Would you be willing to pay for additional contend?

[NedLynch]

Ok, before everybody shakes their head in disbelieve and says "you have got to be out of your mind" read on.

RoF is doing this for a long time already, planes and now field mods for planes are available for purchase, microtransactions if you will. I am sure the purpose behind this is.....to make money...duh, yeah no kidding, but I am also sure they could not have developed the game to the stage it is in right now (offline career and other improvements) without a somewhat continuing revenue stream.
Improving the issues with CoD and meeting the needs of the community will take time and money. Yes the game should have been much better upon release, but we are where we are.
Thus I am posting the above question.

[Redroach]

a definite no. Not with the game in this sorry state. If the CoD team would deliever quality content, I might consider that. But for the time being: No, No, three times No.

[Madfish]

Oranges and Bananas. The publisher situation for CloD is totally different with Rise of Flight and I truley hope ubisoft isn't getting any stupid ideas. Otherwise modding might as well be a thing of the past and we can all only sit there and wait for our mighty gods to make us some plane or thief- ehhhh fieldmods and sell those to us for the price of a kidney or two.

My favorite example is some weird train simulator on steam - for over 1.1k euros if you buy all the additional trains. (Yes that's right, about 1600$)

Nope thanks. I prefer to buy whole packages instead of this micropayment for microscopic content stuff.

[NedLynch]

Hmmm....the publisher situation may be different, however RoF had it a bit rocky as well, 3DO closed it's doors and all of a sudden 777Studios were the ones reponsible for keeping the game running/continuing to work on the game after release.
And I am not talking about $1600 for all the content, look at RoF's store.

[banned]

Oranges and Bananas. The publisher situation for CloD is totally different with Rise of Flight and I truley hope ubisoft isn't getting any stupid ideas. Otherwise modding might as well be a thing of the past and we can all only sit there and wait for our mighty gods to make us some plane or thief- ehhhh fieldmods and sell those to us for the price of a kidney or two.

My favorite example is some weird train simulator on steam - for over 1.1k euros if you buy all the additional trains. (Yes that's right, about 1600$)

Nope thanks. I prefer to buy whole packages instead of this micropayment for microscopic content stuff.
Totally agree. Get the basics right and I'll pay for extra stuff. Once ripped, twice shy.

[SacaSoh]

Ok, before everybody shakes their head in disbelieve and says "you have got to be out of your mind" read on.

RoF is doing this for a long time already, planes and now field mods for planes are available for purchase, microtransactions if you will. I am sure the purpose behind this is.....to make money...duh, yeah no kidding, but I am also sure they could not have developed the game to the stage it is in right now (offline career and other improvements) without a somewhat continuing revenue stream.
Improving the issues with CoD and meeting the needs of the community will take time and money. Yes the game should have been much better upon release, but we are where we are.
Thus I am posting the above question.

Isn't it like "they charged us for a unfinished game - a piece of it, so we need to pay again and again until we have a full game"?

RoF had a microtransactions scheme since the beginning, i've bought it and a like the business model, but i KNEW that RoF was that way before i bought it. CoD, on the other hand, was advertised as a full game, so i expect them to finish it without charging me again. After delivering what they promised, if they release DLC's i'll think on buying it...

[CaptainDoggles]

I voted no. Unless there is a dramatic and immediate improvement in the way Maddox Games interfaces with the community, I will not be giving a single cent. Buggy release? We can understand that it's budgetary issues. Lack of communication? No, I cannot forgive that. It's disgraceful that a major developer would behave in this manner.

We were sold a defective and unfinished product. What do you do when you disappoint your customers? You open the curtains and show them what you're doing to make it right. That's the price you pay, and that's the burden you bear for asking us to have faith in the company who could just as easily take our money and run.

[Madfish]

I voted no. Unless there is a dramatic and immediate improvement in the way Maddox Games interfaces with the community, I will not be giving a single cent. Buggy release? We can understand that it's budgetary issues. Lack of communication? No, I cannot forgive that. It's disgraceful that a major developer would behave in this manner.

We were sold a defective and unfinished product. What do you do when you disappoint your customers? You open the curtains and show them what you're doing to make it right. That's the price you pay, and that's the burden you bear for asking us to have faith in the company who could just as easily take our money and run.

Not wanting to be mean here but although the product is probably flawed:

Every person that posts on a web forum should know that there is something like game reviews or customer experience reports out there. So no should suffer from the scenario you described.

In most (all) game reviews I saw CloD was trashed. So those rants are very boring and complete lies because your situation is no ones but your own fault.
Don't you think you could have avoided your situation by just reading and not buying? It's like marrying the next girl you see just because you once had a good experience with one girl - usually you evaluate before acting if it's important to you. That also goes for money.

So, if you want to spread rants until the game is dead - fine, go ahead. But if you really want to see the game develop you may consider trashing it a bit less and try to help. This can also be done by refraining from causing additional damage :)



That said I just want to add that one thing I don't like about micropayment scenarios:
DLC's and micropayment "objects" are too irrelevant to draw the attention of big reviewers. No game magazine or anything bothers to review a single plane for game xyz - especially not if it's the 100th.

Now you could say that you could still go to the community and check with them but... reading through the threads on this forum alone makes clear that you won't always get the most satisfactory opinions.

[CaptainDoggles]

Did you even read what I wrote?

I specifically said we could all understand a buggy release. We can forgive that.

What I have issues with is the abysmal quality and quantity of communication and dialogue between developer and customer.

Try actually reading posts before you call me a liar; it just makes you look like an idiot.

[banned]

Not wanting to be mean here but although the product is probably flawed:

Every person that posts on a web forum should know that there is something like game reviews or customer experience reports out there. So no should suffer from the scenario you described.

In most (all) game reviews I saw CloD was trashed. So those rants are very boring and complete lies because your situation is no ones but your own fault.
Don't you think you could have avoided your situation by just reading and not buying? It's like marrying the next girl you see just because you once had a good experience with one girl - usually you evaluate before acting if it's important to you. That also goes for money.

So, if you want to spread rants until the game is dead - fine, go ahead. But if you really want to see the game develop you may consider trashing it a bit less and try to help. This can also be done by refraining from causing additional damage :)



That said I just want to add that one thing I don't like about micropayment scenarios:
DLC's and micropayment "objects" are too irrelevant to draw the attention of big reviewers. No game magazine or anything bothers to review a single plane for game xyz - especially not if it's the 100th.

Now you could say that you could still go to the community and check with them but... reading through the threads on this forum alone makes clear that you won't always get the most satisfactory opinions.
These people who keep saying that no one should get ripped because they should have read the reviews first, frustrate the crap out of me. If everyone worked in that basis then there wouldn't be any bloody reviews. Most times you have to trust, the people who advertise their products, that their product will be the same as their advertising. In any case, most have put up with this so far but, like me, just want to know what's being done to rectify the myriad of problems.

[Madfish]

@captaindoggles

I said the rants in general are lies because it was generally known the game was buggy, almost unplayable for some reviewers.

Furthermore you said you can forgive the state the game is in. All you need is the devs to say: yes, it's buggy? They said it's buggy so I guess your issue was fixed before you even mentioned it. What's the bickering about then?

Also you seem to misunderstand a basic problem here: the primary communication channel is between the publisher and the customer. Not the developer. If you go to a local store and try to buy some fruits but they are rotten - do you call the farmers who grew them or do you go to the store management who sell them?

Talking about abysmal quality of communication: thanks for calling me an idiot and continuing to prove your maturity handling things like aquiring a game or talking about it. :rolleyes:


@banned
Why wouldn't there be anyone doing reviews anymore if people start to read them before buying? If there was an even bigger demand for reviews there would be even more of them.

Of course there are always early adopters - but those are always doing it risking that whatever they invested in might be utter crap. I bought the game knowing it had those issues - and it doesn't and didn't bother me so far. I guess some people just aren't that type and should realize this. It's not such a bad thing to wait a few months if you know you are that emotional or can't spend the money is it?



Which then brings us back to the main topic. Because that topic is would anyone pay for additional content. And again I must say that I would like to pay for content that comes in packs that can be reviewed and tested and that do have a value that I can estimate. I don't like blindly buying 100s of planes just to find the ones I like. Or investing into countless addons just to find out they may or may not work together. That doesn't solve the problem for me and thus I like the way they sell this game even if it's in a buggy state. People who have an issue with this could have just waited. That's my personal opinion.

[jimbop]

The poll is very open-ended. Willing to pay in the future? Sure. Willing to pay right now? No, not until the game is improved.

[Kakashi]

yeah.... I have put that game away like a month after I bought it (so maybe 2 month ago)... Game is useless, even the simple throttle prop + mixture don't work... sound is lame, graphical bugs everywhere, and changes every time I booted up the game...
And worst of all... the promised Su 26 is nowhere to be seen and never sent me a postcard about where its at. I'm done with this. I haven't even checked this forum in a month easily I was stunned to find out HOW LITTLE it "advanced" (Yes the "" are necessary as Luthier announces they are starting from scratches...)
Anyways good luck to you guys who will keep their faith and promote the game.

[machoo]

No.

If it was paid content from the start maybe but not now. I also have little faith that they would deliver.

[banned]

@captaindoggles

I said the rants in general are lies because it was generally known the game was buggy, almost unplayable for some reviewers.

Furthermore you said you can forgive the state the game is in. All you need is the devs to say: yes, it's buggy? They said it's buggy so I guess your issue was fixed before you even mentioned it. What's the bickering about then?

Also you seem to misunderstand a basic problem here: the primary communication channel is between the publisher and the customer. Not the developer. If you go to a local store and try to buy some fruits but they are rotten - do you call the farmers who grew them or do you go to the store management who sell them?

Talking about abysmal quality of communication: thanks for calling me an idiot and continuing to prove your maturity handling things like aquiring a game or talking about it. :rolleyes:


@banned
Why wouldn't there be anyone doing reviews anymore if people start to read them before buying? If there was an even bigger demand for reviews there would be even more of them.

Of course there are always early adopters - but those are always doing it risking that whatever they invested in might be utter crap. I bought the game knowing it had those issues - and it doesn't and didn't bother me so far. I guess some people just aren't that type and should realize this. It's not such a bad thing to wait a few months if you know you are that emotional or can't spend the money is it?



Which then brings us back to the main topic. Because that topic is would anyone pay for additional content. And again I must say that I would like to pay for content that comes in packs that can be reviewed and tested and that do have a value that I can estimate. I don't like blindly buying 100s of planes just to find the ones I like. Or investing into countless addons just to find out they may or may not work together. That doesn't solve the problem for me and thus I like the way they sell this game even if it's in a buggy state. People who have an issue with this could have just waited. That's my personal opinion.
Mate, believe me it's not the money. I have more money than you'd believe. That's not the point. I agree that 'reviews' by, so called, professional people could be read prior to buying anything.
What I'm saying is people keep going on about reading 'forum' reviews before buying. Again, if people waited for 'forum' reviews then no one would have any to read.
That's what I was trying to say. Sorry it didn't come across that way. I'm not emotional either mate, if that's what you're trying to imply.
Your 'fruit' scenario is a bit silly. If your saying that Clod was a 'nice piece of fruit' and somehow it was damaged or made 'rotten' later then sorry but, I don't think so.
If you're saying that the 'Store' purchased 'rotten' fruit and then tried to sell it, then yes I wouldn't be happy with the store.
Again, sorry for getting you emotional.

[gonk]

A better poll is will you buy anything early (if at all from 1C) again...after pre-purchasing this atrocity... no. Thx for the last 10 years but for now it is uninstall and to the shelf of shame...

[speculum jockey]

As it stands, NOOOOoooooOOOOOoo!

The game is apparently undergoing a ground-up renovation and maybe then I'll think about it, but as it stands right now? Not a chance.

When something goes wrong (like an unfinished buggy game being released) there are three ways to go about this communication wise, and companies have been doing this for years.

Stonewall: Don't release any info, keep everyone in the dark hope that your lack of communication will cause an information vacuum and result in the consumers not having anything to talk about. The idea behind this is that with no info, there is no discussion so other potential customers might buy the product.

Manage the Media: Release only the info you want. This is a "need to know" type deal and hopefully if you only say good things and act optimistic everyone will think that things are going ok and play along.

Open Communication: Let them know everything. Tell them that it's a broken product and show them what you are doing to rectify the situation. Ask for input and keep everyone up to date on your progress.

Right now Maddox Games is walking the line between the first two and pretending that they are actually doing the third. They're hoping that an "up-beat" sentence or two every month will keep everyone reassured and happy and that new customers will think that the solution is days away.

'm not a happy customer, and honestly I don't see this working out as well as I had hoped. I'm praying that the money lasts long enough to get things on track and that Luthier is the man to get this mess that Oleg derailed back on track.

[ATAG_MajorBorris]

Ok, before everybody shakes their head in disbelieve and says "you have got to be out of your mind" read on.

RoF is doing this for a long time already, planes and now field mods for planes are available for purchase, microtransactions if you will. I am sure the purpose behind this is.....to make money...duh, yeah no kidding, but I am also sure they could not have developed the game to the stage it is in right now (offline career and other improvements) without a somewhat continuing revenue stream.
Improving the issues with CoD and meeting the needs of the community will take time and money. Yes the game should have been much better upon release, but we are where we are.
Thus I am posting the above question.
Two different sims, how would you get to 300+ planes? Multiple theaters? (no mods?)with that business model you would find the online splintered into those who had all the content for a mission and those who didn’t. New mission rotates and half the online folks quite for the above reason and the other half quits for the latter. With that said who is going to pay for every 109 variant with over 34 variants. I think without a doubt it would also put off all the IL2 old timers. I have seen this same thread/post many times, let’s stop this silliness.

[skouras]

i expect to see a full flyable sim first
so no for me either ;-)

[Tree_UK]

If you walk down the street and tread in Dog muck you dont turn around and do it again, It will be a long time before I trust these door to door salesmen again.

[Bryan21cag]

Here is why I would say no to this one. Although I do own ROF and have paid a bit into there system to get most but not all of their planes, I would very much not like to see IL2 games loose their Open Source type of approach. All of the Modded Content for IL2 46 really kept the sim interesting and even today keeps it at a fun for hours level that CLOD has not yet achieved in my opinion. Someone already said it on page one of this thread and I would have to agree, that with everyone everywhere able to generate skins, campaigns, graphics, and sound mods for the game it really does make the the replay value of the sim soar.

Waiting for single airplanes to be added or new skins or modes to be added and then paying for them each individually would probably go over just as well as waiting for the current updates have :) Plus it would leave large gaps of time where the sim would be unchanged and people would be off trying other things and forget about the sim entirely. LOL I log on to mission4today just about every other day and its like Christmas every time when there are new campaigns or mods to check out which is almost every time I log on :) Any way I would much rather get new XPACS for the sim and pay for those just like we did with all the early IL2 series. And while we wait for the next one to come out all those epic Modders and campaign creators out there will keep the new content flowing freely which is part of what makes these sims so incredible.

Cheers

[Seeker]

I'm happy to buy ROF a plane at a time, and I would have gladly bought IL-2 a mod at a time, because I'm happy with the products and trust the developers.

They've never ripped me off.

However, I feel thoroughly ripped off by Clod, and I'd need to see one hell of a lot of improvement before they get one red cent of my money.

[andrea78]

I voted Yes.

I do not like the actual Clod. I'll never pay for an addon at this stage of dev.

But... I hope that things will change (!). And I could pay for big addon (i.e a small theatre with a map and some planes).

[NedLynch]

Here is why I would say no to this one. Although I do own ROF and have paid a bit into there system to get most but not all of their planes, I would very much not like to see IL2 games loose their Open Source type of approach. All of the Modded Content for IL2 46 really kept the sim interesting and even today keeps it at a fun for hours level that CLOD has not yet achieved in my opinion. Someone already said it on page one of this thread and I would have to agree, that with everyone everywhere able to generate skins, campaigns, graphics, and sound mods for the game it really does make the the replay value of the sim soar.

Waiting for single airplanes to be added or new skins or modes to be added and then paying for them each individually would probably go over just as well as waiting for the current updates have :) Plus it would leave large gaps of time where the sim would be unchanged and people would be off trying other things and forget about the sim entirely. LOL I log on to mission4today just about every other day and its like Christmas every time when there are new campaigns or mods to check out which is almost every time I log on :) Any way I would much rather get new XPACS for the sim and pay for those just like we did with all the early IL2 series. And while we wait for the next one to come out all those epic Modders and campaign creators out there will keep the new content flowing freely which is part of what makes these sims so incredible.

Cheers

I do agree wholeheartely. When I posted the question it didn't even cross my mind to cut out modders and the community in creating additional content.

The openness of the game must be preserved of course, that is one of the hallmarks of the IL2 series.
I missed formulating that in my original post. I was really aming along the lines of RoF, i.e. planes and field mods, maybe a skin pack and mind you, nobody puts a gun to your head and tells you you have to buy it, I only purchased planes from RoF,not all, and no field mods so far.
Exansion packs from 1C have always been at a charge (pacific fighters). I really meant little things, as stated, to give 1C some kind of cash flow.

And like I said, the sim should have been released in a better state, but then again IL2 original seems to have been in a pretty pathetic state upon release as well, according to community statements.
The concern, real or just perceived, I am having right now is that the dev team still is made up of human beings who have bills to pay, and if those guys do not get paychecks anymore, well then the sim is really lost and that would certainly be a shame.

To all who take a tougher stand, and there seem to be quite a lot, understandably, it is not as if we have a plethora of WWII sims available, IL2 1946 is of course still there but with CEM, airplane and damage modeling and the arguably nice graphics in CoD this one is more than worth being developed over the coming years.

I guess my point is, money is the fuel that makes every business engine run and microtransactions would just be one source the dev team could tap to keep going in the long run.

Btw., I am not sure what it is, but I do consider my comp a rather mid level system and the game runs fine for me, I so far never had a ctd and in the "test" mission I run to see how high I can turn on graphic settings (30 planes, clouds and shadows on, model high, textures original, ssao on, everything else to medium, vsync on in nvidia cp @ 1600x900, AA in game to 1x, looks better than 2x, strange I know) I do not drop under 25 fps. The mission is from the quick missions, the british attack on a german airfield.

[alberto1960]

Absolutelly NOT... !
Since we havent yet a full game but only a part of it....and we fully payed for that...

[von Pilsner]

Microtransactions = no, that would kill this game for me.
New theater w/ maps, aircraft, campaigns, etc... = sure, after this game is working better and all the original issues (or at least most of them) are worked out.

I guess my point is, money is the fuel that makes every business engine run and microtransactions would just be one source the dev team could tap to keep going in the long run.

Had they originally sold the game as a micro transaction game that would be fine, I would not have paid $49.99 for it under those circumstances, however...

[NLS61]

At this stage i dont need addons i like to be able to play the game.
launcher.exe problems all the time.

[Seeker]

To those who say "but what alternative is there?":

There's at least two WWII flight games i the pipeline, so game developers know there's a WWII interest (though the games may not be sim enough for this crowd).

And I wonder how many program designers don't bother with the full sim aproach as they think IL-2 has the stranglehold on the sim market?

Maybe the best thing for WWII simming would be for this title to die the death it deserves and encourage other developers to fill the hole.

[furbs]

Not a snowballs chance in hell will i buy anything from MG again until COD is in a fit state to be called a working sim.

Further more, if MG even offered me downloadable content for a price i would be insulted beyond belief.

[Fjordmonkey]

I voted yes. I actually WOULD pay for additional content. Of course, that would imply that the sim is playable for the majority of people, but that's still to come.

Once that's in place, then yes, I would pay for additional content just like I pay for DLC's for other games on Steam.

[Feathered_IV]

No.

I bought clod on preorder, before the first reviews were out and on trust from the developers, based on their promises and claims.

As it stands now, it turned out to be a waste of money. I'm not especially upset about that however, as I consider my purchase to be a "thank you" for the years of enjoyment I got from Il-2.

Based on MG's current performance, quality of leadership and standard of community involvement, I do NOT intend to provide them with further handouts for old times sake.

I do not believe Maddox Games will profit sufficiently from this debacle to make good on what we have now. Therefore I would much rather support the emerging 777 studios and see some return on my investment.

