Microtransactions

[W. Kerman]

I'm not going to pick up this game for awhile after launch- That's partly money related, but also related to this.

If KSP 2 ends up getting dabbed on by Take 2 Interactive execs and has microtransactions, I'm not buying it. And we've seen that AAA companies will do things like...

- Put lootboxes in a game later to avoid bad press

- Rename microtransactions 

My trust is there for Squad, but not for Take 2. Good luck Squad.

[Thatguywhodrinksbleach]

We need to spread the word the concerns involving microtransactions in ksp 2. They are a very real threat and the only thing we can really do is warn Take 2's customer base of the potential microtransactions so they have to think twice before adding anything of that nature. Ksp is one of the most unique games I have ever played and having it be gutted by micro transactions would turn it into a shallow soulless husk of what it once was.

 

(copy paste this around the forums reddit and ksp videos on youtube or anything else ksp related to help send the word. Or you can create your own copypasta for the low low price of $2.50!)

WE WILL NOT BUY ANY MICROTRANSACTIONS!

Edited August 20, 2019 by Thatguywhodrinksbleach
More clarity

[78stonewobble]

I still stand by that there's nothing inherently wrong with microtransactions.

The problems we see are the result of:

A: Too greedy devs or publishers. Charging too much for too little. 

B: Too greedy players. Wanting too much for too little (or free). 

C: Players with more money than sense. Rewarding devs / publishers charging too much for too little. 

 

Back in the day with eg. The original halflife, there were some free quality of life updates and added value in eg. Team fortress classic and half life death match, but expansions like opposing force and blue shift you had to pay for. 

Opposing force was relatively well received despite costing money, but whether blue shift provided enough value for the money was a subject of debate. 

Offcourse value for money is quite subjective, but certainly there are extremes that most can agree are eg. Too expensive or too cheap. 

Personally I'm not a big fan of too much free stuff... If you put in work and I think the work is good enough to use then I think I should pay for it. 

PS: This also goes for modders BTW. and this is a place where I think microtransactiocs have a place. Straight to good modders. 

Microtransactions (or macro transactions for bigger things like expansions) overall hinge on devs / publishers providing content worth its price to most players. 

Don't be greedy and that goes both ways. 

Then I'm with you... If you get too greedy I won't play. 

[kerbiloid]

"Please transfer 4⁹⁹ to decrease the Tylo gravity for 10 minutes. By paying 19⁹⁸ you can decrease its gravity to 1 m/s² forever."

[Teek]

I really do not understand why people are getting themselves so worked up over things that either a) they have no proof or indication that it will take place, or b) that the developers or Squad has explicitly stated will not be in the game.  People can raise hell later if it turns out those do get implemented, but now I don't think people should get worked up by this.

Or the spectre of EGS exclusivity, which has also been ruled out multiple times.  Get a grip people.

[DStaal]

1 minute ago, Teek said:

I really do not understand why people are getting themselves so worked up over things that either a) they have no proof or indication that it will take place, or b) that the developers or Squad has explicitly stated will not be in the game.  People can raise hell later if it turns out those do get implemented, but now I don't think people should get worked up by this.

Or the spectre of EGS exclusivity, which has also been ruled out multiple times.  Get a grip people.

I think in this particular case: Take Two Interactive have a publicly-known policy of wanting to have microtransactions in all their games, and the statement that is being referenced as stating it will not be in the game is very exact lawyer-speak ruling out *only* one type of microtransactions.  I'd be more reassured by silence on the question than by the statement I've seen - silence means they haven't answered it.  What they've said means they've addressed the issue and specifically did *not* rule *most* microtransactions out.

[Teek]

13 minutes ago, DStaal said:

I think in this particular case: Take Two Interactive have a publicly-known policy of wanting to have microtransactions in all their games, and the statement that is being referenced as stating it will not be in the game is very exact lawyer-speak ruling out *only* one type of microtransactions.  I'd be more reassured by silence on the question than by the statement I've seen - silence means they haven't answered it.  What they've said means they've addressed the issue and specifically did *not* rule *most* microtransactions out.

