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

[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

[BigBANGtheory]

Eagle Dynamics prooved a few years ago that if you can demonstrate a SIM which oozes quality you can carve out your own market.

I think subscription or pay-as-you-go models for SIMs has potential if used as a system for growth/content/improvements but you must demonstrate the quality from day one.

If Ubisoft faced their mistakes, sunk another 2yrs dev time into SH5 with the community they could turn the franchise around and name their price.

[RAM]

The concept of a subsim MMO is good and workable. In fact any simulation MMO concept is good and workable. It all depends on how you implement it.

serious MMO simulators have to be in some way or another, monthly fee based. Aces high has been running for 14 years now since the first alphas, and 12 from the initial release (at 30 buck a month back then). Has done just fine and is a reasonably hardcore flight simulator that has had success because it has had proper developing over time, and good customer support/feedback. But that requires monthly income. It's unavoidable.

sure enough MMO requires some gameplay concessions here and there (it's just inevitable, it's the nature of the limits a MMO imposes on any online gaming experience), but if finely tuned they don't do a mess nor they impair the realism and immersion a simulation demands.


So what we are offered is a web-browser game implemented under the "F2P" label. And THAT is where I start saying "no way, not for a game of this nature, and not for a game branded as Silent Hunter".

It's just the implementation they chose and the limits imposed by said implementation. Web browser. Flash based. Nothing against those things (they work quite well for something like Minecraft), they just don't cover the bases for something as complicated as a subsim.

Also Free to play?. Seriously, enough with that BS. F2P games are a scam on themselves and they range from "Pay to Win" to "free to get bored in the years long grind in front of you before you get anywhere near competitive enough". Lots of "magical" or "Boost" items for cash to give you surreal performances. Those things simply don't work for a simulation, for starters, and as I said, are scams to get money out of you. I don't like to be scammed. So another "No way, joe, I'm not into that"

Another thing is that I see none of the names that have made Silent hunter series great, involved in this project. And I mean, the modders who selflessly, and for no monetary reward other than donations that I'm sure didn't compensate at all for the work they put in their creation, turned unimpressive stock games into polished jewels of the simulation gaming history. And not only they are out of the project, they won't even be able to contribute to it by free at all because the MMO concept and web browser implementation inherently prevents them from doing so.


Finally the publisher is Ubisoft. Nothing else needed to argument this point.

[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]

Because 'more complex' doesn't always equal 'better'?

I've been playing a lot of SH1 lately, and I honestly find it objectively better than SH4. About the only things that aren't better in it are the sea graphics and the map tools. And Red Storm Rising does a lot of things better than Sub Command or Dangerous Waters, despite the almost complete technical realism of the latter. Both of these decades-old titles still hold up as well as back then in terms of playability so it isn't all down to nostalgia.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

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

I make typos all the time. Sometimes I catch them, sometimes I don't. As I've repeated countless times, my problem is never with mistakes people make, but with actual abuse of the language by people who should know better. When Frau Kaleun caught me using 'you're' when I meant 'your'? Now there was a catch!

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.

I specifically mentioned the gameplay, which included wolfpacks and escorts that could be highly intelligent or phenomenally stupid, and anything in between. The gameplay also included evasion by bottoming the boat and realistic fog which limited both u-boat and escort vision. SH3 and SH4 have none of those, and all the mods in the world haven't helped. That said, I prefer the newer games just for the feel, part of which involves graphics and some of which involves sound.

[makman94]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

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.

yes Neal...imo it is ...'nostalgia' ! a nostalgia of pure sub sims.
are the sh3/sh4/sh5 really 'complex' ? i don't think so.
the development of sub simulations stopped at sh2. from that day till today ,nothing added or developed-improved further on simulation elements in sh3,sh4 or sh5 (on the contrary ...some elements - without obvious reason - just ...vanished and a huge pack of....bugs added). sh3 or sh4 or sh5 are way far from calling them as 'sims'.
the sim fans are waiting more than 11 years for a real sim to come out(SH2 was released in November 2001 and 688i released in 1997). the best sim ,imo, was the 688i (which was sligthly improved and refreshed a little bit at DW) and i am really hoping these brilliant dev teams (sh1-sh2 dev or 688i dev teams) to show up again on stage with a u-boat sim.

as ,for all these about the 'dead sim market' that i am reading from time to time,...my opinion is that are not valid.think about it...if,indeed, was dead then there wouldn't be so many ,and very VERY good, sims for airplanes.people really like the serious sims and wants them.
companies like ubi just follow the fast road to get some money ...they don't care if the product will be good or not .all that matters for them is the product to be 'ready' in their time schedule and thats all.
there will be a real sub sim at future , i am sure of it ! when ? i don't know...i am just waiting !

[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.

[Julhelm]

Originally Posted by Hinrich Schwab

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.

Sales in themselves offer no qualitiative feedback at all. Did SH5 flop because the game was flawed or did SH5 flop because of UBI DRM. In the end, sales will only show it flopped, so it is commercially unviable and won't be done again. No industry ever has direct input by consumers. Rather, they have designers who do their best to try and work out what the consumers actually want, not what they say they want.

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.

So what does the community want? Is the community a monolithic block of diehard U-Boat fans or what? Are all these requirements compiled into a charter that can be found somewhere here? See, the problem with gamers in general and simmers in particular is that they all know exactly how to design the perfect game but they can never actually pin down what they want into a feature-by-feature list or any other usable format (And which wouldn't take on unrealistic proportions).

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

I beg to differ. I have never played a hardcore procedural sim where realism settings or autocrew managed to transform the game into casual lite sim. Never. DCS has never turned into SF2 and DW has never turned into RSR by the flick of a few settings in a menu. Because they were designed to focus on different aspects. Realism settings the way they are implemented in DCS and DW only serve to dumb down the procedural simulation to a point which defeats it's purpose. The strength of lite sims has always been that they are designed around really good tactical combat.

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.

See, this is the gist of the problem. You concur AOD is the best subsim ever, yet the first thing you bring up is that it lacked certain features. What about all the features that made AOD the best? What are those? That's a hell of a lot more useful to any dev than the neverending negativity and bitching about lack of features.

Community input is only useful if it has some constructive value to it. You say the internet has given the sim and wargaming community a voice. Then I have to say that voice tends to be mostly negative and confrontative towards developers. I remember the big patch wars on the SimHQ SF boards that not only split the community into two warring camps, but also resulted in the main developer (who had always had an open and communicative presence on the boards) to leave all sim boards completely and now can only be found on his own boards. More recently, how about the huge flamewars between Il-2 and Il-2 CoD communities, the amazing vitriol being spewed towards Luthier on multiple forums. Or how about the ridiculous bitching and trolling in the MS Flight forum on AVSIM, so bad they had to close it down.

Or if we look on this very board, the biggest thread on SHO is a 10+ page rant-fest. Read through that thread. It's literally a bunch of angry reactionaries with an axe to grind because they bought SH5 and found out it sucked even though every review portal on the planet said the game was going to be a lemon.

Actually, go to any place really on the internet where people can have their say, and you'll find they usually have negative things to say. As a designer, I'm much more interested in what you like and why than what you hate.

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

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.[/quote]
To be fair, that has always been in the EULAs ever since they started putting EULAs in the installers. You never legally owned those games, you licensed them. DRM is just a way to enforce the EULA. I find the idea ridiculous tbh but that's what we get for voting all these pro-corporate neoliberals into power. It's really a tangent to the discussion and not confined to PC gaming at all like some would imply.

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

All that happens by forcing a product flop is that a studio gets shut down and the devs find job elsewhere making farmville clones. Is this really the outcome you want? I doubt it.

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.

You don't get it. If a product flops that simply means it is commercially unviable and guarantees it will not be done again. Publishers are publicly traded companies and they only care about turning a profit. If you won't part with your money, they will instead focus on easier consumers who do and who don't start a lot of trouble.

The only way you can hope to have any kind of input or change things is by contributing positive feedback and make sure your pet genre is seen as commercially successful. A massive negative response with calls for boycott etc at this point will only make sure the genre gets buried again, permanently.