BoM should have playable demo

[RickRuski]

If the current state of affairs carries on for too much longer I think that the "Team" should seriously consider a free playable demo for BoM before releasing it to the market to assure their paying customers that they finaly have things fixed. The results of this beta patch are not convincing enough to get the largest part of the community behind them. Most of us were hoping to have a major improvement with this patch, but it hasn't happend for at least 50% of us. With the original Il2 series there was a playable demo available, this convinced a large % of the supportive community to try and then buy the series. With CoD there wasn't a demo, so we went in relying on what we thought we were going to get from the advertising and the good will that had been developed with the community. From a lot of threads and replies after patch 17582 most of the goodwill is starting to go down the gurgler. I hope things get better quickly, but I've stopped expecting too much too soon.

Have just noticed that RoF are due to release the "Channel" map, how far away would it be from adding a Hurricane or Spitfire and Bf109 to RoF. Once the support base for CoD starts losing it's followers it will be very difficult to get them back.

[KeBrAnTo]

+1

[Ze-Jamz]

If the current state of affairs carries on for too much longer I think that the "Team" should seriously consider a free playable demo for BoM before releasing it to the market to assure their paying customers that they finaly have things fixed. The results of this beta patch are not convincing enough to get the largest part of the community behind them. Most of us were hoping to have a major improvement with this patch, but it hasn't happend for at least 50% of us. With the original Il2 series there was a playable demo available, this convinced a large % of the supportive community to try and then buy the series. With CoD there wasn't a demo, so we went in relying on what we thought we were going to get from the advertising and the good will that had been developed with the community. From a lot of threads and replies after patch 17582 most of the goodwill is starting to go down the gurgler. I hope things get better quickly, but I've stopped expecting too much too soon.

Have just noticed that RoF are due to release the "Channel" map, how far away would it be from adding a Hurricane or Spitfire and Bf109 to RoF. Once the support base for CoD starts losing it's followers it will be very difficult to get them back.

Good post and I agree totally...I was thinking the same in regards to what you said about ROF.

[carguy_]

With CoD there wasn't a demo, so we went in relying on what we thought we were going to get from the advertising and the good will that had been developed with the community.
Wrong on many accounts. Many people read the CloD reviews and knew what they were buying. The prevailing motivating factor was the developper support of IL2 Sturmovik through the years. So far the support is there, though a bit different in terms of quality.



Once the support base for CoD starts losing it's followers it will be very difficult to get them back.
In a way, yes. People quit this game but they keep on checking if it is fixed. For now CloD needs a stable fanbase to keep the interest in. I`d say that counts for at least one squad member to fill in others on the updates. Once this title is stable and offers substantial content, others will jump right in. Time is not the biggest factor here.

[Sternjaeger II]

Wrong on many accounts. Many people read the CloD reviews and knew what they were buying. The prevailing motivating factor was the developper support of IL2 Sturmovik through the years. So far the support is there, though a bit different in terms of quality.


well that might be your case mate, you can appreciate that there are also newcomers that were deceived by the fake specs and content promises.

[carguy_]

I understand you are saying that CloD was the first game ever to deceive people with systems specs and content promises. Ok.

[GOA_Potenz]

I understand you are saying that CloD was the first game ever to deceive people with systems specs and content promises. Ok.

Yes, but we all know that, this was a bad joke to all the guys here releasing the game in such state, then blame the epilepsy filter, and first say that those first videos with low FPS at the moscow expo were due to low RAM in the PC's, so even devs sustain their lie about the real state of the sim before release, this seems to be something normal in russia, as i remember something quite the same with RoF before it was owned by 777 studios, for me 777studios taking over CloD will be the best for CloD as they have proved to be a small but hard working and organized team.

[fruitbat]

so if Clod had had a playable demo, how many would have bought it???

[KeBrAnTo]

Wrong on many accounts. Many people read the CloD reviews and knew what they were buying. The prevailing motivating factor was the developper support of IL2 Sturmovik through the years. So far the support is there, though a bit different in terms of quality.


I understand you're saying that you know what motivated the people to buy the game?. :rolleyes:
Ok.

Just talk for yourself, m8.

[159th_Jester]

so if Clod had had a playable demo, how many would have bought it???

I have to admit that I wouldn't have. At least not at release. I would have kept a close eye on the forums and awaited development.

