Would you be willing to pay for additional contend?

[baffa]

I wouldn't pay anything now, the game is not finished I couldn't really enjoy a broken game. This game right now only works as a mulltiplayer game which doesn't interest me that much.

But I wouldn't mind paying for a finished game with a few restrictions.
No - Microtransactions ala Rise of flight, too expensive, adds to few things for the money.
Yes - New Campaigns/Theaters with new aircraft, ground units etc, could be either small campaigns released as DLC or full blown expansions with Tons of new stuff.

[Blackdog_kt]

In terms of beating the old dead horse (the tangent discussion that spun off in the thread) i'm with Madfish.
People on this forum especially knew what was wrong with the game before they even got it: the Russian release was on March 25th and we had ample supply of videos and reviews made not by gaming websites, but made by customers.

Anyone who was displeased and didn't cancel their preorder has only themselves to blame for taking a leap of faith and then busting our proverbial fuzzy dice when it didn't work out for them.

I've never pre-ordered any kind of game before CoD and in the case of CoD i only did it to get a collector's edition. Pre-ordering is for people who are willing to put up with the initial teething troubles or see some kind of other benefit in it (like it was in my case), if you don't want to take a risk cancel your order and wait for more in-depth reviews and patches. But please, stop doing our head in about how you've been cheated when the information was right before your eyes.

A kid with no experience who saw a couple of advertisements and bought CoD, a newcomer to sims and this forum? Sure, he's got every right to feel cheated.

The bunch of old-timers and veterans who frequent this place? NOT A CHANCE. It was just voluntary blindness followed by self-righteous e-rage when things didn't go they way they imagined they would.


After the Russian release and a few weeks before the EU release:
"The videos on youtube are not encouraging, the game stutters like hell, oh well, i'm impatient so i'll buy a monster PC without knowing anything about what makes this game work this way and preorder anyway"

Two weeks later: "Oh well i'm impatient so i'll share the story of how i was cheated in the hopes of getting some comforting and maybe pushing the developers to give me a patch that fixes what i consider the most important bugs, because i'm super important and all"

There's a ton of things that need fixing in the game, but a lot of it is loads more important than the jaggies on a bloody aerial mast. But in order for people to know this they actually have to spend some time flying, instead of looking only at the pretty pictures and shutting off the game when they are not pretty enough for them. I honestly think some people are dabbling in the wrong gaming genre.

This is how some people come off here to the majority of the rest of the posters. You guys should see the kind of PMs and comments i get on reported posts from members of the community.

So let them stop throwing their HOTAS out the pram because the onlookers are not impressed, empathetic or otherwise moved one iota. It's a clear case of self-victimization, why should the rest of the community have to put up with the consequences of other people's masochism?






As for the main topic at hand, this:

Originally Posted by MajorBoris

Two different sims, how would you get to 300+ planes? Multiple theaters? (no mods?)with that business model you would find the online splintered into those who had all the content for a mission and those who didn’t. New mission rotates and half the online folks quite for the above reason and the other half quits for the latter. With that said who is going to pay for every 109 variant with over 34 variants. I think without a doubt it would also put off all the IL2 old timers. I have seen this same thread/post many times, let’s stop this silliness.

WW1 in the western front is a more or less static frontline on the same map, which also doesn't need to be very big due to the speed and range limitations of those early aircraft.

WW2 is not the same, not by a long shot. I think RoF's business model is unsuitable for anything other than RoF.


So, would i buy additional content for CoD? Depends on how it's packaged.

If it was itemized DLC sales i wouldn't.
If it was a complete expansion pack (they way it was done with IL2) i would, because it gives me an entire new theater of operations to play with: ground units, AI, maps, etc.

In fact, the only IL2 titles i didn't get where the ones that were packaged digitally (Pe-2 and sturmoviks over manchuria), i didn't have those until i got the 1946 disc and they were included in it.

The reason that selling only flyables works for RoF is that the rest of it all is pretty much static in a WW1 scenario. Doesn't work for WW2 that way, just the western European front would need 2-3 different maps with different ships, ground vehicles, etc. If the developer is selling only flyables, he has no way to sell the "supporting cast", if they are selling a complete bundle however, they can include whatever needs to be included in the package and price it accordingly.

[NedLynch]

It seems that microtransactions is a big no-no and after reading the comment on the differences between the WWI setting and the WWII battlefiled by Blackdog I have to agree.
It does seem however that people are willing to buy comprehensive expansion packs.

One other word about being a "cheated" victim. I bought the sim after reading all the negative things about it and in full knowledge of the issues some people are having. I bought it to support 1C thinking if I as well cannot run the game properly then at least I will wait for patches until I can.
Strangely enough the game runs for me, for all intends and purposes, flawlessly and I am enjoying the heck out of it.

57% of customers said NO. They lost our trust. Thats what happens when you play on ppl trust based on past achivements. How sad. Not a penny from me.. ever.
Btw where is Oleg. He disappeared from the boards long ago. Really a sad ending of a great saga. RIP IL2.

[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.

When hell freezes over.

[Bryan21cag]

Originally Posted by NedLynch

I do agree whole heartily. When I posted the question it didn't even cross my mind to cut out modders and the community in creating additional content.

