Limit EA/Beta state to 1 year?

[viper2097]

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.

 

Point that out for the Harrier and lets talk about TDC slew, TPOD and ASL. Or the Mirage and CCRP. Or the Viggen and the Magnetic declination dial and pushing buttons under security caps.

It is very easy for you to say "don't buy" EA, but as I said before, EA is part of DCS and without EA I could leave DCS.

 

In my personal oppinion:

I would not close EA, it is a great feature. Look at the Hornet and you see how it should be done. (altough ED are also not saints)

Listening to the community, active bug fixing, every two weeks some improvements and new functions and at least a comment to nearly every posted bug. That is fine for me, and if there will be worked like that, EA could also took 2 years and I would be fine.

 

Look at the Harrier to name another example. I'm sorry, but in my oppinion this is abuesing EA.

Basic functions are not working. Buggy as hell, no communication to the community. Nearly nothing happend in the last months, in EA since 1+ years and the team is releasing another aircraft and working on things that are not important (breaking modules with changing switches etc...).

 

So, what would then be you suggestion how to draw the line and how to clear out things for customers as well as devs?

I'm not criticising EA over all, I'm criticising that there are no rules.

Edited February 4, 2019 by viper2097

[metzger]

Point that out for the Harrier.

It is very easy for you to say "don't buy" EA, but as I said before, EA is part of DCS and without EA I could leave DCS.

 

In my personal oppinion:

I would not close EA, it is a great feature. Look at the Hornet and you see how it should be done. (altough ED are also not saints)

Listening to the community, active bug fixing, every two weeks some improvements and new functions. That is fine for me, and if there will be worked like that, EA could also took 2 years and I would be fine.

 

Look at the Harrier to name another example. I'm sorry, but in my oppinion this is abuesing EA.

Basic functions are not working. Buggy as hell, no communication to the community. Nearly nothing happend in the last months, in EA since 1+ years and the team is releasing another aircraft and working on things that are not important (breaking modules with switches etc...).

 

M2K... released 2015, INS bombing -> doesn't work, CCRP release cue -> doesnt work, requried course on target -> doesn't work, INS allignment -> doesn't work as intended, and many other bugs... But we have got a new Pilot body. And somehow it went out of beta so I guess considered finished. I see Harrier going the same direction and this is why this thread exist. This approach should be avoided.

[viper2097]

+1

You got it.

[Deano87]

M2K... released 2015, INS bombing -> doesn't work, CCRP release cue -> doesnt work, requried course on target -> doesn't work, INS allignment -> doesn't work as intended, and many other bugs... But we have got a new Pilot body. And somehow it went out of beta so I guess considered finished. I see Harrier going the same direction and this is why this thread exist. This approach should be avoided.

 

M2000 is about to get a massive upgrade thanks to the work Razbam have been doing with the French airforce. And it should be pointed out that a lot of those things did work but were broken along the line by changes made to the base sim. Like the current radar altimeter FPS bug. It’s a bit unfair to say that no work is being done on the module. Could they be faster with squashing blocking bugs, sure. But this is the problem with DCS, it’s an ever evolving platform, unlike any other combat sim, and this means that occasionally stuff breaks and can take a while to fix. This is a fundamental truth of DCS, with any update to the base sim any one of the modules can develop bugs, this is the price we pay for having a sim that has changed a pretty huge amount in the last 5 years.

[amalahama]

M2000 is about to get a massive upgrade

 

Yeah we've been told that 6 months ago, and for the time being, silent, nothing, nada.

[nessuno0505]

I do not buy early access modules.

I do not own (yet?) 3rd party modules, either early access or released (but what you write doesn't make me eager to buy one).

But my two favorite modules (a-10c and ka-50) are buggy. More buggy now than how they were in 1.5.x. ED posts updates and is active with the community, but mainly for newer products (i.e. f/a-18 ), oldest (finished!) modules are (temporarely?) abandoned. Some hog and ka-50 new bugs arisen with 2.5 are still there after more than one year, and we are dealing with finished released products.

But people buy in early access, people buy in pre-release status, and so developers gain revenue always developing new stuff but never finishing or fixing the older ones. And so by now I'm not buying any new module until I see a-10c and ka-50 fixed back as they were in 1.5.x. Not perfect, but with only minor bugs. ED and 3rd party devs do what Is best for their business, and we (the customers) decide what Is best by how we spend our money.

[viper2097]

M2000 is about to get a massive upgrade thanks to the work Razbam have been doing with the French airforce.

So does this mean they did initialy a lot wrong?

Or do you mean that I have to be thankful that something gets "a massive rework" instead of fixing annoying issues that probably are there since years?

 

And it should be pointed out that a lot of those things did work but were broken along the line by changes made to the base sim. Like the current radar altimeter FPS bug. It’s a bit unfair to say that no work is being done on the module. Could they be faster with squashing blocking bugs, sure.

But this is the problem with DCS, it’s an ever evolving platform, unlike any other combat sim, and this means that occasionally stuff breaks and can take a while to fix. This is a fundamental truth of DCS, with any update to the base sim any one of the modules can develop bugs, this is the price we pay for having a sim that has changed a pretty huge amount in the last 5 years.

 

So do you think that is something that ED and / or Razbam have to clear out, or something that is my responsibility as customer and I just need to accept everything?

[David OC]

So does this mean they did initialy a lot wrong?

Or do you mean that I have to be thankful that something gets "a massive rework" instead of fixing annoying issues that probably are there since years?

 

So do you think that is something that ED and / or Razbam have to clear out, or something that is my responsibility as customer and I just need to accept everything?

 

 

Please read this viper2097

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.p...39#post3722839

 

Try to understand how ED can even stay here and just continue at this level (No one else is even close to this modeling) in this "consumer civi side" combat sim. You don't have to except anything or buy anything, it is what it is and ED's hands are tied by this market to stay in business.

 

Plus, it's also the hardest to develop for, with so many IRL moving parts and never ending (Something needs to be better and modeled deeper) Everyone wants it perfect, with the correct amount of rivets, better clouds,

, better AI, missile logic etc. Sounds expensive.....$

 

It can be better now because? PC hardware, VR, vulkan api. This will continue too.....:cry:

 

Quote

I do refer to the late 90s at the "golden era," in the sense that flight simmers had a variety of quality products to choose from and the titles were continually getting better and better. We sort of peaked around 1998-1999 with Falcon, the Jane's titles, Flanker (for some of us, anyway). But that was about as far as flight sims could go in terms of development cost before they stopped making money for the people making them. Lock-On was one last attempt (credit to Ubisoft, by the way), but even though it did well in the market, it was apparently not well enough to justify further investment.

 

Lock-On (2003)

 

Ok, then here's the million dollar question. Why does Eagle Dynamics do it? For the love of their craft? Out of a sense of charity? Or is just a side project to what they consider the big fish, military contracts? Thank goodness they do, but what motivates them?

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.p...39#post3722839

End Quote

Edited February 4, 2019 by David OC

[Deano87]

So does this mean they did initialy a lot wrong?

Or do you mean that I have to be thankful that something gets "a massive rework" instead of fixing annoying issues that probably are there since years?

 

So do you think that is something that ED and / or Razbam have to clear out, or something that is my responsibility as customer and I just need to accept everything?

 

They modelled the M-2000 as well as they could with publicly available reference data. Now that they have better connections within the French airforce they have been given access to better data and are updating the aircraft accordingly. The French airforce and french manufacturers are extremely secretive and tight lipped when it comes to even older generations of their aircraft.

 

 

Regarding the second point. Its not a problem limited to Razbam and ED. All modules can break when the base sim gets updated, its just a fact of life with using an evolving simulator. Saying that a lot big changes have been made over the past couple of years so hopefully the base sim is going to have a period of stability for a while before any new big changes, which should hopefully allow the 3rd parties to spend less time fixing game breaking bugs (like the current M2000 Radar alt bug) and getting down to deeper systems modelling and fixing inaccuracies that have been noted.

 

I own all modules and I have to say I have no regrets for any of my purchases. I've been involved in development for flight sims in the past so maybe I understand the challenges better than most. I think bugs are the price we pay for flying the most realistic modern (as in game engine, VR, Graphics etc) combat sim available to the home user. None of these modules are simple propositions to either make or keep working in a changing ecosystem. When I find a game breaking bug with a module, I report it as best I can and then I go fly something else, its not like I don't have a choice of what to fly.

