1C games's own BOM ?

[wannabetheace]

Is it possible that 1c games make it's own sequel BOM game with business model like 777.

They could make small release first like 4 flyable plane with Clod engine.

bf109
ju87

il2
yak or mig

I'm not saying BoS would be worse but I want to fly over Moscow

[d.burnette]

Considering 1C teamed up wtih 777 to produce BOS, I would doubt it. Would be nice though...

[RickRuski]

I think we should give the combined team a chance to see what they can produce, C.o.D. isn't as bad as a lot of us think. Most of us who have tried to tune our pc's and sim to get the best we can are satisfied with the results.

The C.o.D. team were possibly told get it right or goodbye. Lack of communication from the team resulted in a lot of flack, that could have been avoided.
When the original Il2 came out in about 2001 most of the pc's of the time couldn't get the best out of it and it wasn't until we all started to upgrade and the sequels started to be released that things really came right, then the producers (Maddox Games) could then improve graphics and performance. What a great series it turned out to be and still is.

The improvements that are still happening with that series are still bringing in sales and supporters of the series. If only the team had been given the time and finance to get the sequel finish with the new engine they were working on we may have seen a great series again.
Maybe 1C should have as suggested, tried 777s business model from the start, but with the initial release based on the Battle of Britain it would be difficult to add more planes and keep it historically within the time frame.

[Bearcat]

I can't help but wonder if all the free stuff we got for Oleg and took for granted to the point where so many of us act like spoiled children demanding this and that from developers was a part of why thinsg went south for them. Don't forget.. IL2 was 1C & MaddoxGames..

[Feathered_IV]

I think there is a lot of truth in what you say there BC. There were whole years in a row where I'd be waiting with money at the ready thinking, for gods sake - just sell me something! Instead there were all those sporadic free patches that kept people quiet for a tiny while, but did nothing for the future growth of the company.

[zapatista]

Originally Posted by Feathered_IV

I think there is a lot of truth in what you say there BC. There were whole years in a row where I'd be waiting with money at the ready thinking, for gods sake - just sell me something! Instead there were all those sporadic free patches that kept people quiet for a tiny while, but did nothing for the future growth of the company.

bollox, tripe, and poppycock

the final patch in September 2012 produced a good and pretty well rounded game

but with forums filled with low attention span teens and impatient self contrite fools, none of those had the brain power or EQ to see CoD's good qualities in context of other problematic flightsim releases in previous years (like RoF for ex, something many of those same morons seem to glorify without knowing or understanding its good and bad points), and give it the further time it needed (even if that meant they personally wouldnt play it right now for whatever reason)

so you personally got what you deserved for all your whining and bitching, eg now you got NOTHING !

enjoy what you helped to create

or you gonna whine now that there is nothing ?

CoD is pretty good now, and it could have been, should have been, was going to be GREAT ! with years of addons and further evolution to even greater things to look forward to, but instead right now YOU got nada, zip, zero, nothing !

[ATAG_Snapper]

Originally Posted by RickRuski

........Maybe 1C should have as suggested, tried 777s business model from the start, but with the initial release based on the Battle of Britain it would be difficult to add more planes and keep it historically within the time frame.

WRT your above thoughts, here were mine in a similar vein which I had posted on our ATAG forum -- with the emphasis on "20/20 hindsight", of course:


With 20/20 hindsight (of course) I wish MG could've started off a LOT simpler with CoD following a similar release model to their successful IL2 Sturmovik release. Instead of immediately branching off in all directions, they could've focussed on fewer planes and ground objects, a smaller map -- but getting it all RIGHT the first time. Example:

1) Battle of France: Hurricane MK1 (2-speed), 109E1, Blenheims, Ju87's, 110's. MAP: NW France, Low Countries. Sunny weather only. Cost: $50

2) Dunkirk Evacuation: add: Spitfire MK1 (2-speed), Beaufighters, 109E3, 110's, Ju88's. MAP: East Coast airfields. No added weather Cost: $50

3) Channel War: add: Spitfire 1a, Hurricane MK 1 Rotol, 109E4, He111. MAP: no addition. Weather: Heavy cumulous, overcast. Cost: $50

4) RAF airfields: add: flyable Wellingtons, Dornier17's MAP: add Sector 11 SE England less London. Weather: rain, thunder, lightning. Cost: $50

5) London Blitz: add: Spitfire 2a's, Me262's (anyone reading this far?) Map: London, Sector 12, Weather: fog_peasoup_version. Cost: $50

Of course, above is an oversimplification and we can certainly argue plane types, ground object inclusion, radar, FMB, etc etc. But you get the gist. MG/1C could've milked us by five times over AND WE WOULD HAVE PAID -- IF -- they focussed on the important stuff and got it right the first time.

This is a genre that sells thousands, not 100K's, of copies. They needed a steady inflow of cash to keep CoD on course. They failed on that IMHO.