Would you be willing to pay for additional contend?

[Fjordmonkey]

I voted yes. I actually WOULD pay for additional content. Of course, that would imply that the sim is playable for the majority of people, but that's still to come.

Once that's in place, then yes, I would pay for additional content just like I pay for DLC's for other games on Steam.

[Rattlehead]

Originally Posted by Fjordmonkey

I voted yes. I actually WOULD pay for additional content. Of course, that would imply that the sim is playable for the majority of people, but that's still to come.

Once that's in place, then yes, I would pay for additional content just like I pay for DLC's for other games on Steam.

I feel the same. As you say, the game would have to be up to scratch first, but I wouldn't mind paying for extra planes, maybe extra ground units and additional campaigns and that sort of thing.
I would not like to pay extra for gunsights or something of that nature though. The DLC would have to be worth it.

Pretty much every other developer charges for additional content these days.

[GF_Mastiff]

i would say "it's like watching the grass grow".

[Blackdog_kt]

For me it's not so much an issue of pricing. The RoF model does end up being more expensive overall, but spread out over a longer period of time for the cost of a beer at the bar per week and also lets people choose what to spend their money on.

It's the implications of this business model that i object to most of all. Like i said before, WW1 in the western front is a pretty much static scenario and flying distances are small: one map and a few ground units is all it needs, then the developers can focus only on flyable aircraft.

WW2 has a lot more theaters than WW1 and even on a single theater WW2 might need more than one map due to the ranges flown. Then it's an issue of ground units and AI units in general.

Going for a business model that sells only flyables mean that the developers have no way to sell us the rest of the things it would need to adequately flesh it out, so they would be less inclined to provide them in the first place.

Even if the pricing ended up similar i'd still prefer a complete expansion for this reason. I'd much rather spend $50 on a complete expansion pack with 8 new flyable aircraft, a new map and some new AI units, than spend $50 on 10 flyables priced $5 each.

It just doesn't make sense in the long run. Just imagine this, the map rotates on your favorite server and a mission comes up where you lack either the map or the aircraft to fly it.
It will only play havoc with multiplayer compatibility in the long run and cause major attendance/participation issues for most servers until the majority of people have had time to catch up in terms of add-ons purchased.

And we all know that half-empty or empty servers either don't get upgraded as often, both in terms of hardware/bandwidth/hosting and in terms of content, or they completely shut down because the rental expense can't be justified if not enough people use them.

I think this is one of the main reasons that RoF was struggling to achieve the same numbers of online players that IL2 had (i don't know if it even has comparable numbers today), much more than the fact that it was about WW1 and let's face it, almost everyone likes biplanes and swirly dogfights even if it's not their primary focus.

If CoD follows the IL2 business model it will get to that point some time, but using the itemized DLC method will result in even more widespread fragmentation because of the subject matter being much more varied as far as theaters of operations go. Per-aircraft DLC works very well for study sims and sims with a static frontline/map, but not so much for WW2 sims.

Now i can join any server and fly for any team. If we had per-aircraft DLC i would only buy a few bombers, only a couple of 109 variants that see widespread use in scenarios that predate the introduction of the 190 and the complete 190 series to fly in scenarios from 1942 onwards: i wouldn't even be able to switch sides to even the teams on a server and a similar thing would happen to other people buying different aircraft.

Just one example among many of why i think it's a terrible idea for a WW2 sim

[NedLynch]

Maybe bringing up the RoF model was a mistake, it was the first thing that came into my mind since it is a flight sim as well.
Maybe the Total War series would have been better, they as well sell expansion packs and unit packs and in their last game Shogun2 the additional units do not impact online play. Those units are independent from SP and everyone online has the same units (in our case it would be the same pool of airplanes) to choose from.

[Blackdog_kt]

There's no mistake done simply by bringing it up, we're all just brainstorming here after all: we start from a foundation of existing ideas and then modify them to suit the task at hand

[swiss]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

I'd much rather spend $50 on a complete expansion pack with 8 new flyable aircraft, a new map and some new AI units, than spend $50 on 10 flyables priced $5 each.

+1
...given the fact it works...