Il2 Battle of Stalingrad on Steam

[Father Ted]

  I don't have much hope for the Bos/Rof model of somehow extracting money from an irate community.  The DCS model of offering a kind of
space where players can deploy their purchases might work better eventually.

But then a lot of the ire directed at both RoF and BoS concerns their lack of a "proper" campaign/career.  People seem to expect some sort of game, not just a sand-box for them to make their own game with.  Of course my impressions about all this are gleaned from reading various forums, which might not truly represent what most people want (ie would pay for).

[Nefaro]

Do you think one or two flyables at release is enough?

Absolutely.  People still play fixed versions of Falcon 4, as JD mentioned, because it's the full package.  Not just an assortment of hi-fi aircraft to fly in environments lacking life and immersion.  Relying on large amounts of players to make it feel 'alive' isn't something that should be relied on and doesn't always lend itself to the living world aspect anyway.

A reason that my squad mates are iffy about BoS is that it only has 10 - we're used to hopping in whatever we want in IL2 46.  And then how do you price it?  Say £40 for a game (any game) is a benchmark these days. So that's £20 a plane - people baulk at BoS "premium" planes for £14.  How about the campaign - how much will people pay for that?

I just don't know where we go with this.

I enjoy a lot of variety as much as the next person.  But I think the sim environment needs it as much as the flyable aircraft to make a good game and I'd be more than happy to sacrifice some extra flyables in an initial release if that could be done well enough. 

Unfortunately most of the current flight sim developers only want to spend all their time creating new flyables and skip spending much time on making the environment less limited and robotic.  The only proposed additional work in such areas by the likes of DCS, 777, etc have been after large amounts of pressure from their customers.  And they're not even whole-hearted attempts.  :-\

[JudgeDredd]

I'm no businessman and I'm no games programmer, though I am a programmer.

So what I said before and what I say now is really only me mouthing off  :)

For me, there are too many aircraft in DCS. I never know what I want to fly when I fire up DCS. Too many choices is bad news for my gaming. I need focus. Same with driving sims. I'm all over the place given an open sim. Give me something to focus on and a great world to use it in and I'm happy as a sand boy.

For WWII, give me a Battle of Britain sim (and a proper one - not CLoD) with a real, believable, shifting campaign and environment to play in and a Messerschmitt and a Spitfire and Hurricane and I'd pay full dollar for it. Then charge me for a flyable Stuka, He-111, Me-110, Hurricane, Ju-88...whatever else you want. That way people get all the aircraft they want to fly and with the company making money (MUST be priced right).

I'll be happy because the sim has a world I can actually play in and feel part of.

imo (and again - only my opinion) too much is being done to give content for online play and not enough is being given to the single player experience.

Falcon 4 done it years ago - a real, living, breathing environment to fly one aircraft in. Why the hell are we going backwards with game development?  I say "we" and mean "single player" we. We're getting more flyables perhaps - but nothing to really do with them unless you want a sterile environment OR play online

[Nefaro]

imo (and again - only my opinion) too much is being done to give content for online play and not enough is being given to the single player experience.

A better campaign environment can improve the multi-player experience as much as single-player if it's integrated there.

[JudgeDredd]

One (or two if allowing fighting on either side) flyable aircraft and a good single player experience (ala dynamic campaign) or perhaps even (god forbid) a solid online arena with a dynamic world.

Add other flyables as and when.

Sounds good in practice. I have ZIP idea on how difficult or easy it is to create a dynamic campaign or have a continuous online arena.

Do you think one or two flyables at release is enough?  A reason that my squad mates are iffy about BoS is that it only has 10 - we're used to hopping in whatever we want in IL2 46.  And then how do you price it?  Say £40 for a game (any game) is a benchmark these days. So that's £20 a plane - people baulk at BoS "premium" planes for £14.  How about the campaign - how much will people pay for that?

I just don't know where we go with this.

It's not £20 a plane when you factor in a great environment to play them in. I am one who has baulked at the £15 price for a flyable - and that's because (for me) there's nothing to play it in.

£40 for a game with 2 flyables and a superb, thoroughly thought through and engaging environment and campaign will win my money every single day. I'd even halve the number of flyables I'd pay £40 for if the engaging campaign was there.

[MengJiao]

imo (and again - only my opinion) too much is being done to give content for online play and not enough is being given to the single player experience.

  The problem is that the segment of the gaming population that would be happy with a realistic campaign engine is not significantly less grumpy and/or larger and with more money to magnanimously spend than the segment of the gaming population that is irate about BOs and
ROF and CLOD.  To build a realistic campaign engine for realistic planes must be about the least lucrative and most difficult and unrewarding of all realistic simming undertakings.
 
   As for me, I've learned not to be grumpy.  I take the games I can get and if they have a good editor all the better.  I'm not expecting a decent campaign engine (other than Woff) any time soon because the realistic sim-builders see it as just another way to lose more money trying satisfy a small and very grumpy population of people who won't spend much money on combat air-sims because in the past the things were pretty cheap.

  Which is all very sad, but it is unlikely to change any time soon.

[JudgeDredd]

imo (and again - only my opinion) too much is being done to give content for online play and not enough is being given to the single player experience.

  The problem is that the segment of the gaming population that would be happy with a realistic campaign engine is not significantly less grumpy and/or larger and with more money to magnanimously spend than the segment of the gaming population that is irate about BOs and
ROF and CLOD.  To build a realistic campaign engine for realistic planes must be about the least lucrative and most difficult and unrewarding of all realistic simming undertakings.
 
   As for me, I've learned not to be grumpy.  I take the games I can get and if they have a good editor all the better.  I'm not expecting a decent campaign engine (other than Woff) any time soon because the realistic sim-builders see it as just another way to lose more money trying satisfy a small and very grumpy population of people who won't spend much money on combat air-sims because in the past the things were pretty cheap.

  Which is all very sad, but it is unlikely to change any time soon.

I try and not get mad about it...what's the point? I do get perplexed from time to time and sad about it, but again, I can only see these things through my eyes.

I have most definitely not given up hope that a modern flight sim will hit our computers one day with a fluid, dynamic campaign that's fed to you in real life ways and gives you that incredible sense of immersion.

Maybe I should give up - but I don't want to  :)

[Toonces]

This is purely a self-inflicted wound on 1C/777's part.

BoS wouldn't have half of these problems if:

1.  No unlocks/unlock system.
2.  Persistent pilot career in the single player campaign (even the shitty campaign they created).
3.  Whatever planes you have purchased immediately available, including skins, field mods, etc.
4.  Everything above also available in multiplayer.
5.  No online log-in activation bullshit requirement, especially for offline play.
6.  Make the sim moddable.

Done.  Everyone would be gushing about how awesome this sim is instead of focusing on its shortcomings.  It really isn't all that hard IMO.

[RyanE]

Again, I'll state what I think their main issue is...they want to be perceived as a hard core sim that has appeal to the grinding market...or maybe the other way around.  Any businessman will tell you a sure way to kill a business is to try to be too many things to too many market segments.  That is especially true on launch.

Now what they have a mish mash of elements from both segments.  They should go all War Thunder or all DCS-like. 

But to be fair, hard core simmers are impatient asshats.  Does anyone remember how long it took to get IL2 to a state where it has any resemblance to what it is now...3, 5, 7 years?  And F4...how long did it take to get that campaign working right.  It actually took the community to do it and it took a long time.  I can see the foundation of that in BoS.  But the devs have been such idiots, I am worried it won't have the grassroots support it needs to develop in the community.

I do feel like I wasted my $90.  But lesson learned on early access stuff.

[jomni]

Again, I'll state what I think their main issue is...they want to be perceived as a hard core sim that has appeal to the grinding market...or maybe the other way around.  Any businessman will tell you a sure way to kill a business is to try to be too many things to too many market segments.  That is especially true on launch.

Now what they have a mish mash of elements from both segments.  They should go all War Thunder or all DCS-like. 

But to be fair, hard core simmers are impatient asshats.  Does anyone remember how long it took to get IL2 to a state where it has any resemblance to what it is now...3, 5, 7 years?  And F4...how long did it take to get that campaign working right.  It actually took the community to do it and it took a long time.  I can see the foundation of that in BoS.  But the devs have been such idiots, I am worried it won't have the grassroots support it needs to develop in the community.

I do feel like I wasted my $90.  But lesson learned on early access stuff.

The problem with Falcon 4 campaign is that the war will be over in days.  There's constant combat 24 hours a day.  But of course a real war can get that intense but for WW2, maybe not.

[Yskonyn]

For WWII, give me a Battle of Britain sim (and a proper one - not CLoD) with a real, believable, shifting campaign and environment to play in and a Messerschmitt and a Spitfire and Hurricane and I'd pay full dollar for it.

Have you ever played this sim: http://www.a2asimulations.com/bob/

Its AI is magnificent. No other sim I've seen is able to put 100s of aircraft on screen and still run great.
It looks a bit dated, but there is no competition for it when it comes to immersion and a full war.

As for a modern sim, what's keeping you from having fun in Falcon BMS, if you just don't get the feeling with DCS? Lots of others are still very much active with BMS. It's a great sim and perfectly suited for SP as well.

[RyanE]

This is one of the most entertaining topics in PC gaming right now...

Check out this thread I was pointed to.  Jason is the head of the US distribution for 777, I think.  I am not quite sure what is going on, but it appears they laying the smackdown on testers and such complaining.  Seems a mite heavy handed.

http://ii-jg3.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=244

[Silent Disapproval Robot]

Yeah, but it's Siggi/WernerVoss talking and he's full on insane and has a total vendetta against 777.  He's the one who tried to bring down 777 by spamming a bike riding forum with negative reviews of IL-2.  You can't really take anything he says at face value.

[Bletchley_Geek]

This is one of the most entertaining topics in PC gaming right now...

Check out this thread I was pointed to.  Jason is the head of the US distribution for 777, I think.  I am not quite sure what is going on, but it appears they laying the smackdown on testers and such complaining.  Seems a mite heavy handed.

http://ii-jg3.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=244

This denotes a very unprofessional mistake by Jason. Beta testing or any other kind of volunteer contribution before release needs to be covered by a non-disclosure agreement. Every beta testing program I have taken part in has been very explicit at defining what's confidential and the understanding that any content created while having "privileged insider access" becomes intellectual property of the developing company.

Posting openly on the Internet what is obviously personal correspondence doesn't precisely match my standards of civilized and respectful behaviour. Friendship might have a floating value, but man, I do care about my friends. In this particular case, I can't help thinking that "Hooves" didn't complain much about the monitors, freebies and other stuff, much less return all those gifts.

I am also surprised by the reaction of this "Aborted Man" person. I certainly wouldn't qualify the first message by Jason as an "ultimatum": this is not like Putin coming down on the Ukraine and saying, "guys, make sure I like your political master otherwise (points to a Battalion of T-90s)".

It is very entertaining, but I find it also to be quite sad.

[Jarhead0331]

Also...why were these beta testers getting material favors from the President of 777? Throttles? trips? Free server? Etc.??? Talk about unethical...