[theOden]

Hahaha, no. No I wouldn't.
:)

[AdamB]

Ok, before everybody shakes their head in disbelieve and says "you have got to be out of your mind" read on.

RoF is doing this for a long time already, planes and now field mods for planes are available for purchase, microtransactions if you will. I am sure the purpose behind this is.....to make money...duh, yeah no kidding, but I am also sure they could not have developed the game to the stage it is in right now (offline career and other improvements) without a somewhat continuing revenue stream.
Improving the issues with CoD and meeting the needs of the community will take time and money. Yes the game should have been much better upon release, but we are where we are.
Thus I am posting the above question.

Personally I feel like RoF was a rip off, you got very few amount of planes and then had to pay £5 for additional planes, IL-2 traditionally has always had free content, yes it has had addons e.g. Pacific Fighters but these introduced toally different games or added loads of different aircraft, maps etc.

I just dont think there is any need for such a thing to be made into a transaction

[150GCT_Veltro]

No, absoloutely no even if it will happen soon with Steam. In the future may be.

[fireflyerz]

Id pay through the nose again quite gladly , getting ripped off once was just not enough for me , where do I sign up.

[Plt Off JRB Meaker]

I voted no. Unless there is a dramatic and immediate improvement in the way Maddox Games interfaces with the community, I will not be giving a single cent. Buggy release? We can understand that it's budgetary issues. Lack of communication? No, I cannot forgive that. It's disgraceful that a major developer would behave in this manner.

We were sold a defective and unfinished product. What do you do when you disappoint your customers? You open the curtains and show them what you're doing to make it right. That's the price you pay, and that's the burden you bear for asking us to have faith in the company who could just as easily take our money and run.

My thoughts completely,you've said it all mate,well put,the lack of communication speaks volumes about the devs as far as I'm concerned,there is no way I'd spend anymore money on this half baked project.

They need to wise up to the fact that patience is running out and that we're not all going to be hanging around on these forums forever waiting for them,time is running out Luthier,you need to communicate my old friend.

[Rjel]

No. If and when CoD is patched up and running as well as IL2, then I'll consider it.

[6BL Bird-Dog]

I would only be prepared to pay for additional content on the same lines as what we recieved in the iL2 series.ie:Additional theaters of operation that included relevant aircraft,shipping and ground equipment.
I voted NO for payment for small additions for this game series and will DUMP COD off my system and incinerate the collectors addition I purchased at the games release if this were to happen.

[usr]

In the shape of well-rounded addon packs, sure!

In the shape of the "insert coin to fly plane" scheme of RoF, or even those "pay to pwn"-field mods - not in a hundred years. It made the full release version of RoF feel like a demo, a demo i had to pay real money for. The RoF model might be acceptable for people who are fully obsessed about the sim, but it really excels at making the occasional simmer feel closed out. Looking back, i feel more satisfied with paying for "The Beta" than with paying for "The Demo".

A little "app store"-like feature where reviewed and quality-controlled campaigns and missions could be obtained... why not? Just make sure that it's very accessible to content authors and does not make free content impossible (the famous mobile phone app-stores don't do that either).

[kendo65]

...
Every person that posts on a web forum should know that there is something like game reviews or customer experience reports out there. So no should suffer from the scenario you described.

In most (all) game reviews I saw CloD was trashed. So those rants are very boring and complete lies because your situation is no ones but your own fault.
Don't you think you could have avoided your situation by just reading and not buying? It's like marrying the next girl you see just because you once had a good experience with one girl - usually you evaluate before acting if it's important to you. That also goes for money.

...

I have to disagree with you here.

Myself and many others had been following development of the game for well over a year and in our enthusiasm for the game had registered pre-orders.

In the run-up to release there was a huge amount of passionate debate :grin: about the quality of what was being demonstrated by the devs. Some voices were very loud in questioning the state of the game but the general consensus view was that things would be 'alright on the night' as it were.

In my own case I found it easier to trust in the devs integrity - they never spelt out ANY potential issues at that stage - than to put too much store in the likes of what people like Tree were saying. There was always a believable reason/excuse from the devs to cover the various issues raised. It was possible to dismiss a lot of the critics as chip on the shoulder cynics.

The actual Russian release became a little like a casino game - no-one knew if the ball would land on red or black until then. When the actual state of the game became apparent the shit-storm started. I still remember feeling sick as a parrot at the news coming out on that day.

I kept my pre-order though for better or for worse. Still had some belief that it couldn't actually be that bad and wanted to support the game.

But to say we all went into this in full awareness of the state of play is wide of the mark.

edit: I'm wrong on one issue there - the devs did announce fairly late on that the dynamic weather and campaign would not be in the initial release but there was no mention of performance issues, epilepsy filter or anything like that until after release

[baffa]

I wouldn't pay anything now, the game is not finished I couldn't really enjoy a broken game. This game right now only works as a mulltiplayer game which doesn't interest me that much.

But I wouldn't mind paying for a finished game with a few restrictions.
No - Microtransactions ala Rise of flight, too expensive, adds to few things for the money.
Yes - New Campaigns/Theaters with new aircraft, ground units etc, could be either small campaigns released as DLC or full blown expansions with Tons of new stuff.

[Blackdog_kt]

In terms of beating the old dead horse (the tangent discussion that spun off in the thread) i'm with Madfish.
People on this forum especially knew what was wrong with the game before they even got it: the Russian release was on March 25th and we had ample supply of videos and reviews made not by gaming websites, but made by customers.

Anyone who was displeased and didn't cancel their preorder has only themselves to blame for taking a leap of faith and then busting our proverbial fuzzy dice when it didn't work out for them.

I've never pre-ordered any kind of game before CoD and in the case of CoD i only did it to get a collector's edition. Pre-ordering is for people who are willing to put up with the initial teething troubles or see some kind of other benefit in it (like it was in my case), if you don't want to take a risk cancel your order and wait for more in-depth reviews and patches. But please, stop doing our head in about how you've been cheated when the information was right before your eyes.

A kid with no experience who saw a couple of advertisements and bought CoD, a newcomer to sims and this forum? Sure, he's got every right to feel cheated.

The bunch of old-timers and veterans who frequent this place? NOT A CHANCE. It was just voluntary blindness followed by self-righteous e-rage when things didn't go they way they imagined they would.


After the Russian release and a few weeks before the EU release:
"The videos on youtube are not encouraging, the game stutters like hell, oh well, i'm impatient so i'll buy a monster PC without knowing anything about what makes this game work this way and preorder anyway"

Two weeks later: "Oh well i'm impatient so i'll share the story of how i was cheated in the hopes of getting some comforting and maybe pushing the developers to give me a patch that fixes what i consider the most important bugs, because i'm super important and all"

There's a ton of things that need fixing in the game, but a lot of it is loads more important than the jaggies on a bloody aerial mast. But in order for people to know this they actually have to spend some time flying, instead of looking only at the pretty pictures and shutting off the game when they are not pretty enough for them. I honestly think some people are dabbling in the wrong gaming genre.

This is how some people come off here to the majority of the rest of the posters. You guys should see the kind of PMs and comments i get on reported posts from members of the community.

So let them stop throwing their HOTAS out the pram because the onlookers are not impressed, empathetic or otherwise moved one iota. It's a clear case of self-victimization, why should the rest of the community have to put up with the consequences of other people's masochism? :-P






As for the main topic at hand, this:

Two different sims, how would you get to 300+ planes? Multiple theaters? (no mods?)with that business model you would find the online splintered into those who had all the content for a mission and those who didn’t. New mission rotates and half the online folks quite for the above reason and the other half quits for the latter. With that said who is going to pay for every 109 variant with over 34 variants. I think without a doubt it would also put off all the IL2 old timers. I have seen this same thread/post many times, let’s stop this silliness.

WW1 in the western front is a more or less static frontline on the same map, which also doesn't need to be very big due to the speed and range limitations of those early aircraft.

WW2 is not the same, not by a long shot. I think RoF's business model is unsuitable for anything other than RoF.


So, would i buy additional content for CoD? Depends on how it's packaged.

If it was itemized DLC sales i wouldn't.
If it was a complete expansion pack (they way it was done with IL2) i would, because it gives me an entire new theater of operations to play with: ground units, AI, maps, etc.

In fact, the only IL2 titles i didn't get where the ones that were packaged digitally (Pe-2 and sturmoviks over manchuria), i didn't have those until i got the 1946 disc and they were included in it.

The reason that selling only flyables works for RoF is that the rest of it all is pretty much static in a WW1 scenario. Doesn't work for WW2 that way, just the western European front would need 2-3 different maps with different ships, ground vehicles, etc. If the developer is selling only flyables, he has no way to sell the "supporting cast", if they are selling a complete bundle however, they can include whatever needs to be included in the package and price it accordingly.

[NedLynch]

It seems that microtransactions is a big no-no and after reading the comment on the differences between the WWI setting and the WWII battlefiled by Blackdog I have to agree.
It does seem however that people are willing to buy comprehensive expansion packs.

One other word about being a "cheated" victim. I bought the sim after reading all the negative things about it and in full knowledge of the issues some people are having. I bought it to support 1C thinking if I as well cannot run the game properly then at least I will wait for patches until I can.
Strangely enough the game runs for me, for all intends and purposes, flawlessly and I am enjoying the heck out of it.

[Tvrdi]

57% of customers said NO. They lost our trust. Thats what happens when you play on ppl trust based on past achivements. How sad. Not a penny from me.. ever.
Btw where is Oleg. He disappeared from the boards long ago. Really a sad ending of a great saga. RIP IL2.

[Rattlehead]

I voted yes. I actually WOULD pay for additional content. Of course, that would imply that the sim is playable for the majority of people, but that's still to come.

Once that's in place, then yes, I would pay for additional content just like I pay for DLC's for other games on Steam.

I feel the same. As you say, the game would have to be up to scratch first, but I wouldn't mind paying for extra planes, maybe extra ground units and additional campaigns and that sort of thing.
I would not like to pay extra for gunsights or something of that nature though. The DLC would have to be worth it.

Pretty much every other developer charges for additional content these days.

[Langnasen]

When hell freezes over.

[Bryan21cag]

I do agree whole heartily. When I posted the question it didn't even cross my mind to cut out modders and the community in creating additional content.


