The Battle of the Stretch Goal

well, accept paypal, make a killer video, and for the sake of the kickstarter, make only one of the three planes freeware...

i wanted to set up a poll which of the three ones should be the free plane, but im too stupid or tired or both to find out how i make a poll...anybody so kind?

1.paypal

 

2. no free aircraft for non pledgers

 

3. a cute little trainer

 

4. do it now

 

job done!

Agree. though having a free aircraft, even a trainer may proof beneficial in the future.

Like the 25T is for DCS World.

***EDIT***

Also, Point number four is important. The longer you wait the smaller change you will have.

You may want to think about changing the goals etc, but Paypal is pretty much guaranteed to be a succes.

Implement it NOW, don't wait till tomorrow cause it will be to late.

edited

When I was just planning this kickstrter out, I really thought that we'd break through the base and end up meeting a whole bunch of the stretch goals. I really thought that we'd be building a much bigger project than what it looks like today.

Come on, Ilya, you have stretch goals set at several hundred thousand dollars. Several hundred thousand dollars worth of pledges for a new product in a genre that has basically become niche, as you yourself pointed out in one of your videos. If you take a look at the most succesful video game Kickstarter to date, you'll notice that the biggest ones raised about two million dollars, three million at the very maximum. All of them by developers with a widely recognized name in the video game industry. All of them in genres that are mainstream—RPGs, adventure games, and space combat games. I took one look at your stretch goals, and I knew your chances of making even one of them were pretty slim. I still pledged, but I'm sorry to say, I don't think you were very realistic in setting them.

Honestly, I think at this point you need to be realistic about the fact that you're not going to rake in another several hundred thousand dollars. Start thinking about how to squeeze every development second you can from the dollars that were pledged. Your Kickstarter campaign for a WWII combat flight simulator made it with a comfortable margin. That alone is a great accomplishment, and indicates that your name does carry some weight. It wasn't the promo material that convinced me, and I'm sure that goes for most of us.

Oh, and cut back on the number of free aircraft modules. No-one wants to feel like a sucker. But you knew that.

Oh I see. But that would be a breach of kickstarter rules?

Here's the list of things that can be changed and that can't from the KS 'Creator FAQs':

"Can a project be edited after launching?

Yes, you can edit the following content after launching:

— Project description


— Video and image


— Rewards (add new ones or edit those not yet backed)


— Your profile


— Project FAQs

The only things that cannot be edited after launch are:

— The funding goal


— The project deadline


— Your Kickstarter name


— Rewards that have already been selected by a backer"

The goal stated on DCS WWII: Europe 1944 is:

"The initial kickstarter goal is needed to fund a longer more extensive beta testing period for the game, giving all its components extra polish, and to make the game landscape more alive by creating a larger variety of ground objects and vehicles, and spending more time to hand-craft various historical areas such as accurate recreations of more coastline villages, important bridges, unique airfields, and more."

So while the free flyable aircraft to be included with the game as a free download is part of the project description, this description can be changed while leaving the original funding goal (above) intact (it's a tightrope act, I know, but if it's technically possible it's probably better than a cancellation, see below).

If such a change is based on an honest and openly publicised assessment of the situation, it is my opinion that most people will upheld their funding and the original funding goal will still be met. Others would be entirely free to withdraw their pledge.

The important thing here is to make such a change while the KS campaign is ongoing. Once it's finished and pledges are collected, the creator could make himself liable for refund and/or legal action if it turns out that he is unable to complete the project and deliver on the reward promises.

From the FAQ's:

"If I am unable to complete my project as promised, what should I do?

If you realize that you will be unable to follow through on your project before funding has ended, you are expected to cancel it. If your project is successfully funded, you are required to fulfill all rewards or refund any backer whose reward you do not or cannot fulfill. A failure to do so could result in damage to your reputation or even legal action by your backers.

To avoid problems, don't over-promise when creating your project. If issues arise, communicate immediately, openly, and honestly with your backers."

MAC

Oh my goodness ... capture the flag with flashing objects, no planes on initial release but trainers and the (by then) already established Mustang and Dora.

Any more ways to kill this game? Don't get me wrong; I like the idea of non-pledgers being able to fly around the free map in a trainer, but no additional planes on initial release for pledgers?

