Why does KSP need to be extremely expensive

[Lord Aurelius]

1 hour ago, Corona688 said:

Given the ludicrous system requirements people mod in for "non-placeholder" graphics I'm quite happy with graphics that actually work on sane system specs.

Given the caterwauling which occurs whenever they change...  anything, I'm not shocked at this either.

I'm not talking about the super high-res textures and volumetric clouds players add with mods. I'm talking about the difference between the old 2.5m parts and the newer 3.75m ones. The newer parts look good, but the old parts are long overdue for an art pass to bring them up to the same art style and quality.

Your second point is precisely why I'm still salty about this whole issue. If the devs had actually balanced things before 1.0 when the game was still in early access and the general mindset was that things can and would change, then it would have been a lot easier to do this. A balanced base game would have been much easier to extend in the future with just minor tweaks and would have given good reference values for part mods instead of the hodgepodge of values we have now. I'm still holding out hope that the devs will bite the bullet and do a balance pass at some point.

[NSEP]

I don't see how its 'extremely expensive'.

For a game where you can litterly explore and colonize the planets in the way you want is something i would pay 2 million dollahs for.

[Zeiss Ikon]

I must have gotten this game on exactly the right day -- I paid $13.95 direct from the KSP web page (no Steam involved, thank you).  I was deeply gratified that it's native in Linux (I don't have to use Wine to make it mostly run), and it's the only game I've ever seen that makes a playable game out of orbital mechanics and spacecraft design.

I have very limited play time per week, these days (an hour each way commute, driving myself, doesn't contribute to playing anything a lot), but the only other game I've got more hours into is an MMO that I've been playing for fourteen years, called There -- and much of that time, I've been paying $10/mo plus an occasional outlay for in-world money to spend on virtual doodads and pay rent on my virtual house.  I've easy dropped over $1000 in There over the years -- and the software was a free download back in 2004.

And in There, I can't set up a transfer orbit, I just get to drive a dune buggy or pilot a hoverboat...  Neither one of which works as well since I switched to Linux; it's a Windows client only, and it only almost fully works under Wine.

Edited December 11, 2017 by Zeiss Ikon

[Mayer]

Wait for sale when you count every penny. Simple as that.

[Starman4308]

8 hours ago, Lord Aurelius said:

I actually have to agree that KSP is a bit too expensive given the current state of the game. Not because it isn't a fun game, and not because I haven't gotten hundreds of hours of enjoyment from it. The problem is that the game STILL feels like an early access title in a lot of ways. Game balance and polish are both still sorely lacking for a game that has been "released". Not to mention gameplay outside of sandbox mode.

$40 is quite expensive for an indie/small developer game, most of those are $30 or less and many of them are made with much higher production values than KSP. The higher price implies a higher level of quality and polish which KSP simply doesn't have right now given that we're STILL using poor quality placeholder graphics and part balance values. What KSP does have is a niche with no real competition.

To be perfectly fair to Squad, while those are still unpolished, there's a lot more that has been polished. While there may be a bunch of indie games with shinier graphics and more carefully polished gameplay, many probably fit into established genres which are relatively simple coding jobs; KSP was anything but a simple coding job, and probably constitutes hundreds of thousands of lines of code on top of the Unity engine.

We have semi-realistic atmosphere, heating/cooling, ISRU, communications, improved orbit stability, etc. While the poor part balance does somewhat bug me, that would probably require a pass over not just the parts, but also the contract and reward system.

[MR L A]

hah OP got owned in this thread. I agree with every comment regarding exceptional value for money, hours played and supporting Squad.

[qzgy]

7 minutes ago, Starman4308 said:

We have semi-realistic atmosphere, heating/cooling, ISRU, communications, improved orbit stability, etc. While the poor part balance does somewhat bug me, that would probably require a pass over not just the parts, but also the contract and reward system.

