We'll see. I could be full of crap but I also don't think I'm grasping at straws like a conspiracy theorist. Considering how closely related the BoM is to Bos, the new theatre itself has limited appeal to those who won't or didn't buy BoM because they didn't like the BoS theatre. (The Med instead of BoM, for example) would garner the same group plus others waiting for a different theatre that interests them more.

For reasons already hashed out ad-finitum, BoS has stagnated a certain population of BoS purchasers who won't purchase BoM. That leaves BoS supporters who eagerly await BoM and new converts to flightsims (or movers from WT et al). I also believe many if not most WT users are aware of BoS/BoM. The migration from other games may already be limited.

How many people could that be? I know online BoS's population has grown, but it's not exploded, leading me to believe that growth of this sim (and maybe even genre) is limited, thus limiting the future monies coming into BoM.

The money aspect of the game doesn't bother me but it does others affect and may be a contributing factor in limiting future sales.

It makes sense to expand so they can gather more people, more money, more development. I feel it may water down the FS experience. Just an opinion.

We'll see. For those who are happy with BoM... I wish the best. The the successful implementation of PWCG and the first 50% off sale will be my deciding factor on a future purchase of BoM... and even then I may not.

On one hand, having player usable tanks can make things more fun. In DCS, it's pretty great being able to cover player controlled AFVs in a 'Hog. It can add a needed human element to a mission or scenario when you know there are actually players on the ground who are going to rely on your precision and judgement. On the flip, it adds more tension to the ground players knowing they're depending on someone in the air to help them.

On the other, Combined Arms is poorly realized in a lot of aspects. The ground physics in DCS need improvement, but that can be said for BoS and, frankly, every other sim made.

So, I think Trooper's concerns are well founded.

The promise of a new campaign still intrigues me most.

Bare in mind as well, the 777 guys are also 'supposed' to be working on RoF as well... That could also be yet another nail in the coffin for WWI aviation lovers.

Tanks. I love tanks. Bring the tanks.

The cockpit interiors are cool, don't have those in war thunder. Multicrew would be good fun.

Wondering what their marketing gimmick is to enable them to compete with WoT or WTGF. Realism? Realism isn't a big selling point if the gameplay sux.

Large scale map? They'd have to do a massive upgrade on the building graphics for the existing Stalingrad map to work though, so I suspect it'll just be Russian countryside.

Combined air and ground combat? Already got that in other titles...

I'm intrigued what their unique selling point will be.

H

They have already tried to draw across the WT crowd by their design choices from the start... it failed dismally, and remember, WT is free.
They are not going to have the WT tankers coming across in droves when they will have to pay through the nose for the odd tank to run around in...

Actually, that is generally the answer when you have a niche product.



^If you have a lower quantity of units demanded (niche market), you need to set a higher price.

Flight sims are a small market by nature, because they require a high end PC (consoles just don't really work for hard core flight sims, at least not to date), are best experienced with high end control gear, and require a decent amount of invested time (if you don't know how to fly an airplane, the learning curve to adopt any flight sim is steep). All these barriers to entry mean that you have a small pool of users to sell to.

In other words, they could charge $5 a copy for BoS, and still not grow the market enough to equalize the supply demand curves at a profit (which all businesses strive to make)


The Homeopathic cure analogy isn't appropriate either; BoS has proven it 'works', as in it's delivered a flight sim that simulates the Russian theater, finding a balance between study and survey sim. Maybe it's lacking the features some of us want, but it's not snake oil.

Given all that, I personally find it more disgusting when a publisher like activision keeps charging $60 for the same recycled call of duty game.

I think people are expecting too much from what tanks is going to offer. Its not their main focus, its a side portion that will add some fun to the environment. They aren't making a tank sim. But it will be just enough to be able to get a different experience.

I agree DCS' tank simulation is poor at best. But the strategy aspect of controlling tank battalions and scout vehicles is what shines there.

I know I'll personally enjoy the tanks. I cant even count the hours I enjoyed setting up WWII tank battles in Iron Front (ARMA). Just to watch them play out or take control of an individual tank in the fight.

I might even set up an All tanks server for these once they hit. I feel there might be enough tank lovers to fill a small, say 30 man, server. With light air support, Stukas and IL2's. (thats all my server could run

Im alot like many others that enjoy tank battles sans targeting computers, where good old fashioned aim and tactics play a bigger role than automatically generated targeting solutions and point'n'click FTW games.

Even this latest game "Armored Warfare", it holds your hand showing you where the enemy is in a red outline. I never understood why that was needed. Gimme the reward of cleverly hiding my tank against the terrain or behind cover.

Whilst detailed armor values and the like would be nice, the 3 hits and you're dead formula usually is how it ends up any way. lol

my 2 cents.

Hooves

Of course, I assume that's all to turn a profit. Which is the expected end of any game development. That also separates flight sims from the rest of video games. As much as we like to do that, as simmers tend to do, it doesn't seem to be the case for many other consumers. They take a look at Bo'sS/BoM's pricepoint and pass it on by. I made a mistake by doing that initially, now that I think of it.

While I can't dispute that graph, I don't think it's applicable to this situation. These games have competition with not only other flight sims, but other games.

Other games on PC, on consoles, on mobile devices, etc etc etc. There is more competition than ever before for entertainment. WWII realistic combat flight sims is about as niche as you can get in that area.



The Jedi Master

And, when an individual sees the price of the game and compares it to something else (such as CloD), they'll probably go with the more economical route. Or, they'll grab a completely different game.

Even if the upcoming update makes the game more worthwhile, I'll still only be able to recommend friends grab it on sale.

No campaign and no decent single player experience. "Too costly."

Drivable tanks. "Genius."

This company is a dumpster fire inside a train wreck inside a tornado inside an alien invasion.

Precisely why I have not played it since it was released, at least since the abysmal SP campaign was released which was a few days before the official release.

Hoping when the kinks get ironed out in PWCG it entices me to try BOS again, we'll see...

I too have zero interest in drivable tanks.

That's really the issue. At this point, talk about "expanding the market" is pretty ridiculous. It is what it is. What you need to do is to appeal to as much of that market as possible. To alienate a significant fraction in the hopes that you'll make up for it by pulling in people outside of it is the height of bad ideas.
Our niche isn't growing, but it CAN shrink. People like me who used to spend 90% of their PC time flying combat sims now spend less than 1/3 of our time doing so, and who have less time to game to boot--why spend it on a shallow sim when there are other deeper ones there?

Yeah, if I spent 5+ hrs every day flying I'd probably spend more in BoS, as little as it came with in SP, just because I'd get fatigued in the same 2-3 other sims. As I'm not even spending 5 hrs per week flying, though, it's easy to just ignore it. Why would I buy BoM at full price given that? I'm going to pay for the value I get out of it, and to date I most certainly have not got my value out of BoS, not like I have with RoF or DCS (even there I freely admit I've received less value than I have with some other non-sim games).




The Jedi Master

The problem with this graph....as in much of economics....is trying to reduce human behavior to that of a purely rational economic actor

To attack this example directly....the demand curve fails to portray the true elasticity of demand for this market

Keep raising the price while reducing the content (another term for quality) when there are substitutes (WT and WoT) and before you know it...you have just priced yourself out of the market.

This is where BoM is headed.....more money for features that are arguably minor differences from free to play alternatives