Concerning complaints about the cost of DLC

[Ringkeeper]

developing a game to the state where KSP is at the moment costs around 7-10 million EUR, based on my work experience with american/european/asian developers.

on a "normal" game 80% of the sales are done within the first 3 month after release. KSP could be bought before the "release" on steam, so its hard to estimate how many copys where sold via steam for the steam price. Before steam the game also only costs 20? EUR.

Before you release a game, well, you first have to develop it Which costs already money that you have to spend from your own pocket. Then you earn money after the release (as said, most of the money directly at release). If the game was successful, you have enough money to develop further. The game itself and your next chance to own money, as you costs still go on.

In best case they made around 40 million from the sale of KSP on steam, but as many had bought the game already before, that number is too optimistic. So, yeah, they have(had) money to go on, but not much. And i guess they want to keep KSP alive for couple more years or develop a new game, so, yes, fresh money is needed.

 

Looking at my steam library,  which contains 32 games, KSP would have the most hours, if i would have it on steam..... never transferred it.  Other games i have and that i played through are f.e. GTA5.... not interested in multiplayer, so 50 hours only. For a higher price i paid for KSP with way less hours.

So, alone from that point, i'm happy to pay for a DLC that supports one of my favorite games.

Edited March 25, 2017 by Ringkeeper

[HurricanKai]

@gargamel yes you are right, but a DLC is always a "problem" (exept its a Texture DLC) i was speculating most the time sorry i didnt said it right there

[jros83]

I have no issue with whether I will have to pay for the DLC or not have to, so that point is moot. If I do, I do.

 

That said... And apologies, I just skipped to last page... But did they not say that those with a purchase date by April 2013 will receive it for free? So those people who bought it "5 freaking years ago" won't be paying for the DLC in the first place? Just wondering if this changed or not. Again, I'd pay for it anyway. Thanks in advance.

[TimePeriod]

If you don't like it, vote with your wallet.

If you do like it, vote with your wallet.

[Deddly]

4 hours ago, jros83 said:

...did they not say that those with a purchase date by April 2013 will receive it for free?

They did say that, yes, and they are sticking to that promise.

[Gargamel]

On 3/25/2017 at 10:42 AM, HurricanKai said:

@gargamel yes you are right, but a DLC is always a "problem" (exept its a Texture DLC) i was speculating most the time sorry i didnt said it right there

I'm confused as to your response here, could you please elaborate?

[something]

Well some easy calculations:

A Mexican/East European engineer does cost roughly 30Eur/h (at least in the company, I work at).

Squad did develop the game for about 6 years now.

One year - in Mexico does have about 230 working days (of 8 hours each).

Let's suppose Squad threw a constant workforce of 10 software engineers into this project over the whole 6 years.

Then we do have 30 Eur/h/person x 230 days/year x 6 years x 10 persons x 8 h/day = 3.3 M Eur.

 

Above, it has been said that Squad sold about 1.7 M copies of the game.

 

Then, in order to get a 10% gain, Squad needed to sell those copies for 3.3M x 1.1 / 1.7 M = 2.14 Eur. Knowing, that I did pay 40 Eur, I do assume that Squad still has some of my monies...

[magnemoe]

On 24.3.2017 at 11:35 PM, Alshain said:

I don't have a problem paying for DLC for this game, it's just this DLC is stuff we can do with mods.  There are plenty of classic mission replica parts out there, and as for the mission creator, well I don't even see that as remotely useful.  I don't need to make a mission to do what I want to do, I just do it.  In general, I don't like being shoehorned by those requirements.

I would have expected a DLC to be a major addition that adds something new, and this doesn't.  It also comes a bit late, don't get me wrong, I love this game... but it is in it's waning period now.  I haven't played a lot lately, I will play again, but not likely ever to the extent I already have.  It seems to me like this won't get a lot of takers.  Sure the absolute enthusiasts you find on these forums will buy it, but not the average gamers that own the game already.  Not this late.  It seems it would have been a better idea to invest in the next project in the franchise, whether it be KSP2, or Kerbal Flight Program, or Kerbal Nautical Program... Kerbal Motorsports Program.

I agree here, think this dlc is mostly for causal players who is majority of player base in any game.
Hardcore would prefer more planets and an upper level of parts above the current ones or new functionality like life support. 
All exist in mods but stock would create standards. 

 

[Randazzo]

I didn't read this whole thread so pardon me if I regurgitate anything already said.

First, I think DLC is a plague upon gaming. Some of it is done decently, but mostly it's just a way for companies to bend users over the barrel. However, to me the upcoming content seems more like an expansion than it does DLC. Perhaps that's completely a semantic argument, but if you're old enough, you probably grasp the difference.

Regardless, Squad is well within their rights to charge for additional content.

Regardlesser, The tiny fraction of users represented by this forum will have -zero- impact on their decisions anyway.

So, buy it if you want. Or don't. Doesn't matter.

Edited March 29, 2017 by Randazzo

[Alshain]

@Randazzo, I know the difference between expansion and DLC, and what they have described is certainly DLC.  DLC is usually worthless bits of stuff, while and expansion adds significantly to gameplay.  This screams worthless bits of stuff.

2 hours ago, magnemoe said:

I agree here, think this dlc is mostly for causal players who is majority of player base in any game.
Hardcore would prefer more planets and an upper level of parts above the current ones or new functionality like life support. 
All exist in mods but stock would create standards. 

 

I don't think your definitions meet up with mine.  I think this isn't for casual players at all.  Casual players don't need missions to tell them what to do.  They just go do what they want.  I do agree that is the majority of the player base in this game though.

Edited March 29, 2017 by Alshain

[Vanamonde]

This thread has wandered from its topic, and much of it that is on-topic is a repetition of the discussion in the Master discussion thread anyway. Time to lay this one to rest.