SUBSIM Radio Room Forums



SUBSIM: The Web's #1 resource for all submarine & naval simulations since 1997

Go Back   SUBSIM Radio Room Forums > Silent Hunter 3 - 4 - 5 > Silent Hunter 5 > Silent Hunter Online
Forget password? Reset here

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-30-12, 09:28 AM   #61
JU_88
Silent Hunter
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 3,727
Downloads: 10
Uploads: 0
Default

I dont care for SHO, its just fluff if you ask me. Its like its Ubis way of trying to convince themselves that they are keeping the franchise alive.
They should just fix up Sh5.

The problem I see with SH3, 4 & 5 is that Ubi started over too many times for each one,and here they are doing the same thing again with half arsed browser game.
If they had done a railworks model on a real SH game to make it expandable sim with added DLC and not slapped any silly DRM on it, it would have been alright probably.

They made fatal errors that sealed the fate of the franchise. Hey that sounds like an ephisode of 'Seconds to disaster'
"SH5's dont just happen - they are chain of critical events...."
Ubi Airlines anyone?

They would chain you to your seat, play you an unfinnished inflight movie, serve you an unfinnished inflight meal, crash the unfinnished Boeing 737 in to a mountain, then shrug and say "oh well its not really our fault the passengers didnt like it, we had every reason to do those things, but we will try to listen in future. Now we are proud to present Ubi Airlines 2 with a new fleet of unfinnished Boeing 767s"

Last edited by JU_88; 09-30-12 at 09:57 AM.
JU_88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-12, 08:53 PM   #62
TorpX
Silent Hunter
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,975
Downloads: 153
Uploads: 11
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JU_88 View Post
I dont care for SHO, its just fluff if you ask me. Its like its Ubis way of trying to convince themselves that they are keeping the franchise alive.
Ditto.
TorpX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-13, 04:00 PM   #63
scissors
Shore leave
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: AlaBama
Posts: 70
Downloads: 303
Uploads: 0
Default Vitriol ...

Yes , I call it Ubihate ..And im not sure what to make of it .
On the one hand ( per SH5). The DRM did suck , It was like a slap in the face saying .. You are a paying customer , Yet you will jump through these hoops , and play when /how we say its ok .. Most of that has been fixed now but it hurt the games sales . As a sub-simmer I .. we have/had an interest in SH5 sales .. No sales= no new subsims .
And ... the game wasn't completely complete .. It was playable . And im not one to second guess a person who can do things i cannot even understand ,(Yes I am .. Sorry ) .
But there were choices made that could have been,just as easily not made, and been much better .. ( The Man beating on the welding machine while in port comes to mind.. Just no!! ) .That particular example is nitpicking but ...Its valid .
Its all Beside the point though in my humble opinion ..
First off ,Anyone willing can go to Neal's interview with the SH5 team before it was released.
They made it clear then, that sh5 was to be a canvas , For the Modders to put the shine on .. And its getting pretty shiny .There is no better open water simulation to my knowledge, I have looked .If anyone knows a better one ?
And as for DRM ..
DRM is the result of living among-st the Masses , Its like Guns and gun control now .
Some few endanger the freedoms of the rest by abusing those freedoms .. (Too dramatic ? )

I havent gotten a beta key yet so i cannot speak to SHO yet ..
I love that there is an interest in taking the franchise further ..
But subs are not tanks . Nor airplanes ,Nor sword wielding heros , They can be just as fun , More interesting , But its a slower , more subtle thing .
Im not sure wow gamers will "get it " ..( see ... worried about Ubis sales again )
I think a previous poster came really close when they said Ubi should revisit SH5 ..
And its not that the Modders dont do amazing work themselves without the direct support of Ubi .. Its quite the opposite .. Its that the Modders have shown what potential is and was there .A lot of it there from the beginning and just turned off .

If they On sh5 engine or better graphically .............. I would like play Halsey , Or Yamamoto.... to control an entire battle-group . Or.Hell, just an aircraft carrier would be primo ..I Would like to replay ..Midway on either/both side complete with all ships i can walk around in and control individually or give commands .THAT is a good idea .I should get paid for ideas like that ..
Its easy to think big when its not your money i guess ..

I take solace in hoping/knowing that things are progressing both with software and hardware and costs will go down ,, and the franchise will live on .
scissors is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-13, 11:30 PM   #64
StarTrekMike
Navy Dude
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Made in Vermont
Posts: 178
Downloads: 137
Uploads: 0
Default

I made a topic about this a while ago, I think it still is showing true as I learn more about SHO.

