KSP Making History

[Pi_]

On ‎3‎/‎17‎/‎2017 at 11:50 AM, Ten Key said:

Will this expansion be available for console versions of the game?

 

On ‎3‎/‎16‎/‎2017 at 7:18 PM, UomoCapra said:

Pricing and availability details will be announced at a later date.

I suspect the "availability details" will contain a special clause for console users.  And I have a feeling that clause will contain the words "at a later date".

[Ser]

8 hours ago, Urses said:

But mostly a mode generates a new part and gives this part a new funktion. Like LifeSupport or realy BadS Engine. But this means the modder used a copy of the original Item.

That's not true. Many mods aren't bound to any part and majority of them utilize functionality provided by the core game.

2 hours ago, Vanamonde said:

Squad would have to refuse to implement ... anything that someone might want to make a mod out of in the future. Which would leave them with nothing to add to the game. 

That's a little exaggeration. There's no reason Squad wouldn't implement anything that might ever be implemented as a mod. But if we would be said "You had a cool life support feature all this time? Now you have to buy it" that would no doubt hurt the community if it will automatically lead the appropriate mods to die or to be poorly supported. Also the number of DLCs is important. If we end up with tons of them that would cause havoc.

2 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:

I mean sure, if a mod works with and/or relies on the mission builder then of course you'll need the DLC for the mod to work. But if you don't have the DLC you probably won't want a mod that deals with the mission builder anyway.

Imagine that someone decides to make a mod that utilizes some mechanics of EVA parachutes somehow, to create say air balloons or exploding kerbals. He looks at what's already there in his assembly of the game and finds such a cool feature he might use rather than re-implementing it (really, why to do that, time is precious). The rest do really need that mod but are forced to purchase the DLC to use it, just because of tiny dependency.

DLCs are good at something (maybe it's really not enough to implement something into stock game and say "We have a game with such cool features. Buy it!" to have a steady income). At something they are bad.

All being said is just a hypothetical outcome everyone should be aware of. Too much talk around it.

Edited March 28, 2017 by Ser

[Urses]

33 minutes ago, Ser said:

/snip/

Thanks i never knew that dV-Readout is part that is provided by SQUAD. And yes you have right the modes bases on ingame engine how would it work orher way? And i am not sure that i saw somwhere a change for ingame engine through DLC. This would be an update and is free-for-all witch was States by SQUAD. Updates will be provided free, DLC is a additional Content and is a free User to decide option to buy and Profit or Not to buy and complaint "Why all who bought DLC has more content as me".... ehmmmm....

Your Statement "make a game so good that People buy it".... did you hear about a term "market volume"? Somewhere is a point where every interested Nerd/Geek has bought the game... and now SQUAD have to close the doors and give up the game? Because i dont see that somebody runs in the shop and buy 1.2.9 or 1.3, we complaint why we don't get our free Updates fast enough... here is smth fishy 

Summarie 

I don't See a Engine Change and wonder me Why you say mods will Not work animore.

I See a new functionality and if you will get this One you have to buy it. I don't See Why you have to get a AddOn funktionality for wich i pay and you complain?

@SQUAD it may be way to late but i think to say "KSP makes History" AddOn was a better way to go.

Funny Kabooms 

Urses

Edited March 28, 2017 by Urses

[Ser]

@Urses Let's hope you're right.

[Urses]

@Ser

EA have given the Term DLC a realy Bad Taste, But i hope the gamernear Companys use this term as it means "content" and Not "bugfix" like EA....

Funny Kabooms 

Urses

PS: no offense was Intended i only realy dislike if Friends  (and i See the KSP Community as brothers from Another mothers) fight each other. Therefore "piano" please. Let it come and may be we say in a Year where is the next one?

[Superfluous J]

2 hours ago, Ser said:

Imagine that someone decides to make a mod that utilizes some mechanics of EVA parachutes somehow, to create say air balloons or exploding kerbals. He looks at what's already there in his assembly of the game and finds such a cool feature he might use rather than re-implementing it (really, why to do that, time is precious). The rest do really need that mod but are forced to purchase the DLC to use it, just because of tiny dependency.

Doesn't need imagining. It happened with the soccer ball. Someone made a mod that took the soccer ball mechanic and turned it into landing airbags like the Sojurner Rover used. That mod was free, but Squad stopped supporting it and the mod stopped working.

