Community produced game?

[column5 63]

This is a purely hypothetical discussion. Though I mention ThirdWire, they are not involved in any way.

 

I was daydreaming a little bit tonight, and had this thought. I don't know if is even remotely feasible, but here it is.

 

Suppose that a group of trusted people in the Strike Fighters community got together and incorporated a business with the intention of producing a flight simulator. Suppose also that this group intended to hire ThridWire to create this sim using their Strike Fighters engine. Let's also say that it was the intention of this company to have ThirdWire create a "study" sim of the F-4 Phantom, one of the most popular and recognizable aircraft of the 20th century. Let's assume for the sake of this discussion that the sim will be more complex than current SF games, but less complex than Falcon. Finally, let's assume that the production company did not intend to make a profit, only to cover expenses, and that any profit realized would go to charities for veterans or some other worthy cause.

 

If the game was pre-sold a price of $50, it would require 5000 pre-orders to raise $250,000 to pay ThirdWire.

 

Do you think there are 5000 people who would pre-order on faith alone?

[Longestpants 1]

Hmm. 5000 is a lot, and Thirdwire is relatively obscure. On faith alone, most likely no. But what do I know?

 

Seriously though, with publicity (IGN, &c.), I consider it likely.

[triplethr3at 0]

I would definatley support you guys. 1 down 4,999 to go

[column5 63]

I know its hairbrained but when you think about it, are we ever going to get the sim we all really want if we don't produce it ourselves?

[triplethr3at 0]

I agree 100% a game made for gamers by gamers

[Longestpants 1]

FGBG!

 

I'm with you 100%.

 

EDIT: I guess I'm supposed to say, 4,998 to go.

Edited February 10, 2008 by Longestpants

[Viggen 644]

I'm with you. Whether the money goes to TK and Third Wire or the charities for veterans it is all a good enough reason. 4,997 to go.

[Aintry 0]

You'd have to think seriously about how to promote the game. I don't believe you'd get 5000 pre-orders just on faith.

[+Dave 2,322]

You'd have to think seriously about how to promote the game. I don't believe you'd get 5000 pre-orders just on faith.

 

I agree, I just don't think people would do it on faith alone. I do like the idea though.

[Aintry 0]

If it's worth anything, I think the F4 would be the right plane to model.

Edited February 10, 2008 by Tristan

[column5 63]

I agree, I just don't think people would do it on faith alone. I do like the idea though.

 

5000 seems like a lot of people but it is a very small fraction of the total number of people who play flight sims. Also consider that since payment and delivery would be electronic, this would be open to everyone in the world.

Edited February 10, 2008 by column5

[+drdoyo 2]

So, are you going to tell the consumer who pays $50 they will have their sim in "2 weeks"?

 

I think the idea is good, in fact it was already tried to some extent in the WW2, WW1 and Korea time periods with the Targetware series. Target: Rabaul, Target: Korea, and I think it was Target: Flanders. The intent was massively Multi Player sims without predjuduce for one side or the other, and more historical matchups (IE no spits and P-51s fighting Corsairs and Wildcats).

[Caveman 1]

i'm in 4,996 to go

[Aintry 0]

I wonder whether this topic shouldn't be stickied.

[FastCargo 412]

I love the idea...

 

But I have a lot of reservations.

 

Time for development...which causes several other problems:

 

Feature creep, engine/hardware changes, media releases, etc.

 

I just keep thinking of the sheer amount of TIME such a project would take...to the point where it folds.

 

I just look at the promising projects that never made it and the monumental development time and money budgets needed.

 

If guys were doing this for 'free' in their spare time, the development time stretches even farther out...

 

FastCargo....

[column5 63]

I love the idea...

 

But I have a lot of reservations.

 

Time for development...which causes several other problems:

 

Feature creep, engine/hardware changes, media releases, etc.

 

I just keep thinking of the sheer amount of TIME such a project would take...to the point where it folds.

 

I just look at the promising projects that never made it and the monumental development time and money budgets needed.

 

If guys were doing this for 'free' in their spare time, the development time stretches even farther out...

 

FastCargo....

 

All excellent points, and my experience with beta testing for TK indicates that if a team came to him with a certain amount of money (be it 250K or only 100K) and a general idea of what they wanted, he would produce the best sim possible with as many features as possible for the budget. In this sense there would be no room for feature-creep because the budget would be a rock-hard number and the developer would only implement the features he was paid for. I suppose.

[Sixgun 0]

Well, we might be able to convince TK to do a newer version of SF for us with slightly more complexity and better multiplayer capability...especially if he knew there was a definite market...pre-orders would help.

 

After all, this is what we want isn't it? Just a few more features, better multiplay (maybe not based on directplay)...the current graphics capability is pretty much good enough.

