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

[tseitsei89]

On 9/14/2019 at 3:55 PM, Snark said:

 

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.

 

IMHO KER or some other dv/twr display tool is completely undeniably necessary in the stock game. If that is not included, it is absolutely horrible game design choice. Dv and twr are such an important information when trying design a rocket that a game meant for designing and flying rockets simply has to have this tool available. 

[Guest]

Actually, it's already been included in KSP1. Not quite as detailed as KER, but I found it does the job most of the time.

[Talavar]

What would stop me from playing it? .... An untimely death... lol

[Blaster84x]

Things that would kill it for me:

-More than 5 paid DLCs

-No/bad mod support

-Official servers only (like GTA5)

-DLC parts allowed in MP, without separate DLC servers (p2w in a paid game, for short)

-Aggressive DRM (Denuvo style, Steamworks would be OK)

-NO LINUX AND MAC SUPPORT!!!1 

[Orc]

Greetings all,

 

If a computer upgrade is required then  KSP2 will not be on my wish list. The current version of KSP seems to be running comfortably but a (large) number of newer games are demanding 8GB of RAM and  more Video Memory (I think 4GB). 

 

Regards

Orc

[Dafni]

1 hour ago, Orc said:

Greetings all,

 

If a computer upgrade is required then  KSP2 will not be on my wish list. The current version of KSP seems to be running comfortably but a (large) number of newer games are demanding 8GB of RAM and  more Video Memory (I think 4GB). 

 

Regards

Orc

I get your point. But it is what it is. Requirements just grow over time.

Personally I hope they wont hard-tailor KSP2 for old hardware. Optional settings are perfectly fine obviously. But please give us high-res options that match current (and even near future) hardware.

KSP1 feels old-school enough.

Would be nice if KSP2 actually feels and looks like a contemporary AAA game.

 

But yeah, options for older or less powerful hardware should be available too.

 

cheers

[Quoniam Kerman]

These features listed on the first post are not complete blockers to me, although I don't wish to have a hardcore simulation, having the possibility to tick/untick these boxes as options for people who want more would be a nice thing.

Also, remember that those things were been made available via mods and surely some modders will do the same in KSP2 as the devs said that the game is made to be moddable.

Having options to raise the difficulty isn't  unknown in stock KSP1 either, look at the game options when you start a game, the options listed on page one could still make it into the game options and been unticked by default.

What that does bring is that you can raise the difficulty incrementally adding one parameter after an other for a slow and controlled learning curve.

Edited September 18, 2019 by Quoniam Kerman

[Bej Kerman]

Microtransactions and overpriced (over £10) DLC.

[tater]

OP's list are all things I would want, frankly.

[paul23]

Anything that makes the game even more unrealistic by adding lack of life support or terrible aerodynamics is for me a blocker.

[mcwaffles2003]

On 9/18/2019 at 2:16 AM, Orc said:

Greetings all,

 

If a computer upgrade is required then  KSP2 will not be on my wish list. The current version of KSP seems to be running comfortably but a (large) number of newer games are demanding 8GB of RAM and  more Video Memory (I think 4GB). 

 

Regards

Orc

if youre on a desktop:

https://www.newegg.com/patriot-8gb-288-pin-ddr4-sdram/p/N82E16820225097

laptop:

https://www.newegg.com/corsair-8gb-260-pin-ddr4-so-dimm/p/N82E16820236292

 

the upgrade for your whole computer is like 1/2 the cost of the game

 

EDIT: Also, a 4GB VRAM requirement @ min spec is ridiculously high for most games even today

Edited October 19, 2019 by mcwaffles2003

[Snark]

Moderator's note:  A discussion of the choice of Unity as the game engine for KSP2 caused a significant derailment of this thread, and has been split into a separate topic here:

 

[cantab]

The cost, while it won't stop me buying KSP2 ever, might stop me buying it at launch. For the last several years I've been buying and playing indie and niche games on Steam, and retro console games bought second-hand. My last console was the PS2, my last handheld the 3DS. So a UK price of £50 or £60, while it's "industry standard" for "AAA" games on console and even PC, is more than I've ever spent on a videogame and gives me a serious case of sticker shock.

If my PC won't run it adequately then that's obviously an issue. I'm on an i3-6100, 750 Ti, 16 GB RAM. So a gaming PC, but it was budget when it was new and it's getting on a bit now.

If there's no Linux port it won't stop me playing KSP2 but it might stop me playing it much. Rebooting into Windows to play a game is a nuisance. (Which means I rarely do it, which means when I DO do it Windows wants a zillion updates, which makes it even more of a nuisance, which means I do it even less often).

And of course if it runs like poo I'll dump it. After my experience with KSP 1, I've been left with very little tolerance for games that lag and stutter.

[DStaal]

17 hours ago, paul23 said:

Anything that makes the game even more unrealistic by adding lack of life support or terrible aerodynamics is for me a blocker.

How can you add the lack of something that's not there in the first place?  

[Pecan]

On 10/19/2019 at 4:41 PM, cantab said:

So a UK price of £50 or £60, while it's "industry standard" for "AAA" games on console and even PC, is more than I've ever spent on a videogame and gives me a serious case of sticker shock.

So much this.  What I said a month or so ago and for which I was vilified.

The games I have most enjoyed - KSP obviously most played, 4,000+ hours, and Rimworld, fastest to 1,000 hours - cost half that or less on release and I got them even cheaper in early access (£15 and £19 respectively).  Quite simply, charging USD $60 for a game signals your intent to take the first week's money and run.  The aim is to make profit before the hype-crazed early adopters wake up and reviews dissuade new customers.  £30 games instead need compelling gameplay to keep customers coming when reality catches up, if they are to make the same money.

Of course, at £15 your game has to actually be good and original, something that not only the computer games industry takes notice of but the wider computer industry and (impossible!) even the industry it seeks to simulate.  You might as well try to get NASA staff interested in a rocket simulator!  (From Wikipedia's KSP entry, "The game has crossed over into the scientific community with scientists and members of the space industry displaying an interest in the game".  Hoorah.)

Edited October 21, 2019 by Pecan

[R-T-B]

On 10/19/2019 at 10:03 AM, DStaal said:

How can you add the lack of something that's not there in the first place?  

Easy.  You don't just make a lack of life support, you make the kerbals invincible to everything and unable to die.  No hibernaton even.  They shrug off everything happily.  Maybe do a carefree jog or something...

Bonus points for cartoonish animations and cute emojis when they get "hurt" or "fall"

And by bonus points, I mean, "run away do not buy points"

Of course, this is a horrible idea.  Take two, if you are reading this post, please...  don't.  Think of the goodness you could do by pretending you never saw this.

 

Edited October 21, 2019 by R-T-B

[steve_v]

I'd love to see all of the blockers listed in the OP as features in KSP2. Most of them are at the top of my wishlist.

Now for my blockers... Not all would stop me playing it, but many would keep me from buying it, and a few would only prevent me playing it much.
In no particular order:
* The kind of immersion-breaking physics jank KSP1 has, especially WRT collision detection and wheels.
* Unreasonably poor performance or microfreezing on current-gen gaming hardware. (I'm looking at you mono GC)
* Excessive silliness, LOLkerbals 'splosions, prioritising cuteness over realism, wet-noodle rockets for LOLs, etc. KSP1 is borderline, it's fine, but no more please.
* Lack of a GNU/Linux port. Absolute no-argument blocker, I don't run Windows.
* Lack of competent support and timely patches for all supported platforms.
* Lack of or lackluster mod support, forced mod-hosting sites or distribution methods, restrictive mod licencing requirements.
* #BlameUnity, in any shape or form.
* Console-ised controls on platforms that have keyboards, excessive use of context-sensitive inputs, console-hobbling of PC releases in general.
* Aero / thermal etc. models that include unrealistic and counter-intuitive quirks to make the game easier or which encourage patently unrealistic designs, i.e. KSP1's early errordynamics model.
* Dumbing down or removing mechanics WRT KSP1 for the sake of accessibility.
* De-emphasis of particular playstyles or railroading, e.g. "KSP2 is about rockets and only rockets, we're not doing aircraft/ground vehicles etc." I bought KSP1 because it's a sandbox.
* Inflicting perpetual beta testing on unsuspecting paying customers. IMO if KSP2 is to be continuously developed it should include a stable branch that (actively) receives only bugfixes and stays one major version behind head.
* Onerous EULAs, datamining or tracking of users or their gameplay habits that can't easily be disabled, hard internet requirements for single-player modes etc.
* Any variety of DRM or DRM-like intentionally defective code.  This would not only make me refuse to buy the game, it'd make me angry enough to never buy anything else from the developer either.
* Microtransactions, loot-boxes, or pay-to-win monetisation systems in multiplayer.

Many of these have already been covered of course and promises made, no offence but I'll wait and see what we get before discarding them as concerns.

 

Edited October 21, 2019 by steve_v

[micha]

No Linux version and no *comprehensive* modding support would be the two main deal breakers for me.

I read somewhere that modding is going to limited to some scripting language; that's going to really turn me off if true.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, micha said:

I read somewhere that modding is going to limited to some scripting language; that's going to really turn me off if true.

This has been debunked. They will expose a scripting API for modding, but it will still be possible to implement everything in C# if you like. 

A Linux version has not been confirmed, so you might want to brace yourself for disappointment on that front.

[DJWyre]

On 9/18/2019 at 10:00 AM, Quoniam Kerman said:

having the possibility to tick/untick these boxes as options for people who want more would be a nice thing.

This has pretty much my response (voiced or not) to a lot of people's 'KSP2 must have X' and 'KSP2 must not have Y' threads/demands.
I started playing on 'easy' mode and have been ramping things up over the last couple of years to the point where I am going to be looking towards mods for the next step in game experience/challenge.
A simple starting point that the player can build on is what gives a game longevity.

So give me live support, N-body physics, more detailed surface scanning, atmospheric effects/weather, a dozen different fuel types, finite engine re-lights, etc.

But make them options that you don't have to turn on.

[Guest]

I mean honestly: Framerate

That's my only blocker. I can barely run KSP at 30FPS while recording, I think it would be a nightmare trying to do that for KSP 2.

[micha]

10 hours ago, Brikoleur said:

This has been debunked. They will expose a scripting API for modding, but it will still be possible to implement everything in C# if you like. 

This actually makes a lot of sense; a lot of simpler stuff could be done via scripting and should expand the modding community significantly.

As long as we still have access to a feature-rich API for the more complex stuff that's cool.

[DJWyre]

On 10/21/2019 at 11:01 AM, Pecan said:

Quite simply, charging USD $60 for a game signals your intent to take the first week's money and run.  The aim is to make profit before the hype-crazed early adopters wake up and reviews dissuade new customers.  £30 games instead need compelling gameplay to keep customers coming when reality catches up, if they are to make the same money.

The problem we have at the moment is the huge disparity between the cost of developing an indie title and a 'AAA'.

Big budget games have been stuck at $60 for about 10 years but inflation and the increasing amount of work (especially in visual/sound assets and marketing in a highly competitive sphere) has put the benchmark dev cost at $100 million (at least).
That's well over 1 million units just to break even. Then you have to cover the cost of the games that don't do well and, and , and we suddenly realise why they're charging $20 for a DLC, $40 for an expansion and chucking loot boxes and P2W repurposed bovine waste at us.

It may be worth noting that you can spend well over $500 on Rimworld's 'bonus' content.

[Pecan]

21 minutes ago, DJWyre said:

The problem we have at the moment is the huge disparity between the cost of developing an indie title and a 'AAA'.

Almost, but I would say that 'the problem' we have at the moment is the huge disparity between how much game content indie titles provide and 'AAA' don't, for twice the price.  Quite simply, big name publishers used to be an assurance of quality whereas now they are the opposite - you are more likely to get an unfinished, buggy and content-free 'AAA' game for USD $60 than a $30 indie one.  That's part of the reason they subtract gameplay and parcel it all into countless DLC for which you will, individually, pay more than the game is actually worth.

Industry analysts (and I am a software developer) also point out that 'the cost' of developing an 'AAA' game is mostly in publisher profits, not in programmer/animator/artist/actor fees.  That is. it costs a lot to make an 'AAA' game because their bosses are multi-millionaires who want another mansion, not because any more effort goes into making a better product, quite the reverse.

(Incidentally:-  you can buy a gun and shoot yourself in the foot but you'd have to daft to do it deliberately.  Steam lists Rimworld 'DLC' as name in game access £11.39 and soundtrack £5.79.  The rimworld site itself just has the full game pack $35 (Canadian?) and Name in Game Pack $50.  It doesn't list any 'bonus' content at all.  There are loads of mods, free unless you're mad, but where do you get this '$500' cost from?)

Edited October 22, 2019 by Pecan

[DStaal]

The best example of ballooning bonus costs is Train Simulator 2020 - $6402.46 with all DLCs.  (Of course they are all optional.)

Most games I wait for a sale - 50% off is typically not hard to find, and you can often get much better yet.  If KSP2 is anything close to KSP1 for me, even at $60 it's fairly cheap on the dollars-per-hour-played.