[BH_woodstock]

so if Clod had had a playable demo, how many would have bought it???


considering its state of performance and everything.If they had released a demo of Clod i would have tried it for a few minutes and would have gotten over it real quick.(not many could have run the game then)

[Icebear]

Well said, but you already have the demo on your machine and paid for it ! ;)

[Robert]

well that might be your case mate, you can appreciate that there are also newcomers that were deceived by the fake specs and content promises.

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with this at least in part. In this day and age of forums, reviews, and easily obtained videos from readily accessable places on line, there's no reason to have stepped into CoD blindly. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I never buy something without checking it out first. While I'm as dissappointed as the next fellow regarding CoD, I knew what I was getting.

Could there be folks who happened to be shopping in their local Best Buy, saw CoD on the shelf and bought it because it looked flashy and within their specced PC's range? Yup. But I think those days and kind of buyers are fewer and farther between today, as compared to say, when IL2 was released.

I remember being fluffed by MSCFS3's graphical preview movie, but there wasn't any gameplay video released. How many were chuffed at how the game ran on their systems? I was. It looked nothing like the gameplay trailer. I bought it in haste and learned. ALWAYS review before purchasing. Today access to info is readily availible - much more than in 2002 when MSCFS was released.

As I said I have to disagree in part.

[addman]

so if Clod had had a playable demo, how many would have bought it???

AoA, Carguy and DavidH....oh! and Bongodrums. Seriously though, I can't see the harm in a demo for BoM, it's actually a bl**dy brilliant idea to let people try it out. Just a couple of planes on a small MP map with a few missions to show the new features off. Also, access to full options like graphics and controls of course so people can test it out on their rigs. This would eliminate a great deal of the complaints because it would throw out the "I've been robbed of my 40€ fortune for this cr*p!" arguments right out the window. Or, like many other devs are doing these days, have a "free to try weekend" on Steam where you can try the full game for a couple of days and then decide if it's worth your dough.

I know for sure, I won't be buying it day one no matter how much luthier and Co will blow it up. That first day buy trust is gone with the wind, I'll see the feedback on the boards instead and reviews of course, like simhq, which I trust.

[ATAG_MajorBorris]

If the current state of affairs carries on for too much longer I think that the "Team" should seriously consider a free playable demo for BoM before releasing it to the market to assure their paying customers that they finaly have things fixed. The results of this beta patch are not convincing enough to get the largest part of the community behind them. Most of us were hoping to have a major improvement with this patch, but it hasn't happend for at least 50% of us. With the original Il2 series there was a playable demo available, this convinced a large % of the supportive community to try and then buy the series. With CoD there wasn't a demo, so we went in relying on what we thought we were going to get from the advertising and the good will that had been developed with the community. From a lot of threads and replies after patch 17582 most of the goodwill is starting to go down the gurgler. I hope things get better quickly, but I've stopped expecting too much too soon.

Have just noticed that RoF are due to release the "Channel" map, how far away would it be from adding a Hurricane or Spitfire and Bf109 to RoF. Once the support base for CoD starts losing it's followers it will be very difficult to get them back.

How far? I ask how much? With over 40 variants of the bf109, would you pay $7-$14 a plane? with no reason for the rof devs to develop anything other than sellable content (scarf anyone, $3.99 please).

These are two different approaches to a business model and for ww1 the RoF model works ok but ww2 I think not...

As far as the patch goes it has fixed some major things for some(for me the ctd when when flying bombers in formation) and the fps upgrades are still to come it would seem, patience is required for any new cfs in the begining after all if this was RoF we would have another 6 months before the ctd's would be fixed if you compare the timelines(to be fair)...

[bongodriver]

oh! and Bongodrums


What I spend my money on is my business......assman.

[SiThSpAwN]

If they can get BoB to the level it needs to be at then I dont have a fear of buying BoM, that said, if they were to release BoM tomorrow I wouldnt buy it.

BoM is supposed to use the same engine that BoB is currently using, so here is your demo, base your buying decision on where BoB ends up at the time of release of BoM, simple as that.

[bongodriver]

I wouldn't buy BOM tomorrow on the basis theres just no 'community support', too many people working too hard to try and kill this series off.

