Kerbal Space Program Breaks Ground with a New DLC!

[klesh]

1 hour ago, klgraham1013 said:

Quote

For the people saying this is just an expansion, that’s wrong. This is more than an expansion. It’s changing multiple features in the base game.

 

You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

I'm not sure Squad does either?

 

 

Edited May 9, 2019 by klesh

[Daniel Prates]

Funny how we all have different priorities. 

All the discussion above is of little relevance to me in particular. I like supporting games that I enjoy, and I would happily pay for any DLC, even useless ones (as making history kinda was. Breaking ground promises to be much, much better and deserving of our money) if it means supporting the game.

Now, what DOES concern me is base changes to the game. KSPs modding community is one of the best things this game has, and all major changes give me the jitters.... everytime we move towards a "point something", its a game breaker. I hope we go to a 1.7.1 instead of a 1.8. We just got 1.7 and the modding community was just getting used to it!

I hope the devs take that into consideration. That said, I am looking forward to this next development.

Edited May 9, 2019 by Daniel Prates

[XeNoCaTZ]

Interesting

[IncongruousGoat]

Hmmm. I like the look of this DLC, a lot. Surface ops are, IMO, perfect DLC fodder. New and inexperienced players don't need to pick it up, because they're still at the stage where the journey matters so much more than the destination. Us veterans, who've sunk hundreds or thousands of hours in, can very reasonably afford a little extra for some more stuff to do in the ground. Plus, Infernal Robotics is old and a pain in the neck to get working, and a stock replacement seems really useful to me. I didn't buy Making History because it didn't (and doesn't) offer anything I'm interested in, but I would totally buy this one.

Except.

My only active KSP install right now is stuck back in 1.3.1, since RSS/RO/RP-0 are (understandably) super slow to update. I just don't play stock much anymore. I could buy it anyways, to support Squad, but if that reasoning really appealed to me then I would have bought Making History. Which I didn't. It's a damn shame, because Breaking Ground looks really good.

[Lisias]

5 hours ago, Daniel Prates said:

Funny how we all have different priorities. 

All the discussion above is of little relevance to me in particular. I like supporting games that I enjoy, and I would happily pay for any DLC, even useless ones (as making history kinda was. Breaking ground promises to be much, much better and deserving of our money) it it means supporting the game.

I don't like using my money on anything unless I need to do so - as anyone else. But I also realize that I can't eat money, I don't enjoy money, and watching my account using Net Banking is way boring, no matter if there's money incoming (rare) our outcoming (usually).

So I concluded that I need to expend some money on eating and Leisure (no, Larry, keep your suit - I'm not talking to you).

Since money doesn't fall from the skies (mostly) neither grows up on trees (never), I have to spend a lot of time working to earn it. And this makes my Leisure time somewhat scarce (Larry, shut up!). And so I'm prone to invest some more money on it due that.

Besides all the problems we had in the past year, KSP is way the most funny, entertaining and challenging game I played in decades. It's so good, besides being terrible sometimes, that I'm even spending a good part of my leisure time trying to tackle down the terrible things that bitten me last year.

But I have a problem: I'm not the only one that needs money for eating and entertaining. Squad's dudes do also. And so, in order to have them (or anyone else!) working on a game so I can enjoy it, they have to face the exact same problems I do : they have to spend most of their time doing things that earns them money. Since I need this game ongoing so I have what to do on my free time, I need that guys to keep earning enough money so they can spend their working time on it.

So I pay for game, including MH - even by not really enjoying the Missions - at least for now.

I think that most of the people complaining about this are young people that are not used to have scarce Leisure time (Larry - get out of here!), but have very scarce budgets, so is kinda understandable to see some complains on the matter. But… really, some grown-ups should know better sometimes.  

 

5 hours ago, Daniel Prates said:

Now, what DOES concern me is base changes to the game. KSPs modding community is one of the best things this game has, and all major changes give me the jitters.... everytime we move towards a "point something", its a game breaker. I hope we go to a 1.7.1 instead of a 1.8. We just got 1.7 and the modding community was just getting used to it!

I hope the devs take that into considetation. That said, I am looking foward to this next development.

Hi. TweakScale dude here. Yeah. That one.

Coding is easy. Software Development is hard. That's the way it is.

Every single major change on the game leaded to breakage and this was unavoidable not because it's impossible to change without breaking something (sometimes it is, but not always) but because people are resistant to change, and usually they reflect this mental posture in what they are doing - include coding.

