The audacity of DLC

[Just Jim]

I've said this before, and I'll say it again... @SQUAD... take my $$$... You've MORE than earned it!!!

7 hours ago, Snark said:

I think what KSP did with their continuous-development model is brilliant.  It's not just a win for them, but it's a win for the players, too.  Apparently you seem to be angry because you look at KSP and see a bunch of flaws that you think shouldn't be there.  Well... you're playing with a product that had millions of player-hours sunk into it by a vocal community, even before they hit 1.0.  You're playing with a product that had many major releases in between when they got people to start shelling out, and now.  Every single one of those major releases added big new features to the game, and every single one of those big new features was informed by a lot of player feedback.

I would love to follow up on this a bit... I'm also a big fan of watching KSP develop over the last couple years. I don't mind that it's not done... and I absolutely love that we, as players, have had some input on the game. And what other company do you know that you can do this:

"Hey, @Darth Badie... is it OK if we pm you or the other @SQUAD people with a problem?"

and expect an answer??? I don't know any other company that interacts with the players like @SQUAD does...

I love that the game is still growing and developing, and that we get to be a part of it.

7 hours ago, Snark said:

Tell me:

1. How much did you pay for KSP?
2. How much time have you spent playing and enjoying it?

1) 40.00... I believe...
2) Steam stopped keeping track nearly 2 years ago... I wouldn't be surprised if I'm hitting around 10,000 hours by now... 

Edited January 5, 2018 by Just Jim

[Snark]

49 minutes ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

I think more-so what he's driving at, is that games used to be a more "complete" package when you purchased them. Since they were physical hard copies, and there was no infrastructure to patch or update; they had to be complete and almost 100% bug free from step 1. When you went to the store and spent 40 or 60 dollars on a game, you could be relatively sure it was complete and finished. Not really so anymore.

I'm still confused.  Define "complete"?  Define "finished"?

I mean, you spend some-amount-of-money on a game.  Let's say that you really like the game, and as you purchased it, right there, you get enough enjoyment out of it that you feel it was worth the money you paid.  Never mind "complete", whatever the heck that means.  I mean, let's say it happens to be the case that the feature set you get right at the moment of purchase is already really well worth the money that you spend.  For example, I shelled out US $27 for KSP 0.23.5.  I could have done that, and gotten my game, and right then, KSP 0.23.5 was already easily worth $27 to me, based on the amount of enjoyment I got out of it.

So... that means you purchased a thing, and you're happy with it, and that's good.  Right?

Okay.  So then, a while later, the folks who made it say "Hey, we've added this additional cool new features that make you like the product even better, and we'll hand it to you for free!"  How on earth is that somehow bad?  Why would that make anyone unhappy?  It's unambiguously better.  Either you like what they added, in which case you get neat stuff for free, and it's a net positive.  Or you don't, in which case you simply don't update and it's a net zero.  I don't see any possible way for it to be a net negative.

So... where is the dissatisfaction coming from, here?  What's the bad thing?

 

 

Of course, in the above example, I did make the crucial highlighted assumption.  The calculus would be very different if It would be a different story if the version of KSP that I purchased wasn't worth what I paid for.  "Hey, I shelled out $27 and this thing is a piece of crap that's not currently worth that much.  It's a gyp that I have to wait a year until they finally deliver something that is worth what I paid for it."  If that were the case, then I could understand.  But it's not even close to that being the case to me, and I haven't heard anyone else (including the ones unhappy with "it's incomplete!") saying that, so I assume that's not what they're saying.

So... what, then?

 

49 minutes ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

if they are always changing...it takes away from the purity of the "game" a bit

Well, first, if you don't want it to change, then don't update; you're not forced to.  Second... "purity" is a thing?  I don't understand what that even means?

Again, I'm not being critical or asking a rhetorical question.  I'm sure people have good reasons for feeling the way they do.  It's just that I like to understand people, I'm genuinely baffled here, and would like to understand.

49 minutes ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

You wouldn't "update" chess. It's perfect as it is, no need for a DLC to add a new piece, or to sell players different "boards" to play on piece meal. It's simple and elegant; a classic. Embellishment in this case would be desecration.

Well, first, I've seen all kinds of chess variants, and lots of people have lots of fun with them.  And if someone doesn't want to play a chess variant, they can just play standard chess.  So I'm having trouble understanding how this relates?

[Geonovast]

I think all they really have to do is start calling them "Expansion Packs" again and the complaints will stop.

Never saw anyone complain about expansion packs somehow un-completing a game.  Back in the day, I loved StarCraft.  Many, many, many hours into that game, both single and multiplayer.

Then they released Brood War.  It was wonderful.  Added some great things to the game.  I was happy to pay for that "DLC."  The only difference was I purchased a disc copy at a store instead of downloading it.