Fair point, and here I will say that I am not bothered by micro-transactions as a whole, but rather how they are implemented.  Loot boxes and in game currency are generally terrible, and it's great that they are not in the game, as they exist only to obscure in-game costs and get people to spend more, generally a very cynical and terrible mechanic.  

Personally, I'm more comfortable paying for items directly after release if they're fairly valued.  Expansions and such are generally welcome, from what I've seen, but even a skin pack or alternate models (ideally not affecting gameplay) can be fair game if priced correctly (and for that matter, most games do not price their cosmetics fairly, which is why they rely on ingame currency, lootboxes, and limited time events to obscure costs and pressure players to purchase.)

One other crucial thing I forgot to mention, if Star Theory honors their commitment to modding, that significantly undercuts the value of micro-transactions to them.  Even discounting the possibility of mods directly competing with micro-transactions for specific parts, skins, or features, the availability of alternatives and additional features inherently weakens their position to sell any items.  Think of it this way, if Fortnite or Overwatch allowed players to create their own skins and props, do you think they would sell nearly as many skins as they do now?

[magnemoe]

15 minutes ago, DStaal said:

I think in this particular case: Take Two Interactive have a publicly-known policy of wanting to have microtransactions in all their games, and the statement that is being referenced as stating it will not be in the game is very exact lawyer-speak ruling out *only* one type of microtransactions.  I'd be more reassured by silence on the question than by the statement I've seen - silence means they haven't answered it.  What they've said means they've addressed the issue and specifically did *not* rule *most* microtransactions out.

This and its an major problems in games today growing exponentially worse over the time. 
Now as mods is promised this makes it harder to do microtransactons as mods can bypass them. On the other hand assassin creed banned players who made fast xp farming quest mods because it cut into sale of xp packs. 
On the gripping hand is unlikely as its an sandbox game with mods, but sims 3 kind of had them and it was an single player sandbox game. Sims 4 however did not and that has not changed as I know and its an EA game. 

Grabs tail we are promised more mod hooks than in KSP, who kind of rules this out if true, KSP moding is pretty much hacking as you write dll who hook into the game.
This is almost of on the level of SKSE for skyrim who is an hack. 
its authorized by steam (else we release the source code and some make it for the hacked version like happened for Oblivion) 

[wizisi2k]

I am concerned about having the game do a CTR remake patch one (or more) months after launch. THAT had no premium currency at launch but was added in a month after launch. All I can hope is the devs stick to their guns of not allowing microtransactions AND US law eliminates lootboxes/premium currency from $60 games NOT rated AO USD gambling (which would exclude it from a few states for sale).

 

I also do not want to see a DLC that enables modding. That would spite people

[magnemoe]

5 minutes ago, Teek said:

Fair point, and here I will say that I am not bothered by micro-transactions as a whole, but rather how they are implemented.  Loot boxes and in game currency are generally terrible, and it's great that they are not in the game, as they exist only to obscure in-game costs and get people to spend more, generally a very cynical and terrible mechanic.  

Personally, I'm more comfortable paying for items directly after release if they're fairly valued.  Expansions and such are generally welcome, from what I've seen, but even a skin pack or alternate models (ideally not affecting gameplay) can be fair game if priced correctly (and for that matter, most games do not price their cosmetics fairly, which is why they rely on ingame currency, lootboxes, and limited time events to obscure costs and pressure players to purchase.)

One other crucial thing I forgot to mention, if Star Theory honors their commitment to modding, that significantly undercuts the value of micro-transactions to them.  Even discounting the possibility of mods directly competing with micro-transactions for specific parts, skins, or features, the availability of alternatives and additional features inherently weakens their position to sell any items.  Think of it this way, if Fortnite or Overwatch allowed players to create their own skins and props, do you think they would sell nearly as many skins as they do now?

And yes I have no issue with DLC if quality content, Fallout 3 and Fallout NV was very good here. 
Would paid for the KSP DLC if I was not in the veteran club. 
See DLC as an nice way to expand the game world and keep the game relevant for longer time. Yes on pc you can make mods with obvious hooks for moders to use, last one in KSP is in here. 

