Kerbart

For clarification: "not my circus, not my monkeys" was me imagining what RW was saying and not actual insider knowledge. For clarification, my reasoning is not based on secret knowledge but just on what we do know: At this point the KS2 title is quite toxic and I can imagine RW having doubts about the marketing value of the brand With KSA already (rightfully or not is a separate issue) seen as a "KSP1 successor done right" there seems little added value to me to be the "official" replacement. It's a nice to have that they might pay $50k for, but not $1M (pulling the numbers out of where the sun don't shine) The software is of little value; most of the code clearly can't be reused. There is the sound and 3D models though That makes me think that RW buying the KSP IP is more a matter of "it's nice to have if the opportunity arises and the price is right" than something they're spending a lot of effort and money on to pursue So, IF Tencent decided to buy PD, it's less on RW's request and more as a way to make money by selling the rights to individual titles. Any interest RW expressed to them would be more along "how much would you want for it if you buy it?" and far less of "oh yes please please" Delayed reaction due to constant "bad gateway" responses when clicking the submit button

1. Yes. Welcome to America. It's surprising what you can get away with when you're a big corporation and you can afford good lawyers, especially when consumer protection laws are extremely weak. And if you think all this is outrageous, wait until you get your first hospital bill. 2. It's "the other angle." T2 is the one taking the loss here. They have written off PD and sold it, likely at a solid loss. Whoever buys the KSP rights doesn't have to recover the KSP2 losses, those are largely absorbed by T2. 3. Thread carefully here because it's easy to wander into "beancounters only want to destroy the game the Noble Programmers try to create out of Love For Humanity" territory and reality is more complex than that. For sustainable prolonged development, the game needs to be a commercial success. Straying away from the True Kerbal Spirit (whatver that is) is detrimental for long term support from its fan base. But so is "We WaNt It As NeRdY AnD CoMpLeX As PoSsIbLe" because without sufficient sales development will stop.

You're a bit selective in what you find acceptable and not. If the concern is that newcomers would get terrible ideas of how things work in the real solar system then you can scrap 3/4 of the game and the super density ("a bit dense" whahahaha) is a big, heavy part of that. It's your choice to say "it's totally acceptable" but it's still a choice and not the obvious unbiased demarcation you make it out to be.

Don't forget the little-green-men aliens

We all learn that lesson. I did 30 years ago when I bought an Amiga. Yes, you have the superior hardware and all that jazz. But the big volume stuff go where the big volumes are. You made a conscious choice to not get a Windows machine, And getting second servings in the gaming world is part of that too.

That has been clear for a long long time. Pretty sure that the recent forum outage convinced even the most hopeful ones that the lights are really out. I doubt anyone thinks that. It's pretty clear someone--not RW--bought PD with the intent of selling the rights to individual titles to interested parties. RW might be one of those parties Well, RW would be the IP holder if they buy the rights of whoever bought PD. That's the whole point of selling it to them. Also, they would primarily be interested in the rights and not the code. I doubt they'd be touching that although the soundtracks are things that could be transferred. Maybe. But their primary reasoning would be to be able to position them,selves as the "rightful" (literally) heir to KSP and have the "official" KSP2-replacement (whether it's called KSA or KSP3 will be up to them). Surely there's some marketing value in it. If they feel it's enough to cover the cost for buying the KSP IP they will do that. If they feel it doesn't, they won't. Time will tell. Whoever bought PD sits with an otherwise worthless KSP title if they don't find a buyer, so RW can hold off and negotiate a lower price if they're confident no one else wants it. Or maybe they already have a deal with the buyer. Time will tell. I find it hard to imagine anyone on this forum is not soured by the KSP2 experience. Few people will be impressed by "Nate-style" pre-production videos and 10s animations and certainly not count on KSA turning out to be the KSP2 we hoped, or were promised, to get.

Do they realize that it'll result in people whining and complaining that they actually have to pay for DLC 8 years later?

Likely because the buyer isn't interested in KSP either, but bought the whole PD package with the intent of selling individual titles to interested parties. Surely those sales are largely already agreed upon, but there will be additional signing of papers, crossing t's and dotting i's before that's done. And then you'll see an announcement. IF (and that's the big unknown) there's a buyer. It's easy to assume RW is the one, with the eerie timing of their announcement and a product that's clearly intended as "KSP 3" but at the same time it makes perfect sense to me that they're not pursuing the title. So maybe someone else turns out to be the buyer. Or no one.

