Jump to content

The Battle of the Stretch Goal


luthier1

Recommended Posts

I think he means that it wasnt clear, and that common sense spoke to the fact that 3 aircraft at the level of the P-51D wouldnt/coudnt be given away, which was what i thought at the beginning as well...
Exactly. Anyway, it's not worth fighting over and more changes will confuse this KickStarter even more (potentially damaging RRG's name), but I'm left with a sour taste and will probably leave my initial pledge at $100 instead of raising it for the final push.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 186
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Don't you guys read the description of a project you supposedly took part in? It was stated explicitly that 3 planes will be free. So if $0 gets you them $1 gets you them as well.

I feel sorry for anyone who pledged $1 to just help out or because they don't have the money with some folks views towards them


Edited by TimeKilla
Making generic.

:joystick: YouTube :pilotfly:

TimeKilla on Flight Sims over at YouTube.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think so... at this point the bed is made.

 

He'd be better off starting smaller KSers later on for individual modules....

 

I totally agree! Let's see a high quality basic platform and as Sith states add the other layers later with smaller Kstarters. They would also, in all probability, have some income from sales to contribute to development too. Proof of the pudding maybe?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The most interesting tidbit that has been alluded to is the learning curve issue. I think this could be a major unique selling point of this project. If you have concrete ideas on how the learning how to fly a WWII combat aircraft can be made fun and engaging for a sustained period of time then I think that should be brought more into focus. The project needs a hook. This is it.

 

It would certainly be something that could grab the attention of both the press/media and lapsed flight sim fans. People who used to play flight sims (such as those that played them in the 80s/90s and those who’ve tried more recently but gave up because of the brick wall learning curve) I would think would be the next most obvious market to target. Getting their attention is going to require more than just promises of aircraft and fidelity. It needs information on how you can overcome the barriers that exist in current flight sims.

 

Games are continually evolving. Flight sim games need to do the same. Up till now the drive has always been to make things more realistic and with greater fidelity. I think everyone recognizes that while that has been a worthy endevour it has the side effect of making the genre less and less appealing to a lot of people. Those same people would probably have enjoyed playing flight sims from the early days if that’s all they knew. Everyone used to try out flight sims back in the early days. They were still pretty hard, but they were accessible. How can they be made accessible for modern times?

 

A new approach needs to be taken. Genres evolve and redefine themselves all the time. Is it time for flight sims to be redefined so that a whole new audience is exposed to them and would be willing to try them out?

 

I think this sort of approach would have a much better chance of getting much more money from a kickstarter campaign. If training/learning curve has as much focus on helping new people trying out a flight sim for the first time as it does for helping old hands learn new tricks and tactics then you’d still retain the support of the hard core but open up your market to many more. Without attracting the interest of those outside the hard core you’ll never get the kind of money that you were initially hoping for (multiple 100ks).

 

I don’t know what financing ED is providing or how important the 100k from this kickstarter campaign is but if you can afford to restart the kickstarter I would think that should be a serious option. I’ve been a game developer for 18 years and know that you’re not going to get many chances to do things like this.

 

The hard core fans who have supported this kickstarter will come back. We need to support every decent flight sim out there to just keep the genre we love alive. What we need from flight sim developers is a vision of how to get more people to love what we love. You can’t just continue to please us. You need to get every gamer to love playing flight sims again. You need to rekindle the success that flight sims had in the 80s and 90s. The best starting place for that is with WWII fighters.

 

If that’s not possible then I think it’s pretty clear from the comments on your best course of action:

- Restrict the initial planes that are free to non-backers to 1 or 2. You need to generate income right the start and that means you have to offer planes for sale from day 1. Since you can’t produce more aircraft you need to cut the number that you had originally planned to be free down.

- Do a second kickstarter at a later date to fund the B17.

 

Getting more publicity is the key to getting more backers and money. To do that you need to preach to more than just the converted. It sounds like that was what you were hoping to do from the beginning. Unfortunately, the initial (and existing) pitch (videos and text) is purely aimed at those who already love flight sims and will throw money at them to keep their hobby alive.

 

If you really want to get a much larger audience then you need to take the lessons learned from the past three weeks, regroup and pitch again. People looking to start companies have to do this all the time. You pitch and pitch and pitch. Refining your pitch as you go. IF a larger audience is your goal you need to tell them why they should back a genre that seems hard and alien to them. You need to redefine what it means to learn to fly in a flight sim. You need to crystalize that vision and then sell it. The media will report and follow things that are new. To get them on board you have to show that what cool new stuff you’re bringing to flight sims. Media exposure will be key to getting new eyeballs to check out the kickstarter.

