Should there be DLCs in KSP2?

[mcwaffles2003]

7 hours ago, 78stonewobble said:

Value for money is key.

It's a subjective thing though I think satisfying like 75 percent of people is a reasonable success criteria. 

Parts seem so essential to the game experience in Ksp, that I'm loathe to see those sold piecemeal. The term pay to win comes to mind. 

A full set of historical parts for those historically interested would be ok imho. 

I'm OK with them selling eg. skins to those interested in such for a fair price (let's say around 1 dollar). 

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

[Rover 6428]

There should, but it must be done carefully so that what they do can't be easilly done with mods. For example, instead of parts, DLC could add more narrative (eg. easter eggs or story mode?) or more difficulty level add ons (eg. a properly integrated LS system or a different type of base), while the kommunity ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) can take care of the more niche things. Or you could expand on the KSP world with high-res planets or something.

TLDR: Yes, but only things that would feel broken with mods

Edited January 23, 2020 by Rover 6428

[Lisias]

2 minutes ago, Rover 6428 said:

There should, but it must be done carefully so that what they do can't be easilly done with mods. 

There're more than one way tô implement this, one of them is artificially making hard to do good Add'Ons.

 

3 minutes ago, Rover 6428 said:

For example, instead of parts, DLC could add more narrative (eg. easter eggs or story mode?) .

Or parts intended to be used on the narrative.

i still think that Making History was the best thing that ever happened to KSP after 1.3.1

A huge potential not propperly explored, that Mars Mission made on this paved a beautiful way to enrich KSP content.

But by some reason, it's vastly underused. I don't understand why - the rich Mission Reports content on this forum could render some beautiful content on MB.

i'm afraid this hadn't passed unobserved by both development teams.

 

19 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

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

More or less. The key is perceptible value (someone else had already said that, but I'm on mobile now, awkward to check while type). Ban custom skins from the multilayer, and the cash will flow, I think. And multiplayer will be DRMed, so the ban is easily enforceable.

Skins are vanity products, and vanity needs audience. Multiplayer will provide such audience.

 

15 minutes ago, Rover 6428 said:

TLDR Yes, but only things that would feel broken with mods

Another possibility is a Market. Authors willing to sell the Add'On would be protected by the DRM, and sharing the revenue to TTI.

As long open source Add'Ons are freely allowed on OSI approved licenses, such symbiosis are legally safe.

Of course this can create a whole new set of problems, as making copyright trolling really profitable. So some legal enforcement would be needed.

For people that knows the Apple Ecosystems, a Market model like the one used on Macs (and NOT the one used on iPhone)

[mcwaffles2003]

Just now, Lisias said:

More or less. The key is perceptible value (someone else had already said that, but I'm on mobile now, awkward to check while type). Ban custom skins from the multilayer, and the cash will flow, I think. And multiplayer will be DRMed, so the ban is easily enforceable.

Skins are vanity products, and vanity needs audience. Multiplayer will provide such audience.

Wouldnt that also imply mods wouldnt make it into multiplayer? I hope thats not the case

[Lisias]

Just now, mcwaffles2003 said:

Wouldnt that also imply mods wouldnt make it into multiplayer? I hope thats not the case

I'm afraid it will be exactly like this. The multiplayer will follow the Elite Dangerous route, I think.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Lisias said:

3 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

 

I'm afraid it will be exactly like this. The multiplayer will follow the Elite Dangerous route, I think.

That would be quite difficult to do in KSP

[mcwaffles2003]

9 hours ago, Master39 said:

That would be quite difficult to do in KSP

having mods or not having them?

[Guest]

1 minute ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

having mods or not having them?

A multiplayer like Elite Dangerous, it's a completely different game in which players are not entire space organization but single pilots on a single ship interacting with the environment without changing it, that's how they can sell paint schemes and other similar cosmetic things and organize the game with a centralized server system.

