Jump to content

This video said everything !


Pâte

Recommended Posts

I believe in a completely redone DCS 3.0, I hope it won't take years and I hope that after finishing the F18 and the F16 they will concentrate only on the simulator and not on other modules.
Yeah, and whos gonna pay their monthly bill ? Lol

Mastering others is strength. Mastering yourself is true power. - Lao Tze

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 148
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Yeah, and whos gonna pay their monthly bill ? Lol

 

Easy, MAC 1, 2 or whatever number we‘re at then...

 

 

Seriously though.I hope things change.Significant improvements to the coresim would benefit all users and make the whole thing a lot more enjoyable.

 

 

It is already awesome in some areas, however that doesn‘t mean that criticism directed at other areas is undue or that the people voicing it are less important customers than those constantly writing how content they are with DCS.

 

I will keep my money too as of now.Good to hear BigNewy chime in , saying they took the feedback to their Boss and that things are in progress.

 

But until things really change and improve, no more investments.Way too many unfinished modules , long-exisiting bugs and announced things and too little core development for my taste.

 

 

Kind regards,

 

 

Snappy


Edited by Snappy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A complete redone can require rebuild the graphic / phisical engine from scratch and make the same with all modules and extra funtionality. To build 1.5 and Dx11 ED need some years. The Vulkan improvent can be the 3.0 and has taking some other quantity of years. If ED make them from 0, that take years, no weeks or mounths.

I suggest ED to make an investment. Complete the 18 and 16, adjust the night flight and the main things then stop to build from scratch DCS 3.0.

It could take years but I think that most of the community would agree, meanwhile you will show us the progress day by day. Obviously a DCS 3.0 will not be free but this is not a problem I would still be happy to buy it rather than buying more and more modules in EA to then wait for years to be completed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

to build from scratch DCS 3.0.

Are you serious ?

It could take years

Ah ok, you are serious :)

but I think that most of the community would agree,

Hmmm..I doubt it.

 

Obviously a DCS 3.0 will not be free

Obviously...:)

but this is not a problem I would still be happy to buy it

Cool

 

And what ED will do with all planes, heli, maps and so on..., and for the third Parties, they need to redo them from scratch too

 

My advive : try to never manage a company :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Put all on "hold / flezze" and maintain ED / 3rd parties alive without new projects meanwhile waiting to a new engine some 5 or more years in the future (and we not talk about private / professional clients), firing great quantity of personal meanwhile not essencial. And of course, the comunity will be very happy meanwhile waiting that years to the "promise" projects (KS WW2 and others) and a DCS "Payware". :)


Edited by Silver_Dragon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The are a lots of stuff which DCS does better than the other f-16 only SIM in the video. And to say DCS is dead environment is veery exaggerated.

 

But I absolutely agree that DCS needs more focus on core features, old modules updates and bug fixes rather than more new modules.

But of course they need to pay the bills and make money so a balance needs to be found. Recently it feels a bit that they got too much greedy for the money, but I could easily be wrong of course.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The are a lots of stuff which DCS does better than the other f-16 only SIM in the video. And to say DCS is dead environment is veery exaggerated.

 

But I absolutely agree that DCS needs more focus on core features, old modules updates and bug fixes rather than more new modules.

But of course they need to pay the bills and make money so a balance needs to be found. Recently it feels a bit that they got too much greedy for the money, but I could easily be wrong of course.

 

As i understand it , they have increased staff over the last couple of years . Greed has nothing to do with it . Maintaining a sustainable company does . Ultimately , that is what is at issue here . We want ED to be successful

for many years to come , and fear that the current model may ultimately not be .

