Would you buy a DLC (or a whole new game) for KSP that was for realism?

[MGCJerry]

Didnt read whole post, but based on the topic...

Game: Yes

DLC: No, no, no, no, nope

Grabs his cane and walks back to old-timer logic.

[EladDv]

heres the thing, squads rendition of procedural fairings is messy, not intuitive and more often than not lamented by the players (from what ive seen) while the mod Procedural Fairings is all around superior. They imho need to dump their fairings for the mod. Just saying

yes but it wasnt a feature there becuase they thought it was game changing or amazingly crafted but rather necessary because of the new aero system - you wouldnt release a system without a part which is crucial to gameplay like fairings and they had to program that in themselves instead of taking other mods (because of the changes to the aero) this also makes it into a fairing mod making tutorial. Lastly really it wasnt supposed to replace anything existing like a DLC featuring realism-which unless they can do WAY better (which i doubt is possible without huge amounts of time or money) it would just leave a bad impression on me (and i think a lot of other people)

[Higgs]

Eladdv in all seriousness you keep saying (near as i can gather) they shouldnt make mods stock yet several of porkjets mods have been added as stock. No reason they cant add the superior mod to the buggy version they built. If you want to talk realism, real fairings do not break into tiny chunks. I cant find the video but a nasa launch shows a fairing jettison into 2. The squads fairings break into 20+ pieces. Just saying

[klgraham1013]

Didnt read whole post, but based on the topic...

Game: Yes

DLC: No, no, no, no, nope

Grabs his cane and walks back to old-timer logic.

If you're an old-timer, than I'm sure you've bought an expansion pack or two in your time.

[Ristse]

Realism would just annoy me, because it would never be "real" enough. Next thing you know I'd want the tech-tree to make sense, and that's never going to happen!

A different solar system changes the context, which I like.

haha! That comes with my other idea: 'Random Planet Mode' where you are forced to have your main base on a random planet, rather then always on Kerbin. Hard mode would be Jool. Also all the planets are in a random order, with some new ones thrown in. Obviously they would generate in categories, so moons are always moons, but planets are always planets (You can only launch from planets so you don't keep ending up with spawning on say, gilly) and usually never moons of other planets. But moons like Laythe, Tylo, Vall, and somewhat Eeloo, could be either type. Then, Randomized Kerbol color! but it can never be black, because that would be scary.

Anyway, Remeber: If they made a new game, think of the eye candy! Seriously go google 'RSS clouds' and look at those pictures!

[EladDv]

Eladdv in all seriousness you keep saying (near as i can gather) they shouldnt make mods stock yet several of porkjets mods have been added as stock. No reason they cant add the superior mod to the buggy version they built. If you want to talk realism, real fairings do not break into tiny chunks. I cant find the video but a nasa launch shows a fairing jettison into 2. The squads fairings break into 20+ pieces. Just saying

I am not saying that at all. The main problem I am presenting is taking a mod (really a mod pack) which is beautifully done and copying it to stock as a DLC which they will charge money for realistically not a much better product if at all. I am all for mod integration in the right places like KAC, fine print or SPP(SP+) these systems are a gameplay enhancement and are there for our benefit not to sell copies(or DLC) . I don't think squad made fairings realistic or even better then other older solutions I am just saying that they are there because for development and testing they had to be there and cutting it out afterwards because there are (at the time incompatible) mods is dumb. you should look at it as if they were making anything else -if you have a competitor which offers a good value then unless you do it MUCH better you shouldn't even go into that market and might as well develop into new ones or less explored ones

[cantab]

Probably, but calling it DLC would be very, very stupid.

Either call it expansion pack, or even better, release it as a completely new game.

For some people it seems to matter a lot what it is called, even if the price/content is the same.

I don't think they would ever do this, because of mods.

Well to an extent there is a difference. "Expansion pack" generally implies something substantial, with a price tag that's at least a good fraction of the original cost of the game, and you're definitely only going to see one expansion pack released at a time. "DLC" implies something small, with a small price tag, and you'll often see lots of separate DLC items released at once or in quick succession and the aggregate cost can be high.

To give a KSP example, a new gas giant with a dozen moons would be an expansion. A new moon for Jool, a dwarf planet between Duna and Jool, an additional space centre you can use, they would all be DLCs.

The topic of this thread, despite the title, is firmly an expansion.

[strigon]

If you're an old-timer, than I'm sure you've bought an expansion pack or two in your time.

Indeed; honestly, if you're such an old-timer, then you hail from an age where expansion packs were reasonably priced, and they breathed new life into a beloved, yet stale game.

