New IL2 Sturmovik Title!!!

[Whacker]

It's not only Rise of Flight, look at FSX and it's predecessors.

The whole nickle and dime, "extra plane costs $50+", or maps and whatnaught are going to drive this genre even further into the dust. The reason I love and still fly IL2 1946 (though not at all the last few months) is precisely because it is modable, has almost a hundred or so planes (through mods), maps, etc. It's not the prettiest gal on the block and it's aged reasonably well but a bit rough around the edges, but I wouldn't trade it at all for any of that closed market, closed environment, DRM-crippled BS. And don't even THINK about subscription based models.

Here's an idea. Instead of charging for content, charge for FUNCTIONALITY. Start with a good solid base, and go from there. Multi-crew planes a lot more work in code? Great, start with single user aircraft and then sell that in an expansion once it's worked out and stable. Don't try and charge me $10 for a map and 3 new flyable planes. Maybe add ground vehicles in a later expansion. Helicopters? Sure. Hopping around in planes? Sure. Just don't try and nickle and dime for functionality either. I never did mind paying $20 for full on expansions to games back in the day, because most of the time you were basically paying for a big enough amount of content that it was worth it. Above all else, make it MODABLE. Release the specs for how to make planes, maps, hell make it modular so people can make their own "add-ons" without having to open up the code base which can lead to cheating issues.

To anyone defending the nickle and dime mindset, that smacks of the recording industry's broken attitude toward it's own market. The world changes and they refused to adapt, and paid the price. The groups that rolled with the changes and times were the ones that made it through with flying colors. Nickle and dime isn't the new it, or is it the right way. Uncomfortable truths, just like the fact that piracy helps gaming and sales far more than it hurts it (unless it's a AAA title), and modding brings in far more of an audience than it costs to implement.

[GF_Mastiff]

I understand the DLC scene, but it's the only way these producers and small flight sim companies are going to make it. Look at Micro-Soft twice they gave it a go, and twice they lost.

If it isn't a big title like (FPS) have become, then they should charge for the nickel and dime code and time to make a map, a plane, a car, a train... if it takes up time and money and resources sure charge, charge, charge.. It's the only way this 100k people game is going to survive..
I'm not saying charge full on game title cost for DLC, look at Train Simulator 3, 10.00 dollars here and there, yes ROF 20.00 for a map a little much,
Yes that's what the sales are showing only 250k plus, people bought flight sims in 2012.

compare that to COD=Black ops2....... over three million...

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by GF_Mastiff

I understand the DLC scene, but it's the only way these producers and small flight sim companies are going to make it. Look at Micro-Soft twice they gave it a go, and twice they lost.

If it isn't a big title like (FPS) have become, then they should charge for the nickel and dime code and time to make a map, a plane, a car, a train... if it takes up time and money and resources sure charge, charge, charge.. It's the only way this 100k people game is going to survive..
I'm not saying charge full on game title cost for DLC, look at Train Simulator 3, 10.00 dollars here and there, yes ROF 20.00 for a map a little much,
Yes that's what the sales are showing only 250k plus, people bought flight sims in 2012.

compare that to COD=Black ops2....... over three million...

You're not wrong. But it doesn't invalidate concerns over how this will play out with the community and how it will affect how online is done in the community. It'll be a very different dynamic than IL-2 1946.

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by Whacker

It's not only Rise of Flight, look at FSX and it's predecessors.

The whole nickle and dime, "extra plane costs $50+", or maps and whatnaught are going to drive this genre even further into the dust. The reason I love and still fly IL2 1946 (though not at all the last few months) is precisely because it is modable, has almost a hundred or so planes (through mods), maps, etc. It's not the prettiest gal on the block and it's aged reasonably well but a bit rough around the edges, but I wouldn't trade it at all for any of that closed market, closed environment, DRM-crippled BS. And don't even THINK about subscription based models.

Here's an idea. Instead of charging for content, charge for FUNCTIONALITY. Start with a good solid base, and go from there. Multi-crew planes a lot more work in code? Great, start with single user aircraft and then sell that in an expansion once it's worked out and stable. Don't try and charge me $10 for a map and 3 new flyable planes. Maybe add ground vehicles in a later expansion. Helicopters? Sure. Hopping around in planes? Sure. Just don't try and nickle and dime for functionality either. I never did mind paying $20 for full on expansions to games back in the day, because most of the time you were basically paying for a big enough amount of content that it was worth it. Above all else, make it MODABLE. Release the specs for how to make planes, maps, hell make it modular so people can make their own "add-ons" without having to open up the code base which can lead to cheating issues.

To anyone defending the nickle and dime mindset, that smacks of the recording industry's broken attitude toward it's own market. The world changes and they refused to adapt, and paid the price. The groups that rolled with the changes and times were the ones that made it through with flying colors. Nickle and dime isn't the new it, or is it the right way. Uncomfortable truths, just like the fact that piracy helps gaming and sales far more than it hurts it (unless it's a AAA title), and modding brings in far more of an audience than it costs to implement.

That is kind of problematic.. After experiencing the RoF model I think it is a pretty good one. The old model has failed and I cannot help but wonder sometimes if IL2 had a similar model given all the content we got for free would MG still be around. Out of all the planeds available to me in IL2 I only fly less than 10 types on a regular basis.. We sometimes forget that the bottom line for all this is the folks who make these sims need to see a profit or else they will stop coming.. and if changing the way it s done can increase the possibility of me being able to still find a new flight sim a decade from now so be it.. When I think of how it would be if say.. IL2 was it.. if say the genre folded due to lack of pofitability and all we had was IL2 to mod from here on out.. afdter a while how would that be? Not very good IMO. The when you consider piracy.. and other facts of the business..

