Lets pay more

[HagarTheHorrible]

"You're 'avin a laugh, right ? " 

 

Yeh, probably.     ( I think I must be losing it, I appear to be having a conversation with myself)

 

RoF introduced the idea of in-game purchases to combat flight sims, it wasn't compulsory, but if you wanted to fly certain aircraft or have various bells or whistles then you had to cough up with the cash.  It might have seemed controversial, it might still be, but if we are honest it's not something that MS flight simulator hadn't been doing for years, if in their case it was third parties doing the extras. The prices in RoF, at least for me, were very reasonable with a gradual accumulation of assets, as and when, and with regular sales helping to ease the burden.  Looking back, I spent a lot more on RoF than any other game I've ever had but that said I don't regret it, I've certainly wasted more on other questionable rubbish.

 

All this misty eyed reminiscing got me thinking about BoS, no doubt it will follow the same trajectory as RoF.  Given that some aspects of a game require extra work on the developers part, aren't universally used and are possibly icing on the cake rather than essential would it be fair for the developers to charge more, remembering that while the whole package might have been expensive no one part of RoF was what I might have called "You must be taking the p*ss" (why do we add stars for certain words, it's not as if we don't know what's being said ?).

 

Two possible purchase packages that brought this brain fart into existence are an FFB package and a VR component.  FFB isn't universally used, I think we all like the idea, developers included, but with few FFB products available it must be increasingly considered extra effort for little gain, However a small extra charge for the extra effort to give FFB some proper thought and implementation, rather than five minutes(if there's time and someone is interested) might be in order, might it not  ?  The other possible package, VR,  might eventually become the default method of playing games, but while it isn't and it requires the developers to put extra effort and resources into implementing it, properly, to it's maximum potential possibly for only, at first, a limited section of it's user base,  would it be unreasonable to, again, have a small charge ?

Edited January 20, 2014 by HagarTheHorrible

[uhoney]

I have never liked micro payments. It just feels wrong. Sure it helps the devs get more cash, but atleast for me, it just puts me off from the game. Sadly it seems to be the trend these days..

[Wombat]

 I didn't like buying games online but now I don't mind. As people say it's seems to be the way of doing business in the future (like paying bills online).

[Bando]

I'm all for it. You get what you pay for. If the basic game allows anyone to fly as they want and the "extra's" give you the sim you want, it's ok.

Also it allows for people to support the sim.

I have everything and all they threw at me in ROF. I don't fly 80% of all the ac in my hangar.

But a tiny bit of this kind of support helped make the devs creating this sim, this forum and this discussion.

I don't mind throwing money to something I love to do. Going out with the misses costs me a lot more, so to speak.

[reddog=11blueleader*]

I'm all for it to a point. I like the way ROF makes their extra cash flow. Lets face it, it takes money to develope games and to keep adding extra nice things to the game. I love BOS and I have high expectations for sim in the years to come. This is why I became one of the founders.

[unreasonable]

Paying for add-ons provides developers a motive for providing new content.  In terms of value per hour of entertainment, RoF is still one of my best gaming buys even after buying all the bits and pieces.

 

On the other hand, the longer developers see potential for cash flow from a product continuing, the less they will co-operate with modders who might provide content for free: it is a delicate symbiosis.   While there have been a lot of very good games, those which have achieved greatness as SP games (imho) have all achieved this through the efforts of a strong modding community (IL-2, for example, or SPWW2),  which the MP community mistrusts, due to the fear of cheating.

[ph1317]

I like to buy things in bigger groups, the way IL2 worked.

 

I wouldn't like to buy individual planes or maps.

Such buying would make online gaming difficult when you'd never know if you can play some mission or not - unless you've bought everything.

When content is sold in bigger packages it's easy to mention that some mission requires game expansions X & Y.

[Rama]

On the other hand, the longer developers see potential for cash flow from a product continuing, the less they will co-operate with modders who might provide content for free

I disagree. Either with RoF and BoS, the dev cooperated with third-parties (working for free) even before the game release. The dev will allways take what you give for free if it's good enough to help the game being better and make it more attractive.

