At least they continue to support the game and improve it.
Whereas CLOD took my money and ran.

We've lived with this for ages in ArmA and simply put, don't blame the simgame but talk to the server host instead (he who actually pays for hardware people are playing on for free).


Fenice_1965, you honestly think that if there is no online activity there is no one using the game?

Clod
 

Cant believe CLOD is doomed to die. Was looking forward to Med and Moscow add-ons. It was 'the future' of air simulators . Once I saved enough for my new Rig it was going to give me a new lease of life in air combat. Oh well thank God for 4.11.1

So...I'm operating from the perspective of the server host. It significantly cuts my potential player base if I want to do an interesting scenario but one that features only certain aircraft and if I choose to do something interesting but not available to the base players then I can either choose to restrict those players (not something I want to do) or I can choose to not run the scenario (also not something I want to do). So in some ways it's a loose loose scenario.

The more I read at the new forum, I suspect they will have some sort of hybrid model. If there are enough aircraft in the base package then there may be enough breadth to do at least some interesting setups. But it will change the way that I approach online scenarios. Guaranteed.

Honestly not. I was thinking from the perspective that is closer to me (even if I've been playing simulators offline for more than 20 years, actually I'm more involved in online activity).
BTW online activity can be one of the indicators that can be considered in the judgement about vitality in a game thinked to be used also online.
I've the same perspective Icefire. can't be explained better. +1

For all complaining about RoF aircraft system.This is not a rant,just an experience I had.

I never had the culture of buying things from the internet.For me,it was like begging to someone to rob your credit card information.
Also,dollar isn't the currency of my country,and neither euro is.It's price is like 1 for 2 of our national currency.And buying things in dollars isn't the same as buying a pack of chips at the nearby market.
Yet,I got RoF and a few planes at every 2 months or when they have the 1/2 price sale and I'm enjoying it.

I guess its ok for First Person Shooters to sell DLC, but not Flight Sims?

This is a good point and worth thinking through it.

There are some differences the way RoF works versus a Call of Duty or Battlefield DLC. RoF you have access to the same game but can interact using only certain content unless you buy it piecemeal. Call of Duty you have access to a dozen maps and then buy more (usually 4ish to a pack) if you want to use those as well. When you buy the new maps you interact with only the people who also have that content.

With RoF you can interact with all of the same people but you are restricted in the content that you access without paying.

There are pros and cons to this model. My point from above, which I won't rehash, still remains. It's just not an issue that would come up in Call of Duty or Battlefield. If we do FPS style DLC packs then you'd buy a pack of aircraft rather than just one.

Likely there will be a need for scenarios to run differently with basically all available aircraft in the game on the list of available to fly.

My biggest complaint is not the money. I think it's reasonable to pay for additional content, especially in flight sims where content is difficult to produce and the market is very small. I'm just questioning how best to do it. I won't be torn up if the RoF model ends up being what we have too.

If it turns out to be simply RoF with ww2 aircraft that would be really sad.

I bought three copies of COD on speck just to back the old team and
I have the free copy of RoF and after playing that I didn't even think of buying it.
One man's treasure I suppose.
cheers

It's not only Rise of Flight, look at FSX and it's predecessors.

The whole nickle and dime, "extra plane costs $50+", or maps and whatnaught are going to drive this genre even further into the dust. The reason I love and still fly IL2 1946 (though not at all the last few months) is precisely because it is modable, has almost a hundred or so planes (through mods), maps, etc. It's not the prettiest gal on the block and it's aged reasonably well but a bit rough around the edges, but I wouldn't trade it at all for any of that closed market, closed environment, DRM-crippled BS. And don't even THINK about subscription based models.

Here's an idea. Instead of charging for content, charge for FUNCTIONALITY. Start with a good solid base, and go from there. Multi-crew planes a lot more work in code? Great, start with single user aircraft and then sell that in an expansion once it's worked out and stable. Don't try and charge me $10 for a map and 3 new flyable planes. Maybe add ground vehicles in a later expansion. Helicopters? Sure. Hopping around in planes? Sure. Just don't try and nickle and dime for functionality either. I never did mind paying $20 for full on expansions to games back in the day, because most of the time you were basically paying for a big enough amount of content that it was worth it. Above all else, make it MODABLE. Release the specs for how to make planes, maps, hell make it modular so people can make their own "add-ons" without having to open up the code base which can lead to cheating issues.

To anyone defending the nickle and dime mindset, that smacks of the recording industry's broken attitude toward it's own market. The world changes and they refused to adapt, and paid the price. The groups that rolled with the changes and times were the ones that made it through with flying colors. Nickle and dime isn't the new it, or is it the right way. Uncomfortable truths, just like the fact that piracy helps gaming and sales far more than it hurts it (unless it's a AAA title), and modding brings in far more of an audience than it costs to implement.

:-)