I am not 100% sure on this but I don't think you can have both. :) If you are putting out single planes and single campaigns for people to buy then you really do not want open access for modders to create the same thing that you are trying to sell. If you were a Mod God you would just wait and see what the items were make them your self and drop them for free on to the mod sites, so my guess is if they went this way they would also have to change the code around to prevent this. That is why it scares me a little if they do entertain this idea at some point.

Cheers

[esmiol]

for me the system of ROF to pay each plane is just horrible !

i will pay for extra content like i do for il2 forgotten battle or pacific fighter, etc... in one word addons!

i don't want to pay for each plane...or each visor or for each boulon of my plane like it is coming in ROF.


then my repsonse is NO!

[Tree_UK]

In terms of beating the old dead horse (the tangent discussion that spun off in the thread) i'm with Madfish.
People on this forum especially knew what was wrong with the game before they even got it: the Russian release was on March 25th and we had ample supply of videos and reviews made not by gaming websites, but made by customers.

Anyone who was displeased and didn't cancel their preorder has only themselves to blame for taking a leap of faith and then busting our proverbial fuzzy dice when it didn't work out for them.

I've never pre-ordered any kind of game before CoD and in the case of CoD i only did it to get a collector's edition. Pre-ordering is for people who are willing to put up with the initial teething troubles or see some kind of other benefit in it (like it was in my case), if you don't want to take a risk cancel your order and wait for more in-depth reviews and patches. But please, stop doing our head in about how you've been cheated when the information was right before your eyes.

A kid with no experience who saw a couple of advertisements and bought CoD, a newcomer to sims and this forum? Sure, he's got every right to feel cheated.

The bunch of old-timers and veterans who frequent this place? NOT A CHANCE. It was just voluntary blindness followed by self-righteous e-rage when things didn't go they way they imagined they would.


After the Russian release and a few weeks before the EU release:
"The videos on youtube are not encouraging, the game stutters like hell, oh well, i'm impatient so i'll buy a monster PC without knowing anything about what makes this game work this way and preorder anyway"

Two weeks later: "Oh well i'm impatient so i'll share the story of how i was cheated in the hopes of getting some comforting and maybe pushing the developers to give me a patch that fixes what i consider the most important bugs, because i'm super important and all"

There's a ton of things that need fixing in the game, but a lot of it is loads more important than the jaggies on a bloody aerial mast. But in order for people to know this they actually have to spend some time flying, instead of looking only at the pretty pictures and shutting off the game when they are not pretty enough for them. I honestly think some people are dabbling in the wrong gaming genre.

This is how some people come off here to the majority of the rest of the posters. You guys should see the kind of PMs and comments i get on reported posts from members of the community.

So let them stop throwing their HOTAS out the pram because the onlookers are not impressed, empathetic or otherwise moved one iota. It's a clear case of self-victimization, why should the rest of the community have to put up with the consequences of other people's masochism? :-P






As for the main topic at hand, this:



WW1 in the western front is a more or less static frontline on the same map, which also doesn't need to be very big due to the speed and range limitations of those early aircraft.

WW2 is not the same, not by a long shot. I think RoF's business model is unsuitable for anything other than RoF.


So, would i buy additional content for CoD? Depends on how it's packaged.

If it was itemized DLC sales i wouldn't.
If it was a complete expansion pack (they way it was done with IL2) i would, because it gives me an entire new theater of operations to play with: ground units, AI, maps, etc.

In fact, the only IL2 titles i didn't get where the ones that were packaged digitally (Pe-2 and sturmoviks over manchuria), i didn't have those until i got the 1946 disc and they were included in it.

The reason that selling only flyables works for RoF is that the rest of it all is pretty much static in a WW1 scenario. Doesn't work for WW2 that way, just the western European front would need 2-3 different maps with different ships, ground vehicles, etc. If the developer is selling only flyables, he has no way to sell the "supporting cast", if they are selling a complete bundle however, they can include whatever needs to be included in the package and price it accordingly.



Another lovely long post Blackdog, and yes we have heard it all before, and it's good to see you towing the party line, but you see it really doesn't matter what you or I think, everyone who reads these forums as read every argument and point of view and it doesn't matter how rational you appear to be, because the bottom line is that the majority of people here feel they have been 'ripped off' and furthermore the general feeling is at this current time Luthier is not doing enough (communication wise) to show that he gives a rat's ass about it. Yes he's payed lip service to it with the 'Community manager' that seems to have gotton lost in the Dynamic weather so he knows its important to us, we should be patient I hear you cry, but thats not what we want, we want to be kept informed, and 'the customer is always right'.
You can dress it up all you want, but that's the general mood. The only person who can change this, is not a moderator with a stubborn sense of duty but Luthier himself. If he carries on to ignore 'his' valued customers then he and his business will suffer and deservedly so for the lack of respect that he has shown on these boards by not keeping us (the paying customer) informed. Simples! :grin:

[Icebear]

Great poll ! Developers will definitely draw conclusions if only 25% of the last people interested in their game are "surely" willing to pay for any additional contend. :???: It's too bad. On the one hand it's too good to throw away, on the other hand I'm also not willing to spend another single cent at this stage.

IMO a useless if not destructive poll.

[Blackdog_kt]

I am not 100% sure on this but I don't think you can have both. :) If you are putting out single planes and single campaigns for people to buy then you really do not want open access for modders to create the same thing that you are trying to sell. If you were a Mod God you would just wait and see what the items were make them your self and drop them for free on to the mod sites, so my guess is if they went this way they would also have to change the code around to prevent this. That is why it scares me a little if they do entertain this idea at some point.

Cheers

According to one of their past interviews they didn't want to go with a RoF-style business model, but stick to the way it was done in IL2 with complete expansion packs.

Now it's true that many things have changed due to publisher pressure, but i think we have clear indications this is not one of them:

a) We got the 109E-1 for free and the E-4 is probably next (new aircraft mentioned in the last development update as being part of the patch).

b) In one of the development updates they mentioned the release of an SDK as being the next step after the bug fixing is done, which would enable the community to mod new aircraft and maps into the sim. The limitation is the map size so they can still sell expansions with large maps down the road.

c) The sim is very moddable even in its current state for people who have some programming knowledge: it's possible to insert custom campaigns with their own menu entries, create new overlay windows from scratch, etc.

So i think they are not going down that road and i'm glad for it. ;-)



Another lovely long post Blackdog, and yes we have heard it all before, and it's good to see you towing the party line, but you see it really doesn't matter what you or I think, everyone who reads these forums as read every argument and point of view and it doesn't matter how rational you appear to be, because the bottom line is that the majority of people here feel they have been 'ripped off' and furthermore the general feeling is at this current time Luthier is not doing enough (communication wise) to show that he gives a rat's ass about it. Yes he's payed lip service to it with the 'Community manager' that seems to have gotton lost in the Dynamic weather so he knows its important to us, we should be patient I hear you cry, but thats not what we want, we want to be kept informed, and 'the customer is always right'.
You can dress it up all you want, but that's the general mood. The only person who can change this, is not a moderator with a stubborn sense of duty but Luthier himself. If he carries on to ignore 'his' valued customers then he and his business will suffer and deservedly so for the lack of respect that he has shown on these boards by not keeping us (the paying customer) informed. Simples! :grin:

I'm not trying to convince you. I'm just saying i disagree and you're not worth the time convincing, so i just post to maintain my opposing viewpoint's time under the spotlights to prevent the forum giving off the false aura of everybody agreeing with your viewpoint. It's a devil's advocate kind of thing.

Oh and don't bring up the moderating status in this, if i wanted to silence you guys i could have done so on the first day and saved myself the time of answering you, it's just a couple of clicks worth of time.

I just don't believe in forcing my opinion across and that's why you are still posting here.

If you can't appreciate this it's none of my concern, but don't expect me to accept the kind of treatment i refuse to dish out, you're going to get called out on it. Nothing personal, just calling them as i see them ;-)

[Tree_UK]

According to one of their past interviews they didn't want to go with a RoF-style business model, but stick to the way it was done in IL2 with complete expansion packs.

Now it's true that many things have changed due to publisher pressure, but i think we have clear indications this is not one of them:

a) We got the 109E-1 for free and the E-4 is probably next (new aircraft mentioned in the last development update as being part of the patch).

b) In one of the development updates they mentioned the release of an SDK as being the next step after the bug fixing is done, which would enable the community to mod new aircraft and maps into the sim. The limitation is the map size so they can still sell expansions with large maps down the road.

c) The sim is very moddable even in its current state for people who have some programming knowledge: it's possible to insert custom campaigns with their own menu entries, create new overlay windows from scratch, etc.

So i think they are not going down that road and i'm glad for it. ;-)





I'm not trying to convince you. I'm just saying i disagree and you're not worth the time convincing, so i just post to maintain my opposing viewpoint's time under the spotlights to prevent the forum giving off the false aura of everybody agreeing with your viewpoint. It's a devil's advocate kind of thing.

Oh and don't bring up the moderating status in this, if i wanted to silence you guys i could have done so on the first day and saved myself the time of answering you, it's just a couple of clicks worth of time.

I just don't believe in forcing my opinion across and that's why you are still posting here.

If you can't appreciate this it's none of my concern, but don't expect me to accept the kind of treatment i refuse to dish out, you're going to get called out on it. Nothing personal, just calling them as i see them ;-)

Thats all fine but as a moderator its worth knowing that your view point isn't what is generally accepted on these forums, but i'm sure you are already aware of that. Oh and for the record i very much do appreciate that you haven't banned me or all the others that feel the same way. Also, all the polls we have had do suggest that the mass majority of people on here do agree with my viewpoint, and further to that a very large amount of people who were once die hard Luthier supporters have changed thier opinion since the release, not because of the patch updates but because of the lack of communication. You are in the minority on this one, but like you have said you do have the ban button to fall back on should you want to change the tide.

[Pluto]

No, not necessarily, dont wake up sleeping dogs with your thread !

Your question reminds me of the f... news on TV, when something bad happens somewhere in the world, for ex. a terrorist attack.
They always ask: "could that also happen here ?" They ask that question continuously until someone sick enough to do it will answer: "yes of course, I´ll show you !"

Very bad idea to even bring up that question !!!
:evil:
Especially for a not even finished sim like Cliffs of Dover. let me first get for what I paid, I still dont have it!!!

[Icebear]

According to one of their past interviews they didn't want to go with a RoF-style business model, but stick to the way it was done in IL2 with complete expansion packs.

Could you please be so kind and give us source link ? A RoF-Style business model would be a nightmare and IMO the end of the series.

[Jaws2002]

I paid full price for two copies.
Until the major things are fixed I wouldn't pay for anything COD related.:(

[FlyingShark]

I would pay for additional content but I would not pay for necessary fixes.

So, paying for new planes, theatres, maps is ok for me but let them first fix the sim as it is now please.

~S~

[Blackdog_kt]

Thats all fine but as a moderator its worth knowing that your view point isn't what is generally accepted on these forums, but i'm sure you are already aware of that. Oh and for the record i very much do appreciate that you haven't banned me or all the others that feel the same way. Also, all the polls we have had do suggest that the mass majority of people on here do agree with my viewpoint, and further to that a very large amount of people who were once die hard Luthier supporters have changed thier opinion since the release, not because of the patch updates but because of the lack of communication. You are in the minority on this one, but like you have said you do have the ban button to fall back on should you want to change the tide.

Are you trying to imply once again that we are going to hand out bans to shut people's mouths or am i just misunderstanding things?

Anyway, many of the polls you talk about are worded in ways that are open to different interpretations. I voted in some of them in a way that was more in line to what you would have voted, but i still don't hold the same interpretation of them as you do.

That "grade the game" poll of a few weeks back showed the majority of people were giving it between 50% and 70%, so i fail to see how that makes you a majority when you graded it a 10%-20% if i'm not mistaken.

What i can certainly concede is that the people who talk the most and loudest are the ones that agree with you. It's exactly this which creates a false perception of majority, the visibility of it all.

The multitude of people who post infrequently but flood my PM box with complaints about certain behaviours and my e-mail account with automated messages from reported posts (with some very interesting and enlightening reasons for reporting them) give off an entirely different picture to which you are not privy.

You are in the minority all right, it's just that you lack access to the relevant data to realize it and your voice is loud enough to drown out any doubts you might be having.

I have no interest to debate this further really, so let's just agree to disagree here and each one of us can keep having their original opinion. I don't care if you are convinced by me, i know i won't be convinced by you either, so let's stop derailing the thread otherwise i'll have to end up moving both your and my posts to the arguments thread to keep this one on-topic :-P





Could you please be so kind and give us source link ? A RoF-Style business model would be a nightmare and IMO the end of the series.

It's not a recent one, just one of their older interviews on simHQ. In any case, if they wanted to follow the RoF way they would have done it with the E-1 and stopped talking about the release of an SDK, so i think we don't have to worry about this unless a publisher decision overrides their own wishes.

[Tree_UK]

Are you trying to imply once again that we are going to hand out bans to shut people's mouths or am i just misunderstanding things?

Anyway, many of the polls you talk about are worded in ways that are open to different interpretations. I voted in some of them in a way that was more in line to what you would have voted, but i still don't hold the same interpretation of them as you do.

That "grade the game" poll of a few weeks back showed the majority of people were giving it between 50% and 70%, so i fail to see how that makes you a majority when you graded it a 10%-20% if i'm not mistaken.

What i can certainly concede is that the people who talk the most and loudest are the ones that agree with you. It's exactly this which creates a false perception of majority, the visibility of it all.

The multitude of people who post infrequently but flood my PM box with complaints about certain behaviours and my e-mail account with automated messages from reported posts (with some very interesting and enlightening reasons for reporting them) give off an entirely different picture to which you are not privy.

You are in the minority all right, it's just that you lack access to the relevant data to realize it and your voice is loud enough to drown out any doubts you might be having.

I have no interest to debate this further really, so let's just agree to disagree here and each one of us can keep having their original opinion. I don't care if you are convinced by me, i know i won't be convinced by you either, so let's stop derailing the thread otherwise i'll have to end up moving both your and my posts to the arguments thread to keep this one on-topic :-P







It's not a recent one, just one of their older interviews on simHQ. In any case, if they wanted to follow the RoF way they would have done it with the E-1 and stopped talking about the release of an SDK, so i think we don't have to worry about this unless a publisher decision overrides their own wishes.

Or we could take it to an online channel map and sort it out in the air? :grin:

[icarus]

One thing this poll shows clearly is that releasing an unfinished game in this condition hurts you in the long run for future sales. Also, the longer it takes to fix it, the more it will be difficult to regain any of those dollars. Its a real shame.

[Buzpilot]

Is this a official question, or just a stupid prank?
I don't see how asking such a stupid question in a alpha/beta state would do this community any good.

[icarus]

Is this a official question, or just a stupid prank?
I don't see how asking such a stupid question in a alpha/beta state would do this community any good.

I believe NedLynch is an avid supporter judging from his posts. Muzzling anything that is not flattering doesn't help the community either. Good comms from the devs would sure help though.

[Zoom2136]

It is in my mind the only viable business model for a sim such as CoD.

I for one would pay for aircrafts/grounds/sea objects.

OTOH I think that missions or campains can be made by the comunity.

[NedLynch]

Yeah, I am an avid supporter, because I didn't listen to the whiners and people who are trying to run this game at minimum specs. Bought the game and it runs prefectly fine on my mid..ish system.
Since when do you guys play computer games? Since the dawn of recommended specs everyone knows you better be close to them or a good cut above them, don't even bother with your premanufactured, overpriced, bloatware filled and by default underperforming piece of compaq or dell or whatever manufacturer you bought it from.
Sorry had to vent.

To spell it out for those who still don't see the point behind this poll: dev team has revenue = continued development, dev team runs out of revenue = no more support for the game.
This is just one idea to prevent that from happening, there may be others of course, all I wanted to see how the community stands in terms of continued support for the devs.
Ok, even though the fewest people here seem to really read through a thread before posting, we all bought the game, we all spend the asking price either oblivious to the problem postings and reviews or in full concience of them. I fall into the latter category, in any case complaining you were ripped off is completely invalid.
I did get what I payed for and am happy with it, of course I want more and, deveating from my original postion a bit, as multiple people stated, if made into a comprehensive package am willing to pay for that additional content as well.
The cries for "first fix the game", they are fixing it, did you guys miss that?
I am aiming for continued support not for the next month or two but for years to come.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

fact.. flight sims are a very small part of the gaming market

fact.. flight sim users demand cutting edge graphics and high fidelity flight models (read realism), which does not come cheap wrt software development

fact.. there is more money to be made and easier money to be made making 'silly' games (read non-flight sim games)

fact.. Oleg's past flight sim spoiled a lot of people into thinking flight sims have to provide free support, updates and addons for 10+ years, when in fact this type of support is the exception not the rule in gaming.

fact.. there is only three ways to get 'additional content'

1) closed system, where you pay the original sim maker for addons and hope for a free one from time to time
2) open system, where you pay for 3rd party addons and hope for a free one from time to time
3) hacked system: where you download a 'free' addons and hope for the best

With that said..

I think the best way is option 1

Where there is only one methodology to the FM and DM, in that the other two methods can result in many different versions of the 'same plane', worse yet in option 3 you can end up with many different versions of the 'same game'. And as noted above, the flight sim community is a small (nitch) one realitive to the gaming community as a whole, thus any splits hurts everyone.

Oh and the other nice thing about option one and even two is it has a filtering effect.. In essence weeding out the kid-os who have to go ask mama for the credit card to buy the addons. With the hope being that mama says no! ;)

[von Pilsner]

fact.. many people who enjoy WWII flight sims are not computer literate and don't play other games. (you forgot one, Ace :))

Oh and the other nice thing about option one and even two is it has a filtering effect.. In essence weeding out the kid-os who have to go ask mama for the credit card to buy the addons. With the hope being that mama says no! ;)

I get what you are saying, but I would like more people to play WWII flight sims, not less.

[Tvrdi]

for me the system of ROF to pay each plane is just horrible !

i will pay for extra content like i do for il2 forgotten battle or pacific fighter, etc... in one word addons!

i don't want to pay for each plane...or each visor or for each boulon of my plane like it is coming in ROF.


then my repsonse is NO!

sim genre is small...ww1 sim genre even smaller...they are doin this to survive...and we want them to survive...so I think its ok...at least they are giving us something good (and which looks good) which we can actually play and enjoy without a need for having a nuclear pc...and btw, wer getting updates very often and devs communication with customers is 5/5.

[kendo65]

In terms of beating the old dead horse (the tangent discussion that spun off in the thread) i'm with Madfish.
People on this forum especially knew what was wrong with the game before they even got it: the Russian release was on March 25th and we had ample supply of videos and reviews made not by gaming websites, but made by customers.


Oh come on Blackdog. I expect better than that of you on this forum. I stand by what I wrote in my last post. There was a lot of noisy debate pre-release and increasing signs that things were not all good, but it was completely possible (up until the Russian release at least) to believe that the released product would be rather more 'polished' than it turned out to be.

It's entirely possible that some of your comments below are addressed to other people more than myself, but seeing as your post follows directly on from points I raised i think I need to respond.


Anyone who was displeased and didn't cancel their preorder has only themselves to blame for taking a leap of faith and then busting our proverbial fuzzy dice when it didn't work out for them.

I've never pre-ordered any kind of game before CoD and in the case of CoD i only did it to get a collector's edition. Pre-ordering is for people who are willing to put up with the initial teething troubles or see some kind of other benefit in it (like it was in my case), if you don't want to take a risk cancel your order and wait for more in-depth reviews and patches. But please, stop doing our head in about how you've been cheated when the information was right before your eyes.


I've never pre-ordered a game before either (also Collectors Edition) and I'm still glad that I did. I've also never used the word 'cheated' (though others have). I never considered cancelling my order after the Russian release, because I wanted to support the devs, because I was looking forward to the game so much and because even at that late stage it was possible for many of us to believe that the game would still be ok. With hindsight there was a lot of wishful thinking involved. In my own case a stubborn disbelief that the devs would let it out in that state without being 'open' with us about the issues first.


A kid with no experience who saw a couple of advertisements and bought CoD, a newcomer to sims and this forum? Sure, he's got every right to feel cheated.

