more (paid) versions of ac instead of new ones

[twistking]

Hello,

with the recent grumbling in the community about the pitfalls of early access, i want again propose a slightly different direction in module development, namely to focus some (!) manpower on developing paid module extensions instead of brand new ones.

This could be a slightly newer version of an aircraft, or even a slightly older version, but it should be similar enough that it would share most of the codebase.

Those extension could also be addons, akin to the NS430 module (which had a rough start, i admit; but this was to some extend caused by misscommucation and/or missconception, not necessarily by the product itself).

 

The whole idea would of course be to have modules that are quicker to develop and don't grow the "maintainance debt", helping to keep older modules well maintained and offering users a way to get something more out of their beloved aircraft.

 

Of course these extensions could under no circumstances take away from the original module and since most dcs modules model a very specific model/version/lot, this would not be a "slippery slope" of micro-transactions.

Also i don't think of those extensions as game-changing upgrades, but welcome additions that matter to the dedicated fans of the aircraft. So i would think of it more as a "supporter edition" than a "pay-to-win"-upgrade:

For example: F-5 export-model with AAR capacity, A-10C slightly higher lot#, P-51 "Korean War" vers., Yak-52 armed test vers. etc. ...

They could also come with a flashy (yet realistic of course) supporter livery or similar.

 

I had a better feeling buying such an upgrade to a module i love, even if it would have lower actual value (compared to the asking price of the base module) than spending money on map- asset- and feature-packs that technically have much higher value (development work / asking price) but would in my opinion work better as free additions to the core game (for reasons discussed elsewhere).

 

Thanks.

[Harlikwin]

Yeah. I could see this. But again, you are still adding to the maintence debt for more modules. Perhaps a smaller one though since there is enough similarity between variants. I guess it would really have to be case by case to see if was worth it. The recent KA50 upgrade I think is a good idea/example of this. They could do re-do the F5E into the more capable "swiss" version and maybe a less capable one.

[rrohde]

+1

 

I actually like this idea a lot. Right now, DCS modules are "frozen in time forever" in terms of their real-world counterparts' upgrades, and this idea would allow us getting around this. So a resounding 'yes' from me. :thumbup:

[Harlikwin]

Yeah I think it will have to be thought through on a case by case basis though.

 

For example current F5E to the swiss version (With INS and I forget what else Kev said). This makes sense, not major changes to the FM weapon systems.

 

For the Mig21bis, vs an F version mig21... LOL, its a whole new plane, different engine/aero/avionics.

 

P51D WW2 vs Korean era. Not sure what the differences are, if minor probably a good idea.

 

The other thing to consider is that eventually the mainenace requirements on the GFX side go up too, but maybe those are minor relative to programming.

[rrohde]

Of course it has to be feasible, realistic, and attainable for ED, so I agree with you as well.

[Jester986]

Of course ED would have to figure out if this would be profitable, but overall I like the idea to help generate revenue. The F-5 is the best example I think of an "easy" plane to do this to. They already seem to be doing this though with the KA-50. Free graphical update with a paid update to capabilities. The down side to this would be that Razbam plans to include another mig-19 version for free, Heatblur plans to give us the F-14A for free, and Polychop has given us four different Gazelle models for the price of one. I would expect to see the kind of stuff stop. Strange to see customers arguing to get less for their money huh? Haha, it just goes to show how emotionally as well as financially invested we are in DCS.

 

What I will NOT support. Buy X aircraft and have to pay to unlock Y ability. I'm going to break a rule here and mention another sim, but its so bad and irrelevvant does anyone really care? Rise of Flight. Bought the game, then had to buy airplanes... Ok not happy. Then after buying the airplane I had to buy things like alitimeters and compasses for the plane! Immediately deleted. I also dont care for the special skins and setting up a class system within the community. Its also pretty pointless with how easy it is to download skins.

 

But Dear ED, if different models are close with different abilities or different serial numbers got upgrades. Thats fine to pay for. But never sell me a plane and then charge me to unlock what it should be able to do. And its never been suggested but thats the scary bottom of the slippery slope this idea could lead to.

[Harlikwin]

Wow, didn't realize other "sims" had gotten that bad.

 

But yeah it its a valid point. I'm mainly thinking in terms of the developer costs of long term maintenance and ways to offset it. Since I'm sure every OB update, every dev has to debugger their plane, or set of planes because of something that changed in the engine, and from what I've seen it isn't always communicated very well between ED and the 3rd party guys.

[Gierasimov]

I guess that, as already mentioned, Ka-50 (AKA Black Shark 3) will be somewhat a test of this theory. I wonder how many people will actually buy the new Ka-50. We will see.

[Outlaw24]

This idea sounds reasonable, however, I wonder how much legal hurdles will have to cleared with the aircraft manufactures, to upgrade the orginal contracts to make the newer version viable, and not just all graphical upgrades?

[Ironwulf]

I already said I'd pay for a F/A-18D "night attack" or "all weather" so long as it was multi-crew ;)

 

And I'd actually prefer to not have a 'jester' equivalent. I'd rather not fly it if I didnt have a human back-seater, if one were essential.

[Jester986]

I think the difference between c and d are beyond the scope of the easy upgrades we're talking about.

[statrekmike]

I like the idea but I think it is pretty safe to say that a very, very vocal and quite easily roused subset of the community would ALWAYS see that as part of the "microtransaction slippery slope" or a "cash grab" regardless of how it is handled.

 

It is a good idea but ED seems rather busy and I don't see this kind of thing happening any time in the near future. It could happen as more modules reach Blackshark or A-10C age but time will tell.

[Tobi1304]

[norbot]

I like the idea. A clickable A-10A would be great. :)

 

Already asked for it something like 3 years ago: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=178575

Edited September 26, 2019 by norbot

[WinterH]

I do think we're approaching to the point where this can be a thing. It is a necessity for players, and it can be a plus for developers too.

 

The upcoming update of Ka-50 is actually a first step in this direction in my opinion. Let's see if it will be priced right.

[Harlikwin]

I like the idea. A clickable A-10A would be great. :)

 

Already asked for it something like 3 years ago: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=178575

 

Yeah, I'd love an A10A... Apparently Chiz has something against it.

[Harlikwin]

I do think we're approaching to the point where this can be a thing. It is a necessity for players, and it can be a plus for developers too.

 

The upcoming update of Ka-50 is actually a first step in this direction in my opinion. Let's see if it will be priced right.

 

I think it was going to be in the 1/2 the price of a new module range. ~30 bucks or so.