Is DLC for KSP a good idea?

[Sof]

Anything that is on the "will not be included" list, different skins, extra planets/re-textured planets.

That can already be done via modding. Retextures aren't even that hard to do.

I'm not against DLC in general, but I find it hard to imagine something KSP could have as DLC that wouldn't have already been modded in. We already have a very large spread when it comes to mods and the game is still very much in alpha. People are modding things the devs haven't even got around to doing yet. Squad could hardly get away with withholding parts of the game as they would just get added via mods.

As a single player sandbox game without a in built story, there doesn't seem to be much room to add things once its finished. It isn't like Minecraft got any DLC on PC. Maybe when they port KSP over to the consoles.

[r4pt0r]

Anything that is on the "will not be included" list, different skins, extra planets/re-textured planets.

why should we pay for more planets. that is the same crap EA pulls. reskins and textures are avalable free. there is no actual need for dlc.

[FenrirWolf]

I download all sorts of content for this game. Mods are great XD

[Thomas988]

I don't think KSP should be a DLC game.

You should be able to buy the game, and have the same amount of content as everyone else.

[Hyomoto]

Downloadable content isn't inherently evil, but it has rarely been used well. AAA publishers have taken this method as a way to double, triple, quadruple dip into the consumer's pockets. Now, it could be debated that we do get something for reinvesting in the game, and I'm not suggesting that project post-completion content is either free to make or should be given away free. However, for a small studio who lives within their means, game development does not require these kinds of tactics.

In a discussion like this, Minecraft is inevitably going to come up. It is an indie product made by a small studio that continues to sell, and has had unprecedented post-release support in both fixes and new features. A small studio selling 200,000 copies of a game is considered an landslide success, the type they dream of. At 10$ per copy, you have a two million dollar product! So why, then, is DLC so fanatical in big publisher releases? Simply described, AAA development is tremendously wasteful and expensive. After being split up to pay for a two-hundred person development studio, provide the cut the publisher expects and any tack on the bonuses that come from that, you need not only a game that will sell five million copies, but can also be milked post-release with additional content. The truth is, by and large DLC is made for mere pennies of the original product. Not only is the development team typically smaller, they are working with a finished engine. At that point, content can be produced cheaply and sold for an exorbitant markup (after all, not every initial purchase will buy the DLC and you need to make up the theoretical money you would have made had they done so).

So, as altruistic as you may think buying DLC is, as a post-release support gimmick it is nothing more than a method by which publishers and studios milk their product for every, single last penny. The initial sale is typically worth moreâ€â€having a product that continues to sell is plenty profitable. After all, if that weren't the case they'd just focus on an expansion pack. DLC is essentially the rack of magazines and candy bars at the register; impulse buys; methodical manipulators designed to get you to hold your wallet open.

It would be rather sad to see Squad take this route. Seeing them provide the tools to create our own content provides the obvious message that KSP will live a very long life, and is a reason why DLC wouldn't be very popular with the community.

Edited January 10, 2014 by Hyomoto

[boomerdog2000]

Provided the content in the DLC was significant enough, and things I wanted, I'd be fine with it. I've more than gotten my $20 worth for KSP, and wouldn't mind supporting the devs more if the content justifies the price.

[Themohawkninja]

why should we pay for more planets. that is the same crap EA pulls. reskins and textures are avalable free. there is no actual need for dlc.

There is NEVER a need for DLC, that's why it's called DLC. It's optional downloadable content for a game.

-Why get more planets? Perhaps you are a veteran player that's orbited, landed, and put bases and stations on and around each body, and you want more.

-Of course reskins could be free. Nobody said DLC had to cost money.

[r4pt0r]

oh if the dlc is free for eveyone, im all for it.

[Commissioner Tadpole]

As long as they don't go all EA in us, I'm fine. SQUAD must be very careful with DLCs in this case, because, as you said, they must go wary with their ways by still keeping the base game still fun and not make Kerbal Space Program a game you buy and then have to complete its content by buying expansion packs(like The Sims 3).

Although some DLCs might be averted by a modder who makes a similar mod. Your Interstellar mod idea alterady wouldn't work because of the KSP Interstellar mod. Yes, I know it was an example, I'm just countering your example with an example.

the biggest draw to KSP for me is actually the community. After bouncing around other communities, I've found this one to be the most laid back and mature one. Pleasantly restored my faith in humanity.... Uhh I mean Kerbality

Don't be tricked, this community also has it's fair share of immature people as well. I've found quite a few, but I'm not going to say names.

[Rowsdower]

Alright, folks. You've had some nice discussion on this, but I'm going to have to pull the curtain on this thread. Thanks for keeping it civil for the most part. The fact remains that the status on this hasn't changed from even before my time. If you need to know more, go ahead and use the search and please don't necro.