I think you make a good point here about what we do have. Many of the things related to gameplay (part balance, contracts, the ENTIRETY of Career mode depending on who you ask) are imperfect (working, but imperfect), but the physics and pure sandbox value is great. Since buying the game, I've pretty much only used the sandbox mode, and I've been perfectly happy to shell out 40 dollars for that.

[Snark]

22 hours ago, 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

Like any product, the price is going to be set by market forces.

There's going to be some minimum price point that they can't go lower than, because it costs a lot of money to make a game, and they have to at least recoup their expenses before they can start seeing a profit.  And I would guess that Squad's expenses-per-copy-sold would be higher than for some AAA title from one of the big guys like EA or Blizzard, because it's from a tiny indie company and economies of scale work against them.  It's the same reason that buying a hand-crafted coffee mug at a little boutique art store is going to cost more than getting a factory-made one at a giant national department store chain.

Other than that:

Choosing the "right" price for your product is a hard problem.  So companies tend to spend a lot of effort researching the market, analyzing the various factors that would affect sales and profit.  Certainly it's safe to assume that Squad understands a lot more about its market than you or I do, because:

• they have trained professionals that have put lots of time into picking the "right" number; you and I have not
• they have actual data to work from (sales, etc.); you and I do not.

So the short answer is "it needs to be that expensive because reasons."

Of course, just because I'm not an expert and have no data to work from doesn't stop me from offering a guess anyway.    I'd guess that $39.99 is a reasonable compromise between "high enough to recoup our expenses and make a reasonable profit" and "low enough that it won't stop too many people from buying the game."  My guess is that, as has been observed, KSP is kind of a "niche" game that appeals to a certain type of person.  If a player is the kind of person that it appeals to, they'll get thousands of hours of joy out of it so US$40 is an absolute bargain and they'll have no trouble paying it.  Whereas if someone isn't really the kind of person who would be "into" KSP... then they probably wouldn't buy it anyway, so lowering the price wouldn't gain much.

[Alpha 360]

Just several things to think about.

1. How many games has such a priceless gaming community, who write great stories, make great mods, and help newbies get off the ground (literally).

2. If such a community is priceless (which it is), then why are people complaining about the cost of the game?

3. The game itself is very special because it has a long history behind it with a great staff which keep producing amazing updates and content. 

Just food for thought

[Nightmare]

The only game that nearly beats the value of buying ksp for 25 bucks is bf1942 with all its mods these two games i played over 1000 hours (ok steam says otherwise but hey who needs steam to start ksp if you know how?)

oh and of course half life in the form of counterstrike but that was befor counting hours.... Maybe one of the civilization games but any other not

Edited December 11, 2017 by Nightmare

[Kerbital]

21 hours ago, Kerbart said:

Most games cost you $60 or more and require that for every major update. If Squad had applied EA's pricing strategy you'd have spent something like $300 since the game came out.

You'd also get considerable less playtime out of most mainstream titles.

KSP is a lot things, but "expensive" or "not worth the money" it is not.

I never paid $60 for a game. I always wait for Steam sales. Unless you must have the latest game NOW, there is no reason to pay full price. And I picked up KSP for some ridiculously low price, like $15.

[Frag2000]

Wow, if I consider the number of hours I have put in this game ... I feel that I owe money to KSP. 

40$ is nothing for a game that good. I also follow the development of Star Citizen, who became a money grabbing machine ...so believe me ... 40$ is a very good price.

[Lord Aurelius]

4 hours ago, Starman4308 said:

To be perfectly fair to Squad, while those are still unpolished, there's a lot more that has been polished. While there may be a bunch of indie games with shinier graphics and more carefully polished gameplay, many probably fit into established genres which are relatively simple coding jobs; KSP was anything but a simple coding job, and probably constitutes hundreds of thousands of lines of code on top of the Unity engine.

We have semi-realistic atmosphere, heating/cooling, ISRU, communications, improved orbit stability, etc. While the poor part balance does somewhat bug me, that would probably require a pass over not just the parts, but also the contract and reward system.

No doubt KSP is much more complicated than most indie games. That's why I mentioned technical debt in my earlier post. However, that doesn't give it a free pass on things like internal art/style consistency and poor career gameplay. Neither of those things are directly affected by the complexity of the code (aside from developer time constraints).

I'm thankful that Squad is slowly tackling the technical debt and attempting to finish the game, but there's still a lot of work to be done before I'd call it finished. Part of the problem with balance is that it can't really be done right until all the game features and systems are complete, which even now over two years after release isn't the case. When they do (hopefully) get around to it, I would expect it to be a comprehensive pass on all aspects of gameplay.

[Corona688]

13 hours ago, Lord Aurelius said:

I'm not talking about the super high-res textures and volumetric clouds players add with mods. I'm talking about the difference between the old 2.5m parts and the newer 3.75m ones. The newer parts look good, but the old parts are long overdue for an art pass to bring them up to the same art style and quality.

They did get an overhaul.  You can find the old textures and models in the island airport.

The 2.5m parts. IIRC, were a mod which Squad liked enough to buy and incorporate.

[klgraham1013]

1 hour ago, Corona688 said:

The 2.5m parts. IIRC, were a mod which Squad liked enough to buy and incorporate.

If only there was a completely finished art overhaul mod that Squad could buy.

[majNUN]

I bought this game in early access. I waited for it to become finished. I'm still waiting for it to become finished. But what does that mean anymore when most games are being continually patched?

At this point, I'm even hoping for a sound DLC because it seems Squad forgot about that. And yeah, I'd pay more money for proper sounds in the game.

KSP has a great modding community which fills in the gaps mostly. Even though a lot of modders have moved on, some of the popular mods get picked up and maintained (like I said, great modding community).

And $40 is worth it considering the number of hours one can put into the game.

[Lord Aurelius]

55 minutes ago, majNUN said:

And $40 is worth it considering the number of hours one can put into the game.

This isn't necessarily the best metric for determining the value of a game (or media in general). There's tons of free-to-play games that will devour your soul if you want them to without you having to pay a cent. There's also some really great movies out there that are worth seeing even with high movie ticket prices that only last a few hours at most.

What I'm looking for is a great experience. KSP offers some of this, but at the same time there isn't much actual content in the game. You, the player, have to put a lot of your own effort into the game for it to be enjoyable (especially with the almost complete lack of a decent tutorial). For many players it's tons of time getting all the mods working correctly, for others its coming up with a narrative to give motivation to what they're doing since the game doesn't provide any.

Edited December 11, 2017 by Lord Aurelius

[GoSlash27]

Thinkin' about it further, "extremely expensive" is a highly subjective phrase. $40 may be "extremely expensive" to some, and a pittance to others.

 Looking back on all the activities that I've engaged in that cost more than $40, yet provided less enjoyment and hours of personal growth and entertainment, KSP is a steal in comparison. And I can think of plenty of them that I still consider worth it and would happily pay for again.
 A trip to Kansas City to root for my home team in a playoff game. A trip to Hermann, MO to see a total eclipse, even just dinner and a movie with my favorite human. All cost more than $40 and provided less hours of enjoyment. All definitely worth it.

 Hell, I have easily 5 grand sunk in a sketchy old Vespa scooter that I've ridden for less hours than I've played KSP, and I'd do *that* again in a heartbeat. Probably the best investment I've ever made.

 I guess you just have to look back at how much you paid, how much you got out of it, and ask yourself if you would do it again. If the answer is yes, then it's not overprices.

Best,
-Slashy

[Spraki]

I belong to the faction of 'this game deserves even a 60usd price', if that exists lol.

Steam and gog sales are around the corner. Too

Still though. Save up. This is really one of the very few games that deserves that extra dime. Though I don't know if our investments are going towards squad or take2. AAANYWAYS.

I wil agree that the game is still like a beta or early access alpha. But let's be blunt here. All modern games are alphas these days.

And even if it does get polished, you're betatesters by default until the next dlc. 

Just my two 0.02m decouplers

 

[Aegolius13]

I've only had the game for <2 years, but I think I've already logged more hours than other game ever (sorry, Diablo 2).  I bought it at full price, but even then, it's an incredible value per hour of entertainment.  That's like one movie ticket with a couple snacks.  If you catch it on one of the $25 sales, it's just ridiculous.

Sure, if you play it for a couple hours and don't like it, it might not be a great deal. But that's true of any game, and I've played a lot of lousy ones that cost more than KSP.

[majNUN]

9 hours ago, Lord Aurelius said:

This isn't necessarily the best metric for determining the value of a game (or media in general). There's tons of free-to-play games that will devour your soul if you want them to without you having to pay a cent. There's also some really great movies out there that are worth seeing even with high movie ticket prices that only last a few hours at most.

What I'm looking for is a great experience. KSP offers some of this, but at the same time there isn't much actual content in the game. You, the player, have to put a lot of your own effort into the game for it to be enjoyable (especially with the almost complete lack of a decent tutorial). For many players it's tons of time getting all the mods working correctly, for others its coming up with a narrative to give motivation to what they're doing since the game doesn't provide any.

On the contrary, many people as well as published game reviews often make a comparison to the price and number of hours a game provides, including re-playability. KSP becomes very affordable in both respects. Comparing a movie to a game is illogical - apples and oranges.

For "an experience" - I think you need 2 things: love of a challenge and a community spirit. Just look through the forums and you'll see people boasting about their accomplishments. And the fact that all players face the same challenges creates a great community. It's like a small town - everyone knows Eve won't let you go (easily), and most know where to find the Kraken corpse. Everyone can appreciate your accomplishments because we're all in the Kerbal solar system and we know what it takes.

I bought the game way back (0.18, I think) - back when there were no tutorials. But there are plenty of YouTube videos, and if you don't know Scott Manley, then you haven't even tried. The learning curve was difficult at times, but I did actually learn something about orbital mechanics and rocketry - as opposed to how just to beat the game. Making my first rendezvous and docking was exhilarating. We all chased science when it was released. We all did the contracts when career mode was released. We will all be building and doing missions with the DLC. And the mods provide many layers of complexity making the game as challenging as you like.

But maybe it's just not your game...

[rvilela]

I paid around €24 during a sale, after playing the demo, more than 2 years ago. Have >1K hours. Still playing often. And for sure will get the coming expansion as well. This game is quite unique, creative, broad, enjoyable, chanllenging. And still didn't went to Jool and Dres and ike, not to mention the opm . 

[DrLicor]

I think this price is pretty right. Over 2000 hours in the game, like many others.
Grab it on a sale, or on G2A.com or some site like that. But even the 45 bucks is a right price. 
 

Here:
https://www.g2a.com/kerbal-space-program-steam-key-global-i10000014989005

€6,45 for the Global Steam key

[Corona688]

You want a cheap spaceflight game?  Here's a cheap spaceflight game:

http://www.mobygames.com/game/destination-mars

(Ages 11-17?  Yeesh, I forgot that!  It insults your intelligence even for that.)

At liftoff you got a three-frame GIF of the space shuttle and a scratchy sound played through your PC speaker.  Then you had to keep a square in the center of another square or else you'd arbitrarily game-over.  Do that for two minutes and you're in orbit.  Then some quiz questions.  Then a docking sequence, i.e. the square game again.  Then more questions.  Then mars, i.e. boilerplate desktop backgrounds from NASA.

This game could have been written in Powerpoint.  I hold it responsible for single-handedly killing North American interest in spaceflight for twenty years.

This is what a cheap spaceflight simulator looks like.

Edited December 12, 2017 by Corona688

[Mahnarch]

Ah, yes! Just like in real life, where NASA astronauts have to answer quiz questions in order to dock a capsule to the ISS!

 

"How many hours make up a Mars day?"

"Uhhh.... I DON'T KNOW!!"

 

*flys by*