Battlefield Productions - Third Party Content Provider, A vision for the future

[Battlefield Productions]

Thanks for the continued comments, still here reading.

I think it should be said our vision is based upon what we think we can currently deliver, currently things like a proper Infantry "ala Arma3" thing is simply beyond our remit AT THE MOMENT

We want to get our foot in the door, start out with realistic goals, deliver content to the community that people like and want to purchase, and basically build a reputation and working relationship with the community and ED as our partners.

Ultimately the sky is the limit, and the limit will only be defined by sales, and then subsequent investment into the core team ( IE how much we can pay our staff and quality of staff).

We are looking for a long term involvement here, so we are actively looking to start at a realistic level and then ramp things up as we become able.

Marcus.

[Worg]

Are you already in contact with ED?
Mr Wagner?

[NineLine]

Contact has already been made, yes.

[Battlefield Productions]

12 minutes ago, Worg said:

Are you already in contact with ED?
Mr Wagner?

Absolutely, we are in the process of a design document and model submission for further appraisel.

[Worg]

Excellent morning news.
Thanks Battlefield and Nineline.

[Gierasimov]

Excellent! I will be there to fully support this initiative and buy whatever you bring nice to DCS!

[probad]

i dont get why you go around ed to try to pitch a product you dont even have, seems like poor form

you want to use "community response" to boosh an idea through? what are you going to do if the proposal gets shot down? play the audience and blame it on ed being some meaniebutts?

this is like a really dolled up version of those dev larper pipedream threads you find down in the modding section

 

ill say something good once i see something good.

Edited February 25, 2021 by probad

[3WA]

Uh, they are looking for interest and are in contact with ED.  I would hardly call them larpers.

 

I would ask, why are some of you so AFRAID of modeling more than just aircraft?  It's called dcs WORLD for a reason.

Edited February 25, 2021 by 3WA

[Callsign112]

On 2/9/2021 at 8:59 PM, Battlefield Productions said:

Thanks for the continued comments, still here reading.

I think it should be said our vision is based upon what we think we can currently deliver, currently things like a proper Infantry "ala Arma3" thing is simply beyond our remit AT THE MOMENT

We want to get our foot in the door, start out with realistic goals, deliver content to the community that people like and want to purchase, and basically build a reputation and working relationship with the community and ED as our partners.

Ultimately the sky is the limit, and the limit will only be defined by sales, and then subsequent investment into the core team ( IE how much we can pay our staff and quality of staff).

We are looking for a long term involvement here, so we are actively looking to start at a realistic level and then ramp things up as we become able.

Marcus.

I put together a little video to try and show the current state of infantry and WWII vehicles in DCS. I am certainly not the best at using the Mission Editor, but I think for the purpose of this discussion, it should be good enough to demonstrate the point. Obviously, if we compare the WWII assets pack/Combined Arms to the jet side of things here, there is a lot of room for improvement, but things are off to a really good start IMO.

 

I should also start by saying I believe that there is a much better dynamic in terms of multi-player game play if the focus remains on keeping real players in vehicles (planes/tanks/boats) with a well implemented AI asset that is able to attack/defend real players with purpose. Two teams of opposing real players, each with its own controllable AI assets has the potential to create the most immersive experience IMO.

 

So using the AI infantry in the video as an example, it would already be a huge improvement if the AI units were able to use more than just a standing position. They should be able to go prone, crouch, or use objects like trees, buildings, vehicles to hide behind when under fire so that they are not so easy to target. And I am sure it is just stating the obvious, but there should also be different types of AI infantry units to cover the spectrum of capabilities from light infantry to AT.  

 

You can also see in the video that once the AI detects an enemy unit, it stands in one spot until it is deleted, or until all the other enemy units are destroyed even when it hasn't reached its way-point yet. The attacking AI infantry should advance with the friendly armored vehicles, using other objects to hide behind as needed. The defending AI should do the same thing, but with a defensive posture.

 

If you could get AI to take cover and counter attack an enemy unit (real/AI) within its immediate area, you would really have something of value IMO. The best example I can think of would be something like the AI behavior in Men of War AS2. The game itself has nothing to do with a simulator like DCS, but watch a couple YouTube videos and I am sure you will see what I mean in terms of behavior.

 

I don't think much has to be said regarding the vehicles themselves. Just like with the jets/planes, it is all about realism in function and performance. The more realism you can put into it, the more people will value and want it. I am a big fan of one of the other WWII based armored fighting vehicle simulators on the market, and in a word, the reason is realism. It is probably not an easy thing to be able to give a computer user a sense of weight/mass from an image on the screen, but those guys have really pulled it off.

 

Good luck and I look forward to hearing this effort develop further.

 

 

[3WA]

Yeah, decent models, but it's like I've described before.  They just stand there like cardboard cutouts.

 

Good video!

[Enduro14]

I am very excited for this, I truly hope the ground game is enhanced as it would truly flesh out the this Digital Combat Simulator.  I have no issue in paying for ground asset packs that enhance this environment.  My dream with DCS is that someday it would be much closer to say a Arma 3 ground experience here in dcs.  Either way hope to see the fruits of your labor in the future.  
 

ps, Wags and company I believe this could be exactly the steps in right direction for the ground game.

[MegOhm_SD]

Late to this party but I Support this effort if VR is in play. I could have some fun with a Tank 3D cockpit. 
 

Good luck!

 

<S>
 

 

Edited February 26, 2021 by MegOhm_SD

[IkarusC42B Pilot]

I would buy full fidelity ground vehicles but that's about it. 

[StevanJ]

I mentioned this in another thread, but its seems more suitable here.

Charge as much as you want for Maps and Modules- Thats fair. With trials, and free to fly we cant argue with the price of a module once we've had a go.
I'd happily pay £70 for a M1 Abrams or a Shilka, as long as it had full warfare capabilities (including the capabilities to hide from a MAV) and camouflage, but charging for Assets is stopping alot of people from coming to DCS.
Give everyone the Assets for free so we can build missions for the new maps for others to fly in.

If the mission builders, have the assets to create content, then the people will buy the Maps.
The amount of times, ive watched a WW2 action film, and thought 'Yeah- that would be cool to fly in that and do that' -Memphis Belle for example.
Only to realise that it would cost me and my friends nearly £120 in Asset packs for us all to re-enact that film.
So we just end up in an FA-18 shooting tanks in Caucasus. Or on Il-2

Another game- Hunter COTW -Avalanche gave everyone the chance to play any map so long as only the Host had paid for it.
After having the opportunity to play on different maps, I went out and bought the DLC i liked myself. I love that game.

Give the Asset Artists, a cut of each of the Maps. And please stop charging for assets.
Its the only reason im forced to dogfight in Il2, and not DCS.
Id like to bring friends to play on the Channel in a server on the TF-51 or a Warbird, but we cant do that, as it would cost each of them £30 to join the server and just fly around unarmed.
He isnt exactly made of money, and got the Spitfire for his birthday. So we go on the Aerbatics server, and we fly formation.
Usually we're bored pretty quick, before were back in the FA-18.

Having the 'Asset Pack Paywall' prevents others from playing the game.

The Channel £40
Fw 190D £50
The WW2 assets pack £30
A paid Campaign (if there is one) £12

£132 to Dogfight and drop a few bombs on occasion.

In a sale they're obviously better value, but then so is the FA-18.

 

Versus an FA-18 on Caucasus £80

Versus Il2 £40 for 6 fighters and 2 bombers

Versus the SU-25.

The Channel is normally £50, if there was a way of expanding it slightly to include more of the North Sea and a little of Netherlands, and London, and then there was a way of changing the buildings to a more Modern aesthetic (doesnt have to be sky scrapers think early 90's) we could use that Map for the Harrier, Mirage and the F-16 (Netherlands) as an alternative training map you could charge us £20 for the upgrade- Like you did with the A10CII.

The A-Pack paywall is killing the social side of WW2 multiplayer. And while it might bring in a few quid, its ultimately meant that the £30 paywall to Warbirds, has Prevented 3 other players from buying the Channel and Warbirds recently.
Look at the servers and numbers for modern aircraft, then look at the number for WW2 with the Asset Pack requirement.
I know its half price in the Sale, but even thats alot of money for them and their families during a horrendous year in recession/lock-down.

