Kerbal Space Program: Making History Expansion - Release Date Announcement

[klgraham1013]

1 hour ago, lodger said:

I beg to differ: never give up to educate common folk to use proper wording or else wrong will turn right someday.

Some things already have.

[Deddly]

Sorry I contributed to this getting off topic. Let's try and get back to it now

[lodger]

1 hour ago, klgraham1013 said:

Some things already have.

Well, I'm not a native speaker (I hope this is an acceptable excuse). I corrected the spelling in the original post of mine, but I think you guys got the meaning anyway.

On-Topic: looking forward to spend my $15 on this DLC. I think the price is fair enough.

Edited February 16, 2018 by lodger

[Clockwork13]

13 hours ago, razark said:

You said you were opposed to "paid DLC on an already expensive game", so I wondered how you felt about paid DLC on KSP, instead.

But I was referring to KSP as an already expensive game.

[razark]

2 minutes ago, Clockwork13 said:

But I was referring to KSP as an already expensive game.

$23 and change?

[0111narwhalz]

5 minutes ago, razark said:

$23 and change?

Well, it's $40 nowadays. Perhaps it's this price to which he refers.

[razark]

2 minutes ago, 0111narwhalz said:

Well, it's $40 nowadays. Perhaps it's this price to which he refers.

Which is still significantly cheaper than many games.

[linuxgurugamer]

9 minutes ago, Clockwork13 said:

But I was referring to KSP as an already expensive game.

How is KSP an expensive game?  Let's forget the value received for cost, just look at cost:

Most new titles are $60-$70 on Steam.  

KSP is $40 on steam, when not on sale.  When on sale, about $23

Now, let's look at value:

Take the cost of the game and divide by the hours you expect to play the game.  So that a more expensive game has a chance of being good.

I'll tell you, for me and lots of others, the cost for me on an hourly basis is much less than a penny an hour.  For most games, I would expect between 0.50 and $1.00 per hour.  And for lots of games, they only get played for a few minutes.

KSP has  by far the most value per dollar spent than anything else out there right now.

[Raptor9]

We should always remember that depending on a person's income or what financial commitments they have in life (like families), "expensive" is a really subjective term.  However, you could look at it this way: at full price of $40, you could compare it to the price of two DVD's.  And I guarantee you will get way more entertainment over time than watching two movies, even if you were to re-watch them with director's commentary, deleted scenes, extra content, etc.

And if you get everything on Blu-ray, the ratio is even more in KSP's favor. 

Edited February 16, 2018 by Raptor9

[razark]

18 minutes ago, Raptor9 said:

We should always remember that depending on a person's income or what financial commitments they have in life (like families), "expensive" is a really subjective term.

It's better to compare the price of items of similar type.  Comparing the price of video games to other video games is valid.  $1000 is an expensive hamburger, but it's a cheap house. 

KSP is, in terms of video games, on the lower side of the scale, whether the person looking at the price is a homeless bum or Elon Musk.

[Raptor9]

8 minutes ago, razark said:

KSP is, in terms of video games, on the lower side of the scale, whether the person looking at the price is a homeless bum or Elon Musk.

But a homeless bum may not be able to afford KSP, whereas Elon Musk obviously could.  My point is, it doesn't matter how "relatively priced" a product is within it's market, if the price itself is still out-of-budget for some people.

[razark]

2 minutes ago, Raptor9 said:

But a homeless bum may not be able to afford KSP, whereas Elon Musk obviously could.  My point is, it doesn't matter how "relatively priced" a product is within it's market, if the price itself is still out-of-budget for some people.

Just because a person can't afford something doesn't make it an expensive item.  It simply means they can't afford it, regardless of whether it is cheap or expensive.

[kennybevan11]

When is this dlc coming to console edition?

Edited February 16, 2018 by kennybevan11

[Raptor9]

3 hours ago, razark said:

Just because a person can't afford something doesn't make it an expensive item.  It simply means they can't afford it, regardless of whether it is cheap or expensive.

I'm not going to argue semantics with you. My point wasn't to debate the value of the game. Just that when someone says "expensive", they may be referring to their ability to afford it, regardless of what anybody else considers the definition of that word.

Edited February 17, 2018 by Raptor9
spelling fail

[Deddly]

15 minutes ago, kennybevan11 said:

When is this dlc coming to console edition?

Hi Kennybevan! Sorry but we don't have any information about that yet.

[Clockwork13]

2 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:

How is KSP an expensive game?  Let's forget the value received for cost, just look at cost:

Most new titles are $60-$70 on Steam.  

KSP is $40 on steam, when not on sale.  When on sale, about $23

Now, let's look at value:

Take the cost of the game and divide by the hours you expect to play the game.  So that a more expensive game has a chance of being good.

I'll tell you, for me and lots of others, the cost for me on an hourly basis is much less than a penny an hour.  For most games, I would expect between 0.50 and $1.00 per hour.  And for lots of games, they only get played for a few minutes.