And you could pick up DLC for a quarter and still have enough left over to take your date out for ice cream and a movie!

[78stonewobble]

Hmmm, well here's my 5 cents...

I rather like KSP's cartoonish style. Don't mind some realism within the game universe, but I think it would be a shame to ruin that with "realism".

I wouldn't be adverse to a separate version of KSP, that isn't KSP, but realistic instead. I just don't think it would be for me, right now.

There's nothing wrong with the concept of DLC. I see it as the modern version of yes, expansion packs. I actually think it's pretty cool, to be able to get DLC varying in size from, what would have constituted allmost a brand new game back in the day (half life opposing force comes to mind), a big expansion pack, a new map or campaing or story hub or whatever, down to small single items like, extra armors and clothing for personalizing a character.

What is wrong with some DLC, is absurd pricing for it's amount of content, which sadly will continue to exist as long as people wanna pay for it.

PS: I'm pretty sure not all expansion packs, back in the day, were equally priced in regards to amount of content, if we really analyzed it...

[Friend Bear]

Absolutely NOT

DLC is some ridiculous thing phone games and Blizzard came up with in leiu of subscription based pay methods. As it pertains there, why would KSP be a subscription game.

Similarly, linear/semi-linear non-mmo games have taken it on, as well, and have lost a lot of credibility because of it. Why sell all of Skyrim in one package when you can keep selling the core game DLC that should have come with the original purchase? I purposely do not buy those because their intentions are wrong. Compare completeness of a 2002 game versus a 2013 game that requires DLC to enjoy the full experience. I have even seen recent games where the DLC and the core game don't even add to the full experience that should be had.

When we bought KSP, we bought KSP, not cartoon KSP or misapplied physics KSP; as in, if I purchased "KSP that is not realistic!," then a realism mod that costs money can be understandable. But I bought KSP, and it is implied it is up to par and realistic based on the fabricated solar system it is played within. Conversely and similarly to my previous point, if I bought KSP: with OUR solar system, then I expect it to be realistic in that sense, as well, rather than purchased as such later.

While many will argue realism KSP is like buying an alternate version of the game, they forget to incorporate all the programming that has already been accomplished to make the core game and the manpower used to create the expansion. Given, if it takes heavy manpower to create realism, might be compensable. But realism implies N-body physics, something the moderators are happy to remind you will never be included in any version of KSP, ever.

So ultimately, will I buy dlc for something like a reskinning that should be a simple mod(simple as in the state of the mod, not its programming and application), no. I cannot support that market. Perhaps compensating the mod creators is a possibility depending on the difficulty and desire, but that is discussion best for another forum since it delves into opening the door to every mod creator charging awkward amounts for hard to measure services/goods, coupled with licensing problems.

But will I buy dlc that creates an entirely new experience? maybe...maybe.

----

Now I just have to vent, sorry.

Remember in the 90s when they justified high cost (being $25 a game) in saying they had to print the box and sell the cd?

Then the boxes were made smaller, but the price went up to $30 for games on average?

Then steam started late 90s. While steam is not the best example because it has so many discounts, it lends itself greatly to my point...Many manufacturers dodge production costs and sell via DL and DLC..but at what cost? Now games are $60 and DLC averages between $5 and $30.

Why do they get away with it? Same reason people only complain about attorneys and not medical care...because it is an expected cost versus a necessary one paid for out of pocket instead of through insurance; the created status quo.

A vast majority of players are kids who use their parent's finances to fund their gaming, and the big companies know this.

The best example? Call of Duty. It is a reskinning of a reskinning of a reskinning with no story, can be run on a potato, yet seems to cost more and more each subsequent release. They don't even update their engines like Battlefield with Frostbyte.

My point - give what your customers paid for, even if "what they paid for" comes later. This is especially true when an Alpha or Beta program is sold, no matter the price. Don't create an expectation then fill that void with fundable joy.

Squad, I know you won't do this to you customer base. You are awesome. This is merely commentary on the rest of the gaming world. For example, KSP cost an amount they felt justified charging, and rightfully so. I would have spent more. They also charged that amount to get boosted in their early years and it succeeded. Now if they want to increase cost, they should wholly feel justified. That increased cost may even suffice for future remodeling/application without needing to charge for DLC.

Upcoming on consoles, an increase in cost is not a bad idea. A lower cost on console makes parents and kids think its a kids game, when children will absolutely get frustrated. On the other hand, a price that matches the market will catch the majority of gamers' eyes and make them realize this is a difficult/rewarding experience. But I didn't get my degree in marketing, that is just how I think.

