Rise of Flight Offline Play

Following on from yesterdays (let us just say...heated) discussions I do have a question that is more pertinent to the game itself rather than distribution mechanisms and DRM...

What modes of play are likely to be available to Offline players...

The impression I get from their interviews and comments are that the developers very much see this as an Online Multi-Player Sim...

And there have also be questions and rumours about the availability of a Full Mission Builder and a Dynamic campaign...

Does anyone have any idea what the SP career mode will involve and what other options will be available to those players who are focused on playing offline campaigns?

Well the full mission builder has been confirmed with the initial release.
Dynamic campaign is planned, but for the release only static campaigns have been confirmed.

Can't help but be a little suspicious when all the RoF topics dealing with online activity at Sim HQ and also the banana forum are moved. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. At least at 1C they were moved to off topic because it dealt with a flight sim from another developer. THIS IS the Sim HQ RoF forum.

Hmmmmmmmm.



edit:
Read Dart's reasoning. Don't agree with it but it is what it is. After news of neoQB's online only B.S. there IS no interest in RoF for me. So that effectively leaves me out of the conversation.

Still pretty suspicious about the sudden timing........

Spam alert.

Hi knightgames,

Sudden in execution but not in planning. I was supposed to create the new forum this past weekend but didn't get the time. The new CP/DRM forum has been planned before I flew the Preview version.

In addition to the RoF topics, there is also a big thread from DCS:BS and the Colonel's writeup for the CE. More will be added to the new forum as time allows.

I made the CE a section to its own because of the plan for the CP/DRM forum. Adding a large red bar isn't hiding away content. No secret agenda intended or desired. I don't work like that.

Doug, did you have a stand-alone offline version of RoF to review or did you have to log-in to Neoqb first?

the full mission builder has been confirmed with the initial release.

Ooh I missed that Brigs, a mission builder like Il-2's is it?

I can't wait, there's loads of missions-info in Derek Palmer's book, attacking ammunition trains with the new explosions

I keep meaning to ask about small-arms fire but it's not important enough for its own thread. Or I already asked and I'm having a senior moment

Ming

Wonder if we have to log-in before we can use it?

It would interesting to know if you can use the mission builder offline (without connectivity) and then go online to fly the missions...as per their RoF business plan...because one thing i do on my laptop (which i don't connect to the internet) is create missions...

I'm thinking the latter

The subject has been raised but no news whether it's going to be implemented.
I think the subject contained the phrase "GTA4, WWI South London stylee"

D'yer git me.

Well, they do have pistols in the cockpit, so it would be reasonable to ask the Infantry be given rifles.

And bullets.

Then again, rifle fire is terrible against aircraft. The only way to get a decent chance of hitting one is to coordinate a squad and have them pour as much lead as they can into a point in front of the aircraft and hope it flys into them.

Plus bolt action rifles don't make very good anti-air guns.

Machineguns were the big threat as far as bullets go, so they may only model those.

Clue: Red Baron, small-arms fire

Ming

Do we know if users will be able to create their own single player missions and play them on their own machinbe...or if they will have to create the single player mission...upload it to a RoF server making it freely available and THEN play it?

Those of us in online squadrons will want to create cooperative missions, I hope that we can do that from day one

Hmm will we be able to host missions to fly with our friends at places like Hyperlobby? I'm hearing ominous music

Dogfight missions are mildly interesting for checking everything's working and gunnery practice but where's the beef

Ming

"GTA4, WWI South London style"

Don't get me started on the problem with having to log on as a user in order to save your game progress... really annoying and no sign of life from GTA4's support line after my original user-avatar went missing. They don't give a monkeys apparently. Calm down Mington. Mington, the guy who vanished into the ether taking my almost finished game with him grr. I am actually biting the furniture this time

When Developers Go AWOL

And take our avatars and their savegames with them

And... relax lol. At least I won't have to join Games For Windows or XBox Live to fly RoF

Or will I

Ming

Hi dunkelgrun,

Just now picking up on this.

Here is what I wrote in the Preview, "First, I created an account for myself then started looking around the main menu."

The first screen that came up on my version required me to login with my new account name and email address. The instructions from neoqb said I needed an online connection for the preview. I truly do not know how close this login is to the final version, or what implementation neoqb plans other than what you guys already know.

Aha, thankyou, very interesting. I wasn't sure whether 'created an account' meant something like creating a pilot in Il-2 or logging in. Now I see that the preview is set up along the lines of the full release, I imagine that the demo might be too.

I appreciate the reply, goud.

I still cannot understand the decision to make it compulsary to share information in Single Player mode...why do the statistics need to logged, stored and maintained centrally?
In other Flight Simulations I play all pilot information, flight logs, tracks and mission scores are stored with the game on my local machine...what possible benefit can there be to having them hosted on a central server?
Why would NeoQB go to the effort and expense if it didn't intend to actually DO something with that data?
Are NeoQB trying to encourage Single Player users to become involved in the multi-player arena?
Do NeoQB see the game primarily as a multi-player game, with the single player aspect very much an afterthought? Perhaps as a training arena before people get online for the bulk of the game?
Do NeoQB want to encourage a pseudo-online feel to the single player aspect of the game where single players will see the kills and missions of other single players?
I can see the attraction to a game developer of pushing the multi-player aspect at the expense of the single player aspect...it is relatively quick and easy for the company to create new flyables, new objects & new maps...leaving them to be used in a multi-player "dogfight" environment, without the time, effort and complexity of creating a sustained and immersive campaign environment or the difficulties of creating arealistic dynamic campaign...
BUT until very very recently Rise of Flight (and before that Knights of the Sky) was never marketed as a primarily Online Game in the manner of Aces High or Targetware, perhaps if it had been this controversy would never have arisen...Many Offline players though (myself included) got excited at the prospect of a realistic and up to date World War One Flight Simulator and are now concerned that instead we will have a primarily online game, with onerous and unnecessary compulsary requirements for Single Players.
Compulsary "Always On" connection will by necessity exclude or marginalise people without access to reliable 24/7 broadband connections without offering any compensatory benefits.
Single Players will find a game released without a full and complete campaign engine in the initial stages (The Dynamic Campaign is being added at a later date is it not?) but this will not affect online players who merely want a competitive "bunfight".
Offliners who don't want to be part of some stat-driven dogfght league table will have their flight and mission information taken and processed centrally by NeoQB for who knows what kind of gimmecky feature?
Why cannot NeoQB look at what a large number of people are saying and release the game without the compulsary requirement for continuous internet connection for single players, and drop the requirement for centrally stored and managed mission data?
Even if they required something like daily/weekly/monthly online handshakes for game verification reasons that would be a different kettle of fish to what they are proposing currently...and it was interesting to read that not even ALL of NeoQBs development team agree with this business model...

Responded to your posting on the official RoF blog also.

The RoF design team has obviously arrived at their decisions based on their own best judgments, and none of us will ever know the complexities that these decisions involved with this project of theirs.

Wait if you can for more understandings and for potential answers, maybe try the demo when it's released, but I can tell you one thing with all certainity and honesty, the designers are too busy to explain to everyone's personal satisfaction the "why" and "hows" now.

@jasonbirder

First 2 corrections:
- it has been said that solo missions (single missions, not campaign) will only be consultable by the player.
- it has also been said (if I'm recalling right) that a campaign mode (set of chronologic missions built with the mission builder) will be available on release, and that's only the dynamic campaign (wiht missions automatically built) that will be available later.

Secondly, there's a possibility you didn't thought of:
A dual mode campaign: Imagine a player starting a campaign and playing some or most of the campaign missions SP, but for one or more particular missions, he would have some of the bots replaced by real players and so decide to play them on a server in MP mode. That could be a reason for the campaign stat to be online and shared.
On a reverse way, a player wanting to play a campaign in MP mode, would then not be obliged to wait too long for human players to play with on a particular evening and then be able to play one (or more) particular mission in SP mode.
I'm not saying RoF will allow this. I don't know and didn't ask the dev about... this is just to show that there are more possibilities than you thougth about.

As Rama notes, there are RoF design possibilites AND play possibilities we are not privy to at the moment.

Additionally, there are design possibilites that can be incorpoarted later into RoF, that we and the designers might like now, but which will be come in time.

Lastly, there are design possibilities we haven't even imagined, that might be possible in the future because of these basic design decisions Neoqb has folded into RoF's foundation already.

This whole sim is about future expansion, future development potential, and thinking outside the traditional box. The sim is about change potential, and even being able to change itself!

I don't know either, but this is how my beloved EECH/EEAH campaigns are set up. You can start a campaign online or offline.

Now I'll add another variable and again I have no idea if RoF includes this or not, but EECH/EEAH included missions, skirmishes and campaigns. The skirmishes are right in-between a single mission and campaign in objectives and complexity. Perfect for a night of multiplaying with a 2-3 person coop team.

I have a home-LAN that doesn't get much use anymore, but the buds and me played all sorts of games and coop missions on it in years past.

These days it gets pretty expensive to have just one computer set up to play the latest and greatest, let alone try to maintain four (oh well, the price of progress). Inevitably we gravitated to linking up online, and playing games that still allowed us to do this cooperatively. Someday we're hoping to man the same WWI aircraft too, maybe in RoF, like a 2-seater Breguet 14, or a Rumpler C.IV, and especially one of the fighter 2-seaters like a German Halberstadt, or a Bristol Fighter. Way into the future perhaps, I want to imagine strafing and dropping grenades into enemy trenches from the back of such a Halberstadt, and having the enemy AI, or even a player's MG or Flak mount trying to end our flying careers.

Since ROF is IL2 under the hood, could it be possible to have a version of DCG that would work with it?

Brownba, it hasn't been IL2 under the hood for a few years now.

RoF uses it's own proprietary game engine, developed initially by the Gennadich Team, and now by Neoqb.

All new, everything.

Ty Flyretired, I didn't know it was a complete redo.

Brownba, NP really.

I think when the demo comes out and it's experienced, the difference will become apparent (that it's all new and original).

Those damned SimHQ admins perpetuating that OLD story!

"That is a problem, and we are working on it."

I'm not attacking anyone or defending anything, but it seems for whatever reasons people from different sides of the fence seem to be stating ROF is largely MP, or more accurately implying, ROF may become MP only...on the basis of online SP.

Online SP is obviously mainly COPY PROTECTION, especially for addon flyables. Its maybe also to gather statistics to improve the game quickly. Its possible also because the game will be updated regularly and quickly. Perhaps to "tempt" people to buy addon flyables - addon flyables are big part of the business model? Put it all together ....

Its a nonsense for anyone to believe or imply that this game does not strongly support SP. Its clear from the features list on the ROF blog, its clear from what we have heard informally, its clear from what FLiF stated in the ROF blog on online play.

Its also a nonsense to believe that once developed SP will be "dropped". Why discard funtionality that takes an awful lot of time to develop when at least, and probably a lot more then half the players, want to play SP? My guess is that further development, that Neoqb have indicated they will do, will focus on SP, not MP - MP is relatively simple.

And isn't "«Career» mode - generated missions on the basis of the historical data about actions of the aviation in 1917-1918. Users can choose a plane type, a regiment and a date with which they wishes to begin their career " a dynamic campaign?

We just saw a host of medals displayed on the INTERFACE blog update a few weeks ago....they're primarily for SP!

Back in early December LOFT noted in the GAME DESIGN update:

Today I will pay more attention to the reward system. This system is different for single and multiplayer modes.

Single player game implies very serious history line which we can't distort. So you get the real reward at this part of game. And you also improve you rank. Your improvement influences the number of planes you have under you command and it provides you with additional events during your missions.

It's a shame that more people haven't paid attention to the RoF blog updates these past months, and really read through them, and made an attempt to understand the information they contain (instead of going ga ga over the pretty pictures). In fact, this was an often-sited crticism of the project back them....."well its got pretty graphics, and looks good, but that doesn't mean it's anything new."

Now, holy crap....."this is too much too soon"!

This is why some of these features were introduced in sequuence on the blog updates, and previewed as Neoqb chose to do so, so that the reader could build a foundation of understanding.

I learned an understanding long ago when I was a wee Boy Scout, it had to do with the ways of the wolf (it was good advice for a young lad).

"When the ears go up, the mouth goes shut!"

Sorry, but some of this stuff about RoF should have been understood long ago.

Yes FlyR, that is right. Have to admit I forgot that one as well.

Maybe the next blog update will include more on SP functionality or a recap? Neoqb should do that when time permits, SP functionality/support may be becoming a current imagined "concern".

But is that a real concern to some posters? Or related to other matters, not related to SP functionality, as against online SP play and protection concerns.

Some posters here have questioned online SP in various forums on this site? And aren't happy about it. That is okay. And I understand their concerns...about online SP play, and other things that have arisen and now discussed on threads in the newly created and seperate forum.

But I have now seen posts on other sites from these very same posters stating "that in their view reading between the lines" blah blah blah, is that based on forcing online SP play ROF is or will quickly become a MP pay as you play game ... "going stictly pay for play MP ". As well as other things.

Its targeting people that haven't followed ROF closely, and IMO its intentionally malicious.

Most importantly, its a nonsense.

There can be no other reason for a compulsary "always on" internet connection than to "nudge" previously offline players into the multi-play arena or to enforce some form of interactivity between single players in career mode...
EVERY other reason...
Sale of additional content
Regular patches
Digital Rights Management
Sharing user created content
etc etc etc
Can be implemented through the tradition patch download/online purchase method which works so succesfully with existing software...
So there must be some new "paradigm" that NeoQB want us to embrace if they are going to the completely unprecedented lengths of requiring a compulsar continuous connection to the NeoQB server even for single player mode....

BB, if people are really interested, then it should come down to trying to learn the facts as best to one's ability (first).

Those just joining these discussions deserve a fair shake to learn about RoF, without all this 'smoke and mirrors' routine going on.

All I can say to this, is that immediately when DRM surfaced, BEFORE the online aspect of single play was even known ... and of course it was about DMR ...



I stand by "Its targeting people that haven't followed ROF closely, and IMO its intentionally malicious. Most importantly, its a nonsense."

There's not too many people on this forum who have ever brought a new retail sim to market, let alone one designed for WWI air combat from the ground up.

The guys and gals at Neoqb are trying to do just that, so in this regards their efforts are a bit more important to the overall scheme of things here, and we certainly shouldn't wish them the worse for trying either!

"There's not too many people on this forum who have ever brought a new retail sim to market, let alone one designed for WWI air combat from the ground up."

Yep, and of course don't realise that full mission builders, careers, dynamic campaigns and AI are difficult areas that consume a lot of programming time and lots of interface building. These functions are either mainly/solely SP orientated.

Maybe everyone in the ROF team are really mega rich oligarchs? Like throwing away money? Some posters also now seem to be playing on some sort of Russian conspiracy angle.

You're kidding BB.

(is that coming from Combatsim by chance)

Nah, don't visit combatsim.

Do you mean CombatAce maybe? If so, no, they are generally quite good over at CombatAce. Its tightly monitored, which has advantages and disadvantages.

Seen some stuff elsewhere/here.

Well, ok.

No reason to repeat rumors anyway.

Hey BB, did you hear there's a company named GT, now Neoqb, that's planning on making a new WWI combat flight sim?

Crazy idea, isn't it!

BB, I have actually uncovered a conspiracy of sorts, and it's about RoF, but its origin has been revealed right here on these SimHQ forums. It originates from Jason with 777 Studios, and of GoGamer fame (we've talked a number of times in private about RoF, but that's besides the point). Anyway, get a load of this:

(very hush hush right now, but I thought I'd let you know first)

Good find FlyR. Made my day.



Now that sounds like a rumour you can believe in!

Joking aside, the approach certainly sounds like the ROF team we have come to know over time... "So they have devised a fairly benign way of doing it." both in devising a solution and trying to do their best in everything they do.

Obviously their concern is piracy and as well customer inconvenience. They have thought long and hard about it, have consulted.

"Then you're gonna miss out big time." well I'm not! ... This is the flight sim to beat all other flight sims (this year at least, but maybe for a long long time in the WW1 arena).

Don't you just hate when I do this!

I know nothing's stopping this Yankee from joining the RoF FIGHT!

First of all there is no "always on" internet connection unless you are playing online.
Everything about the SP environment is on the users PC.
The process is

• you activate the game when first run, creating a user ID (like you would when joining a forum)
  
• Each time you start the game you authenticate yourself with your id stored on the server. There is a brief handshake (logon and password) and a comparison of career progression for your SP game (the handshake being exactly what you do whenever you visit SimHq, except you more than likely have a cookie to take care of it)
  
• You start your SP mission, no further internet connection is needed while the missions plays out.
  
• Mission ends and results are updated to the server to record your progression and update your stats. This is also a small amount of data no bigger than the amount of data sent and recieved when visiting a website
  
• Next mission now or shut down. No more data is sent unless you fly another mission and the result is uploaded.

It's not intrusive, doesn't want anything more than what you would supply a forum to register.
Purchase of RoF looks like it will be through Steam which means the Russian Mafia is not going to be recieving you cash and bank details

There is nothing sinister going on, you will not be brainwashed into buying anything you don't want. The will be no subliminal messages to ditch SP mode and join the unwashed masses in the MP arena. You will simply be faced with two choices when you've got past the logon. Multiplayer or single play.

This information is gathered from a combination of the Blog and Gouds review.

Nowhere has it said you require to be constantly connected to the NEOQB server unless playing online.

Have seen very little discussion about ROF on OFF at Combat Ace. All the hysteria seems to be going on on the ROF forums and the ROF blogg, haven't you visited there?

>>>>Purchase of RoF looks like it will be through Steam which means the Russian Mafia is not going to be recieving you cash and bank details

>>>>This is also a small amount of data no bigger than the amount of data sent and recieved when visiting a website

>>>>Next mission now or shut down. No more data is sent unless you fly another mission and the result is uploaded.

That sounds intrusive to me. I simply want no intrusion whatever unless I have the option to refuse it. It has to be wondered why we speak to each other through fire walls and upload expensive antiviral software, if there is no danger of anything amiss happening. I don't suppose this website is without strict security.

