A question about a possible Korean War asset pack

[Northstar98]

2 minutes ago, Paganus said:

The one fact that you guys pushing for no pay asset packs keep ignoring is maps! If you really believe the asset pack divides the online community then you should be equally if not more against new pay maps.

1. Hardly anyone is pushing for no payware asset packs.
2. Maps have been addressed a few times now.
3. A thread concerning asset packs is going to concern, well, asset packs...
4. Payware addons aren't the issue, server compatability between owners and non-owners is and it doesn't necessarily follow from merely payware stuff.

6 minutes ago, Paganus said:

Otherwise your argument is broken and irrelevant. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

[Paganus]

Has been addressed? Where? 

 

By saying I feel maps are different? Or Don't make the problem worse with assets? 

Really? Is that really all you've got?

Someone, please spell it out for me. How can you be against pay for asset packs but for  pay for maps?

 

[SharpeXB]

2 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

I can play on a server that has modules I don't own, I can't do the same with the asset pack - it's really that simple.

Yes but if the assets are in the mission, as ground targets or objectives etc then a player is getting the benefit of “using” them without paying. If you can do that why would anyone buy the asset pack?

[Beirut]

1 minute ago, Tippis said:

 

Nope. This is just you getting confused about what we want again. But that's good — it's exactly why I asked you to clarify what you believe we wanted.

It's not that. If you want to get a good understanding of what we want then, as mentioned, you need to dump your misapprehension that it's about buying things and instead actually read what people have been telling you. It has been stated very clearly, explicitly, with every conceivable emphasis. Relying on this tired and long disproven strawman you're clinging to will not help.

 

 

I'm not confused at all. All of this is so simple it's almost painful: some people just don't want to spend the $15 to be able to fly in servers that use the Assets Pack.

 

My heart bleeds for them, but such is life. Cough up the $15 on get on with it. 

[Callsign112]

I didn't say your disappointing me, I said I think your slipping a little. I have to admit though, this entire conversation has turned a little bit humorous to say the least. As long as it stays civil, I think we will be okay on this one.

Its weak because the assets aren't what's dividing the community, it is the people that are choosing to be divided.

I don't see any point in continuing the discussion on whether or not your argument has anything to do with buying the assets pack when the very point of your argument stems from the fact that a group of people didn't buy it. We're just going to have to let the logic catch up to you on this point.

Take a step back for a moment @Northstar98, because the points you make are usually really well thought out. The movie in the example given is more analogous to a map/asset. Its value is appreciated more visually. The plane module you fly is more like the popcorn. Its value is more of a teeth/hands-on proposition.

But IMO, the assets pack holds a lot of value. And I for one hope its value continues to expand. Whether you are a SP only, MP, or both, the assets pack is well worth it. As a single player guy, I can tell you my missions are a lot more interesting because I have it. But even if all it does is give you access to MP servers, how do you argue against a one-time admission fee of $15? And its not just access to MP servers, it also gives you access to any campaigns that require it as well.

So anyone new following this thread, don't fall for the fake argument that your are being locked out of MP servers. Pick the asset pack up when its on sale for $15. For starters, you wont have to bother with the whole "I forgot my shoes so they won't let me in the restaurant' fiasco.

And then as you expand your horizons in DCS and get interested in some of the really good campaign content available, your all ready good to go. No fuss, no muss.

And then probably much later on, when you decide to tackle the beast within that is the mission editor, you will be very happy you bought the Assets pack, and will likely be scratching your head wondering what all this was about.  

[Northstar98]

8 minutes ago, Beirut said:

Then they can grow up, quit whining, and pay for their toys like everyone else.

But it isn't their toys they're paying for!

I don't own the JF-17, if I want to play on a server with the JF-17 I can.

If I don't own the asset pack (I do), and I want to play on a server that's using it, I cannot.

8 minutes ago, Beirut said:

And if they think that's not fair, well, fair is back at their childhood home in a box under the bed with the LEGOs and colouring books.

1. Would it be better if things were made more fair or not?
2. If things can be made more fair, should they be?

I can't wait to see your answer for this.

[Beirut]

1 minute ago, Northstar98 said:

But it isn't their toys they're paying for!

 

If Joe Flighthead wants to sit his azz in front of his rig and do some flying, then everything in that equation is his. It only becomes not his when he isn't flying. 

 

 

1 minute ago, Northstar98 said:

I don't own the JF-17, if I want to play on a server with the JF-17 I can.

If I don't own the asset pack (I do), and I want to play on a server that's using it, I cannot.

1. Would it be better if things were made more fair or not?
2. If things can be made more fair, should they be?

I can't wait to see your answer for this.

 

As stated, fair is in a box under your old bed with your old toys and your Winnie the Pooh cereal bowl you left there.

 

All of this....................... for $15 that you guys admit is not a problem to pay out. 

 

If there were a problem smaller than this, it would collapse into some kind of psychic black hole and pop out of our universal existence.

[Tippis]

18 minutes ago, Beirut said:

I'm not confused at all.

Then what caused your description of what we want to be so massively off-based and unrelated to what has been clearly expressed as the thing we want?

If not because of confusion, was it perhaps malice?

  

8 minutes ago, Beirut said:

All of this....................... for $15 that you guys admit is not a problem to pay out. 

…and which therefore are neither part of the problem nor the solution, so the sooner you stop wilfully misapprehending the problem, the sooner your confusion will end and you'll be able to start offering actual relevant arguments to the discussion at hand.

 

18 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

Its weak because the assets aren't what's dividing the community, it is the people that are choosing to be divided.

The code that dictates who is allowed on a server and not is what divides the community. That's what the code is there for. That code is tied to the assets. No amount of player choice will make the code do anything else.

18 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

So anyone new following this thread, don't fall for the fake argument that your are being locked out of MP servers

It is not a fake argument. It's a matter of fact. That's simply how the game is coded.

18 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

But IMO, the assets pack holds a lot of value. And I for one hope its value continues to expand. Whether you are a SP only, MP, or both, the assets pack is well worth it. As a single player guy, I can tell you my missions are a lot more interesting because I have it. But even if all it does is give you access to MP servers, how do you argue against a one-time admission fee of $15?

Because as all other assets demonstrate, the fee is wholly unnecessary. The asset packs hold a lot of value, and that's what (hopefully) makes them worth buying, but that is not a reason to arbitrarily and needlessly lock people out of servers for not owning them. If the only value lies in the mere presence of those assets, they'd better be made from ultrararium-plated unobtainium. Fortunately, though, that's not really what creates the value of the asset packs for the buyers. Rather, it's in the interactions and increased creativity in creation that they allow — the tie-ins with other modules (CA most notably, but also with specific maps, or with expansions of core systems or even specific airplane modules).

All of that can demonstrably be had by the buyers without imparting any restrictions on participation among non-buyers.

Edited February 23, 2022 by Tippis

[Beirut]

Just now, Tippis said:

Then what caused your description of what we want to be so massively off-based and unrelated to what has been clearly expressed as the thing we want?

 

 

My description is perfectly accurate: you are complaining about something you want to have, can have, and are happy to pay for. 

 

Yep.

 

 

Just now, Tippis said:

If not because of confusion, was it perhaps malice?

 

 

What's with you and these little accusations? Seems kind of desperate. Before it was trolling, now it's malice. What's next in your repertoire, will I be the mystery man in the internet grassy knoll?

[Tippis]

Just now, Beirut said:

My description is perfectly accurate: you are complaining about something you want to have, can have, and are happy to pay for. 

Nope. Would you care to try again, this time perhaps citing something any of us has actually said rather than some fanciful fantasy you've conjured up from who-knows-where?

Just now, Beirut said:

What's with you and these little accusations?

If you can offer a third option to explain the mismatch between what you wrote and what has actually been said, by all means share it.