The changes on 1.7, at least from the TweakScale point of view, had the same impact I had on 1.6.x :  Zero. Not because there weren't changes, but because since 1.5 I conceded to the fact that things change and I'm taking precautions to prevent at least the nastiest breakages. You can't have the cake and eat it too, so the price we pay for this prevention is some lateness on supporting new things: "if I don't know what's this, I don't touch it". Just now I'm finishing support for most of 1.6.x series of new parts (not because it was hard, but because a very important sanity check needs to be implemented and I postponed too much the remaining tasks - my mistake).

So, yes. Devs took that into consideration. Marvellously from my (somewhat limited, granted) point of view. 

Edited May 9, 2019 by Lisias
Freaking auto-corrector! I'm innocent this time! Honest!

[RogerCoyote]

I don't think that the "cost" of the DLC is the center of discussion. At least since my point of view. I have enjoyed this game more than 1,800 hours in both PC and console (XBOX One). I'm grateful with the developers for this great game. If I check the amount of money invested in the games and expansions against 1,800 hours of fun learning, its a great investment. What I expect is a great DLC with great content. I expect that Kerbal remains live for a long time and for that SQUAD, Private Division, Take-Two and whoever you want to call it, needs our support.

I will be glad to see a DLC to enable exploration between different solar systems. A little step into future technology.

Thank you for your time invested in reading my thougts. Have great missions, great adventures and big fun. 

[Superfluous J]

1 hour ago, IncongruousGoat said:

My only active KSP install right now is stuck back in 1.3.1, since RSS/RO/RP-0 are (understandably) super slow to update.

Maybe you'll get lucky and the DLC for 1.12 will be "A Real Hard Turn" and will include stock versions of those.

Edited May 9, 2019 by 5thHorseman

[klesh]

What hilarious is during the time of this discussion, just now, Cities Skylines has announced 3 more DLCs!?!  lol 

To make this an on-topic discussion pertanent to KSP, at what point is DLC too much DLC?  When/if KSP has a 3rd $15 DLC, the price of the additional content will then exceed the price of the base game.  What does everyone feel the tipping point is? 

Edited May 9, 2019 by klesh

[Phoenix84]

5 minutes ago, klesh said:

What hilarious is during the time of this discussion, Cities Skylines has announced yet another DLC!  lol 

To make this an on-topic discussion pertanent to KSP, at what point is DLC too much DLC?  When/if KSP has a 3rd $15 DLC, the price of the additional content will then exceed the price of the base game.  What does everyone feel the tipping point is?  

To flip that, at what point do you feel development should begin on a new game instead? Would you rather have KSP 3 or 4 instead? Keep in mind newer games have no guarantee that they'll still include features in the previous ones.

Edited May 9, 2019 by Phoenix84

[razark]

4 minutes ago, klesh said:

What does everyone feel the tipping point is? 

I don't think there is one.  As long as customers are willing to pay for additional content (whether that's parts, mechanics, sounds, music, whatever), then DLC is justified.  Look at the flight sim community.  There are people that will spend considerably more than the base game for a single aircraft, if it is well done.  Put out good work, and some people will be happy to compensate you. 

[klesh]

13 minutes ago, Phoenix84 said:

To flip that, at what point do you feel development should begin on a new game instead? Would you rather have KSP 3 or 4 instead? Keep in mind newer games have no guarantee that they'll still include features in the previous ones.

 

Indeed, thats the other side of the coin isn't it. Keep in mind, I'm not taking a position, I'm posing a question.  Do try to answer mine, I'll answer yours.

Depending on what's included in the sequels, and provided the content is a reasonable upgrade to the original game including things technically not possible in the original (engine upgrades that allow for better visuals, multi-core support, cross platform play, multiplayer components etc) I am all for sequels.  I am also all for DLCs, which I have purchased plenty of in my day.  I think the tipping point for me is when the old technology runs out of oompf and a modern equivalent can do better.   Take Arma series for example.  Arma3 is very similar to Arma 2, but it seems to have the under the hood improvements that only a separate sequel game can provide.

I would be all for a KSP 2, were it to contain the same concepts as KSP currently does (it would be a terrible idea to be less-than the original) but had upgrades that aren't possible with the Unity engine at present.  Clearly, there is plenty of gameplay that can be added to KSP (1)  without having to rebuild from the foundation up.  At some point a new foundation will be needed and I'm quite okay with that too.

Edited May 9, 2019 by klesh

[Eskandare]

To be honest I am happy to buy the DLC for KSP as it is the one game I really want to see more features, things to discover, explore and parts to make even more sophisticated craft for such exploration and discovery.

[Phoenix84]

1 minute ago, klesh said:

 

Indeed, thats the other side of the coin isn't it. Keep in mind, I'm not taking a position, I'm posing a question.  Do try to answer mine, I'll answer yours.