[Gourmand]

BoM should wait a long long time to be release... ;) Bom should be just a concept...
priority to CLOD, nobody buy the second party without the first...
and the first party is not finish... and make several years to be finish

[Sternjaeger II]

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with this at least in part. In this day and age of forums, reviews, and easily obtained videos from readily accessable places on line, there's no reason to have stepped into CoD blindly. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I never buy something without checking it out first. While I'm as dissappointed as the next fellow regarding CoD, I knew what I was getting.

Could there be folks who happened to be shopping in their local Best Buy, saw CoD on the shelf and bought it because it looked flashy and within their specced PC's range? Yup. But I think those days and kind of buyers are fewer and farther between today, as compared to say, when IL2 was released.

I remember being fluffed by MSCFS3's graphical preview movie, but there wasn't any gameplay video released. How many were chuffed at how the game ran on their systems? I was. It looked nothing like the gameplay trailer. I bought it in haste and learned. ALWAYS review before purchasing. Today access to info is readily availible - much more than in 2002 when MSCFS was released.

As I said I have to disagree in part.

yeah sure. Now go here (http://il2sturmovik.ubi.com/cliffs-of-dover/en-GB/game-info/pc-configuration/index.aspx) and read the minimum and recommended specs again :rolleyes:

It's deceiving to say the least, don't you think? If I go to the Ubisoft website and browse through the games, it takes me to the official page, which just like the current status of the sim, is a farce.

But hey, we're sitting here patiently, we have for more than a year now..

[Blackdog_kt]

How far? I ask how much? With over 40 variants of the bf109, would you pay $7-$14 a plane? with no reason for the rof devs to develop anything other than sellable content (scarf anyone, $3.99 please).

These are two different approaches to a business model and for ww1 the RoF model works ok but ww2 I think not...

As far as the patch goes it has fixed some major things for some(for me the ctd when when flying bombers in formation) and the fps upgrades are still to come it would seem, patience is required for any new cfs in the begining after all if this was RoF we would have another 6 months before the ctd's would be fixed if you compare the timelines(to be fair)...

Big fat +1 from me on the above.

RoF sold everything separately and it still took 18 months to fix. Terrain shimmers at distance, no SLI support, CTD's, you name it, RoF had it's fair share of them all, plus it also had a more constant supply of cash to throw at the problems.

Initially at least, because last i heard (a few months ago) they too were facing some financial problems.

Also, the "pay per plane" model tends to shoehorn development a bit too much for my taste. If we had a WWII sim with a similar business model, it would be full of Spits, 109s and P-51s, but nobody would buy the not so hot-rod, workhorse aircraft like the Hurricanes, Henschels and Blenheims.

I've seen numerous RoF pilots complain about this in previous months, don't know if they got around to modelling more obscure planes as a result of those complaints though.

It's a matter of personal taste in any case. I prefer the 1c way of "give me 50, i'll give you an operational theater", instead of RoF's "give me 5 and i'll give you a plane/airspeed dial/fancy gunsight" approach. Your mileage may vary of course. ;)

[SiThSpAwN]

It's a matter of personal taste in any case. I prefer the 1c way of "give me 50, i'll give you an operational theater", instead of RoF's "give me 5 and i'll give you a plane/airspeed dial/fancy gunsight" approach. Your mileage may vary of course. ;)

I thnk there is room for both models of course, but the ultimate would be closer to were Eagle Dynamics (although they are not there yet either) but if you could have tools for user created content as well then you are looking at even more options.

[addman]

What I spend my money on is my business......assman.

Wow! Easy there Bongs! I didn't question your spending habits did I?:)

[jibo]

I thought to myself the same thing recently, Rof is becoming more and more Rise of price

[addman]

I thought to myself the same thing recently, Rof is becoming more and more Rise of price

Yes I agree that there's too many trinkets for sale in RoF but 5-10€ for a plane I'd really like? yes I'd buy that. In fact, I bought an A2A J-3 Piper Cub the other day for 25$ and I don't regret it for a second, awesome modeled aircraft worth every cent. It's all about how much something is worth to you and how much you are willing to spend. For example I wouldn't spend 1$ on any additional 109's or Spits because I've flown those to utter boredom. A Cr42 on the other hand, yes I'd pay good money for that.

