1C wants to make money? Surely the original P-51, B-17 and Fw-190 'financial' sense?

[OB1]

Originally Posted by Skoshi Tiger

That is sad, What they really need to get more interest in their [a-10- black shark part of the] sim is contemporary flyable adversaries and a more diverse flyable planeset.

If you want more aircraft flaming cliffs 2 which is out now and compatible with DCS world and modules and flaming cliffs 3 to be released with more detail. Not to mention the many 3rd party project in development and is being quality controlled by eagle dynamics themselves. That gives you plenty of contemporary aircraft but not to the detail of the DCS series.

Originally Posted by Skoshi Tiger

Just goes to show what a diverse range of people are into flight sims.

The biggest turnoff I have of DCS P-51 is the lack of context. To make it interesting for me I need contemporary maps, objects and adversaries

Your right just goes to show what a diverse range of people are into flight sims. The Flying legend series is very new.. Give it the same amount of time it took clod to get of the ground if at all you can actually believe that it is, the flying legends with a capable dev team will surpass clod.

Originally Posted by Skoshi Tiger

Sad once again. At best it will just fragment or dilute their development efforts into the different areas. The worst that could happen is that loose their current expertise in developing for the modern aircraft.

Sorry you did not hear me the first time, ill clarify. they announced that this will not impede on their development efforts.

They have a big dev team, not like the 1 man we have at clod.

[slm]

Since when has CoD development been done by a one man?

[OB1]

Originally Posted by slm

Since when has CoD development been done by a one man?

Let me help you

Sarcasm: "is a sharp, bitter, or cutting expression or remark; a bitter jibe or taunt, usually conveyed through irony or understatement. Most authorities distinguish sarcasm from irony, however, others argue that sarcasm may or often does involve irony or employs ambivalence."

Bias: "is an inclination to present or hold a partial perspective at the expense of (possibly equally valid) alternatives. Anything biased generally is one-sided, and therefore lacks a neutral point of view. Bias can come in many forms and is often considered to be synonymous with prejudice or bigotry."

It has been over a year now and the progress made makes it seems like there is only 1 man.

[slm]

It's not just about how many people your team has, but who they are and what those people do. It would be interesting to know how many of the developers were in the team when CoD was first released.

[DefiantMk1]

Honestly I think the problem with Clod doesn't stem from a technical standpoint, but rather a business model which isn't bringing in enough money and I have my serious doubts whether the Russian Front will make any difference.

I know there are a few vocal people who hate DLC, but look at the active development of two other titles, ie DCS series and Rise of Flight, both have come a long way and continue to grow, while Clod has stalled and patches seem to be slow in coming and rare.

As for the thread title, yes those planes do make much more sense to me for sure, and what about add-on aircraft? Expansion packs? Or just have a couple of free planes and then the rest DLC?

[OB1]

Originally Posted by DefiantMk1

Honestly I think the problem with Clod doesn't stem from a technical standpoint, but rather a business model which isn't bringing in enough money and I have my serious doubts whether the Russian Front will make any difference.

I know there are a few vocal people who hate DLC, but look at the active development of two other titles, ie DCS series and Rise of Flight, both have come a long way and continue to grow, while Clod has stalled and patches seem to be slow in coming and rare.

You are right. Bean counters are the cause of many development fails in the gaming industry these days.. Except the bean counters in this case don't care much for the income over an extended time they just care about the insta cash they can make of us from the initial release and furthermore the bean counters in this case belong to Ubisoft.

Looking at both successful sim developers Eagle Dynamics and 777 studios have something in common with each other. They both develop and publish their own products. The unfortunate relationship 1c has with Ubisoft does not give them the flexibility they need.

Damage is done 1c was forced to release their unfinished game on Ubisofts terms. Now that Ubisoft has our money they couldn't care less about the future of cliffs of dover.

Ubisoft just hopes that we are dumb enough to buy the expansion, another unfinished project so they can fill their pockets even more.

People are not vocal about DLC's in general we just dont like the way Russian front is being forced out before they fix the actual game its supposed to complement, and forced out for the very reasons I have stated above.

[Chivas]

Originally Posted by OB1

You are right. Bean counters are the cause of many development fails in the gaming industry these days.. Except the bean counters in this case don't care much for the income over an extended time they just care about the insta cash they can make of us from the initial release and furthermore the bean counters in this case belong to Ubisoft.

Looking at both successful sim developers Eagle Dynamics and 777 studios have something in common with each other. They both develop and publish their own products. The unfortunate relationship 1c has with Ubisoft does not give them the flexibility they need.

Damage is done 1c was forced to release their unfinished game on Ubisofts terms. Now that Ubisoft has our money they couldn't care less about the future of cliffs of dover.

Ubisoft just hopes that we are dumb enough to buy the expansion, another unfinished project so they can fill their pockets even more.

People are not vocal about DLC's in general we just dont like the way Russian front is being forced out before they fix the actual game its supposed to complement, and forced out for the very reasons I have stated above.

I doubt Ubisoft is currently a major investor in the new series and has much say in the development. The IC group definitely does. Ubisoft has some rights to sales in the Western market and requested the development make changes to the epilepsy conditions of the sim before they could release it in the west, otherwise they would be have left themselves vulnerable to lawsuits.

Ubisoft may have made some money on the sales of COD, if their investment wasn't too large, but the IC groups investment was way to large for any hope of recouping their monies. IC has invested millions, even if COD were a success it probably wouldn't have recouped those costs. The only way they make any money is thru sales of a number of Sequels, and the first thing that has to happen is a successful first Sequel. Its highly doubtful the IC group is stupid enough to think that most people will blindly buy the Sequel, and will make every effort to finish and refine the game engine and features to make the Sequel a success.