I know people that have easily shelled out $500+ just on Call Of Duty games.  Every year a new copy comes out.  It's the same crap, just prettier and a few new toys.  Bam, $60 at least.  Over, and over, and over again.  Never seen anyone whine that the game before was incomplete.

If you bought KSP in the early days, you didn't pay much and have gotten every update for free.  If you bought it recently... you still didn't pay much and have gotten every update for free.  If the constant updating bothers you, then you should have done 5 minutes of Googling to see how the game has been evolving.  It's not Squad's fault you bought something on impulse without researching it, and as @Snark has pointed out, if you don't want to update... don't.

DLC is only a problem when it's either required to actually play the game, or if it gives a player an unfair advantage in multiplayer. 

Don't like DLC?  Don't buy it.  Don't like Microtransactions?  Don't use them.  Complaining about it won't make a difference, especially if you're doing it while you hand over your money.  Companies still make DLC and Microtransactions because they obviously work.

I love this game.  Granted, I came in kind of late (1.3.0), but I have never felt it to be incomplete.  Does it need work?  Of course.  Could the career mode be better? Absolutely.  Will it?  Probably not.  This is sandbox build-whatever, do-whatever game.  Playing the game is essentially playing with Legos (except A LOT cheaper).  The directions suck, but that doesn't matter.  Build what you want, do what you want, and don't complain when the next set hits the store shelves and you mix them all together in a big bucket.

Also...

[Mako]

1 hour ago, Snark said:

Fair 'nuff, but I'm confused and would love to understand your viewpoint better.  If you don't like the game changing, just pick a version you like and don't update anymore, yes?

@Rocket In My Pocket pretty well gets my sentiment. And like them, I see the good in the development style, but it has started to put me off more and more over time.

It's totally just a weird feeling I've started having about the whole concept. What you're suggesting, pick a version and call it done there, is totally an option, but that doesn't feel great to me either when I know there are typically improvements/content I'm missing out on. I'm also one of those crazy people who feel a compulsion to find every collectible in a game/level before moving on. The thought that I'm missing something takes away from my enjoyment of games. I guess it kind of feels a bit like what I imagine an OCD quirk might feel like, but I don't think it compares to serious OCD.

Like I said, it's just the way things feel to me (and apparently I'm not completely alone), but I don't presume to suggest everything should change according to my peculiarities. I'm a patient person, but it's a bummer to be excited about something that I know I'll have a harder time enjoying with the constant nagging feeling that if I just wait a little longer it'll be a better product.

I've bought a few EA or continuing development products, but some I've still never started once, and some I've started only once and said to myself I'll just wait for it to be farther along before getting into it. It leads me to feeling like I should wait to spend my money until the product is complete.

I'm not sure there's too much more to it really. I've had an amazing time with KSP, but when I bought it in 2013 it was farther along than many things coming out in EA these days. But even with KSP I've started to experienced some ongoing development fatigue. There are mods I'd really like to play with, but I've stayed away from getting too into it with things steadily changing.

I appreciate the concept. On paper it's wonderful for everyone involved. In practice it winds up making me feel like a crazy person due to no fault of anyone but myself.

[Snark]

32 minutes ago, Mako said:

that doesn't feel great to me either when I know there are typically improvements/content I'm missing out on

So, let me see if I'm understanding correctly:

Getting cool new stuff for free is somehow bad.  But deciding not to take the cool new free stuff is also bad, because then the fact that other people are getting it is also somehow bad?

It somehow causes... unhappiness... if other people get things that you've decided you don't want? I'm even more confused than before!

I hasten to add that I'm not in any way criticizing you.  I'm 100% down with the whole OCD thing, I'm a very OCD type myself even if I just happen to be OCD about different things from you.  I'm simply having trouble wrapping my head around this particular flavor of it, is all. 

But even granting that that's what you want-- i.e. you don't want cool new stuff for free for some reason, and you also don't want to stick with one version if other people are getting nice stuff that you don't want-- then that's easily solvable too, yes?  Just wait until the game stops updating before buying it.  KSP (the stock game) is basically done now; I seriously doubt they'll be adding any significant new features to the core game at this point.  Any subsequent releases, such as 1.4, are going to just be bugfixes, plus whatever they need in order to support future expansion backs, but that's what every computer game has ever done.

So... if other people getting things you don't want somehow bothers you, then just don't buy KSP in 2013.  Wait until 2017 or 2018 and then buy it.  There, it's "complete" (whatever that means).  Problem solved, yes?

[Ty Tan Tu]

It seems to me micro transactions only really works with MMOs, as EA discovered with Star Wars Battlefront II. I could see KSP introducing something like parts packages. Maybe you are really into planet surface bases, or maybe SSTO and planes. KSP could offer parts tailored to your needs, developed by professional programmers and artists. At the right price point, I would be tempted to buy something like that.

As to control, I can offer anecdotal tales from my own experiences from going through a similar situation. I have mention this before. I was working in a division of a company for several years. We do not write games or commercially sold software, but we are a software division. We develop tracking and transactional level services for the movie studios. Three years ago our division was sold to a different company. And now, three years later, I am still in the same building, sitting at the same desk, providing QA for pretty much the same programmers. Santa Clara does visit from time to time, and we do have bi-weekly trans-continental conference meetings, but nothing has really changed. They did lend us a hot shot programmer for a big project. He loved it in Portland and the company just moved a new big project to Portland - so I am thinking I might be sitting at the same desk three years from now.

Edited January 6, 2018 by Ty Tan Tu

[Rocket In My Pocket]

42 minutes ago, Snark said:

I'm still confused.

I'm genuinely baffled here, and would like to understand.

I don't understand what that even means?

So I'm having trouble understanding how this relates?

 I'm simply having trouble wrapping my head around it.

Seems to be a recurring issue for you?

Let me simplify it. As I said before "brevity is the soul of wit" after all.

A video game used to be an immutable, unchangeable, and permanent physical thing that you bought and took home. No patches, no version numbers, no expansions, no DLC, no extra content, no pre-order bonus, no BS basically. Now, it isn't. Some people lament this change. Simple as that, no more, no less.

As a side note; I don't particularly appreciate the whole "strawman" argument you've framed as I never said I wasn't satisfied with KSP for the money i spent, nor did I make any allusions to such. (I've bought it twice by the way; off Steam and on.) I'm actually very excited for the DLC/Expansion. I was merely trying to explain the feelings of a large sub-set of older gamers who feel that piece-mealing games out in dribs and drabs ultimately results in a worse overall product than releasing it all in one go. Although, as I explained; this isn't 100% how I feel, but I understand where they are coming from. Perhaps if you took more time to try to understand others, instead of telling them you don't understand them; I wouldn't have had to explain it to you? (Oh...also, it may sound like I'm criticizing you, but no worries; I'm not. )

[Mako]

59 minutes ago, Snark said:

So, let me see if I'm understanding correctly:

Getting cool new stuff for free is somehow bad.  But deciding not to take the cool new free stuff is also bad, because then the fact that other people are getting it is also somehow bad?

It somehow causes... unhappiness... if other people get things that you've decided you don't want? I'm even more confused than before!

I hasten to add that I'm not in any way criticizing you.  I'm 100% down with the whole OCD thing, I'm a very OCD type myself even if I just happen to be OCD about different things from you.  I'm simply having trouble wrapping my head around it.

But even granting that that's what you want-- i.e. you don't want cool new stuff for free for some reason, and you also don't want to stick with one version if other people are getting nice stuff that you don't want-- then that's easily solvable too, yes?  Just wait until the game stops updating before buying it.  KSP (the stock game) is basically done now; I seriously doubt they'll be adding any significant new features to the core game at this point.  Any subsequent releases, such as 1.4, are going to just be bugfixes, plus whatever they need in order to support future expansion backs, but that's what every computer game has ever done.

I can appreciate you having trouble wrapping your head around it. 

Let me state specifically that I do not think there is anything bad about ongoing development. It just isn't for me. It doesn't mean I can't get anything out of it, it just means I often don't get as much out as I feel like I can. I am finding that I have a better time going back to older, no-longer-in-development titles than I am with titles following this newer model of ongoing development. It just better meshes with the way I want to play games.

59 minutes ago, Snark said:

So... if other people getting things you don't want somehow bothers you, then just don't buy KSP in 2013.  Wait until 2017 or 2018 and then buy it.  There, it's "complete" (whatever that means).  Problem solved, yes?

First off, this is already what I now do as I alluded to in my last post. I don't need anyone's help or advice on how I feel about a thing, and I've learned what brings me the most enjoyment from the products I spend money on. EA/ongoing development/games-as-a-service is all relatively new in relation to when I started playing games, and I've only recently begun to understand exactly how it works best for me.

Second, it has nothing to do with anyone else getting stuff. I don't care who has what compared to me. That has never entered I to it. Also, I'm not advocating that anyone stops development. I'm just saying that personally I've been experience fatigue with this development style in all games, but I'm not stating that things need to change. As I've said, I've changed my buying habits going foward, but it doesn't change where I've already spent money.

KSP has done a decent job. I bought it and loved it from the first version I played. I'm not upset that they're still working on it; I welcome the improvements. However, I haven't played in a long time because it never feels like a good time for me to get everything out of it that I want. That's solely on me and my idiosyncrasies and I'm not looking for anyone to help with that. I was just hoping to give some explanation about a post that I can relate to where you seemed to misunderstand the point out of obviously not being able to relate to it.

Ongoing development is great and I'm just waiting for it to be done to get the most out of my experience. If development ends, I start thinking about mods and playing more than just fiddling with a random design in my head. If development continues, I continue waiting until I feel like jumping in. Call it crazy, call it unfathomable, call it whatever -- it's irrational but this is just how it is for me.

Personally I think it's crazy that people have irrational fears, but it doesn't mean they don't have them it just means I can't easily relate. It sounds like something similar is going on here. I've just recently come to understand that I like games most in their final, development-is-done-and-the-team-has-moved-on-to-other-things state. I see all the merits of the recently widely adopted development method, and now I just enjoy following along and waiting patiently.

And again, I've never regretted my purchase of KSP in 2013. I enjoyed the heck out of exactly what it was at the time I bought it but as time has gone on I find myself having less interest in playing until development dies down. But not all games are KSP and KSP is not the sole contributor to my ungoing development experience.

And to maybe offer some additional insight at the risk of seeming stark-raving mad, I've found that I also like to watch TV series (what's the plural for series) after the show has completely finished or at least has several seasons already completed. I actually avoid watching almost everything one-episode-a-week style. Irrational, but it's how I like it most.

But please be clear, it has never revolved around the experience that others have or don't have. It's solely about "could I have a better experience if I wait a little longer? Seems likely. Okay I'll wait." If I know something new is always on the horizon I find I just keep waiting...

Edited January 6, 2018 by Mako

[Superfluous J]

17 minutes ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

A video game used to be an immutable, unchangeable, and permanent physical thing that you bought and took home. No patches, no version numbers, no expansions, no DLC, no extra content, no pre-order bonus, no BS basically. Now, it isn't. Some people lament this change. Simple as that, no more, no less.

They were also 8 bit and if they sucked, which many of them did, you were stuck with only that 87% review score from PC Gamer to console you.

[Rocket In My Pocket]

8 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

They were also 8 bit and if they sucked, which many of them did, you were stuck with only that 87% review score from PC Gamer to console you.

Fair enough lol!

I certainly went home from the store with some stinkers, after being wooed by fancy box art. -Stares coldly at Rygar for the NES-

Spoiler

Edited January 6, 2018 by Rocket In My Pocket

[Snark]

6 minutes ago, Mako said:

And to maybe offer some additional insight at the risk of seeming stark-raving mad, I've found that I also like to watch TV series (what's the plural for series) after the show has completely finished or at least has several seasons already completed. I actually avoid watching almost everything one-episode-a-week style. Irrational, but it's how I like it most.

Actually, that's how I like to watch 'em, too.  I hate waiting-for-the-next-episode.  Not actually owning a TV set helps.

Just now, Rocket In My Pocket said:

I certainly went home from the store with some stinkers, after being wooed by fancy box art.

Oh man, I hear that!     Some unbelievably crappy games for the Atari 2600 had some seriously cool box art.

25 minutes ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

Seems to be a recurring issue for you?

Alas, yes.    I do hope it's clear that I'm bemoaning this as a failure of mine to understand, not saying other folks are somehow wrong to feel what they feel.  Everyone has reasons for their own feelings, and I like to understand folks.  Seeing someone get unhappy about something I don't understand (yet) is like an itch I can't scratch.

27 minutes ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

A video game used to be an immutable, unchangeable, and permanent physical thing that you bought and took home. No patches, no version numbers, no expansions, no DLC, no extra content, no pre-order bonus, no BS basically. Now, it isn't. Some people lament this change. Simple as that, no more, no less.

I certainly remember those days-- cut my teeth on a Pong wanna-be from Radio Shack that plugged into the TV, followed by TI-94A and Atari 2600 (good luck "expanding" a cartridge-based game, never mind that the machine only had 128 bytes of RAM), followed by the Apple II+.  Immutable games were how I spent the first decade-and-a-half of my gaming life.

The thing that confuses me these days is, the first serious love-of-my-life game in adulthood was Starcraft, which was enormously successful (for good reason)... and which then was followed by the Brood War expansion, which was also very successful.  I remember those days, I remember me and every nerd I talked to playing it obsessively for years and being delighted with it, and I don't recall ever hearing anyone unhappy about "hey, they're adding on to Starcraft!"  The implicit consensus was "expansion packs are a Good Thing".

Insert a gap of a decade or more when I didn't game much what with kids and job and various IRL responsibilities, and along comes KSP and the world of today.  And apparently, sometime during my gaming hiatus, somehow expansions went from being a thing that basically everybody liked to being something that a substantial number of people... don't, somehow.

Obviously there must be reasons for that, but I've never quite been able to get a handle on just what that might be, and my state of ignorance bugs me.  It's a thing I'd like to understand.  Think of me as having fallen through a time warp from the year, oh, 2003 or so, and you'll probably get pretty close to my mindset.  (Well, okay, except for a stint of WoW from 2005 to 2009.  Those were dark times.  We do not speak of it.)

36 minutes ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

I don't particularly appreciate the whole "strawman" argument you've framed as I never said I wasn't satisfied with KSP for the money i spent, nor did I make any allusions to such.

Apologies if I gave any offense, or seemed to imply you (or anyone else) said something you didn't-- that certainly wasn't my intent.  Basically I was just trying to convey where my confusion was coming from.  "Here's a silly construct for the sake of argument, which as far as I can tell is the paraphrased equivalent of what I've been hearing people say, and I assume this can't possibly be it, so I must be missing something, so how is what people actually mean different from what I'm hearing?"  That's all.

 

[AngrybobH]

24 minutes ago, Snark said:

The thing that confuses me these days is, the first serious love-of-my-life game in adulthood was Starcraft, which was enormously successful (for good reason)... and which then was followed by the Brood War expansion, which was also very successful.  I remember those days, I remember me and every nerd I talked to playing it obsessively for years and being delighted with it, and I don't recall ever hearing anyone unhappy about "hey, they're adding on to Starcraft!"  The implicit consensus was "expansion packs are a Good Thing".

Insert a gap of a decade or more when I didn't game much what with kids and job and various IRL responsibilities, and along comes KSP and the world of today.  And apparently, sometime during my gaming hiatus, somehow expansions went from being a thing that basically everybody liked to being something that a substantial number of people... don't, somehow.

Obviously there must be reasons for that, but I've never quite been able to get a handle on just what that might be, and my state of ignorance bugs me.  It's a thing I'd like to understand.  Think of me as having fallen through a time warp from the year, oh, 2003 or so, and you'll probably get pretty close to my mindset.  (Well, okay, except for a stint of WoW from 2005 to 2009.  Those were dark times.  We do not speak of it.)

Sometime in there games went from full games that then got expansions to games that had stuff obviously removed then sold as day 1 expansions. The transition to that caused a lot of hate for expansions. I can even remember loving expansions then moving toward hating some of them. Maybe that clears up some of your confusion.

[Just Jim]

59 minutes ago, Snark said:

The thing that confuses me these days is, the first serious love-of-my-life game in adulthood was Starcraft, which was enormously successful (for good reason)... and which then was followed by the Brood War expansion, which was also very successful.  I remember those days, I remember me and every nerd I talked to playing it obsessively for years and being delighted with it, and I don't recall ever hearing anyone unhappy about "hey, they're adding on to Starcraft!"  The implicit consensus was "expansion packs are a Good Thing".

I was the exact same with the Sims2... I loved each time something new came out, and I own every major expansion, and almost all the extra "Stuff-packs"... and I'm sure it's well over a couple hundred $$$ if you added it all up.

And, like KSP... I still play it to this day, which my readers know full well.

I just don't understand the big deal... Like you said, suddenly getting more stuff, even if it costs a few bucks... suddenly this is a bad thing? When did this happen??? Did someone go back in time and step on a bug???  

Edited January 6, 2018 by Just Jim

[Snark]

2 hours ago, AngrybobH said:

Sometime in there games went from full games that then got expansions to games that had stuff obviously removed then sold as day 1 expansions. The transition to that caused a lot of hate for expansions. I can even remember loving expansions then moving toward hating some of them. Maybe that clears up some of your confusion.

Well, sure, I get that.  Quite a few companies have succumbed to the lure of the dark side.  I read articles, I'm aware of some of the crap that a lot of companies are pulling these days.  That whole "pay to win" thing in multiplayer games, where player A has an advantage over player B because he shelled out cash to get the fancy weapon or whatever-- that's just obscene, as far as I'm concerned.  Which is why no company doing that kind of thing is ever going to see one penny of my money.  I pay money to have fun, and for me, that's the exact diametric opposite of fun.  I'd sooner spend the money on a root canal.

(Which matters not at all to the companies in question, of course; lots of other people will throw their wallets at them, because as a tool for exploiting loopholes in human psychology to extract gobs of cold hard cash, it's highly effective.  It's just not where I want to be.)

So yeah, I get all that.  That doesn't confuse me at all.  I don't like it, but it makes perfect sense.  Honestly, it amazes me that it took the gaming companies as long as they did to figure out the whole pay-to-win thing and all the rest of it.

