PDA

View Full Version : Economic reality



Thomas Norton
05-14-2004, 12:40 PM
The idea for Silent Hunter III, did not spontaneously arrive. People who like a commodity, called money, believed such a product could turn a profit, and so they started out to develop this simulation.
These people are not amateurs, they produce games for a living. Thus, they do their homework.
There is a history that leads to
Silent Hunter III. It is incredible to believe that they would not know that the majority of sub sim players, would not want a dynamic campaign. They went into the development of Silent Hunter III knowing this. It appears from what has been seen that Silent Hunter 3 is not going to have something that most want, why would this be allowed to happen?
There can really only be two likely answers.
One, the development team that was selected to produce this product are not capable (due to a lack of talent/skill) to deliver such a sophisticated program.
Two, the amount of money/time that was budgeted to produce Silent Hunter III does not allow for the inclusion of such a complex addition to the game engine.
Obviously, both could be correct. The point is that Silent Hunter III is the victim of economic reality. How much does the parent company invest in a project is directly related to how much of a return can be expected (wanted).
The position that they would make more money if Silent Hunter III had a dynamic campaign most certainly has been considered. Remember, why make Silent Hunter III to start with? It has obviously been rejected by the evidence of recent observations and comments. Thus, the many negative comments.
Like it or not, economic reality dictates simulations like Silent Hunter 3. How many units, at what price, less cost, equals profit. The number of potential sales is determined by historical trends (i.e. prior sub sims). Price benchmark is determined by what the market will pay (up around 45 dollars).
The real control that the parent company has is cost to produce. If Silent Hunter III, is not to have a dynamic campaign, and if the production company knows the majority want it, then the only reason to not include it would eleminate option one, they would simply hire a skilled enough developer to include it. This leaves the only reason to not include it, COST. It simply either costs too much to produce it, and/or, make it work correctly.
And, so, Silent Hunter 3, falls to the economics.
The apologists of the final product will claim it needs to be purchased to support the "industry" or the "genre". And, if you believe that, then you should vote with your dollars. After all the pictures are pretty, and who knows, maybe this will lead to a Silent Hunter 4, that will have a dynamic campaign system, but do not count on it. Unless, it can be developed within the budget, by a team that has the skill to produce it with little to no bugs.
The other immutable claim, will be that Silent Hunter III, is "fun" to play. Again, if you were looking for a sub sim that is fun to play then you should promote such fun, buy this game. Does this lead to the dynamic campaign game you want? Well, actually, no. But, it will lead Silent Hunter 3, and the future Silent Hunter 4, 5, 6, to your game cube, and you can play it with your kids on the television. This too, is economic reality, like it or not. As this is where there is a lot more sales, for less cost. If you do the math, you see the future.
The sad reality is that those of you who want realism and dynamic are too expensive to accommodate. You are a product of the past, and there simply is not enough resources to go around. The game market economy has left you behind. Tragiclly, I stand with you, and wish what might have been.
We few....

We few, we happy few, we band of brothers; For he today that sheds his blood with me Shall be my brother.

