Would you be willing to pay for additional contend?

[ACE-OF-ACES]

I need to add another fact

fact.. most if not all new games require a cutting edge PC, as did IL-2 when it first came out.

As with most problems with FPS it is the user not the game. We are all guilty of it from time to time. The problem is NOT with the game!! The problem is with the user! Because most modern games will auto detect the hardware and set the settings accordingly. Than before even flying 30mins the user runs to the options menu and tweaks all the settings to HIGH or VERY HIGH.. than said user plays the game and wonders why it is a slide show.. And than sit back and blame Oleg for the slide show.. It's Oleg's fault for putting those options in there!!

No mater what Oleg does it is a loose loose.. because if Oleg left those options out, a year or two from now when todays cutting edge hardware is in the bargin bin for $40 people will complain that Oleg did not include enough options to take advantage of the 'new' hardware

[Anvilfolk]

I'd just like to say that I believe certain people are misinterpreting the results. My option to vote "Not sure" (or even "no") has nothing to do with the state of the game. I would vote the same if CoD ran perfectly on my crappy machine.

I just don't like the pay-per-everything model of RoF... it really hinges on the "Pokemon syndrome" that humans are prone to. People like completeness, it's part of our nature. It's like buying a puzzle but only getting half the pieces. If you want the rest of the pieces you have to pay for each one. How can you not want to finish the puzzle? Turning a profit from something you can't really help is something I'm not comfortable with. Also, I'm a grad student and can't afford this stuff... that may account for some of it


I'd be OK with large packs at reasonable prices. I'd jump on a Pacific Theatre expansion if it included significant amounts of aircraft and wasn't priced like a full game. That's why I went with "Not sure" instead of "No".

[Blackdog_kt]

Originally Posted by kendo65

Oh come on Blackdog. I expect better than that of you on this forum. I stand by what I wrote in my last post. There was a lot of noisy debate pre-release and increasing signs that things were not all good, but it was completely possible (up until the Russian release at least) to believe that the released product would be rather more 'polished' than it turned out to be.

It's entirely possible that some of your comments below are addressed to other people more than myself, but seeing as your post follows directly on from points I raised i think I need to respond.



I've never pre-ordered a game before either (also Collectors Edition) and I'm still glad that I did. I've also never used the word 'cheated' (though others have). I never considered cancelling my order after the Russian release, because I wanted to support the devs, because I was looking forward to the game so much and because even at that late stage it was possible for many of us to believe that the game would still be ok. With hindsight there was a lot of wishful thinking involved. In my own case a stubborn disbelief that the devs would let it out in that state without being 'open' with us about the issues first.



I respectfully disagree. I remember that week very clearly. There was a lot of noise, conflicting opinions, mounting disbelief. Desperate attempts to get accurate translations of what was posted on the Sukhoi forums (Google Translate !! ). As I said - with hindsight it's possible to accept that myself and others were (willfully) deluding ourselves. At the time - NO!




I actually bought my monster PC about a month before the Russian release

Blind faith? Maybe. Foolish? Probably, though again hindsight makes it obvious - it wasn't at all the case at the time. My choice and my responsibility and I take that one on the chin.



Someone else I think.....



In your opinion. You're a credit to this community and I for one value your patience and commitment. But the people who seem to have got the most out of the game are those like yourself who strongly value the fine detail technical aspects above other facets - landscape, anti-aliasing and 'pretty pictures'....

I'm pleased that you and others can. In my own case I can't suspend my disappointment with the other aspects of the sim enough to want to put the effort into learning the technical details. I need to have a believable sense of reality from the visual aspects, AI and several other areas first.

Please allow me the right to decide what is most important to me in how I play and approach the game without somehow being dismissed as a lightweight.


Back on topic - For the record I voted yes in the poll for buying add-ons. I really want to see this sim become what it can be.

Feel free to move this post if needed.

Well thought out reply, even though i wasn't addressing you in my previous post. That being said, i still disagree with some of your points but i also agree with some

People take note, the above post is the way to disagree with other posters in a public forum. I won't reply so that we won't derail the thread further (plus i think i've said all i need to say on the matter), it would be a shame to have to move your post when it could serve as an example to others.

[Ze-Jamz]

Originally Posted by Anvilfolk

I'd just like to say that I believe certain people are misinterpreting the results. My option to vote "Not sure" (or even "no") has nothing to do with the state of the game. I would vote the same if CoD ran perfectly on my crappy machine.

I just don't like the pay-per-everything model of RoF... it really hinges on the "Pokemon syndrome" that humans are prone to. People like completeness, it's part of our nature. It's like buying a puzzle but only getting half the pieces. If you want the rest of the pieces you have to pay for each one. How can you not want to finish the puzzle? Turning a profit from something you can't really help is something I'm not comfortable with. Also, I'm a grad student and can't afford this stuff... that may account for some of it


I'd be OK with large packs at reasonable prices. I'd jump on a Pacific Theatre expansion if it included significant amounts of aircraft and wasn't priced like a full game. That's why I went with "Not sure" instead of "No".

I'd say the grad student bit has quite a bit to do with it ~S~

But then with this type of Market which isn't big it may be the only way to go..I'd rather keep paying for more content/packs/upgrades than Juat have a great game that will fizzle to nothing and then nothing replaces that.

We all know these markets are small at best and I think it's a good idea for DLC but I do agree with you, the price has a major factor here

[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

[Bryan21cag]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

That "grade the game" poll of a few weeks back showed the majority of people were giving it between 50% and 70%, so i fail to see how that makes you a majority when you graded it a 10%-20% if i'm not mistaken.

View Poll Results: Your rating of COD right now.
10 25 10.25%
20 4 1.64%
30 18 7.38%
40 29 11.89%
50 42 17.21%
60 48 19.67%
70 53 21.72%
80 14 5.74%
90 7 2.87%
100 4 1.64%

just to refresh everyone's mind

cheers

[furbs]

Yep the average score was 56%? BD your memory is a little off.