Why not pay every month to play COD!

[ga_332]

ok see that games like WOW(diffrent game tho but my point) and Aces High(just the same series/Games) have to pay every month and both games very sucsessfull. This most be a god thing for both parts custemour and devenloper. If the game is not good, people would not add pay every month, and devenloper have to see that game is in top shape so that we pay every month ;) And every patch/secuel would off course be in the price ;) ........

[Feathered_IV]

No thanks. I'd be fine with buying addons, large or small. But I'd not like to rent the game.

[Tavingon]

I would buy flyable plane dlc, £2.99.. no problem with that

[SturmKreator]

I would buy flyable plane dlc, £2.99.. no problem with that

Yep that would be much better, pay for playing? naaa, I hate that bussines model.

[Tavingon]

Yep that would be much better, pay for playing? naaa, I hate that bussines model.

Literally if they had a team who just made bonus planes for cash, I'd buy every single one.. my wallet is ready, its irritating they arent willing to try dlc to supliment the developments!

[Aer9o]

ok see that games like WOW(diffrent game tho but my point) and Aces High(just the same series/Games) have to pay every month and both games very sucsessfull. This most be a god thing for both parts custemour and devenloper. If the game is not good, people would not add pay every month, and devenloper have to see that game is in top shape so that we pay every month ;) And every patch/secuel would off course be in the price ;) ........

It this sone sesonal joke ...mate???:)

[reaver]

i will gladly make another financial contribution , if it helps finish this game. I will certainly buy upcoming battle of Moscow and any other expansions, but i wouldn't pay monthly fee simply because i am not playing cliffs of dover. Its is still (early) beta and i have better things to do that free beta testing.

But i must express my thanks to all fellow gamers who contribute by doing so :D

R.

[ElAurens]

I dropped RoF because of that dubious business model.

All it does is create a bunch of customers addicted to new planes, and makes developers focus on new aircraft rather than new scenario/content creation.

It works, sort of, for RoF because they never have to make a new map, or add much of any type of ground vehicle/campaign scenario content.

The model used by IL2, and now the new sim, has worked very well over the years. New aircraft and maps, plus many necessary ground objects/vehicles, all tied up in a cohesive package. Far better than RoF's shotgun approach where new aircraft seemingly appear willy nilly with no historical context.

[MB_Avro_UK]

I would be happy to pay for additions such as aircraft and ground objects. (Similar to RoF).

These items are far more complex than in the il21946 days and deserve our financial support,as indeed does the rest of the sim.

If you divide the amount of time you fly over the years with the cost, it makes sense.

I only flew co-ops with a team in il2 1946. As a host in forseeable CLOD we would of course need to have matching purchased aircraft/objects.


Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

[ATAG_Dutch]

I certainly wouldn't want to pay monthly.

But I've already said in another thread that I'd be willing to pay another full game price and more to get 'Cliffs' closer to a Battle of Britain sim.

As it stands, we'll need to wait for the Mediterranean theatre to emerge before getting any content that will enhance the existing game from a Battle of Britain perspective, such as The Royal Navy and a flyable Wellington.

They will remember the Royal Navy in the MTO, won't they.........?

[louisv]

ok see that games like WOW(diffrent game tho but my point) and Aces High(just the same series/Games) have to pay every month and both games very sucsessfull. This most be a god thing for both parts custemour and devenloper. If the game is not good, people would not add pay every month, and devenloper have to see that game is in top shape so that we pay every month ;) And every patch/secuel would off course be in the price ;) ........

Are you mad ?

And have a bill for every sim you own (or every software, can you add) ?

Can you imagine how much money you would have paid over the years ????

[VO101_Tom]

ok see that games like WOW(diffrent game tho but my point) and Aces High(just the same series/Games) have to pay every month and both games very sucsessfull. This most be a god thing for both parts custemour and devenloper. If the game is not good, people would not add pay every month, and devenloper have to see that game is in top shape so that we pay every month ;) And every patch/secuel would off course be in the price ;) ........

The Player's perspective, the worst system in the monthly subscription. The developer gets a lot of money on a monthly basis, even if that month has not been a "bit" new to the game either. This is the least incentive for improvement. Or do you think if the Clod does not come for a couple of month new plane or a map (but otherwise there are no bugs or complaints), then quit the mass of the subscription?

The micro-transaction business model is called scam, if you count a bit, you realize that it is possible to pay the most expensive (and only rental).

I am very pleased that Luthier follow the traditions of the il-2: regular patchs and pay sequels. This is the most correct thing IMHO.

[5./JG27.Farber]

RoF's business model is the most repugnant I have ever seen. If IL2 goes down this route I am out. RoF now make any old DLC just for the sale... They now have pistols you can buy, next they will charge for ammunition and fuel...

:mad: Tavingon, seriously... No!

[ACE-OF-ACES]

This most be a god thing for both parts custemour and devenloper. If the game is not good, people would not add pay every month, and devenloper have to see that game is in top shape so that we pay every month ;)
I use to belive that too..

As one who use to pay $12/hr to fly Airwarrior online I thought WARBIRDS at a couple of bucks an hour was a steal! Lowered my monthly gaming bill from hundreds of dollars a month to something around a hundred a month.. That was the only option back in the day to get a good flight simulator online action, pay to play.

Than something happened about 10 years ago.. A little flight simulator called IL-2.. I had better graphics, better flight model and better online connections (less warping) than the flight sim I was paying to play (i.e. WARBIRDS)..

So I switched..

But I kept my eye on WARBIRDS.. The idea being I was thinking like you.. In a year or so, IL-2 would be old news, and warbirds would come out with some new greater looking 3D engine that would blow IL-2 away.. Made since in that WARBIRDS was getting monthly check and IL-2 was not.

But.. It never happened..

To this day WARBIRDS and other online sims like Aces-High have very dated looking graphics..

So in theory I agree with you, but, I think the bean counters at those places must keep putting the thumbs down on the 3D upgrades.. To keep the investors happy I guess.. I even check back every so often to see where they are.. About a year or so ago I thought I would give Aces-High another look.. There was only a handful (less than 30) of people online at any given time.. So not only was IL-2 kicking their buts in looks but in the number of people playing..

So, I think that monthly pay to play model just does not work..

But, I think the RoF model of paying for a new play is working an works well..

It kind of follows along the same line of thinking that 1C has had for the past ten years (see sig) where they come out with a pay for squeal that adds a few new plays..

So we either pay $50 for a squeal (1C) with a few new planes and maps or pay $12 per plane (RoF) to keep the flight sim makers cash flow flowing so the can continue to make us the stuff we love!

We flight simmers have to remember!!

Flight simming is a nitch market.. Barely enough of us out there for a game company to justify making a new sim.. So one way or another if we want to keep flying we need to pay them for what they do..

And $50 every five or six months for a squeal is far cheaper than a night out drinking.. and way cheaper than what I use to spend on Air Warrior in one night some 20 years ago.

[Heliocon]

ok see that games like WOW(diffrent game tho but my point) and Aces High(just the same series/Games) have to pay every month and both games very sucsessfull. This most be a god thing for both parts custemour and devenloper. If the game is not good, people would not add pay every month, and devenloper have to see that game is in top shape so that we pay every month ;) And every patch/secuel would off course be in the price ;) ........

Go away :evil:

[Trumper]

For people like myself who want to support the sim but actually not fly very often ie about once every month or two i would drop the sim like a stone.

[Insuber]

Paying a monthly fee just to join a server, as someone wrote, doesn't encourage the dev to develop his product. I like to finance the genre, but I believe that the Il2 model was the best one. Second is RoF.

Then I wouldn't dislike the system adopted by a certain car racing sim: you buy a share of the venture, and you get all betas and updates, and in the end you receive the game. Then you get paid back proportionally to the game revenues and to the amount invested. And you can invest from 50 to x thousand ...

[BigC208]

I bought RoF when it came out with the Iron Cross Edition. Think it came with 8 planes. Bought most of the other planes when they were on sale. When they went with their new bussiness model I had no problems with it. The beauty of this system is that you only get what you want. I mostly fly the Fokker DVII and Albatross V. Under the new system I could've been in bussiness for about $10! Flight sim for the masses! Socialism at it's best. The "rich" subsidize the developement of new airplanes that the "poor" get to shoot down for free!

Now you can say that paying $7 for a colored scarf and a pistol is price gouging. Nobody puts a gun to your head (pun intended) so if you think it's too expensive, don't buy it. I personally think paying $12-14 for a two seater
recon plane I hardly use is too much. I'll wait untill they're on sale in a few months or simply don't buy. Paid about $3 for most other planes. I'm not paying full pricefor gauges and gunsights either.

The monthly fee model would die a quick death. If I spend money every month I want to see something new every month.

Even though it works for a one front sim like RoF I do hope CloD does not go the RoF DLC route. WWI only had the Western front with significant air combat. Even on that one front we mostly see the more popular, late war, well performing aircraft. It's taking forever to flesh out a realistic 1914-early 1916 planeset. WWII had a whole buch of theatres with different aircraft. None of the crap planes would be featured for DLC because they would not sell. Give me a well balanced planeset for each theatre at retail price. Once the SDK get's released 3rd party developers can make aditional aircraft and objects a la RoF.

[KeBrAnTo]

ok see that games like WOW(diffrent game tho but my point) and Aces High(just the same series/Games) have to pay every month and both games very sucsessfull. This most be a god thing for both parts custemour and devenloper. If the game is not good, people would not add pay every month, and devenloper have to see that game is in top shape so that we pay every month ;) And every patch/secuel would off course be in the price ;) ........

You kidding, right?

[5./JG27.Farber]

I bought RoF on release, cost me £20.00 GBP. Should have been 30 but the store made a mistake or something. Now the game is free, do I as a iniatial investor / purchaser get a kick back? No...

That was the 2nd thing that got me mad.

I am not 100% on this but it seems to me and from what I have heard, the RoF team "tweeks" aircraft for gameplay and cost. I want to fly a flight simulator not a cash business model. It should be knowledge and skill that make a pilot good, not what he can afford.


The old business model for IL2 was and is the best. Compatible expansions at regular intervals for the price of a new game... I think thats what most people here want. God only knows where we will go if they dont use that system, for me it will not be RoF...

[SacaSoh]

Well, I have uninstalled the game and I'm waiting for the "new graphics engine" and to someone to make a dinamic campaign generator (a modder, dont expect it from the developers). I'll buy the next game only of it brings improvements to CoD, and only after reading several reviews from forum member...

I've paid full price on this game and, according to my Steam profile, played 22h... 90% of time doing some random fights over the channel so to achieve a playable FPS, even with a powerful rig, but all you guys know what I'm talking about.

The way the things look, they would have to pay me monthly if they wish me playing at least 2 hours per week.

Meanwhile i play singleplayer, heavily modded original IL-2 and wait for BoM, if the devs want my money (more of it) do a better job this time.

[drewpee]

ROF is dead to me because of the way they ask for more money to stay up to date. If IL2 did the same they'd loose my support also. Not all players have big wallets.

[kakkola]

Paying monthly?
Thx but no thx!!!!!

[Wolf_Rider]

+1 to thanks but no thanks...


Just keep the business model as is, and that is expansion packs... but have the expansion packs develop in the same order the main battles of WWII developed - both Europe and The Pacific.

Leave RoF for the "I want 1,000 planes" addicts :evil: Crikey, can it be imagined what it would be like with some plane addict setting a mission with planes no-one else has or wants?

