KSP Making History

[StrandedonEarth]

1 hour ago, TriggerAu said:

being made available to all without needing mods installed (yes not all people use mods)

This. While I use mods, I would prefer not to have to, at least not for some things. It's a hassle, finding them, updating them after patches (CKAN helps), etc. I haven't bothered getting EVA 'chutes, but that will be nice to have. It's one thing to go looking for extra challenges (life support, construction time, etc.), or pretty scenery, or more parts, but there are other useful things that haven't found their way into the stock game for one reason or another.

Mods I would happily pay for if stockified include:

 A dV/TWR readout is something that was hinted at and then quietly dropped (I realize edge cases make it complicated, but even just a disclaimer could be a workaround). Felipe (Harvester) wanted "seat-of-the-pants" rocket building and flying, which is fine fun at the start of the game, but quickly gets frustrating later in the game.

TriggerAu, I know you've been conspicuously silent about getting KAC and TWP into stock, but those are also incredibly useful to have. I know they added "Warp to.." to stock, but that's a poor substitute and doesn't help multi-mission planning.

Navball Docking Alignment Indicator is a tiny little mod that makes docking so much easier for rookies (I think that was my first mod, if not that then KAC).

KIS/KAS has been incredibly useful for all sorts of things on the fly, and would also be nice in stock.

All of the preceding stuff can be tied into the tech tree for when you actually need them, since they're not needed right at the start. If they were all packaged into one DLC, I would happily pay for it.

I really must check out @RoverDude's construction mods one of these days. Looking them over, his mods could be DLC's unto themselves. Construction ports would be an excellent addition to stock, helping to reduce part-count-induced lag.

I realize there are licensing issues and such, but if they want still more of my money....

[tater]

@JeeF, I agree on the modding aspect (I was a SH4 modder, never played SH3). I'm joking---but only half joking---when I say I got more that I should have ever expected with KSP. I got it on sale I think, it was ~$20. The games I have played as much (not counting Nethack, lol) have been subscriptive (Warbirds and WW2OL), SH4 (where I spent at least as many hours modding the campaign system as ever playing), and the IL-2 series (modding maps once that became a thing). The last one, Il-2, involved buy-in the game, and a few add-ons to it, each which cost on the order of $50 as I recall. So Il-2 was hundreds or thousands of hours, certainly, but I paid at least 6 times what I paid for the same play in KSP.

Back in the day, Warbirds was _hourly_. When my wife was a Resident, and at the hospital for 120 hours a week or more, I ran up monthly WB bills over $200. Work (late), open beer, fly WB, sleep, repeat, lol.

[JeeF]

1 hour ago, tater said:

@JeeF, I agree on the modding aspect (I was a SH4 modder, never played SH3).

Nice to see there are more of us around!

Surely you've heard of Philipp Thomsen's Sound pack? Or another of my many mods

1 hour ago, tater said:

I'm joking---but only half joking---when I say I got more that I should have ever expected with KSP. I got it on sale I think, it was ~$20. The games I have played as much (not counting Nethack, lol) have been subscriptive (Warbirds and WW2OL), SH4 (where I spent at least as many hours modding the campaign system as ever playing), and the IL-2 series (modding maps once that became a thing). The last one, Il-2, involved buy-in the game, and a few add-ons to it, each which cost on the order of $50 as I recall. So Il-2 was hundreds or thousands of hours, certainly, but I paid at least 6 times what I paid for the same play in KSP.

Back in the day, Warbirds was _hourly_. When my wife was a Resident, and at the hospital for 120 hours a week or more, I ran up monthly WB bills over $200. Work (late), open beer, fly WB, sleep, repeat, lol.

Yes I understand what you mean. KSP does feel like a cheap game for the fun it provides, in contrast to so many other games I have on my Steam that did cost a lot more and provided a lot less fun.

F1 2016 was the worst purchase. Paid 69 dollars on it and my god, what a piece of garbage.

Regarding modding, it's crucial isn't it? I can't imagine gaming without. Mods are the reason why PC games are at least 10x more fun than console games. Maybe this is one of the reasons we see certain modded contents or similar going into DLCs, so people on consoles can enjoy them. 

/threadhijack

[Vanamonde]

Quote

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the features of this DLC I've only read stuff that we already have with mods. To take something already developed by the community with hard work, incorporate back into your product and sell back to the community is just cheap. 

This makes it sound as if Squad is pirating someone else's code. They aren't taking anything from anybody, and will create their own content from scratch. Also, as others have pointed out, a number of things in the game now were preceded by mods which performed the same or similar functions. If Squad had not made stock equivalents, you would still be relying on mod makers to keep updating things such as docking mechanisms and rover wheels, and if that mod maker quit the game, you might no longer have any docking mechanisms and rover wheels. And as I pointed out earlier, the only way to prevent this from happening would be if Squad determined never to include anything which might be made into a mod at some point in the future. Squad cannot work backwards and try to make their product conform to the needs of the multitude of often conflicting mods available, and so they are going to do the only practical thing, which is to make stock versions of whatever they want to have in their game regardless of whether or not a modded version of that feature already exists. 

Quote

DLC's should always be optional, and they should be developed and implemented with this thought in mind. A DLC shouldn't in any way twist the players arms into buying it in order to be able to keep playing. I can see this happening here with mods that will be developed in a way "you NEED to have this DLC in order to install my mod". 

How would a requirement imposed by a mod's maker somehow be Squad's fault? 

[tater]

I think the concern with dividing the modding community is not really that concerning.

The core game stays the same, and the DLC is effectively another mod (just as much of the stock game is in the Squad directory inside GameData. If changes to the core game don't break stuff, then mods should work regardless, right? If there was a profound addition in a DLC that modern really wanted to utilize... then they will migrate, and their followers can pony up $20.

[Conventia]

My preference for DLC's with regard to KSP is for them to be 'content' rather than 'functionality'. I suppose the distinction may be a bit vague, so I'll try to explain a little. For example, in the case of scenarios, I'd prefer that the core code required to enable scenarios be part of the core game while the actual scenarios and perhaps 'plugins' for specific features be part of the DLC. This would allow modders access to the same functionality as the DLC, with regards to how it accesses the game. At that point, the only mods that would need to depend on the DLC are ones which want to rely on the specific functionality of the DLC for whatever reason rather than writing it from scratch.

I suppose I have this viewpoint because one of the things I'd really like to see with KSP is the core functionality becoming more flexible and extensible, in much the same way that the new comms system in 1.2 can be extended (in theory) to support functionality like RemoteTech, rather than having to write it from scratch.

[TriggerAu]

6 hours ago, StrandedonEarth said:

TriggerAu, I know you've been conspicuously silent about getting KAC and TWP into stock, but those are also incredibly useful to have. I know they added "Warp to.." to stock, but that's a poor substitute and doesn't help multi-mission planning.

Dunno about conspicuously absent. I've offered (if I cast my mind back, so maybe not recently), and I know how useful I find em  . I'm hoping to get the OK for it when time and direction allows.

In historical news that warp to stuff is kinda funny - both Felipe and I did that at the same time (I wasnt on staff then) so we ended up with two similar things at the same time.

[StrandedonEarth]

3 hours ago, TriggerAu said:

Dunno about conspicuously absent. I've offered (if I cast my mind back, so maybe not recently), and I know how useful I find em  . I'm hoping to get the OK for it when time and direction allows.

Now that is fantastic to hear! First I'd heard about it. 

[JeeF]

9 hours ago, Vanamonde said:

Squad cannot work backwards and try to make their product conform to the needs of the multitude of often conflicting mods available, and so they are going to do the only practical thing, which is to make stock versions of whatever they want to have in their game regardless of whether or not a modded version of that feature already exists.

Apparently my post was too long or you didn't read it well or I failed to communicate. I agree with you 100%, Squad SHOULD take the best mod ideas and include them to the game as stock features. My point is they shouldn't charge us for it. They should charge us for content that was not or cannot be modded into the game.

Quote

How would a requirement imposed by a mod's maker somehow be Squad's fault? 

If I give you a gun and you shoot yourself in the head with it, some may argue that I'm partially guilty. Some may disagree.

What happens if "oh my god, the game is soooo much more stable with the DLC for whatever reason, we (modders) should all start developing mods only on top of the DLC from now on!" 

Again, I hope I'm wrong and this doesn't happen. I'm not accusing anybody of anything, I'm simply expressing my concerns. By working in the videogame industry, I know there's a lot of evil going behind the curtains that companies do to get the ball curving their way in the long run, almost imperceptible changes with an agenda. I've seen it enough to make me sick of it and quit a couple of developers because of it. Sure, there are bad guys and good guys and Squad always seemed to me like they play for the good guys team. But trauma is trauma, it puts you on your back foot every time.

I just voiced my concerns and feedback, Squad heard and that's all I wanted. The ball is on their hands now. This has dragged long enough, we should all let this die down.

9 hours ago, Conventia said:

My preference for DLC's with regard to KSP is for them to be 'content' rather than 'functionality'. I suppose the distinction may be a bit vague, so I'll try to explain a little. For example, in the case of scenarios, I'd prefer that the core code required to enable scenarios be part of the core game while the actual scenarios and perhaps 'plugins' for specific features be part of the DLC. This would allow modders access to the same functionality as the DLC, with regards to how it accesses the game. At that point, the only mods that would need to depend on the DLC are ones which want to rely on the specific functionality of the DLC for whatever reason rather than writing it from scratch.

I suppose I have this viewpoint because one of the things I'd really like to see with KSP is the core functionality becoming more flexible and extensible, in much the same way that the new comms system in 1.2 can be extended (in theory) to support functionality like RemoteTech, rather than having to write it from scratch.

This.

Bohemia, when they release a paid DLC, allows all player who do not have the DLC to participate in matches with people that do have the DLC.

They see a lower quality texture version of the DLC, or they see a vehicle that is part of the DLC and can interact with it to a  point, but cannot drive it or use it in a particular way. It doesn't try to split the community so people with DLC can only play with others that also have the DLC, excluding the rest. In this sense, if Squad is coding this in a way that mods can be develop for those with and without DLC in a very flexible manner and in the end if only a matter of taste separating those with and without DLC, then yeah by all means go for it.

Edited March 29, 2017 by JeeF

[_stilgar_]

I don't understand the problem with mods and DLC. 

If a mod uses something from the DLC, one of those things will happen:

a) mod has two versions, one with the DLC feature and one without

b) mod is split into two modules - base version and additional module that you only install when you have the DLC (which is a variation of the point a)

c) if the feature from the DLC is so important that the mod can't exist without it then you either don't use this mod or buy the DLC... Which makes sense, if you want a DLC feature then you have to buy it... 

5 hours ago, JeeF said:

My point is they shouldn't charge us for it. They should charge us for content that was not or cannot be modded into the game.

That makes no sense. If they don't make money from the work on that feature, then what's the incentive for them to do it? Why don't just use the mod? 

KerbNet could have been released as DLC, and it wouldn't be wrong. The fact that RemoteTech and AntennaRange existed doesn't mean Squad can't develop their own version. They did it as free patch and we should be grateful (yay, new free features) and not demand more free stuff. Have you heard the The Tale of the Fisherman and the Fish ? 

[Guest]

20 hours ago, tater said:

(and why I'm none the less in the "it's a small price to pay" camp, though that;s entirely because I feel like I ripped Squad off because I've not gotten so much use out of so little expense in... forever, possibly.

I don't know how you could ever feel that way. The amount of time you spent playing KSP was a happy accident of the circumstances of your life, with the price set by Squad. I paid $18 (not $17, apparently) and I'm not "wishing I paid more" because I took a risk on the game being complete bunk. As it stands I probably have a couple thousand hours in the game but that doesn't mean I owe Squad a penny more since they set the price for the product initially. Nor do I feel like I owe Squad any money whatsoever for the DLC/expansion which they agreed to provide me for free based on someone else's argument that I had no part in (and didn't agree with in the first place). because Squad is the one who made that decision.

[tater]

37 minutes ago, regex said:

I don't know how you could ever feel that way. The amount of time you spent playing KSP was a happy accident of the circumstances of your life, with the price set by Squad. I paid $18 (not $17, apparently) and I'm not "wishing I paid more" because I took a risk on the game being complete bunk. As it stands I probably have a couple thousand hours in the game but that doesn't mean I owe Squad a penny more since they set the price for the product initially. Nor do I feel like I owe Squad any money whatsoever for the DLC/expansion which they agreed to provide me for free based on someone else's argument that I had no part in (and didn't agree with in the first place). because Squad is the one who made that decision.

<shrug>

I donate to podcasts, too.

I'm happy to support some new content, with the hope that the core game might continue a little development... I'd love a real career system, but that likely won't happen, though perhaps the "mission editor" can be modded into something useful at some point.

[Guest]

32 minutes ago, tater said:

I donate to podcasts, too.

i think the difference to me is that Squad specifically sell a product for entertainment, not providing one for free and letting people decide whether to donate.

[tater]

I don't really disagree, @regex, but KSP is a special case for me, as it's the cheapest game that I have played as much as games I subscribed to (and ww2ol was pretty "in progress" for the 10+ years I played it.

[Combatsmithen]

FEBRUARY 2013 WOOT.

[Vanamonde]

Quote

Apparently my post was too long or you didn't read it well or I failed to communicate. I agree with you 100%, Squad SHOULD take the best mod ideas and include them to the game as stock features. My point is they shouldn't charge us for it. 

Apparently you didn't read my post well or I failed to communicate. Squad charges for what Squad does. They are not taking anyone's intellectual property if some modder happens to have already made something along the same lines as their own work. And if you don't want to pay for what Squad is doing, no one will force you. 

Quote

If I give you a gun and you shoot yourself in the head with it, some may argue that I'm partially guilty. 

This is a really bizarre analogy. 

Quote

What happens if "oh my god, the game is soooo much more stable with the DLC for whatever reason, we (modders) should all start developing mods only on top of the DLC from now on!" 

That would be unfortunate, but is hardly a reason for Squad to stop offering people new content. 

[tater]

@RoverDude, will the addition of Soviet-style craft include a new distinction between splashdowns, and land landings? Such an addition to the core game (then fleshed out with the DLC parts utilizing it) would be very interesting. Game code already includes "splashed down" as a thing in contracts.

That would add some interesting design choices, but would likely require something like landertron for making Soyuz-like landings possible.

Crew safety might require 9.75-11 m/s (Apollo velocities with 3 vs 2 chutes) if splashed down, and 1.4 m/s (Soyuz with retro rockets) if touchdown (land) is the method.

The Mission Builder might then be given the ability to require landing within a (or one of several) circles/ellipses, drawn on the map by the mission designer.

[RoverDude]

@tater - that's probably more of a @Robbonaut question as it's design   Most of my work this go around is making sure you have a lot of pretty things to launch, fly, and land in various states of disassembly 

[Urses]

^^^ like in "They come all down...preferably in one piece but...KSP"

Jebediahproven!

[ElJugador]

I've been out for the past several months, and coming back.

Wew.

I feel rather... ambivalent about this. On one hand, it's a little demoralizing to see it happen, and I do feel the stock game as it is felt rushed to the finish line and that the dev team sacrificed too many objectives just to get it released. I'm afraid they might enforce exclusivity or start trying to nickel-and-dime the playerbase to death with progressive additional content, and I do think even this pack could've done with some more substance/time in the oven, so to speak.

On the other, another very well-known, well-loved, *and rich* developer (Paradox Studios) have already proven it can work to the benefit of the game and communities, even with a density as extreme as CKII or EU4. Plus, it gives them an all-new funding source to keep themselves well-fed and housed to sustain great free updates and amazing expansions. Lastly, I think the stock game is already quite close to reaching its full potential without beginning to railroad the player into a particular endgame route or playing style.

Rrrr. What to pick, what to pick?

[Fellow314]

 

 

Given that the cost per hour of my playing KSP is probably down to fractions of pennies and also that I'd like Squad to be able to afford to go on developing the game (and I really don't begrudge them a profit on top of that - the bills must be paid), I;m more than happy to pay for the new content.

Very much looking forward to it.

[Future-Pilot]

Shut up and take my money.

[SneakyGunz]

Can't wait!! I bought four or five copies of KSP way before the cutoff date. My friends and I will enjoy this for no additional cost. Thank you for that opportunity.

 

Edit: Just wanted to say that this is, by far, my all time favorite game ever made. Thank you for KSP. :))

Edited May 3, 2017 by SneakyGunz
clarity

[spidersVise]

I purchased my copy in August of 2012.

I feel like an old fart.

[Maelstrom Vortex]

Don't listen to the nay sayers Squad. You guys have well and exceeded my expectations as a first mover in this game. Compared to other early access games your progress is literally staggeringly mind blowing on the quality of your game. You haven't put out any paid DLC in ages and you deserve the support. As someone who bought the game pre-april 2013, I'd happily toss a few bucks more your way as I realize that the longevity of all games is dictated by the available revenue to sustain them and I don't want to see Kerbals stop improving or growing any time soon.

PS. How about a stable multiplayer platform next? I know it's been shot down before but you'd really get good money if you added that functionality as DLC.

Edited April 1, 2017 by Maelstrom Vortex