List your favorate KSP 1 mods that should be stock in 2.0

[enewmen]

1 hour ago, adsii1970 said:

What I am suggesting is this - use the lessons learned from the original Kerbal Space Program. Remember, as I have pointed out, and others, too, I have no insider information. I do have a lot of experience as a gamer and can tell you what I have seen other studios do, both the good and bad.

I do not think micro-transactions to buy a ten-part pack would work with the KSP2 community. Heck, I wouldn't even go for that. But in the case of many other titles I own and have bought the DLCs, here's what I can see would be a realistic way to expand the reach of KSP2:

• The core game should have a good selection of stock parts as the original KSP does now, plus a few for the oceans of Kerbin. But no futuristic engines or technology beyond what is predicted for the 22nd century now.
• DLC that functions on deep space/extended missions outside of Kerbol's SOI, to include futuristic power supplies, FTL technology, advanced station building, etc.
• DLC that adds more options for ocean exploration, underwater colony development (both on Kerbin and on Laythe), and more uniform options to match those Kerbals which will be used in that environment and setting. 
• DLC that adds additional celestial bodies (think entire solar systems) outside of Kerbol's sphere of influence.
• DLC that adds more options, parts, science, and development for colonization.

While many may balk at this approach, Civilization VI has successfully done this and expanded the shelf life of the game considerably, as has The Sims4, Cities: Skylines, and a whole lot of other games. If done right, it would not take away from the KSP experience, but provide a well-rounded game and one that could be customized by the player for the "perfect" experience without having to resort to a ton of mods to do it.

DLCs do not have to be bank-breaking either. Civ VI messed up in this area, as did Paradox Studios. I paid as much for the DLCs as I did the core game. But in the case of the newest DLC for Surviving Mars, the reviews on Steam are horrible. Instead of it being something that seamlessly added to the experience of the game, it seems to make the game more clunky. With the developers of KSP, I doubt we have to worry about this happening.

I agree and I like DLCs. More than relying on modders do all the work. DLCs will then be well(EDIT: MUST be well) designed and well tested to work with other DLCs.  Often mods are not tested to work with other mods. My concern from the beginning is getting the physics perfect from the first version.  If the first version only has simple Newton physics LF/O and 1-2 types of propellant, it will be difficult/impossible to make good a DLC later with futuristic engines/fuels/propellants that require realistic atomic physics.  KSP was always about doing missions and making wacky spaceships that all use real science-no magically good engines.  If KSP2 will be done "correctly" from the beginning, then future DLCs will be easier to make and not clunky.

Edited October 9, 2021 by enewmen

[shdwlrd]

5 minutes ago, adsii1970 said:

Exactly! And the colonization DLC could do the same to planets - add resources such as ice (the water kind), fungi, and others to make in depth colonization possible for those wanting to have more of a challenge beyond the stock game.

I would be onboard for those style on DLCs.

8 minutes ago, enewmen said:

DLCs will then be well designed and well tested to work with other DLCs. 

Not always, I've seen DLC's break the game. (Surviving Mars terraforming DLC was half broken.)

[sturmhauke]

1 hour ago, Spaceman.Spiff said:

Honestly I don't really see the need for stuff underwater (on Kerbin at least).

Imagine if in the real world we wanted to colonize a world that was mostly water, like Laythe, but our own planet was also much drier and we didn't have much experience with underwater technologies. The colonization effort would be even more expensive and hazardous because we would have that much less relevant experience and knowledge.

I know it's Kerbal Space Program, but if there are going to be oceans there should also be better stock methods for exploring them. As it is right now, stock buoyancy control is hacky and annoying, and the mods I've tried are all a bit unsatisfying.

[Spaceman.Spiff]

1 hour ago, sturmhauke said:

Imagine if in the real world we wanted to colonize a world that was mostly water, like Laythe, but our own planet was also much drier and we didn't have much experience with underwater technologies. The colonization effort would be even more expensive and hazardous because we would have that much less relevant experience and knowledge.

I know it's Kerbal Space Program, but if there are going to be oceans there should also be better stock methods for exploring them. As it is right now, stock buoyancy control is hacky and annoying, and the mods I've tried are all a bit unsatisfying.

