Jump to content

A question about a possible Korean War asset pack


upyr1

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Beirut said:

Tell ya what, let's give more than our words. Let us help fix this plague of division and inequity and heal the wounds of the plighted. Let us feed the hungry, bring whiskey to the parched, and give great big ******* Panzers to those who need them.

That's very nice, but it's not really related to the discussion at hand, now is it?

Now, could you please answer the question: how do you easily remedy the indisputable fact that creating a restriction on who can and cannot join a server creates two different teams: those you can and those who can't join the server?

 

  • 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

1 minute ago, Tippis said:

That's very nice, but it's not really related to the discussion at hand, now is it?

Now, could you please answer the question: how do you easily remedy the indisputable fact that creating a restriction on who can and cannot join a server creates two different teams: those you can and those who can't join the server?

 

 

You have said many many times that the cost is not a problem at all. The situation exists and will not change soon.

 

Are you going to chip in and gift an Asset Pack with me or just talk?

Some of the planes, but all of the maps!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Northstar98 said:

EUREKA! We finally got there!

So there will be a tangible incentive to purchase the asset pack, while not splitting up the MP community for people who don't own it!

People can join the servers no problem, but they have to contend with much lower quality assets, thus solving the problem me an Tippis have been talking about entirely.

If they want to have the assets at high quality, they need to purchase it, and you've demonstrated that the incentive to do so still exists.

Why not?

 

Because, many people don't spend their time in external views, gawping at the assets. The asset is being used, even with a blob or placeholder model. When I'm flying a ww2 mission say, I'm not put out at all by a placeholder flak gun shooting at me. I don't see the unit as such, just the effect, I'm still 'Using' the asset I haven't paid for.

As I've said. I see your point. I just don't agree with it. 

For me, I wish there were more asset packs to buy and have more people being paid to build and place new assets into the game. I couldn't really care an inch if that means somebody can't join a multiplayer server and have a 1930's Japanese AA gun firing at his F-16 over the Caucasus. Let him weep.

  • Like 1

i7-9700F, 32Gb RAM, RTX 2080 Super, HP Reverb G2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Beirut said:

You have said many many times that the cost is not a problem at all.

Indeed I have.

Now, could you please answer the question: how do you easily remedy the indisputable fact that creating a restriction on who can and cannot join a server creates two different teams: those you can and those who can't join the server? The same hints as before still apply.

Also, while you're thinking about that, could you also give your rationale for why it's in everyone's best interest that ED disincentivises the sales and production of the most critical component that keeps the game alive: varied content that caters to a broad audience?

  • 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

4 minutes ago, Tippis said:

That's very nice, but it's not really related to the discussion at hand, now is it?

Now, could you please answer the question: how do you easily remedy the indisputable fact that creating a restriction on who can and cannot join a server creates two different teams: those you can and those who can't join the server?

 

I don't care that there's two teams. That is your concern. You're asking me to justify not having a solution to something that I don't think is a problem. You may as well ask me my drainage solution for the Sahara. I do not care.

  • Like 4

i7-9700F, 32Gb RAM, RTX 2080 Super, HP Reverb G2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Tippis said:

Because I run a server and immediately have to deal with the complains when people are locked out.

Really? How? We have already fully established that $30 does not solve the problem. You even proved it yourself when given the offer to provide that supposed solution. Suggesting that it does means that you don't understand what the problem is, which is why I asked you to clarify what you thought we were saying.

So, again, how do you easily remedy the indisputable fact that creating a restriction on who can and cannot join a server creates two different teams: those you can and those who can't join the server? Note that nowhere in this question is money in any way, shape or form, a factor and as such it cannot be a solution because it is not related to the problem at hand.

I'll even give you a very generous hint here: there is indeed a very trivial solution that problem, and it has been extensively described and elaborated on in the thread. It is not related to price or cost.

 

I think you are confusing the actual problem with the net effect of the problem.

The actual problem is that a group of people haven't purchased the Assets pack for whatever reason... hence the split community.

The net effect of the problem as you are experiencing it is that people are complaining they are being locked out. The only commonsense solutions to this, at least for the people frequenting your server, would be to either purchase the assets pack, or convince you to stop using it on your server. I think that is what @Beirut has been trying to tell you for nearly 5 pages now.

The net effect does not nullify the root source of the problem. @Beirut is spot on in pointing out the root cause of the problem. You are spot on for pointing out the net effect as you experience it, but claiming that the need to pay for the Assets pack is in no way shape or form related to the problem is wrong, because it is inexplicably attached as the source.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tippis said:

Indeed I have.

Now, could you please answer the question: how do you easily remedy the indisputable fact that creating a restriction on who can and cannot join a server creates two different teams: those you can and those who can't join the server? The same hints as before still apply.

Also, while you're thinking about that, could you also give your rationale for why it's in everyone's best interest that ED disincentivises the sales and production of the most critical component that keeps the game alive: varied content that caters to a broad audience?

 

I take it it you're just going to keep talking then. I guess you bailed. 

 

@Northstar98 Whadaya say, wanna join me in gifting a WWII Asset Pack? You and me put two flyers in the servers. And if anyone else wants to join in, great.

Some of the planes, but all of the maps!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Grievo said:

Because, many people don't spend their time in external views, gawping at the assets. The asset is being used, even with a blob or placeholder model. When I'm flying a ww2 mission say, I'm not put out at all by a placeholder flak gun shooting at me. I don't see the unit as such, just the effect, I'm still 'Using' the asset I haven't paid for.

How do you square that with the supercarrier? Or literally anything else that isn't a map or the asset pack?

And this problem exist even if I place a single solitary hay bale in the furthest corner of the map.

4 minutes ago, Grievo said:

As I've said. I see your point. I just don't agree with it.

For me, I wish there were more asset packs to buy and have more people being paid to build and place new assets into the game.

So do I!

It's almost like, assets being payware isn't the problem, the problem is multiplayer implementation, and that is the only problem here, regardless of how many times Beirut wants to insist that it isn't.

  • Thanks 2

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

Oh for fart's sake, I just checked and the WWII Assets Pack is available for a free trial. I thought it wasn't. The guys who are on the fence about it can give it a free run and decide for themselves. Two-week free trial and a $15 on-sale purchase price? There is precisely zero problem here.

 

Still waiting for @Northstar98to join me in gifting an Asset Pack and keeping the WWII servers going. C'mon, let's see some DCS love. :drinks_drunk:

Some of the planes, but all of the maps!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

I think you are confusing the actual problem with the net effect of the problem.

The actual problem is the multiplayer integration of paid for assets.

For every other module but maps, this problem is solved, the asset pack is an exception, and it's an exception of itself.

That's why purchasing the asset pack or not, isn't the main issue, because it's a non-sequitur - it doesn't follow that not purchasing a module should prohibit you from joining servers, as evidenced by everything else but maps.

5 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

The actual problem is that a group of people haven't purchased the Assets pack for whatever reason... hence the split community.

How can this be the actual problem, when you take the same set of circumstances and apply to everything else but maps, and the issues it causes is non-existent.

5 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

The only commonsense solutions to this, at least for the people frequenting your server, would be to either purchase the assets pack, or convince you to stop using it on your server.

No, they aren't, and SharpeXB has practically already admitted this already.

5 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

I think that is what @Beirut has been trying to tell you for nearly 5 pages now.

but claiming that the need to pay for the Assets pack is in no way shape or form related to the problem is wrong, because it is inexplicably attached as the source.

No it isn't, as evidenced by every other payware module, besides maps.

  • 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 minute ago, Northstar98 said:

How do you square that with the supercarrier? Or literally anything else that isn't a map or the asset pack?

And this problem exist even if I place a single solitary hay bale in the furthest corner of the map.

Because Supercarrier is an experience from inside the cockpit as well as external eye candy. It is also unique in that it's a paid asset that replaced a freeware model in the game. 

Well then don't place the hay bale my dear chap.

3 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

It's almost like, assets being payware isn't the problem, the problem is multiplayer implementation, and that is the only problem here, regardless of how many times Beirut wants to insist that it isn't.

Again, I don't think it is a problem. My heart doesn't bleed for people who can't play multiplayer DCS on servers that have things they haven't bought. Call me callous, but I think there is far more to worry about in the world.

However, as I said. Under your proposed solution, where the item is replaced by a blob or placeholder model, the item can still be used. The functionality of the unit would have to be in the game, because it's an 88mm gun, or a Searchlight, and it has to behave as such for the people who have bought it. So whether it's modelled as a blob, a naked lady, Georgian infantry or a T-72, that paid asset is being USED by someone who hasn't paid for it.

  • Like 1

i7-9700F, 32Gb RAM, RTX 2080 Super, HP Reverb G2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Grievo said:

I don't care that there's two teams. That is your concern.

Yes it is. It is the very topic of this lengthy discussion, after all.

