KSP expansion packs confirmed

[septemberWaves]

In terms of free expansion packs, I'd love to see improvements to the engine system. The Porkjet revamp of the liquid rocket thrusters, but particularly also some big changes to SRBs to make them more versatile. I'd also like to see some more late-game options for high-efficiency propulsion; the existing ion engine is nice, but pulsed plasma, laser ablation, VASIMR, and more exotic propulsion methods like solar sails would be interesting to see. A generalized expansion pack for propulsion systems is definitely something I think would be good.
And actually, perhaps also an expansion pack that adds extra difficulties, such as life support, radiation, and more realistic engines (with limited ignitions and the need for fuel flow stability). I know that mods exist that provide this, but I like the idea of it being an option to include in stock - for an example of why, I've personally found that whilst I never enjoyed RemoteTech, I'm actually a huge fan of the stock communications network, and it may be that a stock take on similar added difficulties would have the same sort of appeal.

As for paid expansions, I'm not really sure what I'd be willing to buy short of a whole new game. Mods can add so much to the game for free thanks to the incredible efforts put in by mod makers, and so paid DLC would really have to add an entirely new layer of gameplay to be worthwhile. One thing that I've thought about recently is the ability to create and share planets and solar systems with an in-built planet editor. Whilst mods can change the Kerbol system around, the average player can't simply make a whole new solar system unless they know how to code. I think that being able to design planetary systems to play in as an alternative to the existing stock system, and the ability to easily share those systems with the community for download via an in-built game mechanic, would probably be an expansion worth buying (and honestly, it's probably too complex to add to the existing game infrastructure without making it DLC).

[RatchetinSpace]

3 hours ago, CrazyTolradi said:

I'm probably in the minority on this, but the idea of paid expansions (along side free updates) in no way upsets me. It works fine for Paradox, and I think it'll work fine for KSP as well.

I agree, paid expansions are good in proportion, and they will extend the life of this game by providing funding for future development of the game. There are some issues with expansions and free updates should (and will judging by squad's information) remain a thing. I'm looking forward to what they come up with.

Ideas for paid expansions? I would buy a weather and planet improvement pack, which increases the detail of planet's surfaces with things like volcanoes, geysers and more highly detailed ground, and adds atmospheric details such as clouds, rain, wind and storms. That would, I think, be worth paying for, and for those who don't want that level of detail or who's computers can't handle it don't have to have it.

[64Bit]

Nobody saw my post because it wasnt approved by a admin

-----------------------------------

NO

Ok Squad is not EA but

İ hate dlc

making dlc for a game that made for modding ?

All great things ı found in my short lifetime is became s---

As example SAMP truckmania became 10 players max per day server

Jowood productions that made neighbors from hell became defunct

EA buyed maxis

EA buyed westwood studios

İrrational games stopped making SWAT Series

and LOTS MORE

Squad if you want to be a developer that everyone loves dont do dlc

but if you are traitors i dont care...

i will play games that made BEFORE GAMİNG GROUP OF MİNOR GAMİNG CRASHES STARTED AT SECOND MİLLENİUM

[Grenartia]

I'm gonna agree, that big things like new gameplay modes, major cosmetic improvements, etc. could do well as paid DLC. But major updates that include more parts and bug fixes, things that affect core gameplay, etc., should be free. 
 

 

[septemberWaves]

I think a general rule should be that anything which fits within the general scope of what the game provides (e.g. adding in new parts and planets, updating the appearances of existing parts and planets, adding new features to parts (like the interstage trusses to fairings), etc) should be free, whereas DLC should be limited to things that bring in major new features that are beyond what KSP has the potential to provide (by which I mean major expansions that would require much more time and effort to code than a regular game update; even the biggest things that the modding community is capable of adding should not be DLC, because they are still done within the parameters of the existing game's code and could therefore be added for free anyway by members of the community).

Edited October 6, 2016 by eloquentJane

[Hupf]

On 5.10.2016 at 9:14 PM, 64Bit said:

Ok Squad is not EA but

Now that you mention EA, I would actually be happy with one type of paid dlc (even fancy micro-transactions), The Sims style: what if you could pay for new parts that serve more of an aestetic purpose, i.e. that model real-world (or at least planned there) craft? Maybe even "license" stuff from well-known companies (Blue Origin, Virgin Galactic, SpaceX, Boeing)?

[Wjolcz]

Ugh. I'm not against DLCs but I hope they don't go full Electronic Arts mode on this. Also, what can they offer that mods can't?

Edited October 6, 2016 by Veeltch

[Vanamonde]

Quote

Nobody saw my post because it wasnt approved by a admin 

A newbie's first 3 posts need moderator approval as a spambot screening measure. Your post was approved, though it doesn't always happen right away. 