Well I understand wanting better water mechanics (I want that too, for sea planes and dragons), but asides from that, I would don’t really think it’s a good use of time to make underwater landmarks and stuff

Edited October 9, 2021 by Spaceman.Spiff

[Synonym Toast Crunch]

3 hours ago, adsii1970 said:

While many may balk at this approach, Civilization VI has successfully done this and expanded the shelf life of the game considerably, as has The Sims4, Cities: Skylines, and a whole lot of other games.

I really hope they don't use The Sims 4 DLC model. The Sims 4 is the Sims 3 with most of the content stripped out, then that stripped content separated into small packages and sold as DLC. Financially smart, yes, but morally reprehensible.

[adsii1970]

6 hours ago, shdwlrd said:

Not always, I've seen DLC's break the game. (Surviving Mars terraforming DLC was half broken.)

The new DLC for Surviving Mars is even worse. Don't buy. 

4 hours ago, Synonym Toast Crunch said:

really hope they don't use The Sims 4 DLC model. The Sims 4 is the Sims 3 with most of the content stripped out, then that stripped content separated into small packages and sold as DLC. Financially smart, yes, but morally reprehensible.

Those are what I consider "micro-transactions." My eleven year old had to buy two content packs to get all the pets. And when your allowance is only $20 a week... 

As I say, I'm just speculating like the rest of you. But if KSP does DLC right, as has Cities:Skylines or Civ VI, it will be a winner. And that's what I'm going to hope for. 

 

[mcwaffles2003]

4 hours ago, adsii1970 said:

But if KSP does DLC right, as has Cities:Skylines or Civ VI, it will be a winner. And that's what I'm going to hope for. 

As an avid civ player, you do know that the highest rating for any DLC for civ 6 has the "mixed" rating on steam and most of the small civ packs are either "negative" or "overwhelmingly negative", right? Just gunna say, not the best example. Civ 5, on the other hand did much better with it's DLC. (I will add that gathering storm, IMO, was a genuinely good DLC for the game and have no clue why it got such a bad rap. It should be rated mostly or very positive)

I really hope we don't get a bunch of tiny content packs each with a tiny tidbit that alone adds nearly nothing to the player experience. I mean if people wanna buy that... then that's their choice and thanks to them for further funding the game, but I hope that wouldn't come at the expense of no one getting any base game update content.

I hope when we get DLC we get large content packs with largely game altering assets and mechanics worthy of a $20-$40 price point. If the devs want to expand the base game out with things like colony management overhauls, extreme biome transformations, or complete robotics sets DLCs with like some new star systems in each pack then I would be heavily inclined to buy.

Basically I just hope little QoL improvements, mechanics introductions, and an asset or two in free updates still happens instead of every bit of new content getting paywalled.

Edited October 9, 2021 by mcwaffles2003

[Bej Kerman]

20 hours ago, adsii1970 said:

Exactly. But as a DLC, it becomes optional content the end user determines is worth altering the core game. 

Want FTL/futuristic propulsion, then buy the DLC! Want life support? Buy the DLC! Want to build underwater settlements and oceangoing vessels? Buy the DLC!

It makes perfect sense and has extended the life of other franchises such as Civilization VI, Cities: Skylines, and many others. 

Let's all laugh at an industry, that never learns anything tee hee hee!

[adsii1970]

9 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

As an avid civ player, you do know that the highest rating for any DLC for civ 6 has the "mixed" rating on steam and most of the small civ packs are either "negative" or "overwhelmingly negative", right? Just gunna say, not the best example. Civ 5, on the other hand did much better with it's DLC. (I will add that gathering storm, IMO, was a genuinely good DLC for the game and have no clue why it got such a bad rap. It should be rated mostly or very positive)

I was trying to be optimistic. Civ VI did get the "Season Pass" DLC right in concept. Everything else was totally messed up. One of the biggest gripes I had about it is they ignored the bugs in the core game. But still, each DLC did add significant content to the game. I considered that as somewhat of a consolation prize. Civ V was the best executed with all the DLC packs, I will agree with you on that. Surviving Mars is probably one of the best lessons in what not to do.

