MiG21bisFishbedL

I wonder if ED could sell powdered horse bones as some kind of flim-flam remedy over facebook? That could get them income considering this particular horse has been rendered down to dust.

A lot of folk believe throwing money at the problem will fix things. Too bad it ain't that simple.

Exactly, we just reserve our emotions for ancient civilizations we're so far removed from, it doesn't even matter if we live where they did AND anything that flies, moves, or shoots.

Yeah, but I'd rather hurl myself upon the fainting couch.

Thanks for sharing!

I also sing House of the Rising Sun when I pre-order something. Mothers, tell your children.. not to dooooo what I have doooone.

But, we do have limited ground function. And, ED has said it isn't limited to only aerial warfare. I'd imagine the real roadblock is access. We'd be looking at a VERY abstracted and simplified radar. So, the real question is how much simplification and abstraction consumers are willing to deal with.

There's a lot of appeal for *a lot* of things, though. Game development is 10 kilos of great ideas trying to fit into a 1 kilo bag.

Replaying this, I think it's easily my favorite campaign. Getting a sequel with the MiG-19 or the upcoming F-100 would be amazing.

Most, actually. Though has more to do with games from that era possessing gamespy as the only real internet dependency and that can be circumvented by a private master server or a VPN like GameRanger or Tunngle. I can still install Homeworld, Cataclysm, Unreal, the Thief series, you name it. I even have Flanker 2.5 installed and it runs fine, though it's always a wise idea to go find a new sourceport or fix just to get widescreen support as that's the only consistent issue. Honestly, if there are classic games you'd like to revisit? Hit up GoG and then the game's forums to find any potential recommended fixes. It's worth it! Anyways, back onto topic: The real thing that hamstrings a game and limits its longevity is the dependency on online services. A subscription service furthers that dependency and can drives away these particular players. A model like World of <Insert crap here> or War Thunder is probably the worst: Can't host private servers, dependent on tons of microtransactions, etc. Both approaches would alienate a big enough chunk of the consumer base to actually be an existential threat to DCS World, and the communications we get from ED on this topic indicate that pretty clearly. Publishers hate PC players paying an upfront, single time fee. They like that little drip feed since they can get so much more out of you over time. I've read a number of opinion pieces and have had shareholder documents shown to me that they easily get 4 times a standard game MSRP if the game is free to play and supported via microtransactions. It's absolutely predatory. It encourages developmental laziness while ensuring a large portion of a player base will provide what is, in essence, a new game purchase spent regularly while not having a new game made at the same time. Another reason they detest us is because when we find a game we like? We're going to play it. For years. The best example? Falcon 4.0. How many still play that and even still play Allied Force? It doesn't have a closed ecosystem of servers providing you matchmaking, it can't lock off major sections of content behind arbitrary experience grinds, it doesn't require a monthly fee for access, so it was completely cut off from the publisher once it launched. They can't shut it down, they can't tell us "IT'S BEEN FUN GUYEZZ" in some fake sentimentality post on social media. They have no control over it. They want that so they can force you away from an older product and to buy newer product, frequently seen as inferior. That's why they really love the F2P model, it forces the player to be completely subject to that publisher/developer's particular digital fiefdom. They can retire and stop service whenever they want. Sure, there are ubernerds who can flex their skills and make them run on private servers, but the game's still dead and you'll never see it at full potential ever gain. Time to move onto the next slot machine, I guess? The only 2 games with ethical free-to-play scheme that I have played are DCS World, which charges what they want in total upfront while also providing ample price reductions during sales and the ability to try out a product, free, for a limited time and the other is Warframe, who doesn't have a long grind for the most part, has solid action, and a very simple monetization scheme that doesn't bar access to anything save for a few cosmetics and, in practice, only really affects inventory space.

There's two extremes in the customer base. There's one portion that thinks ED and co. will break into their homes and hold them at gunpoint before politely asking them to buy things. The other, albeit much smaller, portion thinks DCS isn't monetized anywhere near enough and wants to dump loads and loads into micro transactions, because eliminating the open ended nature from DCS is a good idea.

Every gamer holds a degree in game design, economics, and business, don'cha know? Clearly, a company that's been in business since the 1990s is doing something wrong in this regard and should listen. I eagerly await DCS lootbox drops, premium currency that'll cut the weeks it takes to get out of a P-51 and into an F-86 into a matter of days, and the Everquest tie-in.

