Thump

And it didn't go well for them. "With VW recalling millions of cars worldwide from early next year, it has set aside €6.7bn (£4.8bn) to cover costs. That resulted in the company posting its first quarterly loss for 15 years of €2.5bn in late October. But that's unlikely to be the end of the financial impact. The EPA has the power to fine a company up to $37,500 for each vehicle that breaches standards - a maximum fine of about $18bn." What has been VW's response? "We've totally screwed up," said VW America boss Michael Horn, while the group's chief executive at the time, Martin Winterkorn, said his company had "broken the trust of our customers and the public"

Well you sir are in luck.

And I can guarantee that is a business decision for them to give the graphical and cockpit updates, not an altruistic one.

Depends on how you want to look at it and at what price point ED is going to sell the A-10C 2. If they sell it at full price, your analogy does not work. For your analogy to work, ED would have to plan a price point well below normal module costs if they are doing a "support subscription". Going off of JHMCS current cost numbers of about 250K (since finding the cost of a scorpion is difficult to find readily) in comparison to the A-10's cost back in 1984 (18.8 million), you are looking at a less than 1% increase in cost. So even if we say that the scorpion costs a million dollars, you're looking at a 5% increase in cost. Granted the A-10C 2 will have more than just the Scorpion, is it going to cost $80? Or is it going to be a DLC rate of approximately $20-30? I'm not expecting an actual answer from you or the Devs. I'm just sayin' you're analogy is a pretty bad example if they are selling it at full price.

And that is a problem. But if you are ok with this as a consumer, then don't be surprised when you buy something from them in the future based on their advertisement and not have it delivered. We have seen how bugs for 5+ years have yet to be resolved, the "sustainment" would effectively be indefinite as they shift their focus to the Viper, Hind, *new mindblowing aircraft yet to be announced*, super carrier, WW2 aircraft, etc.

And you along with ED still miss the point of the main frustration. Hint, it isn't the delay.

Again my dude, it didn't have anything to do with the product not being (legitimately) complete by the end of 2020 or them having to shift the completion date to sometime in 2021 (probably beyond). I think I'm about at my end with this circling discussion.

Then anything, to include words, can and will change at the drop of a hat to suit my needs. Shall we argue over what the definition of is, is?

Nope, I just use normal definitions and consumer expectations used by the electronic gaming market place. Early access, also known as early funding, alpha-access, alpha founding, or paid-alpha, is a funding model in the video game industry by which consumers can purchase and play a game in the various pre-release development cycles, such as pre-alpha, alpha, and/or beta, while the developer is able to use those funds to continue further development on the game. Those that pay to participate typically help to debug the game, provide feedback and suggestions, and may have access to special materials in the game. The early-access approach is a common way to obtain funding for indie games, and may also be used along with other funding mechanisms, including crowdfunding. Many crowdfunding projects promise to offer access to alpha and/or beta versions of the game as development progresses; however, unlike some of these projects which solicit funds but do not yet have a playable game, all early access games offer an immediately playable version of the unfinished game to players." https://www.definitions.net/definition/early+access From a leading peer in the field: Steam Early Access enables you to sell your game on Steam while it is still being developed, and provide context to customers that a product should be considered "unfinished." Early Access is a place for games that are in a playable alpha or beta state, are worth the current value of the playable build, and that you plan to continue to develop for release. Releasing a game in Early Access helps set context for prospective customers and provides them with information about your plans and goals before a "final" release. https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/store/earlyaccess And your #2 point is very much playing word games. They might as well call the Platypus complete and be done with the EA stage.

Well, I can't help you see the issue any more clear than this. It has NOTHING to do with it changing as far as when it will be (truly) complete. It is VERY disingenuous to try and play word games.

They just changed the definition of EA right in front of your face and you missed it my dude. The issue is the fact that they are playing word games while being "transparent." If they simply said that they are going to have to change the EA complete date (for whatever reason), that would be frustrating/disappointing but it would be an honest answer. Calling something complete when it is clearly not out of EA and now labeling it a "sustain" process is disingenuous at best.

DCS: F/A-18 Platypus ED, With the recent update on the Hornet's roadmap, what is the definition you are using to define a released (complete) product? At the end of 2020 the Hornet will be out of EA but still missing over 20 items. How exactly is this product out of EA? What state are you considering it to be in at the end of 2020 and what will it be considered at the end of 2021? - Thump

Yeah, but it would take me more time then I care to spend trying to dig that jem back up.

Going to give you a 0.00% chance at that tomorrow (aka ED standard).

This rates up there with the "Sim fighter pilots are better than real fighter pilots" statement someone made a bit ago. I'm going to go lay down now.

That's a very big guess that carries a heavy penalty. It's not that they are simulating classified stuff, it's that they can't control what is in the documents that people may post which could land them in waters they would rather avoid.

Why would they want to risk someone posting something that may be deemed sensitive? What's the gain when there are other ways for people to get those materials to others who want them? I can easily see it not being worth the squeeze. I am critical of a lot but I can see why they made that decision.

Whelp, looks like my post was a bit late.

Because not every solution is throwing good money after bad. The core of the sim is in its current state (as has been faltering for the past 12 years) is because of their failures, not mine as the consumer. I shouldn't have to pay them to fix something that shouldn't be broken in the first place. I also shouldn't have to "incentivize" them to complete their modules by paying some random "getting out of EA tax." Their incentive should be my ceasing to patronize their company if they do not deliver. And you are automatically assuming that all will be right with "just the right amount of funding." Where did this magical 10 Euro per month cost come from? I can make it seem even better; if we send 5 Euro per month as a tithing, ED will be able to fix the VR issues, MP issues, AI, weather, ATC, missile logic, and release a dynamic campaign in under a year. No idea how, just more money = great success (?). A subscription model will kill this game fast. Few will bank on the game getting better because we're throwing more money at them. Those that do will see their money not spent how they believe it should be (or success reached at an unacceptable rate) and will cease to subscribe and we'll be either back to module payments or worse. The core game being the "experience" from what I've seen is wholly because of the community as far as MP goes. From blue flag to users creating their own campaigns, it is the people who provide for the combat experience. ED has made a really cool cockpit simulator but the combat environment portion of this experience is severely lacking.

Take heart, it's the one thing they have delivered this year. Maybe more to follow... Oh wait, what's the date again? ;-)

You're assuming they are going to reinvest it into the product instead of just taking a bigger paycheck.

That is a huge assumption to make.

You haven't been around long enough. To address everything that has happened in the past couple of years (and earlier) would take longer than I care to write or you would care to read. The short skinny of it, is YES it is emboldening (and anti consumer, which still baffles me how some consumers are so self-hating) them based on what the previous response was about. The previous poster was not talking about "how much they liked the sim for what it is" (currently burning with 2.5.6's release). It was about silencing opposition with the status quo of "iT's Ea BrUh, dOn'T pLaY tHe bEtA" mentality that seeks to stifle the voices who call for a completed product and a reasonable approach to reaching such a state. As far as them being perfect, I do not expect that of them nor of anyone. I'm as faulty as the next and more than likely well beyond most. I DO expect them to complete the products that I have supported. With the previous Hornet fiasco (read: Hornet devs for Viper rev[enue] ) with a "goal" of the end of this year, the question of HOW they are going to make that happens is continually attacked by the anti-consumer consumer (again, still baffled). To attach this to a decade long set of bugs that are either never addressed or resurface because of the state of the "spaghetti code", it goes to say that those who have been around long enough have seen the dance. A key factor to what I believe is your difficulty in seeing the issues is the fact that you are WW2 focused. This isn't to belittle your choice in aircraft that peek your interest in aviation, but to speak to your focus not being on the current aircraft peeking the main issues. Combining this with your relatively new arrival to the scene may give you the impression that you have. Lastly, the very fact that you listed 7 things they have added this year alone (really a year and a half if we're going to talk Hornet) and the fact that the only really complete thing are the pits from aircraft released a decade ago should be a glaring warning. To add to this the JF-17, (soon to be) UH-58, Typhoon, Harrier, and the F-14A/Forrestal, and some "mind blowing new aircraft from ED" have yet to be released/completed, we are looking down the barrel of 18 EA products with no finish date on the horizon for any of them. THIS is an endemic problem associated with the approach using EA for funds that is unsustainable. At some point they will run out of good will and that's what is concerning from a consumer's point of view who has invested heavily in this company. EA Products or soon will be: Super Carrier JF-17 F-16 I-16 MiG-19 Christen Ealge II F-14A/B (Forrestal) Yak-52 F/A-18C AV-8B DCS: WWII Assets Pack AJS-37 Viggen Typhoon (announced) F-15E (announced) Uh-58 (announced) Undefined "Mind Blowing" Aircraft (announced) A-10C 2 (announced) Black Shark 4/5.6 (announced) A far as you being new, welcome to the party. There is fun to be had, just gotta find it where you can.

And it’s this attitude that emboldens ED to continually release modules with no clear plan (or reason) to actually complete them.

It's ED.