Market profit is Terrain but not Jets

[Lao Fei Mao]

ED dedicates to develop all kinds of Jets simulator from old era to modern times. But the terrain developing lags quite behind. The caucasus is 10+years old, the Nevada and Normandy is still in Alpha stage. And we might wait another whole year to embrace the DSC World 2.5.....

I just want to say this is quite unwise market strategy. A new jet can only attract a few of players who love the jet. But a new terrain arena could absorb a bunch of players to try their flight in it. No matter casual one or hard core. More terrain, more freshing, more vitality, more profit. Don't just depends on the veteran to buy some classical jets to swell your wallet. And don't estrange the Steam platform. Speed up the terrian developing, Middle-east, Afghanistan, Siberia-Alaska, Korea peninsula, South-east Asia.....

[Rudel_chw]

The fact that not one third party has actually made a Map for DCS, should indicate that Map development is probably a worse deal than developing an aircraft ... my guess is that it takes quite a lot more man-hours to develop but the potential buyers dont want to pay much more than they do for a single plane.

[probad]

its hindered by the fact that moreso than aircraft, maps require ownership of the addon.

when there is the option between a free map and payware maps, there will always be a natural gravitation towards the lower entry barrier. the larger community is a resistive force against adoption of payware maps, which can lead to a negative feedback loop where nobody plays because few people play, and nobody buys because nobody plays.

 

this is readily visible even on caucasus just with the servers, servers tend to be empty until a few seeders decide to sit in and endure the 1v1s until leechers aggregate.

[Oscar Juliet]

Always will be someone that is going to complain. Always going to be someone who is happy with what they got.

 

You have Nevada, Normandy and the updated Caucasus map screenshots. The F18 and Harrier are closer than ever. There is plenty of aircraft and plenty of terrain to have fun in.

 

I fly my A10c and have been for a long time. I run Nevada every now and then but still run 1.5 for stability. I'm far from bored.

[Lao Fei Mao]

Always will be someone that is going to complain. Always going to be someone who is happy with what they got.

 

You have Nevada, Normandy and the updated Caucasus map screenshots. The F18 and Harrier are closer than ever. There is plenty of aircraft and plenty of terrain to have fun in.

 

I fly my A10c and have been for a long time. I run Nevada every now and then but still run 1.5 for stability. I'm far from bored.

 

--------Not just a complain, Just feel the the slow progress of terrain developing if compared with Jets developing. Currently we've got pretty number of jets, 2~3 new one each year. But the maps, whoops, only aging Caucasus is stable. The Nevada is still in alphal stage after 3 years work. I just worry and feel ED's maket strategy is not that right. They devote too much resources on Jets. But Maps are more attactive than jets. Maps can sell good price. I bet you would like to pay 100 dollar for detailed Iraq or Afghanistan to fly in your beloved A-10C.

[David OC]

ED is just trying to get things right now for the future of DCS. Most of what you see in development is Alpha, think experimental, to get right now and to get the map tools right. These tools will be released to third parties when there more stable and the future direction is more set in stone moving forward.

 

I see glimpses of grandeur now with Normandy and tech such as Deferred Shading, once Caucasus is updated and moved to 2.5, we will then have DCS "somewhat" locked down the tools then perhaps will be available for third parties, then I see this will speed up map creation greatly.

 

Some of the maps you mention are in development, perhaps only the commercial side of ED's, TFC business tho.

 

Lao Fei Mao, There's just a great deal of new cutting edge tech involved here, that needs time to mature and to make sure it's the right direction for ED to keep going in for there future. If it's not right it will cost plenty to re-do the coding, as we have seen many sims in the past do and rushed out the door and now nowhere to be seen.

 

So it's not just about making a quick buck NOW, It's about laying down the right foundations (Think, building a house foundations) for the future.

 

 

-

Edited June 18, 2017 by David OC

[VZ_342]

--------Not just a complain, Just feel the the slow progress of terrain developing if compared with Jets developing. Currently we've got pretty number of jets, 2~3 new one each year. But the maps, whoops, only aging Caucasus is stable. The Nevada is still in alphal stage after 3 years work. I just worry and feel ED's maket strategy is not that right. They devote too much resources on Jets. But Maps are more attactive than jets. Maps can sell good price. I bet you would like to pay 100 dollar for detailed Iraq or Afghanistan to fly in your beloved A-10C.

 

The Middle East is a very interesting area right now, heck yeah I'd pay $100 for it, and I have yet to fly the A10!

[shagrat]

I just want to say this is quite unwise market strategy. A new jet can only attract a few of players who love the jet. But a new terrain arena could absorb a bunch of players to try their flight in it.

Do you have any thorough business or market analysis backing this statement, or do you extrapolate your personal preference as an indicator?

 

As far as I have seen while playing Eagle Dynamics Simulations for the past 10+ years many, many customers buy most, if not all planes and I have heard the "what should I do on the Nevada/Normandy map" argument a lot.

 

I agree an Afghanistan, Syria, Vietnam, Balkans, Middle-East, well actually any god damn place, that has seen a real life engagement in the last 50 years, most likely attracts more customers, yet the business strategy seems to be very sound, considering the fact, that the new graphics engine is still in its implementation phase and they already work on other maps, namely Strait of Hormuz (in the Middle-east) and an overhauled Caucasus map.

While they allow the other teams to finish the aircraft, they were working on for a long time, to generate cash flow... :dunno:

Edited June 18, 2017 by shagrat

[gavagai]

I'll pay for maps, no problem. But I'm not sure I would pay for a map a second time just to host it in multiplayer with a separate machine.

[NeilWillis]

The issue hasn't been marketing strategy or anything else. It has been due to the fact that the base game is still under development, and will continue to be for some time to come yet.

 

Once 2.5 has been thoroughly debugged, you will see a sea change in development of both terrain and aircraft.

 

DCS World will probably continue to evolve for many years to come, but huge changes like the introduction of an entirely new graphics engine will cause issues all the way down the line for developers. I suspect a lot of map work has been shelved simply because the base code is still very volatile. Once it has settled down, things will move faster I expect.

[SkateZilla]

The fact that not one third party has actually made a Map for DCS, should indicate that Map development is probably a worse deal than developing an aircraft ... my guess is that it takes quite a lot more man-hours to develop but the potential buyers dont want to pay much more than they do for a single plane.

 

Normandy was done by a 3rd Party.

[shagrat]

3rd parties need access to the SDK to make maps. Keep in mind the new graphics engine and so the SDK tools are fairly new and maybe not even finished.

So the fact that Normandy was done by UGRA-Media seems to indicate, that at least the SDK and tools are nearing a state, where we can expect more 3rd parties to hop on the train, yet I guess ED knows best how to run their very specific and niche business. :dunno:

Edited June 19, 2017 by shagrat

[David OC]

A good reference here is VEAO,

 

I totaly understand how VEAO is perhaps a little frustrated at the moment, and are now holding back with their coding direction and strategies for their aircraft, they have been unlucky here and had some worse problems then others with all the changes going on to the core code. I'm sure these guy's would take a look at the Map SDK and build some maps in the future perhaps too, once the core code is settled in and locked down somewhat.

[Czar66]

"Market profit is Terrain but not Jets"

 

Any empirical data to back that up?

 

I'd say DCS has too few jet aircraft going for and it's growth on aircraft work is only giving breaths of fresh air, not the contrary.

 

NTTR + Caucasus and not even bothered about spending a week on a 10year old map that is Caucasus with a new AC. Every new map released it's a bonus and not a ticket out of boredom land.

[Drag0nWIng]

will the 3rd party support the project after their module launched 10 years?

that's a problem, if they could not keep update, the eagle dynamic have to take over their job.

from 2013 to now, there are many 3rd party module had launched, but everyone in the forums had seen their struggle and dilemma, not every studio could finish the job very well like eagle dynamic.

[Lao Fei Mao]

The issue hasn't been marketing strategy or anything else. It has been due to the fact that the base game is still under development, and will continue to be for some time to come yet.

 

Once 2.5 has been thoroughly debugged, you will see a sea change in development of both terrain and aircraft.

 

DCS World will probably continue to evolve for many years to come, but huge changes like the introduction of an entirely new graphics engine will cause issues all the way down the line for developers. I suspect a lot of map work has been shelved simply because the base code is still very volatile. Once it has settled down, things will move faster I expect.

 

------Well, I do hope so. And I do hope ED business get more and more booming.Thus they can invest much and hire more devs and boost the develop of official or 3rd party's maps. May some day, when I open the editor, there are dozens of terrain to choose, like we did in ArmA3's editor.

[zerO_crash]

2.5 is coming this year. Don`t worry, it all takes time due to many reasons, but generally that it`s all quality simulator. We waited for some 5-6 years for 1.5 alone. We`ll get there.

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3167573&postcount=726

 

For those who don`t read cyrrillic, Chizh confirms that 2.5 will be this year.

 

Keep in mind that Strait of Hormuz is in the works as well as some sea/land map from Heatblur (wanted to say LN duh).

[Jumbik]

2.5 is coming this year. Don`t worry, it all takes time due to many reasons, but generally that it`s all quality simulator. We waited for some 5-6 years for 1.5 alone. We`ll get there.

 

 

 

For those who don`t read cyrrillic, Chizh confirms that 2.5 will be this year.

 

Keep in mind that Strait of Hormuz is in the works as well as some sea/land map from Heatblur (wanted to say LN duh).

 

 

If this is true it would be great news. 2.5 is way overdue, the sooner it happens the better as it will reduce the mess in which the current community is.

 

To have one client for all modules will make all the difference for me. Even if the modules like NTTR and Normandy would be marked as alpha, just the simple fact that I do not have to jump between clients to be able to use them will be a huge quality of life improvement.

[Pikey]

I think whether or not maps would be more profitable isn't actually tested yet. But to me, the level of effort required and skills required for map making seems less broad than for a military airplane, so the OP has merit in terms that he can't as yet be challenged as there isn't empirical evidence either way.

 

The follow up arguments though, are all correct, it's a developing platform and so we see less maps as modules than planes. I have to wonder though, if releasing less complex maps is something appealing to ED or 3rd parties? I saw VEAO dropped them from their wishlist recently. 2.5 as a platform would support more maps more easily, so pretty much when done, the actual answer of maps being a more enticing prospect will come then, rather than now.

[Zimmerdylan]

ED dedicates to develop all kinds of Jets simulator from old era to modern times. But the terrain developing lags quite behind. The caucasus is 10+years old, the Nevada and Normandy is still in Alpha stage. And we might wait another whole year to embrace the DSC World 2.5.....

I just want to say this is quite unwise market strategy. A new jet can only attract a few of players who love the jet. But a new terrain arena could absorb a bunch of players to try their flight in it. No matter casual one or hard core. More terrain, more freshing, more vitality, more profit. Don't just depends on the veteran to buy some classical jets to swell your wallet. And don't estrange the Steam platform. Speed up the terrian developing, Middle-east, Afghanistan, Siberia-Alaska, Korea peninsula, South-east Asia.....

 

I think that the number of servers for each map available in DCS pretty sums up why creating new maps just isn't a priority for any of the devs.

Although ED and many of us thought that the Nevada map would be the new dominating map, the numbers on the internet prove that it's just not all that popular. You have an average of around 130 servers for the old Caucasus map with it's old graphics, and all too familiar terrain and generic landscape, against maybe 20 servers for both maps in 2.0 combined.

Now....I love Nevada. I really cannot go back to Caucasus after flying it. The detail and awesome (IMO) landscape are so much better than Caucasus and I feel like I downgrade every time I go there. Even with the bugs in 2.1 I prefer either of it's maps to 1.5. But the truth of the matter is that a vast majority of DCS fliers still really love Caucasus. The reasons range from it's size and stability, to it's variety of landscapes and about a zillion other things I have heard. My findings are also based on conversations I have had on TS of people who aren't thinking about the lack of a dedicated server. It doesn't seem to come into play as predominantly as you may think. . Some people just hate the new maps and refuse to buy them.

To the contrary.......I know guys that have every aircraft that DCS puts out yet they do not own 2 out of the 3 maps. And the map they do own is Caucasus. I own almost every module in DCS and have not flown but maybe 5 of them. I know lots of guys in my same situation.

So I personally cannot speculate on marketing strategies, or what anyone should be doing with the development of DCS products (although I sometimes think that I can), but I can look at everything I see when I'm playing DCS and it's clear to me that they pretty much follow what's trending among their client base.

I could be wrong...I frequently am (ask my wife, she's an expert on that). But I know what I see. :D

[NineLine]

Its not that creating maps isnt a priority, its more so that the tech is still growing and changing. Even with Normandy, new things had to be dealt with and are still being dealt with. Its hard for 3rd parties to jump in and start creating when the changes for the tools and tech are still coming fast and furious. I expect that as this settles down, maps will start coming out much faster, and we might see more 3rd parties dipping their toes into the water.

[Zimmerdylan]

Its not that creating maps isnt a priority, its more so that the tech is still growing and changing. Even with Normandy, new things had to be dealt with and are still being dealt with. Its hard for 3rd parties to jump in and start creating when the changes for the tools and tech are still coming fast and furious. I expect that as this settles down, maps will start coming out much faster, and we might see more 3rd parties dipping their toes into the water.

 

What I am praying to the sim gods for is that the technology lets you have better stuff without sucking your resources to the point of exhaustion.

I'm getting close to where I don't think I'm gonna be able to fly much longer if too much changes. Not at least until I can justify purchasing a new rig.

2.1 and Normandy run OK on my system now but I know that I'm pushing it. :cry:

[NineLine]

What I am praying to the sim gods for is that the technology lets you have better stuff without sucking your resources to the point of exhaustion.

I'm getting close to where I don't think I'm gonna be able to fly much longer if too much changes. Not at least until I can justify purchasing a new rig.

2.1 and Normandy run OK on my system now but I know that I'm pushing it. :cry:

 

Well more optimizing is coming, so I hope they can get what we have now running better for sure.

[shagrat]

I think that the number of servers for each map available in DCS pretty sums up why creating new maps just isn't a priority for any of the devs.

Although ED and many of us thought that the Nevada map would be the new dominating map, the numbers on the internet prove that it's just not all that popular. You have an average of around 130 servers for the old Caucasus map with it's old graphics, and all too familiar terrain and generic landscape, against maybe 20 servers for both maps in 2.0 combined.

Now....I love Nevada. I really cannot go back to Caucasus after flying it. The detail and awesome (IMO) landscape are so much better than Caucasus and I feel like I downgrade every time I go there. Even with the bugs in 2.1 I prefer either of it's maps to 1.5. But the truth of the matter is that a vast majority of DCS fliers still really love Caucasus. The reasons range from it's size and stability, to it's variety of landscapes and about a zillion other things I have heard. My findings are also based on conversations I have had on TS of people who aren't thinking about the lack of a dedicated server. It doesn't seem to come into play as predominantly as you may think. . Some people just hate the new maps and refuse to buy them.

To the contrary.......I know guys that have every aircraft that DCS puts out yet they do not own 2 out of the 3 maps. And the map they do own is Caucasus. I own almost every module in DCS and have not flown but maybe 5 of them. I know lots of guys in my same situation.

So I personally cannot speculate on marketing strategies, or what anyone should be doing with the development of DCS products (although I sometimes think that I can), but I can look at everything I see when I'm playing DCS and it's clear to me that they pretty much follow what's trending among their client base.

I could be wrong...I frequently am (ask my wife, she's an expert on that). But I know what I see. :D

I wouldn't bet on the server numbers. Most people seem to play offline and in general there is the issue off a dedicated server. Currently a guy hosting the payable maps, need to buy an additional server copy! This may discourage a lot of the server hosters from using the new maps.

Though, this may be different, if a dedicated server, does not require a map key to host...

 

As there are no reliable numbers and business figures available for us, this is all guesswork. I think ED who have some of the figures and information are capable of adjusting a sound business strategy. :D

[Lao Fei Mao]

I think that the number of servers for each map available in DCS pretty sums up why creating new maps just isn't a priority for any of the devs.

Although ED and many of us thought that the Nevada map would be the new dominating map, the numbers on the internet prove that it's just not all that popular. You have an average of around 130 servers for the old Caucasus map with it's old graphics, and all too familiar terrain and generic landscape, against maybe 20 servers for both maps in 2.0 combined.

Now....I love Nevada. I really cannot go back to Caucasus after flying it. The detail and awesome (IMO) landscape are so much better than Caucasus and I feel like I downgrade every time I go there. Even with the bugs in 2.1 I prefer either of it's maps to 1.5. But the truth of the matter is that a vast majority of DCS fliers still really love Caucasus. The reasons range from it's size and stability, to it's variety of landscapes and about a zillion other things I have heard. My findings are also based on conversations I have had on TS of people who aren't thinking about the lack of a dedicated server. It doesn't seem to come into play as predominantly as you may think. . Some people just hate the new maps and refuse to buy them.

To the contrary.......I know guys that have every aircraft that DCS puts out yet they do not own 2 out of the 3 maps. And the map they do own is Caucasus. I own almost every module in DCS and have not flown but maybe 5 of them. I know lots of guys in my same situation.

So I personally cannot speculate on marketing strategies, or what anyone should be doing with the development of DCS products (although I sometimes think that I can), but I can look at everything I see when I'm playing DCS and it's clear to me that they pretty much follow what's trending among their client base.

I could be wrong...I frequently am (ask my wife, she's an expert on that). But I know what I see. :D

 

--------A simulator like DCS with an editor aborbs more SP players instead of MP ones. So the number of running servers doesn't represent of true potential jets fliers. Severs have internet regional limitation, sometiems I really tire of the latency, I prefer to quit the server and fly own edited missions.:doh: