Cliffs of Dover, a Year Later

[Chivas]

Originally Posted by Pudfark

I realize that you are trying to be "helpful" Chivas.
Your explanation, is not the answer. It's your opinion.

The answer, only comes from the dev's.
Thus far, the only answer from them?
Is very very ambiguous and sorely lacking definition.

No personal attack here at all. Chivas, you have earned everyone's respect.

S~

I agree Pudfark there never has been an explanation for the early release from the publisher/developers, but IMHO its the only logical one. Why would any sane publisher/developer release a sim in this state, and knowingly garner all the negative reviews and forum posts unless it was absolutely necessary to save the development. I really don't think the publisher/developers thought that the sim recovery would take this long. They new the sim needed optimization, but they probably didn't realize at the time that the graphics engine would require a rewrite.

~Salute~

[mazex]

Originally Posted by Chivas

I really don't think the publisher/developers thought that the sim recovery would take this long. They new the sim needed optimization, but they probably didn't realize at the time that the graphics engine would require a rewrite.

~Salute~

I agree, that's the only logical explanation - as it does not make sense otherwise...

When it was first released I thought that it was really sad as 1C obviously had lost their faith in the product after too many years of development and pushed the half finished product out on the market to just get some payback for the investment. If that was true one could expect a patch or two the weeks after release and then a message that Maddox Games unfortunately had been forced to shut down... But now they are still alive a year after the release and they are obviously hiring. So why on earth would they push an alpha version out on the market if they had the money to keep MG alive for a year? This is naturally only true if it's the same funding source today as it was a year ago...

So - I agree, they must have pushed it out as they though it would "fly" after a patch or two in the weeks after the release. But even that seems like an unnecessary business risk for the years of funding. I just can't understand the logic behind this release...

[Insuber]

You should consider that the relationship between a financer and a developer is defined in a contract, whose contents are not public, but that likely contain deadlines. And that the sponsors' trust must be eventually fed with hard facts, after so many years of development.

[GraveyardJimmy]

Originally Posted by mazex

When it was first released I thought that it was really sad as 1C obviously had lost their faith in the product after too many years of development and pushed the half finished product out on the market to just get some payback for the investment.

From development team comments (about epilepsy filter, working to external deadlines) they have made it sound like it may have been ubisoft rather than 1c that were the cause for pushing it out before it was ready, but I may be wrong.

[mazex]

Originally Posted by GraveyardJimmy

From development team comments (about epilepsy filter, working to external deadlines) they have made it sound like it may have been ubisoft rather than 1c that were the cause for pushing it out before it was ready, but I may be wrong.

Someone from "inside" (Ilya I guess or maybe it was Jason with his "side comments"?) said after the release that Ubisoft had no influence over the project and did not fund it in any way - they are just the western publisher. No money, no power and in that case they could hardly influence the release date - and it was 1C that released it first... The only thing expressed is however that Ubisoft was not involved in the funding, there has been no official word on that 1C funded it - could be some other Russian investor and then 1C just publishes it in the CIS. The late arrival of advertising and information on the Russian 1C site may indicate the later case? Just speculating here - the fact is that whoever financed the game must have misjudged the situation of the code and pushed it out of the door hoping it would run fine with the "zero day patch" and then quickly get in the air after a few more patches. One thing is sure and it's that Maddox Games never would have released it in the state it was a year ago after all that hard work over many years...

[GraveyardJimmy]

Originally Posted by mazex

Someone from "inside" (Ilya I guess or maybe it was Jason with his "side comments"?) said after the release that Ubisoft had no influence over the project and did not fund it in any way - they are just the western publisher.

Thats quite interesting. I was sure that someone said that Ubisoft were the ones who made them implement the anti-epilepsy filter. Maybe it said publisher and I assumed that meant Ubisoft as they are the ones on the splash screen (in the UK at least).

[addman]

Originally Posted by GraveyardJimmy

Thats quite interesting. I was sure that someone said that Ubisoft were the ones who made them implement the anti-epilepsy filter. Maybe it said publisher and I assumed that meant Ubisoft as they are the ones on the splash screen (in the UK at least).

I bet Ubisoft told MG that if they wanted to get CloD published in the EU they had to implement the anti-epilepsy filter most likely because of EU legislation or Ubisofts own policy. I would bet cold cash that Ubisoft is merely the publisher for CloD in the EU/rest of the world. Their job was to manufacture the DVD's, make sure they ended up in retail and also do the marketing for CloD which would also explain why the marketing was so meager for CloD. CloD is no Assassin's Creed for Ubisoft, that game is developed and published by Ubisoft alone, 1c:MG probably had some relations with Ubisoft since the old IL-2 series and asked them if they would be so kind to publish CloD for them outside of Russia/eastern Europe. IMO and from what I understand from previous posts is that Ubisoft is not a dictating force in this farce of a game release.

P.S Just like it was with the original IL-2 Sturmovik, blue-byte was the original publisher but MG needed a bigger partner to get the game out in retail worldwide, Ubisoft fit the bill.

[GraveyardJimmy]

Originally Posted by addman

I would bet cold cash that Ubisoft is merely the publisher for CloD in the EU/rest of the world. Their job was to manufacture the DVD's, make sure they ended up in retail and also do the marketing for CloD which would also explain why the marketing was so meager for CloD.

With what 1c have said about digital distribution: http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/opinion-retail-vs-steam

I wonder why they bothered getting ubisoft invovled. I would guess it is because they thought most flight sim fans would like a dvd and box, which ubisoft could provide for them in W.europe. Interesting comments in the article from 1c though:

"As a generalisation, retail would pay these guys a maximum of 40 per cent of what they made. So on a £29.99 game the publisher would receive about £12 (and on a sub-licensed deal, we would then only get about £4.25 of that) – minus return, write down and consignment costs.

When would we get that money? Well, payment would be by the end of the quarter.

So, let’s say £10 per unit sale goes to the publisher, £3 to the developer/sub-licensor, and it’s in your bank five months after the customer has paid out £30.

Compare that to the digital model. On a £29.99 sale, the digital partner will pay the publisher – or in many cases direct to the developer – between 60 and 70 per cent, by the end of the month following the sale.

Wow. To recap: on a sale over the counter today, we can have our £3 by the end of March, or on a digital sale, we can have £20 by Christmas.

Remind me why we should choose to go with retail and decline to let Steam sell the game?"

[Insuber]

Originally Posted by GraveyardJimmy

Thats quite interesting. I was sure that someone said that Ubisoft were the ones who made them implement the anti-epilepsy filter. Maybe it said publisher and I assumed that meant Ubisoft as they are the ones on the splash screen (in the UK at least).

The two facts are not in contradiction. Ubi would publish the game at his general contract conditions, which must include strict anti-epilepsy specifications, measured by specific tests. It seems also quite plausible that Ubi didn't decide the date, nor financed this venture.

[addman]

Originally Posted by Insuber

The two facts are not in contradiction. Ubi would publish the game at his general contract conditions, which must include strict anti-epilepsy specifications, measured by specific tests. It seems also quite plausible that Ubi didn't decide the date, nor financed this venture.

I would say these are the facts...if I only had something to back it up with.