Would you be willing to pay for additional contend?

[Bonkin]

I voted yes... I agree with Ned

Originally Posted by NedLynch

I guess my point is, money is the fuel that makes every business engine run and microtransactions would just be one source the dev team could tap to keep going in the long run.

Whichever way you look at it the game will only get better if there are developers working on it. I purchased the download version - and personally, for what we have I don't think its bad value for money - but then I do play almost exclusively on-line so have not really got into the single missions or campaigns.

I'm sure that if say a flyable Wellington or Beaufighter was offered for download at a reasonable price (together with missions/campaigns etc) then there would be a lot of interest - whether you voted yes or no.

[=FI=Scott]

Would I pay for DLC from 1C based on my experiences with CoD ? Not in the way I bought the game (CE on pre-order). I would buy DLC after it was released and after I had chance to hear what other users have to say. Also I think it is a valid point that it only took a few weeks with CoD before there were big discounts available and I would wait and see if that happened with any future release.

That has nothing to do with financially punishing Ubi, 1c or MG it is just that I would be far more cautious in the future buying anything from them based on what happened with CoD. Obviously paying for a patch to repair CoD would be out of the question but I do not think MG would do that anyway.

The comparison with the RoF model raises what I always saw as one of its biggest flaws- you need only buy what you want. I don't enjoy flying bombers that much (apart from the Brisfit!) so passed on four DLC aircraft out of the past six. I have no problem with that business model but I think expansions in packs is the better option for a developer.

[andrea78]

I voted Yes.

I do not like the actual Clod. I'll never pay for an addon at this stage of dev.

But... I hope that things will change (!). And I could pay for big addon (i.e a small theatre with a map and some planes).

[Fjordmonkey]

I voted yes. I actually WOULD pay for additional content. Of course, that would imply that the sim is playable for the majority of people, but that's still to come.

Once that's in place, then yes, I would pay for additional content just like I pay for DLC's for other games on Steam.

[Rattlehead]

Originally Posted by Fjordmonkey

I voted yes. I actually WOULD pay for additional content. Of course, that would imply that the sim is playable for the majority of people, but that's still to come.

Once that's in place, then yes, I would pay for additional content just like I pay for DLC's for other games on Steam.

I feel the same. As you say, the game would have to be up to scratch first, but I wouldn't mind paying for extra planes, maybe extra ground units and additional campaigns and that sort of thing.
I would not like to pay extra for gunsights or something of that nature though. The DLC would have to be worth it.

Pretty much every other developer charges for additional content these days.

[GF_Mastiff]

i would say "it's like watching the grass grow".

[Blackdog_kt]

For me it's not so much an issue of pricing. The RoF model does end up being more expensive overall, but spread out over a longer period of time for the cost of a beer at the bar per week and also lets people choose what to spend their money on.

It's the implications of this business model that i object to most of all. Like i said before, WW1 in the western front is a pretty much static scenario and flying distances are small: one map and a few ground units is all it needs, then the developers can focus only on flyable aircraft.

WW2 has a lot more theaters than WW1 and even on a single theater WW2 might need more than one map due to the ranges flown. Then it's an issue of ground units and AI units in general.

Going for a business model that sells only flyables mean that the developers have no way to sell us the rest of the things it would need to adequately flesh it out, so they would be less inclined to provide them in the first place.

Even if the pricing ended up similar i'd still prefer a complete expansion for this reason. I'd much rather spend $50 on a complete expansion pack with 8 new flyable aircraft, a new map and some new AI units, than spend $50 on 10 flyables priced $5 each.

It just doesn't make sense in the long run. Just imagine this, the map rotates on your favorite server and a mission comes up where you lack either the map or the aircraft to fly it.
It will only play havoc with multiplayer compatibility in the long run and cause major attendance/participation issues for most servers until the majority of people have had time to catch up in terms of add-ons purchased.

And we all know that half-empty or empty servers either don't get upgraded as often, both in terms of hardware/bandwidth/hosting and in terms of content, or they completely shut down because the rental expense can't be justified if not enough people use them.

I think this is one of the main reasons that RoF was struggling to achieve the same numbers of online players that IL2 had (i don't know if it even has comparable numbers today), much more than the fact that it was about WW1 and let's face it, almost everyone likes biplanes and swirly dogfights even if it's not their primary focus.

If CoD follows the IL2 business model it will get to that point some time, but using the itemized DLC method will result in even more widespread fragmentation because of the subject matter being much more varied as far as theaters of operations go. Per-aircraft DLC works very well for study sims and sims with a static frontline/map, but not so much for WW2 sims.

Now i can join any server and fly for any team. If we had per-aircraft DLC i would only buy a few bombers, only a couple of 109 variants that see widespread use in scenarios that predate the introduction of the 190 and the complete 190 series to fly in scenarios from 1942 onwards: i wouldn't even be able to switch sides to even the teams on a server and a similar thing would happen to other people buying different aircraft.

Just one example among many of why i think it's a terrible idea for a WW2 sim

[NedLynch]

Maybe bringing up the RoF model was a mistake, it was the first thing that came into my mind since it is a flight sim as well.
Maybe the Total War series would have been better, they as well sell expansion packs and unit packs and in their last game Shogun2 the additional units do not impact online play. Those units are independent from SP and everyone online has the same units (in our case it would be the same pool of airplanes) to choose from.

[swiss]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

I'd much rather spend $50 on a complete expansion pack with 8 new flyable aircraft, a new map and some new AI units, than spend $50 on 10 flyables priced $5 each.

+1
...given the fact it works...

[theOden]

Hahaha, no. No I wouldn't.