[David198502]

paying every month to play COD?that would be a horror scenario in my view.i think this would be the only reason where i would really quit to play the series and abandon it forever.

dont get me wrong, i want the devs to earn good money with the series, but not in this way.
they should continue their way to sell their products, just like it has been.i would pay more than 50 euro for a title in the series if it was necessary but not paying every month to play the game.no thanks.

[Sven]

I dropped RoF because of that dubious business model.

All it does is create a bunch of customers addicted to new planes, and makes developers focus on new aircraft rather than new scenario/content creation.

It works, sort of, for RoF because they never have to make a new map, or add much of any type of ground vehicle/campaign scenario content.

The model used by IL2, and now the new sim, has worked very well over the years. New aircraft and maps, plus many necessary ground objects/vehicles, all tied up in a cohesive package. Far better than RoF's shotgun approach where new aircraft seemingly appear willy nilly with no historical context.

+ 1

Well said, I miss the ground war in Rise of Flight, and I dislike it's business model and the fanbase created by it.

Adding new maps and theathers is much more interesting in my opinion.

[ga_332]

I use to belive that too..

As one who use to pay $12/hr to fly Airwarrior online I thought WARBIRDS at a couple of bucks an hour was a steal! Lowered my monthly gaming bill from hundreds of dollars a month to something around a hundred a month.. That was the only option back in the day to get a good flight simulator online action, pay to play.

Than something happened about 10 years ago.. A little flight simulator called IL-2.. I had better graphics, better flight model and better online connections (less warping) than the flight sim I was paying to play (i.e. WARBIRDS)..

So I switched..

But I kept my eye on WARBIRDS.. The idea being I was thinking like you.. In a year or so, IL-2 would be old news, and warbirds would come out with some new greater looking 3D engine that would blow IL-2 away.. Made since in that WARBIRDS was getting monthly check and IL-2 was not.

But.. It never happened..

To this day WARBIRDS and other online sims like Aces-High have very dated looking graphics..

So in theory I agree with you, but, I think the bean counters at those places must keep putting the thumbs down on the 3D upgrades.. To keep the investors happy I guess.. I even check back every so often to see where they are.. About a year or so ago I thought I would give Aces-High another look.. There was only a handful (less than 30) of people online at any given time.. So not only was IL-2 kicking their buts in looks but in the number of people playing..

So, I think that monthly pay to play model just does not work..

But, I think the RoF model of paying for a new play is working an works well..

It kind of follows along the same line of thinking that 1C has had for the past ten years (see sig) where they come out with a pay for squeal that adds a few new plays..

So we either pay $50 for a squeal (1C) with a few new planes and maps or pay $12 per plane (RoF) to keep the flight sim makers cash flow flowing so the can continue to make us the stuff we love!

We flight simmers have to remember!!

Flight simming is a nitch market.. Barely enough of us out there for a game company to justify making a new sim.. So one way or another if we want to keep flying we need to pay them for what they do..

And $50 every five or six months for a squeal is far cheaper than a night out drinking.. and way cheaper than what I use to spend on Air Warrior in one night some 20 years ago.

Thx mate good feedback, I alos were in Warbirds , Aches High had some good team play there ;) Made my squad in Aces High and meet some good friends there ;)

This post is ofcourse just up for disqussion not my final view just a thought since some off the games out there have it, but some off you guys come up with good + - off it and I thank you for that SALUTE Gents ;)

[ATAG_MajorBorris]

Literally if they had a team who just made bonus planes for cash, I'd buy every single one.. my wallet is ready, its irritating they arent willing to try dlc to supliment the developments!

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 few months and an expansion every so often would be great.


IL2 and Rise of flight and are two different sims/$ model, 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.


ASUS Sabertooth MB--Intel 2600k@4.7--EVGA GTX580 3GB--Corasir 1200 watt psu--Corsair 8gb 1833--Corsair H70 cooler--Corsair 650d case--OCZ Vertex 3--Track IR5--CH Eclipse Yoke--CH Trottle Quadrant--CH MFP--CH Rudders

[addman]

Here's 15€ luthier, give me a flyable Cr.42. Here's another 15€ for a channel ship pack, go on! take it! Seriously if it's only money it takes to give us some more content then yes, I am willing to pay. Call me a fool if you will but if it's the only way to get new content then what else is there to do?

The old archaic way of doing it (the last ten years of expansions/sequels) is nice and fine but what if I don't care about T-34's or I-16's? What if I only want BoB scenario stuff? I don't mind paying for DLC for a game that I really enjoy and I want to extend the longevity on. Also, if luthier whines about he and the team has been working for "free" just to fix CloD then why not throw out some DLC for us to enjoy and pay for, maybe then he won't feel so sad about working. :)

[Wolf_Rider]

I think you may have "the whines" coming from the wrong camp.... and in seeing the flak they, the developers, cop (yes, from whiners) its hard to believe they bother to keep going at all.

Don't destroy this sim with DLC like MSFS was... crap out of the box and pay a fortune to "fix" it.

[addman]

I think you may have "the whines" coming from the wrong camp.... and in seeing the flak they, the developers, cop (yes, from whiners) its hard to believe they bother to keep going at all.

Don't destroy this sim with DLC like MSFS was... crap out of the box and pay a fortune to "fix" it.

I think the financial investment overrides any emotions that the devs may or may not have in this sim. They are running a business, the goal of a business is profit. If they don't make a game that people wants to buy then they won't make enough money and then they will have to close down, it is when all said and done, whining or no whining, a fact. Back to subject though, weren't most add-on planes for MSFS third party?