So far, it's just plain old Hanlon's razor.

 

[Callsign112]

3 minutes ago, Tippis said:

...The code that dictates who is allowed on a server and not is what divides the community. That's what the code is there for. That code is tied to the assets. No amount of player choice will make the code do anything else.

It is not a fake argument. It's a matter of fact. That's simply how the game is coded.

Because as all other assets demonstrate, the fee is wholly unnecessary. The asset packs hold a lot of value, and that's what (hopefully) makes them worth buying, but that is not a reason to arbitrarily and needlessly lock people out of servers for not owning them. If the only value lies in the mere presence of those assets, they'd better be made from ultrararium-plated unobtainium. But that's not really what creates the value of the asset packs for the buyers. Rather, it's in the interactions and increased creativity in creation that they allow — the tie-ins with other modules (CA most notably, but also with specific maps, or with expansions of core systems or even specific airplane modules).

All of that can demonstrably be had by the buyers without imparting any restrictions on participation among non-buyers.

To the black bold text above, it actually takes very little player choice to make a world of difference as it relates to this conversation. Al any player has to do is decide he/she is going to buy the assets pack.

To the purple bold text above, I completely agree. This is exactly why any player would decide to buy the assets pack. It holds a lot of value even if all that is being considered is the front row seat it gets you on your MP server/campaign of choice.

To the red bold text above I completely disagree. Not because I want to add more comedy to this discussion, but because there is a fundamental principle of business that is being trespassed here, and I find it hard to believe you don't see it as well. Sticking with the movie example above, what should we tell the guy in the ticket booth, your going to just eat popcorn and you promise not to peak?

[Tippis]

1 minute ago, Callsign112 said:

To the black bold text above, it actually takes very little player choice to make a world of difference as it relates to this conversation.

Only in the sense of “very little” = “none at all”, because again this is hard-coded into the asset pack itself. Player choice will not change that (unless we go down a very silly route dealing with hacks and anti-DRM, which won't exactly endear us to ED if we tried to discuss it ).

1 minute ago, Callsign112 said:

To the red bold text above I completely disagree.

Just one problem: we know this for a fact to be true. I mean, feel free to disagree, but you're disagreeing with how all asset modules aside from the WWII asset pack function. SC in particular proved such restrictions to be completely arbitrary and unnecessary. Even looking at the business side, ED once created exactly one asset pack that came with a restriction that set it apart from all other assets in the game. When the time came for them to start selling a new asset pack, they at first thought about restricting it as well, but then decided that this was not in their best interest. Most likely for business reasons. They had a choice (being the only ones who can actually control this); they chose not to.

And we shouldn't really stick to the movie example because as was demonstrated, it didn't actually match up with how the game functions. But sure: going by the movie example above, we don't tell the guy in the ticket booth anything. We don't need to. We simply show the legit admission ticket we already have to the guy checking at the entrance, and he doesn't care one whit about whether we have popcorn or not. (Granted, the simile gets a bit skewed by the occasional cinema policy that restricts us from bringing third-party snacks in… but that would be a whole separate kind of content that's not been part of the discussion so far — maybe IC could play that part).

 

10 minutes ago, Beirut said:

 

In the swamp of melodrama and multisyllabic verbiage that has oozed about this "poor divided us" MP issue, the truth of it is simple and clear:

You cannot find a single instance of us actually saying the words you want to put in our mouths and cannot find any citation to support your point.

11 minutes ago, Beirut said:

My retort is thus: if someone is too cheap to shell out the $15, then they can shove off and go play War Thunder. I think it's fre

So is DCS. I take it you couldn't find a third explanation for your misrepresentation, then? So we're back to the same question: which one was it — confusion or malice?

[Callsign112]

14 minutes ago, Tippis said:

Only in the sense of “very little” = “none at all”, because again this is hard-coded into the asset pack itself. Player choice will not change that (unless we go down a very silly route dealing with hacks and anti-DRM, which won't exactly endear us to ED if we tried to discuss it ).

