Petition to include all 2013 purchases for free DLC

[fcbayerndm]

Folks, please try to remain respectful and on topic.

[ble210]

On 6/5/2017 at 0:35 PM, CjStaal said:

KSP's popularity/sale spike happened right after May of 2013. Which is why they're choosing to give the DLC away for free for the people who purchased before that date. It is false goodwill. The people who bought after that in 2013 are the ones they got the most money from when they needed money the most. Because of this, all 2013 purchasers should also be included for the free DLC.

You are no worse off by Squad offering the DLC to those who bought it before May 2013.  You would be no worse off if Squad didn't offer it to those who bought it before May 2013.  In either case, you'd be paying for the DLC.  But because others are getting something you aren't, you are getting upset.  I gotta say, that's pretty silly.

You were indeed rewarded for buying the game early.  The reward?  Being able to play it early, just like is the case for all early access.  Those that bought it super early are getting an extra bonus, out of the goodness of Squad's heart (frankly, I think its too generous, but that isn't up to me).

Full disclosure- I bought it after May 2013, and will happily be paying for the DLC.  And I don't think I'm any worse off because someone else is getting it without paying for it, because of course not.

Edited June 9, 2017 by ble210

[Wallygator]

People can have dreams.  Squad will do what they want. These two things do not need to be aligned.

[Riftmann]

NO.  I bought it January 1st, 2014, what about me... See where this goes?

I'll gladly pay for the DLC.  They deserve it for the thousands of hours I spent enjoying playing this game.

[Arugela]

Why doesn't the game free dlc include the Christmas season sales in 2014 and/or 2015 that also stated free dlc via steam store... Every time I have asked this it's been denied. These were all continued early access sales and said they would also allow free dlc because it was sold before 1.0. This is part of the reason I bought the sale on steam!

Edited June 20, 2017 by Arugela

[Tex_NL]

On 11-6-2017 at 11:49 PM, Riftmann said:

NO.  I bought it January 1st, 2014, what about me... See where this goes?

Exactly. As much as I am against any form of paid DLC the free/pay cut-off must remain where it is. The date has been set a long time ago. By changing it you will make some happy and P-off others that still just miss out.
If you can change it a day why not change it a month or a year? If you start thinking along those lines you'd better quit and open up everything for everybody.

[TheRagingIrishman]

38 minutes ago, Arugela said:

Why doesn't the game free dlc include the Christmas season sales in 2014 and/or 2015 that also stated free dlc via steam store... Every time I have asked this it's been denied. These were all continued early access sales and said they would also allow free dlc because it was sold before 1.0. This is part of the reason I bought the sale on steam!

Nope the deal wasn't that all purchases before 1.0 would get DLC. The deal was that all purchases before the end of April 2013 would get it. This was because of some ambiguous wording in the EULA that they changed in April 2013 (it said "all future updates will be free" and the devs meant that updates would be free but dlc's wouldn't be but then they changed it to clarify)

[Arugela]

10 minutes ago, TheRagingIrishman said:

Nope the deal wasn't that all purchases before 1.0 would get DLC. The deal was that all purchases before the end of April 2013 would get it. This was because of some ambiguous wording in the EULA that they changed in April 2013 (it said "all future updates will be free" and the devs meant that updates would be free but dlc's wouldn't be but then they changed it to clarify)

I didn't say it was free for everyone before 1.0. The specific sale said free dlc etc with the specific sale in 2014. That sale stated it was free for being before 1.0 as an extended last chance additional early access giving people a second chance to get the benefits. The sale was focused on DLC because there was a scare about DLC content at the time so they purposely pointed out about DLC and offered things like this to calm people down and bolster sales before 1.0.

I've found the sales listing on the steam history type page but it doesn't have the full info anymore. There was more info at the time on the main page with the sale that stated these things specifically for the sale. It was then removed when the sale was removed as it wasn't needed. The info was specifically on the main steam page as part of the sales info.

Edited June 20, 2017 by Arugela

[klgraham1013]

8 minutes ago, Arugela said:

I didn't say it was free for everyone before 1.0. The specific sale said free dlc etc with the specific sale in 2014. That sale stated it was free for being before 1.0 as an extended last chance additional early access giving people a second chance to get the benefits. The sale was focused on DLC because there was a scare about DLC content at the time so they purposely pointed out about DLC and offered things like this to calm people down and bolster sales before 1.0.

