KSP Making History

[peter1981]

I am willing to pay for DLC and extra content but SQUAD in the past has made commitments to keeping a lot of things free in terms of the game.  When I think of DLC Tropico 4 & 5 always springs to mind as you pay £4.99-ish for 1 or 2 new building, a new map, and maybe a couple of scenarios to play.   And you can buy 8ish DLC,  Sellaris is similar with DLC and expansions.  But are the naysayers above really saying  they would rather have SQUAD stop working on KSP and leave the project?

 

I wonder why if SQUAD is struggling for cash they don't do a donation request like Wikipedia does or a kick-starter or some other voluntary fundraising the community certainly has enough supporters who would probably give a couple of quid to keep the project going.

[harrisjosh2711]

5 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:

So they have spent the better part of 2 years dumping resources into fixing the console release. How again is this "making a quick buck"?

That is what we call consequences. Why wouldn't you make it right the first time? Why outside of crisis prevention would a company spend two years re-developing a non blockbuster title that already failed? Isn't it just so upstanding to sell a broken product you sold as working a then offer to fix it......... at some point...... yet to occur..... man I'm glad chivalry isn't dead.                                                               Quickly/badly released= Making quick buck=re making it again right (as should have been done the first time) my logic is both sound and valid

Edited October 17, 2017 by harrisjosh2711

[Raptor9]

22 minutes ago, harrisjosh2711 said:

Why wouldn't you make it right the first time?

1) Squad didn't make the console version, which was already pointed out.  They contracted another company to do it.
2) Regardless of how much involvement Squad had in the console release, they're human too.  People and businesses make decisions.  When things don't work out, you deal with it the best you can with the resources you have.  You don't just quit, and you don't crucify people for mistakes, you should praise the fact they didn't cut bait and go home.

25 minutes ago, harrisjosh2711 said:

Why outside of crisis prevention would a company spend two years re-developing a non blockbuster title that already failed?

3) Maybe because they decided to persist through the "crisis" instead of cutting their losses and abandoning the console community. (Regardless of how that community feels about the long, long wait for the new console release, they have NOT been abandoned)
4) If you read about the origins of KSP and then compare it to it's success and amount of sales (at one point it was among the best sellers on Steam), I would hardly call it a "non-blockbuster".

35 minutes ago, harrisjosh2711 said:

Quickly/badly released= Making quick buck=re making it again right (as should have been done the first time) my logic is both sound and valid

5) This is potential for a cherry-picking argument, but this thread has already derailed quite a bit.

TL;DR: KSP is just a game.  It's a game with a large, dedicated following, yes; but it's still just a game.

[smotheredrun]

Well said @Raptor9

[Vanamonde]

There are already several threads devoted to the console versions. Please keep this thread on-topic, which is the Making History expansion. 

[MaxwellsDemon]

On a different tack... this might have been addressed somewhere, but it's difficult to find in and among all the discussions of whether someone will have to pay for the product.

Has it been established that the new/historical parts will be available in the VAB in campaign games outside of the historical scenarios?  I'm looking forward to using Vostok- and Soyuz-esque parts in my campaigns but might not necessarily be playing the historical scenarios.  (I assume they'll be available in sandbox mode, but I'm more concerned about the campaign games.)

[Terwin]

41 minutes ago, MaxwellsDemon said:

On a different tack... this might have been addressed somewhere, but it's difficult to find in and among all the discussions of whether someone will have to pay for the product.

Has it been established that the new/historical parts will be available in the VAB in campaign games outside of the historical scenarios?  I'm looking forward to using Vostok- and Soyuz-esque parts in my campaigns but might not necessarily be playing the historical scenarios.  (I assume they'll be available in sandbox mode, but I'm more concerned about the campaign games.)

As far as I can tell, no price has been announced for the DLC.

Due to the way KSP works, it would be harder(or impossible) to make it so that the parts are only usable during missions than to allow the new parts for all game modes.

 As it would be a greater value to players to have access to the parts in all game modes, I cannot see any reason for SQUAD to go through the effort of restricting access to the parts to only some modes.

[Talavar]

 So basically, it's worthless.

[SpaceMouse]

[Talavar]

We can already add new missions via Mods. even historic ones.

Recreating history? So it's launching a specifically built ship into a predesignated alignment... We already do that..

New parts.. Mods..

parachute... Mods.

Challenge players: we've been doing that for years on the forums.

