Cliffs of Dover, a Year Later

[mazex]

Originally Posted by GraveyardJimmy

From development team comments (about epilepsy filter, working to external deadlines) they have made it sound like it may have been ubisoft rather than 1c that were the cause for pushing it out before it was ready, but I may be wrong.

Someone from "inside" (Ilya I guess or maybe it was Jason with his "side comments"?) said after the release that Ubisoft had no influence over the project and did not fund it in any way - they are just the western publisher. No money, no power and in that case they could hardly influence the release date - and it was 1C that released it first... The only thing expressed is however that Ubisoft was not involved in the funding, there has been no official word on that 1C funded it - could be some other Russian investor and then 1C just publishes it in the CIS. The late arrival of advertising and information on the Russian 1C site may indicate the later case? Just speculating here - the fact is that whoever financed the game must have misjudged the situation of the code and pushed it out of the door hoping it would run fine with the "zero day patch" and then quickly get in the air after a few more patches. One thing is sure and it's that Maddox Games never would have released it in the state it was a year ago after all that hard work over many years...

[GraveyardJimmy]

Originally Posted by mazex

Someone from "inside" (Ilya I guess or maybe it was Jason with his "side comments"?) said after the release that Ubisoft had no influence over the project and did not fund it in any way - they are just the western publisher.

Thats quite interesting. I was sure that someone said that Ubisoft were the ones who made them implement the anti-epilepsy filter. Maybe it said publisher and I assumed that meant Ubisoft as they are the ones on the splash screen (in the UK at least).

[addman]

Originally Posted by GraveyardJimmy

Thats quite interesting. I was sure that someone said that Ubisoft were the ones who made them implement the anti-epilepsy filter. Maybe it said publisher and I assumed that meant Ubisoft as they are the ones on the splash screen (in the UK at least).

I bet Ubisoft told MG that if they wanted to get CloD published in the EU they had to implement the anti-epilepsy filter most likely because of EU legislation or Ubisofts own policy. I would bet cold cash that Ubisoft is merely the publisher for CloD in the EU/rest of the world. Their job was to manufacture the DVD's, make sure they ended up in retail and also do the marketing for CloD which would also explain why the marketing was so meager for CloD. CloD is no Assassin's Creed for Ubisoft, that game is developed and published by Ubisoft alone, 1c:MG probably had some relations with Ubisoft since the old IL-2 series and asked them if they would be so kind to publish CloD for them outside of Russia/eastern Europe. IMO and from what I understand from previous posts is that Ubisoft is not a dictating force in this farce of a game release.

P.S Just like it was with the original IL-2 Sturmovik, blue-byte was the original publisher but MG needed a bigger partner to get the game out in retail worldwide, Ubisoft fit the bill.

[GraveyardJimmy]

Originally Posted by addman

I would bet cold cash that Ubisoft is merely the publisher for CloD in the EU/rest of the world. Their job was to manufacture the DVD's, make sure they ended up in retail and also do the marketing for CloD which would also explain why the marketing was so meager for CloD.

With what 1c have said about digital distribution: http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/opinion-retail-vs-steam

I wonder why they bothered getting ubisoft invovled. I would guess it is because they thought most flight sim fans would like a dvd and box, which ubisoft could provide for them in W.europe. Interesting comments in the article from 1c though:

"As a generalisation, retail would pay these guys a maximum of 40 per cent of what they made. So on a £29.99 game the publisher would receive about £12 (and on a sub-licensed deal, we would then only get about £4.25 of that) – minus return, write down and consignment costs.

When would we get that money? Well, payment would be by the end of the quarter.

So, let’s say £10 per unit sale goes to the publisher, £3 to the developer/sub-licensor, and it’s in your bank five months after the customer has paid out £30.

Compare that to the digital model. On a £29.99 sale, the digital partner will pay the publisher – or in many cases direct to the developer – between 60 and 70 per cent, by the end of the month following the sale.

Wow. To recap: on a sale over the counter today, we can have our £3 by the end of March, or on a digital sale, we can have £20 by Christmas.

Remind me why we should choose to go with retail and decline to let Steam sell the game?"

[Insuber]

Originally Posted by GraveyardJimmy

Thats quite interesting. I was sure that someone said that Ubisoft were the ones who made them implement the anti-epilepsy filter. Maybe it said publisher and I assumed that meant Ubisoft as they are the ones on the splash screen (in the UK at least).

The two facts are not in contradiction. Ubi would publish the game at his general contract conditions, which must include strict anti-epilepsy specifications, measured by specific tests. It seems also quite plausible that Ubi didn't decide the date, nor financed this venture.

[addman]

Originally Posted by Insuber

The two facts are not in contradiction. Ubi would publish the game at his general contract conditions, which must include strict anti-epilepsy specifications, measured by specific tests. It seems also quite plausible that Ubi didn't decide the date, nor financed this venture.

I would say these are the facts...if I only had something to back it up with.

[Slayer]

I would suggest going over the the ED forums and reading this:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.ph...612#post640612

Pretty good insights.....

[Chivas]

UBISOFT has little input on COD, other than forcing the epilepsy filter, before they would publish the sim in the West. UBISOFT may have a had a good percentage of the investment in BOB SOW in the early years unitl 2006/7, but it now appears that the IC Company is the controlling investor and likely making all the financial decisions. UBISOFT can be let off the hook for forcing the early release of COD, but could still have some investment or contract, which might have forced the IC Company to keep them as the Western publisher, instead of just using Steam. With 8 million already invested I don't blame the IC Company investors for releasing what was completed to see if there was enough interest to continue spending monies on the sim. Why throw good money after bad. Don't confuss the IC Company with IC Maddox Games. IC Maddox Games is just a part of the huge IC Company.

[Richie]

Was there something mentioned about the name being switched back to Storm Of War some how for the addition or how did that go? Battle Of Moscow Storm Of War?

[furbs]

Originally Posted by Chivas

UBISOFT has little input on COD, other than forcing the epilepsy filter, before they would publish the sim in the West. UBISOFT may have a had a good percentage of the investment in BOB SOW in the early years unitl 2006/7, but it now appears that the IC Company is the controlling investor and likely making all the financial decisions. UBISOFT can be let off the hook for forcing the early release of COD, but could still have some investment or contract, which might have forced the IC Company to keep them as the Western publisher, instead of just using Steam. With 8 million already invested I don't blame the IC Company investors for releasing what was completed to see if there was enough interest to continue spending monies on the sim. Why throw good money after bad. Don't confuss the IC Company with IC Maddox Games. IC Maddox Games is just a part of the huge IC Company.

Remember this Chivas...


Posted by TreeUK 28/8/11


For those that were/are still under the belief that CLOD was financed by Ubisoft then read this below, especially Chivas who as been on my case about this for a long time.


Originally Posted By: 777 Studios - Jason

I'm sorry, but I need to say something because your comments are not correct.

1.) Luthier is a long-time friend of mine and you are smearing him with no proof or knowledge of what really happened that caused the less than stellar release of CLOD. Oleg didn't hand Luthier anything. Luthier was asked by 1C to try to finish the project after Oleg was, depending who you talk to, relieved of duty by 1C or he quit 1C. You make the call. Luthier is making the best of a bad situation and he is a good guy and from what I can tell a good manager. My point is you can't blame him for the release or bad decisions that were forced upon him by others. He was given 12 months to correct 6 years of bad decisions made by others. A good analogy is blaming me for every decision made regarding ROF before my company took over. Coming from someone who had to take over a not so great situation I know what he is going through.

2.) Again, you see to blame Ubi for all this. Why don't you ask 1C if $8 million and 7 years was enough time and money for a team to eventually be held accountable for there work and produce a product? Ubi is not quite the monster they are being portrayed as. Again, see my comments about Oleg's departure. Only Duke Nukem' can have a never ending dev cycle and hell even that got released eventually. Bringing Oleg back isn't going to solve anything. 1C loves when you blame Ubi. 1C was the day to day manager and owners of IL-2 franchise, not to the mention the primary funding source so why aren't they held accountable? Some of you hold Oleg and 1C up like some sort of gods and people who can do no wrong which is foolish.

I'm not going to say anymore, but what you've said about Luthier isn't fair to him. There is no need to be an Oleg or 1C apologist.

Jason