 

The alternative is that DCS freezes the public builds of the sim so that the base sim is no longer a moving goalpost for developers. Or maybe "release" only gets updated once every 6 months. But if there was still a regularly updating "Open Beta" branch available you can guarantee that 80% of the player base would still fly that just like they do now in order to get all the juicy updates first, and still complain when things break. :dunno:

 

Personally I like being involved in the development. I like getting Betas and early access to things, Its never been a Us (Customer) vs Them (Devs) relationship for me. Its been a "Isn't it flipping amazing how realistic some of this stuff is now, lets try and make it as good as we can."

[Pikey]

I agree that this thread has a very relevant discussion and I want to show my support for some of the sentiments in here (not all of them).

 

There's a cyclical discussion going on which boils down to people being unhappy with the length of Early Access and the definition of how a product leaves it not meeting customer expectation. Whilst I don't personally agree with all the expectations being presented, I do share this general feeling myself and am severely detracted from entering EA and helping developers gain funds to pay for investments in their staff and time.

 

The one sticking point I have is that if this trend continues, there will be diminshed support for the EA process. That is a terrible risk. Whilst it's a typical answer, "Don't buy EA", you have to remember this causes a knock on effect - diminished appetite from developers to invest and make products for DCS.

 

The question that likely no one can answer, is, "If the demands of most the customers are actually met, is this still a viable business?"

 

Anyone scared if that answer is, "No"?

 

I am. I'm worried that there's no great future in DCS if we cannot satisfy the average customer.

 

For a point of subjectivity, I am directly on the fence when it comes to what I saw was good or bad in the last ten years. For reference I've flown every airplane module until the Yak and CE. I also have all the terrains. I have none of the "campaigns".

 

A-10C, BST modules like Sabre, Huey, Mi8 etc, the props - all good "enough". I've disliked how some have subsequently had breakages and the times to fix these.

 

Mirage, Viggen, Mig-21. On the whole I was OK with these but for some very individual and problematic issues of upkeep or finishing. This is where my borderline lay.

 

F-18, Harrier. Disappointed with the length of EA, immensely so. So we see, very complex aircraft. But then so is the A-10C and I came at Beta 3 for it and didn't feel it was not progressing in the same way. F-18 was way too early and the list of required things to be in place in core DCS was absent. they've been building features in to the core game as we go and it's got issues all over it that are breaking out into full on rebuilds of core DCS - missile flight dynamics, IFF issues in core game, no ground radar API's, no FLIR texturing solution on 2.5.

 

 

 

The Harrier is desperately short of faster attention, it's been hurried, misses the depth and we got a reasonable aircraft quite quickly, without key features which are too great to list. This is no doubt a concern for everyone that already has it and everyone that is waiting for it to be complete.

 

 

Hawk, C101. I was a part of these disasters in a time before certain guidelines were made. I don't count the early years, but these were failures on so many levels, despite the C101 making it to what I see as just about EA worthy after many years.

 

 

EA is one thing, but developer feedback is entirely another and it's missing both from ED and the third parties, once a plane is out there in the public's hands. In the last ten years I have been sick to death of reporting fundamental issues and bugs with absolutely no response from Dev, a smattering of Moderator and unhelpful comments or largely silence. Why am I doing this? If there is an EA policy, then speak to the customers and reassure them! You cannot have EA without strong customer communication, and I mean strong! Not these weak and vague monthly one line posts that talk about what is happening next, not ignoring posts asking when things are happening, you took the money on a promise, defy the customer at your peril!

 

 

 

I have embargos and rules now and I am no longer an EA customer and will be very careful. I haven't purchased F-14, despite being as potentially giddy as the huge mob gnashing their teeth for it. I'm waiting to see how the back seat plays out in multiplayer first. I absolutely do not trust ED to have the ground work capable of fulfilling what I think will work for me and my group for that module. My trust is based on past history, I came in buying everything and I stopped! I can afford this no problem! I'm also not the only one, people largely give up writing to the forums that I know because they perceive it to be a waste of their time. The writing is on the wall, time to change! I am also distanced from the marketing. It's substantially visual and superficial, but the real under the hood story is absent. The bunch of fanboy You Tube assessments of modules are way out of sync and also largely superficial of these iconic planes details. My judgement is very sincere and deep and largely I go disappointed since I know this product so well now.

