[INCORRECT]ED Charging you to Keep your A-10C

[Thump]

So what you're telling me is you are going to hold my A-10C hostage after I have paid for it? And if I have to play it on an non-updated server, that's a defacto death of the module. Care to justify this one ED?

[SmirkingGerbil]

How are you being held hostage? It clearly states you can fly the current, until the new one is released. Then you get the new one at a discount.

 

Same evolution we went through with the KA-50, from BS1 to BS2.

 

The "prior" module won't incorporate or work with a lot of updates happening I imagine. Even if you got to keep the A-10C suite 3, and get the A-10C suite 7 (I think), why would you fly the older suite 3 version?

[Thump]

How are you being held hostage? It clearly states you can fly the current, until the new one is released. Then you get the new one at a discount.

 

Same evolution we went through with the KA-50, from BS1 to BS2.

 

The "prior" module won't incorporate or work with a lot of updates happening I imagine. Even if you got to keep the A-10C suite 3, and get the A-10C suite 7 (I think), why would you fly the older suite 3 version?

 

 

You literally just described it there. They are forcing me to pay them to keep doing what I'm doing now. I would keep the suite 3 for the same reason I would fly the A-10A. Because they forced it in the past doesn't mean it should be standard.

[sora_061]

Same business model as EA sports but worse. You gotta buy new fifa release every year. But you can play offline in fifa for lifetime i guess. It makes ED looks bad since EA sports really get criticized for their model.

 

Sent from my Redmi K20 Pro using Tapatalk

[Kailux]

Ok ED, just give me a heads up before A-10C II so i can go offline mode and keep suite 3. Not interested in being forced to buy into some early access/bug ridden alpha that replaces my current A-10C.

[Thump]

It's not unusual in software buisness that they release a new version and stop supporting the old one.

 

 

I wonder if I can somehow have both versions of the A-10 on the same account. I want to keep the old one as well without having to pay for all the maps again.

 

 

If the A-10 was a stand alone product like other companies I would agree. I would also say that those companies also still provide the infrastructure for those older titles for years after the discontinued product (no updates but still playable within its intended environment/community). Their model for DCS being a modular system negates any true equivocation. If they release A-10C II in 2.5.6 and that stops me from being able to play in my current version of the A-10C, they are effectively restricting me from what has already been established as playable.

[unlikely_spider]

Isn't the original almost a decade old? I don't think that's unreasonable to charge a little for updates at that point.

 

People want continuous and constant improvement. Users can't have it both ways.

[Thump]

Same business model as EA sports but worse. You gotta buy new fifa release every year. But you can play offline in fifa for lifetime i guess. It makes ED looks bad since EA sports really get criticized for their model.

 

Sent from my Redmi K20 Pro using Tapatalk

 

Yeah, being compared to EA (which is ironic with how much EA they have going right now) is not somewhere any company should want to be. Next we'll have "surprise game mechanics"....wait a minute :music_whistling:

[Thump]

Isn't the original almost a decade old? I don't think that's unreasonable to charge a little for updates at that point.

 

People want continuous and constant improvement. Users can't have it both ways.

 

It is but the age of a product shouldn't be a justification for them removing my ability to use it in the context for which it was meant (and is currently playable). That would be like Samsung walking into your home, taking your TV that's "old" and telling you that you can have their other one at a discount price.

[unlikely_spider]

Yeah, being compared to EA (which is ironic with how much EA they have going right now) is not somewhere any company should want to be. Next we'll have "surprise game mechanics"....wait a minute :music_whistling:

ED gave existing owners of the A-10c, after 8 or 9 years, a free overhaul update, in addition to the many updates over the past decade that module has seen. I don't think that compares negatively to a sports franchise that requires a $60 outlay each year to continue playing online. How many companies actively improve software modules for free a decade after release?

[unlikely_spider]

It is but the age of a product shouldn't be a justification for them removing my ability to use it in the context for which it was meant (and is currently playable). That would be like Samsung walking into your home, taking your TV that's "old" and telling you that you can have their other one at a discount price.

 

It does if they have to continue to bug test it after every DCS patch to ensure that it is compatible with all the changes. If a patch broke the old A-10, then you would complain that it's broken, then they would have to continue to actively support a decade-old module in addition to the new one.

[hornblower793]

You could probably carry on using it provided you don't upgrade the version of DCS

[Thump]

ED gave existing owners of the A-10c, after 8 or 9 years, a free overhaul update, in addition to the many updates over the past decade that module has seen. I don't think that compares negatively to a sports franchise that requires a $60 outlay each year to continue playing online. How many companies actively improve software modules for free a decade after release?

 

That free update was not out of the goodness of their own hearts, it was a business decision. A cost for a benefit to them that happened to work out for us. And it was a cockpit overall (granted a very good one that breathed a good bit of life back into the module for me), it didn't involve a complete reworking of the Hog.