[RocketSquid]

I say yes, so long as there are no microtransactions, no "pay-to-win" style skippable timed events, and it doesn't get rid of modding.

[JTpopcorn]

Updates/Expansions yes

Paid DLC no unless its stuff like missions etc. No essential game function lost if you don't buy it.

Multiplayer should be added to the game, beyond that I wouldn't really care if modding just handled the rest.

[64Bit]

7 hours ago, Hupf said:

Now that you mention EA, I would actually be happy with one type of paid dlc (even fancy micro-transactions), The Sims style: what if you could pay for new parts that serve more of an aestetic purpose, i.e. that model real-world (or at least planned there) craft? Maybe even "license" stuff from well-known companies (Blue Origin, Virgin Galactic, SpaceX, Boeing)?

Sims style ?

ok you can make basic object parts for sims but its nearly impossible to make something like the sims making magic

in ksp i dont want "if you want this mod to work you have to have this expansion"

BUT

if squad makes licensed parts its ok unless they make interactions i mean code to them

(i wish to know will remote tech will integrate with 1.2 commnet or creator will disable commnet and write its code again)

[ottothesilent]

Expansion packs may be cool and interesting, but they could be the death of mods. Why would Squad let us do modding for free, when there's money to be made packaging them as DLC? I'm, of course playing devil's advocate here, but I think it's a legitimate concern.

[RX2000]

Yes. SQUAD should get paid for what they do.

Its amazing to me that some people will play KSP for literally 1000 hours, but sometimes those same people balk at the idea of giving SQUAD anymore money in the form of paid DLC. But they have no problem paying $15 to go watch a movie that only lasts 2 hours? I dont understand.

[Wjolcz]

6 hours ago, RX2000 said:

Yes. SQUAD should get paid for what they do.

Its amazing to me that some people will play KSP for literally 1000 hours, but sometimes those same people balk at the idea of giving SQUAD anymore money in the form of paid DLC. But they have no problem paying $15 to go watch a movie that only lasts 2 hours? I dont understand.

Well, the problem isn't with paying money for DLC. It's more complicated than that.

I paid $15 for the game when it was in 0.16, I think. I got sandbox mode and parts for that price. Now the game is more developed and has many new things, but the problem for me is the fact that career mode is still half-baked. So after all these years I still have a sandbox game +more parts and a bunch of other things like communications, planets and docking. 

I'm sorry, but if they decide that this game is finished at, more or less this stage (no dV display, no proper interplanetary transfer tool, no way to fully customize the career mode) and start releasing the DLCs instead I won't be buying them. I'm still playing a sandbox I bought years ago. Except with more parts, planets and better aerodynamics.

[Benji13]

My biggest problem with DLC's in a game like KSP is that it would blur the lines between stock and modded (if they added parts). 

"Oh I did the Jool 5 easy. You want my ship? First you need $50 worth of DLCs for it to be compatible. Sorry."

I understand that squad needs to make a profit but I think that upping the price of the game would be better. I mean, I payed $24AUS for my copy of the game in 1.0.4. That's pretty cheap compared to most other games, especially when the game has a great community and fairly regular updates. If there was one DLC for multiplayer, that would make sense but other than that, I'm not so keen...

Edited October 8, 2016 by Benji13

[Wolf Baginski]

I can see a few things that are already mods, and which could be a sort-of expansion pack, or even included in the base game, but there would be problems over rights.

The two that spring to mind, doing things that could be incredibly useful to Squad themselves, are Module Manager and Texture Replacer. In the long term, I could imagine something like Module Manager being part of a v2 KSP. It is something that could make other DLC, free or not, a lot easier.

It might be that there will be a "recommended" mod pack which includes the key tools such as these.

One of the problems with Mods in general is that they can vanish, maybe broken by a new version of the game, maybe lost with its creator, maybe lost with a hosting site. I don't want a special status that leaves us hostages to Squad, but I remember one or two mods I used which vanished with KerbalStuff. Some things should not depend on just one source for downloads

What other things would be a reasonable expansion?

A robot arm to allow assembly of large objects in orbit.

 

[SvenBorg]

I am willing to pay for deep cave networks! Finding a cave unlocks a exploration mission where you have to fulfill some criteria and bring back a archaeologist alive with data. More equipments like flashlights, Rubber Boats and ropes will make you bond with your crew. Players will be sending science sensors beneath the earth with Rovers and set up camps. All for the sake of science!

Edited October 9, 2016 by SvenBorg

[Sharpy]

We'll see.

As for 'pack a bunch of mods we've been enjoying...' - let me rehash what I had said before.

It would be GREAT if Squad did this - for the consoles.

