Keep it Simple

[Wcmille]

I think KSP 2 will succeed or fail on fundamentals. Build a great core platform, and then release lots of DSLs that expand the game in ways that the player base might be interested.

Focus on quality and being bug-free. I know you want to add features, but the community can add features more easily than fix bugs.

Be excellent at physics; KSP has arguably the best physics engine of space games. It needs to stay that way. I don't just mean rocket mechanics -- everything. There's a definitely a threshold where realism intrudes on fun, stop before you hit that.

Be very extensible; Community mods are a major part of KSPs success. The more you can lower the bar (docs) for community development, and the more you can make mods stable across versions, the more the game will gain for free.

 

And that's it. Colonies in space, interstellar travel, resource management -- all those things sound like great DLC content I'd pay for. Why not get a rock solid base game out there now, and start collecting revenue off it?

[Ioaue]

Mind says: totally agree

Heart says: no i want everything...now

[Guest]

On 9/19/2021 at 10:27 PM, Wcmille said:

Colonies in space, interstellar travel, resource management -- all those things sound like great DLC content I'd pay for.

I wouldn't, that content it's either in at launch or the game is as good as dead for me, especially since you basically listed every pure gameplay loop there's to be in the game.

We halready played a pure physics sandbox game for a decade now, colonies and resource management has to be with exploration at the core of the game progression, not something taked on later and held together with duct tape.

I would probably have accepted that 2 years ago, if they decided not to delay and to release early and build in time, but now that I waited for 2 years I can wait for 3 or 4 other to avoid picking up a gutted version of the game, they're not an indie studio struggling from a garage, I will not treat them like one.

The kind of things I'm expecting in DLCs are underwater or floating colonies or solar sails and beamed propulsion, not main core systems.

Edited September 28, 2021 by Master39

[Pthigrivi]

I tend to agree with @Master39, and fortunately thats all heavily confirmed by intercept. KSP1 has a fantastic backbone in its lego style rocket construction and flight. Where it has struggled has been in integrating career elements like science and contracts. We had the ability to 'build fly dream' but not a reason to. To me building colonies and exploring other star systems provides that reason. I think they’re trying to hit just the right tone, that colony building will be like rocket building in that you have to think about physics and systems and efficiency, but it shouldn’t take so much away that building and flying rockets becomes secondary. Building colonies creates reasons to make unique prospecting missions and complex landers for delivering equipment and resources. Its a reason to learn to land reasonably precisely, or explore regions you wouldn’t bother with on a flags and footprints mission. If done well it could feed into mission profiles and landing goals much more seamlessly than contracts ever did. Accomplishing all this with reasonably tight, solid game mechanics and resource economies is a real challenge, but Im hopeful they can pull it off. 

Edited September 28, 2021 by Pthigrivi

[Skorj]

Can I agree with both viewpoints?  I think the most important thing for KSP2 at launch is to have the core gameplay mechanics well-optimized and bug-free.  That will set it well above KSP1 and be worth a AAA game price.  However, I also agree that base building, interstellar travel, and some sort of questline or storyline for career mode are as much core gameplay as the KSP1 stuff.

However, what I don't think is very important is anything that can be done as a "parts pack", whether DLC or mod.  Better solid, fast physics than hundreds of rocket parts.  Better a base building mechanic that makes for fun progress in a career than dozens of building parts.  Better interstellar travel, and a reason to do so beyond a "you win" screen, than a bunch of alien systems.  Everything that's a rich set of choices/parts on top of a solid foundation is secondary, because one way or another it can come later (happy to pay for DLC, gotta support the studio somehow, but mods will fill in any gaps).

Edited October 17, 2021 by Skorj

[Jack White]

On 9/19/2021 at 11:27 PM, Wcmille said:

I think KSP 2 will succeed or fail on fundamentals. Build a great core platform, and then release lots of DSLs that expand the game in ways that the player base might be interested.

Focus on quality and being bug-free. I know you want to add features, but the community can add features more easily than fix bugs.

Be excellent at physics; KSP has arguably the best physics engine of space games. It needs to stay that way. I don't just mean rocket mechanics -- everything. There's a definitely a threshold where realism intrudes on fun, stop before you hit that.