Originally Posted by IceFire

You're not wrong. But it doesn't invalidate concerns over how this will play out with the community and how it will affect how online is done in the community. It'll be a very different dynamic than IL-2 1946.

I think it will be fine.. One thing I like about the RoF model is when a new AC comes out you get it... so you can still make missions with it you just can't fly it without buying the cockpit. Those RoF sales are nice too.. they bring the prices down a bit.. I just hope that they get the marketing better.. and tat they put a shopping cart in the store.. Wtht eh last sale they said it would last till 12/30 .. but what they didn't say was 12/30 Russian time.. so when I got home expecting to capitalize on the sale I had missed it.. Little things like that are annoying but not show stoppers..

[Jones]

Originally Posted by Bearcat

I think it will be fine.. One thing I like about the RoF model is when a new AC comes out you get it... so you can still make missions with it you just can't fly it without buying the cockpit.

True, this is not really an issue and does not fragment the community. However the new Channel Map does fragment the community. it's too expensive to be commonly owned and so full-ish online servers playing the old map are suddenly empty when the mission switches over to the new Channel map. They need to solve that or the new map will not be used online much, thus decreasing its value, thus dimishing sales of the new map. A vicious circle rather than the virtuous circle they've got going for upgrading already owned and purchasing new aircraft.

[Whacker]

Originally Posted by GF_Mastiff

I understand the DLC scene, but it's the only way these producers and small flight sim companies are going to make it. Look at Micro-Soft twice they gave it a go, and twice they lost.

If it isn't a big title like (FPS) have become, then they should charge for the nickel and dime code and time to make a map, a plane, a car, a train... if it takes up time and money and resources sure charge, charge, charge.. It's the only way this 100k people game is going to survive..
I'm not saying charge full on game title cost for DLC, look at Train Simulator 3, 10.00 dollars here and there, yes ROF 20.00 for a map a little much,
Yes that's what the sales are showing only 250k plus, people bought flight sims in 2012.

compare that to COD=Black ops2....... over three million...

There's a number of things I believe you are overlooking.

Comparing our flight sims to CODBO2, BF3, Skyrim, etc for the purposes of budget and sales is way off. Look at the budgets that go into developing those games at the huge, HUGE dev houses, the money that goes into publishing, and even moreso advertising and support, etc etc. You can't watch ESPN these days without seeing ads for AAA game titles all over the place, and those ads aren't cheap, and represent only a fraction of their overall budget. In this day and age, if one uses the right tools, channels, and methods, advertising can be done on a relatively equal scale at a fraction of the cost.

Next, look at all the games picking up help from places like Kickstarter, or *shudder* Green Light on Steam. Minecraft is probably the original success story, and look at how many copies they've sold throughout the years at 5, 10, 20$. One of the best $5 games I ever bought.

Also consider how it's possible to reach a greater number of people by making the game's realism scalable. 1946 already did a great job of that, lots of options for what one can turn on and off. Hell make an "arcade" mode for casual gamers that just want to shoot up things, and give each plane an "arcade" and "realistic" set of characteristics. Casuals whining about balance? Fine, modify the arcade settings. Wrap a layer on top of the "real" game so that the casuals will buy and enjoy it, and we can still have our honest abe, true flight SIM.

Lots of ideas. Good ideas plus the right work can yield far more benefit that the effort it takes to do so. Dozens if not hundreds of small indie games over the past year or two are living proof.

[Plane-Eater]

Originally Posted by GF_Mastiff

I understand the DLC scene, but it's the only way these producers and small flight sim companies are going to make it. Look at Micro-Soft twice they gave it a go, and twice they lost.

Now, hang on.

FlightSim (the original incarnation) was still a profitable product. It was bureaucratic idiocy and a stagnated, outdated developer-centric culture in the studio itself that led to its demise. Lots of people got cozy in their seats and stayed in their comfort zone doing the same thing for too long - sometimes for 10 years plus. The difference tech-wise and methodology-wise between 1999 and 2009 was massive. A good housecleaning instead of a shutdown would have fixed a lot. FS11 was looking awesome.

Flight Live, on the other hand, was deliberately and quite literally scuttled. Why, I can't say for sure. But at work here, I sit next to some folks who were part of that team (and who I worked with on FlightSim), and they described the final months of Flight Live. A new manager was forced on the studio by much higher-up MS management, and entirely scrapped years of planning and licensing partnerships and development - basically the heart of the product. The next area was going to be the Grand Canyon, and Gibbage had a Grumman Goose ready to rock that was ditched for cockpitless warbirds.

Then the new manager dragged the product kicking and screaming in a direction that was known ahead of time to be disastrous - nobody is going to buy arcade-incarnation cockpitless fighter planes for a civil sim with nothing to shoot at. The goal was to make it fail. Somebody wanted that program dead, but they wanted it to publicly crash and burn before they axed it.

I suspect somebody several floors up just flat-out hated the Flight Sim product and had a grudge. The situation has all the hallmarks of a corporate power struggle where there's been a change in the balance of power.


</sidetrack>

[Treetop64]

EDIT - Deleted. Thought better of it...

[Bearcat]

After 25+ weeks of updates at 1CGS this thread is screaming for a box of dental floss to get some of that shoe leather out of the mouths of a few opinionated folks who apparently did not know what they were talking about .. and a big cup of camomile tea to sooth some others.. and a good book to read while we wait with baited breath for this possible masterpiece to be released in less than 12..

[Igo kyu]

Originally Posted by Bearcat

baited breath

Your breath has worms in it?

I think you mean bated, as in held.