Why does KSP need to be extremely expensive

[Combatsmithen]

On 12/10/2017 at 11:31 AM, Hans Kerman said:

Why Does Kerbal Space Program Need to be THAT Expensive, $39.99 Wont get you anywhere playerwise, Somewhere around $24.99 Would be more Reasonable

KSP was cheap like that for the longest time, then it "released" and they upped the price. With the hours of enjoyment and ability to be modded until broken, I've well made my monies worth from the 13 bucks I paid long ago.

Edited December 24, 2017 by Combatsmithen

[pandaman]

Ok - 'Expensive' is relative to what any inividual can afford, or it's percieved value compared to other things.  So i understand the OPs point.  At the time i bought it (v18.3 March 2013) I was having to count pennies enough to think very carefully before 'wasting' £17 on a computer game.

To me KSP is exceptional value when compared to many other games out there.  Yes it lacks a bit of 'polish' in some areas, but more than makes up for it in others.  The best value entertainment for the money, even at current full price, if you are interested in that type of game.

[Jimbodiah]

KSP is my most played game EVER, and one of the cheapest one EVER that did not get deleted after 2 hours of game play. I think this offer the best value-for-money if you like this sort of space builder game. There is no paid subscription, no microtransactions, free for mods.

I've found it odd they offer this game at 40% discount about 6x per year, as the original $40 is already not enough to keep this company going I think. It's a niche market, not mainstream in any case. So I say support the dev team by buying at full price.

[Kerbal pancake]

its the best 40 rubles i've ever spent

[Guest]

Well I'm sure the devs put blood, sweat and tears into this. It's a pretty big game.

[RatchetinSpace]

KSP is worth more than $40 IMO, but if you're not willing to pay full price it regularly goes on sale on steam.

[Mjarf]

Money well spent I say.

[USB4]

Kerbal space program is immense value for what it offers, at least to me.

 

It think though, in broader terms, the price right now seems about right as the price you described is sale price basically. I do worry though that what with notable gaming publishers expressing their wishes to add recurrent player revenue streams (you know what that means), to everything that itll end up in ksp 2, ruining it for me.

[ARS]

Most of the triple A games right now has a price around 60$. Usually they have a size of 20, 30 to 60 GB. But you see, games right now is little more than glorified art graphic with a little bit of programming. For example, take most FPSs today, strip all of it's graphic and it's still basically the same storytelling first person shooter/ arcade like counter-strike or half-life (which back then does not reach a price of 60$). What makes games expensive today is mostly because of graphics. Back then during the early years of gaming, people focused more in gameplay than graphic. Today, people seems only care about graphic first and gameplay second. This makes games being expensive since you basically buying a work of art (and even then, developer still aren't satisfied that you pay for their game, so they had to make DLCs and other shenanigans to make you pay more)

Now, back to main topic, KSP is a rare game (in terms of today's gaming trends) where it focused in gameplay than graphic. You had to appreciate the effort put by squad in creating KSP to have such a high replay value. Most game today is storytelling type, with insane graphic. Once the story is done (rarely it lasts for days if you play straight from start to finish), you're done. In terms of programming, for example, FPS, it's still basically hitscan programming, used way back during half-life era. Now take a look at KSP, what it lacks in story is compensated by the freedom of creativity, you can even make your own story. The graphic might look outdated, but you also must understand that KSP codes is very resource-intensive since there are many parameters that must be calculated, far more than most typical triple A game codes, while still keeping the game playable. Increasing the graphic quality of KSP DOES makes it extremely beautiful, but also makes the hardware takes a huge hit in terms of performance (as already demonstrated by most KSP graphic enhancement mods). Squad is not a triple A studio, and creating amazing graphic in videogames is VERY expensive. If you are bored with what KSP has to offer, there's always mods and community

Back then I started playing KSP 3 years ago after a steam sale that reduce it's price to around 15$. Considering it's still cheaper today than most triple A games (which I usually delete after done with the story) and have a huge replay value, I don't see anything wrong with the price

[damerell]

On 23/12/2017 at 4:03 PM, Snark said:

Sure, the marginal cost is really low.  But the fixed cost of actually producing the game, isn't.  They have to pick a price point that will recoup their production costs, or else there's no point in producing the game in the first place.

This is making the same error again. When one wonders about whether or not to produce a game, of course one plans on a price (well, a series of prices) that will pay for the costs of development, but that's not where Squad are; the money has been spent and the game has been produced. They do not now have to pick a price that will recover those costs; it is still worth selling the game even at a price that will not recover the costs if the alternative would be to recover even less of them.

That is not to say I think Squad is in that position! The continued development and current price suggest to me that they think there are plenty of sales left in the game even at this price, and long may it continue.

Your example of a game that costs $10 million to produce and that one expects to sell a million copies includes the same error (well, also it seems to think the demand is highly insensitive to price, but let's take that as read). During development one has to plan to make at least $10 a copy - but even then one can hope to get some copies out the door at $20, and also expect to sell some at $5 - and it is still worth planning to sell those $5 copies once no-one is buying it at $10, even though they don't amortise their share of the fixed costs.

But once it's developed, it may turn out to be a flop; it's worth then selling half a million copies at $5 if that's what one can get, because having a quarter of the development costs back is better than nothing.

The price a game comes out at initially will reflect the intention of making a profit over the fixed costs, but the price it sells at after a while doesn't.

Edited December 27, 2017 by damerell

[maceemiller]

Not expensive at all. The price I paid for this game is roughly the equivalent of a round of beers for me and the boys in the pub on a Saturday night.