Edited February 26, 2021 by StevanJ

[Gierasimov]

18 minutes ago, StevanJ said:

Having the 'Asset Pack Paywall' prevents others from playing the game.

The A-Pack paywall is killing the social side of WW2 multiplayer. 

 

 

Well, so you want to HAVE the new assets but you want them FREE? 

 

Who is going to pay for it then?

 

As a commercial product it costs money, but nobody is forcing anybody to buy. There is enough free bits in DCS World so that MP can still be played without asset pack, right? 

[StevanJ]

3 minutes ago, Gierasimov said:

 

Well, so you want to HAVE the new assets but you want them FREE? 

 

Who is going to pay for it then?

 

As a commercial product it costs money, but nobody is forcing anybody to buy. There is enough free bits in DCS World so that MP can still be played without asset pack, right? 

To be honest, I dont care about them at all..
I could happily not take them. But having them as a requirement to enter WW2 servers is stopping others who want to play DCS- from playing the game.

Thats just how it is.

Its the same as paying for Syria then being asked to pay for the Israeli, Turkish, Iraqi and Syrian liveries.
I paid for the Assets, but i still make my Campaigns with out them, so that others can enjoy and try out the game.
 

[3WA]

>> I want something.

>> I don't want to pay for it.

 

THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS.

This is what destroys other major sims.  People waiting around for years for semi, hazily promised stuff that never appears because said people didn't want to pay for it.  These people aren't ED.  They are coming in to build what ED did not.  The Ground.  So you are going to have to pay them to do it, the same as you pay ED for planes.

 

If you want to play on the servers, you're going to have to buy the assets they are using.

 

The Ground is what is going to bring people to DCS.  Imagine eventually playing ARMA and CRYSIS like mods in DCS.  THAT is what is going to bring people to this sim.  And many of them will be willing to PAY for it.

 

Imagine playing something like Crysis' Power Struggle in a DCS:World mod.  Ka-50's vs. Apaches in a map with varying terrain, buildings, canyons, etc.  People running around with stingers and igla's trying to take control of various areas.  Player controlled study-level sim tanks, IFVs, APCs, SAMs, and AAA prowling the area.  A Massive Realistic Sim FPS.  A DREAM a lot of people have had for YEARS.

Yeah, I know infantry and such will probably start as a more RTS style control, like Combined Arms, but I hope to eventually reach full FPS.

 

And the more people that come in, the more DCS and the Third Parties can make.  Then, maybe the prices will start coming down a bit, to draw in more and more.

Edited February 26, 2021 by 3WA

[sergkar]

Actually the modern assets come with the core game, don't they?

Or are they part of the CA module?

Edited February 26, 2021 by sergkar

[Gierasimov]

24 minutes ago, sergkar said:

Actually the modern assets come with the core game, don't they?

Or are they part of the CA module?

 

Yeah. Still you may want to read the OP. Kind of missing the point here. 

The idea is to deliver modern ground forces to DCS as a module - asset pack, call it whatever.

Sure ED is going to update models that are free and outdated, but you know, comes free so takes time and its ED's discretion which one gets done when and how.

[StevanJ]

20 minutes ago, 3WA said:

>> I want something.

>> I don't want to pay for it.

 

THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS.

This is what destroys other major sims.  People waiting around for years for semi, hazily promised stuff that never appears because said people didn't want to pay for it.  These people aren't ED.  They are coming in to build what ED did not.  The Ground.  So you are going to have to pay them to do it, the same as you pay ED for planes.

 

If you want to play on the servers, you're going to have to buy the assets they are using.

 

The Ground is what is going to bring people to DCS.  Imagine eventually playing ARMA and CRYSIS like mods in DCS.  THAT is what is going to bring people to this sim.  And many of them will be willing to PAY for it.

 

Imagine playing something like Crysis' Power Struggle in a DCS:World mod.  Ka-50's vs. Apaches in a map with varying terrain, buildings, canyons, etc.  People running around with stingers and igla's trying to take control of various areas.  Player controlled study-level sim tanks prowling the area.  A Massive Realistic Sim FPS.  A DREAM a lot of people have had for YEARS.

 

And the more people that come in, the more DCS and the Third Parties can make.  Then, maybe the prices will start coming down a bit, to draw in more and more.

 

Hi @3WA, Yeah- Its like I said, ive paid for the Asset Pack, the problem is- No one else is.
Out of ten of my friends 3 people have it.
And thats whats taking me and the other 2 people to Il2 to play online with the other friends..
DCS is the far better game, and yet no one plays it for Warbirds.

If you look at the numbers on Steam for Il2 over the last 24 hours its nearly 600 players thats purely WW2 aircraft.
Look at the same numbers on Steam for DCS, 1200- Thats a mix of all the aircraft in DCS.
And we can tell from the servers- that the DCS Warbird market is way too small for the whole of DCS.
Even the posts in the forums show the numbers- You can add every post in the WW2 section and it doesnt even cover the number of posts in the FA18 alone.

If DCS is going to break the WW2 market, were going to need something more than a £30 paywall entry for the assets when playing online.
And that will apply to modern jets moving forward. It might seem great paying £70 for a tank, but if the numbers for the 'new asset pack' are the same as they are for Warbirds, then youll be playing alone on a server, because no one else wanted to pay £70 for a tank, plus the £30 for the 'Modern asset pack'..
This is marketing 101.

The Ground isnt going to pay for new modules.. Turnover is, and unless we look to bring in the players and push to raise that turnover, we're going to struggle moving forward and into to the future for that area of DCS let alone WW2 planes.

This is the market.
This is actually also verified by the numbers in the servers online when you go to the Warbirds multiplayer section..

Now like i said, Im 100% happy to pay for modules, Id even pay a little more for them if it meant, that my gameplay became more realstic with the addition of new assets, I get a pay-rise every year from inflation, so why shouldnt ED? Id love to jump in a server and fly around with real people in tanks, but im not going to do it, if i then have to pay another £30 for a modern asset pack.. £100 for 'Tank action' is a bit unrealistic when for £60 my friends can get il2 tank clash with 6 tanks in it..
Charge me for a map update like the A10C2 fine, but charging new players for a module, then charging them for an assett pack which means they wont get to play on a server without it, means were just giving people a reason not to get involved in the game.

The exact same thing has just happened for EA, they dropped Anthem- Just like that, because they just couldnt bring in new players. Despite their market being pretty huge. At the start they had a million, Now they have (had) nearly 3 times the amount of players as DCS and the games actually pretty good!
But me and the bulk of players stopped playing because of paywalls.
The asset pack is the only one thing standing in the way of DCS Warbirds, and if you bring the focus onto selling maps and modules not assets, DCS has a much bigger chance at moving into the WW2 sim territory. Which benefits everyone when you look to move into the future.

I have no problem in paying for modules, like i said- Ill put my money into any module that goes up for sale that i like the look of. I love the opportunity to fly anything and welcome positive change. Even loved the Yak-52 and made a free campaign for it in the hope others would buy it too.
I put serious effort into mission building and actively try to bring in new players as much as i can, and that means i hear alot of the reasons to why people wont and dont come to DCS, and the biggest reason for the Warbirds IS the Assets pack 9 out of 10 times, limiting people from playing because they have to pay extra for 'assets', is not going to be a viable solution long term, and unless we bring in the numbers towards the maps and modules and especially WW2, like we did with the modern aircraft, how long do you think it will carry on until the money paid for those modules runs out?

Unless we can significantly raise the number of players on Warbirds, theres going to be a point, where 'from a business perspective' things will get looked at and its decided wether or not its worth it. And wether or not its worth support.
The modern warplanes, FA18, F16 will always have a place while the younger player base have the dream of flying something they once saw at an airshow.
But how many younger people do you think want to fly a Warbird for £132?

When was the last time you saw a streamer fly a warbird? Look at the views it gets. Its time to be realistic and figure how we can pull them and the market away from Il2.

And thats why- like i said, when i build Campaigns (which are always free), i make sure everyone can play them not just the people who own the Asset Pack- why single anyone out?
Its nothing personal, but i want more modules, and unless we help bring in more turnover for ED, were not going to get the modules we want on the times theyre scheduled for- I can live with that, im patient, but im not sure others can?

While i would love a FPS on DCS, Its just not going to happen while there are so many other pretty fantastic games out, We need an incredible amount more of players, and we just dont have that yet. Squad alone brings in 9000 players a day, while im sure we'd love a piece of that number, We still dont have the game setup for flying properly yet, let alone FP shooting.
There are less than 30 people right now online in Warbirds. How are we gonna get more than that into DCS: FPS?

Im all for change, and new mods, but lets get the players in first and work from there..
Players>Turnover>Changes

54 minutes ago, Gierasimov said:

Yeah. Still you may want to read the OP. Kind of missing the point here. 

The idea is to deliver modern ground forces to DCS as a module - asset pack, call it whatever.

Sure ED is going to update models that are free and outdated, but you know, comes free so takes time and its ED's discretion which one gets done when and how.

To what im saying,
Ill happily pay £70 for a full fidelity tank..
I would not if it meant i had to pay £30 for another 'modern asset pack' which meant i could only play in servers with that module.
If i cant play with friends on a regular server, id not buy it, thats all..

[sergkar]

1 hour ago, Gierasimov said:

Yeah. Still you may want to read the OP.

Did that and replied to it. It's quite further up in the thread. You might have missed those replies.

 

All I'm saying is that it's not as unheard and unthinkable of. As far as I know the chinese asset pack is 3rd party and also somehow integrated into the core.

 

[draconus]

@StevanJ Your friends are clearly not into DCS, it's not because of some assets and you cannot do anything about it so get over it already. Other games are other games with different target market. You act like you don't see a difference. You can still enjoy WW2 birds in DCS MP if you want to and are on a budget. You buy on sale, fly in Caucasus, attack free asset targets... there you go with just 20 bucks.

[Gierasimov]

8 hours ago, sergkar said:

As far as I know the chinese asset pack is 3rd party and also somehow integrated into the core.

 

That's valid example. Look how this is going now. It took one year, seriously, to fix ZBD-04A issue with one shot group multi kill.

How fast are the new units appearing in the pack? 

We have CAP IFV but no matching CAP infantry, got CAP assault ship, but no CAP assault group, right?

 

When you BUY something, you can at least ask where is my moneys worth, beggars can't be choosers though. 

Many people don't care about multiplayer, and I won't comment on that aspect.

[Silver_Dragon]

10 hours ago, sergkar said:

Did that and replied to it. It's quite further up in the thread. You might have missed those replies.

 

All I'm saying is that it's not as unheard and unthinkable of. As far as I know the chinese asset pack is 3rd party and also somehow integrated into the core.

 

The Chinesse assets pack has integrated into de module section, no in the core, only has "free" and not a payware content, all content build by 3rd party (as ED modules go to modules Directory).

[Wdigman]

I am all for this and willing to pay for it as well.

 

Those who complain, do you own every module now and if not is that stopping you from enjoying DCS?  How much would DCS cost if one were to buy everything?

 

I for one would pay for a T72 Module or even an Abrams. I have a friend, former Armor Vet, who would probably purchase this if that became a reality. The only video games he plays is Risk.

 

With recent announcements regarding Dynamic campaigns, Electronic warfare, ELINT, integrated air defense systems, I can see Combined arms becoming a Jewel. With 3rd party participation a lot of this gets created now instead of years from now.

 

If a good product is produced then I am willing to pay for it. If your telling me DCS can look like Call of Duty from the soldiers stand point to a Tac view much like HARPOON including Naval assets, then you have my support.

 

Also... does this mean we could theoretically have Maps inside maps? So I fly over Palmyra Syria, some of those building have interiors, back alleyways, tunnels etc? I think Call of duty meets DCS; this would be some fun game-play supporting friends on the ground. Just leave out the COD superpowers the wonder weapons etc. I don't want to fly low over a group of buildings to be shot down by the the level 15 guy who jumps over the A10 and throws a Gold Axe at my plane.