|
KSP 2
Aug 28, 2019 21:04:36 GMT
Post by airc777 on Aug 28, 2019 21:04:36 GMT
I'm not familiar with KSP's code to answer with specifics, so the following is conjecture.
Most of the time I hear people complaining about Unity what they are actually complaining about is a broad category of products often called "asset flips" and not Unity itself. Unity and Blender are free and that makes them so accessible that anyone can just throw together a project file and then get it published to Steam and because of that you end up with a lot of just low effort or just unskilled or just otherwise not good products as people are trying their hand at game development for the first time. You wouldn't have with less accessible tools like Cryengine and 3DS Max and Maya 3D and such. I've toyed around with Blender and Unity enough to throw together a side scrolling collectathon that I never intend publish to Steam because it only took a few hours, and I have basically no IT experience (or at least not any worth actually writing on an application).
As a tool Unity is actually perfectly fine and very capable, most anything wrong with a Unity game is wrong because of poor script or other assets the developer added to the project and not anything fundamentally wrong with Unity itself. KSP might, maaaaaybe, be an edge case where Unity just isn't the best toolset to use to handle the floating point math of orbital calculations, but even then that to me sounds like poor implementation on the part of the developer because there isn't floating point orbital mechanics script in Unity at all until the developer adds it in.
Unity in capable hands can do good things.
Unrelated to topic but Blender and BGE in capable hands can do amazing things, only problem being Py script isn't quite as widely practiced as C# and Java. Again problem with the market state and not a problem with the tool.
|
|
|
KSP 2
Aug 29, 2019 16:58:52 GMT
Post by dragon on Aug 29, 2019 16:58:52 GMT
The biggest problems with Unity so far are joints and wheel simulation, both of which are woefully inadequate for a game like KSP. Joint problems can be worked around to some degree (multiple joints, basically), but wheels are much harder, and one plugin that even approaches doing them right basically rewrites the system from scratch.
Asset flips are one thing, but as far as KSP goes, Unity really isn't the right tool for the task. This game basically starts out as an edge case, and goes on from there.
|
|
utilitas
Junior Member
I can do this all day.
Posts: 59
|
KSP 2
Sept 4, 2019 6:57:13 GMT
Post by utilitas on Sept 4, 2019 6:57:13 GMT
It isn't being developed by Squad. Worse, it's now owned by Take Two. I will be genuinely surprised if it isn't chock full of any microtransactions, loot crates, gambling mechanics, predatory DLC, privacy infringement, always-online requirements, mod unfriendly practices or terrible anti-consumer piracy-protection.
|
|
|
Post by dragon on Sept 5, 2019 22:33:15 GMT
The first part is a good thing. Squad just isn't a good enough team for that sort of undertaking. They never were. All the best parts of KSP originally came from the community. That and marketing were two things they consistently got right.
As for the latter part, the devs have promised left and right that there won't be microtransactions, loot crates or gambling (the latter makes sense - some countries cracked down on that). They also confirmed the ability to copy the game more or less freely (many people keep multiple copies of KSP1, due to lack of any built-in mod management), which seems to imply no intrusive DRM. Mods are also supposed to be a big focus (I suspect that even T2 knows that without mods, KSP2 would be dead in the water). How true will all that be, we'll see. Predatory DLCs might still happen, unfortunately, but I hope mods will obviate the need for them.
|
|
utilitas
Junior Member
I can do this all day.
Posts: 59
|
Post by utilitas on Sept 11, 2019 13:07:10 GMT
Yes, because Take Two can definitely be trusted about promising not to do microtransactions, when they have already violated the same exact promise at least once. And don't call me cynical, but I have a feeling their mod support will be much like Minecraft's - where, while mods are officially supported, each new version basically requires a complete do-over on most mods. It would be best if neither company were tasked with developing a sequel, and that a fully indie title took the position of unofficial sequel instead, but we don't live in an ideal world. Then again, I won't care about any sequel, be it spiritual or conventional, without at least some measure of N-body physics present. Principia comes to mind - yet more proof that community projects can improve a game far more than the original 'developer' ever could.
|
|
|
KSP 2
Sept 12, 2019 23:42:30 GMT
Post by dragon on Sept 12, 2019 23:42:30 GMT
We'll see. Note that Take Two is the publisher. They did not promise anything. The devs did, but if T2 decides to override them, it might pose a problem. It doesn't seem like they're meddling so far, but we'll see when we get something playable. In the end, there's always KSP1, and T2 needs to keep in mind that it's a very high bar to clear.
Also, you can count on mods being more like KSP1 than Minecraft, for the simple reason the thing still runs on Unity.
|
|
|
KSP 2
Sept 13, 2019 22:42:52 GMT
Post by Rocket Witch on Sept 13, 2019 22:42:52 GMT
I don't think T2 will do anything to KSP2, but when it comes to the 3rd or 4th game...
It belongs to their 'Private Division' thing where they actually care about building goodwill and franchise recognition, I imagine to cash in on it later. Which is to say T2's business model resembles that of EA, with only a bit more set dressing (ie. a child company with a different name that they can offload some of the bad press onto and disown when things get spicy ~6 years from now). When EA ate up successful smaller studios, the next games from them tended to be even better since the original developers enjoyed a massively increased budget for sequels. Then this success is juiced for all it's worth and eventually the studio is culled for "not meeting expectations" or something.
The best thing for KSP, and I'd go so far as to say pretty much everything, is to be only mildly commercially successful so its core appeal can't be diluted by execs chasing a broader market.
|
|
|
KSP 2
Sept 14, 2019 1:27:05 GMT
Post by dragon on Sept 14, 2019 1:27:05 GMT
If they tried anything like that now, they'd kill the series right there. I don't know how the community will look by the time the 3rd game rolls around, but if T2 tries messing with the formula, I'd expect the game to tank, badly. They will undoubtedly want to milk their newly acquired property, but KSP is a rather unique concept, and I'd expect any attempts at dumbing it down to backfire. The bosses will then be scratching their pointy hair and asking "what went wrong here?".
That said, we have the time. KSP1 has been going for years at that point. KSP2 will, hopefully, have a similarly long life. If the promises about modding are true, there'd be little incentive to transition to any sequel that doesn't have modding support at similar level.
|
|
utilitas
Junior Member
I can do this all day.
Posts: 59
|
KSP 2
Oct 4, 2019 11:24:45 GMT
Post by utilitas on Oct 4, 2019 11:24:45 GMT
EA is doing the exact same thing at this very moment already. They have an "indie" publishing division which publishes actual good games from companies that are not directly owned (sic) by EA. I assume they'll be doing just the same in the future, like they have done with all their IPs; cynical gacha and whalehunting cashgrab mobile games that have barely anything to do with the original intellectual property after about five to ten years have passed.
Like I said. A true space simulator game would have to be fully indie and fairly unpopular (like Orbiter) or consistently developed by an obsessive developer who would never cave to such ilk as EA or Activision or Take Two. There have been several in the works, but only god knows where they've actually ended up.
|
|