Seriously, 'Pilot's pack' with MechJeb, Docking Port Alignment Indicator, KAC, atmosphere autopilot; 'Engineer's pack' with Editor Extensions, KER, KIS, KAS, RCS Build Aid, Tweakscale and Infernal Robotics, 'Hardcore pack' with Kerbalism, USI, Real Solar System, and the likes, 'Traveler's Pack' with Extrasolar, Near Future, and other mods that let you travel far, and such. Packs of 5-10 mods bound by common subject and synergizing with each other, for a token fee covering the costs, letting the console users have what PC users had for free for a long time.

 

As for expansions packs for PC... we'll see.

[Superfluous J]

17 minutes ago, Sharpy said:

Seriously, 'Pilot's pack' with MechJeb, Docking Port Alignment Indicator, KAC, atmosphere autopilot; 'Engineer's pack' with Editor Extensions, KER, KIS, KAS, RCS Build Aid, Tweakscale and Infernal Robotics, 'Hardcore pack' with Kerbalism, USI, Real Solar System, and the likes, 'Traveler's Pack' with Extrasolar, Near Future, and other mods that let you travel far, and such. Packs of 5-10 mods bound by common subject and synergizing with each other, for a token fee covering the costs, letting the console users have what PC users had for free for a long time.

That is almost literally impossible to do. Each of those mods has different authors and licences, and most build on other mods that also have different authors and licenses.

And that ignores - or in fact is because of - the fact that this would be a terrible, terrible thing. Squad would essentially be stealing all the modders' code and selling it. Even if you don't make a profit, that's wrong.

[Sharpy]

Just now, 5thHorseman said:

That is almost literally impossible to do. Each of those mods has different authors and licences, and most build on other mods that also have different authors and licenses.

And that ignores - or in fact is because of - the fact that this would be a terrible, terrible thing. Squad would essentially be stealing all the modders' code and selling it. Even if you don't make a profit, that's wrong.

The hell? You are a horrible person if you imagine I was suggesting something like this.

Have a lawyer write a boilerplate 'sublicense agreement', where mod author sublicenses the mod to Squad, on reasonable terms, and gets some proceeds off the sales.

Contact each mod author asking to participate in the 'mods for consoles' program, which involves signing the sublicense agreement for their mods and giving payment info (alternatively signing the profits off to a charity). If they agree, the mod goes in. If they don't, the mod remains PC-exclusive.

If mods depend on others, start 'from the bottom'. e.g. obtain sublicense for Module Manager and Community Resource Pack before going for mods that use them.

Once a decent number of mods have been sublicensed, compile them into a pack, test, recompile for consoles, certify with console's corp, release as DLC.

One person, working a normal 8h 5-workday week could get this done at roughly one mod pack per month, costing Squad one standard salary plus a 3 hours of lawyer consultation, plus certification fees for approval the mod packs.

[Temeter]

EDIT: LOL I complete forgot that I don't actually have to pay for the expansions (or so?), since I'm an early adopter. Might take away from the point, but I assure you, I'd believe what I wrote is true and is how I usually go about games.^^'

----------------------------------

I've probably put a thousand hours or more into the game, paying only about 22€, so why not? Could esily justify buying DLC's just to support the devs, so they can continue to work on the game.

IMO it's kinda silly to get so much out of a game and then expect to get the devs update the game for year after year, just because you paid the game one time. Studios are expensive to run, and those updates aren't cheaper than game development. I also think that way since I consider 1.2 the first not only finished, but  polished version, which also brings a lot more tha was promised to us.

 

Purely content wise it might be tricky to find something to add that isn't already in there with mods - then again, as as dev you can offer a much better integrated, moddable and polished version. I imagine KSP could do it's own colonization system, maybe even partnered with/inspired by SpaceX. An official version could offer something quite different from e.g. Roverdudes mods. Probably also much better UI integration. And more hooks for actual colonization mods to hook into.

Or some way to go with multiple solar systems. I know there are mods, but I imagine they - and the travel methods - could be done better by stock systems as well.

Edited October 10, 2016 by Temeter

[Superfluous J]

30 minutes ago, Sharpy said:

The hell? You are a horrible person if you imagine I was suggesting something like this.

I am not a horrible person, nor do I think you are. What you are suggesting though is still a logistic nightmare at BEST.

My mods use source directly copied from other mods. For all I know, those mods copied that same source from other mods. The mods you're talking about have multiple actual named authors and each of them could have easily done the same as I did. It's not a rare thing, at all.

If Squad wanted to put one of my mods in their mod packs, they couldn't just get my permission. It would not be enough. They'd have to go and get permission from the people whose code I copied. And each of them would need to go back and get the permission of all the people whose code THEY copied. At any point, any of those people could say no. They could be unreachable. They could be UNFINDABLE even as it's not like modders have to register with their real info or anything.

I'm not saying what you are proposing is wrong to want. To be honest, I'd love it too. I'm also not saying it's impossible. It's just really really hard, and there is no way to make it easy. And this is by design and preferred to it being easy. Because the easier you make it, the more horrible (your word not mine :)) it is for modders.

[Sharpy]

11 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

My mods use source directly copied from other mods. For all I know, those mods copied that same source from other mods. The mods you're talking about have multiple actual named authors and each of them could have easily done the same as I did. It's not a rare thing, at all.

Thing is the number of mods worth copying from is somewhat limited. Obtain license for most of them, and you're in the clear.

That would push the release date of the first pack away, but make the releases more 'avalanche' once the general framework has been established. And yeah, if you were doing it in the afternoons in your free time it would be hard to get any progress. But a person with a nine-to-five job of nothing but chasing down the dependencies, talking to mod authors and mailing the licenses to sign, can make an immense progress - especially if they don't try to chase down every single mod following a list, but 'spread out', reach out to 200 authors, get 50 replies, find 20 that don't have pending legal dependencies, compile a pack of 5 that fit well.

[TopHeavy11]

My idea of a free DLC would be a Pork-alike rocket parts overhaul. Now if people like the lifesaver and the barrel, they can keep it. In my opinion, pork-alike, pork-alike, PORK-ALIKE.

1 hour ago, 5thHorseman said:

That is almost literally impossible to do. Each of those mods has different authors and licences, and most build on other mods that also have different authors and licenses.

And that ignores - or in fact is because of - the fact that this would be a terrible, terrible thing. Squad would essentially be stealing all the modders' code and selling it. Even if you don't make a profit, that's wrong.

Yeah, they would have to be from @SQUAD itself,  not from other modders. Most likely, the DLCs will be for console releases, since they only have DLCs, not being able to edit the GameData folder on their Xbox One. It's unlikely we PCers would ever see a paid DLC for the game.

2 hours ago, Sharpy said:

We'll see.

As for 'pack a bunch of mods we've been enjoying...' - let me rehash what I had said before.

It would be GREAT if Squad did this - for the consoles.

Seriously, 'Pilot's pack' with MechJeb, Docking Port Alignment Indicator, KAC, atmosphere autopilot; 'Engineer's pack' with Editor Extensions, KER, KIS, KAS, RCS Build Aid, Tweakscale and Infernal Robotics, 'Hardcore pack' with Kerbalism, USI, Real Solar System, and the likes, 'Traveler's Pack' with Extrasolar, Near Future, and other mods that let you travel far, and such. Packs of 5-10 mods bound by common subject and synergizing with each other, for a token fee covering the costs, letting the console users have what PC users had for free for a long time.

 

As for expansions packs for PC... we'll see.

Yeah, and consoles should be able to handle more mods faster because instead of things being downloaded and taking up space, it makes room for the game when you eject your other game and put in KSP. Of course, @SQUAD would have to get the modders permission first. The ones who already work at @SQUAD are guaranteed to say yes, and most other modders would jump at the opportunity to make their mod multi-platformal!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: I've mentioned @SQUAD three...no,wait...four times in this post. NOTICE ME! lol

Edited October 10, 2016 by TopHeavy11

[Gaarst]

41 minutes ago, Sharpy said:

Thing is the number of mods worth copying from is somewhat limited. Obtain license for most of them, and you're in the clear.

That would push the release date of the first pack away, but make the releases more 'avalanche' once the general framework has been established. And yeah, if you were doing it in the afternoons in your free time it would be hard to get any progress. But a person with a nine-to-five job of nothing but chasing down the dependencies, talking to mod authors and mailing the licenses to sign, can make an immense progress - especially if they don't try to chase down every single mod following a list, but 'spread out', reach out to 200 authors, get 50 replies, find 20 that don't have pending legal dependencies, compile a pack of 5 that fit well.

Some time ago, Steam and Bethesda partnered and tried to make people pay for mods for Skyrim on the Workshop; let's just say people were not really happy about this.

Steam and Bethesda are big companies so it wasn't a big deal, but for Squad, add this to the disastrous console releases and the speculations about their internal affairs, and no more Squad.

I may be exaggerating, but IMHO, this is a really really bad idea

 

Also, yeah, legal and technical nightmare. Spoiler: PC and consoles do not work the same way; who would do the port? Modders who are now essentially working for Squad for free? Or Squad who will have to convert every single mod to console.

Most mods are licenced under NC licences, I doubt the authors will change that just if Squad asks them nicely.

Here's a general rule for modding: keep money as far away as possible. Tips are OK, but that's usually it.

 

And this would not even be proper expansion packs for KSP since the main support (PC) is not affected by this.