Paid expansions and previous statements RE paid expansions

[DerekL1963]

Just now, Jarin said:

Do you have trouble with text implications?

Implications and assumptions are not facts.  My trouble is that people are confusing not-facts with facts and treating not-facts as facts.  (And then insisting that I am somehow in the wrong for pointing out the difference - two plus two does equal five if you assume things that aren't in the text!)

[Diche Bach]

4 hours ago, Camacha said:

Is it unreasonable to expect a company to keep explicit promises?

Define "company" and "promises."

If you cannot do that, then you are on thin ice criticizing as if you know what such things mean.

Squad deserves to profit, they made a good game.

Also consider that, if Squad does not profit, they may make no more games. What is more important to you? Saving $25, promoting cyber-hype, or promoting good games? Me personally, I'll go with promoting good games. When Squad proves to be an unreliable patron of good games, I'll take my purchases elsewhere.

[EliasDanger]

Paid expansions are fine if that's what they wanna do and the content they create is worth it, why not? Better than not getting high quality expansions cause they can't afford to do it.

Hell, start from scratch, make a AAA grade sequel and charge 60 bucks for it. If that's what squad wants to do I am down. If paid content is what it takes to take KSP to the next level, I am sure it will be worth the money, and if it turns out its not worth the money, no one is obligated to hand it over.

[Camacha]

Just now, Diche Bach said:

Define "company" and "promises."

I take it you missed my previous post? Squad explicitly promised access to all add-ons and DLC for people who bought a copy before a certain date. Squad did not have to do this, but made a point of explicitly promising this. As we know, this promise has not been honoured.
 

Quote

 

Also consider that, iSquad does not profit, they may make no more games. What is more important to you?

 

It is important to me that a company honours its promises. If they oversold something and really get into trouble because of it, I might very well be swayed by a heartfelt explanation. However, Squad is not struggling with the issue and not apologizing for anything - and nor should they. They are flat out refusing to honour an agreement. A legally binding agreement, no less.

Besides, the impact would likely be minimal. It is not very probable that many people would claim the KerbalEDU edition. And, Filipe said it best:

Quote

a promise is a promise

 

[Diche Bach]

2 minutes ago, Camacha said:

I take it you missed my previous post? Squad explicitly promised access to all add-ons and DLC for people who bought a copy before a certain date. Squad did not have to do this, but made a point of explicitly promising this. As we know, this promise has not been honoured.

Here’s a big thanks to everyone for all the continued support, and a heartfelt apology to all those who felt wronged in any way over this matter.

Sincerely,

– The KSP Dev Team

Is it possible that you are confusing the publisher and apparently the owner of the IP with the "Dev Team?"

Edited October 5, 2016 by Diche Bach
typo

[Camacha]

Just now, Diche Bach said:

Is it possible that you are confusing the publisher and apparently the owner of the IP with the "Dev Team?"

I do not intend to be rude, but did you actually read my posts? You seem to be confusing matters.

 

 

[Diche Bach]

*Sigh* never mind; if you think "Squad" = "KSP Dev Team" who am I to attempt to clarify things for you . . .

[razark]

5 minutes ago, Camacha said:

However, Squad is not struggling with the issue and not apologizing for anything - and nor should they. They are flat out refusing to honour an agreement.

Are they?  Or are people just posting baseless speculation that they might?

[Camacha]

1 minute ago, Diche Bach said:

*Sigh* never mind; if you think "Squad" = "KSP Dev Team" who am I to attempt to clarify things for you . . .

You seem to imagine I think something, though I am not sure why. Pretty much none of your replies seem coherent with what I have been saying. It seems we are talking about two different matters altogether.
 

Just now, razark said:

Are they?  Or are people just posting baseless speculation that they might?

Please read this post again. Squad has refused to honour an explicit promise in the past. That is not baseless speculation, but a fact that can be easily double checked.

 

[Diche Bach]

Just now, Camacha said:

You seem to imagine I think something, though I am not sure why. Pretty much none of your replies seem coherent with what I have been saying. It seems we are talking about two different matters altogether.
 

Please read this post again. Squad has refused to honour an explicit promise in the past. That is not baseless speculation, but a fact that can be easily double checked.

 

I'm done trying to communicate with you.

[Camacha]

8 minutes ago, Diche Bach said:

I'm done trying to communicate with you.

You are welcome to strike up a conversation if you change your mind.

Edited October 5, 2016 by Camacha

[razark]

12 minutes ago, Camacha said:

Please read this post again. Squad has refused to honour an explicit promise in the past. That is not baseless speculation, but a fact that can be easily double checked.

Ah.  I see.  You're talking about KerbalEDU.  Missed that earlier, my mistake.

 

It appears to me that KerbalEDU includes contributions by a party that is not Squad, and is therefore not available in the same way as a product developed solely by Squad. 

If you feel that KerbalEDU should fall under the "free expansions" covered under the promise (and I can understand why you would), then why would that promise not also include all the console versions?  Or do you feel that it should?

[Camacha]

23 minutes ago, razark said:

It appears to me that KerbalEDU includes contributions by a party that is not Squad, and is therefore not available in the same way as a product developed solely by Squad. 

It would be a bit too easy if you could circumnavigate these kinds of agreements by hiring someone to do it for you, or having someone contribute. Squad is the owner of the product and the IP and the result of any deals and negotiations after their public statement is their responsibility too. The statement they made is the statement they made. Which deals are made with what party after that are of no influence.

The fact that Squad made a deal with a third party does not excuse it from having a deal with someone else. At best they have two contradicting deals, which they somehow need to honour.
 

Quote

then why would that promise not also include all the console versions?  Or do you feel that it should?

That is an interesting discussion, and hinges on whether a version for a different platform can be considered an update, DLC or expansion. I think they are two different discussions, though. Having a slightly expanded version of the same game on the same platform is undeniably part of the promises made. The fact that a third party got involved changes nothing about that.

 

Edited October 5, 2016 by Camacha

[magnemoe]

4 hours ago, Kerbart said:

Phrases like "May include fees" teach you to interpret sentences in the darkest way possible when it comes to your wallet.

Note how they say “free updates, full expansion packs” and not “updates and full expansion packs for free” or even “free updates and free full expansion packs”

The fact that full expansion packs are mentioned, explicitly without the word free, is a pretty good indicator that you will have to pay for it. If it were free, it would have been mentioned as such.

Not that it's a bad thing. Unlike free updates, paid expansion packs will allow for continued development. Also, depending on how cash-hungry Squad's owners are (and it is not unimaginable they are, based on the sparse interviews in the past as well as some other indicators), they will likely very much realize that the first expansion pack that disappoints will also be the last one, as everyone will stop buying them. Unlike “free,” money is a pretty good incentive for delivering quality.

Same as I see it an expansion pack will insure continued development. 
At some points new sales will not pay for continued development of core game. 

[Mako]

@Camacha

I'm not entirely sure why you think KerbalEDU is a Squad-made expansion. It was developed by a company called TeacherGaming which has previously developed a teacher-focused modification of Minecraft as well. It is sold by TeacherGaming, not Squad, and licensed for use in classrooms. Obviously Squad receives a portion of the purchase price when a copy of Kerbal EU is sold.

The closest thing I could compare it to is if I made a mod and decided to start selling it for money bundled with a Steam Key for KSP. For $50 you get my mod files and a key for the game. Would Squad have an obligation to make my mod available to you? I'm not sure if it is legally possible for any moder to do without negotiating a deal with Squad first, but it's essentially what TeacherGaming is doing.

I believe TeacherGaming owns the mod they have created. They could probably sell you a copy of their mod without bundling KSP in with it, if they wanted. I don't see how another company's work is the property of Squad just because Squad build the base. In this case TeacherGaming has no obligation to Squad customers and Squad has no obligation to TeacherGaming customers.

So far Squad has made all updates and Squad-made mods available for free to all customers. As of right now I don't believe they've broken their promise, but we'll see what the future holds.

And as with everything in this world: things change and life isn't fair. Maybe Mars will be different.

[tater]

Anyone bothered by having to pay whatever pittance they might charge for new content probably shouldn't be wasting money on the electricity or bandwidth their computer uses, they need to be spending in on food an shelter. Assuming you are not freezing or starving, the amount of money in question is basically nothing at all.

[Vanamonde]

Kerbal EDU is this game, with some educational enhancements. You already have the bike. Why are you mad that you don't have the version of the bike with training wheels? I believe it's also a bit behind the standard KSP version because after a new version of the normal game is put out, the EDU version has to take it and modify it. 

[magnemoe]

2 hours ago, Camacha said:

The big difference is that Squad owns the rights to KSP. Squad initiated this so called different version and owns the IP, so it is still responsible for anything that happens to and with it. Squad cannot hide behind the fact that Squad itself asked another party to do part of the development.

Also, pretending that the kerbalEDU version is another game is belittling and offensive. I am looking at Squad there. It is not a total conversion. KSP and KerbalEDU are almost the exact same game with the exact same content. They just added some tools, repackaged it under a slightly different name and weaseled out of promises explicitly made.