[Alien21]

On 9/28/2021 at 5:38 AM, enewmen said:

I can't find if this was not done already.   Please list your favorite mods that are good enough to be stock for everyone.

Here is my list of KSP 1 mods that I think are good enough to be stock.

Use Multi-CPU core physics. Put those 16 logical cores to good use.

Tweak Scale:  Should not be so hard to double the size of something all else equal. This makes larger or smaller rockets a lot easier.

KAS/KIS :  KSP 1.11 has a basic attachment system/inventory, but the mod is still better

MechJeb:  KSP has basic maneuvering, but the mod is still a lot better. Possible now here on Earth. Futuristic Kerbals should be able to do this.

USI Life Support/OKS/MKS : This was already discussed in the forum for 2.0. There needs to be some life support for long trips, but the devs also don't want forgotten kerblals dying.

SpaceY/Modular Rocket Systems:  Makes building large rockets a lot easier

Cryogenic Engines and tanks: I think this is already planned

Near Future engines/reactors/nuclear storage.  I think this is already planned.

KSP Interstellar Extended: This one is BIG. It not only adds engines (electric/thermal/charged particles) and reactors (fission and fusion), but in a very correct physics way with different materials having different characteristics(half-life/propellants/burn-time, etc) and needing to solve issues like waste heat and depleted fuel removal. There is also beam power which allows a large power station to beam power to smaller ships with a lot more power than solar. Different frequencies have different characteristics and the lasers can relay/mirror like the comm relays. When KSP 2.0 starts getting high-tech, the science must remain real without getting  magically good. This will be difficult to keep the physics/science real without getting magical. 

Chatterer:  Kerbals need to talk sometimes. I don't care if they sound Russian or Spanish.

Free IVA:  Lets kerbals walk around inside spaceships in 1st person and 3rd person while having realistic gravity. Kerbals also need some daily routine to move from sleeping to working to dining. This was done in the Sims 20 years ago, can't be too hard.

Galaxies Unbound: Adding star systems already planned.

EDIT:   Alcubierre Warp Drive:   No Plan

Robotic Arms:  Guessing planned, but I didn't see yet.

Scatterer/EVE:  Looks like some of these features are going to KSP 2.0

Hello guys, I'm new on this forum, I have already posted 2 of 5 of first comments, so my replied currently will be subject to delay.

I'm glad to see this topic. Really. I don't know if someone which is lucky to "work behind the scenes" will be able to give a reply for this, but I would really talk about what it was amazing about KSP1, and why, for some reasons, also if I will try KSP2, I will continue to use it.

When I saw how enewmen has started this topic, it was great for me that almost the 90% of the features which has reported are the same for me. For some elements, KSP1 also if has really won the jackpot and it was became the best space simulator ever released, this game has missed some points.

1) If you're looking my reply, what did you mean with "Use Multi-CPU core physics. Put those 16 logical cores to good use."? I don't understand if is something correlated with software requirements.

2) Never tried KAS and KIS, but in some case, a better connection system it could be great.

3)Mechjeb, my strongest pain and my better satisfaction at same time. Yes, this because I wasn't able to install it probably due to lack of interest. For some missions, yes, i really think it could be great use an autopilot, but let me introduce my perspective as aviation enthusiast. I played a lot of time on Xplane and Microsoft Flight Simulator, I'm also a virtual Air Traffic Controller inside some flight simulation networks which has allowed me to meet real pilots and other aviation enthusiast and learn a lot of things about real procedures of real aviation. When I think how they are made the real planes, their autopilots are basically developed with the purpose to reduce the work of the pilots, not to substitute them. Space flight are basically something of different. In the entire space history, only few times it was required a manual control of the flight. The most notorius event was certainly Apollo 11, but also during our days, when is required to change the docking port for some spacecraft on ISS, this procedure it could be done manually. No one has guided manually the rocket in real life during the ascend phase.

