KSP 2 Would Have Microtransactions

[klgraham1013]

Consider this.  I buy a different colored tone knob for my guitar.  It's a micro-transaction that changes the appearance of my guitar.  Micro-transactions are everywhere in everyday life.  Has this sort of thing killed the guitar industry?  No.  (side note: being tied to tradition is killing it)  Micro-transactions are everywhere in real life.  If done right, they can give the user a huge amount of customization.  They aren't inherently evil.  It's all about what you do with them.

[Gargamel]

8 hours ago, klgraham1013 said:

Consider this.  I buy a different colored tone knob for my guitar.  It's a micro-transaction that changes the appearance of my guitar.  Micro-transactions are everywhere in everyday life.  Has this sort of thing killed the guitar industry?  No.  (side note: being tied to tradition is killing it)  Micro-transactions are everywhere in real life.  If done right, they can give the user a huge amount of customization.  They aren't inherently evil.  It's all about what you do with them.

But you can buy a knob from any manufacturer.

In this realm, you have to buy it from one publisher.    Hence, why they would have to lock out mods.  

This is like comparing apples to Orangutans. 

 

[klgraham1013]

1 minute ago, Gargamel said:

But you can buy a knob from any manufacturer.

In this realm, you have to buy it from one publisher.    Hence, why they would have to lock out mods.  

This is like comparing apples to Orangutans. 

 

Never liked those sayings, because usually the things being compared do actually have similarities.  Your point is taken though.  As I said, it's all about how and what you do with your micro-transactions.

[llanthas]

Sorry folks, but...    Called it. 
 

Quote

VIRTUAL CURRENCY AND VIRTUAL GOODS

The Online Services, including software, may offer the ability to purchase and/or earn via gameplay a limited license to use virtual currency and/or virtual goods exclusively within applicable software and services provided by the Company.

 

 

[Guest]

6 hours ago, llanthas said:

Sorry folks, but...    Called it.

Nonsense.

[Gaarst]

9 hours ago, llanthas said:

Sorry folks, but...    Called it. 
 

 

And? If I'm not mistaken this is from T2's EULA, meaning it applies to all games they publish but simply says they can put microtransactions in one of their games if they want to.

Microtransactions are impossible to enforce in KSP without a major rewrite of the code, the end. There will be MTs in KSP when there will be MTs in KSP, not when the publisher says it has the right to introduce them in it games.

[Majorjim!]

On 12/24/2017 at 8:03 AM, ave369 said:

Don't deal in absolutes

He's a Sith!

[Diche Bach]

As long as they do not IMPOSE "updates" to Kerbal Space Program which (thanks to Steams auto-updates functionality) cause current installs of the game to be updated to a version which includes micro-transaction malware, I honestly do not care what Take 2 does with their new IP.

If they wish to pursue alternate forms of revenue with KSP 2, then as long as they make it clear enough in their marketing that I am not duped into purchasing it, it is of no consequence to me. I will NEVER purchase another game which uses a micro-transaction dynamic. I learned my lesson with EVE Online and Magick the Gathering Online: ingenious money pits in which the initially somewhat positive correlation between expenditure and enjoyment soon transforms into no correlation thence into a negative correlation. One must be suffering an actual addiction to continue on that path for very long, and while the IP owner/creator/producer/publisher may well reap sufficient rewards to justify the system even if 90% of users curtail their micro-transactional indulgences during the "pre-negative correlation" phase, the ethics and long-term sustainability of the business model strike me as extremely questionable.

I have no desire to promote such a business model, and in fact will speak against it when it seems prudent, but if a particular business wishes to do it, that is their business. They won't get any more of my consumer dollars that is for sure, but then they don't care about the anecdotes anyway.

The one version of this business model that I do find truly objectionable and probably bordering on illegal is when they "update" an existing application which has been in post-Beta release form for quite some time (hell even if it was still in Alpha, I think the model is objectionable) and which was not previously a MT model but which is adapted to that model. Fallout 4 is the exemplar of this. Bethesda has breached by brand loyalty, quite possibly irrevocably and I may well never purchase another of their titles. Based on the response the Creation Club garnered, I think it is safe to say I am not alone. The actual proportions of lost revenue are anyone's guess, but given they could very simply allow users to Opt In or Opt Out of the Creation Club, and effectively avert estranging users like me speaks to the deep stupidity of the planners who implement these schemes. If your product is so fantastic that you have to dupe /extort/force your consumers into using it, then you really should ask yourself: is this a sustainable business model?