A new article in SimHQ about Cod

[Rattlehead]

The article would have had relevance if it had been posted four months ago, but now? It said nothing that hasn't been said a thousand times before. It's a bit pointless really.

[Ze-Jamz]

Originally Posted by Skoshi Tiger

My bet is that after a few bug fixes and added content and all the doom mongers out their will become the most evangelistic fanboys! Then they'll be complaining that us ‘Gen 1’ fanboys should stop complaining!
I'll go with the conclusion of the article –

Il put quite alot of money on that theory

[Feathered_IV]

Maybe we'll get lucky and Jason Williams will buy MG too. Must be a lot cheaper than it was this time last year.

[addman]

Can people stop using the word "potential" in the context of this game? Stop saying that word and plz notify me instead when the game is finished, I'll keep on playing DCS: A-10C in the meantime, taah!

Originally Posted by Tree_UK

The strange thing is that I posted similar thoughts to Tom on the SimHQ website and got myself a life time ban!!

Really ? That is absurd...

And I will risk being banned myself, but what pisses me off the most, is the fact that Oleg is the one who wasnt honnest with us. He is the one who let us down. He was the one making the Friday's Updates. " Trust me " he said for 6 years... He was the one giving interviews and press information. And he did that long enough so he could leave and probably cut a deal with Ubisoft so the game would still go on developpement
unless he stayed till Russian's release...
So why blame only Ubisoft and 1C ? The man left thru the back door never to come back...

Lets hope Luthier is not like Oleg ...So we can trust him to complete that sim...

Salute !

[SiThSpAwN]

[Feathered_IV]

I can't blame 1c for pushing Maddox Games for release. They had six years to produce a functioning core game and they failed to deliver. I'd have booted them out into the real world too.

[icarus]

Originally Posted by cheesehawk

haha, you know, I originally thought, "This article is like one of Tree's posts, but better written!"

That would make Tree_UK right then, because the article is bang on.

[icarus]

Originally Posted by cheesehawk

Yes, but irrelevant in terms of how the game is running atm.

No, its some of the reasons why it runs this way at the moment and why it shouldn't have been released that way. And how it affects the likelyhood of a good outcome. Highly relevant.

[Blackdog_kt]

Originally Posted by cheesehawk

How does the why it got released the way it does effect anything now? Either they have the money/desire to continue working on it, or they don't. Publicizing an opinion on why it's that way won't change a thing, as all the warring and whining on here has shown. The good outcome is entirely dependent on the motivation of the developer to continue fixing, not looking to the past, but the future.

Yes, but common sense and being happy about the fact that it's much improved from its initial release state doesn't give people the ability to rub it in and chant their "i told you so"s, so we end up delving in the past, day in and day out
In other words:

Originally Posted by SiThSpAwN

As for the article, well, it's pretty funny considering all the soft massaging that RoF got over on SimHQ during its early days but i guess the reason is already mentioned in the article: people expect more from someone who's already released a flight sim series than they expect from an up-start company, aka double standards.

The comparison with DCS in terms of business model is only partially valid as well. Doing it like DCS:A-10 and releasing CoD as a beta for people who pre-ordered would indeed be better and deflect the negative criticism. Just make a PC gamer feel he's somehow privileged and the ego swell will take care of the rest even if you provide them with the same build of the game: "wow, i'm part of the beta and get to play before everyone else woooohooo!" as opposed to "man, this game is buggy"
On the other hand, the people who work on DCS have some pretty lucrative contracts with the military in various countries and that's how they subsidize their flight-sim department: make a 100% sim for a military client to train their pilots on, get money, replace the top secret bits and military-specific interface with a gamer packaging and feel in terms of menus/mission editors/etc and sell to the wider public.

Maddox games has nothing of the sort to subsidize their efforts, unless there are air forces who still fly Spitfires and we don't know about it.

Other than that, i think the article is accurate (if a bit aggressively worded at a couple of points). It's just not relevant to the present.

Funny how people can't move on to better things while the game that gave them so much grief is doing exactly that. I mean, i knew each one of us flight sim fans is a bit of a masochist deep down inside, but some do make the extra effort in that department to keep feeling bad as long as possible