PDA

View Full Version : No Add-on for BoB!



Takata_
04-13-2006, 09:29 PM

FritzGryphon
04-13-2006, 11:26 PM
I'd say there are advantages to both methods.

I'd vote for a third option: Standalone with only a few addons, then new standalone.

Like if IL-2 ended at AEP, and skipped the PF/Pe-3/'46 detour.

WWMaxGunz
04-13-2006, 11:27 PM
Yet another limited choice poll made to show one small view of reality...........

Here's one for you: Have you quit cheating online? Yes or No?

Why are addons always cheaper in your view?
Why can't the original game engine be included with every addon, making each stand-alone capable?
Given the above, if planned from early then why not each one able to use each other?

You see it is possible for sales to increase every year until the game engine is obsolete?
You see if game engine was updated (graphics, options) but still uses the addons objects
that the owned value of addons increases and life of the series extends?

But NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! We get two votes that cover what marketing types think
is the limit. Marketing types that make nothing real and care for only who? Themselves.

Takata_
04-14-2006, 01:19 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Yet another limited choice poll made to show one small view of reality...........
- I do not pretend to hold any part of the universal knowledge.


Here's one for you: Have you quit cheating online? Yes or No?
- Something personnal or an attempt to show how riduculous is my question?


Why are addons always cheaper in your view?
- because their price is fixed following a pure speculation about the expected sales which may drop if they are too expensive. Real cost is not reflected by price.


Why can't the original game engine be included with every addon, making each stand-alone capable?
- it's an option, but every single product on sale must be produced, printed, localized, maintained, supported and distributed worldwide which is a major task whatever the product cost. With a limited ressoure (income) you just can't do it (see the problem with Russian add-ons).


Given the above, if planned from early then why not each one able to use each other?
- For the same reason as above.


You see it is possible for sales to increase every year until the game engine is obsolete?
- I don't think so : production cost + marketing + support and distribution cost of two or more products vs a single product featuring all the stuff, the last one will be more profitable. But you may think otherwise.


You see if game engine was updated (graphics, options) but still uses the addons objects that the owned value of addons increases and life of the series extends?
- The value of an add-on content is mainly related to the capability of the customer to find it and to the ability of the producer to make some kind of profit from it.


Marketing types that make nothing real and care for only who? Themselves.
What I say concern everybody enjoying this sim, including you, but you are right, I don't really care about this last point.

S~
Takata

Flying_Nutzo
04-14-2006, 06:31 AM
My understanding is that each 'add-on' will in fact be able to be played independently or merged into previous versions, in which case there's no prob.

Of course I may be wrong.

JG52Karaya-X
04-14-2006, 06:45 AM
I say keep it the way it has been up to now! I see no problem with it - don't fix something that isn't broken http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

Aeronautico
04-14-2006, 08:44 AM
Subsequent chapters of SoW will be stand alone/addon the same as PF was to FB. Possibly, every chapter will have the possibility to get third parties' addons as for Battle of France or Battle of Poland for BoB. This is DA MAN's word.

Irish_Rogues
04-14-2006, 08:45 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Also add-ons require less MP and let the developer get more mileage out of their original investment.

WWMaxGunz
04-14-2006, 09:23 AM
Originally posted by Takata_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Here's one for you: Have you quit cheating online? Yes or No?
- Something personnal or an attempt to show how riduculous is my question? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

To show how slanted the poll and any results are.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Why are addons always cheaper in your view?
- because their price is fixed following a pure speculation about the expected sales which may drop if they are too expensive. Real cost is not reflected by price. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yet you say make a complete new game each time instead. So I guess you have no good idea
of the real cost of game engine development? In real cost, the addon or compatible game
is much cheaper to produce.

Addon with game engine included is more price than just new planes, maps, etc, requiring
original game. And it is higher value if you can use the old elements with it.

Try not thinking addon. Try thinking of a series of compatible games.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Why can't the original game engine be included with every addon, making each stand-alone capable?
- it's an option, but every single product on sale must be produced, printed, localized, maintained, supported and distributed worldwide which is a major task whatever the product cost. With a limited ressoure (income) you just can't do it (see the problem with Russian add-ons).[/QUOTED]

What part of that is not needed for a new game every time?
Maybe some time you should check out some of the modern distro methods like Steam as well.


[QUOTE]Given the above, if planned from early then why not each one able to use each other?
- For the same reason as above.


You see it is possible for sales to increase every year until the game engine is obsolete?
- I don't think so : production cost + marketing + support and distribution cost of two or more products vs a single product featuring all the stuff, the last one will be more profitable. But you may think otherwise. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now I see your fantasy. A single product with everything you somehow think will be made
in short enough time to hit the market target price. To have all that in a very few years
the result would be trash every time. Cheap, buggy trash. IL2 was FOUR YEARS before the
first release and had how many flyables? We now have many planes more via patches and FB,
ACES and PF as new revenue sources for Maddox Games and UBI with still more fixes and
needing more income and it has been so far over FIVE MORE YEARS which is not bad at all
BUT ------ Who can make a better product COMPLETE in one go with all the features including
planes, maps, everything for multiple theatres before the first release, all better and
more detailed than IL2/FB and not a buggy mess without going broke? MS? If you want a
mediocre painted-by-numbers sim then CFS3 is still around.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You see if game engine was updated (graphics, options) but still uses the addons objects that the owned value of addons increases and life of the series extends?
- The value of an add-on content is mainly related to the capability of the customer to find it and to the ability of the producer to make some kind of profit from it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Customers can't find IL2 series? Why you think CFS4 is not being made? Because of IL2.
There has been profit but it was pointed out in 98 and 99 that there is more profit by far
from making fantasy games with zero reality content. Esp the pay to play kind. There is
money in flight sims and if everyone made fantasy games there would be far less profit in
those.