9700k @ stock , Aorus Pro Z390 wifi , 32gb 3200 mhz CL16 , 1tb EVO 970 , MSI RX 6800XT Gaming X TRIO , Seasonic Prime 850w Gold , Coolermaster H500m , Noctua NH-D15S , CH Pro throttle and T50CM2/WarBrD base on Foxxmounts , CH pedals , Reverb G2v2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One option is may be they can start selling re-done updated versions of the current moduls a.k.a BS2, now 3 and so on..like other games do. But many will cry as they want to buy something and get lifetime up to date updates and support for free, so It is up to us, customers what route ED will take.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also think the F16 went out the door a bit too early
I don't own Viper, but from what I've read/seen that's true. Either way, I don't see people commenting on what's the reason behind that, people is always a tad short of memory… These days, since quite a time now, and I feel it gets worst daily, people tend to complain about everything forgetting what have been done, what is in the oven, forgetting how far we've come since 2009 BS release which started this all, forgetting everything. They just complain, complain all, even if they're not right about it, it doesn't matter, just complain.

 

 

 

That said, why did Viper come to early access and now release "so soon"? Don't you remember? There was something that happened with regards to a former ED member, he was jailed, and as usual ̶c̶o̶m̶p̶l̶a̶i̶n̶e̶r̶s̶ people rapidly started to "spread their truth", even though they knew nothing about it. And what was that "truth"? They get to a conclusion, Viper was cancelled and never meant to be released despite the license from Lockheed Martin was announced short before those events happened. What else could be it? That had to be true because they said so. To counter those events ED had to make some huge authority move before that got worst, and so few days later Viper early access was announced (the longer EA I remember, so many months before release) and a rough release date was given. ED said nothing about it, people complaining was silenced in a single row, but that was the obvious reason behind so early access for the Viper. Now problems arise due to Steam release date and everything, so module is a bit too early in many aspects but Steam date has to be fulfilled while other early accesses were delayed as much as needed to release something good enough to people. Right, what else could be expected from a so long EA and obliged release date? How could they had handled that better? But remember, in the first place the reason for that to happen was people complaining. They got the EA? Complains. They don't? Complains. They complain about having a too early module, but they would complain about not having it. How, HOW, can be that tackled better? I seat in ED's place and wonder what and how could that be done better with people not being happy ever no matter what you do. I really do wonder… I don't envy ED's position whatsoever.

 

Some people here say a "new start" should be done, a DCS 3.0, from scratch. Stop developing new modules and focus in that. Right, that could be a good thing. But same people agreeing that would be a good idea would complain about, how long? two? three? five years without a single new module and/or feature? Would somebody still remember what DCS is in five years without further notice? Lets be serious, that'd be the end to ED and DCS.

 

 

 

S!

"I went into the British Army believing that if you want peace you must prepare for war. I believe now that if you prepare for war, you get war."

-- Major-General Frederick B. Maurice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe in a completely redone DCS 3.0, I hope it won't take years and I hope that after finishing the F18 and the F16 they will concentrate only on the simulator and not on other modules.

 

While I can understand the sentiment. This is not realistic. The doors do not stay open if they don't make sales. Without infusions of cash its layoff time, shut the doors and thanks for all the fish.

 

Repeatedly in reddit/youtube now, they have said they have put 50% (60+) of the developers onto core systems. Its getting done... its just not visible to us (but one of the BIG complaints just got a refresh (AI) and is still being improved.)

 

Plus rewriting/refactoring the code base in 4 million lines of code on an active system and making sure other systems are not impacted is not to be taken lightly. I'm sure at times if feels like your searching for a corner in a round room.

 

Maybe they need to put a status board up to show progress on the core elements of the game they're working on. Then we could see the sad fact that sometimes something they do breaks something else or they take 2 steps forward 1 step back. Or just don't seem to make progress on something for a while because of integration, complexity, yada yada yada.

 

Though with the amount of angry complaints that people make I can see why they might really be shy/nervous to do such a thing. Especially because in a way people will try to drive ED's development into their favorite part of the game they want fixed/implemented. Which would be counter productive to what they see as essential to bring the whole together.


Edited by aileron
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm I got a different vibe off the video. While the first half discusses Falcon 4.0, history of BMS, and other titles, companies. You get a list of dead and closed companies over spans of years. Now we are hearing about a reincarnation of Microprose.

 

Meanwhile through the entire video, one thing remains constant. Eagle Dynamics, DCS manages to thrive and survive while others crashed and burned, reached to far or didn't reach far enough.

 

I guess for me, it was more a video tribute to DCS and their longevity honestly. They navigated a lot of market conditions that doomed others. Of course the author of the video couches all of this in the context that DCS did this with no competition, kind of a veiled insult, but there is a reason there was no competition.

 

You can argue all day DCS did this wrong, that wrong, and their competition actually had a better product etc. However, at the end of the day, what matters is open doors, and a business model that keeps the lights on.

 

DCS must be doing something right. Plus the whole F2P thing . . . really??

 

My 2 cents FWIW.

Pointy end hurt! Fire burn!!
JTF-191 25th Draggins - Hawg Main. Black Shark 2, A10C, A10CII, F-16, F/A-18, F-86, Mig-15, Mig-19, Mig-21, P-51, F-15, Su-27, Su-33, Mig-29, FW-190 Dora, Anton, BF 109, Mossie, Normandy, Caucasus, NTTR, Persian Gulf, Channel, Syria, Marianas, WWII Assets, CA. (WWII backer picked aircraft ME-262, P-47D).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I don't necessarily agree with every single point in the video, it does a great job of succinctly and (largely) objectively highlighting the biggest issues with DCS.

 

Like many others on this forum, DCS is my main hobby:

 

  • I've bought almost every module.
  • I built my new PC exclusively for DCS.
  • I bought both the Oculus Rift and then Oculus Rift S exclusively for DCS.
  • I bought the Thrustmaster Warthog, the MFG Crosswind pedals, and various hobbyist stands and extensions exclusively for DCS.

DCS is literally the ONLY game I've got installed on my PC.

 

Additionally, the ED forums are my most visited website on my home PC, my work PC and my phone - and I stop by multiple times a day just to stay up to date.

 

It's not exactly an obsession, but it's by FAR my biggest hobby... and I know that I'm FAR from alone in this. But despite the fact that it's my primary hobby, I have the exact same love/hate relationship with DCS that's called out in the video:

 

 

  • I'm pretty much burnt out on buying new modules. It's not so much an issue of completeness or quality from my perspective, but a function of the fact that I can only stay current on one or two at a time. There are other features that I care about FAR more than the introduction of yet another new module to learn.
  • I'm tired of the lifeless, soulless DCS environment. You've got stunningly beautiful, wonderfully system-modelled, high-fidelity aircraft in a stunningly beautiful world... that's utterly sterile and devoid of any semblance of character or personality.
  • I'm tired of having nothing meaningful or rewarding to do in my beautiful aircraft in this beautiful world, beyond a handful of very limited, highly-scripted missions and campaigns.
  • I'm constantly frustrated by the endless "been-in-the-sim-forever" bugs, issues and missing features that constantly undermine the core experience.

Don't get me wrong - DCS is absolutely AMAZING in so many ways. It wouldn't have such a strong community and hold our collective attention so tightly if it didn't constantly display the seeds of greatness. The issue - at least from my perspective - is that there's (seemingly) very little care or focus directed towards the core of the experience.

 

The good news is that it's a long way from being a lost cause, though. There's an incredible foundation in place, and vast evidence of the skills and expertise at ED's disposal. It just needs to be directed into the right areas within the constraints of the business model.

 

Hopefully the recent expressions of customer frustration will see ED make some considered shifts in direction.

 

 

 

I choose to remain positive and optimistic. :thumbup:


Edited by Pizzicato

i7-7700K @ 4.9Ghz | 16Gb DDR4 @ 3200Mhz | MSI Z270 Gaming M7 | MSI GeForce GTX 1080ti Gaming X | Win 10 Home | Thrustmaster Warthog | MFG Crosswind pedals | Oculus Rift S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I can understand the sentiment. This is not realistic. The doors do not stay open if they don't make sales. Without infusions of cash its layoff time, shut the doors and thanks for all the fish.

 

Repeatedly in reddit/youtube now, they have said they have put 50% (60+) of the developers onto core systems. Its getting done... its just not visible to us (but one of the BIG complaints just got a refresh (AI) and is still being improved.)

 

Plus rewriting/refactoring the code base in 4 million lines of code on an active system and making sure other systems are not impacted is not to be taken lightly. I'm sure at times if feels like your searching for a corner in a round room.

 

Maybe they need to put a status board up to show progress on the core elements of the game they're working on. Then we could see the sad fact that sometimes something they do breaks something else or they take 2 steps forward 1 step back. Or just don't seem to make progress on something for a while because of integration, complexity, yada yada yada.

 

Though with the amount of angry complaints that people make I can see why they might really be shy/nervous to do such a thing. Especially because in a way people will try to drive ED's development into their favorite part of the game they want fixed/implemented. Which would be counter productive to what they see as essential to bring the whole together.

And that's why I talked about investment. Maybe it will be my mentality but if I were in the ED place I would think about it. Sooner or later they will have to update the code or they will close their doors and what will remain for us? What will third parties do? will they update their modules in time? meanwhile we have paid. I would like to have answers for the future because for now they are going on day by day. Maybe that's why the guy who did the video asked the heatblur and microprose to make their own simulator, maybe some competition could make ED understand the right way ...:shifty:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The video was a wee bit slanted I thought. Yessir there are things that need fixin', and getting a dynamic campaign would be nirvana. And I do have concerns (expressed below) but overall DCS gives us the tools to craft exciting missions today. It's not a mess. Not by a long stretch.

 

The concern I have involves over stretching the early release idea. That's when the developer gets a cash infusion early that is spent now, while the amount of future work needed to complete the project exceeds the future income expected from it. We have no way to know if this is the case at this point in time, but the issues with the F-16 release, being so blatant, have me concerned that management is essentially borrowing on the future. I'm really hoping it was a decision based on legal commitments etc to release and not to avoid an impending financial crises. Because borrowing on the future generally isn't a fix, it's a delay.

 

 

Again, this is pure speculation on my part, and there's a good chance I am flat out wrong. Hope so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what is so special in that video, as all in that should be very well known by the ED producers by now as they have been talked for years here. And ED has officially replied to many of those points (like new weather system, combined arms improvements as RTS game part - including dynamic campaign at the end but before it a dynamic missions, ATC improvements on airbases as carrier etc, the new improved damage system etc etc etc) and it is just now (again) one list more to repeat those same things. Now this time only in video form instead a forum post.

 

And for me the video was more of the "beating dead horse" by just repeating again the history of the other simulators etc. Not helping there as those things are known and are explained by ED already.

 

As I have years added my wishes to wishlist forum, there are many things that ED can do better next to already amazingly well done work. And most of those are directly about the ground combat, mainly AI performance and capabilities, as well then the Real-Time Strategy game advanced (deep) features that would bring more players to DCS when there would be offering to long period strategic and tactical playing with complexity of networking, communications, firefights etc etc.

 

I do get completely the few good points from the video, like if the update does brake possibility to bind any controller, it should be fixed ASAP instead in two weeks. Such thing should be a hotfix. But then I do not agree for again the hot topics that Early Access should be something that is "Instantly ready" as many wants, but in somewhat acceptable levels like how F-14 came out with most things ready at some level, yet I am happy for the F/A-18C development pace.

 

But what I see mostly as improvement from ED part (and other studios) is the communication of the future plans. That is something that requires lots of effort, it is like asking a great documentation for the code from the coders, as that is something that almost every programmer hates to do. And that job is on the community managers to create the bridge between future, as the history.

 

The most critical point that I would touch is the moderators threshold to ban people, to delete messages etc. Like if there is a disallowed link, do not delete the whole message but edit the message by deleting the link and then add the reason below.

If the thread becomes toxic, do not lock the thread or delete messages (wholly) as first way, but issue public warning to everyone in the thread.

And this is again about community managers job to guide the moderators and have the acceptable leeway in communications so that one word that ain't against forum rules and is popularly used, doesn't issue warnings or bans only because someone might read everything completely wrong way.

 

I saw that video (after two times watching it) more as attack to whole ED than helping. Like the attack about the "Free to Play", "lack of competition" etc parts. But looks like ED managed to just ignore those parts and just discuss about how to improve things in the future.

 

So just for the repeat: I believe the first step that ED could do is to be more open and forward coming about their "grand plan". Like when the Wags was interviewed (https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=234636) it was refreshing that He openly talked about many future plans. And that is something that creates hope. Hope is great and very powerful tool, but if you can't deliver that hope in acceptable time period and you just go silent, it is not good. This can be said that like what happened with NTTR. But more communications about challenges, delays etc is something that people accept and it helps the PR.

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been playing since Lomac first came out. I vividly remember seeing the ads and previews and waiting for the day that I could buy it.

 

I thought I would disagree with most of what was said in that video, but after I watched it I have to agree with much of it. Personally, I am bored with playing missions and online because I don't get the immersion factor. DCS World seems to me more of a 'Trainer' than anything else. I can learn procedures on certain aircraft, but after that, it's up to the community to make it 'fun', and that's not how it should be.

 

I think a Dynamic Campaign would definitely help that. And some video or interactive Mission Brief. I would also like to see other improvements with the weather, ATC/Comms and other things mentioned, but to get excited again I need the immersion.


Edited by Snacko

Intel I9-10850K (OC @ 5.0ghz) │ Asus Maximus XII Hero │ G.Skill Ripjaws 64GB (4x16GB) DDR4 3200 │ Thermaltake Water 360mm
Gigabyte RTX 4090 Gaming OC 24gb │ 2TB M.2 EVO Pro; 1T M.2 EVO; Sandisk SSD Drives │ 49" Samsung Curved Widescreen │ 28" Touchscreen

- ҉ - Blackshark Cockpit Trainer - ҉ -    Thread   | Download

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope that after finishing the F18 and the F16 they will concentrate only on the simulator and not on other modules.

 

There is many modules in the work meanwhile, AH-1, Mi-24P and F-4 as to mention. Why should the F/A-18C and F-16C be some kind priority that all the others modules development can be ended to wait that the DCSWorld itself gets updated?

 

Just like with any other module, you can't have a physicist making graphics instead design algorithms. And you can't have programmers to do 3D modeling instead writing code to apply those algorithms. And you can't have texture artists writing code for AI, no matter what.

 

As every software company, every worker is a resource to be allocated at different projects at the different times. It is waste of time and too costly to have a worker hanging for years to wait their time to start working with the module, instead you allocate your company resources to do multitasking. When the texture artist ain't needed in project X, it is put to work on project Y and Z. And this is reason why many companies loves to have access to freelancers, as they are easily gained resources to be hired for specific projects when required, but problem is that there are many other limitations like training, familiarization and social behavior that can be slowing down or causing other problems.

 

This is again one of those things why all the code should be very well documented, something that almost all programmers dislike to do as it cuts their workflow. But if you pull a new programmer to the project, they have long time to do anything else than very small corrections here and there as they need to read the code and try to understand what there is going on. And spending time to consult previous coders or co-workers is very time tasking. And as every programmer can have own ways to implement specific algorithm etc, you are in trouble at larger process if you can't freely have tens if not thousands of programmers reading, fixing, suggesting etc like example Linux operating system process does under Linus Torvalds and his "lieutenants" (world biggest software project, and most important one ever in history of mankind). And that is just the operating system, not all the hundreds and thousands of other software that typically comes with it in Linux distributions, all build and packaged by the small group of volunteers etc, some working directly between upstream and downstream.

 

Compared to huge projects like Unix and Unix-like software systems, DCS has very easy things going on. Yet it is very difficult on its own market.

 

And we need to accept that ED can't just put everything else aside while they work at the modules. As right now they need to rewrite all their helicopter modules code partially as they have new simulation algorithms. And before they can do that, they need to make whole DCS World to work for it, and meanwhile every 3rd party is waiting as well the progress to go.

And would you want to see things to be written for F/A-18C or F-16C if it means they need to rewrite it partially for the next future DCS World version? That happens, and at some point you just need to say "Don't write that, but wait that new thing comes out". And when such thing is a show stopper, it is then such thing.

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure of the others, but I, as just a regular person who loves DCS, can only comprehend limited number of aircrafts.

Also, I believe most attractive aircrafts are almost all out now, with F-15E on the horizon.

So the return of investment of future module might not be as good, the sustainability of current business model, therefore and in my opinion, is at risk.

 

If I get to choose between endless new modules and enrichment of core game, I'll definitely choose the latter.

 

I don't want and don't need to learn sooooo many aircrafts... neither should that be the ultimate goal of DCS...

i9-9900K, G.Skill 3200 32GB RAM, AORUS Z390 Pro Wifi, Gigabyte Windforce RTX 2080 Ti, Samsung 960 Pro NVMe 512G + 860 Pro 1T, TM Warthog HOTAS, VKB T-Rudder, Samsung O+

F/A-18C, F-16C, A-10C, UH-1, AV-8B, F-14, JF-17, FC3, SA342 Gazelle, L-39, KA-50, CEII, Supercarrier Preordered. (Almost abandoned: CA - VR support please?)

PG, NTTR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Wags said it best when he said something along the lines of... "ED made a great sim but not really a great game", not a direct quote but that was the general idea.

 

The problem is words don't mean much since we have heard features are coming for a long time now.... yes these things take time but they were probably lower on the feature list than some of us would have liked. ED just has so much on it's plate that it's no wonder things take so long.

 

My biggest wanted features are 1. ATC 2. Weather 3. Better AI 4. Dynamic Campaign. I think that 1-3 are needed before 4 can be really good.

5900X - 32 GB 3600 RAM - 1080TI

My Twitch Channel

~Moo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My biggest wanted features are 1. ATC 2. Weather 3. Better AI 4. Dynamic Campaign. I think that 1-3 are needed before 4 can be really good.

 

from Nick Grey Reddit post.....

You have very cleverly identified some of the above along with other realities we face such as the need for permanent innovation and engine renewal. Boyond daily bug fixing, the fundamental issues such as new graphics challenges (Vulkan, effects, mutli-threading etc), network improvements, sound improvements, new damage engine, dynamic campaign, web RTC, new game statistics engine, new weather engine, etc etc are all part of our roadmap and more than 50% of our staff work on these elements which are not directly module related. Without 'early access' few of the these could be done and yes you are right, we only have this avenue to finance ED as well as my personal investment. I wish we had 'office or IOS' to make life easier believe me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

from Nick Grey Reddit post.....

 

Quote:

You have very cleverly identified some of the above along with other realities we face such as the need for permanent innovation and engine renewal. Boyond daily bug fixing, the fundamental issues such as new graphics challenges (Vulkan, effects, mutli-threading etc), network improvements, sound improvements, new damage engine, dynamic campaign, web RTC, new game statistics engine, new weather engine, etc etc are all part of our roadmap and more than 50% of our staff work on these elements which are not directly module related. Without 'early access' few of the these could be done and yes you are right, we only have this avenue to finance ED as well as my personal investment. I wish we had 'office or IOS' to make life easier believe me.

 

This is where the F2P model cracks , why bother more than 50% of your resources on something that is basically free?

 

Just freeze a stable version as a demo , rent some server to allow multiplayer and STOP.

I think many of us would be more than happy to pay those guys to concentrate on new features in a DCS hardcore version.

 

This thing reminds me that MAC could eventually change DCS World in this type of business , separating the "free" part from the hardcore one.

I hope it will be the case!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • I'm tired of the lifeless, soulless DCS environment. You've got stunningly beautiful, wonderfully system-modelled, high-fidelity aircraft in a stunningly beautiful world... that's utterly sterile and devoid of any semblance of character or personality.
  • I'm tired of having nothing meaningful or rewarding to do in my beautiful aircraft in this beautiful world, beyond a handful of very limited, highly-scripted missions and campaigns.
  • I'm constantly frustrated by the endless "been-in-the-sim-forever" bugs, issues and missing features that constantly undermine the core experience.

Those are the reasons im kinda burnt out on DCS right now..

 

Even though we got the F-16C im already losing interest because of the meaningless and empty environment around it.

g8PjVMw.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is where the F2P model cracks , why bother more than 50% of your resources on something that is basically free?

 

Just freeze a stable version as a demo , rent some server to allow multiplayer and STOP.

I think many of us would be more than happy to pay those guys to concentrate on new features in a DCS hardcore version.

 

This thing reminds me that MAC could eventually change DCS World in this type of business , separating the "free" part from the hardcore one.

I hope it will be the case!

 

Yep would be a good question to ask to ED. Is maybe reconsidering the F2P a solution ?

 

 

 

Those are the reasons im kinda burnt out on DCS right now..

 

Even though we got the F-16C im already losing interest because of the meaningless and empty environment around it.

 

Welcome to the club ... ^^

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm I got a different vibe off the video. While the first half discusses Falcon 4.0, history of BMS, and other titles, companies. You get a list of dead and closed companies over spans of years. Now we are hearing about a reincarnation of Microprose.

 

Meanwhile through the entire video, one thing remains constant. Eagle Dynamics, DCS manages to thrive and survive while others crashed and burned, reached to far or didn't reach far enough.

 

I guess for me, it was more a video tribute to DCS and their longevity honestly. They navigated a lot of market conditions that doomed others. Of course the author of the video couches all of this in the context that DCS did this with no competition, kind of a veiled insult, but there is a reason there was no competition.

 

You can argue all day DCS did this wrong, that wrong, and their competition actually had a better product etc. However, at the end of the day, what matters is open doors, and a business model that keeps the lights on.

 

DCS must be doing something right. Plus the whole F2P thing . . . really??

 

My 2 cents FWIW.

I was thinking much the same. I see similar "no competition, so they can do what they like" comments about a certain sim racing title. Yet if there was a market to make easy money then why aren't other companies stepping in for a slice of it?

 

Games aren't like they were in the nineties with big budget publishers footing the bill for studios to develop. Theses publishers dumped simulation developers to chase more profitable ventures.

 

Things go in circles and simulations seem to be getting a bit more attention and with the rumours of the rebirth of Microprose then who knows?

 

Hardcore simulations are a niche market and the unit costs reflect that. It is how they have continued to make their work viable and why there isn't a plethora of companies trying to do the same thing.

 

That isn't to say the likes of ED & others should be beyond reproach. My observation is that released from being at the behest of publishers is largely positive and allows them to cater for a more hardcore audience. However, maybe the lack of hard deadlines and concept of packaged version releases allows for a seemingly constant work in progress status which means a lot of stuff never gets finished and missing or poorly functioning features seem to be on a perennial todo list.

 

Things could be better but I am glad they continue to create a product no one else seems to be looking to do.


Edited by Baldrick33

AMD 5800X3D · MSI 4080 · Asus ROG Strix B550 Gaming  · HP Reverb Pro · 1Tb M.2 NVMe, 32Gb Corsair Vengence 3600MHz DDR4 · Windows 11 · Thrustmaster TPR Pedals · VIRPIL T-50CM3 Base, Alpha Prime R. VIRPIL VPC Rotor TCS Base. JetSeat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...