So is this it!

[Nexus7]

Assassins Creed? Sure.

And about MMO games ?

About WoT (march 2012): World of Tanks has 20 million registered users, making double-digit million profits monthly

Why should a tank simulator be extremely more appetible than a sub simulator ?

[elanaiba]

I really don't want to get into this but have you played World of Tanks - since you're calling it a simulator?

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by elanaiba

I really don't want to get into this .....

You know you want to though. NDAs are such a pain...

[Red October1984]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

You know you want to though. NDAs are such a pain...

Everybody loves a good "This game is/isn't a simulation" argument!

LET'S DO IT!!!!

[PL_Andrev]

Originally Posted by Nexus7

Assassins Creed? Sure.

And about MMO games ?

About WoT (march 2012): World of Tanks has 20 million registered users, making double-digit million profits monthly

Why should a tank simulator be extremely more appetible than a sub simulator ?

People love:
- free games, (SH series is not for free)
- simple games, (ok, simple mode available here)
- many units playable game, (just German or US units, right?)
- multiplayer games, (no counterfight with humans)
Just a fresh look is needed. Since SH3 UBI has no idea to develop Destroyer Command 2 although community sign it many times. Now we will have free available navy games: World of Warships (in development) and WarThunder (in development, only planes available to play).

[BigBANGtheory]

What people want is quality and variety at an affordable level.

Ubisofts business model is to find and recycle a winning formula with minimal investment/risk.

...and so the deadlock between publisher and consumer continues.

So what you need is a developer prepared to demonstrate quality and thus generate a market prepared to pay for continued development. This model has proven to work with DCS which btw isn't without its faults, but they are tolerated due to the immense quality in other areas.

I personally think SH5 had (still has) the potential for this had development continued for another 2yrs, which obviously required consumer backing. The key to getting that backing is communication and trust, again a succesful trait of the DCS series.

que elanaiba's kickstarter campaign....

Maybe Ubi is out of the WWII SubSim market. Maybe not.

So SHO might be a way to increase interest in and draw more people to a future project?


No source nor SDK has ever been released.
No objections to what Modders do with files but alot of inclusions based on past mods and modders work and suggestions.
No major objections from modders about those inclusions or suggestions.

There is a base for co-operation between Ubi and Modders.
There's even been rumors/past examples of such a co-op.

Now, since Ubi wants/needs to make money?
And We want more Units that look as good as the base Units. (as a start)
The 3d modelers build them, send them to Ubi for conversion to GR2 format, then have the modders do the sim and other work.
The modders send them back and Ubi can make a few bucks selling an expansion pack.

Say this works out and We all stand behind it and fork out a few bucks to buy this expansion. (I know I would)

A trust may be built that could lead to some access to source that would allow the Modder programers to correct problems that Ubi is not going to correct otherwise.

Again, Ubi needs a way to make money so We buy the fixes from them.

I see it like this.......
It's that way or no way.

As someone that owns his own business?
If I don't make money? I don't do any work for you.

My Modding work is my hobby and I never make money off of it.
I'd gladly do free work for Ubi on an SH5 expansion/bug fix given a chance.

It's time to quit complaining and start makeing offers to get what We want.

All I want is a chance to help Ubi make money while I get the results that so many here want.

[Sailor Steve]

That is a brilliant plan. If it can be made to work, I'll buy it.

Promise.

[BigBANGtheory]

It would be interesting if Blue Byte ran this as a project for Ubisoft, then they would have 2 revenue streams from the franchise with minimal effort on their part.

They would also split the risk between a browser based game and a proper PC sim.

Then if the market grows to a sufficient size you have a business case for developing a more modern subsim.

I suspect though Ubisoft HQ is wrapped up in assessing purchasing assets and IP from the demise of THQ atm.

...but yes in principle sim players should accept the true cost of continued development, and sim developers need to accept community participation if they want success.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

That is a brilliant plan. If it can be made to work, I'll buy it.

Promise.

It was only me thinking out loud. So it's more like a gropeing for anything.
It would be 'a brilliant plan' IF someone from Ubi responded.
(Which I will not be holding my breath on)

This Community has all the skills, talent, knowledge, and will power any Game Company should be fighting to embrace.
I won't even mention how professional everyone here is.
(Oh Crap! I did anyway )

[Sailor Steve]

How very unprofessional of you.

[elanaiba]

Originally Posted by BigBANGtheory

So what you need is a developer prepared to demonstrate quality and thus generate a market prepared to pay for continued development. This model has proven to work with DCS which btw isn't without its faults, but they are tolerated due to the immense quality in other areas.

I personally think SH5 had (still has) the potential for this had development continued for another 2yrs, which obviously required consumer backing. The key to getting that backing is communication and trust, again a succesful trait of the DCS series.

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!

[Julhelm]

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.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Julhelm

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.

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.

[elanaiba]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

I had suspected UBI had similar plans with SH5, since it contains code for Type II and IX U-boats.

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.