Depending on what's included in the sequels, and provided the content is a reasonable upgrade to the original game including things technically not possible in the original (engine upgrades that allow for better visuals, multi-core support, cross platform play, multiplayer components etc) I am all for sequels.  I am also all for DLCs, which I have purchased plenty of in my day.  I think the tipping point for me is when the old technology runs out of oompf and a modern equivalent can do better.   Take Arma series for example.  Arma3 is very similar to Arma 2, but it seems to have the under the hood improvements that only a separate sequel game can provide.

I would be all for a KSP 2, were it to contain the same concepts as KSP currently does but had upgrades that aren't possible with the Unity engine at present.  Clearly, there is plenty of gameplay that can be added to KSP (1)  without having to rebuild from the foundation up.  At some point a new foundation will be needed and I'm quite okay with that too.

I would agree with that. As long as the game can't be much better with newer technology, and people are willing to buy it, I don't really see a problem. If the technical debt comes to a point where it's becoming a real problem (some say it is already), then it might be worth starting over.

IMO the issue isn't the amount of DLC available, it's the company, and their intentions. Take Cities: Skylines, for example. With all the expansions and DLC they offer, it leaves little doubt that expansions were part of their goal since the beginning. They intended to have expansions, and as such, likely left stuff out of the base game on purpose, so they could flesh it out better as an expansion. That is the business decision they made, and I can't fault them for that. Though if they didn't do it this way, then if they wanted to release a game with all the features the DLC offers in the base game... it would have been under development for 10 years, and still wouldn't be released.

However the game itself is very well made, and looks fantastic, so there's no reason IMO for a Cities: Skylines 2. Honestly, if they did add a new one, that would irritate me. It's like with The Sims. You buy, say, Sim 3, and all it's expansions, now when Sims 4 comes out, you have to rebuy everything again, since the base Sims 4 won't include even half of what Sims 3 + Expansions had. This example is taken to the extreme, but it is a real possibility, since it happened.

Squad, on the other hand, had no intention of offering DLC/expansions at the start of development (as evidenced by their poorly worded EULA back then).

Note, I own both games, but only buy the DLC when it's on clearance sale. I only have a few of the Cities DLC.

[MechBFP]

48 minutes ago, klesh said:

What hilarious is during the time of this discussion, just now, Cities Skylines has announced 3 more DLCs!?!  lol 

To make this an on-topic discussion pertanent to KSP, at what point is DLC too much DLC?  When/if KSP has a 3rd $15 DLC, the price of the additional content will then exceed the price of the base game.  What does everyone feel the tipping point is? 

As long as there is package deals & sales, then I don’t think there is one. The older the game gets, the cheaper that content will become via sales in order to keep capturing the consumer surplus. 

[Daniel Prates]

45 minutes ago, Phoenix84 said:

To flip that, at what point do you feel development should begin on a new game instead? Would you rather have KSP 3 or 4 instead? Keep in mind newer games have no guarantee that they'll still include features in the previous ones.

Oh hell no! 

 

50 minutes ago, klesh said:

What hilarious is during the time of this discussion, just now, Cities Skylines has announced 3 more DLCs!?!  lol 

 

WAT

[klesh]

9 minutes ago, Daniel Prates said:

WAT

No joke. A full on DLC and 2 radio stations.

https://steamcommunity.com/games/255710/announcements/detail/1626274160679418631

 

 

I presume things like music as a DLC is something we as KSP players would agree is maybe not the kind of direction we'd want?  Or is it?  The current soundtrack is mostly royalty free music.  Would you guys support a soundtrack DLC for KSP if it cost a few dollars and consisted of new music made especially for the game?  (this is my effort to keep this a semi-on topic discussion)

 

Edited May 9, 2019 by klesh

[Enceos]

Making History needs to get an expansion. Being just a challenge maker is too niche, it could've been a maker for full fledged story mode campaigns or an indepth editor for contracts... it is neither.

[Chryssalid 8492]

4 minutes ago, klesh said:

I think things like music in a DLC is something we as KSP players will agree is maybe not the kind of direction we'd want?  Or is it?  The current soundtrack is mostly royalty free music.  Would you guys support a soundtrack DLC for KSP?  (this is my effort to keep this a semi-on topic discussion)

Normally I just put on what ever songs I feel match what I'm doing at the moment so probably not.

[Superfluous J]

6 minutes ago, klesh said:

 

I think things like music in a DLC is something we as KSP players will agree is maybe not the kind of direction we'd want?  Or is it?  The current soundtrack is mostly royalty free music.  Would you guys support a soundtrack DLC for KSP?  (this is my effort to keep this a semi-on topic discussion)

 

Music is something that doesn't interest me at all. I tend to turn off the music in KSP (and many games) and either listen to my own or none.

