other person doesn't. Squad is not going to make something everyone is going to like, that's a fact. Some people didn't like MH, some did. There are those that bought it, and those that didn't. Same here, some people don't like this DLC, others do. Don't like it, don't buy it. The amount of sales Squad gets or doesn't get will tell them if the DLC was a good idea or not. EDIT: "you" here is generic, and not directed at anyone in particular.

I use "Snacks" mod as I like to have a little Kerbal management in missions, but don't want to deal with the entire life support system/cycle. Something like Snacks integrated into the base game would be fantastic. Something simple, but can easily be expanded/replaced by something more detailed by modders for those that want a more full system. As for storyline, I kind of think of contracts like that. Something more expansive would also be nice, maybe hooking into contracts to give the player a little freedom in the storyline. Like "Alright, we need to get a probe to the Mun, you figure out the best way", and the path to get there can be through various contracts to build up to the big "Mun probe contract." Am I the only one that starts a new save for each new major version? Maybe I'm used to the early access days.