Hornet Roadmap Discussion

[Thump]

And still VW has record sales worldwide again. Strange world.

 

 

Welcome to a free market and customer choice.

[VpR81]

Right. Car manufacturers didn't lie about fuel usage of their cars. They didn't cheat on tests and lied to customers. And they went bankrupt after that, right.

 

Incorrectfuel usage data, cheat on tests, lied to customers = Hornet feature complete by the end on 2020

 

Hornet leaving EA while not beeing feature complete = car is sold to customers while missing engine/transmission... Please tell me a car manufactor that sold cars without engine/transmission and told customers the car is out of testing phase. There isn none.

Edited April 30, 2020 by VpR81

[VpR81]

Welcome to a free market and customer choice.

 

In other terms, there is no sign of lost trust.

[Thump]

In other terms, there is no sign of lost trust.

 

It's outside the intent of this thread, but I'd have to look into the statistics of their business and how their actions effected their bottom line and whether or not they actually fully recovered. I can say that through the article that I pulled that from, they posted their first loss of a financial Quarter in over 15 years. So I would say that there was indeed an effect due to the loss of trust/litigation.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

ED = company developing and selling products

Car manufactor = company developing, producing and selling products

 

DCS F/A-18 = product

Car= product

 

 

ID Software / DOOM:

 

Developement staretd in 2014, released 2016 (feature complete!, almost bug free - i experienced none, played through 2 times + 200hrs online). Own graphics engine ID Tech 6 (technology) development in tandem, still delivered in time and with outstanding quality. I'll give to ED, that Flight sims are more complicated than Shooters but this still does not justify the delays we got with the Hornet and by far not the "new" definition of EA. And developing a graphics engine on the ID Tech 6 level is hard work as well.

 

I didn't say it was justified, I suggested a reason why ED might be slower at finishing their modules than their third parties, nothing more. Your opinion on whether that's a valid excuse is no more valid than mine.

 

Incorrectfuel usage data, cheat on tests, lied to customers = Hornet feature complete by the end on 2020

 

Hornet leaving EA while not beeing feature complete = car is sold to customers while missing engine/transmission... Please tell me a car manufactor that sold cars without engine/transmission and told customers the car is out of testing phase. There isn none.

 

The Hornet works, albeit not feature complete, so that would be equivalent to selling you a car without the radio; without the engine isn't a valid analogy.

[Thump]

I didn't say it was justified, I suggested a reason why ED might be slower at finishing their modules than their third parties, nothing more. Your opinion on whether that's a valid excuse is no more valid than mine.

 

 

 

The Hornet works, albeit not feature complete, so that would be equivalent to selling you a car without the radio; without the engine isn't a valid analogy.

 

Granted they "fixed" it relatively quickly (via the axe over scalpel method), they did sell and launch the indestructible viper. Kind of a big oversight/accepted failure.

Edited April 30, 2020 by Thump

[VpR81]

It's outside the intent of this thread, but I'd have to look into the statistics of their business and how their actions effected their bottom line and whether or not they actually fully recovered. I can say that through the article that I pulled that from, they posted their first loss of a financial Quarter in over 15 years. So I would say that there was indeed an effect due to the loss of trust/litigation.

 

Correct. There was an effect due to the loss of trust. And exactly this should be a warning sign to ED, since this can make companies go bancrupt.

 

I didn't say it was justified, I suggested a reason why ED might be slower at finishing their modules than their third parties, nothing more. Your opinion on whether that's a valid excuse is no more valid than mine.

 

 

 

The Hornet works, albeit not feature complete, so that would be equivalent to selling you a car without the radio; without the engine isn't a valid analogy.

 

Then why is ID software as fast as other software devs who just use the Unreal engine in license instead of developing their own one? Not only that, ID software released a superb product, almost bug free, developed their own engine and still was faster in development than the very most other software devs not even developing their own graphics engine. This is definately a valid argument and makes EDs progress debatable.

 

 

You are right, a car without engine won't work, but the Hornet leaving EA will have 21 features missing and not only one (like the car with only missing the radio). That would be equivalent to a car with only 3 doors installed instead of 4, radio installed but not working, only one flashlight working, missing blinkers, seat heaters missing, air conditioning missing, no back seats, no windows etc. Just equivalent to a car that has also 21 components missing, while you can still drive it with the risk it stops working because of some components are still WIP and don't work as they should.