[Feathered_IV]

Rise of Flight planes and extras aren't like pokemon. You don't gotta catch em all. You get to pick and choose which cockpits etc you'd like to purchase, and which ones you don't. You still get the full game and you stay current with everyone else. I rather like that way of doing business. More so than the Maddox one of an addon every 21/2 years.

[bongodriver]

Wow! Easy there Bongs! I didn't question your spending habits did I?:)


sorry dude I did sound harsh.

[David Hayward]

AoA, Carguy and DavidH....

And you, apparently...

[ATAG_MajorBorris]

Rise of Flight planes and extras aren't like pokemon. You don't gotta catch em all. You get to pick and choose which cockpits etc you'd like to purchase, and which ones you don't. You still get the full game and you stay current with everyone else. I rather like that way of doing business. More so than the Maddox one of an addon every 21/2 years.

Feathered, have you ever been online with RoF and the map changes, what happens in some cases is half of the pilots dont have the next map's content and the other half quits for lack of online pilots.

So you dont have to "catch em all" at once but your time will come up sooner than later if you dont.

With that said, if online play struggles it's a big problem because no matter how great the sim is, if no one is on when you log in, it just doesnt matter...

[Madfish]

I'll make it short because I'm kind of tired of the debate. There are so many people and they're all different somehow. But:

1. A demo is great. It can't possibly harm anyone. If done right it shouldn't take long to set one up and it draws people into the game. If possible allow semi-full multiplayer with one"weaker series" plane only per side e.g.

2. Do NOT sell maps, planes or other crap individually. All it does is it splits the playerbase even more. Guy A has the FW190 and Moscow map, guy has a Zero and Japan map and both can now successfully not play together. What an achievement.
Not everyone want's to or can afford to buy all the planes. Also it actually reduces the amount of planes available since each of them has to have a "selling point". I have yet to see a game that sells content like this and produces quality that's available to everyone. And no, model quality alone doesn't equal quality.

[Robert]

yeah sure. Now go here (http://il2sturmovik.ubi.com/cliffs-of-dover/en-GB/game-info/pc-configuration/index.aspx) and read the minimum and recommended specs again :rolleyes:

It's deceiving to say the least, don't you think? If I go to the Ubisoft website and browse through the games, it takes me to the official page, which just like the current status of the sim, is a farce.

But hey, we're sitting here patiently, we have for more than a year now..

I'm not disagreeing with you regarding minimum specs, Stern. I am saying that anyone with an ounce of common sense in this day and age has a multitude of ways to verify a purchasing decision before they plunk they're money down. I don't know of a single game that doesn't have it's forum. Google and BING can give copius amounts of links that detail the issues with any game/car/dentist/or hair dryer. While I understand and agree with the frustration regarding CoD, there has never been a time where a buyer has had more avenues open to them so they can avoid bad purchasing decisions.


The Russian release was March of last year. We all heard the ney sayers and disatisfied rightfully be upset. How many non Russian players found a way to DL the game? I bought the U.S. prerelease through GoGamer and got trapped in that "Code is already used - your installation is invalid" fiasco. So I eventually bought a second copy after not getting satisfaction through STEAM or GG. I KNEW the status of the game. At this point I don't think to many of us are getting hoodwinked. We may be eternal optomists getting our hopes dashed over and over again, but we did buy CoD knowing what we have.

My PC is a minimum spec machine. I can turn down the settings to what I consider quite ugly, and have some good battles with minimum issues.... but it looks horrible. I turn everything up as high as I can and use CoD for created missions and site seeing - ala MSFSX.


Caveat Emptor. At no time in history has this been easier to do.

[Ze-Jamz]

I'm not disagreeing with you regarding minimum specs, Stern. I am saying that anyone with an ounce of common sense in this day and age has a multitude of ways to verify a purchasing decision before they plunk they're money down. I don't know of a single game that doesn't have it's forum. Google and BING can give copius amounts of links that detail the issues with any game/car/dentist/or hair dryer. While I understand and agree with the frustration regarding CoD, there has never been a time where a buyer has had more avenues open to them so they can avoid bad purchasing decisions.


The Russian release was March of last year. We all heard the ney sayers and disatisfied rightfully be upset. How many non Russian players found a way to DL the game? I bought the U.S. prerelease through GoGamer and got trapped in that "Code is already used - your installation is invalid" fiasco. So I eventually bought a second copy after not getting satisfaction through STEAM or GG. I KNEW the status of the game. At this point I don't think to many of us are getting hoodwinked. We may be eternal optomists getting our hopes dashed over and over again, but we did buy CoD knowing what we have.

My PC is a minimum spec machine. I can turn down the settings to what I consider quite ugly, and have some good battles with minimum issues.... but it looks horrible. I turn everything up as high as I can and use CoD for created missions and site seeing - ala MSFSX.


Caveat Emptor. At no time in history has this been easier to do.

Wouldn't the name iL2 be reason enough to go and buy?..

Would you not assume the game be of a certain standard or would you approach with caution as its a new game being released?

I know what one I would do and obviously what a lot of others done..

What your saying is right but not on a title that was released by the same company with all the years of support and enjoyment we had in a ww2 sim market

[David Hayward]

Wouldn't the name iL2 be reason enough to go and buy?..

Would you not assume the game be of a certain standard or would you approach with caution as its a new game being released?

I know what one I would do and obviously what a lot of others done..

What your saying is right but not on a title that was released by the same company with all the years of support and enjoyment we had in a ww2 sim market

Interesting. So, you trusted them enough to buy it sight unseen, but now you don't trust them to fix it?

[Ze-Jamz]

Erm..where have I said I don't trust them to fix it?

You insinuating again Hayward

[Robert]

Wouldn't the name iL2 be reason enough to go and buy?..

Would you not assume the game be of a certain standard or would you approach with caution as its a new game being released?

I know what one I would do and obviously what a lot of others done..

What your saying is right but not on a title that was released by the same company with all the years of support and enjoyment we had in a ww2 sim market

Maybe I'm a cynical old fart, but no, I'd approach the decisions as described in my above post. I wouldn't assume one certain developer can match the success of a previous title - though the reputation of said developer does bear weight and measure. Toyota may be the best backed/trouble free car in America, but I'm still researching my decision. :)

Any of us (and I know there are exceptions) who flew IL2 and who were aware of the pedigree were probably just as aware of the upcoming BoB. I doubt there was a high percentage of fans who hadn't at least peripherally heard of CoDs problems and it's long development cycle.

[CaptainDoggles]

Interesting. So, you trusted them enough to buy it sight unseen, but now you don't trust them to fix it?

That sums up my situation pretty well. We all came off 1946 with warm fuzzies because they handled that series quite well. A lot of us bought this game out of good will, knowing that it was in a bad state but also knowing that the developers needed money to keep going, and expecting that it would be fixed in a reasonable time frame. That good will is rapidly dwindling if not already completely exhausted.

1C owes us a working game, and the longer they take to deliver, the more irate and pessimistic people are going to become.

[David Hayward]

1C owes us a working game, and the longer they take to deliver, the more irate and pessimistic people are going to become.

Apparently your definition of "good will" is significantly different from mine.

In any case, if they don't get CoD fixed it's not going to matter to them how irate you are. They will be unemployed and will have more important problems to deal with.

[Robert]

To get back on topic. I'd be for a demo. I'm not angry at the developers, and understand this is a pretty big undertaking. For what ever reason (and there could be hundreds) they haven't squashed the issues. I think it would go a long way to assuring forum member/sim enthusiasts' buying decisions - especially if these current issues don't get solved until shortly before the release of BoM.

As it is we don't know how far off that is. I think a lot of folks are just tired of the wait and are near apathy. A demo would go a long way to assuage that feeling.

[CaptainDoggles]

Apparently your definition of "good will" is significantly different from mine.How do you figure?

[David Hayward]

How do you figure?

You gave them $50+/- out of good will. If they don't fix the game they're going to lose their jobs. Do you think they're really going to care if you're irate at that point?

I also gave them $50. If they don't fix the game I'll keep playing RoF. I won't be irate.

[CaptainDoggles]

You gave them $50+/- out of good will. If they don't fix the game they're going to lose their jobs. Do you think they're really going to care if you're irate at that point?

I also gave them $50. If they don't fix the game I'll keep playing RoF. I won't be irate.

That sound? That was you missing the point of my post entirely.

[David Hayward]

That sound? That was you missing the point of my post entirely.

OK, what was the point?

That they're screwed if they don't fix it? No kidding.

That you won't buy the next version even if they do fix it? Complete BS.

[RickRuski]

The demo I was refering to for BoM wasn't intended to merge with CoD but to run as a free download demo stand alone. The RoF sales system I agree has it's faults and the prices are coming down for the extras. When it was first released the download was approx $70-00nz (where I live) and that was for about 4 planes, now try $13-00nz for 7 planes. Every now and again they have specials at good prices. As someone on this forum has said they only fly certain aircraft, so at least RoF method lets you choose what aircraft you have. The graphics are good and there are no stutters. Sure it took them at least 12 months to get everything working, CoD has had over that now and progress for at least 50% of us has been almost nil. If it comes down to where the solution is to throw more money into you PC's and upgrade to the latest and best CPU's and GPU's with up to 8 core CPU and 3gb of V/Ram then that won't happen for a lot of us, we will shelve CoD and wait till it does come right (maybe at the end of the new series similar to 1946 where you can now by that for about $10-00, and that certainly won't help the team develop the series). There was talk about opening CoD up to 3rd party development, this might be the correct way to go now and get some fresh ideas as it seems like they are quickly getting to the bottom of the barrel.

[Sternjaeger II]

We may be eternal optomists getting our hopes dashed over and over again, but we did buy CoD knowing what we have.

mmmh again I think there's a bit of hindsight going on, but in a way I agree. I personally bought the game with the conviction that they hadn't finished it, but did I imagine it would take them more than a year to fix it? Hell no.

I've said this before, and I still believe that it was a case of conflicting deadlines with Ubisoft. They've been working on this project for YEARS, and I remember the interview released when Ilya joined the team: Oleg had this very smarmy smile and sent messages along the lines of "we're not just gonna deliver a new IL-2 series sim, we're gonna set the grounds for a new simulation that is gonna take over Microsoft FS". Something went awfully wrong along the road though: there have been at least 3 major re-works from scratch if memory serves, the publisher got a bit twitchy about it and good old Oleg decided to let go and concentrate on other projects (after all, he's always been an active part of the community, and the community gave him all kinds of crap over the years..) and Ilya took the rudder of the boat.

Deadlines are deadlines though, and they were forced to release an unstable, half-finished job, with the promise of fixing it along the way. Obviously it was a big bargain, because when it comes to such an unprecedented level of detail, combined with so many accurate parameters and details and a game engine made from scratch, it's obvious that things can go very, very wrong.

We're still here though, some because are believers, some just want what they paid for.. the truth is that if Ilya made an opening gesture and explain things for what they are (like some of his colleagues in other projects did) he wouldn't have had such a hard time from all the people here.

Paying customer+no finished product+no info= big mess, and you don't need to be a fine analyst to understand that..

[=FI=Scott]

I think the point (and the problem ) is that the release of CoD as it was, forgetting the whys and hows, has dented many previously die hard 1C Maddox Games fans confidence. I for one went straight to pre-order for CoD without hesitation but wouldn't do that again.

The idea of a demo seems like a constructive idea to overcome the above, it means anyone with doubts can satisfy themselves its not a can of worms and for the developer (if they have done their job right) it means they stand a much better chance at converting that try into a buy at full price.

I'm not sure where the comparison with the RoF purchase model came in but for one I always liked it as it meant I could make that sim into what I wanted to buy, not what Neoqb or 777 wanted me to buy. As to leaving less glamorous planes out thats not what I have seen in practice. Squad flyers or online players will want to fly with their m8's or in the servers they prefer and if either are running, say, an early war scenario its either get the plane or go as a gunner in someone elses if possible. Weapon mods are somthing else and we are just going to have to see how these are dealt with when they come out (but I digress)

[Kongo-Otto]

They will be unemployed and will have more important problems to deal with.

Oh my God such an tragedy.:rolleyes:
In every other business on this planet people are fired for less than releasing a such a crap Game. So what?
They would really deserve it and i couldn't really care less about it!

[David Hayward]

Oh my God such an tragedy.:rolleyes:
In every other business on this planet people are fired for less than releasing a such a crap Game. So what?
They would really deserve it and i couldn't really care less about it!

And I'm sure they won't give a crap if you are angry about COD. Either they fix it and we're all happy, or they don't and they lose their jobs. The constant complaining from the likes of you will not change anything.

