Some constructive criticism on the business model

[Bearcat]

Monthly sub is fine for some games but you have to be careful when you mix box sims with online ones. 

 

Personally, I like the model that ROF uses now.  You can buy the planes you want to fly and ignore the ones that don't interest you.  I have bought quite a few games in ROF but some, like the seaplanes flat out don't interest me.  I don't have to feel compelled to buy them.  If I change my mind later, then I will get them.  I think it works out well and if you buy a  half a dozen planes a year you pretty much are doing the same thing.

 

I think you mean planes in RoF right Tom? Yeah I am right there with you.. I now own every single seat fighter in RoF but truth be told the Spads are the only ones I fly.. I don't like the Neiuports or the Camels.. and I rarely fly German planes but I bought them to support the sim.. I actually don't even fly RoF much at all and have yet to get online with it..

 

A monthly fee for something like a flightsim would be a really bad idea imho. Not sure about everyone else, but i highly doubt that everyone here has time to regularly play a flightsim like this. I sure don't and wouldn't pay a monthly fee.

 

The ROF model would fine, if they would use that. And this preorder offer is excellent, no idea why people are complaining about it. It's between 6 and 9 € for each plane and you'll get early access. Not sure what people were expecting. Asking for years to get a new high quality flightsim and then not willing to pay anything.

 

Regarding the two "bonus" planes, not sure about the impact of the 190 (i think the 109 will do good enough against the Soviet planes anyhow and there's hope that the server which will claim to be historical or realistic leave it out), but the La-5 (it's not the F or FN, or is it...) shouldn't cause too many headaches and even if it would, it's a historical plane for the BOS, no reason to not have it, regardless of its performance.

Precisely why I don't like it.. I would rather pay for more content outright.. than to pay a monthly sub fee for something that I only on average have about 6 hours a week to engage in. The RoF model is great and I know they said it would be "similar" but I can't imagine it being too divergent.. and considering the target and the goal it may even be a better model based on the experience they gained with the RoF one.. That seems to be the way this is going.. Building up from a solid foundation..

[von_Tom]

 

But would you pay £5 a month for 24 hours of enjoyment? What if the game were free? It's a question of value. Like others I have spent over £100 on IL2 versions. The value I have had is immeasurable and certainly more than £100 per year.

 

Knowing what we know now about the longevity of IL2, how much would you have paid per month?

 

This is all subjective of course. For quality content and ongoing development a pay monthly model is not extraordinary or necessarily a BAD THING. After all, I've preordered the premium version and at £30 plus £5 per month that would be 6 months game time. Then possibly another theatre or additional aircraft with just the ongoing monthly commitment.

 

Just my viewpoint.

 

Hood

[TheBlackPenguin]

I think the current model is the best blend imho. Don't forget we will also get a gift feature, just like in ROF, so its not outside the realm of all possibilities that the less well off will receive the plane set they need as gifts from squad mates, friends, or even competitions.

[Pupo]

 to the "i pay 200$ to go to the gym" people:

 

I, YOU, and a good portion of this forum would pay 200 euros for this game. WE know the hard work envolved, and WE love ww2 simming. I may not agree with the price range (the premium vs standard price jump seems a bit silly), but i will spend the 90 bucks happely. The thing is, i have a lot of friends who are gamers, maybe 5 or 6, everytime one of us comes in TS and says, hey, i just played this really great game, buy it!, we do. in the past we have convinced each other to play BF2 ( project reality mod), BF3, il2 1946, ARMA . Each of this games were bought by 20-40 dollars tops. what i mean is, there is no way i can bring in this crowd if  this game was priced at 200$.

 

It's how the market goes. you need to find a sweet spot for the price the most people are willing to pay. Remember, me paying 200$ brings less income than the 6 of us paying for 40$.

 

also  none of us is really a premium-stuff  fan, we all felt a bit ripped by the BF3 premium deal, only one uf us actually got it himself, and 2 others (including me ) got it as a joint birthday gift. So, those friends of mine, are out, simply because of the premium planes for 40$ deal. :/

Edited July 31, 2013 by Pupo

[=RvE=Windmills]

 to the "i pay 200$ to go to the gym" people:

 

I, YOU, and a good portion of this forum would pay 200 euros for this game. WE know the hard work envolved, and WE love ww2 simming. I may not agree with the price range (the premium vs standard price jump seems a bit silly), but i will spend the 90 bucks happely. The thing is, i have a lot of friends who are gamers, maybe 5 or 6, everytime one of us comes in TS and says, hey, i just played this really great game, buy it!, we do. in the past we have convinced each other to play BF2 ( project reality mod), BF3, il2 1946, ARMA . Each of this games were bought by 20-40 dollars tops. what i mean is, there is no way i can bring in this crowd if  this game was priced at 200$.

 

It's how the market goes. you need to find a sweet spot for the price the most people are willing to pay. Remember, me paying 200$ brings less income than the 6 of us paying for 40$.

 

also  none of us is really a premium-stuff  fan, we all felt a bit ripped by the BF3 premium deal, only one uf us actually got it himself, and 2 others (including me ) got it as a joint birthday gift. So, those friends of mine, are out, simply because of the premium planes for 40$ deal. :/

 

 

Pretty much this, and it's understandable a lot of people don't seem to grasp how hard it is to attract non-hardcore sim fanatics to play something like this.

 

There are actually a LOT of people who are looking for deeper, realistic experiences. And WW2 air combat appeals to a huge amount of people to begin with. I will buy it and a friend will, but I know at least 10 people I could convince to get it if the entry level was lower. But 50+ extra planes, or 90 Dollars outright just makes it unlikely for these people to ever try it out at all.

[leitmotiv]

If game shows up to be good and to what you expect from it during your alfa and beta testing, i hope youll have no problem convincing them to buy it later when it comes out as finished product.

Edited July 31, 2013 by Yaklover

[Bearcat]

Also consider .. There are people who for various reasons some financial and some just because would never dream of spending more that the bare minimum to engage in something like this as far as hardware goes while others will invest hundreds.. I am curious to see what the final cost will be but. Inside ring that the cost for the silver pre order is what I paid for IL2 in 2002 and the gold pre order is basically that plus $40 which in my mind works out to $20 a plane.. It seems fair . That all this will cost less 3 years from now is a given so I know what I am hoping to get for my money and based on what I have seen I am reasonably confident I will get what I paid for.

[Capt_Stubing]

Some might forget that the model of charging 40 dollars for a full blown combat flight sim modeling multiple aircraft and theaters is a thing of the past.  AAA games are fetching 60-80 dollars now with extra add-ons and of course premium content.  The difference with AAA games is they appeal to a much broader audience than a WWII combat flight sim crowd.  While it seems that there are “a lot” of people interested the numbers are quite small in comparison.

I would gladly pay more for my beloved hobby than the typical shooter though I can understand the fear of paying for a competitive advantage.  In reality I haven’t seen the shift of balance go to the person that pays more. 

 

 

Just keep in mind IL2 will never sell like a AAA shooter.

 

Capt.Stubing

 

 

[Feuerfalke]

And even shooters don't work like that any longer.

 

When the new Ghostbusters game was stopped, the developers stated, that they had to stop it just because the engine was too expensive to develop for a single game. And they simply didn't expect to sell a Ghostbusters 2. Even with an AAA-Title a single release doesn't cover all the costs that go into a new engine.

 

That is why there is so little difference between all the CoD-Titles or Crysis or Battlefield or MoH.

It's simply one basic engine developed further as needed.

 

That's also why CoD and many other titles like that use Season-Legacies and Premium-DLC to get double the money for extremely little extra content.

 

And the same problem applies for a flightsim, of course. Just that you don't have the luxury to release a game-version now with 12 planes and 2 years later an incompatible version with another 12 planes, which look and fly the same, but have different skins.

 

 

So IMHO the business model from RoF is not plain wrong. But as every other business-model it has its pros and cons.

Edited July 31, 2013 by Feuerfalke

[Panzerlang]

It's worked well for RoF, with the caveat that there were never enough devs to get planes out fast enough. The channel-map debacle was a self-inflicted bullet in the foot.

 

Hopefully this time they'll sell bucket-loads more content, be able to retain a larger number of devs and get new content out lickity-split.

[DD_Arthur]

 The channel-map debacle was a self-inflicted bullet in the foot.

 

 

 

The channel map was a debacle? I don't remember that. I pre-ordered the channel map and the planes to fly on it. They arrived on schedule just as the team promised.  Job done.

[ACG_Suardi]

We are paying more in the premium version to have earlier access to the game, not for 2 other planes only... simple like that...

It's hard to do this type of work this guys are doing, we need to help... until now they are deserving my money and I just have to be thankful for them.

[Panzerlang]

The channel map was a debacle? I don't remember that. I pre-ordered the channel map and the planes to fly on it. They arrived on schedule just as the team promised.  Job done.

 

Well, in terms of the use it ever saw, most notably MP. It seems a huge use of resources was devoted to something that didn't make a very big bang for the buck. I bought it and I think I've flown two or three skirmishes over it (quick missions or whatever they're called). How many new planes could have been made instead?

[DD_Arthur]

Well, in terms of the use it ever saw, most notably MP. It seems a huge use of resources was devoted to something that didn't make a very big bang for the buck. I bought it and I think I've flown two or three skirmishes over it (quick missions or whatever they're called). How many new planes could have been made instead?

 

I flew it in multiplayer last night.  I'm also flying it in an excellent user made campaign called The Spider's Web and I'm just about to start on an RFC home defence career using it too. If you make a WWI combat flight sim then it's an important area of the western front that must be covered.  It also gave the team invaluable experience in building maps involving large bodies of water.  I have a feeling that will come in handy.   

[migmadmarine]

And a bunch of my favorite careers have been over the channel...

[TheBlackPenguin]

Well, in terms of the use it ever saw, most notably MP. It seems a huge use of resources was devoted to something that didn't make a very big bang for the buck. I bought it and I think I've flown two or three skirmishes over it (quick missions or whatever they're called). How many new planes could have been made instead?

 

I fly mainly off-line and prefer the Channel Map over the original.

[Bearcat]

We are paying more in the premium version to have earlier access to the game, not for 2 other planes only... simple like that...

 

It's hard to do this type of work this guys are doing, we need to help... until now they are deserving my money and I just have to be thankful for them.

 

I agree.. earlier access and two planes.. That's what I am paying for..

 

I have very little doubt that the sim will be decent upon release.. I just want to get my mits on it as soon as possible.. While the possibility exists that there may be problems in my mind it is highly unlikely.. I think the team had a good idea of where they were going with this and how they would get there from the moment they started making public statements.. I think they weighed the cost in time and resources and came up with what they told us as a plan and we are seeing that plan unfold before our eyes.

[SvAF/F16_Goblin]

Important to remember is that (AFAIK) the sim isn't complete when we get the early access. All planes are 
not there and everything might not be in cause the release is in Q2 14 which in all reality makes this a Beta.

 

We might however have the opportunity to iron out small bugs and anything amiss in the sim before release.

 

However unlikely, but we must take it in to consideration, is the fact that we could be disappointed.

 

I still support it because I want 777 and 1CGS to succeed but I'm aware that it might not. Simply put I'm a realist 

[=BKHZ=Furbs]

Important to remember is that (AFAIK) the sim isn't complete when we get the early access. All planes are 

not there and everything might not be in cause the release is in Q2 14 which in all reality makes this a Beta.

 

We might however have the opportunity to iron out small bugs and anything amiss in the sim before release.

 

However unlikely, but we must take it in to consideration, is the fact that we could be disappointed.

 

I still support it because I want 777 and 1CGS to succeed but I'm aware that it might not. Simply put I'm a realist 

 

Yep it was a detail that could of been missed, the early early beta might not have the whole plane set ready.

Im sure the devs will try their best but people shouldn't get their knickers in a twist if all 8 are not ready.

[Panzerlang]

I flew it in multiplayer last night.  I'm also flying it in an excellent user made campaign called The Spider's Web and I'm just about to start on an RFC home defence career using it too. If you make a WWI combat flight sim then it's an important area of the western front that must be covered.  It also gave the team invaluable experience in building maps involving large bodies of water.  I have a feeling that will come in handy.   

 

 

And a bunch of my favorite careers have been over the channel...

 

 

I fly mainly off-line and prefer the Channel Map over the original.

 

I'm sure there are a bunch of people using it as you are. The question is, how many? MP is the visible milestone and MP is practically dead. I'm sure its increased deadness since the channel map is a coincidence but one can certainly say the channel map didn't infuse MP with new life.

It was my opinion at the time, and remains so, that critical planes were vastly more important than an obscure map that has made no discernable splash (haha, geddit...?  ).

 

I just hope they don't do something similarly DA with BoS, like giving us a North Afrika map while everyone is clamouring for a Ju88 and La7 (for instance).

[=RvE=Windmills]

So what, RoF mp is dead?

[migmadmarine]

But you have to remember, the number of MP players is probably around or less then half of those who use rise of flight. They are merely the ones that it is easy to look at. 

[Panzerlang]

But you have to remember, the number of MP players is probably around or less then half of those who use rise of flight. They are merely the ones that it is easy to look at. 

 

Wut?! There are probably thousands who play SP, vs a couple of hundred (I'm being very charitable) who play MP.

