KSP as a service rather than a product

[theJesuit]

Is our enjoyment for KSP based around what we have experienced so far? What I mean, to say is that I can see that we have experienced KSP as a service rather a product because of the updates moving through Alpha and into Beta. Perhaps when the game reaches 1.0, (or perhaps 1.1) that interest and and way in which we interact with each other on the Forums and Reddit will change as the game will be complete. DLC will be updates to a product not part of the 'service'.

What brought my attention to this idea was this article.

http://kotaku.com/the-people-who-only-play-one-video-game-1680335832

I'd be interested to know what others think.

Peace.

[numerobis]

Little Green Spacemen as a Service, LGSaaS for short.

It'll take the world by storm I'm sure.

Squad I'm sure is looking at biz models. I suspect the purchase model will work for a long time, as it works for minecraft.

[Axelord FTW]

Not clicking that. I ain't giving them traffic.

How do you experience something you've bought and which you own (the right to use) as a service? Your understanding of what a service is is strange.

[theJesuit]

The idea is that in some of the smaller MMOs there seems to be a change in the way developers are considering their product.

In KSP in Alpha from .13, .14 or even at .19 or whenever, we have gained so much more value in it because of the constant updates placing more functions and things to play with. Each update, hasn't changed the core game but the way we play. Contracts and career being introduced is a good example. We enjoy the game, some of us explore all the possibilities, but then the next release comes and we have a new experience. The service idea also brings into account the role that the Forum and Reddit members play including modders. We give feedback and the direction that the game goes in changes to. In that very real sense Squad is providing the game, the forums as a service to us. That will probably change when it goes to a full release and we stop expecting new features.

[RainDreamer]

That business model works for MMO which require a constant flow of money to run its servers, or for a big corporation with lots of games under their belt to basically rent out all games in their possession for a recurring fee (EA and their model, ugh), but for a single player game? I doubt it would work.

[prophet_01]

I agree on the culture aspect of a game.l that was mentioned in the article. Games with a strong community definetly develop theire own language, habits, does and don'ts. From my point of view ksp definetly falls into that category. I think of this community as a snow globe^^ it's a world of it's own and it's vastly different from the dota 2, dayz or space engineers community (those are the ones I visit once in a while). The service aspect is absolutely true. Many games do that, with quite different approaches. ksp is one of the examples that has rly fair busines model and that's why the community exists as it does. One of the noticable aspects is almost absolute lack of trolls that claim the devs are soulles greedy scrooges, that's pretty unique.

I'm not sure if ksp is a game that keeps you commited to mostly this one game. At times, especially the first 50 or 100 hours for sure, I was playing not much aside from ksp but this situation wasn't permanent

[ShadowZone]

I have read the article a few days back and was thinking the same thing afterwards.

Even if KSP and those mentioned games differ in their gameplay and business model, there are some striking similarities. There are people who play almost nothing besides KSP (I am one of them at the moment) because it is so engaging to a certain kind of individual. Also: Due to the fact KSP is constantly evolving and developers are in an ongoing exchange with us, the players, at least the early access period of KSP has had more the makings of a service than that of a traditional game.

[Red Iron Crown]

No, thank you. It's one thing to use the subscription model for MMOs where there are servers and other infrastructure to maintain, but for a standalone, single player or limited multiplayer game I very strongly prefer to buy a license.

[eddiew]

I'd expect a hella lot more updates and fixes if KSP was a subscription model...

[Janos1986]

If KSP was subscription-based, I personally wouldn't have been interested the slightest bit, as I'm not fascinated by Star Citizen or Eve Online.

I'd rather have my game a bit buggier or community-driven, rather than paying a monthly fee.

Games haven't always been money milking machines, you know.

I liked the way they were.

Edited January 23, 2015 by Janos1986

[cantab]

In terms of how the players treat it, maybe. Then again, I started playing in .23 and put most of my playtime in .23.5. Also KSP is a very different sort of game to the likes of League of Legends.

In terms of how Squad sell it, well Squad *aren't* providing a service in the usual sense. When you buy KSP you have the right to play the then-current version indefinitely.

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

The key difference is that those MMO games (MMO, which KSP is none of those three terms!) work as a service because they "make you want to" buy stuff all the time. Many times what you buy makes you, your character, or your fighting equipments, better. Instead of grinding you buy, sometimes what you buy can even be considering cheating, as it's pretty common to hear of people experiencing "better than usual" performance in, say their guns, after they paid. World Of Tanks is one of those.

Imagine that in KSP, you pay to upgrade your Mainsail to level +65 to have more Isp... That wouldn't work at all.

[timsfitz]

I will buy additional content add-ons if they make them. I'm not willing to pay any monthly fees.

I'd pay 5 bucks today for another solar system.

[radonek]

I'd expect a hella lot more updates and fixes if KSP was a subscription model...

If WoW is any model, I'd rather avoid such "updates".

[Alshain]

The key difference is that those MMO games (MMO, which KSP is none of those three terms!) work as a service because they "make you want to" buy stuff all the time. Many times what you buy makes you, your character, or your fighting equipments, better. Instead of grinding you buy, sometimes what you buy can even be considering cheating, as it's pretty common to hear of people experiencing "better than usual" performance in, say their guns, after they paid. World Of Tanks is one of those.

Imagine that in KSP, you pay to upgrade your Mainsail to level +65 to have more Isp... That wouldn't work at all.

It's called the "Pay to Win" format. I don't play Pay to Win games, ever. Anything where you pay to get a distinct advantage over players that don't is immediately disqualified as a viable game in my book without even the slightest evaluation from me. It could be the best game ever to grace the human population and I would not even give it 1 second of my life.

I will buy additional content add-ons if they make them. I'm not willing to pay any monthly fees.

I'd pay 5 bucks today for another solar system.

What you are suggesting is not a service contract, it's an expansion pack or DLC. I wouldn't complain if KSP took either of those formats, though DLC is easy to abuse, it can be done properly.

[tater]

I'm nominally fine with subscriptive games, but I think then the demand for updates would be a bad idea. Not to mention the trouble for modders.

Add-ons, or paid new versions I'm fine with.

I think the basic exploration model we have now should be "scope" for KSP 1.0, and the idea of colonization, resource extraction, etc should be done as a paid add-on (v 2.0) since they need to monetize it somehow.

[Janos1986]

Also, we basically did the alpha test and now we're doing beta test for free on behalf of Squad.

If retail KSP introduced monthly fees I'd feel offended, dunno about you, but I would.

I hardly doubt that they would do such thing, I'm just imagining possibilities.

[MGCJerry]

I'm fine with subscription model games as long as its not "pay-to-win", or "pay-go-get-the-rest-of-the-story DLC" (eg: Mass effect). However for me to even consider to think about purchasing any fictional unregulated currency with real world backed currency it needs to be have a non pay-to-play model. I'm not going to buy a game then continue to pay in order to be required to play it. Currently the only game/world I've ever spent my real money on is Second Life. Rift had some consideration, but not much.