rof?

[Knavery]

ORIGINAL: Greybriar

ORIGINAL: Southern_land

....Of course the game should be sold intact and complete.

Welcome to the world of Downloadable Content (DLC). If SecuROM says it's a good idea, it must be--right?

I don't pay for DLC. If I purchase a game, I feel it should have everything included with it that every other purchaser of the same game gets. Having to pay extra for DLC instead of an expansion doesn't seem right to me.

But as long as there are enough supporters of DLC, it will continue to nickel and dime us to death if we want a "complete" game.

I agree with Arctic Blast, but I also agree with Greybriar. I see the argument that if you know what you're paying for beforehand, and decide to sink the money into it, then there really is nothing to complain about assuming the product works as intended.

However, the argument could also be made that with DLC, your paying for a product with much less content than you would have two or three years ago. That must be taken into consideration in this thread. In the end, it will be up to the consumer to decide whether said product is worth the money. Afterall, it is the consumer that sets the price.

[JudgeDredd]

So Greybriar are you concerned about it because Securom is involved? Or are you just generally concerned about my family being forced to fend for themselves as I spend ever penny I earn on the swines that are apparently forcing me to buy their addon content?

If someone tries to sell a game with DLC and the game is clearly less than it should be or, worse, not as advertised, then they will have their fingers burnt presumably and not be revisiting the marketing ploy they used. If the DLC is worth it and priced correctly, then they will make money - admittedly more money than an addon - but they are not charities.

Sometimes I despair for the gaming world and wonder where the hell it's going to end up...so many people wanting to stay in a genre but unwilling to pay that wee bit extra to support it [:-] Fair enough if it's a genre you have no interest in - but when it's a genre you're fairly passionate about (as I am with flight sims and wargaming)...a few extra quid to keep the genre going isn't a bad thing.

Everyone wants a bargain...but sometimes it's worth putting your hand in your pocket [:D]

[E]

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

Sometimes I despair for the gaming world and wonder where the hell it's going to end up...so many people wanting to stay in a genre but unwilling to pay that wee bit extra to support it [:-]

You make it sound like a charity. Call me old fashioned (or "old and grumpy?"), but I think the gaming industry should earn my money... With content and really old-fashioned concepts like "the customer is right" and "customer SERVICE," (versus "the customer is assumed to be a crook and/or thief" and the "customer is too stupid to even explain how to get the game to run, so forget about direct phone numbers and direct emails, or even street addresses for the business, just use this javascript form letter for help")

This particular game sure sounds fun and covers an area I used to be quite an enthusiast about several decades ago. But I'll wait for the gold version and de-DRM'izations(tm).

[mgarnett]

I for one think the DLC idea for RoF is a great idea.  I purchased the original game and loved it so much I shelled out for the additional planes with hesitation.  This isn't a new model, users of Microsoft Flightsim have been doing this for years.  You buy a complete game and then IF you want additional content you can choose to purchase the additional planes.

I mean for MS FS you can buy scenery, cockpits, aircraft models, ATC addons and tons more things and I don't hear too many people complaining about that (and it fact, it's seen as a strength for FS). 

The developers could have left RoF without any additional planes and it still would have been a great and complete product.  However, the community has asked for more content to expand the game and increase their enjoyment and the developers have responded by providing that additional content.

I mean, is it the case that you don't agree with the developers providing additional content or are you saying you shouldn't have to pay for it o that they should save it up and release it all at once in an expansion pack? 

To "E", you mention the customer being right, but in this case, it was the customers who demanded the additional content in the first place so in effect, the developers did listen.  They have also listened to their customers concerns about the DRM and they have committed to adding an offline single play mode in the very near future.

To "Scott_WAR"  being a flight simmer for many years, I thought four planes was pretty reasonable in a standalone product.  Whilst there are many sims with an obscene amount of aircraft there are just as many with only a few or even one (Falcon (1), Janes F/A 18 (1), Apache Havoc (2), Commanche Hokum (2), DCS BlackShark (1), Janes Longbow (2), BoB 2 (5)).  Almost all of these sims are still played today and have an enormous amount of longevity.

I see a few options:

1.  The company releases a complete product containing four aircraft, supports it for a while with patches and then moves on to RoF 2...

2.  The company releases a complete product containing four aircraft, supports it and then in X months time releases and addon with additional planes for a fee..

3.  The company does exactly what it is already doing using the DLC model

As a paying customer, the decision is an easy one one in my book.

Cheers

Mark

[htuna]

The game was a 'complete game' with the four planes they gave you... Each plane is a work of art... I purchased the extra ones I was interested in.. didn't purchase the ones I didn't want.... This 'model' gives them the incentive to create 'more' planes.. which makes me very happy!

[E]

ORIGINAL: mgarnett

This isn't a new model, users of Microsoft Flightsim have been doing this for years.

No. Microsoft hasn't been doing it at all, much less "for years." You are referring to a whole secondary industry started by fans trying to make money off of their hobby. Apples and Oranges.

A better camparison would be Microsoft's support policy... it costs. As does supporting the fans with the more planes in a WWI game.
simulated)

ORIGINAL: mgarnett

To "E", you mention the customer being right, but in this case, it was the customers who demanded the additional content in the first place so in effect, the developers did listen.  They have also listened to their customers concerns about the DRM and they have committed to adding an offline single play mode in the very near future.

I'm not intimately familiar with the game (I stopped paying any attention when the DRM was revealed), but somehow I doubt the fans of the game were demanding add-on on charges. My money would be on the fans complaining that more planes should have been in the game. I mean it's not as if they had to program a different radar system or radar profile for another plane. Or even tailwheel steering!

ORIGINAL: mgarnett

To "Scott_WAR" being a flight simmer for many years, I thought four planes was pretty reasonable in a standalone product. Whilst there are many sims with an obscene amount of aircraft there are just as many with only a few or even one (Falcon (1), Janes F/A 18 (1), Apache Havoc (2), Commanche Hokum (2), DCS BlackShark (1), Janes Longbow (2), BoB 2 (5)). Almost all of these sims are still played today and have an enormous amount of longevity.

Avoiding the fact that the majority of titles you mention are HELICOPTOR games, the above sounds like another Apples and Oranges comparison to me. Or are you saying modelling/simulating 4 single WWI aircraft with no HUD's, radar, ECM, etc, etc, etc, is the equivalent of modeling the systems in an F-16C?

I submit to you that the time and effort it took to program a single F-16C was probably the equivalent of programming 10 or more WWI planes.

[Hard Sarge]

come on E, how many posts have you seen, hey, if you would add in a Tiger II, I would pay another 20 bucks for the game ?, if you would add in the Battle of Jimmi Jitsu, I would pay 10 bucks more for it ?

the player is always saying, if you add more, I would be willing to pay for it

even now (at least the last time I was reading over there) some of the players are offering to pay extra if they make/release this or that plane (a lot of players want planes from 1915-16 added)

[E]

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

come on E, how many posts have you seen, hey, if you would add in a Tiger II, I would pay another 20 bucks for the game ?, if you would add in the Battle of Jimmi Jitsu, I would pay 10 bucks more for it ?

Every time I've seen posts like that, it was in the context of something a person wanted added to a game, but knew and/or understood why it wasn't there to begin with. Avoiding the fact that such sentiments were never unanimously echoed in any forum for any game (as if any forum was the proper place to get a valid sampling of players! *grin*), I suspect that 80+% of those posters were blowing smoke out their posteriors.

To me it's in the vein of charging too much for a product so you can put it on sale every month. Or any company's quoted "MSRP."

The shame is that I was starting to perk my ears on this one when I heard the horrible internet-connection required DRM was going to go away. But this marketing strategy is one I'll probably continue to vote against, in the only manner that means anything (forum debates/arguments are really only mental masturbation).

[GoodGuy]

ORIGINAL: E

ORIGINAL: mgarnett

This isn't a new model, users of Microsoft Flightsim have been doing this for years.

No.

Ohh yes !

Microsoft hasn't been doing it at all, much less "for years." You are referring to a whole secondary industry started by fans trying to make money off of their hobby. Apples and Oranges.

He said USERS of MS Flight Sim have been doing it for years, and that's correct.

I was never a mega fan of the MS flightsim series, but I bought MS FS 98 from a colleague ages ago for a bargain, as her hubby didn't like it at all, he didn't even open the box.

Although it didn't have the Mesh-Terrain of Flight Sim 2000 and later versions, it was the first version with a way more modular scenery-system, and, since MS released the SDK for this version, it was also the first version where the distribution of add-on sceneries really got moving.
The number of airports in the stock version had climbed from 82 in MS FS 5.0, to 300 in FS 5.1, to 3000 in FS 98.

