Normandy Map Discussion

[spiddx]

edit: can I join games online that have the assets if I do not buy in?

No.

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3072987&postcount=1356

[Bullitthead]

I think most of the multiplayer fracturing concerns will be alleviated if players are warned of the incompatibility issues while purchasing the modules. There needs to be warnings in big BOLD print that tell players that they won't be able to play on servers running the WWII assets if they don't have them as well. In fact, I'd recommend a separate pop up window during the check out process with this warning. The window should advise that the bundle is the recommended purchase if online play is intended.

[Beamscanner]

No.

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3072987&postcount=1356

 

thanks

[Decibel dB]

If you put WWII era flak into a campaign, which can't take place before the 70's, it's nobodies fault but your own.

 

Many country have use Bofor guns until the early ninety, I am not including the third world

 

 

This is my Bofor Gun after my IQC in RCA July 1989

 

%5Bimg%5Dhttp%3A//i.imgur.com/2gJoqBQ.jpg[/img]

 

MBot have done it's homework, for what I recall, he have been civilize and polite. By being a creator of content he may have spot a problem down the line that most of us, the end user, haven't or can't see yet. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Edited March 10, 2017 by Decibel dB

[Paveway333]

This is my biggest concern with assets pack’s.

 

I see a future where the name of servers is gonna look like this:


— Air Combat: F/A-18c + Nimitz Pack + Pack 3 —

— Air Combat: SU-33 + Kuznetsov Pack + Pack 2 —

For me this would lead to servers with players who are interested in the same stuff, where there will be a server with ”Carrier Pack” there will be people interested in Tomcat/Hornet. But what about all other people flying MIG-29,F-15C etc? Are they gonna buy packs they have no interests in just to fly against a Tomcat/Hornet in multiplayer? I think the diversity of aircrafts in the air will go down significantly in the future, there is gonna be hornet fighting hornets etc because they are interested in the same Assets packs.

This goes for all future packs be it Cold War, Vietnam etc.

 

Im really looking forward to carriers and more modern fighters, but that doesn’t mean from time to time I like to hop in a WWII aircraft and fly.. But let’s say the servers has slowly begun to upgrade with 2-4 packs of WWII material, would I buy them just to play once in a while? Im sorry but no. And thats why I think this is bad for the MP side of the sim..

__________________________


This Is only a concern for the future, with made up packs they have said nothing about.

[MikeMikeJuliet]

Aircraft modules and asset packs are two completely different things, and I'm with MBot on this.

 

A mission or a campaign in SP is made FOR a specific aircraft. Now that we have asset packs any particular mission or campaign might be made WITH an asset pack (or plural in the future). So in order to play a mission made FOR the aircraft you rightfully purchased, you need to buy additional content that does not have direct correlation with the aircraft you have. And this is just when the mission is free of charge. If the mission has to be purchased as well, then you need to make additional purchases (perhaps multiple) to enjoy the product you just bought.

 

And if people go and say "well just don't be stupid and leave the assets in the packs out"... are you thinking this through? So now you advise against the use of the asset packs in missions, which means those valuable assets get less usage, meaning that those who bought the asset pack without the Normandy map now have no missions to play (created by our most talented mission creators)... So why would they then buy the assets if not for Normandy then? "Create your own missions"... not everyone has the time and talent to make good use of the assets.

 

This is NOT a problem NOW. But if asset packs keep coming up we soon have a situation where either everyone has to buy every asset pack to make sure they can access the missions they bought, or mission makers do not use the assets to make sure as many people can enjoy the missions as possible. This in turn leaves the asset packs in a situation where people are less willinh to buy them, leading to lesser income in the long run.

 

I don't see a choice here, gentlemen. Either you buy the assets or be left out of all content that use said assets. Not much now, but how about when we have 5...10 or more asset packs? With aircraft you can choose which aircraft you want. And if a mission or campaign is made FOR that aircraft, you may buy it. You don't expect to be able to fly a mission made for the A-10C with an air superiority fighter... but you do expect to be able to fly all campaigns for any particular aircraft after buying said aircraft (and the mission you want for it). And in multiplayer, you may choose your preferred aircraft, because the mission was made FOR those aircraft. If the missions are made WITH multiple asset packs you are forced to pay, or stay out.

 

I unfortunately don't get how most of you don't see any problem here.

 

It is about the principle, not the pricing.

 

And yes, ED should be paid for their work, but I feel there are smarter ways to do this. We will wait and see.

 

No disrespect intended.

 

Regards,

MikeMikeJuliet

[NeilWillis]

The fact that items in the packs have to be purchased to exist in missions makes an assumption that given current practice may be null anyway.

 

Do you have to purchase a copy of say the M2000C to see it in use by other participants, or as AI in missions? No you don't. So therefore you are making a huge leap assuming that you'll have to own a items pack in order to see them in a multiplayer mission.

 

Has anything been said either way in this regard? I don't recall seeing that. So as it stands, the mission designer will need the pack, but there is no way of knowing anything more until this matter has been confirmed or denied by ED.

[Gnabbla]

For me, this pricing model is not acceptable.

 

The new assets should be a core part of the game or at least in a low-quality version (like ARMA does) to not unnecessarily exclude people from the multiplayer experience..

The argument that the development of new content comes not for free doesn't count for me because that's usually the case when you have a software product which needs to be supported and maintained.

I do understand that ED - as a company - is interested in making sales and they should deserve it because there products are awesome, but there should be a different model than this.

 

If the future of DCS World is having multiple Assets for everyone, I won't be able defend this for someone new to this game, nor is the person probably willing to pay more than 100 bucks at once, just to be able to "try out" dcs world in a proper scenario. The initial barrier shouldn't be that high.

 

Speaking of other WWII Sims. 50$ will usually get me one or more maps, ground assets, a campaign and several aircrafts to fly. I now that the fidelity in DCS World is most of the time a lot higher, expect the damage model but that's something which isn't clearly visible from the outside and if you aren't that familiar with study sims at all.

But by having a lower initial barrier, DCS World might become the combat flightsim for everything, pushing other competitors completely out of the market and thus selling more "copies" which will bring them more money.

 

I've bought several modules in the past just so to support ED and did only use a few of them.

I was rly interested in this whole normandy map. The price is not the problem but as long as this asset separation stays as it is, I'm not going to buy anything.

Edited March 10, 2017 by Gnabbla

[Witchking]

Caucasus map : free

Mission editor : free

Access to MP : free

TF-51 : Free

Su-25T : Free

Dozens of AI air units : free

Dozens of AI ground units : free

Constant update to the core engine : free

etc,

 

Don't play that card with ED, no other devs in the business offer so much for free.

 

EDIT: oops, just saw your post sith, sorry

 

Not to mention people have no issues buying console games at $70 every year for a new iteration. The amount of time/effort it takes to maintain/innovate in a complex product like DCS is so under appreciated. Its sad to see people don't realize that those full time employees at ED also need to make a living from this work. They need to get paid and updating existing aircraft/engine for free takes a lot of time with no obvious return on investment.

 

Next time ED, you guys should just sell the map as a full priced $69.99 with the assets. One full price. Thats it. Ofcourse people will then complain saying that they just want the map and have no interest in WWII assets. But you can avoid all this. The people interested in the new map and its associated assets will just have to pay.

Edited March 10, 2017 by Witchking

[philstyle]

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.

 

 

 

ED could just label all those "packs" which it considers to make the 60/70 era and then sell them together as a bundle (whilst still offering them sepertaley for anyone who only wants a small piece)... Which is basically what they are proposing with the normany and WW2 assetpack release. . .

[Schmidtfire]

Im with Paveway333, MikeMikeJ and Mbot on this issue. As a mission creator myself, I can easily see the problems down the line. At least 1 (very good historic combat flight sim, can't mention wich) more or less died because all different assets fractured mp. I bought tons of stuff an could still only join every fifth server...

[philstyle]

Im with Paveway333, MikeMikeJ and Mbot on this issue. As a mission creator myself, I can easily see the problems down the line. At least 1 (very good historic combat flight sim, can't mention wich) more or less died because all different assets fractured mp. I bought tons of stuff an could still only join every fifth server...

 

 

 

All ED needs to do is add a compatability check to the MP list.

If you don't have the relevant modules installed, the compatability check is not passed.

Then, you can opt to buy/install the missing packs if you want them.

 

 

Other games do this already... . . rocket science it is not.

[marluk]

For me, this pricing model is not acceptable.

 

The new assets should be a core part of the game or at least in a low-quality version (like ARMA does) to not unnecessarily exclude people from the multiplayer experience..

The argument that the development of new content comes not for free doesn't count for me because that's usually the case when you have a software product which needs to be supported and maintained.

I do understand that ED - as a company - is interested in making sales and they should deserve it because there products are awesome, but there should be a different model than this.

 

If the future of DCS World is having multiple Assets for everyone, I won't be able defend this for someone new to this game, nor is the person probably willing to pay more than 100 bucks at once, just to be able to "try out" dcs world in a proper scenario. The initial barrier shouldn't be that high.

 

Speaking of other WWII Sims. 50$ will usually get me one or more maps, ground assets, a campaign and several aircrafts to fly. I now that the fidelity in DCS World is most of the time a lot higher, expect the damage model but that's something which isn't clearly visible from the outside and if you aren't that familiar with study sims at all.

But by having a lower initial barrier, DCS World might become the combat flightsim for everything, pushing other competitors completely out of the market and thus selling more "copies" which will bring them more money.

 

I've bought several modules in the past just so to support ED and did only use a few of them.

I was rly interested in this whole normandy map. The price is not the problem but as long as this asset separation stays as it is, I'm not going to buy anything.

 

Totally agree with you. However, I know that product must be profitable for the company. So i accept total price as it is, but I'm also against separation maps and assets. What will come next separate airports? Towns? It could easily become overwhelming.

- Distribution of missions and campaigns will become more complicated.

- MP servers will have more requirements. Currently there is often many servers with only few pilots flying. If you make additional separation according assets there will be even less chance to have more players on single server.

 

I accept any price for the products but I would like to keep things simple also.

Edited March 10, 2017 by marluk

[CrashO]

Next time ED, you guys should just sell the map as a full priced $69.99 with the assets. One full price. Thats it. Ofcourse people will then complain saying that they just want the map and have no interest in WWII assets. But you can avoid all this. The people interested in the new map and its associated assets will just have to pay.

I think you are missing the point most people have. It's not the price. I'll gladly fork out $60 for the map+assets. Same as I have done with all other modules up till now (even though I haven't gotten more then 2 hours flight on any of the ww2 stuff). Just to support this niche sim so I can have fun in the jets.

 

The point most people have regarding the assets, is that using the assets in the other maps, stops people from joining the server.

 

The beauty of DCS world is/was that the threshold to join is low. If I want to fly a mission in the mountains of Georgia with a Huey + A-10. I can do that. I have to buy the A-10, buddy buys the Huey, because he never flies fixed wing.

After playing the mission a few times, another buddy comes around who only owns the F-15. So I stick a f-15 in there and that buddy is circling around in CAP now.

 

Everyone happy.

 

Now I decide to stick a flack canon in there I gotten with my mappack. Buddies can't join the server anymore because of 1 canon in the map. Sure, as the mission designer I can remove it, but it'l mean checking every single time with all of my buddies, who has what asset pack, what assets pack are the same so we can use, what not. etc. etc. Is going to become a big pain very fast. Instead of just "What are we flying tonight lads? Caucasus!, aight"

 

I get why ED needs a return on investment, and support it. But.. loosing the flexibility DCS world has gotten his name for (anyone can fly any of the modules in one massive shared world) shouldn't be lost because of it. In my opinion, the way to go would be something similar to how plane DLC works in the game..

 

Free: Have the assets sitting in a server as a client (not hoster) without having any influence on them

Paid:

-Controlling the assets (with or without CA)

-Use them in the mission editor

-Host missions with them

 

The 90% of people who never play online, will still have to buy it. So do mission designers and hosters. What is left is some small percentage, many of whom wouldn't buy WW2 assets in the first place, while still trowing the "online community" a bone in letting them fly together.

Edited March 10, 2017 by CrashO

[MikeMikeJuliet]

All ED needs to do is add a compatability check to the MP list.

If you don't have the relevant modules installed, the compatability check is not passed.

Then, you can opt to buy/install the missing packs if you want them.

 

 

Other games do this already... . . rocket science it is not.

 

Other games do this, and it fractures the playerbase in those games as well. Just because "other games do it" does not mean it is the way things should be.

 

Companies can and will make erroneus or poor decisions for the customers point of view either on purpose, or by accident.

 

Not suggesting ED has an evil mastermind behind this, just that not every decision is always the best one.

 

 

And talking about the free content, all this WAS paid content before DCS. It is updated for higher quality, yes, for which ED should absolutely get praised for and supported, but the baseline still is, all the content we now have for free has previously brought money in. The were not free from the getgo, in other words ED has recieved income from them in the past.

 

The decision to go for the free entry-model has surely contributed towards getting more players into the sim, and thus bring more money via additional purchases. THIS has been an exceptionally good way tho do things without excluding anyone from any MP scenario.

 

Regards,

MikeMikeJuliet

[Schmidtfire]

Pre-Sales of Early Access will skyrocket for sure. No one wants to risk being left out when flying mp, so the only economical way is to buy a "bundled-deal" with reduced price. Every time.

"It's not about giving the customers choice, it's about giving them no choice."

Edited March 10, 2017 by Schmidtfire

[OnlyforDCS]

CrashO you make some really good points. I think that more "choice" is usually a good thing but in this case it might not be good for ED or the community in the long run. It's clear that theaters are a huge investment and need to be priced accordingly. Its also obvious that the work they put into the new AI units needs to be recompensed somehow but the question is whether there are other ways of doing this without placing additional barriers to players who want to play together but don't wan't or can't afford to get every DLC pack.

 

Let me put it this way, wouldn't it be better if we could all swim in the same sea instead of just an ever growing number of ever smaller swimming pools? :)

[BIGNEWY]

Pre-Sales of Early Access will skyrocket for sure. No one wants to risk being left out when flying mp, so the only economical way is to buy a "bundled-deal" with reduced price. Every time.

"It's not about giving the customers choice, it's about giving them no choice."

 

Nonsense, even after pre sales ED have bundle deals and sales, so you do have a choice, you just need to be patient

[Ala13_ManOWar]

Now I decide to stick a flack canon in there I gotten with my mappack. Buddies can't join the server anymore because of 1 canon in the map. Sure, as the mission designer I can remove it, but it'l mean checking every single time with all of my buddies, who has what asset pack, what assets pack are the same so we can use, what not. etc. etc. Is going to become a big pain very fast. Instead of just "What are we flying tonight lads? Caucasus!, aight"

Quite true, but do you realise that's the daily life with mods in many other games out there? Nothing new. Your mate like this or that mod, you like other, then a third mate jumps in and he likes another one. Then think of a virtual squad with 20-25 people. Always, every time a mission is launched, somebody, may be a couple or three of them, will have or lack a mod preventing them from joining and nobody knows what's due to.

 

 

Hope DCS doesn't become just that, but anyway it would be easier, you have a module or you don't.

 

 

S!

[hughlb]

We don't know how significantly this will affect servers, if at all. Most opposed to this release method have also said cost is not a factor. I would imagine the vast majority of the community will buy the prepurchase, or at least, buy both upon release. Are we not getting a little carried away here?

 

Perhaps there's a fear this will spark a new sales model, but again, there's nothing to suggest that.

 

Just buy both things and if your mate wants to join a server, show them the Normandy trailer. I'm sure they'll buy the pack ;) or buy it for them, win win.

[DSSRapidfire]

the new industry is 3D modeling and software engineering.

 

It cost thousands of man hours to make something for nothing?

 

these people need to be paid.

 

:thumbup:

 

this is not war thunder.. where you grind for your free stuff and pay microtransactions, for stuff.

[cichlidfan]

 

Has anything been said either way in this regard? I don't recall seeing that. So as it stands, the mission designer will need the pack, but there is no way of knowing anything more until this matter has been confirmed or denied by ED.

 

Yes. It has been mentioned and yes you will need to own the WWII Asset Pack in order to make a mission using any part of it and no you will not be able to join a server using it if you don't own it.

[PicksKing]

New stuff.

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3074996&postcount=21

 

I think now its undeniable that normandy prepurchase starts today. And remember: get the bundle!

 

BTW and I hope this will not violate any rules here but as I understood, only the bundle will be available for prepurchase. So 48 bucks now for bundle or 45 bucks for the map later. No hard decision.

[cichlidfan]

What is the rush for the prepurchase? It won;t go out of stock and the price won;t go up until after release, which is weeks away.

[Silver_Dragon]

 

Functional or decorative?