We saw it with F22 Lightning II and then Lightning III. DiD did it with F22 ADF and Total Air War. Now everyone is doing it. What are they doing? Releasing a PC game and then releasing a GOLD or second version with new features and new theatres of war.

Models in Simulation Development

There seem to be three approaches in the simulation series model of game releases. The first is the sim evolution model, like we saw in Longbow original and then Longbow II. This model involves so many changes in the second edition that a new game is defined, and the consumer pays full price for the new product.

The second model is the expansion model, as we saw in DiDs award winning EF2000 and F22 series. There aren't as many changes, and typically the same graphics engine is involved. The game might include upgraded AI or a dynamic environment in addition to the canned missions.

Perhaps there is even a new and third model: the expansion of a simulation universe by the addition of new theatres, additional aircraft and sometimes an updated graphics engine: the Jane's World War, Flanker 2 and Falcon 4 stories - the Digital Battlefield direction.

Simulation Development Evolution

I am continually amazed at the evolution of PC simulations. While complexity (and design costs) have been increasing exponentially, we still pay the same $50 for the boxed game. We get better graphics, better AI, more missions and more features for the same price we paid for the original Falcon or the original Armored Fist. From the user side, it's a sweet dream.

But from the developer side, it's rapidly becoming a nightmare. The required complexity, and the vast effort of artists, researchers and programmers means that development schedules grow longer and the investment required rises rapidly. Yet the market share for a given game has shrunk because of the growth in the number of developers. Obviously, something has to give.

F22 ADF

Enter the Product Sequel or Series

Originally Flanker 2 and F/A 18E Super Hornet were announced to have dynamic campaigns. A few months ago it was announced that the dynamic campaign would not appear in Flanker 2, but might appear in a later add-on.

Super Hornet

Recently the same announcement was made regarding F/A 18E Super Hornet. Instead of appearing in the initial release, the dynamic campaign and the COMMAND mode won't show up until the first expansion, sometime in the spring of 2000. Inevitably, some gamers will cry "Foul!" and complain that they have been misled. But maybe this evolutionary development is a necessary evil, and maybe even a GOOD THING™ for simulation gamers.

Go for the GOLD

Personally, I think the new model was inevitable, and a good compromise that guarantees the survival of the industry that fuels our hobby. I thought so with Total Air War, and I think so now (though there should have been a rebate on TAW.)

Why? There are a number of reasons. First, the complexity of the simulations we play has increased greatly, and as a result the development team is much larger, meaning greatly increased costs to the developer. Yet the up front cost to the gamer hasn't changed much. In order for the developer to survive the challenge, they need to find a model that allows them to recoup their increased investment.

Secondly, and related to the first reason, the increased complexity means that the development cycle is longer. This means a longer period of time before the developer can reap a harvest from their investment. Releasing a simulation in stages means they can recoup their investment sooner, and also use some of that income to continue to develop the sim.

Third, ongoing development of a single simulation means still greater complexity and more features. Additional time into F/A18 E Super Hornet means we will end up with a better product in the long run, with even more features. I think it's really a win-win situation in the end. DI has stated that a discount for the GOLD version will be available. And this way we get to play the game sooner!

In short, a new model was needed by simulation designers so that they could continue to develop the games we love. I think it's a good compromise, but you may feel differently.