What features in a DLC would you happily pay for?

[klgraham1013]

10 minutes ago, Aegolius13 said:

Is it pathetic to say that I'd probably pay to have stock 2.5m LF-only tanks?  

'Cause yeah, I'd probably pay to have stock 2.5m-LF only tanks.

Console player?

[Aegolius13]

10 minutes ago, klgraham1013 said:

Console player?

Nope, I play on PC.  But I tend to shy away from part-related mods so my ships don't all stop working when there's an update. 

[invision]

a story mode would be cool, maybe against another space agency or a story about the monoliths (why not both?)

make use of the ore to build better parts and engines

tools to fix broken parts, switch parts, ect that doesnt require mods

a way to control multiple crafts at once, maybe split screen them so you can do something like landing a mainstage while stage 2 is taking the payload into space.

have other EVA kerbils controlled by the CPU so it seems like a exploratory mission and not "you go and we will stay here and root for ya"

parts that spin so you can make helicopter rotors 

boats of any kind

instruments for AP readouts, docking port indicators (im aware these are mods)

a base that allows you its own launch pad and VAB (this is where that ore could come in handy)

 

 

 

[Superfluous J]

It'd have to be something in its own class, like the mission builder. Something that's not just what we have now only different. So not a new part.

But I'd pay for working hinges.

[Raptor9]

23 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

It'd have to be something in its own class, like the mission builder. Something that's not just what we have now only different. So not a new part.

But I'd pay for working hinges.

I agree on both points.

1) Parts, specifically parts that permit
          - More surface base parts in the form of bases and EVA's
          - More structural and orbital parts for more station and large orbital vessel variety
          - Hinges, servos and such for designing custom-built ramps or doors for deploying rovers and other equipment to a surface
2) Expanded EVA functionality like what KIS/KAS adds
3) More planets or more interesting planets or more interesting surface EVA activities on existing planets
4) Part upgrades and/or switching logic in the nature of selectable variants of the same fuel tank part.
          - Example: Take an FL-T400 fuel tank and be able to switch between a couple different skins/stats on the tweakables menu.  The existing texture would be heavier in mass but stronger for higher G's like rocket launchers or Eve landers.  Another texture that looks like the shiny gold of vacuum-only tanks on probes or landers; it would be more expensive, lighter in mass but would be relatively weak in strength like for zero-G operations or low-gravity landings on Mun-type locations. A sort of thing that allows you to keep the same size and type of part fuel tank, but allows you to trade mass vs structural integrity to save on either cost or mass.

Edited June 18, 2017 by Raptor9

[Sakima]

I wouldn't pay for parts. Ever.

 

If I bought an expansion/dlc it would have to include new game content other than parts. That isn't to say I don't want new parts, I do. I just feel being nickled and dimed for the next few years with "Parts Expansion" packs every few months is wrong. A DLC should offer real content, minor parts upgrades should be free. Micro-transactions are evil. 

Edited June 18, 2017 by Sakima

[NSEP]

I would pay for everything that is not possible with mods, and i think nearly everything is.

Maybe not the mission editor id pay for that.

[purpleivan]

What I would look for in DLC would be;

• More planets - probably as a separate solar system accessed through a portal of some kind, probably one that orbits one of the existing planets. The reason for this choice is that it would be an addition to, rather than an alteration of the existing solar system. Adding to the "world map" is common in DLC and in the case of KSP would provide new territory to explore for those who feel that they still want to play the game, but haven't the motivation to, as they've been to all the planets multiple times in multiple ways.
• More Easter Eggs - having many more of these scattered throughout the current system would provide more motivation to visit and explore the current set of planets, although they would have to be new ones, not just extra arches and monoliths.
• More launch sites - tired of the same old view from KSC, then launch from another location (if only Kerbin had an extinct volcano)
• Extension to the KSC facilities - this would probably be purely visual fluff, but lots of people are happy to pay for that in games. More buildings, humorous items, a rover test track etc.
• New parts classes - I'm not sure if DLC should add just a few isolated parts, I'd be happier is these came as extensions to the stock game. Ideally DLC parts would come as whole new classes, or at least a major new section to a class. One examples would be a larger set of tanks and engines, probably 5 or 6 metres, to aid the creation of mammoth vehicles, without needing so many parts in the lower stages. Another would be a set of decorative parts added to the game (more lights, big sci-fi style engine cowlings, a much wider variety of structural panels, including versions of the current ones, but in different styles/materials. Perhaps a set of inline parachute parts would be good too.

If we were to have isolated parts added to the game, then the one I'd want the most is a bigger landing leg.