More the point, the concern is that, since there are two teams and since there is a finite amount of resources to spend on them, you want to spend it where it does the most good: where both teams are served by it and, ultimately, where that split into teams cease to exist. This means catering to the lowest common denominator. This means that the assets go unused; the $30 don't give people what they've paid for; the incentive to give ED that money goes away; everyone loses out.

The concern is that we end up in this downward spiral for no good reason when we know the restriction that causes all of that does not need to be there. The spit does not need to happen. The value of the pack can be preserved and even incentivised so ED gets more money and everyone wins out.

That is also why you should care, even if you don't.

Just now, Grievo said:

You're asking me to justify not having a solution to something that I don't think is a problem.

I'm really not.

 

4 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

I think you are confusing the actual problem with the net effect of the problem.

No, I'm describing what the problem is and why it is a problem: because of the consequences that affect everyone for no good reason.

5 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

The only commonsense solutions to this, at least for the people frequenting your server, would be to either purchase the assets pack, or convince you to stop using it on your server.

One of those is not a solution because the split still exists. The other causes the split to go away — or, perhaps more accurately, causes it to not come into effect — because the restriction goes away, and this has a slew of negative consequences as described above. This is also the solution chosen, even if it's a bad one for everyone. There are a number of other even more common-sense solutions to this problem that don't give rise to those consequences; ones that actually have the exact opposite effect. The problem there is that they rely on ED choosing to not apply the restriction rule set that causes the problem to appear.

But yes, for me as a server manager and sort-of-partial-community builder, the only option available is to just not use restricted assets in spite of the negative consequences this has for everyone.

 

6 minutes ago, Beirut said:

I take it it you're just going to keep talking then.

Until you're ready to give a good-faith answer to the question, I will indeed keep asking it. You know what the question is — so what do you say?

  • 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

39 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

How do you justify that, when it doesn't work that way for literally everything else in DCS, besides maps?

 

22 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Please either feel free to PM me, or see this this thread, where I have already given my thoughts.

I would like to just say again that I think the OP raised a really good point. I like the idea of a Cold War Assets pack, and would definitely pay for it, but if there is any overlap with WWII assets, the asset itself should be part of the WWII pack. The Cold War pack could have updated skins for the assets, and any additional vehicles/equipment that were specifically from that time period.

But getting back to your point, I think both you and @Tippis are missing a major point in that you are both using an oversimplification of the way things work "for literally everything else in DCS". There are vast differences between flyable modules, a tech pack like the SC, and the WWII Assets pack. And none of these differences touch on other important factors that would have to be included in this type of discussion like for example the company, its development team, and how its business model works.

I will let you think about that first because any realizations you make might change your point of view.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Tippis said:

Until you're ready to give a good-faith answer to the question, I will indeed keep asking it. You know what the question is — so what do you say?

 

I say that you say there is a problem. I don't think there is, but you do. So I will respect your point of view and try to help alleviate said problem.

 

I offer an Steam Asset Pack as a gift on the next sale. Would you care to join me? 

Some of the planes, but all of the maps!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Tippis said:

More the point, the concern is that, since there are two teams and since there is a finite amount of resources to spend on them, you want to spend it where it does the most good: where both teams are served by it and, ultimately, where that split into teams cease to exist. This means catering to the lowest common denominator. This means that the assets go unused; the $30 don't give people what they've paid for; the incentive to give ED that money goes away; everyone loses out.

The concern is that we end up in this downward spiral for no good reason when we know the restriction that causes all of that does not need to be there. The spit does not need to happen. The value of the pack can be preserved and even incentivised so ED gets more money and everyone wins out.

And I disagree with the basis of your argument. That it's a downward spiral for DCS. In fact I think very much the opposite. That the sales of the asset pack will drop off precipitously if the units in it can be used without paying for them, even if the model is replaced by something else. As I said above to @Northstar98, if you have an 88 or a searchlight in a mission, it has to function as an 88 or a searchlight. So if someone then comes onto the server flying a lovely new mosquito, and gets lit up by a highly illuminated cow, or shapeless blob, he's unlikely to see the model, but will benefit from the function of the unit in the game. He shouldn't. He should get his bloody mitts in his pocket and shell up, like the rest of us did.

7 minutes ago, Beirut said:

I offer an Steam Asset Pack as a gift on the next sale. Would you care to join me? 

