Kerbal Space Program: Making History Expansion Grand Discussion thread.

[tab]

release date?

[John FX]

So I just read the promise about free expansions if you bought before the end of april 13 and noticed this

 

Quote

this is what we mean when we say Expansion Packs for KSP. We’re not talking about small content bundles, we’re talking about major game-changing sets of features, like Multiplayer, or Colonization. Things that add not just content, but new gameplay possibilities.

 

And it made me consider the making history expansion. I`m a bit on the fence as to whether a mission editor is enough to rate as a "major game-changing sets of features" although it can be said it is more than a "small content bundle".

[klgraham1013]

2 hours ago, John FX said:

I`m a bit on the fence as to whether a mission editor is enough to rate as a "major game-changing sets of features" although it can be said it is more than a "small content bundle".

I'm with you, but can't say I'm surprised at the scope the first DLC ended up being.

[Nerfclasher]

I'm assuming you can use mission planner for a station challenge 

[p1t1o]

On 3/24/2017 at 5:22 PM, KerikBalm said:

There is a contract. It may not be in an extremely formal form, but there is a contract.

http://kerbaldevteam.tumblr.com/post/47730955705/expansions-dlc-and-the-future-of-ksp

The first written promise was vague enough they could probably have gotten out of it, but they willingly conceeded the point and made their promise explicit. "we are including Expansions in what you can expect to get for free if you have already bought the game. Also, for those considering purchasing the game, we will maintain this promise for all purchases made until the end of this month (April, 2013)" 

Particularly for those that purchased the game between when that statement came out and the end of April 2013, there is a record of a promise of service. followed by a purchase of that service. This would definitely qualify as a contract between the buyer and seller.

If they don't get what they paid for, they can demand a refund from the one that sold it to them, be it steam or squad for those that bought it from the squad store. Mexico does allow class action lawsuits. So if there were... say 100,000 people who had purchased the game during this time for an average of $10 each, thats a $1 million payout + legal expenses. Squad would probably just give a refund rather than get the negative PR and anger a customer base enough that they get a lawyer.

Where the company is based may not matter: particularly with steam/regional distribution. If most people got it through steam, or "transfered" their purchase to steam, then they'd seek the money from Steam, and Steam would seek the money from Squad.

Either way, after having made the statement "we are including Expansions in what you can expect to get for free if you have already bought the game. Also, for those considering purchasing the game, we will maintain this promise for all purchases made until the end of this month (April, 2013)", they can't back out now.

So those of you who may be envious of the "early-adopters" getting the expansion for free: deal with your envy on your own, and don't get mad at Squad for doing something they have to do because of a clarification they made to the "contract" nearly 4 years ago.

Yeah, I dont see this happening ever, the enforcability of an agreement is also relevant. Nobody is going to start a class action suit with 100,000 claimants who area asking for $10 each...

That means if legal expenses exceed $10 per person, which is certain - just for the time it takes for a legal secretary to get your details - then its a loss for everyone.

Its all moot though right? Squad are honoring it?

 

[KerikBalm]

I don't forsee it happening, but that doesn't mean it couldn't.

Also, for class action lawsuits, the cost per client can be quite low - and of course you can pile on legal fees on top of the "damages".

I don't know what their sales numbers were before that date though. They've sold over 1 million on steam alone by 2015 according to a quick google. 100k people is quite conservative I think.

The point is not that squad is afraid of being sued, but that they did make a (not very formal) contract. They plan on honoring the contract (AFAIK), and those people who are envious and b___hurt should just get over it rather than insist those early buyers pay money too.

[jros83]

I just skipped to the end of this thread; what? Class action litigation?! WHY?

[Alshain]

44 minutes ago, jros83 said:

I just skipped to the end of this thread; what? Class action litigation?! WHY?

Because people insist on discussing the hypothetical question: "What if Squad were a evil and terrible company despite the fact that all evidence points to the contrary."

Basically they are talking about a class action suit if Squad doesn't give those promised a free copy of the expansion, even though they already said they will.  It's just insanity really.

Though, I can't entirely blaming people for assuming the worst, it's been bred into us by giants like Ubisoft and EA.  It's hard to not assume they are somehow trying to cheat us when the big companies do it routinely.

Edited March 27, 2017 by Alshain

[Foxster]

8 hours ago, jros83 said:

I just skipped to the end of this thread; what? Class action litigation?! WHY?

It's another of those stupid internet forum phenomenons, like how a thread is over when someone mentions Hitler.  

Edited March 28, 2017 by Foxster

[JamesL86]

Once we see more of the expansion, we'll have a better idea of what we're dealing with.  Simple.  I will however say that based on what I have seen so far, I'm not really willing to spend more than $5-US on this.  I'm willing to spend something to gain new stuff with the stability granted by being "stock".  One reason I don't play with many mods is that they tend to destabilize my game.  Having the stuff built and directly integrated by the same folks that built the thing is a bonus as far as I am concerned.  Plus, new "stock" parts would allow me to get new toys to play with while not violating my own personal ban of mod parts.  I have a decent enough system to run several parts mods but I find that downloading the parts you need tends to break the fun of trying to get by with what the game has given us.  Anyway, I am about a 4 out of 10 on the excitement meter with regard to this expansion but we'll see what the future holds. 

