AT-802U - Data Collection

[EtherealN]

Frosties, regarding the popularity of these things, I'm sure you've heard of this weird place called "Russia". The place with ED in it. This place is sort of weird compared to the west in that people in Russia love aircraft, and want their sims to be sims instead of HAWX. People in the UK, US and so on, however... Yeah. Anyway, the best illustration is the fact that pretty much all serious combat flight sims developed since the death of Microprose has been made in Russia.

 

...the Ka-50 is a Russian cult bird, complete with Airwolf-style TV series! Please don't make the mistake of thinking that just because something is unknown at your place, it's unknown everywhere. In fact, in this case, it's actually pretty popular elsewhere. :) It's the world of business, and you do not have sufficient data to make a judgement. ;)

 

Now, speaking of Airwolf... DCS:Airwolf... Wouldn't that be something? :D

 

Oh, and I almost forgot: http://www.microsoft.com/games/flight/

;)

[EtherealN]

Actually, I thought of a good analogy that might illustrate the point about marketability:

 

Way back DICE made racing games, and after a few pretty successful ones they made STCC. STCC sold a grand total of 18 000 copies, which in the grand scheme of things is pretty sucky. BUT: they were able to use a lot of what they already had, so the game only took a few months to make, and it still made them a profit. (I remember being impressed by that when I read the shareholder report.)

 

Point being: you can make a viable product even on something that is niche and will sell comparatively poorly. It all depends on what synergies you can exploit and if you can grab untapped markets with it. (STCC targeted not only the regular racing fans, but fans of the real STCC as well - sort of like how the Formula 1 games aren't just targeted at "gamers" but also at people who don't generally play computer games but do happen to watch F1 on TV. Whether this would apply to a DCS:AT-802U... None of us can know that. But if ED were to get a military contract for the thing that includes FM there wouldn't be all that much "new" stuff required to make a DCS:AT-802U. In that case, most of the risk would already be covered, most of the "bits" would already be there, and suddenly it could work.

[joey45]

The reason why ED is still alive is that they have DEFENCE CONTRACTS.

 

The DCS line is a spin off of their DEFENCE CONTRACTS.

[EtherealN]

To be precise, it's more of a feedback loop than one being a spinoff of the other. In the case of DCS A-10C for example, the contract gave the knowhow and funded some of that work, and then the DCS product added the AFM and so on, and with the AFM and other civvie market oriented stuff in place it can "demo" to possible military clients (sort of like, "here's what we can do"). Then get new contract, rinse and repeat. :)

[RAF74_Raptor]

To be precise, it's more of a feedback loop than one being a spinoff of the other. In the case of DCS A-10C for example, the contract gave the knowhow and funded some of that work, and then the DCS product added the AFM and so on, and with the AFM and other civvie market oriented stuff in place it can "demo" to possible military clients (sort of like, "here's what we can do"). Then get new contract, rinse and repeat. :)

 

 

 

And I think that is what people forget too quickly ED did not make A-10 for us. They made it for the Department of defense to train pilots. We being the lucky simmers that we are get to enjoy what we love most.

 

So even if ED were going to make this sim. I would buy it A. because I like props. B. Because I do support ED call me a fanboy if you want. I can never be a military pilot so this is as close as I can get.

 

SO please people dont bite the hand that feeds

[RAF74_Raptor]

Yeah, and Jackson Pollock and Rebecca Black are the greatest artists in history.

 

In my opinion, everyone who thinks that, or actually wants this to be more than a DLC/expansion are a bunch of idiots.

 

 

 

So why is ED alive? Discounting the Flanker game (part of the mid-90s flight sim explosion, everyone had their hands in these), LOMAC was not a serious flight sim, it was really more along the lines of IL2, presenting simplified models of aircraft - it was quite a degree of fidelity higher than Over-G fighters for the Xbox, but not by much. Additionally, the response to DCS: Black Shark was somewhat subdued, whereas a 'romantic' plane like the A-10, a plane which lends itself popularly to imagination and hollywood-esque notions, has exploded in popularity and sales. I know firsthand half a dozen people who own or know of the game, whereas I don't know anyone who even knows what the KA-50 even is. Hell I don't even remember how I found out about the game, but it certainly wasn't because I read hype about it or heard it through the grapevine. I think I just stumbled across the box quietly sitting at the bottom of the games rack.

 

The market you seem to be arguing for are the people who are legitimately excited to fly a cargo plane from Hong Kong to LA in real time. So why did Microsoft fire the shit out of the only studio who was making those kinds of games? Was it because that market was making them money hand-over-fist? Or maybe because the return on their investment into FSX was slim to none, and they saw that the market for those kinds of sims has been slowly collapsing and was no longer worth their time?

 

First, this isn't the 'world of adults', this is the world of business. Second, stop being a patronizing asshat.

 

A good business strategy is not making a game that people aren't going to want to buy, using the money you won't make to then develop your NEXT game that people will want to buy... instead of just doing that in the first place. There's a good chance the next DCS module could be another F-16, and not because ED is going to do something new and unheard of that Falcon hasn't already done - it's because it's an insanely popular airframe and will move a lot of copies - not because it's an obscure gimmick they just felt like pouring tons of money in to.

 

 

Originally LOMAC wasnt ed's it belongs to Ubi.

[Speed]

Originally LOMAC wasnt ed's it belongs to Ubi.

 

LOMAC was developed by Eagle Dynamics, and published by Ubisoft. I don't believe that UbiSUCK makes anything themselves... they're solely a publisher I believe, so nothing more than a consumer-f@#$ing, constant-internet-connection-requiring, overgrown sucking-all-the-money-away-from-actual-developers "company". I believe the most that they ever do to actually make something is give money to development teams and tell them what kind of game to make, then take all the profits (or loss) for themselves.

 

Sorry, I had to get that off my shoulders. The good thing is, with the likes of Steam, independent and smaller developers are getting a chance to tell "up yours" to companies like Ubi.

Edited July 2, 2011 by Speed

[EtherealN]

I don't believe that UbiSUCK makes anything themselves... they're solely a publisher I believe

 

Actually, Ubisoft make a lot of games in-house. I don't personally feel there's that much that they make that is actually good, but that's beside the point. (Examples of ubisoft in-house games include HAWX. Silent Hunter 5, the Settlers series, Splinter Cell, Far Cry 2, Assasin's Creed, Rainbow Six etcetera.)

 

That's been the issue for the independents lately - the big publishers prefer to make games in their in-house studios, so getting a good deal as an independent is difficult; if the publisher is going to assume the financial risk they might as well make the game themselves. Hell, even id Software sold out to a publisher lately! IMO the only one of the classic developers that hasn't been bought up (or just plain died) by a publisher is Blizzard - and that's just because they had enough market capitalization to merge instead of being bought. :P Bioware, DICE, Massive, so on and so forth, they're all either integrated into a publisher or a wholly-owned subsidiary of one.

 

I do agree though - platforms like Steam, and just the general advent of digital distribution, is awesome for independents. You can actually release software without finding someone to front the cash to print 200k copies of it and distribute them, you "just" need enough money to buy a couple racks on a hosting centre.

Edited July 2, 2011 by EtherealN

[joey45]

So..... The AT-802U as a DCS Module....

[EtherealN]

Will be awesome. :P

 

I am however considering whether I should talk Matt into cancelling the project and instead doing DCS:Airwolf. Now that would be awesome! :D

[joey45]

6 machine guns and a dozen TOWs.....

 

Plus the fanbois will have their Afterburners..

[Speed]

Actually, Ubisoft make a lot of games in-house...

 

Ok, thanks for the correction Eth, and the interesting bits of info. However, the only thing I really need to know to hate Ubi as much as I do is how they totally killed the Silent Hunter series with SHV. @$## them!!! I'm never going to buy that craptastic game in particular, and never will buy any game that is by nature, a single player game, but requires constant internet connection to play. I like to take a gaming laptop with me on my astronomy retreats to West Texas, you know. No internet most of the time out there. And that's just me, a lot of people have their own personal reasons that they are inaccessible to internet sometimes. But whatever, that's a DRM discussion that doesn't really belong here.

 

I don't personally feel there's that much that they make that is actually good...

 

You and me both! It helps when you're an Ubi-hater like me when their games mostly suck :D

Edited July 2, 2011 by Speed

[Frostiken]

The reason why ED is still alive is that they have DEFENCE CONTRACTS.

 

The DCS line is a spin off of their DEFENCE CONTRACTS.

 

So what happens if they can't secure a contract?

 

There's only so many aircraft in use today that need trainer sims (which is why I wonder about the F/A-18C given that it's going to be phased out completely in a few years).

[GGTharos]

They'll secure a contract. It doesn't have to be a plane. As for why a specific aircraft, there are always reasons.

 

So what happens if they can't secure a contract?

 

There's only so many aircraft in use today that need trainer sims (which is why I wonder about the F/A-18C given that it's going to be phased out completely in a few years).

[EtherealN]

So what happens if they can't secure a contract?

 

AFAIK, that's not likely to be a problem. :P

But in the hypothetical situation, they then make a product based on something else that they have information on.

 

There's only so many aircraft in use today that need trainer sims (which is why I wonder about the F/A-18C given that it's going to be phased out completely in a few years).

 

For clarity: note that there has been no statement made about a DCS:F/A-18C. The "certainty" of some individuals of the community about that being the next one is based on the knowledge that it's been stated that it's US Fixed Wing, and someone noticed that Eagle Dynamics owns a domain name linked to that.

 

...thing is, of course, that Eagle Dynamics owns many many domain names and people tend to stop looking when they've found the answer they wanted. :)

[EtherealN]

It doesn't have to be a plane.

 

DCS:Airwolf. I'm telling you! :D

 

I'd like DCS:Sputnik II though...

[GGTharos]

DCS: Leclerc. 'Nuff said.

[EtherealN]

Anyone playing as a Leclerc will just be insta-ganked by all the A-10C players. :(

 

(And the AT-802U players, of course... :D )

[GGTharos]

Galix. Trees :D

[Beagle One]

Anyone playing as a Leclerc will just be insta-ganked by all the A-10C players. :(

 

(And the AT-802U players, of course... :D )

You forgot about the Ka-50 Rotorheads. In fact the Ka-50 plays the game alone in LockOn MP...nobody down there to bother you. The Ka-50 and AT-802U wold share the same airspace and mission profile stirring things up a bit. Edited July 2, 2011 by Beagle One

[EtherealN]

In fact the Ka-50 plays the game alone in LockOn MP...nobody down there to bother you.

 

Heh, wishful thinking. If I had a penny for every time I've seen F-15's go NOE to hunt helicopters... :P

 

But anyhow, the Ka-50's will get LGB'd by the A-10C pilots, so they're out of it too. :D

[Speed]

Heh, wishful thinking. If I had a penny for every time I've seen F-15's go NOE to hunt helicopters... :P

 

But anyhow, the Ka-50's will get LGB'd by the A-10C pilots, so they're out of it too. :D

 

Did they nerf Mavericks vs. Helos in a recent patch? Because a week or so ago I fired a pair of Mavs at a pair of Mi-28s frontal aspect from like 6 miles slant at 10k feet and both missiles sailed wide. Used to be a 100% magic bullet, especially against helos in those conditions.

[GGTharos]

If they haven't yet, they will. The 65's aren't supposed to be anti-air weapons.

[RAF74_Raptor]

DCS Spitfire

[RAF74_Raptor]

LOMAC was developed by Eagle Dynamics, and published by Ubisoft. I don't believe that UbiSUCK makes anything themselves... they're solely a publisher I believe, so nothing more than a consumer-f@#$ing, constant-internet-connection-requiring, overgrown sucking-all-the-money-away-from-actual-developers "company". I believe the most that they ever do to actually make something is give money to development teams and tell them what kind of game to make, then take all the profits (or loss) for themselves.

 

Sorry, I had to get that off my shoulders. The good thing is, with the likes of Steam, independent and smaller developers are getting a chance to tell "up yours" to companies like Ubi.

 

 

I stand corrected :joystick: