Welcome to Steelbeasts.com

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

Ssnake

Members
  • Content count

    19,418
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Ssnake

Personal Information

  • Location
    Hannover, Germany
  • Occupation
    Director, eSim Games
  1. I'm not sure if I understand what you're getting at, to be honest. But in any case, as a matter of principle, I like clear-cut and balanced customer/vendor relations. Steel Beasts Pro PE as is represents two decades of work put into it. It caters to a really small market. That's why we set a price that makes it worth our while to keep working on it. Likewise we sell updates from time to time as the PE community's contribution to the continued development. This creates a very transparent situation for every customer with respect to price, and value. You can try out the value with low priced short term licenses. If the quality convinces you, you can support our work with a moderately priced annual subscription, or pay a one-time fee for unlimited access with occasional upgrades. There are no hidden costs. You know what you get, and you know what we're asking for it. I understand that the idea of third party developers stepping in to add playable vehicles, sold separately as DLCs, has a certain appeal. For a number of reasons that isn't going to happen, period. I'm not at liberty to talk about the two most important reasons why it's not going to happen. You'll have to trust me that those reasons are valid.
  2. The coming update for 4.019 (new terrain engine) will be free. It was always intended to be part of the initial 4.0 delivery, but we had to pull it and go back to the drawing board as our initial UI concept for handling the (much larger) map data turned out to be impractical. What's being discussed right now is how we're making the map data themselves available. This depends a bit on how much there will be, in the end. If the amount of data are too large for making a download impractical - mind you, I don't expect this to happen - we may be forced to offer it as a DVD set, and producing and shipping those DVDs costs money. You COULD convert all the legacy maps by your own for free. But it would take a few days of computing time (like, all CPU cores at full blast for an entire weekend, plus possibly running out of disk space). So, that's not really what we recommend either. So, depending on the practicality a DVD set at the cost of material, shipping & handling (and nothing else) might turn out to be the solution. HOWEVER, I have to repeat that, I expect us to offer the map installer as a separate download, for free.
  3. Thanks for that photo sequence.
  4. The download option is likely, but undecided yet. It really depends on how large the sum of all converted maps will become. At this point I'm hard pressed to make a final statement. In any case the price of a separate map installer on a DVD set will be low, under $20.-, which would typically fly under the radar of customs where they often have a value threshold for an import (in Germany it's somewhere around 40 EUR).
  5. a) DCS is successful (well, it depends on your metrics, but I don't want to be The Incredible Pedantic Man today). b) as to why, I'm not sure if I would attribute it to the system of DLCs. Maybe you have a deeper insight into the business of ED. I however remain skeptical about the proposed causality of their success.
  6. One obvious solution is to roll out every model to everybody, but to suppress the models in the UI unless a suitable license is present. I am not sure however why any consumer would actively want to ask for the DLC system. DLCs have become popular among game developers because they increase revenue. In other words, it's pretty obvious that it is the more cumbersome solution that costs the average player more. At least I as a consumer don't like that salami tactic of selling me one slice at a time when I can have the entire sausage at less than half the price. Also, the ship has sailed. DLCs are an option if designed into the concept from the get-go. Had we made every playable vehicle a separate DLC since Steel Beasts 1 where the only vehicles available to every player were the M1A1 and the Leopard 2A4, it would make sense to keep them in the base package, and then to sell every other vehicle as a separate item. Selling Steel Beasts with everything as it is right now and now starting to sell an individual vehicle would pretty much guarantee that the vehicle would be played by next to nobody. In turn, it would fail to generate the economical incentive for eSim to concentrate more on the addition of playable (vintage) vehicles that the proponentos of a DLC concept seem to hope for. In short, I cannot discern any meaningful advantage for the average Steel Beasts customer, but a lot of disadvantages. I'm not sure if people asking for a transition of our business model have a clear understanding of the consequences for themselves. I probably am not the most genial businessman who ever lived in the computer games sector, but that is only to your advantage. Don't jinx it.
  7. If only it were that easy.
  8. It may be that the UI of the forum admin tools is less than optimal to deal with incidents like this. The decision is under review and may well be reversed. I can but ask you to set up a new event in the calendar.
  9. Floating the number doesn't affect the business at all, it just creates the false impression that if all it took were such a relatively small sum, eSim Games' failing to produce these vehicles either suggests incompetence, or unwillingness to listen to their customers. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Even if the figure was correct, money is only one factor among many. Discussing all these additional factors and my opinion about them would however reveal our business strategy more than I'm willing to expose. I don't know how many of our competitors are following my posts here, but I don't want to find out the hard way.
  10. Even islamofascists seem to go at great lengths to recover their dead and wounded. Not doing so usually attrits morale more than anything else.
  11. ...and better armored, which is why it isn't amphibious anymore.
  12. The floated "3k" figure is plain wrong. Besides, it's a matter of development capacity - a factor that can neither be expanded infinitely, nor quickly. Please leave the business side to me. You don't know everything that is relevant for my decision making, because I don't tell you everything about every influential factor. Because, these are business secrets. To be unmistakably clear: There is no way I'm going to discuss eSim's business strategy publicly, nor it is up for democratic decision processes.
  13. Also, armored vehicle units seem to be less affected, as the losses of other vehicles are less directly perceived by the individual crews.
  14. There's a "Technical" with 106mm recoilless rifle, too.
  15. The AI won't recognize (yet) a cluster of individual units as an artillery target. It's one of those simplifications that seems to have worked reasonably well for the last 17 years. Maybe it's time to change that.