What keeps confusing me is when this sort of talk spills over into a thread about KSP.  Because KSP has not been playing that game.  At all.  Even slightly.  Quite the opposite, in fact.  And they've shown no signs at all, thus far, of doing anything even slightly along those lines, nor have they been signaling that they have any intentions of doing so.

Doesn't mean they couldn't, of course, but so what?  The best predictor of future behavior is generally past behavior, so I'm not gonna hold my breath, here.

Thus my befuddled questions about why folks complain about things that, as far as I can tell, aren't actually happening and show no indication of doing so.

[rdwulfe]

Quote

I think more-so what he's driving at, is that games used to be a more "complete" package when you purchased them. Since they were physical hard copies, and there was no infrastructure to patch or update; they had to be complete and almost 100% bug free from step 1. When you went to the store and spent 40 or 60 dollars on a game, you could be relatively sure it was complete and finished. Not really so anymore.

Games also used to be hundreds of times smaller than they are now. A lot less complex. Huge complex sprawling worlds? Nope, none of that. Yes, large worlds, but they were all utterly bland, flat, and uninteresting. Easter eggs? Sure ,when they could sneak them in, and they didn't take more than 2-3K of data. 

 

All in all, I prefer the current method. Games get updated. Really updated, hell, they add entire new THINGS to the games, after you purchase them. For free. We're getting another content update soon, in 1.4. We've seen mods added as base things to the game. We've seen incredible things with KSP. I just hope it continues, as I've played KSP more than any other game I own. And I keep comming back to it. And it always entertains!

[Rocket In My Pocket]

55 minutes ago, rdwulfe said:

Games also used to be hundreds of times smaller than they are now. A lot less complex. Huge complex sprawling worlds? Nope, none of that. Yes, large worlds, but they were all utterly bland, flat, and uninteresting. Easter eggs? Sure ,when they could sneak them in, and they didn't take more than 2-3K of data. 

...No offense, but it sounds like you haven't played many of the classic NES, or SNES games. That or they just didn't jive with you for some reason.

Even the first Zelda for the NES featured a large, complex, and interesting open world. As well as a heaping pile of secrets and easter eggs. Plus, Super Metroid for SNES; need I say more?

A good example: When I bought Starcraft 1 I got 3 separate campaigns that were all amazing. When I bought Starcraft 2 I got...1 campaign. Then I had to buy 2 more games to get the other two. So the Starcraft 2 I bought wasn't as "complete" as Starcraft 1. It was just a portion of the content. I'm not saying this is definitely worse or better, just that it's a thing that happened and here we are. I don't even have a huge problem with the current implementations we see like that but the trend is concerning, I mean; where does it stop? If someone came back from the future and told me that someday you'd pay 60$ just to get a main menu, and then all the options on it had dollar signs next to them; it wouldn't surprise me.

Edited January 6, 2018 by Rocket In My Pocket

[cfds]

There are some points why I consider KSP unfinished:

The 'career mode' only provides some random side quests combined with some very weird tech progression concept ("lick a flagpole to develop a new engine") and arbitrary constraints (Part count? Really?). There is no meaningful use of the "time" resource, management of parallel missions is pretty much impossible without mods, the "mission control" building is just a tavern for quest givers and the less said about the "administration" building the better... The whole mode just feels like a hastily added collection of half-baked ideas that had to be included so that the 'released' product gives at least lip service to the game's tag line:  "KSP is a game where the players create and manage their own space program. Build spacecraft, fly them, and try to help the Kerbals to fulfill their ultimate mission of conquering space."

Part balance is all over the place:

• Fuel tanks all have identical dry/wet mass ratios and all pros and cons that need weighing is "the 'physics' engine prefers small part counts". The same is true for batteries.
• Manned pods in contrast have pretty random mass/kerbal values without any secondary property to consider. Lander cans and aircraft parts are just more efficient in every way as capsules, description texts hinting at differences regarding survivability of re-entry or vacuum conditions are just cosmetic.
• Probe cores: You use the Stayputnik if you have nothing better, then the next one and in the end the lightest one. Without research, you just use the lightest one. There is no reason whatsoever to use things like the 1.25m or 2.5m probe cores or the second of the hexagonal/octagonal cores.

Graphics: Many objects still have graphics that are okay for an early alpha but somehow still survive to the day. Furthermore, there is no consistent art style which adds to the "unfinished" look.

The "work in progress" label that is tagged to everything that receives any amount of criticism from the community. Yes, the label is not always given by developers but also by zealous members of the community, but reading "well, it's not yet finished" in pretty much every discussion will nonetheless add to the "unfinished" look as well.

 

To the "just pick a version that you like and stay with it" argument: Mods. Yes, it is possible to get the old versions of mods, but most modders will put their own continuous development only in the current version (and I do not begrudge this, they are not paid for it after all) and especially if this development contains bugfixes and performance/usability updates or simply interesting new features you are pretty much left with Hobson's choice: Do not use these improvements or update the game (and all the other mods).

1 hour ago, rdwulfe said:

Games also used to be hundreds of times smaller than they are now. A lot less complex. Huge complex sprawling worlds? Nope, none of that. Yes, large worlds, but they were all utterly bland, flat, and uninteresting. Easter eggs? Sure ,when they could sneak them in, and they didn't take more than 2-3K of data. 

[Emphasize mine] That sounds a lot like KSP...

[Snark]

3 hours ago, cfds said:

There are some points why I consider KSP unfinished:

<list of things that cdfs, personally, doesn't like>

Sure, I can see how the things you mention would bother some people-- in the same sense that anything is going to bother somebody, because different people like different things.  If you had phrased that as "there are some things I don't like about KSP", I don't see how anyone could reasonably take issue with anything you said.

But it's important to understand that it's a matter of personal taste.  Something that bothers you, will be a feature that someone else likes and is glad it's that way.  For example:  Most of the specific things you mention are ones that I diametrically disagree on.  Either I actively enjoy the thing you actively dislike, or else simply don't have any difficulty with a thing that bothers you, for example.  (Won't bother with a point-by-point listing, since it wouldn't really accomplish anything for the purposes of this discussion other than illustrating "here are things I like, and why", which I doubt would be interesting to anyone but me.)  Doesn't mean either one of us is any more "right" or "wrong" than the other one; it just means that "different players have different tastes."

So... I'm not disagreeing with you about any of your points, since they're all about personal taste and it's not possible to argue with taste, or reasonable to try.  All I'm saying is, personal likes don't equate to universal truths.  "I like X" does not equate to "Squad should do X", because they need to address everyone and try to find a way that manages to be liked by a broad base of support.  Given how enduringly popular KSP has been, I gather that for the most part they've done a pretty good job with that.

Doesn't mean they please everyone all the time.  (That would be impossible, anyway.)  They do some things that bother you, and a different set of things that bother me.  But they've managed to make a thing that both you and I like enough to spend our money (and many, many hours of our time) on, even though we like different things, and that seems like a win to me.

3 hours ago, cfds said:

To the "just pick a version that you like and stay with it" argument: Mods. Yes, it is possible to get the old versions of mods, but most modders will put their own continuous development only in the current version (and I do not begrudge this, they are not paid for it after all) and especially if this development contains bugfixes and performance/usability updates or simply interesting new features you are pretty much left with Hobson's choice: Do not use these improvements or update the game (and all the other mods).

Naturally.  That would be a painful choice, sure.  But the only reason the mod authors are moving on to future versions of KSP is that that's where all the players are going-- because most people actually like continually getting cool new stuff for free, and choose to go along for the ride.  So the mod authors go along for the ride, too.

If you don't-- i.e. if you'd rather it just stay static-- then that's perfectly fine, of course nobody can criticize you for liking what you like!  But it does, unfortunately for you, put you in a minority.  It would mean that you simply happen to like stuff that's different from what the vast majority of people do, which means you're left out in the cold due to simply not being the target demographic.

And that sucks, sure.  Believe me, I know what that feels like-- it's why I don't own a TV set and have trouble finding pants that fit me (apparently being skinny has gone out of style).  I can totally sympathize.

But there's not really anything to be done about it.  "KSP should stop updating" isn't a valid answer if that's not what most people want.  The company has to follow the target demographic, it's just one of those facts of life.

[Melfice]

On 04/01/2018 at 3:28 PM, Rocket In My Pocket said:

No, he didn't. Stop being fake news.

What he said was:

“We’ve said that we aim to have recurrent consumer spending opportunities for every title that we put out at this company,” said Zelnick. “It may not always be an online model, it probably won’t always be a virtual currency model, but there will be some ability to engage in an ongoing basis with our titles after release across the board."

So basically he's just saying there will be a DLC or an expansion or something like that for every game. He even specifically says it won't always include online curency and/or micro transactions.

Being a publisher isn't the same thing as calling the shots.

Do they have influence? Sure.

SQUAD still makes the game though and any new content. The DLC/Expansion was announced well before T2 bought the rights to the KSP intellectual property as well.

"Recurrent consumer spending" opportunities is fancy talk for "microtransactions".

You don't buy DLC/expansions over and over again (recurrent).

[Waxing_Kibbous]

19 hours ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

Fair enough lol!

I certainly went home from the store with some stinkers, after being wooed by fancy box art. -Stares coldly at Rygar for the NES-

  Hide contents

Too funny, I too bought this game (I want to say at a Kay-Bee toys)- I remember it being super laggy and unplayable, and ended up returning it and got Goonies 2 instead which was a pretty decent game. Basically traded in the flaming shield yo-yo for a plain old yo-yo.

 

Edited January 6, 2018 by Waxing_Kibbous

[Van Disaster]

I thought I saw KSP on a best-seller list at some other online store very recently, I can't seem to find it again now though.

Early Access model is fairly simple: it doesn't matter if you think the game is complete enough for you, you got your money's worth and you'd give out more cash for content, you are paying the developers to complete the product. It'd be like buying a car with most of the interior missing because the manufacturer hasn't stopped it rattling & there's wiring faults - it's driveable just fine, but it's not all there. Once the game is declared finished enough for release, then sales should be a reward for putting all that effort in, and *then* the dev can look at selling further content to pay for maintenance, and just to make good use of all that previous work too.

There's obvious problems here:

* There's no control over what makes the thing finished, it could be decided by marketing or even finance that whatever state the game is in is "finished". There is a control down the road though, because if it's not actually finished then DLC sales ( and further game sales ) are going to flop, and consumers are going to be up in arms too ( witness Project Cars... ).
* Added to that there's the issue that even if it is in a state which could be called releaseable, it might not be a good product ( ie, not *really* "finished" ). That's more subjective & would be a matter for market forces to decide if there was any competition in this case. As it is we have KSP which I personally think is in a release state by now, but is a long way from what I'd call subjectively finished for reasons which people have brought up ever since science mode was introduced - and nothing else like it.
* As something of a combo of the two, there's active plans to release something deliberately "unfinished" but EA playtested and sell the rest of it as DLC, and I'm sure I don't need to provide examples of that. I don't believe this happened KSP irrespective of it's jagged edges.

IMO what's primarily missing in KSP is things to do when you've got somewhere - this is something which has been said right from the start, this is Kerbal Logistics Program, it certainly doesn't cover what actual space programs cover. I'm not sure how I'd feel about a planetary exploration DLC because I personally feel it's a feature which should have been there from the start, but I'm at least open to the idea of buying something if it brought significant new mechanics because I think Squad have tried and are still trying to do their best for this project.

Why DLC and not straight into KSP2? do you want more things to do now or in 5 years time? game development is *so long* these days that "just" rolling out a new version doesn't really work unless you're someone like EA who can seemingly get away with just rebadging the same tat every year.

[Rocket In My Pocket]

59 minutes ago, Melfice said:

"Recurrent consumer spending" opportunities is fancy talk for "microtransactions".

You don't buy DLC/expansions over and over again (recurrent).

Well, you can make multiple DLC/expansions.

Also, explain how you have micro transactions without an "online model?" Or any online currency model for that matter?

He's basically saying no title they release is going to stand on it's own, it will have additional content available for purchase in some way. I honestly don't think micro-transactions would work in KSP, not a large enough player-base for one. Most successful micro-transaction based games are competitive as well. KSP is decidedly not, I think we can all agree on that.

Edited January 6, 2018 by Rocket In My Pocket

[Geonovast]

4 minutes ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

KSP is decidedly not, I think we can all agree on that.

My mining lander drone is cooler than your mining lander drone.

[Rocket In My Pocket]

3 minutes ago, Geonovast said:

My mining lander drone is cooler than your mining lander drone.

Considering mine is currently laying on it's side; propped up by it's solar panels...

Yes, yes it is. Lol.

[Melfice]

7 minutes ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

Well, you can make multiple DLC/expansions.

Also, explain how you have micro transactions without an "online model?" Or any online currency model for that matter?

He's basically saying no title they release is going to stand on it's own, it will have additional content available for purchase in some way. I honestly don't think micro-transactions would work in KSP, not a large enough player-base for one. Most successful micro-transaction based games are competitive as well. KSP is decidedly not, I think we can all agree on that.

But multiple DLCs do not create a recurring transaction, or GTA5 would have had more DLC for its single player.
Note how they don't have that.

I don't know how they would make that work for KSP, but microtransactions or loot boxes are THE way to create a recurring consumer spending opportunities. Not DLC. DLC you buy once. And why sell something once when you can sell it over and over again. AGAIN, I don't know how they would make that work in KSP. But the fact EA tried to sell actual online game progression through loot boxes in Battlefront 2(actually 4) tells me Take-Two has already had a research team on this as well. They may not act on it, but a few dollars have been spent trying to find a way.

And you're probably not wrong. it doesn't NEED to be microtransactions. But Take-Two've already seen that there's more profit to be made by selling extremely expensive single cars or apartments to players (and making it easier to get them by throwing a few real life dollars their way), than there is selling entire new single-player experiences to people.