Another pointless poll...
 

If i could turn back time...

(Que movie dreamlike wavy screen with music)

...and change COD's development style to ROF's, in which we had to pay more often for planes and extras, but guaranteed COD would be working as well as ROF is now with everything fixed, bug free, clouds, trees, weather, sound, extra planes, net code and campaigns ...everything.

Would you have gladly payed...lets say... £100?

I would have paid more than that for a more "workable" sim at release.
As it turned out?
I spent about $1500.00 for what we have now.

Some where in the above, is the solution in/for the future.
Maybe?

I'd have gladly paid double the price for a working CloD on release. I've bought Steel Beasts Pro PE for 125$ and still consider it a fine investment. Same for all the content I bought for RoF or the DCS series.

I don't like this style of pay to play, nothings worse than sitting on a server trying to play the game and having to buy a plane just to play, then never seeing that plane come up again, I'd rather pay more money up front and have everything

reality changes all the time by time travellers

curiously my dreams on time travel and reality change fit those in mib3 and the ened of eternity by asimov

theres a time line where the ubizoo got broken and all that community migrated here wchich brought such a good mood to the forum and nice comunity that the modders helped luthier bring up the perfect game

also that time line is so nice they discover water is slightly poisonous so drinking alcoholics beverages is the only drink as cheap as water

in that time line you open the water tap at home and it comes out beer

but well it couldnt be in that timeline a neurobiologist test a chip -brain interface in atetraplegic which finally decodes the language of the brain

so sorry guys is btter to not have a working game that humanity devolving and eventually stinguishing all due to the fast rewards of trnahumanism

edit:

so my answers is yes i would pay again even double for it i regret nothing in my past choices

I think that would be a smart move.. It is the future of games that are not as popular (sales) as other games, and flight sims falls into that catagory.

So let me see if I understand you correctly..

When you say 'working as well as RoF' your saying less bugs is aceptable?

If so glad to hear you admit it!

Because truth be told RoF is NOT without issues!

The current RoF versions has a few nasty bugs in it, the most noticeable one being the sound bug, where it forces you to leave the online server and restart the software.

I have allready spent more than that on RoF and I don't regret one penny of it! RoF is a great sim and alot of fun.. But as noted above it is not perfect! When you take into account that RoF has been out (released) a good year before CoD and what with the 777 buy out, they have had more 'time' and 'money' to fix the bugs in RoF..

Yet they have not fixxed them all! Something the peeps in this forum should take note of the next time they compare RoF to CoD.

That is to say check back in a year and after a CoD sequal and see which flight sim you like better! ;)

Truth is the RoF model works.
Is like to see maybe plane packs, say 109E-1 to E-7 rather than each plane individually, but hell anything is better than what we have now.

I think the problem was how funds were alocated rather than how much funding the game got.
I think they spent way too much money and time for things they didn't need at release and then end up with not enough money to pay the most important guys in the team, what they deserved (or wanted).
From my understanding some of the lead programers left or were fired from the team for financial reasons, less then a year from the release.

Really bad move.

*YAWN*

Pointless indeed.

hey you overlooked my idea:

how about making clod open source as il246 and let a bunch of modders work on it to fix it

the answer to that is pretty obvious, and being a medicated schizophrenic shouldnt prevent you from using some simple logic to process known facts in a rational way, otherwise to the rest of us forums users you are just like somebody who doesnt have the courtesy to flush their toilet after use because you are to lazy

so try that analysis once more, and you'll come up with the answer yourself

hint: it doesnt involve alien space ships

any productive result of your poll is invalidated by your "RoF style" quip at the end, which makes the whole exercise meaningless and pointless

ahh, but you already knew that :)

Not all pointless, it reveals the shape kind of the whine wagon.