KSP is nothing like that, KSP is a building game, like Space Engineers, Minecraft or Factorio and all these games have private servers with free modding.

[Superfluous J]

13 hours ago, Lisias said:

I'm afraid it will be exactly like this. The multiplayer will follow the Elite Dangerous route, I think.

One server where everybody plays and you simply can not play offline?

I cannot think of something offhand that I think is less likely than that.

[Lisias]

15 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:

One server where everybody plays and you simply can not play offline?

I cannot think of something offhand that I think is less likely than that.

Well... I can't see how you would offer a multiplayer game without creating a server and being online.

Even QuakeWorld demanded a server (that could be any one on the network) and being online somehow - unless you are talking about lan-houses.

In a way or another, on the context of the argument (how KSP2 would make money), appears to be the way to go.

 

15 hours ago, Master39 said:

KSP is nothing like that, KSP is a building game, like Space Engineers, Minecraft or Factorio and all these games have private servers with free modding.

You can't offer private servers with free modding and also try to sell artefacts to be used on the multiplayer. And since multiplayer will can*** be DRMed (at least, it's the what I had read last time I checked about KSP2), you can't allow free modding on it, as it would defeat the very purpose of the DRM.

See, multiplayer will can*** be DRMed, not single player. Single player will be free to hack and slash as we do nowadays on KSP1. But this also means that trying to monetize things to it will be somewhat a challenge (as apparently is now to KSP1). So, by inference, they plan to monetize the multiplayer.

One possible (and, AFAIK, proven) way to do so is going Elite Dangerous way: they sell skin packs and expansions to be used on a DRMed multiplayer game.

-- POST EDIT --

*** It came to my attention that I misrepresented what was said about DRM on KSP2! My apologies.

See the following post for the info that had proven me wrong:

Spoiler

 

 

Edited January 25, 2020 by Lisias
Post edit: I WAS WRONG on where I marked ***

[DStaal]

5 minutes ago, Lisias said:

Well... I can't see how you would offer a multiplayer game without creating a server and being online.

Even QuakeWorld demanded a server (that could be any one on the network) and being online somehow - unless you are talking about lan-houses.

In a way or another, on the context of the argument (how KSP2 would make money), appears to be the way to go.

But not everyone has to play on the *same* server.  See TF2 or similar: Players can set up their own servers with their own variations on the base rules, what mods are allowed, etc.  You can choose to play in a public server with strangers, or in a private server with friends.

[Lisias]

9 hours ago, DStaal said:

But not everyone has to play on the *same* server.  See TF2 or similar: Players can set up their own servers with their own variations on the base rules, what mods are allowed, etc.  You can choose to play in a public server with strangers, or in a private server with friends.

When I said about "Elite Dangerous path", I was meaning the business model, not the infrastructure. The fact that you will be allowed to fire up your own server doesn't change the fact that the server and clientes still be DRMed, and so will be the best place to be monetised.

Facts:

• 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 can *** 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

So I conclude that selling skins for the multiplayer modes can be one of the ways they will implement to monetise the game, and it's already field proven - what makes the stunt attractive.

-- POST EDIT --

I was wrong, its not certain that multiplayer will have DRM. My apologies. See this post for info:
 

Spoiler

 

 

Edited January 25, 2020 by Lisias
It's not certain that mutiplayer will be DRMed. My apologies. See my posts below.

[Curveball Anders]

6 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:

One server where everybody plays and you simply can not play offline?

I cannot think of something offhand that I think is less likely than that.

For the record I'm not ever going to play KSP online.

As a matter of fact I run my KSP in a non-networked virual shard (CKAN is run outside of it).

 

[dave1904]

11 minutes ago, Lisias said:

Well... I can't see how you would offer a multiplayer game without creating a server and being online.

Even QuakeWorld demanded a server (that could be any one on the network) and being online somehow - unless you are talking about lan-houses.