 

I would be a definite customer.

[column5 63]

I mean--and pardon me for rambling--it seems like the games released these days across all genres are generally crap. think of the best games you have ever played. I bet most of them are over 10 years old. For me, things like the Sierra adventure games (Kings Quest, Space Quest), the early Janes sims, Chuck Yeager's Air Combat, Gunship, Thief and Thief 2, the early Civilization and Sim City games, etc. come to mind. All old games. Even highly reagarded modern games leave me somewhat unimpressed. This may be due to nostalgia, but I also think that producers and developers were mroe in tune with their audiences a decade ago.

 

I'm wondering if the next revolution in the gaming industry could be games whose development is driven and financed by gamers themselves?

[triplethr3at 0]

is it at all possible to creat a combat game using the flight simulator. They already have a solid engine and terrain. All they need to do is creat a combat engine around it. Correct me if im wrong

[FastCargo 412]

I mean--and pardon me for rambling--it seems like the games released these days across all genres are generally crap. think of the best games you have ever played. I bet most of them are over 10 years old. For me, things like the Sierra adventure games (Kings Quest, Space Quest), the early Janes sims, Chuck Yeager's Air Combat, Gunship, Thief and Thief 2, the early Civilization and Sim City games, etc. come to mind. All old games. Even highly reagarded modern games leave me somewhat unimpressed. This may be due to nostalgia, but I also think that producers and developers were mroe in tune with their audiences a decade ago.

 

I'm wondering if the next revolution in the gaming industry could be games whose development is driven and financed by gamers themselves?

 

Well, I think part of the problem is gamers themselves.

 

Our expectations keep going up. Don't believe me?

 

When's the last time you SERIOUSLY played F-19 Stealth Fighter? For any length of time.

 

For as much as we lament Tornado...how many of you have recently spent a LOT of time playing it. I don't mean onese twose...I mean NUMBERS of people.

 

It isn't so much that recent games are crap (they are). It's that developers are going where the money is. They've been casting a wider net...but to catch the max number, you have to go for the cash with games that have flash...and cater to the ADD audience.

 

Deep sims? Sims that take hours to learn and weeks to years to master?

 

I mean think...seriously think about what a modern sim would have to offer to be widely successful:

 

Near perfect fluid dynamics simulation.

AI that could pass the Turing test.

Avionics that strongly mimic the real thing.

ECM and weapons envelopes based on data either classified, or more likely has never been realistically fielded (anyone evaded a SA-10 lately).

Graphics with all the latest tech.

Multi layered and detailed tutorials.

Scaleability for AI, physics, and graphics.

 

People talk about MSFS or X-Plane as the basis for a combat sim.

 

Either one of those engines actually been used to mimic a modern air combat sim? Or even a decent jet missile combat sim? That has actually made it to market?

 

I'm actually asking...I'm not completely sure.

 

The fact that MS themselves haven't put out a modern (or at least something based on the jet age) air combat sim since the CFS series first came out should tell you something.

 

I'm not trying to be a downer here...I'm really not. Normally I love stuff like this...and REALLY like the idea.

 

I think though, we need to be VERY careful about what we want, what we expect, and what's pragmatically possible.

 

FastCargo

[column5 63]

I'm actually asking...I'm not completely sure.

 

Me either.

[+Dave 2,322]

I see zerocinco lurking and since he has ventured into the payware stuff what do you think the feasibility of this is? From a financial perspective. My problem is that I don't know enough about to make and educated response.

[Rambler 1-1 9]

pardon me for rambling

 

hey, that's my job!

 

sounds like a good idea, but I think there'd have to be more than just the phantom in it. Maybe take a pole and find the 5 or so most popular planes and the most popular terrain?

 

I think more people would be interested if it was like a "cream of the crop" version of SF. I'd pay $50 for that.

Edited February 10, 2008 by Rambler 1-1

[column5 63]

hey, that's my job!

 

sounds like a good idea, but I think there'd have to be more than just the phantom in it. Maybe take a pole and find the 5 or so most popular planes and the most popular terrain?

 

One good thing about it, if the game were succesful, the updated engine could be used to make more "Study" at reduced cost, because a lot of the programming would already be done. Course, that's the whole rationale behind the SF series--incremental expansion.

 

Personally, I would take an F-14 study over even the F-4, but the Phantom's less complex avionics and systems would probably be easier (cheaper) to model.

[Rambler 1-1 9]

If it's too much based on study, it won't be as popular and you might run into trouble getting people to buy it. One-plane biased games have never really done well. I'd put in the F-4 for studies and a bunch of planes from the downloads section for publicity. The F-14, -22 and others are good enough.