Just one problem: we know this for a fact to be true. I mean, feel free to disagree, but you're disagreeing with how all asset modules aside from the WWII asset pack function. SC in particular proved such restrictions to be completely arbitrary and unnecessary. Even looking at the business side, ED once created exactly one asset pack that came with a restriction that set it apart from all other assets in the game. When the time came for them to start selling a new asset pack, they at first thought about restricting it as well, but then decided that this was not in their best interest. Most likely for business reasons. They had a choice (being the only ones who can actually control this); they chose not to.

And we shouldn't really stick to the movie example because as was demonstrated, it didn't actually match up with how the game functions. But sure: going by the movie example above, we don't tell the guy in the ticket booth anything. We don't need to. We simply show the legit admission ticket we already have to the guy checking at the entrance, and he doesn't care one whit about whether we have popcorn or not. (Granted, the simile gets a bit skewed by the occasional cinema policy that restricts us from bringing third-party snacks in… but that would be a whole separate kind of content that's not been part of the discussion so far — maybe IC could play that part).

 

You cannot find a single instance of us actually saying the words you want to put in our mouths and cannot find any citation to support your point.

So is DCS. I take it you couldn't find a third explanation for your misrepresentation, then? So we're back to the same question: which one was it — confusion or malice?

I think you missed my point, all a player has to do is choose to buy the assets pack, and he/she will circumvent the code that is keep you from joining the server. No need to use a hack.

 

As a principle of business, you are normally restricted from using things you haven't purchased. If you wold like to see more assets added in less time, pretty much the only way this could even have a chance of happening is if you support the assets pack with a purchase. Which leads me to ask if you don't mind, do you actually own the assets pack?

[upyr1]

4 hours ago, Paganus said:

Why are maps different. The argument being made here about assets dividing the MP community applies equally to maps, and yet you're ok with that. Why is it different?

The main differnce is it is easier to avoid a server with a map you don't own. There are three options either Eagle can give us a filter to avoid asset packs, set up some way where you can play without an asset pack or Eagle could do playable modules eitherway the question is would you rather have a Korean war asset pack that over laps with WWII , a cold war asset pack or a 1950s asset pack ? 

[Paganus]

I understand that was how this started and I would be happy for any asset pack of quality. The conversation for the last 4 pages has diverged into and argument about the asset pack dividing the MP community.

I'm simply trying to get more than one of the asset pack detractors to admit that maps divide the MP community in exactly the same way as the WW2 asset pack, and there are more of them and more on the way.

I think a filter isn't a bad idea, but I don't think that's going to satisfy the asset pack detractors from the last 4 pages of this thread.

[Tippis]

23 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

I think you missed my point, all a player has to do is choose to buy the assets pack, and he/she will circumvent the code that is keep you from joining the server. No need to use a hack.

And as has been explained in full, this doesn't actually solve the problem of splitting the community. The code put in there specifically for that purpose still exists and still does its job of splitting the community. Just because you're on the other side of the split doesn't mean the split isn't there, and as long as it exists, the only sensible way for server managers and mission makers to deal with that is to not use the assets that cause that split.

This harms everyone, but is better than the alternative.

 

23 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

As a principle of business, you are normally restricted from using things you haven't purchased. If you wold like to see more assets added in less time, pretty much the only way this could even have a chance of happening is if you support the assets pack with a purchase.

And none of that changes with the removal of the restriction. Again, SC shows how (and even if it didn't, all other assets in the game save for the WWII ones do as well). What you pay for — the part that supports the development — is the actual use. The presence of an asset in a mission is separate from the use of that asset (and this is the distinction that makes Beirut's wilful misrepresentation so utterly silly: because it ultimately hinges on a lack of distinction that isn't actually there).

More than that, the presence of those assets serves as advertisement for the use. If you're barred from even noticing the presence, then you miss out on a lot of indirect (and direct) enticement to pay for the fabled popcorn as well.