In a way or another, on the context of the argument (how KSP2 would make money), appears to be the way to go.

 

You can't offer private servers with free modding and also try to sell artefacts to be used on the multiplayer. And since multiplayer will be DRMed (at least, it's the what I had read last time I checked about KSP2), you can't allow free modding on it, as it would defeat the very purpose of the DRM.

See, multiplayer will be DRMed, not single player. Single player will be free to hack and slash as we do nowadays on KSP1. But this also means that trying to monetize things to it will be somewhat a challenge (as apparently is now to KSP1). So, by inference, they plan to monetize the multiplayer.

One possible (and, AFAIK, proven) way to do so is going Elite Dangerous way: they sell skin packs and expansions to be used on a DRMed multiplayer game.

If ksp2 is so easy to mod what is stopping modders from making a private multiplayer mode that uses the mechanics of the official multiplayer anyway? I actually doubt they will lock mods from multiplayer in the first place. Multiplayer as it is is probably not that attractive for the vast majority of KSP players. I would not do anything to make it less popular. 

[Guest]

34 minutes ago, Lisias said:

And since multiplayer will be DRMed (at least, it's the what I had read last time I checked about KSP2), you can't allow free modding on it

Minecraft has an authentication service for the multiplayer (so a DRM) but also allows modding.

I helped in managing a big Minecraft private server with its own client and custom mods that also was totally legit, using Mojang's official authentication servers.

The presence of a DRM sais nothing about the monetisation model.

 Another option for example would be an expansion model, just like not only KSP1 but pretty much every other management or strategic game out there.

 

Skins in KSP would be a terrible idea, and worse than that there's only not allowing mods in multiplayer.

 

KSP is way more similar to Minecraft or City Skyline than it is to Elite:Dangerous so I don't see why we should take ED example instead of any other game.

 

 

[dave1904]

21 minutes ago, Lisias said:

and non DRMed games are very hard to monetise, as KSP1 apparently is demonstrating

You mean pirating or DLC sales? Probably both since the DLC is just as easy to pirate. Steam has its own DRM anyway. What is so bad about KSP1 or even 2 having Steam DRM. Its an actual question because I do not know anything about DRM. 

Edit: I get the part with multiple installs but if I couldn't have 10 separate game versions on my hard disk I would just copy and paste the game date folder when I need to. Its less convenient but not a major problem since I do it with other games too.

Edited January 24, 2020 by dave1904

[Lisias]

52 minutes ago, dave1904 said:

If ksp2 is so easy to mod what is stopping modders from making a private multiplayer mode that uses the mechanics of the official multiplayer anyway? I actually doubt they will lock mods from multiplayer in the first place. Multiplayer as it is is probably not that attractive for the vast majority of KSP players. I would not do anything to make it less popular. 

Nothing. But building a stable and usable multiplayer mode on this game is hard, pretty hard, as the current multiplayer Add'Ons demonstrates.

As the popularity of the thing, it will depend more on how their marketeers will promote the game than anything. You are expecting that KSP2 will be aimed to the current KSP1 users, I expect that they plan to expand the user base by adding candies with mass appeal on the multiplayer, while keeping the single user more or less on the same track os KSP1 nowadays.

I think KSP2 will be essentially two different games from the same franchise, being the multiplayer built over the single player, and so trying to capitalize both on the current user base, but also to expand it with a different audience that are willing to pay money for some extra features.

 

44 minutes ago, Master39 said:

Minecraft has an authentication service for the multiplayer (so a DRM) but also allows modding.

And how much money Microsoft is making selling goodies on the game?

 

44 minutes ago, Master39 said:

The presence of a DRM sais nothing about the monetisation model.

Agreed. My argument is reasoned on four points, being the DRM just one of them.

 

44 minutes ago, Master39 said:

Skins in KSP would be a terrible idea, and worse than that there's only not allowing mods in multiplayer.

Perhaps. But yet, Elite Dangerous suggests it can be profitable.

