Forget about DLCs and create a new game instead

[Wjolcz]

I don't know if it's been suggested already or not, but: Screw DLCs. Make a fresh new game instead.

I just want to say that I have no motivation to buy any DLC for this game simply because there are tons and tons of mods out there that offer almost everything that can be added to this game. I say make a completely new game (still with Kerbals as main protagonists) about atmospheric flight. Piston engines, jet engines, rocket engines for planes and stuff like that. Keep the current LEGO (or procedural) approach and add multiplayer. I don't know much about coding a game but I can imagine creating a new one with intention of adding MP eventually is probably easier than creating DMP for KSP.

So the main points are:

-Aircraft pilot career

-Earth-sized Kerbin

-Atmospheric/weak rocketplane engines

-Multiplayer

-Multiple launch sites

-Since this wouldn't be the peaceful KSP we all know anymore I can easily imagine guns being added at some point. Who knows, might be fun.

 

Would you buy it? I definitely would.

Edited October 13, 2016 by Veeltch

[pandaman]

Absolutely nothing wrong with developing a new game like @Veeltchsuggests, in fact it's probably quite a good idea.

Would I buy it?  That depends if I like what it offers after seeing it and playing the demo.  For me personally the format suggested in the OP would probably not appeal to me as much as KSP, but I would certainly check out the demo.

I would rather they continue development on KSP, and adding good quality DLC to keep it ticking over financially a bit longer.  But maybe do additional games in the same 'Kerbal universe' alongside alongside it to help secure their future more. 

[Wjolcz]

13 minutes ago, pandaman said:

I would rather they continue development on KSP, and adding good quality DLC to keep it ticking over financially a bit longer.  But maybe do additional games in the same 'Kerbal universe' alongside alongside it to help secure their future more. 

Maybe my imagination is underdeveloped but I really struggle to come up with something for a KSP's DLC that isn't offered by mods already. They'll really have to think hard to create something fresh and new.

[Mad_Scientist]

3 minutes ago, Veeltch said:

Maybe my imagination is underdeveloped but I really struggle to come up with something for a KSP's DLC that isn't offered by mods already. They'll really have to think hard to create something fresh and new.

I would definitely buy visual enchantment packs, cause although mods provide the functionality, the rate of crushing the game rapidly increasing with amount of mods you install. Also, in my opinion DLC are good way to stimulate developers to continue work on the game. For me, mods are only essential because their functionality is not present in the stock, and as soon as the same functionality is incorporated, I drop the mod.  

[Wjolcz]

Just now, Mad_Scientist said:

I would definitely buy visual enchantment packs, cause although mods provide the functionality, the rate of crushing the game rapidly increasing with amount of mods you install. Also, in my opinion DLC are good way to stimulate developers to continue work on the game. For me, mods are only essential because their functionality is not present in the stock, and as soon as the same functionality is incorporated, I drop the mod.  

You know the only difference here is paying/not paying for it, right? It's not like if they make a paid DLC for visuals the game will run smoother. It's the same stuff.

"If I pay for it it's better and runs smoother." What's with this money placebo effect?

[pandaman]

2 hours ago, Veeltch said:

You know the only difference here is paying/not paying for it, right? It's not like if they make a paid DLC for visuals the game will run smoother. It's the same stuff.

"If I pay for it it's better and runs smoother." What's with this money placebo effect?

Presumably any DLC would also be available to console players, whereas mods quite likely won't be.

I agree that just because you paid for it doesn't necessarily make it better quality, but 'official' DLC would presumably be subject to Squads internal 'verification' to ensure that they are as compatible as possible with the stock game, whereas there is no actual control over this for mods, I'm sure the mod creators try as best they can to reduce the risks, but if a mod breaks your stock game it's still tough luck, 'warranty void' time, but if an official DLC does it then Squad would be responsible for fixing it.

As with a new game, if a particular DLC is of interest to me then I'd consider buying it, but if it turns out to be poor quality or value then I'd be reluctant to buy any more.

[Red Iron Crown]

3 hours ago, Veeltch said:

Maybe my imagination is underdeveloped but I really struggle to come up with something for a KSP's DLC that isn't offered by mods already. They'll really have to think hard to create something fresh and new.

Not everyone is willing or able to use mods. 

[Wjolcz]

Fair points. But I don't think they can expect a lot of money income from the PC players.

