One Free Aircraft - The Poll

[mazex]

I sure voted for only one flyable - but like many others here I don't think it matters much for the Kickstarter campaign if the "rules" are changed to only one free aircraft if the $1 backers get all three for free anyway? At least lock that $1 level so you don't end up with a bunch of $1 pledges these last days?

[Linx]

End of the day, by me backing your project I expect you to do what is best for the health of the project.

 

Although I disagreed at first, three free DCS level planes at release is too much.

You're gonna need sales to get the whole DCS WW2 ball rolling. You can worry about releasing more free planes/theatres after that.

 

For a start, flight simulation community needs a great base game that will have offical support by it's creators.

[Keyser]

Those who pledged get what was promised to them. That is not up for debate and never was.

 

Legally, there is nothing stooping him to change what was promised to non-backers.

 

You are somewhat correct, but what was promised to backers is not only access to a certain module, but a game as well. Namely, the game that was put forth in the Kickstarter description at the time of the campaign.

A backer may back this project only because the 3 planes will be free. Maybe he thinks that the 3 free planes will lead to some positive consequence for him, maybe he backed the project because he wanted it to get made so his friends and family would be able to get the 3 planes for free. Maybe he would not have supported the project had he known that only 1 plane will be free.

This sounds a little constructed, but the point isn't how many people fit that description, but simply that you are wrong in saying that RRG has no legal obligation to deliver the project they advertised during the campaign. If someone made a campaign to deliver free food to a homeless shelter and backers at a certain level got an iPhone as a reward, it wouldn't be okay to then go ahead and charge the homeless people money for the food after the campaign is over, even if every backer got his iPhone. Legally, there is very much something stopping that person from changing what he promised to non-backers. Just because you deliver the rewards to backers does not mean you can change your project's specifics at will.

 

Having said all of that, I will reiterate that I agree with the proposed change. What I am argueing against is simply the proposal to keep the Kickstarter as is and change the project after its conclusion. Changes have to be made now. It's not only fairer that way, but also legally safer.

[Hans-Joachim Marseille]

This is between the devil and the deep blue sea, but ... Nay.

The difference in rewards between $0 and $1 is too large. The $1 bills will not get us to the stretch goal.

People that didn't know about this KickStarter or find out later about the game deserve the same rewards as those who put in just a dollar now.

That one dollar should be moral support, not getting you through a closing gate for the wrong reasons.

I'd rather fly along someone who finds out about the game later than a "$1 Bf.109 jockey".

Edited September 30, 2013 by Hans-Joachim Marseille

[hegykc]

...

 

I see your point. The charity comparison is stretching it a bit though :)

 

I agree, changing it after the end of kickstarter would be cheating even in my book. I don't think that's even up for debate.

Edited September 30, 2013 by hegykc

[horseback]

I think it'd still look worse if we do it after the KS.

 

A promise is a promise is a promise. "I did not back the project because I only want to fly the 109 and it was coming out free anyway" is a perfectly good stance.

 

If we did not promise a free game that'd be one thing. We are however promising something for free, so, while probably not legally bound, you could still make a case for a moral obligation.

 

In other words, even if we kept the KS as it is, we'd probably cut down the number of free planes before the release anyway. Doing it now, while new people can still come in, and existing people can still come out, just seems more fair.

Bravo. When in doubt, go with integrity.

 

cheers

 

horseback

[Keyser]

I see your point. The charity comparison is stretching it a bit though

 

I agree, changing it after the end of kickstarter would be cheating even in my book. I don't think that's even up for debate.

 

I don't think it is either, but someone had made that request. My reply to that person was the post you quoted.

[canuck]

I sure voted for only one flyable - but like many others here I don't think it matters much for the Kickstarter campaign if the "rules" are changed to only one free aircraft if the $1 backers get all three for free anyway? At least lock that $1 level so you don't end up with a bunch of $1 pledges these last days?

 

I believe the $1 level is also important. The more the better. I would like to see thousands of $1 pledges as it indicates a greater level of interest.

 

BTW, I voted 1 free aircraft. I can't see the backers becoming offended at this and backing out if it is explained clearly. Non backers will have a similar opportunity to discover the value of the sim as in DCS world with the one flyable. That's how I came in and started buying modules. Try one free buy the rest but if you've got the whole stable free at the start why buy or back for that matter.

 

@"when in doubt go with integrity." I'm sure a lot of non backers will agree with you as they gleefully fire up their free airplanes.

Edited September 30, 2013 by canuck

[Gooseneck]

The free aircraft would have to be the 109, the Jug or the Spit IX, as many people already own the P-51 and will buy the Dora before '44 is released, presumably. But yes, one free a/c as per DCS world.

I'd vote to give the 109 free, due to it's popularity and the attractiveness to many people.

[hegykc]

Alright, well kudos for giving the community a part in project altering decisions.

 

And kudos to the community for not taking the easy way out.

[Vampyre]

I'd vote to give the 109 free, due to it's popularity and the attractiveness to many people.

 

Interesting, that is the exact reason to not offer the 109 as free. The idea is to acquire revenues from the project to keep it profitable by creating future modules to populate DCS WWII with. It makes more sense to offer a free flyable that will be used as a hook to get potential customers to purchase other, more popular, modules. This is the draw currently in use by ED and it works well from what I have seen.

[Gooseneck]

This is the draw currently in use by ED and it works well from what I have seen.

 

Not in my opinion. In my opinion, that Su-25 is enough to put anyone off buying a DCS module. It's a really bad advertisement, imo.

But the free 'plane has to be one of the new models, otherwise existing P-51 and Dora owners will feel disadvantaged. In the great wide world beyond flight sim fans, who has heard of a P-47?

That leaves us with Spits and 109s, and I'd say that there are a great deal more untapped potential 109 fans than Spit fans.

But I ain't gonna argue. Either would be ok, just not the Jug, because it's not very widely known, and anyone new to aviation and/or flight sims would say 'a what?'. :)

[hegykc]

You both have a valid point.

 

My thoughts are that a spit or a 109 would be the best choice, BUT

 

those are planes you stick with for years to come. Something everyone wants. Is it wise for the good of the project to give away an asset like that.

 

1-2 years of revenue from a spit or a 109 could pay for a bigger map or a B-17.

 

If the jug has a clickable cockpit, 6dof and is full p-51 fidelity, I say it is a great advertisement.

 

Especially if you're trying to get newcomers into hardcore simming. The jug is "indestructible", has 8 .50 cals that can be forgiving for the not so great marksman. Is great for diving and getting away. Can do ground attacks and hold it's own in a dogfight and much more.

Edited September 30, 2013 by hegykc

[Gooseneck]

The jug is "indestructible", has 8 .50 cals that can be forgiving for the not so great marksman. Is great for diving and getting away. Can do ground attacks and hold it's own in a dogfight and much more.

 

Yeah, I confess you all have a point with the versatility and durability. But if you give this away free, and this brand new untapped market laps it up, why are they going to then buy a Spit IX or 109K, or P-51 or Dora, which has very limited air to ground capability, water cooling, less firepower or armament duration in the guns etc?

 

Don't get me wrong here, I absolutely adore the P-47. So much that I think it should be payware, not freeware. It's very versatility is worth something. :)

[BabyJail]

- Jug is versatile. Can do both ground attack and air combat.

- Stable weapons platform. Guns, rockets and bombs, can do it all.

- It has lots of guns and tons of ammo. Forgiving for "bullet-hose" type players.

- Good high altitude performance, good range. Can escort B-17s.

- Accelerates well in a dive. Gives you options to retreat.

- Airframe and engine can take a beating.

- Good visibility with the teardrop-canopy.

- Wide undercarriage. Forgiving for learning how to properly land an aircraft.

