Carrier comms - Mini Updates

[Coxy_99]

It’s not elitist, it’s a fact DCS expensive. Rightfully so

 

May aswell pay for an updated Missiles that are better than ones already in game Missile module $40 So my ER is better than your ER ;) Thats sarcasm and joking btw

[dawgie79]

SP only here, definitely going to purchase the carrier module. I hope ED will add the option to turn on deck/runway lighting at night, manually, so that it'll stay on and not depend on "Inbound" radio calls. Since that's not working for me in combination with Vaicom Pro, which means right now I can't use the carrier at night (unfortunately the people from Vaicom haven't found the source of this issue yet).

[shagrat]

Nobody is arguing for a free upgrade.

Then how do you suggest people should pay for the work and investment?

[spiddx]

So I absolutely wanted to buy the new carrier but if all the public servers wont include it (and the wont if they want to be successful) it will diminish the use I get out of it.

 

Reconsidering the purchase right now, this is kind of a dealbreaker. There has to be a better way, and no, I'm not talking about giving it away for free. I hope ED delays the thing until they find a solution.

[shagrat]

This here, this is exactly the example I had in mind when I started posting about this. THIS HERE is unfair. It's a dude being excluded or ripped off. This is bad business practice and it's bath business ethics.

 

 

 

Nobody speaks about not compensating ED for the work they're doing, but compensate on fair terms that don't split the community.

I am sure any realistic ideas for a better compensation model is highly appreciated, don't hold back if you have a brilliant idea.

[StandingCow]

I will say it again... it isn't about ED charging, it isn't about the price... it is about splitting the community. Nobody is saying ED shouldn't be compensated, we are waiting to throw our wallets at the screen to get this... or at least we were....

 

As it is now it would be a terrible value and I as well as many others wouldn't get to enjoy all of ED's hard work because many of us are on MP primarily. I highly doubt any large MP servers will bother.

[Tippis]

Oh, if not a free upgrade, maybe they could… I don't know… perhaps make it some kind of paid-for upgrade? Just a thought.

 

It's not as if anyone has actually argued otherwise.

[remi]

$500 thrustmaster warthog

$400 mfg rudder pedals

$150 TrackIR

$600 VR system

$300 video card

$300 CPU

$100 motherboard

$500 monitor

 

"$40 for complete carrier operations which includes ATC is just too much and will split the multiplayer community, and I will boycott ED, even though I already purchased the Hornet and want to use that module to its fullest extent!!!11"

 

:doh: :huh:

 

 

You guys are unbelievable. I have a hard time believing that you can't afford $40 when you've already spent hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars already.

[shagrat]

Let's be frank here, ED's support for SP is not good enough to use SP as an excuse to ignore the MP aspect. The AI is broken as hell, the mission editor is akin to a night in an iron maiden (yes, the original one from the 1500s) and the F-14's LANTIRN is unuseable without a human RIO.

 

 

 

I'm not buying into the SP philosophy. That's not good enough for a company larger than 3. If you go into the gaming market and you have core tech available for multiplayer, you're either in it 100% or you may as well scrap the MP feature altogether.

If you have ever wondered, why campaigns are coming regular and it took forever to get a dedicated server, or why there are no "online stats" etc.

I can simply say, the forum reflects not the majority of DCS customers, nor does Multiplayer... if you base anything on the assumption that a "then MP customers won't buy it" strategy it may not be such a tough argument, as you think. Just saying.

[OhsH]

I dont want it free, I want other people to be able to use it on the same server that I am not using it without me paying for it.

[spiddx]

"$40 for complete carrier operations which includes ATC is just too much and will split the multiplayer community, and I will boycott ED, even though I already purchased the Hornet and want to use that module to its fullest extent!!!11"

 

:doh: :huh:

 

 

You guys are unbelievable. I have a hard time believing that you can't afford $40 when you've already spent hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars already.

 

You are completely missing the point. People that only fly the Mi-8 will not be able to join servers with the new carrier unless they buy it too. And why would they? And where does it stop? When the new Kuz comes out they'll have to spend another X dollars for something they will never use.

 

This wont happen and that's why many servers will not include these modules which in turn makes them less attractive for people that actually bought them.

