Silent Hunter Online

[Julhelm]

It's a publicly traded corporation. And publicly traded corporations are only obligated to their shareholders. But they generally pay well when you work for them.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Julhelm

It's a publicly traded corporation. And publicly traded corporations are only obligated to their shareholders. But they generally pay well when you work for them.

But in order to deliver value to shareholders, they need to deliver a product that sells well. Mismanaging a brand isn't the way to do that.

[Julhelm]

Well they're making ever more money every year so obviously they aren't mismanaging things. We might think they are mismanaging etc but we're not the target audience for big publishers anymore.

It's like when the milsim crowd whines about how UBI ruined Ghost Recon or Rainbow 6 but the games sell more on consoles than they ever did as PC exclusives, keeping shareholders happy.

SH in itself is just another franchise and franchises exist to be milked to the last drop. I'm just surprised and disappointed UBI didn't let the franchise jump on the modern warfare bandwagon like every other franchise. Could've been interesting.

[Red October1984]

Y'all quit hatin on Rainbow 6 and Ghost Recon.

And SHO is sounding pretty nice to me. My system isn't powerful enough to run SH4 and 5.

[Drewcifer]

The fact is Simulation = hard the companies of today want to toss out games that give instant gratifaction with minimal effort in learning the controls or concepts of what makes the game work.

We are a dying breed and a very, VERY small portion of the costumer base for these companies. Modern Warfare, Battle field, Assassins Creed, Elder Scrolls, Mass Effect, Madden, Halo, Uncharted... if you aren't one of these games or VERY VERY similar then you simply aren't even up for consideration as a big seller.

That said I think its time we all start looking to the indie developers they are really starting to produce some quality stuff and all I can say is games like Grimrock blow me away it is nostalgia at its best, perhaps not everybodies favorite genre but it is surely a good sign and perhaps someday an indie developer will make a subsim but I know it won't ever be an EA title unless the Subs can fly and do barrel rolls.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Julhelm

Well they're making ever more money every year so obviously they aren't mismanaging things. We might think they are mismanaging etc but we're not the target audience for big publishers anymore.

It's like when the milsim crowd whines about how UBI ruined Ghost Recon or Rainbow 6 but the games sell more on consoles than they ever did as PC exclusives, keeping shareholders happy.

SH in itself is just another franchise and franchises exist to be milked to the last drop. I'm just surprised and disappointed UBI didn't let the franchise jump on the modern warfare bandwagon like every other franchise. Could've been interesting.

I understand what you're saying - any publisher is going to want a broader audience for a series. Look at Skyrim and compare it to Morrowind, for example...the RPG elements have been toned down in favor of action. While I still consider Morrowind to be one of the greatest games ever, I can't fault Bethesda for doing what they did, and the sales figures for Skyrim bear out their design decisions.

But I still say that the Silent Hunter brand was damaged, probably irreparably, by SH5. In an attempt to broaden the audience for the game, some half baked RPG elements were mashed together with sim elements that were rushed and incomplete. The end result is a product that makes no one happy, and consequently sales tanked. If Ubi had allowed/told the devs to stick to the blueprint that SH3 laid out, and update and improve where necessary they may not have increased the audience appreciably, but they would have given the existing fanbase what they wanted and redeemed themselves in the eyes of the customers who made the SH franchise what it is. While that would be great for us as sub sim fans, I think it would have also delivered decent enough sales, which helps the bottom line. I'm a firm believer in the idea that doing right by customers is the best way to profitability.

[Julhelm]

But I don't think forumdwellers are the target audience for this just like how the AVSIM crowd wasn't the target for MS Flight.

In flightsim land there used to be TK as the indie king, but even he seems to have given up on sims these days. So I don't think we'll see an indie subsim anytime soon.

[joea]

Wow, pretty disappointed overall with the direction UBI has taken but I'll withhold judgement until people have actually played it.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by joea

... I'll withhold judgement until people have actually played it.

That's how I try to look at every new game.

Of course, no matter what anyone does to Silent Hunter XXX, we'll still have SH3, SH4, etc.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

But I still say that the Silent Hunter brand was damaged, probably irreparably, by SH5. In an attempt to broaden the audience for the game, some half baked RPG elements were mashed together with sim elements that were rushed and incomplete. The end result is a product that makes no one happy, and consequently sales tanked. If Ubi had allowed/told the devs to stick to the blueprint that SH3 laid out, and update and improve where necessary they may not have increased the audience appreciably, but they would have given the existing fanbase what they wanted and redeemed themselves in the eyes of the customers who made the SH franchise what it is. While that would be great for us as sub sim fans, I think it would have also delivered decent enough sales, which helps the bottom line. I'm a firm believer in the idea that doing right by customers is the best way to profitability.