It's important to be able to know the difference between bug-fixing patches and DLC. Most games get their patches for free and DLC would be a new tank or plane or hat or whatever they're selling. DLC is usually content only and not a patch so I wouldn't worry about support for the game itself. The DLC would help fund further support for the game you see, so that the devs don't have to cry themselves to sleep every night because they are supporting their own -maybe bug ridden- game for "free".

DLC might be crucial for smaller developers to keep going, imaging that the whole development team is working on a new patch for the IL-2 series but one of the 3D modelers has his hands free. Wouldn't it be nice if he could put together some new in-game objects/vehicles/ships or whatever and release it as DLC for a smaller fee in the meantime whilst we wait for the patch?

Maybe some here think it's better for the developers to churn out expansions/sequels every 2 years with almost nothing in-between, solely relying on the revenue from those few expansions. That's almost insane financially. This is my opinion only though. :)

[ATAG_MajorBorris]

:confused:From this thread alone it appears half the pilots hate the idea.

That being said, the online community would easily splinter and the rest would follow.

Dead servers anyone:rolleyes:

[addman]

:confused:From this thread alone it appears half the pilots hate the idea.

That being said, the online community would easily splinter and the rest would follow.

Dead servers anyone:rolleyes:

I see your point, I'm looking at this primarily from an offline perspective BUT I can't see how the servers can't restrict which planes that are allowed or not allowed on their servers, if that's what you mean.

[MD_Titus]

no bloody chance

[addman]

no bloody chance

Ok then, let the developer decide what you will play entirely, wait ages for new content and pay premium. I'd rather pay more for content that I want then less for content that I don't care about at all. IMO, DLC is ideal for the il-2 series because of the plethora of possible content. I don't mind if MG continues to do charity work as they've done the last ten years with bugfixing+content patches but I don't see the financial gains.

P.S Also like to add that I disapprove of the idea of pay-to-play a la WoW, it wouldn't work for the il-2 series and I would NEVER pay a monthly fee for a game.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Thx mate good feedback, I alos were in Warbirds , Aches High had some good team play there ;) Made my squad in Aces High and meet some good friends there ;)

This post is ofcourse just up for disqussion not my final view just a thought since some off the games out there have it, but some off you guys come up with good + - off it and I thank you for that SALUTE Gents ;)S!

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Probely the moust intelectual post her , thx for you great feed backup verry maturelol! Just ignore those guys.. they not worth your time!

[BigC208]

Ok then, let the developer decide what you will play entirely, wait ages for new content and pay premium. I'd rather pay more for content that I want then less for content that I don't care about at all. IMO, DLC is ideal for the il-2 series because of the plethora of possible content. I don't mind if MG continues to do charity work as they've done the last ten years with bugfixing+content patches but I don't see the financial gains.

P.S Also like to add that I disapprove of the idea of pay-to-play a la WoW, it wouldn't work for the il-2 series and I would NEVER pay a monthly fee for a game.

Makes you wonder. What if 777(rise of flight developer) pulled a DLC Spitfire MKI and a Me109E out of their hat for say $15 each? I would buy them right of the bat. Same for a FW190 or P51. They would make a fortune, even without a campaign or new maps. Basically a simple dogfight sim. They could do it right now with their current game engine. Anyone ever noticed the Rata sitting in their museum where you enter the game?

1C can do the same thing. Sell us annual theatre expansion packs with maps, campaigns, objects and widely used aircraft so we can play historical campaigns offline. Sell us per DLC (third party developers?) the most popular aircraft so we can go online and have a furrball right from the start.

What worries me about this model is this. It will be so succesfull that they'll make much more money with the popular DLC content and do away with expansion packs all together. RoF may have opened Pandora's box.

[K_Freddie]

The game businesses are trying very hard to get everyone online (steam ..etc), without having to ship products all over the world. Although this looks like a great business model to the developer/distributor, it's open to exploitation and numurous other problems which we are seeing happening.

It is essentially a one sided contract (no-one in their right mind ever agrees to this type of thing) where the developer/distibutor is pawning half baked products under the guise of 'false advertising'. A lot of people are falling for this and only a few will admit they've made a mistake.

Just say they do make a great working product like IL2 (which is still going after 10yrs), when will it become to costly to run the DRM servers, for those faithfull clients, and they shutdown the servers and the client get burnt. Sure the client had years of fun, but he's go no 'physical product in his hands'.
I don't know about you, but I'd certainly feel robbed.

NOPE, the business model that has worked for eons and will never die, is the one where you physically receive a (working) product that you pay for. A product that works on a PC with no internet connection. A product that does not require subscriptions.

Anything else is fools folly and if people fall for that... 'there is a fool born every day'.
:cool:

[addman]

NOPE, the business model that has worked for eons and will never die, is the one where you physically receive a (working) product that you pay for. A product that works on a PC with no internet connection. A product that does not require subscriptions.

Anything else is fools folly and if people fall for that... 'there is a fool born every day'.
:cool:

It worked fine for us consumers yes but like everything business, it's all about making more and more and more money. Why sell a full complete game with tons of features for only 40-60€ when you can sell half the content for the same money and then drip-feed with DLC?

It's here and it's here to stay, for good or worse. On one hand digital distribution basically tells you that you don't own the game you've bought, you just have the license to play it under certain conditions. On the other hand digital distribution has led to a boom of independent developers being able to distribute their games on their own without being shackled by big "evil" publishers, Minecraft being a great example.

I wouldn't feel like a fool, paying for content for IL-2, buying a virtual hat for my Skyrim character for 5€ would make me feel like one though ;). It's all about what YOU want and what YOU are willing to pay for, just like capitalism should be. When I was a kid, I was on holiday with family and relatives many a years ago, we were at a market, I wanted to buy a souvenir elephant so I asked my aunt "how much should I pay for this?" and she answered "how much do you want it?", "very much" I replied "then that's what you should be prepared to pay" she said.

