Why not pay every month to play COD!

[Wolf_Rider]

I think you may have "the whines" coming from the wrong camp.... and in seeing the flak they, the developers, cop (yes, from whiners) its hard to believe they bother to keep going at all.

Don't destroy this sim with DLC like MSFS was... crap out of the box and pay a fortune to "fix" it.

[addman]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

I think you may have "the whines" coming from the wrong camp.... and in seeing the flak they, the developers, cop (yes, from whiners) its hard to believe they bother to keep going at all.

Don't destroy this sim with DLC like MSFS was... crap out of the box and pay a fortune to "fix" it.

I think the financial investment overrides any emotions that the devs may or may not have in this sim. They are running a business, the goal of a business is profit. If they don't make a game that people wants to buy then they won't make enough money and then they will have to close down, it is when all said and done, whining or no whining, a fact. Back to subject though, weren't most add-on planes for MSFS third party?

It's important to be able to know the difference between bug-fixing patches and DLC. Most games get their patches for free and DLC would be a new tank or plane or hat or whatever they're selling. DLC is usually content only and not a patch so I wouldn't worry about support for the game itself. The DLC would help fund further support for the game you see, so that the devs don't have to cry themselves to sleep every night because they are supporting their own -maybe bug ridden- game for "free".

DLC might be crucial for smaller developers to keep going, imaging that the whole development team is working on a new patch for the IL-2 series but one of the 3D modelers has his hands free. Wouldn't it be nice if he could put together some new in-game objects/vehicles/ships or whatever and release it as DLC for a smaller fee in the meantime whilst we wait for the patch?

Maybe some here think it's better for the developers to churn out expansions/sequels every 2 years with almost nothing in-between, solely relying on the revenue from those few expansions. That's almost insane financially. This is my opinion only though.

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by addman

I think the financial investment overrides any emotions that the devs may or may not have in this sim. They are running a business, the goal of a business is profit. If they don't make a game that people wants to buy then they won't make enough money and then they will have to close down, it is when all said and done, whining or no whining, a fact.

A qulaity product will have customers beating a path to the developers' http... devleopers milking their customers, will have none within a short time

Originally Posted by addman

Back to subject though, weren't most add-on planes for MSFS third party?

an excellent point... look at what that became

Originally Posted by addman

It's important to be able to know the difference between bug-fixing patches and DLC. Most games get their patches for free and DLC would be a new tank or plane or hat or whatever they're selling. DLC is usually content only and not a patch so I wouldn't worry about support for the game itself. The DLC would help fund further support for the game you see, so that the devs don't have to cry themselves to sleep every night because they are supporting their own -maybe bug ridden- game for "free".

refer back to MSFS for that

Originally Posted by addman

DLC might be crucial for smaller developers to keep going, imaging that the whole development team is working on a new patch for the IL-2 series but one of the 3D modelers has his hands free. Wouldn't it be nice if he could put together some new in-game objects/vehicles/ships or whatever and release it as DLC for a smaller fee in the meantime whilst we wait for the patch?

wait for the expansion packs... patience is a virtue and the immediate gratification, "I want it NOW!" mentality, just sux and is a drain on everybody else.

Originally Posted by addman

Maybe some here think it's better for the developers to churn out expansions/sequels every 2 years with almost nothing in-between, solely relying on the revenue from those few expansions. That's almost insane financially. This is my opinion only though.

yes, that's your opinion

Have you ever stopped to consider that the il2 developers develop because they want to? , because the take pride in what they do? , because they develop for their own satisfaction?/ sport, these guys are artists... now compare the work of an artist who does so for the love of what they produce primarily, compared to an artist who produces purely to make a buck primarily...

and yes, that's another opinion

[addman]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

Have you ever stopped to consider that the il2 developers develop because they want to? , because the take pride in what they do? , because they develop for their own satisfaction?/ sport, these guys are artists... now compare the work of an artist who does so for the love of what they produce primarily, compared to an artist who produces purely to make a buck primarily...

and yes, that's another opinion

It's a nice thought and in the case of MG there might be some truth to it but that doesn't change the fact that 1c (their publisher) expect revenue from MG.

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by addman

It's a nice thought and in the case of MG there might be some truth to it but that doesn't change the fact that 1c (their publisher) expect revenue from MG.

nooo, the publisher expects income from what they've chosen to publish

[addman]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

nooo, the publisher expects income from what they've chosen to publish

That's what I mean.