[shagrat]

Let's be frank here, ED's support for SP is not good enough to use SP as an excuse to ignore the MP aspect. The AI is broken as hell, the mission editor is akin to a night in an iron maiden (yes, the original one from the 1500s) and the F-14's LANTIRN is unuseable without a human RIO.

 

 

 

I'm not buying into the SP philosophy. That's not good enough for a company larger than 3. If you go into the gaming market and you have core tech available for multiplayer, you're either in it 100% or you may as well scrap the MP feature altogether.

And you are aware the F-14 is just recently made available in EARLY ACCESS.

[Tippis]

You are completely missing the point. People that only fly the Mi-8 will not be able to join servers with the new carrier unless they buy it too. And why would they? And where does it stop? When the new Kuz comes out they'll have to spend another X dollars for something they will never use.

 

This wont happen and that's why many servers will not include these modules which in turn makes them less attractive for people that actually bought them.

It's kind of shocking how difficult it seems to be to grasp this really simple concept. :huh:

 

All these ignorant “don't you want them to get paid” strawmen, and the ones who are bandying it about miss the ironic fact that they are the ones arguing that the developers should not be paid for their work.

[Keks]

At no point has it ever been said that the Nimitz-class aircraft module would be free.

 

We aren't just selling new comms, we are selling a fully functional carrier experience, from new comms, an incredibly detailed and animated carrier, animated deck crew, crash barriers, control of the carrier, and the ability to man positions such as LSO or the air boss station. The amount of time, effort, and capital going into this is massive, and it will be the most immersive and complete carrier environment available for a game or even a professional training tool. I would expect that someone could enjoy just being in control of the carrier, launching AI and/or Players on missions, in defense or offence... this is not just a few new sound files.

 

Of course, on the technical side, there will be so many network inconsistencies between module owners and non-owners of the carrier that it would cause havoc and look terrible (particuarly deck crew and the new comms), as such making it available to non-owners in MP makes no sense. Other carriers will be available to non-owners still, and many will be happy with the new, free carrier that was added just last year along side the Hornet. This module iis for those that want to take carrier life to the next level.

 

Because the core software of DCS World is free, we will continue to make enhanced module content available for purchase.

 

Thanks

 

 

I would argue that having to pay for something that can be considered CORE FEATURES will just drive players away and will be hurtfull for not only the community but for ED in the long term.

 

Every paywall, be it maps, carriers or ww2 assets splits the community.

Hell even EA stopped putting maps behind paywalls, due to the community split.

 

The bottom line of this will be that from every group playing together people will be driven away by suddently having to pay x amount in order to be able to play with their friends. As of now groups are allready struggeling to make missions for everyone due to the paywall split when it comes to maps.

 

I expect core elements of a game to be free and I am willing to pay the premium when it comes to the planes.

 

Just take DCS WW2 for example. The incentive to get into DCS to play WW2 is very low. Not only have I pay for the plane, but I have also pay for the map, and for the assets. The plane alone costs as much as a competing product that offers multiple planes, maps and a finished core game.

 

Come on, this is getting out of hand.

 

I will not spend money for core elements, I expect core elements.

[Silver_Dragon]

I am sure any realistic ideas for a better compensation model is highly appreciated, don't hold back if you have a brilliant idea.

 

The develop cost always go up, if all like put all "free", only can raising the Module prices to compensate develop cost, and ultimate, put DCS not free.

 

The bad part, slow or stop some develops meanwhile can compensate salaries and develop work to extra "free" functionalities.

[spiddx]

It's kind of shocking how difficult it seems to be to grasp this really simple concept. :huh:

 

All these ignorant “don't you want them to get paid” strawmen, and the ones who are bandying it about miss the ironic fact that they are the ones arguing that the developers should not be paid for their work.

 

Well it doesn't help that two discussions happen in parallel here right now. One is about server compatibility (and I don't see how anyone would be against it?) while the other is whether carrier ATC should be behind a paywall which can be argued about.

 

That's probably part of the confusion.

[pimp]

Why are people saying the new ATC & Carrier module should be considered CORE FEATURES? There's already available ATC and carrier for free as CORE.

[dawgie79]

It's kind of shocking how difficult it seems to be to grasp this really simple concept. :huh:

 

All these ignorant “don't you want them to get paid” strawmen, and the ones who are bandying it about miss the ironic fact that they are the ones arguing that the developers should not be paid for their work.