BTW ... with all respect of-course, there nothing smart in the DLC strategy AoA ;)

Well that is your opinion and your welcome to it! Just know that I and many others don't agree with your opinion! S!

you mean cheating?

ive seen no cheating in moded il2

by the way my doctor diagnosis is im SANE

but did you know 1 in 4 its a psicko who dont care of others

in war 3 of four pretend to shoot with elevation

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...d-hominem.html

edit:

for a moment i thought to be like you and let my hate go:

i was planning to make a biased poll on if the game should be made open source so 100 guys work on it instead of just 4

but no my trade mark is being a crazy nice guy so i wont play your gane

You stated once that they don't put a gun in your head to buy, let me answer to this with equal analogy :

They don't put a gun in your head but they put the gun in your hand and let you shot to your self.

Or TD at-least?

Those guys know how to at-least communicate with the community!

MP

I don't think they are able to figure out the messy codes while those dedicated programmers in MG aren't.

I think you meant to say that I said 'put a gun to your head'? Right

Assuming that is the case lets move on to your next statement..

Equal analogy?

To be honest I don't think I even understand what it is your trying to say in your analogy..

What is it about 777s DLC methods/model do you think would cause the customer to want to shoot himself?

Are you saying that giving the customer a 'choice' to buy or not buy DLC will make them want to shoot themselves?

If 'so' that is the first I heard of it!

If 'true' someone better tell all the people living in a free market system to beware!

I was using ROF as a example because its the only CFS i know that uses that model.

The poll its self is pointless, this forum is pointless, your post and the other walls of txt you and Blackdog post are pointless, you, Ace, Bongo, Tree and myself are pointless here.
We change bloody nothing, the whiners and fanbois alike change nothing with what we post.

Who bloody cares? i enjoy posting and so does everyone else. Its better than watching the telly.

My apology for my writing, English is not my native language so sometimes I make mistakes.

The consumer want shot themselves ?

No, I´m saying that buying DLC the consumers are shooting themselves, concretely in a foot.

The DLC business model implies a change in the seller/consumer relation ship that is finally reflected in the product, in positive ways and negative ways too.

We as consumers should consider the whole picture, the bad and the good, only by that can make a smart decision.

Beware, in a free market there bad deals too ;)

Ah ok, well as long as your realise that is your opinion and not fact than we can agree to disagree.

Not sure if this was presented by you as some sort of proof in support of your first statment? If so I don't see it as proof as much as life in general! ;)

That is the beauty of it! In that 777 provides you a choice! Some will review it and consider it a smart decision and some will not. But at least we have a choice! Which is more than what some games provide.

Oh yes, no system is perfect, just many find the free market to be the best system

Of course, that its only my opinion and nothing more.

That is my point of view based on the experience from see the evolution of this business model through the years in gaming in general, and in the products delivers by it.

Does 777 provides the choice of buy a standalone WWI game ?

It does not.

Yeah, put me with them :)

That would explain some things.

How did you come about that 'understanding?'

I would like to see a mix of the two developments business plan. I would gladly pay extra for an aircraft like the Lancaster. Personally I'm glad COD doesn't use the ROF game engine. I don't particularly like the ROF terrain engine, and think the complex COD game engine will be far more flexible in regards to FMB capabilities if they can ever get it optimized. Time will tell. ROF has only the one real theater and had to use an aircraft based business model while the new IL-2 series is more suited to a Sequel business model with the option of selling more complex aircraft. Although all the new IL-2 series aircraft are quite complex.

S!

Roger that.. Which differs from mine and others

Not sure what you mean by stand alone? Are you refering to the need to log in to use the game? Just like we have to log into STEAM before playing CoD? If so, alot of games do this these days.. Or do you mean stand alone as in it has offline capabilites? In that RoF does have an offline campain to play

So your on my side? ;)

Here goes my English knowledge again :rolleyes:

Fixed :

Does 777 provides the choice of buy a full boxed WWI game ?

It does not.



Maybe your point of view, as someones here, is based on the flight simulator genre, where Microsoft Flight Simulator add-ons was a good DLC offer for example, so the DLC policy have not a negative approach.

But my point of view is more general, the DLC policy as unique method of revenue have negative consequences in the quality and value of the product and finally stuck his development.

I don´t consider RoF as a success, success was IL2 1946 for example, for me RoF its a stuck game, there no more future there other than buy the next plane.

But it does

http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Flight-Th.../dp/B002CQAPWS

That is not a good comparsion IMHO, becuase 777 DLC is different from the way MSFS did it.. Where all of the 777 DLC is produced by 777, and MSFS had both MS and 3rd party DLC. Where alot if not most of the 3rd part DLC was not worth the 'free' price they charged for it (what you called negative consequences in the quality)

Based on your statment is it safe to assume that you are not aware of the fact that 777 is in the process of adding a new 'channel' map that will include the sea planes.. Which is in a nut shell what IL-2 did via it's sequals.. New maps and new planes.. So, if your consider RoF stuck, than you would also have to say IL-2 was/is stuck

Of course you forgot to mention that they asked you to buy it while saying that it might not go ahead and if it didnt you would not get your money back :shock: nice of you to forget that...!

Wut ? ... so someone is selling his copy for 250$, amazing ...

That´s just what is wrong with 777, they are the only and the one DLC maker, it´ll be better if they let do this to others and put their effort in bring that RoF engine to 2012.

I'm aware of the channel map and the consequent´s more planes :rolleyes:

But as I said a better use of effort would be concentrate in the engine development and his features as IL-2 does, and sell the high steps forward along with new theaters to have revenue, as BoM, that´s a road map with future due the constant development of new features and new api as DX11.

A new map for a old engine is not a development to forward but add content to what you already have.

If your business consist in nothing more than sell DLCs then the development gets stuck, guess is where they are now, and there no future other that make a channel map to continue making more planes for a stuck DX9 engine.

That is the typical legal mumbo jumbo you will find with alot of preorder dev stuff.. In that they say that about most if not all the planes and other stuff you pre-order.. So no need to get your panties in a twist thinking they are trying to pull one over on you.. Beucase the FACT remains that NO ONE is holding a gun to your head when you ordered it.. As allways, if you don't read the fine print it is your fault not thiers.

On the upside, glad to see you took me off ignore, assuming you ever had me on ignore! ;)

Not that amazing, in that is probably the version that comes with all the add ones included.. I forget the name of it?

But if you look closer you will see that 777 provides the choice of buy a full boxed WWI game, i.e.

http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Flight-Fi..._ob_vg_title_1

You know.. that thing you said they DID NOT PROVIDE

And also 777 provides the choice of buy a download WWI game, i.e.

http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Flight-Cr..._ob_vg_title_0

Which all goes back to that 777 providing 'choices' things I was telling you about

That is your opinion, and is the reason why 777 can not and does not force anyone to buy it

First you said you didn't like DLC like MSFS because of the negative consequences in the quality which most of which was 3rd party DLC.. Now your saying you want RoF to allow 3rd party DLC which if anything like MSFS 3rd party DLC it will result in a negative consequences in the quality.. So which is it?

Ah so you knew about it? So why did you say RoF is not a success and/or stuck when RoF is doing the same thing the original IL-2 did.. i.e. Producing new maps and new planes and than charging the user for new maps and new planes. In that the only difference in the two is RoF allows you to pick and choose each item, where as IL-2 took all the items and bundled them up which in turn did NOT allow you to pick and choose.

Well maybe you should contact 777 and let them know you have a better way of doing things.. Maybe they would be willig to pay your for your software and marketing experiences? In that it sounds like you have run a few game companies in the past.. Are you at liberty to tell us which game company it was you were the CEO of?

Misunderstanding so much, its not ?

I think that I have explained good enough.

See you ～

Misunderstanding?

No, not at all..

Just a difference in opinions! S!

Yeah ... whatever ...

I wonder if there one of those RoF boxes for 250$ in my market place :rolleyes:

and thats exactly the reason it is so pointless :)

suggesting anything should be copied from the RoF approach is like your saying that in order to cure the patient you want to invite the anti christ to spread pox and pestilence, and after years of suffering and devastating the population nationwide you then let him devour their soul and place it into the fires of hell for the rest of eternity

so no, not a good idea !

having a paid beta program like DCS on the other hand would be a valid option

DCS is adopting pretty much the same model as RoF. See their new DCS: World package. In the future all DCS content (third party or not) will be released as a DLC for a single product.

Where did you get that idea that RoF development is stuck?

The last RoF patch added working synchronizer/interrupter gear (machine guns fire based on engine RPM when synchronized to fire through the propeller), vastly improved gun handling in the game and added some graphical improvements (sharper textures and heat blur). They are releasing new planes in the process and constantly improving the engine. And since you mentioned the upcoming channel map - we are not just talking about new landscape here (your point of new content), but some significant engine improvements. Like for example - working 3D water with wave physics and such.

I am not going to argue about CloD "expansion" model tho. It's DUD concept and a suicide for such a small niche market. Every new sim is moving away from this model for a reason.

Furbs, you missed the salient point:

Would I pay £100 for a WWII Sim that lived up to Clod's declared design goals? Hell yes!

Would I give this company any more money for any thing at all? Hell No!

@simast

Yes the current il2 model is suicide... I mean its totally untested and is following on from 1946 which was successful!!! Looks like someone is in denial...

Welcome to 2012, the age of digital distribution and downloadable content.

Hate to burst your denial bubble mate but DLC has been around for a few years now and as the poll above suggest not everyone supports it.

Now go back and play on your Xbox mmkay!

This, for the purposes of CLoD, is surely the salient point. I pre-ordered RoF's channel map and 'planes because I have confidence in 777 Studios. I have confidence in the RoF business model because they communicate with their community and of course, they deliver. I even know that the channel map is in early alpha testing and is looking good. I know this because the owner of 777 Studios took time off from his honeymoon to post on the RoF forums!

Is RoF's business model the way to go? I don't know, no one does but it seems to provide a constant revenue stream to a small studio producing a very complex but very niche product. Maddox Games is also a small studio also producing a complex, niche product but must still pay it's way. Is a game that takes five to six years to produce and sells a relatively small amount of copies for 50-60 bucks a go still a viable business model? Perhaps we're about to find out.

wrong

the DCS model doesnt have anything to do with the RoF model, which is evil and destructive to all things flightsim we hold precious. it was dreamt up by teflon suit clad shysters as their vision of the american dream, so they siphon money and get rich while the rest of the universe goes to hell as a direct consequence of what they create

what you are mistakenly referring to, is that DCS has now created their battlefield simulator interface, which is a project in its own right, and has taken significant resources from them to create (in man hrs and $). as such, to the best of my current knowledge, it is fair enough to provide that as a separate product (which customers of their other sim producs can still use, but cant "control" and have the direct use of to configure and manipulate)

their paid beta program is also a success, and would have avoided the storm of -ve publicity CoD generated on release (and something people like tree-uk never had the IQ power to comprehend), it was either the broken beta we got (and yes, was sold to us as a completed game, and that was the mistake) or NOTHING. having, and tolerating still, the perpetual clique of selfish whiners hasnt created ANYTHING positive to improve the outcome, if anything it has worsened our problem.

+1

Whatever you are smoking - it's good :)

You are confusing DCS: World with DCS: Combined Arms here? DCS: Combined Arms is a DLC for DCS: World. DCS: World is free (as is RoF). Description taken from their website:

Digital Combat Simulator World (DCS World) is a free, unified interface for all DCS products; you can think of DCS World as a simulation operating system. DCS modules that can plug into DCS World can include aircraft, maps, ground units, campaigns, etc. Not only can DCS World include modules developed internally by Eagle Dynamics, but it can also include those by certified third party developers.

Which is a single product all future content (paid DLCs) will be developed for. All current existing products (A-10C, Black Shark) are being converted as a module for this new RoF inspired business model.

This is just backwards. I don't want to pay someone money to beta test their software.

Either way you end up owning the retail version.....so whats the problem?

+1 yep, look at what it did to MSFS...

there is no need to spin into circles and confuse yourself, just for the meaningless attempt to have some argument online with somebody who doesnt really care (me)

what does matter, is that DCS has a proven track record with releasing good products (as il2/oleg) does, and that as development became more complex and expensive, DCS found a way to raise money for their (relatively) small team to fund their ongoing devellopment by selling their "still in development" beta products , if money is the single issue that is needed to keep the SoW project going, its not a bad model to look at

ahh, but see ..... here is the catch, what you personally think doesnt matter (in case that confuses you, neither does it matter what i think on that topic). what DOES matter is that there is a large enough group of enthusiastic long term flight simmers to whom it does matter, and that their number is large enough to:
a) help support developments they believe in, and they have confidence enough to put their money where their mouth is (contrary to the majority of self centred whiners who dont contribute anything)
b) that there are enough people interested in a project like that to pay to get an early preview at the product by getting a hold of the beta product they are so interested in (eg early adopters). at the same time this approach provides an early stream of constructive feedback to developers to extensively test things the developer doesnt always have time for. and as a bonus, all this is done without the selfish whiners who dont see the big picture.

For DCS, they have now added another product to their list, the campaign-engine/battlefield-environment. you dont need to buy it if you dont like it, but even if you dont own it you can still fly around in it using the aircraft you have already purchased from them in the past, sounds pretty fair to me. the people who do like it, will spend more of their money so they can twiddle with the fiddly bits and build campaigns, the rest of us can just fly around in it and blow stuff up with our favored aircraft.

ps: in case you find longer threads confusing, read the OP again. i am simply suggesting a more worthwhile alternative to the OP's suggestion at copying anything from the laughable RoF sales model concoction

As i said, all bloody pointless.

Entertaining though better than the telly, carry on.

I think we should start a poll asking wether people think this poll was pointless or not ;)

You sound upset? If so..

Are you upset with..

1) yourself for being wrong when you said 777 does not offer a box set to buy.
2) me for pointing out you were wrong to say that 777 does not offer a box set to buy.
3) me for not agreeing with your point of view (read opinion) that RoF is not sucessful

Why are you interested? If so, I would recomend you start with the $39 box only buy the DLC your interested in.

ahh but you could have been a contender !! (/que marlon brando voice)

all you had to do is find a worth while comparison, instead of believing that all that glitters is gold and choosing "anything with airplanes in it"

unless the entertaining banter around here is focused on producing something more positive as an outcome (eg not undermine further development and make it thereby less likely we get a working product we all enjoy for years to come), the lot of you might as well all go home and instead throw your empty soda cans at the tellee when you dont like what the little talking people in the box say

Zap, i always enjoy your posts. Cheers!

+2

Why do you keep comparing with ROF. I played the game for 1 week and never touched it again. Yes it performs better than COD. But the "feel" didnt seem right. I prefer COD with graphics to medium and low, and no trees, but with a better feel of flight and air combat.

COD platform will keep improving, removing its flaws, and eventually I will be able to buy better hardware. But ROF should be done all over again to change how it feels.

Dont get me wrong it is a beautifull game, and probably use it if i had more time, but right now most of my time goes to IL21946, and the rest to COD

Agreed, the RoF engine can not handle many ground objects, it would not be better for CloD to use that old DX9 engine.

That's where CoD probably went wrong. If you look at many other sims, RoF, DCS and even Ms Flight (not a sim) What you buy are the planes, not really the game itself.
I pretty much donate all I have to 777 and buy every plane and mod just because they do such a great job.
DCS P-51 and A-10C. Yes, I'll pay $49.00 for a sim that really works even with only one plane, one that's done really well.
If CoD or BoM was structured that way I'd buy it too.
There's really no way I can imagine how they can expect to sell a single game for one price with all these detailed aircraft and maps and so on.