Limit EA/Beta state to 1 year?

[Stacker]

This argument keeps repeating and is utterly pointless. It always comes back to the same conclusion - nobody is forcing you buy EA modules! Software of this complexity is never complete. It will always miss things you want and have bugs.

 

I really do think people have no sense of perspective and have completely unrealistic expectations.

 

Enjoy your thread.

[Deano87]

What happens if ED changes the underlying code and fully released module (out of Early Access) suddenly develops several debilitating bugs... What are the developer's obligations then?

 

Developers are obliged by ED to fix any major bugs.

[Horns]

ED is the expert here. Before committing a module to EA they should check it out as best they can, including it's development plan and 3rd party's buisness plan to make sure that the module is indeed of DCS quality and said 3rd party will make it to the release -- thus, conducting an expertise on the matter. For working on that expertise they should probably be paid by same 3rd party.

Thank you for explaining, I understand what you meant now. I don't think such a process should be required, but if a dev did choose to seek ED's business advice they could do worse.

 

ATM this model can not guarantee delivery from EA at all. Thus, it isn't working not only for OP, but for everyone else as well. Meaning, sometimes modules go release, sometimes they don't -- and both cases are clearly not bound to the current EA model.

This isn't a coin toss. VEAO are the one developer ever who has ceased business in DCS without getting a module past EA. You suggest that ED should judge the quality of the business model for a module, and ED are currently in the process of putting together Modern Air Combat - an FC3 level package with the MiG-21 as one if its cornerstones. They appear to have little doubt about the module or the developer's ongoing business stability.

 

If ED couldn't deliver during a whole year, let's ask ourselves: perhaps they released this module to EA too early? But the thing is ED care for their modules, since it's their game and thus their lifeblood. As for the others, we generally don't have any clue. How long before one understands that, how much will he (probably) waste and, most importantly: is this situation really unavoidable? OP suggests that this mess can be avoided with a bit more strict organisation, and I agree with him.

As for complexity and release deadline interconnections, please clarify your point of view. How much longer in your opinion should EA take and why?

 

They only released too early if you think EA should be limited to a year. As you say yourself, DCS is ED's 'lifeblood', and they don't think an EA timeline of over one year for their flagship module jeopardizes that.

 

There is no need for the DCS business model to change. Buy or don't buy on your own terms. If you are concerned that a module won't see full release, wait until it does. All of this is very straightforward.

[viper2097]

And how to protect "new" customers who have not read hours and hours in this forum?

It is maybe not necesary to fix EA to one year, but their should be some rules introduced.

[Mars Exulte]

Oh look, another stirling example of armchair development, with a healthy dose of financial advice and entitlement. We haven't had any of that lately!

 

As always, it's painstakingly easy: if you don't want to participate in beta testing, then don't. If you don't like EA products, then don't buy them. Beyond that, nobody gives a damn what anyone thinks of the business model, especially when it is couched in so much ignorance and entitlement.

 

Don't want it, don't buy it. Easy, huh? And if y'all actually 'spoke for the community' that approach would work, as EA modules would have to reach a higher dev state before people would purchase them enmasse. Obvious evidence is obvious, the majority of people ARE ok with it, regardless of what the tryhards think.

 

There will NEVER be a time these modules sit 100% untouched and ''finished''. They have been and will continue to be updated as long as the game is is active. That's a GOOD thing. If you want 18 months of development followed by abandonment then go buy CoD or BF or something with a semi-annual dev cycle. It doesn't work.that way here.

 

There is also nothing wrong with them raising funds to help finish a module. This is low volume, low profit, work for passion of it stuff. Nobody needs or wants your damn armchair advice.

 

 

Tldr: stfu and let them run THEIR company. If you're such a marketing and coding genius, go start a competing product and show em how it's done.

 

Yes, yes, a deluge of people.claiming to be Lockheed department managers or coding super stars from Microsoft and mega corporations. I suspect most of the most vocal ''experts'' flip hamburgers and use the internet to stroke their egos.

[SharpeXB]

VEAO are the one developer ever who has ceased business in DCS without getting a module past EA.

So far.

With the current system it’s likely there will be more to come.

[Horns]

And how to protect "new" customers who have not read hours and hours in this forum?

It is maybe not necesary to fix EA to one year, but their should be some rules introduced.

