Falcon OT from the Black Shark AI thread

[EvilBivol-1]

Falcon OT from the Black Shark AI thread

 

OT from the original thread moved here.

Edited February 27, 2009 by EvilBivol-1

[Feuerfalke]

Just a quick note:

Microprose lived from '82 to about '02 depending on how you count. That's 20 years.

Eagle Dynamics has been operating from '91 to the present, about 18 years.

 

Eagle Dynamics, a "rather fresh company", has been around just as long as Blizzard Entertainment.

 

 

Yes, that is exactly the problem. The initial point was the claim that Falcon4 was not successful, as Microprose no longer exists and there is no Falcon5.

 

The dependency of a company on a single product, but disregarding other games and the product line, IMHO is the most difficult thing in this debate. It's comparing Apples and Oranges IMHO, mixing up cause and effect, as I repeatedly stated.

 

ED lived from 91 to present.

DCS is going to be released on DVD next month.

Microprose was active from 82 to roughly 2003 (at the latest).

The Falcon-Brand still lives as Falcon4:AF (note that this is an official product, not a fan- / code-leak- based in legal terms).

 

But since these things were combined in a sort, which date to you set? As the argument was posted, that DCS is a new brand that is being developed and constantly upgraded as a series, I felt that combination would make it worthwhile to post this as a "fresh start" of the company with a new tactics as it is advertised by ED.

 

 

I agree, though, that if you just take the words you quoted, leaving out the context and the rest of the sentence, the words themselves are incorrect. ;)

 

 

PS: Thanks again for cleaning up the threads, EB.

 

 

PPS: (If we are arguing about months and years of existence: Both, Microprose and Blizzard had their first games ready, when they founded their official brands. IIRC ED was founded 3 or 4 years before they released their initial simulation. But that's nit-picking IMHO)

Edited February 27, 2009 by Feuerfalke

[GGTharos]

Yes, that is exactly the problem. The initial point was the claim that Falcon4 was not successful, as Microprose no longer exists and there is no Falcon5.

 

It wasn't. You're confusing a successful product with the continued development of an illicitly acquired product source ;)

 

ED lived from 91 to present.

DCS is going to be released on DVD next month.

Microprose was active from 82 to roughly 2003 (at the latest).

The Falcon-Brand still lives as Falcon4:AF (note that this is an official product, not a fan- / code-leak- based in legal terms).

 

And that too is incorrect. It is a LEGALIZED fan/code-leak-based product. Let's be very, very clear on this ... LP capitalized on the decade of free falcon development and patched up the holes.

[EvilBivol-1]

Yes, that is exactly the problem. The initial point was the claim that Falcon4 was not successful, as Microprose no longer exists and there is no Falcon5.

This discussion resulted from the citing of Falcon 4.0 as a benchmark, as is often done by flight simmers. My point was that this is a mistake, because it fails to recgnize that producing such as flight sim is practically impossible, at least as a singlular release. Any effort to do so will likely fail, resulting in yet less flight sims for us to fly.

Edited February 27, 2009 by EvilBivol-1

[EtherealN]

On your ending note, that is quite true Feuerfalke. For transparency I should note that I went by numbers publicised in Wikipedia and that didn't go into an awful lot of detail. (Especially the entries on ED need to be seriously beefed up there. :P )

 

Oh, and yeah, thanks for the cleanup EB and apologies for my partaking of the derail.

 

When it comes to clear statements linguistically, would you agree with what I believe to be the spirit of intent in saying that Falcon4 failed as a product if we qualify it as "failed as a product as relates to the original developer"? The whole discussion of exactly why that happened is a tougher nut and many people are better authorities on that than I.

 

I just want someone to make a sequel to Knights of the Sky...

 

 

Now THAT is what defined Microprose for me, in the good old Amiga days. :D

[WynnTTr]

 

Microprose has surpassed it's competitors for YEARS in terms of longlivety and independent production of PC-games, especially in the simulation sector. When Microprose ran into bankruptcy, it was YEARS beyond it's competitors like Dynamix, Janes, LucasArts and the simulation-part of Sierra.

 

That is not a sign of a weak company, but that of a STRONG one.

Can you not see the irony in this statement?

 

To point 2:

My statements have nothing to do with the effect after the code was leaked, but before Falcon4 was released. :smilewink:

And my personal opinion to that point: There is no such thing as a commercial success without a success with the customers you want to please.

This is true, but there is a difference between selling to the masses (which will make a product commercially successful) and being successful to a small niche (which drives most companies bankrupt).

 

The fact is, for whatever reason, F4 was not commercially successful. Maybe if Micropose was as strong as you think and then maybe we would have had a polished F4, perhaps even a F5. Or they might have thrown in the towel with that particular product.

 

No point arguing it cos we'll never know.

[SUBS17]

Actually, they're perfectly fitting words. Lock On was also a "market success" as far as flight sim sales numbers go, but that too was not enough for a traditional publisher like Ubisoft to continue investing in it. Which is why ED is doing what they're doing now - self-publishing and pushing into the military sims market as a source of financing.

I think you're missing the point. :) The product is not the goal - the developer staying in business is the goal, so that they can continue to make more flight simulations for us to fly.

 

Actually Lockon was a complete disaster when it was released as the bugs made it nearly unplayable. The other problem was technology at that time alot of people needed upgrades to their PCs to play it. Same can be said about F4 when it was released again it had alot of bugs and yes there needed to be much faster PCs to run it. FC as an addon also a controversial product due to the effects SF had on some PCs. On the other hand LPs F4AF was a complete success and its held the top spot for sims with massive sales and I believe they are still developing something along those lines. Comparing lockon to F4, F4s on going development makes it the top sim if you look at the continuing development of mods etc by the community and if it weren't for the publisher people wouldn't be limited to purchasing only the ebay 2nd hand version or downloading pirated torrents. Lockon on the other hand ends with FC and thats it the DCS series I think will go further once ED does an F-16 or Hornet only then would it reach close to the popularity of F4. If they did a DC it would likely take over F4s spot.

[EvilBivol-1]

Sales numbers are only half of the equation - and the second half at that. The first half is the complexity, cost and duration of development. Those are the real killers of hardcore air combat simulations and what I don't think flight simmers appreciate enough. Read Andy Hollis in 1999 - even by the standards of a decade a go, flight simmers' expectations had become unrealistic for what was possible to achieve in any single simulation product.

 

Flight simmers need to learn to manage their expectations for what is practically possible. Creating a living fighter-pilot world is a lot easier said (wished for) than done... Try it and watch your development time span toward a decade and your costs go millions over budget. Then watch your company go under.

 

If we are lucky enough to ever see it at all, getting to that air combat super-sim will probably take years more than we want to wait and certainly more than a couple product releases. That's how I look at it, anyway, but maybe I'm pessimistic. At least it allows me to focus on the things I enjoy in the sims I have without worrying terribly about the things I don't.

Edited February 28, 2009 by EvilBivol-1