Tippis

Not only would it work — it already works like that for assets that you manage to get into an MP mission where there is no restriction on joining based on whether you “own” the asset mod/module or not. That won't solve the actual problem because as has been pointed out, the problem is not related to cost or price. In fact, the problem is quite the opposite: by having these restrictions in place, ED's developers gets less money out of their effort, leading to less assets being made and less content for all. The whole “just pay $15” is the cause of the very issue that non-solution is meant to solve. It creates problems and solves nothing, especially not the issue being discussed here. That's the great irony of that whole off-topic tangent: the people arguing that giving ED $15 is the great panacea are actually arguing in favour of ED making less money from their modules and in favour of DCS not getting more paid-for content. This is why SC was implemented the way it was. And they don't have to. That's just the most extreme version of how to trivially solve the issue — so trivial, in fact, that it already works like that for the most poart. It's not a good solution by any stretch of the imagination, but unlike the whole irrelevant “just pay $15” catch phrase, it actually does solve the issue at hand. If you let it. No, it's less work for the mission creator exactly because they don't have to consider what the end users may or may not own, and can just decorate to their hearts' content. That's kind of the whole point. In actuality, it's the other way around: with the way things work now, they don't bother placating the people who did spend $30 because it's just not worth it. This has the effect of not making it worth spending those $30 for anyone else, and those who already did so end up not really getting their moneys' worth. Ultimately, as this evaluation slowly spreads and becomes the common opinion, ED makes less money and is less inclined to create more assets. The people who lose out are not the ones who don't buy the restricting module — it's the ones who do, and ED.

Yes there is. What is confusing is your adamant insistence that the problem must be related to price or cost in some way, because you have a hard time getting your head around what we mean when we say that the problem is not one of price or cost. Drop your imagined non-issue and start reading what we're actually saying. DCS being free does not solve the problem because the problem is not related to price or cost. The low cost of getting access to the asset pack is not a solution because the problem is not related to price or cost. Your precious $15 is not relevant to the topic at hand because the problem is not related to price or cost. Every time you bring up price or cost, your input is immediately made irrelevant to the topic at hand since the problem is not related to price or cost. Can you spot the pattern here? Are you at all able to internalise why your inane nonsense is worthless as input to the thread? There is a problem, yes, but it is not related to the price or cost of the asset pack, be it on sale or not. Yes. So why are you having such a catastrophically difficult time to understand that the problem is not related to price or cost? Why do you keep bringing up price and cost when we have clarified over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over that price and cost is not related to the problem at hand? What part of “the problem is not related to price or cost” are you having a hard time parsing or understanding? No. There are many problems. Price and cost are just not part of it. That principle does not apply to DCS, and even less to its competition. If you are that unfamiliar with how the game works, then maybe you should go off and do some research before you inject your nonsensical and long disproven assumptions into the thread and trying to make some unrelated and irrelevant factor meaningful solely for the purpose of letting you spout your tiresome non-solution to an unrelated non-issue. This is really the only question you need to answer at this point, and any further evasion and trying to bring in irrelevant non-factors prove once and for all that in spite of your assertions to the contrary, your presence in this thread only ever serves the purpose of trolling and going off-topic. Why that is is anyone's guess, but that it is exactly and only that will be made abundantly clear by further attempted evasions. So, if you want to avoid outing yourself as a nothing but a simple troll then answer this: what is it about the problem we have described — and only the one we have described, not the silly strawman you keep erecting — that is difficult for you to understand?

As long as it played by SC rules rather than WWII asset pack rules, the exact selection wouldn't really matter. If the WWII asset pack was remade to also play by SC rules, it would probably make more sense to keep them distinct with no overlap, though.

And as has been explained in full, this doesn't actually solve the problem of splitting the community. The code put in there specifically for that purpose still exists and still does its job of splitting the community. Just because you're on the other side of the split doesn't mean the split isn't there, and as long as it exists, the only sensible way for server managers and mission makers to deal with that is to not use the assets that cause that split. This harms everyone, but is better than the alternative. And none of that changes with the removal of the restriction. Again, SC shows how (and even if it didn't, all other assets in the game save for the WWII ones do as well). What you pay for — the part that supports the development — is the actual use. The presence of an asset in a mission is separate from the use of that asset (and this is the distinction that makes Beirut's wilful misrepresentation so utterly silly: because it ultimately hinges on a lack of distinction that isn't actually there). More than that, the presence of those assets serves as advertisement for the use. If you're barred from even noticing the presence, then you miss out on a lot of indirect (and direct) enticement to pay for the fabled popcorn as well. Scattered campaigns aside, there is exactly one thing in DCS I don't own: the T.1 Hawk. This choice does not alter the fact that I can't run a WWII-asset mission on any of my servers; that if I do, all that happens is that I get an empty server while all the guys go somewhere else to play together; that a single searchlight render can render all my module and hardware and infrastructure purchases immediately worthless and pointless, ultimately heavily disincentivising me from buying whatever module ED comes up with next. Thus, no seachlights allowed, and everyone — including you — are happier and better off for it. What would make everyone even more happy and better off is if that restriction didn't exist, giving designers free reign to use any weirdo combination of assets in the missions that go on the server.

Only in the sense of “very little” = “none at all”, because again this is hard-coded into the asset pack itself. Player choice will not change that (unless we go down a very silly route dealing with hacks and anti-DRM, which won't exactly endear us to ED if we tried to discuss it ). Just one problem: we know this for a fact to be true. I mean, feel free to disagree, but you're disagreeing with how all asset modules aside from the WWII asset pack function. SC in particular proved such restrictions to be completely arbitrary and unnecessary. Even looking at the business side, ED once created exactly one asset pack that came with a restriction that set it apart from all other assets in the game. When the time came for them to start selling a new asset pack, they at first thought about restricting it as well, but then decided that this was not in their best interest. Most likely for business reasons. They had a choice (being the only ones who can actually control this); they chose not to. And we shouldn't really stick to the movie example because as was demonstrated, it didn't actually match up with how the game functions. But sure: going by the movie example above, we don't tell the guy in the ticket booth anything. We don't need to. We simply show the legit admission ticket we already have to the guy checking at the entrance, and he doesn't care one whit about whether we have popcorn or not. (Granted, the simile gets a bit skewed by the occasional cinema policy that restricts us from bringing third-party snacks in… but that would be a whole separate kind of content that's not been part of the discussion so far — maybe IC could play that part). You cannot find a single instance of us actually saying the words you want to put in our mouths and cannot find any citation to support your point. So is DCS. I take it you couldn't find a third explanation for your misrepresentation, then? So we're back to the same question: which one was it — confusion or malice?

Nope. Would you care to try again, this time perhaps citing something any of us has actually said rather than some fanciful fantasy you've conjured up from who-knows-where? If you can offer a third option to explain the mismatch between what you wrote and what has actually been said, by all means share it. So far, it's just plain old Hanlon's razor.

Then what caused your description of what we want to be so massively off-based and unrelated to what has been clearly expressed as the thing we want? If not because of confusion, was it perhaps malice? …and which therefore are neither part of the problem nor the solution, so the sooner you stop wilfully misapprehending the problem, the sooner your confusion will end and you'll be able to start offering actual relevant arguments to the discussion at hand. The code that dictates who is allowed on a server and not is what divides the community. That's what the code is there for. That code is tied to the assets. No amount of player choice will make the code do anything else. It is not a fake argument. It's a matter of fact. That's simply how the game is coded. Because as all other assets demonstrate, the fee is wholly unnecessary. The asset packs hold a lot of value, and that's what (hopefully) makes them worth buying, but that is not a reason to arbitrarily and needlessly lock people out of servers for not owning them. If the only value lies in the mere presence of those assets, they'd better be made from ultrararium-plated unobtainium. Fortunately, though, that's not really what creates the value of the asset packs for the buyers. Rather, it's in the interactions and increased creativity in creation that they allow — the tie-ins with other modules (CA most notably, but also with specific maps, or with expansions of core systems or even specific airplane modules). All of that can demonstrably be had by the buyers without imparting any restrictions on participation among non-buyers.

The good news is that every indication is that they do and that they've learned their lesson from the WWII pack when new assets were introduced. Nope. This is just you getting confused about what we want again. But that's good — it's exactly why I asked you to clarify what you believe we wanted. It's not that. If you want to get a good understanding of what we want then, as mentioned, you need to dump your misapprehension that it's about buying things and instead actually read what people have been telling you. It has been stated very clearly, explicitly, with every conceivable emphasis. Relying on this tired and long disproven strawman you're clinging to will not help. But it's not their toys. That's a pretty key part of the problem. This has been addressed.

With which part? That it splits the community is pretty much an undeniable fact — indeed, that's the very function and intent of of the restriction. What's your reasoning for not considering this a problem?

Dawww… So how about it? Would you like to contribute an actual argument that is relevant to the topic at hand, or do you want to keep piling on the laughable nonsense just to try to get the last word in, thereby acting like nothing more than a troll? No, the point is that I asked you to clarify what you think it is that we want. You keep repeating that whole “if you want it, buy it” but you have not shown any evidence of understanding what it is we want. There is a problem — just not the one your proposed solution supposedly solves. What the problem is has been explained to you in full, and you have not actually addressed what is being said. Instead, you have just kept repeating the same irrelevant catchphrase related to a non-issue, and then acted confused when told that the non-issue is not the issue. That's the other point: if you can't in good faith demonstrate that you've understood what the stated problem is and how it differs from the unrelated non-problem you keep offering your non-solution to, then your entire line of “argumentation” misses the mark. You say that the problem we say exist does not exist. Prove it. Address the actual problem we're describing and show how it not actually how the game works. This has already been answered. Repeating the question does not change the answer. Moreover, you have yet to demonstrate that you even understand what it is we want. So, again, could you please do that? No, no, no, no, no, and no, in roughly that order. Why that is has been explained in full. No. We know this for a fact because we have modules far more expensive than that that don't split the community — the price of the module is not a factor. This has been explained in full. That does not follow. In large part because that's not how DCS and its modules, and the market surrounding them, work. Lots of people don't have lots of modules, in spite of their price not being what causes them not to buy them. They don't have them because they don't want them and because not wanting something is not a hindrance to playing the game. Except in one case, where if you don't want something, you are suddenly not allowed to participate for no good reason (since we know that this restriction is entirely artificial and arbitrary). Your logic only applies to people who are paying for it already and guess what, they do own it. By definition. But the problem arises with those who aren't and with the artificiality and arbitrariness of the restriction this creates, and — perhaps more importantly — with those who have to deal with (by avoiding) those restrictions. No. That is not the problem. This is why you keep getting confused.

Dawww… So how about it? Would you like to contribute an actual argument that is relevant to the topic at hand, or do you want to keep piling on the laughable nonsense just to try to get the last word in, thereby acting like nothing more than a troll? Again, it is only surreal because you keep clinging to the notion that the problem is in any way, shape, or form related to paying for a module or not in spite of being told repeatedly that the problem in no way, shape or form is related to paying for a module or not, but rather is something completely unrelated. Something different that I asked you to state, for the sake of clarity, so we're sure we're on the same page. Something you seemingly couldn't — or wouldn't — clarify, for whatever reason…

Your “argument” is therefore irrelevant to the topic at hand. Good. You've caught on to that much at least. So why are you going page after page suggesting that paying for it will solve the problem when you've been told, page after page, that it's not a factor? Because problems can exist that are not related to paying for it or not. Problems can also exist that are not about wanting something. But more importantly, you have yet to show any evidence of what it is that we supposedly want. Could you clarify what you think it is, please? Because every indication points to it not being what you have convinced yourself it is… Yes there is. It's just not the problem you so desperately wish it to be so you can bandy about your neat catch phrase. If you drop that need and drop what can be now only be classified as a wilful and deliberate unwillingness to grasp what the problem is, then maybe you can actually start having some input of value in the discussion. Maybe you can even formulate an argument against a solution that improves everything for everyone. What's being asked for has been very clearly and repeatedly stated. If you have to come up with this laughable nonsense just to try to keep up the illusion that you have anything to say, then maybe it's about time you stop trolling…

Wow. You've really run out of anything even remotely resembling an actual relevant argument, haven't you? Is it because you've finally understood that the problem isn't what you thought it was, but still need to get the last word in? Or is this the point where you were just trolling all along?

Why, when that doesn't solve the problem? It's only weird because you're desperately clinging to this notion that paying for it (or not) is somehow part of the problem. You'll notice that you keep being told that paying for it isn't a problem. As such, your proposed solution does nothing. Because it has nothing to do with the problem. Repeating the same non-solution to an irrelevant non-problem does not actually address, much less solve, the issue at hand — it only elicits that exact same repeated response. If you want to stop it being weird, let go of your misconception of what the problem is.

No. That is not what is being asked for. Thus, as Beirut so amply demonstrated, someone acting as fairy godmother does not solve anything. Please, once again, as always, read the thread before responding. Oh, and your guesswork has never served you well as a basis for any of your attempts at constructing an understanding of the problem. It will not work here either — only actual reading will.

No. The problem still exists. It's just that paying for it was never the problem to begin with. Pointlessly declaring that a well-established non-issue is not an issue does not magically cause the actual issue to no longer exist.

The way all other modules (that don't split them into two groups) are developed. And that is exactly how it is being dealt with and why these restrictions end up being counter-productive false economy. It causes less stuff to be sold, less stuff to be developed, and less content to be produced. This is a bad thing.

Well, in that case let me be the first one to welcome you to Earth. We have come up with a whole bunch of clever solutions to get around such tedious and unnecessary restrictions. Not that it has any real bearing on the problem at hand. As always with your posts, this is of course inherently and categorically incorrect.

Nope. You can repeat that wilfully ignorant drivel as much as you like but it will never actually address the issue, much less solve the problem at hand. The split still exists. No amount of buying things will make it go away. In fact, it's the whole “buying things” part that ensures that it is always there. All you're doing is repeatedly showing that the problem exists. That is an illustration, not a cure. Hey, it was your example. If you didn't like it, you shouldn't have brought it up. …it features a lock-out function that splits the community. This is a bad thing. The way it's being dealt with is to not use the asset pack. This ruins it for everyone, same as in your example. That's also a bad thing.

Then don't suggest it as a cure. No. This is four guys having lunch and one of them didn't order fries so he must go to a different restaurant and not have lunch with other guys at all. This, of course, is a setup that ruins it for everyone involved except the competing restaurant who suddenly got a new customer through no effort of their own.

Nope. Almost none of them do, in fact. …but you can join the mission and play with them anyway, so you're not being split apart from the rest of the guys. You're all having fun together. Nope. Being on the other side of the split does not mean the split is no longer there. Oh, and with your fabulous wealth of $15, could you please send over 50 or so asset pack licenses? If you can't, then no, the problem isn't even addressed, much less solved, with $15.

Because the barriers created by lock-out asset packs split the community. That's a bad thing. Your having $15 and games costing money do not make the bad thing go away — in the first instance because the split is still there, enforced by code, and in the other instance because the statement is untrue and isn't actually applicable to this case. Also, you only suggest two out of (at least) four different option. Two (and possibly more) of those options neatly circumvent the problem entirely.

It's just an updated rendering technique to get rid of things like baked-in reflections and faked shadows.

No. Try reading it again, because I explained in full — twice — why it doesn't. Respond to what I have actually written, rather than just repeat the same misapprehension of what the problem is. …and yet you can use the road. So that's a wholly nonsensical example that, if anything, proves the exact opposite of what you want. Oh, and you might be shocked to learn that DCS does not actually cost any money. This is a good thing. It's not about the price because we want them to join the server, and to make that happen, we cannot put any unnecessary obstacles in their way. No, not really. In fact, that's in every detail pretty much the exact opposite of what I was describing. Instead, the situations is that you had a computer for whatever reason — maybe it was even handed to you. You then got hoodwinked into trying this weirdo DCS thing that everyone kept talking up and showing all kinds of fancy/funny videos and images and posts about it, and why not? It's free, after all. They even provided some helpful getting started lessons over a voice channel to get you over the initial complexity hump and to get all the necessary MP bits and bobs working. But then it turns out that, no, that was all pointless because someone put a single searchlight into the mission on the server and now you can't play. And thus, because of that searchlight, you lose interest and we either outright lose a potential community member or have forcibly created an A team and a B team — a split community, if you will. …and that's all that matters. It's why all those other comparisons are not actually the same thing. They don't split the community because they inherently can't. The asset pack, by very definition of its built-in restriction and by design, does. One blocks people from joining a mission; one does not. Those two outcomes are not the same thing, because the restrictions are not the same. The simple fact of the matter is that the lock-out mechanic in the WWII asset pack undeniably and by very definition splits the community. This is intentional and by design, as we can tell from the fact that they have since released another for-pay asset pack that didn't feature this lock-out. And at the end of the day, splitting the community is contrary to the interests of anyone trying to build such a community. This realisation is in part why that second asset pack ended up being designed the way it was, in spite of first being designed with a lock-out in place.

If you keep clinging to the misapprehension that it's about $15, then you don't understand what the problem is and why $15 doesn't solve anything. So, again: it has nothing to do with the price. It has to do with pointlessly and needlessly creating hurdles that must be catered for by not erecting them in the first place. That way, and only that way, all those who want to play can play. And you want them all to play. What you're describing is not “those who want to play” because you're wantonly skipping over the most important qualifier: “those who want and have already fully committed to playing”. That is a very different category. In other words, not all who want to play can play. That's a catastrophically bad position to put yourself in if you want people to play. It does. The thing about this sim is that it's free. Its $0 entry point is actually one of its major strengths, especially now when we also have $0 module trial periods. You don't even need much in the way of extra gear beyond what you probably already have as a gamer. It can certainly become costly, sure, but that leads right back to that missing qualifier: those who have already fully committed. That $0 level is the lowest common denominator that you need to consider if you want to achieve any real coherence and critical mass in your community-building. The way to make them commit, and even just a little bit, is to not arbitrarily and for no good reason lock them out the way pay-or-gtfo content does. And that's the other thing about this sim that makes it far less… antagonistic, for the lack of a better term, than its complexity and niche-ness would intuitively suggest: there is precious little such content. It's just the terrains and that very poorly handled asset pack. Again, it's telling that the second time they tried to use the same lock-out system, they ended up deciding not to because of how thoroughly the point and the consequences of that false economy and the detrimental consequences of that lock-out was hammered home. That's unfortunately a useless example because it has exactly zero impact on your ability to join missions where the Apache is present. This is a good thing and you're very happy that the game works that way. So if anything, it is an example of the exact opposite of the point you're trying to make.