[hiro]

I'd agree with the OP, but the main issue with the game is the core of it needs to be fixed.

FM needs work, frame rate / crashing needs to be fixed, sounds, gunnery, some physics . . .

games that have kick arse demos (like COD) already have a working core code for the game . . .


If the core isn't working, the demo will have the same issues as the full release.


But if the core was working fine, it would be a great idea to have 1 fighter from each side, 1 bomber from each side, and showcasing ground attack, fighter, bomber vs fighter and fighter vs bomber etc as a demo.



---


Also lots want ROF's pay per plane policy. IMO, thats just incomplete. ONe plane is fun, but releasing a whole theater with a several planes, vehicles, ground stuff, ships, maps . . . is better.

You get more to play with and it takes alot longer to really explore.

I'd rather have the devs use that style as they are used to it (from 1946) as opposed to ROF's style.

Both methods sell well, its like a 30 min TV shows that are great, and 2 hour epic movies. Its just the methods, story, plot, presentation, are vastly different if you are sipping 30 mins at a time vs gulping 2 hours at a time . . .

If devs took a ROF style, they'd have sit down and set il-2 releases like that . .. but its better for them to have less on their plate.

That said, besides Moscow sequel is going along with the 1946 formula anyways . . .

[Robert]

m but did I imagine it would take them more than a year to fix it? Hell no.

I think we can all agree to that in one form or another..... EVEN the developers. I'm still hopeful, but feeling somewhat indifferent.

[jamesdietz]

I kinda agree with this...probably because the new patch didn't do much if anything for me...

[spherehead]

If CLoD had a playable demo out at release time in the state that the game was in, there is no way I would have bought it. The demo would have had to work with most bugs ironed out. I waited until this Sept. to finally get the game in the hopes that its teething issues would have been resolved.
I know it now works for many, but I have spent a month With CLoD techs trying to get the game to work without success, but this thread is not about my launcher issues so I won't go on about that.
When I saw that Rise of Flight had a playable demo I downloaded it and it played great. I got hooked on playing the demo and wanted more. I upgraded to the full game and have bought four planes since. I consider myself a fan of the game.
I am not sure that I would have bought ROF before playing it and, to be honest, due to my experience of CLoD I would not even consider buying BoM without trying a demo to see if it actually works for me.

[SlipBall]

If CLoD had a playable demo out at release time in the state that the game was in, there is no way I would have bought it. The demo would have had to work with most bugs ironed out. I waited until this Sept. to finally get the game in the hopes that its teething issues would have been resolved.
I know it now works for many, but I have spent a month With CLoD techs trying to get the game to work without success, but this thread is not about my launcher issues so I won't go on about that.
When I saw that Rise of Flight had a playable demo I downloaded it and it played great. I got hooked on playing the demo and wanted more. I upgraded to the full game and have bought four planes since. I consider myself a fan of the game.
I am not sure that I would have bought ROF before playing it and, to be honest, due to my experience of CLoD I would not even consider buying BoM without trying a demo to see if it actually works for me.



Your running an XP system and expecting a miracle...not gonna happen:grin:

[Feathered_IV]

If they can pull themselves together and produce a worthwhile sequel, I'm sure they would consider making a demo a priority. Assuming they have at least some grip on reality. There is no way they will be able to tempt people back otherwise. They presold clod on trust. There isn't much of that anymore.

[Freycinet]

If the current state of affairs carries on for too much longer I think that the "Team" should seriously consider a free playable demo for BoM before releasing it to the market to assure their paying customers that they finaly have things fixed. The results of this beta patch are not convincing enough to get the largest part of the community behind them. Most of us were hoping to have a major improvement with this patch, but it hasn't happend for at least 50% of us. With the original Il2 series there was a playable demo available, this convinced a large % of the supportive community to try and then buy the series. With CoD there wasn't a demo, so we went in relying on what we thought we were going to get from the advertising and the good will that had been developed with the community. From a lot of threads and replies after patch 17582 most of the goodwill is starting to go down the gurgler. I hope things get better quickly, but I've stopped expecting too much too soon.

Your demo is called Cliffs of Dover. Maybe you should move on from the terrible disappointment CoD has been for you. It is not healthy to delve too long on the saddest things that ever happened in an otherwise charmed life. Go and enjoy the trees, the fields, the sunshine, the smile of a loved one, and try to forget the trauma CoD caused.