 

44 minutes ago, Master39 said:

KSP is way more similar to Minecraft or City Skyline than it is to Elite:Dangerous so I don't see why we should take ED example instead of any other game.

Being the reason I think that multiplayer mode will be somewhat different from the single player, besides sharing the same foundations.

I think you are misunderstanding a business model with a game model. Of course KSP (both of them) have a completely different game model. But business model is a completely different beast - you can buy Elite Dangerous and KSP from Steam the same way. Maybe they can manage to sell skins and similar goodies for KSP2 the same way Frontier does for Elite Dangerous.

They will do it? Dunno. If they do it, it will work as intended? Dunno.

But it appears a possible way to make some money, and on this subject, my guessings are so good as yours: we can be both wrong.

 

40 minutes ago, dave1904 said:

You mean pirating or DLC sales? Probably both since the DLC is just as easy to pirate. Steam has its own DRM anyway. What is so bad about KSP1 or even 2 having Steam DRM. Its an actual question because I do not know anything about DRM. 

Nope, I don't think KSP is mainstream enough to make piracy an incoming problem. It could be the other way around, I know people that downloaded an... "generic" copy from... "alternative" providers, liked the game a lot and bought it - and let me tell you, dude, KSP Demo is being missed.

The problem on capitalize on a DRM free game where modding is not only allowed but strongly encouraged is that you can't control what is being offered to the public, so it's harder to make a profit on it. You publish an artefact that overlaps one already freely offered by someone, you got backslashed (even if yours adds real value to the thing - I'm abstracting the glitches introduced on the feature, this is another issue). You publish something that is not as polished as something already on the wild for a long time due time/funding/whatever development constraints, you got backslashed.

Someone makes a small Add'On that does only a small thing that your bigger, commercial Add'On also does but it's the main reason of the selling, and your revenue is challenged. And so on.

That said, I'm not saying that Add'Ons are not a good thing (common! I'm an Add'On author!). I'm saying that they have a cost, and this cost is making harder to monetise DLCs. And since whoever makes the game needs to keep his teams funded, exploring new alternatives to capitalise on the game while trying to preserve the current Add'Ons rich status quo sounds like a good idea.

Of course, I'm NOT telling what they will do. I'm telling what I think they can do. Only time will tell - the ones that can talk about don't know about it, and the ones that know about it can't talk about.  

Edited January 24, 2020 by Lisias
"My God... It's full of tyops!"

[DStaal]

35 minutes ago, dave1904 said:

You mean pirating or DLC sales? Probably both since the DLC is just as easy to pirate. Steam has its own DRM anyway. What is so bad about KSP1 or even 2 having Steam DRM. Its an actual question because I do not know anything about DRM. 

Main problem with DRM in my opinion (as someone who has KSP1 and both DLCs without any DRM - including anything Steam adds in) is that ultimately you've rented the game from whomever is running the DRM server.  As long as they're making enough money to run the DRM server, you're fine - but if they go out of business or decide it's not worth them running the server, your game stops working.

A recent one in my experience is I went back to play EV:Nova - but AmbrosiaSW is out of business, so I can't play the game.  I have the license code, the game files, etc.  But it can't verify the code against the server, so the game won't play beyond the demo.

Now Steam is big enough that it's not likely to shut it's doors anytime soon - but it's possible it could happen.

[dave1904]

13 minutes ago, DStaal said:

Main problem with DRM in my opinion (as someone who has KSP1 and both DLCs without any DRM - including anything Steam adds in) is that ultimately you've rented the game from whomever is running the DRM server.  As long as they're making enough money to run the DRM server, you're fine - but if they go out of business or decide it's not worth them running the server, your game stops working.

A recent one in my experience is I went back to play EV:Nova - but AmbrosiaSW is out of business, so I can't play the game.  I have the license code, the game files, etc.  But it can't verify the code against the server, so the game won't play beyond the demo.