But again, that was not Squad's fault. It was not the modder's fault. In your hypothetical case it's also not Squad's or the modder's fault. It is the fault of the person who "needs" that mod but isn't willing to put the time and effort into learning how to adapt it to the non-dlc game, or take the far cheaper option (time is money) and just buy the DLC for this mod they absolutely "need."

[Samszee]

1 hour per £1 spent on a game is my vague value rule. Paid £30? (maybe less with Steam sales) for ksp played 212 hours with many many more to come, so i currently owe squad £170  i mean errr free DLC im outraged! 

[LinAGKar]

On 2017-03-17 at 2:16 PM, Majorjim! said:

Yup, I'm very glad I bought before that date and will get my promised, free DLCs forever.

How will that work, will we get it automatically? How does it work if you transferred the license to Steam?

[JeeF]

When I saw news of a DLC, I got excited.

Now I see what the DLC will bring, I'm disappointed.

I see people saying we have the moral obligation to keep the company afloat. It's not our moral obligation, we already paid for the product, the company needs to sell it to new customers, that's how it works.

I'd like to repay you for the XXX number of hours of fun you have provided me. Again, you already paid. You paid for a game and you've enjoyed it. Unless you've got it for free? I didn't.

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".

It would be all fine and dandy if the DLC offered stuff that we don't already have with mods. Something BIG, something hard-coded, something not achievable with mods. 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. These guys developed a great game, I'm sure they could've done better. I'm sure they could've done something to the code that we don't have access to, adding content impossible to be added through modding.

Myself, for instance, I only play with RSS+RO. I find Kerbol system too easy, not challenging. It's a personal choice. The content of the DLC has absolutely nothing that interests me. And that's FINE, not all DLCs need to please ALL players. Many games have tons of DLCs, some aimed at players X, others at players Y in order to please everyone, and the most important part is, if you choose to NOT buy DLC X, you can still enjoy the game and features you have paid for.

The issue is, I'm afraid somewhere down the line, mods like the ones I'm enjoying at the moment will get updated to run on top of the new DLC and from that point onwards only people who purchased the DLC will be able to use it. Not to mention this DLC will split the modding community and make things already harder than they are.

This is why I'm frustrated. If they had worked a bit harder on this DLC and offered something big that COULDN'T BE ACHIEVED THROUGH MODDING, then I'm sure the vast majority of us would be more than interested in paying for it, and all of the modding community could move the same direction, developing new stuff on top of new content, and everybody would be on the same page. 

I foresee a big storm coming. I hope I'm wrong.

[Curveball Anders]

7 hours ago, Pi_ said:

I suspect the "availability details" will contain a special clause for console users.  And I have a feeling that clause will contain the words "at a later date".

There's also the issue with Store vs Steam vs GoG.

So they have to write it like that.

[pandaman]

Essentially I see the DLC as being a lot like additional map packs for an FPS.  Everyone can play the game,  but only those players who bought the extra content can use those particular maps.

If a particular scenario you want to play requires one of the extra maps then you need the map to play it, simple.  It can be annoying,  but it doesn't actually stop you playing the game at all, buying the DLC just gives extra stuff if you want to buy it.

If any DLC offers what I consider good value to me then I'd consider buying it.  In this case, as I bought the game in March 2013, I qualify for the DLC at no extra cost, but the principle still applies. I bought extra Maps for CoD Black Ops because I wanted (and was able) to, in hindsight I didn't find them as good value (to me ) as I'd hoped, so I didn't buy more.  If I'd found them to be excellent value then I would have been more likely to buy others. 

[John FX]

On 26/03/2017 at 4:14 PM, The_Rocketeer said:

Except for those who bought the game before April 2013.

Hope that's clear.

The end of april 13, before may 1 2013. In my case it matters because I bought mid april because of the promise.

[nukeboyt]

I purchased May 2nd, 2013 so I'm going to have to pay.  But given the many, many hours of enjoyment I've had with this game, I won't complain.  If you've watched some of my videos, You've seen that I also think it is a good idea to support the modders who provide my favorite mods.

[tater]

While I'm in the "small price to pay" camp (since I think it was on sale when I bought KSP), @JeeF makes good points about such a DLC including things otherwise impossible with mods.

[TriggerAu]

On 3/28/2017 at 2:39 PM, tater said:

While I'm in the "small price to pay" camp (since I think it was on sale when I bought KSP), @JeeF makes good points about such a DLC including things otherwise impossible with mods.

@JeeF does make a few good points, but also skipped over (or assumed) some points that cant be known unless you work for Squad.

I'll leave most of it alone, but the one that bugs me is this "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". There are items in there that cant be achieved through modding, and also items that can be, but are improved (I think) through implementation closer to the core code, being made available to all without needing mods installed (yes not all people use mods) or additional components. Actually I do have a second one ""If they had worked harder..." is something you can only know from inside; and I do know how much work people have spent on the expansion, how much thought and planning has gone in to make it a worthwhile effort for people who play with mods, as well as without mods, and discussing value for money. If people don't see the value then they wont purchase it - and that's their right. Lets keep the assumptions to a minimum and we should all get through this fine. 

On modding, the expansion is optional, and being developed that way. As a modder I know I'll keep making/maintaining my mods for stock game, and add expansion pieces where it makes sense, but not exclusively. That said its my choice as a modder to do that, and each modder gets to make that choice, and the people who play their mods will prompt, ask, cajole, demand, beg, etc for the features.they want in the availability scope they want - as has been going on for years. 

I have faith in the community, the modders and the discussions we have here that people will work together to keep modding on.

[tater]

@TriggerAu, Yeah, that's why I specifically limited my agreement (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.

[TriggerAu]

2 minutes ago, tater said:

@TriggerAu, Yeah, that's why I specifically limited my agreement (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.

Saw that yeah, just felt I had to clarify the assumptins in that one.

BTW, you havent ripped squad off, you've got enjoyment and value for money - me too

[JeeF]

1 hour ago, TriggerAu said:

@Jeef does make a few good points, but also skipped over (or assumed) some points that cant be known unless you work for Squad.

Well we can only judge on what you guys decide to share. So far this is the information we've got and this is our feedback based on that info.

Quote

I'll leave most of it alone, but the one that bugs me is this "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". There are items in there that cant be achieved through modding, and also items that can be, but are improved (I think) through implementation closer to the core code, being made available to all without needing mods installed (yes not all people use mods) or additional components.

Same as above. If there are (or there will be after all the negative feedback) items or features that cannot be achieved through modding, then I'll have my mouth shut.

Quote

Actually I do have a second one ""If they had worked harder..." is something you can only know from inside; and I do know how much work people have spent on the expansion, how much thought and planning has gone in to make it a worthwhile effort for people who play with mods, as well as without mods, and discussing value for money. If people don't see the value then they wont purchase it - and that's their right. Lets keep the assumptions to a minimum and we should all get through this fine. 

By saying "If they worked harder" I am not saying you guys didn't work hard. I'm pretty sure you all do, as this is probably one of the only developers I know, alongside Bohemia, that doesn't constantly rip off their customers with garbage. Your product is really good and your constant updates show how much you care about keeping your product getting better and better.

However, when it comes down to a PAID DLC, I'm stating that I'm 100% sure you guys could've done something better than what was announced as the DLC content.

Except, of course, what was announced is the tip of the iceberg and for some reason it was decided not to announce all of it. In which case, refer to the first quote's reply.

Quote

On modding, the expansion is optional, and being developed that way. As a modder I know I'll keep making/maintaining my mods for stock game, and add expansion pieces where it makes sense, but not exclusively. That said its my choice as a modder to do that, and each modder gets to make that choice, and the people who play their mods will prompt, ask, cajole, demand, beg, etc for the features.they want in the availability scope they want - as has been going on for years. 

I have faith in the community, the modders and the discussions we have here that people will work together to keep modding on.

I'm fully aware that modding on DLC will depend on modders and modders alone. And I very much appreciate people like you, who will keep their modding update to benefit both sides of the party.

What I tried to state is I'm afraid down the line people that decided to not get the DLC will be left out and forced into it. The DLC will not affect people who don't use mods in any way, shape or form. But the majority of us uses mods, and this is the part of the community that needs to be taken more seriously. Why? You gotta remember that is thanks to modding that this community has flourished and is one of the most active communities I've ever seen. Look at the numbers of posts, topics, visitors, the addon section is on the top. It's thanks to modding that an endless number of videos are constantly posted on YouTube, attracting even more players to come and buy your product.

I know how marketing works, I work in the videogame industry. I know how powerful YouTube can be and how much it can impact on your player-base and sales, and I know for sure your numbers wouldn't be the same if this game wasn't as open to modding as it is.

I did a lot of work on modding for a game called Silent Hunter 3, back in 2009. One of my mods had over 45k downloads, a sound pack. That game was released back in 2005 and it is to this day one of the most active communities I know, with new mods being released on a daily basis, and some big mega-mod projects even coming out in videogame magazines. 12 years have passed and that game is still being sold, thanks to the modding community that keeps it alive.

I guess my point is, modding brings more players and possibly more profit to the company than a DLC would in the long run, not from modding alone but from all it involves. I have friends who purchased KSP only after they saw what modding could do to the game, and stated they wouldn't have done otherwise. So when releasing a paid DLC with weak content (again, only based on the information that was given us), you will cause the community to split, modders to split, and the consequences of it can be catastrophic.

I'm hoping like crazy that I'm wrong about this, cos KSP is by far the best game I've ever played. I've tons of creativity and KSP is the only game to date that I've played that allows me to put all that creativity into action and see it all unfolding in front of my eyes, and not only in my imagination.

Best of luck to us all.

1 hour ago, tater said:

@TriggerAu, Yeah, that's why I specifically limited my agreement (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.

We've been getting ripped off by videogame companies for so long that when one company does what it's supposed to do and release a decent, fully functional product, we think they are god.

Back when Blizzard was still called Silicon & Synapse, games weren't made only with the intent of profit, but rather made by people who love what they were doing. Games didn't have the graphics and sound design we have nowadays, but my god they were FUN! Later on, when people realized the money they could make out of this industry, companies started spitting excrements after excrements and shipping is as "games". Much more expensive that they once were, and with much lower quality. Some are empty shells really. And this generation (25 yo and younger) grew so accustomed to this that when they see a decent and well-made game like KSP, they go nuts. And they should, perhaps.

It's just sad.

Edited March 29, 2017 by JeeF

[Superfluous J]

3 minutes ago, JeeF said:

Back when Blizzard was still called Silicon & Synapse, games weren't made with the intent of profit, but rather made by people who love what they were doing.

No, they were made for profit, by people who love what they're doing. But they were made for profit.

[JeeF]

1 minute ago, 5thHorseman said:

No, they were made for profit, by people who love what they're doing. But they were made for profit.

Better now?

[AlamoVampire]

@TriggerAu I have a question, if you can answer it ofc, will DLC be interlinked as in, will we NEED this expac to make the next work or even say the next version of ksp like 1.3 or 1.4 or which ever or are they 100% optional like mods and will have 0 impact on those who have no desire to buy them? 

I ask cuz im frankly fuzzy on this area.  Appreciate any clarity you or any dev can give

[Waxing_Kibbous]

@SQUAD  I have some brainstorms to suggest concerning the DLC:

Allow multiple levels of reward based on performance, eg. a contract can give out more funds based on beating things like time or speed. Maybe include rating systems as well?

Having an option to make some contracts/challenges a one shot deal, with the option they still come back later randomly. So, the player makes their craft and on the launchpad/runway selects to do the challenge- when this happens reverts and/or quickloads are disabled and they have the one chance to do it. I think this could bring back some of the crazy Kerbal spirit back to some missions- players would have to go all out to get the biggest benefit at a higher risk.

[TriggerAu]

6 minutes ago, AlamoVampire said:

@TriggerAu I have a question, if you can answer it ofc, will DLC be interlinked as in, will we NEED this expac to make the next work or even say the next version of ksp like 1.3 or 1.4 or which ever or are they 100% optional like mods and will have 0 impact on those who have no desire to buy them? 

I ask cuz im frankly fuzzy on this area.  Appreciate any clarity you or any dev can give

100% optional is my understanding

[AlamoVampire]

@TriggerAu Good to know! Thanks!

[TriggerAu]

23 minutes ago, JeeF said:

Well we can only judge on what you guys decide to share...

 

Ask questions, provide opinions, get involved in discussions, that's all good my friend. But, the judging and 100% certainties you can't know from one announcement of an item under development and a list of features is my point. It might just be a grammar/language thing for some of it, but thats cool too.

I think you might have an incorrect impression Squad has of the modding community or its relationship with modders from some of that post, if you've gotten the impression from somewhere that that part of the community is not being taken seriously then please PM me some details and I will happily take up that baton and run with it. Everything we do involves consideration for modding, from the loading screens to localization and expansions, from the direct interaction between modders and devs to work on bugs to exposing more functions so modx can bear more fruit. If we didnt have that understanding it wouldnt be where it is today, and why explaining its importance is kinda moot. Rest assured its not forgotten and please PM me details of where you've seen that misinformation