Understand that if there was serious problems with profit in flight sims that the SOW line
would never have been started. UBI will cry poor whether they get profit or not. You
listen to that you may as well believe politicians too.

Hey, if they got smart about it then there would be more profit. You start by getting more
money for years of work instead of fixed-price less, the usual crippled dance.

It may seem funny to you but there's more than a few products I've bought just because of
the addons and mods available.

Chuck_Older
04-14-2006, 10:26 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Takata-

max isn't saying you cheat or anything like that.

The question is one that gives the person whoa sked the question the answer he wants regardless of your reply- it's a 'loaded' question-

If you say "yes", well then you have cheated

If you say "No", well you still have been cheating

The limited choice of answers gives the person asking the question the advantage. Max is saying the choices are too black and white in your poll

crazyivan1970
04-14-2006, 01:46 PM
Guys, i dont want to be rude. But, concept of BOB developement is not known. So Poll is a bit premature http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Takata_
04-14-2006, 04:29 PM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Guys, i dont want to be rude. But, concept of BOB developement is not known. So Poll is a bit premature http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

S~ Ivan,
You are right, BOB's (final) concept is not the point of this poll. I have no clue about what kind of strategy Oleg/1C/Ubi will adopt for the future of this serie, but I'm pretty sure that it would be closely related to the level of BOB's sales.

Anyway, I'm talking here, as a customer, about my own experience with Il-2/FB/Aces and PF products. If I'm taking few step back to the time after Il-2, and I'm trying to remember me what I expected from the following of this sim, I finaly can look at what I get after few years.

Now, I can't say it's all bad, because I really enjoyed several thousands hours of flying with tons of good fun, but I accumulated at the same time an increasing sentiment of frustration after each new release. This sentiment is not related to one thing in particular, like hardware, FM, DM, planeset, skill, Herr Pr. MaxGrouinz, Crazyivan, Oleg, Ubisoft, Girlfriend, etc. but to everything in general.

The fact is that I could have spent much more money for many other products than what I get during the same amount of time, but those products will never be released because Oleg's team is too small.

So, I'm trying to discuss this point with other (frustrated) customers to see how they understand this sort of near-hopeless situation.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

S~
Takata

Takata_
04-14-2006, 04:59 PM
Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Takata-

max isn't saying you cheat or anything like that.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif
Sure, I get it right, but I dislike how he's talking to me.

Takata. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

TheGozr
04-14-2006, 05:42 PM
Well if it was a Game every year that would be a total nightmare. Just imagine all the file for servers and patches each time.. Sorry M8 but IMO not good.

Takata_
04-14-2006, 05:57 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Yet you say make a complete new game each time instead. So I guess you have no good idea
of the real cost of game engine development? In real cost, the addon or compatible game
is much cheaper to produce.
- Yes, a complete game, but no, you don't have to change the engine. You will only improve what you will be able to improve (new fonctionnalities, fix what customers dislike), but mainly, you will add to your simulation all the new "gaming" content: maps, planes, objects, etc. with a robust campaign system linked to the previous one. If your complete engine represent three years of development and the new content one year of development, just do the math to amortize the cost of everything depending on how many upgrades you will make in the future.


Addon with game engine included is more price than just new planes, maps, etc, requiring
original game. And it is higher value if you can use the old elements with it.
1. you need to keep the original product alive (stored, distributed, sold) to give it an higher value
2. if the new content alone is not a commercial success, nothing will follow next
3. it's a nightmare to support different game versions for a small team, then you lose customers
4. distributors don't like it, editors don't like it
5. customers don't really like to rely on different products to make "one game", sales will suffer accordingly


What part of that is not needed for a new game every time?
Maybe some time you should check out some of the modern distro methods like Steam as well.
- if it was the ultimate solution, all games will go that way, but it's not at the moment especialy considering the increasing size of the content. But I agree, it will certainly change in the future. Remember that the main goal is not only to desserve the people aware and linked with such product, but to increase the overall customer base for it.

S~
Takata.

Takata_
04-14-2006, 06:23 PM
Originally posted by TheGozr:
Well if it was a Game every year that would be a total nightmare. Just imagine all the file for servers and patches each time.. Sorry M8 but IMO not good.
- you missed something, I'm not talking about different games, but the same working with a yearly upgrade with additional content.

S~
Takata

WWMaxGunz
04-14-2006, 09:09 PM
I think we have the basic idea the same but not details. I believe on basis of my own
experience that a compatible series is possible and IMO can generate more revenue if it
is done in newer ways. For instance the use of net distro as Steam can make economical
way to make the older versions available long after shelf space cost would have eaten
profits as long as each new one tells where to look and get older ones. Things like that.

One year may be too quick for next release depending on how much must be covered and size
of the team(s) at work. OTOH with compatibles a standard release may be 4 to 6 fighters
with map(s) and minor bits, ground units or even ships and would certainly allow such,
completely done and no need for patching.

If the models will carry through then a new release with improved AI would become strongly
wanted while still not mandatory. If hardware or system changes make the old engine not
work then hey that can be patched or solution is get the next one which is better than the
games I have in boxes unable to run because of new DX or videocard, and I have those. I
can't buy the next in any of those that is in a series and use it to run the old units and
maps. In more than a few it has meant to me I buy no more of that set.

Yes every version should be able to run by itself and the price as regular full game.

IL2 original had few flyables at all but I don't remember much complaints. The demo alone
was more overall than what we had before. IMO Maddox Games has given too much, too fast,
too cheap which is why I have been all for paying. It is my own self-interest to want to
see Maddox Games stay in business and prosper doing so. Back when US corps hit them with
copyright charges I tried to find a way to send money. I can afford some and if a lot of
people just here sent a few $ then the total would maybe offset the loss. The alternative
to what Oleg is doing is not something I like to think of.

Interminate
04-14-2006, 11:16 PM
You can build an addon for the same price as the original game without all the extra development costs. Much more cost-effective money is made with an addon, I think.

Takata_
04-16-2006, 04:40 PM
Originally posted by Interminate:
You can build an addon for the same price as the original game without all the extra development costs. Much more cost-effective money is made with an addon, I think.
- Right, you can make more margin, but it's nonetheless close to impossible to make more customers with add-ons: a new customer for the game thru a new add-on needs the original game and sometime, other add-ons as well to play it. With time, some products are less than well distributed, depending which country you are from. Barely, add-ons are only made for followers of the serie which will decrease whith time, whatever new add-on you are producing.

- If the new add-on content is allways merged inside the new version of the original game, it makes it possible to make an increasing number of customers because the focus / content will be larger at each new release, and the whole game better maintained.

Beside, the developper will have to improve the whole content, not just making additional content. In such way, we would not fly today in some cockpits made several years ago and never improved/fixed, nor we would ask to check some DM/FM's obviously crippled. For years, only "critical" bugs were ever fixed considering that the whole staff was dedicated to produce additionnal content for additionnal income.

S~
Takata

Takata_
04-16-2006, 04:49 PM
IMO Maddox Games has given too much, too fast, too cheap which is why I have been all for paying. It is my own self-interest to want to see Maddox Games stay in business and prosper doing so.

I totally agree with that. I like the idea of Maddox giving "free support", but I don't like to get "free new content" that people don't even realise they should have pay for it, then ask more and more or whine about it. Promise less, give a bit more, everybody will be very happy.
S~
Takata.

slipBall
04-16-2006, 04:50 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Yet another limited choice poll made to show one small view of reality...........

Here's one for you: Have you quit cheating online? Yes or No?

Why are addons always cheaper in your view?
Why can't the original game engine be included with every addon, making each stand-alone capable?
Given the above, if planned from early then why not each one able to use each other?

You see it is possible for sales to increase every year until the game engine is obsolete?
You see if game engine was updated (graphics, options) but still uses the addons objects
that the owned value of addons increases and life of the series extends?

But NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! We get two votes that cover what marketing types think
is the limit. Marketing types that make nothing real and care for only who? Themselves.



Lighten up http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

WWMaxGunz
04-16-2006, 06:04 PM
Originally posted by Takata_:

- If the new add-on content is allways merged inside the new version of the original game, it makes it possible to make an increasing number of customers because the focus / content will be larger at each new release, and the whole game better maintained.

Maybe the word Addon is the misleading part. Consider the above but able to use the models
from other games in the same series.


Beside, the developper will have to improve the whole content, not just making additional content. In such way, we would not fly today in some cockpits made several years ago and never improved/fixed, nor we would ask to check some DM/FM's obviously crippled. For years, only "critical" bugs were ever fixed considering that the whole staff was dedicated to produce additionnal content for additionnal income.

S~
Takata

The whole staff hasn't been tied up producing addition content the whole time except maybe
a short while when PF needed finishing. Even then can't say they all put full time on that.

Oleg has stated before that patch work was then at least two team members part time. The
new planes model work is some modellers from outside and MG team integration/FM/DM.

Please someone shoot the UBI tard that made these edit windows! I type a / or ' and it goes
into some edit mode yet no provision for cut and paste... it is so LAME I can't imagine the
geek that made it ever used it much or understands forums at all.

jjtasker
04-16-2006, 08:26 PM
Your math modedl is way off.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Using the same existing engine doesn't handicap the team, it saves ENORMOUS amounts of dev costs. Allowing a good return on the engine they already spent a lot of time/money making. The more "re sales" of that initial work, the better the return for the original project..meaning the more likely you are to be able to convince someone to actually FUND a new project. This is a niche market, you need to aim high and then get all the "legs" you can from that initial investment with the small customer base.

MOH_Hirth
04-16-2006, 08:28 PM
I know this sim in 2001, and i see the evolution, the searh for perfection, the forum, Oleg read rom,he loves his work, see CFS2... born and die 1.0.
IL-2 still be today THE SIM,we need suport this Softhouse, in game world we are few because few people know fly this game and few spend$$$ for trackIR4, joystick, etc...
Pirancy is another problem, how pay well the good professional, I dont care pay 2x 3x... i want only still the higth quality and evolution, i love fixs and pachts.
Sry my bad english.

Ruy Horta
04-17-2006, 01:06 AM
Basically, not counting major patches, we've had three stand alone products and one add on.

IL2
FB - add on that became a standalone
PF - stand alone that could be merged (probably started as add on anyway)

AEP - official add on

Takata_
04-17-2006, 08:18 AM
Originally posted by Kuna_:
I like add-on (serial) concept.
- As a matter of fact, I like it too. But it's not about me and you, it's about increasing the small basic customer base. A way to improve the quality and the marketability of the final product above what we have now.


Originally posted by jjtasker:
Your math modedl is way off.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Using the same existing engine doesn't handicap the team, it saves ENORMOUS amounts of dev costs. Allowing a good return on the engine they already spent a lot of time/money making.
- May be it's your reading that is off instead of my Math. I never stated to change the engine once a year but to maintain it better thru a complete new release including additional stuff instead of add-ons. In fact, it was done once with Forgotten Battles that included IL-2 content as well. This model seems much better for me to keep the standard higher. Do you think that if Forgotten Battles has been released as an add-on for IL-2 instead of a stand-alone, it would have been more successfull?


Originally posted by MOH_Hirth:
I know this sim in 2001, and i see the evolution, the searh for perfection, the forum, Oleg read rom,he loves his work, see CFS2... born and die 1.0. IL-2 still be today THE SIM, we need suport this Softhouse, in game world we are few because few people know fly this game and few spend$$$ for trackIR4, joystick, etc...
Pirancy is another problem, how pay well the good professional, I dont care pay 2x 3x... i want only still the higth quality and evolution, i love fixs and pachts.
- I Agree. "high quality and evolution" regardless if I have to pay more for it, which is why I posted this thread.


Originally posted by Ruy Horta:
Basically, not counting major patches, we've had three stand alone products and one add on.
IL2
FB - add on that became a standalone
PF - stand alone that could be merged (probably started as add on anyway)
AEP - official add on
Yes... but considering the final product after upgrade:
IL2 -> FB was a good move
FB -> AEP was not so good
FB/AEP -> PF was not good at all.
A lot of ressource wasted and an increasing number of problems never fixed.


Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
- Maybe the word Addon is the misleading part. Consider the above but able to use the models from other games in the same series.
- The whole staff hasn't been tied up producing addition content the whole time except maybe a short while when PF needed finishing. Even then can't say they all put full time on that. Oleg has stated before that patch work was then at least two team members part time. The new planes model work is some modellers from outside and MG team integration/FM/DM.

Until something is changed in Game business, series will bring more problem than solution. About the whole staff tied up with producing new content - beside what they have done to fix the previous bugs, I guess it's true whatever it was for free-patches, commercial addons or the next sim engine and models. Think that without any new income, the development of the next sim would have stopped when PF went in trouble.

S~
Takata

Copperhead310th
04-19-2006, 02:00 AM
i'll put it this way in regards to the BoB series.
In the world of flight sims...
Oleg is an Artist....
and he's about to paint his masterpeice.

While i have no interest in the time period coverd, or the aircraft featured in BoB....
I'll buy the dam thing for 3 reasons.....

1. because it will be the next great thing in this hobby.

2. Because all of my buddies online will most likely have it.

3. & most importanly...to support Oleg.
After all the fun i've had & freinds i've made the world over from his product...buying bob weather it even really intrests me or not, to contenue my suport of Oleg by buying it anyway is the least i cam do to repay him for what ive gotten out of this sim over the years. :-)

Who know's....in 10 more years we may get back o the pto, actually have US planes again, and flyable heavy bombers to boot. lol
but i'll be waiting a looooooong time to see that.

jasonbirder
04-19-2006, 03:29 AM
While i have no interest in the time period coverd, or the aircraft featured in BoB....

Slightly OT (I know...sorry!) But this is just something I don't understand...maybe its just me but theres no period/theatre that DOESN'T interest me...

I enjoy flying US,English,German & Russian planes in the Eastern front/Western Front/Pacific/CBI theatres...often the more obscure campaigns which I previously new little about can be the most engrossing...When I flew some Finish Winter War missions - it prompted me to go out and find out more about this campaign - a real eye opener ditto the Spanish Civil War! I'm looking forward to the Manchuria add-on as the 1939 & 1945 campaigns there are something I know very little about...

Eastern Front (From both a Russian & German point of view) are my personal favorite...because that was OBVIOUSLY the crucible which decided the outcome of World War 2...
(True...but I only put it in to irritate the US flag wavers LoL!)

Takata_
04-19-2006, 04:17 AM
Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
While i have no interest in the time period coverd, or the aircraft featured in BoB....
I'll buy the dam thing for 3 reasons.....
(...)
Who know's....in 10 more years we may get back o the pto, actually have US planes again, and flyable heavy bombers to boot. lol
but i'll be waiting a looooooong time to see that.
- Allright, I think that most of us will buy the next game too, whatever will be in. The problem is not about us, but about "how to make more of us". And that's how I think you may not have to wait 10 years to get what you want (US planes and bombers).

If the game was increased each year, step by step, instead of relying on add-ons, it could be made the year after Storm of War Nā?1 release, but a different way:

- Storm of War Nā?1 (200?): feature
Game Engine
+ "Battle of Britain 1940"

- Storm of War Nā?2 (200?+1):
Game Engine
+ "Battle of Britain 1940"
and for example:
+ "Battle of Malta 1940-41"
+ "The Flying Tigers 1941-42"
+ "Army Group North Barbarossa 1941".

- Storm of War Nā?3 (200?+2):
Game Engine
+ "Battle of Britain 1940"
+ "Battle of Malta 1940-41"
+ "Flying Tigers 1941-42"
+ "Army Group North Barbarossa 1941".
+ other linked campaigns (Europe, Med, Russia, CBO/Pacific) during 1941-42 or 1936-40
etc.

In place of trying to (badly) cover a complete theater which, like the Pacific theater, is way too much at such level of detail to be made in one single shot, you will include all the maps, planes and objects to fully cover several different theater campaigns. Each one would be sized to your real development capacity. Each year, your new game value will increase for such new content and satisfy many more customers rather than the way it was done with the previous serie. Then now, you may increase your simmer base, attracting new players, instead of reducing it. This mean, you will provide both quality and diversity that no add-on would be able to match.



Originally posted by jasonbirder:
... maybe its just me but theres no period/theatre that DOESN'T interest me...

I enjoy flying US,English,German & Russian planes in the Eastern front/Western Front/Pacific/CBI theatres...often the more obscure campaigns which I previously new little about can be the most engrossing...When I flew some Finish Winter War missions - it prompted me to go out and find out more about this campaign - a real eye opener ditto the Spanish Civil War! I'm looking forward to the Manchuria add-on as the 1939 & 1945 campaigns there are something I know very little about...
- Same here, I'm interested in ALL combat planes/theaters of WW2 and pre-WW2. Guess, I'm French, I never been able to fly a single one belonging to my country... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
You are not off topic at all. That's a key point.

S~
Takata.

jasonbirder
04-19-2006, 04:21 AM
Guess, I'm French, I never been able to fly a single one belonging to my country...
I feel for you...
A Hawk 75 & a Dewoitine D520 would be nice for battle of France missions though eh http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

WWMaxGunz
04-19-2006, 07:00 AM
Originally posted by Takata_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kuna_:
I like add-on (serial) concept.
- As a matter of fact, I like it too. But it's not about me and you, it's about increasing the small basic customer base. A way to improve the quality and the marketability of the final product above what we have now. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And just how is sim after sim all incompatible and each with its own problems going to
increase this basic customer base in any way that a series of fully compatible sims won't?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jjtasker:
Your math modedl is way off.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Using the same existing engine doesn't handicap the team, it saves ENORMOUS amounts of dev costs. Allowing a good return on the engine they already spent a lot of time/money making.
- May be it's your reading that is off instead of my Math. I never stated to change the engine once a year but to maintain it better thru a complete new release including additional stuff instead of add-ons. In fact, it was done once with Forgotten Battles that included IL-2 content as well. This model seems much better for me to keep the standard higher. Do you think that if Forgotten Battles has been released as an add-on for IL-2 instead of a stand-alone, it would have been more successfull? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

FB models used some parts of IL2 models but the FB models have much more scope such as CEM,
much more detailed DM, shocks in landing gear, gunnery and recoil, etc. Even the older
adapted IL2 model planes in FB had to undergo rework in the various patches to fix things
like the near invincible I-16's and many others. The list goes on, the rework took longer
to happen (is it all done yet? not really) than the release since IL2 itself and spans
AEP and into PF.

We could also get into the FB FM climbs and related problems. It was released far too early.
It took 4 years to get IL2 to release. Half that long is the least that FB should have had
instead of less than a year. You want quantum improvements then one year each won't cut it.

BoB was announced in the starting stage when? What has been the major effort since? Oleg has
posted more than once that the patch effort is like two guys part time, sometimes one guy.
For how long was the BoB effort sidetracked to finish PF that was mostly outside MG? But they
learned better ways from that rather than never again and closing the door, Gennadich Team is
producing a WWI sim using much from IL2 but with a different 3D engine just to say one part.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MOH_Hirth:
I know this sim in 2001, and i see the evolution, the searh for perfection, the forum, Oleg read rom,he loves his work, see CFS2... born and die 1.0. IL-2 still be today THE SIM, we need suport this Softhouse, in game world we are few because few people know fly this game and few spend$$$ for trackIR4, joystick, etc...
Pirancy is another problem, how pay well the good professional, I dont care pay 2x 3x... i want only still the higth quality and evolution, i love fixs and pachts.
- I Agree. "high quality and evolution" regardless if I have to pay more for it, which is why I posted this thread.


Originally posted by Ruy Horta:
Basically, not counting major patches, we've had three stand alone products and one add on.
IL2
FB - add on that became a standalone
PF - stand alone that could be merged (probably started as add on anyway)
AEP - official add on
Yes... but considering the final product after upgrade:
IL2 -> FB was a good move
FB -> AEP was not so good
FB/AEP -> PF was not good at all.
A lot of ressource wasted and an increasing number of problems never fixed.


Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
- Maybe the word Addon is the misleading part. Consider the above but able to use the models from other games in the same series.
- The whole staff hasn't been tied up producing addition content the whole time except maybe a short while when PF needed finishing. Even then can't say they all put full time on that. Oleg has stated before that patch work was then at least two team members part time. The new planes model work is some modellers from outside and MG team integration/FM/DM.

Until something is changed in Game business, series will bring more problem than solution. About the whole staff tied up with producing new content - beside what they have done to fix the previous bugs, I guess it's true whatever it was for free-patches, commercial addons or the next sim engine and models. Think that without any new income, the development of the next sim would have stopped when PF went in trouble.

S~
Takata </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Without the new income of AEP there may have been an end to BoB. At the least it means more
longer hours for less pay. But what does a marketer know of the effort to produce except
for the number on the bottom line? Nothing. The big reason for new games in many houses
is that much of the team is burned out by the end and might want reasonable pay for time.

If I have 12 people and can keep 8 or more working on the next big change while 4 or less
turn out pay-fors based on content to keep money coming in then where is the freaking problem?

Not everyone on the team does all the same work, you have people whose work is farther down
the pipeline who can keep churning out content while the design and code lead work on the
next big change. It keeps everyone working and on their game. But then I guess that the
model of success is the one where you layoff half or more of the team whenever a new sim
starts?
That is the understanding in the Game Business, isn't it?
The same Game Business that wishes Maddox Games never got started (esp Micro$oft, and they
did try to buy him out which for the Empire of Bill means turn out a screwed up version
and close the original down for good) I am sure wishes that Maddox Games would do things
their way which hasn't exactly worked very well, has it? Answer is no.

Addons for FB line will not stop the SOW series. They don't slow it down much. PF was one
mistake not the characterization of all addons. Perhaps where You are from it would be but
Maddox Games is capable of learning and moving ahead and recovering cost from invested time.

Takata_
04-19-2006, 08:04 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
And just how is sim after sim all incompatible and each with its own problems going to
increase this basic customer base in any way that a series of fully compatible sims won't?
- You should have missed something Max, why do you want to make them compatible with each others when every new sim has everything previously published merged on it?
The goal is not to multiply the products (only a single one) but to merge yearly, both the old and the new content. What will be the point of compatibilty?

When actually, you have got merged FB+AEP+PF inside a new DVD, what would be the point to make it compatible with PF or FB?
Think about it.


FB models used some parts of IL2 models but the FB models have much more scope such as CEM, much more detailed DM, shocks in landing gear, gunnery and recoil, etc. Even the older adapted IL2 model planes in FB had to undergo rework in the various patches to fix things like the near invincible I-16's and many others. The list goes on, the rework took longer to happen (is it all done yet? not really) than the release since IL2 itself and spansAEP and into PF.
We could also get into the FB FM climbs and related problems. It was released far too early.
It took 4 years to get IL2 to release. Half that long is the least that FB should have had
instead of less than a year. You want quantum improvements then one year each won't cut it.
- Yes, and this kind of update could be done step by step every year as well, to improve the capability of the engine with features that were left to be added later. Then, you will improve the quality as well as the quantity over your original product, making it attracting to be bought every new year by either old and new customers, the last one will have no need to find other modules, because they will buy everything at once with the latest release.

- And to comment your last point, you should not presume of what kind of "marketing guy who knows nothing about production" I am, because, as a matter of fact, I was running such kind of business (games and books) for 15 years with almost the same kind of problems about producing and distributing add-ons for my own products.
S~
Takata.

WWMaxGunz
04-19-2006, 04:41 PM
Fine. Whatever you say.

I am just delighted that Oleg Maddox did not follow the wisdom of the industry when he decided
to make IL2.

Sorry you lost in your effort. Four out of Five restaurants fail inside one year does not mean
that a restaurant cannot succeed. Only that the majority did not.

jjtasker
04-19-2006, 08:35 PM
- May be it's your reading that is off instead of my Math. I never stated to change the engine once a year but to maintain it better thru a complete new release including additional stuff instead of add-ons. In fact, it was done once with Forgotten Battles that included IL-2 content as well. This model seems much better for me to keep the standard higher. Do you think that if Forgotten Battles has been released as an add-on for IL-2 instead of a stand-alone, it would have been more successfull?

That model is not feasible. A LOT of lead time and development cost went into the original release physics/graphics engines. The GUI, the the 3D terrain engine..all those things take time and signifigant effort to producec. Every time you can "refresh" a product and add content with limited development input and sell signifigant copies it is a HUGE win for you.. do it 2-3 times for a series and you have taken a niche market product and made reasonable mainstream profits from it.

A complete new release is not possible.. the time involved would be 3-5 years, not 1-2 years. Even a moderate add on would require signifigant 3D work, coding, and FM tweaking. Dev hours cost big dough.. The more you reuse the most expsnisive portion of your dev costs, the better off you are.

FB was "standalone", not a completely new product.. They took the existing code base, and used it to create a new product. By doing so they resold to all the existing customers at full retail, and built on the good press from the original for new customer base. Maybe you don't understand that, it was a financial decision to require customers to re purchase the existing core code as well as the newly added content. I think it was a great idea and follows the financial model well.

Takata_
04-20-2006, 06:22 AM
Originally posted by jjtasker:
(...)
FB was "standalone", not a completely new product.. They took the existing code base, and used it to create a new product. By doing so they resold to all the existing customers at full retail, and built on the good press from the original for new customer base. Maybe you don't understand that, it was a financial decision to require customers to re purchase the existing core code as well as the newly added content. I think it was a great idea and follows the financial model well.
- Right. So, read again what I wrote previously and you'll find that it is the model I'm talking about. I perfectly understood that it may be a good financial model for the developer as well as a much better final product for the customer.
FB "standalone" was not only a way to provide some additional content (maps, planes, campaigns), it was as well an improvement over IL-2 engine. That's what I called "maintaining the engine". I don't know where you read me wrote that the GUI and everything should be redone at each new release.
S~
Takata.

Agamemnon22
04-20-2006, 12:31 PM
I tend to agree with Takata. I think the SoW model you talk about is quite ingenious. It doesn't cost them any more to have old stuff on there. The old fans will probably buy every new release anyway, like we did with AEP, PF, etc.. Meanwhile, it opens up customer entry into the franchise at any point in its life.

