Should there be DLCs in KSP2?

[Superfluous J]

7 minutes ago, Lisias said:

And, again, I'm talking about the business model, not about the infrastructure.

Yeah I was only perusing the thread so missed all that when I replied last. However I can't really agree on that one either.

8 hours ago, Lisias said:

• They need to monetise the game somehow
• single player will not be DRMed
  • and non DRMed games are very hard to monetise, as KSP1 apparently is demonstrating
• multi player will be DRMed
  • and allowing free modding of DRMed games erodes the opportunities to monetise on it
• Elite Dangerous successfully implemented monetisation on a DRMed multi player game
  • I'm not talking about the infrastructure of the game, only about that they successfully implemented monetisation by selling skins on a DRMed multiplayer game

• Plenty of games monetize without DRM and without selling skin packs for inflated prices. Plenty do, of course, but plenty do not. KSP1, for example, is continuing their revenue stream with part packs (and some other stuff) that seem to be selling okay.
• I suspect you're correct there about no DRM on single player, though I don't think it's strictly necessary or evil or bla bla bla. And KSP1 has kept a team of programmers working for nearly a decade now all by itself so I expect it's done better than most games out there.
• I'm not convinced that multiplayer will have DRM, and I'm not convinced that if it does have DRM that it will impede mods in any way.
• Elite Dangerous and KSP2 are totally different games in totally different genres. You can't say that something that worked in one will work in another, and you surely can't say that it's required for success in another genre. I do not deny that they might try it, but if they do they will be making a mistake because that kind of thing isn't right for a game like KSP.

 

[Lisias]

3 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

• Plenty of games monetize without DRM and without selling skin packs for inflated prices. Plenty do, of course, but plenty do not. KSP1, for example, is continuing their revenue stream with part packs (and some other stuff) that seem to be selling okay

And some others make a good money doing that.

 

3 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

• I suspect you're correct there about no DRM on single player, though I don't think it's strictly necessary or evil or bla bla bla. And KSP1 has kept a team of programmers working for nearly a decade now all by itself so I expect it's done better than most games out there.

But KSP2 is not being made by KSP1 developers. It's a new beast, made by different people with different goals.

 

5 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

• I'm not convinced that multiplayer will have DRM, and I'm not convinced that if it does have DRM that it will impede mods in any way.

Point taken. All my argumentation is only valid under the presumption that KSP2 will have DRM on multiplayer.

 

11 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

• Elite Dangerous and KSP2 are totally different games in totally different genres. You can't say that something that worked in one will work in another, and you surely can't say that it's required for success in another genre. I do not deny that they might try it, but if they do they will be making a mistake because that kind of thing isn't right for a game like KSP.

I never said it will work, I never said it's required for success. I said it's needed for the business model I'm speculating about.

[Incarnation of Chaos]

10 hours ago, dave1904 said:

I am curious what rockstar will do about gtaiv. You cannot buy it atm I believe. 

The issues with GTA IV come from Games For Windows Live; which was M$'s failed attempt to bring console-like subscription based online services (Think multiplayer and XBL Gold) to PC. From what iv'e read it's similar to FO3 in this regard, as it actually can run on modern hardware with some effort on the User-End.

But essentially while GFWL could be considered DRM; it isn't the fact that it's DRM that's the issue. The primary issue is that GFWL was built with Windows Vista in mind, is intrusive, accesses things it shouldn't (Causing UAC to throw fits), makes a massive web of registry entries,  and causes a headache for anyone wanting to install it on a PC running anything from Windows 7 and up. This is creating a support nightmare for Rockstar; even though the game is technically not supported anymore. Because people still play it actively, and often come to them for resolving problems.

So they yanked it from the Steam Store; because it's too much of a hassle currently. I suspect they're going to comb thru the source, purge GFWL from it, and re-release it on Steam; as that would be in line with what other developers have done. I also suspect they'll charge for the privilege; since GFWL has been patched out easily in the past. So we'll see what they end up doing.

As for the entire discussion on Multiplayer, DRM, Modding etc.

I'm almost positive Multiplayer will have some extremely basic DRM; since you have to have something to confirm credentials, find and track cheaters etc. But it also doesn't mean there couldn't be a custom server client that you could mod; DRM would then be restricted to the "Public" servers in that case. I'm also not completely sold on the whole "Mods kill the idea of selling skins"; because as much as i loathe the Creation Club.....it's proven people will still pay 10-20 bucks a pop for something a modder could make in a lunch break. It's also available to Consoles; where traditional mods aren't. All without making the games less modifiable mechanically (The constant updates do make it more difficult from a user standpoint doh), and all with robust modding support.

So while i'll be watching KSP2 carefully for MTX, DLC and other schemes; i honestly don't think if Star Theory/T2 wanted to monetize the games that mods would get in the way. If anything making the game more modifiable just makes it easier to implement a CC like approach, and have essentially both.....even if it's still really scummy and annoying.

 

[78stonewobble]

On 1/23/2020 at 9:21 PM, mcwaffles2003 said:

Pay to skin doesnt work in a highly moddable environment. There would just be mods to bypass the paywall to the skin

Probably not... But I was talking games in general. 

While I love mods and the creativity it brings, sometimes it's just nice to have builtin options that just work (although some games are behind mods in quality and doesn't "just work" either). 

[razark]

I've changed my mind.  I don't want any DLC involved with KSP2 in any way.

Everything (base game, expansions, textures, etc.) should be available only on disks.  Or magnetic tape.  But absolutely no downloading any of it!

[Kerbart]

If you want continuous updates to the game there are three options:

• Subscription: the game costs, say, $5 per month. Stop paying and you will stop playing.
• Releasapalooza: every year or so a new version comes out which is really just an update of the existing version, and you will have to pay full price for it. Usually the game has the year in its title.
• DLC. Pay full price once, and get extra features at reduced cost from time to time. Clearly the worst option.

”What about pay once and the game gets upgrades for free for the rest of time?” You mean like Santa Space Program?

[LittleBitMore]

I'm sure they're gonna have KSP2 pay the same way as KSP does now. From a monetary standpoint it will either be pay once and play the game with the option to get DLC, or pay once period. I am sure of this.

Edited February 8, 2020 by LittleBitMore

[General Apocalypse]

Absolutely yes . A biannual release of a DLC is a fantastic way to keep the revenue required to fund the development team and keep the community interested. Even if they just grab a bunch of popular mods and integrate them I would be extremely happy with that.

Plus the game designer can ink out a daring plan without worrying to much about technical details.

Edited February 9, 2020 by General Apocalypse

[securityinstruts]

i voted "Absolutely Not."
   Reasons are;

1.  i want games to launched as they are meant to be
2. Games like this have their lifespan only because player base keeps working on new interesting stuff
3. And since game enables custom mods, all additional content can be added that way
4. but only games Devs can improve the actual game and guarantee that add-ons work in updates
5. and Devs should make improvements into the actual game
6. the reason to buy DLCs is only to give a "tip" for a job well done.

I am going to confess a crime here! The first KSP version that i got was when the game was in free Beta but over the years illegally tried few pirated updates. These updates, and drooling for those sweet mods, and seeing the advancements by Devs made it so that in one christmas, i wanted to give a present for myself and bought the game. I even wanted to give some "interest rate" for this game and bought also one DLC... not that it brought anything into my game or gameplay but just to tip my hat for the good job done.

This is the feeling that i believe all Fans have towards KSP. There is something that does not add literally anything that could not be done by modders but because Devs have done so much... just tip your hat towards them for it.
   I am looking into buying another DLC just because these updates are rolling on with upgrades and most likely will end up buying KSP 2.0 with few reasonable priced DLCs -after pirating base game and looking how a) polished it is and b) how Devs continue to work on it.

P.s. Hopefully pirates make themselves usable so i can promote their torrents -if no Demo-version is available from distributer- and get more players hooked on
   P.p.s i fear the day of KSP 2.0 launch since the most likely outcome of that is

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, securityinstruts said:

• but only games Devs can improve the actual game and guarantee that add-ons work in updates
• and Devs should make improvements into the actual game

You can't cover extended support for years with "tips" and piracy.

[securityinstruts]

Just now, Master39 said:

You can't cover extended support for years with "tips" and piracy.

Piracy -when there is no Demo- creates more interest and gives people the opportunity to try the real deal.
   ""tipping" is a way to say "Thank you" for Devs hard work -since all new content can be added by downloading a Mod anyways- and all updates etc should be towards the base game. And this constant developement has been for me the reason to buy DLC, not the content.

And you would assume that all DLCs that may come are compatible with the base game by default

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, securityinstruts said:

Piracy -when there is no Demo- creates more interest and gives people the opportunity to try the real deal.
   ""tipping" is a way to say "Thank you" for Devs hard work -since all new content can be added by downloading a Mod anyways- and all updates etc should be towards the base game. And this constant developement has been for me the reason to buy DLC, not the content.

And you would assume that all DLCs that may come are compatible with the base game by default

But the constant development doesn't pay for itself, when the game stops making money the studio will simply move to another project or a sequel.

[mcwaffles2003]

1 hour ago, securityinstruts said:

i voted "Absolutely Not."
   Reasons are;

1.  i want games to launched as they are meant to be
2. Games like this have their lifespan only because player base keeps working on new interesting stuff
3. And since game enables custom mods, all additional content can be added that way
4. but only games Devs can improve the actual game and guarantee that add-ons work in updates
5. and Devs should make improvements into the actual game
6. the reason to buy DLCs is only to give a "tip" for a job well done.

I am going to confess a crime here! The first KSP version that i got was when the game was in free Beta but over the years illegally tried few pirated updates. These updates, and drooling for those sweet mods, and seeing the advancements by Devs made it so that in one christmas, i wanted to give a present for myself and bought the game. I even wanted to give some "interest rate" for this game and bought also one DLC... not that it brought anything into my game or gameplay but just to tip my hat for the good job done.

This is the feeling that i believe all Fans have towards KSP. There is something that does not add literally anything that could not be done by modders but because Devs have done so much... just tip your hat towards them for it.
   I am looking into buying another DLC just because these updates are rolling on with upgrades and most likely will end up buying KSP 2.0 with few reasonable priced DLCs -after pirating base game and looking how a) polished it is and b) how Devs continue to work on it.

P.s. Hopefully pirates make themselves usable so i can promote their torrents -if no Demo-version is available from distributer- and get more players hooked on
   P.p.s i fear the day of KSP 2.0 launch since the most likely outcome of that is

As a fellow pirate (pirated the game for a couple months then bought it because of the outstanding work [not even on sale]) I understand where your're coming from. But DLC helps continue revenue into the game to allow support to continue. Also, I think, it can be used to widen the scope of the game. Perhaps after a year, most of the base mechanics are fleshed out and properly treated and bugs are few and far between, the modding community has hit its stride and the outer bounds of the game are found. I think DLC, if used properly, could be the expansion to improved mod integration, following the mod makers and in large swoops creating better platforms upon which their mods can perform. Maybe this is naive, but I feel if the devs followed the mods, not replacing them necessarily but instead making the game more integrable the game could thrive to its fullest potential.

[Incarnation of Chaos]

6 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

As a fellow pirate (pirated the game for a couple months then bought it because of the outstanding work [not even on sale]) I understand where your're coming from. But DLC helps continue revenue into the game to allow support to continue. Also, I think, it can be used to widen the scope of the game. Perhaps after a year, most of the base mechanics are fleshed out and properly treated and bugs are few and far between, the modding community has hit its stride and the outer bounds of the game are found. I think DLC, if used properly, could be the expansion to improved mod integration, following the mod makers and in large swoops creating better platforms upon which their mods can perform. Maybe this is naive, but I feel if the devs followed the mods, not replacing them necessarily but instead making the game more integrable the game could thrive to its fullest potential.

While we're confessing here; i played a pirated version of ksp1 for about 3 months before i legally bought it via steam. Actually ended up buying it because of the 1.6.1 update and the slew of mods that used it's additional features.

So yeah; they should have DLC, mods and an incredible community that ties it all together.

[breakthesystem]

Mods are awesome, but by its nature, content added in DLC is so much more well integrated into the game, because the people working on it have access to the actual code and b) they are being paid and can pour in more resources.

So, seeing as I'm someone with the disposable income available, I'd totally buy a "new parts pack" every few months, or an expansion each year. As a software developer, I know creating software is a lot of work, and I'd like this game to live and prosper for a long time.