Now Steam is big enough that it's not likely to shut it's doors anytime soon - but it's possible it could happen.

Just imagine the excrementsstorm if steam just ran out of money and shutdown. If I was gabe I would book that oneway ticket to mars the day before I announce it and hope they do not give refunds. 

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Lisias said:

But yet, Elite Dangerous suggests it can be profitable.

I spent money on ED skins, and I still think that it will be a terrible idea in KSP.

In Elite I drive my ship, I'm just a single licensed [space]truck driver in a complex universe driving my own ship, and as any truck driver I want to customize my ship with fancy skins and bobbleheads.

In KSP you're not a single pilot, you're a whole space agency with a whole stuff of astronauts and a fleet of planes, rockets, bases, stations and ships, the room for cosmetic microtransactions that matter is quite limited except maybe for a livery system of some kind.

Also KSP is not the kind of game anyone wants to play on huge servers with hundreds of players, its way more suitable for small private servers between friends if not the mere ability to share your single player game with a friend through Steam.

[DStaal]

42 minutes ago, dave1904 said:

Just imagine the excrementsstorm if steam just ran out of money and shutdown. If I was gabe I would book that oneway ticket to mars the day before I announce it and hope they do not give refunds. 

A more likely scenario would be that they make a fundamental change in the way their DRM works, and then ~5-6 years later turn off the old DRM.  Every game from before that which didn't get an update would no longer work - but newer games would still work fine.

(Just cautionary tales from someone who's been bitten more than once by DRM support being dropped.)

[dave1904]

1 minute ago, DStaal said:

A more likely scenario would be that they make a fundamental change in the way their DRM works, and then ~5-6 years later turn off the old DRM.  Every game from before that which didn't get an update would no longer work - but newer games would still work fine.

(Just cautionary tales from someone who's been bitten more than once by DRM support being dropped.)

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

[pandaman]

I can see the potential for a couple of 'tiers' for DLC here.  None of them should be 'essential' to play the game, but obviously they need to be 'desirable' and offer sufficient value so that people are happy to buy them.

'Trinkets'.  Small 'cheap and cheerful' extras, like additional suit variants, colour schemes etc, for a fairly low price.  Not as 'in-game' purchases, but as small DLCs.

And

'Big Stuff'.  Proper 'Expansion Packs' like additional solar systems, and Making History/Breaking Ground type expansions.

[Superfluous J]

5 hours ago, Lisias said:

Well... I can't see how you would offer a multiplayer game without creating a server and being online.

In Elite, even "single player" needs the server.

And you need THAT server. Not a server, THEIR server.

If either of those things is true for KSP2 I will be so surprised I can't find the words. I will also not buy it.

[Lisias]

3 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:

In Elite, even "single player" needs the server.

And you need THAT server. Not a server, THEIR server.

If either of those things is true for KSP2 I will be so surprised I can't find the words. I will also not buy it.

Point taken. I remember, however, a statement where Frontier had vowed, in the case they quit business, to provide a patch and a download with the last state of the "Universe", so you could keep playing locally, besides on a static Universe. But I diverged.

Having THE Server is not intrinsically incompatible with having local servers. See QuakeWorld - at that time, they had created a dozen "federations" (my term, not theirs), each one with tens of servers, each one hosting a game, each game with different rules and different maps - WADs, as we called them at the time - the whole shebang (map, textures, meshes, scripts in quakeC) were bundled on a WAD. Even Brazil had a bunch (a real achievement, given our network infrastructure at that time).

You could raise your own server, but by then you had to communicate your teammates (we used ICQ at that time) the address. Or you could "join" one of what I called "federations", and then you would be listed on that server directory (but then you could be reached by anyone). I don't recall what it took to be listed on the QuakeWord site (and I don't recall even who run that server, no current site appears to be related to that one of my time).

We had a different Zeitgeist online at that time.

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