 

 

No reading of this forum needed at all. A link to the ED definition of Early Access is right there in the E-Store in the module listing. The information is as available as it could possibly be and is frank about describing the various and unpredictable paths Early Access can take. There is no way someone can read that and conclude that an Early Access module is a known quantity. ED empower the customer rather than restricting them, because the best person to make a consumer decision is the consumer.

[viper2097]

Maybe I should say one thing again very clear:

I don't have a problem with EA, on the contrary, I think it can be really cool (looks at the Hornet).

But on the other hand, there are some restrictions needed to stop abuesing it (looks at the...).

[Horns]

So far.

With the current system it’s likely there will be more to come.

 

Your comments earlier in this thread seemed to say that devs were selling a module in EA, moving on to the next one without completing the previous one and repeating the process. If they are getting the same money for less work, wouldn't that put them in a better business position instead of a worse one?

[SharpeXB]

Your comments earlier in this thread seemed to say that devs were selling a module in EA, moving on to the next one without completing the previous one and repeating the process. If they are getting the same money for less work, wouldn't that put them in a better business position instead of a worse one?

No because they’ll just go belly up and fail. They’re not going to keep making money at it because customers will learn to avoid them and EA

 

EA is potentially bad for vendors and customers alike.

[Horns]

Maybe I should say one thing again very clear:

I don't have a problem with EA, on the contrary, I think it can be really cool (looks at the Hornet).

But on the other hand, there are some restrictions needed to stop abuesing it (looks at the...).

 

Ok, what abuses do you see now and what restrictions would eliminate or mitigate them?

[viper2097]

I think I don't need to name them and just read the thread, me and others maid more then enough suggestions...

[Harlikwin]

LGB's work with the targeting pod and if you slew the DMT manually while the laser is being fired, the LGB's will track. Mavericks are also precision strike weapons. CCIP is probably the mode most flight simmers are most familiar with anyway.

 

This is more of a "not all of the modes that are supposed to be modeled work yet" problem, versus "there is no functionality at all" problem.

 

 

I never said there is no functionality, actually the air to air modes are mostly complete aside from DMT slewing for the sidewinders. The point is that no one thinks the Harriers core mission is Air to Air.

 

Yes, the Mavs sort of work (The E's work fine-ish), but the "core" functionality of the harrier as designed was the ARBS and precision day/night bombing with dumb bombs, followed by CAS. All of the other functionality was add on, so it does sort of baffle me why they want to implement it "backwards"

 

It can sort-of do datime CAS which is mainly what I do with it now. But as a strike platform its borked IMO. The T-pod is also only semi functional, and honestly I'm sort of mind-boggled as to why introduce it in a broken state.

Edited February 3, 2019 by Harlikwin

[Harlikwin]

That's a lot different than:

 

 

 

For example: Harlikwin: You can't do low level night attack precision bombing in the Harrier module because the ARBS system isn't modeled.

 

That's not true. You can fly relatively low level with the FLIR on the HUD in the Harrier module and attack ground targets by using the targeting pod in conjunction with LGB's. ARBS or no ABS, you can still do low level night attack precision strikes.

 

I can say this because I have the module and I use it. When a prospective customer reads statements by someone that aren't true, it does the prospective customer a disservice to hear such false information when making a purchasing decision. That doesn't make other things Harlikwin said not true however. Some of the things surrounding communication about the Harrier module from the developer is an issue for a lot of people.

 

 

Please do tell me how to do night missions without the T-pod? You know, like the Harrier did from 1987-1999? I said nothing that wasn't true. Its also baffling to me why the LGB's don't work with the JTAC while the L-mavs do.

 

Just because you do some missions in a roundabout "hack" way doesn't mean its functional. Pre Y2000 there was no T-pod, and many of the missions the harrier did in the gulf and yugoslavia were strike and interdiction without it day or night. And more or less you can't do any of that, or at least the way it was intended to work. I realize perhaps some DCS guys don't get how it was supposed to work, and are happy playing Aero-Quake however they are doing it with kludgy workarounds.

 

Moreover the TPOD isn't even fully functional, so once again I'm left with the question, why keep introducing new semi-functional systems to the harrier when the core functionality is broken. Its just a back-asswards approach to me. Get the core systems working first, then add the "cool guy" stuff later.

 

At this point most of the standard dumb functionality is in the F18, and IIRC worked right from the start, and thats only a small part of its mission. So its not like its "hard" or impossible to implement it. Yet here we are 1+ years out on the harrier and it doesn't work right with little information on if/when it might actually get fixed/implemented so I'm just left scratching my head.

 

I think alot of the frustration on the Harrier is that we keep getting the mushroom treatment as a community. Supposedly a new coder was hired months ago to work specifically on it, yet fixes have been pretty slow to come. I also get that Razbam probably needs a new module to keep the lights on, so fine I get that with the mig19. And its great that they are committed to updating the mirage, but given those two facts it really seems like the Harrier is on the bottom of their priority list.

[SharpeXB]

A link to the ED definition of Early Access is right there in the E-Store in the module listing.

Sure but this part “Eagle Dynamics and all of our third parties strive to make this period as short as possible.” should probably be re-worded to say “this period may last several years”

[Horns]

No because they’ll just go belly up and fail. They’re not going to keep making money at it because customers will learn to avoid them and EA

 

EA is potentially bad for vendors and customers alike.

 

One thing you and I do very much agree on is that the solution for customers who are wary of EA as it is practiced now are best off waiting until a module reaches release before buying. I disagree that EA as it is now is bad for vendors, but I'll let it rest there rather than risk taking this to a circular discussion.

[nessuno0505]

The time to complete a module like a-10c or f/a-18 is about 3 to 4 years, so you can not ask only 1 year of early access, not with such products. I buy and play only finished modules. Yes, I'm eager to fly f/a-18 or av-8b, but it does not make sense to me to spend full money now for an incomplete module that I can buy complete and with greater discount later. But this is just my choice.

The real problem in DCS is that also the so called "released" modules are not always so: a-10c and ka-50 need some fix to work in 2.5 as they worked in 1.5.x, uh-1h is unfinished even if in release status, m2000c is released but razbam is redoing it almost completely, and so on; some of these needed fixes are planned, but new modules have priority and older ones pay the price. At the end of the game you have: from one side new early access modules pushed forward with quick updates and newer graphic design, but unfinished and incomplete; from the other side old released modules, completed and finished, but with older graphics and newer bugs it will take ages to fix. And you have something to complain about any choice you do.

This is dcs world. You can accept it for what it is and enjoy the evermost hardcore flight simulator available for home PC; or you can complain, take a pause and go playing something else, sometimes enjoyable as dcs but never as deep and detailed.

[Harlikwin]

Sure but this part “Eagle Dynamics and all of our third parties strive to make this period as short as possible.” should probably be re-worded to say “this period may last several years”

 

 

As a new guy to DCS that did buy into EA I took that statment to mean a few months not years. I didnt do exhaustive research into what EA meant in the context of DCS, rather the industry standard for other games which might mean a few months. Well lesson learned, that and not buying into the hype pre release videos, DCS doesnt look or work like that on normal systems.

[Черный Дракул]

The truth is in the Module Changelog(s).

+

You have to be a smart consumer and do your own research

Great. What you guys saying is if you go to DCS dealing, you're on your own. Great inspiration for great trust and long relationship right there :thumbup:

 

because customers will learn

Great one, mate :music_whistling:

 

Customers never learn. A specific customer can learn, but with almost endless supply of specific customers, there's a never-ending chain of supply. Certain kinds of "businesses" exploit that directly. Not limiting such activity can throw a pretty grim shadow over whole ED operation.

 

 

 

What happens if ED changes the underlying code and fully released module (out of Early Access) suddenly develops several debilitating bugs... What are the developer's obligations then?

***

And I have heard people argue that we can't expect modules to be actively developed forever - you buy it, get few years of support, and then it will slide more and more out of focus - and if you wait for the module to come out of Early Access, how long will the module be maintained afterwards?

What happens in abovementioned case should be detailed in cooperation agreement between 3rd party and ED. And it most probably is. So it will be solved, one way or the other.

EA =/= support, see thread above. But yes, it should be supported (again, one way or another) through the whole DCS lifetime, it doesn't make sense otherwise.

 

If you don't like EA products, then don't buy them.

 

There will NEVER be a time these modules sit 100% untouched and ''finished''. They have been and will continue to be updated as long as the game is is active. That's a GOOD thing.

 

There is also nothing wrong with them raising funds to help finish a module.

 

Tldr: stfu and let them run THEIR company. If you're such a marketing and coding genius, go start a competing product and show em how it's done.

The point of this whole discussion is that current model doesn't encourage completing the modules enough. And this is a problem for everyone (well, probably except for the guy above who asked to be counted out, he probably really likes unfinished modules).

 

Updates to the module due to engine changes or new information unfolded =/= EA, pls read thread above and don't confuse cases.

 

Raising funds is great, kickstarter is made just for that. But if a kickstarter project fails to collect enough, funds are returned to owners. Quite the difference to selling something that have a nice chance not to make it to release and essentially go abandoned, don't you think?

 

And thank you for your great advice about shutting up and taking it as it is. It's very important for everyone touched by the problem we're discussing here.

 

You suggest that ED should judge the quality of the business model for a module

 

They only released too early if you think EA should be limited to a year. As you say yourself, DCS is ED's 'lifeblood', and they don't think an EA timeline of over one year for their flagship module jeopardizes that.

 

There is no need for the DCS business model to change. Buy or don't buy on your own terms. If you are concerned that a module won't see full release, wait until it does. All of this is very straightforward.

Yes, they should be the judge on allowing something running on a loan on their territory (as well as taking the consequences of bad decitioning on that part).

 

I presumed the default 1-year limit only because of initial suggestion. Nobody says it should be exactly that; 3-4 months is probably the optimal and most manageable of EA timelines (definitely far more manageable than 4-6 years based on the full development cycle). The point of the whole thing is anything put on ED shop should be actually achievable in limited timeframe and people responsible should be held responsible if that fails. The longer EA timeframes become, the less manageable and more random-prone this becomes. As for ED, they have a reputation and a lot of quality releases. Not everyone is like that (remember DCS: WW2?) and it should be taken to consideration.

 

What you said is pretty straightforward, until it's not. When a model promotes abandonware, it will produce that; the longer it stays in place, the more of the output will be just that. We all know the clinical case of Kickstarter-based vaporware with one space sim -- and I don't think anyone wants that in DCS. The model should promote complete products to produce complete products, and should have enough failsafes to guarantee no problems for the end user. Amongst other things with happy end-users, it brings stability, and there's nothing money like more than stability (so it's probably in ED interest as well -- but that we can't know).

 

 

 

Anyhow, if the frequency of this same question asked by OP is actually rising, it will continue to rise exponentially no matter what arguments will be made in this thread in defence of current EA model. Then there are two ways of it solving itself, depending on the availability of userbase: either implosion and exodus, or devastating explosion. Neither of that is good for anyone here, be it us users or ED itself. Thus, probably preemptively solving the problem is the best way out.

Edited February 3, 2019 by Черный Дракул

[Horns]

Yes, they should be the judge on allowing something running on a loan on their territory (as well as taking the consequences of bad decitioning on that part).

 

I presumed the default 1-year limit only because of initial suggestion. Nobody says it should be exactly that; 3-4 months is probably the optimal and most manageable of EA timelines (definitely far more manageable than 4-6 years based on the full development cycle). The point of the whole thing is anything put on ED shop should be actually achievable in limited timeframe and people responsible should be held responsible if that fails. The longer EA timeframes become, the less manageable and more random-prone this becomes. As for ED, they have a reputation and a lot of quality releases. Not everyone is like that (remember DCS: WW2?) and it should be taken to consideration.

 

What you said is pretty straightforward, until it's not. When a model promotes abandonware, it will produce that; the longer it stays in place, the more of the output will be just that. We all know the clinical case of Kickstarter-based vaporware with one space sim -- and I don't think anyone wants that in DCS. The model should promote complete products to produce complete products, and should have enough failsafes to guarantee no problems for the end user. Amongst other things with happy end-users, it brings stability, and there's nothing money like more than stability (so it's probably in ED interest as well -- but that we can't know).

 

 

 

Anyhow, if the frequency of this same question asked by OP is actually rising, it will continue to rise exponentially no matter what arguments will be made in this thread in defence of current EA model. Then there are two ways of it solving itself, depending on the availability of userbase: either implosion and exodus, or devastating explosion. Neither of that is good for anyone here, be it us users or ED itself. Thus, probably preemptively solving the problem is the best way out.

 

Again, three modules ever. I'm not going to bother repeating all of the reasons your suggestion couldn't be used even if someone wanted to. You're either thoroughly deluded and deliberately ignoring the reality of the situation or you're straight up trolling, so I won't be wasting futher energy on trying to have a genuine conversation with you.

