Normandy is iconic accept it
To whom?
Not as iconic as the Eastern Front, deal with it.
Is a Western game to us normandy is more iconic accept it
Didnât check where the game is made, but doesnât really matter anyway: every WW2 game must be /storming them beaches/
The real WW2, yee partner
So iconic that the sole uniqueness of the campaigns are tanks⌠and even that gap is getting filled.
2 Likes
Itâs iconic because thatâs where actual WW2 happened for 4 years with tens of millions of participants from all sides combined.
Italy sent more men to Stalingrad alone then to all of Africa lel
With that logic, China is actually the most iconic front because the war lasted their for almost 8 years. Also China had more casualties and 14m soldiers alone.
And guess who or what made Italy capitulate and collapse into civil war. It was not Stalingrad.
2 Likes
I think itâs a good idea.
I prefer crowdfunding and be an investor rather than fill the game with âpremium squadsâ that scare away players and will condemn the game to die.
1 Like
Iâm not going down the futile discussion whether the Eastern Front was the decisive part of WW2.
To anyone remotely interested in WW2 history thatâs not a question.
Point is, ânew WW2 game? set in Normandy! cause 'Muricaâ is so damn boring.
Iâd rather take some obscure stuff like Poland at this point.
2 Likes
It exist already on steam
âLand of warâ good single player game
The US market is very important, in addition to the fact that there are many series and films set in Normandy.
So is Stalingrad game/game with Stalingrad no. 12112666
I would prefer Leningrad any day.
I sloppily used âbuddiesâ in reference to your claim that you are speaking to the devs and publishers frequently and directly. But obviously you had a guess how I meant it.
Look, I donât want to make you look small or something, I am just trying to explain to you and many others who have clear problems of understanding the different tasks and dependencies of making and selling a computer game.
Even if you receive an engine, sandbox system and a model/texture archive for free to work with,
itâs stuff that is owned by the publisher who has a valid interest in selling this stuff at the end of the day. NOTHING is for free in the industry.
The publisher will not only earn the percentage you owe the publisher for ârentingâ their tools, he aims also on reputation for these tool via publishing games that show the quality of these tools.
A poorly executed game wonât contribute to that idea of advertising an engine/sandbox/archive.
So, yes, you can get tools for free (in advance!) and you may manage it to pre-pay your employees with crowd funding (usually not in salaries that matches a professional level).
But at the end of the day, if the project doesnât get along well and doesnât fit into the market, the oh so generous publisher will throw it in the bin and bail out. You as a developer will be left behind with all you managed to finalize and invested in to that point.
I canât tell if you have an impression of what you need to finance even a small team of pro-level developers - from management to creative crew to technical crew to infrastructure to taxes and stuff. Most people donât even have an idea of what it means to be self-employed going solo.
Overall - I still donât buy your myth of a developer of this size being independent.
Sorry to say and I donât mean it personal, but thatâs a usual naive illusion.
4 Likes
Players from all over the world, unite!
2 Likes
youâre preaching to the choir mate, you are not the 1st to suggest this and i doubt you will be the last, just shows how everything goes in one ear and out the other from the devs. Wait is anything even going into one ear though? hmmmmmm
My team and me considered the entire options of how to fund our project.
Crowd funding was of course one of these.
But there are some aspects that make crowd funding a risky thing.
As you said correctly, a crowd funding is based on the idea of making enthusiast consumers to partial mini-investors.
But that means we are still talking about an entire investment, with the only difference that the sum of investment is split into hundreds or thousands of fragments.
People often make the mistake to think that crowd funding is something that comes along free.
It does not. You owe every single mini-investor something.
That doesnât necessarily mean that you have to pay them their RoI, but the least you have to offer is giving them the product for free.
If you fail to deliver that properly, itâs exactly the same as if a usual investor was involved - they bail out. As for crowd funding, that happens sneakingly. Funding starts to stagnate and finally collapses - right in the middle of working processes.
Problem is: Once you started working professionally, you have costs to cover. And these are more immense than most people dare to realize.
One way to cover the costs is to bring in own private investment. But thatâs usually not reaching even nearly a full coverage over the entire working time. We are talking about years of steady work.
Work that needs to be done, but isnât visible to most bystanders. Private investment will bleed a developer out before even reaching the first milestone - and you have to work with milestones if you decide fro crowd funding. Because you have your crowd to present the progress of development steadily. You fail with that, crowd funding falls asleep. End of the story for the ambitious developer.
Our choice was to reach out for a venture-capitalist to invest.
Pro: You only owe RoI in case of success, every other outcome is the risk taken by the investor.
Con: You have to come along with a project that has the potential to revolutionize a market or branch. You need to have a real USP that is that unique, that monopolization is even possible.
I have been negotiating about a first starting investment of 100 mio âŹ. And I was lend an ear, because I had that USP.
4 Likes
The game mechanism is unbalanced.
Itâs not worth spending money to update the game content repeatedly.
If I donât choose to optimize the game mechanism and adjust and update, I will choose not to recharge and give up the game
1 Like
just look at my account there
im a beta tester of lots of games
ww2 chokepoint want my phone number and adress for become me a beta tester - its a realy veird
please use you head not for only eating and hat dressinmg - just use your had please for thinking some time - you just now recommend game what you never played for example)
1 Like
man its another realy bad game - few weeks ago its have more negative reviews in steam then positive
you understand nothing in games
do you played that polish game? [personaly im have it in my steam library but not have time for this junk]
Is a a good single player for waist time, have some problem but it get 6 on 10, all game dont need be AAA for be fun or entertain a bit, you can have fun even with the text adventure or point and click game, but from what i seeyed from your answer
Your game priority is
- graphic
- graphic
- graphic
- see stupid steam rewiew wo for half of the time are dont even by people wo played the game full
Obliviusly cant pretend someone wo come here spamming IM A BETA TESTER understand having fun playng