[p1t1o]

Can I sue them for loss of earnings as well?

[Gargamel]

1 hour ago, p1t1o said:

Can I sue them for loss of earnings as well?

No, cause they can easily counter argue that there have been a number of careers started by an interest in KSP.    All those "I applied to college to get my Aerospace Engy degree cause of KSP" Threads. 

Unlike other time wasting games, KSP actually forces you to learn things.  May not have a lot of practical applications in everyday life, but in 20 years I can see one of the first people on Mars saying they credit KSP for part of their inspiration. 

[p1t1o]

7 minutes ago, gargamel said:

No, cause they can easily counter argue that there have been a number of careers started by an interest in KSP.    All those "I applied to college to get my Aerospace Engy degree cause of KSP" Threads. 

Unlike other time wasting games, KSP actually forces you to learn things.  May not have a lot of practical applications in everyday life, but in 20 years I can see one of the first people on Mars saying they credit KSP for part of their inspiration. 

But Im an astronaut and KSP made me miss my last three launches, and on the one before that I got suspended for exiting the command pod at 340,000 feet because I was bored. Apparently thats "unsafe procedure" or some other liberal PC garbage.

Edited March 28, 2017 by p1t1o

[Gargamel]

1 minute ago, p1t1o said:

But Im an astronaut and KSP made me miss my last three launches, and on the one before that I got suspended for exiting the command pod at 340,000 feet because I was bored.

But if you had bought the latest DLC with the chutes, you would have been fine!    They frown on using mods at NASA, this isn't JAXA you know. 

[p1t1o]

13 minutes ago, gargamel said:

But if you had bought the latest DLC with the chutes, you would have been fine!    They frown on using mods at NASA, this isn't JAXA you know. 

It turned out fine because NASA had to revert the whole thing to the launchpad. I did send a CV to JAXA though, but apparently a craft file "isn't a CV".

[Abstract_Kerman]

all aboard the HYPE train

Edited March 28, 2017 by Abstract223

[KerikBalm]

14 hours ago, jros83 said:

I just skipped to the end of this thread; what? Class action litigation?! WHY?

The responses to why are not accurate.

Squad promised a free update.

Apparently, this upset some people, who want them to pay because... reasons..... (Envy I think) Maybe I went a bit over the top in explaining why squad wont and cant do that.

[Abstract_Kerman]

Has squad made any confirmation on parts I know there will be vostok and apollo have they confirmed mercury and Gemini 

[Mikki]

14 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

The responses to why are not accurate.

Squad promised a free update.

Apparently, this upset some people, who want them to pay because... reasons..... (Envy I think) Maybe I went a bit over the top in explaining why squad wont and cant do that.

It is very easy, for people who people who don`t know how real life and real business works:

Obviously "Squad promised a free update", or "further free updates" at one point in their company history.

Okay.

This does not exclude possible DLC. 

I really hope this helps anyone in doubt....

Edited March 29, 2017 by Mikki
:D

[KerikBalm]

I should have been more specific... they promised free updates *to people who purchased the game before the end of April 2013*

Someone who didn't purchase before May 2013 would have to pay, someone who did purchase before May 2013 does not have to pay. 

Someone who didn't purchase before May 2013 was upset by this and wanted someone who did purchase before May 2013 to pay as well.

Squad can't do this because they made a promise (in a way that would be considered a contract) ~4 years ago to those pre-May 2013 purchasers. That post-May 2013 purchaser needs to get over his/her envy.

Even ignoring that the promise is part of a contract between buyer and seller, its simply bad PR to break promises to customers. In short, the people that want Squad to not honor its promise and to charge the pre-May 2013 buyers money, are asking for something unreasonable.

Edited March 29, 2017 by KerikBalm

[pandaman]

23 hours ago, Foxster said:

It's another of those stupid internet forum phenomenons, like how a thread is over when someone mentions Hitler.  

That's it now, you used the 'H' word.  This thread is officially condemned. 

[p1t1o]

3 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

its simply bad PR to break promises to customers. In short, the people that want Squad to not honor its promise and to charge the pre-May 2013 buyers money, are asking for something unreasonable.

Agreed. And I see no reason why anyone has a right to be upset about this. 

But I'll just come out and say it -  there's no way I'll buy that Squad have legally bound themselves to the offer, there's no way it is a "contract" formal or informal.

***

I recently checked my KSP purchase - July 2013 

 

[KerikBalm]

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree, but its irrelevant, as there is no indication that Squad will break that promise.

Also, those that wanted the pre-May 2013 buyers to pay seem to not be posting anymore.

[JacobJHC]

On 3/28/2017 at 2:38 AM, Foxster said:

like how a thread is over when someone mentions Hitler.  

I guess the thread is over now.

[something]

2 hours ago, JacobJHC said:

I guess the thread is over now.

No it isn't. The pure mention of Godwin's law doesn't fulfill its predictions. In order to fulfill Godwin's law somebody would have to mention Hitler or the members of the Nationalsozialistischedeutschearbeiterpartei (their abbreviation is banned here) without referring to that explicit law.

 

But yeah, I have to agree with @Foxster - this thread should definitely be over.

Edited March 29, 2017 by something