[5./JG27.Farber]

addman you seem to think that bucket loads of cash magic's up new content... It doesn't. Some one has to sit behind a computer and make it... Do you think they are sitting on tons of stuff and just not giving us it because they dont have enough cash?

[Osprey]

No Farber I think he is saying that they need cash in order to run and continue to make content.

One thing seriously overlooked here is the detail in the models today, not only graphically but behaviorally too. The point is they all take way more man hours to make and that means higher costs - but there aren't more people buying the game and relative spending power has actually dropped in the past 10 years. Everyone here wanting sequels and free patches with content is dreaming if they think they'll get the 200+ aircraft which the first series ended up with. You have to face up to the fact that you have to pay or development stops. The problem I have is that I see people complaining about how they spent £2000 on a supercomputer and somehow see it as 1C's job to deliver something worthy of it - so the failure of a £40 game is the tipping point for them - they think they have paid enough. If you join a golf club the membership fee and quality of course has no bearing on the cost of your golf clubs, bag, balls and shoes!

When you add it up £40 for a game is remarkably cheap for the hours of entertainment = you don't get that in any other hobby I know of. I think there needs to be more to secure the longevity of the series this time, DLC is the only thing I can think of right now which avoids the truly awful subscription. Just because 777 have lost sight of producing a testament to the Great War air fighting it doesn't mean that 1C have to.

If all else fails let the modders make it :)

[addman]

No Farber I think he is saying that they need cash in order to run and continue to make content.

One thing seriously overlooked here is the detail in the models today, not only graphically but behaviorally too. The point is they all take way more man hours to make and that means higher costs - but there aren't more people buying the game and relative spending power has actually dropped in the past 10 years. Everyone here wanting sequels and free patches with content is dreaming if they think they'll get the 200+ aircraft which the first series ended up with. You have to face up to the fact that you have to pay or development stops. The problem I have is that I see people complaining about how they spent £2000 on a supercomputer and somehow see it as 1C's job to deliver something worthy of it - so the failure of a £40 game is the tipping point for them - they think they have paid enough. If you join a golf club the membership fee and quality of course has no bearing on the cost of your golf clubs, bag, balls and shoes!

When you add it up £40 for a game is remarkably cheap for the hours of entertainment = you don't get that in any other hobby I know of. I think there needs to be more to secure the longevity of the series this time, DLC is the only thing I can think of right now which avoids the truly awful subscription. Just because 777 have lost sight of producing a testament to the Great War air fighting it doesn't mean that 1C have to.

If all else fails let the modders make it :)

This is EXACTLY what I'm saying, wish I could have put it like this myself, thank you Osprey. Forget freebies like the old IL-2 series, development costs have skyrocketed the last 5-6 years. We were spoiled with IL-2 and the freebies that came with it. As I said before, I wouldn't mind getting free content in patches but expecting it is just being naive/ignorant.

[ElAurens]

With the complexity of the 3D models in this series, I have serious doubts that the modders will have any more success in delivering quality aircraft in a more timely manner than the dev team can.

It's a lot more complicated than jamming a Heinkle cockpit in a B29 and calling it good.

Once again I point to the B-24 that Monguse and friends are developing for '46. It has taken two years to almost get this to the point where it will be up to a standard that can be used in the old sim.

[addman]

With the complexity of the 3D models in this series, I have serious doubts that the modders will have any more success in delivering quality aircraft in a more timely manner than the dev team can.

It's a lot more complicated than jamming a Heinkle cockpit in a B29 and calling it good.

Once again I point to the B-24 that Monguse and friends are developing for '46. It has taken two years to almost get this to the point where it will be up to a standard that can be used in the old sim.

One may assume it would take considerably longer for third-party/modders to make a B-24 at CloD level of detail so I don't think they are the solution either. I guess more resources (programmers, 3D modelers etc.) for the development team would do the trick but more resources costs more money, now how about that DLC? :)

[ElAurens]

We already have DLCs, they are called expansions.

You know, like, "Forgotten Battles", "Pacific Fighters", "Battle for Moscow".

Sorry addman, but I cannot support the RoF business model in any way shape or form. If the development team goes this way, I'm out.

I'm bloody serious.

[addman]

We already have DLCs, they are called expansions.

You know, like, "Forgotten Battles", "Pacific Fighters", "Battle for Moscow".

Sorry addman, but I cannot support the RoF business model in any way shape or form. If the development team goes this way, I'm out.

I'm bloody serious.

I wish that they would call it DLC then and charge for it as such.;) I respect your opinion mate. The RoF handles their DLC their way, maybe MG would have better judgment? I don't know, I just wish we had more content.

[5./JG27.Farber]

One may assume it would take considerably longer for third-party/modders to make a B-24 at CloD level of detail so I don't think they are the solution either. I guess more resources (programmers, 3D modelers etc.) for the development team would do the trick but more resources costs more money, now how about that DLC? :)

No thanks. Or a smaller team can take a little longer and for less money.

Who has decided 1c dont have the funds?

[addman]

No thanks. Or a smaller team can take a little longer and for less money.

Who has decided 1c dont have the funds?

Yes but longer time means more costs so it's +-0 anyway. Ehr...I don't have any insight in their financial standings so I wouldn't know. I'm just saying the game needs to be profitable, to be profitable it needs sales, to gain sales you need to sell something and I'm not sure an expansion pack/sequel every 1 or 2 years for a very niche game is enough to keep it going. Now I'm in speculation territory. I'm not in charge there anyway so I guess theres no need to worry for those who doesn't want DLC, right?:)

[ga_332]

Greate answer Gents verry interesting, could be fun to put up a vote box in here any one that could make one (I do not know how) lets keep it simpel and just say, (if better make a new post linked to this post)

1. Would pay for IL2 on a monthly bases, more then 10$ each month.

2. Would pay for IL2 on a monthly bases, less then 10$ each month.

3. No way, only pay for Main release and for Sequels or bigger updates.

[Osprey]

We already have DLCs, they are called expansions.

You know, like, "Forgotten Battles", "Pacific Fighters", "Battle for Moscow".

Sorry addman, but I cannot support the RoF business model in any way shape or form. If the development team goes this way, I'm out.

I'm bloody serious.

And what if the dev team goes 'out' because their funding isn't enough and the plug is pulled? Is that something you are prepared for? Serious question. I don't know if your reasoning is based on direction or that you just don't want to/can't afford to pay.

Please re-read my post.

@Farber, I work in IT, in producing software, and if it isn't working then the plug is pulled suddenly I can promise you that. In actual fact I saw it this year when an entire department of 50 was torn apart purely because the directors decided to cut losses on development - it was a total surprise. I would be surprised that after a desperate release to bring in some cash and a re-write to a demanding yet miserly niche market that the developers for this aren't under extreme pressure. 1C don't do this for fun you know - there's money in it or they do something else. That you don't wish to pay a premium is up to you of course, in which case there is always HAWX2 for you....

[addman]

Greate answer Gents verry interesting, could be fun to put up a vote box in here any one that could make one (I do not know how) lets keep it simpel and just say, (if better make a new post linked to this post)

1. Would pay for IL2 on a monthly bases, more then 10$ each month.

2. Would pay for IL2 on a monthly bases, less then 10$ each month.

3. No way, only pay for Main release and for Sequels or bigger updates.

3. No way, only pay for Main release and for Sequels or bigger updates(DLC).

[ga_332]

Greate answer Gents verry interesting, could be fun to put up a vote box in here any one that could make one (I do not know how) lets keep it simpel and just say, (if better make a new post linked to this post)

1. Would pay for IL2 on a monthly bases, more then 10$ each month.

2. Would pay for IL2 on a monthly bases, less then 10$ each month.

3. No way, only pay for Main release and for Sequels or bigger updates.

1. Would pay for IL2 on a monthly bases, more then 10$ each month.

[addman]

Here's a funny video by the Mega64 guys about how DLC can go wrong:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVxvSy7lptk

[Hunden]

Just reinstalled il2 FB, felt like I have been missing something. I'll start playing other games B4 I pay to play. If you want to sell me an expansion fine but I'm not leasing a freaking game. Please stop with the very bad ideas. :confused:

[fruitbat]

If it ever went to a pay monthly fee, then that would be me out for sure.

[Osprey]

I wouldn't pay monthly either, but I would pay for DLC

[K_Freddie]

It's all about what YOU want and what YOU are willing to pay for, just like capitalism should be.
I agree with you on that point.. and it's there to be exploited.
It will work coz 'hi-tech' has seemed to have bred a generation of 'immediate gratification kids', who will fall for this 'business model' - they might eventually wake up, when they find that games have degenerated to unworkable releases.

SH5, CLOD are a shining examples...

The downside is that we will probably never see another Oleg and his game quality, because the rest want money before quality.

[Tavingon]

I agree with keeping the big core expansions, but drip feeding new planes every couple of months as dlc would be nice..

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Once again I point to the B-24 that Monguse and friends are developing for '46. It has taken two years to almost get this to the point where it will be up to a standard that can be used in the old sim.That is because Guse is working at the speed of 'free'! ;)

[jg27_mc]

No Farber I think he is saying that they need cash in order to run and continue to make content.

One thing seriously overlooked here is the detail in the models today, not only graphically but behaviorally too. The point is they all take way more man hours to make and that means higher costs - but there aren't more people buying the game and relative spending power has actually dropped in the past 10 years. Everyone here wanting sequels and free patches with content is dreaming if they think they'll get the 200+ aircraft which the first series ended up with. You have to face up to the fact that you have to pay or development stops. The problem I have is that I see people complaining about how they spent £2000 on a supercomputer and somehow see it as 1C's job to deliver something worthy of it - so the failure of a £40 game is the tipping point for them - they think they have paid enough. If you join a golf club the membership fee and quality of course has no bearing on the cost of your golf clubs, bag, balls and shoes!

When you add it up £40 for a game is remarkably cheap for the hours of entertainment = you don't get that in any other hobby I know of. I think there needs to be more to secure the longevity of the series this time, DLC is the only thing I can think of right now which avoids the truly awful subscription. Just because 777 have lost sight of producing a testament to the Great War air fighting it doesn't mean that 1C have to.

If all else fails let the modders make it :)

+1

[Triggaaar]

I don't pay monthly for any game. I also don't want to pay per plane, otherwise when you're online, everyone has to have paid for every plane, or you'll be limited to planes others have paid for. I'd rather CoD followed the original IL2 model.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

I also don't want to pay per plane, otherwise when you're online, everyone has to have paid for every plane, or you'll be limited to planes others have paid for.
I can not speak for all games.. but that is not true for RoF

When RoF comes out with new plane for you to buy (DLC) they also come out with a patch.. That patch contains all the 3D art for that new plane(s)..

And everyone that plays RoF has to dl the new patch to play online..

So everyone has access to the 3D art of the new plane.. By doing this everyone who flys online will be able to 'see' (3D external art) this new plane when one flys by.. But only the people who pay for the new plane get to fly it

[ElAurens]

That is because Guse is working at the speed of 'free'! ;)

I know. But the discussion is that "modders" will take up the slack in aircraft development, and I'm using the B24 as an example of how long it will take the unpaid "modders" to create content. And as good as the B24 is, and it's real good, it is not even close to the specs for Cliffs and beyond.