 

Don't get me wrong, i love the DCS Hornet and i'm more upset about the Hornet leaving EA without beeing feature complete, than about the delay. If they need more time, maybe till end of 2021, it's ok with me as long as they deliver a good product. BUT calling a (software) product out of EA while it is not finished is simply false. And this is what is very dissapointing to me, and obviously to a lot of other people. I also have no problem at all with EA and WIP software and i'm totally aware about what it means and what i accepted by purchasing EA games/DLCs. DCS is by far not the only game i play and also not the only game i play in beta/EA and i can assure you, that the EA politics of ED is unique among the ones i own. Not to talk about that other software devs (like ID software) DO NOT start their next EA developement before the actual one has been finished. Plain and simple.

[Baldrick33]

Love all the car analogies. Car manufacturers are notorious for being years late making new cars available compared with initial launch estimate announcements to hook potential customers.

 

I bought a new car in 2014 with an internet connected feature available in other countries due imminently as a software upgrade in the UK. Two years later I sold the car and still the feature hadn't been launched.

 

The more software gets involved the bigger the delays - checkout the delays on the VW ID3 for example.

 

The key difference is early access doesn't really work with cars although some of the recalls might suggest otherwise :)

[NineLine]

Love all the car analogies. Car manufacturers are notorious for being years late making new cars available compared with initial launch estimate announcements to hook potential customers.

 

I bought a new car in 2014 with an internet connected feature available in other countries due imminently as a software upgrade in the UK. Two years later I sold the car and still the feature hadn't been launched.

 

The more software gets involved the bigger the delays - checkout the delays on the VW ID3 for example.

 

The key difference is early access doesn't really work with cars although some of the recalls might suggest otherwise :)

 

Let's also note that many people have owned the A-10C or Black Shark longer than they have owned their latest car ;)

[NineLine]

Then why is ID software as fast as other software devs who just use the Unreal engine in license instead of developing their own one? Not only that, ID software released a superb product, almost bug free, developed their own engine and still was faster in development than the very most other software devs not even developing their own graphics engine. This is definately a valid argument and makes EDs progress debatable.

 

This is why we hate to see comparisons with other games and companies, ID is great, Wolfenstein was one of the games that got me back into computer gaming, along with Falcon 3.0 and a few others way back when (and I just beat New Order the other day after a few days play then uninstalled). But let's not kid ourselves either, if ED wasn't bound by the laws of the real world, trying to recreate real-life military aircraft in a way that made you feel like you were working the real thing... well then things would be different.

 

So then we get into the whole "ED is slow because they don't have any competition", which 1) isn't the case, the things we are doing outside of DCS world for private contracts probably have a few competitors 2) maybe things are slower because its much more complex.

 

Just as an example, let's look at the SUpercarrier and one of the main issues with DCS and MP.

 

You have a carrier, it can move up and down, side to side, forward and backward. You have multiple aircraft AI or player on that moving platform that can also move forward, turn, go faster, slow, etc. You have wind that can move opposite to what you are moving and what the carrier is moving and impact everything. Now you have MP itself, and the engine has to calculate where each client is or should be based on connection quality. Then there is just the real-world physics of everything involved in Carrier Ops and flight.

 

I am glad that I am a CM, and I am testing, and I am requesting features, my head hurts just thinking about what our devs need to go through to figure out they littlest things to the most complex things.

 

So sometimes it is slow, sometimes it doesn't go as planned or hoped. But it is not from lack of competition, because there is plenty of drive to be the best of the best, whether there is anyone else trying or not.

[VpR81]

Look NineLine, this is absolutely understandable and ppl (including me) tried to avoid this kind of comparision by using cars as example. Flamin Squirrel asked for an example of the same sector in order to make the car arguement invalid. So there is literally nothing to compare except for other games. Since people argue that cars/mobile phones or whatever aren't comparable it was very telling those people were immediately running out of arguements towards the ID example. I assumed that before i mentioned it, wich was the intention to bring it up. If that is not legit, it's fine. No offense here at all, just argueing.