Also: so no internet, no game. Fine as long as you have the internet; if not then not. I mean, some sort of outage, disconnection problem, being on the move etc: no internet no game. Suppose Microsoft worked on the same basis. No internet, no Windows. They have closed their flight sim works, in common with most other companies. What's the conclusion? I think it is somewhat dumb playing along with the presuppositions being developed just to get what you want: if in the end it means that the sim is unavailable: say in five years. Dramatic things are happening financially and companies are going bust everywhere - think! Some or other tiny detail and the thing is kaput as they say in Germany.


Admin Edit: Please continue the conversation about CP/DRM in that forum:
http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/forums/175/1/Copy_Protection_and_Digital_Ri.html

Brigstock, not picking a fight, just trying to be precise: If you have to be connected at the start of a mission, and at the end of a mission, and in the meantime you are in game, not in windows - then you are basically required to keep a constant connection.

I don't think anyone will alt-tab out of RoF and disconnect after logon, reconnect before mission ends. Just too much hassle, immersion breaking, and some games like to crash on tab out.

You are technically right that while flying an offline mission a connection is not required, but how does that translate into real windows procedure?

See VikS answers to my questions in this thread: http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/2696709/STICKY_FB_VikS_replies.html#Post2696709 (they were originally in here but got split off.)

Basically Brig, there is no offline. There is a fully developed and integrated Single Player side to RoF, but logging in to start a SP session and having to be online to finish it means that you will be online the whole time. Agreed, Colonel, most folk won't shut down their connection to play; only those few on dialup who decide to take the plunge are going to log-off and log back in again. If they can be bothered to do that, then that is the only 'offline' capability this sim will have.

VikS says that he got a system message when his connection went down. He paused the game and re-connected. I don't get this type of message; if my connection is down I'm not going to know until I hit the 'Finish Mission' button and get the 'server error message' and lose all my achievements in that mission. Thankfully this is a very rare occurrence, but it could happen. Rather than a 'server error message' I hope that there will be a reminder to be online when you hit 'Finish Mission', so that those who are offline can attempt to re-connect without losing their stats.

Offline means disconnected from the Internet. It doesn't help us to understand each other if we attempt to re-define the meaning of words unless this is done without being entirely serious, to amuse ourselves, to be playful

There is no RoF offline play but when connected (as I understand it) there is minimal information pinging back and forth from our machines to neoqb's servers, and any information being collected from our machines is to make life more enjoyable for us, not to be intrusive

I only fly online so trust me I have no beef about anything but I will be insisting on people not re-defining perfectly understood words to mean what they mean them to mean, like Humpty Dumpty. And we all know what happened to him, a warning from history, eggshells

Ming

Yes! And it's based on the Il-2 engine. I saw it in a sticky at SimHQ so it must be true. Finger on the pulse those boys!

I have 6 Mbit cable modem internet connection ( Comcast ) and I get kicked offline all the time. So there's no way this game would work for me. Besides, I want full, immersive offline campaigns and do not wish to play online. I have played IL2 since the demo came out in 2001 and probably have played online about 40 hours out of several thousand hours offline. That shows you how much I prefer offline content.

sounds like a problem with your connex there, fishingnut.

I think the key line was

It'll be curious if the RoF demo requires a login to try?

Of course it'll likely be available via online download first (and maybe exclusively).

If it does require downloading, will you try it, and why?

Probably the demo will require the connection, because they will want to prove to us that is painless and we will not need to worry about.
Of course I´m guessing...

That's an interesting thought lbuchele.

If the demo is a download I will have no problem with that...how else would one expect to access a dem anyway?
If the demo requires an ALWAYS ON connection to NeoQBs server and the inability to complete one offline mission and move on to another without a thumbs up from NeoQBs scoring monitor...then i'll be giving it a miss!

You would miss the chance of trying a demo, for the random chance you might lose your internet connection when you play it?

Something offered through online access, such as this sim's demo, that you state you'll have no problem in downloading from the internet, but won't think of trying if you have to go back online?

I'm just totally missing the logic.

They go through that no stage to everything remember

Ming

Whats hard to understand...
Like most PC users I download lots of things...I buy software online...I download user content, I download patches and upgrades...thats not an issue...
Just because I make use of the internet though...it doesn't logically follow that I want to play an online game
Particularly one where i cannot complete a mission and fly another without uploading my scores/stats/p*nis size to a central server and getting a thumbs up to carry on...
Simple really...
Using the internet as a tool for my benefit=good
Having to use the internet to follow somebody elses idea of how I should utilise a game=bad

Well my brain just hurts trying to give credence to any of this anymore.


A game is a tool also, and I'm not afraid to use either at the same time.

I can appreciate that as someone looking forward to the release of the game you wish to defend it from all doubters FlyRetired

But i have to ask you...can you name one possible benefit that requiring upload of scores/stats etc etc to a central server/monitor before you can fly another mission offers to a single player?

There are undoubtedly many good points to Rise of Flight...if there weren't it wouldn't arouse as much interest...but given that commanality of version/future upgrade sales/anti-piracy/central repository of stats for online "willy wavers" can all be acheived without crippling the offline player...
What is the benefit to the single player who wants to fly single player campaigns and possibly create single player campaigns to enforcing both an "ALWAYS ON" Interent connection...and requiring transfer of stats/score/p*nis size to a central server before you can play 2 consecutive missions...

If I am missing something here please correct me...I WANT an excuse to buy this sim...but can't see beyond the crippling of the single player mode for the benefit of online play at this stage....

Experiencing the masochist pleasure to hurt your own principles?
Finally smashing the ugly pink moneypig that you're tired to keep on your bedroom shelve?

... Mmmmm... maybe not good enough... I'll try to find a better one...

One benefit you ask?

You want someone to give you an excuse to buy this sim?

You think you might have the PC to play it, you have the internet connection to play it, you've probably even got flight simming peripherals, and you're also interesting in trying it too?

The benefit is you just get it!

Shall i take that to mean...you can't think of a benefit to it either

About 80% of the flight sim community fly "off line", it seems that the developers want to lose this percentage of their potential sales, not a very smart decission in my view. Most of the posts in this topic seem to have come from the "online" players while the "offline" players are very quiet on the subject. I can understand the developers concerns over DRM and the possible copying of their sim, but surely there must be some method of puting code into the sim to make it more difficult to copy, or is the main problem that they don't trust their staff. (Most of the staff would have access to the code). I was looking forward to buying this sim but unless there is an CD/DVD available for "offline" play I will be one of the very disappointed 80%.

You've stated you don't like the online aspect of single play.
You don't need an excuse
I don't think you should buy it.

Well no Jason, the primary benefit means this thread gets dumped into the CP/DRM forum instead.

People who are really interested in RoF will be supporting the sim I think.

Many of us are looking forward to trying new aircraft too, which means we'll be supporting the sim with additional sales.

Still again, many SP fans also play online too, and will be buying additional content.

Why? There has been no discussion of CP/DRM..there has been a discussion of how connection to a central server for statistics & scoring purposes affects Rise of Flight Single Player Modes...IE Its effect on Mission/Campaign creation...
The CP/DRM forum is for the discussion of copy protection issues...not a new forum that was created to shunt any negative comments about RoF into...

I've flown Il-2 mostly in single-player mode, so I've spent about 95 percent off-line, but I have no absolutely no problem with single-player simming involving a few connections to the internet before and after missions.

I don't see the logic behind your reasoning. I think the vast majority of those who prefer single play also have a good internet connex. By far the most people with a gaming rig have that.

The logic, Frey,is that no game company decides when I connect to the internet and what is uploaded when all I want to do is to play offline campaigns. This is simply a matter of principles - I am the one who decides when to go online. And I have zero (nada, null, niente) interest in seeing my offline stats plastered across the internet.

It really amazes me that neoqb hasn't forseen the backlash they got for this idea and I have absolutely no idea why they even went this way. For online play it's all good and fine, but for offline it's just a pointless and unacceptable policy and will hurt them in the end (very badly).

Hello,

i cannot imagine how anyone would be able to turn this online issue into a favourable light.

Freycinet, you and some others have developed from a critical "ooo kayyy ... why not" to a an almost supporting position regarding "having to be online to play RoF" - why ?

Even then it is ok for me, i heard your opinion and accept it, but it is still YOUR opinion, not mine. Why do you want to silence well-meant critics ? Guys i see some of you live in the US, or England - don't you have any reservation regarding fundamental data protection and privacy, in countries that almost invented it ?

And apart from that:
"I am the one who decides when to go online. And I have zero (nada, null, niente) interest in seeing my offline stats plastered across the internet."

I could not have said it better - my decision. I have no problem in having to be online once, or every second month, for registering, or proof that i have not a pirated version.
This and the other discussion being moved to another restricted area at this very forum had nothing to do with anti piracy- or DRM model issues, it is only about this online term for playing single missions, because this is what me and obviously some others do most of the time. Not even Microsoft with its proprietary measures demands from anyone to be online when you use their products. And i think it would be smashed in a US court, if they tried to.

I like this sim very much and really intend to buy it, but why not rethink this (*Neoqb* ? hint hint ;-) )

Again, no harsh words - but please no gagging.

Thanks,
Narsinha

To be clear - your acctount stores all yours statistics. Right now work over statistics are yet to be finished, but youll be able to choose about, if you whant/dont whant to show your campaign/single missions stats to others.

youll be able to choose about, if you whant/dont whant to show your campaign/single missions stats to others.

Good news.

In UK we have the Freedom of Information Act so I will be checking everyone's stats from time to time, be lucky chaps

Ming

Disabling the option to show offline statistics to the world makes it even more pointless to transmit them firsthand.

Please Viks, or anyone else connected to NeoQB - explain to us, in simple terms, what the benefit of submitting statistics is for offline players who are not interested to be connected to any central server.

Hey Viks, you know this just gets circular? Whatever your response.

What about Navigation Maps. Or Force Feedback?

They are the areas your real fans want some response on, please.

The simple answer is, if you have a problem with going on the internet or dont want to upload stats, to not buy the sim.

If to be simple at all - you accaunt, which is you and all your awards/stats/planes etc etc., - stores everyhting about you on masterserver.
So youll need to connect central server anyway.

But the question is why it is not just stored locally but on a master server?

(From what I know it is about avoiding tampering with the data by the user...)

im tryin when i can:) right now im chewin my dinner and makin fast check of "fresh" tipics, sometimes i cant read all of them



there will be an inflight navigation map with few regimes, depend if you have icons on/off. Map will be a copy of our whole map.



we didnt managed to put it into release, but we plan to implement it in the feature patches (yet dunno when).

It is an kind of DRM protection for ROF - part of the system.

Thanks VikS for some of these clarifications, and I added emphasis to a part of your comments above.

Without having to go into too much detail, can you also explain how the "planes etc." we buy are stored on the metaserver?

well, all aircraft which we will add in the feature - will be a free for all, exept they will be only AI controlled, but if youll like it - you will be able to buy it - so it will be able with cockpit + all other stuff (flyable for campaign, single mission). So metaserver will store information about you bought wthis plane and you can fly it, no need to store whole plane on metaserver.

This also forms an additional function of CP/DRM? That is, it's a way to protect against pirated aircraft, or cheat FMs being used?

correct.

Okay, so is there no GAMEPLAY benefit for an offline player for transmitting his statistics centrally? Seriously.

Because if the whole "benefit" of the online requirement is copy protection, then that is not something the end user benefits from. There have been a bunch of ideas how this could be turned into a more interesting offline experience, but if all it does is for copy protection, then what do WE as players get out of the deal with the required internet connection?

And if it's only copy protection that requires the online connection - then why can Steam and similar systems by other major publishers live without this?

That is such a short-sighted perspective.

You may not care if this sim succeeds, and you have your agenda and a whole forum you can speak to it about.

Many of us can understand that the few companies making simulations these days need revenue to stay in business. If you can't see the benefits of these companies staying in business so that they can survive to support their products, and survive to launch new ones, then you've lost sight of one of the most important benefits this hobby industry offers to us.

This circular argument thing, I hope it will leave time for VikS to answer questions that he has not answered 201 times already

You need to be connected to the Internet to fly RoF, there is no offline play, don't like it don't buy it how many more times

Ming

FR, with all respect: Every major game title of the recent years has been pirated. All the draconian DRM restrictions that were justified to us by arguing about "necessary income for survival of the developer" have so far failed. Black Shark - the most fitting comparison - had a working torrent released within a week.

You expect me to believe that this one will be different?

Furthermore: How many of the torrent-sucking college kids and majority of the immature pirate crowd (those who make up the largest amount of illegal downloads) would actually pay for a copy of RoF if they couldn't download it? By contrast, how many of the (average in their 30s and well-earning) WW1 fanatics crowd would pirate such a quality product if it was available, instead of supporting the developers with their money?

This sim is NOT in the target demographic for massive sales loss due to pirates. Using a massive DRM requirement to counter a minor pirate risk (but at the same time putting off the 75% of people who play mainly offline and would actually buy it) is at best a very shortsighted perspective, as you call it.

NeoQB could put features into the game that would "sweeten up" the necessary "always online" requirement for offline-pilots, but so far I haven't heard any case made that they actually intend to use any of the suggestions brought forward here in this forum. Why not?

Ming: Love you too - not in THAT way of course.

Viks didn't say it was the whole reason. Not just here, but in previous posts as well.

I have always said the main reason for the online single play was copy protection mainly for addon flyables. But I've also said there could be other reasons for statistics too - they are collected for MP, why not SP? They may be useful for the player or for future development.

yeah, yeah, I know ... NEXT....so, Viks what exactly is the benefit of collecting statistics?

As I stated earlier, it just gets circular.

I'm sorry Ming.

Indeed, if we would allow the answers to be conveyed, without them being filtered everytime they're given!

Don't like it don't buy it.

Its different because its different.

Its a different because its a different copy protection approach. I'm sure you will agree?

Its different because of the business model ... the addon flyables. There would be a lot of temptation to get all these free, even among some that paid for the original game.

Its different because there are likely to be many updates.

We've been through those discussions before.

Circular isn't the right expression, its more like we have gone around the kitchen table on this many times now.

I can appreciate that to the truly converted continuing discussion of single player modes can be frustrating...
But the fact that it is the predominant topic of discussion for so many different people on so many different forums must mean it is an important topic for debate...
Its not sensible to try and silence the discussion or get it swept under the carpet...
People are interested...and on one level its surely better for the game to be talked about rather than not talked about...
As i've said before...the game will have no long term future if it only sells to a couple of thousand regualr hyperlobby players...
So, presumably selling to single players is very important to NeoQB...
As it stands their inability to articulate the benefits of the "Always Online" requirement is puzzling...and the new revelation that the game will ship Without Any single player campaign gives credence to peoples fears that it is a product targeted primarily at online dogfighters rather than those that wish to simulate World War One aerial combat...

Thanks Viks. Good to hear FF is PLANNED, and as a patch. Alway thought that of course.

You hear the weirdest rumours here sometimes, conspiracy theories abound when a couple of the posters currently here get into a frenzy.

"with few regimes" not sure what you mean. Can you zoom in on map so that you can identify landmarks from the terrain without waypoints or icons? Any pics?

BB, all I want is for Viks to step up and tell us ONE end user benefit of the online requirement/statistics transmission. And I'm talking about a benefit for the user in gameplay terms (better/more varied/more stable...whatever game experience) not a developer/publisher benefit.

Storing my Medals/Awards/Promotions/addons could be done locally too, as in any other game to date.

Sorry if you guys think this is "circular" but if so please point me to the part where he has answered what a "strictly-offline, not interesting in multi" player gains by this requirement that couldn't be done any other way.

Circular isn't the right expression, its more like we have gone around the kitchen table on this many times now.

It's exactly the right expression because to define what a circular argument actually is would be disrespectful to the person who used that phrase when he meant flogging a dead horse, we all know what he/she means. You lot are so picky

"Tell me, what are 'my lot'?"

The Picky Ones that girls don't like, try to go with the flow or you'll never get laid pal

Ming

What? LOL.

Everybody's right, you shouldn't buy the game.

Bye bye birdie.

all I want is for Viks to step up and tell us ONE end user benefit of the online requirement/statistics transmission

There are none, go away we've moved on and you've got your own thread somewhere I bet for this too. Happy now

Ming

You can join him on the naughty step too mate, come back when the thought of sending a list of all the porn on your computer to neoqb doesn't worry you any more

Ming

Well its a fair question, and it has not been answered completely - but somewhat, see blog. But there are many things I'd like to know about too, I'm sure there are others that have a hundred questions.

We are all waiting.

Why does this particular one matter? If people are uncomfortable playing SP online, I'm not sure anything Neoqb says will change their mind. Thats my guess why they are not going into detail ...and they don't go into detail on most things BTW, most developers of new games don't. Expectations and all that ...

So that's what it is!

(and I thought this all had to do about games)

So maybe we need a poll to find out how many gamers store porn sites on their computers?

BB, I think Jason referred to Viks recent answer to your campaign question about static campaign with connected missions not being included in release. To quote:


Is the dynamic campaign now planned for initial release?

"Is the dynamic campaign now planned for initial release? "

Yes its on their blog - Key Features.

«Career» mode - generated missions on the basis of the historical data about actions of the aviation in 1917-1918. Users can choose a plane type, a regiment and a date with which they wishes to begin their career

BTW, the thread was called Single Play - Campaigns. And my first question was:

"Viks,

lots of people are interested in Single play, so ....

Will addon flyables be able to fly in the dynamic campaign?"

Viks responded to that in the affirmative.

Pretty hard to get that mixed up, no?

yes

Thanks, I was going on previous posts by other users claiming it would only be added later.

Maybe you should try checking the RoF server for updates also?

(lots of interesting info you somehow missed in the meantime)

I'm with RSColonel_131st in this one. I simply don't see any benefit of the required connection to the user who wants to play SP solely.



I actually do care if this game succeeds, simply because there aren't many of them and I want more of this kind. But I don't believe that this online requirement will help them succeed...actually I believe that it will cost them (if you want to know why read RSColonel_131st post on top of page 10...I think that this perfectly sums it up). That is one of the reasons why I'm against it.



That is actually true...and that is why I think it will make the sim less successful. Many people don't like it...so they won't buy it. I don't think that the sales you gain due to the copy protection involved with the online requirement will be able to compensate that.

Alexander

I had read that FR, but what a developer writes on the website, and what ultimately gets included in the release version (especially with such a modular game design), is not always the same. In that regard it was quite believable that a few people here wrote the DC wouldn't be in initial release, but added later.

Sir, that's the reason for RoF updating.

(it's for your benefit whether you know about it or not)

Bingo!

Of course they could just make a definite list and announcements when new features get released

Auto Updates are indeed one of the benefits for central monitoring, I'll give you that - but only as long as I can cancel them anytime and start playing if I only have a few minutes.

Its hard at times to discern whether posts like these should be read as presented, or whether they are just another anti-DRM attack. But I assume yours is a valid concern.

There are people who won't buy the game because of copy protection or the online connection. There are many who will despite their posturing. All we can say is: don't buy the game if its an real issue for you. But the ones that keep coming back all the time are the ones that either a) would never have bought the game, its a DRM thingy crusade, b) from a competitor (we have one at least I'm sure), or c) are coming back and howling because they don't like it, and then feel aggrieved, because they know they will indeed buy the game...they blame Neoqb for their own lack of principles.

Of course Online Single Play = copy protection (or DRM). As everyone says, most players will play SP, so yes Neoqb want to protect that.

Sure they will lose some sales. And initial sales will be slower then if there was no DRM. Some people will wait to see others impressions of the game and how the DRM works. But remember not to confuse apples and oranges - this is an innovative product, not your average ww1 sim. If some other ww1 sims available currently had DMR they would certainly lose a lot of sales. Hence, no DRM. But innovative, quality products are different.

In fact by having DRM, Neoqb are betting that they have a very good product - its probably the best assurance we have that its good indeed. if its not as good as they think or more importantly the customers think, well, they can drop DMR and probably compete with any other ww1 sim anyway.

So if they are going to lose some sales, slow down initial sales, why? RISK MITIGATION. In fact, any business worth their bootstraps will mitigate risk if they can, and it always cost something. Losing a few sales is not the same as losing a lot of sales if pirated and copied widely, especially with their addon flyable planes. Yeah, people say that wouldn't happen, but the fact is Neoqb as a small developer and cannot afford that to happen. And they are releasing into the Russian market - notorious for piracy (not their fault, games were not available there in the past so they hacked them).

Not having DRM could and maybe would mean bankruptcy.

So, DMR is the best way of ensuring their future - longevitity of the company, addons to original game, other newer games.

Last point. Not all copy protection is effective, none is completely effective. If you look at Neoqb's business model, the frequent updates, the different copy protection approach, its likely this is going to be far more effective then most copy protection schemes. So your investment is protected too, ie, if you purchase paid addon flyables, you are not supporting freeloaders.

So, stop worrying ... if thats is what you are worrying about.

I think you'll want to give RoF your full and undivided attention, it's not an arcade sim that you'll play for a few minutes at a time.

Jason will, because there is no single play option in RoF, well apart from the single play option

Wow, just stumbled across this thread. I haven't followed RoF much as the era isn't a big interest of mine. I was planning on buying it, like I did with RB, but after reading about the online all the time thing I will be one of those passing on this game. No, Ming, it's not about my porn list , but about the principle of having to be online all the time just for SP. I have no problem with CP at all but don't support this approach. Hope the rest of you enjoy it! S!

I must say that I understand why people might not have known everything written here, because much of it is illegible gibberish with only a superficial resemblance to English. VIKS, PLEASE PLEASE tell your fellow RoF colleagues, preferably the bosses, that English like this will NOT be acceptable in a professional release. You REALLY need mother-tongue English speakers for going through all texts in the sim and on the website/servers, or preferably writing all texts from scratch. This is PAINFUL to read.

"you get an exciting feeling of piloting a real plane - from a moment of takeoff to a landing"

- Ridiculous, really. You will be the laughingstock of the simming community if you keep letting texts like that through...

It Was stated earlier that the Dynamic Campaign was not going to be included with the initial release...
So when I read that there was no Static Campaign included with the initial release either I naturally assumed the game was shipping with no campaign mode...

Apologies for missing the announcement that the initial release will ship with a Dynamic Campaign...

Having said that it is sometimes difficult to keep up with whats in and whats out...

When the game was Knights of the Sky (Oh happy days...) it was taken as read that the game would ship with a Full Mission Builder...then we were told it wouldn't....then we were told not to worry because the initial release would include a mission builder...but today NeoQB has responded saying the mission builder may actually be released later...

Its no wonder people get confused

Zup,

Regarding the RoF Offline discussion;

Folks get worried sick for nothing, it's been stated over and over again how the login functionality will be working as an protection software where you'll need to verify your game each time you play. There is absolutely no hidden agendas with that, it's not more insecure than logging in to SIMHQ or anywhere else on the web. All respect/sympathy to the folks whom for whatever reason can't stay connected to the internet which means they will most likely miss out on RoF.

But for the once that can stay connected, you're crying louder and louder each day, there are plenty of online only games already out there with all types of online verification systems, this is nothing new and the game does include a fully functional Single player mode.

Regarding the whine against steam;

Another yet obvious thing, at the moment it looks like STEAM will be used as the main distribution service for ROF online, which means none of your account details such as credit card numbers etc will be stored or available for Neoqb. Steam developed by Valve and released to the public in late 2003 is one of the most secure and well known/used online game distribution services. Obviously there are people who don't want to pay online and all respect to that but do not attack Steam for being an unreliable service it's not any more insecure than your local shop.

Regarding the upload of statistics;

It's rather poor to keep complaining about this over and over again , uploading and storing your flight statistics has nothing what so ever to do with your integrity / personality and it does not harm/threaten you in any way. You speak about choices and the free will?Neoqb won't forces you into anything.

Sales;

Offliners might just be the largest amount of people buying/playing just about any game out there including everything from simluations to first person shooters. That does however not mean that they don't have an internet connection. A lot of people which probably both you and me know play games a lot but they don't hang around the forums and they don't play online much or maybe nothing at all. (A typical average customer for any game)

So for people claiming over and over again that Neoqb will lose sales due to the online requirement I'd say it's pure bs assumptions. Just because the majority of players actually plays offline does NOT mean they don't have an INTERNET connection which in this case is only required for verification.




-heady

Regarding the RoF Offline mode;

There is no offline player content in RoF

the simming community

The game can't be aimed at the flight-sim community because flight-sim communards are rather reactionary and need pacifying and jollying-along whereas normal people playing normal games aren't too worried about being connected to play a game. In fact they wish they could be when they can't be, people who can't be connected are going to miss it. I'm more concerned about people who want to connect but can't for some reason. China and wotnot. Hillbillies who said that

Ming

My post was not DRM related at all. It is true that I personally think that DRM is the plague (which will actually be the main reason why I won't buy the game...if I don't) but I actually really care for the sim...because from everything I have seen so far it seems to be very good and there hasn't been a good WWI sim for ages. I believe that Neoqb deserves success...and I believe that this online-offline thing will kill any chance of it.



Ok...then I'm d): I think the game will be very good. I don't like the online connection requirement for a lot of reasons (DRM is only part of it). I don't know yet if I'll buy or not (only because of the online connection requirement...otherwise it would be a 100% must have). I hope that the developer/publisher recognizes that many people are thinking about not buying because of the online connection requirement and maybe adds a "completely offline mode" (I know that is unrealistic...but hey...I'm an optimist). I hope that the sim will be successful no matter if a connection is required or not and no matter if I buy or not...because then another WWI sim might be coming sooner.

BTW I could classify you guys as well. But I don't because I think it is rude.

I know that you guys have a different opinion about the online connection and that I won't change it. And I know that you won't change my opinion. But why is it that you guys can post your opinion and I'm criticized for posting mine (or RSColonel_131st for posting his)?

About the DRM stuff you wrote (too long to quote): First of all if this whole online connection requirement is about DRM (and I think it is) then the publisher should just say it. I already feel pissed of because I'm lied to. Second, in my opinion believing that this won't be available in a pirated version is naive. I think you guys are way to optimistic about that. Remember Steam? A cracked HL2 version was available just a few days after release and that was a much bigger company with way more resources.

Alexander

(emphasis mine)

I'll skip any comments about how you come across with a statement like that, Ming. But I'm happy to see you haven't stated that you fall under that category either!

Sorry, but we have no idea who you feel lied to you, would you like to explain?

Take as much time as you like, and include as many points of reference as possible, we are in fact very understanding.

"Lied to" might be too strong a wording, but NeoQB (and some guys here, if I may say so) seem to be pussyfooting around flat out stating that "online single player" is really required just for one thing, and that is their DRM. Instead we get a lot of claims how it will add value to the product, but have yet to see a specific example that in a true "offline mode" (like Steam) would not work.

Lets see:

Central Statistics collection - could be stored offline, encrypted and submitted when next online
Automatic Updates - works for Steam as soon as you go online
Payment and Download of planes - works as soon as you go online
Storing of User Details, Awards, Medals - can be done offline, optionally updated online when connection is found.

There is no feature yet announced that requires a constant online connection for single player. And AlexV obviously feels it would be straight for NeoQB to just say so, instead of trying to sell this DRM by talking about vague benefits that mostly only apply to online-MP guys.

Personally I'd prefer if NeoQB instead came up with a few features (or just picked up a few of the ideas posted here) which would really add value to an offline gamer by submitting real-time stats. Like multi-offline player campaign results merge and the like, which has never been done before. That would truly add an incentive to be always connected to their servers.

Nobody's been pussyfooting, you just haven't stayed connected.

That's going to an issue for you.

Normal people might complain about something and voice a strong opinion Av. Other not-so-normal where normal means average when I want it to mean average and not stone bonkers where was I- normal people then don't go on and on and on and on about the things that they dislike with a game they're not even going to buy. Now do they

Ming

Well, I can't answer that as I'm not fitting into either of your definitions of "normal"...

Ok, who stole the brain labeled ABNormal?

Until sanity returns to these forums and there is a demo to talk about that's my input for the verbal shredder.

S!

How sweet it is!

Jeez ... Viks finally said the magic words: it's all about their planned DRM/Copy-Protection Scheme. Fine. They make the game, they pay the bills, they make the decisions. And so do I. Bye-bye RoF. My €€€ will stay in my wallet.

Hello,

After a rough year and firing hundreds of administrators Neqb finally decided to allow single play in offline mode ...

hello, here's neoqb Whaddaya say ? Your neighbour can see your statistics ? Only a second, i'll ... rrring neoqb here, you cannot connect to our server, just a second, i will ...rrring neoqb here your downloaded plane does not show up in single play, no problem rrring ... neoqb here the SPAD looks like the millenium falcon in single play? Sorry wrong game, oh wait it's this cable ... rring ... neqb here you have a photo from 1917 where you can see there's a poppy in front of this trench, but it does show up in the wrong colours - adjust your PC to our server settings, just re-install Windows and keep ALL your router ports open for us, rrring ... neoqb here, sorry you can't play single our server is down ...

... rrring ... rrring ... rrrring



all the best,
Narsinha

What you appear to forget Moriarty is that this system works
Just because something appears to be complex does not necessarily mean that emergent functions are complex
I cite the human brain with more cells than stars in our galaxy and a penchant for porn
Not the abnormal one obviously
Or supermarket kid's fifty-percent-off addled product

well, ive already said it many times, also you can check a blog with news - there is the same.

Cya

But I hadn't read it in such clear words, yet.

You hadn't quite said so clearly that it is nothing else for offline use than DRM.

Agreed. When it appears on the developers web page the use of poor English creates a bad first impression and at worst can lead to confusion. It looks very amateur, which is unfortunate.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7972677.stm

Ming

The only restriction is that users need to log onto their account to actually play.

I love Steam!

Ming, thanks for the link.

I love Steam!

Same here!

Even through an operating system reinstall, clicked on the Steam launcher and it logged me in and started showing me games and updates with no fuss at all

Ming

Now that's scary.

it is not only about DRM, but if youll ask - "what kind of DRM you have in ROF" - online content verification - it is.

Any more on the FMB triggers functions?

Ming

which ones exactly?, theres alot of em

Hello,
while i would also like to learn about those triggers, it's a bit off-topic in a thread dealing with online issues ?

B.t.w. there used to be a poll with who would like to play online, offline, or both. Last numbers i saw yesterday was almost 80 percent wanting to play offline, meaning not alone SP, but not to be connected at all - may i ask where this poll has been moved to ?

Oh i see, it's all about verification that i'm not a pirate. Nice to see how companies treat their customers - A shame i do not play "The Sims" without DRM ... So ... this thread is completely useless. Online has nothing to do with statistics, just verification, and there's a special forum for this. So we can close this thread altogether can't we ?

Thanks,
Narsinha

Sorry but complaining about DRM has brought online verification as a consequence.

So if you have online issues now, blame the complainers.

Again Viks, please please tell me what benefits as an offline gamer I get from the "always online" requirement. If it's "not only about the DRM" then there must be some benefit for offline players. And no, sorry, centrally storing my medals and awards is not something that couldn't be done offline. Centrally collecting stats that I would not allow anyone to see doesn't give me anything either that can't be done online.

So what part of the "always on" requirement is actually a benefit for the offline player that could not be done without the same requirement?

From your sticky 'VikS Answers' thread VikS

Colonel, are you always an EITHER/OR type of fellow?

Perhaps its an AND.

Online verifcation AND other benefits. How many times does VikS need to say the same thing, and then just get misquoted ..."ahhhhhh, its only for verification", or "ahhhhhh, if the benefit is for the player why can't it be offline".

Jeez.

Hello,
while i would also like to learn about those triggers, it's a bit off-topic in a thread dealing with online issues ?

The question I asked VikS about triggers is in the 'VikS Answers' thread, this is collateral damage mate fetch the fire bucket

Ming

BB, what's the "AND" feature? It's for verification AND...?

Sorry, but I do indeed feel Viks and NeoQB are pussyfooting around/sugarcoating this topic. Either there are clear benefits to the offline player for being requiring to log on every time, or there aren't. So far I haven't heard any benefit/feature for the offline crowd that justifies the requirement to log on, so what remains is that the logon is there for only one reason, and that is DRM. So if Viks insists on saying "it is not only for DRM" then WHAT are the features for offline users?

And sorry, centrally storing medals, awards or statistics (who I don't care anyone to see) improve my experience in what kind of way? Not to mention that could be done offline too, with irregular connection.

Benefits?

Well in addition to those stated by the RoF team on the Blog (that you don't want, but thats just your view).

For developers, they get a very clear view of what customers like (what planes they fly; missions or dynamic campaigns or custom campaigns in the future etc), and how the game can be improved.

For players, perhaps they have things they haven't elaborated on, and perhaps they have plans in the future as well. If thats the case, why should they elaborate on this, as its a non-issue for those comfortable with online SP, and it won't change the mind of those that aren't comfortable with it.

Simplicity. Same code used for statistics as for MP, and same storage, without the need to write to users computers.

And, they have said they will review online SP down the track.

All in all, statistics is a non-issue for the majority of customers in itself. Unless its presented as a EITHER/OR arguement relating to online versus offline SP play ... and then it just gets circular.

I agree Ming, these are good questions. And nobody should tell someone else what to post and what not to post (except admin).

If it's for online verification....so what!
While you are being verified there is also the online stats, medals and planes to be stored, that's the benefit. I see it as a benefit, some might not.
There is a choice to made here, agree and buy or disagree and don't buy.
But it is pointless to keep going over the same old ground.

Brig, they're in too deep, it's inertia, they can't stop now!

It's what beliefs systems are all about, there's no middle ground, they think it's either you're for/or you're against. People go to their demise believing in these polemics.

(victims of their own on and off switches)

I'm just glad you are always taking such a balanced view, FR

Pot, meet Kettle.

If you want to talk about inertia and feedback loops...
Look at the Beta Testing Process...
Only accepting Beta tester from commited Online players who are part of online squadrons...
Now, I wonder if they'll get much feedback about the single player aspect of the game?

Hello,

it is neither inertia from me, nor a conspiracy made up by "bad capitalism", but plain and simple human greed

Just a reminder: I asked where the poll is, that let people vote whether they would prefer to play online, offline, or both. The last percentage showed something like almost 80 percent preferred to play single, and offline. Now someone has to have deleted the poll ?

All the best,
Narsinha

"Only accepting Beta tester from commited Online players who are part of online squadrons...
Now, I wonder if they'll get much feedback about the single player aspect of the game?"


Well, if the primary focus of this phase of the beta is to test the MP functionality, then it makes sense. If the focus of the beta is to test overall functionality of the sim, both online and offline, then it is worrisome to me as a strictly offline player. I'm too old of a dog to be leaping to conclusions one way or the other. Time will tell.

Maybe Viks can clear up if they are planning a second beta round for offline play. If this is not the case, it is truly worrysome.

True to form, and true to prediction, the beta testing rules are being put forward here as an Sp vs. MP slant all over again.

If you weren't more predictable, I'd say it was all about gravity, but inertia sounds more aeronautical.

How can it be presented any other way?
Beta Testers from Online Squadrons...Only
No mention of single play what so ever...
So a game created by well known online multi-player grognards with an Online only requirement is being tested by only by Online multi-player types?
Is it suprising if single-player types feel a little concerned?

How bouts, to beta test MP?

Um, why would they solicit for testers who have already refused to play the game, or obviously won't go online?

Huzzah!

(I-N-E-R-T-I-A)

I can imagine that this is where they would be most keen to stress-test the sim, but don't you suppose those successful candidates will be flying offline and reporting on that as well?

Where as those who only intend to fly offline will not be able to give a whole evaluation.
It makes sense to me.

As they are supposedly keen to sell the Simulation to Single Players...(c90% of simulator market) and as many on this very forum have repeatedly pointed out that going online should be No handicap for single players...You would have thought they would welcome and require single player involvement at the beta test stage...

One would think they would want to test the Campaign Engine, AI, Career Mode, Mission Editor etc etc...

One would also imagine that as the upload system for scoring/points/mission completion etc is different for single play...intermittent rather than continuous data transfer, testing the robustness of that particular mechanism would be a high priority too...

Therefor one would imagine they would be keen to get a single player as well as multi-player evaluations/bug reports etc ec...

Or even for simple marketing purposes...lots of single players have genuine concerns that this will just be a game for online gang-bangers...involvement and feedback at the beta test stage of single play features might go some way towards calming the fears and concerns of that particular market segment...

As it is instead of taking that opportunity...they have confirmed the impression...that its a game by onliners, for onliners...

