Some constructive criticism on the business model

[=BKHZ=Furbs]

How do you know it needs better marketing? are you privy to the sale numbers?

 

Seems to me they are doing pretty good, anyway we still have over 6 months until release, plenty of time to do extra marketing.

[vyyye]

How do you know it needs better marketing? are you privy to the sale numbers?

 

Seems to me they are doing pretty good, anyway we still have over 6 months until release, plenty of time to do extra marketing.

 

If I understood him right all he's saying is he believes it presently needs better (more, really) marketing to make pre-ordering a more rational consumer decision rather than a decision relying on hype and 777 history.

[FuriousMeow]

BoS is not RoF. Devs themselves have repeatedly stated this, but for some reason you ignore it. Get over that argument, the only thing it makes is you looking silly.

And how do you know I wasn`t going to preorder? You are being silly.

 

Yes, BoS is not RoF. One is WWI and the other will be WWII. Same engine though, just improved for BoS.

 

They have repeatedly stated that BoS is based on an improved DN engine, which is what RoF uses, and they have repeatedly stated if you want to get an idea of how BoS will be try out RoF.

Edited August 4, 2013 by FuriousMeow

[APIKalimba]

The problem with CloD was that it was broken at its core, from the start. If BoS is different, subtle changes can be surely made depending on user feedback.It seems you got me all wrong. I`m not your casual simmer type. I`ve been hyped for Stalingrad since I heard BoM was in the making. The problem is that as muc as I want to get the thing asap, I don`t feel like the devs have given me a reason to do so.In addition to what you`re saying, this one will not get a much bigger, dynamic following if it fails to provide a user friendly multiplayer environment.Getting personal with me will not change the fact that BoS needs better, more clever marketing.BoS is not RoF. Devs themselves have repeatedly stated this, but for some reason you ignore it. Get over that argument, the only thing it makes is you looking silly.And how do you know I wasn`t going to preorder? You are being silly.

hi Mac,

 

I think we can conclude that we agree on these issues :

 

1- What has been shown so far, and based on 777 reputation's and ROF success, is enough to convince some us to pre order BOS.

 

2- For others , it is not sufficient.

 

3- Good marketing is essential to get a broader clientele.

 

4- We all hope BOS will be a great sim.

 

5- Lots of hardcore simmers have been traumatized by the CLOD misadventure... :-)

 

6- it's fun to debate about things we don't really know about (yet) on this forum and speculate on BOS's future...

 

salute !

[Mac_Messer]

If I understood him right all he's saying is he believes it presently needs better (more, really) marketing to make pre-ordering a more rational consumer decision rather than a decision relying on hype and 777 history.

Well, not really. I mean that the quality of the marketing could be better. That said, I am not implying that BoS should attack me whenever I visit online. I`m not informed about the numbers, but I`m pretty sure the devs are not able to do what War Thunder/World of Tanks does. Those two titles hang around abou half of the sites I regulary visit and I`m pretty sure that is one of the biggest reasons they are so popular.

 

Don`t get me wrong, the pre-release trailer strikes me as particulary casual, it still is pretty good for such a game.

 

As there is still some time, BoS marketing should be changed to suit at least some of those people. How you ask?

 

Well, they could hint that the multiplayer component of the game will be as much fun as the two titles I mentioned. Not the same by any means, just same "amount" of fun. You can go on bragging all day about the sp crowd needing attention but you won`t change the fact that every of today`s game needs a strong mp component to be popular, especially when we  talk about an extended period of time.

As much as BoS devs want CloD to not even be mentioned in here parts, they should take what it had best to offer. Compared to RoF multiplayer which is pretty restricted and weak, especially for WWII standards. This alone has been proven by the old IL2:1946 which still hangs on its own.

So do we get a RoF multiplayer or IL2 : 1946 multiplayer? None of those? A mix you say? That is not enough, clear that up for the customers!

 

Another thing BoS devs should be talking about is CloD CEM. Even if that game sucked pretty much at everything else (besides FM/DM/graphics), talking about CloD CEM as context for BoS is much better than talking about RoF. Yes, DCS is also a good example but we don`t want a one plane manual training, we want a full blown Stalingrad campaign. Doing one plane to every inch of detail is great but it gets complicated when its counterpart is also human driven. I won`t even mention that WWI aircraft CEM is nothing like WWII aircraft CEM, unless ofcourse you`re trying to tell us that it will be as simple or closely simple. So maybe you need to clear this up also.

 

Two above points cannot be stressed enough when it comes to releasing a new WWII flight simulator. Yet again the two are still mostly unclear as two what 1CGS will provide us with. You want a casual user to judge BoS by RoF standards? That is counterproductive as both such features are pretty weak in this title. At the same time, you can`t forbid pontential BoS customers to compare it to CloD. Simply because CloD got some great features that should be in BoS. It would be even ok to imply that most of those advanced features will find their way into BoS at a later time. Just don`t try to imply that CloD never existed. It is there and as far as online goes, has similar following to RoF.

 

WWII air war is a much more ambitious project than WWI. Even though the devs seem to say they acknowledge and accept that, their doings so far are not indicative of this approach.

[FlatSpinMan]

This thread needs to stay like the last two posts - that is, avoiding histrionics and personal comments.

[Talisman]

I think it would be great to see BoS have a stand at some of the major air shows next year (in fact every year). Air shows would be a great way to raise awareness of the possibility of enjoying BoS both off-line and on-line against other people. Also, link a couple of computers up so that Dad can play son or brother play sister in a dog fight (on easy settings if need be). So many people are just not aware that there is an on-line dimension to a combat flight sim and that you can fly with/against other humans and even be part of a squad and community.

[Bearcat]

I guess the question really comes down to how many people do you want participating in BoS? Do you only care about yourself? Do you only care about yourself and your close friends? Do you only care about hardcore flight simmers? Do you want as many people as possible to participate (as long as the experience isn't compromised)?

 

Different people will answer different things. For my part, I think the last option is best. One of the things that made IL-2 so enjoyable was that so many people that weren't necessarily flight sim junkies were drawn into a really stellar product that was priced at a reasonable level. The fact that there were over a thousand people on hyperlobby for me to play with made for an incredible online experience. I will be VERY dissapointed if this game doesn't drum up enough support to see at least 500+ people online during peak hours.

