[Open Letter] Multiplayer & DRM

[ShadowDev]

Dear Intercept Games Team,

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing this open letter as a dedicated player and modder in the Kerbal Space Program 2 (KSP2) community.

Recently, we have become aware of the possibility of Digital Rights Management (DRM) being implemented into KSP2's upcoming multiplayer feature.

Post by Dakota


The current multiplayer code uses https://playfab.com/ this points to no self hosting options.

We firmly believe that such a move could potentially undermine the very aspects that make KSP a remarkable game: the thriving modding community and the possibility of self-hosting (see DMP and LMP).

1. Modding Community:
Over the years, the KSP series has been greatly enriched by the work of talented modders, who dedicate their time and effort to enhancing and expanding the base game. These modifications range from realistic physics changes to new rocket parts, missions, and entire star systems. They have allowed us to explore beyond the limits of the base game and customize our experience to suit our individual preferences.

The introduction of DRM has the potential to create a significant barrier for these modders. DRM often complicates the modification process and can deter new modders from taking up the task. It could lead to a decline in the creation of new mods for KSP2, which would greatly impact the game's diversity and longevity. We worry that by adding DRM on multiplayer this would restrict modding to single player only.

 

2. Self-Hosting: The KSP community has shown immense interest in self-hosting multiplayer servers, an option that allows players to host games on their hardware, be it a colocated server or a spare laptop. This fosters a sense of community, allowing us to manage our own multiplayer experiences, set our own rules, and cater to a variety of play styles.

By imposing DRM, there's a possibility that we lose the freedom to self-host. This restriction can limit our multiplayer experience to official servers only, possibly subjecting players to overcrowding, latency issues, and limitations on customization. In effect, the personal, curated multiplayer experience that many players value would be jeopardized.

Imagine Minecraft with the only multiplayer option being realms.  

In addition to this, having no self hosting option will limit the games lifespan. When Intercept games/Private division/Take 2 decides after 5 - 10 years that the cost is too high to keep the servers running we will lose a big part of the game.  

 

We understand the necessity of protecting your creative work and preventing piracy. However, we believe that a balance must be struck between these valid concerns and the freedom that has made KSP 1 such an engaging and dynamic game. If DRM becomes a hindrance to the modding community and self-hosting options, then the game risks alienating its core fanbase, who have been instrumental in KSP 1 success and the future of KSP2.

In lieu of DRM, we propose exploring alternative methods to combat piracy. This could include leveraging community goodwill, offering unique benefits to legitimate owners, or enhancing user experience to a level that pirated copies cannot compete with. Many successful games have thrived without DRM, and we believe KSP2 can do the same.

Our love for KSP2 runs deep, and this comes from a place of wanting the game to continue to flourish and evolve. We appreciate the work that you've put into this game and the ongoing dialogue you've maintained with the community. In keeping with that, we kindly ask you to reconsider the implementation of DRM for KSP2's multiplayer update.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

ShadowDev

[ChadDude]

Interesting point to bring up, definitely something the KSP2 team would take a while to develop but it seems like a more investor thing to be decided, not the community.

[The Space Peacock]

Glad attention is being brought to this early on! Multiplayer may still be a long time away, but the point of Early Acces is to make our voices and opinions heard before a feature goes live. Now is the perfect time for it!

Edited July 6, 2023 by The Space Peacock

[Royalswissarmyknife]

If Ksp-2 gets any form of DRM then I'm giving up almost all of my hope on this game.

[kspnerd122]

I completely agree, there's also another thing

DRM does not really do much to prevent piracy, and often the pirates remove all the DRM, so now those pirates are offering objectively better service

Losing the ability to self-host, use mods in multiplayer, or anything similar, would be essentially giving the game the death sentence, and, like in real life, the game might shuffle on in a worse state for a few years, the community slowly dropping, until T2 decides its no longer profitable and pulls the plug, multiplayer is lost forever, and because it was official, good luck seeing a multiplayer mod akin to LMP pop up for years afterwards, and at that point, the community will have moved on, went back to singleplayer where they can actually use mods, 100-200 people are left playing KSP2 in the end, with KSP1 being in a similar state (probably being around 2 decades old) with the last dedicated players of both games kicking about until the game finally dies as the last players lose interest.

Let's not have this incredibly depressing future of the last dedicated players playing alone until they lose interest in the game, how do we do that, not add DRM

[MechBFP]

If they want to implement something for the base modless game, I couldn't really care less, but yes absolutely people need the ability to host their own servers and whatever mods they feel like.

[PDCWolf]

DRM only hinders the legitimate customer.

Multiplayer modes should always be decoupled from DRM services and from private, proprietary solutions, otherwise you aren't being sold a final product, but rather a non renewable piece of novelty with a finite lifespan. This becomes an ever bigger concern when you realize Epic and Steam customers might want crossplay, meaning the solution is either Direct-To-IP or the trashware that is EOS. Cue in the recent Payday2 debacle, where the devs were paid to add EOS and Epic Games crossplay, throwing steam users, mod compatibility and some of the game's own systems under the bus for a quick buck.

"Malicious users" isn't an excuse either. KSP2 is not gonna be a massively popular multiplayer title, no matter how excellent it might get, so not only will griefers or cheaters be a small group, but also proper admin tools are miles better than any performance deteriorating, privacy violating anticheat for example.

I'm signing this open letter with huge concern after the statement, as the game has already enough nails in the coffin to keep adding more with reckless practices, specially for systems that shouldn't arrive for a couple years.

[Kerbart]

Five years is a long time. A lot can change. I get the impression the "DRM" is more to prevent cheating than anything else.

[dr.phees]

Cheating in a low-player-count-game is really not an issue.

[Lyneira]

If the cost of a DRM / anti cheating system is the inability to self-host, that cost is too high for a sandbox creative game like KSP2.

To add to @dr.phees' comment on low player count: There's much less incentive to cheat as well because there's no ranking, no ladders and nothing you achieve in a multiplayer game will extend beyond that multiplayer game. You also  won't be constantly meeting entirely new people every 30 minutes like in a competitive match-based game, you choose who to play with. Under these circumstances, the choice of who to play with is already such a powerful anti-cheat that there's no need to add more.

If someone acts like a nuisance, whether through cheating or trolling, they'll soon find themselves playing alone or only with other players who don't mind it.

[Noobyeeter69]

yes

[cfds]

Well, this at least answers the question whether they plan a native linux version...

[GGG-GoodGuyGreg]

I get that DRM would be a very bad thing for us players but there are 2 big If’s:

1. Let’s face it, if we get to Multiplayer and if it’s matching the current expectations, although expectations have started to be lower and lower.

2. And lastly, if 1 happens, from that quote I get that they’re considering DRM, not that it’s absolutely certain it will happen along with the multiplayer update. 

[kspnerd122]

KSP isnt the type of game to have a cheating issue, I ran KSP1 multiplayer servers (LMP) and NEVER encountered a cheating issue

10 hours ago, Kerbart said:

Five years is a long time. A lot can change. I get the impression the "DRM" is more to prevent cheating than anything else.

 

[GGG-GoodGuyGreg]

29 minutes ago, kspnerd122 said:

KSP isnt the type of game to have a cheating issue, I ran KSP1 multiplayer servers (LMP) and NEVER encountered a cheating issue

 

Agreed. However, this will change if they gamify somehow the multiplayer or add virtual currency, loot boxes or other similar mechanics.

[Spicat]

1 minute ago, GGG-GoodGuyGreg said:

Agreed. However, this will change if they gamify somehow the multiplayer or add virtual currency, loot boxes or other similar mechanics.

Take their words for it, but they already said no on this (I don't even see how they will implement that if they want):

[Rosten]

12 minutes ago, Spicat said:

Take their words for it, but they already said no on this (I don't even see how they will implement that if they want):

Macrotransactions confiirmed.

[Alexoff]

Just now, Rosten said:

Macrotransactions confiirmed.

Battlepass and seasonpass!

[Kerbart]

7 hours ago, dr.phees said:

Cheating in a low-player-count-game is really not an issue.

Yes, lets's have a discussion on Intercept Games putting focus on the right issues. Just because it's not an issue doesn't mean they're not addressing it. Remember we're talking about rumors and inferences on functionality that won't be published for at least five years.

[KerbalServer.com]

15 hours ago, ShadowDev said:

2. Self-Hosting: The KSP community has shown immense interest in self-hosting multiplayer servers, an option that allows players to host games on their hardware, be it a colocated server or a spare laptop. This fosters a sense of community, allowing us to manage our own multiplayer experiences, set our own rules, and cater to a variety of play styles.

By imposing DRM, there's a possibility that we lose the freedom to self-host. This restriction can limit our multiplayer experience to official servers only, possibly subjecting players to overcrowding, latency issues, and limitations on customization. In effect, the personal, curated multiplayer experience that many players value would be jeopardized.

Imagine Minecraft with the only multiplayer option being realms.  

In addition to this, having no self hosting option will limit the games lifespan. When Intercept games/Private division/Take 2 decides after 5 - 10 years that the cost is too high to keep the servers running we will lose a big part of the game.  

The addition of multiplayer functionality in KSP2 is undoubtedly one of the most anticipated and significant enhancements compared to the original KSP1. Personally, I'm eagerly looking forward to experiencing multiplayer in any form it takes!

I wholeheartedly support the concept of self-hosted KSP2 servers... obviously. Self-hosting will provide an opportunity for everyone to participate, fostering the growth of a vibrant community. Moreover, self-hosting will attract a diverse range of curious and unique players, injecting new perspectives into the game. By enabling players to create and customize their own servers, KSP2 can truly live on indefinitely, offering an infinite variety of configurations and gameplay possibilities.

[Dakota]

17 hours ago, ShadowDev said:

Post by Dakota

Appreciate y'all bringing this up, and I 100% understand your worries about this.

I sent the above comment (and others) to calm the conversation surrounding DRM after the accidental release of KSP2 with Steam's DRM last week, before the hotfix. The community was rightly up-in-arms about us making such an unexpected change, especially one so against the "Kerbal-ness" of the game.

My initial comments were followed up with "ok, but will DRM ever actually come to KSP2?" and I poked a few people a heard back "maybe, but only for multiplayer. hasn't been decided yet" and I relayed that to you all.

Multiplayer is still a ways off, so your feedback surrounding what you want that experience to look like is super important to us as we slowly build it out. Cloud/hosted vs self-hosted, lobbies vs server browser, anti-cheat vs no anti-cheat, platform specific vs cross-play - all of these are decisions we have to make internally, while balancing our own goals for multiplayer versus the community's wants - and the technical limitations as well.

Keep making your voices heard, it helps us shape KSP2 into the game we all want it to be.

[Sesshaku]

The clarification you made it's nice and a bit reassuring, but It would be nice if the KSP2 dev team would stop shooting themselves on the foot every week. You're like 2 years behind schedule, the game is a demo at best, and someone decided it was a good idea to talk about having DRM on a Kerbal Game? I don't want to be rude, but the mere suggestion of it, on this timeline, suggest some of the dev team is spending too much time on Eelo and too little time on Earth.

Edited July 6, 2023 by Sesshaku

[Scarecrow71]

18 minutes ago, Dakota said:

platform specific vs cross-play

While I will, in all probability, not engage in multi-player, one of the biggest things will be the need for cross-platform play.  You should not limit this to only playing with people who got the game from the same place you did (Steam, Epic, direct download from the store).  Forcing people to have to be on the same platform will be a huge detriment to a lot of people (potentially) even considering it.  If you can't play the game with your friends regardless of where you bought the game from, then what's the point?

Now, it should be noted that I am talking strictly about the PC version of the game.  If this ever hits consoles, that's an entirely different conversation.

Edited July 6, 2023 by Scarecrow71

[kspnerd122]

Also, Self Hosting and Server browser would be nice, along with no anticheat, and just ax (Console with PC) crossplay, consoles cant use mods, so dont block all PC servers from having em because "we want to allow console players to crossplay"

[Dakota]

1 minute ago, Scarecrow71 said:

While I will, in all probability, not engage in multi-player, one of the biggest things will be the need for cross-platform play.  You should not limit this to only playing with people who got the game from the same place you did (Steam, Epic, direct download from the store).  Forcing people to have to be on the same platform will be a huge detriment to a lot of people (potentially) even considering it.  If you can't play the game with your friends regardless of where you bought the game from, then what's the point?

Just for clarification, the "platform" that I'm talking about is PC(+Mac/Linux) vs Console(s) - not the storefront.