Now competitive PvP games over internet can not allow mods for pretty obvious reasons, else all would be running mini guns shooting mini nukes all the time. Obviously with increased range, rate of fire and unlimited ammo. Yes its an Fallout 3 mod and its insane. 
None as far as I know followed my request for vehicles in Fallout 3: make an personal orion pulse nuclear drive out of an pongo stick and an mininuke launcher  

Back to topic, this make locked down games very attractive for microtransactions, all MMO is in this category as they have both progressive play and competitive PvP. 
If game is free to play people are also more forgiving. 
Will not discus mobile games, rather use an deathstar here, think most agree its far from overkill. 
 

[MechBFP]

My guess is the ability to get a “season pass” with regular DLC kind of akin to what KSP 1 is doing at the moment. 

Since this game is going to be very modable that means that cosmetic items don’t really make much sense cause you can just download mod skins, textures, etc, yourself for no charge.

[kerbiloid]

KSP special collection items:
"Legendary bottomless barrel of monopropellant".
"Dwemer 1000 EC battery. Magic of thunder bonus: -50% to discharge rate".
"Imperial chute. Produces drag even in space."

As most of KSP parts are just metal barrels, white or gray.

[severedsolo]

10 hours ago, magnemoe said:

Now as mods is promised this makes it harder to do microtransactons as mods can bypass them. On the other hand assassin creed banned players who made fast xp farming quest mods because it cut into sale of xp packs.

"Mods are the beating heart of this community" - "we're gonna ban mod makers who mess up our (non-existent) microtransactions business". - Pick one.

If this happened (and it won't), you know what would happen? 90% of modders would go "well stuff this excrement" and go right on back to KSP1.

That's before you even get to the question of how you ban someone from a single player game (I won't play multiplayer, so I don't care about being banned from there).

Edited August 21, 2019 by severedsolo

[KerbolExplorer]

I really doubt there will be microtransactions in the game.And even *if* there is...well we already saw what happened with redshell and all that good stuff

 

 

Edited August 21, 2019 by KerbolExplorer

[DoctorDavinci]

4 hours ago, severedsolo said:

"Mods are the beating heart of this community" - "we're gonna ban mod makers who mess up our (non-existent) microtransactions business". - Pick one.

If this happened (and it won't), you know what would happen? 90% of modders would go "well stuff this excrement" and go right on back to KSP1

That's if modders decide to jump to KSP2 in the first place

I don't se many of us doing so until after we see how T2 has decided to set up monetization and if we will be forced into a 'mod workshop' or something to that effect ... Let alone how the licensing of mods will work given that T2 has already shown their hand with the GTA5 paid mod fiasco etc....

 

EDIT: Here's a quote from T2 in regards to modding GTA5 and other Rockstar games -

 “After discussions with Take-Two, Take-Two has agreed that it generally will not take legal action against third-party projects involving Rockstar’s PC games that are single-player, non-commercial, and respect the intellectual property (IP) rights of third parties.”

Citation - https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.polygon.com/platform/amp/2017/6/23/15864600/rockstar-taketwo-openiv-gta-mod-legal-cease-desist

Edited August 21, 2019 by DoctorDavinci

[Daniel Prates]

There sure is NO SIN in selling extra content for money. It's what DLC is all about. I think most people would gladly pay for extra parts, for instance. Console players for instance do not have access to all of the community mods.

When I think "microtransactions", its more like "free to play, pay to win" kinda stuff, or freemium stuff - nothing like that seems to be on the cards for the future, when one reads the announcements. Sure hope it stays that way.

[KerbolExplorer]

I don't know if this was posted before here but...

 

 

*relived breathing intesifies*

[Clockwork13]

On 8/19/2019 at 8:34 PM, W. Kerman said:

I'm not going to pick up this game for awhile after launch- That's partly money related, but also related to this.

If KSP 2 ends up getting dabbed on by Take 2 Interactive execs and has microtransactions, I'm not buying it. And we've seen that AAA companies will do things like...

- Put lootboxes in a game later to avoid bad press

- Rename microtransactions 

My trust is there for Squad, but not for Take 2. Good luck Squad.

Thankfully they've already confirmed that KSP 2 will not have loot boxes or microtransactions. Might have some kind of DLC though

[magnemoe]

8 hours ago, Daniel Prates said:

There sure is NO SIN in selling extra content for money. It's what DLC is all about. I think most people would gladly pay for extra parts, for instance. Console players for instance do not have access to all of the community mods.

When I think "microtransactions", its more like "free to play, pay to win" kinda stuff, or freemium stuff - nothing like that seems to be on the cards for the future, when one reads the announcements. Sure hope it stays that way.

Agree, DLC with content is very nice, it adds an extra revenue stream after you spent years making the game and it keeps an game alive longer, its an task you can give to more junior developers while other start making the next game. 
Yes its an few bad apples, mostly pretty obvious ones by the obvious offenders. 
And yes you can use DLC as an hook for moders to use, I made an farmng mod in Skyrim, it required heartstone dlc as that contained the plant models. 

[sh1pman]

«Our focus will be to deliver solid, impactful content our fans will love to incorporate into their game”

 

Solid and impactful microtransactions, is what I read from this

[EchoLima]

16 minutes ago, sh1pman said:

Solid and impactful microtransactions, is what I read from this

SquStar Theory said in a Youtube comment they "will look to follow a similar format to the post-launch support of the original game" (source), implying paid DLCs, not microtransactions.

Edited August 21, 2019 by EchoLima
formatting

[richfiles]

On 8/21/2019 at 5:28 AM, DoctorDavinci said:

T2 in regards to modding GTA5 and other Rockstar games

Thank you for bringing up Take Two's fiasco with GTA V. I was gonna mention it, but you beat me to it. When Take Two first bought KSP, they were mired in the controversy over C&Ding Open IV, the modding tool used in GTA 4 & 5. The C&D originally occurred because people were creating mods that introduced GTA Online exclusive elements into the single player game. Never mind the fact that Rockstar pretty much abandoned the single player to focus 100% on the monetization of Online... The fact that they were creating content exclusively for online (to draw people away from single player and into monetization land), then attempted to kill the entire modding community by attacking the modding tools themselves for people daring to try to have fun in single player... Yikes. This is why no one trusts Take Two, and why everyone with half a mind fears the reach of their monetization.

Lets not forget that in the two years since Take Two took over, we've had 75% of the value of the game (when not on sale) already monetized in the form of DLC. We never had DLC before. We just got feature updates. Take Two has already been testing the waters of monetization in KSP. THANKFULLY, it's been quality content with substance, so I'll give them credit on that. They did it RIGHT... But they did it.

There in lies the fear. They tested the waters with KSP1 with substantial DLC. I think free feature updates are probably a thing of the past. I do suspect that we'll be at least dropping $15 annually on KSP 2 for "new feature DLC". I guess as long as it provides substantial features, I can tolerate that, as it supports the dev... But it marks a drastic shift, regardless. Micro transactions are something I NEVER want to see come to KSP, ever. If Take Two intends to monetize KSP 2, then restrict it to the way they've handled it for the past two years... Feature updates.

I don't like fragmenting the player base with paid upgrades, but I'd more tolerate that than the exploitative micro transactions Take Two are notorious for. At the very least, They need to come to understand that Modding isn't something tacked onto the game, but an intrinsic feature of the game, and a core aspect of the community. If they EVER DARE to attack the modding community, mods, or modding functionality, they need to understand that what they are actually doing is attacking KSP 2 itself. I won't even tolerate DRM on my KSP. The ability to pull KSP into it's own folder with it's own mod set, and launch it independently of any launcher has been a crucial aspect of the game. I keep different "eras" of save games. That's something I'm not okay with losing. The wild success of KSP is a TESTAMENT to DRM free software. And that's something else that terrifies me about Take Two looming over KSP 2.

I don't trust Take Two.

I need to see it to believe it, and even then, I'm still gonna be skeptical of KSP 2 till some time passes, and I'll never stop scrutinizing it for Take Two corruption.