 

23 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

Which leads me to ask if you don't mind, do you actually own the assets pack?

Scattered campaigns aside, there is exactly one thing in DCS I don't own: the T.1 Hawk. This choice does not alter the fact that I can't run a WWII-asset mission on any of my servers; that if I do, all that happens is that I get an empty server while all the guys go somewhere else to play together; that a single searchlight render can render all my module and hardware and infrastructure purchases immediately worthless and pointless, ultimately heavily disincentivising me from buying whatever module ED comes up with next. Thus, no seachlights allowed, and everyone — including you — are happier and better off for it. What would make everyone even more happy and better off is if that restriction didn't exist, giving designers free reign to use any weirdo combination of assets in the missions that go on the server.

Edited February 23, 2022 by Tippis

[upyr1]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

Yes but if the assets are in the mission, as ground targets or objectives etc then a player is getting the benefit of “using” them without paying. If you can do that why would anyone buy the asset pack?

This is one of the few times I think you have been making a good point. I think at the minimum we should be able to filter out servers that use asset packs. Back to the question though would you rather see a 1950s asset pack or a 1950s asset pack that overlaps with WWII 

5 minutes ago, Paganus said:

I understand that was how this started and I would be happy for any asset pack of quality. The conversation for the last 4 pages has diverged into and argument about the asset pack dividing the MP community.

I'm simply trying to get more than one of the asset pack detractors to admit that maps divide the MP community in exactly the same way as the WW2 asset pack, and there are more of them and more on the way.

I think a filter isn't a bad idea, but I don't think that's going to satisfy the asset pack detractors from the last 4 pages of this thread.

I have to agree that I don't like where this thread is going, as I would rather try to get the community to think about how the Korean war should be done. Should we get a Korean war asset pack that overlaps with World War II or a 1950s asset pack? 

[Tippis]

5 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

I have to agree that I don't like where this thread is going, as I would rather try to get the community to think about how the Korean war should be done. Should we get a Korean war asset pack that overlaps with World War II or a 1950s asset pack? 

As long as it played by SC rules rather than WWII asset pack rules, the exact selection wouldn't really matter. If the WWII asset pack was remade to also play by SC rules, it would probably make more sense to keep them distinct with no overlap, though.

Edited February 23, 2022 by Tippis

[SharpeXB]

Just now, upyr1 said:

This is one of the few times I think you have been making a good point. I think at the minimum we should be able to filter out servers that use asset packs. Back to the question though would you rather see a 1950s asset pack or a 1950s asset pack that overlaps with WWII 

The server can simply list that an asset pack is required in the description. There aren’t that many servers in DCS. I suppose if there were, a filter option for any module could be part of the GUI

 

A Korea map and asset pack would be a great idea. Probably just for variety’s sake maybe it shouldn’t overlap WWII

[upyr1]

11 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

The server can simply list that an asset pack is required in the description. There aren’t that many servers in DCS. I suppose if there were, a filter option for any module could be part of the GUI

 

A Korea map and asset pack would be a great idea. Probably just for variety’s sake maybe it shouldn’t overlap WWII

So the cold war asset pack. The main argument for the overlap is the simple fact both sides used leftover WWII equipment so it won't require the use of two asset packs in a single mission. As long as you don't have to buy an asset twice I don't see a problem with overlapping

Edited February 23, 2022 by upyr1

[Northstar98]

9 hours ago, Paganus said:

Has been addressed? Where?

Maps splitting MP has already been discussed in this thread as problematic, but maps aren't the focus of the thread.

I personally am okay with the map situation because the same solutions that could be applied to the asset pack don't necessarily apply to the maps, and even where they do, it would be harder to implement.

9 hours ago, Paganus said:

By saying I feel maps are different? Or Don't make the problem worse with assets? 

Really? Is that really all you've got?

What is this whataboutism shtick you going down? Again, this is a thread about asset packs, not maps - stop trying to derail the thread.

And to say that our concerns about asset packs splitting the community (and NOT  being payware in and of itself) is null and void if we don't think the same about map, then again, see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

Not only is it an appeal to hypocrisy, it's an appeal to perceived hypocrisy that isn't even there.

9 hours ago, Paganus said:

Someone, please spell it out for me. How can you be against pay for asset packs but for  pay for maps?

Very simple: we aren't against paid for assets and maps...

This is a misunderstanding (and a pretty common one it seems, despite how many times the position is clearly stated, even in bold, italics, full capslock and size 48 fonts - I would've thought that would've made it near impossible to miss, but it keeps being missed, over and over and over again).

I don't feel as strongly about maps, because it's much more difficult to have maps not split the community up, but still be paid for - as it would involve creating a free map of the area.

I should mention however, that there are titles with paid for maps, that don't split the community up.

9 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Yes but if the assets are in the mission, as ground targets or objectives etc then a player is getting the benefit of “using” them without paying. If you can do that why would anyone buy the asset pack?

This has already been addressed, the idea I proposed is to have the assets at far lower quality (even if it was just an untextured cube taking up the same area), while being unavailable in SP missions or for missions created by non-owners.

But that's hardly the only solution.

Another possible alternative is for the assets to be replaced with a placeholder model taken from the existing free assets.

9 hours ago, Beirut said:

If Joe Flighthead wants to sit his azz in front of his rig and do some flying, then everything in that equation is his. It only becomes not his when he isn't flying.

Doesn't even address the point in the slightest.

9 hours ago, Beirut said:

As stated, fair is in a box under your old bed with your old toys and your Winnie the Pooh cereal bowl you left there.

So I take it you don't have an answer for either of them?

1. Would it be better if things could be made more fair or wouldn't it?
2. If things can be made more fair, should they be?

9 hours ago, Beirut said:

All of this....................... for $15 that you guys admit is not a problem to pay out.

If there were a problem smaller than this, it would collapse into some kind of psychic black hole and pop out of our universal existence.

Well done on misrepresenting the argument, yet again.

8 hours ago, Beirut said:

My retort is thus: if someone is too cheap to shell out the $15, then they can shove off and go play War Thunder. I think it's free. Buh-bye! 

And so is DCS, and so is joining a multiplayer server with any other module but the asset pack.

Whoops!

7 hours ago, upyr1 said:

eitherway the question is would you rather have a Korean war asset pack that over laps with WWII , a cold war asset pack or a 1950s asset pack ? 

If you were to do a 50s asset pack, it should focus on the 50s.

If there are however some assets that overlap with WWII and the 50s (and there are), then I think they could overlap somewhat, but they should try and be distinct.

Edited February 23, 2022 by Northstar98

[Northstar98]

Just now, Beirut said:

But the Asset Pack costs $15 on sale, so there is a problem. But you have both said many times that paying for it is not a problem.

I've said that the asset pack being payware is not a problem.

It's up to people purchasing it to decide whether it is worth their money, regardless of how much it costs - I can't decide that for them.

The problem is that the current implementation needlessly splits multiplayer up, compared to other payware addons, even payware addons that are just assets with no extra functionality (such as the SC Kuznetsov and Arleigh Burke).

Why is this so difficult?

Just now, Beirut said:

Then pay for it and there is no problem. Everyone has the same stuff. Un-split community.

Why do you think that having the asset pack be payware and it not splitting multiplayer up (and thus harming everyone) is a mutually exclusive concept?

This has been explained to you over and over and over and over again, it has gotten beyond ridiculous. I mean, you don't even acknowledge it at all.

3 minutes ago, Beirut said:

But there is a problem. Only one problem... some people don't want to shell out the $15. And that, boys and girls, is their problem. 

No that isn't the only problem, nor is it a problem at all...

People should only purchase items if they think they are worth the money - something only they can decide.

The problem with the asset pack, is that it owner and non-owners can't play on the same server, something that isn't the case for every other payware addition apart from maps.

[Beirut]

Just now, Northstar98 said:

I've said that the asset pack being payware is not a problem.

It's up to people purchasing it to decide whether it is worth their money, regardless of how much it costs - I can't decide that for them.

The problem is that the current implementation needlessly splits multiplayer up, compared to other payware addons, even payware addons that are just assets with no extra functionality (such as the SC Kuznetsov and Arleigh Burke).

Why is this so difficult?

Why do you think that having the asset pack be payware and it not splitting multiplayer up (and thus harming everyone) is a mutually exclusive concept?

This has been explained to you over and over and over and over again, it has gotten beyond ridiculous. I mean, you don't even acknowledge it at all.

No that isn't the only problem, nor is it a problem at all...

People should only purchase items if they think they are worth the money - something only they can decide.

The problem with the asset pack, is that it owner and non-owners can't play on the same server, something that isn't the case for every other payware addition apart from maps.

 

Good morning 

 

As my esteemed fellow flyer @Callsign112 put it so excellently: As a principle of business, you are normally restricted from using things you haven't purchased. 

 

It really truly veritably absolutely positively is exactly this simple: Pay the $15.

 

 

 

 

 

 

As Callsign

[Tippis]

44 minutes ago, Beirut said:

If DCS is also free, then there is no problem.

Yes there is. What is confusing is your adamant insistence that the problem must be related to price or cost in some way, because you have a hard time getting your head around what we mean when we say that the problem is not one of price or cost.

Drop your imagined non-issue and start reading what we're actually saying.

DCS being free does not solve the problem because the problem is not related to price or cost.

The low cost of getting access to the asset pack is not a solution because the problem is not related to price or cost.

Your precious $15 is not relevant to the topic at hand because the problem is not related to price or cost.

Every time you bring up price or cost, your input is immediately made irrelevant to the topic at hand since the problem is not related to price or cost.

Can you spot the pattern here? Are you at all able to internalise why your inane nonsense is worthless as input to the thread?

44 minutes ago, Beirut said:

But the Asset Pack costs $15 on sale, so there is a problem.

There is a problem, yes, but it is not related to the price or cost of the asset pack, be it on sale or not.

44 minutes ago, Beirut said:

But you have both said many times that paying for it is not a problem.

Yes. So why are you having such a catastrophically difficult time to understand that the problem is not related to price or cost? Why do you keep bringing up price and cost when we have clarified over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over that price and cost is not related to the problem at hand? What part of “the problem is not related to price or cost” are you having a hard time parsing or understanding?

44 minutes ago, Beirut said:

But there is a problem. Only one problem.

No. There are many problems. Price and cost are just not part of it.

23 minutes ago, Beirut said:

 As a principle of business, you are normally restricted from using things you haven't purchased. 

That principle does not apply  to DCS, and even less to its competition. If you are that unfamiliar with how the game works, then maybe you should go off and do some research before you inject your nonsensical and long disproven assumptions into the thread and trying to make some unrelated and irrelevant factor meaningful solely for the purpose of letting you spout your tiresome non-solution to an unrelated non-issue.

 

This is really the only question you need to answer at this point, and any further evasion and trying to bring in irrelevant non-factors prove once and for all that in spite of your assertions to the contrary, your presence in this thread only ever serves the purpose of trolling and going off-topic. Why that is is anyone's guess, but that it is exactly and only that will be made abundantly clear by further attempted evasions.

So, if you want to avoid outing yourself as a nothing but a simple troll then answer this: what is it about the problem we have described — and only the one we have described, not the silly strawman you keep erecting — that is difficult for you to understand?

Edited February 23, 2022 by Tippis

[Beirut]

17 minutes ago, Tippis said:

 . . . the problem is not one of price or cost.

 

 

They buy it.

 

Problem solved.

 

You're welcome.