 

My opinion is not ED is slow because there is no competition (i actually believe there is). The Hornets developement slowed significantly down with the release of the F-16C, wich can't be denied. I remember it beeing promised that the F-16 will not affect the Hornets developement and no Hornet dev will move over to the Viper, wich turned out to be not true. And as mentioned before, my concerns are not primarily about the delay, but about the Hornet leaving EA with a long list of missing features. Take the time you need to finish it, but keep it in EA until it's feature complete. I think that is what most ppl would like to see. Look at the Harrier and how long it has been in EA for now, so nothing to worry about with the Hornet beeing in EA for another year.

 

I have no doubt DCS beeing the best flight sim out there, otherwise i wouldn't play it hands down. And i'm abolutely aware about the challenges and demands the developement of a sandbox study lvl flight sim comes with and those are more complicated than i.e. shooters. BUT exactly this should be a reason not to come up with more EA products as longs as the actual one hasn't been finished. I'm not talking about the Hind or the P47 at all, since theses are obviously different dev teams. But about a second jet (F-16) and the question is, will there be another jet before F-16 and 18 are feature complete? Not out of EA, feature complete as this is abviously not the same anymore. I purchased the F-16 because i was positive surprised about the progress of the Hornet and thought it would be the same with it. I was wrong and i never complained about it, even if there are good reasons for. I'm just afraid (and much others too) that the Hornet leaves EA, will not get the same attention as before and will take years to be feature complete while at the same time new EA jets will be developed. This is my main concern and i think it is eligible to name it.

 

Btw. purchased a 2003 built M3 in 2006 wich is still running and looking like new. This is a bit longer than the DCS A-10C does even exists...;)

Edited May 1, 2020 by VpR81

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Look NineLine, this is absolutely understandable and ppl (including me) tried to avoid this kind of comparision by using cars as example. Flamin Squirrel asked for an example of the same sector in order to make the car arguement invalid. So there is literally nothing to compare except for other games. Since people argue that cars/mobile phones or whatever aren't comparable it was very telling those people were immediately running out of arguements towards the ID example. I assumed that before i mentioned it, wich was the intention to bring it up. If that is not legit, it's fine. No offense here at all, just argueing.

 

My opinion is not ED is slow because there is no competition (i actually believe there is). The Hornets developement slowed significantly down with the release of the F-16C, wich can't be denied. I remember it beeing promised that the F-16 will not affect the Hornets developement and no Hornet dev will move over to the Viper, wich turned out to be not true. And as mentioned before, my concerns are not primarily about the delay, but about the Hornet leaving EA with a long list of missing features. Take the time you need to finish it, but keep it in EA until it's feature complete. I think that is what most ppl would like to see. Look at the Harrier and how long it has been in EA for now, so nothing to worry about with the Hornet beeing in EA for another year.

 

I have no doubt DCS beeing the best flight sim out there, otherwise i wouldn't play it hands down. And i'm abolutely aware about the challenges and demands the developement of a sandbox study lvl flight sim comes with and those are more complicated than i.e. shooters. BUT exactly this should be a reason not to come up with more EA products as longs as the actual one hasn't been finished. I'm not talking about the Hind or the P47 at all, since theses are obviously different dev teams. But about a second jet (F-16) and the question is, will there be another jet before F-16 and 18 are feature complete? Not out of EA, feature complete as this is abviously not the same anymore. I purchased the F-16 because i was positive surprised about the progress of the Hornet and thought it would be the same with it. I was wrong and i never complained about it, even if there are good reasons for. I'm just afraid (and much others too) that the Hornet leaves EA, will not get the same attention as before and will take years to be feature complete while at the same time new EA jets will be developed. This is my main concern and i think it is eligible to name it.

 

Btw. purchased a 2003 built M3 in 2006 wich is still running and looking like new. This is a bit longer than the DCS A-10C does even exists...;)

 

I don't think people are running out of arguments towards your ID example; more likely they're running out of energy trying to explain why they don't think it's a fair comparison when you're not really listening to what they're saying e.g. NineLine.

[PitbullVicious]

As everyone is chiming in, I'd like to give my insignificant contribution to the discussion also. From the point of view of what I'd like to see as a customer. This is an edited post to another public forum.

 

While I think it's fair to critisise ED for trying to redefine EA it's also good to just accept the facts, in my opinion.

 

No amount of complaining is going to change the fact that DCS would be unsustainable without EA and user based testing. And this has been true in the industry for a long time for non-triple A developers, or in more niche genres. PC hardware is just so diverse and programs so complex that it's impossible to test them exhaustively without a huge investment.

 

Another fact is that ED is developing on top of obsolete code from time when best practices were not at their best stage. It is unfortunate, but it's what we've got and again no amount of complaining or threats is going to change this. Rewriting everything is really not a feasible option, I believe. I'm just hoping that on parallel to development they're refactoring the code and making its components less coupled and easier to write automated tests for (from unit to integration level), as these are the current best practices.

 

The third fact is that development won't get any faster with complaining. Complex (admittedly overly complex due to the above fact) things take time and no amount of shouting will make things faster. Also when developing novel things, time estimates are very difficult to make. Therefore I think it would be safer for ED, even against all demands to sustain from them.

 

I think the whole discussion makes more sense once one accepts these facts, and the reality that they won't change anytime soon.

 

The question is then, that does one feel that one gets enough of worth for the amount of money one has invested. If not, it's better to forget DCS and move on to something else, or wait for a few years and then buy the module in a more compete state.

 

I think that the above is a very subjective thing, and everyone has to decide for themselves if they want to buy EA or not. I, for one, don't really like people tell me how to spend or not to spend my money. I make the judgment based on how much money I have to invest, and what I feel I get in return for that investment.

 

I personally, think that I've got my money's worth with the Hornet EA and am happy I got it right from the start. It is prefectly flyable, playable and enjoyable in its current state, and has been throughout its development. I don't mind reporting bugs and participating in the testing, as I can do it when I feel like it, without obligation. I can also understand that others might feel differently.

 

What I would criticise ED for, is what in my opinion constitutes a terrible blunder in communication and management this time. By promising that the Hornet will be out of EA this year, without first defining what it means, they have really painted themselves into a corner. I'd respect them more if they just came out and apologised rather than try to spin it. There's no way that their definition of early access is acceptable in this case, or even consistent with the history.

 

So, if facts are facts, what could be a solution? I like that ED have now accepted that they can't sell EA with full price. I think this is a good start and compromise. But the problem here is glaring. By redefining very loosely what early access means, the whole thing loses its meaning.

 

Unless it is clearly communicated beforehand what features the customs are paying for in EA, it is impossible for users to decide whether they want to participate into the EA or not.

 

I'd rather see a clear road map with stages, and without time estimates, with a clear feature list for each stage. Let's say that if one buys module as soon as it's in its early stages, one pays 50% of the full price, and once a set feature list is ready, the price goes up to 70% until the next feature list is completed. This way each customer could decide when to join the EA and have easier time estimating what is missing and how long until all the desired features are there. Yes, I admit that this is a bit complex, but maybe we just need some compromises at this stage.

 

As a concrete example, but without thinking to much about the actual granularity and features of the stages: In case of Hornet, the initial release would've been the basic functionality with startup sequence, Aim-7 and older Aim-9 missiles, dumb bombs in CCIP and with functional TWS radar. Once these are tested in beta, they would roll into stable and stable would be frozen for the Hornet. Development would then concentrate on the next feature list, with support of public EA on beta. Let's say IR mavericks, and INS initialisation. Again these would be finished in beta and then rolled onto stable once ready. Then EA price would go up a step.

 

On top of that I would like to see better version control and release process and discipline with the stable release. Have another clear road map for the stable release, and make sure that features are added to it only in complete and tested stages, even if it takes time (let's say that stable Hornet is updated only after TWS for it is fully working and tested to be bug free in the beta). This would, however, require much better version control, but should be doable with modern tools. I've ported a few projects from SVN to Git back in the days, and it was quite trivial to do.

 

With this it would be easier for a user to make decisions on whether they want to be part of beta or stick with the stable release. Now the decision is impossible to make, as in the current model, stable doesn't mean a thing, as it's full of experimental features that are honestly saying broken.

 

I do love DCS, and I think that ED is trying their best, despite of their short comings and problems. I also want them to succeed; not just being able to make it, but to make a good profit out of this, and increase their user base, as that will make the genre more interesting for potential competitors also (there not being any is also and tell tale sign of how difficult it is to be successful in niche genre like this).

 

I've had hours after hours of fun, challenging times in DCS and there's no end to the enjoyment of learning new things every time I start DCS. It is truly a wonderful product. But it is also frustrating at times, and I've had breaks from flying due to bugs that make things impossible to bear.

[Bloodhound57]

Good post PitBull.

 

I would also like to chime in with, do not start "Pre-Release" until you are nearly ready to start the early access period. 5 months of a pre-order is a little bit much, especially when you barely had the product built. This is not a Kickstarter campaign, or is it? I don't know anymore.

 

Maybe they should start doing that? Hey, we know you guys want more deck crew functions, and we can do it. We just need to hit a certain number to make it viable financially for us. It's up to the customer?

 

 

Steve

Edited May 1, 2020 by Bloodhound57

[Baldrick33]

I would also like to chime in with, do not start "Pre-Release" until you are nearly ready to start the early access period. 5 months of a pre-order is a little bit much, especially when you barely had the product built. This is not a Kickstarter campaign, or is it? I don't know anymore.

 

Maybe they should start doing that? Hey, we know you guys want more deck crew functions, and we can do it. We just need to hit a certain number to make it viable financially for us. It's up to the customer?

ED will have the sales data to know how customers react to pre-orders, I guess some who do will treat it like a kickstarter, supporting ED to get something specifically done, some will expect something in return in terms of discount, some will just want to support ED and others just want new stuff as quickly as possible warts and all.

 

As for how long, well back to car analogies you could have stumped up £1000 to get in the queue for a Mustang Mach-E in the UK and wait over a year or longer to get the car on your drive. The difference of course is that it is potentially a scarce item at least for a while but there is always the risk sales will tank and the car will be discounted after a few months. Being first to get one matters to some and why not, we all have different desires.

 

The point being I don't think we can advise how long a pre order should be or for that matter what length of time a product is in EA and even consensus of a relative few active on forums doesn't give the full picture, the crazy things the silent majority might do in terms of purchasing behaviour, which may give a rather different view when analysing the success or otherwise of promotions, pre-orders, EA etc.

 

Given there is an unlimited supply of digital content there should be little pressure on customers to pay up front or purchase EA products so the choice is very much in our hands.

[Notso]

As everyone is chiming in, I'd like to give my insignificant contribution to the discussion also. From the point of view of what I'd like to see as a customer. This is an edited post to another public forum.

 

While I think it's fair to critisise ED for trying to redefine EA it's also good to just accept the facts, in my opinion.

 

No amount of complaining is going to change the fact that DCS would be unsustainable without EA and user based testing. And this has been true in the industry for a long time for non-triple A developers, or in more niche genres. PC hardware is just so diverse and programs so complex that it's impossible to test them exhaustively without a huge investment.

 

Another fact is that ED is developing on top of obsolete code from time when best practices were not at their best stage. It is unfortunate, but it's what we've got and again no amount of complaining or threats is going to change this. Rewriting everything is really not a feasible option, I believe. I'm just hoping that on parallel to development they're refactoring the code and making its components less coupled and easier to write automated tests for (from unit to integration level), as these are the current best practices.

 

The third fact is that development won't get any faster with complaining. Complex (admittedly overly complex due to the above fact) things take time and no amount of shouting will make things faster. Also when developing novel things, time estimates are very difficult to make. Therefore I think it would be safer for ED, even against all demands to sustain from them.

 

I think the whole discussion makes more sense once one accepts these facts, and the reality that they won't change anytime soon.

 

The question is then, that does one feel that one gets enough of worth for the amount of money one has invested. If not, it's better to forget DCS and move on to something else, or wait for a few years and then buy the module in a more compete state.

 

I think that the above is a very subjective thing, and everyone has to decide for themselves if they want to buy EA or not. I, for one, don't really like people tell me how to spend or not to spend my money. I make the judgment based on how much money I have to invest, and what I feel I get in return for that investment.

 

I personally, think that I've got my money's worth with the Hornet EA and am happy I got it right from the start. It is prefectly flyable, playable and enjoyable in its current state, and has been throughout its development. I don't mind reporting bugs and participating in the testing, as I can do it when I feel like it, without obligation. I can also understand that others might feel differently.

 

What I would criticise ED for, is what in my opinion constitutes a terrible blunder in communication and management this time. By promising that the Hornet will be out of EA this year, without first defining what it means, they have really painted themselves into a corner. I'd respect them more if they just came out and apologised rather than try to spin it. There's no way that their definition of early access is acceptable in this case, or even consistent with the history.

 

So, if facts are facts, what could be a solution? I like that ED have now accepted that they can't sell EA with full price. I think this is a good start and compromise. But the problem here is glaring. By redefining very loosely what early access means, the whole thing loses its meaning.

 

Unless it is clearly communicated beforehand what features the customs are paying for in EA, it is impossible for users to decide whether they want to participate into the EA or not.

 

I'd rather see a clear road map with stages, and without time estimates, with a clear feature list for each stage. Let's say that if one buys module as soon as it's in its early stages, one pays 50% of the full price, and once a set feature list is ready, the price goes up to 70% until the next feature list is completed. This way each customer could decide when to join the EA and have easier time estimating what is missing and how long until all the desired features are there. Yes, I admit that this is a bit complex, but maybe we just need some compromises at this stage.

 

As a concrete example, but without thinking to much about the actual granularity and features of the stages: In case of Hornet, the initial release would've been the basic functionality with startup sequence, Aim-7 and older Aim-9 missiles, dumb bombs in CCIP and with functional TWS radar. Once these are tested in beta, they would roll into stable and stable would be frozen for the Hornet. Development would then concentrate on the next feature list, with support of public EA on beta. Let's say IR mavericks, and INS initialisation. Again these would be finished in beta and then rolled onto stable once ready. Then EA price would go up a step.

 

On top of that I would like to see better version control and release process and discipline with the stable release. Have another clear road map for the stable release, and make sure that features are added to it only in complete and tested stages, even if it takes time (let's say that stable Hornet is updated only after TWS for it is fully working and tested to be bug free in the beta). This would, however, require much better version control, but should be doable with modern tools. I've ported a few projects from SVN to Git back in the days, and it was quite trivial to do.

 

With this it would be easier for a user to make decisions on whether they want to be part of beta or stick with the stable release. Now the decision is impossible to make, as in the current model, stable doesn't mean a thing, as it's full of experimental features that are honestly saying broken.

 

I do love DCS, and I think that ED is trying their best, despite of their short comings and problems. I also want them to succeed; not just being able to make it, but to make a good profit out of this, and increase their user base, as that will make the genre more interesting for potential competitors also (there not being any is also and tell tale sign of how difficult it is to be successful in niche genre like this).

 

I've had hours after hours of fun, challenging times in DCS and there's no end to the enjoyment of learning new things every time I start DCS. It is truly a wonderful product. But it is also frustrating at times, and I've had breaks from flying due to bugs that make things impossible to bear.

 

Well said and agree with all.

 

Sadly, I think human nature being what it is - the vast majority of people would still buy a module in EA because of a 50% discount as you describe (we are inherently cheapskates) and then either park it until it was feature complete so they wouldn't have the added cost down the road. OR they would buy it, fly it and STILL complain that it wasn't feature complete fast enough and would complain about the bugs in the meantime. And I think that potentially could lose ED a valuable revenue stream if few bought the finished product at the higher prices and they banked on that additional future income to cover development costs.

[ebabil]

DCS: F/A-18C Hornet

 

Since my previous post we delivered 4 FLIR pointing modes which were a substantial task to develop. We have prepared a bug fix update for this week and we are working to deliver the following features by the end of April:

Completion of the Litening Targeting Pod

Dynamic launch zones and AUTO LOFT mode for JDAM

AG radar: Real Beam Ground Map (MAP)

SLAM air-to-surface missile

 

I guess Ed better not to give any timelines. Because they are very accurately missing them

Edited May 1, 2020 by ebabil

[Bloodhound57]

I guess Ed better not to give any timelines. Because they are very accurately missing them

 

No, No, No. I was told today, that they never gave a date.

 

It's okay guys, we all will survive. If you ask ED out for coffee at noon, show up the next day at 5:00 PM and maybe they will be there. But, it's not a guarantee and certainly subject to change.

 

Steve

[PitbullVicious]

Well said and agree with all.

 

Sadly, I think human nature being what it is - the vast majority of people would still buy a module in EA because of a 50% discount as you describe (we are inherently cheapskates) and then either park it until it was feature complete so they wouldn't have the added cost down the road. OR they would buy it, fly it and STILL complain that it wasn't feature complete fast enough and would complain about the bugs in the meantime. And I think that potentially could lose ED a valuable revenue stream if few bought the finished product at the higher prices and they banked on that additional future income to cover development costs.

 

Of course the numbers I gave are very arbitrary, and ED would need to adjust the prices so that this approach would be sensible for them. And finding the right stage granularity would most likely require quite a bit of fine tuning. But I would suspect that good strategy of "divide and conquer" might work here.

 

Yes, as you wrote, unfortunately one can never get rid of complaints. I must say that ED has become much more professional in handling them and in their response. Some people will also hold a grudge and seem to pick on ED on any minor delay or mishap, which is pretty petty in my opinion. Some people even make their own reality (e.g. "released for next update" becomes a fixed date in their mind, even if a date isn't provided), and then get angry when that reality isn't fulfilled. This is just the downside of interacting with customers. This is why I wrote that it would be better if people (customers) accepted some facts

 

I think also that there is a reason for ED to take criticism seriously (and I'm sure they do). I can also see the frustration when people expect something and get hyped about it and then get disappointed often. Long standing bugs, unlisted updates, seemingly weird coupling between modules which by updating one shows up as bugs in another.

 

It definitely looks like there are some systematical problems with ED's approach to version control and bug handling (e.g. recurring old bugs. One would expect that a good policy would be to refactor the code so that one could capture these bugs with automated tests), that cannot be excused only by the complexity of the product. And what is more discerning is that these problems seem to have been going on for a long time without addressing. But it is of course difficult to say what's actually happening behind the curtains. This impression of nothing happening could be somewhat alleviated by listing these concerns and communicating what is being planned to do about them in more concrete manner.

 

To quote my favourite comic: "There is nothing wrong with making mistakes, but one should always make new ones. Repeating mistakes is a hallmark of dim consciousness." (let's see if anyone is nerdy enough to recognise that quote :) )

 

Anyways, I like to be on the soap box, but I feel I may be rambling a bit. I'll stop here for now.

Edited May 2, 2020 by PitbullVicious
Better wording and addition to one paragraph.

[BuzzU]

Not so, Notso. I paid $80 for the Hornet.

[shagrat]

And it didn't go well for them.

 

"With VW recalling millions of cars worldwide from early next year, it has set aside €6.7bn (£4.8bn) to cover costs. That resulted in the company posting its first quarterly loss for 15 years of €2.5bn in late October. But that's unlikely to be the end of the financial impact. The EPA has the power to fine a company up to $37,500 for each vehicle that breaches standards - a maximum fine of about $18bn."

 

 

What has been VW's response?

"We've totally screwed up," said VW America boss Michael Horn, while the group's chief executive at the time, Martin Winterkorn, said his company had "broken the trust of our customers and the public"

Despite the ranting, sueing and bad publicity Volkswage is still one of the world's largest car manufacturers. Revenues increased and the 6.7bn EUR have been integrated into the budget plan and shares return increased to 7.3% in 2019 (6.6% 2018)... maybe not the best comparison.

[shagrat]

Incorrectfuel usage data, cheat on tests, lied to customers = Hornet feature complete by the end on 2020

 

Hornet leaving EA while not beeing feature complete = car is sold to customers while missing engine/transmission... Please tell me a car manufactor that sold cars without engine/transmission and told customers the car is out of testing phase. There isn none.

You would be surprised what "bugs" in cars you have, just never notice, unless they need to recall it when it's so bad, they might face more than a couple dead people.

It really is a bad comparison.

Just one example: a certain german premium car manufacturer had to update a model, where the complete CAN-Bus was accessible through the side-mirror connectors... just remove the mirror, plug in a Laptop and send "Open door", "start engine". Guess some owners were very happy they had insurance.

[Thump]

Despite the ranting, sueing and bad publicity Volkswage is still one of the world's largest car manufacturers. Revenues increased and the 6.7bn EUR have been integrated into the budget plan and shares return increased to 7.3% in 2019 (6.6% 2018)... maybe not the best comparison.

 

So you're saying ED can weather a comparable storm?

[ALLynil]

Well for me. Iam not buying anything new from ED until they finish those EA i bought. With this speed 3 years till i see F16... and no redefinition of what "Feature complete" is. Feature complete is feature complete.

[shagrat]

So you're saying ED can weather a comparable storm?

No, I said it is a bad comparison... small niche developer vs. multi-billion car manufacturer.