[Horns]

As a new guy to DCS that did buy into EA I took that statment to mean a few months not years. I didnt do exhaustive research into what EA meant in the context of DCS, rather the industry standard for other games which might mean a few months. Well lesson learned, that and not buying into the hype pre release videos, DCS doesnt look or work like that on normal systems.

 

If you are talking about the F-14, that might be a shorter timeframe than other recent releases because Heatblur have chosen to approach EA differently, so maybe there was a reason to conclude it was months and not years for the 'Cat. Slightly OT for a moment: in case you're unaware, I think Heatblur offered to refund preorders, so if you'd rather not be on the hook I think you have an 'out'.

[SharpeXB]

Again, three modules ever.

You mean three modules so far...

[Harlikwin]

If you are talking about the F-14, that might be a shorter timeframe than other recent releases because Heatblur have chosen to approach EA differently, so maybe there was a reason to conclude it was months and not years for the 'Cat. Slightly OT for a moment: in case you're unaware, I think Heatblur offered to refund preorders, so if you'd rather not be on the hook I think you have an 'out'.

 

No I've mostly been talking about the harrier, but there are issues with several of the EA and even "complete modules" (Gazelle FM being legendary), the mig 21 ASP issues, and frames performance issues (Being fixed). And really I don't mind supporting devs with EA purchases, I just want them managed better is all.

 

And really, I like the harrier overall, but the fact its missing basic functionality 14 months later, and then has more and more bugged stuff shlocked on is pretty weak. IMO ED should never let them release it without a working AUTO bomb mode. Since the Harrier is primarily a bomb truck. As I pointed out, it would be like releasing the F14 without a working AWG-9 radar.

 

Personally I'd be happy if they finally fixed the ASL line issue so I could use auto bombing in day and night modes and added point track to the DMT. And really really happy if they got INS/waypoint bombing done. The most frustrating thing is Razbam not acknowledging bugs, or providing any real timelines as to when things might get fixed or added, the ASL line thing has been issue for way too long IMO. I get a mostly "manyana" vibe from them on anything harrier related which sucks.

 

Personally I think EA should work something like: we will give you the core functionality of the plane, or at least most of it, and then finish up the more advanced hard to model stuff as we go along (tpods, whatever), milestone at 3 months is features XYZ, 6 months features ABC etc. It at least holds the dev to some sort of timetable to get things implemented, and if they miss feature X, then it should be top priority for the next quarter updates. I can accept some inevitable delays, but there needs to be some sort of plain-view mechanism to prevent Devs from over-promising and under-delivering with EA modules. Also clear comms along the lines of "hey, I know we promised thing X, but turns out its much harder to do than we though so its been delayed" One the 1 year deadline thing, I care much less about that, but each EA module should have a list of features promised, and ones that are implemented, and a vaguely realistic timeline so that people can make an informed decision.

 

Honestly the best thing about the harrier is that the community of dedicated players has made it much easier to learn to fly and employ the working systems, and workarounds for the others. And that is great to see. But even those guys patience is wearing pretty thin, and they among the more generous guys in the community IMO.

 

As for HB, I have high hopes for the F14 based on their past performance, I'm certainly not on the list of refund guys because I can wait another month or two or whatever. But I think the whole "winter 2019" release thing became a shitshow with tons of hurt feelings and unrealistic expectations (Dec21 for example). And overall they could have managed it better (like saying end of Q1 2020). As for their EA strategy of "mostly done" I guess we will find out, but based on the vids I'm hopeful that most of the A/A functionality will be there, and thats what the F14 is about. I also think people will be dissapointed with JesterAI, because I think its been over-hyped.

Edited February 4, 2019 by Harlikwin

[Harlikwin]

Well in the case of the Hawk, VEAO and ED did stop selling it. If you're talking about the Harrier, it was released in November 2017. That was 14 months ago, so less than a year and a half ago.

 

I know it's tempting to count the number changes in each year, but that doesn't make it 3 years ago and it's a good example of distorting the truth a bit like I pointed out earlier.

 

At a guess I'd say he's talking about mig-21. On the plus side it sorta-works and they are looking at fixing it.

[nessuno0505]

Definition: "Early access is a system that allows you to gain access to games that are being developed with the community’s involvement. It also says that you will get the final game when it is released, but it’s up to the developer to determine when they are ready to call the game complete."

 

If you buy early access you know the game Is incomplete, It could remain in that state Forever and you accept that risk. If you don't, do not buy early access. It's crisp and clear.

Edited February 4, 2019 by nessuno0505