I'll buy pretty much any actual content DLC for KSP but not that kind of stuff.

[klesh]

I'm not sure I would buy a music DLC either.  I wouldn't be adverse to music being included in a more-traditional DLC such as Breaking Ground, but on its own probably not.  Interestingly, That Skylines game currently has 7 different music DLC's, 5 of which are available right now at $19.95 (when the other 2 release in 11 days it'll be $27.93), a bit much when the game itself is $30.  I think its safe to say that kind of rampant monetization is something that would not be welcomed in KSP.

Moderators: This all might seem slightly off topic, but it's kind of a DLC discussion as much as a Breaking Ground discussion here; hashing out what type of DLC the community would like to see, information possibly of value to the developers.

[T1mo98]

1 minute ago, klesh said:

Moderators: This all might seem slightly off topic, but it's kind of a DLC discussion as much as a Breaking Ground discussion here; hashing out what type of DLC the community would like to see, information possibly of value to the developers.

I'm not a moderator, but I think it would be a better idea to keep this thread purely about the Breaking Grounds DLC and instead move the conversation about DLC's in general to another thread.

[klesh]

I agree, I didnt mean to derail it, only to enhance the conversation with relevant examples from other games.  I'll report and see what the mods would like to do.

[Daniel Prates]

53 minutes ago, klesh said:

Or is it?

Oh certainly not. IMHO we are doing fine in terms of DLC frequency and content. I didnt particularly like making history, but that and breaking ground are just the correct amount of DLC we need, and in the right scope and speed too.

[Xavven]

1 hour ago, klesh said:

What hilarious is during the time of this discussion, just now, Cities Skylines has announced 3 more DLCs!?!  lol 

To make this an on-topic discussion pertanent to KSP, at what point is DLC too much DLC?  When/if KSP has a 3rd $15 DLC, the price of the additional content will then exceed the price of the base game.  What does everyone feel the tipping point is? 

This is a really great question. I think my answer is much more complex than the question.

Here's my take. There are multiple different lines that a company could cross that would make me abandon them in disgust:

1. When the business model conflicts with the goal of creating a good, engaging, fun, enjoyable game. One way this can be achieved is by creating intentionally annoying mechanics that can be bypassed by paying money. The more it incentivizes paying money, the better, and this usually means making the mechanic as irritating as possible. Devs treat the player base as money cows to be milked by exploiting human psychological weaknesses, and the labor of love of making a game you can be proud of is lost.
   1. Example: real life timer cooldowns. Someone mentioned "you can't launch another rocket for 15 minutes and 25 seconds. Launch a rocket NOW for only 30 gold coins at the KSP Store!"
   2. Another example is in the game Path of Exile, but it's a little more nuanced. Because their business model is highly dependent on aesthetics microtransactions, they want people to have to show off their character's aesthetics to other players to incentivize them to also purchase (e.g. "ooo look at the cool pet and angel wings that dude has! Now I want one too so I can look cool!") The end result is that they will never make an automated auction house for trading -- they want to force players to have to make the trade face-to-face in the same map so they see each other's aesthetics. Their trading system is resultantly easily the worst part of the game.
2. Pay 2 Win (everyone knows what this is already)
   1. Example: Increase this engine's Thrust and I_sp for 150 gold coins at the KSP Store!
   2. Loot boxes that can be purchased for real money, where the contents can alter gameplay in any way.
3. Track record of stupid and/or low-effort DLC. This is a gray area and where I can understand that my opinion would differ from others on this thread. It's one thing if the developers are really trying to improve the game, even if they fall short of the community's expectations sometimes. It's another thing when they're clearly just churning out crap to milk the playerbase for money. Examples:
   1. $5.00 DLC for three spacesuit reskins and a top hat your Kerbals can wear while in the Hitchhiker module.
   2. $2.99 DLC for a sheep compartment. Right click on it while in space and click the "sheep" button to spawn a sheep with a space helmet that follows your rocket around in EVA!
4. DLC that incorporates other intellectual property that has no sense being in that game's set universe.
   1. Example: $5 for a Darth Vader EVA space suit.
   2. Example: If you also purchased Team Fortress 2 on steam, your Kerbals get a Heavy Weapons Guy Sandvich eating animation and say "OM, NOM NOM! SAAAAAANNNDVIIIICCH!" in the HWG voice! You also get a Demolitions Man bobble-head to put on your MK1-3 Command Pod's dashboard!

[Guest]

I wonder if there will be new biomes and landforms