KSP has  by far the most value per dollar spent than anything else out there right now.

Not sure what kind of games you're thinking of, because nearly every game in my Steam library costs <= $20 

My point is less KSP's base cost though, and more of how paid DLC does not belong in games that already cost money.

@Raptor9, I have $30+ in my Steam wallet, so I could buy it if I want to. I would just rather not spend it on DLC.

Edited February 16, 2018 by Clockwork13

[linuxgurugamer]

But what value did you get for your money with all those cheap games? A few hours?  Tens of hours? Hundreds of hours?  Thousands of hours?

Then compare that to KSP.

Consider the DLC as a paid expansion.   You don't have to get it, the game is fine without it.  DLC which is needed just to play a game is different than an expansion 

[Waxing_Kibbous]

I'm looking forward to how much this community will abuse and add to the scenario editor thing, that will be worth the cost of admission.

[Clockwork13]

56 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

But what value did you get for your money with all those cheap games? A few hours?  Tens of hours? Hundreds of hours?  Thousands of hours?

For the most played games in my library, roughly the same amount of playtime thus far that I've gotten from KSP. But like I said, the base price doesn't matter for my point; Even if I had to pay $40 to get KSP (which I'm pretty sure it costed less when I bought it), I would've still been happy to buy it. My point was simply that paid DLC does not belong in games that already cost money.

[AVaughan]

30 minutes ago, Clockwork13 said:

My point was simply that paid DLC does not belong in games that already cost money.

I get your point.  But do you understand what the consequences of your attitude would be?

Developers would release a game.  Push out a patch or two for the worst bugs a few weeks or a few months later, then start working on another game.   If they can't sell dlc, then once the sales of the existing game start to level off, their is no reason for the developers to keep improving the game.  So at that point they will stop working on the game, and start working on something else.  Possibly ksp v2, possibly another game entirely.  The only reason a shipping game likely to get long term support is because people buy dlc.  You might not like that, but that is the way the world works.   No financial reward means no reason to pay developers to work on a shipping game.  In the long run, if you want a supported version of the game that works, you will need to buy a new copy, at full price, every 1-2 years.   

Edited February 16, 2018 by AVaughan
typos

[Mako]

38 minutes ago, Clockwork13 said:

My point was simply that paid DLC does not belong in games that already cost money.

I understand your principle here, but I think it really needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis. Obviously, it's cool if your opinion differs from mine, but I'm fairly certain the expansion would not be made if it was not going to be sold. So, while it requires KSP to function, an expansion like this should be evaluated on its own merits. Does your opinion of the expansion's value justify its cost? If so, perhaps it's worth the purchase. If not, then it's an easy decision.

To take a hardline stance on paid DLC is understandable; the video game industry has gotten a bit out of hand with season passes and microtransactions and all of that nonsense. I do think that sometimes companies do offer something that justifies the price though, but I look at it case by case.

Anyhow, if you think the Making History expansion shouldn't be charged for then it's obviously not worth US$15.00 to you. That makes the purchasing decision easy, at least.

[Clockwork13]

1 hour ago, Mako said:

I'm fairly certain the expansion would not be made if it was not going to be sold.

I agree with most of your points, but there was the NASA redirect mission DLC in 2014 or 2015, which was free up until it got merged with the stock game.

Edited February 17, 2018 by Clockwork13

[Raptor9]

17 minutes ago, Clockwork13 said:

but there was the NASA redirect mission DLC in 2014 or 2015, which was free up until it got merged with the stock game.

That was another update (v0.23.5) to the core game while it was still in Alpha stages of development, long before it was even fully-released in v1.0.  You're comparing apples and oranges.

Edited February 17, 2018 by Raptor9

[Clockwork13]

3 minutes ago, Raptor9 said:

That was another update (v0.23.5) to the core game while it was still in Alpha stages of development, long before it was even fully-released in v1.0.  You're comparing apples and oranges.

It was considered DLC though, and remained separate from the stock game for a while.

[Raptor9]

1 minute ago, Clockwork13 said:

remained separate from the stock game for a while.

It was never separate from the stock game.  The Asteroid Redirect Mission update included new features and new parts to the game, like every other update that proceeded it, and every update that came after that wasn't limited to bugfixes.  Just like the v0.24 "First Contract" update included the new Mission Control building functions, new parts, and contracts; and v0.25 "Economic Boom" update added the admin building, expanded career system, and new spaceplane parts.  By that same definition, the official release of the product as v1.0 was also a DLC.

The point is, as @AVaughan & @Mako mentioned a few posts above, new content that is available for purchase after the game has been sold as "officially released" to fund continued development is one thing.  Any content that is added to a half-finished game while that game is still in development, but available to players that purchased into early access, is not the same.  If you start telling people on the forums (that weren't around for the early days of KSP) that @SQUAD previously gave away DLC's for free, but are now charging for this one, is disingenuous at best, and at worst is misinformation that creates baseless resentment towards Squad.