[Thump]

You could probably carry on using it provided you don't upgrade the version of DCS

 

You possibly could, but the problem is that it is a defacto requirement in the MP world to update or else never play online again.

[NineLine]

So what you're telling me is you are going to hold my A-10C hostage after I have paid for it? And if I have to play it on an non-updated server, that's a defacto death of the module. Care to justify this one ED?

 

I am not sure how you got that out of what I said, sorry. We have said before that users of the old version should still be able to play with no issues, we cant control the options mission builders use on their servers though.

[jcbak]

At this rate the new version could be years away. I wouldn't worry.

[Kailux]

That free update was not out of the goodness of their own hearts, it was a business decision. A cost for a benefit to them that happened to work out for us. And it was a cockpit overall (granted a very good one that breathed a good bit of life back into the module for me), it didn't involve a complete reworking of the Hog.

 

 

Besides being given a free update (one didnt even ask for) for version 1 doesnt justify being forced to pay for version 2 afterwards so version 1 can be replaced by version 2.

 

 

Thats loony logic :megalol:

[Thump]

It does if they have to continue to bug test it after every DCS patch to ensure that it is compatible with all the changes. If a patch broke the old A-10, then you would complain that it's broken, then they would have to continue to actively support a decade-old module in addition to the new one.

 

Their spaghetti code is not my problem. If they break my game that I paid for, I would expect them to fix what they broke because of their actions. And to put "bug test" and ED in the same sentence is quite a thing to see.

[Thump]

I am not sure how you got that out of what I said, sorry. We have said before that users of the old version should still be able to play with no issues, we cant control the options mission builders use on their servers though.

 

That's a reasonable answer, thank you Nineline.

[Thump]

These v2.0 versions of existing modules are an opportunity for them to make getting back and fixing/improving older modules actually profitable. I like that. Because if the community accepts that, it may be a step away from the current EA buisness model.

 

As long as it's not forced, I agree. From the sounds of it through Nineline's last post, that's the case. It would be beneficial overall as those who want to receive those upgrades can without preventing those who are happy with the current product to continue to do so without impairment.

[Kailux]

"...the new A-10C will replace the old one going from there."

 

really is the opposite of

 

 

...users of the old version should still be able to play with no issues...

 

 

Hence the commotion.

[unlikely_spider]

Their spaghetti code is not my problem. If they break my game that I paid for, I would expect them to fix what they broke because of their actions. And to put "bug test" and ED in the same sentence is quite a thing to see.

Every piece of software that I've bought, that I can think of, is supported for a fixed length of time. Software vendors charge for new versions. You can't reasonably expect every company to continue to update and support every version that has existed - that would be a continuously-increasing cost burden on the developer. Tell me similar situations where a module like this was actively supported over a decade after release.

 

You didn't buy a piece of physical property. You bought the right to use a software license at the developer's discretions.

 

Edit - heck, one main software that I use at my company, that my company pays hundreds of thousands of dollars per year for, is only supported for 18 months after each release. So I think this is a pretty good deal, considering.

Edited May 13, 2020 by unlikely_spider

[sora_061]

"...the new A-10C will replace the old one going from there."

 

really is the opposite of

 

 

 

 

 

Hence the commotion.

This is what confuses me. They say one thing here other thing there. Same happened for steam free for all tryout dates, many more. I would now actually like to buy the module. Having two modules is better than one. Name it legacy, and get on with it

 

Sent from my Redmi K20 Pro using Tapatalk

[Thump]

Every piece of software that I've bought, that I can think of, is supported for a fixed length of time. Software vendors charge for new versions. You can't reasonably expect every company to continue to update and support every version that has existed - that would be a continuously-increasing cost burden on the developer. Tell me similar situations where a module like this was actively supported over a decade after release.

 

You didn't buy a piece of physical property. You bought the right to use a software license at the developer's discretions.

 

As of right now, Xbox 360 and it's associated software/services are still supported. Now you used the qualifying terms "like this module" and since there isn't any you can use that as an out. I guess when you're effectively the only game in town (and know it), you can do as you want as long as people are willing to put up with it.

 

And while I did buy the ability to use the license and not a physical piece of property, it is incumbent on the developer/publisher who have taken this approach not to hamper/kill their customer's bought and paid for product (especially when it's working with the current version). These aren't stand alone games with sequels. Now if they were to end DCS 2.0 or make it DCS 3.0 (a completely new game, with a new engine, etc) then we would be talking closer to similarly looking apples.

Edited May 13, 2020 by Thump

[Thump]

Tell me similar situations where a module like this was actively supported over a decade after release.

 

 

 

Edit - heck, one main software that I use at my company, that my company pays hundreds of thousands of dollars per year for, is only supported for 18 months after each release. So I think this is a pretty good deal, considering.

 

These are two contradictory statements.