Same here Force 10.

Yeah, that was when we COULD "vote with our wallet" and only buy the ones we thought worthwhile. Now it's like if you refuse to get something, even if it's half-baked, you feel guilty you're contributing to the demise...



The Jedi Master

While it may be deplorable that the once reputable Jane's label is now officially in the gutter, I think that overall the simulation genre needs more "sim lite" games and that the pursuit of procedural accuracy has overall resulted in developers and the fan base painting themselves into a corner: New players are rare.

To change that you need entry level simulations - I always pull out "Strike Commander" here because I think it epitomizes what "simulation games once were about, with an appeal to a wider audience. I don't think that configuration screens are the answer. They may still be a good idea to let an experienced player still tailor the amount of button clicking to his preferences, but the detrimental effect of them is that they reduce the pressure in the development group to make a clear decision - do they want a hardcore sim, or do they want a bigger audience. If you want a bigger audience, you must not make the title intimidating (and multi-page config screens do intimidate people), and above all you must appeal with content (a story line, or a detailed background picture, ...) and not a great flight simulation engine.

I'm not sure that this title is what the market needs, but at least they gave it a try to reduce the overall complexity. Unfortunately it still seems to fail in too many other areas. But we shouldn't slam it for something that it doesn't attempt to be ... unfortunately, using the Jane's label they feed the misconception about what kind of a title it wants to be.

Yes, the whole problem here is the naming being used. I never played it yet, it could turn out to be a fun arcade like Ace Combat. But they really should never use "Jane's" for that type of game. It's like they're trying to deceive us..

Well, "they" decided to capitalize on the Jane's brand. If the Jane's Information Group is willing to sell out and utterly ruin the value of their brand in the field of computer simulation games, that's their prerogative. They make money a last time with the license, the developer may make a bit more money from impulse buyers and those who probably don't really care anyway, but every self-respecting flight simulation enthusiast who informs himself about the title before a purchase will now know what to expect.

No harm done, other than to the reputation of the Jane's brand. And it is fully in the realm of entrepreneurial decision-making to ruin one's reputation for a quick buck. It is their problem, and their's alone. You are in essence criticizing not the product, but a marketing decision. Hey, it' marketing - what else do you expect? That they don't take every opportunity to put more lipstick on a pig? It's their job to do that, and it's the job of self-respecting consumers to lift the veil of euphemisms that shroud the truth before pulling out the wallet.

This is why I love DCS: A-10C, for one of the most complicated simulations ever made, modeling just about every procedure you can model in the A-10C without having access to the real one that the military is using, they also put some serious thought into making it one of the most scalable games ever made.

Perhaps your memory is a little thin, but the last "sim" with Jane's on the label was released in 2000. Few who started simming in the last 10 years have even SEEN a Jane's title, and then it was just that lame WWII arcade game.
Who will be deceived? What value is there to ruin? It's like they make a new Studebaker and people talk of it "tarnishing" the reputation of the older ones. For all intents and purposes, the Jane's name was dead in games. They're bringing it back now in this way, but it really means no more than "Tom Clancy's" on the front of games like Splinter Cell and Ghost Recon and Endwar does now, Or Madden on a football game.



The Jedi Master

You got a point there, Jedi. But for an oldtimer like me it's kinda..disappointing..I guess? I had only two of Jane's sims. F/A-18 and IAF. One missing and one broken now. But I still remember how "real" they were back then. Of course, they're probably feel like games if you compare them to VRS F/A-18E or DCS A-10C or LOMAC. But still, back then, they were THE sims I love. That's why I was so happy when I saw a "new Jane's" on the store few days ago. You can imagine my feeling after reading the review.. And although I agree with the argument that most people that started simming in the last 10 years wouldn't even know about Jane's sims, it still makes me wonder: why did they bother using Jane's name in the first place (assuming they didn't plan on deceiving anyone)?

...probably because some market research revealed that there's still some brand awareness which predicted higher sales figures if they included it in the title than without. In other words, they are still capitalizing on the reputation that they built fifteen years ago.

Read that as you want - as an attempt to deceive customers, or a failed (first?) attempt to revive the brand, or the last opportunity to squeeze a few more drops from an old lemon.

DCS is also a perfect example of preaching to the choir. It's as far from an entry-level flight simulator game you can get. Sure it scales down but it's still as dry as they come.