That would be the most obscene outcome and would effectively force many to toss DCS into the bin. I'm pretty sure ED doesn't want that and they know. Given where DCS has gone in terms of monetization, a subscription model would either be a hard sell or just absolutely pointless. They can't limit access to what we've purchased, I'm sure a number of regulators across the world might take umbrage with that. My questions would be: 1. Are future releases going to be subscription only? If so, how does that add value to those of us, like you and I, who already own a substantial amount of content? To me, that just says "Well, sorry losers, the modules offered up on active subscriptions are now our priority since we're getting a drip feed of the purchase price??" Given the experience I've had, and many many others, with trying to convince ED that the Saber's ballistics are wrong, I would expect that frustration with everything else we have. So, I don't like that. 2. How profitable would a subscription be? Let's compare the existing FC3 price of $50 and your example of $5 a month ala EA play. That's $60 a year, so greater profit? Potentially higher margins for ED, right? But, you'll know right quick if you like FC3. So, what if I were drop a few months subscription to try it and I like it. But, DCS players are always eager to tell newbies to wait for sales. So, I've put 3 months into it, enjoy it, that's $15. It goes on sale for half off? I've spent $40, which represents a loss of $20. On the surface, it's actually not a horrible idea. It could be used as a loss leader, a product sold at an unprofitable rate to grow customer loyalty and get them spending more. However, that could turn into an issue since ED might have to compensate by reducing discounts on other products or even discontinuing them. I think this is an untenable position given how many purchases happen during sales. 3. What happens to third parties? Can they opt out of the subscription model? There's probably more that can be thought of and we can't get any solid proof since a business has the right to keep its figures confidential, but every smoke cloud we see from ED indicates that a more mainstream free to play model or an iRacing-esque subscription is just out of the question. I suppose if money is coming in, you just let it do so and don't try to squeeze blood from a stone. After all, not everything can be answered by throwing more money at it.

The break down of preference between FF and FC is more stark than I thought. I figured more would prefer the FC offerings than is apparent. Though it is true that I only fly the Flanker, Fulcrum, and Su-25 because there's no FF version.

Very possible and, well, the IP part? That's a bit tricky, at least from my perspective. RB's Mirage 2000 is called the M-2000 to avoid issues, IIRC. And, Boeing sued EA for the use of their helicopters in games, but courts ruled they can't copyright the appearance or mention of it, since they can't just copyright a series of characters. At least in my view, though? Non-cooperation is only slightly better. Having that manufacturer provide support is pretty essential. So, while I assume developers can go without manufacturer blessing, to me it seems like a case of "don't bother, then." Either way, you could definitely be on the money, regardless.

Here we go again! That ship has sailed a long time ago. There will be no subscription model.

It's also what DCS is predicated on.

I'd love it, but I suspect they'd want to offer field mods later on down the road, if at all. It'd be awesome, though. We're hopin'!

How would you go about a 'helmet view." If we're talking about a transparency ala OFP iron sights in 2002? That's lame. Full 3D? It'd be pretty neat to have. Although, every time I've worn a helmet or mask? I never noticed the helmet in my periphery, but you do definitely notice the mask. It'd be lost on us monitor users, but the VR guys might like it a lot.

Similar variants or models still requires modeling work and even FM work. That's always going to be a lot. For example, the F-7MG has a drastically different fuselage, canopy, and (most importantly) wing shape. It has a compound wing, so that's going to require FM changes, probably quite a few. F-16C to F-16A maybe a little less, but there still promises to be work. Mirage 3s and Mirage 2000s are pretttty different, probably the most work there. If they intend to build more FC offerings? Look to what they offer in the first party. So, Hornet, Viper, and the L-39s. Hinging it on a third party or starting from scratch? That's going to lengthen development and reduce over all value from the perspective of the developer as a result of third parties having less resources than ED and also starting from scratch is just that. We've heard from developers, repeatedly, they're not that much less work than a FF module if done from the ground up. They still require a highly detailed model, a highly detailed cockpit, sounds effects, etc. So, I'd honestly wager that any further FC additions will be from existing aircraft, tbh.

I absolutely fail to see value in a simplified Warbird. I think that feels more like a commentary on, perhaps, warbird offerings might be overpriced in some individuals eyes? It's, at least, an argument that should be entertained. But, what's stopping anyone from just using autostart and take off assistance? Bind what few keys you need to your HOTAS and off you go.

It could always be lighting or ReShade. I'd like to know more.

Welcome to DCS Jr. High!

I like how you went on a tangent about how you'd be so okay in the hamstrung MiG-29M situation, ignoring that the F-14 would still have height advantage, speed advantage, and 3 more Phoenix shots at a range you can't hope to touch. The 29M is still at a huge disadvantage and whatever choice he makes, he ends up with being tailed. Also, there's more to it than engine power and the 29M's engines are not that much more powerful, anyways. The point was no one is going to want to be ganked as a result of unfair hamstringing since you didn't get the right amount of magic numbers. Also, pointing out that walking back on no more FC aircraft ignores that 1. It could be an effort to shore up cash for overhauling those aircraft, which sorely need it and 2. These were already IN the game to begin with. You completely ignored the point that forcing exp and grinds on FC aircraft, a completely unnecessary measure, would leave the incorrect impression upon new players and serve to only drive away newcomers while also angering existing players because it's effort and resources not applied to needed updates and fixes. It would leave ED in a worse position. This has been discussed at length, as well as subscriptions etc. and it's always been assuredly shut down. It's one thing to make a cockpit static and simplify inputs. It's another to rebuild the methods of monetization from the ground up. Especially on a product that already has favorable monetization by its existing player base. If you want War Thunder, it's there. Along with World of Warplanes, etc. These products exist, not every game needs to be like them. Not every game needs to be an explosive success, even though what proposed would do more damage than good. This is clearly not an argument being made in good faith or at least one not willing to come to grips with realities of software development and the very nature of the product, so I'm peacing out.

You're not wrong, but uh.. Flanker 1.0 was 1995. I'm so sorry, I can barely believe Il-2 is 20 years old.