Rocketwerkz: "Not my circus, not my monkeys" From what I gathered from Reddit (disclosure: not a reliable source) they buyer was some venture capital company. Looks li,e they're just doing what's common in these cases; buy up a bankrupt company, break it into pieces, and sell the individual remains to interested parties. If we do see Rocketwerkz end up with the KSP brand (and that's nothing short of speculation at this point) then that means absolutely nothing in relation to who bought PD, unless they announce having done so.

For some. Don't generalize; I think that the attitude especially around here is far more towards "let's see what they come up with." As for what Reddit says... well, it's Reddit...

Since we're stuck with patched conics and spehere-of-influence based orbital mechanics, one has to improvise. To have real Lagrange points you'll need n-body physics. If you don't have that but you do want (semi-stable) fixed positions around planetary bodies, then you have to improvise. There's a lot in KSP that doesn't act like anything in reality and we're still pretty happy with it.

Their space center shows a striking resemblance with the KSP2 one. I doubt that's coincidental.

Maybe merge this thread with this one:

Meh, you're just showing your excellent timing skills

The article did say that T2 officially stated that IG was shut down. But I think at that point they had already moved the branding from IG to PD?

Because their promo suggests nothing but a blatant KSP2 ripoff. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see them succeed and bring a game to the market that looks like what KSP2 should have been. It's very clear where they got inspired for their designs though, The third one is Juno. Which is already on the market, but it is far more focused on tinkering and balancing numbers, which we hope KSA and SFS2 are not.

The question for me is, what value does acquiring the KSP(2) or IG have for Rocketwerkz? I don't see it. The existing product is so atrocious that there's no value in it. There are no assets worth taking over. No office, and if there's hardware, we know how that devaluates by the minute. The only chance they have at selling "KSP3" is establisgh first that their product (KSA) is built from the ground up without any connections to the existing KSP2 code (as they're doing right now). At that point, where's the money in rebranding KSA as KSP3? Everyone knows it really is already. Why spend money on it?

It depends on how much you can sell the lemonade for, and how much you have to spend on water and sugar.

Isn't that more liability issue regarding the EA status of the game? Asd long as PD exists they can claim they're still working on it. KSP2 has severely burned the KSP brand. It's clear that if there is a KSP3, it'll have to be built from the ground up. If the Rocketwerkz product is good, they might consider buying that from them, there's less risk involved. But then they're missing out on the sales RW already made.

Nate mentioned a lot of things too, and had plenty of animations to go with it, Don't get me wrong, I think it's great that the design team signals they're aware of performance challenges and want to build something up from the ground. But until there's an actual product to show, that's a story we've been told before. So it's great that this is happening but nothing to get too hyped up about.

Windpower doesn’t scale well, but the main reason container ships are large is because of fuel efficiency. A wind operates vessel has far less need to be mammoth sized. Besides that, container lines work with hub-and-spoke models that make airlines seem like child play. So while green shipping for deep ocean transport will likely focus on alternative fuels, wind power for the far smaller feeder vessels could definitely be an option. Liquified gas is also a good option and while it does not address CO2 it does address the biggest issues with marine propulsion, sulpher and soot. And finally, the returns on cleaning up ocean shipping are relatively small because it is ridiculously efficient, The CO2 cost of transporting a set of sneakers from SE Asia to a sports store in Ohio are mostly made up of trucking. Marine transport may be 99% of the distance but it’s a smaller part of total CO2 production

You make good points, and I agree on tempered optimism as in “well it’s not a disaster yet” We can already see a difference in approach with KSP2,where the emphasis was on features (most didn’t make it into the game) where RW seems, for now at least, very focused on getting the mechanics right. And while they have no insider knowledge on KSP2 development I’m sure important lessons were learned from how certain elements were received by the community. They have in-house talent and experience, Felipe brings in experience on the things that make physics baed space games hard… on paper it looks good, now we just neee to give it time.

Oh please don't challenge them.

KSP2 has hardened me. A video is nice but meaningless until we see the actual game in play. Looks great, I'll admit that. So did Pearl Harbor though.

You make it sound like your findings are the result of intrepid research while in reality this has been common knowledge for many years. It's the main reason the community wanted a 64 bit version of the game.