Battle for Moscow

[FS~Phat]

Guys it's an interesting theory, but let's remember, they (1c) are still here, they havent left us, and this is still theory and speculation no matter how many times it gets uttered and bandied around as fact. The great thing is that they are still developing for the series!

[von Pilsner]

Originally Posted by Force10

lets not make them out to be on the brink of disaster unless we know, could do more harm then good

I could not agree more. Plus a lack of information seems to lead to much more speculation and rumors so maybe regular forum updates (even when they are just 'still working on the patch') would be helpful.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by kalimba

So what is an acceptable % of bugs in a game at release ? How can you draw the line ? Many games are 99% fully functionnal at release even with few bugs.
And some are so buggy they would never pass QC but are released anyways...
In what category would you, yourself ,put COD at initial release ?
And almost a year after the first release, what is in opinion the current state of COD in terms of patches and hotfix ?
We are all in the dark now and that is why a lot of us are just speculating ...and debating ...and arguing for nothing...really...

Actually the funny.. no telling part would be for you to tell us what you think the percentage of bugs is in CoD

In that I think any attempt by you or anyone else would only highlight how absurd it is to think you could come up with a value, which in turn would highlight how meaningless your statement that many games are released 99% bug free.

But I digress..

The point you are still missing from my initial post that you commented on is that it is 'UN-REALISTIC' to expect 'ANY GAME' to be released without 'ANY' bugs! If they can come to grips with that FACT then they will be able to view the state of this game in a more realistic light..

The next step would be for them to take pause and realize that 1C is still working on the product. Which is the 'EXCEPTION' to the game making rule! That is to say one does not have to look far to see dozens upon dozens of games that were released with bugs.. Where in many cases no bug patch was ever provided, or one was that fixed a few items but not all.. Followed by all support being dropped shortly after.

Should they get that far, than and only than will they realize just how 'LUCKY' they are that 1C is the company that made CoD.

[Chivas]

Originally Posted by Force10

Sorry but "common sense" "rumors" and "strongly suggested" don't make it a quantified fact as you make it out to be. Unless you really know what their financials are and can back it up, your just guessing so maybe you should phrase your statement as such. We don't know what Ubi kicked in, residual sales from 1946, other endevours etc. so lets not make them out to be on the brink of disaster unless we know, could do more harm then good

Let me get this straight, your negative speculation is OK, LMFAO.

[Feathered_IV]

Originally Posted by Force10

Sorry but "common sense" "rumors" and "strongly suggested" don't make it a quantified fact as you make it out to be. Unless you really know what their financials are and can back it up, your just guessing so maybe you should phrase your statement as such.

There is plenty of material from Oleg, Luthier and even Jason Williams both here and at SimHQ to give a good understanding of development as related by Chivas.

I love the parallels between the development progress of the new IL-2 series and Hitler's invasion plans.

Let's do an invasion of Britain. . .

"Oops! That didn't work out very well, how about we move on to Moscow? That's got to be a winner!"

[Chivas]

Originally Posted by Force10

Sorry but "common sense" "rumors" and "strongly suggested" don't make it a quantified fact as you make it out to be. Unless you really know what their financials are and can back it up, your just guessing so maybe you should phrase your statement as such. We don't know what Ubi kicked in, residual sales from 1946, other endevours etc. so lets not make them out to be on the brink of disaster unless we know, could do more harm then good

Its unfortunate that you can't see the honest speculation in some of my posts.

Common sense tells me the developer wouldn't risk releasing an unfinished product, unless it was absolutley necessary, knowing full well the negative publicity that would garner. Especially when they had plans to continue the series.

We know that the development has been delayed for years and that couldn't continue. Investors are simple not willing to carry a project that long.

[furbs]

Bugs are expected and are one thing.
missing or non working features are another.
features that still dont work after 8 months are still another thing.

Features that have to wait 2 years and to pay for a sequel is a...well make up your own mind.

[Force10]

Originally Posted by Chivas

Its unfortunate that you can't see the honest speculation in some of my posts.

Common sense tells me the developer wouldn't risk releasing an unfinished product, unless it was absolutley necessary, knowing full well the negative publicity that would garner. Especially when they had plans to continue the series.

We know that the development has been delayed for years and that couldn't continue. Investors are simple not willing to carry a project that long.

That's just it Chivas. I see it as speculation, you were telling us all it was a fact with the way you stated it. I just thought maybe you had something that backed it up as fact. I thought maybe UBI was pressuring 1C to just release the darn thing after 6 years of waiting or maybe they would pull out of distribution or something. Whatever man, just think maybe you should throw in a "IMO" if you don't really know.

[Feathered_IV]

Originally Posted by speculum jockey

I love the parallels between the development progress of the new IL-2 series and Hitler's invasion plans.

Let's do an invasion of Britain. . .

"Oops! That didn't work out very well, how about we move on to Moscow? That's got to be a winner!"

Ha!