It could be a good idea if a standard autopilot could be done for control the ascend phase and allow to your spaceflight a initial temporary Low Kerbin Orbit, expecially for optimizing the deltav requirements for the ascend phase and avoid any potential waste of fuel burning, but when I think to the other maneuvers, is nice try to done the change of trajectories manually. So it could be nice an autopilot, but I hope that for the players will be done a system which for some missions, Autopilot will be not allowed for the entire mission or for some phases. After all is nice take the control!

4)Life Support. YES! This is something which it could be AMAZING. Is totally unrealistic the fact that a mission doesn't required the supplies. On the ISS they had already started some experiments on this way, and if I would build on carrer mode some Space Stations, if inside KSP2 will be necessary send periodically food supplies and stuff like that with cargo crafts, this will change totally the quality.

5)Never tried, but in case you would build something of bigger, probably it could be nice. But I don't know these mods.

I will skip mod 6 and 7 for the reasons that probably are under work.

8)It could be a nice feature to add. If phisics will be improved, why not learn other more spaceflight features? This is why I love KSP: you can learn with a funny perspective!

9) Lack of communications? Yes it could be a little funny detail which  I really hope will be added.

10) IVA? Never had the necessity to see the inside a capsule-station what is happen. Probably it could be a good feature if the game experience will give you some reason to play inside the capsule-station. If will be required to play some things inside a station manually, why not?

11) Interstellar flight. yes planned. Definetely a nice thing. I hope however that will be possible that Kerbal will meet the humans on our solar planet. New intelligent life species can be a nice thing.

12) A Canadarm? It was definetely a nice feature and an Icon for the shuttle and the ISS, so if will be added probably not something of relevant, but a little detail which will be appreciate.

 

Regarding me, I think that there are some feature which could be added from the mods available for KSP1.

1-Orbital decay. Space  junks are a problem, but they fall periodically. However is the same for the satellites and stations. If an orbital decay will be added. this will required to look carefully to some satellites launched and the stations already in orbit. It could be an amazing phisics improvement.

2-KURS. For docking prodecures. a KURS system which will allow you with a camera to dock to a station or another capsule it could be really helpful. External view sometimes isn't amazing.

3-Optional trajectory calculator. If I would land with accuracy to a specific point, this could be a nice feature. However I think that it could be a feature available with a specific level of your Mission Control Center.  I mean, since your MCC will be not updated with a specific level, it could be better if will be required calculate manually the landing zone.

4-Improve some science feature. I saw that several mods has added more experiment, and how to do these experiment. Some experiment it could be great if they could be achieved with few seconds of communication exchange, but for others, maybe is better that science points will be achieved with the time. After all, probe missions has sent their data during the years and not immediately; only few data's was possible receive immediately after few mintues of experiment.

5-Space stations laboratories must be considered like some "unlimited science point resources", but they should release their points really slow like it happen on KSP1.

6-Contracts. We have a lot of contract mods, and during last years it was possible see how the space has started to be a great place for commercial stuff, from space tourist to build a satellite network and so on.

7-Cities. Not all places on Earth are great for a landing. Add some habitated locations it could be great for restrict the area for a safe landing. And if we think what is happened to the launch of April 2020 with a Long-March 5 rocket....it could be nice if will be added also orbital decay, a safe re-entry for upper stages will be required if you would achieve a mission without problem.

8-Failures. Maybe not for all Kerbalnauts, because the explosions for some users are really easy to achive, but a selectable percentual of failures could be good. If we considered that Soyuz had a rating since the first generation of 96%, some missions if will be subject to failures, from not relevant to significant, will be nice.

9-Multiplayer. We had a mod called Luna, but I decided to remove it because it was appeared not so much.....planned well. After all KSP1 was developed without a multiplayer, a thing which seems incredible that today a game could be nice without this feature. For KSP2, multiplayer will be THE CHALLENGE from my perspective. A collaborative mode between 2 players, 1 pilot, and the other playing the Mission Control Center, is definetely much easy, but a competitive mod between 2 or more players seems something much more complicated. It could be nice make a carrer mod between different space agencies with their differen program and see who is the best player to achieve the final target. However I think that for a similar mod it will be required calculate how to use for all players at same time the time-warp option.