That is debatable. The potential market for hardcore simulations as always been very small and even when quality naval sims come out, the customers are not there:

"Dangerous Waters" had all the elements players say they are looking for in a subsim: many platforms, realistic sensor and weapon performance, 500 page
manual. Sales were poor and Sonalyst has abandonned the market;

"Silent Hunter 4" was an improvement over SH3 in many areas, but because of a few minor bugs at release it was savaged by the community and sold relatively poorly.

In addition, wargamers are notoriously difficult to please. They are ten times more demanding and critical than other gamers.

So if you are an executive at a major publisher, why would you waste your time on sub/naval sims when simmers themselves may not even buy what you offer them? For much less aggravation, you can produce "Assassin's Creed X" and be garanteed $100 milion in sales. Its a no brainer.

[i2Cold]

Guys I figured it out. Silent Hunter V didn't have a beta. Which means no bugs were fixed. However Silent Hunter Online has some beta testing which means we get to track down all the bugs. Besides F2P games are usually not left alone such as "APB Reloaded" "Battlefield Heroes" "Battlefield Play4Free" "MicroVolts" this means that there will always be new Content/Patches for the game. Anyways that's what i think. That's my opinion. I'd love if you give Ubisoft one more chance. God forgives then you should forgive.We will see how the game ends up.

Thanks for taking your time to read this message and goodbye

[Julhelm]

I don't know about Dangerous Waters. It it basically retained all the flaws of 688I and Sub Command and just added more platforms. They also completely dropped the ball on the chance to make the modern warfare theme exciting, which is Big Fail when you deal with something a lot of people are predisposed to think of as boring.

[Hinrich Schwab]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

That is debatable. The potential market for hardcore simulations as always been very small and even when quality naval sims come out, the customers are not there:

While the customers are fewer than mainstream games, they are dedicated, generally older than the average gamer and will pay for a quality sim without question. I know I would.

"Dangerous Waters" had all the elements players say they are looking for in a subsim: many platforms, realistic sensor and weapon performance, 500 page
manual. Sales were poor and Sonalyst has abandonned the market;

The problem with Dangerous Waters was one of marketing and advertising. Quite frankly, I never heard of it before I came here. However, I had seen advertisements for SH 3, 4 and 5 around their release times. Likewise, Sonalysts is a DoD contractor. The bulk of their work is for the military and I never expected them to make a dedicated footprint on the gaming market. I hypothesize that Dangerous Waters was an in-between project to keep the company going between defense contract projects.

"Silent Hunter 4" was an improvement over SH3 in many areas, but because of a few minor bugs at release it was savaged by the community and sold relatively poorly.

I can't really comment on this. The impression I received from other members who were about during the SH4 release was that the bugs were a bit more than minor. Likewise, some bugs that were in SH 3 (crash dive bug. Submerged save bug) carried over and created a lot of flak.

In addition, wargamers are notoriously difficult to please. They are ten times more demanding and critical than other gamers.

Yes, and for good reason. Wargamers expect a simulated experience, not a casual one. Wargamers want something more than a simple, casual game but equally less than the real thing (due to various limitations). Many are either history buffs, professionals or veterans if not some combination thereof. Another issue is one of technical mastery and skill. Anyone can play "Battleship", but to master Silent Hunter or Dangerous Waters and survive against human opponents of equal or greater skill, is an accomplishment.

So if you are an executive at a major publisher, why would you waste your time on sub/naval sims when simmers themselves may not even bu[y what you offer them? For much less aggravation, you can produce "Assassin's Creed X" and be garanteed $100 milion in sales. Its a no brainer.

I am not an executive and therefore anything I say is pure speculation. I see the wargaming market as a small niche that for all its weaknesses and challenges is begging for a reliable publisher to satisfy its needs. Will it make billions of dollars? No. However, producing a product that goes out of its way to please the grognards of the community will ensure an ironclad customer base, which is guaranteed income.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Julhelm

Well they're making ever more money every year so obviously they aren't mismanaging things. We might think they are mismanaging etc but we're not the target audience for big publishers anymore.

Agreed. Major publishers now are like major film studios, only interested in releasing profitable blockbusters.

SH3 and 4 each sold around 100-200,000 units, certainly respectable numbers, but a fraction of the estimated $ 1 Billion in sales for "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3". Almost all the major publishers bailed out of the sim market in 1999-2000. If SH could not reach a mass market, it was only a matter of time before Ubisoft dropped the franchise.