Jump to content

A question about a possible Korean War asset pack


upyr1

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Beirut said:

While you are factually correct, I'm going to remain a horrible person and say that it's not a big deal. The Assets Pack, on sale, is about $15 I think.

It's a big deal, not because of the price of inclusion (and there will be an endless discussion about whether it's too high or low enough or annoying in aggregate or something), but because of exactly the splitting problem.

As the guy managing a 24/7 server for a smallish community, I must decide: should I run mission X if that means that suddenly, the new guys we're trying to get involved to expand that community can no longer play? The answer is just immediately and obviously “no.” The terrain situation is already problematic, but we have enough resources and support within the community that the most common alternative can often be gifted to newbies who really want to stick around, and we use that most-common extra terrain on rare occasions or on a second server instance while the main server is available to and accepting of all and sundry no matter how hooked on DCS they are. If I were to start running missions that has some asset pack requirement, I suddenly put a burden on the community to also shower those newbies with the asset pack, and for something with vastly more dubious utility than the terrain. I could conceivably run it on a third server instance, but it becomes so pointlessly niche that it's just not worth it for how little that third instance will be used.

The next chain reinforces the bigness of the deal: since I can't sensibly run missions that have extra requirements, other than maybe as a very one-time special-event request, there will quite naturally be no content made within the community that has those requirements — why would anyone do that when it will never see the light of day? Instead, the creators put their time and effort into something that can reasonably be run 24/7; that can be used to attract and retain new and old players alike; and maybe something that can convince the odd player here and there that that extra terrain is actually worth it if no-one is able to gift it to them at this point.

Both I as the server manager and the content creator have to go for the lowest common denominator. That means nothing more restrictive than at most one of the for-pay terrain modules. Enough planes will be added that just about anyone has something to fly, or maybe they can run LotATC (on a server license) or use a commander slot to direct the action.

Unless the cost is so low as to be effectively free anyway, where we can just shower anyone who accidentally peeks into the Discord with module gifts, that asset pack will never be part of the lowest common denominator we must serve. Even free community mods can be problematic to include, but that depends on how they're integrated and how much tech support will be needed if everyone is asked to install it. The WWII asset pack is already an extra cost upon an extra cost upon an extra cost to access a niche within a niche within a niche; Korea would if anything manage to make that niche-cube be even narrower. So even at a low cost, its value everyone in that content chain would be close to nil and the price:value ratio would be completely out of whack, because that niche is simply inherently contradictory to the common denominator.

8 hours ago, Grievo said:

I mean, kinda. Yes if someone hasn't bought an asset pack they can't play a particular mission, just as if they hadn't bought the F-18 they're excluded. or if someone has built the same mission with the Supercarrier module they're excluded. Should the SC, and the hundreds of thousands of man hours that's gone into it's development be free, or "included" I just don't think it's really that reasonable to say that it would be. 

That's just it: the SC doesn't exclude anyone. It is freely included even if you don't buy it. But with a twist. You can play that mission freely but you can't interact with the carrier assets in any way (or well… in one way: they can shoot you down 😛 ). It's far more reasonable than not to have it work that way than to lock people out, which coincidentally is why it works that way and… you know… doesn't lock people out. The same actually goes for the F-18: just because you didn't buy the module doesn't mean you're excluded — it just means that you can't fly specifically the F-18. Anything else that might be included is all yours, which in the extreme case might just be a spectator or commander slot for yelling-over-SRS duty (but in that case, the mission maker failed, gets rightfully ridiculed, and the mission will be rejected for being worthless and stupid).

So yes, the SC and the “hundreds of thousands of” man hours that has gone into its development should be free and included. And it is. It's free and included (but not interactive) for the very good reason that splitting the community — especially the on-line community that speaks to a lot of people and give them recommendations on what to buy and what not — is a horrendously bad idea, and because it being “included for free” this way means ED makes more money off of it than if it isn't.


Edited by Tippis
  • Like 2

❧ ❧ Inside you are two wolves. One cannot land; the other shoots friendlies. You are a Goon. ❧ ❧

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Tippis said:

It's a big deal, not because of the price of inclusion (and there will be an endless discussion about whether it's too high or low enough or annoying in aggregate or something), but because of exactly the splitting problem.

