Yea. That will cost me in the long run.
:haha:
(I'm only useing the laffy face cause that's what people @ Ubi are probably doing in the short run)

Say TDW gets his program working perfectly?
Ubi woud not make a dime and a whole mass of Cool stuff is free for the downloading.

Sure it may help sales of the base product but the real money woud be in the Modder created stuff.
That's free stuff.
Unless Ubi gets smart right now.

Set something up with Modders that don't cost Ubi any big amount of cash out?
But they get a bigger income from the final results?
Call me stupid! But I always take free labor when I can get it!

SH5 would probably not even be around if not for past work by Modders?
I'm pretty sure somethings wouldn't be what they are if not for them.

100% Agreement to yours !

Regards

Maddy

I'm a big fan of what DCS / ROF are doing in general. But I think you're proposing something like episodic gameplay or at least limited releases such as DCS - buy A10 separately, for example.

While I'm with you, perhaps you weren't around for the wall of anger raised when it was announced that SH5 would only have the type VII in and just the '39 - 43 part of the campaign?

The plan was to have the rest added in addons, of course... but people didn't like that. If SH3 came with everything (well, SH5 added some stuff like the VIIA), the other games had to have it, no matter if there was any extra detail level involved!

That probably had a lot to do with sub sims traditionally being of the survey variety. Flightsimmers have been used to single-platform sims since the 80's.

Yeah, but the plans were not very definite and waited for the success of SH5, of course, to see if its worth doing it.

The problem for me is very simple.

Ubisoft simply misjudged the strength of the modders.
How Privateer wrote before, it would have been very useful to leave the 3D modell-work in the hands of the modders.
This would mean that the programmers got more time for the code.

A good boss has to coordinate the task workflows reasonable.
Using the example of SH5 you can see that this principle was not observed at all.

In this case, only the refuse of the head of the hydra provide change.

Regards

Maddy

I'm not sure I follow you Maddy, our programmers work wasn't really impacted by the volume of 3D work - which is done by other guys?!

On the other hand, our programmers had a lot more work to do to make sure SHV is more moddable than previous games. Not everything turned out ok, esp. with technology change things go to hell, but we had the best intentions to do so.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to defend or portray SH5 as the greatest perfect planned project, it's bollocks. I'm just trying to be factual and share a few points about SH series evolution vs players expectations.

Now of course we have to realize that if SH5 would have been the perfect game / sim and word of mouth of the early adopters / reviews would have been great, even those not buying because of the "only type VII" issue may have been convinced. Add the DRM debacle on top of that, and you have more reasons than not to keep on the fence :(

have to agree there for a moment.

• no type 9, but a darn near perfect type 7 = sit on the fence, interested, and nervous.

• Good hope that a Type 9 and all the extras of a Type 9 can be added (mod or buy) later = SH V bought without hesitation.

DRM = turn around and go back to SHIII, no matter what SH V is or could be.

Yeah, the DRM scheme really hurt the game. I can understand putting it on something like Asscreed 2 which pirates will pirate but not a niche game like SH5.

yes, but those days are over. The economic model where you would pay $50-70 upfront and get a complete game no longer makes business sense. Costs have gone up and the number of potential customers are limited.

All the succesful recent sims, ROF, DCS, Third Wire, Combat Mission have moved to a building block approach. Even IL-2 would force you to rebuy the game every few years if you wanted to get the latest updates/new content.

I had suspected UBI had similar plans with SH5, since it contains code for Type II and IX U-boats. I would say one of the biggest obstacle was the lack of communication from UBI to explain their goals.

If you look at Combat Mission, their first generation games were all survey types. For their second generation games, they moved to a building block approach, but the Devs went to great length to explain the business reality and how a more focused approach would actualy produce better content for the consumer.

If UBI had a dedicated spokesman to explain their approach and that they actually care about sub simulations as more than just numbers on a balance sheet, they would get a lot more slack and support from the sim community. ROF, DCS and Combat Mission had all their share of misteps, bugs, missing features, but we forgive those because we know the Devs are committed to producing a quality sim.

Deh, stii vorba aia... Iadul e pavat cu bune intentii. (Romanian proverb)

In terms of moddability, the series went downhill since SH3.

SH3 had a very active modding community because it could be easily modded by the guy with average computer skills. It still has the highest number of mods and supermods of the franchise, and this has nothing to do with it being the oldest. SH4 was a setback with this regard, with fewer modders involved and fewer supermods.