[Gaarst]

Considering the amount of work put into (space)plane parts compared to rocket parts in the last updates, if Squad stopped developing KSP and made an atmospheric flight game, I (and others) will be very upset.

Anyway, as I already stated in another thread: I won't buy a DLC that adds a thousand things to the game if they can be added by mods; I'll totally buy a DLC that doesn't add anything in game but extends the possibilities for mods.

(Note that I'll get any DLC for KSP for free, so I might be a bit biased)

Edited October 14, 2016 by Gaarst

[Kerbart]

4 hours ago, Veeltch said:

Maybe my imagination is underdeveloped but I really struggle to come up with something for a KSP's DLC that isn't offered by mods already. They'll really have to think hard to create something fresh and new.

• KSC sized space stations, including housing and ship building facilities (may or may not require engineers on-site for that)
• Real cities and landmarks on Kerbin. There's a few mods for cities but most of them looks squarish and community efforts struggle to develop and maintain organic cities. Also; highways, bridges, other large scale infrastructure
• Airports with refueling facilities (or SPH to build your own refueling vehicle)

I'm not saying none of these can be done by mods—some of them are already, after all—but they can be integrated in the game in a way and scale mods can't, I would think. And I am sure there's much more than that.

[Superfluous J]

If they totally closed up shop today, said 1.2 was it and they were working on KSP2 and they'll see us in 2 years, would you be content with that?

I actually think I would, oddly. 1.2 is pretty good. Sure it needs more but I can play this for a while until KSP2 comes out with its own engine and whatever else would be great but they can't really do now because they're locked in to certain paradigms.

[Red Iron Crown]

Why not both?

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Red Iron Crown said:

Not everyone is willing or able to use mods. 

Yeah, I can think of a certain guy named EJ...

[Tw1]

If they're going to make a new game, they ought to try an make up for the areas KSP original is lacking in. Namely the science, exploration aspect. 

[Hannu2]

5 hours ago, Veeltch said:

Maybe my imagination is underdeveloped but I really struggle to come up with something for a KSP's DLC that isn't offered by mods already. They'll really have to think hard to create something fresh and new.

It seems that you have concentrated to atmospheric flight. This is quite strange opinion from space flight game in which all planets are 2 dimensional balls with about 5 physical parameters and smallest details are about square kilometer sized. There are practically no exploration at all. Couple of childish eastern eggs in the whole solar system and even they have no effect on game. It is hard coded, which is impossible to mod, because the core game does not give any functionality for such things. All planet mods give similar balls with different colors and sizes.

I think that it would not be a bad idea to divide development to flight simulator and space simulator parts. Flight simulator could be a new game like you suggested. I would probably not buy it, because I am a space enthusiast, but I do not see why it should exclude possibility to continue developing of KSP to give more details and more to do in space. I would certainly buy a DLC if it gave exploration or details (not detailed graphics but 3D terrain and physical interactions with it).

[Clockwork13]

If paid DLC ever gets added, then I'm just going to look for something else to play.

[Wanderhoof]

On 10/14/2016 at 1:12 PM, Clockwork13 said:

If paid DLC ever gets added, then I'm just going to look for something else to play.

 

If paid DLC gets added and it seems to be features or add-ons I would want and enjoy, then I will gladly purchase it.  Because, I believe in financially supporting games and companies that provide me content I enjoy in the hopes of extending the life cycle of said games and companies a bit longer if not in perpetuity.

[Tex_NL]

On 14-10-2016 at 0:59 AM, Veeltch said:

Screw DLCs. Make a fresh new game instead.

Screw DLC's Screw a new game.
How about actually finishing what you started?

[Wjolcz]

6 minutes ago, Tex_NL said:

Screw DLC's Screw a new game.
How about actually finishing what you started?

I just assumed there's not much hope left in this one.

[NSEP]

This is a good idea actually. It would be cool if this would be like War Thunder, where you have a hangar with a limited amount of vehicles and stuff. But forget the Microtransaction and DLC of War Thunder, nobody likes that.

[FleshJeb]

On 10/14/2016 at 5:35 AM, 5thHorseman said:

If they totally closed up shop today, said 1.2 was it and they were working on KSP2 and they'll see us in 2 years, would you be content with that?

I actually think I would, oddly. 1.2 is pretty good. Sure it needs more but I can play this for a while until KSP2 comes out with its own engine and whatever else would be great but they can't really do now because they're locked in to certain paradigms.

I've been playing a lightly-modded version of 0.25 for the last two+ years, and as far as I'm concerned they could have started on KSP 2 THEN. I've tried 0.90 and 1.05, and I think all I've missed is the new bugs and the physics changing every other week.

[Tw1]

10 hours ago, FleshJeb said:

I've been playing a lightly-modded version of 0.25 for the last two+ years, and as far as I'm concerned they could have started on KSP 2 THEN. I've tried 0.90 and 1.05, and I think all I've missed is the new bugs and the physics changing every other week.

More or less, but there have been some improvements, and interesting parts added. Career mode sounds like it's been getting less terrible, but I haven't touched it for ages. 

 

If they were to expand, they ought to make use of the untapped potential to make KSP a science and exploration game, not just an engineering and flight sim. KSP is able to put you many roles, pilot, engineer, explorer, manager. This broadness should be capitalised on. 

KSP is a great example of a game that needs no weapons, I don't think it should break that. There are other flight and building games out there.

What makes KSP special is how it both accurately and accessible does space, IMHO, this is the core they should keep building on.
I don't really see how it would work well with an aircraft focus. 

 

Though they're slowly adding in more details,  science still seems more like just point scoring, many contracts just checkpoints to hit.

I'd like to see more things to do on the ground, an in space, and more complicated goals for bases and stations, so they player can find and meet their own needs rather than just the requests from contracts.

More space infrastructure. Like designating stations and bases as tourist sites, and having tourists want to go there based on desirability conditions. 

Moving from an unlocking progression with costs limits type game, with an endless auto generated task list, to an achievement per time, endlessly improving type game. 

KSP financial mode, with crew and staff salaries, sponsorships, budget per reputation and time...

Ground exploration. Geology layers. Photography targets. They could add to the existing 'biomes' system, respond to altitude, slopes, temperature, time of day, location between key points... 

There's a lot of stuff they could do. 

Edited October 17, 2016 by Tw1

[Alshain]

Sometimes to grow a franchise you have to abandon the current project, learn from the mistakes made in it (and the successes), and start a new one.  This happens a lot.  KSP is in a good spot now, and I think it might actually be a good time to work on KSP 2.  A better career system is not likely to happen here, but in a successor game.  This is not an uncommon practice in the industry in fact.  The franchise expands and becomes better with each release.  In fact these franchises usually end up better off than the ones that just clone themselves over and over again.

Edited October 17, 2016 by Alshain

[Wjolcz]

10 hours ago, NSEP said:

This is a good idea actually. It would be cool if this would be like War Thunder, where you have a hangar with a limited amount of vehicles and stuff. But forget the Microtransaction and DLC of War Thunder, nobody likes that.

Yep. That's why I don't play War Thunder. I'd rather buy the whole game (and support the devs directly) than have these microtransactions and DLC that let me just grind less. I think the best way to incorporate this idea would be to look at NASA's and other space agencies atmospheric research programs. There are a lot of things they do with planes (SOFIA, SR-71, Pegasus, etc.). They could throw in the MP and let us create races. I think it could be a lot of fun. Basically IL-2 + Modern tech + building capabilieties of KSP + an engaging pilot career + Multiplayer (possible cooperation/versus missions and stuff like that).

There aren't many atmospheric flying/building games (Simple Planes is the most popular one right now AFAIK), so if SQUAD decided to create their own it could become another bestseller.

[NSEP]

47 minutes ago, Veeltch said:

Yep. That's why I don't play War Thunder. I'd rather buy the whole game (and support the devs directly) than have these microtransactions and DLC that let me just grind less. I think the best way to incorporate this idea would be to look at NASA's and other space agencies atmospheric research programs. There are a lot of things they do with planes (SOFIA, SR-71, Pegasus, etc.). They could throw in the MP and let us create races. I think it could be a lot of fun. Basically IL-2 + Modern tech + building capabilieties of KSP + an engaging pilot career + Multiplayer (possible cooperation/versus missions and stuff like that).

There aren't many atmospheric flying/building games (Simple Planes is the most popular one right now AFAIK), so if SQUAD decided to create their own it could become another bestseller.

Agreed, i never buy microtransactions, and once in a while i get DLC, but buying the full game straight away is the best option. A plane game without that crap would become a bestseller for sure. I also would like to see a bit of upper atmosphere exploration and passager planing in it, so it would be a game for pretty much everyone.