[Freycinet]

It seems to me that a lot of posters imply that it is a problem that 1C/777 are not getting hold of all the people who will only pay next to nothing to play this sim. But, honestly, what is the interest for the developers of getting hold of the multitudes that don't want to pay? The developers need to earn money, after all... 

[vyyye]

It seems to me that a lot of posters imply that it is a problem that 1C/777 are not getting hold of all the people who will only pay next to nothing to play this sim. But, honestly, what is the interest for the developers of getting hold of the multitudes that don't want to pay? The developers need to earn money, after all... 

Why would you want a piece of the market that happily pays for games using conventional business models? I see no logic in that whatsoever!

[LukeFF]

Yes, and I pay about 45$ monthly for unlimited gym access. So this makes 90$ for BoS a fair price based on...what exactly? We can go on to even more examples, the most absurd one wins a cookie.

 

Absurd? No. I'm just giving an example of what sort of money I pay for other forms of entertainment. 90 bucks for unlimited use of a flight sim is very, very cheap. 

[LuftManu]

Absurd? No. I'm just giving an example of what sort of money I pay for other forms of entertainment. 90 bucks for unlimited use of a flight sim is very, very cheap. 

 

That can provide you about tons and tons of hours of fun.   right on the spot mate. I bought some Fps games, shooters and I get bored after ¿10 Hours? and they cost nearly the premium. You can play a Sim 1000 hours whit all of the Community content that will be Endlesly fun!

Edited August 1, 2013 by .-RDS-.Manu_vc

[76SQN-J0NJ0N]

Yes, and I pay about 45$ monthly for unlimited gym access. So this makes 90$ for BoS a fair price based on...what exactly? We can go on to even more examples, the most absurd one wins a cookie.

 

It costs the UK government somewhere in the region of £40,000,000 to produce a Eurofighter Typhoon, and they still have subscription fees (fuel, maintenance, ordnance costs, pilot + ground crew salaries etc). Makes $90 seem pretty cheap to me.  

[Mac_Messer]

They have to prove ? a company doesn't have to prove anything....They will offer a product that customers will evaluate

based on what they need and what the competition has to offer. And it is the company's decision to aim at what ever market

they want. Then the company will decide how much they will sell their product based on development costs and such....and how much their clientele is willing to pay for that kind of product.

In the end, if you don't like the game, or find it to expensive, don't buy it. just like you would do for a car or a toaster...

Imagine this forum as a BMW forum: yeah, I want this and that, plus this and that and better be as good as this and that or it will be crap and I won't buy it cause my previous car was a lemon but make it for the same price as a Kia , cause here we compare cars with cars so it should be around $15000. But please don't give us another Kia, it is crap....

If you want BS yourself by pouring money on dev team that hasn`t shown a good WWII flightsim yet, by all means go ahead. That said, being shocked that not everyone is willing to do the same until they actually see and play something they pay for, is something only a zealot would do.

 

Comparing a computer application to a car is another form saying you do not understand the difference.

Edited August 1, 2013 by Mac_Messer

[Mac_Messer]

Absurd? No. I'm just giving an example of what sort of money I pay for other forms of entertainment. 90 bucks for unlimited use of a flight sim is very, very cheap. 

Given what have they been doing with RoF, you`ll probably have to pay that multiple times. Hell, if you want, I`m sure you could just pay them an equivalent of 150$ for the same package. Does not nearly mean than anyone else besides you wants to do the same thing, moreover, based alone on faith so far.

[6./ZG26_Emil]

But would you pay £5 a month for 24 hours of enjoyment? What if the game were free? It's a question of value. Like others I have spent over £100 on IL2 versions. The value I have had is immeasurable and certainly more than £100 per year.

 

Knowing what we know now about the longevity of IL2, how much would you have paid per month?

 

This is all subjective of course. For quality content and ongoing development a pay monthly model is not extraordinary or necessarily a BAD THING. After all, I've preordered the premium version and at £30 plus £5 per month that would be 6 months game time. Then possibly another theatre or additional aircraft with just the ongoing monthly commitment.

 

Just my viewpoint.

 

Hood

 

No way would I pay per month. I can't tell you why but the whole idea just doesn't feel right for me. I'd rather pay a lot more for the game and addon packs. I think the way it looks like they're going to do it is perfect. Map & A/c packs rather than individual planes or modes/upgrades.

[6./ZG26_Emil]

Given what have they been doing with RoF, you`ll probably have to pay that multiple times. Hell, if you want, I`m sure you could just pay them an equivalent of 150$ for the same package. Does not nearly mean than anyone else besides you wants to do the same thing, moreover, based alone on faith so far.

 

Funny how Xbox players pay way more that 50 bucks for a game that has a fraction of the work put in to it though?

 

$150 for two or three year's entertainment is nothing...try something like eve online and you will pay way more than that

[Mac_Messer]

Funny how Xbox players pay way more that 50 bucks for a game that has a fraction of the work put in to it though?

 

$150 for two or three year's entertainment is nothing...try something like eve online and you will pay way more than that

If I knew for certain that 150$ is for two or three years of it then I wouldn`t really wait.

 

XboX players actually pay real money to be able to play online. Treating them like example is not really good for a thinking consumer.

[Dutch]

Daft conversation. The developers are doing what they love to do, but have to make money whilst they're at it. If you're a lover of combat flight sims, you'll buy it. If you have a passing interest in the VVS or LW and the second world war you'll buy it. If you love World of Warcraft, you might buy it, if the reviews are raving enough.

 

I'm quite sure that these people know their fundamental customer base, so they'll gear their 'business model' to taking as much $ as they can, as soon as they can. Rightly so. But they'll also have their eye on attracting new users, new customers, new markets. How else would their business survive in the future?

 

If you want it, buy it. If you don't want it, don't buy it. But complaining about 'the business model' at this stage is totally self defeating. We don't know what it is yet. Why waste your typing energy?

 

Maybe I should take my own advice.

Edited August 1, 2013 by Dutch

[6./ZG26_Emil]

If I knew for certain that 150$ is for two or three years of it then I wouldn`t really wait.

 

XboX players actually pay real money to be able to play online. Treating them like example is not really good for a thinking consumer.

 

Xbox players pay real money for rubbish too. If you aren't sure then don't buy

[MadTommy]

Guys,

 

Understand your point, but the term full game is a loaded term and subjective. It's not the same business model as ROF and it's not the same as past simulations which were grossly under priced (in my opinion) for how much they cost to develop and the genre's pricing didn't keep up with inflation. Compare what we are doing to what DCS is doing or what you pay for quality add-ons in FSX and BOS seems like a bargain in my book. Every plane included is about $10 give or take. That seems fair to us. We hope to focus on theaters with this product instead of individual planes, but there may be some exceptions if we want to add a plane or two to an existing theater.

 

The LA-5 and FW-190 are considered bonus planes as they played a very minor role in the Stalingrad theater, but we thought some would want them anyways.

 

Jason 

 

Give me a single plane at the fidelity of the full DCS aircraft and you can have a blank cheque from me... until that time you cannot compare any 777 airframe to DCS.  

 

I own 80% of the RoF planes, there is no comparison, and from what i have read around here that wont change with BoS, Only proof will change that, not pre release words.  

 

I have no problem with lower fidelity simulations, but you can't compare apples and oranges. As nice as they might both be

[FuriousMeow]

More like oranges to clementines. Same flavor, some like one better than the other. One has clickable features that require another device to touch them with a high fidelity FM but only one of them for $50, the other has a slightly more basic engine management with a high fidelity FM with 6 to 8 of them for $50 to $90.

 

Of course RoF is simpler, it's WWI. The rotaries didn't even have real throttles!

[Dutch]

Give me a single plane at the fidelity of the full DCS aircraft and you can have a blank cheque from me... 

 

Tommy, you've been at the guinness again.

Edited August 1, 2013 by Dutch

[6./ZG26_Emil]

Give me a single plane at the fidelity of the full DCS aircraft and you can have a blank cheque from me... until that time you cannot compare any 777 airframe to DCS.  

 

I own 80% of the RoF planes, there is no comparison, and from what i have read around here that wont change with BoS, Only proof will change that, not pre release words.  

 

I have no problem with lower fidelity simulations, but you can't compare apples and oranges. As nice as they might both be

 

Correct me if I am wrong but aren't the P-51 pilots in DCS flying round just shooting down other P-51s and on a desert map?

[Dutch]

Correct me if I am wrong but aren't the P-51 pilots in DCS flying round just shooting down other P-51s and on a desert map?

 

Not quite. It's pretty easy to set up a d/f with P-51s against AI FW190-Ds, but unfortunately, because of the politics of DCS, you're on the same side. NATO and all that. Bit weird, but at least you can unloose your .50cals on a dora. Even if he doesn't fight back. This could all be because of my inexperience with the DCS mission editor btw.