This response from TOMB appeared on our forum after a debate
regarding flight models erupted over some comments on the Desert
Fighters interview. It is exceptionally lucid and enlightening. It is
reprinted here for those who missed it.
Doug submits the prognosis that the recent WWII sims did not
sell big numbers because the developers paid too much attention to the
'hardcore' sector of the market, and asserts that many people were put off
by the difficulty of these sims. I have to say I find these conclusions
mystifying.
I have never, in my 16 years or so of personal computing, met a single person
who has intimated that (s)he would buy a flight simulation if only they
weren't so difficult! There seems to be a generally held belief that the
potential customer base for flight simulators is made up of the 'hardcore'
minority and the mass market, a belief held by the editors of this
(outstanding) site, among others. The figures 20/80% are often bandied
about. What evidence is there to support this?
A couple of mates and I used to get together most nights a week to play
computer games, mostly combat flight sims. On one occasion a young pal of
ours, about twenty, called in. He had a go but
wasn't much good, and didn't particularly want to put in the practice
necessary to improve.
"There you are," I hear you say, triumphantly. But
hold on. This was "Knights of the Sky" on the Amiga! A more cartoonish
flight model you couldn't imagine! It wouldn't even be termed a sim these
days. He just wasn't that interested.
At the same time there was a football game on the go (that's Association
Football, or "Soccer", to you Norte Americanos:-)). This kid became really
good at it. "Sensible Soccer" it was, and it was harder to play than "KotS"
but he was willing to play it endlessly until he mastered it.
Guess what? He
LIKES football. I became good at it too. Yes, I like football. My two flight
simming buddies had a few goes but were never really up to much and lost
interest. You guessed it!
European Air War
I am not in the business, and I am not a market researcher, but it is my
contention that this fundamental belief that the majority of the
(potential) market for combat flight sims consists of casual gamers who
can't be bothered with the complexities, is a myth.
Computer gamers, like anyone else, are attracted to concepts which interest
them. And like everyone else, if they are sufficiently interested in a
concept, they will invest their time and money. If not, you haven't a prayer
of selling them something no matter how "accessible" you make it.
If you manufactured cameras, and you established that the majority of
potential camera purchasers would not make use of most of the user
programmable features on your latest SLR, you would not gain sales by
reducing the functionality, making it easier to use, and charging the same
price! You would simply lose your enthusiast sales to a competitor. The
'holiday snapper' probably won't want a SLR anyway.
I would suggest that, far from being too difficult, the reason for the
relative lack of sales success of the sims mentioned was that most of them
failed, in one respect or another, to meet the expectations of significant
numbers of hardcore fans.
For example, the only one I and my mate have
purchased is European Air War, and I bought it at discount after I learned that a
second patch is due. Whilst EAW has its glaring flaws (guys, no-one ever got
scrambled to intercept a V1 - you patrolled at a decent altitude over the
Channel or you could forget it!) it appeared, on balance, to offer a
sufficiently realistic and immersive experience overall to be worth our
time. The others didn't.
Doug suggests that only one of these made any real money. I'm guessing,
but
was that Combat Flight Simulator? If so, it's interesting that it was
the
one that addressed some of the pure flight model aspects that Doug
argued that the mass market isn't interested in. I suspect that its
success has
a lot more to do with the existing "Flight Simulator" community than
ease of
use for the casual gamer. And who could be more hardcore than a fan of
a
flight sim without combat? (tongue firmly in cheek.)
Consider these recent developments in the industry.
1) Rowan Software, its reputation at a low ebb after years of using
virtually the same 'arcade' flight model, turns to all new 'difficult'
models to re-establish its credibility in the market.
2) After "Sabre Ace" bombs, the developers (I forget who) swear they will
never again make the mistake of producing a flight sim without a proper
flight model.
3) Immediately after the release of SDOE, work has to start on new,
realistic flight models to pacify irate customers (separate ones for each
a/c for pity's sake!)
4) If you're still not convinced, what about Dynamix itself? What was
the first thing Dynamix had to do in support of "Red Baron II"? Yep, produce
an all new 'realistic' flight model. And let me tell you, it still ain't
realistic enough!
EM Chart for P38
Dynamix built its reputation on flight models. I never played AOP, but RB
and AOE were outstanding given the technology of the time. Moreover, RBGunn,
in his other post, is absolutely right - it's all in the details. I remember
carelessly whacking open the throttle at low airspeed in the P51 in AOE. The
torque rolled me to the left into a spin which took about 8,000 feet to
recover from. I remember thinking what a marvellous moment that was!
Of course, different people want a different challenge, but that's where
scaleable difficulty comes in. You ignore the fanatics at your commercial
peril.
I really want to be impressed by "Desert Fighters." I have ALWAYS wanted a
sim based on the North African campaign. But it will have to come up to
snuff in all respects. It will have to compete for my attention with MiG
Alley, Flight Combat: Thunder Over Europe, B-17 II, Silent Hunter II,
Panzer Elite, Jagged Alliance II, Delta Force II, Rainbow 6 II etc.
I caution all sim developers out there, The 20% hardcore element IS your
market. The other 80% is playing Quake, blasting deer, or designing dresses
for Barbie.
