Are people's objecting to an online subsim per se, or merely Ubi's "effort" here?

[P_Funk]

Originally Posted by flag4

...what happens if its an amazing success?

Define success. Financially? Game quality?

Where does the measure of success exist? We all know that its subjective. The question of success goes to the very core design principle being applied to the game itself. Sims have a very different messure of success in both the financial and quality categories compared to more mainstream casual ventures. Its a fact that sims are a niche product while online games are almost always targeted towards casual mainstream gamers. There are obvious exceptions, Eve Online being one of them, but thats the exception to the rule.

If you look at the history of Silent Hunter you can see that even a dedicated sim product doesn't easily satisfy its target audience and is only truly realized with heavy modification. Online games however are by their very nature unmoddable. This means that we only get the product we're sold and there's little hope that this online game will be in any way better than any release of Silent Hunter since the last one was far from complete even when it was dropped as a supported product.

So, can it be a success? Sure, I guess. But the odds are so bad that there's basically no chance. The fact is that they shat the bed on SH5 and the suits probably read from that that you can't rely on the simmer base to be a loyal customer (igoring the fact that they sold us a lemon by our standards). So they decided to try and expand their audience to the mainstream gamer. They will of course use the IP to try and tempt the old market but withou a doubt they're going to be aiming to grab a larger one.

Personally even if the game is a perfectly good sim it doesn't interest me to have to pay recurring fees to properly enjoy it. Even if its a one time payment to unlock the full feature list you can be sure that #1 they will be adding more content at a fee and #2 that you will never be allowed to mod the game since it lives in an online format.

So, whatever the final quality of this game it will not be in any way like our vision of Silent Hunter. It will not allow us to mod it which is for me a deal breaker. I have become increasingly disenfranchised with mainstream gaming. What games I do pay for I almost entirely enjoy via mods and play amongst those people. Without mods I can't say I expect to play this game much if at all. Even a single stupid feature cannot be changed without mods, and yet we all know how much we've come to love here the incredible list of innovative changes modders have made over time breaking the puzzle of these games' code.

So, will it be successful? Maybe, by their standards. By my standards it can never be successful because it cannot be modded and it cannot be played offline and as a result it has shut the door on the most satisfying part of gaming for me: the community mod aspect.

No mods, no offline, no community control or direction, no dice. Simple as that.

[u crank]

No mods, no offline, no community control or direction, no dice. Simple as that.

P_Funk


Now that's a good line.

[Red October1984]

Originally Posted by u crank

No mods, no offline, no community control or direction, no dice. Simple as that.

P_Funk


Now that's a good line.

You sir, deserve a medal for that line.

[Julhelm]

I think that line of reasoning is silly. Most of my favorite games of all time were made without community input and without the possibility of modding:

Fast Attack
Zeewolf
Red Storm Rising
X-COM
Strike Commander
Jet Fighter 2, 3
Aces of the Deep

etc.

It's interesting that all those games and sims were less complex than contemporary sims. Most simmers tend to agree that AOTD is the best U-Boat sim ever, but ironically as a simulator it is in fact less complex than SH3 or SH5.

[Hinrich Schwab]

Originally Posted by Julhelm

I think that line of reasoning is silly. Most of my favorite games of all time were made without community input and without the possibility of modding:

Fast Attack
Zeewolf
Red Storm Rising
X-COM
Strike Commander
Jet Fighter 2, 3
Aces of the Deep

etc.

It's interesting that all those games and sims were less complex than contemporary sims. Most simmers tend to agree that AOTD is the best U-Boat sim ever, but ironically as a simulator it is in fact less complex than SH3 or SH5.

Why is this concept "silly" to you? The consumers should rightfully dictate the direction of the products it is purchasing. This should be especially true in the gaming industry.

Going back to beating the dead horse, if the executives at Ubisoft actually cared about the gamers paying them the money they so desperately seek,
it would be a non-issue because the resulting product would require minimal modding or patching.