The bunch of old-timers and veterans who frequent this place? NOT A CHANCE. It was just voluntary blindness followed by self-righteous e-rage when things didn't go they way they imagined they would.


I respectfully disagree. I remember that week very clearly. There was a lot of noise, conflicting opinions, mounting disbelief. Desperate attempts to get accurate translations of what was posted on the Sukhoi forums (Google Translate !! :rolleyes: ). As I said - with hindsight it's possible to accept that myself and others were (willfully) deluding ourselves. At the time - NO!



After the Russian release and a few weeks before the EU release:
"The videos on youtube are not encouraging, the game stutters like hell, oh well, i'm impatient so i'll buy a monster PC without knowing anything about what makes this game work this way and preorder anyway"


I actually bought my monster PC about a month before the Russian release ;)

Blind faith? Maybe. Foolish? Probably, though again hindsight makes it obvious - it wasn't at all the case at the time. My choice and my responsibility and I take that one on the chin.


Two weeks later: "Oh well i'm impatient so i'll share the story of how i was cheated in the hopes of getting some comforting and maybe pushing the developers to give me a patch that fixes what i consider the most important bugs, because i'm super important and all"


Someone else I think.....


There's a ton of things that need fixing in the game, but a lot of it is loads more important than the jaggies on a bloody aerial mast. But in order for people to know this they actually have to spend some time flying, instead of looking only at the pretty pictures and shutting off the game when they are not pretty enough for them. I honestly think some people are dabbling in the wrong gaming genre.

In your opinion. You're a credit to this community and I for one value your patience and commitment. But the people who seem to have got the most out of the game are those like yourself who strongly value the fine detail technical aspects above other facets - landscape, anti-aliasing and 'pretty pictures'....

I'm pleased that you and others can. In my own case I can't suspend my disappointment with the other aspects of the sim enough to want to put the effort into learning the technical details. I need to have a believable sense of reality from the visual aspects, AI and several other areas first.

Please allow me the right to decide what is most important to me in how I play and approach the game without somehow being dismissed as a lightweight.


This is how some people come off here to the majority of the rest of the posters. You guys should see the kind of PMs and comments i get on reported posts from members of the community.

So let them stop throwing their HOTAS out the pram because the onlookers are not impressed, empathetic or otherwise moved one iota. It's a clear case of self-victimization, why should the rest of the community have to put up with the consequences of other people's masochism? :-P


Back on topic - For the record I voted yes in the poll for buying add-ons. I really want to see this sim become what it can be.

Feel free to move this post if needed.

[Red Dragon-DK]

http://i345.photobucket.com/albums/p383/IIJG53_Otto/milking-cow.jpg


If you mean like buy an aircraft like ROF. No I dont think so. Thats why WOW, ROF and some other games will never be on my harddrive. If that ever gona happen to this Sim, Im just one customer less. Does not mean much in the big picture, but there are many who feel like me.

But addons like in the in the old IL2. shure.... Thats a full packed like Operation Arrowhead is to Arma2. No problem there.

Thanks

[Icebear]

http://i345.photobucket.com/albums/p383/IIJG53_Otto/milking-cow.jpg


If you mean like buy an aircraft like ROF. No I dont think so. Thats why WOW, ROF and some other games will never be on my harddrive. If that ever gona happen to this Sim, Im just one customer less. Does not mean much in the big picture, but there are many who feel like me.

But addons like in the in the old IL2. shure.... Thats a full packed like Operation Arrowhead is to Arma2. No problem there.

Thanks

+1

[ACE-OF-ACES]

fact.. many people who enjoy WWII flight sims are not computer literate and don't play other games. (you forgot one, Ace :))
Not forgot, left out on purpose because it really does not have anything to do with my point, nor is that attribute 'exclusive' to flight sim games.

I get what you are saying, but I would like more people to play WWII flight sims, not less.
No, I don't think you 'get' what I am saying, that or you don't mind kid-os shooting down friendly planes in a coop because they think they are cool

[ACE-OF-ACES]

I need to add another fact

fact.. most if not all new games require a cutting edge PC, as did IL-2 when it first came out.

As with most problems with FPS it is the user not the game. We are all guilty of it from time to time. The problem is NOT with the game!! The problem is with the user! Because most modern games will auto detect the hardware and set the settings accordingly. Than before even flying 30mins the user runs to the options menu and tweaks all the settings to HIGH or VERY HIGH.. than said user plays the game and wonders why it is a slide show.. And than sit back and blame Oleg for the slide show.. It's Oleg's fault for putting those options in there!!

No mater what Oleg does it is a loose loose.. because if Oleg left those options out, a year or two from now when todays cutting edge hardware is in the bargin bin for $40 people will complain that Oleg did not include enough options to take advantage of the 'new' hardware

[Anvilfolk]

I'd just like to say that I believe certain people are misinterpreting the results. My option to vote "Not sure" (or even "no") has nothing to do with the state of the game. I would vote the same if CoD ran perfectly on my crappy machine.

I just don't like the pay-per-everything model of RoF... it really hinges on the "Pokemon syndrome" that humans are prone to. People like completeness, it's part of our nature. It's like buying a puzzle but only getting half the pieces. If you want the rest of the pieces you have to pay for each one. How can you not want to finish the puzzle? Turning a profit from something you can't really help is something I'm not comfortable with. Also, I'm a grad student and can't afford this stuff... that may account for some of it ;)


I'd be OK with large packs at reasonable prices. I'd jump on a Pacific Theatre expansion if it included significant amounts of aircraft and wasn't priced like a full game. That's why I went with "Not sure" instead of "No".

[Blackdog_kt]

Oh come on Blackdog. I expect better than that of you on this forum. I stand by what I wrote in my last post. There was a lot of noisy debate pre-release and increasing signs that things were not all good, but it was completely possible (up until the Russian release at least) to believe that the released product would be rather more 'polished' than it turned out to be.

It's entirely possible that some of your comments below are addressed to other people more than myself, but seeing as your post follows directly on from points I raised i think I need to respond.



I've never pre-ordered a game before either (also Collectors Edition) and I'm still glad that I did. I've also never used the word 'cheated' (though others have). I never considered cancelling my order after the Russian release, because I wanted to support the devs, because I was looking forward to the game so much and because even at that late stage it was possible for many of us to believe that the game would still be ok. With hindsight there was a lot of wishful thinking involved. In my own case a stubborn disbelief that the devs would let it out in that state without being 'open' with us about the issues first.



I respectfully disagree. I remember that week very clearly. There was a lot of noise, conflicting opinions, mounting disbelief. Desperate attempts to get accurate translations of what was posted on the Sukhoi forums (Google Translate !! :rolleyes: ). As I said - with hindsight it's possible to accept that myself and others were (willfully) deluding ourselves. At the time - NO!




I actually bought my monster PC about a month before the Russian release ;)

Blind faith? Maybe. Foolish? Probably, though again hindsight makes it obvious - it wasn't at all the case at the time. My choice and my responsibility and I take that one on the chin.



Someone else I think.....



In your opinion. You're a credit to this community and I for one value your patience and commitment. But the people who seem to have got the most out of the game are those like yourself who strongly value the fine detail technical aspects above other facets - landscape, anti-aliasing and 'pretty pictures'....

I'm pleased that you and others can. In my own case I can't suspend my disappointment with the other aspects of the sim enough to want to put the effort into learning the technical details. I need to have a believable sense of reality from the visual aspects, AI and several other areas first.

Please allow me the right to decide what is most important to me in how I play and approach the game without somehow being dismissed as a lightweight.


Back on topic - For the record I voted yes in the poll for buying add-ons. I really want to see this sim become what it can be.

Feel free to move this post if needed.

Well thought out reply, even though i wasn't addressing you in my previous post. That being said, i still disagree with some of your points but i also agree with some :-P

People take note, the above post is the way to disagree with other posters in a public forum. I won't reply so that we won't derail the thread further (plus i think i've said all i need to say on the matter), it would be a shame to have to move your post when it could serve as an example to others.

[Ze-Jamz]

I'd just like to say that I believe certain people are misinterpreting the results. My option to vote "Not sure" (or even "no") has nothing to do with the state of the game. I would vote the same if CoD ran perfectly on my crappy machine.

I just don't like the pay-per-everything model of RoF... it really hinges on the "Pokemon syndrome" that humans are prone to. People like completeness, it's part of our nature. It's like buying a puzzle but only getting half the pieces. If you want the rest of the pieces you have to pay for each one. How can you not want to finish the puzzle? Turning a profit from something you can't really help is something I'm not comfortable with. Also, I'm a grad student and can't afford this stuff... that may account for some of it ;)


I'd be OK with large packs at reasonable prices. I'd jump on a Pacific Theatre expansion if it included significant amounts of aircraft and wasn't priced like a full game. That's why I went with "Not sure" instead of "No".

I'd say the grad student bit has quite a bit to do with it :) ~S~

But then with this type of Market which isn't big it may be the only way to go..I'd rather keep paying for more content/packs/upgrades than Juat have a great game that will fizzle to nothing and then nothing replaces that.

We all know these markets are small at best and I think it's a good idea for DLC but I do agree with you, the price has a major factor here

[GF_Mastiff]

i would say "it's like watching the grass grow".

[Blackdog_kt]

For me it's not so much an issue of pricing. The RoF model does end up being more expensive overall, but spread out over a longer period of time for the cost of a beer at the bar per week and also lets people choose what to spend their money on.

It's the implications of this business model that i object to most of all. Like i said before, WW1 in the western front is a pretty much static scenario and flying distances are small: one map and a few ground units is all it needs, then the developers can focus only on flyable aircraft.

WW2 has a lot more theaters than WW1 and even on a single theater WW2 might need more than one map due to the ranges flown. Then it's an issue of ground units and AI units in general.

Going for a business model that sells only flyables mean that the developers have no way to sell us the rest of the things it would need to adequately flesh it out, so they would be less inclined to provide them in the first place.

Even if the pricing ended up similar i'd still prefer a complete expansion for this reason. I'd much rather spend $50 on a complete expansion pack with 8 new flyable aircraft, a new map and some new AI units, than spend $50 on 10 flyables priced $5 each.