[metzger]

The issues I have listed never worked since it release. And they know how they work as they are in the training missions. INS bombing and ccrp release cue are covered in the INS bombing training mission, but the feature was never implemented to a working state.

 

The course on target feature is covered in the HSI/Navigation mission, never worked.

 

INS alignment was explained in the INS training mission, it was never implemented as described. You can allign INS in the air while flying or correct it with a simple INS update push without any reference.

 

All this was reported in the beginning and we were told "It is still in beta and those features are still not implemented" well, here we are, 4 years later, no beta, but those are still not implemented. I don't care about the M2K anymore so if they do implement it eventually, for me it was never working as promised.

 

EDIT: Speaking about the MIrage earlier, it is unfortunate that Razbam become a bad example here, I am sure they can do good modules, it is the approach that is wrong imho.

Edited February 4, 2019 by metzger

[nessuno0505]

Whilst it's a typical answer, "Don't buy EA", you have to remember this causes a knock on effect - diminished appetite from developers to invest and make products for DCS.

 

I'd prefer a simulation with just one or two full study modules but bugs free, fully supported and with frequent updates rather than dozens of modules full of new bugs every week, never finished and with sparse updates you have to wait years to have as It Is now. And I would Be glad to pay a monthly fee to have a simulator done the way I like.

[Pikey]

I'd prefer a simulation with just one or two full study modules but bugs free, fully supported and with frequent updates rather than dozens of modules full of new bugs every week, never finished and with sparse updates you have to wait years to have as It Is now. And I would Be glad to pay a monthly fee to have a simulator done the way I like.

DCS has never been bug free and it never will. The sales model is based on a free core with DLC addons. The free core has always been a moving target and it's clear to see a lot of work goes into it, but it will never be up to anything near a standard we could call bug free, or even close. I'd also pay good money for something different. I believe the DLC approach doesn't provide enough cash to sustain the work that is needed.

[metzger]

DCS has never been bug free and it never will. The sales model is based on a free core with DLC addons. The free core has always been a moving target and it's clear to see a lot of work goes into it, but it will never be up to anything near a standard we could call bug free, or even close. I'd also pay good money for something different. I believe the DLC approach doesn't provide enough cash to sustain the work that is needed.

 

It is hard to satisfy all potential customers. I'd say double the price of the modules but clear the bugs in both core engine and modules themselves. But some people will not like paying more. So may be this is the best balance between price and quality they manage to achieve so far.

[nessuno0505]

Why not leaving the current prices as they are and add a monthly or yearly fee to sustain the constant updates and bugfixes?

[Pikey]

So you propose to pay 60 dollars for a top module plus a monthly charge?

 

 

That's not going to wash, it's one or the other. The only successful business to manage that was Blizzard. I say, "was", it's not it's hey day of 11 million subscribers. Plus how do you attact 3rd parties into DCS without a licensing arrangement where they can profit? By module sales.

 

 

Best I can think of is a subscription service to something via multiplayer, and looking at the current dedicated server progress i'm not convinced anything is different about the core game. Currently watching my server warp all over the place this morning has put me in a bad mood of trying to get two dozen people to roll back DCS versions.

 

 

Why not leaving the current prices as they are and add a monthly or yearly fee to sustain the constant updates and bugfixes?

[FSKRipper]

I'd prefer a simulation with just one or two full study modules but bugs free, fully supported and with frequent updates rather than dozens of modules full of new bugs every week, never finished and with sparse updates you have to wait years to have as It Is now. And I would Be glad to pay a monthly fee to have a simulator done the way I like.

 

An what do you think, how many of all the people posting before you would pay a monthly fee for 2 modules over let's say 4 years without new features until a new complete study sim module arrives?

 

This would be the most easy way to stop DCS and let ED focus on military grade sims for the armed Forces.

[metzger]

So you propose to pay 60 dollars for a top module plus a monthly charge?

 

 

That's not going to wash, it's one or the other. The only successful business to manage that was Blizzard. I say, "was", it's not it's hey day of 11 million subscribers. Plus how do you attact 3rd parties into DCS without a licensing arrangement where they can profit? By module sales.

