A question about a possible Korean War asset pack

[SharpeXB]

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

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.

That’s a silly solution. Nobody will want to see untextured cubes in their game. 

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

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

That’s not going to work either. You’re really reaching with this stuff. How about people could just spend $15 and forget about it. 

[Callsign112]

9 hours ago, 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 

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? 

Sorry for not being more direct here, but to answer your question I guess it could go either way really.

Basically IMO, if the equipment/vehicle was made and used during WWII, then it should be a WWII asset. You can always use the asset in what ever scenario you like, but in terms of purchasing the asset to be included with your DCS install, it makes more sense to me if it would be kept as part of the WWII Assets pack.

But I don't think this should stop the developer from providing an update 50's skin for the old equipment/vehicle. In terms of the vehicle/equipment model, it would already be done, but a 50's asset pack could simply include a skin for what ever country was using the asset at that time.

[BIGNEWY]

please remember the rules when posting, treat each other with respect. 

The constant back and forth gets a little tiresome after a while, lets not end with this thread being locked. 

 

As for asset packs, people do work, they should be rewarded for it. 

thank you

[Northstar98]

47 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

That’s a silly solution. Nobody will want to see untextured cubes in their game.

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.

47 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

That’s not going to work either.

Why not?

Edited February 23, 2022 by Northstar98

[SharpeXB]

4 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

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

People who don’t own the asset pack probably don’t want to see untextured cubes in their game. So while not literally excluded from such a server they may very well decide not to play on it. Also such a solution would require ED to work on incorporating it which isn’t a good use of their time. 

7 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Why not? It's literally copy and paste the .lua file and replace the line defining which model should be used.

So many problems with substituting units… 

What if there isn’t any suitable substitute? Use modern units in WWII?

How about target ID, one player sees one thing and another player sees something different?

Also more work for the mission creator to placate people who are too cheap to pay $15. My guess is they’ll just not bother. 

[Tippis]

49 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

That’s not going to work either. You’re really reaching with this stuff.

Not only would it work — it already works like that for assets that you manage to get into an MP mission where there is no restriction on joining based on whether you “own” the asset mod/module or not.

49 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

How about people could just spend $15 and forget about it. 

That won't solve the actual problem because as has been pointed out, the problem is not related to cost or price.

In fact, the problem is quite the opposite: by having these restrictions in place, ED's developers gets less money out of their effort, leading to less assets being made and less content for all. The whole “just pay $15” is the cause of the very issue that non-solution is meant to solve. It creates problems and solves nothing, especially not the issue being discussed here. That's the great irony of that whole off-topic tangent: the people arguing that giving ED $15 is the great panacea are actually arguing in favour of ED making less money from their modules and in favour of DCS not getting more paid-for content.

This is why SC was implemented the way it was.

15 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

People who don’t own the asset pack probably don’t want to see untextured cubes in their game

And they don't have to. That's just the most extreme version of how to trivially solve the issue — so trivial, in fact, that it already works like that for the most poart. It's not a good solution by any stretch of the imagination, but unlike the whole irrelevant “just pay $15” catch phrase, it actually does solve the issue at hand. If you let it.

 

15 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Also more work for the mission creator to placate people who are too cheap to pay $15. My guess is they’ll just not bother. 

No, it's less work for the mission creator exactly because they don't have to consider what the end users may or may not own, and can just decorate to their hearts' content. That's kind of the whole point. In actuality, it's the other way around: with the way things work now, they don't bother placating the people who did spend $30 because it's just not worth it. This has the effect of not making it worth spending those $30 for anyone else, and those who already did so end up not really getting their moneys' worth. Ultimately, as this evaluation slowly spreads and becomes the common opinion, ED makes less money and is less inclined to create more assets.

The people who lose out are not the ones who don't buy the restricting module — it's the ones who do, and ED.

Edited February 23, 2022 by Tippis

[Northstar98]

1 minute ago, SharpeXB said:

People who don’t own the asset pack probably don’t want to see untextured cubes in their game. So while not literally excluded from such a server they may very well decide not to play on it.

You're changing the argument...

The problem I am trying to solve is people being excluded from servers that use the asset pack - that's it. You've now admitted that what I have proposed (while on the extreme end) would solve that problem.

Servers being desireable or not, is entirely a matter of opinion, and it's ultimately up to server owners and mission editors to make their servers and missions appealing, whichever way they go about it.

1 minute ago, SharpeXB said:

Also such a solution would require ED to work on incorporating it which isn’t a good use of their time. 

Something that you could say about literally anything.

And this change would be pretty trivial, it's changing the model definitions in the .lua (literally 2 lines), and possibly animation arguments, that's it.