Microsoft flight is a great example of what is happening here, they decided that the primary audience was not going to be the FSX or FS2004 crowd anymore, they even openly stated that the game was simply not made for them and it left a lot of long time players out in the cold as they had been waiting for a new version for a long time.

When Flight came out, it was a massive failure, they wanted the casual gamer crowd to replace the hardcore FSX crowd but ended up with neither in the end, the project was cancelled before it even was out a year.

You see, SHO is no different, they pay lip service to us in the interviews but it does not take much to read between the lines and see that this is not going to be a worthy game to carry the SH franchise torch, it will fail and it will be because they essentially have told us that we don't matter, that we are a dying breed and that we need to adapt or die, whats more, it will fail because the market they are hoping to grab simply does not exist, why would anyone want to casually play a subsim in a browser? I mean, would it really compete with the more addictive and simple fare that is more suitable for that platform?

My problem with Ubi at this point is that it is clear that they are not only ignoring the simulation fanbase that they have helped to create but are actually trying to marginalize us out of the market picture, they have done nothing but half hearted releases for franchises like IL-2 (Cliffs of Dover could have been much better if Ubi did not just push it out the door as a afterthought) and SH 4 and 5 (again, pushed out but not really supported in any real way).

They figure that if they ignore us and pretend that we don't exist that we wont and that they won't need to spend the time making quality products that we expect, the same goes for just about any other major publisher that has done sims in the past.

The good news? Eagle Dynamics and 777 are proving that the market is still there but you need to approach it differently, titles like DCS A-10C are gaining traction because of the level of quality that you can see just by watching a youtube video about it, Rise of flight works because it is actually worth the money they charge for planes.

Those companies understand that we are more than willing to shower them in money if they are willing to put the effort in to deliver a solid product.

Ubisoft will not learn this, they want the path of least resistance and building good sims takes time and money that they could use for garish marketing or yet another Assassins creed game or two.

Sad state of affairs and it is the reason I won't touch SHO, I won't show them that we will just buy anything they throw at us, even if it is "free".
__________________
I think we lost em...hey whats that pinging sound?
StarTrekMike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-13, 03:03 PM   #65
tsotha
Watch
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 17
Downloads: 19
Uploads: 0
Default

The problem with serving a niche community is it doesn't change the amount of effort you have to put into the game. A really good subsim is going to be just as much work as MW3, and the potential profit is tiny by comparison.

As to the people who are saying "Ubisoft only wants money", well... of course. It's not a charity. Of course the company is going to put its efforts into the most financially promising projects. The guy who wrote Minecraft is a billionaire now (no exaggeration), and nobody is going to make that kind of money serving the tiny community of hard core subsimmers. Personally I'm surprised SH5 got made at all, and it doesn't surprise me they cut corners.

There are only two ways I can see getting a next generation sim - either somebody with a lot of online charisma gets an open-source project going and keeps it alive until the first stable release, or a company like Ubi releases the code for an older game like SH3 or SH4. Come to think of it, it wouldn't hurt them financially to release the SH5 code, and that might be a better starting point.

SHO isn't going to be a hard core sim. It can't be. It might be a fun game of the more casual variety, but the people who haunt this forum aren't going to like it.
tsotha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-13, 02:42 PM   #66
StarTrekMike
Navy Dude
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Made in Vermont
Posts: 178
Downloads: 137
Uploads: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tsotha View Post
The problem with serving a niche community is it doesn't change the amount of effort you have to put into the game. A really good subsim is going to be just as much work as MW3, and the potential profit is tiny by comparison.

As to the people who are saying "Ubisoft only wants money", well... of course. It's not a charity. Of course the company is going to put its efforts into the most financially promising projects. The guy who wrote Minecraft is a billionaire now (no exaggeration), and nobody is going to make that kind of money serving the tiny community of hard core subsimmers. Personally I'm surprised SH5 got made at all, and it doesn't surprise me they cut corners.

There are only two ways I can see getting a next generation sim - either somebody with a lot of online charisma gets an open-source project going and keeps it alive until the first stable release, or a company like Ubi releases the code for an older game like SH3 or SH4. Come to think of it, it wouldn't hurt them financially to release the SH5 code, and that might be a better starting point.

SHO isn't going to be a hard core sim. It can't be. It might be a fun game of the more casual variety, but the people who haunt this forum aren't going to like it.

Nobody will debate that the subsim market is pretty small compared to something like Assassins creed or the Modern warfare franchise, those properties get millions invested in not only the production of the game but also the advertising and marketing required to compete with others and grab the attention of the target audiences (namely teenagers).

The simulation market is different, we don't value the same things as the teenagers who are the target demographic for most mega-popular franchises, we want quality first and foremost, we are critical and we will not hesitate to say when we feel wronged.

When you say that Ubisoft is a business and it's goal will always be money, that is true, but you must also take into account that the market exists for good simulations, granted they would not get the amazing return that they would get with something like assassins creed but they also would not need to invest millions upon millions into marketing either, we as simmers know what we want and we simply don't value a Mountain dew cross promotion or stuff like that.

In a way, it costs them less money to sell a simulation because the market is already so hungry for more and so savvy when it comes to knowing about upcoming content that it pretty much sells itself.

Is that enough for them to make another actual Silent Hunter game instead of just releasing Farmville the Atlantic edition? probably not but it has always been my belief that the degradation of the sim market is not due to lack of demand but because publishers want the path of least resistance at all times, as a result, we get boring and simple games and it just gets worse and worse the more we excuse it as good business.

So, sure, we can just give them a free pass and say that it is a business and that they are under no obligation to innovate or diversify their projects to meet a variety of different markets but that is simply allowing the current trend to continue, if we don't demand something now, it might be too late later while we are all playing Assassins creed XXII on our integrated targeted marketing devices implanted in our skulls or while we are sipping our Halo/Gears of War/Call of duty XXXXIIII tie in energy drinks.

A good business cares about it's customers and tries to bring them what they want, it does not always work out but the effort can build something that is more valuable than anything to a business, customer loyalty.
__________________
I think we lost em...hey whats that pinging sound?
StarTrekMike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-13, 04:35 PM   #67
Karl Heinrich
Soundman
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 146
Downloads: 60
Uploads: 2
Default

Agree with what StarTrekMike is saying here. Trying to take niche product such as simulations and watering them down isn't really doing anyone any favours - the likes of Silent Hunter Online isn't probably going to be "interesting" enough for the general market, nor is it going to have the depth or detail that the likes of us want from it. So your customer base isn't likely to be much larger than if you'd just focused on the niche market in the first place. Which is basically what Mike already said in reference to FSX / Flight.

Yes, focusing on us niche lot that would take more work, but similarly (as has been said before) the simulation community is often prepared to pay more than a casual gamer. If someone pulled out the stops on Silent Hunter 6 or equivalent, I'd be happy to pay somewhere in the region of £80.

For the likes of Ubi, why not do the two in conjunction... spend the time developing a decent simulation and then do SHO from that (much as the current SHO utilises the SH5 engine). Not only do they then receive whatever revenue the online, simplified version gets from the more casual games - and use the online game as a marketing tool for the "main simulation" for those that may be looking for a bit more and maybe aren't familiar with the existing SH range.

So, in answer to the original question, the issue is with the effort, not the online part per se (multiplayer on one sub is the day I long for...)

Apologies for the waffle, hopefully some of that makes sense.
__________________
“Die Südfrüchte runter vom Kartentisch. Auf Bananen kann ich nicht navigieren.”

Last edited by Karl Heinrich; 02-17-13 at 05:47 PM.
Karl Heinrich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-13, 09:59 PM   #68
TorpX
Silent Hunter
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,975
Downloads: 153
Uploads: 11
Default

I agree with everything you said, especially this part.
Quote:
Originally Posted by StarTrekMike View Post
A good business cares about it's customers and tries to bring them what they want, it does not always work out but the effort can build something that is more valuable than anything to a business, customer loyalty.
I would also add that Ubi's own actions is part of the reason that the subsim niche is small. If they had a less shortsighted view, they would be building on past successes, instead of trying to rely on the quick buck strategy. A really good subsim would require substantial investment, but it would have the benefit of attracting new people to the genre, and set the table for future releases. People who bought a good ATO subsim would likely be willing to buy a good PTO subsim, and maybe a good surface WWII sim, a dynamic campaign subsim add-on, etc., etc. But you can't do that if your only idea is to throw together a half-baked kiddie game, and dump it on the market, so you can move on to the next bit of nonsense. By punishing us, they are actually shrinking the potential market for their games.
TorpX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-13, 06:15 AM   #69
Julhelm
Seasoned Skipper
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: The Icy North
Posts: 690
Downloads: 189
Uploads: 0
Default

The problem with contemporary sims is that they require far too much work over too much time to be profitable. The CloD team themselves have stated that a single cockpit took more than one year to make. Does that sound like a profitable business model to anyone? There's a reason the Stalingrad sim will revert back to Il-2:1946 level of detail cockpits.
Julhelm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-13, 12:00 PM   #70
Karl Heinrich
Soundman
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 146
Downloads: 60
Uploads: 2
Default

I suppose a line needs to be drawn on the level of simulation, but for everyone that's going to be different. I'm an avid FS2004/FSX fan and play on as high a realism as possible (and on VATSIM etc). But I also love IL-2 46 and think the level of detail in the cockpits was sufficient., they looked decent, the gauges worked, and you had pretty good control over relevant aircraft systems if you wanted it.

I've not attempted to play Cliffs of Dover yet and I didn't notice more detail in what I've seen of it, just shinier graphics... but as I've not played it, I don't know, so that's pure baseless waffle :P

Of course the level of simulation we all want is going to be different.

For myself at the moment, modded SH3 is great, but would like more detailed hydrodynamics, manual trimming etc. perhaps more detailed control of engines and certain systems, but not a whole lot more to be honest. What I really want to see is "one boat multiplayer" of some form... (but not a sim that can only be played online).
__________________
“Die Südfrüchte runter vom Kartentisch. Auf Bananen kann ich nicht navigieren.”

Last edited by Karl Heinrich; 02-18-13 at 12:14 PM.
Karl Heinrich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-13, 03:50 PM   #71
StarTrekMike
Navy Dude
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Made in Vermont
Posts: 178
Downloads: 137
Uploads: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Julhelm View Post
The problem with contemporary sims is that they require far too much work over too much time to be profitable. The CloD team themselves have stated that a single cockpit took more than one year to make. Does that sound like a profitable business model to anyone? There's a reason the Stalingrad sim will revert back to Il-2:1946 level of detail cockpits.
The CloD team was horribly mismanaged (funny how Ubi was also involved in that) and work that should have taken far less time was dragged out by many poor choices.

If you actually follow the Stalingrad development, they are expanding on the original IL-2 1946 formula while not making promises they can't keep, add on to that the inclusion of 777 (a company that is noted for delivering a great product with Rise of flight) and you have a recipe for success that should have been done with CloD.

One need only look at Eagle Dynamics to see that a good cockpit need not take a year.

So, in short, CloD is a terrible example of the usual flight sim production but a fantastic example of how little Ubi cares for the simulation market.
__________________
I think we lost em...hey whats that pinging sound?
StarTrekMike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-13, 05:40 PM   #72
Julhelm
Seasoned Skipper
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: The Icy North
Posts: 690
Downloads: 189
Uploads: 0
Default

Most ED titles are years in development and reuse much the same content over and over. Imagine how long A-10 would have taken if instead of mainly focusing on a single jet, they'd have to build a new map, all-new NPC units etc. Exacly why ED's solution to lack of content has been to open up the game to allow 3rd parties to develop new modules.

I have no doubts that 777 will put out a solid game, but a lot of people are going to be gravely disappointed because it will have less fidelity than CloD/A-10.

But it's the right way to go because they know they have a limited budget and there are physical limits to what x amount of money can get you.

For subsims the right way would be to go back to earlier designs like SH and AOD and iterate on their gameplay. On one hand because they were very playable designs and secondly because such a game would actually be within the realm of the possible for an indie team to handle on a small budget. There is no mid-tier dev like 777 to do subsims so it stands to reason any such effort would have to be smaller.
Julhelm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-13, 10:59 PM   #73
Cybermat47
Willing Webfooted Beast
 
Cybermat47's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,386
Downloads: 293
Uploads: 22


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scissors View Post
DRM is the result of living among-st the Masses , Its like Guns and gun control now .
Some few endanger the freedoms of the rest by abusing those freedoms .. (Too dramatic ? )
Well, you could have used a less sensitive issue as an example.
__________________
Historical TWoS Gameplay Guide: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=2572620
Historical FotRSU Gameplay Guide: https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/sho....php?p=2713394
Cybermat47 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-13, 10:05 PM   #74
scissors
Shore leave
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: AlaBama
Posts: 70
Downloads: 303
Uploads: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cybermat47 View Post
Well, you could have used a less sensitive issue as an example.
It was probably a bad example , The two issues are wildly different but the same thing drives the drama behind both ..
scissors is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995- 2024 Subsim®
"Subsim" is a registered trademark, all rights reserved.