The problem is more that some modders don't want to "co-operate". They want to have tools to include their content in-game without co-operation with the devs. Co-operating with the dev include accepting some kind of quality control, and that makes the difference between co-operative modders and non co-operative modders.

 

While there have been a lot of very good games, those which have achieved greatness as SP games (imho) have all achieved this through the efforts of a strong modding community (IL-2, for example, or SPWW2),  which the MP community mistrusts, due to the fear of cheating.

 

IL-2 had somme third-party content (even a lot of), long before open-modding started. There isn't a problem to trust the work of the modding community as long they cooperate with the dev.... most of the players don't even know some of the stuff they're playing with is made partially or totally by third parties.

[unreasonable]

Yes, up to a point, the developers have an interest in ensuring that quality is maintained, and this is good.  But this is obviously not the only reason devs want to keep control: otherwise AI, DM and FM modding would have been supported as well instead of being obstructed.  The early mod input you are referring to I suppose includes stuff like some cockpits, Kiev map and so on.  These are all essentially cosmetic add ons rather than developments to the core game itself which modders cannot "give for free" if they do not have the tools. 

 

Anyone with a passing interest in WW1 aviation, for example, could see that despite being a great simulation of WW1 era flight, RoF on release was in no shape or form a simulation of WW1 combat even in the limited case of a one-one fight.  Recent damage and rate of fire mods have made great improvements, but the AI and mission building within the SP campaign still need significant changes if they are to "simulate" the air battle.  (I can justify this assertion if you want but it would take up to much space!)  In an open source type game these issues would have been fixed long ago.

 

I am not trying to make some sort of moral point here: the fact is that the interests of SP and MP customers overlap but are not the same and in some areas are in outright conflict, and the devs somehow have to balance the differences with their own commercial goals.  With flight sims it seems to me that the MP customer gets priority early, as we have just seen with the pre-sets decision, but if the game is opened up enough the SP customer gets huge benefits later.

[Rama]

Yes, up to a point, the developers have an interest in ensuring that quality is maintained, and this is good.  But this is obviously not the only reason devs want to keep control: otherwise AI, DM and FM modding would have been supported as well instead of being obstructed.  The early mod input you are referring to I suppose includes stuff like some cockpits, Kiev map and so on.  These are all essentially cosmetic add ons rather than developments to the core game itself which modders cannot "give for free" if they do not have the tools. 

What you call "cosmetic" is what I call "very important and the main areas were the modders can help the dev to make the game better, and the only were they can add a lot of matter that can't be done by the devs (because lack of time).

In my point of view, the day FM, DM or AI (to a lesser extent for AI) enters modders hands.... the game is dead (and time for me to free my DD of it).

DM and DM needs to be centralized and done in the same philosophy. When "free-modding" put the hand on it, it becomes a concurent works (as many FMs and DMs as concurent teams) and a game balkanization issue.

 

In an open source type game these issues would have been fixed long ago.

In my point of view, I'll say "these issues would have been messed long ago"... with quasi-religious fights between FMs and FMs chappels...

 

I am not trying to make some sort of moral point here: the fact is that the interests of SP and MP customers overlap but are not the same and in some areas are in outright conflict, and the devs somehow have to balance the differences with their own commercial goals.  With flight sims it seems to me that the MP customer gets priority early, as we have just seen with the pre-sets decision, but if the game is opened up enough the SP customer gets huge benefits later.

I'm not making a moral point of course. I just say modding is not only possible, but also helping game development and could be done very early, with co-operative modders (which are usually not interested anyway in core features like FMs and DMs).

"Free modders" don't want to co-operate. They want a lego kit, that they can use to build easilly the game corresponding to their own vision (more easilly than if they had to build the game from scratch... something which isn't doable by amateurs, that's why developped games are free modders targets). In fact for the extreme free modder (not saying all are alike), the best game is a fully released dead one... then there's no competitions with the vanished dev.

Some SP customers may get benefit from this... as long their own game vision correspond to the free modder vision.... but others don't.

 

BTW, I also disagree with "MP customer gets priority early, as we have just seen with the pre-sets decision" In order to say that the MP customer got the priority, you have to wait for the release and make the full balance of all the features. Then only you'll see if the MP players or the SP players got the priority.

For what I've seen so far, with the unlock system and the SP career to come, I have more the impression that SP players got the priority (but this is only one impression, there can be a lot of change between now and the release).

[unreasonable]

The whole point about SP is that you do not have to do what the developer wants you to do all the time: what is your balkanization is my freedom of choice.  Balkanization is only a problem for people who want to ensure multiplayer fairness.  Anyone who wishes to avoid the admittedly fanatical mod-pack wars can do so by sticking to the vanilla product. 

 

In SP some people want quick action, combat every sortie, others want a real possibility that they will fly for an hour and not see an enemy aircraft.  Some people, bless them, think vanilla RoF flak is ineffective, others think it is absurdly over effective.  Discussing, researching and tinkering with these parameters is part of the hobby. 

 

As you say we will have to see.  (Though not sure about the "unlock" system. Sounds a bit like leveling-up to me, or getting the magic Sword of the Slayer when you kill a particular dragon: although I still maintain that the best add-on for RoF to generate extra sales would have been a dragon rider fantasy map  ).

[FuriousMeow]

There are people paying $200+ dollars for a single ship in Star Citizen that they can't use yet, and may never be able to - because they could just take the money and run.

 

Many in this WWII air combat genre, which is much much smaller than sci-fi, can't throw out $90 for 8 planes, because they have so many other options out there, and yet expect a full recreation of the entire environment while the above individuals will just be happy to fly in space that can't be fully replicated because the science is still evolving (new planest and stars being found that don't meet what is expected and etc).

 

So, I do say we pay more - because then you can actually fund what you want.

 

$36 million for Star Citizen.

 

$shamefully disappointing number of dollars for a WWII air combat simulator.

[HagarTheHorrible]

I think we're drifting a little.

 

I appreciate the topic has lots of potential detours however my main point, which I possibly didn't make clear enough in the OP is bonus features that might not be relevant to everyone or might be considered icing on the cake rather than a core feature.  The two subjects that I chose as examples, FFB and VR, both fit this category.  I love FFB and I'm sure most flight simmers feel the same, however it has to be recognized that the development work for this feature must be playing to an increasingly small crowd because of the lack of good, new joysticks or anything being developed by hardware manufactures for the future.  If we want the developers to give FFB some serious thought, rather than as a nod to legacy hardware devices maybe we need to realize  that that might mean financial support for it as a feature.  Again, with the VR, it might not take off for any number of reasons, but that said it could still be of interest to a section of the community.  Catering to that and putting in special optimization work or features might also require more work, to really get it working to it's absolute best rather than "There you go, it works in game, it could be better but we don't really have the time or resources to devote to doing anything more".  Would it be a stretch to see these modules as extras that might require extra financing to fully integrate ?

[Rama]

Balkanization is only a problem for people who want to ensure multiplayer fairness.

You're right. And it's important to me. Balkanization kills MP, and whatever SP content, a flight simulation without good an trustable MP is dead for MP players.

 

Anyone who wishes to avoid the admittedly fanatical mod-pack wars can do so by sticking to the vanilla product. 

You know it doesn't work that way. Once the worm is in the Fruit, nobody will bite it.

 

And moreover, there's so much to do for modders wanting to cooperate with dev. (and it also gives so much so SP players), why should it be an obligation to kill MP, just to satisfy a very few "free modders" wanting to play with FMs?

[FlatSpinMan]

Does anyone actually make FFB sticks anymore?

[CCG_Pips]

Does anyone actually make FFB sticks anymore?

 

No, or so few but a lot of simmers are still using MS FFB2 and for those peoples it is important to have a good FFB in the game (as well as ROF)

Edited January 21, 2014 by C6_Pips

[Camille88]

I Love WW2 planes and the idea of BOS. For me there is no problem paying 10-20 Dollars for one Plane. But it must be done real well.

[Jaws2002]

  I had no problem paying for all planes and bunch of stuff in ROF as it they were released.  I preordered BOS with the same mindset, but, based on the recent experience, I'll get only what I think is worth it, and after it's been released and tested.

 Honestly, I'm not a fan of quite a few decisions in the last couple of months.

[Bearcat]

"You're 'avin a laugh, right ? " 

 

Yeh, probably.     ( I think I must be losing it, I appear to be having a conversation with myself)

 

RoF introduced the idea of in-game purchases to combat flight sims, it wasn't compulsory, but if you wanted to fly certain aircraft or have various bells or whistles then you had to cough up with the cash.  It might have seemed controversial, it might still be, but if we are honest it's not something that MS flight simulator hadn't been doing for years, if in their case it was third parties doing the extras. The prices in RoF, at least for me, were very reasonable with a gradual accumulation of assets, as and when, and with regular sales helping to ease the burden.  Looking back, I spent a lot more on RoF than any other game I've ever had but that said I don't regret it, I've certainly wasted more on other questionable rubbish.

 

All this misty eyed reminiscing got me thinking about BoS, no doubt it will follow the same trajectory as RoF.  Given that some aspects of a game require extra work on the developers part, aren't universally used and are possibly icing on the cake rather than essential would it be fair for the developers to charge more, remembering that while the whole package might have been expensive no one part of RoF was what I might have called "You must be taking the p*ss" (why do we add stars for certain words, it's not as if we don't know what's being said ?).

 

Two possible purchase packages that brought this brain fart into existence are an FFB package and a VR component.  FFB isn't universally used, I think we all like the idea, developers included, but with few FFB products available it must be increasingly considered extra effort for little gain, However a small extra charge for the extra effort to give FFB some proper thought and implementation, rather than five minutes(if there's time and someone is interested) might be in order, might it not  ?  The other possible package, VR,  might eventually become the default method of playing games, but while it isn't and it requires the developers to put extra effort and resources into implementing it, properly, to it's maximum potential possibly for only, at first, a limited section of it's user base,  would it be unreasonable to, again, have a small charge ?

 

As a FFB user.. I have to say ...   to that one... and i have no plans to get an OR but.. to that one I also say .. .. Things like that should be built into the game.. As far as aircraft go .. yeah I hear ya.. MS was selling warbirds at $30 a pop at one time.. and you couldn't even shoot anything down with them.. they were for MSFS.. I like the RoF model.. and I would have no problem with it if that was the way they went but they already said that will not be the way it will go that it will be a modified RoF kind of format.. so I am thinking a little more $$$ with more than one aircraft an d maybe a map or something like that .. we will surely see.

 

I have never liked micro payments. It just feels wrong. Sure it helps the devs get more cash, but atleast for me, it just puts me off from the game. Sadly it seems to be the trend these days..

 

I didn't either at first .. but I like the way it is done in RoF. Every new plane that comes out gets added to yoru PC .. so you can make missions or fly in  missions with all the planes.. even online.. you just can't fly every plane unless you buy it..

 

I'm all for it. You get what you pay for. If the basic game allows anyone to fly as they want and the "extra's" give you the sim you want, it's ok.

Also it allows for people to support the sim.

I have everything and all they threw at me in ROF. I don't fly 80% of all the ac in my hangar.

But a tiny bit of this kind of support helped make the devs creating this sim, this forum and this discussion.

I don't mind throwing money to something I love to do. Going out with the misses costs me a lot more, so to speak.

 

+1

 

You're right. And it's important to me. Balkanization kills MP, and whatever SP content, a flight simulation without good an trustable MP is dead for MP players.

 

You know it doesn't work that way. Once the worm is in the Fruit, nobody will bite it.

 

And moreover, there's so much to do for modders wanting to cooperate with dev. (and it also gives so much so SP players), why should it be an obligation to kill MP, just to satisfy a very few "free modders" wanting to play with FMs?

 

.. IMO at least for IL246.. the whole mod issue is moot.. I think that HSFX has become the defacto standard with the SAS MOD ACT running second .. and the free modders can do their thing as well.. but for online HSFX is a trusted mod pack and it is a blast.

 

No, or so few but a lot of simmers are still using MS FFB2 and for those peoples it is important to have a good FFB in the game (as well as ROF)

 

.. yeah especially since it is built like a friggin tank. I still have my original FFB stick from 2001.

[Jason_Williams]

This thread does not add anything to the overall discussion. 

 

 

Jason