Have I reached the end?

[Johnny Wishbone]

58 minutes ago, Corona688 said:

Nothing in this world is free, my friend.

I never said anything of the sort.

[steuben]

To answer the question and to quote myself

Quote

“And he stood on the ridge crest,” Wernher said. ”He looked down not on the edge of the world, but another valley, another river, another plain. In the distance another ridge rose to the sky. He realized the legends were not tools of control. They were artifacts of fearful ignorance.

“He looked back down the way he came, towards home and all he knew. He looked down into the other valley. Were there kerbals there? Did they know what was beyond the ridges? He looked at the ridge in the distance. Did another valley lie beyond it? Or was would there be something beyond imagination?

“He stood and considered his next step; then he took it.”

Wernher paused for a moment. “I’ve always wondered which direction he went,” he continued. “The author ended the story there. Did he go into the new valley and beyond? Did he go home to tell of what he saw? Or did he follow the ridge to see what else could be known?

 

[The_Rocketeer]

1 hour ago, Corona688 said:

Nothing in this world is free, my friend.

This statement is a paradox - you just gave free advice.

@Scarecrow I've found many different games within KSP. If the only game for you is to reach each world and return, then sure, sounds like you've finished.

[pandaman]

I remember a comment on these forums, from probably a couple of years or more ago, that said KSP is less like a game and more like a hobby. And I think that summed it up very well.

Think of model railway enthusiasts.  Many will never actually finish their layouts, they can always think of another feature to add, another train they want or another bit of scenery to build.  KSP can be very similar, always another station to put into orbit, ISRU facility to set up or asteroid to annoy.  It is never 'completed' as such, the END is only reached when you decide it is.

[Curveball Anders]

13 hours ago, pandaman said:

I remember a comment on these forums, from probably a couple of years or more ago, that said KSP is less like a game and more like a hobby. And I think that summed it up very well.

Think of model railway enthusiasts.  Many will never actually finish their layouts, they can always think of another feature to add, another train they want or another bit of scenery to build.  KSP can be very similar, always another station to put into orbit, ISRU facility to set up or asteroid to annoy.  It is never 'completed' as such, the END is only reached when you decide it is.

Note that the so called 'hacker' culture actually started at MIT's Tech Model Railroad Club

 

[JAFO]

On 4/26/2018 at 3:11 AM, Daveroski said:

I keep looking in the 'What do you do in KSP Today' thread to see if anything inspires or teases me enough to have another bash at something but so far the well is dry.

It doesn't help that you've been looking in the wrong place. What you want is the Challenges Section.

Even more specifically, so far as I'm aware, you've never tried the KSP Caveman Challenge. So come on.. let's see how good you really are!

[Corona688]

19 hours ago, The_Rocketeer said:

This statement is a paradox - you just gave free advice.

Not at all.  $19.99/min, cash or cheque.  You'll hear from my lawyer once he's left rehab.

20 hours ago, Johnny Wishbone said:

I never said anything of the sort.

You already paid for a product but expect more and more and more free work.  KSP is no longer financed by your expectations.

[JadeOfMaar]

On 4/26/2018 at 7:42 AM, klgraham1013 said:

KSP is this weird thing that is sometimes seen as more lifestyle than game.

When you enjoy modding as much as most people enjoy simply playing, yes.

[Damon]

3 minutes ago, JadeOfMaar said:

When you enjoy modding as much as most people enjoy simply playing, yes.

When you enjoy modding as much as most people enjoy flying planes and make unreusable rockets, yes.

[adsii1970]

16 minutes ago, JadeOfMaar said:

When you enjoy modding as much as most people enjoy simply playing, yes.

 

12 minutes ago, damonvv said:

When you enjoy modding as much as most people enjoy flying planes and make unreusable rockets, yes.

Wouldn't you know it? I'm out of likes!

[53miner53]

2 hours ago, adsii1970 said:

 

Wouldn't you know it? I'm out of likes!

And so am I!

[Johnny Wishbone]

5 hours ago, Corona688 said:

You already paid for a product but expect more and more and more free work.  KSP is no longer financed by your expectations.

Please dont put words in my mouth or project your own beliefs on me.

I paid for a product based on what was already delivered at the time along with the promises and expectations set by Squad of what was to come. Some of these have not yet been delivered, and I’m not the only person that feels this way. I do not “expect more and more free work.”

Apparently, you do believe that the current product meets the expectations of what you paid for when you bought it, and thats great for you. I dont feel that way. So, why dont you just leave it at that instead of trying to have this ridiculous argument that has already been had in a dozen other threads? Thank you.

[Teilnehmer]

On 4/26/2018 at 10:52 PM, Foxster said:

Go outside. Walk to the nearest pub/bar. Have a beer or two. Talk to a girl. Laugh.

And then return home and install Realism Overhaul!

[0something0]

On 4/26/2018 at 6:16 AM, Tewa said:

I don't get why some people think $15 for a game expansion is like the end of the world.

Well, from what I've seen, people are worrying that instead of working on updates, they will keep releasing new DLC instead. In other words, updates will no longer be free. 