It's also a really simple concept that this module requires a lot of work, so it should be obvious it won't be free.

And it's also obvious that it produces network conflicts when half of the peers own the module while the other half doesn't.

 

Complaining to ED doesn't help. We can read in Wags' statement it's meant for people who want carrier environments expanded to an unmatched degree. Not for people who want to shoot down others online. For that the Stennis is just fine I would imagine.

 

But hey, what do I know. I only play SP. ;)

Edited May 19, 2019 by dawgie79

[Tippis]

It's also a really simple concept that this module requires a lot of work, so it should be obvious it won't be free.

…good thing that no-one has said otherwise, then.

 

It's almost as simple a concept as how arguing for a scheme that actively discourages purchases will lead to all that work not being paid for.

 

And it's also obvious that it produces networkconflicts when half of the peers own the module while the other half doesn't.

It's obvious that you can currently join a server where you don't own 90% of the modules involved, and not suffer any conflicts from it. So while that last bit of snark in your post was perhaps not intended as such, it is 100% spot on, I'm afraid.

 

We can read in Wags' statement it's meant for people who want carrier environments expanded to an unmatched degree.

That includes people who want to shoot down others online. And people who want to not shoot others online. Unfortunately, it also affects the people who do not want that environment, but who want to play with the people who do. Again, this is not a difficult concept.

Edited May 19, 2019 by Tippis

[OperatorJack]

$500 thrustmaster warthog

$400 mfg rudder pedals

$150 TrackIR

$600 VR system

$300 video card

$300 CPU

$100 motherboard

$500 monitor

 

"$40 for complete carrier operations which includes ATC is just too much and will split the multiplayer community, and I will boycott ED, even though I already purchased the Hornet and want to use that module to its fullest extent!!!11"

 

:doh: :huh:

 

 

You guys are unbelievable. I have a hard time believing that you can't afford $40 when you've already spent hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars already.

 

 

When you put it like that they should start charging us per new weapon they add to the Hornet/Viper, we already paid for it after all and what's $10 for a TGP when you've spent thousands already.

[Proof]

Not for people who want to shoot down others online. For that the Stennis is just fine I would imagine.

 

The point that is trying to be made is that a lot of people using the hornet will want to use the new carrier, for obvious reasons. The people who want to play against them will also have to buy it in order to do so, even if they have no intention of landing on, taking off from or communicating with it in any way.

 

So there is a choice to be made when creating a multiplayer scenario, you either hope the people who aren't using it own it anyway, or expect the people who want to use it use the old Stennis instead, even after with the release of the new carrier module, to facilitate those who don't own the module.

[dawgie79]

…good thing that no-one has said otherwise, then.

 

It's almost as simple a concept as how arguing for a scheme that actively discourages purchases will lead to all that work not being paid for.

 

 

It's obvious that you can currently join a server where you don't own 90% of the modules involved, and not suffer any conflicts from it. So while that last bit of snark in your post was perhaps not intended as such, it is 100% spot on, I'm afraid.

Well. I'm not at all that long on these forums, but I read the same things over and over. People prefer to get things free, they demand a lot, and blame ED for a lot of things unjustly. In other words, it doesn't seem to matter what ED does, because people whine anyway.

 

Yeah, true, and not really comparable as you're not using those modules since you can't fly two birds at once. But you can fly a bird and use the carrier at the same time.

[OhsH]

Well. I'm not at all that long on these forums, but I read the same things over and over. People prefer to get things free, they demand a lot, and blame ED for a lot of things unjustly. In other words, it doesn't seem to matter what ED does, because people whine anyway.

 

Yeah, true, and not really comparable as you're not using those modules since you can't fly two birds at once. But you can fly a bird and use the carrier at the same time.

 

the whining is justified for once.

[dawgie79]

the whining is justified for once.

It's really not. If you don't want the carrier, don't buy it. Simple concept of choice.

 

The real problem is that some people just want everything with minimal cost/effort/younameit. That only exists in dreams.

Edited May 19, 2019 by dawgie79

[Wizard_03]

the whining is justified for once.

 

Really? Cause people said the exact same things when ED dared to charge for WW2 assets..