Until that happens, the grognards will live up to their name.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Hinrich Schwab

Why is this concept "silly" to you?

I thought he answered that in his post. He gave a list, and AOD, which was made with no community input, is still widely regarded as the best sumsim of all time.

[kiwi_2005]

Being a browser MMO I dont think it will be a major success. I like my mmo's I play 4 mmos 2 of them browser mmo's, the browser mmo's seem to be laggy and limited compared to the non browser mmo's. One such game was so laggy at times that the devs put out a client install-to-hdd app you no longer needed to load the game with the browser. This cut the lagg by about 90%. I hope Ubisoft give this option with SHO. I will most likely get right into SHO I wanna head out there with oceanic players some aussies players at subsim wonder if they will be try it out. Good fun

[Onkel Neal]

He gave a list, and AOD, which was made with no community input, is still widely regarded as the best sumsim of all time.

OMG, a Sailor Steve typo, and on a mission-critical word, no less. Get yer cameras, fellas!

Most simmers tend to agree that AOTD is the best U-Boat sim ever, but ironically as a simulator it is in fact less complex than SH3 or SH5.

Yes, it is less complex than SH3/SH4/SH5. As awesome as Aces is/was, I don't see how anyone can objectively say it is better than SH3 or SH4. There's some serious nostalgia going on here. AOD is still widely regarded as the best subsim of its time. There may be people who say best of all time, I can't take that seriously.

[Julhelm]

Originally Posted by Hinrich Schwab

Why is this concept "silly" to you? The consumers should rightfully dictate the direction of the products it is purchasing. This should be especially true in the gaming industry.

In what industry does that ever happen, though? Consumers don't dictate the direction of the auto industry. Consumers don't dictate the direction of Hollywood. Consumers don't dictate the direction of the food industry. Or the fashion industry.

Rather, in every case it is the industry dictating the direction of the consumers - so why should games be any different?

In fact, I'd go as far as saying letting the community dictate the design of a game is a recipe for disaster, as design by commitee always is.

The problem with gamers in general is that they tend to be conservative, reactionary, don't think things through completely before they demand things and suffer from a bad case of rose tinted glasses.

And then you have the dilemma of what part of the community to listen to. Do you listen to the hardcore grognards who want full procedural simulation with every last knob modelled and who froth at the mouth of the very thought of conceding realism for the sake of gameplay, or do you listen to the lite simmers who absolutely do not want a superhardcore procedural simulation but rather want a simple to learn UI and fun gameplay mechanics?

And are you going to listen to the nuke fans, the uboat fans, or the fleet boat fans? Budget says you can't please them all. Who gets to decide what the final game evolves into? Those who bitch the loudest?

Like I said, AOD is the best subsim ever and it was done in a time when forums didn't even exist. Whereas sims have become increasingly unsatisfactory ever since internet communities began bitching about "how it should be done".

Going back to beating the dead horse, if the executives at Ubisoft actually cared about the gamers paying them the money they so desperately seek,
it would be a non-issue because the resulting product would require minimal modding or patching.

Until that happens, the grognards will live up to their name.

Except UBI owes you nothing. If you are not happy with their product you can do what you'd do with any other unsatisfactory product: return it for a refund or sell it. Only successful products are supported, and SH5 was a flop, so it had the plug pulled on it, like thousands of games before it.

[Hinrich Schwab]

Originally Posted by Julhelm

In what industry does that ever happen, though? Consumers don't dictate the direction of the auto industry. Consumers don't dictate the direction of Hollywood. Consumers don't dictate the direction of the food industry. Or the fashion industry.

Rather, in every case it is the industry dictating the direction of the consumers - so why should games be any different?

Do not sales reflect the consumers' response to industry moves? I think you are confusing initiative with influence. In that case, the producers of goods most certainly do have initiative. However, it is the consumer who makes the final judgment.

In fact, I'd go as far as saying letting the community dictate the design of a game is a recipe for disaster, as design by commitee always is.

The problem with gamers in general is that they tend to be conservative, reactionary, don't think things through completely before they demand things and suffer from a bad case of rose tinted glasses.

How does this apply to the subsim community? After 10 years of Silent Hunter iterations by Ubi, the community here is rather certain what it wants. Blanket statements like this won't work because semantics will pick them apart. Had you stated, "...the mainstream gamer...", I might have agreed with you.

And then you have the dilemma of what part of the community to listen to. Do you listen to the hardcore grognards who want full procedural simulation with every last knob modelled and who froth at the mouth of the very thought of conceding realism for the sake of gameplay, or do you listen to the lite simmers who absolutely do not want a superhardcore procedural simulation but rather want a simple to learn UI and fun gameplay mechanics?

And are you going to listen to the nuke fans, the uboat fans, or the fleet boat fans? Budget says you can't please them all. Who gets to decide what the final game evolves into? Those who bitch the loudest?

Realism settings and autocrew options can balance this out. It isn't necessarily perfect, but it is better than absolute focus.

Like I said, AOD is the best subsim ever and it was done in a time when forums didn't even exist. Whereas sims have become increasingly unsatisfactory ever since internet communities began bitching about "how it should be done".

I have no arguments regarding AOD. I agree with you on that. Regarding the "unpleasable fanbase", all the internet has done is give the sim and wargaming community a voice. Nothing more. While AOD was the best subsim ever, it has its share of flaws, too. Specifically, manual control of the deck gun had to be patched in. Manual control of the deck gun trumps AI auto crew any day of the week, regardless of sim.

Except UBI owes you nothing.

I am more than aware of that. Pointing that out to me like I just fell of the turnip truck accomplishes nothing.

If you are not happy with their product you can do what you'd do with any other unsatisfactory product: return it for a refund or sell it.

In an increasingly digital world polluted with DRM, these options are dying out. The new standard is that if one has a computer product one is dissatisfied with, you out the money you spent with no recourse.

Only successful products are supported, and SH5 was a flop, so it had the plug pulled on it, like thousands of games before it.

You are stating the obvious. This is Economics 101. Likewise, this is also how consumers can dictate market response; by forcing a product flop.

The gist of your argument is pretty much, "The industry will do as it damn well pleases." However, the only trump to that is if the consumers generate such a vociferous and negative response that the producer in question has no alternative but to listen. That is the whole point of the complaints in the subsim community; to generate this level of response. To date, it has simply been unsuccessful. That doesn't mean there won't be a time where it will succeed.

[flag4]

Originally Posted by P_Funk

Define success. Financially? Game quality?

Where does the measure of success exist? We all know that its subjective. The question of success goes to the very core design principle being applied to the game itself. Sims have a very different messure of success in both the financial and quality categories compared to more mainstream casual ventures. Its a fact that sims are a niche product while online games are almost always targeted towards casual mainstream gamers. There are obvious exceptions, Eve Online being one of them, but thats the exception to the rule.

If you look at the history of Silent Hunter you can see that even a dedicated sim product doesn't easily satisfy its target audience and is only truly realized with heavy modification. Online games however are by their very nature unmoddable. This means that we only get the product we're sold and there's little hope that this online game will be in any way better than any release of Silent Hunter since the last one was far from complete even when it was dropped as a supported product.

So, can it be a success? Sure, I guess. But the odds are so bad that there's basically no chance. The fact is that they shat the bed on SH5 and the suits probably read from that that you can't rely on the simmer base to be a loyal customer (igoring the fact that they sold us a lemon by our standards). So they decided to try and expand their audience to the mainstream gamer. They will of course use the IP to try and tempt the old market but withou a doubt they're going to be aiming to grab a larger one.

Personally even if the game is a perfectly good sim it doesn't interest me to have to pay recurring fees to properly enjoy it. Even if its a one time payment to unlock the full feature list you can be sure that #1 they will be adding more content at a fee and #2 that you will never be allowed to mod the game since it lives in an online format.

So, whatever the final quality of this game it will not be in any way like our vision of Silent Hunter. It will not allow us to mod it which is for me a deal breaker. I have become increasingly disenfranchised with mainstream gaming. What games I do pay for I almost entirely enjoy via mods and play amongst those people. Without mods I can't say I expect to play this game much if at all. Even a single stupid feature cannot be changed without mods, and yet we all know how much we've come to love here the incredible list of innovative changes modders have made over time breaking the puzzle of these games' code.

So, will it be successful? Maybe, by their standards. By my standards it can never be successful because it cannot be modded and it cannot be played offline and as a result it has shut the door on the most satisfying part of gaming for me: the community mod aspect.

No mods, no offline, no community control or direction, no dice. Simple as that.

thanks P funk for the immotive responce.
'We all know that its subjective' this is an interesting point. 'We' must include UBI. how did they come to the conclusion
that producing yet another sub- game would be succesful?

after the debacle of SH5 what were they/are they thinking?
im intrigued. whish i was a fly on the wall during the meltdown in those sh5 meetings.

i beleive that sh5 was aimed more at the casual player, so that its not so complex as its predecessors.

this would mean, perhaps, a more arcade style point and shoot set up.
i guess for me the 'success' thing would be; purely as successful as it can be at the level or individual it is aimed at - no more. and if you have to pay then the paying individual is the target. and if your not concerned about mods - then this is for you.

i think trying to understand a companies motivation to create something like online submarines can only mean arcade style gaming. i cant believe they are interested in the hard core player and modder. only last weekend my friend asked me 'are you STILL playing that game?'.....like i should grow up?
'i am STILL.' i replied. he can not see my love of it and its REAL history, and so i can not beleive that the company can or wants to take players like me and thousands of others seriously otherwise SH5 would have been finished correctly, time taken and investment added.

and who knows, maybe they would have gone on to produce
online submarines anyway. ( the market just aint big enough for the both of us!)

'But the odds are so bad that there's basically no chance.' i do not agree so readily. can you imagine sh3 or sh5 with its own wolf packs commanable by the player? maybe with this online thing there will be a possibilty if it takes off? (edit; just been to the site - saw the wolpacks stuff; not a bad idea - each has a sub and working together. it has to be one of the things lacking in the Silent Hunter series; Wolfpacks: a big part of the real history.)

'So they decided to try and expand their audience to the mainstream gamer.' why would they follow on from a damaged product with the possibilty of another failure? surely they - as a gaming company, have some idea whats out there in terms of possibility and saleability.

'So, whatever the final quality of this game it will not be in any way like our vision of Silent Hunter.' P funk, they dont need us! they want a different type of gamer. they are sick to death of our bleating and complaining and demanding - maybe they are hoping to throw it open to a whole new generation of online gamer?

who needs those old simmers anyway. let them play in the bath with their wooden u boats - we're after something new!! ( thats me, waxing!)
seems like they are trying their hand at mmo's. its probably where the future is. get everyone together playing online - then we know where they are and we can control the content. dont want those old modders messin' with our stuff, they've had it too easy.
(maybe im being cynical!)

maybe other questions are: what will happen to pc games in the future? what will happen to sims? how popular are sims and other pc games in light of consoles and online?
'It will not allow us to mod it which is for me a deal breaker.' they dont NEED us, The Old Guard.

your words are true, but i beleive the answers are in your questions. when i read between your lines i can almost see how it will 'PROBABLY' go in the future. though i may be wrong too, i hope!

'No mods, no offline, no community control or direction, no dice. Simple as that.' those of us that care dont have a voice loud enough to change it - they know that, and they dont care.

its going like television; turn it on, look at it, use it, switch it off. done.
can you imagine everyone who had a TV could change the content of each programme to suite themselves - add to it, remove stuff from it?
the TV companies would pull their hair out and then collapse. giving people such freedom and control messes with the status quo. online is where its at. our 'little community' is just that 'little.'

but you never know. there may come a group of modders who could write their own script according to the likes and demands of its community. but even then - not everyone will be happy!

cheers