Thomas Norton
05-14-2004, 12:40 PM
The idea for Silent Hunter III, did not spontaneously arrive. People who like a commodity, called money, believed such a product could turn a profit, and so they started out to develop this simulation.
These people are not amateurs, they produce games for a living. Thus, they do their homework.
There is a history that leads to
Silent Hunter III. It is incredible to believe that they would not know that the majority of sub sim players, would not want a dynamic campaign. They went into the development of Silent Hunter III knowing this. It appears from what has been seen that Silent Hunter 3 is not going to have something that most want, why would this be allowed to happen?
There can really only be two likely answers.
One, the development team that was selected to produce this product are not capable (due to a lack of talent/skill) to deliver such a sophisticated program.
Two, the amount of money/time that was budgeted to produce Silent Hunter III does not allow for the inclusion of such a complex addition to the game engine.
Obviously, both could be correct. The point is that Silent Hunter III is the victim of economic reality. How much does the parent company invest in a project is directly related to how much of a return can be expected (wanted).
The position that they would make more money if Silent Hunter III had a dynamic campaign most certainly has been considered. Remember, why make Silent Hunter III to start with? It has obviously been rejected by the evidence of recent observations and comments. Thus, the many negative comments.
Like it or not, economic reality dictates simulations like Silent Hunter 3. How many units, at what price, less cost, equals profit. The number of potential sales is determined by historical trends (i.e. prior sub sims). Price benchmark is determined by what the market will pay (up around 45 dollars).
The real control that the parent company has is cost to produce. If Silent Hunter III, is not to have a dynamic campaign, and if the production company knows the majority want it, then the only reason to not include it would eleminate option one, they would simply hire a skilled enough developer to include it. This leaves the only reason to not include it, COST. It simply either costs too much to produce it, and/or, make it work correctly.
And, so, Silent Hunter 3, falls to the economics.
The apologists of the final product will claim it needs to be purchased to support the "industry" or the "genre". And, if you believe that, then you should vote with your dollars. After all the pictures are pretty, and who knows, maybe this will lead to a Silent Hunter 4, that will have a dynamic campaign system, but do not count on it. Unless, it can be developed within the budget, by a team that has the skill to produce it with little to no bugs.
The other immutable claim, will be that Silent Hunter III, is "fun" to play. Again, if you were looking for a sub sim that is fun to play then you should promote such fun, buy this game. Does this lead to the dynamic campaign game you want? Well, actually, no. But, it will lead Silent Hunter 3, and the future Silent Hunter 4, 5, 6, to your game cube, and you can play it with your kids on the television. This too, is economic reality, like it or not. As this is where there is a lot more sales, for less cost. If you do the math, you see the future.
The sad reality is that those of you who want realism and dynamic are too expensive to accommodate. You are a product of the past, and there simply is not enough resources to go around. The game market economy has left you behind. Tragiclly, I stand with you, and wish what might have been.
We few....

We few, we happy few, we band of brothers; For he today that sheds his blood with me Shall be my brother.

misha1967
05-14-2004, 02:00 PM
Yep.

That's exactly the same song I heard back prior to SHII's release. And look what happened to that one.

Not that there's anything wrong with your reasoning, except it fails to include a couple of options:

It is actually QUITE conceivable that a decision to do something in spite of experience and reality could be made. They did it before, remember?

There's also the option that their calculations show that they can break even by pushing out a bunch of pretty graphics minus the gameplay and that they're not really interested in the longevity of the sim. Fast bucks and all that.

Oh, and one last thing: Slapping a DynCamp on top of everything else isn't exactly like putting men on Mars in this day and age. It used to be done pretty routinely, so unless it's akin to the lost arcane arts of necromancy, I'm afraid that that one won't hold a lot of water.

Redwine
05-14-2004, 05:29 PM
I understand your point of view Thomas.....

But many of us are looking for a good sim, and not claiming to a cheap one........

The problem is simulation is near to die......

Producers in the past make sims as a flag of capacity of their technology and as an emblem of prestige.......

Actually it is being loss........

Release a simuator in a 3D word, wich works in 2D, release them without a mission editor, or a dinamic campaing......... release them incomplete, and the customers need years and hundred of megas of patchs and third party add-ons to make the product aceptable......... we are in a new milenium and the sims are badest than in the past........

The people is a little bit tired.......

People here are giving the producers ( not developers, they know ) just a customer feed back......... to they know not all people are interested in an arcade subsim......

Kids has a lot of funny games in the stores, simers has not..........

Thanks for your point of view.......regards, Red.

______________________________
.
http://personales.ciudad.com.ar/pietraroja/imagenes/firmas/EscudoU552b.jpg
.
The Ancient History of the Submarine
"Subgenesis" (http://www.iespana.es/Subgenesis/subgenesis/sg00.htm)

Manual TDC
"HTDC Tutorial" (http://www.iespana.es/rotteufel/htdc_tutorial/a_start.htm)
.

Kriegspiel
05-14-2004, 07:19 PM
Thomas, I mean no disrespect to you, but how do you make these claims? Do you have an insiders view because of your work, or is this just "your opinion?"

I really would like to get an inside look at what the producer and the developers are really thinking about what they want the final product to be.

MSFS is an awesome simulator for sim pilots. Can we sim submariners have the same thing? Can we have a "standard" in environment and functionality for all marine life? Let there be a SIM ocean world where I can sail anything old and new alike anywhere in all the water ways of the world. Let me travel across any ocean and up any river. Let me explore the depths of accurately created ocean floor maps. Is this too much to ask for, NOW, or in future products?

Always remember to pillage
BEFORE you burn - Unknown

Egan2.0
05-16-2004, 11:36 AM
They have a right to make the game that they believe the market dictates. we have a right to demand the game we want. That is also the truth.

I'm torn between wanting to sing the praises of what i've heard about SH3 so far and being very worried about what i'm pretty sure we will get. The crew management thing is something i have wanted to see for a long, long time but not at the expense of a decent campaign. Something i would describe as a fundamental.

Dynamic campaigns ARE tricky to do. But not as tricky than the AI routines in a game like, say, FarCry. If a sim developer were to actually come out and say they weren't going to make a DyCam because it was to dificult how much faith could you justifiably give to them for the rest of the product?

What is annoying people just now is not market forces but the seeming descision to try to flog the game to people who have a highly limited interest in sims while ignoring, in the main, those who DO play them. Subsims are a very niche market and In my view it is a market that is too small to dilute further which seems to be what UBI are intent to do.

finchOU
05-16-2004, 12:44 PM
The other problem that i see is that there is no compition for this SIM. Thus they can release it confiedent that they will get the majority of sub simmers to buy it........the problem is that they are trying to open up new customers who normaly would shy away from a sim by making the SIM less like a sim and more like a game (scripted missions and such). My question to UBI then would be.....why not bend over backwards to make everyone happy?? I remember saying a couple months ago that SH3 should be inovative....now I know that what it could have done was have two separate types of Campaigns so everyone could be happy.....whether UBI would do that is based on Money....and not input from websites(which is sad.......cause in the end it would be the best game of all time!!!)

Well I know i should wait fot the game and see....but I cant help but remember what I felt like when I started playing SH2 and how mad I got because the graphics were good (compared to AOD), but the game play was piss poor....begining with the scripted missions and finishing with ******ed AI and thinking how much better this game really could have been.....so I say now......please dont disipoint me!

Thomsen9U
05-16-2004, 02:47 PM
Thomas
I agree completly with your writing about the economic rules, but I suspect that you start with a wrong base asumption.

Why should be a programming of a dynamic campaign be sooooo expensive?

The Dynamix guys solved that problem already years ago in a 8 MB source code. Unless these guys were not unholy wizzards which have taken their dark secrets with them in the programmers heaven, I can see no point, why this can't be rebuilt nowadays. (Even the source code must be purchasable for some bucks, if the new guys are too lazy to sort that out for their own.)

If I follow your (and my opinion) we can use the formula:
devtime for a dynamic campaign = money = cost
If you equal 8 MB source code with the devtime (and even multiply it with something) you come to
8 MB * Multiplyer = money = cost
You can alternatively replace the devtime by a purchase price for the AOD Surce (or even for the part of the DC)
fixed purchase price = money = cost

At the end you will always have a very little amount for that formula. Which prooves now following your rules and my statements that the AOD-devellopers were unholy wizzards which have taken their dark secrets with them in the programmers heaven! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

Mahlzeit

Stefan
U 664
http://sgaertner.bei.t-online.de/henne.jpg

[This message was edited by Thomsen9U on Sun May 16 2004 at 01:57 PM.]

arzaal
05-17-2004, 04:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Redwine:
People here are giving the producers ( not developers, they know ) just a customer feed back......... to they know not all people are interested in an arcade subsim......<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Arcade subsim? Like with unlimited torpedoes, no loading time, no manual targeting, no navigation, no crew, no localized damages, no realistic physics, no dynamic weather, no historical accuracy...?
Come on http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
No dynamic campaign does not mean "arcade" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif
Like I said in a previous post: look at the first IL2 and tell me if it was an arcade sim because of its first campaign system!
Just wanted to remind you that SHIII is going to be a sim, dynamic campaign or not.

Leif...
05-17-2004, 05:17 AM
I agree with arzaal, scripted missions are actually a must in a simulator. There is no other way to recreate historical/ famous battles. So claming that scripted missions makes this a non-simulator is false. Itā's still a simulator but locked to certain missions, which of course is bad.

Iā'm puzzled though why they donā't have a dynamic mode with convoys independently cruising the Atlantic. After seeing the graphics itā's clear to say that the programmers are competent enough and could easily do it.

So why donā't they? I guess there is something else here that stops them from doing it. Perhaps something with the graphics engine not cooping with the entire Atlantic coastline (not an easy task by the way) and thus free cruising canā't be allowed.

Leifā...

Hitman_PAces
05-17-2004, 06:12 AM
Some remarkable assestments, Thomas.

Though IāĀ“d like to remind here about something people seem to forget easily:

Ubi has buyed SH rights and stuff, so they know well the guts of SH1 and SH2. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Thus, using the same base and simply changing the environment graphics from 2D to 3D would have solved the problem, giving a modern version of SH1 but with graphics up to latest standards. And I donāĀ“t think it wouldnāĀ“t be incompatible with crew management.

Cheers

Redwine
05-17-2004, 09:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by arzaal:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Redwine:
People here are giving the producers ( not developers, they know ) just a customer feed back......... to they know not all people are interested in an arcade subsim......<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Arcade subsim? Like with unlimited torpedoes, no loading time, no manual targeting, no navigation, no crew, no localized damages, no realistic physics, no dynamic weather, no historical accuracy...?
Come on http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
No dynamic campaign does not mean "arcade" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif
Like I said in a previous post: look at the first IL2 and tell me if it was an arcade sim because of its first campaign system!
Just wanted to remind you that SHIII is going to be a sim, dynamic campaign or not.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Do not misunderstand Arzaal.........

May be due to my bad english.......... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Ausence of a Dinamic campaing is the first step, if you dont do that, may be will be more "losses". http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

People are claiming for a SIMULATOR, and claiming for a Dinamic Campaing........

After years of waiting for SH2 we receive an arcade game......... no Mission Editor, a bad campaing, and a game preparer to be used like just that a game, an arcade game........... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

As SH2 is from the box it is not posible to manage a Manual Shooting........... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

The game takes a nautical mile as 2000 meters instead of 1852 m. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

If you attempt to do the correct manual calculations with that error you only can hit a target if you shoot so close........ http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Disregarding if you like to shoot so close, or if some capitan had done this technic in real life.......... what it means ?

It means, the game was designed as a funny game for kids.........

Game was designed to be used with the red triangle, just put the red triangle bellow and shoot.......... no much diference with a Mario Bros.

Of course it is not real life, and this game or sim never will give you a real idea of the reality.......

But, disregarding the fact of it is only a hobby, very far of the hard life onboard those ship........... many persons want some thing more near to real procedures after the pass of many years............

Many Years of wait, and we receive SH2, with no Mission Editor, with internal error in speeds to be used as arcade......sub hulls resistence in acordance with ship tonnage instead with the real capacity to resist pressure, no magnetic torps...........and many more..........

Some thing similar happens with Sub Command....... as from the box, the game works in 2D, a torp pass 400m over a target, it explode and destroy the target........ just a funny game to be played on the map.......... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif corrected later in patchs........

Flanker 2.0, and 2.5 (great effort of the dev team)......... later Lock-on, all fully of problems...... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

To claim for a sim here, instead an arcade game is only a "preventive" action.............. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

plus we want a Dinamic Campaing.......... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Best regards, Red. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

______________________________
.
http://personales.ciudad.com.ar/pietraroja/imagenes/firmas/EscudoU552b.jpg
.
The Ancient History of the Submarine
"Subgenesis" (http://www.iespana.es/Subgenesis/subgenesis/sg00.htm)

Manual TDC
"HTDC Tutorial" (http://www.iespana.es/rotteufel/htdc_tutorial/a_start.htm)
.