Blocker features in KSP2 -- what would stop you from playing it?

[Klapaucius]

On 9/2/2019 at 4:24 AM, Snark said:

Yes.  Really.  And only about 1/4 of them got as far as the Mun.

Here's an oldie-but-goodie thread that was a real eye-opener for me, a few years ago; worth a read:

Moral of the story:  When you're looking at some aspect of game design that seems "wrong" to you... always bear in mind that other players have very different needs and expectations.  Be careful about assuming that one's own experiences are "typical". 

It's clear that they want to enable very large ships with much larger part counts, so I'm assuming that they'll have some reasonable story around that.  Clearly, "structural strength" is still a thing that players have to address in some fashion, but I don't think it'll be too big a problem in general.

I'd probably fall into that same category were it not for the DLC everyone likes to disparage: Making History, which came out just after I started playing.  It's all fine to have a giant solar system to go explore, but sometimes the fun (at least initially) is getting to try out designs on different planets-- test out gravity etc.   Making History allowed me to try out planes on Duna and Eve, try and build a rocket that could launch from Eve (I failed), challenge myself with a Gilly rover (i had rockets creating downforce so it could drive faster) an --with planet pack mods,-- let me fly in the thick atmosphere of Tellumo .  It allowed me to explore the solar system in small bits, depending on the time I had, and it allowed me to tinker with designs without having to mount entire missions.

I also do not think I ever would have built submarines or boats if I had to constantly taxi them down the runway to the water every time I needed to retest something.

I imagine there is no Making History equivalent in KSP2, but I hope there is some workaround for getting easily to other planets.  Nate Simpson spoke enthusiastically about the new base building. Well, for those who may find that to be their #1 thing (in the same way many of us now spend an inordinate amount of time building planes), will it be easy to just design a base on Bop, or will it only happen after a massive mission?

I've got over 1000 hours in KSP and yet I still have done very few interplanetary missions. I'm at the point where I need to do something different, so I have started a science-mode game and plan to mount proper missions. However, I do not think I would have got to this point if I had not first had a taste of the greater solar system through other means.  

[BudgetHedgehog]

1 hour ago, Snark said:

lots of stuff

Me posting all the times they've said the exact same wording as in the pic seems a bit redundant, given the above. I was just saying what was made public last time I'd checked - them ruling out MTX of all kinds, full stop end of, isn't something that I was aware they'd done, or if they had, it wasn't well publicised. The pic was just the first result from searching 'microtransactions' in the KSP subreddit, you can find the exact same wording on all press releases from around whenever that was (21 days ago, apparently). 

Not accusing them of lying, just having been economical with the truth. However, with what you've said above, it has put my mind at ease and I thank you for that. My info was 3 weeks out of date, and I am sorry about that, but I don't think that warrants biting my head off like that. Seems you could have just said "I specifically asked them and the answer was no microtransactions at all." to begin with, but ok.

10 minutes ago, Snark said:

Publicly, huh?  You mean, like, for example, inviting a bunch of widely-followed streamers and such into their offices, offering free access to ask whatever questions they like, giving interviews where people can ask them questions?

No, I mean, for example, putting it in official FAQs that were posted on Facebook, subreddit, forums...

Whatever, you've said your piece, I've been corrected, thank you.

EDIT: Also, I'm aware your comments are edited after posting.

Edited September 10, 2019 by BudgetHedgehog

[linuxgurugamer]

36 minutes ago, NoMrBond said:

Gets locked behind an exclusive storefront

No mods

Not worried considering these things have been noped to death.

Ummm, they stated in front of all of us that there will be nodding support, in fact, they said that there were certain areas that they didn't want to get in to and would leave that to modders.  Part failures comes to mind.

Also have stated that the game would be available from multiple venues

[Klapaucius]

1 hour ago, Brikoleur said:

I would be very worried if they were including the BG parts from the get-go, and I am absolutely and utterly besotted with the BG parts.