[SlipBall]

If they can pull themselves together and produce a worthwhile sequel, I'm sure they would consider making a demo a priority. Assuming they have at least some grip on reality. There is no way they will be able to tempt people back otherwise. They presold clod on trust. There isn't much of that anymore.


Why waste resource and produce a demo, really dos'nt make much sense on the devs side of looking at things. They are in it to make money,not waste it, or distract the team. There is not much concern for those who claim they won't buy, because the devs know that is just talk. You see the investors look at the big picture, and that is public interest in the product. They only need to study forum interest, here at 1C and over at Ubi forums. They cannot find another product that comes remotely close to the interest generated by the Il-2 brand...website hits, threads started, posts made.

[Dan555a]

I was thinking the same in regards to what you said about ROF.
http://www.rdox.info/01.jpghttp://www.rdox.info/02.jpghttp://www.rdox.info/8.jpghttp://www.rdox.info/9.jpg

[RickRuski]

Freycinet,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote: -

Your demo is called Cliffs of Dover. Maybe you should move on from the terrible disappointment CoD has been for you. It is not healthy to delve too long on the saddest things that ever happened in an otherwise charmed life. Go and enjoy the trees, the fields, the sunshine, the smile of a loved one, and try to forget the trauma CoD caused.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you look at the date of my original post (5/7/12) that was about the time lots of promises were being made by the team but nothing was materialising. To call C.o.D. a demo is a bit of a slur on the developers but if you are correct, then we all paid good money
for a product which was not a retail release product (a lot of us would agree with that). All demo's (playable) that I have seen have been free, some with time limit operation which would be fair (that could be done though Steam probably without too much of a problem).

Yes, if you may think even after nearly 4 months from that original post that i'm still a little sour about C.o.D. you would be right.

18 months on after release, and a statment from Luthier that said that they broke Sli/Crossfire support just prior to release but it was their No.1 priority to fix it, we are still having to wait while all the other bells and whistles seem to be getting the priority.

Their promises for me have taken a back seat, let's see the proof of the pudding now before they get any more of my dollars.

[priller26]

Agreed, no demo, no buy, especially true with the state of the game at present which is, if you wish to see if we fixed any of the issues YOU thought were important, you have to pay for the sequel. That's a wonderful business concept which inspires tremendous confidence, and may fly in the east, but a number of us don't wish to pay 40 or 50 to fix something which remains broken. It's really amazing that a company would adopt such an attitude, height of arrogance IMHO.

[Chivas]

Chances of a demo are slim and none. There is absolutely no need for one, and it would delay the release of the Sequel for months. Most people bought COD based on their experience with the first IL-2 series. People bought COD knowing the reviews were bad, go figure. Most people will wait this time for reviews of the Sequel, from people they trust, and they will buy if its decent. If its decent even the most negative in the community will buy the series at some point. A demo is a waste of time and money, for a company already lacking in time and money.

[darktatka]

I bought it year after release for something nearing $5. After reading the reviews, I thought "surely it can't be that bad?".

It was.

Now, it's finally getting playable. I'll wait for at least a year after release with BoM too, probably for some sale as well. The "CloD demo" did not convince me ;). If there will be new "demo" which will show that it really works, I'll buy it sooner. Possibly for full price.

[ParaB]

I'll wait until I can pick it up from the bargain bin for 10 bucks or so. Shouldn't need to wait too long.

[tintifaxl]

I concur - a demo is not needed. None of the "bitten once - twice shy" people should buy BoM on release but wait for reviews and community reaction.

[Trumper]

People bought COD knowing the reviews were bad, go figure. .
You are correct i was one of those BUT i ,along with many others expected the game to be mended not abandoned.
That for me makes me think twice before buying BOM on an off chance.Proper independent reviews for me first if at all.

[Chivas]

You are correct i was one of those BUT i ,along with many others expected the game to be mended not abandoned.
That for me makes me think twice before buying BOM on an off chance.Proper independent reviews for me first if at all.

Its not abandoned unless your plan was never to buy any further Sequels, which would be highly unlikely.

[ATAG_Doc]

Demo? If they do they should make it where the guns wont fire and the only skin you have is hello kitty.