Jamie & Bill what´s about future plans

[wayne69]

To Jamie:
Any future plans about DW add ons or totally new game decide yet?
To Bill:
Will there be another fantastic Chrismas present like last year?
Regards from Germany
Wayne69

[Nightmare]

A similar question was asked last month and here is where it stands that we've/ last heard.

Read Jamie's post 1/3 of the way down: Here (http://scs.sonalystsgames.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=720&sid=1ff626f7c1f297b4d18d9aadcaacfe1b)

Sonalysts has stated that Dangerous Waters did not meet their sale expectations and wasn’t considered a financial success, so I doubt we will see further add-ons. They are still working on another patch, but they have to focus on more profitable areas with their non-commercial and government contracts. This is why it’s been 9 months since the latest patch was released. As far as another game? I doubt it, or at least not very long time.

[Kapitan]

Now is the point where i can say i told you so :D

[Sea Demon]

Now is the point where i can say i told you so :D

What did you say? You told us what?.......:-?

[goldorak]

Now is the point where i can say i told you so :D

What did you say? You told us what?.......:-?


He's just happy that DW didn't sell well enough to warrant an expansion pack. :roll:

[Linton]

Perhaps if SCS are slowly losing interest in providing any add-ons a tactful approach from some of the mod-squad may let us have the game we all want.

[Sea Demon]

Perhaps if SCS are slowly losing interest in providing any add-ons a tactful approach from some of the mod-squad may let us have the game we all want.

I haven't seen any indications that SCS is losing interest in it's products. :hmm: They just did a re-release of their older games with improvements, and they are still looking at releasing a 1.04 patch for DW. In addition, I haven't seen anyone from SCS say they definitely will not be making any add-ons for DW or a new game entirely. I think that's why wayne69 asked the question. Just wondering about the future. I'm curious myself.

[Linton]

I plus many others want a DWX.The Lwami mod has been excellent for improving the doctrine but more drivable platforms are the icing on the cake.
Expansion packs such as extra campaigns can be done easily by the community.If I was SCS and had the money I would at least make a SCu changer for the submarines as a start.One already exists and I am sure it would not take a lot to get it to work in DW.This then opens up a whole host of platforms and scenarios. The p-3 could be modded into an Atlantique or an Il-38 but there would probably not be that much interest.
A range of different skimmers to drive would be nice but as they are almost all very different that would be an unrealistic project.
A major improvement would be a western diesel submarine such as a Collins or one of the German ones.An old Oberon would be welcome.
So Jamie,DWx please or a diesel boat ,preferably both for Christmas.:up:

[Kapitan]

In a post long time ago i did say that if sonalasyst didnt bring the game out earlier and patch it and also bring out addons it wouldnt sell well and thats exactly what has happend.

[XabbaRus]

IT hasn't sold well because it is a niche market. Most people who buy games are the 16 - 25 category I guess and most of them are FPS or RPG types.

[Dr.Sid]

IT hasn't sold well because it is a niche market. Most people who buy games are the 16 - 25 category I guess and most of them are FPS or RPG types.

All simulation is niche .. but SH3 sells well and it is not much more simple. Even DW is simple with Show Truth on. And SH3 with all with manual computing of firing solution is harder than anything in DW.

DW could sell better, if SCS would invest more into it. It is so 'cheap' .. graphics are more or less same as the Sub command or Fleet command, same goes for scripting and everything else. In fact, DW is more or less add-on for Sub Command.
Now it looks like one man is fixing DW and not even full time. Even much better sound model in 1.03 looks like it was intended for 1.0 (because 1.0 model was just way too simplistic).
Silent Hunter which was released later has many patches, add-ons and SH4 is almost complete. You can really see progress there.

To me it seems SCS just don't want to make games any more. It is sad for us, players, but fully legitimate. Naval pack is more like a dot after nice game-industry carrier.

I don't believe in any future add-ons for DW. I hope 1.04 will be released, to fix mostly bugs introduces in 1.03. And that will be all for DW.
Only hope could be that SCS will release no-new-playables policy, or even will give some support in form of some documents how to do it right.

[SeaQueen]

IT hasn't sold well because it is a niche market. Most people who buy games are the 16 - 25 category I guess and most of them are FPS or RPG types.

Naval simulations are kind of weird if you ask me, because simulations are a niche market, and naval simulations are doubly so. Unlike flight simulators, where you can fly several missions in a day with a high degree of realism, naval simulations are much more slow moving. Take the television review Jamie posted, they were making fun of how a lot of DW consisted of sailing around, looking at nothing, doing calculations, etc. In a good scenario, because stealth is a submarine's armor, it's completely possible to sail around for HOURS and not see a thing, once at least one side detects the other, the whole thing is over in a few minutes.

Personality wise, it takes a certain kind of person to play a game like that. Naval sims are like a nice afternoon of fishing compared to X-treme downhill BMX stunt racing for adenaline junkies.

I think another problem is that there's not a well developed literature on submarine tactics. Anyone can go to the bookstore and get a copy of Fighter Tactics and have a pretty good idea about what a real dogfight looks like, and the kinds of things fighter pilots think about.

There exists no such literature in the public domain, so people don't understand the logic behind the various weapons systems and how to employ them. They're left on their own, so when you put an area in front of people and say, "go find the submarine," I think a lot of people don't know how to think about the problem. You can kind of make extrapolations from some of the stuff in things like, Wayne Hughes Fleet Tactics, or other works of analysis in the public domain. Mostly, though, issues like how to search for a submarine, once you find him, when to shoot, what to shoot, how many to shoot, how to get into a position to shoot, etc. are mysteries. That can be very liberating for some who would like to experiment, but on the other hand, it makes a lot of scenarios people come up with kind of unsatisfying.

[goldorak]

I'll put my .02 € in this discussion.
I agree with Dr. Sid in regards to the "cheap" feel factor of DW.
This in my opinion has been a very grave error on the part of SCS.
They marketed from the beginning he game only to the hard core audience and this backfired on them.
Just look at SH III, its as difficult as DW (albeit in a different manner) but it found its audience way outside the hardcore simulation crowd.
Take for instance Orbiter, a freeware space simulator.
That game is in a certain sense way way more complex than DW will every be, and nontheless the number of persons, adults and young children (12-14 years old) that download and play it are if you look at the numbers way more than what DW presumably sold.
And why was that ? Because of the WOW factor, graphics.
Yes the graphics aspect that so many here consider here irrelevant is not.
Casual gamers are attracted to new genres because of graphics.
Some limitations in the game were absolutely unjustified in 2005, for instance the lack of 32 bit graphics.
It doesn't make sense, and it feels "cheap".
We can forgive the lack of AA and AF filters but playing in 16 bit color with all the dithering and banding, is like playing a game of 10 years ago.
It just doesn't work anymore.
So yes the game is great, but it was not as polished as it should have been.

[zeropoint]

Just a quick question:

Is it a simple matter to replace the models and textures in the game for a person with mod experiance?

I know that serveral mods already exist, but what is the extent to which the game is modifiable?

Perhaps if Sonalysts don't want to invest the time and money to support the game anymore (an unfourtunate but neccessary reality it sounds) they could make it as easy as possible for modders to take over where they left off.

[XabbaRus]

I agree with one thing Sid says and that is teh graphics. It isn't just a case of updating models. That was started with SCX and even with a higher poly count certain things like lighting has to be considered.

I think the scripts and doctrine are very felxible and powerful if used correctly.

Thing is SCS don't have the budget that Ubi had for SHIII, also the primary customer for DW is teh US Navy as a training aid, they don't give a danm whether the graphics are pretty as long as a ship looks like a ship and a sub a sub.

I would rather SCS make take it up a level and charge more, I'd pay $120 for a SB Pro type version of DW.

[Skybird]

Hi. A friend told me you have this discussion here - again.

Tell you a story.

1. I bought DW second hand, half a year after release. The original customer, a friend's brother, did not like it, too many bugs that made subs far more buggy than in SC, he said.

2. While I owned it next, 1.03 was released, so I tried that one as well. Subs turned from bad to worse - I consider them to be unplayable. Subs are what is the major attraction of such a sim. Not the frigate, not the Orion, not the Helo - it's about the subs, and the subs for the most. Mess up the subs, and you lose customers. That simple.

3. I sold DW too, angered, and disappointed that they even topped the negative record in support I remembered from SC. I only kept the manual, which is top class. I think of keeping it as a strange way of compensation. :)

4. The customer complained to me some time later that I sold him a buggy product with unplayable sub, even with the latest patch. :hmm:

5. When DW was released, I wrote with constructive intention in a thread that Sonalysts should be aware that they have raised a well-known reputation of being bad supporters when it comes to patches, and that many people are interested in the matter of DW, but are cautious because of the bad and extremely slow support. SC took them over a year. FC and 688i was not much faster. I recommended that if there are things to patch, they would be well-advised to get these things, especially serious things, fixed within reasonable time-frame of let's say two patches, 2-3 months for each, before the initial spike in interest that follows a new release has faded out again.

THEY AGAIN FAILED IN THAT.

6. So, back then I talked to friends and colleagues and advertised the sim and described what it is. INTEREST WAS THERE, and not too little. The manual did not drive people away, but attracted them. THE BROKEN STATUS OF THE SIM IS WHAT KEPT THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE AWAY. Even some long-year-board members here, that had displayed great enthusiasm during the times of SC, and were actively engaged in supporting it, ran out of patience and turned their backs on DW, and the board. Such a reputation is lethal if the sim in question already is a niche product. A niche product must pass the tests with flying colours in order to leave the niche, or even just survive in it's niche. If it does not pass the tests, it's fate is sealed. It gets stuck in it's hole and never will leave it again after the first attempt. That's how the market functions today. There is too much other tasty fish out in the sea.

7. A sub sim is not a flight sim. You cannot compare it's popularity to let's say F4. F4 was in a terrible status when it was released - but it also was a genre that simply outclasses the attraction of subsims, and it did not take them years to come up with patches and displays of efforts and willingness to improve it. That basic attraction was enough to get the patching and modding show running - for years. This level of customer's tolerance should not be expected with regard to subsims. You are a fine and hardcore community here. but that does not change the fact that you are few, and that your interest is not representative for the interest of the vast majority of players and simmers. Do not conclude on othery by your own example.

What I personally also found a bit too rich was a posting by a representative of Sonalysts, long time ago, over a year, complaining that there was too little support and enthusiasm on the board, and concluding that that poor support by the community maybe hampers sales numbers. Why should anyone buy the sim, when he comes to this place and sees the lacking community effort here?, it was indirectly complained. the status of the product and the reputation of Sonalysts of needing millenias to get things repaired of course had nothing to do with it. Support is not patching, but forum presence - this seemed to have been the implicit conclusion. Well, they were present in the forum, and very much so, I admit that. But with comments in a forum you can't reapir broken things. It's the patching that counts - not sweet words. - The man starting the thread later tried to rudder back a bit. But the damage already was done. In the following weeks several names that I knew since the times of SC said farewell to DW.