Certainly people who devote the time into regular online squad flying will play offline too, but likely only as a minor percentage of their total time with the sim. I've run an online squadron in the past myself, and found little time left for anything else.

They could very well benefit from mixing in a few STRICTLY offline guys into the beta, these would not give a "whole evalution" but likely a most detailed feedback for the offline functionality.

Again, you are assuming that those evil grognard onliners have no interest in the offline campaign, or are incapable of giving an opinion on it.

In my experience of Red Baron and IL-2 online players, the majority have a keen appreciation of history, and particularly the RB playres loved the campaign/solo side of things. Perhaps a Venn diagram might remove the blinkers?

Hello,
well i would be more interested in how the enemy AI would be in single play, this is usually the weakest point of a combat sim.

The other solution is easy - use RoF for online play (less than 5 percent of the time i'd say, no time at all since 2 years - i can easily make a short post and then work on, but you have to be glued to the screen for 2+ hours with an online squadron at least, not all have the time), or still use RedBaron3d modded which is completely free, apart from online costs.

And for offline play use the new upcoming OOF mod (Over Oleg's fields, a WW1 sim based on the IL2 engine) or OFF (Over Flanders Fields, WW1 sim with phantastic graphics and vicious AI), or RedBaron again.

It is a pity if RoF would be below par concerning offline play, but when one sim starts with a new idea, or engine, it does not take long until a similar or better one comes out. It will happen sooner or later, just relax and see what happens.

Have fun!
Narsinha

Then what is the point of filtering only those for beta who play above average time online?

Don't know about the other squads, but if my squad (242 Sqn) were to apply and get accepted then I'd certainly spend a lot of time in single-player mode. I go online with IL-2 at most twice a week, but spend a little of every other free evening flying offline or in the FMB.
I'm sure that VikS etc will be asking the beta-testers to check out SP mode - it might even work better if some online-only guys have to get to grips with the AI. After all, most online-only flyers complain that single-player in IL-2 simply isn't good enough (not my impression but there it is.) They might just point out what it needs to be improved.
Personally, I'd go for a mix of on- and offline testers, with each one compelled to try every aspect of the sim; hopefully the squads that get accepted will be a good mix.

Whatever, it's one step nearer release!

But surely if they're recruiting from active squadrons what they'll get is IL2 1946 players...rather than people that are flying World War 1 simulations like OFF and RB3D?

I'm in a IL2 based Squad, but I also fly OFF and on top of that I'm a former Red Baron player who flew with the "RAC" back then. Just because you see a lot of IL2 people here it doesn't mean they are just limited to IL2 or lack any WWI simming experience

Salute!

RAC Frankenstein.

Ok, some thoughts.

First of all, i recently got hold of a brand new rig that will probably be capable of running ROF with all the bells and whistles. I also have a 24Mpbs DSL connection (nominal, depending on traffic in my area it might range from 12 to 20 Mbps) that is usually quite stable.

Also, after trying to decipher some of the google-translated english on the features page i think i will kind of like what they are doing with the online non-historical medals. For example, you get an artillery spotter badge for correcting artillery and so on.

I would really like this to feel like a sandbox game in the online department. Imagine a front running 24/7 with people planning missions to help the ground forces. Due to the static nature of the front it won't have much of an effect, but it would be nice to see something happening as a result of air actions.

So, this really seems like a breakthrough of sorts for flight sims as far as the handling of online wars will go.

I will most probably buy this sim and naturally i want it to succeed. I also have no problem paying for addon planes if they are reasonably priced. Instead of buying a game priced at 60 Euros, we could be buying the game at 25 Euros and then have a cost of 5-10 Euros per new flyable.

However, i still don't like the always online requirement for single player and i'll tell you why. Because i don't really trust it to last in the long term and this leaves me high and dry as a paying customer with a non-working product that i bought.

Because this thought will drive away loads of other people who either don't have reliable connections or they won't take the risk i will take, resulting in reduced revenue right after the game's release and hence, the risk of them shutting down along with their servers were my accounts are stored. It won't be much use advocating this system for updates when the company is out of business and we're left with 4 flyables 10 months down the road, will it now? Which means that once again, i won't be able to use something i paid for.

Because there's no tangible benefit for a strictly offline player to use this system and hence, they won't buy.

Because after talking to a tech-head about this i get the notion that all it takes is a legit key getting leaked for a hacker to monitor the handshake process and emulate it locally in a closed loop. Yes, it will be pirated and it won't even need separate cracks for each version, as the only protection used is the handshake, which can probably be emulated. Which means that as long as someone leaks one copy of the game and each flyable, they will be all over the torrent trackers, so it might end up useless anyway and still cost sales from people who would buy if it wasn't for the always online requirements.

Because someone might not have time to download the latest 300MB patch right now, but prefer to play a couple of quick missions before going off to work/bed, or the new version might have some bugs and they might want to postpone updating until they get fixed. "What kind of fascism is that anyway" they'll think and they won't buy.

Sugarcoating it by saying that RoF "will require your undivided attention anyway and hence you can't jump in the cockpit for a quick one, so you shouldn't complain about forced updates at a time not of your choosing" (that has got to be one of the all time classic gems of internet forum "argumentation") is simply lowering yourself to the level of an ostrich. The same with trying to present abilities that can work locally as an advantage of the online system. Storing medals? You mean like IL2 does for each of my pilots? Bury those heads deeper in the sand guys.

There's nothing useful this system can do that older sims can't in regards to pilot records for 100% strictly single player campaigns. It can work wonders for "hybrid" online/offline campaigns depending on squad attendance, or online wars with customised awards, ranks and achievements (think like the battlefield series), but hey, if you're playing on that game mode you're already online and hence don't have a problem with maintaining a connection. Right? Am i getting through here or is the sand too thick?

I will 90% buy RoF because my system can sustain its mode of operation. But i still am 110% against the proposed single player functionality because i fear it will not make, but lose money for these guys. And if they go bankrupt we'll all be looking like fools for spending a good 30,60 or 150 Euros, depending on purchased addons, on a game we can't play anymore because someone pulled the plug on some servers.

Make no mistake, game sales are a matter of consumer demographics and cattering to the needs of your target audience. The number of pirated copies floating around is irrelevant, as these are people who are not interested enough in the genre to invest in its continued growth. They are the people that have a casual interest in the title and download a pirated copy to see what the fuss is all about, if they couldn't download it they simply wouldn't touch it at all. They are not potential customers.

When the game is cracked and people who would otherwise buy but can't (because they have unstable connections or dial up) start using pirated copies, then we'll have a one of a time situation: a copy protection scheme forcing an otherwise willing to be legitimate customer to go pirate. And that is not irrelevant, because he is part of the target demographic that WOULD spend money on the product if someone hadn't screwed up along the way. This one IS, or more accurately WAS, a potential customer but poor marketing decisions resulted in losing him.

So, to recap, i'm not against the proposed SP functionality because I think they'll transmit my login info to aliens from the horsehead nebula and they'll come abduct me from my home. I'm against it because i think it will cost them their jobs, their servers and my hard earned cash for a sim that i'll be left unable to use. How hard is that to understand?

P.S. For me the best possible scenario is that it works and they don't loose a lot of sales initially. Then, when they are satisfied with the initial sales and added income from addons they would re-evaluate the online requirement and do away with it for single player, released a boxed version of the game and a couple of boxed addon packs and profit from the offliner market as well. I just hope it doesn't cost them so much that they are forced to shut down before they come to their senses.

That bit you edited out was scary but thoughtful thanks

Ming

Spot on Blackdog, my thoughts exactly.

Good post Blackdog, well put.

I do think you underestimate the power of the impulse purchase though. If it isn't easy to find a fully working product via torrent then a proportion of waverers will buy on imulse. They may not like the product when they install it or only play for an hour or so but Neoqb still has their money.

The digital game industry has already forecasted its future trends, it knows where the growth in revenue is coming from, and single-player only is going the way of the gooney bird, so it is time to get that head out of the sand.



http://www.gamespot.com/news/6144016.html


http://www.raphkoster.com/2006/02/10/are-single-player-games-doomed/


Times are changing, like it or not, but they will change just the same.

Scary, truly scary.

There are millions of idiots on multiplayer servers out there. Why anyone thinks that making your personal game experience depended on the behavior of those millions of idiots would be a good thing is beyond me...?

The last game I had that was all about MP was Red Orchestra. Even with such a small community, rather well organized and lots of history/team work freaks, you had only a handful of servers that could guarantee a nice, smooth game experience. The rest was killwhore mayhem. And even on those "good" servers, teamwork happened more accidently than on purpose.

Also, statistics lie. "Half the revenue is made from games on networks" is easy to write if a lot of "games on networks" require monthly payments like WoW.

The game industry might as well speak the truth: Crafting great offline experiences requires money and time, a lot of complicated code (scripting, AI) and a lot of creativity and vision. Fallout3 and Stalker (to name two personal favorites) have proven that it can work.

You are right saying that "growth of revenue" will not come from SP games, but not because people don't want SP games. Rather, because cutting SP will reduce production costs and allow to tie customers stronger to the company - mandatory registration (marketing goldmine), maybe monthly payments. This is what the industry is aiming at, not "richer experience trough multiplayer".

You may not like the trend away from single-player only gaming, and the reasons why multiplayer gaming is growing, and you may have all sorts of rationales that speak to why these changes shouldn't be happening from your perspective, but you're not going to avert these changes.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6144016.html

http://www.raphkoster.com/2006/02/10/are-single-player-games-doomed/

Like I told you in the Onlive topic - as long as there are customers like you willing to embrace their new digital overlords, you are right that I as a single person won't make a change.

But I don't think I'm the only person in the world with those concerns, so you might want to wait and see what paying customers can avert if they vote with their wallet.

In order to understand where the electronic game industry is going, you must understand the past first.


Indeed, because of unconnected computers, PC gaming evolved a single-player format.

I started playing military wargames in the 1960's, probably before some of you were even born, but I can assure you we almost exclusively played over a board, or on a table top with other players, and it was a social experience too. The whole idea of playing PC games in a single-player format came out of an inability to play against other people initially on a PC, because of a lack of connectivity.

The whole idea that the SP gaming format is some sort of ideal is totally erroneous, but now the digital game industry sees greater online connectivity as the means to bring players together once again, and the trend will only continue to grow, and single-player only games will continue to decline.


http://www.gamespot.com/news/6144016.html

http://www.raphkoster.com/2006/02/10/are-single-player-games-doomed/

You're quoting a Sony employee from over 3 years ago...who was touting Multi-player games (CONSOLE GAMES BTW) to provide a springboard and publicity for multi-player content and connectivity that would be released and plugged with PS3...
Its neither unbiased nor is it relevent...
Multi-player options have been available for many, many years on PC based platforms...and yet have always and STILL do make up a small minority of game play...There has been no huge upswing in the popularity of Multi-Player games and that is even with the huge uptake of high speed broad band connection...
So WHEN exactly will this gaming revolution come?

I looked at the current PC Games Chart (I am UK based...so there will be differences for location) but this months top selling titles are:
Call of Duty 4
Elder Scrolls 4 Oblivion
World of Warcraft
Warhammer 40000 Dawn of War 2
Empire Total War
Football Manager 2009
Tom Clancy HAWX
Grand Theft Auto 4
The Sims 2

1 Online only Game...5 that are either predominantly or exclusively Single Player and a couple of games that offer a a mix of single and multi-player options...

Hardly indicative of a massive rush towards predominantly Online Multi-Player games does it?

In recent years what have the most popular simulation titles been?

LOMAC/Flaming Cliffs/Black SHark - mainly offline single player
Third Wire Series - Strike Fighters/WoV/WoE - exclusively single player
Silent Hunter 3/4 - Exclusively Single Player
EEAH/EECH - predominantly played Offline
Falcon 4 Allied Force - predominantly played offline

etc..etc..etc...

IL2 & its successors (Forgotten Battles/1946) are unusual...not in that they have a majority or even a significant proportion of its user base is made up of Onliners (there has never been anything to contradict estimates that 90% of players are Offline only and never venture online...it shipped over 600,000 units and how many people were there on hyperlobby...at the busiest times...at the height of the games popularity???)
It is unusual in that the tiny proportion of Online players are exceptionally vocal...to the point of drowning out the voices of the majority of single player users...giving the entirely false impression that Online Multi-Play is an important part of the game...

We are witnessing the same thing here..a small proportion of commited online multi-player users keen to belittle and shout down any discussion about the importance of offline, single player content...

Its most emphatically NOT a two way process either...no-one from the single player camp is suggesting that the multi-player aspect of the game be neutered or removed...

Rise of Flight is a traditional Flight Simulation with a very niche market (World War One aviation) it is unlikely to be a huge seller and it would make an unusual choice for an impulse buy in a games retailer...
It will sell predomiantly to existing and potential flight simulation enthusiasts...as it stands though out of that small market segment...people who are unwilling or unable to be online 100% of the time will be excluded...people who are unwilling or unable to use their credit card online for future purchases will be excluded...cutting down its target market EVEN further...

I for the life of me cannot see what advantage to NeoQB there is in doing so...and poor initial sales will only bring questions about the long term viability of the game and the production of future add on releases...which will be a bad thing for both Single and Multi-Player users of the game...

FR, that analysis is flat out wrong. You can quote many more links like that, it doesn't change the fact they are flat out wrong.

Yes, social games (board games) were always played together because you needed a brain to play against. When the computer arrived in the market, you no longer needed that human brain. For me and many others who played games since 286 days, it had nothing to do with lack of connection to friends - in fact some of our games were so niche that you HAD NO ONE to play with.

Case in point military board games: How many WW2 grogs had real-life friends who were also WW2 grogs who could have offered them a satisfying clever enemy experience in a WW2 tabletop strat game?

But when Combat Mission, Steel Panthers and all that came before them hit the market, suddenly these people could play their tactics/strategy games whenever, whereever they wanted, without the need to find a group of other players first, to arrange a time and meeting.

This is the very same thing that today's multiplayer lacks. Yeah, you can play with a million people online, but if they are random strangers the games mostly suck, and if they are an organized bunch, that requires time and effort to stay that way.

Your links and quotes aren't answering my initial question: Are you willing to make the enjoyment of your computer game dependent on a bunch of random indiots on some servers? Or are you willing to invest the time, effort and organization required to build a strong group of like-minded players, to make your game time fit the schedule of each other individual in that group?

There's lots of guys who know this industry as both hobbyist and as businessmen, and they have a bit of perspective you don't.


Things are changing, but it's ok if you opt out, really.

Some of the stuff posted by Online-proponents here just causes a pitiful headshake. Why?

First and foremost: Each and every player (= customer !!!) is entitled to his opinion. He can and will use a flight sim as he desires - offline or online. Belittling or slamming one perspective just it doesn't fit one's own is not exactly a sign of an open mind and social competence. Not everyone wants the competition that's so predominant online and prefers other styles of playing.
Me? I had to learn the hard way that out of 10 players in the Il-2 online world 7 are simply Air Quakers. Fine. That's where their fun is, that is what they want. The remaining three are interested in a serious simulation of the air war as it was. Now what do we spot? 7 vs 3? Can you guess now which group is the more important one to server admins? Which group interests will be taken into consideration when maps are being made? Certainly not those of the minority ... and the result is an eternal gangbang between various fighter types which has about as much to do with "simulating aerial warfare" as an argentinian bull has to do with an old matka's breakfast egg in backyard siberia.

So, may I ask, why should I bother with online when my interests are simply not there because the majority of players doesn't want it? Why should I be "sanctioned" for staying offline when this is the place where I can find the style of simulation I want? Why should I be forced to cope with hordes of brainless furballers who don't care about history and realism any more than a FPS kiddie does about flightsims? Artificial intelligence is and will always be limited in some ways, but in my opinion a lot of "proud onliners" are no less limited than the AI, just in a different way.

And sorry if this came out a little grouchy. I am simply fed up by the number of people who tried to sell me online as "superior experience" when in reality it is not. Not for me, that is.

No one's trying to sell you anything gentlemen, but I'll admit you are a bit grouchy.

Sorry if industry trends make you grouchy too, and that playing RoF by yourself will require an IP connection also, but it's not like any of this wasn't projected, and as has been mentioned already, the links above that forecasted these trends are now over three years old!

Better stay connected, or opt out, but there's not too many other choices I'd think.

LOL - mentally handicapped furballers, I liked that image. And it's even more funny since it's true - I'd rather have slightly incompetent AI which at least trys to get the mission objective done than kill/score whoring humans who could but don't care to do so. Nothing like being one of three guys (out of 16 on your team) to attack a cap zone in Red Orchestra while the other 13 guys hang back and pop opportunity targets with long-range shots (ultimatly racking up kills but losing the map/battle).

It's not like we haven't tried it. Both Thor and me flew for JG54 Squadrons (different ones) even in organized IL-2 online warfare events. I actually RAN a virtual squadron for about a year, including two separate units from US and EU. Eventually it became too much like work having to be online at weekends and week evenings for me.

FR, you are still refering "some guys in the industry". Quite like a politican you are, avoiding to give any personal answer: Are YOU willing to make your entire gaming future dependent on the other people populating the server on which you are currently logged in? How many server switches a game night are you willing to endure (for Red Orchestra, our max. was 5 I think)? Or are you so deep into organized squad events that the thought of playing with random strangers is unfathomable to you? It is to me.

You're happily trying to sell us a brave new world, but as of yet I'm not entirely clear what you have to gain from that.

Oh darn ... It was certainly not my intention to make furballers look like retards, far from it. I was rather talking about them wearing huge blinders, always looking for "the dogfight", competition and a sportive contest. This is the limitation I was talking about ... Sorry for having been unclear.

I think it's called a flight sim.

So what can you do for me?

Tell you what, FR ... If your predictions become true (which I do not believe for various reasons) I'll rather bug out than tolerate the "gangbangers" online. My spare time is too valuable to waste it on mindless furballs which could also take place in any FPS you could think of.

Don't worry Thor, I found it funny that way, but that doesn't mean you intended it that way.

I notice that FR is STILL avoiding the key question from about five posts up. I can this only assume he's someone who loves giving other people control over his digital entertainment. First to NeoQB for allowing him to play his game every time he wants to, and then to those on the MP servers for hopefully generating a nice environment.

I guess some people are like that - happy to let others drive. I'm not.

Me neither.

So what can RSColonel do for me?

Are you a game designer RSColonel?

Any game products, or past industry history, or new game develpment to speak of?

So now you're hanging around this forum because you see this new sim coming out?

Sure, welcome to RoF, it's been in development for over three years now.

Now you're not going to buy it, because you don't want to connect online, but you can connect, you're here, but you won't, so you won't be trying the game, but then you're still here, hanging around?

Did one of us hurt your feelings?

I'll wait a week after release and buy it, then use the crack already available by that time. If I like it I'll buy all the addon planes and use them with the crack. So that's your solution as to why I'm still here and providing input on features if I find them important (anyone seen my padlock thread, btw?)

Then I'll play RoF strictly offline and on the long flights to the front wonder how guys like you get trough life while always relying on someone else to "allow" you your entertainment.

Have a nice day, you're back on my ignore list. Though I'll be terrible tempted to unblock you after release, just to hear the howls when the initial wave of players overloads the logon server, or the initial wave of mindless furballers hits the coop servers.

Oh, and one last (rethorical, since I'll ignore your answer) question as you keep going back to that:

Are YOU a game developer, or related/affilated to NeoQB in any way or form? Because if you aren't, your word carries exactly the same weight as mine in here. And if you are, you have a product to sell. Which is it?

So RSColonel, no one here hurt your feelings, then who?

You say you flew online all the time, what happened?


Ah, maybe it was a bad experience for you?


Did VikS ever beat you badly online?

Those darned "mentally handicapped furballers" as you say, think they ruined multiplayer?

So now you can't stand online?

Don't see how anyone could enjoy it anymore?

Think single-player without people to deal with is where we all ought to be?

I was during a long time an ASL (Advanced squad leader) player. And a dedicated one, spending full WE on games, aranging trips to meetings and tournaments (sometimes very far), even organizing somes.
I did know IRL most of the European ASL community (IRL)... and I can garanty you almost none of them could get real enjoyment with any of the games you mention (even Combat Mission)... instead, when we could not find a way to meet (I was working 2 years in Indonesia), we used a cheap Internet ASL client, called VASL (developped by an ASL player in Javascript) that allowed us to push our cardboard piles virtually, as we were sitting front to front (and communicating by chat or vocally through Internet also...).
Virtual Intelligence... is until today far to be as interesting (in terms of surprise and adaptation) as real human play.

It's the same with even much more simple comportment. I don't know any combat flight game where you can't make the difference between a bot and a human.

I'll be terrible tempted to unblock you after release, just to hear the howls when the initial wave of players overloads the logon server, or the initial wave of mindless furballers hits the coop servers

Not nice mate no need to wish for cold water thrown on other people's fun just because you can't/won't enjoy it. Does make you sound rather bitter, it's only a game

Ming

Oh it's quite simple to keep AI and human player apart. If it #%&*$# and moans about the planeset, cries because he can't have the latest über-crate ('cause it wasn't present in the operation depicted) and flies only fighters for gangbanging it's certainly a human player. 'cause the AI doesn't have an ego and will fly whatever plane I assign it to without playing the crybaby in an online message board.

The pure "ability advantage" of a human vs AI is something noone can deny. But the "human element" is grossly overrated as most people wouldn't know historical accuracy if you flogged them to death with it.

Huh?

Flogging them with historical accuarcy?

Just a pun.

Tell that to your partner who doesn't know the difference between Albatross and an Albatros, for historical accuracy.

Sounds like too many people who want to tell other people how they should enjoy gaming.

You guys kill me!

There is a marked asymmetry...those who favour a single player offline mode of play seem to have no wish to remove/restrict/marginalise the enjoyment that online multi-player users get from that aspect of the game...
Yet every suggestion that the single player offline mode could be enhanced or made more accessible...is shouted down with hoots of derision...

The move to an online only model of play...is not some "wave of the future" thats coming regardless of whether we like it or not...it is an aspect of THIS PARTICULAR GAME ALONE...uniquely amongst simulators...
In fact there are a number of Simulators which have been very succesful for which the online multi-play aspect has either been missing or made up a very small portion of the games popularity...
Even IL2 Forgotten Battles/IL2 1946 et al...the poster child of the online multi-player flight simulator never broke out of the 10:1 ratio of Offliner to Onliner that has existed for many years....
Simulators like Silent Hunter 3/4 & Third Wire`s Strike Fighters titles completely lack a multi-player element and games like LOMAC/Flaming CLiffs/Black Shark/Falcon 4/EECH etc have always been predominantly if not overwhelmingly single player...

Now, maybe, just maybe NeoQB are in possesion of business intelligence that no-one else is and will clean up by targeting a previously untapped market segment by their ONLINE ONLY business model...
But the fact remains that NO OTHER recent OR forthcoming simulators have gone down that route...and pesumably there is a reason for it...

That reason being, like it or not that Offline players vastly outnumber Online players...
Now, i will accept that Rise of Flight does contain a single player aspect...BUT it also seems obvious that of those Offliners who by necessity NeoQB will be relying on for volume of sales...
Some will be put off by the Online only aspect...
Some will not have 24/7 access to a high speed broad band connection...
Some will be nervous about lodging their credit card details with a Russian based company for the purpose of obtainign future add-ons...
NeoQB are just errecting barriers to people purchasing their game...
And the less people that purchase it...the less likely the game is to have a long and sustained fuuture as a "live title" and the less future add-on content will be created...

Singleplayers with an internet connection that will allow them to log in will have the option to play a singleplayer campaign, that is a fact.
An offline player without an Internet connection will not.
Whether people approve or don't approve the situation will not change.

What you fail to differentiate here Jason is offline and online and singleplay and Multiplay.
RoF still offers Single Play and Multiplay you just need to be able to go online when the game starts to login.

For the singleplayer mode you need to be able to connect to login in. From that point on you need not be connected. When the mission finishes and you are presented with the option to upload the result you can reconnect and upload the result. You don't need a 24/7 connection, just a connection that can support the same amount of traffic loading this thread entails.

The details have been released, NEOQB have said they wont change, it's make your mind up time Buy or dont buy.

More tosh. As you can see from Wikipedia, like Single Player gaming the gooney bird isn't extinct yet! NB bold is mine.

The IUCN has classified the Laysan Albatross as vulnerable due to drastic reductions in populations; however recent studies show that the population may be rebounding. The Laysan Albatross, while a common species, has not yet recovered from the wide-scale hunting that happened in the early 1900s, with feather hunters killing many hundreds of thousands, and wiping them out from Wake Island and Johnston Atoll. This slaughter led to efforts to protect the species (and others) which led eventually to the protection of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. The species is still vulnerable to long-line fisheries, and the injestion of floating plastics. Feral cats are known to prey on nesting birds and chicks on some of the newer colonized islands. In some places Big-headed Ants are a threat to young albatross chicks.

The Laysan Albatross has an occurrence range of 38,800,000 km2 (15,000,000 sq mi) and a breeding range of 3,500 km2 (1,400 sq mi) with a population of 1,180,000 mature birds estimated in 2006.

Where's the data, show us the industry data that single players vastly outnumber those they play online also!

Industry data shows that online gaming is growing, and has been continously, not single-player only gaming.

You're erecting an erroneous argument that people can only chose to be either single-player gamers, or multiplayer gamers. So if single-player gaming dictates the market today, why do industry trends point to multiplayer's growth instead?

Anyone can Google "multiplayer growth", and I dare you to Google "single-player growth", it ought to be obvious to most where the future of this industry is.

Contrary to old beliefs, this is where electronic gaming is now, and this is where it's going in the future. Grab a story, here's one, they're all indicating the same change:


So jasonbirder, show us the trends to back up your statements, gives us the data, provide us the links, or produce the industry papers.

>Industry data shows that online gaming is growing, and has been continously, not single-player only gaming.


I'd like to see your data too, FlyRetired, as it relates to flightsims - not world of warcraft.

Not that I'm realy too interested in all this bickering, but I took the bait.

JB ought to love this one - http://www.nometet.com/editorials/single-player-anyone/ from the first page of hits - but FR, I expect you'll simply refuse to accept it and come up with a load of articles pointing the other way.


Whatever, you lot can argue amongst yourselves till you're blue in the face; sales alone will tell if Neoqb have got it right.

Rewind to a bygone age, to years ago, during the "golden age of PC flight simming", before the expansion of the internet, when multiplayer games were few, and single-play was king....

Well obviously the story has changed.

The fantasy gamers aren't the onliners playing warcraft, their hobby is going very well indeed.

So you're going to pick and choose now between some large crop of future flight sims coming out, by what, opting out?

Nothing wrong with that article DG.


But lots of people still enjoy single-player, I do too.

FlyRetired, are you being compensated by anyone from RoF?

No offense, just asking.

No offense taken Piper.

No, I am not being compensated by anyone at Neoqb, or previously by the Gennadich Team, nor by anyone connected to the Rise of Flight project.

To the contrary, I have spent thousands of dollars for WWI research, and countless hours of my personal time that I have contributed to this project, without compensation, something I have enjoyed the privilege of doing, for which many in this hobby I hope will be able to enjoy the benefits of in the not too distant future.

There are a number of other contributors like me also, and authors of WWI reference publications that have provided further research to support RoF's accuracy, and owners of authentic replica aircraft that have assisted with the project too.

What I can't tell you about RoF, is loads more than what I've ever been able to, but I can assure you, you aint seen nothin' yet!

The only reason for requiring the online component for single player is for anti-piracy, that is the obvious one and only reason.

RoF and its publisher really only have three choices, they can either choose invasive anti-piracy software that basically infects your computer system, they can do nothing in regards to piracy which could be devastating financially, or they can use a semi non-invasive online check to certify your software. It is a tough choice, and I do not like any of them, but I think the online check is maybe the best of 3 bad choices. How should they protect their product from piracy? It is a hard question, and I wish someone would come up with a better answer, but I have not seen it yet.

And actually this is not new and they are not the only ones to do this, Empire: Total War that just came out basically has this same online check component through Steam. Unfortunately, I just don't think there are many choices for these companies. If this helps save stand alone non-subscription PC gaming, I am for it, I would hate to be forced into subscription games, or console games, in fact I would drop gaming before doing that.

To sum it up there are no good answers, and I think they are choosing the least worst.

Regards,

Cool FlyRetired! I respect your opinion, just don't put down all us single players as seemingly antequated - I'm looking forward to this sim too.

That's it AB1 Gibson.

We quoted Jason from 777 Studios in this regards too, so it bears repeating again.


A few here have repeatedly stated they're going to opt out, but no one is trying to stop them either. (?)

Put down has never been my intention Piper, and this is all about the big tent.

You've probably heard me say before, that everyone should have the right to decide if they want to try RoF on their own volition, without feeling pressured, and especially without erroneous information being stated by persons that have no idea what this sim is about.

It's not for everyone, but I will put forward an expectation, that once RoF releases there's going to be a whole lot of instant conversions going on.

Oh please, FR, get off your high horse or the fall is going to hurt. You ain't no different from anyone else here and your interpretion of neoqb's statements is just that - an interpretion (just like everyone else's). This is what people perceive als belittling and rude 'cause unless you work for neoqb, unless you have access to their business documents you're simply trying to sell your version of speculation as pure truth. Not with me, buddy ...

Back on page 18, right after that long post of mine...



I didn't edit anything out, i edited the PS in!

Maybe you were referring to someone else?

Ah Mingster, it's only one or two people who's howls I want to hear. The rest of you lot deserve all the fun you can get (especially if you are flying for the evil germans this time ;))

Rama, I respect your point and didn't think even for board wargames people would take all that onto them to organize with other humans. For me, I remember quite a few HL nights were 5 or 6 of my squad pilots were lined up and briefed in HL slots to launch a VEF campaign mission, waiting for 30 minutes or more for the enemy - who didn't show up, or only unterstrength which meant a few of our guys had to leave.

Compounding the fact for me is that COOP flightsim missions do not really support "join in progess" even if technically possible (like taking over an AI wingman of your flight). So basically you need 4 to 8 people, sometimes more, lined up for 15 minutes, being briefed, then flying for an hour - and in that hour, no one coming in later can truly join since he didn't get the briefing and intend of the commander.

That's organized multiplayer squadron flying the way I remember it. Someone tell me if things have changed, but as these are human elements - not technical problems - I doupt it.

Gibson, just a minor but important detail: ETW has an offline mode, like every STEAM game, but unlike RoF. And it has been cracked, so all that online verification did little good.

I didn't edit anything out, i edited the PS in!

Maybe you were referring to someone else?

No it's my modus operandi Blackdog: see an edit, claim someone said something that only I saw

Highlighting for you the potential consequences of editing what one's already said, like that bit where you called me a gaylord with a mother complex. And I'm not even English

...it's only one or two people who's howls I want to hear

Ah I see what you mean mate. Fair enough

Ming

As computing power increases then so should AI performence. If you could play against bots that appeared human but had none of the "issues" that often spoil multi play sessions then would you bother with multiplay? seriously?

I see single player against more intelligent bots becoming resurgent in the next few years

Even here at SimHQ...(and bear in mind its an online poll so you can guess how statistically representative the poll sample is...) a question about how do you want to play RoF came out at 14% Online, 58% Offline...4 to 1 in favour of Offliners...thats on an Internet Forum asking about an Online only game!

If multi-player simulators are the way forward...where are they? How is Aces High doing these days? Numbers up or numbers down compared to its hayday? How is targetware doing? Where are the new Online only titles in the pipeline?

Strangely enough though...amongst current and upcoming Flight Simultors there seem to be a lot of titles that are either Only single player...or will be used primarily for Offline play...

Silent Hunter 4
Black Shark
DCS upcoming A10 Sim
the two new World War 2 Sims based on the Merlin engine..Offline only...
Jet Thunder
No-one seems to know what Lead Pursuit are planning for their F4AF follow on...but you can bet your bottom dollar that, like F4 it will be used primarily for Offline play...
What about the big daddy of them all...MS FLight Simulator...Offline!

Even for Il2 Forgotten Battles...at a site that is so dominated by Online Dogfighters at UBI...even recent Polls about Online Vs Offline usage come down weighted significantly in favour of single player use...

So where is the evidence to the contrary...

You'll never emmulate the Human effect. That random thing.
A good example of such a case.
A few years ago I was online with my Squadron and got seperated.
Spotted them and made my way over and kept a loose diamond formation.
We were chatting and they were talking about changing vector. The call came to change and the formation I was in sailed straight on.

I closed up a little and zoomed in on the nearest plane.
FW190's !!! I was in a Yak.
I gradually dropped back and ran for it.

Would AI be able to emmulate that, would they allow me to fly with them mistaking me for a friendly as I had with them.

LOL, call it what you like, but I see you and your partner are still here.

Nobody should miss this sim when they can, and that's what everybody understands.

Phew! It's lucky RoF has a Single play component then, or they'd be in big trouble!

Incorrect by omission, and again you feel the need to frame this as a single-player vs. multiplayer argument, what do you have against multiplay?

The actual poll, unedited, list the following presently:

14% mostly online (mostly, but not exclusively)

38% online and offline

58% mostly offline (mostly, but not exclusively)

First, you care to ignore 38% of the respondents who want to fly online as well as offline regularly, and a whole lot more who occassionally fly online or offline too.

But indeed, RoF has single-player also!

(probably should add plus or minus 2% for randomness)

The most interesting thing about these type of interent polls, most repsondents don't even realize they're all online gamers.

So, you have spent your personal resources on this project. To me this amounts to you having a vested interest in the success of this sim. You have spent time and money to research some things and then you contributed it to the developer team, so you want this to succeed to see your hard work getting rewarded. There's nothing wrong with that, but it certainly answers a lot about the fervor with which you campaign your case. Hey, i would be anxious to see it succeed as well if i were in your shoes.

As a matter of fact, i do want it to succeed. That's why i'm against the proposed online requirements, even though i'll most probably buy it whenever it's available. Notice that i said requirements, because business model and offline/online gameplay components and their functionality do not equate to the need for these requirements, as other titles have shown.

Instead, look what they have managed to do. They have alienated a large portion of the fanbase, which actually is the potential customer base, and instead of addressing this in a satisfactory manner they seem to either don't care or sidestep the question by presenting certain features as direct consequences of the online requirements, features that exist in other titles which can work perfectly well without an active connection.

What's worse, with each step they further alienate that part of the community which is trying to reach a decision regarding the purchase of the title. Just look at the requirements for the beta. I would suppose that the best thing would be to submit PC specs and location and then pick accordingly, so as to test with the maximum possible amount of system configurations and have some users from remote locations for load and stress tests in the network department. Instead, neoqb wants only members of online squadrons with a web designer among their ranks. Neoqb wants people who can stick to a schedule and this is somewhat understandable. However, i guess that since they are so fond of stats they could maintain a temporary database with selected beta testers that will log their time in-game. If you don't spend enough time in RoF, you get the boot and the next guy in the queue gets your beta account.

This is the only exclusive clause among the beta requirements, so it becomes the defining one. So, we should rightfully assume that the variety of possible system configurations (a must have for any testing process) comes secondary to having a pretty website and some hundreds of hours of stick time on hyperlobby. However, even people who do fly online are not all in squads. For example i've flown IL2 online on and off for some years but never joined a squad because i don't have the time to stick a schedule on my hobbies. I've also flown with a lot of people who were regulars in certain servers and they weren't part of squads either.

Meanwhile, potential customers who criticise part of their decisions are getting a nice door slammed in their face, since they are the ones least possible to be in an online squadron. I doubt its intentional, but given the context and surrounding debate among the fanbase, this not only ignores the problem at hand but gives it a generous sweep under the carpet as well.

For better or worse though, flight sim enthusiasts are not your average gaming community consumer and can see that the dev team's arguments don't hold much weight.
If you want to draw some parallels, let me use the board wargame example mentioned a few pages back. I suspect that anyone who played wargames on a board does it not only in game conventions and prearranged venues, but also in the comfort of their homes. I suppose they'll be building and painting their model armies, even setting up a board and experimenting on scenarios of their own. Well, that's single player for you. What neoqb are doing is not encouraging you to play with other people. They are simply forcing you to be in the local wargame venue everytime you want to do anything related with their wargame. You can't set up a board in your living room and call some friends (your own server or lan), or paint your model armies in your house, or play with a previous version of the rule book (forced updates), or run a few test scenarios at home(offline single player campaigns). Instead, you have to be in a room with 500 other wargame enthusiasts where everyone sees what you do and everything is monitored by a company representative(active connection and uploading of stats). Nice huh?