Edited May 2, 2018 by 0something0
I hate mobile keyboards

[Lisias]

1 hour ago, 0something0 said:

Well, from what I've seen, people are worrying that instead of working on updates, they will meep releasing new DLCd instead. In other words, updates will no longer be free. 

I don't mind paying 15USD once a year to keep funding the development. I would prefer getting it for free =D of course, but since I don't know a development/production model that delivers decent software for free (real free, no strings attached)... Well... I pay the 15 bucks and I ok with it.

What I'm not OK is having to pay 15 bucks for bug fixes. Now, that I can't abide.

[Wallygator]

On 4/28/2018 at 4:21 AM, Teilnehmer said:

And then return home and install Realism Overhaul!

I second this suggestion. 

If you’re happy with your 1.3.1 install, then clone it and install RO/RSS/Real*.

It’s a completely different challenge/experience. And be sure to check back when you “finish” it.

On the other hand - don’t.  It’s ok to be finished with a game. If that never happened we would probably not have so many games to play.  

On the other other hand no one seems finished with chess. Wait... what???

 

[Tewa]

3 hours ago, 0something0 said:

Well, from what I've seen, people are worrying that instead of working on updates, they will meep releasing new DLCd instead. In other words, updates will no longer be free. 

The game shipped. Everything from here on should be a purchased expansion. That's how business works.

They'll fix bugs for free, of course, maintain the product. But if you're expecting free new stuff, then you're looking at a monthly subscription model (like World of Warcraft) or something with hidden money pits (like most phone games).

[Wallygator]

7 minutes ago, Tewa said:

The game shipped. Everything from here on should be a purchased expansion. That's how business works.

They'll fix bugs for free, of course, maintain the product. But if you're expecting free new stuff, then you're looking at a monthly subscription model (like World of Warcraft) or something with hidden money pits (like most phone games).

The new expansion was $14 I think (didn't check whilst writing this post),  Could there be more than one DLC within a year?.  

Would people buy-in to a $1.50 to $2.50 per month subscription (just as an example) for unlimited DLC?  It's an interesting proposition @SQUAD could explore.

[LoSBoL]

43 minutes ago, Wallygator said:

Would people buy-in to a $1.50 to $2.50 per month subscription (just as an example) for unlimited DLC?  It's an interesting proposition @SQUAD could explore.

I think a monthly subscription would create vast amounts of expectations by the playerbase, probably not very likely that SQUAD would like to see that happen. I think they'd rather stick with DLC's because you can better manage the expectations of the players because they have a choice to opt-in if they like the content.

[G'th]

On 4/25/2018 at 12:06 PM, Scarecrow said:

I've been playing KSP for quite some time now (since 0.17 I think) and have welcomed each upgrade as it came along.  Along the way I have sent manned missions to all of the landable planets and moons, and actually managed to bring everyone home safe again.  I've completed a career mode through to unlocking all of the tech tree, but for the most part usually play sandbox mode.

I am still on v1.3.1 as I believe a few new bugs were introduced with 1.4 and the version I am currently playing seems quite stable.  On top of that, I also understand there is new DLC, but you need to pay for that to have access.  At this point I feel that I have had my money's worth out of the game and will no longer be chasing each new upgrade as it is made available. 

There are a couple of reasons for this.  I've always enjoyed sharing my creations with other players, and have downloaded many a vessel from the Craft Exchange thread and KerbalX.  As I don't feel inclined to hand over more money for the DLC (looking upon it as a slippery slope that is only likely to get steeper) it's obvious that my version of the game will soon be completely incompatible with the latest iteration, and such sharing will no longer be possible.  As there appears to be no new gameplay content in the update, I can't see that it will offer me much more than I can already get from the version I am playing.

Maybe I have become jaded after playing the game for so long, but I have to admit that it has been one of the best games I have ever played, have learned loads about orbital mechanics, and feel that you would need to look long and hard to find a game that gives anywhere near the bang for buck that KSP gives.  But I somehow feel that for me, I have reached the end of the road.

I personally have been playing since .20, have landed on the Mun and Minmus at -least- several thousand times, and have landed on Duna legitimately precisely -once-. Visited planets like Eve or Jool or one of the OPM planets? I can count these legitimate encounters with just my two hands.

The main reason being, is my love for replicas, and more importantly, my love for mods. Lots and lots of mods.

So, my suggestion is, mod the -crap- out of your game.  Given what you've been able to do, its obvious to me you should get KSP-I and a good planet pack or two (I recommend Extrasolar) and go interstellar the hard way. 

[klgraham1013]

2 hours ago, Tewa said:

The game shipped. Everything from here on should be a purchased expansion. That's how business works.

They'll fix bugs for free, of course, maintain the product. But if you're expecting free new stuff, then you're looking at a monthly subscription model (like World of Warcraft) or something with hidden money pits (like most phone games).

They'll make new bugs for free as well.  It's pretty great.

[Wallygator]

1 hour ago, LoSBoL said:

I think a monthly subscription would create vast amounts of expectations by the playerbase

Thinking vs statistical data or a poll is a thing. You might not like it, but 3000 others might.

 

1 hour ago, LoSBoL said:

probably not very likely that SQUAD would like to see that happen

So @SQUAD would not like its' customer base to have high expectations?  Loyal customers typically do not have low expectations, or do they?

 

1 hour ago, LoSBoL said:

I think they'd rather stick with DLC's because you can better manage the expectations of the players because they have a choice to opt-in if they like the content.

I'm not sure I understand your logic here.    They players who opt in are the ones who agree with the DLC management approach, the players who opt-out do not agree.  This approach only serves to segregate the player base, not "manage expectations".  And that seems (to me) to create a smaller pool of (manageable) people who agree with Squad.  I'm happy to be convinced otherwise - I'm not a Game Community Manager, but did study a small bit statistics and sociology in university about 40 years ago .  

I guess there is a choice here:  Create DLC and try to get people to buy it OR create a subscribed community and build DLC that maps to their needs.  Both choices are valid.  But choosing one requires customer research and likely adaptation of the company's business model.

 

 

 

 

Edited April 29, 2018 by Wallygator
Schpelling and ghramer

[LoSBoL]

27 minutes ago, Wallygator said:

Thinking vs statistical data or a poll is a thing. You might not like it, but 3000 others might.

I'd subscribe And many would it guess, but you are right, I'm no Game Community manager, so it's all gut feeling and I could be dead wrong.

 

27 minutes ago, Wallygator said:

So @SQUAD would not like its' customer base to have high expectations?  Loyal customers typically do not have low expectations, or do they?

That was not what I was aiming at, I think a subscription based game creates expectancies or even demands. Which is perfectly understandable, I just don't see SQUAD wanting to be pushed by those expectations or wanting to deal with complaining customers who's expectations aren't met, rinsing and repeating that on a monthly bases. It looks to me like a setup for dissapointment with an uncertain outcome of what could be the end result of such a decision.

 

27 minutes ago, Wallygator said:

I'm not sure I understand your logic here.    They players who opt in are the ones who agree with the DLC management approach, the players who opt-out do not agree.  This approach only serves to segregate the player base, not "manage expectations".  And that seems (to me) to create a smaller pool of (manageable) people who agree with Squad.  I'm happy to be convinced otherwise - I'm not a Game Community Manager, but did study a small bit statistics and sociology in university about 40 years ago .  
 

Players who like the content which is in the DLC can chose to buy it, a monthly subscription does not leave much choice. But you are right, segregation would probably be the outcome, but I also think a monthly subscription would end in segregation.
 

27 minutes ago, Wallygator said:

I guess there is a choice here:  Create DLC and try to get people to buy it OR create a subscribed community and build DLC that maps to their needs.  Both choices are valid.  But choosing one requires customer research and likely adaptation of the company's business model.

Agreed, I'm jumping to conclusions

Edited April 29, 2018 by LoSBoL

[Wallygator]

6 minutes ago, LoSBoL said:

33 minutes ago, Wallygator said:

Thinking vs statistical data or a poll is a thing. You might not like it, but 3000 others might.

I'd subscribe And many would it guess, but you are right, I'm no Game Community manager, so it's all gut feeling and I could be dead wrong.

 

33 minutes ago, Wallygator said:

So @SQUAD would not like its' customer base to have high expectations?  Loyal customers typically do not have low expectations, or do they?

That was not what I was aiming at, I think a subscription based game creates expectancies or even demands. Which is perfectly understandable, I just don't see SQUAD wanting to be pushed by those expectations or wanting to deal with complaining customers who's expectations aren't met, rinsing and repeating that on a monthly bases. It looks to me like a setup for dissapointment with an uncertain outcome of what could be the end result of such a decision.

 

33 minutes ago, Wallygator said:

I'm not sure I understand your logic here.    They players who opt in are the ones who agree with the DLC management approach, the players who opt-out do not agree.  This approach only serves to segregate the player base, not "manage expectations".  And that seems (to me) to create a smaller pool of (manageable) people who agree with Squad.  I'm happy to be convinced otherwise - I'm not a Game Community Manager, but did study a small bit statistics and sociology in university about 40 years ago .  
 

Players who like the content which is in the DLC can chose to buy it, a monthly subscription does not leave much choice. But you are right, segregation would probably be the outcome, but I also think a monthly subscription would end in segregation.
 

33 minutes ago, Wallygator said:

I guess there is a choice here:  Create DLC and try to get people to buy it OR create a subscribed community and build DLC that maps to their needs.  Both choices are valid.  But choosing one requires customer research and likely adaptation of the company's business model.

Agreed, I'm jumping to conclusions

We are in the same place then.  Nice to see a good example of dialogue rather than just poking at each other.  Commendations to you fellow KSPer!!!

[JAFO]

1 hour ago, LoSBoL said:

I think a monthly subscription would create vast amounts of expectations by the playerbase

35 minutes ago, Wallygator said:

Thinking vs statistical data or a poll is a thing. You might not like it, but 3000 others might.

I think LoSBoL is correct.. if I have a monthly subscription to something, I damnwell expect something of value in return for my money each month.

And I'd imagine most people are the same.. because that's exactly what the term "monthly subscription" implies.