Normandy Map Discussion

[NineLine]

For me the issue is not about this WWII units pack in particular, but about the potential problems this whole model brings in the future if expanded. What if there will be a Hormuz Units Pack including a SA-2? If someone makes a Caucasus campaign using the SA-2, will you have to buy the Hormuz pack? Now you might say to not worry about things unknown things in the future. But when would be the most appropriate time to give feedback on this model if not now? ED certainly won't change the anything about the Normandy release at this point. But by giving our feedback as customers now, ED can make an informed decision whether to continue this model for future releases.

 

There is absolutely no hint that modern units would be "packed" right now. In fact we are getting new and updated models all the time for free. I could see other era's doing this. But again there is no evidence that this is going to happen.

 

Honestly, I will be the first in line to say that I expect the purchase of the unit pack to be a one time thing, and that future units for WWII would be added freely to the owner of this pack.

 

I would also be fine with a Korea War pack on the same premise... I have seen the silly suggestion that ED is going to start charging for missiles and bullets.. so lets not get carried away either.

 

Think of this as purchasing the WWII aspect of the sim. As most have said, the real issue is not the cost, its the restriction of joining a server without it, but this isnt that uncommon in the game industry now though. So it comes down to this, if you want to have the full WWII experience, you need to have the WWII units pack. If you want to continue to air quake in WWII planes, you can still do that without the units pack.

[NineLine]

This issue is very real for SP as well. If I decide to drop in the new Bofors flak into my Desert Tiger 76 dynamic campaign, I instantly lock out the majority of DCS users from playing it.

 

Then don't do that, if you are concerned.

[Zunzun]

For me the issue is not about this WWII units pack in particular, but about the potential problems this whole model brings in the future if expanded. What if there will be a Hormuz Units Pack including a SA-2? If someone makes a Caucasus campaign using the SA-2, will you have to buy the Hormuz pack? Now you might say to not worry about things unknown things in the future. But when would be the most appropriate time to give feedback on this model if not now? ED certainly won't change the anything about the Normandy release at this point. But by giving our feedback as customers now, ED can make an informed decision whether to continue this model for future releases.

 

That is why I posted earlier it would be good they clarify this.

I am elucubrating that maybe there would be a new bussines model in wich different eras would come as independent purchasing options as we have now maps and modules.

Something like:

ww2, korea, vietnam, 70-80s, 90s-2000 units packs.

Different maps of different eras.

Diferent modules.

So in order to play say ww2 scenario you more likely have to purchase your ww2 unit pack, your favourite planes and ww2 map.

Probably with every now and then bundle offers for maps/units/aircraft.

[MBot]

There is absolutely no hint that modern units would be "packed" right now. In fact we are getting new and updated models all the time for free. I could see other era's doing this. But again there is no evidence that this is going to happen.

 

Right, but there is equally no evidence that it is not going to happen. The assumption that this distribution model is going to be repeated is at least not far stretched. If a Korea theme pack is ok, is a Vietnam pack also still ok? What about a 1980s pack? Or a 90s pack? Therefore now is the right time for the community to clarify what it will accept and what not. Knowing this is in the best interest of ED.

 

I am not concerned about costs, as I probably will buy most of the stuff. But as a mission/campaign designer I am concerned about what units I can safely use in my mission, even if they are just minor decoration, without locking out a significant part of the user base.

[352ndDeacon]

We need to d/l that new runtime for the Nevada map update. But will we need that also for the Normandy map? Or will it run like 1.5.6 which doesn't need it?

So to summarize, will the new runtime be needed for the Normandy map?

[NineLine]

Right, but there is equally no evidence that it is not going to happen. The assumption that this distribution model is going to be repeated is at least not far stretched. If a Korea theme pack is ok, is a Vietnam pack also still ok? What about a 1980s pack? Or a 90s pack? Therefore now is the right time for the community to clarify what it will accept and what not. Knowing this is in the best interest of ED.

 

I am not concerned about costs, as I probably will buy most of the stuff. But as a mission/campaign designer I am concerned about what units I can safely use in my mission, even if they are just minor decoration, without locking out a significant part of the user base.

 

I might take issue with a separate Korea and Vietnam pack... they seem like they would over lap a lot, but then I dont know either.

 

Suggesting there might be an 80's and 90's pack is probably a little silly now... especially when we have a lot of that stuff for free right now. Right, lets not forget how many high-quality new and updated models we get for free. Pick any one of those and go price out a high quality 3D model for it.

 

Also think about 3rd Parties, who might be good at creating 3D assets but hold back because there is no return on investment, wouldnt you rather give a 3rd Party 30 bucks and have them create a huge unit pack like this, or would you just rather not have any of that stuff.

 

The issue is simple how it effects MP, that is the only hang up here. I would like a better solution if possible, but it might not be.

[NineLine]

We need to d/l that new runtime for the Nevada map update. But will we need that also for the Normandy map? Or will it run like 1.5.6 which doesn't need it?

So to summarize, will the new runtime be needed for the Normandy map?

 

Normandy should install in the same install you have for NTTR, so you shouldnt need to do anything but update 2.0 when its released.

[MBot]

Then don't do that, if you are concerned.

 

In which case those that have brought the unit are missing the opportunity to enjoy it in missions, due to the fact that not everyone else has it. That is SP fracturing right there.

[GrmlZ]

I am sure they considered it for free, initially there was not thought of a separate unit pack, but the investment has been large.

 

While i understant that, i fear the current course of action will not lead to more income.

More likely the opposite.

 

I for example like to build and play missions with friends in co-op. And not everybody owns everything, that immediately means those units are out when i build a mission.

 

With other players not owning planes i can easily deal with.

I can just provide more options to fly, so that there is something for everybody.

 

But if they cant even join if they dont own some ground units, well the only way to deal with that is not to have them in the mission.

 

That means my interrest in having them is very low, since i have little use for them if i cant use them in the missions i build. And some large WW2 servers will handel it similarly.

 

Not having a use for WW2 units in turn means my interest in the normandy map drops as well and with it my interest in the whole WW2 scenario in DCS.

 

On the other hand, if the new units would be free the interest in the WW2 scenario would go up, leading to more sales of the new map as well as existing and upcoming WW2 plane modules.

On top of that the WW2 units would also work well with for example the Korean era Jets and to some extent the Vietnam era planes.

 

I planned to use them in those scenarios, but again, if people not owning them are banned from playing the missions, i cant do that.

 

Long story short, I understant the need for a certain amount of income to make up for the cost of the Map and Units. However the choice that makes you the most money is not always the most obvious one.

As a matter of fact there are often cases were offering something for less money ends up making you more money too.

 

Take gaming consols or printers which are often sold at a loss, for less than it cost the company to make them, because it means more sales of related products (games,ink cartridges) and more money in the long run.

 

And i am quite certain this is one of those cases. I am confident offering the units for free for everyone would end up creating more money later down the line for ED, while the current way of doing it is nothing but a heavy blow for the entire WW2 scenario and with it the sales of ALL modules associated with it.

 

So, not only is the current split customer unfriendly, it wont make you more money either.

Edited March 9, 2017 by GrmlZ

[NineLine]

In which case those that have brought the unit are missing the opportunity to enjoy it in missions, due to the fact that not everyone else has it. That is SP fracturing right there.

 

How is it fracturing??? If you want to use the unit, you buy the pack, if you dont want to use that unit, dont buy the pack, but then dont scream foul when you cant play a mission with that unit in it. Sorry... but you are trying to hard to find issues now.

[NineLine]

People had similar concerns with NTTR, its price and fracturing... funny thing is, NTTR sales from what I have heard have been beyond expectation. So I guess we will just have to see. If nobody buys the Asset pack, then ED will have to figure that out.

 

While i understant that, i fear the current course of action will not lead to more income.

More likely the opposite.

 

I for example like to build and play missions with friends in co-op. And not everybody owns everything, that immediately means those units are out when i build a mission.

 

With other players not owning planes i can easily deal with.

I can just provide more options to fly, so that there is something for everybody.

 

But if they cant even join if they dont own some ground units, well the only way to deal with that is not to have them in the mission.

 

That means my interrest in having them is very low, since i have little use for them if i cant use them in the missions i build. And some large WW2 servers will handel it

 

Not having a use for WW2 units in turn means my interest in the normandy map drops as well and with it my interest in the whole WW2 scenario in DCS.

 

On the other hand, if the new units would be free the interest in the WW2 scenario would go up, leading to more sales of the new map as well as existing and upcoming WW2 plane modules.

On top of that the WW2 units would also work well with for example the Korean eara Jets and to soem extent the Vietnam era planes.

 

I planned to use them in those scenarios, but again, if people not owning them are banned from playing the missions, i cant do that.

 

Long story short, I understant the need for a certain amount of income to make up for the cost of the Map and Units. However the choice that makes you the most money is not always the most obvious one.

As a matter of fact there are often cases were offering something for less money ends up making you more money too.

 

Take gaming consols or printers which are often sold at a loss, for less than it cost the company to make them, because it means more sales of related products (games,ink cartridges) and more money in the long run.

 

And i am quite certain this is one of those cases. I am confident offering the units for free for everyone would end up creating more money later down the line for ED, while the current way of doing it is nothing but a heavy blow for the entire WW2 scenario and with it the sales of ALL modules associated with it.

 

Long story short, not only is the current split customer unfriendly, it wont make you more money either.

[mwd2]

Will we be able to take control (Ground Commander and/or Cockpit-View) over the units from the Assets Pack w/o CA or do we need Combined Arms to take control (F10/Cockpit-View)?

Edited March 9, 2017 by mwd2

[NineLine]

Will we be able to take control (Ground Commander and/or 1st. Cockpit-View) over the units from the Assets Pack w/o CA or do we need Combined Arms to take control (F10/Cockpit-View)?

 

I am not sure how that is going to work right now. Have to wait on more info. It would make sense that you need CA, as that is what CA is. But again, I dont think that info has been released.

[IRRE_Biluf]

People had similar concerns with NTTR, its price and fracturing... funny thing is, NTTR sales from what I have heard have been beyond expectation. So I guess we will just have to see. If nobody buys the Asset pack, then ED will have to figure that out.

 

There is no Asset pack for NTTR. You already have them for free with DCS World.

[NineLine]

There is no Asset pack for NTTR.

 

But you are required to buy the map to play in an NTTR server. Its the same idea. And the same issues were raised.

[PicksKing]

There is no Asset pack for NTTR. You already have them for free with DCS World.

 

He meant fracturing the community between caucasus and NTTR.

[IRRE_Biluf]

Well this is already the case in MP but will see with the 2.5 Patch.

And SiThSpAwN talk about the map sales. I have no doubt Normandy sales will be high (Normandy Pack sales will be high, the map alone won't).

[Captain Orso]

Right, but there is equally no evidence that it is not going to happen. The assumption that this distribution model is going to be repeated is at least not far stretched. If a Korea theme pack is ok, is a Vietnam pack also still ok? What about a 1980s pack? Or a 90s pack? Therefore now is the right time for the community to clarify what it will accept and what not. Knowing this is in the best interest of ED.

 

I am not concerned about costs, as I probably will buy most of the stuff. But as a mission/campaign designer I am concerned about what units I can safely use in my mission, even if they are just minor decoration, without locking out a significant part of the user base.

 

:doh:There is equally no evidence that the tooth-fairy doesn't exist.

 

Where is your evidence that nobody will want, nor purchase the Assets Pack? Please provide these, and then we can have a discussion about a real issue, and not an imaginary issue.

[MBot]

How is it fracturing??? If you want to use the unit, you buy the pack, if you dont want to use that unit, dont buy the pack, but then dont scream foul when you cant play a mission with that unit in it. Sorry... but you are trying to hard to find issues now.

 

You are completely missing my point. I will have the pack, the question for me as a content creator is whether I can use it in missions I am going to release to the public.

 

If I am going to build a dynamic campaign that I will release to the public and unit x from pack y would fit in nicely, will I add it and prevent a large numbers of payers that don't have pack y from enjoying it? Telling them "you have to buy the pack" will be hard to justify if the one unit in question is just some flak unit at a friendly base. Or will I for the sake of allowing everyone to play the campaign pass on special certain units? Which will make those that brought the extras unhappy. Now expand this to multiple units from various different packs in the future.

 

These questions have a real impact on content creation on which DCS depends, both by the community and official DLC campaigns. And frankly you are pretty dismissive about it.

[myHelljumper]

All games with non-free DLCs are facing this issue.

How should it be handled according to you ?

[winchesterdelta1]

People had similar concerns with NTTR, its price and fracturing... funny thing is, NTTR sales from what I have heard have been beyond expectation. So I guess we will just have to see. If nobody buys the Asset pack, then ED will have to figure that out.

 

Probably because people still buy it because they want to play with their friends. For now this works. Now imagine there are 10 maps and 5 different unit packs.

 

A era pack would be very nice doh. Just buy a 60/70 Euro era pack with units and maps and a module of that era of choice.

[Captain Orso]

You are completely missing my point. I will have the pack, the question for me as a content creator is whether I can use it in missions I am going to release to the public.

 

If I am going to build a dynamic campaign that I will release to the public and unit x from pack y would fit in nicely, will I add it and prevent a large numbers of payers that don't have pack y from enjoying it? Telling them "you have to buy the pack" will be hard to justify if the one unit in question is just some flak unit at a friendly base. Or will I for the sake of allowing everyone to play the campaign pass on special certain units? Which will make those that brought the extras unhappy. Now expand this to multiple units from various different packs in the future.

 

These questions have a real impact on content creation on which DCS depends, both by the community and official DLC campaigns. And frankly you are pretty dismissive about it.

 

No, you are unfortunately wrong. There will hardly be anybody interested in your hypothetical dynamic campaign using the WWII-Assets-Pack, who don't already have it, or will not be interested in acquiring the Assets Pack.

[MBot]

No, you are unfortunately wrong. There will hardly be anybody interested in your hypothetical dynamic campaign using the WWII-Assets-Pack, who don't already have it, or will not be interested in acquiring the Assets Pack.

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=153020

 

Using the 40 mm Bofors in the upcoming Viggen DC is on the table.

[CrashO]

All games with non-free DLCs are facing this issue.

How should it be handled according to you ?

Sort of the same way Plane DLC is handled at the moment.

 

If I join a server and someone is flying a plane I haven't bought, I can still watch him fly it (and join the server). I just cant fly it myself.

 

Imo, thats how it is supposed to be. Now, ofcourse with AI "assets" it is slightly different.

I can see how map DLC is mandatory, but the units shouldn't prevent people from joining in.

 

What would be fair (in my opinion, but obviously, I don't know if the DCS engine has the technical ability to implement it this way) is:

 

Assets need to be purchased in order to:

Add them to missions

Edit them in missions

Host missions with them

"control" them in missions (with or without CA)

 

should be "free" for:

watching them fly around in missions you are not hosting yourself

 

This way it doesn't fragment things, but to make actual use of them you will still have to buy them.

[IRRE_Biluf]

I agree, this is the smartest way to handle this issue.