Osprey, I will not pay a monthly subscription, nor will I buy aircraft one at a time at the 1C store. So, I won't be playing it if they go that route. I am prepared for that. If it goes under before hand anyway, well, it would be sad, but I'm a big boy now and there are things in life far more important than a piece of gaming software. I didn't cry when I walked away from RoF, and I won't if I have to quit CloD for whatever reason.

[BigC208]

I know. But the discussion is that "modders" will take up the slack in aircraft development, and I'm using the B24 as an example of how long it will take the unpaid "modders" to create content. And as good as the B24 is, and it's real good, it is not even close to the specs for Cliffs and beyond.

Osprey, I will not pay a monthly subscription, nor will I buy aircraft one at a time at the 1C store. So, I won't be playing it if they go that route. I am prepared for that. If it goes under before hand anyway, well, it would be sad, but I'm a big boy now and there are things in life far more important than a piece of gaming software. I didn't cry when I walked away from RoF, and I won't if I have to quit CloD for whatever reason.

You walked away from RoF? Could you not just get the ICE version and be done with it? RoF, imho, right now is the best looking and most realistically simulated flightsim on the market.

[ElAurens]

You walked away from RoF? Could you not just get the ICE version and be done with it?

I paid for it once.

Now my original game is just a "demo level".

As I said I am done with their pay per plane business model, and I really really resent their begging for money in the emails I get peridically from them.

The whole thing is a scam.

If you enjoy it, that's fine, I'm glad you have found something you like in it. Really I am, but it's not for me.

[5./JG27.Farber]

I paid for it once.

Now my original game is just a "demo level".

As I said I am done with their pay per plane business model, and I really really resent their begging for money in the emails I get peridically from them.

The whole thing is a scam.

If you enjoy it, that's fine, I'm glad you have found something you like in it. Really I am, but it's not for me.

+1

[Wolf_Rider]

I think the financial investment overrides any emotions that the devs may or may not have in this sim. They are running a business, the goal of a business is profit. If they don't make a game that people wants to buy then they won't make enough money and then they will have to close down, it is when all said and done, whining or no whining, a fact.



A qulaity product will have customers beating a path to the developers' http... devleopers milking their customers, will have none within a short time



Back to subject though, weren't most add-on planes for MSFS third party?



an excellent point... look at what that became



It's important to be able to know the difference between bug-fixing patches and DLC. Most games get their patches for free and DLC would be a new tank or plane or hat or whatever they're selling. DLC is usually content only and not a patch so I wouldn't worry about support for the game itself. The DLC would help fund further support for the game you see, so that the devs don't have to cry themselves to sleep every night because they are supporting their own -maybe bug ridden- game for "free".



refer back to MSFS for that



DLC might be crucial for smaller developers to keep going, imaging that the whole development team is working on a new patch for the IL-2 series but one of the 3D modelers has his hands free. Wouldn't it be nice if he could put together some new in-game objects/vehicles/ships or whatever and release it as DLC for a smaller fee in the meantime whilst we wait for the patch?



wait for the expansion packs... patience is a virtue and the immediate gratification, "I want it NOW!" mentality, just sux and is a drain on everybody else.



Maybe some here think it's better for the developers to churn out expansions/sequels every 2 years with almost nothing in-between, solely relying on the revenue from those few expansions. That's almost insane financially. This is my opinion only though. :)



yes, that's your opinion

Have you ever stopped to consider that the il2 developers develop because they want to? , because the take pride in what they do? , because they develop for their own satisfaction?/ sport, these guys are artists... now compare the work of an artist who does so for the love of what they produce primarily, compared to an artist who produces purely to make a buck primarily...

and yes, that's another opinion ;)

[addman]

Have you ever stopped to consider that the il2 developers develop because they want to? , because the take pride in what they do? , because they develop for their own satisfaction?/ sport, these guys are artists... now compare the work of an artist who does so for the love of what they produce primarily, compared to an artist who produces purely to make a buck primarily...

and yes, that's another opinion ;)

It's a nice thought and in the case of MG there might be some truth to it but that doesn't change the fact that 1c (their publisher) expect revenue from MG.

[Feathered_IV]

As I said I am done with their pay per plane business model, and I really really resent their begging for money in the emails I get peridically from them.


At the bottom of each email there is an 'unsubscribe' button that will allow you to opt out of their mailing list.

[ElAurens]

Which I have done.

[Wolf_Rider]

It's a nice thought and in the case of MG there might be some truth to it but that doesn't change the fact that 1c (their publisher) expect revenue from MG.

nooo, the publisher expects income from what they've chosen to publish

[addman]

nooo, the publisher expects income from what they've chosen to publish

That's what I mean.

[Allons!]

They will remember the Royal Navy in the MTO, won't they.........?

I´m sure they will and we will see our good old minelayer with a shiny fresh union jack on it...

[Feathered_IV]

Having just spent a an unbelievably frustrating 3 hours with the Blenheim's CEM and Clod's idiot onscreen notations and defaulting control ini's, I think I would very much prefer not to pay a monthly fee for the privilege. In fact I'd prefer not to play at all for another couple of months at least. :evil:

[SFF_Vellu]

Fact is that developer team need they pay every months. I think system which was beginning of the Il 2 was best. New versions cost something and after that it is everyones own decission to buy new version or play only old one. We have to compare the price of new version (20 - 30 EUR) to new computer's price (1000 - 2000 EUR). After that my opinion is that 20 - 30 EUR from new version is pice of cake.

[Matt255]

I can not speak for all games.. but that is not true for RoF

When RoF comes out with new plane for you to buy (DLC) they also come out with a patch.. That patch contains all the 3D art for that new plane(s)..

And everyone that plays RoF has to dl the new patch to play online..