[Chompsky]

all the ones in my gamedata folder but to pick a couple  just one kw rocketry and bdarmory 

maybe i exaggerated with all the ones in my gamedata folder.

[Chompsky]

 I think ksp 2 is going to be a GIANT LEAP FOR KERBAL KIND what does the forum think?

Edited October 10, 2021 by Chompsky

[Alien21]

20 minutes ago, Chompsky said:

 I think ksp 2 is going to be a big upgrade from ksp 1 what does the forum think?

I really hope in some ways. If you had looked my hopes for this game, you can understand that except for orbital decays, the real features that the mods has added on KSP1 which should be considered seriously on KSP2 are supplies and life enviroment requirements for long missions, a KURS system for Docking and a really well planned concept for multiplayer missions. However only just an upgrade can't be a good idea. When you would release a new videogame you should consider that maybe is better give  "a new touch" than only add new things. Is always a matter to find the fight compromize between the original features and the style which has determined the success of previous games.

[Chompsky]

yes agreed i think i made me look a bit odd saying a big upgrade i will revise  a bit more

ah much better!

Edited October 10, 2021 by Chompsky

[jimmymcgoochie]

On 10/9/2021 at 1:17 AM, adsii1970 said:

What I am suggesting is this - use the lessons learned from the original Kerbal Space Program. Remember, as I have pointed out, and others, too, I have no insider information. I do have a lot of experience as a gamer and can tell you what I have seen other studios do, both the good and bad.

I do not think micro-transactions to buy a ten-part pack would work with the KSP2 community. Heck, I wouldn't even go for that. But in the case of many other titles I own and have bought the DLCs, here's what I can see would be a realistic way to expand the reach of KSP2:

• The core game should have a good selection of stock parts as the original KSP does now, plus a few for the oceans of Kerbin. But no futuristic engines or technology beyond what is predicted for the 22nd century now.
• DLC that functions on deep space/extended missions outside of Kerbol's SOI, to include futuristic power supplies, FTL technology, advanced station building, etc.
• DLC that adds more options for ocean exploration, underwater colony development (both on Kerbin and on Laythe), and more uniform options to match those Kerbals which will be used in that environment and setting. 
• DLC that adds additional celestial bodies (think entire solar systems) outside of Kerbol's sphere of influence.
• DLC that adds more options, parts, science, and development for colonization.

While many may balk at this approach, Civilization VI has successfully done this and expanded the shelf life of the game considerably, as has The Sims4, Cities: Skylines, and a whole lot of other games. If done right, it would not take away from the KSP experience, but provide a well-rounded game and one that could be customized by the player for the "perfect" experience without having to resort to a ton of mods to do it.

DLCs do not have to be bank-breaking either. Civ VI messed up in this area, as did Paradox Studios. I paid as much for the DLCs as I did the core game. But in the case of the newest DLC for Surviving Mars, the reviews on Steam are horrible. Instead of it being something that seamlessly added to the experience of the game, it seems to make the game more clunky. With the developers of KSP, I doubt we have to worry about this happening.

No, no, a billion times no. What you’re suggesting adds up to paywalling virtually all of KSP2’s new features- colonisation, interstellar travel etc.- for no reason other than greed. Awful idea, mods will cut the legs out from under it, 0/10 would definitely not recommend. And before you ask, I bought both KSP DLCs.

Civ 6 and Sims 4 are textbook “how not to do DLCs” examples, putting tiny slices of mediocre content behind paywalls and overcharging for them; I once got about £150 worth of Civ 6 content for £30 including the base game (the base game itself was usually about £30) and most of those DLCs were single scenarios and/or a couple of new factions and maps, definitely not worth the price they charge for them- if I had spent the full price on those, I’d feel decidedly cheated out of my money.

If KSP2 is as modding friendly as promised, why would the developers try to paywall stuff when they know mods will just replicate the stuff anyway?

 

[Alien21]

37 minutes ago, jimmymcgoochie said:

No, no, a billion times no. What you’re suggesting adds up to paywalling virtually all of KSP2’s new features- colonisation, interstellar travel etc.- for no reason other than greed. Awful idea, mods will cut the legs out from under it, 0/10 would definitely not recommend. And before you ask, I bought both KSP DLCs.

Civ 6 and Sims 4 are textbook “how not to do DLCs” examples, putting tiny slices of mediocre content behind paywalls and overcharging for them; I once got about £150 worth of Civ 6 content for £30 including the base game (the base game itself was usually about £30) and most of those DLCs were single scenarios and/or a couple of new factions and maps, definitely not worth the price they charge for them- if I had spent the full price on those, I’d feel decidedly cheated out of my money.

If KSP2 is as modding friendly as promised, why would the developers try to paywall stuff when they know mods will just replicate the stuff anyway?

 

Some games are more orientated than other to be opened to mods and additional features. Sims series are basically the classic example of mainstream game which is really difficult make better with mods. And in the 90% of cases mainstreams games are the first to be made only for money. However, some details will be certainly better that will be improved.

If KSP2 will be about spaceflights a exactly replica of KSP1, probably will be not so much interesting. Certainly will be subject to a graphic improvement. More planets will be added and will be possible interstellar flights. And these are definetely a good thing for the future of the game. Multiplayer it could be a good feature just like it could became the worst additional thing that will be implemented if this feature will be not planned and developed well.

Only the time will give us the opportunity to see what KSP2 will give us. However in a game complex like that is a madness decide to not allow mods. I'm also an aviation enthusiast which has played a lot of time on FSX, Xplane and Prepar3d. The success of these games was also determined by the fact that the developers of mods has incremented the quality of the game experience. This because a game complex like a flight simulator required only for the basic thing a lot of works. I'm certainly sure that some features that mods has implemented will be not implemented. So definetely for a game like this, mods creators are a bless for the game!

[adsii1970]

5 hours ago, jimmymcgoochie said:

No, no, a billion times no. What you’re suggesting adds up to paywalling virtually all of KSP2’s new features- colonisation, interstellar travel etc.- for no reason other than greed. Awful idea, mods will cut the legs out from under it, 0/10 would definitely not recommend. And before you ask, I bought both KSP DLCs.

How so?  Have the basics in place. Have within the stock game the basics in pace for interstellar travel, colony building, and even ocean exploration. Yes. For those players who want more hard core things, offer it as DLC. Just as Cities:Skylines has done. They fixed bugs in the core game while offering new content - an exactly perfect way to handle DLC. So, the DLC in KSP2 could offer more in the way of things such as nebulae, more planetary systems further out, more futuristic technology (Nertea is now a part of the development team, wink, wink),

CIV VI had good intentions with their DLC. But the core game was faulty to begin with, yes. And their DLC made the core game even worse. Intentions were good but execution was bad, andI even said something as such. And I never defended The Sims. Even in its first release, Maxis milked it through expansion packs (the forerunner to DLC) until the proverbial cow ran dry. The Sims4 is a horrible mess.

What I am afraid of is this - so much resources and time goes into the development of KSP2 that the price blows through the $65 (US) barrier and the game requires a beast of a system to play it. Sure, many of us can afford to upgrade every three years (I am overdue for an upgrade now as we speak) but there are members of the community that cannot afford to upgrade technology just to play a newer version of their favorite game. We also have a lot of young folk still in high school and younger who cannot afford an expensive game (I know I make my daughter buy her own computer games and she only gets $20 allowance per week - if she were to do all her chores). So, I keep that in mind.

I'd rather see the cost kept lower and the game take up less system resources by allowing the player to determine (through DLC) what they want to focus on outside a core game. Don't want to explore deep space? Then why bog down their system with parts and game resources beyond the basics they will never use? That's what's behind my idea...

5 hours ago, jimmymcgoochie said:

if I had spent the full price on those, I’d feel decidedly cheated out of my money.

Um, yeah. I did pay full price for Season Pass and do feel cheated. It's why I gave the game such bad reviews on a few sites. As a result, I will not be buying CIV VII since the same studio that gave us the mess of CIV VI is going to be given the chance to create all new mistakes again. Sadly, they are doubling down on what didn't work and making even more mistakes. Oh, and don't even get me started on the mess that Humankind is. I'm going back to Civ V. Not my favorite by far, but it is one of the few CIV titles I can get to run in Win10 without having to do the compatibility mode. (I think CIV III and CIV IV were my favorites. CIV (the original) will always hold a special place in my heart, though...).

[enewmen]

"Nertea is now a part of the development team"

Awesome.  I hope Freethinker, RoverDude, ihsoft,  NecroBones, and Sarbian also join the 2.0 team.

[Bej Kerman]

On 10/9/2021 at 1:17 AM, adsii1970 said:

• DLC that functions on deep space/extended missions outside of Kerbol's SOI, to include futuristic power supplies, FTL technology, advanced station building, etc.
• DLC that adds more options for ocean exploration, underwater colony development (both on Kerbin and on Laythe), and more uniform options to match those Kerbals which will be used in that environment and setting. 
• DLC that adds additional celestial bodies (think entire solar systems) outside of Kerbol's sphere of influence.
• DLC that adds more options, parts, science, and development for colonization.

I'd like it if Intercept could get it right from the getgo, make sure the base game is as complete as possible, and refrain from milking it overtly. Outer Wilds is an instance of a game where the one and only DLC adds what's essentially a microcosm for the (already perfect) main game's story, and Mobius have pledged to only release one DLC. The devs aren't overcome with greed. It'll be a turnoff if I see KSP 2 milked like this, containing stuff that should have been included in the pricey base game. Besides, mods will probably already do all this but better, so what's the point?

[adsii1970]

29 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

The devs aren't overcome with greed. It'll be a turnoff if I see KSP 2 milked like this, containing stuff that should have been included in the pricey base game. Besides, mods will probably already do all this but better, so what's the point?

For many studios, it is not all about greed. In the case of Cities: Skylines, they used the DLC to cater to as many diverse groups of players as they could. I bought all the DLCs, but I have friends that cherry-picked the DLCs they bought because they only wanted certain features. And in the case of KSP2, this could be one way to reduce the HD footprint. Let the player decide how far to take development beyond the core game basics.

[mcwaffles2003]

1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said:

so what's the point?

To make it so the game can continue to be supported for a decade

15 hours ago, enewmen said:

"Nertea is now a part of the development team"

Awesome.  I hope Freethinker, RoverDude, ihsoft,  NecroBones, and Sarbian also join the 2.0 team.

RoverDude has been working for KSP for a while now

[Bej Kerman]

16 hours ago, adsii1970 said:

For many studios, it is not all about greed. In the case of Cities: Skylines, they used the DLC to cater to as many diverse groups of players as they could.

Then they'd either make the DLCs free, have them as toggleable options or just keep the gameplay focused and the gameplay loops tight. Evidently they're milking the game for all the players will pay for trivial additions.

16 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

To make it so the game can continue to be supported for a decade

Well an indie dev kept KSP 1 afloat for a decade, why can't the KSP 2 team keep it afloat without milking it horrendously?

[enewmen]

16 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

To make it so the game can continue to be supported for a decade

RoverDude has been working for KSP for a while now

Yes, but I never saw RoverDude on the KSP 2.0 team.

[shdwlrd]

1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said:

Then they'd either make the DLCs free, have them as toggleable options or just keep the gameplay focused and the gameplay loops tight. Evidently they're milking the game for all the players will pay for trivial additions.

What's trivial to you maybe necessary to someone else. You may be able to do math in your head, I need a calculator or pen and paper. You may never need spell check, I rely on it.

At the end of the day, if you want support after release, Intercept will have to find funding. So DLCs is the most palatable option for most people. You think of it milking money from the players. In the business sense, it's funding a continuing project. Remember, it's your choice to buy it or not.

Of course you may not want support of KSP2 after release and Intercept to start a new project. Or is it you want Intercept to add everything that everyone suggests and further delay release until it becomes vaperware.

[mcwaffles2003]

2 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Well an indie dev kept KSP 1 afloat for a decade, why can't the KSP 2 team keep it afloat without milking it horrendously?

Cause they're not indie devs but a full professional studio?

KSP 1 had multiple DLC packs?

Having a few DLC packs isn't milking it horrendously?

If they make something you don't want then just don't buy it?