[SharpeXB]

7 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

The problem I am trying to solve is people being excluded from servers that use the asset pack - that's it. You've now admitted that what I have proposed (while on the extreme end) would solve that problem.

I wouldn’t call that proposal a “solution” more like a “work around”. I don’t think most players would find it appealing. They could just run a server without the asset pack and have a better experience. 

7 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Something that you could say about literally anything.

And it’s asking ED to do extra work which would actually discourage the sale of their product

Edited February 23, 2022 by SharpeXB

[Callsign112]

1 hour ago, Tippis said:

...what is it about the problem we have described... that is difficult for you to understand?

 

@Tippis, but I would be happy to answer this from my point of view if you, @Northstar98 and whoever else like, but maybe it would be better in another thread. Out of respect for the OP, I think we are straying a little off topic. I see this as actually a really important topic though because I think it feeds into the even bigger and more important topic of asset development.

[Tippis]

7 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

I wouldn’t call that proposal a “solution” more like a “work around”. I don’t think most players would find it appealing.

They already do. Or, granted, it's perhaps more accurate to say that they end up just not caring all that much. Reality already provides an answer here, and it does not align with your guesses.

7 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

They could just run a server without the asset pack and have a better experience. 

That is exactly what happens, and then we're right back in that loop where the restriction causes everyone (except those who don't pay) to lose out. In fact, come to think of it, they sort of do too, but very indirectly because DCS gets less funding they they could have gotten without that unnecessary restriction in place.

This is also why “if you want something you have to pay for it” cliché is not applicable. They get what they want anyway, without paying, and this creates a perverse incentive for everyone else to also not pay — the non-payers draw everyone else away from the servers who use the restricted content, creating yet another vicious cycle that devalues the paid content and causes ED to make less money.

8 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

And it’s asking ED to do extra work which would actually discourage the sale of their product

Again, wrong way around. It is pretty much no extra work — they already have to create everything that would be referenced by such a substitution — and it actively encourages the sale of their product to a much large extent since there is now exposure that wouldn't, and indeed couldn't happen before. I kept banging on about that single searchlight for a very good reason: because they look really nice in night missions, but no-one will ever know and be inclined to buy the asset pack to play with it themselves. They won't know because they are not allowed to know — the restriction keeps them from seeing the thing that is most likely to convince them that there is some value to be extracted from that $30 price tag.

 

3 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

@Tippis, but I would be happy to answer this from my point of view if you, @Northstar98 and whoever else like, but maybe it would be better in another thread. Out of respect for the OP, I think we are straying a little off topic. I see this as actually a really important topic though because I think it feeds into the even bigger and more important topic of asset development.

That is very fair. We could probably bring it to PMs or some such instead.

Edited February 23, 2022 by Tippis

[Northstar98]

34 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

So many problems with substituting units… 

What if there isn’t any suitable substitute? Use modern units in WWII?

For all of the major types of ground vehicles, there is a suitable substitute, including free WWII assets...

34 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

How about target ID, one player sees one thing and another player sees something different?

Do people explicitly call out the actual unit name when ID-ing targets? Or is it something generic like tank, artillery, AAA, truck, APC, infantry etc. Because I bet it's the latter and not the former.

They'll still be able to tell the location of the target, which is at least just as important as identifying the target type.

34 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Also more work for the mission creator to placate people who are too cheap to pay $15. My guess is they’ll just not bother. 

Something some already do, due to the current situation...

18 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

I wouldn’t call that proposal a “solution” more like a “work around”.

If it solves the problem of people being forcibly excluded from MP servers, and it does, then it is a solution to that problem, by definition.

18 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

I don’t think most players would find it appealing.

Then there's the incentive to purchase the asset pack, isn't there?

I'm not really trying to make missions more appealing, that's entirely up to the mission editor. I am trying to make it such that owners and non-owners can join the same servers, in exactly the same fashion as every other module besides maps.

18 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

They could just run a server without the asset pack and have a better experience.

Again, something some already do, owing to the current situation.

18 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

And it’s asking ED to do extra work which would actually discourage the sale of their product

How would it discourage the sale of their product?

If you want full access to the asset pack, then you need to pay for it, if you don't pay for it, you should still be able to join servers (and as we've established, you can) even if you don't own the same stuff.

Edited February 23, 2022 by Northstar98

[Beirut]

9 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

The problem I am trying to solve is people being excluded from servers that use the asset pack - that's it.

 

 

People are excluded from services and having access to things and places and owning things every single day, in limitless ways, based on whether they pay or not. In this case, if you want access to a DCS server that uses the Assets Pack, then you have to have the Assets Pack.  