It just doesn't make sense in the long run. Just imagine this, the map rotates on your favorite server and a mission comes up where you lack either the map or the aircraft to fly it.
It will only play havoc with multiplayer compatibility in the long run and cause major attendance/participation issues for most servers until the majority of people have had time to catch up in terms of add-ons purchased.

And we all know that half-empty or empty servers either don't get upgraded as often, both in terms of hardware/bandwidth/hosting and in terms of content, or they completely shut down because the rental expense can't be justified if not enough people use them.

I think this is one of the main reasons that RoF was struggling to achieve the same numbers of online players that IL2 had (i don't know if it even has comparable numbers today), much more than the fact that it was about WW1 and let's face it, almost everyone likes biplanes and swirly dogfights even if it's not their primary focus.

If CoD follows the IL2 business model it will get to that point some time, but using the itemized DLC method will result in even more widespread fragmentation because of the subject matter being much more varied as far as theaters of operations go. Per-aircraft DLC works very well for study sims and sims with a static frontline/map, but not so much for WW2 sims.

Now i can join any server and fly for any team. If we had per-aircraft DLC i would only buy a few bombers, only a couple of 109 variants that see widespread use in scenarios that predate the introduction of the 190 and the complete 190 series to fly in scenarios from 1942 onwards: i wouldn't even be able to switch sides to even the teams on a server and a similar thing would happen to other people buying different aircraft. :-P

Just one example among many of why i think it's a terrible idea for a WW2 sim :grin:

[NedLynch]

Maybe bringing up the RoF model was a mistake, it was the first thing that came into my mind since it is a flight sim as well.
Maybe the Total War series would have been better, they as well sell expansion packs and unit packs and in their last game Shogun2 the additional units do not impact online play. Those units are independent from SP and everyone online has the same units (in our case it would be the same pool of airplanes) to choose from.

[Blackdog_kt]

There's no mistake done simply by bringing it up, we're all just brainstorming here after all: we start from a foundation of existing ideas and then modify them to suit the task at hand ;-)

[Bryan21cag]

That "grade the game" poll of a few weeks back showed the majority of people were giving it between 50% and 70%, so i fail to see how that makes you a majority when you graded it a 10%-20% if i'm not mistaken.

View Poll Results: Your rating of COD right now.
10 25 10.25%
20 4 1.64%
30 18 7.38%
40 29 11.89%
50 42 17.21%
60 48 19.67%
70 53 21.72%
80 14 5.74%
90 7 2.87%
100 4 1.64%

just to refresh everyone's mind :)

cheers

[furbs]

Yep the average score was 56%? BD your memory is a little off. ;)

[icarus]

View Poll Results: Your rating of COD right now.
10 25 10.25%
20 4 1.64%
30 18 7.38%
40 29 11.89%
50 42 17.21%
60 48 19.67%
70 53 21.72%
80 14 5.74%
90 7 2.87%
100 4 1.64%

Mode = 70% (by a margin of 2% over 60% and 4% over 50%)

Median score = 22%

625% more voted lowest score than highest score

Mean score (average)= 38%

[Anvilfolk]

Just out of curiosity - I really don't recall: was that before or after the latest patch? Also, I still can't shake the idea that most people are having performance issues because they refuse to reduce settings. The overwhelming majority are still running at maximum resolution, 1680, 1920 and above. People just aren't used to making concessions anymore, in my opinion.

Either way - Blackdog, I see your point, but I do think the business model is still feasible. The change from plenty of aircraft variants isn't enormous. The development cost of doing a variant of a plane you have is much less than that of a new plane. If you bought a "plane", you'd probably get all its variants, or a significant portion of its variants. Furthermore, I'm sure many maps could be adapted so that there's a least one flyable plane you could get, at least at first. Suppose everyone would get a basic Zero or a Claude or something for a Pacific scenario. Servers could probably come up with a map rotation that always included the Zero. If it isn't historically accurate, keep the Zero at a more distant airfield, but add the other planes. Whoever's bought them could play them online. The content could be there, just not flyable, I guess.

And by the way, if the message came from the developers pay-per-plane is the only way to keep CoD development going, you'd find me buying aircraft. I'd just be mightily annoyed ;)

[swiss]

I'd much rather spend $50 on a complete expansion pack with 8 new flyable aircraft, a new map and some new AI units, than spend $50 on 10 flyables priced $5 each.



+1
...given the fact it works...

[Bonkin]

I voted yes... I agree with Ned

I guess my point is, money is the fuel that makes every business engine run and microtransactions would just be one source the dev team could tap to keep going in the long run.

Whichever way you look at it the game will only get better if there are developers working on it. I purchased the download version - and personally, for what we have I don't think its bad value for money - but then I do play almost exclusively on-line so have not really got into the single missions or campaigns.

I'm sure that if say a flyable Wellington or Beaufighter was offered for download at a reasonable price (together with missions/campaigns etc) then there would be a lot of interest - whether you voted yes or no.

[=FI=Scott]

Would I pay for DLC from 1C based on my experiences with CoD ? Not in the way I bought the game (CE on pre-order). I would buy DLC after it was released and after I had chance to hear what other users have to say. Also I think it is a valid point that it only took a few weeks with CoD before there were big discounts available and I would wait and see if that happened with any future release.

That has nothing to do with financially punishing Ubi, 1c or MG it is just that I would be far more cautious in the future buying anything from them based on what happened with CoD. Obviously paying for a patch to repair CoD would be out of the question but I do not think MG would do that anyway.

The comparison with the RoF model raises what I always saw as one of its biggest flaws- you need only buy what you want. I don't enjoy flying bombers that much (apart from the Brisfit!) so passed on four DLC aircraft out of the past six. I have no problem with that business model but I think expansions in packs is the better option for a developer.

[Timberwolf]

game isn't worth the money i spent in the first place and to the fact ..."were working hard" to see other 1c projects being pushed out and are monthly info on whats new ..to be banjo music and whats in the "near" future pass

However there is gossip of 2 dogfight sims coming ..You can fly all the planes you want but have to level your pilots exp to get items like "hawkeye" see enemys at a further distance per level with talk of a cheap download price and item buys ..beta fall of 2012

[Fjordmonkey]

However there is gossip of 2 dogfight sims coming ..You can fly all the planes you want but have to level your pilots exp to get items like "hawkeye" see enemys at a further distance per level with talk of a cheap download price and item buys ..beta fall of 2012

If you're thinking about World of Planes, don't insult the genre by call it a sim. It'll be a sim in comparison to IL2:CloD about as much as World of Tanks is a sim compared to Steel Beasts. I.e. not at all.

[Untamo]

S!

Voted "not sure", meaning: Not now, but yes, after we got the game to a working order, as in, have the basics right. I will be ready to pay for additional content in the sense of expansion packs in old Il-2 style.

And no, not in the RoF style where if you want the whole game, it will cost you the price of several games.

[SNAFU]

I voted "Yes" under the assumption that the game would be as it was intended to be - an simulation orientated game around the mainstay-planes of the Battle of Britian and not a 50% finished software of someday-could-be-a-BoB-simulation. ;)

If the products, here 3-D models with their FM&DM are done with some dedication and pride in workmanship and worth their money I would pay for the work the dev do.

[ATAG_MajorBorris]

Vote YES to splinter the online comunity.

It just wont have the amount of pilots original IL2 did online with a pay for per plane/instrument business model, dont you guys see that?

34 Me109 varriants @ $7 per plane = $238 + intruments @$2-5 +no mods= few pilots online.

$15 per bomber variant anyone?


A free variant + ai content every month and an expansion every so often would be great.

[Wolf_Rider]

No


That's where MS FS ('04 ~ FSX) series never improved... the "Out of the Box" was always (whatever the reason) left to 3rd party to fix.

A quality product to begin with, may have some merit in the game's design team developed expansion packs... but the likelyhood of that product staying a quality one, upon 3rd party chargeable content, in later (new version) releases, is not a strong one.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Voted 'No' as there is so much wrong with what I've already paid for.

Once the basics are put right free of charge then I'd be willing to, as I already have with RoF.

'Just Flight' recently had a sale selling the basic CoD for £13.99.
I bought two collector's editions on release for £50 each and was happy to do so in order to assist the developers, as I'm a ten year IL2 supporter.

Here we are 4 months later, waiting for a new game engine, new sound engine, new lots of other stuff, no comms, insane AI behaviour, multiplayer only possible without trees, useless track editor etc etc, without so much as a hint as to progress since the 6th of August.

This now has led me to change my whole opinion and attitude towards the developers from one of trust and total support to one of mistrust and total disappointment. Whatever internal politicking, mis-management and/or staff changes led to this sorry situation is absolutely none of my concern as an end user and consumer.

It also means that whatever 'expansions' are released for CoD, I won't buy them until they come down in price from the initial release price, and not at all unless and until the basic game becomes as useable and enjoyable as IL2 Sturmovik, DCS A-10 or RoF.

[ParaB]

No.

Not unless they actually fix the game first.

[PVT_Shepperd]

I voted for "Yes" because I generally would pay for additional content. But before the game would have to be fixed. So give me a working CloD and lateron some more content worth the money and I ll get it.
If the question would have been:"Would you be willing to pay for additional content for CloD in nowadays state?" I would have voted "No".

[Fjordmonkey]

If by content you mean addon-content AFTER the sim has been patched up to a playable, stabile state actually worthy of release, then yes.

If you mean pay more to get the sim patched to a playable, stabile state worthy of release, then hell effin' no. To the 30th power.

[robtek]

The results of this poll are clearly wrong, as the majority, so it seems, of voters dont take in account that the OP meant "additional content to a working game" !

That so many people here actual seem to think that this sim will stay in the actual sad state is unbelievable, imo.

The devs have stated that they are working on a patch to fix things and have presented a timetable, what happens?

The same old regurgitating of old news.

[ATAG_Dutch]

The results of this poll are clearly wrong, as the majority, so it seems, of voters dont take in account that the OP meant "additional content to a working game" !

I think you should read his post again Rob.

I am also sure they could not have developed the game to the stage it is in right now (offline career and other improvements) without a somewhat continuing revenue stream.
Improving the issues with CoD and meeting the needs of the community will take time and money.

[robtek]

......To spell it out for those who still don't see the point behind this poll: dev team has revenue = continued development, dev team runs out of revenue = no more support for the game.........