Be very extensible; Community mods are a major part of KSPs success. The more you can lower the bar (docs) for community development, and the more you can make mods stable across versions, the more the game will gain for free.

 

And that's it. Colonies in space, interstellar travel, resource management -- all those things sound like great DLC content I'd pay for. Why not get a rock solid base game out there now, and start collecting revenue off it?

> Focus on quality and being bug free

Yes, yes, yes please! That's a thing which almost every gaming company/studio lack nowdays. List is endles of the projects who failed to optimize their game: cyberpunk, baldur's gate, new world etc. That's very obvius that if KSP2 will be polished and ready to play product, that would be a win for us players and for developers.

[Bej Kerman]

On 9/28/2021 at 1:13 PM, Master39 said:

The kind of things I'm expecting in DLCs are underwater or floating colonies or solar sails and beamed propulsion, not main core systems.

This is all going to be rather pointless in the face of mods. How are you gonna make a DLC out of solar sails in a game with nuclear bomb engines and interstellar travel?

[Synonym Toast Crunch]

i strongly disagree with this. The game should be complete upon release. I don't want to pay 60$ for the core of a game then get nickle and dimed paying for all the content until I finally have the entire thing for however much they all cost together a.k.a. the Sims 4 model. Just give me the whole game that I payed for like how games used to be done.

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

This is all going to be rather pointless in the face of mods. How are you gonna make a DLC out of solar sails in a game with nuclear bomb engines and interstellar travel?

Everything DLC worthy is going to become a mod at some point, how are they going to make them worth the price? Polish and integration with the stock game beyond what mods can do, a thing is adding a hacky fake engine in the form of a solar sail and somehow using some commnet functions to make a fake antenna building that acts like the beaming station, another is a DLC that adds a stock framework for beamed propulsion and a bunch of uses for that in the form of stock solar sails.

But that's just an example, but everything is going to be a mod, at that point why waiting for KSP2 when you can throw a bunch of mods together and get something somewhat similar on KSP1?

14 minutes ago, Synonym Toast Crunch said:

Just give me the whole game that I payed for like how games used to be done.

I know there's a big portion of nostalgia effect talking, but you remember how small games used to be? And how little supported they were?

One of my favourite memories from my early gaming experiences was the PS1 Spyro trilogy, 3 games released in 3 years, 0 post-sale support of any kind, far from being bug free.

 

Honestly I prefer the modern model of games updated and expanded for years instead of the old "yearly full price hit or miss release".

[shdwlrd]

24 minutes ago, Synonym Toast Crunch said:

i strongly disagree with this. The game should be complete upon release. I don't want to pay 60$ for the core of a game then get nickle and dimed paying for all the content until I finally have the entire thing for however much they all cost together a.k.a. the Sims 4 model. Just give me the whole game that I payed for like how games used to be done.

So you're wanting KSP2 to be delayed even further and have the possibility of becoming vaporware? 

[linuxgurugamer]

48 minutes ago, Master39 said:

But that's just an example, but everything is going to be a mod, at that point why waiting for KSP2 when you can throw a bunch of mods together and get something somewhat similar on KSP1?

Because each mod adds overhead, which wouldn't be there if it was integrated.  A few mods is fine, but the more you add, the more overhead, and the more chance of something going wrong with the interaction.

I play with 230+ mods, and it's painful changing scenes. Heck, even changing from VAB to SPH is painful,  Not to mention the game crashes

[Bej Kerman]

3 hours ago, Master39 said:

Everything DLC worthy is going to become a mod at some point, how are they going to make them worth the price? Polish and integration with the stock game beyond what mods can do, a thing is adding a hacky fake engine in the form of a solar sail and somehow using some commnet functions to make a fake antenna building that acts like the beaming station, another is a DLC that adds a stock framework for beamed propulsion and a bunch of uses for that in the form of stock solar sails.

And mods won't be able to do this how? Like, man, I don't see how yall can sit here going "I wish I didn't have this spare 20 bucks".

[shdwlrd]

20 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

And mods won't be able to do this how? Like, man, I don't see how yall can sit here going "I wish I didn't have this spare 20 bucks".

Mods won't be able to cleanly change the whole environment for a whole planet. Mods won't be able to cleanly expand on a gameplay mechanic. There's more than parts that can be done for DLC ideas.

For example; you can use mods to add runways to Kerbin, but they look out of place most of the time because you can't edit the terrain. If a DLC added runways to Kerbin, the runways will look like they belong in the area because the terrain around the runways would be edited to help the assets fit better.

[Bej Kerman]

2 minutes ago, shdwlrd said:

For example; you can use mods to add runways to Kerbin, but they look out of place most of the time because you can't edit the terrain. If a DLC added runways to Kerbin, the runways will look like they belong in the area because the terrain around the runways would be edited to help the assets fit better.

And that's all based on KSP 1, which we know won't be as versatile as KSP 2 with modding.

[Synonym Toast Crunch]

3 hours ago, Master39 said:

I know there's a big portion of nostalgia effect talking, but you remember how small games used to be? And how little supported they were?

No, I don't remember that. I remember whole finished games being released, and expansion packs/dlcs being extra content that expands and builds off of a game that was already a complete game by itself. This was before publishers realised what suckers gamers were.

3 hours ago, shdwlrd said:

So you're wanting KSP2 to be delayed even further and have the possibility of becoming vaporware? 

Nope, I'm wanting KSP2 to be released in 2022 like they said it would be, with all the features a full price game should have, not the skeleton of a game that expects me to pay extra to get everything that should have come with it in the first place. If they cannot get 100% of the promised content in the game in time because they underestimated how much time it would take to model and texture every part I understand, but if that's the case it should be added in patches, not sold to me again after I've already paid for it.

[shdwlrd]

47 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

And that's all based on KSP 1, which we know won't be as versatile as KSP 2 with modding.

It doesn't matter game version, the concept is the same. Mods run outside but with the core software, which can lead to massive problems and poor performance.

DLCs are considered a part of the core software and don't usually suffer from the same problems with increased performance.

46 minutes ago, Synonym Toast Crunch said:

Nope, I'm wanting KSP2 to be released in 2022 like they said it would be, with all the features a full price game should have, not the skeleton of a game that expects me to pay extra to get everything that should have come with it in the first place. If they cannot get 100% of the promised content in the game in time because they underestimated how much time it would take to model and texture every part I understand, but if that's the case it should be added in patches, not sold to me again after I've already paid for it.

So if Intercept decides to add terraforming after release because of user demand. They spend thousands of man hours for the team to create, balance, and debug the expansion, it should be released for free? So the developer's shouldn't be paid for the time and energy put into the project?

Intercept won't last long with that business model. They can't support a title for very long unless they find a way to pay for it.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

And mods won't be able to do this how?

It's a random example of a made up potential DLC for a game that hasn't released yet and that doesn't have a modding scene yet, do you really need specific API calls and documentation to understand a concept as simple as the difference between a mod and a game DLC? The kind of access to assets, talent and the workforce the actual studio making the game can put on the table compared to hobbyists working on their spare time?

 

Solar sails were just an example, one based on the fact that this community has shown interest in them, the devs mentioned them during the podcast interview as something interesting to potentially explore after release and the fact that they work differently enough from rocket engines to warrant a dedicated solution.

 

1 hour ago, Synonym Toast Crunch said:

No, I don't remember that.

That's the problem with the nostalgia effect, we only remember the good part of the experience, we don't notice the good that comes with change.

For once in that simpler time there was no space (lol) for a game as niche as KSP.

[Synonym Toast Crunch]

2 hours ago, shdwlrd said:

So if Intercept decides to add terraforming after release because of user demand. They spend thousands of man hours for the team to create, balance, and debug the expansion, it should be released for free? So the developer's shouldn't be paid for the time and energy put into the project?

Intercept won't last long with that business model. They can't support a title for very long unless they find a way to pay for it.

I never once said DLCs should be free. Where are you getting that from? I thought I explained my point very clearly but I guess I did not. However, since I do not know how to explain it any better than how I already did, please help me to understand how you came to that conclusion from what I said, and maybe then I can clear up your misunderstanding of it.

 

2 hours ago, Master39 said:

That's the problem with the nostalgia effect, we only remember the good part of the experience, we don't notice the good that comes with change.

