That already happened. Look at the vast number of flight sims being produced in such diverse locations as the US, the UK, Germany, Eastern Europe, Australia, and Japan. Oh right, the market spoke, and they all switched to making other types of software that make them more money.

To believe that convincing people not to pay anything for BoS so it has a serious financial crunch will force them to rethink their plans is correct. To believe that the rethink will involve what you want it to is not.
Remember that 1C is not controlled by flight sim fans, it is controlled by people interested in releasing software at a profit. Look at the progression from Il-2 in 2001 to BoS today...you honestly believe these people will slap their foreheads and say "Oh, what fools we've been! We should emulate that program we made a dozen years ago and not make an attempt to be more like that far more successful War Thunder game"??? You do NOT think they will slap their foreheads and say "How stupid of us! We should make another zombie survival game and forget about sims"??

Market forces do not work in a market this small. It's like saying you can have a reasonable democracy in a country of 10 people. For proof, look no farther than Autodesk. As time has gone on, their software has become less and less loved by its users. Their prices have increased as they number of users decreases to find alternate solutions. The autocad market is probably just as large as the flight sim market, yet for flight sims there are no games that cost $1500. Unlike autocad, which engineers still need, flight simmers will just go get another hobby.

The answer is that sims will have to charge a LOT more money, and if you think the $90 many BoS users prepaid is "a lot more," then it's already doomed to follow this same course. Maybe at $500 a copy they could start to do what some here claim to want. Of course, again following Autodesk's example they could charge $1500 a copy and STILL ignore the users just as easily.





The Jedi Master

Neither you nor I are certain what the reaction of 1CGS will be if BoS does not sell well "as is." And what is the risk for players like myself? That a company that made a combat flight sim I don't enjoy and don't play may stop making combat flight sims I won't enjoy and won't buy?

The BoS SP Campaign design was not a slam dunk easy decision for 1CGS. Jason said he railed against the current design. So 1CGS is not certain that this campaign was the right direction either. It wasn't a "this campaign design or Zombie Survival" decision. I hope they add a traditional campaign for BoS (or allow us to build them) and enjoy great success.

You make it sound like a binary situation when it isn't. Are you a programmer?

Jedi, you're correct that this is doubtful to make this group change their mind. I don't think it will. People that treat their current customers like 1CGS has rarely consider how at impacts their own future products.

But frankly, I don't want these people making flight sims. They should go the route of the Acme Horse Drawn Buggy Co. I want the market to kill them.



Heck, maybe flight sims the quality of F4, IL2, EAW are all the buggy business. In which case, the price point does need to be higher, like VBS2.

Either way, suggestions that making a SP experience fun (that's why we play these games) is probably a good idea for anyone wanting to make any game, PC, console, board, card or otherwise.

I think you're miscategorizing the internal disagreement. I think Jason was given a firm "this is how you will do it" and his disagreements were ignored. So while some team members doubted this was the right way to go, 1C's top always believed in their flawed vision and no amount of argument or proof would dissuade them...which makes them sound as I classified them.
They will never believe the current SP campaign design was a mistake. It works as designed, so it's good. If it fails commercially, they WILL blame the market for not being interested in flight sims sufficiently for their purposes, they will NOT blame themselves for deviating from what the market wanted by something as trivial as unlocks for guns and skins in a campaign.

And if you think they don't believe that WE should think it's trivial, you don't know how these business types think. 1C is NOT run by flight sim fans.

If you ever saw Big starring Tom Hanks, where he's sitting in on a corporate board meeting where they're discussing the next type of toy to make, you'll understand. They designed a transformer-type toy that went from being a robot to a building! All of them thought it was great as research showed these types of toys were very popular and yada yada yada until Tom's characters said "but what's fun about it?" at which point he got a bunch of blank stares.
Jason might have been our Tom Hanks, but 1C had no Robert Loggia to listen to him and follow his advice.

I'm not a programmer, but I understand the corporate mentality all too well from experience.
Of all the wishes you may have for BoS, the wish that 1C exits the flight sim business is frankly the most likely to occur. While you may think it's better to have no developer making a WWII sim rather than a poor one, I disagree. Others will look at its failure, on top of the last 15 years of failures globally, and conclude it's more trouble than it's worth to go into this market, NOT "oooh, an unserved market opportunity!" when this market consists largely of ungrateful tight-fisted overly demanding know-it-alls who want to pay nothing for a product that has everything.




The Jedi Master

Dude, you just basically typed what I'm saying. I agree they have no intention of changing.

Edit: I also don't mind at all if 1C exits the flight sim business. I lose nothing from that. If no one fills the gap, then as I say, it's because there isn't a market for it (the horse buggy business metaphor).

15 years would include the IL-2 franchise...was that a failure? I thought it was the best selling combat flight sim in the history of gaming.

I just retired from a Fortune 10 company and saw them at their best and worst. I've worked for CEO's who were idiots and drove us into the ground. And I've worked for CEO's who were very insightful and lead us to profitable times. The all seeing, all knowing monolith is a myth. Large companies are only as good as their CEO at the time, so I'm hopeful 1C Company is thinking like a nimble company that can respond to the market, and not a self proclaimed all knowing dreadnought unknowingly heading for an abyss...I've been there in both situations so I still have hope, although it is guarded.