Edited August 22, 2019 by richfiles

[severedsolo]

16 minutes ago, richfiles said:

Lets not forget that in the two years since Take Two took over, we've had 75% of the value of the game (when not on sale) already monetized int he form of DLC. We never had DLC before. We just got feature updates. Take Two has already been testing the waters of monetization in KSP. THANKFULLY, it's been quality content with substance, so I'll give them credit on that. They did it RIGHT... But they did it.

Making history was announced before the T2 takeover it's a fair assumption that negotiations may have been happening at that time, but I doubt T2 made them do it.
 

20 minutes ago, richfiles said:

At the very least, They need to come to understand that Modding isn't something tacked onto the game, but an intrinsic feature of the game, and a core aspect of the community.

How much clearer do you need them to be about that than "Mods are the beating heart of this community and we're gonna make it more moddable than ever"? I think they already understand....

 

[DoctorDavinci]

20 minutes ago, richfiles said:

Thank you for bringing up Take Two's fiasco with GTA V. I was gonna mention it, but you beat me to it. When Take Two first bought KSP, they were mired in the controversy over C&Ding Open IV, the modding tool used in GTA 4 & 5. The C&D originally occurred because people were creating mods that introduced GTA Online exclusive elements into the single player game. Never mind the fact that Rockstar pretty much abandoned the single player to focus 100% on the monetization of Online... The fact that they were creating content exclusively for online (to draw people away from single player and into monetization land), then attempted to kill the entire modding community by attacking the modding tools themselves for people daring to try to have fun in single player... Yikes. This is why no one trusts Take Two, and why everyone with half a mind fears the reach of their monetization.

Lets not forget that in the two years since Take Two took over, we've had 75% of the value of the game (when not on sale) already monetized int he form of DLC. We never had DLC before. We just got feature updates. Take Two has already been testing the waters of monetization in KSP. THANKFULLY, it's been quality content with substance, so I'll give them credit on that. They did it RIGHT... But they did it.

There in lies the fear. They tested the waters with KSP1 with substantial DLC. I think free feature updates are probably a thing of the past. I do suspect that we'll be at least dropping $15 annually on KSP 2 for "new feature DLC". I guess as long as it provides substantial features, I can tolerate that, as it supports the dev... But it marks a drastic shift, regardless. Micro transactions are something I NEVER want to see come to KSP, ever. If Take Two intends to monetize KSP 2, then restrict it to the way they've handled it for the past two years... Feature updates.

I don't like fragmenting the player base with paid upgrades, but I'd more tolerate that than the exploitative micro transactions Take Two are notorious for. At the very least, They need to come to understand that Modding isn't something tacked onto the game, but an intrinsic feature of the game, and a core aspect of the community. If they EVER DARE to attack the modding community, mods, or modding functionality, they need to understand that what they are actually doing is attacking KSP 2 itself. I won't even tolerate DRM on my KSP. The ability to pull KSP into it's own folder with it's own mod set, and launch it independently of any launcher has been a crucial aspect of the game. I keep different "eras" of save games. That's something I'm not okay with losing. The wild success of KSP is a TESTAMENT to DRM free software. And that's something else that terrifies me about Take Two looming over KSP 2.

I don't trust Take Two.

I need to see it to believe it, and even then, I'm still gonna be skeptical of KSP 2 till some time passes, and I'll never stop scrutinizing it for Take Two corruption.

You have elaborated on what I think quite well

Being a modder myself (DCK, BD Armory Continued, Mr Clean, Enemy Mine, Wind, DCK FutureTech and involved in many others) I am really curious as to how T2 will go about allowing mods ... let alone how the 'monetization' will manifest itself since, let's face it, with their past conduct I expect T2 to do something shady

Not saying they will, just don't be surprised if they do

[richfiles]

2 minutes ago, severedsolo said:

I think they already understand....

The developer understands, but Take Two has a documented history of not understanding this concept well. From what I've seen of Star Theory, they seem like a great dev team with a lot of passion for KSP, and I'm exited to see what they create... But we can't forget who their publisher is, and who owns (and thus controls) the game.