.........The cries for "first fix the game", they are fixing it, did you guys miss that?
I am aiming for continued support not for the next month or two but for years to come.

That is what i am refering to, Dutch_851.

[ATAG_Dutch]

That is what i am refering to, Dutch_851.

Ah, I see. Well I've already spent £100 of my money, and that's enough from me for the basic game to be made good.

Had I bought it @ £13.99 from Just Flight, maybe I'd be willing to shovel in some more cash for the basic game to be made good by buying additional content, so my attitude of 'not yet' still holds true.;)

'They are fixing it' isn't the same as 'It's fixed'. At all. :)

[WWBayonet]

How dare this subject even be approached with the state of the sim in it's present condition.
Although if this post is meant to further display the discontent of the majority of purchasers, then good on it. I believe there are too many fanboi's willing to accept the substandard product and associated excuses on these forums.
To chastise the "squeaky wheels" as being "counterproductive" in their display of displeasure, is also unacceptable.

[Bakelit]

Conditional yes.

I pay for RoF content (bought every aircraft so far) and have always been satisfied.

BUT, and thats a big but - only if the "sim base" was to my liking which it is not at the moment and won't be for the foreseeable future.

The way it is now I wont buy a campaign, theatre pack or single aircraft.

[BigC208]

Conditional yes.

I pay for RoF content (bought every aircraft so far) and have always been satisfied.

BUT, and thats a big but - only if the "sim base" was to my liking which it is not at the moment and won't be for the foreseeable future.

The way it is now I wont buy a campaign, theatre pack or single aircraft.


I'm in the same boat. Bought RoF ICE and bought all the planes either on sale or preorder. I'm not buying any of the mods though. Value is just not there yet Buying a plane for $4 and then 4 or 5 bucks for a gunsight or a fancy gauge, I just don't see it.

What helps RoF is that it's only a 1 theater simulator. With a WWII sim I don't mind spending 40 or 50 bucks on a theater. This way most of the planes in that theater would be there. Not just the popular ones. People are most likely not going to spend a lot of money on a crap plane only to get blown out of the sky on a fulltime basis. The skies would be filled with 109's, fw190, Spits and Mustangs. Forget about the Fokker DXXI's or Fairey Battles and other obscure or low production number planes that played a part in May 1940.

So bring on the new theatres, after the base program is fixed mind you.

[jimbop]

The results of this poll are clearly wrong...

That made me laugh! The results of this poll are clearly opinion and can't really be wrong.

[Tree_UK]

That made me laugh! The results of this poll are clearly opinion and can't really be wrong.

Every poll we have had so far as been 'clearly wrong', according to the die hards who dont like the results. We should get the Mods to create a poll so noone can argue with the 'wording'!!

[robtek]

The wording should have included the state of the sim, as in:

Would you pay for additional contend for cod as it is now. or:

Would you pay for additional contend for cod when the patch works as announced.

The way it is worded now it is biased towards the negative, imo.

[Sven]

Would I pay for content? Depends, if there's a huge number of fixes and performance boosters included and better sound, then yes, absolutely.

I can't wait for the next game in the IL2 series, but they got to fix this stuff first.

[Jugdriver]

Like many on here I voted Yes, but that is conditional on a much improved sim. I personally am not interested in the ROF pay per plane model. I would pay for larger theater wide expansions with multiple aircraft like AEP, Pacific Fighters, PE2, and 1946, (which of course are more expensive than just paying for planes) and new maps, I personally like that model better and feel it is more suited to simulations.

JD
AKA_MattE

[ElAurens]

I will never ever again buy aircraft one at a time. It's not the way to properly develop a flight sim. All it does is create income flow with no incentive to do anything but make more aircraft models, as that is where the money is for the developer that uses such a lame scheme.

What I will do is buy addons that supply aircraft, land and sea vehicles, and maps that allow for their use in a proper historical context. This is real value for money, and not just feeding an addiction for new aircraft.

[hiro]

Yes once the game is working condition. At least beta release level. Not the Alpha ATM.


And I'd like it per expansion, not pay for individual planes. And keep making the game better with each expansion.

+1 on this as other people have said it. Its not just the plane but the whole game that makes a game great, the theater development, ground vehicles, ships, buildings, environment, troops, AI . . .

That's like going to the store and paying a few quid for an egg, everyone knows you buy them by the dozen for several

Of course greedy capitalist figs try to hog and sell piece by piece. that model is weaksauce.

So is the Starcraft 2 and half life 2 spanned release idea.

Starcraft 2 was originally going to be released as one big game with all three races just like the original with two expansions in the works. but now Blizzard realizes their crazy fans will pay 20$ a month (for two accounts) for a 7 year old game with lame graphics, that's been haxorz to hell and rampant bliz employee GM abuse (game master) so leet peeps can max level in a day . . . so they split their game into 3 parts sold separably wait 2 years between each . . .

and then their two + expansions.

[Blackdog_kt]

There's no leveling neither monthly subscriptions in starcraft 2. You buy the game, you get the campaign of the first race (which is as long as the entire first game was) and all three races to play in multiplayer. Maybe you are confusing it with world of warcraft? :confused:


On the original topic:


I'm in the same boat. Bought RoF ICE and bought all the planes either on sale or preorder. I'm not buying any of the mods though. Value is just not there yet Buying a plane for $4 and then 4 or 5 bucks for a gunsight or a fancy gauge, I just don't see it.

What helps RoF is that it's only a 1 theater simulator. With a WWII sim I don't mind spending 40 or 50 bucks on a theater. This way most of the planes in that theater would be there. Not just the popular ones. People are most likely not going to spend a lot of money on a crap plane only to get blown out of the sky on a fulltime basis. The skies would be filled with 109's, fw190, Spits and Mustangs. Forget about the Fokker DXXI's or Fairey Battles and other obscure or low production number planes that played a part in May 1940.

So bring on the new theatres, after the base program is fixed mind you.


Like many on here I voted Yes, but that is conditional on a much improved sim. I personally am not interested in the ROF pay per plane model. I would pay for larger theater wide expansions with multiple aircraft like AEP, Pacific Fighters, PE2, and 1946, (which of course are more expensive than just paying for planes) and new maps, I personally like that model better and feel it is more suited to simulations.

JD
AKA_MattE


I will never ever again buy aircraft one at a time. It's not the way to properly develop a flight sim. All it does is create income flow with no incentive to do anything but make more aircraft models, as that is where the money is for the developer that uses such a lame scheme.

What I will do is buy addons that supply aircraft, land and sea vehicles, and maps that allow for their use in a proper historical context. This is real value for money, and not just feeding an addiction for new aircraft.


+1 to the above, just some of the reasons i think full expansions would be better overall and provide more variety in the long term.


Yep the average score was 56%? BD your memory is a little off. ;)

I didn't say average, i said most people voted 50, 60 or 70, less people voted 10-40 and 80-100 ;-)

[Anvilfolk]

We should enumerate the theatres we are most interested in and then making a poll to show the devs what expansion packs their customers would be most willing to pay for.

I would personally be most interested in a Pacific expansion pack with carrier operation (spotting and unspotting aircraft, for instance, so we could have proper day-long engagements, scouting patrols, etc etc), and quite a few of the planes. Who knows, maybe even an Early Pacific and Late Pacific, as long as the number of airplanes is adequate for both.

I understand the next expansion is the Eastern Front, which I really don't find very interesting.

There'd also be North Africa, perhaps including Mediterranean...

What else?

[Qpassa]

100% no

[JG53Frankyboy]

We should enumerate the theatres we are most interested in and then making a poll to show the devs what expansion packs their customers would be most willing to pay for.

....................
was done long time ago.
MTO won by far.................the next seems to be Eastern Front, so, go figure.

[Blackdog_kt]

The Med is still not unlikely. Why would they go to the trouble of modeling Italian aircraft for BoB (they were there, but they weren't a big part of it), if they weren't going to use them in a future theater?

I think that both the eastern front and the Korean expansions are put on hold while the game's engine is being improved, but the initial plan was for Korea and battle of Moscow to be "subcontracted" to another studio and Maddox Games to work on BoB and the Med. Some of these studios might share know-how and even staff members, but they would still be separate design teams (just like certain IL2 expansions were made by Luthier's team in the past).

With Oleg leaving and Luthier taking up MG too i don' know how the restructuring will affect things, but in the long term i think their aim would be similar: get a stable engine as a foundation to get other developers interested and worth their time to work on, then have them work on one thing while the main team works on something else or just core engine improvements.

In any case, they simply can't ignore their Russian/Ukrainian/CIS states fanbase and it's not just a matter of sales alone. They get a lot more meaningful interaction there, both due to the lack of a language barrier and due to the fact that the Russian community are willing to get their hands dirty and provide content for all of us.

If you take a look around, you'll see that many of the earliest or most active posters in terms of user-made missions/campaigns and use of scripting are from the eastern European community. Giving them a theater of their interest to further encourage them to remain involved makes sense in many ways and would also benefit the rest of us, because these guys over there are the ones who mostly get to grips with the technical side of what the sim can really do for us all in the long term.

Anyway, i think the Med would be a much less daunting task once the basic foundation exists, simply because a lot of flyables can be carried over to that theater with a new paintjob, a few extra polygons on the model for the sand filters and a new map (mostly featureless too) to fly over, so i remain optimistic about it :D

[Jugdriver]

The cool part of the Med is that there is a lot of content to offer/sell. Maps of North Africa, Italy/Sicily/Malta, even Greece , and the area saw action for the bulk of the war so there would be a lot of aircraft.

Of course I do have to say I have a soft spot for the Eastern front, I found the Eastern front maps from the old IL2 series to be very immersive and great for campaigns (takes me back to the days of VEF). Also great planes on both sides (especially by early 43) and a ton of tactical employment of airpower.

I think between the Med and the Eastern front theaters there could be content to produce and sell for years, they could easily do two expansions for each.

JD
AKA_MattE

[ElAurens]

NO, the cool part about the Med is the Curtiss P40.

:cool:

[NedLynch]

Med and pacific would be awesome, for the med north africa is a definitely tempting thing to me, nice change of scenery and well, the pacific with carrier operations....oh yeah :grin: