Normandy Map Discussion

[Esac_mirmidon]

Smart for users, unprofitable for developers.

 

Imagine a server with 100 clients. Only the server need to buy the asset. 99 clients enjoy it for free.

 

Unprofitable. ED want to survive.

[winchesterdelta1]

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.

 

Who are you to say that... I don't have any WWII pack. And i'm waiting for a while now for the right moment to jump in. If this guy brings his hypothetical WWII dynamic campaign i would buy all the ED DCS WWII modules right away and eat noodles the next month. And i know a "lot" of people who would do the same. (not the noodles doh)

Edited March 9, 2017 by winchesterdelta1

[CrashO]

Smart for users, unprofitable for developers.

 

Imagine a server with 100 clients. Only the server need to buy the asset. 99 clients enjoy it for free.

 

Unprofitable. ED want to survive.

Why? The multiplayer part of DCS is (still) small compared to the offline userbase. Offline players still need to buy it. So do mission designers and hosters. And people who want to control the units. And people who like to support ED.

 

What is left is a percentages of players pretty small, a lot of whom probably wouldn't buy it anyway because they don't focus on WW2 or for different reasons.

 

What you get back in return is the same as is currently going on with all the others modules. Loads of people buying and using different planes in 1 big shared environment with large flexibly about what they spend there money on, yet still offering the ability to fly together.

[GottHold]

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

How should it be handled according to you ?

 

Ubisoft got rid of their exclusivity on DLCs. You can whether buy new dlc s in Rainbow six and directly have the new operators. Like DCS have planes, but the new surroundings in Rainbow six or all other newer Ubisoft titles since last year won't restrict you the surrounding to not fracture their community which led to an early death on many modes or maps in other games before.

 

So the best solution would be imo make the each plane more expensive, and pay the assets and the maps from that. This would lead to way more missions and lowers the entry barrier for newcomers, that think "WTF pay2win" such as you can read in many downvoted steamreviews about dcs. Im not sharing that opinion, but we re a niche and people dont jump in here lighthearted as they jump in a call of duty or whatever. People that join dcs have a level of Dedication with them, making it a market where buyers loyalty is important.

 

But one mod already stated the Pricement modelling etc is not up for discussion.

 

Another thing that bothers me is the way sith answered on grmlz. Sure NTTR has sold well because me and other want to help the niche in combat simulators, but extracting the game further and further in smaller parts and sell them alone and pay even more, while some ww2 units are already in the user files available from other users for free, feels like my loyalty to you is getting abused. And currently im really not sure to support this step, while i love your videos from the assets and map, but factuaring should not be the answer, especially when on the outer sim market this is already beeing fixed and worked on. There is no need to be behind the rest of the 'gaming' buisiness.

[BlackLion213]

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.

 

You have a good point MBot, but bundling of products can probably address most of this. Having units connected to a DLC campaign may raise the price some (like from $10-15 or 20), but still seems reasonable.

 

But this new scheme also solves some issues. Currently, there is no way for a campaign creator to add units for their DLC campaign and recoup the development costs. Instead they need to do the work to add the units to DCS and hope that sales offset the time and cost. Say you wanted to make a new campaign for the F-14A and have it take place on USS Enterprise. You can only add CVN-65 to DCS, but can't charge for your effort and every player has access whether or not they supported the work.

 

Starway faced a similar issue where he wanted to sell texture as DLC, but there was no mechanism or protection in DCS to support it. He worked around it, but I doubt others would try a similar approach.

 

Now if someone wants to create a campaign with matching units they can do it and sell it - I think this new model will facilitate more projects like this. Seems like a good thing to me and the process will make more sense as more product come out.

 

-Nick

[NineLine]

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.

 

When a new aircraft module comes out, do you worry about the people that dont have that module yet when you build a campaign or mission? Or do your campaigns and missions help people decide whether or not to get into a new module...

 

Calling me dismissive is going to get you very far, if I was dismissive I wouldnt bother discussing this with you.

[NineLine]

Ubisoft and Rainbow Six probably have a little more cash to play with. As well, the research and development of their games probably isnt anywhere near the costs of what ED does. So apples and oranges.

 

Ubisoft got rid of their exclusivity on DLCs. You can whether buy new dlc s in Rainbow six and directly have the new operators. Like DCS have planes, but the new surroundings in Rainbow six or all other newer Ubisoft titles since last year won't restrict you the surrounding to not fracture their community which led to an early death on many modes or maps in other games before.

 

So the best solution would be imo make the each plane more expensive, and pay the assets and the maps from that. This would lead to way more missions and lowers the entry barrier for newcomers, that think "WTF pay2win" such as you can read in many downvoted steamreviews about dcs. Im not sharing that opinion, but we re a niche and people dont jump in here lighthearted as they jump in a call of duty or whatever. People that join dcs have a level of Dedication with them, making it a market where buyers loyalty is important.

 

But one mod already stated the Pricement modelling etc is not up for discussion.

 

Another thing that bothers me is the way sith answered on grmlz. Sure NTTR has sold well because me and other want to help the niche in combat simulators, but extracting the game further and further in smaller parts and sell them alone and pay even more, while some ww2 units are already in the user files available from other users for free, feels like my loyalty to you is getting abused. And currently im really not sure to support this step, while i love your videos from the assets and map, but factuaring should not be the answer, especially when on the outer sim market this is already beeing fixed and worked on. There is no need to be behind the rest of the 'gaming' buisiness.

[firmek]

...

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.

+1. This would be probably the most seamless way to implement the add-on units. It's basically the same approach as flyable modules - owners can operate them, others only see but aren't constraint to join the servers running them.

 

I don't think that maps are an issue. At the end it's a whole theater, should be quite obvious that if you want to play on a server using the map or a campaign being placed on it you should get it first.

It also should be obvious that developers should get paid for their hard work. Normandy as also the new AI units look just great and I'm quite sure that most of the people interested in WWII will be getting the map together with units bundle anyway.

The AI standalone units pack however are a different challenge as they another dimension and create a new level of complexity. With a single AI unit pack might be not such visible but with more AI modules coming in the future, if users will not be able to join a server using them or play campaign in which they are used it may become "plug-in" management like headache.

 

Anyway, I'm quite sure that ED has this figured out. At the end the approach with being able to get the AI units without a map seems to address potential questions. Looking from another perspective, if they would decide to include the new units only with the Normandy map there would be a lot of complains about it. On the other hand asking to give someone’s job for free is also not exactly fair (though probably there are also another ways to cover the development cost and markups).

[The Black Swan]

Wags, could we perhaps get a German bomber added to the planned AI?

Don't want to sound ungrateful. The list looks very good.

I just think some allied pilots will want to do bomber intercepts too.

[Captain Orso]

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

 

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

 

And there was not a single remark in your thread from anybody stating that if you included the 40mm Bofors from the WWII-Assets-Pack, which would then be required by a customer to use your campaign, stating a rejection or contention with the requirement.

[NineLine]

Wags, could we perhaps get a German bomber added to the planned AI?

Don't want to sound ungrateful. The list looks very good.

I just think some allied pilots will want to do bomber intercepts too.

 

Ju-88 on the future list.

[NineLine]

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

 

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

 

Also what about all those poor people that dont own the Viggen yet, you are creating content they cant enjoy, maybe you should just create campaigns for the free aircraft?

[The Black Swan]

Ju-88 on the future list.

 

OOPS sorry I missed that... good to see!

Still would be nice to get a He-111

 

Some nice spitfire targets!

[NineLine]

OOPS sorry I missed that... good to see!

Still would be nice to get a He-111

 

Some nice spitfire targets!

 

I thought there was another one, but I dont see it there right now, so we will see what else they come up with.

[Silver_Dragon]

I thought there was another one, but I dont see it there right now, so we will see what else they come up with.

 

Chzih talk over there on the russian forum.... surely come later.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3055312&postcount=4460

[EagleFox]

Unprofitable. ED want to survive.

 

Survive? Are you ok?

Someone who has monopoly is bearly surviving? Damn.

[NineLine]

Chzih talk over there on the russian forum.... surely come later.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3055312&postcount=4460

 

Yeah, that was what I was thinking of.

[NineLine]

Survive? Are you ok?

Someone who has monopoly is bearly surviving? Damn.

 

A monopoly? Of a very small segment of the gaming industry, and there are others that take up the WWII chunk, so yes... businesses need money to keep functioning as weird as it sounds... Maybe you should offer your employer half your week free of charge, they might appreciate you more.

 

For the record, Nobody said ED is barely surviving, but giving away half their work doesnt seem like a good business model.

[The Black Swan]

I don't know about you guys, but I can't wait to escort some B-17s through flak filled skies!

[GrmlZ]

 

For the record, Nobody said ED is barely surviving, but giving away half their work doesnt seem like a good business model.

 

If you operate under the very simplified impression that asking for more money for a product will automatically lead to earning more money, than no it does not seem like a good idea.

 

However, things are more complicated than that in reality.

 

Keeping the WW2 ground units free will help grow the WW2 portion of DCS, which would lead in turn to more sales for existing and upcoming WW2 plane modules.

 

The current plan of paywalling the WW2 ground units will be a turnoff for many people and slow down the growth of DCS WW2 as a whole, leading to less sales of WW2 plane modules.

Edited March 9, 2017 by GrmlZ

[Tread_Head57]

One aspect I truly want to see is how the B-17s handle formation flying. I don't want to see 3 B-17s here, another four 3000ft above, another four 5000 feet behind, etc. How ED handles the need for large formation boxes is the key to the B-17s usefulness in this sim in my opinion.

[cichlidfan]

I've seen somwhere that ED consistis only of small and limited number of people. Like 4-5 or was it just an excuse for delaying everything for a year or two. :/

Then why would they be in trouble? If only few people are earning realy great amout of money from coustomers.

 

Just because you read it on the internet does not make it correct.

 

Eagle Dynamic's staff is made up of 55 full-time employees,...

 

http://www.thebattlesim.com/about/

[razo+r]

Now that someone mentioned the B-17, AI and handling formation flying, I hope ED did adjust the AI so that they won't shoot at the own teamunits anymore when an enemy is between them... Especially with ground units, sometimes because an other units is infront of them, they accidentaly kill the teamunit or for example the AAA, when a plane is diving and sometimes it can happen, when a unit is infront of the AAA and the lead path is right on that unit, they kill it, regardless the team...

 

Hopefully ED did something for the AI

[dooom]

I personally see it this way: Normandy will cost me $60. i'll likely spend 100+ hours flying in it before the close of the year. 60 cents an hour for entertainment that is supported and is promised to be expanded upon by the shop is a crazy good ROI. Don't forget that DCSW is offered FREE to the public with the Su25/TF51 and Caucuses. I don't see anything here to get twisted up about to be honest. Do some soul searching and ask yourself what you are entitled to for your money. In gaming, its a trade of dollars for experience - not unlike any other form of entertainment in the world.

Edited March 9, 2017 by BIGNEWY
removed deleted quote

[NineLine]

Now that someone mentioned the B-17, AI and handling formation flying, I hope ED did adjust the AI so that they won't shoot at the own teamunits anymore when an enemy is between them... Especially with ground units, sometimes because an other units is infront of them, they accidentaly kill the teamunit or for example the AAA, when a plane is diving and sometimes it can happen, when a unit is infront of the AAA and the lead path is right on that unit, they kill it, regardless the team...

 

Hopefully ED did something for the AI

 

Of course, AI will need to be tweaked and tuned for WWII. Bomber Logic has been reported for some time, now that we are getting bombers like this, expect it will be addressed.

 

EDIT: I was just told it IS being addressed currently.