 

I am sure there is more, but the poll kind of speaks for itself - go jug! :thumbup:

[hegykc]

Yeah, I confess you all have a point with the versatility and durability. But if you give this away free, and this brand new untapped market laps it up, why are they going to then buy a Spit IX or 109K, or P-51 or Dora, which has very limited air to ground capability, water cooling, less firepower or armament duration in the guns etc?

 

Don't get me wrong here, I absolutely adore the P-47. So much that I think it should be payware, not freeware. It's very versatility is worth something. :)

 

You said it yourself. People are gonna say P-whaat? There are ten times more people interested in a cool type like the spit or a 109. Everyone wants to be an ace.

 

Do the math. Say 5000 are would buy a popular choice like a spit or a 109. Thats 5000 x 39.99$ = 200.000$ for the developers if the don't make it free.

 

On the other hand you can pretty much say one tenth of those would be interested in a payware P-47. That's 500 x 39.99 = 20.000$ for the developers if they don't make it free.

 

In other words, P-47 would be the least financial loss for the devs. While still offering plenty of fun and advertisement for those trying out DCS WWII.

[Vampyre]

Not in my opinion. In my opinion, that Su-25 is enough to put anyone off buying a DCS module. It's a really bad advertisement, imo.

But the free 'plane has to be one of the new models, otherwise existing P-51 and Dora owners will feel disadvantaged. In the great wide world beyond flight sim fans, who has heard of a P-47?

That leaves us with Spits and 109s, and I'd say that there are a great deal more untapped potential 109 fans than Spit fans.

But I ain't gonna argue. Either would be ok, just not the Jug, because it's not very widely known, and anyone new to aviation and/or flight sims would say 'a what?'. :)

 

Actually, it's been my experience that anyone "new to aviation and/or flight sims" usually says 'a what?' simply because they know almost nothing about it. Having heard of a Spitfire or a Bf-109 before is the incentive to purchase those modules and will bring the most revenue. The game and one aircraft are free, the modules are where you make your money. The Thunderbolt is the perfect free aircraft as it is good at both air to air as well as air to ground and you dont have to baby it on the ground as much as a Spit or 109. It is better to showcase the basic game with an aircraft that was not quite as famous as the other two for that simple reason. A lot of WWII sim fans have their favorite rides and will not fly anything else and the Spit and 109 are the two most popular planes on any WWII aircraft list which creates a want. The Thunderbolt on the other hand would draw far fewer profits than either of the other two. The goal is to sell modules to keep the development going and the most revenue can be made with the most popular aircraft.

Edited September 30, 2013 by Vampyre

[Gooseneck]

Ok chaps, you disagree with me. I'm cool with that. But look at this another way. Which aircraft would be the most expensive to produce? Which aircraft would be the cheapest to produce?

I would put it to you that out of the existing FMs available, the P-47 would be more expensive to produce than the 109 or Spit.

From the vid we saw regarding FMs, they already have water cooled single engine stuff with the P-51 and Dora. Not many adjustments would have to be made FM-wise to produce a Kurfurst or a Spit. But a P-47 is an air-cooled radial with lots of different engine modelling. So, they would be giving away for free what cost the most to produce. Even the 262 would take less work, with the FMs available from DCS.

See my point there?

[Keyser]

Ok chaps, you disagree with me. I'm cool with that. But look at this another way. Which aircraft would be the most expensive to produce? Which aircraft would be the cheapest to produce?

I would put it to you that out of the existing FMs available, the P-47 would be more expensive to produce than the 109 or Spit.

From the vid we saw regarding FMs, they already have water cooled single engine stuff with the P-51 and Dora. Not many adjustments would have to be made FM-wise to produce a Kurfurst or a Spit. But a P-47 is an air-cooled radial with lots of different engine modelling. So, they would be giving away for free what cost the most to produce. Even the 262 would take less work, with the FMs available from DCS.

See my point there?

 

Except they will have those expenses regardless. They are making three planes, that means at launch, they will have spent X amount of money. That money is gone, no matter what anybody does. It's spent.

 

What they have to do after that is look at how to get the most money back. The amount of money they paid at some point in the past for something does not enter into that calculation anymore, only the potential profits do. Whether the most profitable will be the Spit, the 109 or the 47 is up for debate, although I would suspect it's one of the former two.

[Vampyre]

Ok chaps, you disagree with me. I'm cool with that. But look at this another way. Which aircraft would be the most expensive to produce? Which aircraft would be the cheapest to produce?

I would put it to you that out of the existing FMs available, the P-47 would be more expensive to produce than the 109 or Spit.

From the vid we saw regarding FMs, they already have water cooled single engine stuff with the P-51 and Dora. Not many adjustments would have to be made FM-wise to produce a Kurfurst or a Spit. But a P-47 is an air-cooled radial with lots of different engine modelling. So, they would be giving away for free what cost the most to produce. Even the 262 would take less work, with the FMs available from DCS.

See my point there?

 

It would be a good point if the decision to model the P-47 had not been made already.

[NineLine]

I dont think that is accurate, each aircraft is going to have things that differ and cause challenges in creation, I dont think any one will be any more expensive to produce than the other. If anything the German aircraft would be more expensive just based on availability of all relevant data, along those lines, the P-47 would probably be cheaper than all of them... but its probably splitting hairs in the grand scheme of things...

 

The 262 wont be like any modern aircraft they have developed... I dont thing what they have done previously will make it any easier or harder... just different...

 

Ok chaps, you disagree with me. I'm cool with that. But look at this another way. Which aircraft would be the most expensive to produce? Which aircraft would be the cheapest to produce?

I would put it to you that out of the existing FMs available, the P-47 would be more expensive to produce than the 109 or Spit.

From the vid we saw regarding FMs, they already have water cooled single engine stuff with the P-51 and Dora. Not many adjustments would have to be made FM-wise to produce a Kurfurst or a Spit. But a P-47 is an air-cooled radial with lots of different engine modelling. So, they would be giving away for free what cost the most to produce. Even the 262 would take less work, with the FMs available from DCS.

See my point there?

[BabyJail]

Ok chaps, you disagree with me. I'm cool with that. But look at this another way. Which aircraft would be the most expensive to produce? Which aircraft would be the cheapest to produce?

I would put it to you that out of the existing FMs available, the P-47 would be more expensive to produce than the 109 or Spit.

From the vid we saw regarding FMs, they already have water cooled single engine stuff with the P-51 and Dora. Not many adjustments would have to be made FM-wise to produce a Kurfurst or a Spit. But a P-47 is an air-cooled radial with lots of different engine modelling. So, they would be giving away for free what cost the most to produce. Even the 262 would take less work, with the FMs available from DCS.

See my point there?

more work(P-47) for 0$ = less work(Spit/262) for ~35$ a piece

[cichlidfan]

At this point the poll is meaningless. Ilya has stated that the one free aircraft will be voted on by the backers after the kickstarter ends.

[Gooseneck]

Wow, thanks for all the responses guys. Nice to know I can stir yuz all into action. :)

 

But as with many threads I've seen so far, the discussion is a little premature, and there are evidently arguments all ways from lots of different perspectives.

 

At least we all seem to be agreed on the fact that there should be only one free plane. But is that because we've all already pledged and so will still get them all? I'd like to hear from someone who hasn't pledged yet, I think. :)

[Vampyre]

Wow, thanks for all the responses guys. Nice to know I can stir yuz all into action. :)

 

But as with many threads I've seen so far, the discussion is a little premature, and there are evidently arguments all ways from lots of different perspectives.

 

At least we all seem to be agreed on the fact that there should be only one free plane. But is that because we've all already pledged and so will still get them all? I'd like to hear from someone who hasn't pledged yet, I think. :)

 

The exchange of ideas is always a good thing. It brings up new possibilities and clarifies the paths to a goal.