I am not 100% sure on this but I don't think you can have both. If you are putting out single planes and single campaigns for people to buy then you really do not want open access for modders to create the same thing that you are trying to sell. If you were a Mod God you would just wait and see what the items were make them your self and drop them for free on to the mod sites, so my guess is if they went this way they would also have to change the code around to prevent this. That is why it scares me a little if they do entertain this idea at some point.

Cheers

[esmiol]

for me the system of ROF to pay each plane is just horrible !

i will pay for extra content like i do for il2 forgotten battle or pacific fighter, etc... in one word addons!

i don't want to pay for each plane...or each visor or for each boulon of my plane like it is coming in ROF.


then my repsonse is NO!

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

In terms of beating the old dead horse (the tangent discussion that spun off in the thread) i'm with Madfish.
People on this forum especially knew what was wrong with the game before they even got it: the Russian release was on March 25th and we had ample supply of videos and reviews made not by gaming websites, but made by customers.

Anyone who was displeased and didn't cancel their preorder has only themselves to blame for taking a leap of faith and then busting our proverbial fuzzy dice when it didn't work out for them.

I've never pre-ordered any kind of game before CoD and in the case of CoD i only did it to get a collector's edition. Pre-ordering is for people who are willing to put up with the initial teething troubles or see some kind of other benefit in it (like it was in my case), if you don't want to take a risk cancel your order and wait for more in-depth reviews and patches. But please, stop doing our head in about how you've been cheated when the information was right before your eyes.

A kid with no experience who saw a couple of advertisements and bought CoD, a newcomer to sims and this forum? Sure, he's got every right to feel cheated.

The bunch of old-timers and veterans who frequent this place? NOT A CHANCE. It was just voluntary blindness followed by self-righteous e-rage when things didn't go they way they imagined they would.


After the Russian release and a few weeks before the EU release:
"The videos on youtube are not encouraging, the game stutters like hell, oh well, i'm impatient so i'll buy a monster PC without knowing anything about what makes this game work this way and preorder anyway"

Two weeks later: "Oh well i'm impatient so i'll share the story of how i was cheated in the hopes of getting some comforting and maybe pushing the developers to give me a patch that fixes what i consider the most important bugs, because i'm super important and all"

There's a ton of things that need fixing in the game, but a lot of it is loads more important than the jaggies on a bloody aerial mast. But in order for people to know this they actually have to spend some time flying, instead of looking only at the pretty pictures and shutting off the game when they are not pretty enough for them. I honestly think some people are dabbling in the wrong gaming genre.

This is how some people come off here to the majority of the rest of the posters. You guys should see the kind of PMs and comments i get on reported posts from members of the community.

So let them stop throwing their HOTAS out the pram because the onlookers are not impressed, empathetic or otherwise moved one iota. It's a clear case of self-victimization, why should the rest of the community have to put up with the consequences of other people's masochism?






As for the main topic at hand, this:



WW1 in the western front is a more or less static frontline on the same map, which also doesn't need to be very big due to the speed and range limitations of those early aircraft.

WW2 is not the same, not by a long shot. I think RoF's business model is unsuitable for anything other than RoF.


So, would i buy additional content for CoD? Depends on how it's packaged.

If it was itemized DLC sales i wouldn't.
If it was a complete expansion pack (they way it was done with IL2) i would, because it gives me an entire new theater of operations to play with: ground units, AI, maps, etc.

In fact, the only IL2 titles i didn't get where the ones that were packaged digitally (Pe-2 and sturmoviks over manchuria), i didn't have those until i got the 1946 disc and they were included in it.

The reason that selling only flyables works for RoF is that the rest of it all is pretty much static in a WW1 scenario. Doesn't work for WW2 that way, just the western European front would need 2-3 different maps with different ships, ground vehicles, etc. If the developer is selling only flyables, he has no way to sell the "supporting cast", if they are selling a complete bundle however, they can include whatever needs to be included in the package and price it accordingly.

Another lovely long post Blackdog, and yes we have heard it all before, and it's good to see you towing the party line, but you see it really doesn't matter what you or I think, everyone who reads these forums as read every argument and point of view and it doesn't matter how rational you appear to be, because the bottom line is that the majority of people here feel they have been 'ripped off' and furthermore the general feeling is at this current time Luthier is not doing enough (communication wise) to show that he gives a rat's ass about it. Yes he's payed lip service to it with the 'Community manager' that seems to have gotton lost in the Dynamic weather so he knows its important to us, we should be patient I hear you cry, but thats not what we want, we want to be kept informed, and 'the customer is always right'.
You can dress it up all you want, but that's the general mood. The only person who can change this, is not a moderator with a stubborn sense of duty but Luthier himself. If he carries on to ignore 'his' valued customers then he and his business will suffer and deservedly so for the lack of respect that he has shown on these boards by not keeping us (the paying customer) informed. Simples!

[Icebear]

Great poll ! Developers will definitely draw conclusions if only 25% of the last people interested in their game are "surely" willing to pay for any additional contend. It's too bad. On the one hand it's too good to throw away, on the other hand I'm also not willing to spend another single cent at this stage.

IMO a useless if not destructive poll.