 

I've posted this here and at SimHQ, so I won't reiterate again, but my basic stance is I'd like them to take a very normal approach to pricing so they don't scare off potential customers who might be interested in flight sims, but aren't ONLY flight simmers. $60 for the base game and then $30 for expansions is my suggestion. No weird buy-individual-planes-or-content schemes. Those models might work for Valve when they do it with a fanbase of milions of Steam users, but it doesn't work in a genre that has a fanbase that is likely measured in the single digit thousands.

 

I think the RoF model .. with modifications will work fine for BoS. The days of the model above that you state are done IMO anyway..

 

Yes, BoS is not RoF. One is WWI and the other will be WWII. Same engine though, just improved for BoS.

 

They have repeatedly stated that BoS is based on an improved DN engine, which is what RoF uses, and they have repeatedly stated if you want to get an idea of how BoS will be try out RoF.

 

I think that RoF's biggest drawback is that it is WWI. If flight simers are a niche then WWI is a niche within a niche.. but BoS will be a different animal.

 

Well, not really. I mean that the quality of the marketing could be better. That said, I am not implying that BoS should attack me whenever I visit online. I`m not informed about the numbers, but I`m pretty sure the devs are not able to do what War Thunder/World of Tanks does. Those two titles hang around abou half of the sites I regulary visit and I`m pretty sure that is one of the biggest reasons they are so popular.

 

Don`t get me wrong, the pre-release trailer strikes me as particulary casual, it still is pretty good for such a game.

 

As there is still some time, BoS marketing should be changed to suit at least some of those people. How you ask?

 

Well, they could hint that the multiplayer component of the game will be as much fun as the two titles I mentioned. Not the same by any means, just same "amount" of fun. You can go on bragging all day about the sp crowd needing attention but you won`t change the fact that every of today`s game needs a strong mp component to be popular, especially when we  talk about an extended period of time.

As much as BoS devs want CloD to not even be mentioned in here parts, they should take what it had best to offer. Compared to RoF multiplayer which is pretty restricted and weak, especially for WWII standards. This alone has been proven by the old IL2:1946 which still hangs on its own.

So do we get a RoF multiplayer or IL2 : 1946 multiplayer? None of those? A mix you say? That is not enough, clear that up for the customers!

 

Another thing BoS devs should be talking about is CloD CEM. Even if that game sucked pretty much at everything else (besides FM/DM/graphics), talking about CloD CEM as context for BoS is much better than talking about RoF. Yes, DCS is also a good example but we don`t want a one plane manual training, we want a full blown Stalingrad campaign. Doing one plane to every inch of detail is great but it gets complicated when its counterpart is also human driven. I won`t even mention that WWI aircraft CEM is nothing like WWII aircraft CEM, unless ofcourse you`re trying to tell us that it will be as simple or closely simple. So maybe you need to clear this up also.

 

Two above points cannot be stressed enough when it comes to releasing a new WWII flight simulator. Yet again the two are still mostly unclear as two what 1CGS will provide us with. You want a casual user to judge BoS by RoF standards? That is counterproductive as both such features are pretty weak in this title. At the same time, you can`t forbid pontential BoS customers to compare it to CloD. Simply because CloD got some great features that should be in BoS. It would be even ok to imply that most of those advanced features will find their way into BoS at a later time. Just don`t try to imply that CloD never existed. It is there and as far as online goes, has similar following to RoF.

 

WWII air war is a much more ambitious project than WWI. Even though the devs seem to say they acknowledge and accept that, their doings so far are not indicative of this approach.

 

Yes but from what we have read BoS will have CEM.. it may not be as advanced as CoD's .. I don't think we will know until we get it.. I think that once the pre orders are released and the reviews start to come in many fence sitters will hop off.. possibly you as well.. I fully understand the idea that no matter how many othners are convinced .. you and many others are not yet convinced.. and there is nothing at all wrong with that.

 

I think it would be great to see BoS have a stand at some of the major air shows next year (in fact every year). Air shows would be a great way to raise awareness of the possibility of enjoying BoS both off-line and on-line against other people. Also, link a couple of computers up so that Dad can play son or brother play sister in a dog fight (on easy settings if need be). So many people are just not aware that there is an on-line dimension to a combat flight sim and that you can fly with/against other humans and even be part of a squad and community.

 

I used to bring IL 2 with me to airshows at Andrews and the Udvar Hazey musem when the local TAI chapter would do events there.. It was always a blast..

 

[J2_Trupobaw]

At rist of adressing the original post rather than five pages of mostly on-topic content ...

Secondly, the type of planes that are part of the 90 dollar pack I find disturbing. Arguably the FW190 and the LA5 will be some of the most capable planes out there, and restricting them only for those who can/want to pay a premium price for their game (either on top of a full priced game, or for the cost of nearly 2 full price games) is an extremely bad idea. It effectively means that when you want to be competitive in the multiplayer you need these planes. Sure you 'can' still win with any other plane, but tell me with a straight face that you fly in Il2 online and you can do as well with a Yak1/LaGG35 as you can with an LA5.

 

 

 

Now the game looks great, and I'll probably still buy and play it. But how do I sell this idea to friends who still enjoy sim games, but aren't quite as hardcore about it? How can you expect anyone who isn't a hardcore simmer to jump on this? Pay full price for a game and you don't even get the best planes? While it might not be entirely appropriate, it has the distinct ugly smell of 'pay to win' hanging around it. Even giving the impression that a game is pay to win is murderous for its popularity, even if its free to play. And here we have a game that costs full price yet you're still going to have to invest extra to fly the 'best' ships around? You're new to the game, so there's already a skill gap, and then you have to deal with people better then you who fly around in superior craft? This is extremely harsh for new players.

[...]

Micro payments should be primarily reserved for content that doesn't give players significant edges versus those who don't use them. Any model that includes micro payments, should aim for these payments to not give these players significantly more capable items. With BoS, it clearly seems like this ideal won't be achieved.

[...]

So let's imagine I finally persuade a friend to buy the game and he wants to fly a 190 with me I have to tell him "Sorry, you need to pay extra for that". You guys realize what a joke that is right? If this is the model you're going with, I unfortunately wouldn't dream of recommending it to any friends, because I know it will dissapoint them eventually due to the need to keep investing in it.

 

 

First, these two planes will be buyable separately, probably at lesser cost. If you want to fly them in multiplayer, you may buy them in the store, likely for 20$ rather than 40$. Or  buy one of them (ger FW 190 for 10$ and ignore LA5) to be as effective when flying for your chosen side, for quarter of what people who boutght premium pre-order paid.

These 40$ are not optimal way to get 190 and LA5 cheaply. Everybody has to pay for them, and in premium version they are possibly twice overpriced. The other 20$ goes to early beta access, supporting the project and (the only lasting effect)  bragging rights (in form of in-game login label). It's less about the business model and more about relationship between devs and some of the fans that goes beyond money-for-mileage. Just like some people buy gift versions of RoF planes in bulk and post keys on forums to further support the developer, the premium version is there to let us give extra money to devs 

Second, these two won't be the last extra planes, and they all will by bought separately. It will be less paying to win and more paying for exact tools you're willing to use - or even better, about not paying for planes you're not using anyway. If BoS follows the RoF pricing scheme (you pay the same basic price for each fighter, whether it's I-16 or Me-262), rather than make "better" planes more expansive, there will be no "paying to win" - you could argue that people flying I-16 would be paying to lose.  Not to mention that for you hypothetical non-simming friend it would be best to stick with basic planes and learn to fly - him buying FW190 would be less  "paying to win" and more "paying for extra mileage he does not know how to use". 

Third, making these two planes clear "ticket to win" choice would only work in simplified airquake style multiplayer, without objectives or missions with tailored sets of available planes. I suppose most historical servers set in summer/autumn 1942 will ban FW190s anyway. And if MP in BoS devolves to glorified deathmatches, we'll be screwed regardless of business model.

Edited August 6, 2013 by Trupobaw

[vyyye]

Have they said the 190 and La5 won't be $20 or are you speculating? Not seen the info personally but I hardly scavenged every corner.

[TheNotoriousFNG]

Labeling the FW 190 and La-5 as the "best" is really subjective. While they enjoy some clear advantages over the default planeset, it's not like the standard edition aircraft are complete lemons. Once again, it's up to the mission designers/servers to allow aircraft and if it's kept historical, there won't be a lot to worry about. Even if it's not, it's not like the La-5 or FW 190 are so ungodly that you stand no chance in downing them. It's about flying to your aircraft's strengths and knowing your opponents weaknesses - look at the late war PTO, the A6M is still a capable aircraft in the right hands despite it being seriously outclassed by some of the later war aircraft such as the F6F and F4U.

 

We don't even have the game in our hands and people are already complaining about "paying to win". If the aircraft FMs are as high fidelity as the devs are shooting for, most of the quirks, flaws and weaknesses will be accurately modeled and you won't have to worry about the existence so called "uber" planes.

[J2_Trupobaw]

Have they said the 190 and La5 won't be $20 or are you speculating? Not seen the info personally but I hardly scavenged every corner.

Thanks for catching that, I was purely speculating without admiting, then overestimating the price. I meant I don't believe they'd ask more than $10 for single fighter plane (after it stops being new, if/when sales will begin and so on) , and believe that at least 20 of these 40$ are for "bragging rights" and early access. Purely gut feeling, like everything in this thread. Backed by fact that basic planes come out 6$ apiece, how ROF planes and DCS planes are priced and where I believe BoS flight models / pricing policies will fall between RoF and DCS...

[=RvE=Windmills]

Labeling the FW 190 and La-5 as the "best" is really subjective. While they enjoy some clear advantages over the default planeset, it's not like the standard edition aircraft are complete lemons. Once again, it's up to the mission designers/servers to allow aircraft and if it's kept historical, there won't be a lot to worry about. Even if it's not, it's not like the La-5 or FW 190 are so ungodly that you stand no chance in downing them. It's about flying to your aircraft's strengths and knowing your opponents weaknesses - look at the late war PTO, the A6M is still a capable aircraft in the right hands despite it being seriously outclassed by some of the later war aircraft such as the F6F and F4U.

 

We don't even have the game in our hands and people are already complaining about "paying to win". If the aircraft FMs are as high fidelity as the devs are shooting for, most of the quirks, flaws and weaknesses will be accurately modeled and you won't have to worry about the existence so called "uber" planes.

 

 

Well, we've all played Il2.

 

If you have to fly early model LaGGs there against 109F models you're gonna be in a bit of a pinch. Even the Yak1 is more competitive with the E then with the F. Based on Il2 experiences and pretty much every pilots report about these early LaGGs and Yaks performance compared to F models I'd expect the LA5 to be highly desirable. Let alone when a 190 is involved.

 

I like flying any model of Yak and LaGG. In fact the Yak is my favourite ride in Il2. I know I can take on nearly anything with them on a good day, but that doesn't mean I don't think the early models are inferior to the contemporary German machines.

Edited August 7, 2013 by iLOVEwindmills

[Injerin]

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?

 you're wrong, FW190 and BF109's are there to fight. And yes they fight back

[Mac_Messer]

Third, making these two planes clear "ticket to win" choice would only work in simplified airquake style multiplayer, without objectives or missions with tailored sets of available planes. I suppose most historical servers set in summer/autumn 1942 will ban FW190s anyway. And if MP in BoS devolves to glorified deathmatches, we'll be screwed regardless of business model.

I partly disagree. Having the possibility to human-crew the FW190 in online scenario that fits a real airwar/airsupport instead of AI is clearly an advantage. Because FW190 is the aircraft that in certain fields of airwar outclasses the 109 and it can do what 109 can`t. This means a tactical advantage. Having said that, the Fw190 will struggle compared to 109 when placed in a typical df environment.

Denying a certain aircraft`s special abilities because a newb will surely fail in it can be applied to just about any type, except maybe for the 109F4, Spitfire or post 1941 Yaks which are pretty much idiot-proof.

[J2_Trupobaw]

I partly disagree. Having the possibility to human-crew the FW190 in online scenario that fits a real airwar/airsupport instead of AI is clearly an advantage. Because FW190 is the aircraft that in certain fields of airwar outclasses the 109 and it can do what 109 can`t. This means a tactical advantage. Having said that, the Fw190 will struggle compared to 109 when placed in a typical df environment.

Denying a certain aircraft`s special abilities because a newb will surely fail in it can be applied to just about any type, except maybe for the 109F4, Spitfire or post 1941 Yaks which are pretty much idiot-proof.

