I think the financial investment overrides any emotions that the devs may or may not have in this sim. They are running a business, the goal of a business is profit. If they don't make a game that people wants to buy then they won't make enough money and then they will have to close down, it is when all said and done, whining or no whining, a fact. Back to subject though, weren't most add-on planes for MSFS third party?

It's important to be able to know the difference between bug-fixing patches and DLC. Most games get their patches for free and DLC would be a new tank or plane or hat or whatever they're selling. DLC is usually content only and not a patch so I wouldn't worry about support for the game itself. The DLC would help fund further support for the game you see, so that the devs don't have to cry themselves to sleep every night because they are supporting their own -maybe bug ridden- game for "free".

DLC might be crucial for smaller developers to keep going, imaging that the whole development team is working on a new patch for the IL-2 series but one of the 3D modelers has his hands free. Wouldn't it be nice if he could put together some new in-game objects/vehicles/ships or whatever and release it as DLC for a smaller fee in the meantime whilst we wait for the patch?

Maybe some here think it's better for the developers to churn out expansions/sequels every 2 years with almost nothing in-between, solely relying on the revenue from those few expansions. That's almost insane financially. This is my opinion only though. :)

I see this thread every 3 weeks...
 

:confused:From this thread alone it appears half the pilots hate the idea.

That being said, the online community would easily splinter and the rest would follow.

Dead servers anyone:rolleyes:

I see your point, I'm looking at this primarily from an offline perspective BUT I can't see how the servers can't restrict which planes that are allowed or not allowed on their servers, if that's what you mean.

no bloody chance

Ok then, let the developer decide what you will play entirely, wait ages for new content and pay premium. I'd rather pay more for content that I want then less for content that I don't care about at all. IMO, DLC is ideal for the il-2 series because of the plethora of possible content. I don't mind if MG continues to do charity work as they've done the last ten years with bugfixing+content patches but I don't see the financial gains.

P.S Also like to add that I disapprove of the idea of pay-to-play a la WoW, it wouldn't work for the il-2 series and I would NEVER pay a monthly fee for a game.

S!

lol! Just ignore those guys.. they not worth your time!

Makes you wonder. What if 777(rise of flight developer) pulled a DLC Spitfire MKI and a Me109E out of their hat for say $15 each? I would buy them right of the bat. Same for a FW190 or P51. They would make a fortune, even without a campaign or new maps. Basically a simple dogfight sim. They could do it right now with their current game engine. Anyone ever noticed the Rata sitting in their museum where you enter the game?

1C can do the same thing. Sell us annual theatre expansion packs with maps, campaigns, objects and widely used aircraft so we can play historical campaigns offline. Sell us per DLC (third party developers?) the most popular aircraft so we can go online and have a furrball right from the start.

What worries me about this model is this. It will be so succesfull that they'll make much more money with the popular DLC content and do away with expansion packs all together. RoF may have opened Pandora's box.

The game businesses are trying very hard to get everyone online (steam ..etc), without having to ship products all over the world. Although this looks like a great business model to the developer/distributor, it's open to exploitation and numurous other problems which we are seeing happening.

It is essentially a one sided contract (no-one in their right mind ever agrees to this type of thing) where the developer/distibutor is pawning half baked products under the guise of 'false advertising'. A lot of people are falling for this and only a few will admit they've made a mistake.

Just say they do make a great working product like IL2 (which is still going after 10yrs), when will it become to costly to run the DRM servers, for those faithfull clients, and they shutdown the servers and the client get burnt. Sure the client had years of fun, but he's go no 'physical product in his hands'.
I don't know about you, but I'd certainly feel robbed.

NOPE, the business model that has worked for eons and will never die, is the one where you physically receive a (working) product that you pay for. A product that works on a PC with no internet connection. A product that does not require subscriptions.

Anything else is fools folly and if people fall for that... 'there is a fool born every day'.
:cool:

It worked fine for us consumers yes but like everything business, it's all about making more and more and more money. Why sell a full complete game with tons of features for only 40-60€ when you can sell half the content for the same money and then drip-feed with DLC?

It's here and it's here to stay, for good or worse. On one hand digital distribution basically tells you that you don't own the game you've bought, you just have the license to play it under certain conditions. On the other hand digital distribution has led to a boom of independent developers being able to distribute their games on their own without being shackled by big "evil" publishers, Minecraft being a great example.

I wouldn't feel like a fool, paying for content for IL-2, buying a virtual hat for my Skyrim character for 5€ would make me feel like one though ;). It's all about what YOU want and what YOU are willing to pay for, just like capitalism should be. When I was a kid, I was on holiday with family and relatives many a years ago, we were at a market, I wanted to buy a souvenir elephant so I asked my aunt "how much should I pay for this?" and she answered "how much do you want it?", "very much" I replied "then that's what you should be prepared to pay" she said.