Limit EA/Beta state to 1 year?

[viper2097]

I'm quite new to DCS (started around autumn 2018 ), but I have yet around 200 in game hours and I own some modules / maps. (So I've spend enough money to have a voice, and also spent enough time to know what the topic is about)

 

Comeing from other games, the handling of the early access / beta states of modules and maps is quite uncomfortable to me.

It feels for me, that it becomes a bigger and bigger problem that modules or maps won't get finished, stay in early access over years etc...

I can understand that everyone would like to have their hands on a new product as fast as possible, and I can also understand that features (like weapons, as it is done at the moment with the F-18 ) can be added trough that time.

But on the other hand, there are paying customers who paid money for a module which will probably never finished because the developers already head over to the next one (understandable, bug fixing does not generate money, a new module does).

 

So, I'm pointing at you Eagle Dynamics:

Aren't you afraid that this will mess up the whole DCS system over short or long? That people get more and more angry and will leave?

There are a lot of new people incoming because of the Tomcat and the Hornet, so the playerbase is rising. There will be even more comeing with the F16 being released.

 

I would suggest an easy rule:

Once a module / map is released for purchase / integrated functionaly into DCS, there should be a time period of one year for early access.

If it stays longer in early access, customers have the choice to give the module back and get a full refund, or stay with it.

Also the have to specify what will be modelled and what not before the module can be purchased.

This would force the devs to finish their products, or at least deliver an acceptable product during a specified timeframe. And every customer knows what he can expect.

 

Personaly, I can't believe that the actual situation is accepted by the playerbase.

Sorry, but as a "new" DCS player I have no understanding for letting modules / maps unfinished over years, but already heading over / releasing new modules / maps.

 

What do you guys think?

Is there some action needed? Is it fine for you all the way it is now? Do you think the situation will be getting better or worse?

I'm sure many will say that I see that topic far too serious, but for those ones I can only say that I think they are seeing it far to unserious...

Edited January 17, 2019 by viper2097

[Cibit]

The system is infinitely better than it once was and also the devs have to have income streams to enable stability and security for its employees.

It works and with the exception of the Hawk everything in early access will eventually be completed at least to the developers mind.

The easy option you have personally is wait until a product is released in its finished state and let those who want to opt for early access do so

[FragBum]

I'm quite new to DCS (started around autumn 2018 ), but I have yet around 200 in game hours and I own some modules / maps. (So I've spend enough money to have a voice, and also spent enough time to know what the topic is about)

 

Comeing from other games, the handling of the early access / beta states of modules and maps is quite uncomfortable to me.

It feels for me, that it becomes a bigger and bigger problem that modules or maps won't get finished, stay in early access over years etc...

I can understand that everyone would like to have their hands on a new product as fast as possible, and I can also understand that features (like weapons, as it is done at the moment with the F-18 ) can be added trough that time.

But on the other hand, there are paying customers who paid money for a module which will probably never finished because the developers already head over to the next one (understandable, bug fixing does not generate money, a new module does).

 

So, I'm pointing at you Eagle Dynamics:

Aren't you afraid that this will mess up the whole DCS system over short or long? That people get more and more angry and will leave?

There are a lot of new people incoming because of the Tomcat and the Hornet, so the playerbase is rising. There will be even more comeing with the F16 being released.

 

I would suggest an easy rule:

Once a module / map is released for purchase / integrated functionaly into DCS, there should be a time period of one year for early access.

If it stays longer in early access, customers have the choice to give the module back and get a full refund, or stay with it.

Also the have to specify what will be modelled and what not before the module can be purchased.

This would force the devs to finish their products, or at least deliver an acceptable product during a specified timeframe. And every customer knows what he can expect.

 

Personaly, I can't believe that the actual situation is accepted by the playerbase.

Sorry, but as a "new" DCS player I have no understanding for letting modules / maps unfinished over years, but already heading over / releasing new modules / maps.

 

What do you guys think?

Is there some action needed? Is it fine for you all the way it is now? Do you think the situation will be getting better or worse?

I'm sure many will say that I see that topic far too serious, but for those ones I can only say that I think they are seeing it far to unserious...

 

I know right but with DCS you learn patience, sure we all belly ache from time to time and sure it can be frustrating when things break or just don't work but for the money DCS World has got to be the best Flight Sim deal out there. :)

 

YMMV :thumbup:

[Eight Ball]

 

What do you guys think?

I think you should just avoid early access.

[viper2097]

The easy option you have personally is wait until a product is released in its finished state and let those who want to opt for early access do so

I think you should just avoid early access.

 

Just for informational purpose (refer to the DCS online shop page):

 

Modules released:

A-10C

Spitfire

F-5E

Sa-342

M2000C

L-39

Mig-15

BF-109

F-86

FW-190

Mi-8

UH-1H

P-51D

Ka-50

Su-27

F-15

Su-25

A-10A

 

Modules still in early access / work in progress:

Christen Eagle II

Mig-29

F-14

Yak-52

F/A-18

AV-8B

NS430

AJS-37

C-101

Mig-21

Su-33

 

Maps released:

NTTR

 

Maps still in early access / work in progress:

WWII Assets pack

Persian Gulf

Normandy

[will-]

I think you should just avoid early access.

 

+1

 

Me, personally coming from other games, DCS reminds me of how PC gaming once was, great updates from community & dev's. Now AAA games seem to just make a game engine reap the rewards each year w/ the same cookie cut game w/ just a new title. To that point i actually had a friend ask me about DCS wondering if you had to buy and pay for weapons, gas...

 

"2020 Skin pack 5 unique and exciting skins for only the f-18. 24.99" thats how games work now.

 

I'm glad what we have now; its all about perspective.

Edited January 17, 2019 by will-

[Esac_mirmidon]

Stick to Release DCS version and use only finished modules.

 

Open Beta and Early Access is not for everyone.

[viper2097]

Stick to Release DCS version and use only finished modules.

That would mean that I should not use / have not bought around 2/3 of my ownship.

I think I would then not play DCS, or come back to it in ~ 5 years...

[FragBum]

Just for informational purpose (refer to the DCS online shop page):

 

Modules released:

A-10C

Spitfire

F-5E

Sa-342

M2000C

L-39

Mig-15

BF-109

F-86

FW-190

Mi-8

UH-1H

P-51D

Ka-50

Su-27

F-15

Su-25

A-10A

 

Modules still in early access / work in progress:

Christen Eagle II

Mig-29

F-14

Yak-52

F/A-18

AV-8B

NS430

AJS-37

C-101

Mig-21

Su-33

 

Maps released:

NTTR

 

Maps still in early access / work in progress:

WWII Assets pack

Persian Gulf

Normandy

 

 

Look you need to consider the DCS World environment you can either use stable version or Steam managed version or open beta or the experimental open alpha version. It's kinda like backing a startup but not as expensive as others the DCS World environment is effectively itself not a released version. But it mostly works. :thumbup:

[draconus]

Personaly, I can't believe that the actual situation is accepted by the playerbase.

It's already done. Period. It's a business and players bought into it. It's not like you have any choice here - competition is non-existent at the moment :D

 

I may not like it too but I don't buy EA and certainly not Pre-purchase. That's the choice you have too.

 

Also there are many guys here that have already bought every single module... twice... or more, so don't brag about your few modules ;)

 

If you haven't already please read about EA here:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3661768&postcount=164

 

While a module can be once finished (with only bug fixing left) a DCS cannot - it is in permanent developing state. More stuff is added all the time and improvements are put into the things already done.

Edited January 17, 2019 by draconus

[will-]

That would mean that I should not use / have not bought around 2/3 of my ownship.

I think I would then not play DCS, or come back to it in ~ 5 years...

 

Yup.

 

But i'd like to remind you that 5 yrs ago DCS was 1 map and Flaming Cliffs 3 was just released. It was fun then also.

 

I do agree w/ the general idea of having to wait this long is intrusive. I'd suggest contacting Wags, someone from ED and explain to them that you have lots of money and wish to hire the best programmers to complete said task.

 

How many games from 5years ago do you still play? Theres just a lot of variables that come into play to think, how will DCS adapt to the future? New game engine; DCS 3.0, does everything go back to beta again? my point being DCS is always evolving, nothing in DCS is "finished".

[viper2097]

Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with EA, beta or some bugs. I understand that DCS is growing constantly and I also appreciate overhaul from older modules etc...

I only have a problem with the standstill I can see in many things.

So I only thought about a possible solution to prevent devs from standing still and force them to do their job and finish modules.

They like to take our money, so why should I not like them to deliver as expected?

 

There should just be something done to clarify things. At the moment, when you pay money, nobody knows if a module will be 2 years in EA or 6 months or forever.

 

And to answer that 5 years question:

Trackmania United, CSGO, Left 4 Dead 2, and Payday 2 ;)

Edited January 17, 2019 by viper2097

[draconus]

I only have a problem with the standstill I can see in many things.

So I only thought about a possible solution to prevent devs from standing still and force them to do their job and finish modules.

They like to take our money, so why should I not like them to deliver as expected?

There is no standing still. They do their job just not the way you like it.

Ideas like "Stop the development until all modules are finished and bugs are fixed!" come up on the forum every day but that is just not things work. They could do that for a year maybe but that would mean that some of the employees would not have a work to do and the business would probably fall apart in the long term. And we certainly don't want that to happen or wait more years for the modules to come!

[viper2097]

There is no standing still. They do their job just not the way you like it.

 

Nah, in many things it feels like a stand still.

I don't want to point at a specified company / module to stay in a serious discussion, but when I play, encounter a bug, search it in the forum, find out that the bug is there for a real long period of time and there is no response from the developer to that, then it feels like a standstill.

 

I just think that things should be more cleared.

That would help the customers and also the devs.

Edited January 17, 2019 by viper2097

[bkthunder]

What people here are not getting, is that:

 

- one thing is releasing an EA product on which a team with limited resources works on for x amount of time till it's finished

 

- a totally different thing is when a product is released in EA, and then after a few months the limited-resources team moves to launching another EA without finishing what they started, and giving limited resources as an excuse for not delivering what customers have paid for.

 

That should be stopped or regulated IMO. And in fact I am not buying anymore EA from 3rd parties who behaved like this in the past (pretty much every 3rd party so far).

[Esac_mirmidon]

The stop is in customers hands.

 

Dont use Open Beta.

 

Dont buy Early Access products.

 

Problem solved. The thing is that a vast najority of users are happy beeing part of Open Beta and buying EA modules and beeing involved in the development process while enjoying what we have now.

 

Again, EA and OB is not for everyone. If you feel uncomfortable with that just dont use-buy it.

 

If things change and all the customers base are not buying anymore EA products ED and 3d parties will be forced to change. But this is not what is happenning right now, quite the opposite looking at the sales.

Edited January 17, 2019 by Esac_mirmidon

[viper2097]

What people here are not getting, is that:

 

- one thing is releasing an EA product on which a team with limited resources works on for x amount of time till it's finished

 

- a totally different thing is when a product is released in EA, and then after a few months the limited-resources team moves to launching another EA without finishing what they started, and giving limited resources as an excuse for not delivering what customers have paid for.

 

That should be stopped or regulated IMO. And in fact I am not buying anymore EA from 3rd parties who behaved like this in the past (pretty much every 3rd party so far).

 

 

Exactley, that's what I'm talking about.

EA is not bad, it can help both sides, but it should get regulated.

[draconus]

I just think that things should be more cleared.

That would help the customers and also the devs.

I'm with you on this. No bug should wait over a year whatever low the priority it is and just a simple confirmation would suffice.

 

For clarification here's an example of how things work from the inside:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3760237&postcount=24

[drPhibes]

Limit EA/Beta state to 1 year?

 

 

 

I have a better suggestion: limit the ability to purchase early access modules to users who can prove that they actually understand what early access means.

[viper2097]

I have a better suggestion: limit the ability to purchase early access modules to users who can prove that they actually understand what early access means.

 

Better an even better suggestion: Allow only devs selling EA modules who know what EA means:

 

What people here are not getting, is that:

 

- one thing is releasing an EA product on which a team with limited resources works on for x amount of time till it's finished

 

- a totally different thing is when a product is released in EA, and then after a few months the limited-resources team moves to launching another EA without finishing what they started, and giving limited resources as an excuse for not delivering what customers have paid for.

 

That should be stopped or regulated IMO. And in fact I am not buying anymore EA from 3rd parties who behaved like this in the past (pretty much every 3rd party so far).

[Rudel_chw]

Just for informational purpose (refer to the DCS online shop page):

 

Modules still in early access / work in progress:

Christen Eagle II

Mig-29

F-14

Yak-52

F/A-18

AV-8B

NS430

AJS-37

C-101

Mig-21

Su-33

 

Come on, are you trying to make the list look longer or what? The CE2 appeared just yesterday, the F-14 hasnt released yet, the C-101 just received a big makeover, the Su-33, MiG-29, Yak-52, F/A-18 all appeared less than a year ago.

 

I dont know why ED classify the MiG-21 and the Viggen still as early access .. I've flown both and they seem very complete to me (that's not to say that they do have bugs, on the MiG-21 they stem from being a pretty old module that was hit hard with the update to DCS 2.5).

 

Of that list, the only aircraft that pisses me off a bit is the Harrier .. I still have her on the hangar as I refuse to spend time learning an aircraft that has not yet all of its systems working correctly. In fact, I also put aside the F-18 for the very same reason .. will resume flying them once they are more finished.

 

Best regards

[viper2097]

Come on, are you trying to make the list look longer or what?

 

Nope, only copy / paste from https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/shop/

You can pay now real money for it at official DCS shop? Then it is on the list.

So I would suggest this as "official".

 

BTW: Viggen is still not complete. Lot of switches can't be switched (even trioough security caps) and the magnetic declination dial just don't moves (so it is not possible to set it up)

Viggen has a very high quality, but complete? No.

[Akula67]

There should just be something done to clarify things. At the moment, when you pay money, nobody knows if a module will be 2 years in EA or 6 months or forever.

 

I fully agree with you, I think more transparency regarding the state of completion and ETA of Early Access modules would help the customer choose whether he should buy now or wait.

[Esac_mirmidon]

Giving ETAs to Early Access products is impossible.

 

The only frank thing a developer can do is publish a list of things done and things to be done, and keeping the list updated on a regular basis.

 

Giving dates is a focus of pain and suffering for everyone.

[FragBum]

Giving ETAs to Early Access products is impossible.

 

The only frank thing a developer can do is publish a list of things done and things to be done, and keeping the list updated on a regular basis.

 

Giving dates is a focus of pain and suffering for everyone.

+1. :thumbup: