The Burden of Choice

[Decibel dB]

I have to say I have been somewhat befuddled at some of the reactions. myself, I don't see any problems. most servers have required modules stated. remember the f-86/mig-15 campaign? people complained, that you had to own both A/C to fly it. ED changed that. Maybe we should all take a breath and count to 10. ED responds to its coustomer base more then most sims. I do see the point of the mission makers. and the merge is coming soon and that will greatly simplify things.

 

You nail it right there Andy, people have voice their opinion I think ED will do what it takes. I am so much looking forward for this. I am looking at my email every 5 minutes waiting for the ED news letter to come in, I am such a kid sometime lol

[Captain Orso]

I think this is a very narrow minded opinion and frankly feel that it is quite unfair and completely misses the motivations of people who feel concerned about the future of DCS World. My emphasis is on concern, people are expressing concern for the community & for Eagle Dynamics, and that is nothing to be ashamed of.

 

I think it is only natural that people feel that way because they are worried about their favorite past-time and hobby. DCS is much more than a game for a lot of people, and its only natural that they are worried about how this decision will affect all of us who enjoy DCS World. You see it's not just about Normandy and the WWII units, its about all the future AI DLC packs that will follow, whether made by ED or third parties, and how that will affect the development of DCS World going forward.

 

I for one will reserve judgement, the decision has already been made and it was EDs decision to make and no one elses. I don't have a problem with it, but I don't think dismissing the concerns of those who do brings anything constructive to these forums or to any discussion about the future of DCS World.

 

I'm not dismissing anybody's concern. I'm complaining to them about their tone and their "I know what's going on, but you are clueless" attitude. I requested for everybody to wait and see.

 

I can't speak for ED, but if having the WWII equipment as DLC really does cause a large issue, I cannot imagine they will ignore it. Look how quickly they decided to offer the WWII-Assets-Pack and Normandy Map bundle.

Jeeze, and I thought I had trust issues. :huh: <== not pointed specificly at you OnlyforDCS ;)

Edited March 10, 2017 by Captain Orso

[Donut]

Maybe another reason some of us may be hesitant of this business model is because of fear of a lack of return on investment. As of right now, those who paid for NTTR are still waiting for proposed features (improved weather and ATC, etc). Over a year later, NTTR has seen many additions and improvements but performance and bugs seem to be worse than when it was first released. Like many, it is currently unusable for me with some aircraft modules.

 

We are now looking at a pre-purchase period for Normandy. There are still some questions as to what features will we see on release as well as questions about performance. Will we see the same issues with Normandy as we are seeing with NTTR? Also, with the separate cost for the Assets Pack, we are paying for something in which we don't know the future of. There are a lot of AI units listed but it is unknown what will be initially released and how long it will take to see the rest. There is a lot of concern with how this will effect MP. I am someone who was hoping servers would become more populated and easier to join, but the separation of Normandy and WWII AI may complicate that. So, we are faced with making a gamble. You can pay now at a reduced price and deal with some a lot of uncertainty or wait until release or maybe even a bit after and pay full price but at least know what you are getting. It is not a choice that we should be faced with.

 

I think a lot of the issues people are having can be resolved if we saw a better release history with NTTR as well as more communication and transparency. What is the future of DCS, what is currently in production, and what is planned? There is no need for timetables or release dates but a clear and comprehensive plan will do wonders for the community. Past newsletters have mentioned features, maps, aircraft but we hear so little of what is going on. Right now, it seems that DCS is in an uncertain state of flux, which is being made even more complex with some of the changes with the third parties.

[NineLine]

Things like weather and ATC are standard features to DCS World and 2.5. The wont be offered in packs or just for one terrain. The WWII Asset pack is so that you can create a WWII scenario on any terrain you like. Of course if you want to play on a WWII scenario you also need to purchase the pack. Effects, game improvements and core changes arent going to be sold as DLCs.

 

As for future plans and more communication, its tough for ED to do so, when development can be so dynamic. People take comments about anything as concrete promises of two week deliveries... so ED likes to keep quiet until the concrete has set.

 

Maybe another reason some of us may be hesitant of this business model is because of fear of a lack of return on investment. As of right now, those who paid for NTTR are still waiting for proposed features (improved weather and ATC, etc). Over a year later, NTTR has seen many additions and improvements but performance and bugs seem to be worse than when it was first released. Like many, it is currently unusable for me with some aircraft modules.

 

We are now looking at a pre-purchase period for Normandy. There are still some questions as to what features will we see on release as well as questions about performance. Will we see the same issues with Normandy as we are seeing with NTTR? Also, with the separate cost for the Assets Pack, we are paying for something in which we don't know the future of. There are a lot of AI units listed but it is unknown what will be initially released and how long it will take to see the rest. There is a lot of concern with how this will effect MP. I am someone who was hoping servers would become more populated and easier to join, but the separation of Normandy and WWII AI may complicate that. So, we are faced with making a gamble. You can pay now at a reduced price and deal with some a lot of uncertainty or wait until release or maybe even a bit after and pay full price but at least know what you are getting. It is not a choice that we should be faced with.

 

I think a lot of the issues people are having can be resolved if we saw a better release history with NTTR as well as more communication and transparency. What is the future of DCS, what is currently in production, and what is planned? There is no need for timetables or release dates but a clear and comprehensive plan will do wonders for the community. Past newsletters have mentioned features, maps, aircraft but we hear so little of what is going on. Right now, it seems that DCS is in an uncertain state of flux, which is being made even more complex with some of the changes with the third parties.

Edited March 11, 2017 by NineLine

[98abaile]

I think 80% of the issue could have been avoided if ED had simply not decided to sell the map without the assets.

 

It could have been: here's our WWII scenario for $60 and if you don't want the map, you can buy just the units at a reduced price of $30.

 

Instead we (seemingly) get: Here's our new WWII map for $50, but we're holding back part of it which you have to pay extra for, and you won't be able to join most WWII servers without it. You like complexity, right?

[NineLine]

I think 80% of the issue could have been avoided if ED had simply not decided to sell the map without the assets.

 

It could have been: here's our WWII scenario for $60 and if you don't want the map, you can buy just the units at a reduced price of $30.

 

Instead we (seemingly) get: Here's our new WWII map for $50, but we're holding back part of it which you have to pay extra for, and you won't be able to join most WWII servers without it. You like complexity, right?

 

You are buying the terrain, and you are buying an asset pack, you can use that asset pack on any terrain, you can use all other existing modules and assets on the terrain. Its really not that complicated. If you want to play on a map hosting a WWII scenario, chances are you purchased the asset pack because you like WWII.

Edited March 11, 2017 by NineLine

[98abaile]

You are buying the terrain, and you are buying an asset pack, you can use that asset pack on any terrain, you can use all other existing modules and assets on the terrain. Its really not that complicated. If you want to play on a map hosting a WWII scenario, chances are you purchased the asset pack because you like WWII.

You've missed the point. By offering the terrain without the asset pack, they've created a point of complication and confusion that simply wasn't necessary and the only thing it achieved was create friction in the forums and made ED look greedy (whether they are or not).

 

Of course I bought the bundle, but it's already created problems for other people, all for the sake of a purchasing option that almost no one wants.

 

[crowebar]

Surely it makes perfect sense to sell the assets pack separate simply because the Normandy map can then be used by the whole DCS community, both WW2 and modern without there being a mix up of era units in mission planner. The asking price for ww2 assets is quite negligible for those that intend using the map in a ww2 environment. Have pre-ordered both map and assets!

[98abaile]

It DOES makes sense to sell the asset pack separately, since the map is a pricey addon that some people won't want. But there are going to be very VERY few people who want the map without the assets, so it doesn't make much sense to sell the map separately.

[NineLine]

You've missed the point. By offering the terrain without the asset pack, they've created a point of complication and confusion that simply wasn't necessary and the only thing it achieved was create friction in the forums and made ED look greedy (whether they are or not).

 

Of course I bought the bundle, but it's already created problems for other people, all for the sake of a purchasing option that almost no one wants.

 

 

I disagree, the majority of people get and understand it, why is ED always greedy for wanting to charge for their products, but we are not greedy asking for them all to be free.

 

No Terrain comes with an Asset pack, this is a new, and most likely rare thing. People will figure it out pretty quick that the asset pack is separate. I have faith that most can.

[NineLine]

It DOES makes sense to sell the asset pack separately, since the map is a pricey addon that some people won't want. But there are going to be very VERY few people who want the map without the assets, so it doesn't make much sense to sell the map separately.

 

SO it would be great if they added a bundled option right?

 

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/shop/special_offers/

 

 

Next...

[Rangi]

If you or someone you know has made a purchase in error please let them know that ED is usually very good at sorting out those problems if you put in a support ticket.

[cichlidfan]

Of course I bought the bundle, but it's already created problems for other people, all for the sake of a purchasing option that almost no one wants.

 

I can't help but notice that the poster you quoted has reading comprehension issues.

 

"I thought it was Early Access"

 

Why would one think that since it clearly states Pre-purchase?

[Brigg]

I find it odd that some voices who have a history of demanding "choice" are some of those now decrying the decision to offer just that. . .

 

It's because they want everything for free

[BadHabit]

Question: For people who don't own Nevada and not interesting to, do they have the ability to install Normandy? Is 2.0 bind with Nevada? Or we just have to install 2.0 then select Theater?

[Ala13_ManOWar]

Question: For people who don't own Nevada and not interesting to, do they have the ability to install Normandy? Is 2.0 bind with Nevada? Or we just have to install 2.0 then select Theater?

They aren't bound at all, just installations aren't yet merged into new 2.5 version supporting several maps, and Alpha 2.0 is currently the only version available with that feature. If you don't own or ever planned to buy Nevada it's fine, just to use Normandy you will have to download anyway, at least at first, the 2.0 version in order to run it.

 

 

S!

[Vtec9k]

I do have an issue the "plain" Normandy map doesn't include any modern airfields.

 

So it's a great idea in theory, to fly modern alternate history missions, but doesn't really stand up in practice.

 

Since flying anything older will get eaten alive by many modern air defences, the map and unit pack together really is a must have. It's available in a bundle, so no big deal there.

 

PS - of course WW2 unit pack + Strait of Hormuz or Caucasus map = some great options for WW2 quasi-north Africa or eastern front missions :)

[98abaile]

SO it would be great if they added a bundled option right?

 

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/shop/special_offers/

 

 

Next...

You seem to have a problem where you read what you want to rather than what is being said.

 

It would be great if they didn't offer the map separately, so as to avoid confusion and compatibility issues.

 

why is ED always greedy for wanting to charge for their products, but we are not greedy asking for them all to be free.

I never asked for anything for free.

[Torso]

why is ED always greedy for wanting to charge for their products, but we are not greedy asking for them all to be free.

 

I do hope upon on reflection this is not what you actually believe. I have around $500 or so invested ED products and have the expectation for that amount to rise by $200-$250 this year alone. This is not of course adding in hw costs that can dwarf those numbers. We are not cheap. The ED customer base is not expecting freebies. Money is not the issue that is causing some to raise alarm. I HAPPILY buy every ED product that is made available to me if it is of interest. And I know I am not alone nor set the high mark. ED needs to earn money for sure. We are all here ready to buy the product. It is up to ED to get that product out in a time frame that allows them to be still enjoying the profits from the last release when the profits from the next start coming in and so on. Living paycheck to paycheck sucks. We are here to help prevent that. We can only do so much.

 

I know once the dust settles all will adjust to a working state. But until then try to not let the reactions cloud what they are reacting too. Because it ain't money.

 

Please give us a little more respect than you are currently. Note I said Please.

 

I see nothing disrespectful in my message so I can see no reason for a penalty awarded.

Edited March 12, 2017 by Torso

[DefaultFace]

+1 Well said Torso.

[NineLine]

It might not be money for you, but for some I think it is, when people start reacting like ED is going to sell bullets for guns as an addon DLC, then its nothing but money they are concerned with. I mean I can only answer the same question the same way. But once more.

 

Assets to this degree and quality cost money. Bring a WWII era scenario to you in one swoop like this is a lot of work, if they wanted to do it for free, they would dribble in new content a couple times a year, and maybe in 15 years we could have a reasonable WWII era. So what they are selling is the ability to take their modern flight sim playground and offer another era, it means you have to buy an aircraft, it means you need to buy a map (although you could have a WWII scenario in the BS map) and you will need the asset pack. Anyone who is a fan of WWII and sims will not have an issue with it, anyone that wants to fly on a server in this environment will not have an issue with it. The first time they login to that server, maybe they wont have one part, the sim will tell them what they are missing and they can get it when they can.

 

Over 2000 people will have the map and pack on launch (not including those that are pre-ordring now), how many people fly at one time on any of the WWII servers?

 

So unless its a money issue, which could be the only realistic issue I can see, I dont see the problem. We have all spent a lot of money on this sim, and games similar to it. Note i said WE, also look at many of the responses, asking that the asset pack be added to the map cost, for a great many it is about money, so please show me a little respect as well, its a two way street.

 

They have a bundled option, they have separate purchase options, if its not about money, tell me what is so troubling?

 

 

I do hope upon on reflection this is not what you actually believe. I have around $500 or so invested ED products and have the expectation for that amount to rise by $200-$250 this year alone. This is not of course adding in hw costs that can dwarf those numbers. We are not cheap. The ED customer base is not expecting freebies. Money is not the issue that is causing some to raise alarm. I HAPPILY buy every ED product that is made available to me if it is of interest. And I know I am not alone nor set the high mark. ED needs to earn money for sure. We are all here ready to buy the product. It is up to ED to get that product out in a time frame that allows them to be still enjoying the profits from the last release when the profits from the next start coming in and so on. Living paycheck to paycheck sucks. We are here to help prevent that. We can only do so much.

 

I know once the dust settles all will adjust to a working state. But until then try to not let the reactions cloud what they are reacting too. Because it ain't money.

 

Please give us a little more respect than you are currently. Note I said Please.

 

I see nothing disrespectful in my message so I can see no reason for a penalty awarded.

[NineLine]

You seem to have a problem where you read what you want to rather than what is being said.

 

It would be great if they didn't offer the map separately, so as to avoid confusion and compatibility issues.

 

 

I never asked for anything for free.

 

Some modern guys dont want the units... they want new dirt to fly over.

 

SO you have the map. You have the assets, or you have the bundle. You are not giving people enough credit to figure out what they need to buy. People are not dumb, have you tried the A-10C? I am pretty sure we have some highly intelligent people here that can figure out what DLC they might need. If not, ED plans to have the sim tell them.

[nrgized]

Some modern guys dont want the units... they want new dirt to fly over.

 

SO you have the map. You have the assets, or you have the bundle. You are not giving people enough credit to figure out what they need to buy. People are not dumb, have you tried the A-10C? I am pretty sure we have some highly intelligent people here that can figure out what DLC they might need. If not, ED plans to have the sim tell them.

 

This isn't about how stupid or smart someone is when it comes to making purchasing choices. Its about how one can instantly recognize which servers at a glance are connectable.

 

A map is a very clear descriptor for whether you can play or not. Asset packs are like viruses. They can be sprinkled all over the place infecting things that were previously accessible and making the clear distinction that a map provides watered down.

 

Someone the other day described the perfect example of why its a problem.

 

If I make a mission for A-10 players and a Heuy freak wants to play it, all I have to do is add a Huey slot to the mission and everyones happy.

 

With an asset placed in a map from some asset pack it breaks the ability to easily support a wide base of players.

[NineLine]

This isn't about how stupid or smart someone is when it comes to making purchasing choices. Its about how one can instantly recognize which servers at a glance are connectable.

 

A map is a very clear descriptor for whether you can play or not. Asset packs are like viruses. They can be sprinkled all over the place infecting things that were previously accessible and making the clear distinction that a map provides watered down.

 

Someone the other day described the perfect example of why its a problem.

 

Servers have descriptions, and ED will be adding the ability to warn someone on connection... next?

[Wags]

Once again before closing this redundant thread:

 

---

 

We hear you and understand where your concerns are coming from. Please understand though that if a player wants to join a mission, they must have the non-aircraft module(s) used in that mission (SP or MP). If they do not, they will be informed what they are missing and ideally a link to the download page. It is up to the player to purchase the module or not. We can only give so much away for free.

 

Because DCS World is a freeware product with modules/DLC as the sole source of revenue (which must be compensated for), this is the only practical option. This is particularly important as the product grows and more and more non-aircraft DCS modules are developed by 3rd parties that need to be separate purchases. This goes for any large development product with large manpower investments. It will be up to the players to decide what they do and do not purchase, how they wish to set up their missions, or which to join.

 

While we do realize that this is not a great solution (free low detail models, free client-only assets, and subscriptions pose greater problems and are not viable) for some, it is though the best solution.

 

Thanks