I've found the sales listing on the steam page but it doesn't have the full info anymore. There was more info at the time on the main page with the sale that stated these things specifically for the sale. It was then removed when the sale was removed as it wasn't needed. The info was specifically on the main steam page as part of the sales info.

Maybe it was talking about the ARM update.   I'd need to check the timeline though.

[RocketBlam]

It's pretty simple. If you don't want the DLC, don't buy it. It's your choice. 

[StupidAndy]

24 minutes ago, RocketBlam said:

It's pretty simple. If you don't want the DLC, don't buy it. It's your choice. 

they want the DLC, but they don't want to pay for it because they bought it a few months after the deadline

[Deddly]

I removed a couple of off topic posts. Please don't make posts just to complain about the existence of a thread. Besides the fact that the thread has every right to exist, contrary to what you may think, posting in it will not make it disappear faster.

[severedsolo]

11 hours ago, Arugela said:

Why doesn't the game free dlc include the Christmas season sales in 2014 and/or 2015 that also stated free dlc via steam store... Every time I have asked this it's been denied. These were all continued early access sales and said they would also allow free dlc because it was sold before 1.0. This is part of the reason I bought the sale on steam!

Are you sure they didn't say you'd get all UPDATES for free? Don't forget that back then updates included content. That was the EA deal.

[Arugela]

Not sure. There was definitely something about DLC though. But, either way, I think this game is way too early as far as development to be monetizing with DLC. It needs alot more base content before making dlc worth it. They should add alot more and do enough to the base game that it simply brings in more players.

Add more of everything and make the game revolve around options. Make the mods for alot of purposes just be adding onto it. Or have the stock game be more or less preset choices and then use mods and things for changing that. There is endless room to improve the core game. Lots of stuff that arguable should have been in 1.0 and earlier. It's not really good to try to make money from DLC when you can still develop the core game. You can simply develop the heck out of the game and make money from core sales until the game has all the stuff you would think was originally supposed to be in game and then when sales max out from a greater value like world wide potenial sales then consider dlc potentially. The game is not finished. I would not want to pay for stuff that under better circumstances should have already been in game and including in my purchase. It's not right on the users end. Always run game sales from the standpoint of benefiting the player the most and money should not be an issue. the probably just need to get themselves past the engine limitation or do as much as possible until they can get around it or something.

Try lots of smaller stuff like my idea on graphs. Maybe little random generated things on surfaces or add robotics to go with it. Stuff to maximise and expand on the game to give it more playability all around. Keep doing that to get player numbers and consistant play up. Then after going overboard on features monetize dlc potentially.

Having the development stunted by an engine then dlcing is a bad combo all round. With the chage to the new company could they get more work on getting around engine limitation or finding ways to get the game to be unhindered by software issues and get more base stuff in the game that was supposed to be in it? That might be enough to start getting more sales in general and get more people in the game and not need to dlc stuff. How many people have they sold to out of the 7+ billion. This game is interesting enough(as it is currently the only game trying more fully use physics atm.) and has the potential to bring in lots of people. It just need to get around it's current problems and could bring people in. They should probably consider that too. If they don't work on physics before it becomes common it might be harder to compete(maybe) they can get stuff done now and either makes lots of early money or help make it more common and improve things in general which itself will bring in competition and more ideas for development.

The older philosophies on game development by the best companies were always make money off of as much development as possible(IE maximize work and the community will take care of you!), as opposed to making as much money as possible off of as little development as possible. Always work to the max towards the users benefit and the user will always give in return. That is especially for something like this that should be like an educational community(not college, real world). It's about access and work more than other things. That benefits the community best.

I've never liked the idea of DLC. There is no real reason until you max out sales at good bulk of world population or gaming population. This game taken far enough could and should be able to bridge game genres and hobbies when developed to the max because it's potentially a progressive actual physics game and something that should have been possible a long time ago in general. It should ultimately be sellable to anyone and everyone.

Edit: They also shouldn't dlc and minimum until my game stops becoming unplayable every version update. It's worse this time than before... They need to get some fundamentals down first... Whether those are related to engine limitations or not.

Think how many things can be stock still. They should do a DLC after they maximize stuff for this solar system. Then DLC for things beyond it!

Edited June 21, 2017 by Arugela

[Omar X]

Come on, guys. Everything can't be free. I only recently discovered KSP, and it has taken over my life. However, I understand that this stuff costs lots of money to create. It involves unknowable hours of labor from some high caliber talent, and that costs lots of money. I'm just thankful that content is still being produced for this game, so I don't mind paying for DLC one bit.

[Regor]

No

[memes in space]

Yeah, I'm not supporting Take Two. Maybe if Squad still owned KSP and was getting the $, it would be different. Either way, it shouldn't be like $20. Making History is mostly mod features, but making them stock would be pretty neat. I mean the only thing I think can't be done with mods is the whole scenario editor.

TL;DR: If Squad bought KSP back and kept Making History at a decent price, I'd buy it (probably anyway, we have no idea how the DLC will turn out).

 

P.S. If you didn't read, NOT A DIME FROM SALES OF MAKING HISTORY GOES TO SQUAD. It goes to Take Poo Interactive.

On 6/5/2017 at 6:49 PM, Starman4308 said:

I doubt Take Two would be stupid enough to renege on that promise; the PR disaster that would result would almost certainly cost them more than just giving out a few free DLC copies.

You'd think, right? *cough*GTA V*cough*

Edited June 21, 2017 by memes in space
emphasis

[Starman4308]

7 hours ago, Arugela said:

Not sure. There was definitely something about DLC though. But, either way, I think this game is way too early as far as development to be monetizing with DLC. It needs alot more base content before making dlc worth it. They should add alot more and do enough to the base game that it simply brings in more players.

We have a full-fledged space simulator with a large, varied solar system and numerous modes of exploring that, plus a wide variety of mechanics such as CommNet, full treatment of thermal effects (reentry heating, insolation, etc), space center upgradeability and destructability, and ISRU to flesh things out.

Do not confuse "I want this thing" with "this is necessary for it to be considered a full video game", particularly when it's been primarily developed by an indie studio who had to do a lot of behind-the-scenes work to make it function.

Krakensbane, writing a patched-conics solver, thermal treatment, non-souposphere aerodynamics, all of these are non-trivial projects that aren't flashy but make the game what it is today.

7 hours ago, Arugela said:

Always run game sales from the standpoint of benefiting the player the most and money should not be an issue. the probably just need to get themselves past the engine limitation or do as much as possible until they can get around it or something.

Squad is a business, not a charity. As it is, they have been remarkably patient and helpful, doing things like giving out free DLCs after a mistake in the wording of their EULA, ensuring much of the code is made public for modder accessibility, etc.

7 hours ago, Arugela said:

Having the development stunted by an engine then dlcing is a bad combo all round.

I see so much vitriol spewed about the Unity engine, and I've yet to see convincing evidence that other engines would even do a hugely better job of dealing with rigid-body dynamics on hugely interconnected vessels. The GC issue might go away, but that would be its own nightmare trying to chase down every possible source of a memory leak. In general, switching engines would basically entail rewriting the entire game. It is simply economically infeasible.

7 hours ago, Arugela said:

Edit: They also shouldn't dlc and minimum until my game stops becoming unplayable every version update. It's worse this time than before... They need to get some fundamentals down first... Whether those are related to engine limitations or not.

KSP is perfectly playable after version updates... unless you mod the game, in which case you should learn to be patient and wait for mods to update while continuing to play the old version. You mod at your own risk.

EDIT: It was brought to my attention that at least a small subset of players do have issues with updates even bone-stock. I wish the best of luck to those people; sometimes you get some strange things happening.

2 hours ago, memes in space said:

NOT A DIME FROM SALES OF MAKING HISTORY GOES TO SQUAD.

Um, you do remember that Take Two has Squad on contract for development, and better sales of the DLC give Squad more leverage to bargain for a higher-paying contract, right?

Edited June 21, 2017 by Starman4308

[Gaarst]

2 hours ago, memes in space said:

P.S. If you didn't read, NOT A DIME FROM SALES OF MAKING HISTORY GOES TO SQUAD. It goes to Take Poo Interactive.

Nice to have the enlightened truth be given by someone who totally works for Squad and detains the indisputable truth on the matter.

