![]() |
|
|||||||
| IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover Latest instalment in the acclaimed IL-2 Sturmovik series from award-winning developer Maddox Games. |
| View Poll Results: Would you be willing to pay for additional contend? | |||
| yes |
|
93 | 36.19% |
| no |
|
125 | 48.64% |
| not sure |
|
39 | 15.18% |
| Voters: 257. You may not vote on this poll | |||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
|
fact.. flight sims are a very small part of the gaming market
fact.. flight sim users demand cutting edge graphics and high fidelity flight models (read realism), which does not come cheap wrt software development fact.. there is more money to be made and easier money to be made making 'silly' games (read non-flight sim games) fact.. Oleg's past flight sim spoiled a lot of people into thinking flight sims have to provide free support, updates and addons for 10+ years, when in fact this type of support is the exception not the rule in gaming. fact.. there is only three ways to get 'additional content' 1) closed system, where you pay the original sim maker for addons and hope for a free one from time to time 2) open system, where you pay for 3rd party addons and hope for a free one from time to time 3) hacked system: where you download a 'free' addons and hope for the best With that said.. I think the best way is option 1 Where there is only one methodology to the FM and DM, in that the other two methods can result in many different versions of the 'same plane', worse yet in option 3 you can end up with many different versions of the 'same game'. And as noted above, the flight sim community is a small (nitch) one realitive to the gaming community as a whole, thus any splits hurts everyone. Oh and the other nice thing about option one and even two is it has a filtering effect.. In essence weeding out the kid-os who have to go ask mama for the credit card to buy the addons. With the hope being that mama says no!
__________________
Theres a reason for instrumenting a plane for test..
That being a pilots's 'perception' of what is going on can be very different from what is 'actually' going on. |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
fact.. many people who enjoy WWII flight sims are not computer literate and don't play other games. (you forgot one, Ace
I get what you are saying, but I would like more people to play WWII flight sims, not less. |
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
No, I don't think you 'get' what I am saying, that or you don't mind kid-os shooting down friendly planes in a coop because they think they are cool
__________________
Theres a reason for instrumenting a plane for test..
That being a pilots's 'perception' of what is going on can be very different from what is 'actually' going on. |
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
|
I need to add another fact
fact.. most if not all new games require a cutting edge PC, as did IL-2 when it first came out. As with most problems with FPS it is the user not the game. We are all guilty of it from time to time. The problem is NOT with the game!! The problem is with the user! Because most modern games will auto detect the hardware and set the settings accordingly. Than before even flying 30mins the user runs to the options menu and tweaks all the settings to HIGH or VERY HIGH.. than said user plays the game and wonders why it is a slide show.. And than sit back and blame Oleg for the slide show.. It's Oleg's fault for putting those options in there!! No mater what Oleg does it is a loose loose.. because if Oleg left those options out, a year or two from now when todays cutting edge hardware is in the bargin bin for $40 people will complain that Oleg did not include enough options to take advantage of the 'new' hardware
__________________
Theres a reason for instrumenting a plane for test..
That being a pilots's 'perception' of what is going on can be very different from what is 'actually' going on. |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
I'd just like to say that I believe certain people are misinterpreting the results. My option to vote "Not sure" (or even "no") has nothing to do with the state of the game. I would vote the same if CoD ran perfectly on my crappy machine.
I just don't like the pay-per-everything model of RoF... it really hinges on the "Pokemon syndrome" that humans are prone to. People like completeness, it's part of our nature. It's like buying a puzzle but only getting half the pieces. If you want the rest of the pieces you have to pay for each one. How can you not want to finish the puzzle? Turning a profit from something you can't really help is something I'm not comfortable with. Also, I'm a grad student and can't afford this stuff... that may account for some of it I'd be OK with large packs at reasonable prices. I'd jump on a Pacific Theatre expansion if it included significant amounts of aircraft and wasn't priced like a full game. That's why I went with "Not sure" instead of "No". |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
People take note, the above post is the way to disagree with other posters in a public forum. I won't reply so that we won't derail the thread further (plus i think i've said all i need to say on the matter), it would be a shame to have to move your post when it could serve as an example to others. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|