KSP and software economics

[Superfluous J]

57 minutes ago, Noir said:

People are allowed to discuss the value and cost of a product, especially when there are free (and often superior) alternatives.

100% agreed.

I'm not sure why the cost is a big deal with all these free and superior alternatives, nor do I understand why if something is not worth paying for why people are so up in arms because they can't get it for free.

But I'm 100% down with us having the right to discuss it.

My vote goes for wow, we've been super lucky so far getting tons of free stuff and the amount asked for the content delivered with the 2 DLCs so far has been more than reasonable.

Edited July 5, 2019 by 5thHorseman

[Klapaucius]

Squad: This looks fantastic.

 

Community: Can we not have every thread about the DLC turn into an economics discussion?  This is getting ridiculous. Create a thread and debate it if you wish, but I for one am over having to read through these posts every time I scroll through a thread about new features (or old features or mods or whatever).  This does not need to be re-litigated every time.

To those of you griping: do it somewhere else.

To the rest of us: if you find a post about it, don't take the bait. Just ignore it.

 

I just want to enjoy nerdy space stuff.

[Noir]

19 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:

I'm not sure why the cost is a big deal with all these free and superior alternatives, nor do I understand why if something is not worth paying for why people are so up in arms because they can't get it for free.

I think you either misread what I wrote, or don't understand what I am saying. If one product costs money, while another product does not, people will natural choose the free product. If the free product is in some way superior, such as offering more content, tasting better, easier to use, etc., people will have little reason to buy/use the product charging money. A simple example is newspapers. Very few people buy them these days, as there are free alternatives (such as the internet) that are easier to both access and use. I got both DLCs for free, having owned the game since 2012. For me, the DLC content is more convenient to use over mods. However, from the looks of things, Airplanes Plus will still have better helicopter engines compared to the DLC. I wouldn't have bothered with either DLC if I had to pay for it.

But at the end of the day I personally am not interested in discussing any of this further. Some people aren't willing to listen to criticism/concerns, some are to hyped up to care. And that's fine. I just want the community to be respectful (I guess that's to much to ask) of other people's opinions, and not blind themselves with hype. Even if those opinions are somewhat negative towards Private Division/the Devs. But my comments on the original thread still stand.

Edited July 6, 2019 by Noir

[Cheif Operations Director]

2 hours ago, The_Cat_In_Space said:

But GTA V is supported by microtransactions. KSP has no such thing (at least not yet, thank god)

Rocket Boxes with special infinity engines.

8 minutes ago, Noir said:

I think you either misread what I wrote, or don't understand what I am saying. If one product costs money, while another product does not, people will natural choose the free product. If the free product is in some way superior, such as offering more content, tasting better, easier to use, etc., people will have little reason to buy/use the product charging money. A simple example is newspapers. Very few people buy them these days, as there are free alternatives (such as the internet) that are easier to both access and use. I got both DLCs for free, having owned the game since 2012. For me, the DLC content is more convenient to use over mods. However, from the looks of things, Airplanes Plus will still have better helicopter engines compared to the DLC. I wouldn't have bothered with either DLC if I had to pay for it.

But at the end of the day I personally am not interested in discussing any of this further. Some people aren't willing to listen to criticism/concerns, some are to hyped up to care. And that's fine. I just want the  community to be respectful of other people's opinions, and not blind themselves with hype. Even if those opinions are somewhat negative towards Private Division/the Devs. But my comments on page 2 still stand.

I feel bad for the console players who can not get mods...

[RocketSimplicity]

I'm reading through this economics DLC discussion and I think some of us are more take than give. You need to respect what you got. You bought a game, and if a free feature or a bugfix comes along, you should be grateful and not take it for granted. It isn't your right for them to keep on giving free stuff. You should always remember that getting new free content, no matter how small it is, is still better than what you bought at the start. They can charge money for optional new features if they want. It's your choice whether to get it or not.

[Snark]

Hi everyone,

Just a note that all the content in this thread up to this point (including the OP) was originally in a different thread, here:

One or two messages about DLC and economics and having-to-pay-for-things might have been okay (and the OP here was perfectly fine)... but as you can see from the volume of posts up to this point, many people ended up jumping on board and arguing economics (which is off-topic for that thread) instead of discussing the new engines themselves (which is on-topic).

It's a worthwhile discussion to have, so we didn't want to simply remove all those posts-- they're simply off-topic for that thread.  So we've moved all that stuff here, where it can be discussed on its own merit, rather than derailing a discussion about some specific parts that Squad is adding to Breaking Ground.

Thank you for your understanding.

[Kerbart]

16 hours ago, hieywiey said:

*Sigh* At least T2 hasn't tried to ban mods (yet) like they tried to do with GTA V.

If I remember correctly that was about one specific mod that bypassed paying for content that would be unlocked by a DLC. The minute someone rips off Squad's DLC and starts posting them here I can assure you T2 will shut down those as well -- but that's far from "banning mods."

[Kerbart]

11 hours ago, Noir said:

This.

Old Squad was a very small indie dev, yet despite all it's flaws could still produce quality content (and bug fixes) for free. Now KSP is owned by one of the biggest gaming companies, yet is charging money for content that was either promised by old Squad or wanted by the community 5+ years ago.

I still remember when Porkjet was hired to add his mod into the game...

Squad was producing software in a naive totally unsustainable way: sell software with a promise that it's continuously being updated for a fixed pay once price. That worked very well in the beginning when no one had the game and copies of the game sold like fresh donuts.

You conveniently forgot to mention that the time between updates grew longer and longer, and that new content with each update became less and less, as the market for KSP became saturated (everyone who wanted to buy the game had done so already) and the income stream dried up.

Since T2 has taken over and Squad has started selling DLC. updates have become more frequent, much-requested functionality has been added to the base game (delta V, precision node editing, etc) and more parts have been added over the past 12 months than in the three years before that combined.

Not only that, those parts cover a few areas that were highly in demand - robotics, propeller engines, large tanks - making clear that we now have a Squad that is listening to its customers and creating the content it is asking for. And all for a reasonable price.

The propellers and blade are coming as a complete surprise. If this truly was the evil money-hoarding-squeeze-the-last-penny corporation, it would have been an additional DLC release. Instead, it's part of something (some of us) already paid for. There's your free content (in a way).

All I see is a lot more content, a continuation of Squad's spirit of giving us tremendous value for money. Still waiting for those micropayments and banning of mods that were predicted by the nay-sayers.

[Superfluous J]

10 hours ago, Noir said:

I think you either misread what I wrote, or don't understand what I am saying. If one product costs money, while another product does not, people will natural choose the free product. If the free product is in some way superior, such as offering more content, tasting better, easier to use, etc., people will have little reason to buy/use the product charging money. A simple example is newspapers. Very few people buy them these days, as there are free alternatives (such as the internet) that are easier to both access and use. I got both DLCs for free, having owned the game since 2012. For me, the DLC content is more convenient to use over mods. However, from the looks of things, Airplanes Plus will still have better helicopter engines compared to the DLC. I wouldn't have bothered with either DLC if I had to pay for it.

I bought the game 2 months after the cutoff. It wasn't even on sale. I thought (and still do) that 0.21 as-was was worth the 22.50 or whatever I paid. Then I got years of free upgrades. Then they charged for a DLC and what appeared to be about 1% of the forum lost their minds in anger that the gravy train wasn't going on forever and ever.

I have not used the mod you mentioned. I have used Infernal Robotics. $15 for a working IR is worth it to me. It's worth it to a lot of people. Frankly I think it's worth it to you and the other people complaining about the cost of the DLC because nobody complains about the cost of something over and over and over without end when they don't want it.

I'll give you an example. Photoshop costs like a billion dollars a month. Or whatever. Far more than I'm willing to pay, especially because The Gimp is a wonderful free alternative. I have not once, on the Adobe forums or anywhere, ever complained about them charging for it. The only reason I would would be if I thought it was any good.

 

Quote

But at the end of the day I personally am not interested in discussing any of this further. Some people aren't willing to listen to criticism/concerns, some are to hyped up to care.

Some are neither. If I didn't care I'd not be discussing it either.

I have a personal interest in KSP content. If they stop making it I will be very unhappy. Far more unhappy than someone who wants stock rotors for free and can't have them.

 

2 hours ago, Snark said:

One or two messages about DLC and economics and having-to-pay-for-things might have been okay (and the OP here was perfectly fine)... but as you can see from the volume of posts up to this point, many people ended up jumping on board and arguing economics (which is off-topic for that thread) instead of discussing the new engines themselves (which is on-topic).

It's a worthwhile discussion to have, so we didn't want to simply remove all those posts-- they're simply off-topic for that thread.  So we've moved all that stuff here, where it can be discussed on its own merit, rather than derailing a discussion about some specific parts that Squad is adding to Breaking Ground.

Thank you for your understanding.

I understand and for my part I'm sorry you had to do the work, though I agree the discussion is worthwhile

Edited July 5, 2019 by 5thHorseman
Original post on mobile had some atrocious quoting problems inherent in trying to write a post on mobile. I actually got out of bed to edit it properly.

[Klapaucius]

4 hours ago, Snark said:

Hi everyone,

Just a note that all the content in this thread up to this point (including the OP) was originally in a different thread, here:

One or two messages about DLC and economics and having-to-pay-for-things might have been okay (and the OP here was perfectly fine)... but as you can see from the volume of posts up to this point, many people ended up jumping on board and arguing economics (which is off-topic for that thread) instead of discussing the new engines themselves (which is on-topic).

It's a worthwhile discussion to have, so we didn't want to simply remove all those posts-- they're simply off-topic for that thread.  So we've moved all that stuff here, where it can be discussed on its own merit, rather than derailing a discussion about some specific parts that Squad is adding to Breaking Ground.

Thank you for your understanding.

Thank you.  Does this mean we can now flag future economics comments in other forums and have them sent here?

[Guest]

14 hours ago, Noir said:

It would be nice if people could have these discussions without being told outright that their option is wrong.

From where I’m at it would be nice if the people complaining about paid DLCs would suggest some other way for the devs to get paid for their work. Advertising? Microtransactions? Subscriptions? Lootboxes? Voluntary donations? Something else?

I don’t think KSP can continue to live on organic growth alone. It’s a niche game and it’s not easy to keep finding enough new players to keep everybody employed.

 

 

[klgraham1013]

26 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

Advertising? Microtransactions? Subscriptions? Lootboxes? Voluntary donations? Something else?

Surprise mechanics.

[Noir]

Let's not forget the time Squad teamed up with NASA to bring us the NASA pack, and the Asteroid Day pack, for free. Pretty sure the Asteroid Day pack would be the first DLC, since it wasn't an update to the game, but a downloadable extra.

I honestly couldn't even tell you what content has been added between 1.0 and now. I struggle to believe this game is out of early access and isn't in Beta any more. And the few updates after T2 took over was mainly updating parts visually. Not only that, but updates like the Delta V readout and bigger tanks were features Old-Squad never wanted to add to begin with. They are great to have, yes, but the Delta V readout is awkwardly hidden away behind the pitch/roll/yaw readout. It is not helped that the DLC was released after T2 bought KSP. If KSP was never bought, and the original Devs decided to release a DLC, I would be mostly fine with that, so long as the DLC had worthwhile content. 

Content such as robotics, propellers and so on have been free add-ons thanks to the community for years. And now Private Division is charging money for this content. They could have easily gone down the Cities Skylines route, offering this content in a free update along side the DLC, with the DLC's content being something that couldn't be offered as a community mod. While the Mission editor from Making History is mostly forgotten, at least it was something new and different, just poorly implemented. In recent update to Cities Skylines, they basically said, "you guys wanted this feature involving buses, so in the free patch you are getting it!". They did the same with one-way road arrows and a few others things. All of this were community made mods. A good chunk of content in Rimworld was once user made mods that the (single) Dev added in. Cities Skylines and Rimworld are two highly praised games by their community.

If Squad worked along side the people who made Infernal Robotics, Ground Experiments, Airplanes Plus, etc., to add their content into the game officially and seamlessly as a community driven DLC, I would have no issue with that. That would be almost identical to what they did with the NASA Pack, PorkJet's work, and the B9 Space Centre. It would be very similar to what we are used to, and would show that T2/Private Division is willing to work with the community to make KSP the best it could be. KSP has always been praised for having a great community, but many people are still on edge about T2 owning KSP. Having the Devs work with the community directly, while also communicating with the fans like they used to, would help ease that edge. For 7+ years we have gotten used to free updates, with content being added that the community has wanted. Just like what Minecraft has been doing and still is doing. But than all of a sudden they add in content that fans have not only wanted for several years, but are now charging money for it. An easy solution would, as I already said, to adopt a model similar to what Cities Skylines uses.

If the Devs were truly listing to the community, than the landing gear, rover wheels, performance, and many many bugs would be fixed. Yes, I know each update has bug fixes, but each content update just ends up adding more issues. But I know some users tend to make excuses for the Devs as to why these issues have not been fixed yet. The big thing I'd like to see in currently, is the Devs showing us upcoming updates in action, and not just a still image.

13 hours ago, Kerbart said:

The propellers and blade are coming as a complete surprise.

I already knew they were coming, and honestly expected them to be added with a new DLC. But I also expected them to behave like actually engines, and not just like the robotic parts.

 

10 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:

I'll give you an example. Photoshop costs like a billion dollars a month. Or whatever. Far more than I'm willing to pay, especially because The Gimp is a wonderful free alternative. I have not once, on the Adobe forums or anywhere, ever complained about them charging for it. The only reason I would would be if I thought it was any good.

You wouldn't go the Adobe forums since you are not using their product. If you wanted a feature from Photoshop that Gimp didn't have, you might go to the Gimp forums to suggest it though. I understand what you are trying to say, but you are talking about two completely different products, while I am talking about extra content within a single product.

 

But again, I'm sick of discussing this, since most people aren't willing to have a legitimate discussion without just attacking those who disagree with the Devs or regular community members. The sub-Reddit is the same, for the record. The only reason I'm complaining about the DLCs is because I've seen other people do it, only to be shot down by certain community members who, honestly, have little respect towards other people's opinions. Some of us don't consider 4 user made mods rolled into a $20AUD DLC to be worth the money. KSP is one of my most played games, so naturally I am going to be very critical about it. Especially when I am constantly dealing with bugs, crashes, and save corruptions. And I have a lot of little issues with the game (such as the main menu being terrible) that it all adds up over time. I highly doubt any further meaningful discussion will take place here, and wouldn't object to a moderator just closing this thread down.

Edited July 6, 2019 by Noir

[Kerbart]

50 minutes ago, Noir said:

(...)

Content such as robotics, propellers and so on have been free add-ons thanks to the community for years. And now Private Division is charging money for this content. They could have easily gone down the Cities Skylines route, offering this content in a free update along side the DLC, with the DLC's content being something that couldn't be offered as a community mod. While the Mission editor from Making History is mostly forgotten, at least it was something new and different,

(...)

With five years of mods, I think it's pretty hard to come up with something that hasn't been offered by mods yet.

But since apparently it's really easy, pray tell, what would be this magical content to be offered in, say, the next three DLC's?

Meanwhile I keep hearing that parts offered by DLC "have no value," yet at the same time we see here in the forum complaints over:

• mods being abandoned
• mods causing crashes
• mods depending on other mods that are then being abandoned.

In that sense, the DLC parts are as good as stock. They'll be refreshed with every update, they'll work without dependencies and if you share craft with others they'll virtually always work as most players will have the DLC on their machines. For me the implicit contract that Squad offers with DLC - "these parts will continue to work with each update" is worth the reasonable price asked for it.

[razark]

8 hours ago, Brikoleur said:

...it would be nice if the people complaining about paid DLCs would suggest some other way for the devs to get paid for their work.

This is the question that no one has answered yet.  And it's the one that needs to be answered if we're going to consider continued updates to KSP that don't involve paid DLC.

 

1 hour ago, Noir said:

They could have easily gone down the Cities Skylines route, offering this content in a free update along side the DLC, with the DLC's content being something that couldn't be offered as a community mod.

What content would you consider to be outside the realm of moddable?  I've seen a lot of different mods covering a vast area of stuff.  The chances that whatever might be possible has been touched on in some way by a mod is quite high at this point.

Further, there is a difference between mods and developer-developed content.  Modders can access the program in certain ways, and only in those ways.  Many mods have been implemented as half-working hacks that barely get the job done, are prone to bugs, and full of inefficiency.¹  The developers have direct access to the code, and can add what they need to get things done in a much cleaner method.

 

¹No offense to the modders meant.  I appreciate the hard work you folks put into it.

Edited July 6, 2019 by razark

[Klapaucius]

1 hour ago, Noir said:

But again, I'm sick of discussing this, since most people aren't willing to have a legitimate discussion without just attacking those who disagree with the Devs or regular community members. The sub-Reddit is the same, for the record. The only reason I'm complaining about the DLCs is because I've seen other people do it, only to be shot down by certain community members who, honestly, have little respect towards other people's opinions. Some of us don't consider 4 user made mods rolled into a $20AUD DLC to be worth the money. KSP is one of my most played games, so naturally I am going to be very critical about it. Especially when I am constantly dealing with bugs, crashes, and save corruptions. And I have a lot of little issues with the game (such as the main menu being terrible) that it all adds up over time. I highly doubt any further meaningful discussion will take place here, and wouldn't object to a moderator just closing this thread down.

I think you made a very thoughtful post. The issue I have is that it seems someone felt compelled to bring it up in every forum related to the DLC, often airing gripes with nothing to add or no solutions.  Even if I might have agreed with some of the points, I was having those views imposed on me in a thread when all I wanted to do was read about and discuss the topic at hand.  I might also add that your post above is issues-based and polite. It does not come across as whingeing for the sake of whingeing with nothing to back it up.  I like that you cited the "Cities Skylines" example as an alternative way of going about things.  We can have a reasonable discussion about that.

I think most of us are willing to entertain contrary opinions, but we want them backed up, issues-based and in the right context (that is thread).  Unfortunately, not everyone has articulated things as you have, and that has been frustrating.  There are some serial complainers about and they get tiresome.  When I get a response to a post, as I recently did, that uses the word "poop" to describe the action they want to take, I have to think: Is this person in kindergarten?  And no, I do not take them seriously and I do discount their opinions. If a member cannot make their point without resorting to ad-hominem attacks, faulty logic, snarkiness or vulgarity, I have no time for them.

[Raptor9]

4 hours ago, Klapaucius said:

I think most of us are willing to entertain contrary opinions, but we want them backed up, issues-based and in the right context (that is thread).  Unfortunately, not everyone has articulated things as you have, and that has been frustrating.  There are some serial complainers about and they get tiresome.  When I get a response to a post, as I recently did, that uses the word "poop" to describe the action they want to take, I have to think: Is this person in kindergarten?  And no, I do not take them seriously and I do discount their opinions. If a member cannot make their point without resorting to ad-hominem attacks, faulty logic, snarkiness or vulgarity, I have no time for them.

That's a pretty fair assessment I think.
________________________________________________

 I try to avoid directing such posts at a specific forum user, but when I do, I normally address their user name or quote something they posted. When I make a forum post regarding people complaining about DLC's costing money, it's normally addressing those that are complaining without any sort of reasonable alternatives to the concept of the DLC business model.  But it's more like speaking to the room, if the thread were a room.

(Speaking to the "room" in general) I personally think a lot of the backlash stems from those posters that seem like they flat out do not want to pay for a product they desire; and to rationalize their behavior, they equate Squad and/or T2 as evil people and themselves as a victim of Squad's/T2's supposed greed.  And when this happens, a lot of people (admittedly myself included) feel the need to defend the members of Squad from being demonized for decisions that are entirely and understandably business-related.

The two truest things about the internet, is that there will always be someone that disagrees with you, and you will never get the last word. 

EDIT: Unless you're a moderator, in which case you might get the last word.

Edited July 6, 2019 by Raptor9

[Gargamel]

16 hours ago, Klapaucius said:

Thank you.  Does this mean we can now flag future economics comments in other forums and have them sent here?

It would not be unreasonable to make such a report.

[Elmo's Minion]

Asking for free stuff is what a lot of people have essentially been doing, and I don't like it.

 - One of the main problems is that for many, many games DLC becomes the only form of updates, and that can be problematic. What if over time, some of the DLC was eventually made freely available, or merged into the stock game? That way there would only be 1 or 2 DLCs that will be on-sale at any given point in time. It would help prevent people from having to buy a ton of DLCs when first buying the game, and would mean many more DLCs could be made in the future (less to market simultaneously).

When it comes to mods having the same functionality as what the DLC contains then it's really just the question of "Is it worth it?" when buying it (after all, you aren't required to buy DLC if you don't want to).

idk, opinions?

 

[Pds314]

[Sighs wishing all software were funded in a communist manner and were open source, so KSP and all DLC would be free for all as the common heritage of humankind that real space is, and the devs still got paid handsomely (or given a very high standard of living in any case, money need not necessarily be involved) for it]

In practice though we live in a near-global capitalist society, so software developers need at least modest DRM and periodic sources of cash (from us, the customers) to continue or expand operations. KSP has been under development for quite a few years now and sales numbers probably aren't what they used to be, while expenses have probably increased.

Edited July 13, 2019 by Pds314