Edited June 18, 2017 by purpleivan

[Sakima]

27 minutes ago, purpleivan said:

What I would look for in DLC would be;

• More planets - probably as a separate solar system accessed through a portal of some kind, probably one that orbits one of the existing planets. The reason for this choice is that it would be an addition to, rather than an alteration of the existing solar system. Adding to the "world map" is common in DLC and in the case of KSP would provide new territory to explore for those who feel that they still want to play the game, but haven't the motivation to, as they've been to all the planets multiple times in multiple ways.
• More Easter Eggs - having many more of these scattered throughout the current system would provide more motivation to visit and explore the current set of planets, although they would have to be new ones, not just extra arches and monoliths.
• More launch sites - tired of the same old view from KSC, then launch from another location (if only Kerbin had an extinct volcano)
• Extension to the KSC facilities - this would probably be purely visual fluff, but lots of people are happy to pay for that in games. More buildings, humorous items, a rover test track etc.
• New parts classes - I'm not sure if DLC should add just a few isolated parts, I'd be happier is these came as extensions to the stock game. Ideally DLC parts would come as whole new classes, or at least a major new section to a class. One examples would be a larger set of tanks and engines, probably 5 or 6 metres, to aid the creation of mammoth vehicles, without needing so many parts in the lower stages. Another would be a set of decorative parts added to the game (more lights, big sci-fi style engine cowlings, a much wider variety of structural panels, including versions of the current ones, but in different styles/materials. Perhaps a set of inline parachute parts would be good too.

If we were to have isolated parts added to the game, then the one I'd want the most is a bigger landing leg.

 

A new solar system is an example of what I would be willing to buy in an Expansion/DLC. The problem they have is most of the stuff we'd want has already been covered by mods. There are solar system mods that add multiple star systems but they have always been somewhat limited and or buggy (at least the one's I've tried). 

[sfsfgwsf]

After putting 1.5k hours in this game, paying for DLC is out of the question. I don't agree with the publisher they sold out to honestly, whilst I think they will be able to make more expansive games in the future, I also expect it to be heavily monetised. GTA V online is the perfect example of Take two's player model.

[Tex_NL]

People who are enthusiastic about paid DLC's are forgetting one VERY important thing: Paid DLC's will kill the ability to mod!

Almost anything that can possibly be added by a DLC can be modded. The only way for Squad/T2 to monetize a DLC is to disable the ability to mod a similar feature. The ease of modding is one of KSP's core strengths. Quite possible THE core strength. After a few play-throughs the game quickly looses a large part of its appeal without mods. Removing or restricting mods will effectively kill the game.

So if you love the game you will oppose paid DLC's wherever and whenever you can.
Almost everything Squad/T2 might ask you to pay for a modder can do for free.

[purpleivan]

3 hours ago, sfsfgwsf said:

After putting 1.5k hours in this game, paying for DLC is out of the question. I don't agree with the publisher they sold out to honestly, whilst I think they will be able to make more expansive games in the future, I also expect it to be heavily monetised. GTA V online is the perfect example of Take two's player model.

I don't understand your argument.

Are you saying that the developer of a game that will have cost you less than any typical AAA title and has given you at least 20 times the playing time of such games, should provide all additional content free of charge.

If this was a game that you breezed through all the possibilities of in 10 hours, I could see your point, but after 1,500 hours, don't you think that the developer has earned the right to charge for some new content.

Edited June 18, 2017 by purpleivan

[purpleivan]

2 hours ago, Tex_NL said:

People who are enthusiastic about paid DLC's are forgetting one VERY important thing: Paid DLC's will kill the ability to mod!

Almost anything that can possibly be added by a DLC can be modded. The only way for Squad/T2 to monetize a DLC is to disable the ability to mod a similar feature. The ease of modding is one of KSP's core strengths. Quite possible THE core strength. After a few play-throughs the game quickly looses a large part of its appeal without mods. Removing or restricting mods will effectively kill the game.

So if you love the game you will oppose paid DLC's wherever and whenever you can.
Almost everything Squad/T2 might ask you to pay for a modder can do for free.

One question I would like to ask of those that are opposing any form of paid DLC, is how should the developer pay for future development of the game?

As the PC version was first released a long time ago and the console versions weren't exactly released yesterday, KSP is going to be well past its peak in terms of sales to new players, which means that new sales as a source of income will be drying up. Without a new revenue stream (such as paid DLC) eventually all development of KSP would simply stop.

To afford to pay for future development of the game, the developer needs to sell something new, such as either ceasing all major development of KSP 1.x and moving onto a new game, KSP 2.0 (which players would have to pay to play), or paid DLC (which players would have to pay to play).

As many have said before, this is the reality of economics... development costs money and it has to come from somewhere.

It's not that I am enthusiastic about paid DLC, I simply understand the inevitability of it (or something else to pay the bills) due to real world economics. The kind of economics that allows programmers to pay for little things like housing and artists to pay for transportation, not to mention all the producers, testers, audio people and managers paying for groceries.

[klgraham1013]

2 hours ago, Tex_NL said:

Paid DLC's will kill the ability to mod!

How exactly?

[FungusForge]

4 hours ago, Tex_NL said:

Paid DLC's will kill the ability to mod!

Can we not? This line of discussion will only turn into a fecal festival. If you don't like it just silently protest by backing up your install every update.

[EladDv]

51 minutes ago, FungusForge said:

Can we not? This line of discussion will only turn into a fecal festival. If you don't like it just silently protest by backing up your install every update.

IDK, just because you're tired of hearing about it that dosnt mean they have to stop talking about it. 

As long as they do it in a civil and respectful matter I think they should be allowed to voice their opinions (where appropriate, dont go spamming all over the place). 

