Let's make a kickstarter to buy the KSP source-code

[Chris_2]

I'm quite sure everything in the world has a price. Maybe we (as a community) could ask Squad what the price of the KSP source-code is, and then start a Kickstarter to actually buy the KSP code from Squad (and make it open-source).

This way, development of cool features of KSP and the core could continue, and the best mods could be integrated into 'stock' KSP by the community. Right now, KSP is almost the best game ever. If development could continue, it could become the best game ever!

After we have bought the KSP code, we could start another Kickstarter or Patreon to hire Harverster or any other of the old devs (if they're interested of-course) to continue working on KSP freely and without restraints of Squad management! I know I'd be willing to spend quite some money on KSP if development would continue!

Thoughts?

Edited December 8, 2016 by Chris_2

[mystik]

Is there a problem with the current project that requires the code to be bought?

I mean, I see this https://kerbalspaceprogram.com/en/?page_id=499 and it looks to me like they are looking to continue developing the game. I know a lot of people left the team, but is there any real concern, that the game will be discontinued? I'm a new player and I am having lots of fun with the game, and I am very interested in seeing the game developed, but is there any issue with the current team and their plans?

And wouldn't buying the code and handing it to another dev team just make the development stall until the new team understands the game?

[Tex_NL]

So you want people to pay and then open it up to everybody?
Please answer me this: Why would I pay? If I wait for you to succeed I get it for free. If I wait for you to fail I still get free updates from Squad. So why would I pay? I get it for free either way.
For the vast majority nothing will change. It will just be another dev team making weird and unexplainable decisions.

Edited December 8, 2016 by Tex_NL

[Gaarst]

No.

[Chris_2]

15 minutes ago, Tex_NL said:

So you want people to pay and then open it up to everybody?
Please answer me this: Why would I pay? If I wait for you to succeed I get it for free. If I wait for you to fail I still get free updates from Squad. So why would I pay? I get it for free either way.

Well, personally I'd be willing to pay if development could continue with the 'vision' that the original masterminds and creators of KSP had. If you wait for me to fail, development will continue under the vision that -Squad management- has. So, then, expect more things like localization, console ports, and "great and ambitious plans for the KSP franchise and even more" (or, insert any other random and empty quote from the new 'devblogs') and expect less developments with actual substance, like multiplayer, parts overhaul, better wheels and improved graphics.

Edited December 8, 2016 by Chris_2

[mystik]

I don't mind that they are making console ports. It will just show that for some games, the PC remains the master race. If the game is bad on a console people will just stop buying it and the devs will refocus the development on a PC. I can see how this game would work on a touchscreen, but on a console it just seems clumsy and not immersive.

 

I would like more planets and stuff and more things to do, the integration of something like SVE, [X]Science and Engineer in the default code, because some of it should be in the game. But, as it is, the game is playable and enjoyable even without any of these mods. The game belongs to the company and while you can request features as a paying customer, you don't own the project, and even if you did, without any managing experience you would drive the product into the ground at 300m/s.

 

Development of a game isn't just "ooh, I fancy this, let's make this". It's about feasibility, about costs, about time and effort. You keep to the safe paths that promise rewards and if you have any money and time, you develop more of the exotic requests that may be hit and miss. Now, I don't know that the original team had in mind with this game, so I cannot judge properly if the game is living to expectations. I am a new player, but I am NOT a casual player, nor am I easily tricked by gimmicks. This game does not feel like a gimmick. It feels very immersive, it makes my head hurt from all the design, vectoring and sometimes just random tinkering. It makes me have sleepless nights when I can't sleep because I see rockets everywhere and dream that I always fail at meeting the missions, but I still think this game is great.

 

A better idea would be to request features and chip in a few dollars with the devs to supplement the development budget to bring that feature to the game. You could get free stuff such as themed merchandise and stuff. I think it's a better lucrative deal.

 

I would chip in a few bucks for integrating the mods I mentioned above. You might say "but they're free", to which I say, no they're not, they're time wasting to constantly update them or fiddlef*ck with the settings to compensate for the overzealous modder who added one too many details. I'd like those mods to be part of the "right out of the box" experience.

[Wjolcz]

Do you have a few millions of dollars? Because that's what you're going to need.