 

There is nothing complicated about this in the least. It's 100% straightforward: spend the $15 and get the Assets Pack. And since it is agreed on by everyone here that the $15 on-sale purchase price presents no problem... then there is no problem. Buy it and play with it. It's cool and it's fun. And just like Combined Arms, it makes the game a richer experience.

 

And its available for the low low price of only $15.  

[SharpeXB]

3 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Then there's the incentive to purchase the asset pack, isn't there?

There’s already an incentive. 

4 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

How would it discourage the sale of their product?

By introducing a work-around to actually owning it. 

[Northstar98]

3 minutes ago, Beirut said:

People are excluded from services and having access to things and places and owning things every single day, in limitless ways, based on whether they pay or not. In this case, if you want access to a DCS server that uses the Assets Pack, then you have to have the Assets Pack.

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

[SharpeXB]

16 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

Out of respect for the OP, I think we are straying a little off topic

Agree. This thread is 7 pages of hijacking.

[Beirut]

Just now, Northstar98 said:

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

 

I justify it by saying that all things are not equal. I justify it by saying that life is greatly varied in scope, sometimes challenging, and often unfair. I justify it by citing the capitalism that keeps business like DCS going. I justify it by looking at a thousand other products that also require payment schemes in one fashion or another in order to get the most complete experience.

 

And I justify it by citing that you yourself say the cost of the thing in question presents no problem at all. Which means... there is no problem at all.

[SharpeXB]

45 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

while not splitting up the MP community

Here’s a question for you, at the risk of this just continuing off topic

 

How do you know the MP community is split? How do you know whether or not the majority of players simply just buy the asset pack?

A quick search of the WWII forum using “Asset Pack” doesn’t reveal any discussions I can find. How do you know this is even an issue?

[Northstar98]

35 minutes ago, Beirut said:

I justify it by saying that all things are not equal. I justify it by saying that life is greatly varied in scope, sometimes challenging, and often unfair.

None of which are relevant at all.

And how is something currently being unequal, a justification for keeping it unequal...

35 minutes ago, Beirut said:

I justify it by citing the capitalism that keeps business like DCS going. I justify it by looking at a thousand other products that also require payment schemes in one fashion or another in order to get the most complete experience.

So, in complete agreement of what I've said?

35 minutes ago, Beirut said:

And I justify it by citing that you yourself say the cost of the thing in question presents no problem at all. Which means... there is no problem at all.

Then all you're doing, true to form, is misunderstanding the argument.

Edited February 23, 2022 by Northstar98

[Beirut]

Just now, Northstar98 said:

 

 

 

Then all you're doing, true to form, is misunderstanding the argument.

 

I understand all of this perfectly. And there is no argument. Only a price.

 

$15.

[Northstar98]

Just now, Beirut said:

I understand all of this perfectly.

You haven't even acknowledged the points being made, you've just quote mined "stuff being payware isn't the issue", selected your own interpretation of it, and ignored everything else.

[Callsign112]

7 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

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

I would like to discuss this further with you. Start another thread about asset development using your description of how the SC works for both paying and Non-paying customers. I think there might be something missing from yours and @Tippis arguments that could be worth discussing.

[Beirut]

Just now, Northstar98 said:

You haven't even acknowledged the points being made, you've just quote mined "stuff being payware isn't the issue", selected your own interpretation of it, and ignored everything else.

 

I read all the points. I saw all the problems. I understand it perfectly. And every bit of can be easily remedied.

 

$15.

[Northstar98]

4 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

I would like to discuss this further with you. Start another thread about asset development using your description of how the SC works for both paying and Non-paying customers. I think there might be something missing from yours and @Tippis arguments that could be worth discussing.

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

[Tippis]

18 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Here’s a question for you, at the risk of this just continuing off topic

 

How do you know the MP community is split?

Because I run a server and immediately have to deal with the complaints when people are locked out. I'm on the other side of that curtain and have to deal with the selection and the balance of inclusion vs catering to niche-cubed interests.

Also, because I was around for the SC implementation discussion.

11 minutes ago, Beirut said:

I read all the points. I saw all the problems. I understand it perfectly. And every bit of can be easily remedied.

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.

Edited February 23, 2022 by Tippis

[Beirut]

Just now, 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.

 

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.

 

Let's you, me and our good fried @Northstar98 have a gentleman's agreement to each gift an Assets Pack the next time there is a sale. I'll do mine from Steam, the money is already there. I'm sure there is a Steam customer here who would like it. When the sale starts, we open a thread and announce 3 Assets Packs to gift. 

 

I'm in.