That being said I dont agree with that sentiment at all.

5 hours ago, Tex_NL said:

People who are enthusiastic about paid DLC's are forgetting one VERY important thing: Paid DLC's will kill the ability to mod!

Almost anything that can possibly be added by a DLC can be modded. The only way for Squad/T2 to monetize a DLC is to disable the ability to mod a similar feature. The ease of modding is one of KSP's core strengths. Quite possible THE core strength. After a few play-throughs the game quickly looses a large part of its appeal without mods. Removing or restricting mods will effectively kill the game.

So if you love the game you will oppose paid DLC's wherever and whenever you can.
Almost everything Squad/T2 might ask you to pay for a modder can do for free.

KSP is being built to be easy to mod, people have torn out and replaced the whole planetary physics system so I doubt they'd be successful in blocking and one part from being changed or improved by mods.

yes, almost anything that they plan to get into the DLC has been existing in mod form and seeing that they dont mention any mandatory updates (or any at all other than bug fixes for 1.3 right now), I think that everything is gonna be fine on 1.3 and mods will continue to exist.

Now for Take-Two Interactive, yes they have made some ill-informed and self-destructive decisions in the (very recent) past but I think this has been a learning experience, modding is a core part of KSP and PC gaming in general and trying to change that is like trying to catch a baseball at 200 km/h, it's probably not gonna go well and it's gonna hurt, a lot. 

 

Now to the matter at hand, I would probably buy it anyways, I paid a ludicrous price for it and I want to support the devs some more for all the effort they put into the game (making huge updates is no joke and they were in no way obligated to do so), though a new planetary system with some cryogenics and life support would be pretty cool 

Edited June 18, 2017 by EladDv

[Frizzon]

Can't think of much that mods don't already do. But with that I'd probably like some mod-like features added into the game, such as they don't break so often or maybe can be done in a more optimized way.

• Visual enhancements, now my pc isn't too powerful, but I find that playing without clouds for Kerbin is almost unplayable. I'm not asking about a full on graphics card melter but some simple cloud layer, which could maybe be improved in the settings for those with better machines.
• Sound enhancement. One of my favorite mods is Real Plume, not so much for the improved plume of engines (which is awesome on its own) but mostly because it makes the engines sound like real, powerful rocket engines.
• Some kind of life support, even if simple. Snacks is the simplest LS mod that comes to mind, probably something along those lines would be the best as to not over complicate the game.
• This one is highly unlikely, but would make me buy it right away. A RO like change of the game. Make it realistic as much as possible.
• This one is the one that I don't know if it exists as a mod. Closest I know is procedural parts. The possibility to create our own parts, within the game, not having to resort to extra programs and configs, but an fairly easy and approachable way for everyone to make parts as they want them to be and not be so limited.

[Superfluous J]

16 hours ago, Tex_NL said:

Paid DLC's will kill the ability to mod!

I hope nobody tells that to all those Cities Skylines modders. Because there are some awesome mods for that game that work right alongside the paid DLC.

Edited June 19, 2017 by 5thHorseman

[Guest]

1 hour ago, 5thHorseman said:

I hope nobody tells that to all those Cities Skylines modders. Because there are some awesome mods for that game that work right alongside the paid DLC.

ITS ALL GOING DOWN THE TUBES MAN THEY HAVE A TRACK RECORD THEYRE GOING TO KILL THE GAME AND THE COMMUNITY IN ONE FELL SWOOP WERE NO LONGER GOING TO BE ABLE TO PLAY KSP BECAUSE THEYLL RETROACTIVELY INSTALL DRM ON OUR 1.1.3 COPIES

Seriously, this stuff just writes itself.

[Urses]

A skill tree for the Kerbals.

Like for engineers 2 ways. One way enables repairing of struktures as example solar or cooling panels insitu. And the other way is support for stat upgrades of crafts. Like fuel efficiency or ec output.

For pilots one for orbital mechaniks and other for atmospheric flight. SAS improvements or semi automatic modes. As example docking or landing.

And for sienciest a field sciencist mode or stationary worker. 

Urses

[Motokid600]

SpaceX pack with hydraulics.

Edited June 19, 2017 by Motokid600

[T.A.P.O.R.]

Solar system configuration setup when starting a new save might be a nice thing to have.

[Speadge]

I think Execandy is what i would pay for.

Having all the features of EVE, Scatterer, Windowshine and DistantObjectEnhancements in stock with highres textures for all bodies. Included Ingame without the use of the modapi and performance-optimised and upgrade-stable would be worth ~10€ for me.

[kurja]

On 18.6.2017 at 4:43 AM, invision said:

a story mode would be cool, maybe against another space agency or a story about the monoliths (why not both?)

 

An "easter egg story" to be discovered, the duna SSTV thing was pure genius and it is ineffably regrettable that it lead to nothing.

[Boris Kerball]

I would love a proper Space shuttle complete with a working HUD for re-entry documentation on speed at R/E where landing strip should be in relation to craft, iv seen a few on you tube but very hit and miss Plus the working Docking camera (kupps)was it called use to work before the may error message Hang?/