So everyone has access to the 3D art of the new plane.. By doing this everyone who flys online will be able to 'see' (3D external art) this new plane when one flys by.. But only the people who pay for the new plane get to fly it
Even though i do appreciate the ROF DLC method, because it doesn't force you directly to buy anything other than the main game (which goes for like 20 € or so, not sure, that's pretty much what i paid back in 2009) and you get big updates for free, it can very well happen that you HAVE TO buy a plane to play online. Overall MP numbers are not impressive, so people are usually playing on one, maybe two servers. And if that server runs a mission with a planeset where you don't own any of the avaliable planetypes, you can either join as a gunner (because you can do that without owning the plane), play singleplayer instead or just quit.

So in the long-run, if you're only interested in MP, you'll need to buy atleast a few of the planes, to be able to play regularly. If you do that during a sale, a single-seater costs like 3 € or so, so it's not that much, especially not for the quality of the planes.

But overall MP players are more "screwed" (also because you need to buy "field-mods" for some planes to get a simple gunsight...) than SP player with that system, which is probably the reason why MP numbers are lower than they could be.

Anyway, i own all planes in ROF and thus have probably spend 170 € or so (can't say for sure), not because i fly all those, but to support the devs. But it was definately worth the money either way.

I would be willing to support the devs of CloD in the same or similar way. If they would support it properly (which simple hasn't been the case this year, except for the sound update, mostly done by a ROF team member) and don't just skip it and work on the next, because then i should've not spend any money in the first place, but waited for the second version. And, even if many here can't believe it, some people WERE looking forward to a up-to-date sim featuring the BoB and don't want to fight around Moscow. So even if many of the new announced features (most of those have been announced for CloD btw :rolleyes:) will make it into CloD aswell, i'm pretty sure the majority of the online community will just switch to BoM instead.

[5./JG27.Farber]

Having just spent a an unbelievably frustrating 3 hours with the Blenheim's CEM and Clod's idiot onscreen notations and defaulting control ini's, I think I would very much prefer not to pay a monthly fee for the privilege. In fact I'd prefer not to play at all for another couple of months at least. :evil:


That is your choice and your prerogative :-P
We the few will continue for the greater good.


I do not like this thread, its where rumours start, next everyone will be saying 1c is bankrupt.... With out any knowledge at all start laying down this or that speculation... How does anyone know the finances of Luthier and team? Do we need up the $%^ DLC rubbish? Or do we just need to be patient and have faith? Maybe it will all come right with battle for moscow? Who knows... If your willing to pay money for DLC and ruin the entire title then how about be willing to pay now, play and pay for battle of moscow? Maybe write some positive points about the title instead of drowning it right here and making demands for a crooked capitalist business model that most players reject???

Anyone who has played this sim knows its better than IL2 1946.... Just needs a little love and time! If your so willing to splurge cash to improve the title why didnt you buy a few copies of the game extra? If you thought that would help!

This really is the last thing I have to say on this issue. We are past the point of no return. If this game fails, what are we left with that is anywhere close? IL2 1946, for me there is no turning back and nothing else comes close for WW2!

[Hlander]

ok see that games like WOW(diffrent game tho but my point) and Aces High(just the same series/Games) have to pay every month and both games very sucsessfull. This most be a god thing for both parts custemour and devenloper. If the game is not good, people would not add pay every month, and devenloper have to see that game is in top shape so that we pay every month ;) And every patch/secuel would off course be in the price ;) ........Paying a monthly fee kills creativity, and the game just becomes a cash cow. World of Warcraft is the perfect example of this. Old content is rehashed, dungeons are brought back from previous expansions and bosses are re-skinned. Actually Blizzard does not even bother hiding it anymore.

Most of the creativity and development goes into designing pretty mounts and other things which can be bought at additional cost. Yes, people still pay and play Wow. But this results in a terrible gaming community, just visit the forums.

[335th_GRAthos]

Creativity? who cares about creativity? The Maths do the talking... 14million users (I do know the exact number; 2-3million users stepped out I was told) at USD 10 per month.... !

Just to answer the first post about paying monthly:

NO THANKS! I have a life and I intend to keep it...

God forbid I become one of those who believe their virtual life is better than their real life :(


~S~

[Outlaw]

Comparing CoD to games like WOW and Aces-High is asinine. CoD is NOT a massively multiplayer game. There are no corporately owned and managed servers in CoD like WOW and AH.

MMPGs charge monthly because they provide the hardware and the server bandwidth. IE, they provide a SERVICE.

Paying monthly is obviously not reasonable for CoD in its current state. Unless it switched to online only (with gimp single player practice) with corporate hosting, there is absolutely no danger of it becoming subscription based.

--Outlaw.

[Thee_oddball]

Core game $60
1941 plans set $39
1942 plane set $39
1943 plane set $39
1944 plane set $39
1945 plane set $39

not one person here would have a problem paying...not one!... if the game had been released in a state of near perfection with very few bugs most IL2'ers would have there credit cards set to auto draft for the next release.

the IL2 community does not have a problem paying....remember we spend hundreds if not thousands on our rigs just to play this game :)...but the quality must match the cash.

My 2 pence on the OP original question is this...i think pay per monthly is not a good motivator for the developer...DLC could be but that would be only if the core game was as i mentioned...close to perfection. This is a niche market...but so is Bugatti...they have people willing to pay because they deliver :)

happy new year to all :)

[CaptainDoggles]

Core game $60
1941 plans set $39
1942 plane set $39
1943 plane set $39
1944 plane set $39
1945 plane set $39

Good god, what a rip-off.

[ATAG_MajorBorris]

From this thread alone it appears half the pilots hate the idea.

That being said, the online community would easily splinter and the rest would follow. :rolleyes:

Dead servers anyone?:confused:

Single player would die afterwards:!:

[JG52Uther]

Pay monthly would probably mean a master server. After having to suffer RoF's super flakey master server I don't think its a great idea.