As for SH5, yes, it may be more moddable than the previous games, as you say, but modding its core (I don't mean sounds and visuals) is only accessible to the most technically competent people, skilled with Python and machine code. And this special breed of modders is not very common to any gaming community. The moment you decided to get into scripts, you turned away most of the modders that worked miracles with the previous installments.

For the latest game in the series, it was a lifesaver having TDW and Trevally obstinately committed to SH5, else the game would have been unplayable, the way Ubi pushed it on the market. Just remember the half-baked campaign it came with, and the fact that you hadn't even programmed a rudder control in the initial interface.

You say: Not everything turned out ok, esp. with technology change things go to hell...

True! Any technology change should have in mind the skills of the public it addresses. It is my personal opinion that, had you decided to stick with the technology of SH3&4, improve it and incorporate the features demanded by the community in the already tested (and tweaked) engine, the end result would have been the masterpiece we all awaited. And the modding community would have thrived as well.

Best regards,

dcb

In general I agree with everything you say in this post but the plans to go "VII only" came mid-way project when we discovered how hard it was to get even the VII done with all that it involved regarding full 3D interior and stuff that was planned -crew running around, crash dive etc - so it was a question of "wait to get everything done and fail by lack of money, or delay a part for the add-on". Then of course we planned for add-ons, expansions, etc.

In fact we even had the type II modeled to great extent, had the chief modeler go to Finland to visit and document the Vesikko, and so on.

On another note we also had the "Gorch F ock" modeled to great extent as a visitable unit, but that's another plan we didn't manage to put on screen.

Dan, I can't agree here.

I think you're confusing modability (the technical part of the game that allows mods) with modding - the extent to which a game is modded or popular with modders.

Modability went downhill from SH3 to 4 probably because:
-in general less players were interested in SH4 (US boats) than in SH3
-many people were spent after modding the hell out of 3
-modding SH4 (or 5) meant starting much from scratch, which is hard to justify to yourself after spending months, years of your life on the previous game

There are still a bunch of great mods available for SH4 and have always been, but many people have no interest in them. And there's also a bunch of people that will say that "with SH3 + mods they have no need for SH4/5". Of course, part of the failure in the communication plan of Ubisoft is that we didn't convince these people otherwise. Now SH4 was a project that was also buggy, but so was 3! People just forgive a lot when thinking of SH3, as it came after the long hiatus from SH2 - which was generally considered not so good - and brought a great technology step forward!

Now, we can discuss technology a lot but anyone would be hard pressed to prove how using hex editing and 3rd party built programs (that you have to wait for to be developed) is somehow more accessible than simple scripting? Show me what mods were done for SH3 that can't be done for 5 ... except ships hacking, I can't think of any.

Hell, I know at least one person that got the SH3 internal tools from me and worked with them ... most had to rely on excellent tools that were built by other people. With SH5 - you got them in the release version!

There are some technology issues with SH5 mods, but in general, it was the same for 3! It's just that with a less successful product and the huge base that SH3 already offers, there's less drive to work on it.

However, I see a very active forum of SH5 modders, some great work already done and some very happy players. I'd just say people THINK its not as modable ?!

Now, the technology changed was needed as the old one was buggy, original code writers were gone, code was not extensible. Sure it could have been done much better, and in general its hard to defend SH5 technology as being awesome and well done ... but some if it truly is!

Also, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" is not strictly Romanian :)

Hope you don't get me wrong and I might sound a little aggressive, that's not the intention, I'm just going after some facts and misconceptions. We can always have a beer and chat. Remember I'm no longer in the Ubi office / email, though.

Dan

No offense taken, indeed, especially not from a friend. I think we both understand each other's point of view, and this is the best about it. I'm all for the beer and chat:03:.

And BTW, I'm no longer a journalist either:)

Restul, in PM.


Edited because of PM box full

Voiam sa-ti trimit PM cu datele mele de contact, ca sa ne mai auzim/vedem si noi, dar ai casuta plina. In acest caz, nu prea stiu cum sa dau de tine. Oricum, mobilul si emailul meu personal au ramas aceleasi. Dc vrei, da-mi tu in PM noile coordonate (un email, eventual), ca altfel nu stiu cum sa dau de tine.
Spor in toate!