Post made by Jason at Sim HQ

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by Rattlehead

Let's see...some of these figures include marketing and other costs, but to get an idea:

Crysis back in 2008 cost $22 million
Grand Turismo 5 cost around $60 million
Modern Warfare 2 was nearly $50 million
Halo 3 (development cost only) was $30 million
Grand Theft Auto 4 was around $100 million

Yep, $8 million is really not a lot at all.

Not sure what this cost comparison is suppose to prove? All I know is this data can be 'looked at' in different ways to prove different things..

As it is, this data can be very misleading..

For example, a bigger software team can do more in less amount of time. So for this data to really be useful you would have to take into account how many worked on it and how long it took to develop those 'games' you listed. Ill bet that none of them took 6 years like CoD has.

Also note that and a lot of those games are spending a lot of money 'creating' worlds that don't exist, the neat thing about WWII flight sims is they only have to worry about 'copying' a world that already exists.

And as you noted marketing is included in those numbers, marketing can be a very big chunk of the pie!

With that in mind, when I look at this data, I see it as 'proof' of how small the flight sim market is in the rest of the gaming world, and not much else.

[pupo162]

Originally Posted by ACE-OF-ACES

Not sure what this cost comparison is suppose to prove? All I know is this data can be 'looked at' in different ways to prove different things..

As it is, this data can be very misleading..

For example, a bigger software team can do more in less amount of time. So for this data to really be useful you would have to take into account how many worked on it and how long it took to develop those 'games' you listed. Ill bet that none of them took 6 years like CoD has.

Also note that and a lot of those games are spending a lot of money 'creating' worlds that don't exist, the neat thing about WWII flight sims is they only have to worry about 'copying' a world that already exists.

And as you noted marketing is included in those numbers, marketing can be a very big chunk of the pie!

With that in mind, when I look at this data, I see it as 'proof' of how small the flight sim market is in the rest of the gaming world, and not much else.

well on the other hand, Cod supossedly has an engine made from scratch. Wich reduces de costs since buying an engine like unreal or frostbite does cost millions of dollars

[skouras]

i believe the next patch
will show us the real mood of development
lets hope that they will be able to finished the project
and make us all happy

[Cyanidix]

Just seems like a bad situation.

I bought this sim on day 1, and have barely touched it since. I knew it would be like that, and the very reason I did it was to finance the current developers in the hope that at some point down the track they could turn this mess into the game it was meant to be.

I've felt sorry for the developers since release. Obviously nobody in their right mind releases a game in such an incomplete state, so there were obviously major factors beyond their control at play.

If you feel bitter about the situation, your purchase or whatnot.... take a chill pill, break for a year, come back and see if the sim is in a state that validates your time then.

[icarus]

Originally Posted by cheesehawk

........ the dollar rules all!

Agreed. That is the main reason people are scared this won't get fixed. I personally don't care how long it takes, I just want it fixed. The money thing scares me, because there comes a time when the law of diminishing returns calls the shots. Its a race to fix it before that law kicks in.

[Baron]

Originally Posted by ACE-OF-ACES

Not sure what this cost comparison is suppose to prove? All I know is this data can be 'looked at' in different ways to prove different things..

As it is, this data can be very misleading..

For example, a bigger software team can do more in less amount of time. So for this data to really be useful you would have to take into account how many worked on it and how long it took to develop those 'games' you listed. Ill bet that none of them took 6 years like CoD has.

Also note that and a lot of those games are spending a lot of money 'creating' worlds that don't exist, the neat thing about WWII flight sims is they only have to worry about 'copying' a world that already exists.

Well, BF III only been at it for 5 years (and counting).

As for "creating a world that already exists", as far as i know creating for ex a desert with a painted, static background couldn't be that much of a chore for a massive staff with a budget in the hundreds of millions.

My point? Maby people should think just for a sec what's being created with a budget that wouldn`t even unlock the office door to the bigger development teams. Its true they sell a lot more copies, but in the end they develop a game to, in equal time but with a much bigger budget. Does it mean it looks a hundred million times better? No it doesnt. Does it mean the CoD team is taking way to much time getting the game finished, with a shoe string budget? No it doesnt. I would go as far as saying u would be hard pressed to find a genre (flight sim) thats more complicated in terms of physics, DM etc etc. Looking at it that way id say its pretty amazing what they can achieve for a "meesly" 8 million. (if that is in fact the true budget). Something tells me RoF is/was in a simillar situation so im not just talking about CoD here.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Like I said.. this data can be 'looked at' in different ways to prove different things..

The trick is to realise your just guessing at it and that your guess is not proof

[Chivas]

Originally Posted by Tree_UK

Well it proves that when I posted Oleg had gone (during development) that I was right on target, It also shows of the deception all were involved in to make us believe that Oleg was still captain of the ship, even down to telling us that Oleg's son was really ill so Oleg couldn't post. It proves that Ubi were not financing the project from the word go (lol @ Chivas). Other than that, everything is the same, we still need communication.

How does Oleg leaving have anything to do with UBISOFT?

I don't want to join into this useless debate who was responsible of which development decision leading to the situation we have now. It won't help.

Clod is still in a mess for whatever reasons but these reasons I could not care less. What I care about is to know if all parties involved in the development of the game will continue to support the game and the further development as I hope that in one year or so it will be fixed and we will enjoy an outstanding simulation (hoping that the dev team won't water down the sim aspect in the hope that this outbalances the lacks in game engine in the eyes of the common customer).

I hope that they stick to the quality I expect from them after IL2 1946 and that they continue to improve the game with this in mind.

If we all have a little patience knowing that a flight sim is in no way comparable to a mass market ego shooter and we show that support from the publisher will pay them in the end I am in good hope.

So please think twice before you go on bashing the dev team and ask yourself if it really will help your cause.

[Chivas]

Originally Posted by Tree_UK

C'mon on mate, how much more proof do you need, you have belittled me all this time and you were wrong, I dont expect an apology but it would show your made of the right stuff.

Proof, there is no proof, for any of your statements. Ubisoft was in on COD from the beginning, and is still the publisher. I'm sure IC publishing didn't fund 8 million without considerable investment from UBISOFT.