My conclusion: Sonalyst torpedoed themselves with this. They sunk their own boat, by bad seamanship. The idea was good, the execution (bugs, graphics) was mediocre, the support was lousy. In a short while it will be two years since release - and manoeuvring the subs still is a bad joke, if 1.03 is still the status. Truth is - after two years, not many people outside your hardcore community have any interest left in 1.04 that might be released, or might be released in a year, or never - who knows.

Two years for patching showstopping bugs? And complaining about people not buying it enough, then?

To them the low sales-numbers may be a phenomenon they do not understand. To me it is a logical consequence.

Got burned twice now. Will never get burned by Sonalyst again.

Just a short hop-in of mine, so don't try to debate with me. ;)

Bye,
Skybird

[Linton]

Excellent post Skybird and nice to see you back, if only briefly.SCS have built themselves a football that is a cube not a sphere.It is still playable but not as we all hoped.There are people on this board that could make this ungainly object a million times better but unfortunately the ball owner's attitude is that they know their product is not right but they don't really want it corrected for them.
I was looking at the Sonalysts website today and the gaming for entertainment side is only a very small part.The shareholders are not going to throw money at making an object look like a photograph especially for a niche product,which is why I feel that the wraps need to come off and SCS should allow the community to develop DW into a really good game for the benefit of the membership.
Nobody has asked what SCS are planning next.After the poor sales of DW I would imagine very little for the entertainment market.They will concentrate on stuff that makes them real money.

[Sea Demon]

Hi. A friend told me you have this discussion here - again.

Bye,
Skybird

A friend...huh? Yeah right. :roll: Some departure there Skybird.:shifty:


At any rate, Sonalysts has achieved something that no other gamemaker has. They have rolled 7 different naval platforms into one sim. What other sim out there has allowed you to play as a nuclear submarine (3 different types), diesel submarine, naval surface ship, helicopter, maritime patrol aircraft....all in one sim? With a high level of fidelity (weapons and sensors) in each platform? Name one. Can't do it? That's what I thought. You can't. Only Sonalysts has made such a game. And done it to a very high fidelity. Especially in terms of sensor modelling, and platform specific weapons modelling. Gameplay in DW is incredible. I have been disgusted by a few attitudes displayed in regards to DW. It is a cut above the rest. The problem is that some people loaded it up not to play it, but to only specifically find what doesn't work, so they can come into this forum to complain about it. Whatever happened to playing a game for the "fun of it". I swear, some of you people would really enjoy DW if you weren't looking for reasons to hate it. How about loading it up to immerse yourself into an actual scenario, and having fun while challenging yourself to get results?

And I don't see a big problem with the graphics. I do think the 3-D ship models need updating, but Sonalysts have upgraded their graphics engine every single time they've made a new game. SH3 has excellent graphics and scenario immersion, yet there are issues with it. And guys over there have some criticism over it, yet they seem to be able to enjoy it. I enjoyed it (especially with the GW mod), but it is off my harddrive now. DW still remains.

And in regards to DW's sales, it is a niche market. Nevertheless, have you seen some of the reviews DW has gotten from multiple sources? DW has achieved very high marks from many reviewers. Go to the Dangerous Waters website and look for yourself. And one more thing, those that want added playables have known all along that this was dependant on sales. Have you personally (anybody here) tried to constructively work to help make DW better? Have you raised constructive points for improvement to the maker? Or are you just here to tell us how DW is a failure when many of us are still enjoying the game? :stare: Not a failure in any sense of the word to me.

[goldorak]

At any rate, Sonalysts has achieved something that no other gamemaker has. They have rolled 7 different naval platforms into one sim. What other sim out there has allowed you to play as a nuclear submarine (3 different types), diesel submarine, naval surface ship, helicopter, maritime patrol aircraft....all in one sim? With a high level of fidelity (weapons and sensors) in each platform? Name one. Can't do it? That's what I thought. You can't. Only Sonalysts has made such a game. And done it to a very high fidelity. Especially in terms of sensor modelling, and platform specific weapons modelling. Gameplay in DW is incredible.


I agree, the game is a rough diamond.
Thats why notwithstanding its rough edges its still on my hard drive and I still play it from time to time.


I have been disgusted by a few attitudes displayed in regards to DW. It is a cut above the rest. The problem is that some people loaded it up not to play it, but to only specifically find what doesn't work, so they can come into this forum to complain about it. Whatever happened to playing a game for the "fun of it". I swear, some of you people would really enjoy DW if you weren't looking for reasons to hate it. How about loading it up to immerse yourself into an actual scenario, and having fun while challenging yourself to get results?


Nobody criticises just for the fun of it.
There are genuine problems with the game, some people consider them showstoppers, others like me consider them annoyances.
I was not looking for SH III graphics, I never said that DW should have the ultimate graphics engine or high end looking 3d models.
I was criticising the absence of something as fundamental in this day and age as 32 bit graphics.
Its since the late 1990's that ATI for instance doesn't even make graphics cards that support native 16 bit color.
Everything is done in 24-32 bit, so excuse me but when a game is published in freekin 2005 not having support for 24-32 bit graphics is a big let down.
Even freeware games, or fan made games have native support for 24-32 bit graphics.
I have an lcd, and although I don't use the 3d screen, let me tell you that the graphics to put it mildy is crap.
There is banding everywhere, and it makes the game a bit less enjoyable than it shoud be.


And I don't see a big problem with the graphics. I do think the 3-D ship models need updating, but Sonalysts have upgraded their graphics engine every single time they've made a new game. SH3 has excellent graphics and scenario immersion, yet there are issues with it. And guys over there have some criticism over it, yet they seem to be able to enjoy it. I enjoyed it (especially with the GW mod), but it is off my harddrive now. DW still remains.


The problem is SCS used an outdated graphics engine with all its limitations.
Limitations that could have been acceptable 5-6 years ago but not anymore.
And to be precise I'm not talking about a far cry-doom 3- half life graphics engine.


And in regards to DW's sales, it is a niche market. Nevertheless, have you seen some of the reviews DW has gotten from multiple sources? DW has achieved very high marks from many reviewers. Go to the Dangerous Waters website and look for yourself. And one more thing, those that want added playables have known all along that this was dependant on sales. Have you personally (anybody here) tried to constructively work to help make DW better? Have you raised constructive points for improvement to the maker? Or are you just here to tell us how DW is a failure when many of us are still enjoying the game? :stare: Not a failure in any sense of the word to me.

Again, the game was marketed from the beginning to the niche market.
That was a mistake.
Selling only online was a mistake, poor visibility and advertising.
The fact the game made 3 steps forward (new platforms, new sonar model, multistation) and 2 steps backwards in respect to previous games (sub command for instance) was considered by the niche market a let down.

I mean in the end, part of DW failure to enter the general market is due to SCS fault.
There is no way around this.
And to be honest I have been promoting DW on an italian website since the game was published by battlefront.
Way before steam, and way before the retail release, and way before the game was even published in europe.
I introduced a lot of players to DW, the different platforms, the tactics, faq,etc...
I've kept the thread alive for over 2 years, and if this is not a labour of love I don't know what to say.
I like the game, its not perfect, and its not a crime to wish that things were done differently by SCS.

[XabbaRus]

Well, I have never considered DW to be that buggy or unplayable. So the patches haven't been coming out as quick as otehr developers, hang on though most other developers are full time games makers.

SCS does this as a side line, primarily as a training aid for the US navy, I wonder if they have cancelled the order. Sub handling might have been a bit odd and I will admit in the last patch it was downright weird, but not unplayable.

Anyway I'm privy to stuff I can't really reveal but I have high hopes.

As for Lintons asseriont that SCS have no intention of fixing the things that need to be fixed even though they know what's wrong is way off the mark. Having had conversations with Jamie I am still 100% confident that he does want to fix the things and the rest of teh team too, but they have other stuff to do which is their core business. If they didn't want to bother they would have left it at patch 1.03, patch 1.04 is on its way. As for support and enthusiasm, there was plenty of it when the sim was released and still is. In fact I see it returning.

BTW Sky I thought you were leaving the forum ;)

[Sea Demon]

When I made my comments, I wasn't referring to you goldorak. ;) I've seen your labors of love for DW. I'm more addressing those that seem to be here for the sole purposes of arrogantly telling us that DW is a failure and why we should hate it. Even though there are many of us who totally love this game. While there are a couple of things I would like to see different with DW, and hope for a 1.04 patch, the whole game is excellent IMHO. I just don't see the "show-stoppers". I still enjoy the game very much, and can easily immerse myself into a very enjoyable modern naval scenario using DW as the engine.

And I'm going to reiterate, nobody has made a game of similar characteristics as DW. Multiple playable naval platforms...all in one sim.

BTW Sky I thought you were leaving the forum ;)

Yeah....what was all this drama about??? :roll:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=100154

[Jamie]

This is fairly simple, guys. We cannot release the source-code to DW because there are many non-commercial customers who own the exclusive right to it as the basis of their simulations and analysis tools. If we were to release it, we would be in breach of contract with those customers and lose a great deal of business from it.

With that said, I do my VERY BEST to support the DW mod scene and truly hope to see a graphical modification of the same scope as SCX for this game. I will do everything in my power to support any project which makes DW better.

What I personally also found a bit too rich was a posting by a representative of Sonalysts, long time ago, over a year, complaining that there was too little support and enthusiasm on the board, and concluding that that poor support by the community maybe hampers sales numbers. Why should anyone buy the sim, when he comes to this place and sees the lacking community effort here?, it was indirectly complained.
Indirectly complained.... in other words, that is how you interpretted it, Skybird? Because if you send me a link to the post I can actually DIRECTLY explain to you what I *actually* meant by that post and we can stop "speculating" on what you think I "indirectly" meant... :) I'm always attempting to improve on my communication skills (both written and verbal), so if I portrayed to you or to anyone else that I was somehow disappointed in the support of the DW community, I would like to correct such a misinterpretation... :know:

My assessment of DW's on-line/retail performance is that we sold it through Battlefront because we saw it for what it was, a very specific, high-fidelity, niche product. What we did wrong, was we based assumptions of the size the hardcore naval sim community on an estimated fraction of the sales of Sub Command. That was a mistake... EA was a huge advantage for Sub Command, and their extensive penetration into the retail channels cannot be overstated. EA placed Sub Command in dozens of retailers that may not have placed orders for the product had it not been for the fact that EA was our publisher. Obviously, if your product is not in the retailers, it cannot be purchased... seems simple, right?

That is what SH3 and UbiSoft did well. The game was excellent, the marketing was solid, and EVERY retailer wanted a piece of it. UbiSoft is a "AAA" publisher (just as EA was for us) and their retail presence along with a very high quality product gave SH3 a very good chance to succeed.

And just so that I am not "indirectly" misunderstood... :) I love this community, and the efforts created from it motivate our team to continue working on DW, the v1.04 patch, and beyond.

If there is any news for me to disclose, I promise you all that I will do so. :yep:

[SaxMan]

I also have a "see I told you so" view on this topic.... I have always been a proponent of being able to create and/or drive new platforms in any game/sim, especially this one. When I first heard that SCS was forbidding this and making any expansion packs dependent on sales, I knew the "boat was sunk" as it were. I thought then and still think now that this was/is a crappy policy. Jamie, please tell me that your aforementioned contract with non-commercial entities is the reason for this - otherwise there's no excuse. Dis-allowing new driveables I think is also a factor in the games lack of success, albeit a lower-order one. I would have loved to have seen what people like Jsteed could have done with DW.

[goldorak]

I also have a "see I told you so" view on this topic.... I have always been a proponent of being able to create and/or drive new platforms in any game/sim, especially this one. When I first heard that SCS was forbidding this and making any expansion packs dependent on sales, I knew the "boat was sunk" as it were. I thought then and still think now that this was/is a crappy policy. Jamie, please tell me that your aforementioned contract with non-commercial entities is the reason for this - otherwise there's no excuse. Dis-allowing new driveables I think is also a factor in the games lack of success, albeit a lower-order one. I would have loved to have seen what people like Jsteed could have done with DW.

Jamie has already explained many times the reason for the non modding policy of DW.
There is nothing more to add to this particular issue.

[SaxMan]

Well Goldorak sorry I don't remember offhand. Unfortunately my life is not totally comprised of DW....:cry: But you can't argue that the issue is helping matters with respect to interest in the product.

[goldorak]

Well Goldorak sorry I don't remember offhand. Unfortunately my life is not totally comprised of DW....:cry: But you can't argue that the issue is helping matters with respect to interest in the product.


To be honest I don't think that modding would resolve the low sales of DW.
Modding is a plus, that caters to the hard core gamers, but the average player that buys DW couldn't care less about using an arleigh burke instead of a frigate or a ticonderoga cruiser.

[XabbaRus]

The contracts are with the US DoD, I think there is some stuff in the source code which is DoD specific and which is maybe deactivated for the retail release.

[Molon Labe]

It's not just about "favorite" platforms. New playables would allow the game to expand to cover a greater battlespace to include new scenarios and new tactical problems. Not being able to expand is a HUGE hit on the quality of the game.

Falcon 4--another high-realism sim geared towards a niche market--had to deal with a lot of bugs when it was owned by MicroProse, but extensive modding was around and the community was able to improve on and expand the game dramatically. A lot of the modding work involved new flight models and cockpits for new player-controlled aircraft. They kept it alive for years and eventually produced a product far superior to anything MP was able or willing to do. I strongly doubt that any version of F4 would be popular today if not for the efforts of the modding community.

Speaking only in terms of the interest in the quality of the product, extensive modding is crucial to picking up the slack when the producing company does not have the reasources to fully develop the game. Obviously, for other business interests, that can't happen here, but it does hurt. A lot.

[Wim Libaers]

It's not just about "favorite" platforms. New playables would allow the game to expand to cover a greater battlespace to include new scenarios and new tactical problems. Not being able to expand is a HUGE hit on the quality of the game.

Falcon 4--another high-realism sim geared towards a niche market--had to deal with a lot of bugs when it was owned by MicroProse, but extensive modding was around and the community was able to improve on and expand the game dramatically. A lot of the modding work involved new flight models and cockpits for new player-controlled aircraft. They kept it alive for years and eventually produced a product far superior to anything MP was able or willing to do. I strongly doubt that any version of F4 would be popular today if not for the efforts of the modding community.

Speaking only in terms of the interest in the quality of the product, extensive modding is crucial to picking up the slack when the producing company does not have the reasources to fully develop the game. Obviously, for other business interests, that can't happen here, but it does hurt. A lot.

Yes, but a lor of the work done on F4 was bugfixing (especially after the leak) and extra features. Extra planes? I'm not sure it was so important, as many people went to Allied Force even though it is less mod-friendly.

More significant may be that F4 simply doesn't have a competitor. Jane's F/A-18 does well for realism (especially compared to pre-leak F4), but lacks a dynamic campaign. LOMAC has more flyables, but is generally considered behind in realism.


For the graphics, I think DW is more than good enough (I think Fast Attack was good enough for subs, destroyer demands a bit more of course). Of course, 32-bit would be nice to avoid banding. The more annoying things are the gameplay bugs (dipping sonar gives incorrect bearings, weird sub movement and slow depth changes, mines not working right, DEMON/narrowband issue,... Some of that may be partially fixed by user mods, others will require patching.

[Linton]

I am sure that Jamie and the team are very interested in making this the best game ever, but it is the people that hold the corporate purse strings that will decide. what will happen.I am sure that having looked at their sales and the investment needed to bring it to where we wish, the money is better spent elsewhere within the scs group.Supporting a small group of gamers does not pay the bills
The gaming side is a very small part of the company and I would be surprised if we see a new game from scs in the near future.If I was the ceo of scs I would allow the community to mod the graphics.I am sure that the non-commercial customer to which Jamie refers would not mind that.As others have said before the look of the game is what attracts most gamers, not the quality of the sim engine.The current graphics (3d) are poor.I looked last night at some of the scx models that have been produced-they are excellent compared to some of the Dw ones especially my t-boat!
Jamie I really wish that whoever runs your company lets you have a budget to fix all the bugs and allow this game to achieve its full potential but I know that in a corporate world everything has to be zero cost/maximum profit!
PS how long does your other customer hold proprietry rights for on the software??

[Sonarman]

Here's a wild idea...
Perhaps Sonalysts should speak to EA about doing a ww2 subsim, they may be interested in doing it based on how successful SH3 has been for Ubisoft. This would perhaps mean Sonalysts could get access to a better 3D engine from EA and the higher sales/profit of a ww2 game could provide the funding for the development of DW extensions/sequel. Based on the DW model with surface and undersea platforms and multi station multiplayer, something even SH4 may not have.

"Nah" you say EA, would never do another sim not in a million years, well actually, if you think that, you are wrong... they are doing one right now! in an even more niche market than naval sims?... EA/Kuju Rail Simulator. So who knows what they might be open to...

Some competition for Ubisoft might be a good thing and encourage a rebirth for sims. And I for one would love to see what Jamie & crew could with WWII.

[goldorak]

No need to do another wwII sub simulation, the Silent Hunter brand is already out there.
What we need as a figure of speach is a friggin' modern naval simulation based on a graphics engine that goes beyond SH III and SH IV.
Perphaps a game with a dynamic campaign also.
All the + of DW and a next generation graphics engine (UE3 perhaps :hmm: ) combined for the ultimate in modern naval warfare.
Now that would be absolutely kickass. :|\\
Having Ubisoft as publisher could be a good thing, EA I'm not so sure....:shifty:

[Sonarman]

Ok here's another wild idea... Sonalysts could contact Ubisoft & AGS and discuss the restart/rewriting of the aborted Harpoon 4 project in full 3D. With their naval knowledge and the skills acquired in the development of DW and FC they above all others have the know how to pull it off. As we know the Harpoon brand has a huge following and has been used in the past as a naval training tool. Thus Sonalysts would become well known the mass market place and be able to offer an adapted version to the navies of the world for training.

[sonar732]

...DEMON/narrowband issue,...

There is no DEMON/narrowband issue!

[SeaQueen]

Ok here's another wild idea... Sonalysts could contact Ubisoft & AGS and discuss the restart/rewriting of the aborted Harpoon 4 project in full 3D. With their naval knowledge and the skills acquired in the development of DW and FC they above all others have the know how to pull it off. As we know the Harpoon brand has a huge following and has been used in the past as a naval training tool. Thus Sonalysts would become well known the mass market place and be able to offer an adapted version to the navies of the world for training.

You know... one of the things I like about Harpoon is that the graphics aren't what it's about. The databases, to me, are the real draw, and the demand for model ships from almost every nation in the world would make the DB expansions a lot more difficult. Hence a graphics intensive Harpoon strikes me as kind of lame.

Besides, I thought that was the idea behind Fleet Command?

[Molon Labe]

...DEMON/narrowband issue,...
There is no DEMON/narrowband issue!
:damn::damn::damn::damn::damn:
Don't'cha just love it when they pass judgment without even R'ing TFM?

[Jamie]

Ok here's another wild idea... Sonalysts could contact Ubisoft & AGS and discuss the restart/rewriting of the aborted Harpoon 4 project in full 3D. With their naval knowledge and the skills acquired in the development of DW and FC they above all others have the know how to pull it off. As we know the Harpoon brand has a huge following and has been used in the past as a naval training tool. Thus Sonalysts would become well known the mass market place and be able to offer an adapted version to the navies of the world for training.

Already tried... Contacted Larry Bond directly, even (since he is still the owner of the IP, I believe). :cry:

[Sonarman]

Hi Jamie,
It's nice to know you have the odd "wild idea" too!... Perhaps Firaxis would be interested in outsourcing an update of Red Storm Rising or Silent Service. I believe Sid Meier has recently acquired the rights from Atari It's a shame they have all those great combat sim franchises and have not yet made any move on them. Perhaps they would be interested in teaming up with a developer with sim experience...

Despite Silent Service coming above Railroad Tycoon in Firaxis own "what should we remake next poll." they made "Railroads!" instead. "Silent Service- the cold war" has a nice ring to it dont you think...


Stephen

[XanderF]

My assessment of DW's on-line/retail performance is that we sold it through Battlefront because we saw it for what it was, a very specific, high-fidelity, niche product. What we did wrong, was we based assumptions of the size the hardcore naval sim community on an estimated fraction of the sales of Sub Command. That was a mistake... EA was a huge advantage for Sub Command, and their extensive penetration into the retail channels cannot be overstated.

This seems like a lot of overthinking going on, here.

[overly blunt]

You are exactly correct - this is 'very specific, niche market' product. Not to be rude, but...why did you price it as a 'general interest' product, then? For $60, most users would expect a Joe Gamer-friendly graphically-intense action game.

If you know you are only going to sell 100 copies, or 500, or 1000...charge appropriately!

The 'hardcore' wargame crowd has been dealing with this demand problem for years. I assume you are familiar with GMT? How about what they are doing with their "GMT 500"? Each year, new games keep getting published that are, at launch, already paid into a profit margin.

What needs to happen is you need to pitch a realistic set of goals for a DW add-on. What ships will be added, missions, etc. Just ballpark figures that are realistic. Mock up a screenshot or two. And start taking pre-orders. When you hit the number you need to make publishing it worthwhile (and it MAY take years), THEN make the move to publish.

Do this for 3 or 4 different products, and let which gets made be determined by who DOES buy into it. And certainly - CERTAINLY - price it accordingly! Avalanche Press took pre-orders on their "Leyte Gulf" game...at $200 a pop!...and got enough pre-orders at that price to make a run on publishing it.

Making a niche game for a niche-within-a-niche market and then pricing it to only able to be successful with mainstream appeal...seems a recipe for failure.

[/overly blunt]

[TheSatyr]

Hey Jamie,here's a thought. How bout doing a surface combat game covering the years 1898 to perhaps around 1930 (to allow the use of the ships that were either scrapped,used for target practice or converted to carriers due to the Washington Treaty.).

The "Big Gun" era was to me one of the more interesting phases of naval warfare. And there hasn't been a good game on that subject in years...at least not one that would easily play on XP or Vista.

It wouldn't need great graphics...just high realism,a very large selection of ships,(Hence the low graphics),a good selection of pre-made scenarios (Refighting Jutland would be a dream for me...*lol*) and a good scenario builder tool.

I know no one will ever make that kind of a game...but I can dream can't I? :D

[XabbaRus]

It's called Distant Guns, so that one is already taken.

[Sonarman]

Hey Jamie,here's a thought. How bout doing a surface combat game covering the years 1898 to perhaps around 1930 (to allow the use of the ships that were either scrapped,used for target practice or converted to carriers due to the Washington Treaty.).




Yes, you could update the classic dos game Action Stations based on the US Naval war college fire effect system. The game was written by Commander Alan D Zimm and still has many admirers today.

The guys at Navalwarfare.net I believe tried at one stage I beleive to contact Cdr Zimm but apparently he could not release the source as it was thought to contain "sensitive" material in the same way as DW perhaps with Sonalysts naval connections and budget Commander Zimm would be more willing to see his baby grow up!

[sonar732]

Hey Jamie,here's a thought. How bout doing a surface combat game covering the years 1898 to perhaps around 1930 (to allow the use of the ships that were either scrapped,used for target practice or converted to carriers due to the Washington Treaty.).

The "Big Gun" era was to me one of the more interesting phases of naval warfare. And there hasn't been a good game on that subject in years...at least not one that would easily play on XP or Vista.

It wouldn't need great graphics...just high realism,a very large selection of ships,(Hence the low graphics),a good selection of pre-made scenarios (Refighting Jutland would be a dream for me...*lol*) and a good scenario builder tool.

I know no one will ever make that kind of a game...but I can dream can't I? :D

Besides Distant Guns, Fighting Steel fits this description...especially in the graphics department.:rotfl::rotfl:

[Sonarman]

Apparently Fighting Steel no longer works with the latest nVidia drivers and they do not plan on fixing it, so much so that navalwarfare.net who have supported the game with the FS project for years have decided to give up on it. If you want to make sure you can still play FS grab some of the old nvidia drivers for your system.

[Seeadler]

In the meantime is the J3D exporter for 3DSMax 6/7/8 available or only the one for 3.x?

Perhaps the source of the exporter can also help to port it to newer versions of 3DSMax.

[Hartmann]

I think that Dw is a great sim and the graphics could be nice for hardcore users but today, a nice graphics are needed for a simulation if it wants be a mass market product, a sector where the eye candy and mod possibility, together are very important.

For example silent hunter 3 has the three things combined for a perfect simulator: dinamic campaign, mod possibility, and a great graphics engine.

The difficult not is a important factor, i use "orbiter" too and it has a great comunity,bigger than the DW, with free addons, forums, and regular updates from the creator of the sim. The spacecraft MFD computers are far forward in difficult compared with Dw stations. the game engine is hardcoded but there are hundreds of rockets or free spacecrafts for download. also the graphics are impressive.

[Frying Tiger]

Well, one of the guys who brought you some of those Orbiter graphics works for SCS these days, so you never know what might happen! (grin)

[Molon Labe]

For example silent hunter 3 has the three things combined for a perfect simulator: dinamic campaign, mod possibility, and a great graphics engine.


You've got to be kidding me. These three things are what makes a perfect simulator? They certainly make for a great game. And those things certainly add to a simulation. But if a simulation had these things but did not have accurate physics, sensors, and weapons models, it would not be even close to a perfect simulator, it would be pure crap.

Incidentally, unless super-realistic AI is available, a perfect simulator would also require the capacity for human-controlled adversaries, which as far as I'm aware, SH3 is inexplicably missing.

[Wim Libaers]

...DEMON/narrowband issue,...
There is no DEMON/narrowband issue!

OK, mistake here, there was one in the previous version, but apparently it was fixed in 1.03, just checked the readme for that patch:
"Fixed a problem where the Kilo Demon was not showing data when the initial tracker/contact was assigned in Narrowband instead of Broadband (which the Demon data is derived from)."

I guess I missed the fix because I just don't play the Kilo much. In fact, I'm mostly playing other games while waiting for 1.04.

[SeaQueen]

For example silent hunter 3 has the three things combined for a perfect simulator: dinamic campaign, mod possibility, and a great graphics engine.



I'm not so sure about that. Harpoon has graphics that could have run on my old 8088 and there's no campaign at all. Personally, I think it's one of the greatest simulations ever made. Graphics, to me, are optional. If you have them, I want them to be great, but if you don't and it's just tactical displays, I'm happy with that too. The whole thing about being in a submarine is that you can't see anything. :-)

For surface ships I can see graphics being a little more useful. It's nice on the bridge, and for working the 0.50 cal. Really, though, in the CIC, it's just tactical displays too, and when battles are fought over the horizon with cruise missiles, aircraft and radar, how graphics intensive does it really need to be? It'd be better to focus on having a good radar model, in my mind.

Dynamic campaigns are one of those things I'm sort of on the fence about. They're interesting if you have them, but not at all a necessity. I'm happy with a well designed scripted campaign. I think the biggest problem with campaigns in naval simulations is that people outside of the naval community don't have a good idea in their head of what a campaign at sea looks like. So they're left with submarine novels, which often, in my experience, make for poor sources simulating material. I can't tell you how many times I've read a sub novel, created a scenario based on a particularly good part of it, and found that it was actually pretty boring to simulate.

[Nexus7]

Not to be rude, but...why did you price it as a 'general interest' product, then? For $60, most users would expect a Joe Gamer-friendly graphically-intense action game.


That's what somehow surprised me right after installing DW and playing it. 60$ for such a sim, as I said more than 1 year ago, is a low price.

Still, Jamie sort of said that the error layed on a too high expected number of buyers, apparently they based the calculations on the sells of SC.

Another errror: don't use channels like EA to see it appear on many more stores.

Someone is proposing to rewrite the game for WWII or sooner. Personally I think that'd be fool. You'd try to enter a well settled sector (SH), and you'd throw away a lot of (exclusive) features we got in SC and especially DW.

My question: in my opinion DW can still be considered as "just gone gold" or similar. No other naval simulation can compare, if I'm wrong tell me the names :). It hasn't sold much... how about giving it a new look, add some minor thing to make it look totally new and sell it trough the proper channels this time?

[goldorak]

My question: in my opinion DW can still be considered as "just gone gold" or similar. No other naval simulation can compare, if I'm wrong tell me the names :). It hasn't sold much... how about giving it a new look, add some minor thing to make it look totally new and sell it trough the proper channels this time?


Dw needs a massive graphical overwrite + some bug fixing (dipping sonar and other lesser important bugs).
Make it mod friendly and call it DW 2.
Call EA and make a deal of some sort, call MS and make a deal of some sort for making available this game on xbox live.
Sit back and enjoy the result.:D

[Jamie]

Dw needs a massive graphical overwrite + some bug fixing (dipping sonar and other lesser important bugs).
Make it mod friendly and call it DW 2.
Call EA and make a deal of some sort, call MS and make a deal of some sort for making available this game on xbox live.
Sit back and enjoy the result.:D
Xbox Live?!?

Goldorak, how 'bout you write the Interface Design document that gets DW working on the dual analog sticks! (I'd certainly love to read that document when you're done ;))

[goldorak]

Xbox Live?!?

Goldorak, how 'bout you write the Interface Design document that gets DW working on the dual analog sticks! (I'd certainly love to read that document when you're done ;))


Well I was kind of joking when I said that the game could go on xbox live.
But if you stop to think about it for a moment, its not so far fetched as it seems at least from a technological point of view.
The main input hardware for the game is the keyboard and mouse, the mouse mostly used for scanning the sonar/ew mast and marking contacts.
But you can do away with the keyboard since we already have a voice recognition program for DW.
It is not inconceivable to enhance the already quite good vocal command module for the xbox live architecture.
All the game, station switching, weapons control, navigation options etc... could be voice controlled.
You would only need a dedicated mouse or trackball to mark contacts and do the tma.
And it would be possibile to emulate the mouse/trackball with an analog stick.
:D

[Jamie]

You dream BIG... I like that! :)

[Nexus7]

I was rather thinking at stuff like adding a boomer... able to perform nuclear strikes :lol:

[goldorak]

I was rather thinking at stuff like adding a boomer... able to perform nuclear strikes :lol:

:hmm: global thermonuclear war ?
there is alrready a game out there designed just for this puropose. :cool:

[sonar732]

The Trident inclusion has been discussed multiple times. The ability to create a mission with the sole purpose of destroying the world isn't within' the scope of this game.:nope:

[Sonarman]

When did keyboards stop being fun?

In some ways I wish they would just add a keyboard to consoles and be done with it. It would be in many ways like going back to the days of the Amiga where everyone was on a level playing field and devteams did not have to worry about all of the non compliant hardware and software that makes up a PC, throwing up all kinds of configuration nightmares.

Adding a keyboard as standard would mean that strategy and sims could be played and a lot more PC gamers would take the plunge and buy a console.

Why are they so afraid of adding a keyboard when there is such a huge market untapped?... Is it really that uncool?

[Hartmann]

I was rather thinking at stuff like adding a boomer... able to perform nuclear strikes :lol:

:hmm: global thermonuclear war ?
there is alrready a game out there designed just for this puropose. :cool:


A nuclear war... DEFCON

the scores are usually about 50/ 100 millions of deaths for country, it´s not a war , it`s a aniquilation and the return to the stone age.:dead:

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/images/defcon-screenshot.jpg

[Sea Demon]

Goldorak and Sonarman both make real compelling points here. It makes sense that you should try and get DW working on as many consoles as possible. For the simplest reason of growing your base of consumers, and creating a more robust interest in the genre. I really don't know how Sonalysts would go about making this happen, but it is an interesting point these two guys make. And it works both ways. I think I read somewhere that they were trying to make interfaces to make consoles like XBox and such work on PC's. That might be a good way to grow your business. :hmm: