Fresh stuff from sukhoi.ru (Discussion)

[philip.ed]

Klem, my point is that CloD is, after the next patch, only to be developed collaterally which I perceive (as does Kendo) as abandonment. Unless the next patch provides the immersion, missions, environment to really simulate the BoB it's still a relatively empty shell in my books. Fun can be had but it doesn't sustain me. As some have pointed out, Il-2 is similar but the mods have done wonders for it.

AoA mentions that the original Il-2 was similar. Perhaps, but then I remember being vividly entertained. Why? Because there was nothing better: it was the best on the market bar none. One would have expected such a safe development strategy to remain, but for the new game to be a lot better than that released more than a decade ago. Certainly it's a huge technological leap forward (CloD's like an ice-berg: there's a lot under the surface which is untapped) but apart from being Forgotton-Battles, set in the BoB with brass-knobs on is it anything more?

I agree completely with the rest of your post, Klem. My point really is that after the next patch the sim itself is being directly abandoned and perhaps later being handed over to the community. This negates Chivas's point that the SDK will allow expansion. I'm not doubting that at all. I'm simply stating that the development team (unless they produced a sub team) will not be expanding the Battle of Britain further directly. And the indirect changes will not add the meat to sustain an offliner like me. Even if a dynamic campaign system is introduced, a community member will have to fill it out because the team won't be working on CloD directly.

This is why I hope BoM is a success. If the game expands, I can see a development team going back and working on CloD. The BoB is in a lot of people's interests and it would be foolish to not see it become the numero-uno sim representing this period.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by philip.ed

AoA mentions that the original Il-2 was similar. Perhaps

No perhaps about it..

Luither recently said CoD is going to follow the same development path as IL-2 did..

Where each sequel will include the previous version and at the same time add new features and content (maps, planes, etc).

That is the 1C 'way' of providing updates.. via sequels that include the previous version of the game and add more to it.

The 'other way' of providing updates is the RoF way.. where you pay for each and every update (planes, maps) separately.

[philip.ed]

I completely agree. But note that there is a lot of change in 10 years. 10 years ago CloD would have been a complete revelation, just as the original Il-2 was. It offered, as I said, everything over the competition. But in today's world CloD is hard to compare: once you've experienced the awesome graphics, it's relatively empty for an offline user like myself. And that's not because I am against the sim (heck I tried to help the team as much as possible to make it excellent by providing Oleg with research) so it is a shame for me to say this.

I think the business model is simple and effective. But it needs the original game to be well received first. The difference is that although the original was difficult to run on high settings, on the lowest it still offered a lot over the likes of CFS, Fighter Squadron, EAW et al. With CloD there are a lot of similar sims for being to go back to.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by philip.ed

But note that there is a lot of change in 10 years. 10 years ago CloD would have been a complete revelation, just as the original Il-2 was.

But Luither confirmed thier aproach with sequals has not changed.. Which was the topic at hand

If you want to talk about how software tools, video cards, PC, etc has changed over the past 10 years than you may want to start another thread on the topic? Just a thought.

[Force10]

Saying the developement strategies between IL-2 and COD are similar are just plain wrong. Less than a year after release, IL-2 had 6 patches and in those patches had added 17 more flyable planes among a host of other fixes and features. COD still hasn't delivered what they said was going to be in the box and have already said there will be no more planes released for it. What about the SU-26 stunt plane they were flogging before release and everyone was going to be able to test the flight model with? You can't compare the 2 for strategies. IL-2 had established a good deal of respect for the devs with the patches, added planes, and other stuff. COD has not given us anything to earn any level of trust or respect that would merit purchasing future products.

[philip.ed]

Originally Posted by Force10

Saying the developement strategies between IL-2 and COD are similar are just plain wrong. Less than a year after release, IL-2 had 6 patches and in those patches had added 17 more flyable planes among a host of other fixes and features. COD still hasn't delivered what they said was going to be in the box and have already said there will be no more planes released for it. What about the SU-26 stunt plane they were flogging before release and everyone was going to be able to test the flight model with? You can't compare the 2 for strategies. IL-2 had established a good deal of respect for the devs with the patches, added planes, and other stuff. COD has not given us anything to earn any level of trust or respect that would merit purchasing future products.

Exactly the point I'm trying to make. Their overall goal seems similar (although the announcement of an MMO throws this into doubt) but the state of the games is completely different.
Indeed, the Russian conflict was relatively new territory for people and thus it's harder to tell if the campaigns are realistic enough. There were also no competitors in this theatre of operations. CloD is different as it has a host of sims as potential competition (even modded Il-2 can take away potential customers). Thus for them to move onto the next one, it would have needed to have cemented a good deal of respect which it hasn't, sadly.

[Force10]

In his "knee jerk reaction" defend at all costs mentality, sometimes Ace just twists the truth into something that doesn't make sense. I really think he should change his avatar to something like this:

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by Force10

Saying the developement strategies between IL-2 and COD are similar are just plain wrong.

Ah I see where you are confused..

Note I did not say the development strategies are the same as IL-2..

It was Luither than said the the development strategies are the same as IL-2, with regards to how they are going to handel sequals

Hope that helps!

[Force10]

Originally Posted by ACE-OF-ACES

Ah I see where you are confused..

Note I did not say the development strategies are the same as IL-2..

It was Luither than said the the development strategies are the same as IL-2, with regards to how they are going to handel sequals

Hope that helps!

Well then I guess they missed the part where to have a successful sequel, you shouldn't have a first title that is a joke and universally thought of as being short on support, features, and is basically the worst release in a decade. Someone is definitely confused...that's for sure.

[Chivas]

Originally Posted by Force10

Saying the developement strategies between IL-2 and COD are similar are just plain wrong. Less than a year after release, IL-2 had 6 patches and in those patches had added 17 more flyable planes among a host of other fixes and features. COD still hasn't delivered what they said was going to be in the box and have already said there will be no more planes released for it. What about the SU-26 stunt plane they were flogging before release and everyone was going to be able to test the flight model with? You can't compare the 2 for strategies. IL-2 had established a good deal of respect for the devs with the patches, added planes, and other stuff. COD has not given us anything to earn any level of trust or respect that would merit purchasing future products.

The developers basic strategy is almost the same as the original series, except they planned to build tools for modders, and a more robust game engine to use in a number of different ventures. Still the basic strategy was to build a game engine and release a number of new theaters and aircraft based on that game engine. With patches inbetween to fix bugs and maybe add some new content.

This hasn't changed, except for one major setback. The sims game engine wasn't finished and working. This has thrown a major spanner in the works. If the game engine had been working everyone would have been happy and the next sequel would be just around the corner. IF the sim survives this setback you will see a succession of theaters, aircraft, tools for modders, and maybe even an MMO.

The one thing you are right about is the loss of respect by many in the forums, but that can easily be regain IF and When the game engine is fixed. Personally I'd rather they lost a little respect with a chance to regain it, than the cancellation of the sim.