I think it's also good from an image perspective, as when someone new looks at a PF box and says "mah..doox? never heard of him", he has no idea about all the support and updates the community has gotten. If, on the other hand, he sees on the product the history of titles that came before that particular one, he'll see the developer as alive and active, and can reasonably expect more stuff from the dev in the future, that just can't be bad.

The problem I foresee is that BoB content is going to take up a heck of a lot of space. Bigger textures, more complex models, more complex everything really. So the SoW model makes sense until the whole thing fills up a DVD. Then we need to convince the publisher that it's worthwhile to add a second disk to the package (not such a trivial decision). So at that point, some of the original media can be made available for download via a secure system like Steam.

This makes a whole lot of sense for a niche market like ours, where every new client counts.

We need actual sales figures for SoW and the IL-2 series to compare more objectively.

WWMaxGunz
04-20-2006, 09:10 PM
If someone new customer buys SOWhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifesert Battles complete stand-alone running game and finds
that the planes, maps and ground units from 3 previous SOW releases will also work with it
then more sales via net distro like Steam may well occur.

But if the previous SOW release models are not compatible, the game engines and models are
lesser quality and/or unmergeable then no extra sales occur. To have all the old planes
and parts in the newer versions becomes a matter of constant updating of an increasing
number of planes, etc, and this is somehow the better way to develop a series? Riiiiight.

Add to that that way #2 will take by the time each new release is finally patched without
putting money to the developer 3x longer and more longer between each successive new game
to fit more and more the complete plane and etc set instead of about the same amount of
time each if amount of added parts is not much more (way #1) and how is way #2 more
efficient? Oh that is right, if the game is not completely different then no new customers,
uh-huh.

Some problem, there are and have been complaints that FM changes imply FM errors. True or
not, I do believe that a stable FM will be more appreciated during the life of the series
and not after when the next sim is what everyone is playing. I don't want the final fix
to signal the near death of the sim please. Make it what it will be even if patches are
the way but get it set before new planes are introduced. The changes so many times a year
are a real irritation no matter why or what the meaning. If one or two planes need to be
changed then please just those not all ===for the series===.

While the modellers and some percent of the company and outside people work on series adds
the deep wizards can have much extra time to craft beyond the series without interruptions.
That to me sounds like a better work environment.

Takata_
04-20-2006, 10:55 PM
Originally posted by Agamemnon22:
I tend to agree with Takata. I think the SoW model you talk about is quite ingenious. It doesn't cost them any more to have old stuff on there. The old fans will probably buy every new release anyway, like we did with AEP, PF, etc.. Meanwhile, it opens up customer entry into the franchise at any point in its life..
- Yes, you get it and that's exactly my point.


I think it's also good from an image perspective, as when someone new looks at a PF box and says "mah..doox? never heard of him", he has no idea about all the support and updates the community has gotten. If, on the other hand, he sees on the product the history of titles that came before that particular one, he'll see the developer as alive and active, and can reasonably expect more stuff from the dev in the future, that just can't be bad.
- Same about the distribution network. Distributors and Shops are somehow disturbed when they have to promote 2 or 3 boxes instead of a single one. It takes a lot of valuable place on the shelves and "new add-ons" are always considered as less valuable products (by those people) especialy if the original game is two or three years old (think it may be up to 7 years old in Oleg's model). In game software business, one game may be seen as "outdated" only few months after release, but it's realy not right with Flight Sim, which live should be much longer.


The problem I foresee is that BoB content is going to take up a heck of a lot of space. Bigger textures, more complex models, more complex everything really. So the SoW model makes sense until the whole thing fills up a DVD. Then we need to convince the publisher that it's worthwhile to add a second disk to the package (not such a trivial decision). So at that point, some of the original media can be made available for download via a secure system like Steam.
This makes a whole lot of sense for a niche market like ours, where every new client counts.
We need actual sales figures for SoW and the IL-2 series to compare more objectively.
- Right. I don't think that the increasing code size would be a real problem (the disk support is really cheap compared to the value of the content). it may even help to make something too big for download.



Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
If someone new customer buys SOWhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifesert Battles complete stand-alone running game and finds that the planes, maps and ground units from 3 previous SOW releases will also work with it then more sales via net distro like Steam may well occur.
- That's another model, but I don't see any real difference with the release of add-ons. I'm not talking about "extra-sales" but about an "enlarged base of potential customers" making things much easier to find all the content at once, and to provide a better distribution and marketing which should provide a better income for the developer, then a bigger development team for all of us.


But if the previous SOW release models are not compatible, the game engines and models are lesser quality and/or unmergeable then no extra sales occur.
- Compatibility is not an issue, read again.


Some problem, there are and have been complaints that FM changes imply FM errors. True or not, I do believe that a stable FM will be more appreciated during the life of the series and not after when the next sim is what everyone is playing.(...)
The changes so many times a year are a real irritation no matter why or what the meaning. If one or two planes need to be changed then please just those not all ===for the series===.
- I tend to agree with your last point. I just hate FM's changing every 3 months and I hope it won't be like that in the future sim. Stability is needed as well as improvements. I'm all to improve DMs' and visual models as possible, to add any new feature when it's ready and fully tested, but the FM's changes should be limited to obvious bugs during the life of the serie.
S~
Takata.

WWMaxGunz
04-21-2006, 09:46 AM
Even the DM's should be to a finished standard. Everything in the planes models should.
After that, things like view system changes, campaigns and the like I would welcome.

The early words we had on the idea of SOW before even BoB was chosen as first theatre or
even before a series was talked of was "fewer planes, more details".

It leads to perhaps 4 flyables per release.

With standardized, finished planes each step there becomes zero maintenance of older models.
Do they get included in the next release, what others paid for? Perhaps. Or perhaps the
old planes become mission optional (you have this plane you can play it offline or on) and
purchased online as yes very much stores will not keep old games on limited shelf space.
But online distro is a sensible way to keep sales available as either data over the net or
as shipping orders through an online store. Copies 'warehoused' do not take shelf space,
can be parked with a mail-order distributor for a fraction of the cut a store would want.
But still the newest release MUST be in stores to get that new customer exposure. This is
a two-step dance to avoid the killing shelf-only distro problems yet still bring income.

If the multiplayer component is the same throughout then buyers of the old versions could
play online with owners of the new ---as long as they all have the planes, map and ground
units the server is using for that 'mission'---. The incentive to buy the new becomes to
get the planes, etc, and any other updates like for graphics but should not be required.

That means that what is on the shelves past the next release is still sellable with not
having as much danger of returns due to total unusability. It would probably be very good
if some servers were maintained using old plane sets by the company, a not great expense
if the company already has the connect.

Do you include all the old with every new or get at least some pay? To sell just the
planes and parts via net the cost can be quite low since the market takes a much smaller
cut. From manufacturer to shelf the price of new is about 4x last time I worked in the
manufacturing business. The margin is certainly worth collecting on and IMO will not kill
customers if the basic product is good enough to want. For some people though, nothing
will ever be enough without a button labelled "Realism" that gives a 25% to 90% edge.

WWMaxGunz
04-21-2006, 09:48 AM
Errrm, also what you give away tends to get devalued and yourself along with it.

The SOW models do promise to be very high quality.

Interminate
04-22-2006, 12:20 AM
I'll buy 1000 axis planes for $1000 under the FB engine.

Takata_
04-22-2006, 05:24 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Even the DM's should be to a finished standard. Everything in the planes models should.
After that, things like view system changes, campaigns and the like I would welcome.
The early words we had on the idea of SOW before even BoB was chosen as first theatre or
even before a series was talked of was "fewer planes, more details".
It leads to perhaps 4 flyables per release.
- You said in another thread that "the first casuality in a Battle is always the plan". Fom what Maddox already said about SOW development, I'm pretty sure that the original plan already changed many times because of the $$ battle Oleg is fighting everyday. Last infos are about a dozen flyable in the next sim, and the campaign mode is still not clearly defined yet.

In a perfect world, everything should be perfect at the release date. In the real world, some improvements may not be included because they eat too much development time and they are left behind to be added later... or never. On this point, I just hope they won't change the flight models like they did with the current serie, as such specific feature needs much more stability than other ones (including DMs' which are ok to be improved when some development time is available to do it).


With standardized, finished planes each step there becomes zero maintenance of older models. Do they get included in the next release, what others paid for? Perhaps. Or perhaps the old planes become mission optional (you have this plane you can play it offline or on) and purchased online as yes very much stores will not keep old games on limited shelf space.
- I disagree on this point. You should think in term of "added-value" instead of "what we have already paid for". This added-value for such new release is much higher if it does include all the previous content than if it was only based on the new stuff. This is true for ALL customers, both new and old. That's what I'm trying to explain here. For such kind of sim, It's a good way for everybody: customers, developers and distributors.


But online distro is a sensible way to keep sales available as either data over the net or as shipping orders through an online store.
- At the moment, all I can see with an "online distribution model", is a reduced "potential customer base". I agree it may be a cheaper way to distribute products all over the world but the people concerned by such model are far less than those that you can hit with a traditional distribution. I think it may be implemented in the future for areas that are already badly covered with the traditional network. However it includes many more problems with distribution rights and such. Other problems rely on availability of large band, conservation of downloaded stuff for re-installation, etc. This way will certainly growth in the future but I guess it will be used as an option concurently with traditional distribution rather than replacing it.


Do you include all the old with every new or get at least some pay?.
- Definitively all !

S~
Takata

WWMaxGunz
04-22-2006, 01:21 PM
There is this thing that happens to a lot of software. Creeping featurism. What it does to
budgets and deadlines is bloat, extend and break em. I did write a lot of software for $ in
my time. You put down the foundation solid, you build on it by the nature of the foundation,
you set the ways and limits and use them -or- you end up with software that takes too long to
write and you only open the source with some dread at the can of worms you have made.

It is avoidable. Draw the lines, define the game by those and resist improving. That is clean
and faster and much less headaches. Program can't be perfect so accept and work to the limits.
There can be a next level then save the improves for that.

Aren't there at least a couple small operations that still see models for open source sims
they didn't even write? One plane at a time they sell, no? Or mission packs? I believe so.
There is value in high quality virtual models beyond the cheaper stuff usually thrown in free
in any kind of deal. I've got OEM Nero 6 free with a burner but for full functionality I have
to pay for what I get. They give the OEM s/w free with burners and PC's. That is the cheap
version. The new models will be how much investment?

Would you pay $5-$10 per new plane or maybe get a bundle deal via Steam? I would, it can
support the sim maker more directly if not absolute directly. That protects my hobby. The
new customers get a playable product and if they want more and feel it is worth it then they
will buy, it is not a huge price at all.

If you give things away then you need much wider a customer base yet. Saying how hard it is
to expand then what release is supposed to make the most? The last one? Will a good sim draw
over 2x the sales by having more planes?