DLC - is it Paid content?
 

If we'll be expected to stump up another £5 or so to get some German planes that should have been in the original £40 release, I don't like the way this is all going.

Sure I'm all for addons to extend the life of the game and give you more enjoyment, but this to me seems fundamental.

IL2 featuring a multiplayer mode where you can only fight Allies against Allies? No Germain planes at all, unless you pay more money??

Of course I could have the wrong end of the stick, so feel free to shoot me down in flames ;-)

P.S

Love the game though, has retained the elements of il2 on PC which make it so special.

The reason other planes need cockpits is because it was never originally planned to have 40+ planes.

cod 4 multiplayer where you have to pay to play on 20% of the maps! No I won't do....oh I just did....

welcome to real world of dlc...sim=niche

you pay peanuts, you get monkeys...

paying for dlc = support for franchise

or you can play HOE...
________
WEED VAPORIZER

I'm not expecting the 300+ you get in the PC version by any stretch but should at least be some axis in there for multiplayer?

It's all about making money at the end of the day and it a lot of work to create this type of content but when you are laying out £40 for the initial game any additional content you are asking money for has to be worth it.

I would probably stump up for expansions if it's worth it but please don't got the £5 per plane route.

it's not always like that, GT5 will have 1000 odd cars with distinct performance etc..

where did you get £40 from on amazon and play its £30

ok you're getting a game for $10 less than normal and complaining about paying an extra $5 to get new planes? I don't know how your flying is, but your math sucks.

If people do not wish to pay for the extra content then leave them be. There is no need to say something like that.

Ummm yeah, I'm afraid I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree with you Bob. But, here's why: Every single day the gamers get hosed by developers. We pay $60 for games that turn out to be garbage, then they stack on DLC and we pay for that. Now, we finally get a great game and they are coming in $10 cheaper, way against the norm for the industry. So put yourself into the developer/distributor perspective. You work years to make a masterpiece, then you decide to throw the gamers a bone and save them $10, something other studios aren't doing. But then, people instantly complain about the price of DLC, which is par for the Live/PSN course. The devs and distributors could look at that as if to say, "well we did them a favor saving them $10 and all they did was complain about the DLC, so next time we're pocketing the $10 and focusing less on the gamers themselves."
When you take it out of a politically correct perspective and more into what's going on in the minds of the people involved, what I said makes a lot more sense. I think you and I are having some kind of communication misinterpretation across multiple threads.

In the UK, i've tended to find most ps3 games come out at and get knocked down to around the £30 mark (as with il-2), it's only the rare exception such as Modern Warfare 2 which have a much higher price than the norm.

I'm all for DLC if its an expansion to a game, adding new stuff 3-6 months down the line to keep the fanbase happy, it does peeve me though that the latest trend is to hold stuff back for release then charge a few extra quid for it a few weeks later. Or have something thats xbox only and something ps3 only, and then charge each console base for the one they didnt get on release. Looking at PSN lately, taking one example... of a newly released golf game.. within hardly a few weeks of it being out theres probably £50+ worth of DLC out already. Look at each item individually, and you think.. whats £1 for a new skin or in game item.. but then add them all up, and it's definitely a rip off in my view. Of course, I have the option to not buy it, before inevitably someone mentions that :P