Nothing to see here..

 Who in their right mind would pay for something that is already free?
 Come on Squad.. you can do WAY better than this.

Edited November 1, 2017 by Talavar

[XLjedi]

20 minutes ago, Talavar said:

We can already add new missions via Mods. even historic ones.

Recreating history? So it's launching a specifically built ship into a predesignated alignment... We already do that..

New parts.. Mods..

parachute... Mods.

Challenge players: we've been doing that for years on the forums.

Nothing to see here..

 Who in their right mind would pay for something that is already free?
 Come on Squad.. you can do WAY better than this.

I'm looking forward to seeing how the new mission editor turns out.

...any expansion of the stock parts pool I also see as a positive.

I've never actually been accused of being in right mind though.

[Raptor9]

26 minutes ago, Talavar said:

We can already add new missions via Mods. even historic ones.
Recreating history? So it's launching a specifically built ship into a predesignated alignment... We already do that..
New parts.. Mods..
parachute... Mods.
Challenge players: we've been doing that for years on the forums.
Nothing to see here..
 Who in their right mind would pay for something that is already free?

New mission-creating aspect, new parts, etc?  Why would people pay money?

1) Native support for those additions out of the box  (mods are hit or miss depending on the dedication of the mod creater)
2) Good chance it will already be localized for several languages, with several more future languages already announced  (mods are dependent on mod creater)
3) Content will be ready to use immediately after any future updates  (modders have to play catch-up after an update, despite Squad making efforts to give them a headstart)
4) Some players can't or don't like to use mods due to computer limitations or personal preferences.
5) Some players (including me), are planning to pay for the DLC to support Squad.

If someone chooses not to pay for the DLC, that is their prerogative.  However, if you don't plan on getting it, and it does nothing to affect your current or future gameplay, what's the issue?

If a player didn't use mods (for whatever reason), and he jumped down to the Add-On Releases/Development and started posting "Why are all of you using mods? You shouldn't use mods for reasons X, Y, and Z", what purpose would that serve other than to garner further friction and arguments among the forum community.

Not to mention that nobody really knows the full scope of the DLC content, nor the price, and any conclusions drawn from such a lack of information is foolish.

Edited November 1, 2017 by Raptor9

[HebaruSan]

49 minutes ago, Talavar said:

We can already add new missions via Mods. even historic ones.

We can add contracts via mods. Based on the weekly updates, missions will be able to do things contracts cannot.

49 minutes ago, Talavar said:

Challenge players: we've been doing that for years on the forums.

Which is probably why they thought it was a good idea for a paid expansion. Except instead of a written list of rules and requirements and maybe a save file that you have to read a forum to find*, people who like challenges will be able to use official tools to create content that other users can simply download and play. This lowers the barriers to entry for both creation and participation, which means more players will get involved. Greater engagement means more word-of-mouth sales.

* Hopefully there will be an official mission-sharing service, as built-in to the game as possible. It's been pointed out before, but this could make a big difference to the quantity and quality of missions the typical player is able to find, and if missions are saved as plain text with limited ability to control the game, then the risk of distributing a virus should be nearly zero.

[SpaceMouse]

"Why would people pay money for it?"
Ya know, honestly I'll buy it and may never use it. I wanna support squad though. So few companies embrace the community instead of treating them as a hindrance that they've totally earned another $5 or so of my money. Big companies (cough)EA(cough) actively work to prevent people from doing anything with their games whatsoever.

[Gargamel]

Dug through the thread a bit, but I didn't see any updates on an expected release date, just a bunch more of the "not fair" and "it's pointless" posts. 

Anybody have any new, official, info on a release date and or target?  (Please quote me when responding so I get an alert, thanks). 

[razark]

1 hour ago, Gargamel said:

Dug through the thread a bit, but I didn't see any updates on an expected release date, just a bunch more of the "not fair" and "it's pointless" posts. 

Anybody have any new, official, info on a release date and or target?  (Please quote me when responding so I get an alert, thanks). 

I wouldn't hold my breath.  Squad's notorious for not giving release dates more than a day or two ahead of time, even when they've had it planned for months.

[Gargamel]

23 hours ago, razark said:

I wouldn't hold my breath.  Squad's notorious for not giving release dates more than a day or two ahead of time, even when they've had it planned for months.

Thanks, that's what I figured, just been a while, figured there might be some sort of news...

[MaxwellsDemon]

On 11/1/2017 at 12:33 PM, Talavar said:

We can already add new missions via Mods. even historic ones.

Recreating history? So it's launching a specifically built ship into a predesignated alignment... We already do that..

New parts.. Mods..

parachute... Mods.

Challenge players: we've been doing that for years on the forums.

Nothing to see here..

 Who in their right mind would pay for something that is already free?
 Come on Squad.. you can do WAY better than this.

So... I'm guessing you don't contribute money to the mods makers.  "It's free."  

[Talavar]

1 hour ago, MaxwellsDemon said:

So... I'm guessing you don't contribute money to the mods makers.  "It's free."  

 The majority people who make mods don't do it for money. They do it to enhance gameplay for themselves and others.  This is just a cheap tactic to attack me in some way for my opinion.. However, That being said, I actually have donated to a few mods that I find incredibly impressive.
  Speaking of impressive mods "Being more on the fantastic side"  You guys might be interested in seeing this. Completely off subject of KSP, but on the subject of impressive mods that deserve donation. And it's almost finished. This group has been working on this for over a year, and almost have it finally nailed down.

 

Edited November 3, 2017 by Talavar

[MaxwellsDemon]

10 minutes ago, Talavar said:

 This is just a cheap tactic to attack me in some way for my opinion..

Nope.  I'm attacking the opinion that seems to be prevalent around here that somehow we shouldn't have to pay for others' work.

[Talavar]

2 minutes ago, MaxwellsDemon said:

Nope.  I'm attacking the opinion that seems to be prevalent around here that somehow we shouldn't have to pay for others' work.

 Regardless, my argument still stands. If there is already a free alternative, You're going to find that many people use it instead.  If there was mutiplayer support, it would then be advantageous to have the upgraded version so you could have the same version as everyone else. however, that point lies dead as there is none, which makes upgrading a moot point in my opinion.

[Kerbart]

15 minutes ago, Talavar said:

 Regardless, my argument still stands. If there is already a free alternative, You're going to find that many people use it instead.  If there was mutiplayer support, it would then be advantageous to have the upgraded version so you could have the same version as everyone else. however, that point lies dead as there is none, which makes upgrading a moot point in my opinion.

The questions is, is there a free alternative? Surely there are mods that offer some of the things that the DLC offers. And surely not everyone will pay for the DLC. The value of DLC parts (ignoring the extra functionality offered by the DLC) is not just in the parts itself, but rather:

• Supported by Squad; will be upgraded whenever KSP upgrades. No fear that your favorite mod parts have been abandoned, don't work on 1.4 (or whatever) and force you to either abandon you saved game or not upgrade.
• Can be considered "stock." Many people prefer playing stock. Or like to share their designs without "you will need [obscure mod] for this to work." It can be argued if DLC is stock or not, but regular mods are clearly not stock without discussion.
• No conflicts with other mods, no dependencies required. Whatever extended functionality it comes with, it will just work. Dependencies mean one more thing that can break during an upgrade. If there's any incompatibility with another mod, that mod maker will surely try to make it work, instead of saying "don't install together with mod xyz
• You're supporting continued development of KSP with it

Some of this might apply to you. All of this might apply to you. None of this might apply to you. But there will be a good swat of KSP players who will find some of the above points of value for them, and enough of value to pay for the DLC mods because they offer something extra that regulars mods don't.

The selling point of the DLC is not "these are mods." (they are mods). The selling point of the DLC is "these are mods made by Squad"

[Talavar]

1 minute ago, Kerbart said:

The selling point of the DLC is not "these are mods." (they are mods). The selling point of the DLC is "these are mods made by Squad"

 Which means it's simply a brand-name mod. lol .. You points are valid, yet mine are as well. In the grand scheme of things, it really doesn't matter. For me, the DLC just isn't interesting enough to warrant a purchase.. Others will disagree.

[Neil Kerman]

Does anyone know if the expansion will only be released for the latest version of KSP, or if they will have a version for 1.3.0?

Edited November 4, 2017 by Neil Kerman

[Wallygator]

1 hour ago, Neil Kerman said:

Does anyone know if the expansion will only be released for the latest version of KSP, or if they will have a version for 1.3.0?

I'm expecting recursive versions for all previous ksp releases.

The possibility of a .17 version is the one that fascinates me.

I could be wrong, though.