I partly agree  , having FW190 will of course grant advantages in certain fields. All I deny is the "buy FW190=win" assumption; that either unskilled / unexperienced players will be able to buy plane that puts them on equal footing with veterans with basic planes, or that paid planes will dominate the game in such a way that you will need to buy them to stay competetive and players with basic planes will be unable to play MP effectively. First I disagree with, second will be only possible if all multiplayer servers run missions that suit bonus planes best. Buying FW 190 will give you right tool for many jobs but it will not buy you a win against guy who knows what to do with altitude advantage, and if you can dominate the game with it you'd probably still do very well with basic planes.

Edited August 7, 2013 by Trupobaw

[Matt]

I suppose most historical servers set in summer/autumn 1942 will ban FW190s anyway.

I would certainly hope so, but i highly doubt that. Based on recent experience (ROF, CloD, not necessarily '46), the planesets more often than not decide if players join the server. And historical accuracy seems to rank second, after the popularity of the planeset in general. Many people have a favorite planetype (nothing wrong with that at all) and demand that the plane is avaliable whenever they spent time flying MP.

 

So i do expect that most servers, atleast those with most players, will feature the FW (and all other planes for that matter). Regardless if it claims to be very realistic or historical or whatever. Most likely in limited numbers or on airfields further away or whatever.

 

The La-5 is a totally different thing to me. It showed up in BoS and should also be in this flightsim. It was the least common plane, compared to the other Russian fighters though. So i wonder what argument the "the La-5 is pay-to-win, because it's only in Premium" crowd would say, if the Yak 1 or Lagg 3 would not be included in the standard edition. They would probably complain that the more common planes need to be paid extra and wouldn't like that either.

[=BKHZ=Furbs]

How do the La5 and 190 match up? im not that up to par on the eastern front match ups but its quite close i think.

 

They could have their own DF server, plus AI targets.

Edited August 7, 2013 by Furbs

[Crow]

Ultimately, it falls to the mission designers will give us some interesting match ups.

 

If the whole planeset is allowed however, I would say that the La-5 would be a must buy for anyone flying Russian. It is simply far superior to the Yak-1 and LaGG-3. The Fw-190 would be a nice change of pace for German pilots, but its main advantage is its armament. In a dogfight that matters, but less so than maneuverability and speed (where the F-4 is basically on par). I think if you're a German fighter pilot you'll be fine with your F-4 or G-2, but if you're a Russian fighter pilot you're going to want that La-5 in order to compete (I wish the La-5F was offered instead, it would be really ideal).

 

It's also not known whether the Yak-1 will be the pre-August 1942 aircraft or the post-August 1942 aircraft (usually called the "Yak-1B" although it's official designation remained the  Yak-1). I don't know if any Yak-1Bs were at Stalingrad given that their production was started right as the battle begin. If the Yak-1 is the original version it will likely be far inferior to it's German contemporaries. If it is the upgraded Yak-1B, then it should much more competitive.

[=RvE=Windmills]

I would certainly hope so, but i highly doubt that. Based on recent experience (ROF, CloD, not necessarily '46), the planesets more often than not decide if players join the server. And historical accuracy seems to rank second, after the popularity of the planeset in general. Many people have a favorite planetype (nothing wrong with that at all) and demand that the plane is avaliable whenever they spent time flying MP.

 

So i do expect that most servers, atleast those with most players, will feature the FW (and all other planes for that matter). Regardless if it claims to be very realistic or historical or whatever. Most likely in limited numbers or on airfields further away or whatever.

 

The La-5 is a totally different thing to me. It showed up in BoS and should also be in this flightsim. It was the least common plane, compared to the other Russian fighters though. So i wonder what argument the "the La-5 is pay-to-win, because it's only in Premium" crowd would say, if the Yak 1 or Lagg 3 would not be included in the standard edition. They would probably complain that the more common planes need to be paid extra and wouldn't like that either.

 

 

Well the ideal solution would've been to simply offer cosmetic upgrades or tradeoff equipment that also has disadvantages. Cockpit customizations, 'Ace' skins for the available machines. You could even do say gunpods modificationf for the 109, additional rocket racks for the Il2, field modded rear view mirrors, or other special equipment. It wouldn't as much be a complete upgrade as it would partly be a tradeoff.

[Matt]

If the whole planeset is allowed however, I would say that the La-5 would be a must buy for anyone flying Russian. It is simply far superior to the Yak-1 and LaGG-3.

 

It's also not known whether the Yak-1 will be the pre-August 1942 aircraft or the post-August 1942 aircraft (usually called the "Yak-1B" although it's official designation remained the  Yak-1).

The early La-5 did not impress everyone. There are quite a few pilots who did not like the heavy controls of the La-5 and preferred the Yak 1, because of its lighter controls. Some also preferred the Yak 1 to later Yak variants. I think it will be similar in BoS, the La-5 being a fast, powerful, sturdy plane and the Yak 1 being more fragile and nimble. The LaGG 3 will most likely be noticable inferior (to the Yak and La-5, aswell as the opposition),  but some pilots also preferred it to the Yak 1, because the LaGG was more sturdy (probably mostly useful against bombers and for ground-attacks, the latter will fall to the IL-2 and PE-2 though in BoS, so there is less work for the LaGG in BoS i guess).

 

I think we'll get the late Yak 1, but not the 1B. The devs have been very specific about every variant(s) of the other planes we're getting, so i'm pretty sure they would've wrote Yak 1B, if we would really get that one.

 

 

Well the ideal solution would've been to simply offer cosmetic upgrades or tradeoff equipment that also has disadvantages. Cockpit customizations, 'Ace' skins for the available machines. You could even do say gunpods modificationf for the 109, additional rocket racks for the Il2, field modded rear view mirrors, or other special equipment. It wouldn't as much be a complete upgrade as it would partly be a tradeoff.

If you mean that they should've included that as content of the Premium Edition, then i would disagree.

 

You buy Premium -> You get two more planes (which you WILL be able to buy later, even if you didn't preorder Premium or didn't preorder at all) + You can test BoS 3 months earlier

 

Much better than including mods or skins or whatever in the Premium Edition and sell them afterwards (or even keep them "exclusive").

 

I think their current pre-release business model is fair and smart. I hope their post-release business model will stay that way.

[Mac_Messer]

I partly agree  , having FW190 will of course grant advantages in certain fields. All I deny is the "buy FW190=win" assumption; that either unskilled / unexperienced players will be able to buy plane that puts them on equal footing with veterans with basic planes, or that paid planes will dominate the game in such a way that you will need to buy them to stay competetive and players with basic planes will be unable to play MP effectively. First I disagree with, second will be only possible if all multiplayer servers run missions that suit bonus planes best. Buying FW 190 will give you right tool for many jobs but it will not buy you a win against guy who knows what to do with altitude advantage, and if you can dominate the game with it you'd probably still do very well with basic planes.

I guess you mean that staying competitive is being on par in a typical DF engagement whereas what I was saying is that I consider a mission won when I accomplish objectives. Inother words, dogfighting is just a part of my flying as I often hunt transport planes, do skipbombing, repell incoming bomber raids. For this, the FW190 is much better than the Bf109 which can do the same job but with much greater losses and much worse effectiveness. That means that in an online war scenario the FW190 can win you a map or at least halt advancing reds.  I got over pure DF long ago.

People who view planesets just by the DF aspect of it are just that : obtuse.

 

People who flew coop scenarios in IL2, of the same timeframe that BoS is doing, know that if you are to defend a tank column from incoming IL2s escorted by Yaks it`s a pretty routine sortie. Yaks are dangerous but most of the time you know what to do. But when there is a second group equipped with Migs, things get outright scary for the LW.  Just as the MiG, the early La5 poses much greater danger not because it excels at DF. It denies the LW it`s main convenience they normally enjoy and that is starting the fight with altitude advantage.

Edited August 7, 2013 by Mac_Messer

[gavagai]

WWII air war is a much more ambitious project than WWI. Even though the devs seem to say they acknowledge and accept that, their doings so far are not indicative of this approach.

 

How much do you actually know about WW1?

[TheNotoriousFNG]

Well, we've all played Il2.

 

If you have to fly early model LaGGs there against 109F models you're gonna be in a bit of a pinch. Even the Yak1 is more competitive with the E then with the F. Based on Il2 experiences and pretty much every pilots report about these early LaGGs and Yaks performance compared to F models I'd expect the LA5 to be highly desirable. Let alone when a 190 is involved.

 

I like flying any model of Yak and LaGG. In fact the Yak is my favourite ride in Il2. I know I can take on nearly anything with them on a good day, but that doesn't mean I don't think the early models are inferior to the contemporary German machines.

 

Very good points. I enjoy being the "under dog", as I like the increased challenge. It feels that much more rewarding when you down an aircraft that is "better" than yours. I'll have to get some stick time in the Yaks in 1946, I mostly flew the LaGG-3, P-39 or P-40 when flying for the USSR in East Front scenarios.

 

 

Ultimately, it falls to the mission designers will give us some interesting match ups.

 

If the whole planeset is allowed however, I would say that the La-5 would be a must buy for anyone flying Russian. It is simply far superior to the Yak-1 and LaGG-3. The Fw-190 would be a nice change of pace for German pilots, but its main advantage is its armament. In a dogfight that matters, but less so than maneuverability and speed (where the F-4 is basically on par). I think if you're a German fighter pilot you'll be fine with your F-4 or G-2, but if you're a Russian fighter pilot you're going to want that La-5 in order to compete (I wish the La-5F was offered instead, it would be really ideal).

 

It's also not known whether the Yak-1 will be the pre-August 1942 aircraft or the post-August 1942 aircraft (usually called the "Yak-1B" although it's official designation remained the  Yak-1). I don't know if any Yak-1Bs were at Stalingrad given that their production was started right as the battle begin. If the Yak-1 is the original version it will likely be far inferior to it's German contemporaries. If it is the upgraded Yak-1B, then it should much more competitive.

 

I'm curious to see if the opinions of the FW 190 will change when the cannon ammunition in the wings can be detonated when getting hit. I seem to recall a few FW 190 pilots talking about the dangers of receiving hits to the wings while still having cannon ammunition aboard.

[71st_AH_Hooves]

At rist of adressing the original post rather than five pages of mostly on-topic content ...

First, these two planes will be buyable separately, probably at lesser cost. If you want to fly them in multiplayer, you may buy them in the store, likely for 20$ rather than 40$. Or  buy one of them (ger FW 190 for 10$ and ignore LA5) to be as effective when flying for your chosen side, for quarter of what people who boutght premium pre-order paid.

 

These 40$ are not optimal way to get 190 and LA5 cheaply. Everybody has to pay for them, and in premium version they are possibly twice overpriced. The other 20$ goes to early beta access, supporting the project and (the only lasting effect)  bragging rights (in form of in-game login label). It's less about the business model and more about relationship between devs and some of the fans that goes beyond money-for-mileage. Just like some people buy gift versions of RoF planes in bulk and post keys on forums to further support the developer, the premium version is there to let us give extra money to devs 

 

Second, these two won't be the last extra planes, and they all will by bought separately. It will be less paying to win and more paying for exact tools you're willing to use - or even better, about not paying for planes you're not using anyway. If BoS follows the RoF pricing scheme (you pay the same basic price for each fighter, whether it's I-16 or Me-262), rather than make "better" planes more expansive, there will be no "paying to win" - you could argue that people flying I-16 would be paying to lose.  Not to mention that for you hypothetical non-simming friend it would be best to stick with basic planes and learn to fly - him buying FW190 would be less  "paying to win" and more "paying for extra mileage he does not know how to use". 

 

Third, making these two planes clear "ticket to win" choice would only work in simplified airquake style multiplayer, without objectives or missions with tailored sets of available planes. I suppose most historical servers set in summer/autumn 1942 will ban FW190s anyway. And if MP in BoS devolves to glorified deathmatches, we'll be screwed regardless of business model.

\

Why is everyone inflating the price difference between the two pre orders.  ITs 30$   not 40.  59$ and 89$     THATS THIRTY DOLLARS.      10 for preorder, 10 for FW190 and 10 for the LA-5.   Not that bad if you ask me.

[6S.Manu]

If the whole planeset is allowed however, I would say that the La-5 would be a must buy for anyone flying Russian. It is simply far superior to the Yak-1 and LaGG-3. The Fw-190 would be a nice change of pace for German pilots, but its main advantage is its armament. In a dogfight that matters, but less so than maneuverability and speed (where the F-4 is basically on par).

 

I disagree.

 

Elevators' authority and roll rate are great pros of the 190 over the 109. You are not going to enter in close dogfight with the Russians and knowing that you're almost safe at high/medium altitude it's natural to work only by BnZ; a precise control of the plane at high speed is required.

 

Then firing power is really important against IL2s and the radial engine is far more durable than the inline engine. What about visibility and landing gear?

 

So there are a lot of reasons to fly a 190 over the 109 IMO, but for historical reason I'll ride a 109.

 

Anyway I don't like the unlocking system. If you are forcing me to fly the single player campaign then you have to provide a well-done AI... I'm not going to resist long flying with and against stupid bots.

Edited August 8, 2013 by 6S.Manu

[71st_AH_Hooves]

Well, not really. I mean that the quality of the marketing could be better. That said, I am not implying that BoS should attack me whenever I visit online. I`m not informed about the numbers, but I`m pretty sure the devs are not able to do what War Thunder/World of Tanks does. Those two titles hang around abou half of the sites I regulary visit and I`m pretty sure that is one of the biggest reasons they are so popular.

 

Don`t get me wrong, the pre-release trailer strikes me as particulary casual, it still is pretty good for such a game.

 

As there is still some time, BoS marketing should be changed to suit at least some of those people. How you ask?

 

Well, they could hint that the multiplayer component of the game will be as much fun as the two titles I mentioned. Not the same by any means, just same "amount" of fun. You can go on bragging all day about the sp crowd needing attention but you won`t change the fact that every of today`s game needs a strong mp component to be popular, especially when we  talk about an extended period of time.

As much as BoS devs want CloD to not even be mentioned in here parts, they should take what it had best to offer. Compared to RoF multiplayer which is pretty restricted and weak, especially for WWII standards. This alone has been proven by the old IL2:1946 which still hangs on its own.

So do we get a RoF multiplayer or IL2 : 1946 multiplayer? None of those? A mix you say? That is not enough, clear that up for the customers!

 

Another thing BoS devs should be talking about is CloD CEM. Even if that game sucked pretty much at everything else (besides FM/DM/graphics), talking about CloD CEM as context for BoS is much better than talking about RoF. Yes, DCS is also a good example but we don`t want a one plane manual training, we want a full blown Stalingrad campaign. Doing one plane to every inch of detail is great but it gets complicated when its counterpart is also human driven. I won`t even mention that WWI aircraft CEM is nothing like WWII aircraft CEM, unless ofcourse you`re trying to tell us that it will be as simple or closely simple. So maybe you need to clear this up also.

 

Two above points cannot be stressed enough when it comes to releasing a new WWII flight simulator. Yet again the two are still mostly unclear as two what 1CGS will provide us with. You want a casual user to judge BoS by RoF standards? That is counterproductive as both such features are pretty weak in this title. At the same time, you can`t forbid pontential BoS customers to compare it to CloD. Simply because CloD got some great features that should be in BoS. It would be even ok to imply that most of those advanced features will find their way into BoS at a later time. Just don`t try to imply that CloD never existed. It is there and as far as online goes, has similar following to RoF.

 

WWII air war is a much more ambitious project than WWI. Even though the devs seem to say they acknowledge and accept that, their doings so far are not indicative of this approach.

 

 

Your being dramatic.  The CEM is Prop Pitch, Mixture, Altitude boost, and throttle.  Not much else is needed when it comes to a combat flight sim that has said its not going to go full blown bolt counting.   I don't really recall adjusting anything else in the midst of Clod combat other than prop pitch.  I seemed to do alright. 

 

And what "doings" are not indicative of them knowing WWII is harder?  There are many back end engine upgrades they have had to make to make the WWII genre feasible.  And honestly they don't NEED to tell YOU about any of it.  All they nned to do is provide a good game that functions well, and has a decent number of options for players.  And with 8 aircraft  available on the low expense side.  That sounds like a lot of things to learn and get good at. 

 

THIS IS NOT CLOD as much as your avatar wants it to be.  Trust me, Loft and team are passionate about getting it "right" and are working ridiculous hours to make it happen.  That's really about all you need to know.  The rest is in a demo of RoF.   Don't like it?  Don't buy, but quit with the demands.

[leitmotiv]

\

Why is everyone inflating the price difference between the two pre orders.  ITs 30$   not 40.  59$ and 89$     THATS THIRTY DOLLARS.      10 for preorder, 10 for FW190 and 10 for the LA-5.   Not that bad if you ask me.

 

 

your oculus rift affects your vision its 49$ not 59$ for standard

 

but yes 40$ differance is not only because La5 and Fw190

 

and with old IL2 system of counting airplanes, 8 airplanes (LaGG3, Yak-1, IL2, Pe-2, Me-109F, G, Ju-87, He-111)

your getting more as i see it you have LaGG-3 Series 29, LaGG-3 Series 35 (see in trailer tail wheel retractable), LaGG-3 IT (37mm visible in one dev video) , thats 3 LaGG-3 by old IL2 standards of counting airplanes, atleast 2 IL-2 , IL-2 series 3 and Il-2 field mod, Yak-1, maybe Yak-1PF modification also , Pe-2 you get 2 series and so on, maybe for 109Fs with all modifications you get types like F4B, F4Z, F5 and so on in old IL2 separate airplanes, so its not only 8, with modifications you get more airplanes. Who knows what modifications we will be able to unlock for airplanes

 

by old IL2 standards of counting airplanes that would be more then 8

Edited August 8, 2013 by Yaklover

[6S.Manu]

It's not that with every dollars spent you must have something back... you can see it also like a "donation" who guarantees the special forum's tag and ingame label.

 

And BTW it's not sure that the game will be available to Premium users just since early September... seasons last 3 months.

Edited August 8, 2013 by 6S.Manu

[Bearcat]

Bear in mind that we will more than likely have at least 4-7 more updates before the pre orders start coming if you include tomorrow's update..  so I suggest that we all just be patient. I am certain that more information about the sim and it's business model will be made more clear as time progresses and we get closer to the release date.

[71st_AH_Hooves]

your oculus rift affects your vision its 49$ not 59$ for standard

 

but yes 40$ differance is not only because La5 and Fw190

 

and with old IL2 system of counting airplanes, 8 airplanes (LaGG3, Yak-1, IL2, Pe-2, Me-109F, G, Ju-87, He-111)

your getting more as i see it you have LaGG-3 Series 29, LaGG-3 Series 35 (see in trailer tail wheel retractable), LaGG-3 IT (37mm visible in one dev video) , thats 3 LaGG-3 by old IL2 standards of counting airplanes, atleast 2 IL-2 , IL-2 series 3 and Il-2 field mod, Yak-1, maybe Yak-1PF modification also , Pe-2 you get 2 series and so on, maybe for 109Fs with all modifications you get types like F4B, F4Z, F5 and so on in old IL2 separate airplanes, so its not only 8, with modifications you get more airplanes. Who knows what modifications we will be able to unlock for airplanes

 

by old IL2 standards of counting airplanes that would be more then 8

 

I stand corrected.

[=LD=Hethwill]

Good discussion going on, but isn't the price set considered what is inside the pack ( W.I.P. ) ? I mean the planes are the cover, the early access the bonus for being a supporter ( 40 for starting the ropes with the squaddies, is ok ). Then 50 for all the content, builders, career, etc. The content is multiplied by as many planes as it has, so will 2 planes make a whole difference in experiencing the game paying the $50 ? I don't think so.

 

Personally the early access is what bought my money ( ironic isn't it ? ), not the extra planes. Plus in a market without anything really touching the ww2 propheads which isn't outdated BoS comes at the right time. Even other couple of projects still in the shadows are no competition in the sense they will complete the scene.

 

The price for the entertainment is right. AAA titles full of eye candy arcade spree sell at the moment for 70 with candy included and don't even have a quarter the longevity of an Il2, RoF types.

Edited August 8, 2013 by Hethwill

[Mac_Messer]

Your being dramatic.  The CEM is Prop Pitch, Mixture, Altitude boost, and throttle.  Not much else is needed when it comes to a combat flight sim that has said its not going to go full blown bolt counting.   I don't really recall adjusting anything else in the midst of Clod combat other than prop pitch.  I seemed to do alright. 

 

And what "doings" are not indicative of them knowing WWII is harder?  There are many back end engine upgrades they have had to make to make the WWII genre feasible.  And honestly they don't NEED to tell YOU about any of it.  All they nned to do is provide a good game that functions well, and has a decent number of options for players.  And with 8 aircraft  available on the low expense side.  That sounds like a lot of things to learn and get good at. 

 

THIS IS NOT CLOD as much as your avatar wants it to be.  Trust me, Loft and team are passionate about getting it "right" and are working ridiculous hours to make it happen.  That's really about all you need to know.  The rest is in a demo of RoF.   Don't like it?  Don't buy, but quit with the demands.

Who said about full blown bolt counting? I said that CloD CEM was the closest thing to DCS without going into too much detail for a multiple flyable combatflightsim. You don`t recall because you probably whined on the forums instead of flying. Or maybe you didn`t try any of the axis aircraft. People who gave it a chance at least saw some good in it. Keyword here so you don`t miss it : some.

 

That`s great, but it will take more than just words to convince many people. Sure they need to tell me everything about the game. They want me to preorder their game, duh! And for 90 American bucks. Will they provide a good game, that is still an unknown. People like you spouting “I`m sure” here and “for sure” there get instantly put in the fanboy set. Maybe if you grew a lil bit skepticism instead of critic-free enthusiasm for a WiP product, people will actually choose to listen to you. So far not much shown that separates BoS from RoF. It is said to be fully upgraded but nothing like that indicates this. What I`d like them to show I said many times earlier. Shouldn`t be hard if they actually have it or at least are working on it. Unless ofcourse the devs don`t have it, then there is nothing to show.

 

Sure this is not CloD. But it can have what CloD did right nonetheless and that is what I`m partly about. Good things, you know. What you make of my forum avatar is your choice. That said, you probably shouldn`t talk silly stuff like that, for your own sake. And yes, I need to know more if I am to preorder. That is what a sensible person does before giving his money away. So I`m waiting for more. And your point would even be partly on the mark if I was alone in this opinion. The thing is, I`m not. The socalled by you demands are nothing else than just rational skepticism. So far one of the mods said it multiple times that there is nothing wrong with that. So you have little choice but just to deal with it.  

 

[LLv44_Mprhead]

I am starting to be curious, are you for real? I mean, when you say things like "That is what a sensible person does before giving his money away" you are implying that those who have pre-ordered are, in fact, stupid. So do you think that we are stupid, or do you just like the attention? Or is this (as I hope) so, that you don't quite understand how your posts sound like?

 

Also I don't understand this whole "I am entitled to this and I have right to know that"-attitude. Devs don't NEED or HAVE TO tell you anything. World doesn't own you anything. Ofc not telling would be very poor marketing and it is in their best interest to give as much information as possible, but only right we have is the right to make a decision to buy or not to buy. Of the people I know some are pre-ordering and some prefer to wait for more information or final release, and both are justified approaches.

[Dakpilot]

@ Mac wait for the actual game release In April and read the reviews and make a decision. Otherwise if people want to pay a premium to get 6 month early access and be involved in the development, let them make that choice...no one is "demanding " your inclusion

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Panzerlang]

Some people need to remember that we were deliberately and blatantly lied to, deceived and defrauded by CloD and I recall no members of the dev team of that title doing any whistle-blowing in order to spare us from losing our money on what turned out to be turkey. And as far as I'm aware some of that team are now on the BoS team.

 

These are unpalatable facts but they are true and need to be taken into consideration before lambasting somebody for being more 'cynical' than some would like.

[Rama]

Some people need to remember that we were deliberately and blatantly lied to, deceived and defrauded by CloD and I recall no members of the dev team of that title doing any whistle-blowing in order to spare us from losing our money on what turned out to be turkey. And as far as I'm aware some of that team are now on the BoS team.

The only persons that eventually lied (I'm not sure they really intentionally lied, they more probably underestimated the work load and missjudged their own capacities and competences... but well... nobody knows except those persons) are the persons who communicated. So no person that didn't talk publicy lied, so none of those persons are now in the BoS team. You're wrong about this imaginary "true fact".

[Panzerlang]

The only persons that eventually lied (I'm not sure they really intentionally lied, they more probably underestimated the work load and missjudged their own capacities and competences... but well... nobody knows except those persons) are the persons who communicated. So no person that didn't talk publicy lied, so none of those persons are now in the BoS team. You're wrong about this imaginary "true fact".

 

Codswallop. The team were asked at one of the shows why CloD was running so awefully and the excuse given was "lack of RAM in these rigs" (or words to that effect). And there were more members asking more pertinent questions than I can count/remember, which were ignored or side-stepped or replied to with yet more blatant and deliberate lies.

 

Why am I even wasting my time pointing this stuff out, it is surely only a minority who don't know how we were deliberately conned with CloD. And CloD dev-team members who remained silent and allowed the con to be pulled off are now on the BoS team. Were any of them directly guilty of lying? I have no idea. Maybe not. But could any of them have blown the whistle, directly or secretly? Most certainly yes. The game was sold as viable working code, what we got was beyond broken. No way the entire dev-team didn't know the state it was in. But they kept quiet and allowed tens of thousands of customers to throw their money down the crapper.

 

So I'll repeat the point, don't lambast those who choose to remember that disgusting episode and base their current purchasing choice upon it, they've paid for and are entitled to that attitude.

Edited August 12, 2013 by JG3-Siggi

[Bearcat]

Who said about full blown bolt counting? I said that CloD CEM was the closest thing to DCS without going into too much detail for a multiple flyable combatflightsim. You don`t recall because you probably whined on the forums instead of flying. Or maybe you didn`t try any of the axis aircraft. People who gave it a chance at least saw some good in it. Keyword here so you don`t miss it : some.

 

That`s great, but it will take more than just words to convince many people. Sure they need to tell me everything about the game. They want me to preorder their game, duh! And for 90 American bucks. Will they provide a good game, that is still an unknown. People like you spouting “I`m sure” here and “for sure” there get instantly put in the fanboy set. Maybe if you grew a lil bit skepticism instead of critic-free enthusiasm for a WiP product, people will actually choose to listen to you. So far not much shown that separates BoS from RoF. It is said to be fully upgraded but nothing like that indicates this. What I`d like them to show I said many times earlier. Shouldn`t be hard if they actually have it or at least are working on it. Unless ofcourse the devs don`t have it, then there is nothing to show.

 

Sure this is not CloD. But it can have what CloD did right nonetheless and that is what I`m partly about. Good things, you know. What you make of my forum avatar is your choice. That said, you probably shouldn`t talk silly stuff like that, for your own sake. And yes, I need to know more if I am to preorder. That is what a sensible person does before giving his money away. So I`m waiting for more. And your point would even be partly on the mark if I was alone in this opinion. The thing is, I`m not. The socalled by you demands are nothing else than just rational skepticism. So far one of the mods said it multiple times that there is nothing wrong with that. So you have little choice but just to deal with it.  

 

 

When CoD was released there was not very much that it did do right...  In fact it was a PoS. This whole underlying thread in your posts .. that somehow folks who are pre ordering are doing so out of some naive notion of misplaced faith or that somehow the developers need to show you something more before you spend your money does have the taint of a demand.. and frankly none of us whether fan or not has the right to demand anything from these developers. If what has been presented thus far does not convince you or others to pre order then .. fine. That is always your choice .. Perhaps the reviews from the folks who did pre order, once they start coming in will give you the missing information you need to make a more educated decision on your purchase.. perhaps not.. but one thing I can guarantee you .. those of us who did choose to pre order did so because the developers have shown us enough over the past 8 months to convince us that there is something good going on here... and we all believe that we made sensible decisions so your post about "what  a sensible person does" is insulting and condescending because frankly I think I am just as sensible as the next guy.. and you.

 

Some people need to remember that we were deliberately and blatantly lied to, deceived and defrauded by CloD and I recall no members of the dev team of that title doing any whistle-blowing in order to spare us from losing our money on what turned out to be turkey. And as far as I'm aware some of that team are now on the BoS team.

 

These are unpalatable facts but they are true and need to be taken into consideration before lambasting somebody for being more 'cynical' than some would like.

 

Codswallop. The team were asked at one of the shows why CloD was running so awefully and the excuse given was "lack of RAM in these rigs" (or words to that effect). And there were more members asking more pertinent questions than I can count/remember, which were ignored or side-stepped or replied to with yet more blatant and deliberate lies.

 

Why am I even wasting my time pointing this stuff out, it is surely only a minority who don't know how we were deliberately conned with CloD. And CloD dev-team members who remained silent and allowed the con to be pulled off are now on the BoS team. Were any of them directly guilty of lying? I have no idea. Maybe not. But could any of them have blown the whistle, directly or secretly? Most certainly yes. The game was sold as viable working code, what we got was beyond broken. No way the entire dev-team didn't know the state it was in. But they kept quiet and allowed tens of thousands of customers to throw their money down the crapper.

 

So I'll repeat the point, don't lambast those who choose to remember that disgusting episode and base their current purchasing choice upon it, they've paid for and are entitled to that attitude.

 

No one is being lambasted for being cynical ... just as no one is having their arms twisted to pre order BoS. What I keep hearing from some circles though is more than cynicism..  Frankly I think that once the pre orders are released and the reviews start coming in and the movies start coming out etc.. that many of the fence sitters will have what they need to make a decision ... Some of you keep going on and on about being burned by CoD ..  but none of the decision makers from the CoD project are on this team in the same capacity if at all.. so you need to stop holding them responsible for a product they had nothing to do with decision wise. Not only that 1C:Maddox was the team that put CoD together. If you expect people to be "whistleblowers" and risk their jobs for a piece of gaming software that anyone who can read can get enough information on to see it was a PoS upon release then ...  In addition to that the only people who have any legitimate claim to being upset by CoD are the ones who pre ordered it on faith ... like me. If anyone bought it within two weeks of it's release then that is on them because the reviews were scathing right out the gate if I remember correctly. As has already been said several times.. There has already been more information, concrete solid information released about BoS than in the entire period between 2006 and 2011. If that is not enough to convince you to pre order then perhaps the reviews from those who did pre order will.. In any case .. this constant negativity and post stirring has just gotten old and will be moot soon enough. I will actually be glad when whatever this proposed project is between RRG and DCS opens their own forum.. That way many of you can go over there and place your angst closer to the source of your woes.. because it surely doesn't belong  here in any way shape or form.

[FuriousMeow]

Luthier was the team behind the lies of CoD. He's not on this team and has no role in it what-so-ever.

 

Whoever they pulled over, the majority of the work is still handled by the team that delivered RoF. Still lead and maintained by the guys that delivered a functional product, and are continuing to be open with the development of this one.

 

It takes a lot of stretching to deduce that CoD's flawed development and complete mismanagement is anywhere in the same realm of existence as the BoS team and development.