The Future of Simulations - SimHQ interview

[Chizzy101]

There is an interesting round table interview with a number of different people involved in the PC sim industry over at SimHQ. Check it out at http://www.simhq.com/_commentary/all_106a.html.

 

There's some interesting discussion about how the industry has changed, what direction it may take in the future, how developers interact with their customer base and what they think we want in a sim, etc. Well worth a look (I hope this hasn't been posted elsewhere on the forum, if so mods please delete :)). I'm interested to hear what people here think, particularly relating to distribution models and downloadable content.

[joey45]

nice read for when I get home. and no ED...

[Kuky]

Right now I believe in ED and Oleg's team only

[Steel Jaw]

I hate SIMHQ, that UTAR board is so morally confused.

[Teknetinium]

Right now I believe in ED and Oleg's team only

 

Same here Kuky.

[jazjar]

Why did the Vaporware XSI guys bother to participate?

[MBot]

That was a very interesting articel. I especially liked this comment by Flexman:

 

It's a little frustrating as we grew up with the idea that combat simulations were fun and entertaining, they had gameplay. The last in-depth simulations with some level of measurable gameplay was Falcon 4.0 and Enemy Engaged: Comanche vs. Hokum. After that they became technical exercises rather than games, project staff didn't seem to include "game designers", just "editors". That's where it all went wrong. Mathematicians would call it a "feedback" loop. The press and community focus was on the nuts and bolts, pressing for more realism which shapes product. So the cycle continued while costs spiraled with complexity introduced by evolving hardware.

[Henchman14]

XSI = Total Vaporware scam.

[Grimes]

Hmmm, so far this thread looks like I can either comment on the many interesting points raised by the different developers, or complain about a specific developer that participated, completely ignoring the valid opinions they have posted.

 

A copy protection discussion between developers is always interesting. One of the comments I liked in that section

 

We like mods that are in the spirit of the sim, and we encourage where possible. We also have to take care not to break multiplayer games too much so we introduced a backup tool in our settings to allow for example offline aircraft files to be backed up before switching to a standard or known multiplayer set. It also allows multiplayer groups with modded stuff to share their own multiplayer sets of aircraft settings.

[Chizzy101]

Mbot

 

I tend to agree with you there. I love the DCS:BS and the attention to detail, but at times I feel that I'm not part of the battlefield. The stock 'Deployment' campaign is probably the most I've felt like an actual Ka-50 pilot out of all the missions I've flown, which has good interaction with ground controllers and other battlefield assets. I think ED are working on making the player feel more involved in the battlefield with DCS:A-10 (I've got the beta but haven't played it much).

 

In other gaming genres I see more and more developers/publishers moving towards downloadable content in addition to the core product. I'm interested to hear what other BS/A-10 users think: would you be prepared to pay for additional single/multi player missions and campaigns that were endorsed or created by ED? I realise there are issues with protecting such material from piracy, but it could potentially be a revenue stream for ED, on top of sales of the core sim. I guess the guys involed with the Vergeev group would be in a good position to comment.

 

Grimes

 

Good topic Grimes, particularly when it comes to survey sims like LOMAC and IL-2. I'm old enough to remember the problems unrestricted modding caused in the CFS2 community and more recently it's been a problem with IL-2. I think that most users would be happy to see texture mods etc. open to the community, but leave the flight and weapon models in the hands of the developers. If the community perceives a problem with something that they can't mod then (hopefully) they can discuss it with the devs and in can make it's way into a patch.

[Grimes]

DLC is an interesting development as of late. I'm amazed at the different forms its been taking throughout multiple genre's. Flight sims are one of the few genre's that through its nature severely limits what a player experiences. You are basically stuck inside the cockpit of whatever aircraft you are flying, and the weapons/avionics available likely won't change at all. Whereas a FPS game could add 20 new weapons, a few new drivable vehicles, new levels, or whatever and its great because the player can use all of that stuff. So anything "new" in a DCS DLC package will likely be for the world outside of the cockpit, which could be abit of a downside. Considering the time it takes ED to make a new aircraft I doubt DLC of new aircraft is a possibility. So it has to be new 3d models, new terrain, new mission, or something else. The copy protection of such additions is also quite important, not to mention how to retain compatibility.

 

I kinda like the method ARMA uses, where the DLC packs get patched into the core game but the model and sound quality is very low. But the items are still 100% functional. Such a system could be used in DCS with new world objects or AI. For instance a DLC pack could add China to the sim where everyone gets access to it, but only those who buy DLC get quality models.