The audacity of DLC

[Rocket In My Pocket]

38 minutes ago, Corona688 said:

Exactly.  That's apples and oranges since PC gaming has never been that way.

Wrong question.  Try, "how long can you study before you run out of air"?  Console games are created on life support supplied by a big company like Nintendo or Sony -- Indie games have to publish or asphyxiate.  It's not a problem if you work for free.

A few big outfits like Accolade tried the console model on PC, but it turns out that

1. People don't ENJOY paying console-like prices for PC games
2. It's hard to get consistent results when your customers aren't using 100 million identical gaming units

So they had to lower their standards somewhat.

I feel like we are having two different conversations lol.

To clarify I'm just discussing the gaming industry/culture as a whole, not KSP or indie games/computer games specifically.

The expectation used to be that you'd get a complete game at release, that expectation has shifted in recent years to expecting to get part of the game, and then the rest over time. I'm not saying one is right or wrong, they both have there ups and downs. Personally as an opinion; I dislike that I have to put every potential purchase under the microscope these days to figure out; how complete it is, what plans are there for completing it, do the devs have a road map?, are the updates coming frequently? You're not just buying a game anymore, you're buying into an "idea" that may or may not come to fruition. That's great and all assuming everyone does their jobs and delivers, but it's becoming a slippery slope and an easy excuse to release shoddy, unfinished work. I have no problem with early access or indie development, except when it's abused or used as a shield to deflect criticism.

Edited January 16, 2018 by Rocket In My Pocket

[Mako]

1 hour ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

The expectation used to be that you'd get a complete game at release, that expectation has shifted in recent years to expecting to get part of the game, and then the rest over time. I'm not saying one is right or wrong, they both have there ups and downs. Personally as an opinion; I dislike that I have to put every potential purchase under the microscope these days to figure out; how complete it is, what plans are there for completing it, do the devs have a road map?, are the updates coming frequently? You're not just buying a game anymore, you're buying into an "idea" that may or may not come to fruition. That's great and all assuming everyone does their jobs and delivers, but it's becoming a slippery slope and an easy excuse to release shoddy, unfinished work. I have no problem with early access or indie development, except when it's abused or used as a shield to deflect criticism.

This is pretty much my burn out with the business model summed up. The only remedy I'm aware of is to only purchase games that seem worth it for what they are at that very moment. Unfortunately, I don't find many titles these days launch in a state of worth it at that moment.

Buying an idea to support an idea seems like a good idea in theory, but in practice it all you have to play with is an idea. It's a tricky thing, because a good idea with enough financial support and good management can become something special, and for many independent companies selling ideas is the only viable way to come up with the financial support to make those ideas a reality. But an idea isn't a guarantee of anything, so the only reasonable action is to wait and see if the idea becomes reality. If and when it does, and if it seems worth the asking price, then and only then does it make sense to buy a game that "came out" however long ago.

KSP, at the time I bought it, did at least everything it seemed it was trying to do. It was a realistic-ish rocket building game that was already captivating enough in its current state to be satisfying if it never changed. It was also extremely upfront that what was for sale at the time was built to be and considered final as far as the devs were concerned since they couldnt guarantee any continuing development. I can't say the same for many titles that are released these days. I am glad that KSP has continued to be improved upon, but I can't say that I'll be upset when development ends. I look forward to each improvement and I also look forward to the end of development, each with the same amount of anticipation.

The whole situation (across the whole industry, not specifically KSP) has changed how I look at games. A launch date for a title no longer provides a sense of anticipation since for a majority of titles the game will not be in its best state until sometime later. It feels like there is less to look forward to or be excited about, despite the amount of great games coming out. I suppose that's partly on me though, since what money I can spend on games goes towards the PC side of things. Perhaps if I could afford consoles as well as a PC I'd have a very different opinion on things. 

In the case of things like DLC or updates, if I know it's coming and it's some thing I'm interested in playing, it just makes me want to wait to play the game until it's all in place. Especially on something I'm only going to play once. KSP is a bit different being a sandbox and all, but even here I've been reluctant to get invested in a serious Career Mode playthrough. An Ironman playthrough will probably be a thing I only do once, so I want to do it on the best version of KSP (which may or may not exist yet since development is ongoing). In the meantime I can't get more involved than tinkering with a design from time to time.

Edited January 16, 2018 by Mako
Typo and clarification

[Corona688]

1 hour ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

I feel like we are having two different conversations lol.

To clarify I'm just discussing the gaming industry/culture as a whole, not KSP or indie games/computer games specifically.

I too.  I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying and continuing on without it...

What I'm pointing out is that the gaming culture as a whole has changed.  Expectations have grown.  Small shops have been squeezed as we demand more and more for less and less, while big shops take fewer risks than ever, churning out the same garbage on repeat.

KSP wouldn't have been made in the old-fashioned development model.  Too big a risk to hope that an intimidatingly-technical single-player explosive flying midget simulator could find a mass audience.

Quote

Personally as an opinion; I dislike that I have to put every potential purchase under the microscope these days to figure out; how complete it is

You could wait a year and let others do it for you, for about the same effect as the old-fashioned model.  That's usually what I do.  I don't care about preorders or getting in early unless I find something really interesting.

Quote

You're not just buying a game anymore, you're buying into an "idea" that may or may not come to fruition.

The alternative is sky-high AAA prices.  (Which AAA games abuse to the point of breaking, of course.)  Gamers demand so much now.

Edited January 16, 2018 by Corona688

[JK_Kerbineer]

On 1/5/2018 at 8:48 AM, cfds said:

t is just a buzzword for "publish unfinished content and bank on people continue to pay in the hope for a complete game down the line".

 

 

 

On 1/5/2018 at 11:09 AM, Snark said:

But what exactly do you mean by "unfinished"?

Folks who call KSP (or anything else) an "unfinished" product seem to just toss the phrase out there without explanation, as if it's universally understood 1. what that means, and 2. that everyone agrees with the assessment.  Which is far from the case.

• Do you mean "unfinished" as in "it's a crappy product"?  Because if that's what you mean, it's clear that most folks here would vehemently disagree with that-- otherwise, why do they keep playing.  Huge amount of play value for a tiny investment.
• Do you mean "unfinished" as in "it's not perfect"?  Well, sure, but by that measure, you've just described every software product that's ever existed, or will ever exist.  (Not least because it's physically impossible to be 'perfect' because different people want different things.)
• Do you mean "unfinished" as in "it doesn't have all the features that I want"?  Well, sure... but no two players are going to 100% agree on what features KSP should have.  Different people want different things.  In a lot of cases, people want diametrically opposite things.  That's true of any product, but it's especially true of a creative open-ended "sandbox" style game like KSP, that lets the player do whatever they want.

So it might be physically possible for a company to produce a product that you, personally, would consider "finished."  But I can guarantee you that someone else would disagree.  It would be physically impossible for them to satisfy everyone.  And packing more features in would have required raising the price, which I haven't been hearing you suggesting.

The only sane definition of "unfinished" that I can come up with is "doesn't deliver value for money."  And KSP is laughably far from that.  Heck, I started playing at version 0.23.5 when contracts and science and planetary biomes and decent aero and reentry heating and comms and a bunch of other stuff wasn't even a thing... and they could have sold it "as is" right then for US $27 and never touched it again, and I still would have gotten a whole lot more than US $27 use out of it.  Everything since then is just gravy, as far as I'm concerned.

So... what's your definition of "unfinished"?

 

I agree with @Snark. Without  updates or user feedback, despite the original quality of the game, it can never really improve. I think the best analogy I can make is a movie. First, an original movie is made. If there is negative feedback to a movie they would not make more. If say, The Emoji Movie, did poorly in the box office, they would be reluctant to make 6 sequels. Or, as a popular saying in economics, Know your audience.

[Superfluous J]

10 hours ago, Corona688 said:

KSP wouldn't have been made in the old-fashioned development model.

1000 times this.

If independent studios don't have a way to make money off of their games before release, we'd not have KSP, Factorio, or Minecraft (to name 3 off the top of my head). We'd of course also not have Space Base DF-9 or any other abandoned (or just shovelware to start) project, but nothing's perfect. I'll take a DF-9 if it gives me a KSP as well. I paid less for both of them than I did for a single GTA4.

[Cheif Operations Director]

I'm... fine with DLC Aslong as SQUAD doesn't become EA and make it pay to play. No buying rocket fuel. I think they should be fair priced. Or Maby make a season pass so if you buy the season pass you get all the next DLCs free or you could buy them individually. 

I just don't want to be paying for oxidizer lol

[Rocket In My Pocket]

10 hours ago, JK_Kerbineer said:

I think the best analogy I can make is a movie. First, an original movie is made. If there is negative feedback to a movie they would not make more. If say, The Emoji Movie, did poorly in the box office, they would be reluctant to make 6 sequels. Or, as a popular saying in economics, Know your audience.

Well...I mean;

You could always just make your first movie good enough to stand on it's own without needing a sequel?

Plenty of absolutely amazing movies never got sequels...because they were complete, self-contained stories, with a satisfying conclusion. You don't make a sequel to a true "classic" because it's timeless, it never needs to be updated or "fixed."

[Cheif Operations Director]

A KSP movie? Intriguing 

[Just Jim]

2 minutes ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

A KSP movie? Intriguing 

It's been brought up about 1000 times already on the forum... but I don't think it will ever happen, unless it's a fan-fiction kind of project.