Letting Ivy die, you lose all the mutant content because she's the one to bring you to the mutants' bunker.
Letting Kira die, you lose all the raider content because she's the one to bring you to the raiders' camp. You meet the general later on but you don't take his place.
I can't fathom why those choices exist, tbh. At least based on what we have so far.
Yes, in game it makes total sense that Zaton does not give a fuck about either of them. He might kill Kinsey and Kosey out of disgust, but he has no reason to care about saving either Ivy or Kyra. Well, he does have
one reason, I guess, the reason we all play this game.
But narratively it's really stupid to leave that option open unless there's a significant long-term payoff to it or there will eventually be other introductions to their factions, which seems unlikely. Why give the players the ability to just ignore half the game?
Absolutely, giving players the choice of how much to engage with different content is the right call, but does that mean the raider missions and mutant missions won't have any major impact on the story? Or that there are routes planned for failure and it's therefore acceptable to lose them entirely? Will the characters involved have any impact on future updates even if you ignored them? Will it even be possible to get a "good" ending if you made the wrong choice in a couple of very early scenes?
I dunno, it just worries me. I hope there's a plan in place for it all, and that it doesn't just mean that those routes are completely inconsequential. I'd quite like to see if it's possible to build a united Zeta, all centered around one... obelisk, if you will.