You obviously have an extremely valuable insight on the situation, probably coming from your years of experience working for Squad or TT, and we should therefore be taking your words as a holy utterance and in no case ever buy the DLC as it only serves to fill the pockets of the evil greedy capitalistic corporation that is Take-Two (they probably even torture puppies to strengthen their evilness).

 

No, but really, this is absolute bullcrap. If you have no idea of what's going on, don't say anything instead of actively hurting the conversation.

[eddiew]

So much rage...

Anyway, I have had over 2000 hours of KSP from my £20 purchase. I don't care what the DLC ends up being about or whether I even want to use it, I'll still buy it.

[monstah]

An insulting comment toward another user has been removed. Guys, this thread is yet again turning into heated arguments and direct assaults. Lets cut it out.

[memes in space]

30 minutes ago, Gaarst said:

No, but really, this is absolute bullcrap. If you have no idea of what's going on, don't say anything instead of actively hurting the conversation.

Do you? Because last time I checked, Take Two is gonna cancel modding for KSP, so I think I won't support them getting rid of mods. But suit yourself, if you like playing KSP 100% stock, then I'd assume you don't care. But I don't like playing stock KSP.

[monstah]

2 hours ago, memes in space said:

P.S. If you didn't read, NOT A DIME FROM SALES OF MAKING HISTORY GOES TO SQUAD. It goes to Take Poo Interactive.You'd think, right? *cough*GTA V*cough*

Um, what I've read is this:

On 2017-5-31 at 9:32 AM, UomoCapra said:

Hello everyone,

We have very exciting news to share with the KSP community today: Take-Two Interactive has purchased Kerbal Space Program. The important thing to know is that this big news doesn’t change much for the KSP community. Squad and the current development team is still here and we’re hard at work on KSP and its future updates, but now we are fortunate enough to do so with the help of an experienced publisher like Take-Two, and we couldn’t be more excited and happy to see where our conjoint collaboration will take KSP forward. 

Right now, we’re still focused on the Kerbal Space Program: Making History Expansion and we’ll continue to keep you updated on our progress. And yes, we’re keeping our promise of free DLC for everyone who purchased KSP through April 2013! We’re continuing to work closely with Blitworks on the updated version of KSP for consoles, which will be available on the Xbox and PSN digital stores when it is complete. This will be a free update for anyone who already owns KSP on Xbox or PS4. We can’t wait for you to play what we’ve been working on in the coming months! 

This is a very exciting time for KSP and the Community, and we hope you’re as thrilled as we are. The team at Take-Two are big fans of KSP, who have been persistently knocking on our door trying to work with us for a long time. They share your passion for the game and we’re really eager to see what Squad and Take-Two can do together for Kerbal Space Program moving forward! 

Happy launchings!

-The KSP Development Team

And this, from TT's website (longer, so no quote)

 

I may need a visit to the ophthalmologist, but nowhere do I see "SQUAD will not get a dime from sales of Making History". You seem to know more than we do. Can you quote your sources, without breaking any NDRs you might be under?

If you can't find any credible sources for your allegation, then please don't spread misinformation.

1 minute ago, memes in space said:

Do you? Because last time I checked, Take Two is gonna cancel modding for KSP, so I think I won't support them getting rid of mods. But suit yourself, if you like playing KSP 100% stock, then I'd assume you don't care. But I don't like playing stock KSP.

Whoa, another one right while I was typing.

So, where exactly did you check that?

[Starman4308]

1 minute ago, memes in space said:

Do you? Because last time I checked, Take Two is gonna cancel modding for KSP, so I think I won't support them getting rid of mods. But suit yourself, if you like playing KSP 100% stock, then I'd assume you don't care. But I don't like playing stock KSP.

Sources please!

No, seriously, a few GTA mods getting taken down doesn't even imply GTA modding will disappear, nevermind KSP mods.

[TheRagingIrishman]

1 hour ago, memes in space said:

Do you? Because last time I checked, Take Two is gonna cancel modding for KSP, so I think I won't support them getting rid of mods. But suit yourself, if you like playing KSP 100% stock, then I'd assume you don't care. But I don't like playing stock KSP.

KSP PR reps have confirmed many times that the game will stay modding friendly. Also, 3 of KSP's major devs are modders so you can bet they'll ensure modding stays.