True, I for one believe the hook for this project to be a free flyable COMBAT aircraft. I will tell you that if I were trying out a new combat sim and the best I can hope to to accomplish is take off and land and hopefully not get shot down then I wouldn't bother with the rest of the game. If I don't even have anything to compete with when trying it out then i will go elsewhere. The free aircraft in DCS World (Su-25T) is a combat type. If you have a combat arena that is touted as such, you need a combat type to fully explore that world and have the full experience to make the decision to purchase other combat types that one would find of interest. I still fly the Su-25T even though I have most of the other modules as well. A trainer is of limited use in combat and will only draw the most hardcore of sim pilots which equates to low sales. The capture the flag and flashing objects idea... I surely hope not.

+1

To make a trailer it is too late, even if it would be rusehd out today the campaign is almost over.

Paypal would have been a good idea, i know some people who couldn't bake this project and were deliberately asking for paypal. Some of them got their selves a credit card, but not all of them. But again, it probably is a little bit too late to raise som 30k$ by this. But it's still worth a try.

Mac I agree with your assessment about the free aircraft. It would be a tightrope indeed especially with all the press surrounding Kickstarter at the moment.

The only issue I see is that while the free aircraft are in the product description, they are pretty much "deliverables" meaning that they are promised. The backers will all understand the change but non backers may not, and bad press could ensue causing significant issues.

This is an extreme idea, but what if they cancelled the KS campaign, took a few weeks to get their heads straight, and start over with another campaign. A campaign that is CLEAR about what the deliverables are, and what the stretch goals are. I'm also not sure that an ME 262 is the best stretch goal as I feel there may be more interested in another one of the WW2 aircraft.

Perhaps they could also produce more gameplay videos and screenshots of their work and not mostly of P51 and Dora which is being produced by ED. I know a campaign restart is very extreme but it may be the only option. Better than having this one complete and not have enough funds to satisfy the current deliverables and bury the project forever. And perhaps take the DCS name down as well.

Edit: Also don't get me wrong a campaign restart will have its backlashes as well, it just appears they are between a rock and a hard place. Either try to produce the deliverables with what appears to be too little funds, or have to suffer the repercussion of having a campaign restart.

Post #27, by MAC. Although I quite like the free trainer idea, not the below.

Of course it's a nice thought that $30 invested early would give you a total of 5 DCS level warbirds plus a free game. However in my opinion belongs to the category 'If something sounds too good to be true, it most likely isn't'. $6 per DCS level airplane is way too little money for the value.

I'd rather fund something that can be financially viable and has a chance to exist than an utopic dream. Even if I have to pay more to get those planes later on.

MAC

Honestly, as a non pledge giver yet, your issue isn't free planes, its not the planes selection, its not the map.

Why I haven't pledged, is that I don't believe you can deliver a competitive WW2 sim that's is fun without more control over the engine. The forums are full of these comments. You can provide accurate this and accurate that, which is great for just buzzing around, but if you want to hit a larger community you need the following:

--Better more/interesting AI to fight against

--Better graphical damage model (engine oil splatter on the windshield, bullet holes in the glass, pilot damage, flying buy a bomber with the tail gunner slumped over, knocking a landing gear down from its store, all amazing and immersive.

--Effects like the turbulence of plances flying by you, and you plane sort of bounces in the air from it, very immersive.

--All of the above things you know from Cliffs, I just want that game again but done right, I want all the pieces of it that made it immersive and challenging, thats where my dollars lie.

oh and for the WIN, if you really wanted the money from peps

A DYNAMIC CAMPAIGN THAT RIVAL FALCON...

But honestly, I like Cliffs of Dover, especially with Team Fusion fixing it up. Want I wanted was for this to say we are making Cliffs again, but we are doing it right. I JUST DON'T believe you can do it right if you just have control over the map and airframes. At best you get a few good planes for flying around like the P-51, but a not a great game.

Just my opinion. Take it or leave it, but remember its not about the planes and their realism, no one doubts the planes, its about delivering a good game that people or better put "I" doubt.

Thanks,

Also don't get me wrong a campaign restart will have its backlashes as well, it just appears they are between a rock and a hard place. Either try to produce the deliverables with what appears to be too little funds, or have to suffer the repercussion of having a campaign restart.

Actually, I don't think it's a bad idea at all; to call off the campaign and return half a year or a year later for another attempt. No-one can deny that DCS as a combat flight simulator platform has some issues that need resolving in the following months—EDGE and the current multiplayer instability being just a couple of examples. The hardcore simming crowd knows this, and I have a feeling it's been mostly this crowd that has been pledging.

I for one believe the hook for this project to be a free flyable COMBAT aircraft.

Combat trainer with guns; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_T-6_Texan_variants.

A T-6 Texan with guns is no more a combat aircraft than the AT-38B was in it's time. It is meant to teach basic gunnery and basic tactics and is nowhere near the capability of the combat aircraft in use in 1944. It would not be competative. Further, there were no combat squadrons in Normandy so equipped in 1944. to get the sales needed new pilots have to have a true taste of what could be. I would rather have a dedicated ground attacker like the Hs-129B-2 or A-20G Havoc for a free plane but those are not even on the list...yet. A trainer is a bad idea.

It would not be competitive ... A trainer is a bad idea.

luthier already said that they cant afford to make a trainer at the current stage...

luthier already said that they cant afford to make a trainer at the current stage...

All right, what a lively discussion.

So, the updated plan to discuss is as follows:

1. Add PayPal. This is a little more complicated than I thought, I have to set something up with PayPal. I hope there'll be enough time.

2. Announce a partial update to the retail strategy at relase. One free plane to be voted for by backers. The rest available for a separate fee.

ALL kickstarter backers receive rewards as previously stated. I.e., the project features are exactly as they were announced TO ALL BACKERS.

Non-backers - one free plane.

Won't muddy the waters with updated pledges. We were happy to give those planes away for free to everyone, so giving them to backers who pledge $1 is no problem at all.

Good? Bad?

3. Updated video. Working with MP. We'll probably just put it right up there replacing the current main video. I think KS allows me to do that.

Now, some answers:

if all the existing backers would up there pledge an additional (just under $20,- bucks), then the first stretch would be met...no need of them to re-pledge, and they would keep their rewards, they need only edit the dollar amount in the manage page...I'll be the first, it's really just 1/2 of one aircraft cost :smartass:

I really can't think of anything I could justify asking 20 extra bucks for. Planes, manuals, it's all in there.

The combination of the three free aircraft and the low $40 all aircraft goal is what got us here. I don't mean that in a bad way. If we had originally promised one free aircraft, and priced the all aircraft option at $100 or something like that, the entire campaign might have ran differently. Who knows if we would have reached even the initial goal.

Paypal is a no brainer IMO, lots of younger games can often only pay via paypal.

 

You should be posting the kickstarter updates on the major game forums. Here, SimHQ etc etc. Having them only on kickstarter is fairly useless, it does not reach new people. Each update should get its own thread.

Right.

Luthier, my honest answer - as someone still undecided how much I can justify pledging on a very limited budget - has to be that making wholesale changes at this late stage doesn't really inspire confidence. If the 'three free planes' proposal isn't financially viable, then clearly it will have to go - but I can't see how doing this would result in increased Kickstarter funding.

I'm sorry if you're losing confidence. Nothing we're discussing affects the actual development.

Everyone wins if we hit a stretch goal with kickstarter. Everyone also wins if we make a metric ton of money on initial release, and can put it right back into the project and make more theaters and planes.

This is how development usually is. We're way, way, way early to lock anything down, especially in terms of a pricing structure. With a project like this, you'd normally decide on the free vs paid content, their price, etc, well into the beta test.

In other words, we're obviously not trying to give you an inferior product. We're trying to find a way to make it more commercially viable - which in turn gives it longer life - and that in turn ends up giving everyone a bigger better flight sim.

1. There have been a few high profile Kickstarter debacles in the news recently which may have shaken people's confidence in this whole business model.

Those were overly ambitious projects done from scratch.

I've already done my overly ambitious project done from scratch. Still feeling the burn.

DCS WWII is done on an existing engine, and is specifically designed to be modest. A lot of people would like to add giant multiplayer improvements, AI changes, dynamic campaigns, etc. I am really itching for that too. However we're not doing that precisely because we want to stay lean and clean in the beginning.

We could have written out giant specs, priced them out, and added everything mentioned above to the kickstarter, and tried to raise the extra $$$. Would we have? Perhaps. Would I be 100% confident that we'd be able to deliver everything on time?

And that's exactly why I did not promise you guys a sky full of diamonds.

2. Many people in the community still feel burnt by the Cliffs of Dover experience. The rights, wrongs and details of what actually occurred are unimportant compared to people's individual perceptions of what happened. Some people (like myself) are willing to give you another shot. Many others are not. This may be unfair and frustrating, but it's an unavoidable truth.

Perhaps I have not done the best job reaching out to those people, but I'm muzzled and I cannot really offer my explanation on any of those events. That would have made an honest discussion nearly impossible.

Like I said above though, if you'll just compare our attitude and our promises when developing the two projects, you'll really notice the difference with DCS WWII, the lessons learned. We only promise the things we KNOW we can deliver. With an existing engine, with tracks already laid down, making airplanes or landscapes is not an unknown.

4. The frequent changes of focus (first you were going for a brand new audience, then you shifted to the hardcore), the increasingly complex/confusing pledge rewards, the indecisiveness over stretch goals, the rather amateurish videos and the general lack of communication with the community make the whole endeavour seem rather unprofessional and poorly thought out.

That's how it usually is. Things are very fluid this early in development.

Like I said above, none of the changes affect the actual game we're building. The kickstarter, the videos, all of that is done by me personally with virtually no help. Does it inspire confidence? I would hope that the fact that I can identify things that are not working, and not stick with them with a poker face, is actually a good thing.

I don't mean any of this to sound nasty or personal (I really, really don't)

I really appreciate your comments. I'll even take some personal attacks right now if that can help me get better in the future. I'm definitely not perfect, and your comments is precisely what I was looking for, why I started this discussion in the first place.

c) A dedicated person to act as a community manager. Star Citizen had Wingman's Hangar and we always had little updates. Constant interaction with the community and updates about what's going on are key to successful funding. I understand your resources are limited, but if you're to see this project hit greater stretch goals, you need to think about other people than the diehard fans that we are.

That's a wonderful idea.

I think the biggest mistake in this kickstarter is not having one.

I'm a very poor PR person, as should be clear to everyone. We would have done infinitely better had we started off with a knowledgeable, dedicated, motivated PR person.

4) About changes to project features

Your project features are what I have in mind. But the base aircraft must NOT be one of the cool aircrafts.

I disagree.

An uncool airplane is worse than no demo at all. If you don't really enjoy the demo, why would you ever consider giving the project your money?

I still believe the free game should be awesome. We're not looking to give you something you try for one night, and then reach for the wallet. Fine, fly and enjoy it for six months, and maybe decide then.

Anyway, time will tell.

What we need to consider here:

Flight sims need to become more accessible. Hardware is a major issue because it's expensive. There needs to be a "Getting into Flight Simulators for Dummies" video on youtube. I'm planning on doing one eventually for newcomers to flight simulators. I plan on giving "do's and don't's", "what to buy with a limited budget", "what information is relevant", a detailed step-by-step guide on "how to fly", and other useful tips.

Yes, exactly. Hardware requirements are a hurdle which I really don't know how to overcome.

There needs to be a no-hardware entry point, and then the sim itself should make it easy for the players to get what they want. I know how confusing it must be to people who never encountered this.

Definitely a great topic to discuss, but perhaps not for right now.

My suggestion: Get more publicity! Take the project to the wider gaming community. Wake the nostalgic sentiments of gamers who have since moved on to other genres.

That's pretty clear, but it's actually not working. We are sending out press releases. We are trying to reach out to media outlets.

The project is just not exciting the unconverted. I'm not sure why that is. It's probably because we're, A, unable to use our old series name, and B, because we're so early in the process we just don't have a very impressive presentation.

Come on, Ilya, you have stretch goals set at several hundred thousand dollars. Several hundred thousand dollars worth of pledges for a new product in a genre that has basically become niche, as you yourself pointed out in one of your videos.

Right. Going to give the main page a major overhaul right now.

Honestly, as a non pledge giver yet, your issue isn't free planes, its not the planes selection, its not the map.

 

Why I haven't pledged, is that I don't believe you can deliver a competitive WW2 sim that's is fun without more control over the engine. The forums are full of these comments. You can provide accurate this and accurate that, which is great for just buzzing around, but if you want to hit a larger community you need the following:

 

--Better more/interesting AI to fight against

--Better graphical damage model (engine oil splatter on the windshield, bullet holes in the glass, pilot damage, flying buy a bomber with the tail gunner slumped over, knocking a landing gear down from its store, all amazing and immersive.

--Effects like the turbulence of plances flying by you, and you plane sort of bounces in the air from it, very immersive.

--All of the above things you know from Cliffs, I just want that game again but done right, I want all the pieces of it that made it immersive and challenging, thats where my dollars lie.

 

oh and for the WIN, if you really wanted the money from peps

 

A DYNAMIC CAMPAIGN THAT RIVAL FALCON...

That's an awesome list, but like I mentioned above, we're going to hold off on making any promises (but not on attempting to address those things) precisely because we burned so many people in the past.

Can we try to improve the damage model? Sure. Can we, as we are today, PROMISE improved damage model? Nope. Something'll go wrong, as it often does, and we're where we were three years ago.

Fact is, features like that are just too unpredictable. It's not because I'm a poor project manager or we have idiots for programmers. Everybody runs into problems like that. It's just they're a lot more noticeable in a flight sim. FPS or RTS or RPG ships with moronic AI? Everyone groans but keeps on playing. Flight sim promises great AI but ships with UFOs? Forum explosion.

Anyway, thank you guys, keep em coming!

To be completely honest, I do not even want three free planes with the base game. Call me crazy, but here is why:

- my flying is crap, and Im not going to change that if I try to suddenly learn three planes at once. I dont have the spare time.

- before I become an owner of stuff I like to do some research on it, taking my sweet time deciding.

- which leads to general satisfaction with what I decide finally. I dont want a hangar full of planes that I will only fly a couple of times.

My two cents. Now sitting back in my comfy chair watching how it all turns out over the next few days! :book:

Hi DavidRed, whereat?

on the kickstarter comments of the last update...

As someone already said, money are tight today! So why I have to back for something i will have for free? I'm not yet a backer and I see no reason to back other for supporting Ilya's project. But I will be happy to buy every single aircraft if they will be not free and as accurate as P-51!

By the way, just my two cents:

We already have a great P-51 ad soon we'll have FW-190 by ED. What we need now are NEW MAPS and GROUND UNITS of WWII... Why don't you release DCS:WWII for free with only the map and ground units, maybe before Sept. '14, so we can use and try it with our P-51. Then You can focus producing the single aircrafts one by one and sell it separately.. As I said I'll definitely buy them!

I think even $100.000 are sufficient for this task and for creating 1 good (not free) aircraft!

Obviusly the products have to be free for all who backed yet!

We are all playng DCS with only one flyable aircraft since 2010.. so I don't think this community will upset if in the initial stage there will be only one good plane!:smartass:

But if you need more money NOW because you realized $100.000 are not enough, then I will be glad to pay 20 or 30 for just 1 aircraft.

One more thought: I Think that focusing about casual gamers is just a waste of time.. They will yet have something arcadish with Battle of Stalingrad and War Thunder!

And don't waste time producing new videos... I know your work is very early stage and you have very little to show us... I don't need nothing to be more confident, just a good project and your Name!

In any case don't let any aircraft for free;)

Best of Luck!

Good? Bad?

Sounds good, Ilya.

And remember, your Kickstarter is already over the finish line. Do some good work with the limited means at your disposal now, and the money will come. Don't lose heart.

EDIT: Although I do think Hans-Joachim's reasoning below is sound. And obvious. Be prepared for a whole lot of $1 pledges if you go that way.

ALL kickstarter backers receive rewards as previously stated. I.e., the project features are exactly as they were announced TO ALL BACKERS.

 

Non-backers - one free plane.

 

Won't muddy the waters with updated pledges. We were happy to give those planes away for free to everyone, so giving them to backers who pledge $1 is no problem at all.

 

Good? Bad?

It'll be laughing stock. And this is very unfair for people who found out about this KickStarter too late.

Rather, update the pledges. $40 pledge will get you all 3 planes, on initial release only.

Even the guy that had no money and went out of his way, emptying a hay barn to get some to pledge, put in $40 ...

PS I just realized the perfect way to hit those stretch goals.

Add a new $100 reward level. Offer a tell-all novel about the events of the past few years.

Oooh. If only :)

:)