 

 

Best I can think of is a subscription service to something via multiplayer, and looking at the current dedicated server progress i'm not convinced anything is different about the core game. Currently watching my server warp all over the place this morning has put me in a bad mood of trying to get two dozen people to roll back DCS versions.

 

Like iRacing is doing, pay for modules and for the service. But they did really good work there with the MP system. ED can do MP dynamic missions and host different theaters and make them subscription based, it would probably be good but I am sure ED knows how to make money from their business. I just hope someday we will have better bug fix policy and communication as of now, this is the most disapointing aspect of DCS.

[Harlikwin]

DCS has never been bug free and it never will. The sales model is based on a free core with DLC addons. The free core has always been a moving target and it's clear to see a lot of work goes into it, but it will never be up to anything near a standard we could call bug free, or even close. I'd also pay good money for something different. I believe the DLC approach doesn't provide enough cash to sustain the work that is needed.

 

Free core? You mean the TF-51, and the arcade mode SU-25? Thats a bad joke if I ever heard one. The DLC is what brings money in. But at the end of the day, if the DLC priced at what 80 bucks per module (more than an average fully complete game these days) isn't bringing in enough cash for development I'd say we are near done as hardcore simmers. That being said, there are some subscription based services for flight sims (WW2 aero-quake comes to mind), and maybe it could be a low priced 10/month service with a free month or three for new guys or something. That at least would bring in some stable cash flow for core engine development that I don't think most people would mind paying.

[Harlikwin]

It is hard to satisfy all potential customers. I'd say double the price of the modules but clear the bugs in both core engine and modules themselves. But some people will not like paying more. So may be this is the best balance between price and quality they manage to achieve so far.

 

At the end of the day its a trust issue. I took a risk on some of Razbam's (,m2k) stuff because it was on sale due to their rather abysmal handling of the harrier. I won't buy the mig19 out of the gate at this point due to those issues, and I am a fanatical redfor guy, I'll pretty much buy any redfor plane offered to support more planes being made. But thats how badly they have screwed up in terms of customer relations IMO. When fanatical guys are saying, nah pass, or I'll wait until its on sale, or I'll wait till they fix their other modules. And overall I'm not poor, 80 bucks is literally nothing to me, I'm more than willing to support developers with EA, but when a Dev systematically screws the pooch and takes whizz on the community in terms of communication, I'm out. I think the line from the movie Josey Wales applies to Razbam at this point "Don't piss on my back and tell me its raining". I'll happily buy ED stuff, because i trust them that it will be fixed and their comms are at least ok, I'll buy heatblur and other devs stuff for the same reason.

Edited February 4, 2019 by Harlikwin

[Harlikwin]

M2K... released 2015, INS bombing -> doesn't work, CCRP release cue -> doesnt work, requried course on target -> doesn't work, INS allignment -> doesn't work as intended, and many other bugs... But we have got a new Pilot body. And somehow it went out of beta so I guess considered finished. I see Harrier going the same direction and this is why this thread exist. This approach should be avoided.

 

So at the expense of sounding like a broken record. These are very similar issues to what the Harrier has, and it brings up the point, Does RAZBAM not understand the importance of the functionality? Or the types of mission profiles flown with those? I Can't believe its hard to input an INS waypoint as a target point. The DMT on the harrier does it automatically every-time you hit the designate button. Its a set of 3D coordinates. And its critically important for certain bomber missions. Same for CCRP, no sane pilot wants to fly into AAA land when they can pickle off bombs from 10k feet and have a decent chance of hitting the target. The fact those features and modes exist in other aircraft tells me its not a DCS issue, rather a systemic RAZBAM one.

[Harlikwin]

So you propose to pay 60 dollars for a top module plus a monthly charge?

 

 

That's not going to wash, it's one or the other. The only successful business to manage that was Blizzard. I say, "was", it's not it's hey day of 11 million subscribers. Plus how do you attact 3rd parties into DCS without a licensing arrangement where they can profit? By module sales.

 

 

Best I can think of is a subscription service to something via multiplayer, and looking at the current dedicated server progress i'm not convinced anything is different about the core game. Currently watching my server warp all over the place this morning has put me in a bad mood of trying to get two dozen people to roll back DCS versions.

 

I'd happily pay for both. A nominal fee for the development of the world/engine and maybe a few "free planes". And then normal price for modules. The caveat being that I expect the engine to fix things in a way more timely manner than is being done now. VR sucks? expect improvements next quarter, we've got a guy or three on it. Latest stable update broke shit? Give us 2 weeks to fix it. That kind of thing. Right now I'm pretty lassiez faiere on it because a) I'm not paying for it directly, and b) I get how hard some of it is to do.

[FSKRipper]

That at least would bring in some stable cash flow for core engine development that I don't think most people would mind paying.

 

I have serious doubts about it. You think people complaining about the price of the "old" A10C would pay monthly? Or people who hates WW2 planes would pay to support them? Do you take different fees for different regions of the world because of the different income? Do you include Gold subscriptions? IMO this would be the road to the end of DCS in it's current form.

 

The current system is also working for other sims like X-"fill in the name of a mankinds greatest invention"

Even premium modules are under continued development but there you eventually pay for every new master version.

 

As it was said above, Blizzard was the only company which was successful with such a financial model.

[Harlikwin]

I have serious doubts about it. You think people complaining about the price of the "old" A10C would pay monthly? Or people who hates WW2 planes would pay to support them? Do you take different fees for different regions of the world because of the different income? Do you include Gold subscriptions? IMO this would be the road to the end of DCS in it's current form.

 

The current system is also working for other sims like X-"fill in the name of a mankinds greatest invention"

Even premium modules are under continued development but there you eventually pay for every new master version.

 

As it was said above, Blizzard was the only company which was successful with such a financial model.

 

I'm not a business guy, so I'd defer to whoever at ED has that sort of insight as to why or why not, and I'm sure they have considered it. But at the end of the day, I think at least a part of the customer base would pay 10bucks/mo for it, I dunno, maybe you could take up with the EU or Herr Merkel and get a subsidy for it if its too much ;) . Maybe for online server access or some value added service or that sort of thing. I don't take into account other regions mainly because I "think" the vast majority of their customer base is either in the US/Europe or hardcore simmers that could most likely afford it. But again, whatever the actual customer base X $10 USD/month X 12 would be, I'd also expect better more frequent updates and perhaps support to 3rd party devs. Oh sorry 3rd party dev, your programmer is subpar and can't implement feature X, meet Dimitiry, he'll get you squared away by the end of the quarter but we will take X% of your module take. Then again, they have probably done the math and figured it isn't worth the aggravation.

Edited February 4, 2019 by Harlikwin

[nessuno0505]

I'd happily pay for both. A nominal fee for the development of the world/engine and maybe a few "free planes". And then normal price for modules. The caveat being that I expect the engine to fix things in a way more timely manner than is being done now. VR sucks? expect improvements next quarter, we've got a guy or three on it. Latest stable update broke shit? Give us 2 weeks to fix it. That kind of thing.

 

Exactly this. In addition, I think we cannot speak about razbam because it's a 3rd party dev and it's up to them to keep their modules updated. If razbam fails, DCS world still goes on. For this reason I do not want to deal with razbam or heatblur or some other 3rd party module, this is for another subject IMHO. Here I want to talk about ED/ex belsimtek, and I think the real issue is that their modules should have been all quickly updated / renewed with 1.5.x becxoming legacy and 2.5 release. But they are busy with new projects (f/a-18, persian gulf map and maybe new heli and f-16), and since their main revenue is from newer modules they can't stop working on them, so they do not have time / resources to put on older modules update that make less money. Something has been done (warbirds update for example) and something else has been announced (a-10c and ka-50 updates) but it is too little and without a time schedule: f-5, huey, mi-8 and korean era jets would need to be fixed / updated too. How much time will it take to do all such things with the actual policy? In the future I fear we'll have an increasingly wider distance between newer modules and older ones, and this would be a sad destiny for such wonderful airplanes. To pay a fee - let's say "for 2.5 transition"? - is the only way I see to solve the problem. Furthermore, as new modules are added, it will be impossible to keep up with everything in good time without a dedicated source of income, in addition to the sale of individual modules.

Edited February 4, 2019 by nessuno0505