Kerbal Space Program 2 (not dying and getting a new owner) Hype Train.

[para 9]

18 hours ago, Grenartia said:

Because I expect continuing support for my purchase from whoever owns the IP. That's not an unreasonable expectation to have. 

Yes, it is unreasonable. You're not owed indefinite support.

Breaking Ground released in 2019. The most recent version of Windows in 2019 was Windows 10. Windows 10 support ends later this year. 

Riddle me this, joker: why doesn't Microsoft still support Windows 95? Aren't the people who purchased it owed support for life?

"When does the obligation end, then?"

The so-called obligation, to host a free forum, never existed in the first place. You're displaying a seriously unwarranted and false sense of entitlement. 

Don't be mad at me, or the new owners. You should direct your anger at Nate for (almost) single-handedly destroying the franchise, IMO. 

Edited Wednesday at 10:10 PM by para 9

[Skorj]

The long history of the forums is a real resource to people playing KSP1.  I do hope they're kept alive in some fashion, even if only archived.  I guess we'll see what the new owners think about the future of the Kerbal IP!

 

[para 9]

I agree, and I hope they continue to support KSP1 also. 

[Grenartia]

17 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

"Oh yes if you give us money you can have the privilege of getting this ball of 200 angry users that requires you pay more money monthly for their website to be angry in, which also requires every couple months you pay thousands of dollars in forum software licenses." Or to make it clearer, in my opinion a constant, monthly, maintenance mess and resource drain of a forum is not a "nice tidbit included in the package". It's an expenditure Haveli decided they'll keep paying out of their pocket for... for whatever value they see in it, PR or otherwise, they could've absolutely received it, looked at it and said "nah, we ain't paying for that" the moment control was passed over.

You mistakenly presume I was implying the forum is a positive asset for the buyers. "we have a forum" wasn't a selling point. It was a matter of "We're looking to sell everything associated with Private Division, including the entire KSP IP, and that includes the KSP forum". From Haveli's perspective we're the couch the tenants left behind when they left the apartment. 

 

 

15 hours ago, Skorj said:

After all, all the project really needs are 3 requirements IMO:

1. A solid moddable base engine for a rocket sim, one that isn't the crashtastic mess of KSP1. 
2. Updated graphics.  I don't think they need "modern" graphics, in the sense of hundreds of people cranking out super-detailed art assets (we can live without Kerbal/Kitten shoelace physics), but a step up so that stuff like volumetric clouds and good exhaust plumes are natural to do in the engine.
3. Some sort of actual progression system, rather than just a sandbox with random missions.  Colonies building towards interstellar was just one way of many to do that.

1. Agreed.
2. Disagreed. I couldn't care less about clouds, volumetric or not, or pretty exhaust plumes. Colorable parts? Sure. A consistent part-art style (think what the base game or restock offer compared to the *original* parts were, even before 0.90), definitely. But leave anything beyond the bare minimum to modders. 
3. I feel like that "actual progression, not just sandbox with random missions" statement's too vague and subjective. I, for one, don't want to be railroaded into a particular form of progression. Mile wide and an inch deep, indeed. 

1 hour ago, para 9 said:

Yes, it is unreasonable. You're not owed indefinite support.

Breaking Ground released in 2019. The most recent version of Windows in 2019 was Windows 10. Windows 10 support ends later this year. 

And I remember being told that Windows 10 would be the last operating system they'd release, everything going forwards would just be updates. I'm running hardware that was a year old when 10 came out, and doesn't support 11. 
 

1 hour ago, para 9 said:

Riddle me this, joker: why doesn't Microsoft still support Windows 95? Aren't the people who purchased it owed support for life?

Do not cite the deep magic to me, witch. I was there when it was written.
 

1 hour ago, para 9 said:

"When does the obligation end, then?"

The so-called obligation, to host a free forum, never existed in the first place. You're displaying a seriously unwarranted and false sense of entitlement. 

I was referring to the obligation for support, not the obligation "to host a free forum". You've got a major attitude problem and assumption issues, m80. 
 

1 hour ago, para 9 said:

Don't be mad at me, or the new owners. You should direct your anger at Nate for (almost) single-handedly destroying the franchise, IMO. 

Don't be mad at Nate, be mad at T2 for imposing dumb repurposed bovine waste on the entire IG team. The buck stops at the desk of T2's CEO, not Nate's. 

[Skorj]

5 hours ago, Grenartia said:

You mistakenly presume I was implying the forum is a positive asset for the buyers. "we have a forum" wasn't a selling point. It was a matter of "We're looking to sell everything associated with Private Division, including the entire KSP IP, and that includes the KSP forum". From Haveli's perspective we're the couch the tenants left behind when they left the apartment. 

Funny you should say that.  I just yesterday found a wallet in the couch the previous tenants left behind in my place as I was moving it out.  The history of the KSP1 forums are of some value to nyone wanting to carry forward the KSP brand, assuming such a person exists.  The KSP2 forums are just baggage that comes with that.

5 hours ago, Grenartia said:

2. Disagreed. I couldn't care less about clouds, volumetric or not, or pretty exhaust plumes. Colorable parts? Sure. A consistent part-art style (think what the base game or restock offer compared to the *original* parts were, even before 0.90), definitely. But leave anything beyond the bare minimum to modders. 

You miss my point: currently adding stuff like volumetric clouds (which some would consider part of the bare minimum for a game where you can send probes into gas giants) isn't something within the realm of what most games would consider a mod.  It's a whole new large part of the game that needed to be added, which is why people can get away with paid mods for it.  The game would need to be designed for visual moddability in order for modders in the usual sense to add stuff like that.  And it should be so designed.

KSP is very much like a train sim game in this regard: there's so much room for extending the game by adding new parts and new planets, and the game needs built in support for modders adding new parts, planet data, and visuals for both   in order to develop the sort of long-lasting fan community KSP has.  KSP1 got away with a lot by being the first of its kind, but a modern game will need modern moddability.  Adding a new part should be some XML text and some 3D asset files in one of the standard formats (or just textures for a re-skin).

Am I the only one who sees the value here?  Train Simulator Classic has like $20,000 worth of DLC, and Trainz a New Era has over 10,000 user-made items on the Steam Workshop IIRC.  Making it easy to add new parts and new destinations can add so much life to a simulator-type game as long as the core gameplay is engaging, and the new items are visually appealing.  Whether it's modders adding it, or DLC, or both, the key is making it easy to add content.