It's not the nostalgia effect. When I say I don't "remember how small games used to be"  as you put it, it's not because I forgot it, it's because it wasn't true, at least with the games I played. There have been plenty of games that were complete and filled with content upon release before the current exploitative business model that companies like EA use was put in place.

You guys are arguing for companies to sell you the same product for more money. It makes no sense.

[SOXBLOX]

I think that the devs are doing just fine with the current direction of the game, and I think it will probably work spectacularly at launch. I don't think trying to dumb the release version down is a good idea simply because changing the plan now would probably break a lot of code. It might even require more work, if the development is past a certain point.

[shdwlrd]

2 hours ago, Synonym Toast Crunch said:

I never once said DLCs should be free. Where are you getting that from? I thought I explained my point very clearly but I guess I did not. However, since I do not know how to explain it any better than how I already did, please help me to understand how you came to that conclusion from what I said, and maybe then I can clear up your misunderstanding of it.

I went back and reread some of your posts. I did miss understand your position. But the position everyone is stating is something will be left out of the release. There is too much to add in the timetable there is left. So if anything that has to be left out, it should be something that's not tied to the core game play. That leaves open stuff for DLC. Example for DLC would be underwater environments. They are there and already work, but a DLC can add parts and scenery for them to look better and to better utilize them.

Edited October 19, 2021 by shdwlrd
Stupid phone

[Bej Kerman]

16 hours ago, Master39 said:

It's a random example of a made up potential DLC for a game that hasn't released yet and that doesn't have a modding scene yet, do you really need specific API calls and documentation to understand a concept as simple as the difference between a mod and a game DLC? The kind of access to assets, talent and the workforce the actual studio making the game can put on the table compared to hobbyists working on their spare time?

A DLC isn't worth spending money on here, and I'm certainly not dishing out another entire wallet for a feature that could be done equally well by hobbyists. Kerbinside certainly offered a lot more than Making History, and didn't lag my game around its own launch sites, and ReStock+ beat the living heck out of the base game, redoing its awfully boring textures and filling holes in the haphazard parts selection. But Squad gets paid and puts their stuff in the core game, so it must be better than what modders do...          ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ mMm

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said:

A DLC isn't worth spending money on here, and I'm certainly not dishing out another entire wallet for a feature that could be done equally well by hobbyists. Kerbinside certainly offered a lot more than Making History, and didn't lag my game around its own launch sites, and ReStock+ beat the living heck out of the base game, redoing its awfully boring textures and filling holes in the haphazard parts selection. But Squad gets paid and puts their stuff in the core game, so it must be better than what modders do...          ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ mMm

We're talking about KSP2 here, at 60€ if they can't keep up with ReStock+ then there's no point in buying the game in the first place, let alone DLCs.

I don't think the difference between Squad and a real game studio needs to be explained again (hint: it's not normal nor common that a modding team can not only keep up but beat the studio at a full asset revamp).

[Bej Kerman]

3 hours ago, Master39 said:

(hint: it's not normal nor common that a modding team can not only keep up but beat the studio at a full asset revamp).

source: trust me bro

3 hours ago, Master39 said:

there's no point in buying

3 hours ago, Master39 said:

DLCs.

heyooo

[mcwaffles2003]

Guys... it's simple...

No DLC = No new $

No new $ = No support

So to the people arguing against any DLC, do you just not want the game to be supported?  Or is your stance something like "I just want the game to be released perfect so it just doesn't need support"?

Genuinely asking.

21 hours ago, Synonym Toast Crunch said:

It's not the nostalgia effect. When I say I don't "remember how small games used to be"  as you put it, it's not because I forgot it, it's because it wasn't true, at least with the games I played.

Games used to fit on floppys and CDs (not bluray). This is just delusional.

[Synonym Toast Crunch]

2 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Games used to fit on floppys and CDs (not bluray). This is just delusional.

I think you're misunderstanding what I meant by that.

Yes, games on the NES take up fewer bytes than they do on the PS5, but that isn't what we're talking about, is it? Games being smaller because they used the old model of releasing a complete game vs. releasing an incomplete game then charging more for the missing content is what Master39 is implying, which is what I don't remember ever being true. Games were smaller because disk space was smaller, not because of the way they were released.

You don't get more game for the same amount of money on the new model, you get less.