Steam!?? You sell-out!!! 😄 


Edited by Grievo
Punctuation men. Punctuation.
  • Like 3

i7-9700F, 32Gb RAM, RTX 2080 Super, HP Reverb G2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

I would like to just say again that I think the OP raised a really good point. I like the idea of a Cold War Assets pack, and would definitely pay for it, but if there is any overlap with WWII assets, the asset itself should be part of the WWII pack. The Cold War pack could have updated skins for the assets, and any additional vehicles/equipment that were specifically from that time period.

I absolutely agree! Again, I own the asset pack, I recognise that the cost to develop these aren't zero, but I also recognise that there's a solution to the MP issue.

9 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

But getting back to your point, I think both you and @Tippis are missing a major point in that you are both using an oversimplification of the way things work "for literally everything else in DCS". There are vast differences between flyable modules, a tech pack like the SC, and the WWII Assets pack. And none of these differences touch on other important factors that would have to be included in this type of discussion like for example the company, its development team, and how its business model works.

Once again, the solutions I have proposed would not necessarily result in any difference for the company, its development team, and how it's business model works.

And yes, much of the cost of the things you bring up isn't concentrated in the 3D model, that doesn't mean that the 3D model costs nothing, which is why I can make that comparison.

And I can give you other examples of things that are just as much asset packs as the WWII asset pack is, where this isn't an issue.

  • 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

16 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

THE ASSET PACK BEING SOMETHING YOU PAY FOR, ISN'T THE PROBLEM.

 

 

 

I thought you said that very well and I agree completely. You were spot on.

 

I thought you and I could set the example and help the situation get a bit better. Will you be joining me in gifting an Asset Pack during the next sale?

Some of the planes, but all of the maps!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Grievo said:

Because Supercarrier is an experience from inside the cockpit as well as external eye candy. It is also unique in that it's a paid asset that replaced a freeware model in the game. 

Eh, no.

The same inside+outside experience holds true for the WWII assets as well. It does not replace a freeware model — both exist in parallel. Indeed, one of the key points of its implementation is that it explicitly exists alongside the freeware variant specifically to not split the community.

24 minutes ago, Grievo said:

Well then don't place the hay bale my dear chap.

Yes, that is indeed the sensible solution here: cater to the lowest common denominator. Unfortunately, this only sensible choice has a lot of undesirable consequences for everyone, and in particular for ED and for those who give ED money. It is doubly unfortunate because this does not need to happen, and the SC model of implementation shows how.

17 minutes ago, Grievo said:

That it's a downward spiral for DCS. In fact I think very much the opposite. That the sales of the asset pack will drop off precipitously if the units in it can be used without paying for them,

But that is not what anyone is suggesting. In fact, that's the whole point of the SC model: you can't use the units in it, but that doesn't restrict you from joining a game where they're present. The usage is (part of) that added value, and while the SC assets aren't all that numerous, that is balanced against a massively expanded number of ways to use and interact with those assets. I guess you could qualify “slam into face-first” and “get shot by” as some very limited form of usage, but that's getting absurdly reductive compared to the actual usage you get out of paying for them.

 

24 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

But getting back to your point, I think both you and @Tippis are missing a major point in that you are both using an oversimplification of the way things work "for literally everything else in DCS". There are vast differences between flyable modules, a tech pack like the SC, and the WWII Assets pack.

Indeed there is, but that argument rather goes in the opposite direction. Flyable modules and the SC are far more complex and give you far more for your $30 than the asset pack. And yet, you can join any server and see those planes and that SC in action. You don't get to use them, but you get to gawk at them and try to suppress that gnawing feeling of “…that does look pretty cool, maybe I should…”. But then there's the WWII asset pack, where you're just shut out if it's in use, and if you pay the $30 you get about as much out of it as you get for free out of those far more complex modules. And of course, even then, and even when you can now join a minute number of new servers, for the most part it will see no use at all.

If there was a Korea pack, it would serve an equally narrow niche — perhaps narrower still if it was decided to not let it overlap with the WWII pack, and definitely narrower still if it used the same restrictive model as the WWII pack. So where would the added value be? Where's the showing off and the incentive to get it, especially if some of the stuff needed for the era is still locked behind yet another restricted asset pack?


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

6 minutes ago, Tippis said:

Yes it is. It is the very topic of this lengthy discussion, after all.

More the point, the concern is that, since there are two teams and since there is a finite amount of resources to spend on them, you want to spend it where it does the most good: where both teams are served by it and, ultimately, where that split into teams cease to exist. This means catering to the lowest common denominator. This means that the assets go unused; the $30 don't give people what they've paid for; the incentive to give ED that money goes away; everyone loses out.

The concern is that we end up in this downward spiral for no good reason when we know the restriction that causes all of that does not need to be there. The spit does not need to happen. The value of the pack can be preserved and even incentivised so ED gets more money and everyone wins out.

That is also why you should care, even if you don't.

I'm really not.

 

No, I'm describing what the problem is and why it is a problem: because of the consequences that affect everyone for no good reason.

One of those is not a solution because the split still exists. The other causes the split to go away — or, perhaps more accurately, causes it to not come into effect — because the restriction goes away, and this has a slew of negative consequences as described above. This is also the solution chosen, even if it's a bad one for everyone. There are a number of other even more common-sense solutions to this problem that don't give rise to those consequences; ones that actually have the exact opposite effect. The problem there is that they rely on ED choosing to not apply the restriction rule set that causes the problem to appear.

But yes, for me as a server manager and sort-of-partial-community builder, the only option available is to just not use restricted assets in spite of the negative consequences this has for everyone.

 

Until you're ready to give a good-faith answer to the question, I will indeed keep asking it. You know what the question is — so what do you say?

You are doing exactly what you are accusing @Beirut of. You ignored the meaning of my text, and simply replaced it with a non-answer.

I won't carry this on much further because I don't think your discussion point has remained logical.

You were asked how you know this is even a problem. Your response was that you run a server and you hear the complaints.

So if we took the hypothetical that every one showing up at your server owned the Assets pack, by your own admission, you wouldn't be hearing about the complaints.

Yes its true that the restriction that is caused when a player WHO HASN'T PURCHASED THE ASSETS PACK shows up at any given server requiring it would still exist, but the reason it exists is because the player didn't PURCHASE! This is the root cause of the problem that is commonly described as a split community.

But none of this matters because in everything you posted to this thread so far, not a single comment has considered the company that has taken on the responsibility of bringing the Assets pack to market. Unfortunately, someone at ED doesn't click his/her fingers and an assets pack appears ready for sale. And unfortunately, the company responsible for the Assets pack doesn't appear to agree with the business model you would like to see it pursue.

I have no idea what ED's bottom line looks like, what business model they use to remain in business, or what their future plans are, but something tells me that you guys are oversimplifying things, and that you are confusing the reasoning behind a decision ED made for one product with the reasoning it uses to decide on another product. 

These issue might look like the same thing to you and I, but there is very likely a gravity to the situation that is not being considered in this discussion.   

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Tippis said:

Eh, no.

The same inside+outside experience holds true for the WWII assets as well. It does not replace a freeware model — both exist in parallel. Indeed, one of the key points of its implementation is that it explicitly exists alongside the freeware variant specifically to not split the community.

Yes, that is indeed the sensible solution here: cater to the lowest common denominator. Unfortunately, this only sensible choice has a lot of undesirable consequences for everyone, and in particular for ED and for those who give ED money. It is doubly unfortunate because this does not need to happen, and the SC model of implementation shows how.

But that is not what anyone is suggesting. In fact, that's the whole point of the SC model: you can't use the units in it, but that doesn't restrict you from joining a game where they're present. The usage is (part of) that added value, and while the SC assets aren't all that numerous, that is balanced against a massively expanded number of ways to use and interact with those assets. I guess you could qualify “slam into face-first” and “get shot by” as some very limited form of usage, but that's getting absurdly reductive compared to the actual usage you get out of paying for them.

 

Right. Well since you're determined to be wrong. I will wish you a good night. Have fun on your oppressed, faux-segregated server.

  • Like 1

i7-9700F, 32Gb RAM, RTX 2080 Super, HP Reverb G2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m done here… gee 8 pages complaining about a $15 add-on 🙄

For the record I’ll say that I could completely care less about players who are too cheap and stingy to fund the game development and I have no interest in seeing any workaround that makes freeloading easier. 
 

And I would gladly pay from a Korean War map and Asset Pack. 

  • Like 8

i9-13900K @ 6.2GHz oc | ASUS ROG MAXIMUS Z790 HERO | 64GB DDR5 5600MHz | iCUE H150i Liquid CPU Cooler | 24GB GeForce RTX 4090 | Windows 11 Home | 2TB Samsung 980 PRO NVMe | Corsair RM1000x | LG 48GQ900-B 4K OLED Monitor | CH Fighterstick | Ch Pro Throttle | CH Pro Pedals | TrackIR 5

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...