I dare anyone to look at the video and tell me that it is anything different than a very slightly modded version of KSP. There have been updates that constituted a bigger difference than the difference between KSP and KerbalEDU. We have been duped, and in a fairly shameless fashion at that.

I think its the other way around. A company teachergaming http://kerbaledu.com/contact contacted squad about an version more suited for education. 
They made an deal, unknown who made the changes it might be squad or some else 
Makes some sense as teachergaming has connection inside the education system and have easier selling it.
The interesting part is that as I understand KerbalEDU has some features like dV information Squad want to use in the standard game. if its their game they can just copy it. 

And yes its an moded KSP, here we agree

Edited October 5, 2016 by magnemoe

[CobraA1]

I do think that, for integrity's sake, they ought to keep to their promises.

But, to be honest, I personally wouldn't be against paying for DLC or an expansion. This game was well worth the price, and I got way more out of it than I paid for.

[Temeter]

Interestingly enough, originally Squad devs said small expansions are going to be free to pre-steam adopters, yet large addons wouldn't be free.

[Sharpy]

4 hours ago, Camacha said:

I take it you missed my previous post? Squad explicitly promised access to all add-ons and DLC for people who bought a copy before a certain date. Squad did not have to do this, but made a point of explicitly promising this. As we know, this promise has not been honoured.

Wait. What kind of add-ons or DLCs has Squad released to date, that are not currently available for free to people who purchased the game before April 2013?

 

Moreover: they even didn't promise same-day availability. If they release these expansions and they are paid, I would be entirely unsurprised, if people who did purchase KSP before April 2013 get the free access a month past the release date - so that the deal is honored, but the impatient still pay.

Or are there currently some paid add-ons and DLC which I don't know about? How is the promise broken, right now, October 5th 2016?

[Kertech]

I've said this previously somewhere else, but if you're so worried about DRM and paid for content, then do what I'm going to do, make several clean copies of a stable 1.2 build, as many 1.2 mods as possible and mix and match on my own hard drive. What ever dlc comes out would never be as varried as our fabulous modding community. 

Time for me to leave the update cycle.

 

But please be calm people, right now we know nothing!

Edited October 5, 2016 by Kertech

[Sharpy]

4 hours ago, Camacha said:

The big difference is that Squad owns the rights to KSP. Squad initiated this so called different version and owns the IP, so it is still responsible for anything that happens to and with it. Squad cannot hide behind the fact that Squad itself asked another party to do part of the development.

 

Some source of this claim?

Because if they sublicensed KSP to TeacherGaming LCC (as this is usually done), then TeacherGaming LCC's KerbalEdu Lead Developer, Marko Kärkelä wrote these extensions, then Squad has no IP rights to these extensions and can only collect licensing fees - the way Unity can collect licensing fees for use of the engine in games various studios release, but can't make any provisions about releasing these games for free to any Unity early adopter.

Of course if Squad subcontract TeacherGaming LCC to create the extensions, and perform marketing of KerbalEdu, then the case is different. But I doubt in this case TeacherGaming logo would appear above Squad's in the credits.

Edited October 5, 2016 by Sharpy

[Red Iron Crown]

My understanding is that KerbalEDU is the product of another company, a company that markets, distributes, and supports that product. That product requires KSP to function, so they've reached a distribution agreement with Squad to bundle copies of KSP with it (and presumably Squad gets a cut for this). I would not consider it an official update or expansion to KSP itself.

I expect that if Squad intended to not honor the free DLC/expansion cutoff date then they would have quietly removed the statement linked earlier before announcing that it is in the plan for KSP.

[pandaman]

As I understand it no promises have been broken.

IIRC Squad did say - way back when - that all purchases before the cut off date (April 2013?) would include free future UPDATES and EXPANSIONS.  Whilst those purchasing after that date would still be entitled to free UPDATES, but may be required to pay for EXPANSION packs.  So far all updates to all players have been made available without additional fees needing to be paid.

I understand that this means that any future 'version' releases that fix bugs etc (and probably include minor enhancements too) would count as UPDATES to the base game, so would therefore be provided free of charge as they have been up to now.   If/when they release  EXPANSION packs (alternative solar systems or whatever they may be) then these would be additional purchases, but provided free of charge to those who purchased KSP before the cut off date.

If these paid for additional expansions are of suitable quality and value then players will buy them, if not they won't, so it is in Squads interest to ensure that they are good enough.

 

As @Red Iron Crown said above, KerbalEdu is a different product from a different company that, essentially, pay Squad for a licence to distribute KSP with, or as part of, their product.  KerbalEdu is not therefore a Squad product.