News from Thirdwire - remember them?

[MigBuster 2,884]

http://bbs.thirdwire.com/phpBB3w/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=9654

 

 

 

Thanks, and we appreciate all your input.

I know I just said this in the other thread, but we can't just walk into other people's store and sell our games. I do see GOG has added "indie" section just last year, but the application process to get our games on there is still the same as pre-Greenlight Steam (and most other online stores). We need to submit our games and hope they're interested in selling them, and chances of getting our games on there, even after spending a lot of time and money, is very slim.

And if you look at other indies' blogs that show the numbers, you should see that sales numbers on most online stores other than Steam are very small, usually a tiny fraction their own online store. In fact, they're so small that its usually combined with all other stores, so the charts usually has only three items - 1. Steam, 2. their own online store, 3. far distant third is "all other online stores" combined. So just getting on one of those isn't going to do us any good, it's only going to cost us more. It would make sense to try those other stores if we didn't already have our own online store.

If you are not happy with the service we provide on our online store, and only willing to buy our games from more established stores, then we do apologize, and I'd like to remind everyone that we do offer 100% refund. Good news here is that the Steam is *rumored* to be getting rid of Greenlight process all together, and go "open" store later this year - meaning anyone will be able to sell their games on there, much like Google Play or Apple iTune. If this rumor is true, and they do open up their store, then we can look at moving some of games on there (and even consider closing our own store here), but whether we do or not will depend on how much it costs and how they sell. The decision will have very little to do with what we want, it'll be based on what we can afford.

I think I've said this many many times before, and I sound like a broken record, but at the end of the day, its not about what we want (or what we're interested in), it's about what we can afford. It costs us time, resources and money (and a lot of it) to do anything - work on a patch, work on new dlcs, work on new games, and even work to put our games on different stores - and we're not "interested" unless we're confident that we can at least recover the cost (so we don't get deeper into the hole or go out of business completely). We are not interested in anything that loses us more money because we've already lost everything once, and can't afford to lose anymore. Luckily, the mobile games are doing well enough to cover for the cost of SF2 Exp2 and SF2 NA (almost), and things are finally getting close to back to normal around here.

If you're offering a million dollars, we'd be happy to take it, as long as you understand that that's not a lot of money for game dev today and certainly not going to get you everything you want in a game. If you're going to insist that we spend extra 15+ million dollars to do the games you want as a condition to take that 1 mil, then no. Again, not because we don't want to, but because we can't afford to.

And while all the complaining, fighting and bickering, and personal attacks and threats here do mean we're much happier working on mobile games, it doesn't factor much into deciding what we do. Despite all that negatives, we are still working on new PC games (we must really hate ourselves ), but they are something much smaller and cheaper, because again, its not about what we want, its about what we can afford.

Thanks,

[PraetorH 166]

I am not sure if that is good news ("working on new PC games") or bad news ("happier working on mobile games"). I personally would not mind a small game, whatever that means, as long as it can be modded.

[+JonathanRL 974]

If he means that he works on SF2 Expansions, then I am not displeased. However, I am probably kidding myself.

[SFP1Ace 33]

Who's Thirdwire anyway? Nothing but a distant memory for me

[Stratos 3,188]

Didn't understood If he's still working on Expansion 3 or not.

[PraetorH 166]

Neither did I. But I hope he does.

[+daddyairplanes 10,235]

no no  expansions are too big.  he is working on preparations, named alpabetically.  A-G have not gone well, but the next preparation looks promising.

[Spinners 15,986]

I'm still enjoying what we've got, and what this community is doing, but really sad that the promised ExP 3 (with the Mirage F.1 and a goodie of his choice) is never mentioned... even when polite questions are asked about it.

 

Not holding my breath...

[macelena 1,070]

I think they did mistakes, but i don´t blame them for moving on to mobile games if it is going as bad as they say. Anything they bring, i´ll be glad. 

[FastCargo 412]

I hate to say this, but none of this surprises me.

 

One only has to look at the lack of titles that cover the same material (post Korean Air War) to come up with a conclusion.

 

This shit is hard and expensive to do at any level much above pure arcade.  Even DCS has been focusing on WWII, with the newest (beta) release an F-86F...no EW environment at all.

 

FC

[+ST0RM 145]

"despite all the negatives"

 

Maybe TK should look at himself and see how his lack of communication may have contributed to that.

 

All anyone wanted was success for him and TW.

[Z09SS 21]

I didn't realize we had so many multimillionaires donating to the download section.

 

They must be rich because just changing a skin costs how much?

[dsawan 624]

i happy with whatever they relese. I am still fond of DLC's.

[PFunk 198]

I would prefer new features to new content....or at least fixing what's broke.

 

The modders do a better job with content and I will stand by my official review of SF2:NA.  The Mirage Factory F-14 was better -still is better- than Third Wire's.

 

I don't mind paying for good content.  Did it all the time with MSFS.

[macelena 1,070]

Well, put to think about it, the feature controlling the size of aircraft and aircraft carrier compatibility, it could be great if there was an additional option like "VTOL" for landing ships or VSTOL carriers. Might be worth for making the Tarawas able to carry Harriers without having Skyhawks or Corsairs on deck

[Do335 382]

Looks like neither NA or Exp2 sold very well.

 

I guess ppl nowadays just go blow off some steam on a xbox.

 

It's not like the 3W games are anything close to hardcore...

 

Reminder to self: don't buy new games, they are arcade extreme and they suck.

[+JonathanRL 974]

 

Looks like neither NA or Exp2 sold very well.

I think the reason for that is that every time I post a TSF Screenshot, I get a "What game is that?".

[Do335 382]

I think the reason for that is that every time I post a TSF Screenshot, I get a "What game is that?".

 

Well flight sims are one of those niche hobbies that don't appeal to the masses which was always obvious. surprisingly for me even a sim lite isn't a feasible commercial venture nowadays.

 

 

 

i mean look at Falcon4.0 Allied Force the last hardcore flight sim targeted at civilian market. It sold very well. That was in 2005. Amazing how things changed in 10 yrs.

Did DCS A-10/BS's civilian market sales cover their cost?

Edited July 27, 2014 by Do335

[macelena 1,070]

Without any doubt, the main problem TW got is publicity. While now it may look outdated, it could have been a hit if known more widely. See how much interest the mobile versions had...because they were at Google Play and other sites distribuiting them.

[Akmatov 1]

third wire, didn't they used to make driving sims or something?

[JediMaster 451]

I also think it was a mistake to eliminate MP from SF2 series. Sure, it would've cost more up front, but I think he failed to realize the MP-flying crowd (many of whom don't touch SP) that was frozen out when he dumped it was a significant size.

 

Notice that SF2:NA offered 2 new things--flyable F-14, Iceland terrain. I suppose the carrier ops and naval combat were also new, but less noticeable. Anyway, previous "full" titles offered multiple flyables. Even Exp 1 and 2 offered more than 1 new one. NA alone only offered the A-7 IIRC as another flyable if you had it standalone. The F-4 campaign was only there for people who had merged it with a title with the F-4.

 

So at this point what it boils down to is DLCs became modified versions of existing flyable airplanes requiring minimal time to make while the expansions will now be I suppose ONE new flyable (F1) and the full titles will offer just a terrain + ONE new flyable.

 

I just have trouble understanding the cost structure. His SF2 engine is the same. Any increase in costs to make a flyable airplane are 100% labor related as the same techniques and software are in use for any SF2 expansions or further titles. I can't imagine how post-Great Recession those costs have gone up SO much when it's largely...him? Is he charging himself more??? It's just his time he's mostly spending aside from some art assets and since, as I mentioned, SF2 is the same how much can those costs have gone up? Development for games has gotten more costly because of the added complexity and art fidelity requiring more labor. SF2 is flat.

 

I also think he shouldn't have gone the MSFS route of "sell your own planes and do what you want" and have gone more the DCS partnering route. MS was big and didn't need help. ED's not as big and can't make all the planes it would like itself. All those modders were eager to add features in for this or that plane but he didn't have time to do it himself. Well, he should've let them in in and let them work on adding some of those things for him, providing the oversight and assistance while they did a lot of leg work.

 

That said, I can't disagree that the PC community has been downright hostile to him over the years for various reasons and the mobile gaming community is pretty much concerned with "does it crash or crash my phone?" If the answer to those 2 is "no" then they only care about how fun it is, not whether this switch is correct or that AAR feature is added or whatever. So yes, lower stress and lower dev costs for him.

 

What he NEEDS is a couple more full time people to help with the PC thing, or barring that someone to work full time on the mobile so HE can work the PC stuff.

[Stratos 3,188]

 

I also think he shouldn't have gone the MSFS route of "sell your own planes and do what you want" and have gone more the DCS partnering route. MS was big and didn't need help. ED's not as big and can't make all the planes it would like itself. All those modders were eager to add features in for this or that plane but he didn't have time to do it himself. Well, he should've let them in in and let them work on adding some of those things for him, providing the oversight and assistance while they did a lot of leg work.

 

 

I agree with that part. Maybe he still have time to do that. Or at least I would love to see him do that, specially for new features like better radars and A-A refuelling.

[Do335 382]

Notice that SF2:NA offered 2 new things--flyable F-14, Iceland terrain. I suppose the carrier ops and naval combat were also new, but less noticeable. Anyway, previous "full" titles offered multiple flyables. Even Exp 1 and 2 offered more than 1 new one. NA alone only offered the A-7 IIRC as another flyable if you had it standalone. The F-4 campaign was only there for people who had merged it with a title with the F-4.

 

Hmmm. Expansion packs are just content upgrades. I can buy some quality 3D models off the net, construct their database, make a campaign and you get a exp pack. That is the easiest way to make a new module. Naval combat and carrier ops require base code change, that'd be an engine upgrade which I consider much more significant.

 

Also some cheapo math. I'm not sure what's the usual rate for a programmer in the states but let's assume tk pays 100$/hr to his staff in total. Like 2 really good guys that makes 50$/hr or 4 cheap guys that gets 25. Ballpark right. They work 10hr per day. Hey you gotta put in some OT this ain't the government, heck the dark roomers prolly don't sleep. So that's 100 x 10 x 5 x 4 x 12 = 240,000$/yr. Say a game module is in dev for 2 years. That's roughly half a million. A game's 30$ a piece. So he'd need to sell some 16k copies to have enough just for his employee's salaries. And that's ignoring a whole shebang of rent tax utilities his own income that'll probably double the cost.

 

Although.. I don't see 16k as a hard number to reach but a bit borderline indeed, considering the thing's indie. But all this is moot, it is obvious that TK is fed up with anything half serious on a PC platform.

Edited July 28, 2014 by Do335

[FastCargo 412]

Notice that SF2:NA offered 2 new things--flyable F-14, Iceland terrain. I suppose the carrier ops and naval combat were also new, but less noticeable. Anyway, previous "full" titles offered multiple flyables. Even Exp 1 and 2 offered more than 1 new one. NA alone only offered the A-7 IIRC as another flyable if you had it standalone. The F-4 campaign was only there for people who had merged it with a title with the F-4.

 

...

 

I just have trouble understanding the cost structure. His SF2 engine is the same. Any increase in costs to make a flyable airplane are 100% labor related as the same techniques and software are in use for any SF2 expansions or further titles. I can't imagine how post-Great Recession those costs have gone up SO much when it's largely...him? Is he charging himself more??? It's just his time he's mostly spending aside from some art assets and since, as I mentioned, SF2 is the same how much can those costs have gone up? Development for games has gotten more costly because of the added complexity and art fidelity requiring more labor. SF2 is flat.

Though parts of the engine were the same, SF2:NA did have some significant code changes from the base SF2 engine. And as we all know, coding core is different from coding add-ons. My guess is that most of the time and money was in making those changes (rendering engine, naval battles, etc).

 

I disagree with the old 'pull a model off the net' way of quickly populating a DLC or EXP. Having done this a few times, I can tell you it is rare that a model not built from the ground up to be used in SF will work without a serious amount of time and effort to get right. In a LOT of cases, it's better to build the model yourself rather than trying to adapt from another source.

 

Do335, your math got me curious...I did a bit of research and found this:

 

http://www.gamecareerguide.com/features/1279/game_developer_salary_survey_.php?page=1

 

It's an article that came out in January of 2014, which shows average game developer salaries for 2013. Interesting is that except for QA, in the Southern US, average salaries start at just over $60k and top out just under $80k. Again, these are AVERAGE salaries.

 

So, assuming a two man shop, and each of them earning $70k, you're talking $140k per year just for the salaries. Which would take about 4700 sales of $30 games to recoup. Of course, this doesn't include ANY other costs, like standard utilities, server costs, and anything else that an e-business/game developer requires. What I thought was interesting was reading the comments about the expansion/explosion of mobile gaming and how there is a lot of consternation that all other types of gaming (console, PC, etc) may be in serious trouble.

 

Fundamentally, I think the hardcore, post Korea, military combat flight simmer is a niche of a niche market. And I don't know if it's going to get much better.

 

FC

[+Julhelm 266]

I also think people are probably overestimating how much money he makes from the mobile games. In my experience and in that of some of my friends in the industry, the % of people who actually spend any money on your typical free-to-play game is only about 2-4%. It is bad enough that here at Killerfish Games we've specifically decided to avoid this type of business model.