1C probably needs a kickstarter project?

[Force10]

I think the only way kickstart funding would work in this case, is if they used the money to hire more experienced programmers to work on the code. Just throwing money at the current team wouldn't solve anything IMO.

[Bokononist]

Originally Posted by GF_Mastiff

the way it looks, we need to get 1C involved in a kickstarter project for the patch's...

http://www.kickstarter.com/

Kickstarter is for new projects right? Maybe it needs a bumpstart? I've got some jump leads in my car

[furbs]

kickstarter for the sequel?

We did, it was called COD.

[David Hayward]

Originally Posted by Force10

I think the only way kickstart funding would work in this case, is if they used the money to hire more experienced programmers to work on the code. Just throwing money at the current team wouldn't solve anything IMO.

How much programming experience do you have?

[Force10]

Originally Posted by David Hayward

How much programming experience do you have?

None. Is that somehow relevant to the fact that this team has been struggling with the code for the last 14 months? No...it isn't. Any other pointless questions?

[furbs]

Originally Posted by Force10

None. Is that somehow relevant to the fact that this team has been struggling with the code for the last 14 months? No...it isn't. Any other pointless questions?

Its 16 months.

Wow 16 months has it really been that long.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by GF_Mastiff

the way it looks, we need to get 1C involved in a kickstarter project for the patch's...

http://www.kickstarter.com/

That or just switch to the RoF way of doing things..

The downside being you will end up spending about $200 for a game.. (assuming you buy most of the options)..

The upside being requring users to spend more than $50 on a game has a a kid-o flitering effect.. In that alot of kids will not be able to convice their parents to pay for a $200 game..

The assumption in both cases that the 'options' are only enabled via the 777 servers which in turn makes it much harder for people to pirate the game and options.

[Force10]

Originally Posted by ACE-OF-ACES

That or just switch to the RoF way of doing things..

The downside being you will end up spending about $200 for a game.. (assuming you buy most of the options)..

The upside being requring users to spend more than $50 on a game has a a kid-o flitering effect.. In that alot of kids will not be able to convice their parents to pay for a $200 game..

The assumption in both cases that the 'options' are only enabled via the 777 servers which in turn makes it much harder for people to pirate the game and options.

This scenario only works if you have a playable sim. ROF had a rough start, but the patches and work they have done actually fixed bugs and made the engine pretty solid. COD is still in the starting blocks with patches that haven't really fixed much of anything. I couldn't see giving 1C anymore money for planes with their current skill at fixing the game.

[David Hayward]

Originally Posted by Force10

None. Is that somehow relevant to the fact that this team has been struggling with the code for the last 14 months? No...it isn't. Any other pointless questions?

It's relevant to the amount of knowledge that you have about the subject you are commenting on. In short, when you talk about programming, you have no idea what you are talking about.