[wumpus]

Ask again in five/ten years (probably well after Steam has it for a buck between sales).  Buying the source implies that Squad will stop development of it (what's in it for them?), and even current users see little point in such a buy.  Once it has gone out of development and is far less economically valuable (few sales for low amounts), you might get a good price for it.  And the community (assuming it still exists) will need the source so much more.

This reminds me of a current "is KSP dead/when will it die" thread.  Squad still wants KSP and won't part with it cheaply.  The community wouldn't be as able to promote it as well as Squad is doing now.  "Buying the source" [for this anyway, Blender was a completely different case] is a strategy for when "KSP *is* dead" (from a developer/publisher standpoint, anyway).

Edited December 8, 2016 by wumpus
close quote

[Tex_NL]

16 minutes ago, wumpus said:

Ask again in five/ten years (probably well after Steam has it for a buck between sales).

100% agree.
A good example would be something like Freelancer. It was released in 2003 and has long been abandoned by Microsoft and Digital Anvil. But the modding community is still very much alive. The current Discovery mod adds more content than the original game came with. But since the game is old and outdated the modders are very limited to what they can do. There are times that players are actually required to manually hack one or more game files to make things work.
Getting that source code into the hands of the modding community might be beneficial. But for a game that is still being developed and has reached completion in name only (in my eyes KSP is STILL in beta), not so much.

P.S.
Yes. Before KSP I played Freelancer religiously. On the PTC server I was third in command of ZEN (Zoner Edgeworld Network). And quite possibly the richest player in all of Sirius.
On the PTC forum I held the title Master Trader and even the server owner came to me to check his numbers when he had plans for a new trade/smuggle event.

Edited December 8, 2016 by Tex_NL

[Chris_2]

35 minutes ago, wumpus said:

Ask again in five/ten years (probably well after Steam has it for a buck between sales).  Buying the source implies that Squad will stop development of it (what's in it for them?), and even current users see little point in such a buy.  Once it has gone out of development and is far less economically valuable (few sales for low amounts), you might get a good price for it.  And the community (assuming it still exists) will need the source so much more.

This reminds me of a current "is KSP dead/when will it die" thread.  Squad still wants KSP and won't part with it cheaply.  The community wouldn't be as able to promote it as well as Squad is doing now.  "Buying the source" [for this anyway, Blender was a completely different case] is a strategy for when "KSP *is* dead" (from a developer/publisher standpoint, anyway).

Sure, but I don't want to wait 5/10 years. I want the development to continue at the pace before the devs left (and with the vision of the old devs), right now...We don't know if Squad has any intentions to continue development of KSP (and with how much effort). Sure, hopefully they will, but I really don't expect them to, and I only expect them to implement things that would get them some quick extra $ instead (like the console release or the localization (which would lead to sells in extra countries)). How much extra monthly sells does KSP actually really still have? And to how much extra sells would hiring 5/10 new developers/artists to continue development really lead? Would that even be profitable (I'm sure Squad will have analyzed this question).  So, selling the source-code might be exactly what Squad wants, as it would give them some quick and dirty extra money. And it might also be good for the community, as development would continue (right now). So if they have any loyalty left towards the community, they better tell us what their intentions with the game are. (And if they don't intend to -really- continue development, sell the game to us for a good price...)

Edited December 8, 2016 by Chris_2

[mystik]

It looks to me like you base your worries on a lot of IF's and DON'T KNOW's. Relax, give them the time to prove themselves, if not, you already have the base game, the modding community is active. At worst you get what you payed for.

[Tex_NL]

8 minutes ago, mystik said:

At worst you get what you payed for.

Brilliant!

[Chris_2]

1 minute ago, Tex_NL said:

Brilliant!

Yes. And that's not enough. I want to pay more and get more

[Tex_NL]

5 minutes ago, Chris_2 said:

Yes. And that's not enough. I want to pay more and get more

I found the perfect option for you: https://kerbalspaceprogram.com/en/?page_id=499

[Chris_2]

3 minutes ago, Tex_NL said:

I found the perfect option for you: https://kerbalspaceprogram.com/en/?page_id=499

That's not really an option. I'm already doing my PhD into becoming an actual rocket scientist... Besides

Speaks Spanish fluently

I don't do that...

[pandaman]

On 08/12/2016 at 5:13 PM, Chris_2 said:

That's not really an option. I'm already doing my PhD into becoming an actual rocket scientist... Besides

 

[Speaks Spanish fluently]

I don't do that...

That is within your power to change should you wish.

[Superfluous J]

Quote

 

This proposition begs the question: Would making KSP open source cause it to be more quickly developed in a good direction?

I see no proof of (or way to prove) that. Or even define what a "good" direction is.

Edited December 11, 2016 by 5thHorseman
Swype again made me look like a moron.

[ZooNamedGames]

I might take development if I had the money. The difference being that I'm going to be more open to the community (but with KSP being Squad's domain that is their right and their choice) about what happens, why and when. As well as taking new routes and decisions that the game hasn't yet done. I would develop a story mode. More diverse contracts. Things you can do while on EVA in space or on bodies. Add places to go on Kerbin, etc etc.

But as @Tex_NL said, to everyone else, there would be little to no difference aside from what's being released. I wouldn't worry about failure because knowing the size of this community and a few people I've worked with in the past, I've got plenty of developers to help me make it happen. If I did end up not being able to develop it, I would likely just return it to Squad. It's their product.

That said; Squad hasn't made the best decisions but compared to other larger FAR more wealthy development groups, they're still doing pretty darn well!

If you honestly think Squad is doing a poor job then I'd like to see what one month under the control of Bethesda, or the terror *shudders*... EA could do to our beloved game.

[Tex_NL]

@ZooNamedGames Just to clarify; with success and failure I meant raising the money, not developing the game.

I have no doubt a group of non-Squad developers can be assembled that can do an equal or perhaps better job than Squad. But for the vast majority of players that won't make a difference.

[ZooNamedGames]

Just now, Tex_NL said:

@ZooNamedGames Just to clarify; with success and failure I meant raising the money, not developing the game.

I have no doubt a group of non-Squad developers can be assembled that can do an equal or perhaps better job than Squad. But for the vast majority of players that won't make a difference.

Oh well in my statement I just assumed I just magically got that specific sum of money (maybe I enter a 70s sitcom where I find something I can do which'll win me that exact amount of money).

[Alshain]

On 12/8/2016 at 9:04 AM, Chris_2 said:

Well, personally I'd be willing to pay if development could continue with the 'vision' that the original masterminds and creators of KSP had. If you wait for me to fail, development will continue under the vision that -Squad management- has. So, then, expect more things like localization, console ports, and "great and ambitious plans for the KSP franchise and even more" (or, insert any other random and empty quote from the new 'devblogs') and expect less developments with actual substance, like multiplayer, parts overhaul, better wheels and improved graphics.

You do realize Harvester's vision was to have as many supported languages and supported devices as possible, right?  So if we are "returning" to his vision, that means more localization and console ports.  He actually stated somewhat early in development he eventually wanted it on every console he could get it on.

[Andem]

While I'm all for open source and community development... why? There doesn't seem any reasonable cause for someone to buy the game, no matter how frustrated we are with squads poor decision making/communication/whatever drama is happening this week.

[The Aziz]

I could support making the game open source (but not now, only after devs decide to leave the game development. This reminds me of what happened to good old Colobot. Years after release, fanbase asked the creators if they could give them source code of the game, so fans could work on it, improve it, and release for free. And now we have working alpha of Gold Edition, which looks and works good), but while there are arguments about why devs don't do what we want, there still is Suggestions&Development forums open for everyone. Does that mean nothing?

[cfds]

The problem with "Harvester's visions" is that they are

• wobbly rockets
• lolplosions
• slap rocket together | launch | timewarp | revert | repeat as the only supported way to get to anywhere

When I heard that Harvester left I had the hope that we might get a game that actually approaches "finished" status. Of course that hope died with the mass exodus of developers after 1.2.0...

 

 

[Arugela]

With open source maybe it would help get developers doing it for free for fun. They could open it up to get a larger resource pool and do a lot more work and do a lot more varied things to the game. Maybe simultaneously. Maybe a bunch of engineers and scientists would see it think it was a cool idea and just start coding for it. Particularly if you look at open source as open development. You can hypothetically make a game that can do everything. You just leave it to the player to pick what they want. If you want premade stuff just make premade setting for people to choose from to learn the game.

 

And sqaud can still sell the game and make money on open source.

Edited December 12, 2016 by Arugela