If it gets a good launch and is a success though, I would very much hope they'll add robotics to it in a DLC however. I'd be delighted to pay for it all over again.

Interesting. That actually means that KSP1 and KSP2 will be different (aside the obvious).  Having Breaking Ground will keep me playing KSP1 even once KSP2 comes out.

[NoMrBond]

7 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

Ummm, they stated in front of all of us that there will be nodding support, in fact, they said that there were certain areas that they didn't want to get in to and would leave that to modders.  Part failures comes to mind.

Also have stated that the game would be available from multiple venues

Err, yes, I know, which is why I said I wasn't worried.

[Snark]

2 hours ago, BudgetHedgehog said:

The pic was just the first result from searching 'microtransactions' in the KSP subreddit, you can find the exact same wording on all press releases from around whenever that was (21 days ago, apparently).

Ah, okay, thank you!  That's helpful to know, especially the timing.

21 days ago would put it on August 19, i.e. the day of the big KSP2 announcement.  So that puts it into context, which is important (which is why I asked about that).  It's pretty obvious that they composed the messaging once, then distributed it to lots of channels all at once (e.g. the reddit thing you reference, UomoCapra's post here in the forum that I quoted above, etc.).  I say "obvious" in the sense that it's essentially identical statements, distributed on the same day in numerous channels.

That's important because it means one source.  It's the same as if someone writes a memo and makes 20 photocopies of it that are posted in various places-- that's one source, not 20.

So the reason I was asking you about it was simply to establish whether these other sources you referred to were something new, independent (and therefore noteworthy), or whether they were all just referencing essentially the same thing, which was the round of statements that came out on August 19.

The other reason why timing is relevant is that when one has different statements over time, which one's most recent is relevant.  The fact that your sources were from August 19 means they were "old news"-- the interviews we did on August 28 and 30 were more recent.

2 hours ago, BudgetHedgehog said:

I was just saying what was made public last time I'd checked - them ruling out MTX of all kinds, full stop end of, isn't something that I was aware they'd done, or if they had, it wasn't well publicised.

Thanks, that makes perfect sense!  Perfectly understandable.  But that then makes it pretty important when (and from where) you'd "last checked".  If you happened to have info from an independent (and possibly more recent) source than I had, I didn't want to contradict you.

2 hours ago, BudgetHedgehog said:

Not accusing them of lying, just having been economical with the truth.

Well, hard to say.  I think it's important not to try to extrapolate beyond the actual literal facts at hand.  Back on 8/19, the question was asked about microtransactions, and they specifically answered, using certain specific wording.  Here's literally what they said:

On 8/19/2019 at 1:55 PM, UomoCapra said:

There will not be an in-game currency for purchasing loot boxes or anything similar.

So.  How does one interpret that?  Personally, I read that as a pretty clear statement of "cool your jets, everyone, we're not putting microtransactions in".  (I could give my verbose reasons for why I read it that way, but I won't bore anyone with it unless they're interested.)  However, a fair number of folks-- understandably nervous, I suppose, given PTSD from other T2 game titles-- had a more sinister interpretation, i.e. that they did plan some other kind of microtransaction and were deliberately giving themselves wiggle room.

From reading the forums, I was aware of this FUD going about, so figured it would be prudent (and helpful to the community) to ask them, face to face, in a way that would be quite clear and unambiguous, expressing the forum's concern over that.  Which is why I asked them in person (i.e. on 8/28, explaining the community's concern over the 8/19 statement and wanting further reassurance on the matter).

2 hours ago, BudgetHedgehog said:

Seems you could have just said "I specifically asked them and the answer was no microtransactions at all." to begin with, but ok.

Well,

4 hours ago, Snark said:

Because I actually asked them this, face to face, and they were quite unequivocal that there will be no microtransactions of any kind.

I asked them specifically because of an earlier statement in the forums that had only mentioned "lootboxes and in-game currency", and people in the forums were concerned about that (i.e. precisely the concern that you just now expressed), so I wanted to get something clear and unambiguous.  And they gave it.

^ that's literally my initial response to your concern, so that's what I was trying to do.  I'm sorry if it wasn't clear enough-- I really do want to help, because I'd hate to think you were worrying about something you don't need to; and I'm not sure what else I could have said to make it more clear than this.

2 hours ago, BudgetHedgehog said:

I don't think that warrants biting my head off like that.

If that's the impression I gave, I'm truly sorry-- that certainly wasn't my intention at all.  It's just that I have a very real concern about the spread of misinformation, even unintentional and well meant-- that sort of thing has a tendency to go viral and drown out more recent (but less dramatic and therefore less "interesting") information that could address people's fears.  Wasn't sure how to get through, given that my initial explanation was about as clear and unambiguous as I knew how to make it.

Really, it just boils down to a plea to the community, please don't leap to conclusions-- and if you have concerns based on something seen somewhere, please cite where and when.

[BudgetHedgehog]

11 minutes ago, Snark said:

So the reason I was asking you about it was simply to establish whether these other sources you referred to were something new, independent (and therefore noteworthy), or whether they were all just referencing essentially the same thing, which was the round of statements that came out on August 19.

[...]

The other reason why timing is relevant is that when one has different statements over time, which one's most recent is relevant.  The fact that your sources were from August 19 means they were "old news"-- the interviews we did on August 28 and 30 were more recent.

As far as I knew, that was the latest I'd heard about microtransactions in KSP2 - totally understand that I may have been mistaken though and if what you've said was posted on the forums here after your interview 2 weeks ago (notwithstanding your excellent post-interview comment), I can only apologise for having missed it in all the hubbub around KSP2 in general.

11 minutes ago, Snark said:

So.  How does one interpret that?  Personally, I read that as a pretty clear statement of "cool your jets, everyone, we're not putting microtransactions in". 

Personally, I interpret that differently, hence the initial comment - I see ruling out 2 kinds of MTX as ruling out 2 kinds of MTX, which is why I'm glad to hear you had asked for and received clarification regarding them as a whole. I hope you can see that this stems, ultimately, from a different point of view and knowledge of the timeline.

11 minutes ago, Snark said:

 that's literally my initial response to your concern, so that's what I was trying to do.  I'm sorry if it wasn't clear enough-- I really do want to help, because I'd hate to think you were worrying about something you don't need to; and I'm not sure what else I could have said to make it more clear than this.

The second paragraph you quoted here (I can't figure out formatting, but it starts with "I asked them specifically" ) was, I believe, edited in after I saw the post. Had it been there at the time, I wouldn't have written what I did. Having read that now though, no, I'm no longer worrying about something I don't need to, thank you again.

11 minutes ago, Snark said:

Really, it just boils down to a plea to the community, please don't leap to conclusions-- and if you have concerns based on something seen somewhere, please cite where and when.

Agreed - I don't want to be the source of misinformation and I'm glad to have been corrected

If anyone wants to respond to specifics, feel free to DM me (while microtransactions would be an absolute KSP2 blocker for me, I think whether or not they'd be implemented in the first place is veering off-topic).

[Snark]

4 minutes ago, BudgetHedgehog said:

The second paragraph you quoted here (I can't figure out formatting, but it starts with "I asked them specifically" ) was, I believe, edited in after I saw the post.

Sorry for the confusion over that.  My initial post was simply "Because I actually asked them this, face to face, and they were quite unequivocal that there will be no microtransactions of any kind."

Which I thought was pretty unambiguous and clear, but then had concerns that one might doubt the credibility of my statement without the additional context, so I then thought perhaps it might be best to put all doubt to rest, so added the second paragraph-- but that was less than 60 seconds later, and well before any responses.

(I often update my posts to clarify things if I think it will help, upon reflection... though I generally don't do that after people respond, because of the confusion that could cause.  Your own response was seven minutes after that.)