Edited September 25, 2015 by Friend Bear

[Nathair]

DLC is some ridiculous thing phone games and Blizzard came up with in leiu of subscription based pay methods.

"DLC" = "Small Expansion Pack". The main difference is that back in the day downloading large content was SLOW and fraught with errors and interruptions. Expansion packs were generally big enough to make the whole discs-in-a-box-at-the-store process worthwhile. With the new 'net it's now possible to easily distribute smaller content packs (hence the "DL" in "DLC".) There's no conspiracy here. Sure, some companies release overpriced DLC but others release DLC absolutely free. Knee-jerk opposition to anything and everything labelled with the acronym is just not justified.

[NovaSilisko]

Wow, this is the most evenly matched poll I've ever seen here.

[Friend Bear]

"DLC" = "Small Expansion Pack". The main difference is that back in the day downloading large content was SLOW and fraught with errors and interruptions. Expansion packs were generally big enough to make the whole discs-in-a-box-at-the-store process worthwhile. With the new 'net it's now possible to easily distribute smaller content packs (hence the "DL" in "DLC".) There's no conspiracy here. Sure, some companies release overpriced DLC but others release DLC absolutely free. Knee-jerk opposition to anything and everything labelled with the acronym is just not justified.

I agree. I read the posts and I don't think there is a conspiracy of any sort. But I am aware that many companies will continue to release DLC because it tasted the delicious cash. I have higher hopes for Squad, but my rant is entirely against DLC altogether, with few exceptions.

I am also going off the title of the blog: Would you buy a DLC.

Also, I did discuss both DL and DLC, but the issue is games in the past had enormous expansions. Everquest, Everquest Ruins of Kunark, etc. These were $25 expansions to the core that added to the game. When you bought Everquest, you knew you were getting the 3 continents, and so on.

Conversely, you buy KSP, you know you are getting its solar system. That is why the potential at a supplemental game is more understandable.

In comparison, what I'm saying here is we bought this space sim, so unless there are major changes, DLC is unjustifiable. Skyrim for example...You can own multiple homes. Kinda annoying you can spend, what $15?, to have your own home in the woods!

I also concluded that if it were a different game with huge changes, I would probably buy it. But not DLC that is a simple reskinning. That is mainly where I went with it. I just had to rant about DLC because it has ruined so many games (the core games miss so much now because they bum-rush them to release, underload them, sell them at full price, and expect to sell the additions to the core that should have been included, later). But I guess this is why I hate DLC versus a new game. It just hints at the idea that the game was incomplete, whether true or not.

But then expansions got bad, too. Compare Vanilla WoW to the latest expansion. You buy WoW for $60 (back in the day) and it came with a lot of content. Fast forward years later, you spend the same $60 on 5 new levels, 2 new abilities, one new race, and half a continent. Where is the balance in cost? Ignored, because people are willing to buy into that ridiculousness.

Again, I do not want what I am saying to be misconstrued as a back on Squad. It absolutely is NOT that. I love their product and already mentioned it is worth every penny, if not more. I'm speaking generally.

Edited September 25, 2015 by Friend Bear

[Nathair]

but my rant is entirely against DLC altogether.

Yes. That is why I said that such a rant is unjustified.

Skyrim for example...You can own multiple homes. Kinda annoying you can spend, what $15?, to have your own home in the woods!

If you don't think it's worth it, don't buy it. I just don't see how you can throw the entire concept of offering new downloadable content under the bus because you didn't think Hearthfire was a good value. (And I disagree with your evaluation as it happens. My son absolutely loves building houses and adopting kids. We've spent hours and hours playing with the content of that pack. I'd cite it as a good example of value for the money. De gustibus non est disputandum, which is the point.)

this is why I hate DLC versus a new game. It just hints at the idea that the game was incomplete, whether true or not.

Clearly that perception is yours, it is not inherent to releasing new content. I think "completeness" is all but impossible when you're creating an entire new world. I generally appreciate it when a company keeps adding to a product rather than just walking away from it.

(And "bum's rush" means to forcibly eject someone, to kick them out. It doesn't mean to do something in a hurry. Just FYI. )

[Friend Bear]

If you don't think it's worth it, don't buy it. I just don't see how you can throw the entire concept of offering new downloadable content under the bus because you didn't think Hearthfire was a good value. (And I disagree with your evaluation as it happens. My son absolutely loves building houses and adopting kids. We've spent hours and hours playing with the content of that pack. I'd cite it as a good example of value for the money. De gustibus non est disputandum, which is the point.)

I am not throwing out the entire concept. I expressed where and when it is appropriate and never said it is always unjustified. Plus, I am merely responding to the blog. The question posed was would I buy it. I said yes and no and expressed when and why.

It is self-evident that if I don't think it is worth it I shouldn't buy it.

There is absolutely no reason you should be taking this personally. This is a forum for opinions and mine are only targetting unjust DLC, NOT all DLC. There is a reason I so exhaustively analyze my response. If i didn't then everyone would conclude my thoughts the same way you have.

Please read all posts.

And to throw it out there, the HearthFire thing concerns value. The core game is $60 with hours and hours of play time, miles and miles of ground to cover, quests all over the place, and a core story. Hearth is $15. That is 1/4 the cost of the core game. My issue comes from not whether the DLC is fun, but why did they arbitrarily price it at 1/4 the cost of the core game? Is there 1/4 the land to roam, 1/4 additional quests? They priced it at $15 with the necessary code already in place and the personnel already hired and working on separate, related projects. The core game's cost makes sense - new engine, new everything.

That is my issue with DLC. All I am talking about is ensuring DLC is worth it. When I say no to reskinning DLC, it is because I use the safe assumption the DLC will cost $15-$30 and did not require nearly 1/4 or 1/2 the effort the core game did. But when it does require that effort, effort should be rewarded.

If it is mind-blowingly fun (couldn't find this word's definition on google), and adds a ton to the game, simple or no, then I will likely get it. I do buy DLC on occasion, but it has to be worth it.

Knowing Squad, they won't skimp.

Clearly that perception is yours, it is not inherent to releasing new content. I think "completeness" is all but impossible when you're creating an entire new world. I generally appreciate it when a company keeps adding to a product rather than just walking away from it.

This is useful input but I have already addressed it.

My whole point is based on this. As I said, a whole new world with a new experience might justify compensation. I have to see (remember how I discussed Everquest versus WoW; is the latest WoW worth $60?). But if it is merely a reskinning in high-depth, it is harder to justify. But I said this...100 times. No reason to keep talking about the same thing.

(And "bum's rush" means to forcibly eject someone, to kick them out. It doesn't mean to do something in a hurry. Just FYI. )

Again, why are you making this personal? I used colorful language fully aware of its definition. Bum-rush isn't even an actual, recognized English word. That's like me saying you used the slang, "wicked," incorrectly.

You can say all you want but I won't contribute to your discussions anymore. You are only out for blood, not finding the answer as per the blog's request. And I can never understand why people take these things so personally.

If you notice, I never once attacked you.

Edited September 25, 2015 by Friend Bear

[Nathair]

If you notice, I never once attacked you.

I'm sorry that you feel you have been personally attacked. That was certainly not my intention. I merely disagree with what you said. I neither felt nor intended anything personal.

[SOTMead]

----

Now I just have to vent, sorry.

Remember in the 90s when they justified high cost (being $25 a game) in saying they had to print the box and sell the cd?

Then the boxes were made smaller, but the price went up to $30 for games on average?

Then steam started late 90s. While steam is not the best example because it has so many discounts, it lends itself greatly to my point...Many manufacturers dodge production costs and sell via DL and DLC..but at what cost? Now games are $60 and DLC averages between $5 and $30.

Why do they get away with it? Same reason people only complain about attorneys and not medical care...because it is an expected cost versus a necessary one paid for out of pocket instead of through insurance

Not that I'm wholly disagreeing with any of this, but I feel a need to mitigate.

Inflation has risen just over 50% since 95. That counts for some, but agreed, not all of the higher game prices. Box/print costs were replaced with server/bandwidth/IT costs (I have no idea what that ratio is though).

So you can't really simplify the changes as much as you have. Other things have to be taken into consideration. It does seem like games cost more these days though.

They "get away" with it, to use language implying a criminal action, because people in general make more than they did 20 years ago, and agree to pay it. I don't agree to pay $60 for any game. Steam sales and kickstarter are where I get the bulk of my games at a tiny fraction of $60, sometimes years after release. And that works for me.

And finally, Steam fired up in 2003

Cheers!

Edited September 25, 2015 by SOTMead

[Friend Bear]

Not that I'm wholly disagreeing with any of this, but I feel a need to mitigate.

Inflation has risen just over 50% since 95. That counts for some, but agreed, not all of the higher game prices. Box/print costs were replaced with server/bandwidth/IT costs (I have no idea what that ratio is though).

So you can't really simplify the changes as much as you have. Other things have to be taken into consideration. It does seem like games cost more these days though.

They "get away" with it, to use language implying a criminal action, because people in general make more than they did 20 years ago, and agree to pay it. I don't agree to pay $60 for any game. Steam sales and kickstarter are where I get the bulk of my games, sometimes years after release. And that works for me.

And finally, Steam fired up in 2003

Cheers!

I thought they were in early development late 90s as one of those first to ever try open beta things. It's fine I was on CS back in the day and can't remember.

I appreciate actual, thought out analysis. I always question my own beliefs and ideas but need people who are willing to discuss, not just complain without evidence.

I agree with your analysis and I definitely oversimplified. But a lot of growth has been artificial. For example, cost of bread goes up consistently more often because of raises to minimum wage (whole different discussion) rather than oil and other claimed reasons. In that, while I agree a lot of it is sort of out of their hands, a lot of it is not. Like football...players will keep making millions (and going bankrupt) and tickets will keep costing thousands because people are willing to pay it. I hate football but you get it. Same happens here. They test release things and certain prices, primarily with indie games, and see whether the price is justified in the amount of sales. They don't measure it against effort expounded.

---

But seriously, I really appreciate it. For some reason, thought out discussion turns into brawls more often than not, so it is nice to run into someone else who understands it is a discussion and not a contest.

Edited September 25, 2015 by Friend Bear

[Lord Aurelius]

I would appreciate a more realistic game in the vein of KSP and would be willing to pay for it (provided it was done well), however I strongly believe that it should be a totally new game built from the ground up to be more of a simulator rather than trying to make KSP something it isn't.

KSP is a great game that teaches a lot about orbital mechanics and aerospace construction, but it was always intended to be a fun, approachable game first and simulation second (which is likely one of the biggest reasons for KSP's success over games like Orbiter).

For those of us who enjoy the challenge of extra complexity in KSP, there's always going to be mods like RSS/RO but I don't think mods like that should officially be integrated into the game or sold as DLC. If I'm going to pay for mods like that, it will be via the donation button on the author's thread.

[Friend Bear]

I would appreciate a more realistic game in the vein of KSP and would be willing to pay for it (provided it was done well), however I strongly believe that it should be a totally new game built from the ground up to be more of a simulator rather than trying to make KSP something it isn't.

KSP is a great game that teaches a lot about orbital mechanics and aerospace construction, but it was always intended to be a fun, approachable game first and simulation second (which is likely one of the biggest reasons for KSP's success over games like Orbiter).

For those of us who enjoy the challenge of extra complexity in KSP, there's always going to be mods like RSS/RO but I don't think mods like that should officially be integrated into the game or sold as DLC. If I'm going to pay for mods like that, it will be via the donation button on the author's thread.

I like that idea. But I also would like it to be so above and beyond realistic and different that I would still play KSP as my release game (as difficult as it may be).

You have so many more things to plan for in a real simulation and I can see that being awesome. And this way, you keep them separate enough its all good stuff.

[Nathair]

But seriously, I really appreciate it. For some reason, thought out discussion turns into brawls more often than not, so it is nice to run into someone else who understands it is a discussion and not a contest.

That was low.

[Pixel of Life]

I'd totally buy a game that looked realistic and had nice scenery and realistic aerodynamics and orbital mechanics. Something like X-Plane and Orbiter combined.

[Friend Bear]

I'd totally buy a game that looked realistic and had nice scenery and realistic aerodynamics and orbital mechanics. Something like X-Plane and Orbiter combined.

It might be a worthwhile project. Kerbal could even do it. Wouldn't act as DLC but instead be an entirely new game, even if it had a similar solar system and kerbals, etc. (enlarged and more realistic with n-body, etc.).

Benefit for them is they have a lot of the programming down and it can be a secondary program while they continue to add to and fine tune KSP. They have the player base and understanding; much better than if a software company with no foot in the door tried to do it themselves.

It would be a ton of effort but worthwhile I think.

[Ristse]

Wow! An even 50-50! 119 yes and 119 No! Keep it up!

[Ristse]

It might be a worthwhile project. Kerbal could even do it. Wouldn't act as DLC but instead be an entirely new game, even if it had a similar solar system and kerbals, etc. (enlarged and more realistic with n-body, etc.).

Benefit for them is they have a lot of the programming down and it can be a secondary program while they continue to add to and fine tune KSP. They have the player base and understanding; much better than if a software company with no foot in the door tried to do it themselves.

It would be a ton of effort but worthwhile I think.

Yeah, thats why i added 'Hire some more people' in the desc.