As the guy managing a 24/7 server for a smallish community, I must decide: should I run mission X if that means that suddenly, the new guys we're trying to get involved to expand that community can no longer play? The answer is just immediately and obviously “no.” The terrain situation is already problematic, but we have enough resources and support within the community that the most common alternative can often be gifted to newbies who really want to stick around, and we use that most-common extra terrain on rare occasions or on a second server instance while the main server is available to and accepting of all and sundry no matter how hooked on DCS they are. If I were to start running missions that has some asset pack requirement, I suddenly put a burden on the community to also shower those newbies with the asset pack, and for something with vastly more dubious utility than the terrain. I could conceivably run it on a third server instance, but it becomes so pointlessly niche that it's just not worth it for how little that third instance will be used.

The next chain reinforces the bigness of the deal: since I can't sensibly run missions that have extra requirements, other than maybe as a very one-time special-event request, there will quite naturally be no content made within the community that has those requirements — why would anyone do that when it will never see the light of day? Instead, the creators put their time and effort into something that can reasonably be run 24/7; that can be used to attract and retain new and old players alike; and maybe something that can convince the odd player here and there that that extra terrain is actually worth it if no-one is able to gift it to them at this point.

Both I as the server manager and the content creator have to go for the lowest common denominator. That means nothing more restrictive than at most one of the for-pay terrain modules. Enough planes will be added that just about anyone has something to fly, or maybe they can run LotATC (on a server license) or use a commander slot to direct the action.

Unless the cost is so low as to be effectively free anyway, where we can just shower anyone who accidentally peeks into the Discord with module gifts, that asset pack will never be part of the lowest common denominator we must serve. Even free community mods can be problematic to include, but that depends on how they're integrated and how much tech support will be needed if everyone is asked to install it. The WWII asset pack is already an extra cost upon an extra cost upon an extra cost to access a niche within a niche within a niche; Korea would if anything manage to make that niche-cube be even narrower. So even at a low cost, its value everyone in that content chain would be close to nil and the price:value ratio would be completely out of whack, because that niche is simply inherently contradictory to the common denominator.

 

 

 

 

Again, I might be a horrible person, but if the problem of "splitting the community" is solved for $15, then there really isn't a problem. The mission builder builds the missions, and those who want to play and can play, play. Those who can't because they need the WWII Assets Pack, well ya suck it up and spend the $15 and Bob's your uncle. 

 

As for the lowest common denominator, I'm not sure that applies in something like this. There is little "lowest and common" about this sim - it's expensive. Between the cost of your rig, your HOTAS, and of course the modules, there's a bit of financial Darwinism going on. Cruel maybe, but there are fun things I can't afford that others can. It's life, so I live with it.

 

As an example, I'm not buying the Apache. I'd like to have it, but given the complexity of the module and how much use I would actually get out of it, I've decided my DCS money will sit in my Steam wallet and wait for the South Atlantic map and the F-15E. I made a choice to not buy one thing so I could buy another. The Assets pack is the other guy's $15 choice. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Some of the planes, but all of the maps!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Beirut said:

Again, I might be a horrible person, but if the problem of "splitting the community" is solved for $15, then there really isn't a problem.

If you keep clinging to the misapprehension that it's about $15, then you don't understand what the problem is and why $15 doesn't solve anything.

So, again: it has nothing to do with the price. It has to do with pointlessly and needlessly creating hurdles that must be catered for by not erecting them in the first place. That way, and only that way, all those who want to play can play. And you want them all to play. What you're describing is not “those who want to play” because you're wantonly skipping over the most important qualifier: “those who want and have already fully committed to playing”. That is a very different category.

2 hours ago, Beirut said:

Those who can't because they need the WWII Assets Pack, well ya suck it up and spend the $15 and Bob's your uncle.

In other words, not all who want to play can play. That's a catastrophically bad position to put yourself in if you want people to play.

2 hours ago, Beirut said:

As for the lowest common denominator, I'm not sure that applies in something like this.