[Kerbart]

If KSP2 had glorious endless walls of text, that’d kill it for me.

[Vanamonde]

An extensive discussion of the pros and cons of life support in KSP2 has been moved from this thread to an existing thread for that topic. Here, please stick to the topic of things which would make you refuse to buy KSP2. 

[Pecan]

On 9/10/2019 at 7:35 PM, Snark said:

Do bear in mind that the game's not being designed by T2, or by Private Division.  It's being designed by Star Theory.  The creative director, Nate Simpson, works for Star Theory and not PD or T2.

Which is all very well but the price has doubled (quadrupled from when I purchased it) and T2/PD are still pulling the strings.  They might be 'content' with 2x price at the moment but by the time it's cheap enough for me to consider it could have degenerated.

We shall see.  I said I didn't think it's likely but I also say it would be a blocker.

[Lord Aurelius]

I can't think of any single feature that would keep me from buying KSP2, with the exception of those awful gambling mechanics/lootboxes/microtransactions/forced multiplayer/games as a service/etc nonsense a lot of recent "AAA" games are being ruined with, which the devs have clearly stated they won't be doing.

Otherwise my only potential concern is that KSP2 will release in a half-finished alpha state like KSP1 did (and is still recovering from). Hopefully highly unlikely given the new, more experienced dev team and lessons learned from KSP1. Being asked to pay a full AAA $60 asking price means the game needs to be in a MUCH better state at launch than KSP1 was.

Edited September 12, 2019 by Lord Aurelius

[Chel]

Microtransactions, and DLC coming a few months after launch

If there is some 'KSP Season Pass' or whatever, I won't get it at all

[Guest]

On 9/11/2019 at 12:26 AM, Klapaucius said:

I've got over 1000 hours in KSP and yet I still have done very few interplanetary missions. I'm at the point where I need to do something different, so I have started a science-mode game and plan to mount proper missions. However, I do not think I would have got to this point if I had not first had a taste of the greater solar system through other means.  

It's clear your interests lie elsewhere, there's no way I could've built anything like Aristophanes the Frog for example. I have a feeling you might enjoy the challenge of a science/career game -- designing stuff with limited part selections to accomplish specific tasks is a really fun activity in its own right.

(And please let us know when you do manage to build a rocket that can get out of Eve. )

[Klapaucius]

1 hour ago, Brikoleur said:

It's clear your interests lie elsewhere, there's no way I could've built anything like Aristophanes the Frog for example. I have a feeling you might enjoy the challenge of a science/career game -- designing stuff with limited part selections to accomplish specific tasks is a really fun activity in its own right.

Really? After all that fiddling with helicopters? You have the tinkerer gene for sure.

[Snark]

12 hours ago, The_Cat_In_Space said:

Microtransactions

Which won't be in the game, they've made that clear.

12 hours ago, The_Cat_In_Space said:

DLC coming a few months after launch

...That's fine if that's something you'd be against-- obviously everyone has their likes and dislikes.

But unless you have a crystal ball, there's no way to know that-- out of curiosity, how are you going to use an unknown and hypothetical future event as a deciding factor to buy or not buy the game?  (Bearing in mind that the topic of this thread isn't "what wouldn't you like".  It's "what would stop you from buying the game in the first place".  So it's kinda hard to stipulate a reason based on anything other than what's actually in the game at launch.)

[Guest]

I for one don't object at all to DLC coming out any time, even day-1 DLC. In fact I would prefer that they shunt non-essential systems into DLCs so they can focus on making the base game as good as possible.

In fact I'd be perfectly happy if the base game only duplicated base KSP1 but in a thoroughly updated engine and UI, with colonies, interstellar, and the rest of it following.

[reschke]

DLC's aren't bad but I don't want core systems held back for a DLC; make it stuff for expansions of the base game but not core details.

Also the ease of installation of tweaking the values in KSP is amazing. IF I am so inclined to go into the folder and change the available science or money that I have to utilize without actually doing anything then great. I have several different game saves of KSP that I play off and on from time to time and each one is setup different. One of them is strictly based on career progression and uses what I term realistic budgets. The others are in career mode as well but are focused on having finite resources and they only work off of contracts for various things but the main thing for each of them is the ability as a player to open up the files in Notepad++ and search for money or science and tweak the values accordingly based on the type of game I am playing.

So please don't take that away from old guys that don't want to spend forever learning about various rocket engines and how to fly rockets without things like Mechjeb or many other mods that make it fun.

[Guest]

On 9/12/2019 at 5:23 PM, Snark said:

But unless you have a crystal ball, there's no way to know that-- out of curiosity, how are you going to use an unknown and hypothetical future event as a deciding factor to buy or not buy the game?  (Bearing in mind that the topic of this thread isn't "what wouldn't you like".  It's "what would stop you from buying the game in the first place".  So it's kinda hard to stipulate a reason based on anything other than what's actually in the game at launch.)

You are assuming he intends to buy the game at launch, which isn't necessarily the case. You don't need a crystal ball if, for whatever reason (likely price) you're planning on buying it after a few months, anyway. If there's a DLC by then, with core features locked behind it, it might be reason enough to skip the whole thing, at least until it's declared "done" and a full DLC+base game pack released at a discount price. I do this kind of thing with Tropico series, due to their tendencies towards ending up as a DLC orgy. The best time to buy one of these is around the time when the inevitable sequel comes out.

As far as DLCs go, Star Theory should do the same thing as Bohemia Interactive. "Features are free, content is paid". You get part modules for free, you get parts that use them (and missions that use those parts) for money. As a bonus point, you can then play with people using DLC parts (since you have the code for them), but not use them yourself, unless you have it. Of course, mods would be free to use the DLC features, but in a multiplayer environment, modded play tends to be somewhat more restricted (it's simpler to set up a stock+DLC server), not to mention consoles don't get mods at all, so I don't think that'd hurt sales that much.

[Foxster]

Haven't read all the thread but in case no one mentioned it: I would not buy KSP2 if MechJeb was not going to be available. 

[pmborg]

Blocker features in KSP2:

1. If is not stable enough like KSP, without crashes
2. If it's not faster than KSP, there no point to move to a slower platform.
3. Absolutely Mandatory mods for me: (without a similar thing I will not even install it): Kerbal engineer Redux mod
4. A must mods for me: (with those but excepting much more after sometime, I will give it a try and buy KSP2)

• MechJeb2 (add advanced autopilot capabilities)
• Kopernicus Mod (option to add other worlds and change the current ones)

 

 

Edited September 14, 2019 by pmborg

[Snark]

4 hours ago, Foxster said:

Haven't read all the thread but in case no one mentioned it: I would not buy KSP2 if MechJeb was not going to be available. 

Almost certainly won't, at launch-- existing KSP mods simply won't work in KSP2, since it's a new platform with a new API.  So initially the game's gonna be mod-poor, and it will likely take a while for the ecosystem to re-establish itself.

We don't know the details yet about just what the API will look like, and in particular just how different it will be from KSP's-- for example, if you've got a code-based mod in KSP, how big a deal is it likely to be to port it across?  No idea yet.

That said, though, the KSP2 devs have made it clear that they're making moddability a top priority, so hopefully the "path to recovery" won't be too rocky.  MechJeb's a mod that's in such high demand that I'm fairly confident that someone will either port it across, or else build something else equivalent, in due course (and likely sooner than later).

If someone did want to port MechJeb, the size of the job would depend not just on "how different is KSP2 from KSP1", but also on the details of the mod's code itself, i.e. how well-factored and portable it is.  I'm not a MechJeb user myself, but I have had occasion to peek at its code from time to time, and I gotta say (speaking as a software engineer) I've been favorably impressed.  It's a well-put-together body of code with a lot of nice modular design.  So hopefully the barrier to entry shouldn't be too large, we'll just have to keep our fingers crossed.

 

4 hours ago, pmborg said:

If it's not faster than KSP, there no point to move to a slower platform.

Yep, definitely an important concern!  Hopefully you should be good to go on this front-- the devs have stated that they're putting lots of work into improving and optimizing performance, both because they're aware of what a pain point this has been for KSP1 and want to address it, and also because they want to enable much higher part counts on ships.

 

4 hours ago, pmborg said:

Absolutely Mandatory mods for me: (without a similar thing I will not even install it): Kerbal engineer Redux mod

Per above comment-- makes sense, but you'll likely have to wait a while after launch for mods to become available, since they'll need to be redone completely.

 

4 hours ago, pmborg said:

Kopernicus Mod (option to add other worlds and change the current ones)

With any luck, Kopernicus won't even be needed-- i.e. hopefully the stock game will be friendly to modding solar systems right out of the box, without requiring something like Kopernicus as a "shim" to make it moddable.

Aside from their general emphasis on moddability:  when we were at the studio visit on 8/28, I raised specifically this issue:  that the solar system is unreasonably difficult to mod in KSP1, which requires a large elaborate "utility" mod (Kopernicus) to enable modders to work with the solar system in any reasonable fashion.  I stressed the difficulties and awkwardness that this causes, and expressed my hope that KSP2 would make it so that something like Kopernicus isn't even needed.

They didn't exactly make any promises, but they indicated that they're definitely aware of this issue, and made somewhat encouraging noises.  My interpretation of what I saw and heard is that they're very aware of this issue, and that they'd like for Kopernicus to not be needed, and that they'd like to make the celestial bodies more friendly to modders.

(Also, the fact that KSP2 is being designed to support multiple solar systems from the get-go-- unlike KSP1, which got a lot of, in hindsight, unfortunate assumptions baked into it from the beginning, such as "there's only one sun" and "axial tilt isn't a thing" and so forth-- makes the software engineer in me suspect that it'll be much easier for them to be flexible about this.)

So, nothing for certain yet, but I'm cautiously optimistic about this one. 

[pmborg]

Thank you @Snark for the elaborated reply, its clear now for me at least some topics.

I liked to know about this one: " KSP2 devs have made it clear that they're making moddability a top priority"

I understand that the all API need to be changed, if mods have a clean code with inputs and outputss to KSP API isolated, from the mod core in general, can be faster to adapt/convert to the new "API/World"

The are mods that should have been included on stock already, and something like  " Kerbal engineer Redux mod" or a simplified version of that, in my opinion of course.

About mechJeb, don't need to be like that, but at least with basic capabilities to allow a complex maneuver like a rendezvous helper to allow some basic manuvers like this ones here:

 

Edited September 14, 2019 by pmborg

[Snark]

21 minutes ago, pmborg said:

I liked to know about this one: " KSP2 devs have made it clear that they're making moddability a top priority"

They were quite emphatic about that-- relevant quote was "we're not just building a game, we're building a platform", which was exactly what the software engineer in me wanted to hear.    Also, "we hope people are still playing it many years from now."  I think we're in good hands in that regard.

[Pecan]

On 9/12/2019 at 4:23 PM, Snark said:

Bearing in mind that the topic of this thread isn't "what wouldn't you like".  It's "what would stop you from buying the game in the first place"

Er, no it's not, it's "what would stop you from playing it".  Obviously, not buying (or otherwise obtaining) it would be a blocker but once someone has it the availability of features, mods, etc. will be known and decisive.  The way DLC, season passes and other 'optional' money-grabs are handled will also be known and are a perfectly legitimate reason for deciding whether to support KSP 2 or not.

As I've said before, I just don't think it'll offer enough to be worth the launch cost but intend to get it once it's half that - unless they dick around with price-gouging.  USD $60 already looks cynical, 'extras' could be a killer.  T2 have a bad reputation (not quite as bad as EA but close) so they shouldn't be surprised that people hesitate to buy their goods.