Would you be willing to pay for additional contend?

[icarus]

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%

Mode = 70% (by a margin of 2% over 60% and 4% over 50%)

Median score = 22%

625% more voted lowest score than highest score

Mean score (average)= 38%

[Anvilfolk]

Just out of curiosity - I really don't recall: was that before or after the latest patch? Also, I still can't shake the idea that most people are having performance issues because they refuse to reduce settings. The overwhelming majority are still running at maximum resolution, 1680, 1920 and above. People just aren't used to making concessions anymore, in my opinion.

Either way - Blackdog, I see your point, but I do think the business model is still feasible. The change from plenty of aircraft variants isn't enormous. The development cost of doing a variant of a plane you have is much less than that of a new plane. If you bought a "plane", you'd probably get all its variants, or a significant portion of its variants. Furthermore, I'm sure many maps could be adapted so that there's a least one flyable plane you could get, at least at first. Suppose everyone would get a basic Zero or a Claude or something for a Pacific scenario. Servers could probably come up with a map rotation that always included the Zero. If it isn't historically accurate, keep the Zero at a more distant airfield, but add the other planes. Whoever's bought them could play them online. The content could be there, just not flyable, I guess.

And by the way, if the message came from the developers pay-per-plane is the only way to keep CoD development going, you'd find me buying aircraft. I'd just be mightily annoyed

[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...

[Bonkin]

I voted yes... I agree with Ned

Originally Posted by NedLynch

I guess my point is, money is the fuel that makes every business engine run and microtransactions would just be one source the dev team could tap to keep going in the long run.

Whichever way you look at it the game will only get better if there are developers working on it. I purchased the download version - and personally, for what we have I don't think its bad value for money - but then I do play almost exclusively on-line so have not really got into the single missions or campaigns.

I'm sure that if say a flyable Wellington or Beaufighter was offered for download at a reasonable price (together with missions/campaigns etc) then there would be a lot of interest - whether you voted yes or no.

[=FI=Scott]

Would I pay for DLC from 1C based on my experiences with CoD ? Not in the way I bought the game (CE on pre-order). I would buy DLC after it was released and after I had chance to hear what other users have to say. Also I think it is a valid point that it only took a few weeks with CoD before there were big discounts available and I would wait and see if that happened with any future release.

That has nothing to do with financially punishing Ubi, 1c or MG it is just that I would be far more cautious in the future buying anything from them based on what happened with CoD. Obviously paying for a patch to repair CoD would be out of the question but I do not think MG would do that anyway.

The comparison with the RoF model raises what I always saw as one of its biggest flaws- you need only buy what you want. I don't enjoy flying bombers that much (apart from the Brisfit!) so passed on four DLC aircraft out of the past six. I have no problem with that business model but I think expansions in packs is the better option for a developer.

[Timberwolf]

game isn't worth the money i spent in the first place and to the fact ..."were working hard" to see other 1c projects being pushed out and are monthly info on whats new ..to be banjo music and whats in the "near" future pass

However there is gossip of 2 dogfight sims coming ..You can fly all the planes you want but have to level your pilots exp to get items like "hawkeye" see enemys at a further distance per level with talk of a cheap download price and item buys ..beta fall of 2012

[Fjordmonkey]

Originally Posted by Timberwolf

However there is gossip of 2 dogfight sims coming ..You can fly all the planes you want but have to level your pilots exp to get items like "hawkeye" see enemys at a further distance per level with talk of a cheap download price and item buys ..beta fall of 2012

If you're thinking about World of Planes, don't insult the genre by call it a sim. It'll be a sim in comparison to IL2:CloD about as much as World of Tanks is a sim compared to Steel Beasts. I.e. not at all.

[Untamo]

S!

Voted "not sure", meaning: Not now, but yes, after we got the game to a working order, as in, have the basics right. I will be ready to pay for additional content in the sense of expansion packs in old Il-2 style.

And no, not in the RoF style where if you want the whole game, it will cost you the price of several games.

[SNAFU]

I voted "Yes" under the assumption that the game would be as it was intended to be - an simulation orientated game around the mainstay-planes of the Battle of Britian and not a 50% finished software of someday-could-be-a-BoB-simulation.

If the products, here 3-D models with their FM&DM are done with some dedication and pride in workmanship and worth their money I would pay for the work the dev do.

[ATAG_MajorBorris]

Vote YES to splinter the online comunity.

It just wont have the amount of pilots original IL2 did online with a pay for per plane/instrument business model, dont you guys see that?

34 Me109 varriants @ $7 per plane = $238 + intruments @$2-5 +no mods= few pilots online.

$15 per bomber variant anyone?


A free variant + ai content every month and an expansion every so often would be great.