BigDownload Interview

  • Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

Nestor Makhno

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 25, 2006
5,758
1,118
0
57
Penryn, Cornwall
Why not look at it this way....?

RO:HoS attracts a lot of WW2 gamers because of its core qualities: Realism , quality, value and great gameplay. It especially attracts people who like the Eastern Front.

RS attracts a lot more players because of its core qualities which it shares with HoS; but adds to the player base cos it brings players who liked 'The Pacific', it brings Japanese players who want to play as IJA troops and it brings people interested in playing as USMC.

That means a lot of players who will have RO:HoS and will presumably play it even if they aren't great ostfront fans.

This means adding to the community not splitting it. Of course, this is not a negative view but maybe, just maybe, negative != correct all the time.

Food for thought.
 

Zetsumei

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 22, 2005
12,458
1,433
0
33
Falmouth UK
I have nothing but good words for additional fronts like RS, as it will bring in new players (and goodies). But when RS and HOS stay separated. Then people will in the end be separated to RS and HOS communities. Similar to what has mostly happened with DH and regular RO. Or similar to battlefield games where some people have the map pack and some people don't.

I want as much as possible keep communities together, as a lot of people do not only like the eastern front, or the pacific. A lot of people simply like the 2nd world war or tactical shooters in general.

What I don't want is to either decide to play RS or HOS, I want to play a map of ROHOS first and then a map of RS. And play the best maps of both worlds on one server. Forcing every player to decide which game to play and playing one or the other, is exactly my definition of splitting a group up. Splitting a group based on a players preference is ok in my eyes, but splitting a group up based on how much money they spent on a game isn't.

The other way around is that you allow servers to host both RS maps and HOS maps, which means that players that do not own RS cannot join all servers. Again splitting up a community in two.

Its just as bad for the community in my opinion as the map packs for the battlefield series. I don't really care for DLC that changes stuff like skins and such (as long as servers can turn it off for competitive matches). But DLC that basically makes it impossible for some people to play together unless they buy something is not favourable to me as a consumer.

I wish modders for their hard work all the money in the world, and you guys will definitely deserve to earn a nice share of profit on the title. But if it goes out as a paid add-on for the game it will inevitably split the community up.

In my opinion if it does that anyway I would rather have it then release as a full standalone "addon" similar to ArmA AO. Where if you have both games you can access both types of servers from the server browser of one of the games. That would allow people that prefer the pacific over the eastern front at least to be able to purchase only the pacific side, rather than forcing them to make a double purchase. And a slightly higher price could be asked for the title so the modders could gain a bigger revenue. Together with getting reviews.

I would rather have RO:HOS be a 60 euro game like MW2, and not splitting the community by giving RS for free as a voucher with the game. Than it being a 40 euro game and then later on splitting the community through a 20 euro add-on. But as releasing things in parts will end up in more sales and probably revenue, so we probably won't see that. (Heck I would pay 100 Euro for a RO:HOS "special edition" version that would be free of advertisements and would get you all future DLC for "free" when they come out).

I'll lay me down as it's inevitable that this path will be taken, and I can respect the reasoning as people do not get paid out of thin air. But it doesn't change that from a community standpoint that we'll end up being fractured, while I wish that everybody would stay together.
 
Last edited:

Nezzer

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 3, 2010
2,334
1,021
0
30
Porto Alegre, RS
Zets, I couldn't agree more with you. You said exactly what I was thinking. And it would be even better than being a free DLC if they made it possible to play both HoS and RS in the same executable, just like CC. That way there would be absolutely no community split at all, perhaps just some discussion of preferences and that's all.
 

Fedorov

FNG / Fresh Meat
Dec 8, 2005
5,726
2,774
0
so the idea would be to release it as a stand alone game, that integrates within RO if you happen to have both games, just like campaigns in Guild Wars?
 

Zetsumei

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 22, 2005
12,458
1,433
0
33
Falmouth UK
Ideally I would want to see it released as a (mandatory) add-on to the game like with the heavy metal release for Killing Floor. That way everybody will have the files. And with that similarly to CC it could allow a server to have both HOS and RS maps in the map list. So nearly every server will run both RS and HOS maps. (that's what I tried to say in my previous post).

If it would be a form of paid DLC I hope it would be released as a standalone add-on that people can play without RO:HOS. It would still split the community, but at least allows people to only purchase the part they want to play. (Although I don't know how things would work out license wise, like whether TWI would need to purchase another expensive UE3 engine if it were to be standalone).

And together with that (whether RS is a standalone add-on or a form regular paid for dlc/add-on). I hope that it would indeed allow users that got both RO:HOS and RS, to access all servers for both games in either the HOS or RS server browser. So you do not need to quit HOS to join a RS game (and visa versa), but just need to pick a server you wish to play on.
 
Last edited:

reyalpOR

Member
Apr 29, 2010
135
22
18
A bit of a dilemma perhaps?

I say stand alone game, treat it like RO3.

Yesss, I AM the solvers :cool:
 

=GG= Mr Moe

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 16, 2006
9,791
890
0
56
Newton, NJ
...And together with that (whether RS is a standalone add-on or a form regular paid for dlc/add-on). I hope that it would indeed allow users that got both RO:HOS and RS, to access all servers for both games in either the HOS or RS server browser. So you do not need to quit HOS join an RS game (and visa versa), but just need to pick a server you wish to play on.

This would be very handy indeed. It's time consuming and at times, frustrating when I do this with RO and the current mods. Start up one, not see anything interesting, switch to the other, and back and forth.

In any case, whether it is free or not, I am sure I will get RS. I just personally feel there are more benefits to keeping the community together than splitting it.
 

Zetsumei

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 22, 2005
12,458
1,433
0
33
Falmouth UK
The issue for me is not the purchase of the product I'll buy it regardless of its price (and modders definitely deserve some for their hard work), my issue is the community split that will happen with paid for dlc :(.
 
Last edited:

reyalpOR

Member
Apr 29, 2010
135
22
18
The very existence of RS is going to cause a split.

However, TW could very well follow the way COD:UO was released. UO contained both new multiplayer maps and the same old ones from before, in addition with more singleplayer. Essentially people just migrated to UO because they could play the same old maps as well as the new ones it was a definite upgrade.

---If the changes to the old maps were good or bad is debatable, but that's beside the point.---

The point is the foundation UO had... The only difference between COD:UO to COD, besides the new maps, was the singleplayer :p. Unlike these recent COD DLC's where people get kicked for not having it :mad::mad:

How about that^^^ :confused: he likes it --> :)
 

LemoN

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 26, 2006
6,293
2,346
0
33
Prussotroll's Bridge
The very existence of RS is going to cause a split.

However, TW could very well follow the way COD:UO was released. UO contained both new multiplayer maps and the same old ones from before, in addition with more singleplayer. Essentially people just migrated to UO because they could play the same old maps as well as the new ones it was a definite upgrade.

---If the changes to the old maps were good or bad is debatable, but that's beside the point.---

The point is the foundation UO had... The only difference between COD:UO to COD, besides the new maps, was the singleplayer :p. Unlike these recent COD DLC's where people get kicked for not having it :mad::mad:

How about that^^^ :confused: he likes it --> :)

UO didn't change anything?
LOL!
Unfortunately, it did.
 

reyalpOR

Member
Apr 29, 2010
135
22
18
UO didn't change anything?
LOL!
Unfortunately, it did.
In response to your well thought out comment... huh?

The changes in hit boxes? Newer weapons? Different skins? Map changes? Sniper scope enlargement? Added vehicles? Sprint?

Whether those were good or bad changes is beside the point.

My point is UO's foundation, they basically moved everything from COD to the Expansion. <---> Meaning migrate all HOS multiplayer maps to RS, when RS comes out. This will lessen the "split's" effect, as far as i can see.
or
Instead of moving the river to the bucket, move the bucket to the river.

Integrate RS into HOS where we can...(If I may quote Zetsumei)

...access all servers for both games in either the HOS or RS server browser. So you do not need to quit HOS to join a RS game (and visa versa), but just need to pick a server you wish to play on.

Convenience is a good part of the solution.

I hope that clarifies the point I'm trying to convey, and I'm sorry if it was unclear before.
 

LemoN

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 26, 2006
6,293
2,346
0
33
Prussotroll's Bridge
Regarding UO, it simply caused a split.
Weapon handling and feel was entirely different, and many people migrated to UO when it first came out but quickly went back to vanilla after a few weeks.

Even now, Vanilla is played more often than UO for instance.
My point is that they first changed the river colour to green when moving the bucket to the river.
Any change in RS itself should not be present in HoS in any way if they do it like that.

Anyway, as it's not entirely clear if RS will be a free expansion or a paid DLC:

If it's a free addon: integrate it into the game like CC.
If it's a paid DLC: Split it off the main game like DH or MN.
 
Last edited:

Zetsumei

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 22, 2005
12,458
1,433
0
33
Falmouth UK
If it's a free addon: integrate it into the game like CC.
If it's a paid DLC: Split it off the main game like DH or MN, but allow the user to access and join the servers for HOS and RS from either of the server browsers.

Fixed.
 
Last edited:

reyalpOR

Member
Apr 29, 2010
135
22
18
Regarding UO, it simply caused a split.
Weapon handling and feel was entirely different, and many people migrated to UO when it first came out but quickly went back to vanilla after a few weeks.

Even now, Vanilla is played more often than UO for instance.
My point is that they first changed the river colour to green when moving the bucket to the river.

Again, the changes they made to UO is irrelevant to my point.

Though, I was claiming UO was bringing the river to the bucket. In retrospect they should've tried to integrate COD:UO into COD as one "being".
 

Serathis

FNG / Fresh Meat
Oct 25, 2009
473
84
0
Tripwire. You are now officially my favorite indie developer, beating S2 Games, Unknown Worlds and even Pixel (who made Cave Story).

Keep up the massive wins!