Still, not enough for many fans. Although Microsoft constantly upped the number of airports - with each version, Flight Sim 2000 had 20,000 ports already, and while MS increased the number of planes, the secondary market still filled a big gap.
The "secondary industry" wasn't about fans trying to make money with some half-assed scenery-disks or scenarios, but mostly about (partially small) companies with different backgrounds, some Coys had developed 3D applications before, some used to develop 3D objects or 3D designs and apps for tools manufacturers, some just took a leap in the dark, because the SDK was pretty user-friendly. Most - if not all of them - either used Lightwave or 3D-Studio (DOS or Max).
There were some fine German companies that offered scenery disks covering those German airports or European airports that were either missing in FS 98/2000 or not very detailed, for example, other companies specialized in offering high-res airplanes or reproducing large city skylines. Other companies had a broad knowledge gained from processing or distribution of Sat images.

Some companies offered so detailed add-ons (especially for the 767, eg. cockpit instruments, general interior, etc.), that there was quite some uproar after 9/11, as the public and critics believed a Flight Sim + add-ons to be the perfect tool to train an attacker.

A friend (and die-hard MS FS fan) gave me a couple of scenery airport-disks, they really made a difference. MS either couldn't or didn't want to deliver in that field.
It seems like MS FS X managed to fill many of those gaps.

Another 3rd party product was "ATC" (air traffic controller) software, which is a rather boring thing, but, starting with either FS 2002 or 2004, you could link ATC with Flight Sim and act as dedicated traffic controller (online). This piece of software delivered some additional realism and was popular with the online community.

MS picked up that function and offers a dedicated ATC mode in the Deluxe version of Flight Sim X.

So, not fans, but professional companies served this market, and their add-ons sold well.

[Hard Sarge]

I don't know E

not trying to argue or promote how another company does what it does, just pointing out what I have seen

I kind of did my own game, and have been a Alpha/Beta tests on more then a few games, and in almost every one, people have offered to pay more, if this or that could be added (even when it was pointed out that it was being worked on, and was planned on being added)

for me, I would of loved to of seen the game come out with 1915-16-17-18 models of planes and campaigns, careers, but, from reading there forum, it may of been years down the road, before everything could of been packaged and added, and by that time, most of the simmers would be playing something else

as you say, if you don't like it, leave it be (I don't care for the idea, but I do check the forum each week, to see if the next plane is ready yet

it is a flight sim of the year award winner, and the company does seem like they are trying to do things right, correcting or adding what the players are asking for, so I think it got a chance to be around for awhile

as it is, on it's own, it is a good game, and nothing else needs to be picked up

(but I have always been a fan of the Pfalz DIIIa, so I had to pick that up, and, I like the DIII better then the DV, sooooo

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: wodin

I agree with Judge. I am willing to pay for those planes because I know they are worth the small amount of money.

So do I. And I did buy those planes.

Now I just need a faster processor[:D]

[Joram]

Well, that's good for you but I really don't see how you consider it a deal when you compare it to a product like Red Baron where you got a couple dozen planes to fly right off the bat.  Here you're winding up paying what $70-80 for 8 models which is less than half what Red Baron (RB 2 at least) offered.  Yes you can say that this is more advanced, prettier, blah blah blah but that's true of virtually all the games today so that part isn't exactly a fair comparison.   Why anyone considers this a good deal just boggles my mind to be honest.  However, if it's worth it to you, well, more power to you I guess.  Wish I could just throw money around like that.

[JudgeDredd]

Here was the original question (again - about a specific game - Rise of Flight)

Is it just me or does the 40$ game selling add on planes seem a little off?

No - it's not a little off. The game was released in a "complete game state" with enough content to be called a sim. The extra aircraft created are worth the money. If you don't think so, don't buy.

That's a direct answer to the question asked. I'm not even going to bother with all the chaff in between (which I contributed to) because it's opinion against opinion now and the point (and indeed the original question) will not have a definitive, collective answer. We'll just carry on around in circles.

So that's my say - have a good day all [:D]

[Joram]

So noted! [:)]

[mgarnett]

Hi "E",

No. Microsoft hasn't been doing it at all, much less "for years." You are referring to a whole secondary industry started by fans trying to make money off of their hobby. Apples and Oranges.

A better camparison would be Microsoft's support policy... it costs. As does supporting the fans with the more planes in a WWI game.
simulated)

And? The point I am trying to make is that addon/additional content generally costs money and people expect to pay (well at least I do). Don't get me wrong, I like free content just as much as the next guy, but I also understand these guys are trying to make a living. Would you be happier if the RoF developers stopped at four planes and then said "no more"? Not this customer, and I don't think I am alone.

I'm not intimately familiar with the game (I stopped paying any attention when the DRM was revealed), but somehow I doubt the fans of the game were demanding add-on on charges. My money would be on the fans complaining that more planes should have been in the game. I mean it's not as if they had to program a different radar system or radar profile for another plane. Or even tailwheel steering!

Nobody demanded addon charges but they did demand addon content and expected to pay.

You are just downright wrong here, the customers did demand additional content and the customers did expect to pay (I was one of them). Paying for additonal content seems a very common business practice to me (across all genres), Field of Glory, MS Flight Sim, Oblivion, Morrowind, Dragon Age, Fallout 3, Sins of a Solar Empire etc. etc. etc.

Poeple are currently demanding (and are willing to pay for) additonal single seat flyable planes, flyable two seat planes with rear gunner positions (the AI already has these), large multi engine bombers and a true dynamic campaign system.

Yep, your right, no radar modelling or tail steering. BUT, they did have to program rotary engines, balloons, bi-plane flight charateristics and fanatstic damage modelling. Being a developer myself, just because these planes are not modern DOES NOT mean that the flight characteristics are easy to program.

Avoiding the fact that the majority of titles you mention are HELICOPTOR games, the above sounds like another Apples and Oranges comparison to me. Or are you saying modelling/simulating 4 single WWI aircraft with no HUD's, radar, ECM, etc, etc, etc, is the equivalent of modeling the systems in an F-16C?

I submit to you that the time and effort it took to program a single F-16C was probably the equivalent of programming 10 or more WWI planes.

Your joking right? I was talking about flight sims as a genre, no apples and oranges here, helicopter or plane, the genre is the same. Also, I am talking about CONTENT, which was, I believe your original point. Just because a plane has radar and a hud does not mean I play the game any longer or that it has more content. I am saying the four included planes provide enough CONTENT to make the game complete and enjoyable. Just as complete as Falcon with one plane or BOB II with 5.

Without being a flight sim developers ourselves (but if you are I take this back), I can't see how you can say which or what takes longer/or is harder to develop. There are a huge number of additional factors not even related to the aircraft models such as terrain modelling, enemy/wingman AI, weather, ground war, damage modelling etc. etc. All of these need to be taken in their totality to determine the complexity and/or development time for a product.

I would be really interested in hearing what you thought Neoqb should have done with RoF, release expansion packs, not release expansion packs, include every WWI plane as flyable or just several, if so how many planes constitutes a complete game in your view?

Cheers

Mark

[Tomus]

Just to say I think ROF is superb and as I only paid £20 for it in the first place I am more than happy to download the planes which are all beautifully modelled. The company look like they are going to expand the game and I for one am willing to help support them. Games like this modelled to this level of fidelity can only sell a handful of copies and they need encouraging.

[freeboy]

odd just posted and it did not add on !! lol
I had said I will wait for a sale as the demo is vey very nice...
and maybe a new joystick! lol

[E]

ORIGINAL: GoodGuy

He said USERS of MS Flight Sim have been doing it for years, and that's correct.

I stand corrected... "users" as the operative word makes the difference. I retract the word "no." (in my best Gilda Radner doing Emily Lutella voice for fans of the original SNL cast *grin*)

ORIGINAL: GoodGuy

I was never a mega fan of the MS flightsim series, but I bought MS FS 98 from a colleague ages ago for a bargain, as her hubby didn't like it at all, he didn't even open the box.

User since FSII here. (I still have the file-based FS1 program somewhere around here as well, but I thought the bare wireframes weren't quite enough immersion back then... although another company's wire frame RC simulator was fun. *grin*)

ORIGINAL: mgarnett

Your joking right? I was talking about flight sims as a genre, no apples and oranges here, helicopter or plane, the genre is the same. Also, I am talking about CONTENT, which was, I believe your original point. Just because a plane has radar and a hud does not mean I play the game any longer or that it has more content. I am saying the four included planes provide enough CONTENT to make the game complete and enjoyable. Just as complete as Falcon with one plane or BOB II with 5.

Without being a flight sim developers ourselves (but if you are I take this back), I can't see how you can say which or what takes longer/or is harder to develop.

Not joking at all there. Having programmed such items as working hydraulic systems for a C-141B and a working fuel system for a B-52G in FS9 (and even a simplified bombing system), I can safely say that tweaking some, err, several (*grin*) numbers for a flight model is a much easier prospect than doing the former for new planes.

ORIGINAL: mgarnett
There are a huge number of additional factors not even related to the aircraft models such as terrain modelling, enemy/wingman AI, weather, ground war, damage modelling etc. etc. All of these need to be taken in their totality to determine the complexity and/or development time for a product.

I may've missed the point of the complaints if additional environmental modeling is the issue. (I thought the lack of what could be called "standard" planes was the issue.)

ORIGINAL: mgarnett
I would be really interested in hearing what you thought Neoqb should have done with RoF, release expansion packs, not release expansion packs, include every WWI plane as flyable or just several, if so how many planes constitutes a complete game in your view?

Depends on which planes were included to begin with? I could understand a Pfalz or a D.VIII not being included in an initial release. But not a Camel, SE5a, etc.

How do the addon planes figure in to multiplayer compatibility? Is there added pressure for the base game user's to play? Are the added-on planes the better late-war planes, leaving the base players with less capabilities to survive? (read: have fun, as no one likes to lose)

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

I don't know E

not trying to argue or promote how another company does what it does, just pointing out what I have seen

Gets the mental juices flowing. But on the other hand, you remember the old (non-politically correct) adage about arguing on the internet. *grin?*

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge
it is a flight sim of the year award winner, and the company does seem like they are trying to do things right, correcting or adding what the players are asking for, so I think it got a chance to be around for awhile

Everything I've heard says it is a good game (people are rarely passionate about defending games/companies that are complete crap *grin*). My actual monetary non-vote was cast based on the intrusive "E.T. DRM (tm)" What was it's competition to become flt sim of the year?

[Aurelian]

ahhhh, never mind[:D]

[mgarnett]

Hi E,

Not joking at all there. Having programmed such items as working hydraulic systems for a C-141B and a working fuel system for a B-52G in FS9 (and even a simplified bombing system), I can safely say that tweaking some, err, several (*grin*) numbers for a flight model is a much easier prospect than doing the former for new planes.

Unfortunately I just get to program crappy busines apps! I've been writing an indie game for about 25 years! I keep stopping and starting and changing ideas and technologies so nothing ever gets finished. I am currently working on a 3D version of the boardgame Space Hulk but I'm pretty time poor at the moment.

I am currently using Unity 3D. (by the way, anybody interested in indie game development should really have a look at the engine, the indie version is now free). I know one guy who is developing a flight simulator in the engine at the moment, although I want to use it for developing 3D turn based wargames (wishful thinking).

Depends on which planes were included to begin with? I could understand a Pfalz or a D.VIII not being included in an initial release. But not a Camel, SE5a, etc.

How do the addon planes figure in to multiplayer compatibility? Is there added pressure for the base game user's to play? Are the added-on planes the better late-war planes, leaving the base players with less capabilities to survive? (read: have fun, as no one likes to lose)

I think from memory the original planes included were:

- Albatross D.Va
- Fokker D.VII
- Nieport 28.C1
- Spad 13.C1

I don't really play much multi-player but I understand all of these are competitive. I think the only plane seen as non-competitive (or extrememly difficult use effectively) is the Nieport 17.C1 (single machine gun) which is available as an additional addon plane. I'm certainly no expert on aicraft production dates, but I think the additional planes cover the full spectrum of the war rather than being limited to late/early etc.

The number and/or type of additional planes purchased does not preclude you from playing multiplayer against other players who have purchased additional aircraft. It just means that they have more choice of what to fly.

I've purchased all of the planes but I regularly fly the Albatross D.III. I tried to fly the Camel, but boy that thing is hard to fly well. I can hold my own in the Albatross but I don't last long in the Camel because I am prone to stalling or entering a spin (not the fault of the plane, just the operator!!! I'm just too ham fisted with it). I also like the German planes because most have automatic mixture whereas the allied planes do not, so it's one less thing for me to have to worry about.

Cheers

Mark