KSP Making History

[mowingmad]

When when when when???????

Oh and keep the price down guys ;-)

 

[The Moose In Your House]

Where can we buy the DLC? Also I don't care what the price is.

Edited April 25, 2017 by The Moose In Your House
Adding on

[HebaruSan]

1 hour ago, The Moose In Your House said:

Where can we buy the DLC? Also I don't care what the price is.

You can't buy it yet, because it's not finished.

[HLSA30]

Why sell the game in pieces?
Why pay for something we already paid?

If you have to pay for the expansion they ruined the game

 

I am very sad about the news of having to pay again for a game that I already paid

[HebaruSan]

23 minutes ago, HLSA30 said:

Why pay for something we already paid?

You have not yet paid for the expansion.

[HLSA30]

2 minutes ago, HebaruSan said:

You have not yet paid for the expansion.

Expansion should be free

[HebaruSan]

42 minutes ago, HLSA30 said:

I am very sad about the news of having to pay again for a game that I already paid

You do not have to pay again for the game you already paid for. You can choose not to purchase the expansion and continue to play the base game as much as you like.

[razark]

31 minutes ago, HLSA30 said:

Expansion should be free

It certainly should be, but Squad still insists on hiring game developers that are mortal beings that have not yet learned to absorb energy directly from their environment, so they still like to be paid so they can buy food.

[DoctorDanny]

I bought the game during a steam sale and have logged more than 200 hours on it.

I have absolutely no problem at all with paying for the DLC.

 

[0111narwhalz]

SQUAD must charge for the DLC. It is a business necessity. You, however, have no obligation to purchase the DLC, unless you want the parts and stuff. In other words, the DLC is a separate product with a dependancy.

The "I already bought the game" argument makes me think of, say, buying and furnishing a house. You buy the house. It's a big investment. You also invest in the basic essentials of furniture. But if you want a new table, you have to cruise the neighborhood, looking for people who are giving up their tables. They aren't charging for them, but they'd appreciate a donation. Then a furniture store springs up. But, you cry, you already bought a house! You shouldn't have to buy the table too! Ah, but the purchase of the house promised you nothing more than the basics. If you don't like the tables the furniture store offers, you won't buy them. "Make better tables," you shout as you find a nicer table some hobbyist carpenter has built.

[TotallyNotHuman]

4 hours ago, HLSA30 said:

Why sell the game in pieces?

Because as a business, they need to make money. As humans, they need money to buy food, pay rent, et cetera.

4 hours ago, HLSA30 said:

Why pay for something we already paid?

Logical fallacy. You only paid for the base game; therefore, you are entitled to updates. Making History, however, is a DLC. That is not covered under the base game (unless you're an early adopter).

4 hours ago, HLSA30 said:

If you have to pay for the expansion they ruined the game

Opinion, and a poorly constructed one at best. Having expansions that cost money does not automatically classify a game as 'ruined', to borrow your own words.

4 hours ago, HLSA30 said:

I am very sad about the news of having to pay again for a game that I already paid

Again, logical fallacy. See above.

4 hours ago, HLSA30 said:

Expansion should be free

There's no 'should' about this. If you can develop a mod that has everything that this expansion offers, and do it without even considering about donations - then more power to you. Developers are not robots; they need to eat and have a shelter, as previously discussed.

In short, stop whining like an entitled brat. As they say: vote with your wallet. Nobody is coercing you to buy the expansion. Don't like, don't buy. Simple as that.

[HLSA30]

11 hours ago, HebaruSan said:

You do not have to pay again for the game you already paid for. You can choose not to purchase the expansion and continue to play the base game as much as you like.

I get it. Could you put the mod mechjeb or an autopilot in the expansion ?. And some of the best mods like the ASET Props.

 

[Superfluous J]

16 minutes ago, HLSA30 said:

I get it. Could you put the mod mechjeb or an autopilot in the expansion ?. And some of the best mods like the ASET Props.

 

No they can't,  for similar reasons that Mechjeb can't package KSP into its download: They don't own it. 

They could put an autopilot into the expansion,  but no,  they won't.  Maybe in a future one.  That you'll possibly have to pay for,  but maybe not who knows. 

Edited April 28, 2017 by 5thHorseman

[HafCoJoe]

1 minute ago, 5thHorseman said:

No they can't,  for similar reasons that Mechjeb can't package KSP into its download: They don't own it. 

Aye as a modder copywrites can really be a pain to work with. Though sometimes I wish the creative directors would go back to the roots of KSP and look for good mods to include. I'm sure you all know that SpacePlane+ used to be a mod before it turned into the new wing and Mk2 assets, but did you know that around half of all the assets came from a mod called KSPX? A lot of the foundation part of KSP were originally fanwork that the devs reached out and included. I'd love to see more of that happen. Good PR all around, and less work for the devs.

[HLSA30]

6 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

No they can't,  for similar reasons that Mechjeb can't package KSP into its download: They don't own it. 

They could put an autopilot into the expansion,  but no,  they won't.  Maybe in a future one.  That you'll possibly have to pay for,  but maybe not who knows. 

Thank you very much for replying but I would like the opinion of the developers, as they included some mods in the base game like the space plane.

[HebaruSan]

24 minutes ago, HLSA30 said:

I get it. Could you put the mod mechjeb or an autopilot in the expansion ?. And some of the best mods like the ASET Props.

No, I can't, because I don't work at SQUAD, and the developers inexplicably choose not to consult me about such decisions.

[HafCoJoe]

2 minutes ago, HLSA30 said:

Thank you very much for replying but I would like the opinion of the developers, as they included some mods in the base game like the space plane.

I doubt the devs would reply here - you may want to PM them if you want a more direct response?

[HLSA30]

3 minutes ago, Avera9eJoe said:

I doubt the devs would reply here - you may want to PM them if you want a more direct response?

 

Sure that the one who posted this will respond

UomoCapra

[Kerbart]

13 hours ago, HLSA30 said:

If you have to pay for the expansion they ruined the game

I am very sad about the news of having to pay again for a game that I already paid

Actually it doesn't matter for you. Well it does, but only in a positive way:

scenario #1: Squad doesn't open up new sources of income. Development ceases due to lack of income. KSP as a game pretty much remains as it is. Bugs are not fixed.

scenario #2: Squad charges for new content, while using the ability to pay for costs associated with ongoing development (rent, utilities, servers, computers, required software, wages) to also continue developing the "base game." For those that do not buy the DLC, the game still improves in the sense of bug fixes, new base content, etc.

Would you rather have scenario 1 with all KSP development (including bug fixes) stopping, or scenario 2 where the game continues to improve over time, and those that DO pay for the DLC (not you) are bankrolling the bugfixes you profit from?

 

"I already paid for the game" as an argument that DLC should be free is like saying "I already paid for the car" as an argument why gasoline should be free. It's additional stuff that allows you to take it further. It's costing money to make though, so don't expect it to be free.

Edited April 28, 2017 by Kerbart

[HafCoJoe]

10 minutes ago, HLSA30 said:

Sure that the one who posted this will respond

UomoCapra

Honestly I think you're more likely to get a response from a PM - Much easier to manage an inbox than reading every single post that's made in a thread 

EDIT: Edited this message a lot sorry

Edited April 28, 2017 by Avera9eJoe

[HLSA30]

2 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

Actually it doesn't matter for you. Well it does, but only in a positive way:

scenario #1: Squad doesn't open up new sources of income. Development ceases due to lack of income. KSP as a game pretty much remains as it is. Bugs are not fixed.

scenario #2: Squad charges for new content, while using the ability to pay for costs associated with ongoing development (rent, utilities, servers, computers, required software, wages) to also continue developing the "base game." For those that do not buy the DLC, the game still improves in the sense of bug fixes, new base content, etc.

Would you rather have scenario 1 with all KSP development (including bug fixes) stopping, or scenario 2 where the game continues to improve over time?

 

"I already paid for the game" as an argument that DLC should be free is like saying "I already paid for the car" as an argument why gasoline should be free. It's additional stuff that allows you to take it further. It's costing money to make though, so don't expect it to be free.

I appreciate your answer but I do not understand why they compare with cars and houses, it does not make any sense, a car already know that it carries gasoline, but a game is not a car.

You're not the squad's staff, but thanks for your response.

[Joeybafoey]

On 4/25/2017 at 0:17 AM, Nightside said:

Do they speak a different dialect of English at Lagrange Point 1?

Language 1, dear

[Kerbart]

1 hour ago, HLSA30 said:

I appreciate your answer but I do not understand why they compare with cars and houses, it does not make any sense, a car already know that it carries gasoline, but a game is not a car.

You're not the squad's staff, but thanks for your response.

The expectation that extensions to the game should be free is a great one. And of course, if, with everything else being equal, I'd rather have the extension for free than to pay for it.

But... everything else is not equal. KSP is developed by professionals; people who have a (reasonable) expectation to get paid for the work they do. The cost for continued development of the game has to be funded somehow.

Your quote was that you don't want to pay for the game twice. And you don't have to. The game as it exists is what you paid for. That's the car you bought.

Now, there's additional material for the game. Nothing of the original game is taken away, the game still exists and functions as the one you paid for. And it's a pretty nice game. And maybe gasoline wasn't the best example. But lets say that your car brand now offers (for more money) an addition in the form of a superior sound system. Car without sound system costs $20,000 and car with sound system costs $30,000 (the difference is the price for the DLC, so to say). "I already paid for the car. Why would I have to pay for the new sound system?" -- Because it's additional. The introduction of the sound system doesn't change the car you bought; you just have the chance to make it more awesome. But it still does everything you expected it to do when you bought the original car.

It's frustrating if there's new content behind a paywall, especially if you don't have a lot of disposable income. That is probably where the rift comes from; for those who the expected DLC price is trivial (anywhere between $10 and $30, I'd guess--but that is just a guess), it's a small price to pay for some shiny parts, the contract builder and the knowledge that Squad has a new income stream to fund ongoing development of the base game.

If you're a school student, or have a fixed income, and spending $10-$30 on "some software" is not trivial... Yes, I can understand your frustration. But remember that if money is a problem for you, it's also a "problem" for the developers who will not work on the game without getting paid. The money has to come from somewhere. Without income, KSP development will stop. The difference with paid DLC is that without spending money, you might not get the DLC content, but you do get the bug fixes (and future base game updates).

The same applies for localization. If you have no issues with the game being in English, localization is doing nothing for you, and Squad just wasted many, many months of development time on a "useless" feature. But if it means Squad can sell 5× or even "just 2×" as many copies of the game it means that game development just got a boost for a couple of years. That makes localization a feature that I'm very happy with.

[HafCoJoe]

16 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

If you have no issues with the game being in English, localization is doing nothing for you, and Squad just wasted many, many months of development time on a "useless" feature. But if it means Squad can sell 5× or even "just 2×" as many copies of the game it means that game development just got a boost for a couple of years. That makes localization a feature that I'm very happy with.

Well said. You could say the same for the console exports too - Sure they aren't nearly as good as the PC game but if it means they sell more copies of the game it means there is more money made, which will directly add to the funding for the PC original. Thanks for saying that so well Kerbart

Edited April 28, 2017 by Avera9eJoe

[HLSA30]

3 hours ago, Kerbart said:

The expectation that extensions to the game should be free is a great one. And of course, if, with everything else being equal, I'd rather have the extension for free than to pay for it.

But... everything else is not equal. KSP is developed by professionals; people who have a (reasonable) expectation to get paid for the work they do. The cost for continued development of the game has to be funded somehow.

Your quote was that you don't want to pay for the game twice. And you don't have to. The game as it exists is what you paid for. That's the car you bought.

Now, there's additional material for the game. Nothing of the original game is taken away, the game still exists and functions as the one you paid for. And it's a pretty nice game. And maybe gasoline wasn't the best example. But lets say that your car brand now offers (for more money) an addition in the form of a superior sound system. Car without sound system costs $20,000 and car with sound system costs $30,000 (the difference is the price for the DLC, so to say). "I already paid for the car. Why would I have to pay for the new sound system?" -- Because it's additional. The introduction of the sound system doesn't change the car you bought; you just have the chance to make it more awesome. But it still does everything you expected it to do when you bought the original car.

It's frustrating if there's new content behind a paywall, especially if you don't have a lot of disposable income. That is probably where the rift comes from; for those who the expected DLC price is trivial (anywhere between $10 and $30, I'd guess--but that is just a guess), it's a small price to pay for some shiny parts, the contract builder and the knowledge that Squad has a new income stream to fund ongoing development of the base game.

If you're a school student, or have a fixed income, and spending $10-$30 on "some software" is not trivial... Yes, I can understand your frustration. But remember that if money is a problem for you, it's also a "problem" for the developers who will not work on the game without getting paid. The money has to come from somewhere. Without income, KSP development will stop. The difference with paid DLC is that without spending money, you might not get the DLC content, but you do get the bug fixes (and future base game updates).

The same applies for localization. If you have no issues with the game being in English, localization is doing nothing for you, and Squad just wasted many, many months of development time on a "useless" feature. But if it means Squad can sell 5× or even "just 2×" as many copies of the game it means that game development just got a boost for a couple of years. That makes localization a feature that I'm very happy with.

Comparing a game with a car seems stupid and ridiculous, it makes no sense

I appreciate your opinions but I will continue to wait for the response of a squad member