DCS: A Way to out of Endless Early Access

[omskTransmash]

When I already have my favourite module, I only want the game world/engine/features/graphics/optimization to improve so I can enjoy using the module even more.

 

The only way for me to help fund it, is by buying more modules. But I do not want other modules as I wouldn't use all of them substantially.

Though, sure that would help them, and over time would get me a better game world, but I don't really want to pay for something where I can't immediately see that I am getting something out of it.

 

So how can I get what I want?!

 

This is purely my speculation and opinion.

 

I think any business should always optimally allocated their revenue. Like employee salary, marketing expense, investment, upgrading assets.

It "should" be the optimal, so when, why and how we paid them should not matter at all.

For example, we buy cars, not engines. But car companies somehow upgrade their engines. And they do it well because they are facing fierce competition.

 

We buy modules, aircraft not engines, same as the car example, but in this case, at least for your and my value priority, ED is not allocating enough resource into engine development.

 

"The customer always loses under a monopoly" is working here. Your investment or cost sunk into a module, is in this case, a hostage.

You want your module to run bug free? Do something : in this case the only way is buying another module.

It's your choice giving up paying more money. But you know it will slow down engine development, hence postpone your dreamed enjoyment from your already bought module, even for a little bit.

 

I think ED is "optimally" allocating their resources into the engine development. The difference between the car example is, Under competition, optimal allocation is usually good for us customers. Under monopoly, well, it's the opposite.

(Again, ED is doing nothing wrong here. it's just how any business runs)

[mondaysoff]

All I have been seeing since the end of last year is OB release on top of OB release on top of OB release. It’s no wonder it’s in a mess. How about one OB release, squash any bugs then put it to Stable, or is it not that simple?

[JVance]

I'm going to assume this is a troll thread, cause it's either that or you're absolutely out of your god damn mind.

[rrohde]

There's no way this is a serious post right? Every single bit of "reasoning" is so deeply flawed it's not even funny...

 

 

OP could have just copied/pasted phrases put together by the corporate BS generator here: https://www.atrixnet.com/bs-generator.html

 

Same effect... ;)

[MROK73]

I'm going to assume this is a troll thread, cause it's either that or you're absolutely out of your god damn mind.

 

Is he?

[TLTeo]

Hold on, I finally get the OP's point.

 

1) Come up with ridicolous monetisation scheme

2) ED no longer makes money

3) ED fails

4) With ED out of the picture, EA in DCS also disappears.

 

That'll work, sure. Great idea.

[jasonbirder]

How about one OB release, squash any bugs then put it to Stable, or is it not that simple?

You assume that ED wants an up to date, reliable widely used stable build and a small group of Beta testers on OB sending ED, Bug Reports to incorporate in their development and testing.

 

 

I suspect ED would like to see the Stable Version wither on the vine and be dropped leaving them with Open Beta (which will become the default version) and a closed beta for user testing & feedback. It allows them to release ad hoc haphazard updates piecemeal without the difficulties of bringing them to a polished, bug free conclusion, without commiting to any "completion dates" as development and release can be an ongoing rolling process rather than something which starts and finishes and it better supports their Early Access model...work can be allocated here and there without focus and with no pressure to develop a finished product.

 

 

 

Lets breakdown the logic...

 

 

ED is in the business of SELLING modules to generate Revenue (or re-selling 3rd party modules) the most recent releases AREN'T even available on the stable build...(JF17 currently, soon to include Supercarrier & the P47D) yes plenty of people have bought previous modules in Early Access - but I think the JF17 debacle will have taught many people a lesson...ED have NO intention of allowing access to this content to stable branch users. There are no plans, no feeedback, timelines. ED cannot project customers continuing to keep buying into "early access" of products they may NEVER have access to...so with no plans to incorporate the JF17/Supercarrier/P47D etc into the stable branch we have to concude it is going to be quietly dropped or left as a "legacy version - (in the same way 1.5 still exists)

 

 

 

ED have completely stopped communicating about development of the Stable branch - everything in the Newsletters, promotional videos, open letters from Nick/Kate references content for the Open Beta version ONLY...will anyone on the stable branch be able to access the Supercarrier short term/medium term (or indeed ever)? The P47? The Marianas Map? Third party content? Without the communicated prospect of an update incorporating that content into the stable release version...the answer has to be no...

 

 

Originally the ED ecosystem consisted primarily of a release version & a Betatest version - Openbeta long ago ceased to be a "test version" (how many people ever submit bug reports, out of those how many ever submit detailed repeatable bug reports with detailed information) and has become a de facto "latest version" with their new closed Beta taking the place that open beta originally occupied.

 

 

 

If there was any intention whatever of a 2.5.6 update to stable they'd have worked on it and got it out the door before adding in more and more code, complexity and new content...the fact that 2.5.6 Open Beta is an everchanging, evergrowing, ever more complex beast indicates that rolling code out to a stable build is no longer a priority. In the same way that development resources were canibalised from the F/A18 to work on the F16 - so have resources needed to work on testing, finishing and perfecting the OB code for stable release been sucked away into developing more, new OB content - with the F/A18 there was enough of a vociferous kickback from the forums to draw them to account, with the Open Beta vs Stable divergence the difference is vocally, in the community NOBODY CARES about the stable branch, there will be no holding them to account of their inaction or lack of commitment to it.

 

 

Without any feedback from ED as to what the status of a stable update is (worked on? Close? Distant?) without any timeline of potential release dates (Q2? 2020? 2021?) without any reassurances as to the importance of those customers to ED we can all safely assume that they hope if they leave it untouched long enough its user base will dwindle to a tiny ratio and it can be left as a dead, legacy version.

[JayBird]

Personally, of all the DCS aircraft that are available there are only a few that I truly want. When I pay $x for an F-18 I would like that $x to go into F-18 development. I am very keen for the base engine, and VR performance, particularly, to be worked on, and am happy to pay for this. I do not want to buy an aircraft that I'm not going to use to fund this.

 

I'm with you on this here, the F-18 is an aircraft that I want to fly, I'm more than happy to shell out the $80 or whatever when it first released. I have zero interest in the L-39(lets say). However, I see no logical way that ED could divide up this funding towards particular projects, nor should we expect them to.

 

I think the model that the company that makes the F-35 uses for its flight sim is the way to go: a chargeable base system upgrade every two years or so. I would be happy to pay around $100 - $200 for this. I would also be happy to pay a proportionate upgrade fee for each aircraft I actually want to own, every time there is a base product upgrade, to bring those aircraft up to date.

 

I am in total disagreement with this for a number of reasons.

 

First off being could this just delay release staging and implementing of new features even further? Who's to say ED would even consider releasing a new weapon or feature in December when they could wait another month and charge your $100- $200 to every user and cash in?

 

Secondly, a lot of the aircraft we have are on the last legs of their careers, what features could be brought into the sim in year two that hasn't already been made available in year one?

 

Thirdly, what about far in the future? If I drop playing DCS for three years and decide one day I'd like to fly the Hornet, do I need to once again pay $100, or do I use a (likely) buggy/broken version that's compatible with DCS 2.56 when the release version of DCS is 3.5?

 

ED is in a very difficult position when it comes to the pricing model, while I agree with OP, the current form is unsustainable in the long term to continue the much-needed development on the core sim, the proposed business model is absurd and frankly laughable.

 

I'm glad there are bigger brains at Eagle Dynamics (and the dozens of Harvard MBAs on the forums) who are responsible for making these difficult decisions.

[JayBird]

Without any feedback from ED as to what the status of a stable update is (worked on? Close? Distant?) without any timeline of potential release dates (Q2? 2020? 2021?) without any reassurances as to the importance of those customers to ED we can all safely assume that they hope if they leave it untouched long enough its user base will dwindle to a tiny ratio and it can be left as a dead, legacy version.

 

They've stated many times in various threads that the Open Beta version must be fixed in order to gain a stable release. In its current form, the Open Beta is very buggy, containing many issues with the various modules, poor FPS, crashing, VR compatibility, really an endless list of issues currently...

 

ED has no timeline beyond May 20th where they intend to update the Open Beta branch, if this version is observed to be more stable than what is currently available then it will likely be brought towards release on the Stable branch (see how that verbiage works)

 

I feel like a lot of the claims that you make in your argument are illogical. ED is working on the Stable Branch by working on the Open Beta, the two go hand and hand, it's not that difficult to understand. If you're looking for news on the Stable Branch but don't see anything, look at the latest news and reports for the Open Beta, and with some deductive reasoning, you should be able to get an idea of the status for Stable.

 

If you are unhappy with the pace that the Stable branch is updated then you are free to switch to the Open Beta version, a majority of servers and users I have encountered use the Open Beta, the stable branch user is the black sheep when it comes to DCS.

[ebabil]

This is also an endless discussion. You don't have to buy EA, I don't want to wait years to get my hands on dream planes while getting older. If there hadn't been EA sales, I would have to wait until 2022 to play with hornet and God knows until when for viper

[Harlikwin]

Wow,

 

This is one of the more amusing things I've seen posted here in a while.

 

Thanks for the LULZ....

[Coxy_99]

LOL None is forced to play open beta hahaha oh boy

[Buzzles]

I've seen some bad threads over time on this forum.

 

This one's near the top of the list.

[jasonbirder]

a majority of...users I have encountered use the Open Beta, the stable branch user is the black sheep when it comes to DCS.

 

 

Less than a THIRD of DCS users are on Open Beta...which makes you wonder WHY the stable Branch really is the Black Sheep/Cinderella/Orphan Child

[HC_Official]

How high was OP when he came up with this ?

 

 

As ever if anyone feels they want to help ED and give ED extra money

buy some full priced modules and gift them to random people, you can buy as many as you want

[JayBird]

Less than a THIRD of DCS users are on Open Beta...which makes you wonder WHY the stable Branch really is the Black Sheep/Cinderella/Orphan Child

 

I've read that figure before myself, but I honestly couldn't tell you what rock all of the users are hiding under.

 

Every organized group or event I've come across in DCS uses Open Beta exclusively, most servers (that are popular at least) are Open Beta, most of the forum users I see commenting are Open Beta, all of the people I fly with use Open Beta.

 

Any idea what percentage of that two-thirds are active users, or new users that frankly do not know any better?

 

In my mind, the Open Beta branch is the only one that matters, if they scrapped the Stable version today it would affect me in no way. Maybe I'm just a bit ignorant, but after the months of waiting, it surprises me why anyone would stick to using the Stable build when Open Beta is so readily available.

[Wangler]

Wow!

Some people really appear to have a lot of spare time during this crisis! :eek:

 

Was a good luagh though! :megalol:

 

 

Think about all the time you could have used to fly around and shoot stuff, instead of doing this :doh:

 

With no dynamic campaign those totally meaningless targets will be here tomorrow and next year. Just like the were yesterday.

[Airhunter]

This is also an endless discussion. You don't have to buy EA, I don't want to wait years to get my hands on dream planes while getting older. If there hadn't been EA sales, I would have to wait until 2022 to play with hornet and God knows until when for viper

 

Correct, you dont have to buy EA. BUT and that is a very big BUT, the way ED has advertised past EA modules pre-release was a huge deception. Hornet being out of EA by 2020 was then twisted in terminology and a ton of features were moved back to 2021, which essentially isn't out of EA. The Viper was supposed to benefit from the Hornet's development and be done by the end of the year. Didn't happen and is now being slowed down even more so they can work on the Hornet. All of these plans were completely unknown to everyone before they preordered and got the initial version. Funnily enough other 3rd party developers are doing a much better job with initial releases and product sustainment. Now, is this because of the team size and resource allocation? If ED can't properly sustain all these different project + the base game at the same time then that is also a problem. I can assure you that hadn't the Viper been worked on and released the Hornet would've been much further along in development. They wouldn't have made any (or as much) money doing that but that's just part of business.

 

Also saying "uh, it's so simple, don't buy EA and you wont get hurt" is such a shortsighted statement. The core game, updates and everything else in DCS is affected by EA modules. Sometimes said EA modules break the game or cause a ton of issues for other players in the MP environment (lack of IFF, wrong datalink ID's, CTD's, lag, the list goes on). Even if you dont buy or own any of those EA modules you are still negatively affected by them, let alone all the 3rd party developers who can't push their own updates as quickly and have to rely on the EA module update cycle.

 

I've been playing DCS long enough to know how the cookie crumbles.

Edited May 15, 2020 by Airhunter

[Mars Exulte]

HOH MAN! WE GOT A POWERPOINT PRESENTATION HERE! IT'S POWERPOINT! GRAB YOUR GIRDLES, BOYS, IT JUST GOT REAL!!!! /sarcasm

[jasonbirder]

I honestly couldn't tell you what rock all of the users are hiding under.

 

 

Any idea what percentage of that two-thirds are active users, or new users that frankly do not know any better?

 

 

Its called confirmation bias.

 

 

ED's own figures from Kate based on user ACTIVITY

 

 

Though i'm not quite sure what "new users don't matter" really means?

How long do you have to have been playing DCS for your user experience to be important? Do you need to be active on the forums? On Hoggit? Do you need to be a L33t PVPer for your opinion on the game to have any validity?

 

 

I've been around since Flanker 1.5 In the old SSI days but maybe I just "don't know any better"

Edited May 15, 2020 by jasonbirder

[jasonbirder]

ED has no timeline beyond May 20th where they intend to update the Open Beta branch

 

 

You mean apart from

 

DCS P47D - due to be released this year (ED)

DCS Marianas Map - due to be released this year (ED)

F/A18C out of early access Dec 2020 (ED)

???

There's a structured timetable in place for all of EDs sseriously active projects...

Becasue, as we all know from our professional lives...if something doesn't have a date/timetable attached to it...its not going to get done...

Without a deadline, as sure as apples is apples something of more important witha date/timetable attached will come along and push it to the bottom of the pile...

In the real world...a project without dates is just a wishlist...that will probably never happen...

Supercarrier was given an April release date...and when that was delayed they've worked hard on it to push it out the door ASAP for a revised deadline...because getting it out the door as close to that date is a priority for ED

 

Beta patch releases are highlighted with dates...when they're missed its communicated and a new short term deadline is given...and its usually w aweek or at most a fortnight away...because its a priority to ED...

There is no release date for a stable update, no timetable, no indication its being worked on frantically...ED have declined to say there'll be a release date in 2020 AT ALL...

Draw your own concusions from that as to its likelihood...or importance to ED

[omskTransmash]

All I have been seeing since the end of last year is OB release on top of OB release on top of OB release. It’s no wonder it’s in a mess. How about one OB release, squash any bugs then put it to Stable, or is it not that simple?

 

We all though so, however, clearly we were wrong.

I suspect the "zero incentives" are the culprit here. No money from squashing bugs, although nobody intended it....

[omskTransmash]

Hold on, I finally get the OP's point.

 

1) Come up with ridicolous monetisation scheme

2) ED no longer makes money

3) ED fails

4) With ED out of the picture, EA in DCS also disappears.

 

That'll work, sure. Great idea.

 

Don't worry, the "ridiculous" price is not for you.. it's for the richer and more capable customers.

https://kopywritingkourse.com/the-three-pronged-pricing-technique/

[omskTransmash]

Without any feedback from ED as to what the status of a stable update is (worked on? Close? Distant?) without any timeline of potential release dates (Q2? 2020? 2021?) without any reassurances as to the importance of those customers to ED we can all safely assume that they hope if they leave it untouched long enough its user base will dwindle to a tiny ratio and it can be left as a dead, legacy version.

 

I cannot agree more. Although I don't suspect this is what ED intended in the first place, clearly now they have "zero incentives" to manage a working, stable version.

 

Why fix bug (and pay salaries) when nobody wants it? As we all can know, everybody is on openbeta...

 

[omskTransmash]

I'm glad there are bigger brains at Eagle Dynamics (and the dozens of Harvard MBAs on the forums) who are responsible for making these difficult decisions.

 

I'm sure they can solve this immediately with their big brains, "IF" they wanted it to be solved.

But I think it's clear they are not working on it now, or like for 6 months? 8 months?

Until then.. well, waiting for the monopolist to do something for the customer is not that hard. I waited 25 years, why not a few years more?