 

This kickstarter has been a success. Up to a point. But if it’s hasn’t been enough to fulfill the real goal you have for this project (which reading between the lines it hasn’t) AND you have the backing to hit the reset switch and take another month to rebrand the project then you should. It’s okay to make mistakes. They’re only bad if you don’t learn anything from them. Ilya, if your passion is to get more people to love what you (and I and everyone that has backed so far) love then do over.


Edited by HornedGod
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean 3 aircrafts at DCS level is a lot of work, Giving them for free was ..strange, very strange.

He had to think twice.

Reading all these changes make me wonder if this guy really knows his stuff. He seems to be in the darkness :)

I was asking about your notion on Su-25, not this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It just can not go out of here because no one will believe that you can do three planes (or worse five airplanes!) At the level of advancement of DCS P-51D for $ 40. It is better to cancel the KS, later make a new with one free of the plane and options for adding new modules, with one plane.

Give me "flying telephone pole" (SA-2)!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5. Any other reason you think people are not backing this project? What can we do?

 

I'm especially interested in hearing your opinion if you have not yet backed this project.

 

 

Some people (like myself) won't back you because of the CLOD disaster... You can be in denial or USSR style censor things because you're not comfortable with them; but that won't change that fact. Frankly I know a lot of people that won't back you and/or Oleg because of the "CLOD reason"...I think you both underestimated the resentment that more than a few people have towards CLOD and everyone who is "tainted" by CLOD...

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please don't come dragging that resentment in here. You are allowed your opinion but remember that sometimes projects fail for no apparent reason.

 

"No battle plan survives the first contact with the enemy" and we can't from our place as customer know or identify all the variables that led to CoD's lesser release.

 

However the backbone of the sim was apparently sound as Team Fusion proves with their work.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

_____________Semper paratus, In hoc signo vinces________________

 

PC: Intel i7-8700K (4.9 GHz), Aorus Ultra Gaming Z370 MB, Gigabyte RTX 3080, 32 GB DDR3 (3,2 GHz), Samsung EVO 860 M.2 500 GB SSD + Samsung 960 M.2 250 GB SSD Gaming: Virpil T-50 CM2, TM WH Throttle, Crosswind pedals, HP Reverb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It just can not go out of here because no one will believe that you can do three planes (or worse five airplanes!) At the level of advancement of DCS P-51D for $ 40. It is better to cancel the KS, later make a new with one free of the plane and options for adding new modules, with one plane.

Cancelling a successfully funded project? Nope.

Too much given for free? It's being corrected as we speak.

Too much planes for $40? Well, that price/aircraft set is only for backers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please don't come dragging that resentment in here. You are allowed your opinion but remember that sometimes projects fail for no apparent reason.

 

"No battle plan survives the first contact with the enemy" and we can't from our place as customer know or identify all the variables that led to CoD's lesser release.

 

However the backbone of the sim was apparently sound as Team Fusion proves with their work.

This was a legitimate concern and going completely silent over it was not a wise thing to do. There's plenty of ways one could toss some bits of info without being exposed to legal action. 'Lessons learned' I proposed could be one of such approaches.

 

I allowed myself giving some credit of trust to RRG. Do I know what happened to CoD? No. In the light of no info on the subject one may choose to go with the trust and the other - no to trust. I don't see any 'attitude' in it.

 

My advocacy pro the project would certainly have been more effective with such info up my sleeve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
This was a legitimate concern and going completely silent over it was not a wise thing to do. There's plenty of ways one could toss some bits of info without being exposed to legal action. 'Lessons learned' I proposed could be one of such approaches.

 

I allowed myself giving some credit of trust to RRG. Do I know what happened to CoD? No. In the light of no info on the subject one may choose to go with the trust and the other - no to trust. I don't see any 'attitude' in it.

 

My advocacy pro the project would certainly have been more effective with such info up my sleeve.

 

If you search, Luthier touched on this issue in these forums, although briefly, lets not get on the slippery slope of discussing it, each individual has the right to use whatever they feel is a valid concern in their decision, this isnt a place for discussion any of those reasons, its now been brought up, no need to dissect it further....

 

By the way, I am locking this as Luthier has started a new thread.

64Sig.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...