More WWI development - is it viable?

[PatrickAWlson]

Bringing the discussion from the update thread to its own.

 

@BraveSirRobin Have at it  

 

You said that further WWI updates were a sure path too financial ruin.  Then you go on to talk about how much you play MP.

 

I have heard it stated, quite often, that MP is a relatively small fraction of the player base (10% to 90% is what I have seen posted).  Why do you believe that your experience playing MP somehow extrapolates to the product as a whole? 

 

Is it not possible that something that appeals to the quieter 90% might be financially viable?  Given the disparity between MP and SP, it would seem that things like the Channel Map might actually be quite popular while simultaneously not appealing to MP players.  

 

What I have been proposing is more two seaters to flesh out the SP campaign experience.  That is something that would benefit SP career players and online squadron play.  How large of an audience is that?  In truth, I don't know.   Not everybody that plays SP chooses to do a career.  Still, 1C thought it was significant enough to produce their own career modes.  

 

Why not the Channel map?  Incorporate that with the remaining planes and package it as FC4.  Then add a couple of sea planes as collector planes.  Doesn't seem like a recipe for financial ruin to me.

 

Why not a WWI eastern front map?  It's a Russian company with a large Russian audience.  You might not buy it.  I might not buy it.  Doesn't mean there are no customers for it.

 

I am still beating the drum for more two seaters.  Been beating that drum for 14 years, so yes, there is this vague feeling of tilting at windmills.  But think of those poor, forlorn DH2 drivers, helplessly watching a DFW disappear inti the distance.  Have you no pity for them?  

 

[BraveSirRobin]

I’m sure a few more 2 seaters are financially viable.  But Italy and East front maps?  Absolutely not.  Financial disaster.

 

2 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

Why not a WWI eastern front map?  It's a Russian company with a large Russian audience.  You might not buy it.  I might not buy it.  Doesn't mean there are no customers for it.

Why the heck would the Russians want that map?  Just think about what happened to Russia during WW1,  NO ONE would buy that map.

[parkerc341]

I think that FC is definitely viable, would kill for an italy map, but I do think Western  Front sells best. Who knows though, AFAIK nobody has ever done a ww1 Italian front. 

[BraveSirRobin]

21 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

Why not the Channel map?  Incorporate that with the remaining planes and package it as FC4.  Then add a couple of sea planes as collector planes.  Doesn't seem like a recipe for financial ruin to me.

 

The fact that there are no plans for a Channel map for FC tells you all you need to know about how well the RoF Channel map sold.

[PatrickAWlson]

12 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

I’m sure a few more 2 seaters are financially viable.  But Italy and East front maps?  Absolutely not.  Financial disaster.

Why the heck would the Russians want that map?  Just think about what happened to Russia during WW1,  NO ONE would buy that map.

 

By that logic no German would want to play this game ever. 

2 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

The fact that there are no plans for a Channel map for FC tells you all you need to know about how well the RoF Channel map sold.

 

My logic: "if they did it then they must have thought that it was worth doing".  Your logic: "If it hasn't been done then, by definition, it's not worth doing".  You do reealize that this is most kindly described as flawed logic.  I guess Korea must not be worth doing ... oh wait, they're doing it.

 

There are limited resources in software development.  Everything done for FC to date is more impactful than the Channel Map.  That doesn't mean that the Channel Map is a loser, just that what has been done to date is more important.

 

 

[Avimimus]

Well, Rise of Flight could be successfully developed... in spite of taking a long time to accumulate all of the content (it was basically just Collector Planes at first - no modules)... and they kept developing aircraft until we had more than we currently have. So it has been viable in the past. I think the bigger question is the scope and scale of development - I'm pretty sure that there is definitely a market for a new Collector Plane every six months...

 

I'm less certain about how profitable a Channel Map with floatplanes would be, or an Italy map... those might be higher risk. It might be possible to limit the risk by release a five aircraft and half of a map... and if it sells well then moving on to complete the map and another five aircraft...

 

...as for whether there is anything worth adding, I'll post more on that later.

  

1 hour ago, BraveSirRobin said:

The fact that there are no plans for a Channel map for FC tells you all you need to know about how well the RoF Channel map sold.

 

Does it? Staff could simply have higher priorities (i.e. working on other projects). It is also possible that they don't want to work on a new map when the terrain technology is being upgraded and will make it obsolete...

 

Also, the Channel Map was released in 2012... so it has been 12 years for the market to change... I don't think sales data from then would even be a reliable indicator.

 

You speak with a lot of certainty in spite of not having any of the above information.

[Enceladus828]

MP numbers mean practically nothing, I rarely go on MP unless there's an event like the Sturmovik fest. When comparing War Thunder MP numbers to IL-2 GBs MP numbers, one could argue that we're in financial ruin ?

What matters most is sales. The Channel Battles DLC was the first RoF DLC I got and I loved it from minute one... especially the Felixstowe. I flew that plane regularly in RoF and had several Pilot Careers set on the Channel Map, so just because people don't play MP servers on that map doesn't mean it's not profitable. 

 

RoF didn't have the Channel and Tarnopol map to begin with, it was only after years of support did these get added. As FC has been profitable enough to get at least 4 volumes then doing other maps such as the Channel, Tarnopol, and even an Italy map should also be profitable. I asked Luke recently if there was to be more content for Ilya Muromets such as more Russian and AH planes and a Pilot Career to which his response was that most likely time and resources ran out to add more content to it when BoS was announced. 

Now that the developers can focus on WW1 and continue to provide updates to it, they should be able to do the Tarnopol map. Everyone who bought the Ilya Muromets DLC essentially showed that a Eastern Front WW1 map would be viable. 

With the Italian Front, until late 2023 I practically knew nothing about it but after getting the game Isonzo and having lots of fun with it and planes (Caproni Ca.3, Hansa C.I and Aviatik) do play a role, I would absolutely be interested in a a FC installment set on the Italian Front.

 

15 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

But Italy and East front maps?  Absolutely not.  Financial disaster.

 

Why the heck would the Russians want that map?  Just think about what happened to Russia during WW1,  NO ONE would buy that map.

Are you part of the development team? No. Are you the Community Manager or a liaison between us and the developers? No. Therefore, your claims are unsubstantiated and lack any merit.

[Trooper117]

47 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

the Channel Map might actually be quite popular

 

Yes, I liked using the channel map, had careers going up at that end by the sea, lol!... Entente and German,

[Guest deleted@83466]

Quote

Is it not possible that something that appeals to the quieter 90% might be financially viable? (emphasis mine)

The “quieter 90%”…lol.  The myopic view of some around here is astounding.  Unless you can qualify the idea that WW 1 is not a niche, but rather, represents most IL-2 players, I’m calling bs.  MP might be a small portion compared to SP, but you really think there isn’t a proportionality?  It doesn’t matter, because the idea that the supposedly 90% of the people (offline) would naturally enjoy WW 1 (especially less known locales) is poor deduction. 
 

@encaladus How many thousands of hours did you play RoF, just out of curiosity?  Did you fly a lot with others and have a good read of what other people thought? You speak as if you know all about what was popular, and what wasn’t in RoF, and I don’t think you do…you really are going out on a limb if you think you’re going to school BSR (or me) on what it was all about.

Edited January 9, 2024 by SeaSerpent

[PatrickAWlson]

15 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

The “quieter 90%”…lol.  The myopic view of some around here is astounding.  Unless you can qualify the idea that WW 1 is not a niche, but rather, represents most IL-2 players, I’m calling bs.  MP might be a small portion compared to SP, but you really think there isn’t a proportionality?  It doesn’t matter, because the idea that the supposedly 90% of the people (offline) would naturally enjoy WW 1 (especially less known locales) is poor deduction. 
 

@encaladus How many thousands of hours did you play RoF, just out of curiosity?  Did you fly a lot with others and have a good read of what other people thought? You speak as if you know all about what was popular, and what wasn’t in RoF, and I don’t think you do…you really are going out on a limb if you think you’re going to school BSR (or me) on what it was all about.

 

"Unless you can qualify the idea that WW 1 is not a niche, but rather, represents most IL-2 players, I’m calling bs. "  Another logical fallacy.  You like standing up straw men to know them down, don't you?  

 

Why does WWI have to represent a majority?  It only has to represent enough to be worth doing.  It's called return on investment.  Look it up.

[Guest deleted@83466]

You’re the one that made the Nixonian argument implying that “the quiet 90%” is all open to it, and I have my doubts.  You’re the one that created the strawman, and then accuse me of a logical fallacy when I knock it down, lol.

Edited January 9, 2024 by SeaSerpent

[Avimimus]

We all have limited access to information... and many of us may interpret what information exists differently - but that is no excuse to get aggressive interpersonally.

 

I'm locking this thread temporarily until people cool down and we can maintain a more respectful tone towards each other.

[LukeFF]

Everyone, let's please watch the tone when debating subjects like this. Debate the merits of a given subject all you want, but please do not get personal when you disagree with someone.