It does. The thing about this sim is that it's free. Its $0 entry point is actually one of its major strengths, especially now when we also have $0 module trial periods. You don't even need much in the way of extra gear beyond what you probably already have as a gamer. It can certainly become costly, sure, but that leads right back to that missing qualifier: those who have already fully committed. That $0 level is the lowest common denominator that you need to consider if you want to achieve any real coherence and critical mass in your community-building. The way to make them commit, and even just a little bit, is to not arbitrarily and for no good reason lock them out the way pay-or-gtfo content does. And that's the other thing about this sim that makes it far less… antagonistic, for the lack of a better term, than its complexity and niche-ness would intuitively suggest: there is precious little such content. It's just the terrains and that very poorly handled asset pack. Again, it's telling that the second time they tried to use the same lock-out system, they ended up deciding not to because of how thoroughly the point and the consequences of that false economy and the detrimental consequences of that lock-out was hammered home.

2 hours ago, Beirut said:

As an example, I'm not buying the Apache.

That's unfortunately a useless example because it has exactly zero impact on your ability to join missions where the Apache is present. This is a good thing and you're very happy that the game works that way. So if anything, it is an example of the exact opposite of the point you're trying to make.


Edited by Tippis
  • Like 1

❧ ❧ Inside you are two wolves. One cannot land; the other shoots friendlies. You are a Goon. ❧ ❧

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think ED made it clear at the time there would be no WW2 assets if they didn't charge for them. I'd rather have them then not.

The pack doesn't compare to anything else in the sim. You can have a non-interactive SC place holder, but you can't do the same for the asset pack since they are essentially non-interactive by default, unless you own CA.

Also, the argument that you can still join an F-18 mission even if you don't own it, is sort of a half truth. In a mission with only the F-18, like say a campaign, you absolutely need it.

Look at the campaigns for sale in the store. They all have module ownership requirements. 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow.

I mean I can't explain it better than Tippis.

 

To note though...  We have tried to make the point that it has nothing to do with the price many times.  It's very telling that this is your only argument that's even remotely valid...  and while making that point...  you're actually making the point that it does indeed actually split the community.  The only difference between your POV and ours is that you think the problem is that people don't want to buy it.  That's not the problem.

 

If you don't own the F/18...  you CAN still join a server that ONLY has F18's.  You just can't fly the F18.  You could look at someone else flying it.  You could be a GCI.  You can take screen shots.  You can watch them kill stuff...  You can even start your two week evaluation of the F18 if you wanted to play it in that server for two weeks.

With the SC you can actually not even give two craps about it AT ALL and still play in "any" server you want.  It doesn't limit you at all unless some mission creator fails to also place a regular carrier...  but then you can land at an airstrip anyway.  Or just bail/go back to spectator after your mission.  It only limits you interacting with the SC itself. Nothing else.

With the WW2 assets pack if "any" piece of the asset pack is included in the mission...  find a new mission because you're SOL.  You can't join.  Not even to watch.  It's 1000% NOT the same as "any" other content aside from a map.

The drawbacks of that situation have been made abundantly clear...  you're just refusing to see it.  Keep in mind...  I own the assets pack.  In my case that doesn't make me climb up to the top of some $5 pedestal and refuse to see what the effects of that module are.  They still exist.  Whether you choose to see them or not.  Saying that people should just shell out $15 for some almost completely useless piece of content is clearly a point of view that hasn't had much thought applied to it when put in context of the entire combat sim subject.  We need all the people we can get doing all the things.  A $5 asset pack is NOT the hill to kill combat flight sims on.  Trust me.  I've been arorund for a long time.  you know why that other viper game lasted so long???  Because it effing HAD to.  Because it wasn't financially feasible to make a competitor.  Because there weren't enough PEOPLE PLAYING COMBAT FLIGHT SIMS to make it worth while to make another.  That problem STILL EXISTS.  ED gets around it by selling individual modules.  

The fact that ED had said AT THE TIME that if they didn't charge for the assets pack there would be no assets pack...  was because they hadn't lived the experience yet.  We tried to explain it to them.  They didn't get it until the SC.  They still appear to be on the fence...  because they're considering allowing the IADS pack (as I understand).  If they don't include the IADS pack for free or more like the SC/aircraft work...  then it will never be used in MP, and people making campaigns and even single missions will have to either choose which audience to create content for...  or create content for BOTH audiences...  time is money.  They either charge an extra couple dollars for their content (in the case of campaigns), they eat the cost themselves because it took more work to create the campaign with and without IADS, or they just create it once, charge the regular price and people without IADS don't get to use it.  OR...  they create it WITHOUT IADS.  Which one will they go for you think???  Do you think this is "splitting" the SP community?  It is.

  • Like 2

Nvidia RTX3080 (HP Reverb), AMD 3800x

Asus Prime X570P, 64GB G-Skill RipJaw 3600

Saitek X-65F and Fanatec Club-Sport Pedals (Using VJoy and Gremlin to remap Throttle and Clutch into a Rudder axis)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Tippis said:

It's a big deal, not because of the price of inclusion (and there will be an endless discussion about whether it's too high or low enough or annoying in aggregate or something), but because of exactly the splitting problem....

So if its not about the price, then there is absolutely no reason for anyone interested in joining a MP server not to join.

Take a moment to think about what you are saying.

So you spent hundreds if not thousands on a computer rig, HOTAS, VR,... blah, blah, blah. Then you paid full swat for the Mossie because you just couldn't wait, but then again wait.... you can't join the MP server of your choice because your trying to take some sort of rebel stand against paying $15 for an assets pack?

Really?

Maybe you should be trying to convince everyone just how important that MP experience is to you, because I'm not buying it!

If after spending literally thousands of dollars just to be able to fly with my friends on a MP server I turned around and said... sorry guys can't get in on the fun, ED has locked me out with their $15 assets pack... ouch!

And just as your quote above suggests, you can take any available module in DCS, including the F18 as the perfect example. You are right in that not having a particular plane/jet/helicopter will not prevent you from flying a mission like the assets pack will, unless the mission you want to fly requires the flyable module your missing. I think the point @Beirut was trying to make is that every module can be seen as a splitting factor if you don't have it. If all your friends want to fly F18's off the SC, and all you have are prop planes, then your the odd man out and you have a problem.

It seems to me that this argument basically boils down to the people in the "won't pay for the assets pack out of principle" group prefer that we don't have any variety in DCS regarding maps/assets. They would apparently prefer that we all have just the one map with limited assets. That way we can all fly on the same map and use the same assets. And that of course would be much better then supporting the DCS eco-system to generate more interesting map environments with more interesting assets. Because lets face it, that is why we want the development team responsible for bringing DCS World to life to make the most realistic models of the planes/jets/helicopters we all want to fly.... So that we can fly them in the most uninteresting environment possible... on a MP server!

Yeah right.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"It seems to me that this argument basically boils down to the people in the "won't pay for the assets pack out of principle" group prefer that we don't have any variety in DCS regarding maps/assets. They would apparently prefer that we all have just the one map with limited assets. That way we can all fly on the same map and use the same assets."

Not even close.

We would prefer to pay slightly more for EVERYTHING...  so that anything that's created that could be created in such a way that it splits the community WON'T HAVE TO BE created that way.  It can be created and added to the base package so it doesn't split the community because we all paid an extra .50c for every single thing we've bought.


Edited by M1Combat
  • Like 1

Nvidia RTX3080 (HP Reverb), AMD 3800x

Asus Prime X570P, 64GB G-Skill RipJaw 3600

Saitek X-65F and Fanatec Club-Sport Pedals (Using VJoy and Gremlin to remap Throttle and Clutch into a Rudder axis)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But didn't your crowd just build an argument around... "it has nothing to do with the price"?

And its not that I am disagreeing with the point you just made.

To be honest, I could care less if the assets were included with any/all of the WWII maps, and in doing so, they had to increase the cost of the map or another part of the SIM. What I care about is that we actually see more improved assets, which we so desperately need.

But what would your suggestion achieve? At this point, I would say all your really arguing about is the business model being used.

In other words, all it would do is change the above text to read: "sorry guys can't get in on the fun, ED has locked me out with their $15 assets pack. I would have bought it though had they just added the $15 to the Normandy map... ouch!

The funny thing is, we both own the Assets pack, but we are here helping create a divide within the community discussing how the assets pack is creating a divide in the community. TBH, I bought the assets pack because I see the value in it without even considering the benefit it would bring if I ever want to join a MP server. I have no control over what modules someone else purchases, all I can say is if joining MP servers are important to you and you need the assets pack to do it, well then its not that complicated to figure out. The upside of helping more people figure it out means that we are all more likely to see more/better assets quicker.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tippis said:

If you keep clinging to the misapprehension that it's about $15, then you don't understand what the problem is and why $15 doesn't solve anything.

 

I could be reading this all wrong, because I'm not that bright sometimes, but if all of this is about the WWII Assets pack, then yes, $15 solves everything.

 

1 hour ago, Tippis said:

So, again: it has nothing to do with the price. It has to do with pointlessly and needlessly creating hurdles that must be catered for by not erecting them in the first place. That way, and only that way, all those who want to play can play. And you want them all to play. What you're describing is not “those who want to play” because you're wantonly skipping over the most important qualifier: “those who want and have already fully committed to playing”. That is a very different category.

In other words, not all who want to play can play. That's a catastrophically bad position to put yourself in if you want people to play.

 

I don't have custom Porsche because I don't have $150,000. So I can't drive it. Capitalism, and I'm fine with it.

 

I do have $15 for an asset pack that I want in my flightsim. So I can play it. Also capitalism, and I'm fine with it.

 

1 hour ago, Tippis said:

It does. The thing about this sim is that it's free. Its $0 entry point is actually one of its major strengths, especially now when we also have $0 module trial periods. You don't even need much in the way of extra gear beyond what you probably already have as a gamer. It can certainly become costly, sure, but that leads right back to that missing qualifier: those who have already fully committed. That $0 level is the lowest common denominator that you need to consider if you want to achieve any real coherence and critical mass in your community-building. The way to make them commit, and even just a little bit, is to not arbitrarily and for no good reason lock them out the way pay-or-gtfo content does. And that's the other thing about this sim that makes it far less… antagonistic, for the lack of a better term, than its complexity and niche-ness would intuitively suggest: there is precious little such content. It's just the terrains and that very poorly handled asset pack. Again, it's telling that the second time they tried to use the same lock-out system, they ended up deciding not to because of how thoroughly the point and the consequences of that false economy and the detrimental consequences of that lock-out was hammered home.

 

Brother.... it's $15.

 

1 hour ago, Tippis said:

That's unfortunately a useless example because it has exactly zero impact on your ability to join missions where the Apache is present. This is a good thing and you're very happy that the game works that way. So if anything, it is an example of the exact opposite of the point you're trying to make.

 

 

I'm saying we all make choices as to how we spend out money and what enjoyment we want for the money spend. And I hate to bring it up again, but...

 

...it's $15. 

  • Like 2

Some of the planes, but all of the maps!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Paganus said:

Where do you stand on new maps as multiplayer community dividers?  

The logic of the argument is the same isn't it?

 

Yeah you're right the argument is pretty much the same but IMO there's a breakpoint where the type of product sets it in a category logically.  Much like with airframes where if you buy the tomcat you can't also play the hornet.  The maps fit that for me.  The assets pack doesn't do that...  because when you buy Syria/Iran/Nevada/Normandy/channel etc...  you can do whatever you want with it because the assets you'll use on that map are part of the base game.  The WW2 assets don't follow the same logic even when applied to maps.  You're 100% right though...  The split is similar.

I don't have a great answer for you aside from that everyone accepts that about maps.  It's just the way it is with maps.  It makes sense there.  I mean by the other logic you're saying that the assets that come with the game should only EVER be assets that would have or could have been used in a mid-80's-ish conflict in the Caucasus region and all other assets should be separated into asset packs that you need to purchase along with the map to have anything other than Caucasus region conflicts.  It makes no sense and there are significant community repercussions.  If you add a dollar or two to all map sales and make the assets part of the base game...  You don't create problems.

Also...  the logic applied to maps doesn't need to be related to asset packs so that's a non-sequitur anyway.  Maps only split the community based on the map.  Once you own the map you can do whatever you wish with it.  you can put a SC in the Channel and try to sink it with a Mustang if you like.  You can do that with ANYTHING...

Except the WW2 assets...

 

 

2 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

But didn't your crowd just build an argument around... "it has nothing to do with the price"?

No.  We're making an argument about the fact that it needs to be bought.  Not the price.  It's not about value.  It's about what happens within the community when someone doesn't have a particular piece of content.  If it's a map...  I'm ok with it.  If it's an assets pack I'm not.  It's a double split in the case of the assets.  Maybe I'm ok with one split but not two...

Nvidia RTX3080 (HP Reverb), AMD 3800x

Asus Prime X570P, 64GB G-Skill RipJaw 3600

Saitek X-65F and Fanatec Club-Sport Pedals (Using VJoy and Gremlin to remap Throttle and Clutch into a Rudder axis)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Beirut said:

I could be reading this all wrong, because I'm not that bright sometimes, but if all of this is about the WWII Assets pack, then yes, $15 solves everything.

I don't have custom Porsche because I don't have $150,000. So I can't drive it. Capitalism, and I'm fine with it.

I do have $15 for an asset pack that I want in my flightsim. So I can play it. Also capitalism, and I'm fine with it.

Brother.... it's $15.

I'm saying we all make choices as to how we spend out money and what enjoyment we want for the money spend. And I hate to bring it up again, but...

...it's $15. 

It's very interesting that the only argument you can come up with is "I have $15".

Great.

I have a custom Porsche.

It's not the point friend.

The assets pack is on an island splitting the community.  The $15 isn't worth it (again I only paid $5...).  Add a dollar to every other piece of content I've ever bought and you have MORE money AND there's no split.  Look...  The WW2 community is already a niche within a niche that HAS competition...  It doesn't need to be kicked in the damn teeth friend...

 

Maybe that's what puts the maps in a different category for me...  they're expensive enough that they make a real difference and justify their community splitting effect with revenue generated for ED.  I don't know.  I also don't care.  They're in a different category for me.

  • Like 1

Nvidia RTX3080 (HP Reverb), AMD 3800x

Asus Prime X570P, 64GB G-Skill RipJaw 3600

Saitek X-65F and Fanatec Club-Sport Pedals (Using VJoy and Gremlin to remap Throttle and Clutch into a Rudder axis)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, M1Combat said:

It's very interesting that the only argument you can come up with is "I have $15".

 

 

This is a game + games cost money = $15

 

If ya want it, ya buy it. If ya don't want it, ya don't buy it. It really just is that simple.

 

Really, really. :smoke:

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Some of the planes, but all of the maps!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Beirut said:

I could be reading this all wrong, because I'm not that bright sometimes, but if all of this is about the WWII Assets pack, then yes, $15 solves everything.

No. Try reading it again, because I explained in full — twice — why it doesn't. Respond to what I have actually written, rather than just repeat the same misapprehension of what the problem is.

1 hour ago, Beirut said:

I don't have custom Porsche

…and yet you can use the road. So that's a wholly nonsensical example that, if anything, proves the exact opposite of what you want.

Oh, and you might be shocked to learn that DCS does not actually cost any money. This is a good thing.

 

2 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

So if its not about the price, then there is absolutely no reason for anyone interested in joining a MP server not to join.

It's not about the price because we want them to join the server, and to make that happen, we cannot put any unnecessary obstacles in their way.

2 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

So you spent hundreds if not thousands on a computer rig, HOTAS, VR,... blah, blah, blah. Then you paid full swat for the Mossie because you just couldn't wait, but then again wait.... you can't join the MP server of your choice because your trying to take some sort of rebel stand against paying $15 for an assets pack?

Really?

No, not really. In fact, that's in every detail pretty much the exact opposite of what I was describing. Instead, the situations is that you had a computer for whatever reason — maybe it was even handed to you. You then got hoodwinked into trying this weirdo DCS thing that everyone kept talking up and showing all kinds of fancy/funny videos and images and posts about it, and why not? It's free, after all. They even provided some helpful getting started lessons over a voice channel to get you over the initial complexity hump and to get all the necessary MP bits and bobs working. But then it turns out that, no, that was all pointless because someone put a single searchlight into the mission on the server and now you can't play. And thus, because of that searchlight, you lose interest and we either outright lose a potential community member or have forcibly created an A team and a B team — a split community, if you will.

2 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

You are right in that not having a particular plane/jet/helicopter will not prevent you from flying a mission like the assets pack will,

…and that's all that matters. It's why all those other comparisons are not actually the same thing. They don't split the community because they inherently can't. The asset pack, by very definition of its built-in restriction and by design, does. One blocks people from joining a mission; one does not. Those two outcomes are not the same thing, because the restrictions are not the same.

The simple fact of the matter is that the lock-out mechanic in the WWII asset pack undeniably and by very definition splits the community. This is intentional and by design, as we can tell from the fact that they have since released another for-pay asset pack that didn't feature this lock-out. And at the end of the day, splitting the community is contrary to the interests of anyone trying to build such a community. This realisation is in part why that second asset pack ended up being designed the way it was, in spite of first being designed with a lock-out in place.

  • Like 1

❧ ❧ Inside you are two wolves. One cannot land; the other shoots friendlies. You are a Goon. ❧ ❧

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Tippis said:

 

Oh, and you might be shocked to learn that DCS does not actually cost any money. This is a good thing.

 

 

Then why is any of this being discussed? You can all play the free version with nary a community split in sight. None. Nada. Problem solved.

 

Or...

 

You  go down the payware route.... and you pay. 

  • Like 1

Some of the planes, but all of the maps!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, M1Combat said:

Yeah you're right the argument is pretty much the same but IMO there's a breakpoint where the type of product sets it in a category logically.  Much like with airframes where if you buy the tomcat you can't also play the hornet.  The maps fit that for me.  The assets pack doesn't do that...  because when you buy Syria/Iran/Nevada/Normandy/channel etc...  you can do whatever you want with it because the assets you'll use on that map are part of the base game.  The WW2 assets don't follow the same logic even when applied to maps.  You're 100% right though...  The split is similar.

I don't have a great answer for you aside from that everyone accepts that about maps.  It's just the way it is with maps.  It makes sense there.  I mean by the other logic you're saying that the assets that come with the game should only EVER be assets that would have or could have been used in a mid-80's-ish conflict in the Caucasus region and all other assets should be separated into asset packs that you need to purchase along with the map to have anything other than Caucasus region conflicts.  It makes no sense and there are significant community repercussions.  If you add a dollar or two to all map sales and make the assets part of the base game...  You don't create problems.

Also...  the logic applied to maps doesn't need to be related to asset packs so that's a non-sequitur anyway.  Maps only split the community based on the map.  Once you own the map you can do whatever you wish with it.  you can put a SC in the Channel and try to sink it with a Mustang if you like.  You can do that with ANYTHING...

Except the WW2 assets...

 

 

No.  We're making an argument about the fact that it needs to be bought.  Not the price.  It's not about value.  It's about what happens within the community when someone doesn't have a particular piece of content.  If it's a map...  I'm ok with it.  If it's an assets pack I'm not.  It's a double split in the case of the assets.  Maybe I'm ok with one split but not two...

I appreciate your honest reply about pay for maps dividing the MP community, but saying people just accept it because maps are different is totally outside the argument you've been making. It's not logical, it's just how you feel about it. 

In your model map purchasers will subsidize assets for everyone else, even those that never buy a map. 

In the current model you get what you paid for, including those that might only want the assets and not the maps.

This is why I feel the current model is more fair and direct.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Beirut said:

Then why is any of this being discussed?

Because the barriers created by lock-out asset packs split the community. That's a bad thing.
Your having $15 and games costing money do not make the bad thing go away — in the first instance because the split is still there, enforced by code, and in the other instance because the statement is untrue and isn't actually applicable to this case.

Also, you only suggest two out of (at least) four different option. Two (and possibly more) of those options neatly circumvent the problem entirely.


Edited by Tippis
  • Like 1

❧ ❧ Inside you are two wolves. One cannot land; the other shoots friendlies. You are a Goon. ❧ ❧

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tippis said:

Because the barriers created by lock-out asset packs split the community. That's a bad thing.

 

Every single payware module splits the community. I can't fly the Mi-8 mission with the guys tonight because I don't own it. SPLIT! I can't fly the JF-17 mission with the guys tonight because I don't own it. SPLIT! I can't fly with the Gazelle mission with the guys tonight because I don't own it. SPLIT!  And on and on and on.

 

That's a lot of split communities.

 

2 minutes ago, Tippis said:

Also, you only suggest two out of (at least) four different option. Two (and possibly more) of those options neatly circumvent the problem entirely.

 

The problem is solved entirely... with $15.

  • Like 2

Some of the planes, but all of the maps!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Beirut said:

Every single payware module splits the community.

Nope. Almost none of them do, in fact.

6 minutes ago, Beirut said:

I can't fly the Mi-8 mission with the guys tonight because I don't own it.

…but you can join the mission and play with them anyway, so you're not being split apart from the rest of the guys. You're all having fun together.

6 minutes ago, Beirut said:

The problem is solved entirely... with $15.

Nope. Being on the other side of the split does not mean the split is no longer there.

Oh, and with your fabulous wealth of $15, could you please send over 50 or so asset pack licenses? If you can't, then no, the problem isn't even addressed, much less solved, with $15.


Edited by Tippis

❧ ❧ Inside you are two wolves. One cannot land; the other shoots friendlies. You are a Goon. ❧ ❧

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Beirut said:

Every single payware module splits the community. I can't fly the Mi-8 mission with the guys tonight because I don't own it. SPLIT! I can't fly the JF-17 mission with the guys tonight because I don't own it. SPLIT! I can't fly with the Gazelle mission with the guys tonight because I don't own it. SPLIT!  And on and on and on.

You can join servers that contain modules that you don't own without a problem, the same cannot be said of the asset pack - that is the issue here.

1 minute ago, Beirut said:

That's a lot of split communities.

The problem is solved entirely... with $15.

Again, it almost has nothing to do with how much it costs, it's the fact that owners and non-owners can't be on the same MP server.

Despite the fact that (apart from maps) no other module does this.

  • Like 1

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, freehand said:

So what happens to all the people who have bought the asset packs you suggest a refund ? 

The solution to the asset pack is to implement it in such a way such that owners and non-owners can play on the same server - like every other module apart from maps.

You can still have payware asset packs and have them not split up multiplayer - again, every other module does this.

 

Perhaps it could be done such that assets are only visible to non-owners (even at a reduced level of detail) in MP missions (with perhaps no CA functionality) - requiring only that the host purchase the pack.

But make it so that the asset pack is unavailable for their own missions, and SP missions using the asset pack are unavailable.


Edited by Northstar98

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Tippis said:

Nope. Almost none of them do, in fact.

…but you can join the mission and play with them anyway, so you're not being split apart from the rest of the guys. You're all having fun together.

Nope. Being on the other side of the split does not mean the split is no longer there.

Oh, and with your fabulous wealth of $15, could you please send over 50 or so asset pack licenses? If you can't, then no, the problem isn't even addressed, much less solved, with $15.

 

 

I'm not here to cure your problems. It's best if each person deals with their own. More learning gets done. 

 

You know what all this is? It's four guys having lunch and one of them didn't order fries with his burger. Now he's at the table looking at the other guys with fries, either thinking about bumming a few or going back and getting himself some. 

 

Ya want fries - ya buy fries. 

  • Like 1

Some of the planes, but all of the maps!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Beirut said:

I'm not here to cure your problems.

Then don't suggest it as a cure.

Just now, Beirut said:

You know what all this is? It's four guys having lunch and one of them didn't order fries with his burger. Now he's at the table looking at the other guys with fries, either thinking about bumming a few or going back and getting himself some. 

No. This is four guys having lunch and one of them didn't order fries so he must go to a different restaurant and not have lunch with other guys at all.

This, of course, is a setup that ruins it for everyone involved except the competing restaurant who suddenly got a new customer through no effort of their own.

  • Like 1

❧ ❧ Inside you are two wolves. One cannot land; the other shoots friendlies. You are a Goon. ❧ ❧

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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