This is simply bad marketing, nothing more, nothing less. The communication and language barriers don't help either (it's like talking to babelfish), but what mostly surprises me is the zealots who support the company's decision. Look at how many people stated the obvious that will further hurt their wallets..."if you don't like it, don't buy it". Is this the way to ensure the success of the final product? I don't know if you have noticed gentlemen, but we're in the middle of a debate where the most advocate supporters of neoqb are advising the critics among the fanbase not to buy the upcoming title. Well done, i'm sure this will help loads with the upcoming release.

What's more, the whole "online is the wave of the future" rhetoric is simply bad taste because it reeks of elitism in a gaming community that's so small it can't afford to be divided. The people who lack a dependable connection are quietly relegated to second rate members of the community and suddenly even their money doesn't count. Is this the way to propel this hobby forward? By cutting loose a large part, along with their associated wallets, of an already small community?

I don't know if you have noticed gentlemen, but we're in the middle of a debate where the most advocate supporters of neoqb are advising the critics among the fanbase not to buy the upcoming title

Nope not noticed that advising going on, not real advising, ironic advising that would be, as in "If you don't want it don't buy it". That's not advice it's being realistic. Agreeing that this may be the answer to DRM worries maybe, that might be advice of a sort

I have noticed some people saying that they will not buy the sim but that's their choice it's a free world. Stand down North Korea

Ming

Well Blackdog, I've never thought to demand concessions or decisions on how the Gennadich Team or Neoqb should develope this sim of theirs.

That's certainly never been my call.

However, I'm sure you have plenty of advice here on how you think Neoqb should change their decisions to suit your demands.

That's quite a lengthy analysis above, of why you shouldn't have to connect to the internet for your gaming interests, but then I'm sure you consider your effort online here time well spent, so now your basic point contradicts itself by your own contrary behavior.

And here you are, stuck online again.

Gentlemen, if this is going to be simply a re-hash of the connectivity requirement for all modes of play rather than how single player play will work, it'll get moved to the DRM/CP forums.

One question I have is whether there will be a library function where folks can upload/download user made missions from the GUI, maybe tagged by author.

It would be super cool if one logged in and saw a blurb that FlatSpinMan, whom I've tagged as a mission author of interest, has uploaded a new mission, along with the option of downloading it. The same with skins - so if CannonUK has a new Neuport skin I can grab it, too.

...where it will probably die a slow death like every other post that gets moved over there.

No disrespect intended, but this is a very important aspect of the proposed system requirements, one that may or may not break this title as far as sales are concerned. The title of the original post did mention "Offline" play and this is a very large aspect of that. It deserves to be talked about here, in the RoF forum, not to be shuttled over to the DRM forum where half the visitors will probably never see it.

Actually, the connectivity requirement is a very tiny part of the actual playing of the sim.

Just as it is for Company of Heroes, which also requires connectivity at all times, even for single player.

However, discussions on the campaigns and features that one would like to see in that game do NOT have to have a rehash of the Internet login requirement in every instance, as you are proposing.

There is educating folks on the connectivity requirement and then there is poking folks in the chest about it at every turn.

As you wrote, it's a large aspect of the system requirements, not of actual gameplay. And that is what this thread is about - game play.

I'm not saying you demanded anything and to be honest, nobody is in a position to demand things. Just as much as Neoqb won't be in a position to demand higher sales if this turns against them either.

As for suiting my demands, that's what producers do if they want to suceed, they make sure their product suits the demands of as large an audience as they can (apart from artists). Do you know anyone who goes "heck, i'll make this car but the ingition only works if a dark haired person above 1.80m is siting behing the wheel" ?

The main point here of course is that i can maintain a connection. It's not so much about me or other people who can maintain a steady connection to the internet, although i'm very much concerned about being unable to play in the event of outages. This requirement ties the use of a product someone paid for to a host of other services and possible trouble in delivering said services. When i buy something i want it to work. If my ISP starts acting up will the RoF developer team call them to fix it? I highly doubt it. So they take our money and still can't make sure that their product will function properly, because they chose to include other service providers in the loop, providers they can't really control in the quality of delivered services.

This is not about us debating here, it's about the part of the community that can't. As for the online/offline argument in the way you present it, i think we are all smart enough to realise that there's nothing wrong with being online when you can and want to. However, i won't go mad with the website staff if i can't post on simHQ for a couple of days, simply because i didn't pay anything for it.

So in essence i'm not contradicting anything. You just make it seem like people have a problem with using networks in general, so you can discard the inconvenient parts easier..."hey if you have so much trouble with online services, why are you here posting on an internet forum?" Because i can and i want to use network services at certain points in time, as opposed to being forced to use them in order for my other purchased products to work. What's next, a mandatory connection before you can turn on your PC? Let's get serious.

I don't know how much simpler i can make this for you guys. In a niche market we have a developer that in the course of protecting their investment effectively shuts down a large portion of their income just before release. Now that's contradiction for you.It's not even so much about their chosen course of action, it's about their failure to communicate this in a timely fashion and discuss it with the people that will fund their paycheck, or even giving it some time to settle. Instead, a couple of months before release they dropped the bomb and started losing customers left and right.

If people don't want to understand the obvious it's fine by me, it's not my job on the line. I'll just buy it and if the company shuts down we'll all be using the cracks that will surely surface after some time, so that we can continue playing the game after their servers shut down. The only thing that concerns me is that if they shut down early we'll be left with a very good physics engine and too few flyables, but i guess someone will be able to mod that too.

As you can see, my gaming interests are already pretty much taken care of. All i want is to help these people get more money so they can give us more content down the line, but some of you believe that i just dislike ethernet cables.

Hello,

can we even discuss being online or offline without mentioning what it also means, apart from dogfighting each other online ?

It was posted at the hidden Digital rights and DRM forum, that threads with DRM text should be posted in the Current events forum from now on. Now we have three different places where all those arguments have been written down, and discussed, and will be again and again. Seems this will furthermore splinter up the critics.

I have said at the "Digital rights ..." etc. forum that i will not post there anymore because people seem to be either biased towards an industry which they do not really seem to understand, or they are customers, and almost all customers have a problem with having to be online all the time, whether they will be buying the sim, or not.

It turns out that e.g. in some countries in Europe, while an only-online sim for "dogfighting" itself may be ok, having to be online for DRM reasons may just be prohibited to sell. Being online for DRM reasons is only half of the story, because as mentioned at the RTC conference, this online demand is all about control, plain and simple. Even if a customer accepted the EULA it will not stand a chance in front of a court. The EULA itself would be ineffectual, maybe not in the US, but the rest of the world. Neoqb indeed said it is because of piracy, but tries to wrap that into "customer-friendly" behaviour.

Dart wrote:
"Actually, the connectivity requirement is a very tiny part of the actual playing of the sim".

This is his opinion, but it is not engraved in stone, nor is it right in my opinion. This is such a fundamental procedure stripping customers of rights at least outside the U.S., that other aspects of the sim (along with its obvious beauty and modeling of flight) becomes a petty little matter. We cannnot talk about online/offline of RoF without mentioning what this online requirement is intended to do.

I already said this is a GAME, not MS Office or SAP R/3. Get real. This is a niche market, and pirates cracking products will never buy anything, no cutomers lost. Numbers how much money will not flow into the company's hands because of pirating are made-up and wrong here. This works with cheap mass products (ego shooters etc.) and the like, but never with a high class software product like RoF, made for a small number of enthusiasts. Neoqb will only lose customers with this.

Sorry, it is also my last post about this here, you can read almost all about this stuff at the DRM forum, you have to be logged in to see it at SimHQ.

I never thought i would once prefer Starforce copy protection against anything else lol,
Narsinha

This is the kind of "Value added" for offline players who could sell the requirements as acceptable to many folks. Sadly NeoQB has yet to comment on the numerous suggestions made here as far as using always on to bring a better user experience to single player pilots.

I would imagine it's probably a busy time with RoF in beta testing now.

As is possible by original intention, future updates can introduce new content and features into the sim's design.

Actually, to be completely clear and honest (not trying to imply you're not being honest here Dart ) but Company of Heroes does not require online access to play. Just put your disk in and you can play without internet connections at all if you don't want to use your disk then you are correct. From what I've gathered here you can't do that with RoF.

That's a pretty lame counter to Blackdog's well written arguments. I am sure i am not alone in being someone who would have bought this sim but the ONLY thing stopping me is the online connection requirement.
So, I lose out on a good sim , but so do the devs. No point pretending otherwise.

Oh, Avatar, I didn't realize that the login thing was an option with Company of Heroes. Since my disk got whacked I just grabbed it off Steam and got caught by the login requirement.

I guess that means that for me and my broken game DVD connectivity is a requirement of play.



This assumes that the sim itself is simply the front end of a connectivity program!

The way you've phrased this is as if Neoqb has produced and is selling a application to connect to their servers - as a means to its own end - with a tiny mini-game as an "oh, by the way" to bide the time while the application runs.

Nobody has any "right" to fly a computer simulation, so I don't understand how the word "right" is applied here. Rights are unalienable, and inherent in the existence of man. Perhaps in Europe or in other places of the world, the Right To WWI Simulations Without Connectivity is delineated and defended, but in the USA at least I can't find it anywhere.

In fact, I can't find it in even the United Nations stuff. Mostly it's about speech, water, press, not being a slave, etc. There's some Rule of Law stuff as well, but that just deals with the laws applying to all equally - not insisting that companies produce entertainment software that doesn't require connectivity as a fundamental human right.

Haven't seen a single right violated in the requirement for connectivity to play the sim.

Is any discussion of the Rise of Flight Single player element allowed to remain in the Rise of Flight Forum?
It appears to me that whenever a single player user discusses the game...one of the RoF supporters mentions CP/DRM and the discussion is moved here to the "invisible" forum...meaning the dicussion is removed from view...
There were 25 pages of RoF discussion here...which have been effectively hidden from view, merely because the online users/supporters decided that it was not positive enough about the RoF user requirements and single play elements...

Dart, as you really like to go on about "Rights"... IANAL, but I'm fairly sure that at least in Europe, the customer has a right to use the product he paid for without problems and technical faults that make the product unfit for intended usage.

By that definition, if the NeoQB server is overloaded and won't let me log on, the product is "unfit for use" and could be returned.

So yeah, there are Rights that say "you pay for it, you can use it whenever you want".

Wel, it's only a month or so away. We'll see if and how much this decision affects their sales. Maybe not much, i mean i'm very much against the always online feature but i think i'm 90% leaning towards buying the sim (if it comes in a box, that's the reason i haven't gotten Black Shark yet). I usually keep my connection going anyway, what worries me is possible connection problems ruining my fun and the amount of people who will skip purchasing this due to the always online feature.

On the other hand, they are a new company and i don't know if they can absorb the impact of an initial bout of low sales.

So, it's one of three possible outcomes.
a) They go on as planned and have lowered sales but it's enough money for them to keep going.

b) They can't absorb the impact of lowered sales as opposed to those predicted and they quickly step in to change the copy protection scheme, gaining the offline only crowd as well.

c) They can't absorb the impact of poor initial sales but it's so bad they can't correct it in time, they are forced to shut down as a result and nobody can play RoF anymore because the server has shut down.

I will hold out for a month or two until i see how they're doing, no point in buying just after release and having outcome c) ruining my fun and costing my money. I suppose lots of other people will do this too, so even among the buyers there is a certain percentage that will further cut down their sales because they will opt for a "wait and see" approach.

To be honest, i have mixed feelings about this. I really want this to succeed and have something new to fly in this era for the next 5 or so years, but if suddenly the authentication servers go kaput i won't be able to suppress the outburst of "i-told-you-so"s and laughter.

Hey, Dart, what has your last post got to do with me ?

I'm really not sure the "always connected" thing is such a big deal. When I turn on my PC, the first thing that it does (after the OS has finally got its act together) is connect to my ISP and then (I hope) check for antivirus updates. In addition, I know (and no matter how hard I try to weed them out some always get through) itunes, TIR, acrobat reader, even my pesky printer "HP Document manager" are busy trying to connect and download updates, etc.

These are all unwanted, all annoying, but I'm starting to accept them as being part of the "connected world". When I want to do something important, like simming, I use enditall to swat them all. And I haven't even mentioned Steam.

As I understand it, the RoF people want to do something similar, but RoF won't launch on startup, won't lurk in the background, will only connect to start the game. This does not seem intrusive to me, but then maybe I'm just meekly surrendering to "modernity"...

Arg, I hate to bump this thread again, but as long as it's here..

I think you've got the right idea Swallow. I don't really like the idea, but we'll see how it goes.

The neoqb team are sticking their necks out on all fronts to be new and innovative, including the idea of being connected to the server for the start and end of missions. Some innovative concepts work and others don't work. The only way to sort the working from the nonworking concepts is to test them.

So as long as the servers have a reasonable uptime and people aren't forced to pay into some subscription-based system, I think it shouldn't be a big deal. If it IS a big deal, then I'm sure they would consider changing it. That's what patches are for!

its a pity to play such a gang bang sim only offline (IL2, ROF etc.).....the bigest pleasure is to send somebody down in flames (with awareness that a real online pilot is goin down in flames..in game....) hehe

I bet your right Tvrdi. I've never been online because of a time issue. Usually only have 30-45minutes a day to play (and at odd times) if that.

play at night like most of us...this way you can go to work next mornin like true (and tired) ace...

[quote=No601_Swallow]

These are all unwanted, all annoying, but I'm starting to accept them as being part of the "connected world". When I want to do something important, like simming, I use enditall to swat them all. And I haven't even mentioned Steam.

Do I understand you correctly? When simming you end all the processes you mentioned, including AV, and then merrily play away whilst still connected to the net?
Oh, well ...(And you haven't even mentioned anti-spyware, either )

As I understand it, the RoF people want to do something similar, but RoF won't launch on startup, won't lurk in the background, will only connect to start the game. This does not seem intrusive to me, but then maybe I'm just meekly surrendering to "modernity"...

It will not "only connect to start the game"- it requires a connection at all times to play the game. And BTW, I think you might be doing more than meekly surrendering-

Well, this certainly has been an interesting thread. I must say that from my perspective my primary concern is going to be continued support by Neoqb. Don't get me wrong... I want them to succeed. I want them to produce a ground breaking WWI sim that redefines the genre. I want them to prosper.

The hard, cold fact is that Neoqb is a fledgling company. Trying to compete in a niche market. In difficult economic times.

I want them to be successful. But if they are not, what then? If simply using the software is dependant upon their servers, what does one do if their servers are no longer there?

To be clear, I'm not saying I won't invest in their success by not buying their sim. I'm merely pointing out that this is an additional consideration that I personally will have when deciding if I will purchase or not.

The hard, cold fact is that Neoqb is a fledgling company. Trying to compete in a niche market. In difficult economic times

-with a possibly ground-breaking product, there's the difference. Quite a few Red Baron, Eagle's Wotsit and Spawn of Beelzebub virtual pilots to mop up

Ming

That's exactly the sentiment of the majority of the critics here. And think about the added loss of revenue for them because of all of us who will stick with a "wait and see" attitude. Sure, we'll buy the sim in the end, but it's the initial release and resultant cash flow that pays for the development of the game, especially in a niche market like this.

After a while, sales are bound to reduce to a trickle and not everyone will buy a multitude of add ons. Then what? The server upkeep expenses will still be running. The only way for a company to work with such an infrastructure in the long run is regular subscription fees and i doubt this will go down well with the community either. They have become locked in a road where each corrective step is even more demanding on the customer.

Don't get me wrong, i've played a subscription based game in the past for a couple of years and it was good fun, but i knew i was getting into a strictly online environment marketed as such from the start and conciously made the choice. But then again that game offered a persistent sandbox world that couldn't be realised in any other way, fiercely competitive and at the same time encompassing a load of different gameplay elements from various genres.

So, it's a distinction between a simulator game will offline and online gameplay modes and games which are alike to WWII online, considered MMOs (massively multiplayer online games). This is not an MMO, so i fail to see not only the benefit for the end user by their connection requirements, but also the benefit for the company. IL2 was very succesful even though it also suffered from a not so well polished single player experience, because it didn't create barriers. You could order it online in a digital copy, you could buy it in a boxed set, you could install the free updates or you could buy the add on packs. Of course, add ons become standard for multiplayer after a while, but delaying your purchase by 3-4 months means bargain prices and then it's also a moot point for strictly offliners. For example, you might only have been interested in the Pacific Theater, you would simply go out and buy the relevant stand alone pack. That's also another of the series' success points, most of the expansions were also able to be used as standalone products.

So, what we gather is that the less you railroad your customers and the more choices you give them, the better off your are in the long run.

Hello,
no agueing about business models - i guess i will buy it anyway, too few good ww1 sims around. I still do not like the current "model", and wild horses will not make me accept it.

Two more things i would like to know:

1. Online: A friend of mine has bought plane "x", and flies it. Now i log on with a plane "y" bought by me, and see his plane - how does this plane-buying work ? Can only bought planes be flown by myself, and do i see other planes flying around that i did not buy ?
I take it all planes ever made for RoF can be seen and shot at, but only planes bought by me can be flown by myself (like buying cockpits in FS 9, and X) ?
Sounds a bit complicated server-wise, to sort out this and let fly that ? So my configuration has to be synchronized with the server everytime i start the game/being automatically online.
Or do i only see AI-planes i bought ?

2. If i want to play offline - do i see non-bought planes now ? And if only as AI, so they cannot be flown by me ? Since i will be logged on even to play "offline" (which just means i do not compete against real pilots, a am online anyway), which planes will i be able to see then ?

Maybe wrong thread ..

Hm,
Narsinha

AFAIK, the plan is, that everyone has same plane set in the game and downloads new planes as soon as they are released with automatic updates. However you get to fly only the planes that you've bought and have to watch the rest (flown by AI or players) from a safe distance or fill 'em with lead.

Hello Gr.Viper,

makes sense. So if i play offline mostly, i will still see all planes that are being released (because of autmatic download/synchronization), but they will be only flown by the AI - until i buy one.

Thanks and Happy Easter,
Narsinha

That's it, Narsinha!

So you'll fire up your single player one day and see new aircraft at the aerodrome or in the skies, or recieve a message saying a plane you've seen before is now available as a flyable - for five bucks.

The real toughie will be the message that says "1915 planeset now available, with the Morane Bullet and Fokker Eindecker as flyables. Click here to purchase for ten dollars."

Okay, it won't be tough. Neoqb will have gotten my ten bucks.

"...see new aircraft at the aerodrome or in the skies..."

Props to Neoqb for this approach. Brilliant, actually. Sort of built in adverstising if you will. 'See the pretty new plane? It's yours for $5." Potentially a nice little revenue stream there.

Are we just assuming that it will only be $5-$10 bucks and that we will have the choice to buy limited quantities like that? I think it's a neat idea, but I didn't read through all of the 26 pages of posts; did some one at the company say that?

Same question.
Was this stated by a someone at the company or are we just guessing at the pricing.

Wheelsup


(Post # 99)

At that level of pricing, less than £10 (GBP) I'd buy all the add-ons. If the price crept up to £20 or beyond I'd become more selective.

Hello,

20 GBP per plane ?! - i think i will be quite reluctant then - after all this is a GAME, and you are only allowed to fly the virtual "planes" as long as they reside on their server and the company persists .. i DO wish them all the best, but i already did so with Sierra, and Dynamix .. but then i can at least still use their old sims without restriction.

Think of the planes that were already included in Red Baron, and the other WW1 sims - and now think of buying e.g. 30+ planes separately. Even with some 5 dollars per plane you will be soon at some 150 bucks, adding to the original price of the sim. AND there may be other small details and add-ons to pay for.
"Ah, if you are a real fan you will buy it, otherwise you are a whiner and the sim isn't for you". Yeah go on call me a cheapskate, but i will still dislike this idea.
New business idea "You bought the SPAD for Escadrille Lafayette, but you want to fly it for escadrille xyz ? Gotto pay for this skin, and the possibility to fly it in the Alsace region ... you complained at our forum ? Oops sorry, currently no log on possible for you .." etc. etc..
See what i mean ? What is possible, will be done. But not all that is possible, SHOULD be done. This whole idea goes far beyond what a game should do and deliver IMHO.

*Sigh* ok i will still buy it

Happy Easter,
Narsinha

Okay... I think we're all just guessing at price points. Off the top of my head I don't recall anyone with Neoqb quoting any pricing. I could be wrong though... haven't had nearly enough coffee yet this morning...

Hello Willi,
certainly it is all guessing, there's no price told yet. Anyway if it will be up to 5$ i think it would be reasonable - after all the price will be the same internationally, since this is download only, without p&p fees, or customs - at least this will be an advantage
Thanks,
Narsinha

Some time back (here), one of the devs refered to a new plane costing about the same as a couple of beers and a packet of cigarettes. Infer from that what you will.

Hello,

a couple of beers and a packet of cigarettes is not really "cheap" - 15 dollars per plane, or an additional feature ? Wait and see ..

Hmm,
Narsinha

I think they meant Russian prices.

Anyhow, think of all the money those MSFS guys pay - and their planes don't even shoot.

Whoever said features would be payware. You can't make features payware. That would make those that purchase incompatible with those that didn't. AFAIK Only planes would be paid for addons and then only if you wanted them as flyable.

Prices mentioned off the cuff over a year ago priced addon planes at around 4-6 euros. That may have changed but it wont have been much.

...and if a pack of cigarettes and a beer is considered expensive, how on earth did you justify purchasing your PC.

........And that's why I give most FS payware a miss.

Hehe. I now have a new PC, and I justified it to the missus by telling her the old one was clapped out (which it was!) but I never have to justify a few pints in the local. Beer is pretty much a mystery to her, epecially when I come home from the pub and try to explain about it's wonderful attributes. I get away with it by talking rubbish the rest of the time as well.!

Yup, i think features updates would be akin to a simple patch. Now if the addon planes are anything up to 10 euros then it really is an affordable price. I suppose that early on there will be loads of add ons, since there's all sorts of older screenshots from development showing aircraft that will not make the initial release. I doubt they scrapped those 3d models, they are going to include them at some point.

I suspect these will be released early on to capitalise on the initial enthusiasm of purchasing the new sim. Then, as the initial flood of add on aircraft passes it will probably be a slower process, because they will run out of ready-made ones and will have to make them from scratch.

All in all, it holds great potential as long as you can meet their requirements. However, i would also like to see an option to download/activate addons outside the game engine. I get the idea that due to the always online requirement, add ons will be handled via the in-game menus. For people with slower/unstable connections and assuming there are enough of those around, it would be nice to be able to buy add ons from the company website.

This way, anyone could go to a webcafe or a friend with a better network capability, log in to the website, select the desired add ons, check out and submit their payment/credit card info. Then they would get a code that unlocks the download of these add ons, to burn on a DVD and take home.

That mean ole SOB guod says...

Do not discuss CP/DRM in this or any other RoF thread.

Take it to the CP/DRM forum.
Thank you.

Ah Guod, you old softy.

S!

You can't spell "RoF" without "DRM"

This thread is just dumb.

It's been nothing but trolling.

After 28 pages of complaining and whining, what more has been learned about RoF's offline gameplay details?

RoF has an offical website with many blog updates and game design descriptions.

There's also been at least three English-language magazine previews where game details have been discussed, and a preview here on SimHQ too.

Read these previews if you're someone who's really interested in learning more about RoF's offline play, and after you've done your personal homework, if you're still interested in RoF's offline gameplay, then you're encouraged to wait for more official information to follow.

Including the questions you asked VikS that he answered?
Including the information revealed about triggers?
Including all sorts of stuff that I, and others, learnt here?


Your definition of trolling appears to be someone expressing a contrary view to your own.

Leaving aside the exageration...
Obviously nothing by you; you know it all already.



I've read SimHQ's review, I visit Neoqb's website but I've never seen the magazines and probably wouldn't buy them even if they were available.
But now I'm 'encouraged to wait for more official information to follow', presumably from you as you are the oracle for all things RoF. You used to be too, pointing us all to updates and anything related, but we're not supposed to come to these forums anymore?


I'm really sorry to have to pick all these holes in your post but since the single-player online requirements were revealed your attitude has become extremely paternalistic, overbearing, didactic and tiresome.
Or is this post just 'more trolling' too?

DG, you don't understand that you've just been an innocent enabler in this thread, because you're actually interested in RoF's offline gameplay details.

However, everytime there's been positive anwsers and definitive information about RoF's design plans given, and repeatedly, by many of us, and to official references, and let me emphasize this again: GIVEN, it was all back to the what if this happens, and I won't be buying this if that happens, and this will never work because I say it won't happen.

You think 28 pages here was for learning about Rise of Flight's offline gameplay, new things you might have learned that occupy a few sentences of text here?

There's even a complaining thread now about moving this 28 page thread which contains more paranoia about the SimHQ admins being in conspiracy with Neoqb to move whining threads like this.

So some may have bought into 28 pages of conspiracy paranoia, by guys that have all sorts of beefs, really don't care about the success of this sim in the least, one has repeatedly said it was all vaporware, some have even said they hope the sim doesn't succeed.

Shameful behavior really, but I'm not going to accept the doomsayers, and soon facts on the ground will be changing everything.

So I've been here DG, and I'll continue to be here DG, and I'll call people on their BS too DG, and if anyone can't stand that, too bad.

FR, you are not the forum moderator. With that in mind it is not your position to rule a thread worthy or not. As long as people are posting and reading here, obviously they deem it worthy enough.

And "encouraging someone to wait for official information" is a nice way of saying "I'd rather censor any independent discussion and ya'all just wait for the official gospel please."

Like someone recently said, you obviously have a personal interest in the success of this sim, since you contributed heavily to it. While not of a financial kind, that developer tie should make you behave even more objective than any normal user - not less so, unless you want to look like a shill.

Y'all need to update your viewing preferences.

This thread is six pages for me, not 28.

I'll read six pages, but twenty eight? No way!

Similarly, I find it at once hilarious and disconcerting that anyone would write that participating in any one particular Internet forum discussion is a waste of time versus another.

12 for me.

Wot me, innocent? I used to scrump apples you know!



PS I have 8 pages. Dart's right, you need to have a look at your viewing preferences.

29 pages and counting



And again, if someone has a hard time understanding these simple thread instructions (the warning's in big RED LETTERS)!

FR, you seem to have your 'total topics to show per page' set to 10. I have it at 35, thus eight (now nine) pages, not twenty-eight...

It's in 'Preferences' in 'My Stuff' if you ever feel the need to change it.

My preferences are just fine.

So have you seen the new RoF video that Gremlin_WoH linked on his website:

Wings Of Honor

Sure, I'm pretty proud of being a contributor to this project, and amazed at how special it really is. There's a lot of others that I'll say thanks to also, and a whole bunch of beta-testers working hard to get it ready to go Gold now too, and as RoF grows in the future, it'll keep getting bigger and better, but that's what it's been all about all along.

Deal with it!

Oh dear...here we go again. Why don't we discuss the online requirements as a feature and forget about DRM for while, ok?

Let's assume the game had no copy protection at all (to the point of it being possible to connect to their servers with a pirated copy) but you still needed to be online to exchange stats and so on for the game to work. Guess what, i and many others would still be against the mandatory nature of this and prefer it to be a user-selectable option, and i'll tell you why. It's not about DRM, it's about the idiocy of limiting a product's potential customer base through a certain implementation of single player mechanics, which in turn presents a substantial risk to the continued upkeep and support of said prodcut for those who do buy it in the end.

People who can't maintain a stable connection won't be contributing money, hence there's less income to support the whole business model, pay for the servers, etc etc. This in turn affects the decision making process of people who can meet the requirements but are afraid about the longevity of the product's life. The current implementation simply ties the use of the sim to neoqb being able to maintain their servers, while at the same time turning away people who would be paying for the maintenance of said servers. It's like the snake that swallows its own tale.Happy now?

By the way, there was already a DDOS attack on their servers and Viks had to apologize and present an explanation to the beta testers. I don't remember if this was on the official site or here, but i think i saw a post by him somewhere around here. Just some food for thought.

I doubt you'll find many among the critics that want this sim to fail. Instead, there's two distinct lines of thought among them. One is "i don't like it, i won't buy it", just as a lot among your camp tell them to do, and they don't really go about posting here. They have already made up their mind, they followed your advice and decided to vote with their wallets against the current single player implementation.

The other one is people who want this to succeed badly enough to raise a voice of concern about the possible implications of the current single player implementation. These people won't shut up, simply because they care enough to buy the game and want this to succeed. These are the people posting here. If i wasn't going to buy this, i wouldn't care enough to debate the pros and cons of the feature in question.

And make no mistake, tying DRM in with this feature is simply a convenient way to paint every critic as an anti-DRM zealot and brush their comments under the carpet, or move them to another forum, as if by muffling the voices of concern you can make the problem go away. I think i already talked about ostriches burying their heads in the sand a few pages back.

No matter what, the bottom line remains that the online requirement is first and foremost a feature that

A) presents some potential for certain increased functionality in the future, but

B) doesn't seem to hold much water at present to make it appealing enough to a customer and

C) as everything else it also has its drawbacks and vulnerabilities.

The whole trouble stems from the lack of options here to circumvent these vulnerabilities. I too would love to be able to download addons, updates and skins from inside the game menus. It would be a centralized and easy process, instead of looking around in 15 different simulator websites. The turning point in the whole affair is not if, but being given the choice of when to do that. If i have 10 minutes available before going to work and want to fly a quick mission, it's plain silly to force me to download the latest 250MB update before being able to do so.

If you guys still don't get my drift and the simplicity of logic behind the objections of a large part of the community about this feature, then i'm sorry but it's not us who are the zealots here...

Blackdog, it's you that just don't get it.

The connectivity requirement is an entirely different topic than the content of the actual gameplay.

Good grief man, I can imagine what you'd of sounded like when Red Baron 3D came out with today's Internet forums:

Post One: Hey, I wonder if they're going to have you challenged if you fly too close to an enemy aerodrome, like in the original?

You: Well, you'll have to have the CD in the tray in order to find out, and I don't have a CD reader. Why don't they release a copy on floppies like every other simulation before this?

Post Two: I read that one gets invited to other squadrons based on their kills!

You: Too bad you'll have to have the CD in the tray. I think it's a real infringement to require to have the CD in the tray, and really alienates those who don't have a CD reader or has to have one of the slower externals. Does anyone know if the sim will play with the slower read times of a serial port connected external CD reader?

Post Three: I heard the multi-player is going to be waayyy better than Kali. It better be - my 28.8 modem gets delivered next week!

You: That's fine for those with a CD player. The company is forcing us to buy completely unnecessary hardware in order to play their simulation - Aces Over Europe came with the option to buy it on floppies, why is Sierra forcing us to do things we shouldn't have to do?

Post Four: Dude, this is about actual features of the simulation, not whether or not it requires a CD drive. If you don't have one and aren't going to buy one, you shouldn't buy the sim. Shut up, please; the adults are talking now.

You: That's insulting! Readers should be made aware at every turn that Red Baron II will require a CD reader, as many do not have CD readers and there is no option to buy it on floppy disk! One can't talk about playing the simulation without making that clear!

A CD Reader? I just took mine out! What am I gonna do now? Please tell me I'll be okay with a DVD reader or DVD read/write? Please?

Worse, I heard they're shutting down WON.

How are we going to meet up? Not everyone has Prodigy!

PD is giving it a hammering on UseNet

I'm trying to calm him down as usual

Ming

Hello,
BlackdogKT, Reghanger, Dunkelgrun have said exactly what this bias here is about. Appx. 70 percent of the community seem to have a problem with the online requirement, but they are steam rolled by a few biased online freaks who seem to support all developers regardless which "features" their upcoming "half-assed" sims (as someone said) will have. Discussions about online issues are constantly turned into a "DRM" thread by those few, or tried to make ridiculous. As well threads are being deleted, moved, and truncated, posts from a whole week are missing in a just-resurfaced thread. I just do not like this, bye.
Narsinha

I got a laugh out of your post Dart, thanks a lot. In any case however, the proliferation and most importantly, reliability of CD-ROM drives when Red Baron II was released was much higher than those for broadband internet access today when RoF is about to be released. So, Siearra/Dynamix didn't really shoot themselves in the foot and to top it off, they were already well known companies that could provide some longevity for their product. RoF and Neoqb don't have any of that, at least not yet.

I won't go into the rest of your post, which simply looks like an effort to poke fun at me, so let's get the (admittedly few) relevant parts:




I don't necessarily disagree with you, but i don't agree either, more on this later on. In any case, it could have saved all of us some headaches if things had been specified clearly from the start and we had 3-4 suitably different topics to break down the discussion into.

So, let's reach an understanding here:

Copy Protection discussions go into the relevant forum. I think most people agree with this by now.

The online requirement in RoF is not something completely tied to DRM, but it's a feature, so it can be discussed outside the CP/DRM forum. This is something i agree with.

The online requirement in RoF is not relevant to the content of actual gameplay. This is something you agree with and i somehow disagree.

So, let me ask you one thing. If the online requirement is not relevant to the content of actual gameplay,then why do Neoqb are trying to sell it as such? I go with their line of thought ("it's not about DRM, it's a feature"), and then you tell me it's irrelevant again? The whole support/update and addon content is supposedly going to be materialised through this medium, because manual downloads at a time of our own choosing are suddenly too banal.

I would thus deduce that while the online requirement is not directly relevant to actual gameplay content, it is sold as such and championed by the non-critics as the carrier of new gameplay content, thereby making it relevant.

So, which one is it guys? Is this requirement only about DRM, thereby justifying those who say that it offers nothing new gameplay-wise? Or is it not about DRM, in which case it's a feature of the single player experience and we can rightfully pick it apart for any possible flaws in this part of the boards? Feel free to tell us when you settle on your line of defence

Edited for typos.

I knew you'd see that post in the vein it was meant to be taken!

Actually, the answer is "yes."



Just as in the IL-2 forums and the modding of the sim, there are aspects of the matter that are open for discussion and some that aren't.

Whether or not there should be connectivity is a DRM/CP matter.
How that requirement could be used to further game play is a RoF forum matter.

SimHQ is unfortunately more nuanced than an ironclad zero tolerance, black-and-white sort of place. Heck, by all rights this thread should be in the DRM forum, but guod is letting it stay here because he wants everyone to finally understand that A) conversation is encouraged, and B) the forums move smoothly with the majority getting along swimmingly.

It'll get mirkier once the sim is out!

Let's say the unthinkable happens and neoqb's servers go down (impossible, right? I mean servers never go down) or someone is have a problem connecting to those servers.

The troubleshooting thread is firmly in the RoF forum area. Some of the replies may not be.

Post one: Hey, I can't connect? Anybody else playing?
Post two: I got kicked about an hour ago.
Post three: Confirmed - she's dead, Jim. Wtf?
Post four: Told ya so all along!
Post five: [link to neoqb website from two days ago saying the servers would be down for four hours] Why wasn't this on the friggin' log in messages window?
Post six: Unholy fascists! This is just another example of the evils of DRM and how it violates basic human rights! Corporate control is the only aim of these people, and you only have yourselves and the enablers of the running dog Capitalists such as SimHQ to blame! Death to DRM!
Post seven: Okay, so I just spent the last ten minutes on the phone chewing my ISP our for nothing.
Post eight: (quote of post four) +1 QFT.

Post four would slide if it's a one off and doesn't turn into a flamefest - post six (which is exaggerated for effect) would not. Post eight would slide, too.

Now, let's look at our little scenario and that thread, and see what the after effects of a six hour hiatus of the neoqb server might be.

Once the servers come back up and apologies are made, the "is it down" thread will go on for about two days before the post six guys swamp it, personal insults are exchanged, and it's locked.

The the obligatory thread will be started up because of the locking. It'll get locked for the same reason that the bartender and owner of a bar don't like it when you come in and start insulting them on what a crappy bar they have, how lousy the service is, and why isn't the free beer colder?

There is, naturally a third thread, the "I told you so" thread, which will be all about how everyone should have listened to the canary in the coal mine, etc., and why the connectivity requirement is inherent to play and should have been discussed in every single thread about the simulation.

And yes, it'll get moved to the DRM forum, spawning yet another SimHQ bastards censored my free speech, I'll bet they are on the take thread and possibly the dramatic departure thread where a member will announce that for moral reasons they can no longer remain a SimHQ member and will never post again. And we'll give a damn. Really. I will probably cry actual tears, because nothing is more fun than seeing these exact same people back in six months or a year asking for their account back (if it's been deleted during one of the inactive account purges) or simply joining into a discussion.

I've been here too long, I think.

Troubleshooting why a player can't connect (and the servers are up) = RoF forum.
Why the guy should have to troubleshoot at all = DRM forum.

Firewall/router settings question on getting RoF to run = RoF forum.
Why he should have to adjust firewall settings in order to fly offline = DRM forum.

Does that make sense?

LOL, those were the days.

I didn't read all 200 pages of posts, but lemme put forth another possibility....?

A centrally hosted dynamic campaign with front lines influenced by each side's success/failure in the air..similar to what was done in the Benchmark of dynamic campaigns..falcon 4..without the lag or cpu cycles for a player to host for his squadmates.

Just a thought, as well as the chronological "mission builder" campaigns...

DK

Ah..the life of a board admin..LOLOL

DK

This post said it all really, and IMHO Dart's reply to it was pathetic.

I want to buy this sim, so I shall come back to this forum from time to time to see if what it's like , but mainly to see if it can be played without being online.
If the devs don't change their minds and allow it to be so played, then I'll do without, but I can live in hope.

You're loss then dude

"You're loss then dude"

Although that's quite a unique response, I have just one question. In this case, doesn't neoqb also lose?

Aviar

That is the crux here, but apparently some heads are thicker than others. It's not that we simmers are the rulers of the game market, aren't we? As such I want to see each and every decent sim succeed, each and every passionate sim maker thrive, but with such "requirements" - which the devs on top of that try to sell as feature - they will and already have alienated a good number of potential buyers. I am indeed worried about their business future (and as such about our potential gaming future) because of this, because neoqb will succeed or fail because of RoF's sales. And as long as they want me to give up control over one of the most basic computer security measures (deciding when to go online and what to send) I am simply not going to pull out my wallet and buy RoF. The hullaballoo about the issue shows how many other folks are not willing to entitle neoqb to such "privileges" ...

Regardless of the outcome neoqb has already created a marketing disaster. I do frequent other (predominantly german) message boards as well and the tenor (and choice of words) there is even more negative (and disbelieving) than here. With mouth-to-mouth propaganda this bad I am really worried about RoF's and neoqb's future.

LOL, who doesn't prefer an option to play while not connected to a server?

I also think the majority of the sim market will buy it, even with the connectivity requirement.

If Neoqb doesn't screw it up, that is.

Okay, so let's just suppose that they pull it off - stable servers that don't go down, and a quick, seamless connection that is invisible to actual gameplay.

And we'll also suppose that the customer has a decent Internet connection.

At that point what's the big deal, other than a philosphical argument? Respectfully, Thor, I would think the decision to allow RoF to connect would be an easy one.

And what will it have to do with whether or not the sim is fun flying?

I agree with Dart on this. I DON'T particularly like the idea of having to connect every single time to play offline. I think Neoqb is making a mistake with this in its current incarnation.

I would prefer that if they did want to go with this that they would go with something similar to what StormEagle Studios did with Jutland. Jutland also checks with the server every time you fire the game up but if you don't connect you can still play the game, for a week. If you don't reconnect and verify after a week then you can only play in demo mode until the game connects and reverifies your game. That way the occasional server crash wouldn't result in a total lockout of the game.

I wasn't particularly thrilled with SES's system either (and pretty much said so in my review of Jutland) but compared to NeoQbs it is much less restrictive.

I think that Neoqb will have to ensure that their servers are completely up at all times. If they go down for any lenght of time it will literally kill any chances of them selling another simulation. This is the Russian Roulette (no pun intended) that they are playing with the game. If people can't play ROF because the game can't connect with a downed server people won't take a chance with any upcoming games from that company.

I hope Neoqb is watching these boards. If they are maybe they should get ahold of SES and ask about their security system. They may be able to license it for their own use. It might help a lot in relieving concerns about the game. It won't make everyone happy but people will be more comfortable with it.

In the interests of balance I like the idea of being connected umbilically to neoqb all the time it's like having Nursey back

Ming

I agree Tom.

It's their decision to require the online connection, so their server service better be well-staffed, and work efficiently to prevent downtime events from their side of the lines!

Careful Ming... I hear the connection will be via two separate tubes. An 'incoming' and an 'outgoing'. You might take a care not to mix the two!

Dart - with all due respect, but are you really not seeing why people like me are ticked off by this "feature"? It is a matter of principle, a question of what kind of policy BS I tolerate or not. For example I already gnashed my teeth when Windows XP forced me through the online activation process (and I still don't like to be treated as potential pirate) and I also went to great lengths to keep it from "phoning home" (as far as I could manage that). With this in mind do you really think I will just shrug when a mere PC game wants to do the same and wave through whatever it sends? Nah, buddy. Not with ole csThor.

I was interested in RoF (even though my passion lies with WW2 aviation history). My gaming PC is up for a major upgrade anyway (for SoW) so I thought about upgrading earlier - until I read about that "online for offline" nonsense. After that no feature, regardless how nice it may sound/look/work, could bring me back as customer. They could - as was suggested here - combine user stats into a massive campaign running on their servers and I'd still stay away. Is this positive for neoqb? No, certainly not. Not when my opinion doesn't stand alone and I know many folks share my reservations.

I very much hope these connections are full-duplex umbilici

Full duplex. Sounds almost Dickensian

Ming

Thor, there is no middle ground with you, then. That's neither good nor bad, it just is. One thing I learned long ago is one can never reason another out of their belief system.

I take DRM sim by sim - a more pragmatic approach, some might say. Others will disagree.

Now, then, since it's established that with a connectivity requirement you won't be buying the sim, can the rest of us that might not like it but are willing to accept it talk about the actual features of the simulation?

I have no issues with anyone who wants to and will buy this game. The only reason why I posted was my impression of being belittled and patronized for my POV. This I object to. I have made my decision (just as you said) and I am quite aware that nothing I say will sway neoqb's decision. However making fun of me and other "people with reservations" and belittling us for our principles is not the SimHQ way, either.

"people with reservations"

Big Chief No Names No Pack Drill, he say today good day to lose bank balance to Nigerian ambassador

Ming

cs Thor, the problem isn't people who have reservations in general. Most of us have reservations in general about this system that NeoQb has put into place.

What is bothersome are the individuals that are what I call 'one trick ponies'. YOu know the types. These are guys that will enter a thread called, 'New ROF pics' and will immediately start hammering on the devs for the softward check system or whatever. When told that they should knock it off they then scream about how important it is that everyone know what kind of meenies this company or that company is because they mandate some kind of software system and so on and so on.

We've seen this plainly with SF in the past. I know, say Starforce three times and the beast will rise again but it is a perfect example of how any thread was ruined by self appointed messengers who felt that any thread had to have at least ten references to the evil, horrendous Starforce (that's two) so consumers would be able to make an 'intelligent' decision. Of course that decision had to be one that the messenger felt was appropriate.

It is fine you have pricipals but when people start interjecting their personal agendas into every thread then it goes beyond having your principal to trying to impose your beliefs on others. If no one can discuss one aspect of a game without another person shoving another aspect in their face then there will be no discussion at all.

I still think that the best way to discuss things like DRM (which the sign in every time to play the game really is) is to have a forum about it. We put a big sign at the top of the forum to direct people with curiousities about that forum. All we ask is that the people there be members of SimHq and sign in. However there are bunches of folks that consider this small request to be some kind of great burden on humanity and another big fight starts after that.

Sorry but after day after day of reading this stuff, followed by constant arguments that we are somehow suppressing the information because we want people to be actual members of SimHq to read the DRM arguments and we get a little bit tainted and irritated, and we start to become sarcastic.

I wish people would become this exercised and involved with their own countries problems instead of jumping on the white horse over a 45 dollar video game. Maybe some of the world's problems wouldn't be so bad.

Tom, I agree with what you say above if this was happening on every thread. But, look again at the title of this thread - " Rise of flight Offline play "
And so, putting points of view that the devs have made a mistake in making a requirement
for Offline play [b][/b] is totally relevant , and there should have been no attempt or suggestion to push it off into the DRM thread- a thread which is not viewable to the casual visitor, as the other threads are.
And is it not surprising therefore, why some should ask why is this subject being pushed out of "public " view? at the apparent instigation of the folks who are criticizing those who are saying that the requirement to be online at all times isn't a good idea, etc.?

Surely ( you don't mind me calling you surely, do you? -lol ), it's a matter of transparency, is it not? That anyone can casually visit this website and read threads which opine that the devs are doing something negative with the sim , as well as all the other threads which praise this sim to the heights?

IMHO, I want to buy this sim ' cos it looks good,etc - and the only reason why Neoqb won't get my money is that I have to be online to play it. Nothing to do with DRM.

This thread showed that there are many of the same opinion, and many who are not.
But, those, like me, who want Neoqb to change their mind, may think that Neoqb may have second thoughts if they saw how many were of the same opinion.

If I were Neoqb, I'd be thinking again, if the posts were somewhere near 50-50 on this?
I think it only fair to them that these differing opinions should be there for them to see.

cheers

It's philosophical as long as NeoQB stays in business - when they go out of it early and leave you with a non-working coaster, you might not find it so philosophical after all.

Like I wrote in that other recent argument with you, at least in the EU if you buy a product you have a right for it to keep working. Sims like this have an implicit chance to failure built in, constantly being tied to an external entity.

And for those guys with unstable net connections (most of them single play users who migh well have the hardware and desire to run/buy this sim) it's not at all philosophical.

You're correct on both counts - buying RoF is a wager that they'll stay up and running, and those without a stable Internet connection simply don't meet the requirements as they stand to play the simulation. RoF isn't the first computer game to list broadband connectivity as a basic requirement for play.

In the former, the traffic may be so low (due to small packet size) that it will remain affordable. Similarly, they've managed to somehow maintain enough capital to put the sim through the development process without a publisher. Somebody somewhere has deep pockets to foot the bill for over a year's worth of overhead in putting a sim together.

In the latter, I can't really be forced to care, beyond the standard empathy for my fellow man. Many simulations are out of the reach of people I know, let alone the rest of the world. Heck, lots of folks I regularly flew with in RB3D couldn't buy IL-2 because of the hardware requirements - and it didn't stop me for a second in upgrading and purchasing the simulation.

A few of them are still playing on boxes that suit RB3D and little else past that. It's not a fact that comes with a pretentious snicker or a look down one's nose, it's just the way it is.

[edit]

However, your earlier comments had nothing to do with whether or not one meets the connectivity requirements - you wrote that as a matter of principle you would not buy the simulation. That's a "won't do" not a "can't do" based on a decision tied to a belief system. One can persuade or change another's opinion, but not a belief system.

[/edit]

It's a computer game - so let's put it in the right category of stuff within the hierarchy of human needs in the proper spot. Not one single person needs to play a computer game or simulation on a desktop.

The few people on this planet that really do need computer simulations "play" them on multi-million dollar platforms which are serviced by teams of technical folks and are part of professional training program.

My sister's PC is an old Pentium III with a 14" monitor and some really creaky dialup. She can't play RoF for a host of reasons - but that doesn't mean I think she deserves any sort of pity. I don't think she's "left behind" or "left out" in the slightest, as she's made the decision not to upgrade.

Similarly, the logical point of "but if it wasn't for the connectivity requirement, many would be able to play" is simply the same computer hardware requirement with a different component. What of the guy with the great firehose of bandwith and beefy hardware who's running Win98SE? He could play but for the operating system.

Now I'll agree that the constant connectivity looks to any objective person like an unnecessary requirement that limits some that should otherwise be able to play, and also agree that it really should be rethought. I haven't seen anyone on the forums saying it's a great idea - it's pretty much 100% for at least the option to play without being connected to neoqb's servers - the difference is that there is a large chunk of folks that want to know what the benefit to us is (goodness knows we all got an earful of how it's bad for us) going to be for that requirement.

We're still pretty early in the game - RoF is in early beta testing - and the devs have got to be re-looking everything - including the server situation and how to best optimize both sales and useability.

But (even though I know this is again philosophical):

Can any sim maker really afford to play russian roulette with its franchise by incorporating a requirement which is bound to raise a flak barrage that makes Flakbrigade Groß-Berlin in its prime look like a bunch of toddlers throwing rotten apples? Aren't we constantly told that the sim market is a small niche and that sims can't be "blockbusters" due to the rather low number of potential customers? Haven't great developers such as Microprose and Sierra gone the way of the Dodo because there weren't enough people like you and me who were prepared to pay good money for a good sim?
I mean it's one thing for a developer to be inconstant danger of having to close up shop because the product s*cked, but isn't it a lot more pointless to be in the same danger with a product that promises much just because you angered a good dose of your market even before release? That just doesn't make sense to me ... the obvious discrepancy between the alleged state of the sim market and what neoqb does with RoF.

*csThor bows, apologizes for the philosophical cr@p and retreats into his bunker*

I guess we'll find out!



My gut feeling is that they're going to relax the constant connectivity six months or so after release.



I'm one of those torch-and-pitchfork anti-Starforce guys, and to say my blood boiled at Eagle Dynamic's announcement concerning Black Shark is an understatement.

However, I bought the sim. Why? Because after far too much research, I came to the conclusion that Protection Technologies wasn't going to fry my system or damage any of my components.

That and the sim is just that darned good.

Notice the order there - Black Shark isn't good enough to risk my system over. But, once I learned there was no chance of damage to my system, it became worth it.

Am I happy over it? Nope. On principle, I guess I shouldn't have bought it, and sent a signal to Eagle Dynamics about just how deep my grudge against Protection Technologies, Inc., runs. But man, it's a great sim, and I'm glad I took a more balanced approach.

For every ten that say they won't buy RoF due to connectivity requirements, I'd bet five DMarks (I still have them) that seven quietly download it within three months of release.

Can only put 2,50 € against that (gawd, have really more than 6 years gone by since our good old DM was buried? ) ...

Anyway. The issue here is that neoqb tries to sell the connectivity requirement as "feature" and a "benefit". Quite frankly I don't see it so far (not for me, not for anyone but neoqb). Speaking hypothetically:

Had they gone a step further and done what was already suggested (running the offline campaign on their server and connect each and every player's achievements as far that is possible) the darn thing would have made sense. I still would object to it, but I would have seen why they included it. I mean a persistant campaign for offliners running 24/7 on a server, which also makes note of your own achievements and modifies variables to incorporate your deeds (say a player with "ace" achievments flying for a french squad in the Arras sector would translate into an AI ace in the same french squad in the Arras sector of another player's campaign) ... yada yada yada ... That would be a good sales argument for a lot of folks, wouldn't it? Right now the whole affair seems to pointless, so unnecessary ...

Four of those who download won't buy it, though.

Well, they'll have to - as one has to log in to play.

Thor!

We're full circle! Hurray!

That is a fantastic idea - one flys the missions single player and sees them as part of a persistent world; one in fact is flying as part of a squadron with other players, but not in a multi-player environment.

Heck, I hadn't thought of that. Put two slices in your Weisen Bier tonight.

Of course we'd need a "would you like to apply your mission results?" option. Otherwise they'll run out of SPADs with me behind the stick.

What I'd like to see is skins and missions with a rating at the end of them - so I can tag by author or by rating.

Let's say I download and fly a user made mission, and it's pretty good. I give it an eight of ten after flying it, and remark on the forums that others should give it a try. In short order it gets twenty votes and enters the rankings server, where I can then set my filter for "rated, 7 or better" and see what's out there. Or filter by author. Or by mission type.

The advantage is that it becomes something of a competition, with folks plugging away at the FMB in the hopes of getting tagged as a premier mission builder. Of course I'd give the next plane release to one of the ranked mission builders as a reward (either by ranking, download amount, or randomly), and maybe a discount to the others. Or maybe a wing guidon that can be seen in the simulation that only they have.

Early on I don't think we'll see anything like that, but in the future it would really keep people motivated to keep playing.

Well really?
Don´t think so mate.

I don´t know but I´ve been told that people play Empires at War 3 that requires a conection to Steam, with out permission...

Of course I cofed Up 45 bucks for it, and If I want to play with My kid I have to cogh up 45 more...
Since I can aford it I will, but it leaves a very sour taste in my mouth since My kid will play with me for 3 or 4 days and I will have spent that money in vain... Oh well...

But then aggain I have 2 extra copies of Arma lying arrond somewhwwere And I bougth Gold for QG.. but yeah I admit it I am a PC game junky Yes I buy everything with wings (even rotary ones) on it, jeje.

Still, My point is: there is no efective protection nor requirement aggainst piracy, so to annoy your legal customers is not a wise policy... But then aggain they will realice this too late, blame it on the small market and move on to write something for EA...

One can persuade or change another's opinion, but not a belief system

'Belief system' hmm it's those Californicationists saying something but in a different way so there seems to be more of everything. They've brainwashed Dart mayday mayday

An opinion is a 'belief system'

It's a more compact therefore more meaningful word. Because there's less of it but it means exactly the same thing

Catholics believe in some system (miracles, only believe) and that's their opinion

One worries that by calling something a 'belief system' one can disguise the fact that this is simply one's opinion </those English blokes in Family Guy with the teeth>

"Respect my belief system!"

Bearing in mind we know about the madness of Creationism over here so we're watching for signs of anti-Darwinism creeping in

Just hearing the story of the woman in Saudi Arabia or some other unenlightened regime getting put in jail for calling a teddy-bear by the name of the Prophet whom God preserve btw. Opinions put her in jail.

Say she's offending people's 'belief systems' and you can get away with it.

Ming

Now there's a damn fine idea. I have no interest in seeing my SP stats on a central server, and TBH am not too bothered about the MP ones either, but to have a system where something that I've created for the sim gets rated would be just the ticket. I don't see it as a competition but feedback. Missions and campaigns that I've made for IL_2 attract about two comments per thousand downloads, some of them got none. An easy way for people to rate what they've just flown, or flown in in the case of skins, would be so useful to everyone. And rewards from Neoqb for good content will be an added incentive. I may be wrong, but didn't VikS or someone say something about user-made content and rewards?