Opinions on the asset pack

[Tippis]

5 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

The Asset Pack is different from other modules in that it doesn’t really have a substantial playable aspect.

That just further highlights how it shouldn't have been handled the way it was. Hell, it probably shouldn't have been payware to begin with but rather been made part of something that actually did have a more substantial playable aspect. It was a poorly though-through non-product and it's telling that the asset packs we've had since have either been free or have had that extra interaction as the real value being sold (the non-interactive part of it also being free).

But ultimately, this simply means that the WWII asset pack is something that nothing should ever be modelled on, and if anything, it should be given an actual purpose and then converted to the same kind of module as the SC to make it 1) worth-while and 2) not community-splitting.

 

4 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

Sure ED could make it so that non-owners could fly on the same server and not receive any benefit from the assets themselves, but why should they bother wasting the time to do it?

Simple: they shouldn't. Unless and until they can figure out what's actually worth-while in the module, they should not make it. Or they can do what's been done elsewhere and simply amortise that cost over a bunch of other developments that have some inherent value that makes them interesting and worth-while to buy.

It is indeed not very difficult to figure out, nor is it difficult to figure out how to make people join the server: never use the restrictive assets, further reducing its overall value. As mentioned elsewhere, this is a solution that hurts everyone in the long run, but it's still vastly better than the only other available alternative.

[Callsign112]

56 minutes ago, Tippis said:

That just further highlights how it shouldn't have been handled the way it was. Hell, it probably shouldn't have been payware to begin with but rather been made part of something that actually did have a more substantial playable aspect. It was a poorly though-through non-product and it's telling that the asset packs we've had since have either been free or have had that extra interaction as the real value being sold (the non-interactive part of it also being free).

But ultimately, this simply means that the WWII asset pack is something that nothing should ever be modelled on, and if anything, it should be given an actual purpose and then converted to the same kind of module as the SC to make it 1) worth-while and 2) not community-splitting.

 

Simple: they shouldn't. Unless and until they can figure out what's actually worth-while in the module, they should not make it. Or they can do what's been done elsewhere and simply amortise that cost over a bunch of other developments that have some inherent value that makes them interesting and worth-while to buy.

It is indeed not very difficult to figure out, nor is it difficult to figure out how to make people join the server: never use the restrictive assets, further reducing its overall value. As mentioned elsewhere, this is a solution that hurts everyone in the long run, but it's still vastly better than the only other available alternative.

No one I am sure wants a divided community.

But just to demonstrate how wrong your assertion that the Assets pack shouldn't even be made is, go back to a time when DCS World consisted of a single map and 1 helicopter. That was before my time here, but I can't imagine anyone would have said back then, thanks but no thanks, we're good with just the one map and helicopter.

Everything added to DCS World since that time is an advancement IMO.

And you said in the other thread that you stopped using the Assets pack on your server to calm the complaints, but that there were negative aspects for doing so. I wanted to ask, but never got the chance, what are the negatives if your so set against it even being a thing?

Seems to me both you and the players that frequent your server should be happy now. I'm just trying to understand why you expend so much time and energy talking about something you see no value in.

Edited February 24, 2022 by Callsign112

[Beirut]

17 hours ago, Tank50us said:

 

 

The same holds true with the other DLCs, if someone only wants to attack them, they shouldn't be forced to buy the target. 

 

As I understand it, no one is forced to buy anything. Every DCS transaction is consensual. 

 

My purchase of the WWII Assets Pack was my choice and I am happy with that choice. I want the best DCS experience I can have, so I bought the Assets Pack.

[Tippis]

22 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

But just to demonstrate how wrong your assertion that the Assets pack shouldn't even be made is, go back to a time when DCS World consisted of a single map and 1 helicopter. That was before my time here, but I can't imagine anyone would have said back then, no thanks but no thanks, we're good with just the one map and helicopter.

…and that demonstrate that my assertion is wrong… how? When it was released, DCS World consisted of a whole lot more, and the value it added was even less back then.

The point is, it was not a viable product. There's a strong argument that it still isn't, even with the additions that have been made to it over the last five years. As such, they should have figured out a better way of creating it. And they did — it just took a little while. Now that they have that better way, they could solve a whole bunch of problems that arose from that flawed first attempt.

Yes, a wide variety of assets are needed to populate the game world and make it varied and interesting, but that can be made to happen in a number of more or less clever ways. The WWII asset pack is well entrenched in the “less” section of that continuum.

22 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

And you said in the other thread that you stopped using the Assets pack on your server to calm the complaints, but that there were negative aspects for doing so. I wanted to ask, but never got the chance, what are the negatives if your so set against it even being a thing?

I think I answered it somewhere in that whole mess, but I fully understand if it got lost in the general back and forth.

Basically, the problem is the chain of consequences that its restrictiveness causes:

0. Ultimately, the best in-game asset in DCS is other players. This is not related to the asset pack, but provides an important foundation for all MP.

1. If a mission uses it, that locks out a whole bunch of people — in particular it locks out that most precious of commodities: the new player who with a bit of indoctrination coaxing and support can be turned into a die-hard DCS-head and stick around for a long time and have a lot of fun with the rest of us.

2. To give these players (and older ones who have less than zero interest in a bunch of WWII stuff for any number of reasons) the kind of free stomping ground needed to grow that potential player into an actual player, there needs to be zero restrictions. Preferably fewer(!)… somehow. Thus, no asset pack assets.

3. But this then becomes a vicious circle and a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy: asset pack never used -> no reason to ever build missions using the asset pack -> no content means no reason to buy the pack -> no-one has the asset pack, be they new or old -> the asset pack can't be used because the most important asset is the players -> asset pack is never used… repeat.

4. That whole loop robs the asset pack of what little value proposition it may have had, and it does so by necessity.

5. With no value to be had, ED miss out on sales. It also gets an ever-increasing reputation of being worthless and pointless, which further robs ED of sales. As that new player in step 1 becomes more established and start spending more money, they retain the lesson that the asset pack holds no value so it remains unbought, and the lesson is passed on to the next new potential prospect that comes along.

6.  ED learn the lesson that assets don't pay for themselves and aren't really worth pursuing. Add another flashy teen fighter instead.

7. The same pattern repeats on a larger scale or “one step up” in the hierarchy: DCS itself gets a reputation for being… if not pointless, then at least same:y and stale — one button-festooned MFD-fest teen fighter is much like the other, and it's always the same three tanks and four AA systems.

8. Only by virtue of a bit of coaching and with an absolutely minimal threshold for entry (see step 1) can that first impression be overcome, but to do that… goto 1 and repeat.

 

Asset packs should be some of the most worth-while things DCS has to offer because they, more than anything, can create a variety of content that gives the actual playable modules some value. But developing them costs, and since assets need to be made en masse to bring about that variety, they're going to need to cost a lot. But at the same time, they cannot create any kind of threshold.

The most negative thing ever would be if we lost the most valuable asset of them all — that other player. The second most negative thing is if we lose out on content because assets make themselves impossible to use because they have to be weighed against the loss of that most valuable asset. This is where we arrive with the choice of not using restrictive assets. Above that are a couple of hybrid states depending on the exact solution — the ideas and details and trade-offs of each of those is a long discussion of its own. But at the very top, there's the optimal state: there is no restriction to entry, only a cornucopia of choices of what to pursue, with each such choice being fully on display to entice new and old players to splash out even more cash on even more functionality. Here, what you pay for is exactly that: functionality, not set dressing. That functionality covers the cost of creating the set dressing as well, and with more set dressing around, there is more oddball functionality that can be added and sold to keep that self-reinforcing spiral going.

 

…of course, there is also the scorched-earth option: get rid of MP altogether. Then there is no most-valuable other player to lose any more and the asset pack problem largely ceases to exist, at least in its current form.

22 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

I'm just trying to understand why you expend so much time and energy talking about something you see no value in.

You've misunderstood my purpose then. I see great value in assets, but that value isn't the assets themselves — the value is in the variety of content (that can even be sold, if it's good enough) and functionality (that can also be sold), and also in the opportunities to show off and sell those two to anyone and everyone. I even see some value in the WWII asset pack, but it's just one specific lacklustre instance, and unfortunately, its implementation has reduced the value of specifically this pack even further. I expend my time and energy talking about how we should not repeat the mistake of the WWII asset pack that created that second-from-bottom-tier loop of self-devaluation and self-harm — ultimately, even the WWII asset pack itself could be cured of that mistake and salvaged into something that sells other products and funds even more development.

[Callsign112]

Edit ( @Beirut, had to edit this because I didn't quote you, and then found the long post between us when I finally did.) Considering the price point of the Assets pack especially on sale, I can't honestly say it was something I had to seriously think about For me the much bigger issue was deciding  whether or not I should get involved in DCS World to begin with.

But just in the short time I have been here, ED has made some really nice additions to the assets pack that I never even expected, so I couldn't be happier with the goodwill ED has shown. And I haven't tried the MP thing yet, but in addition to all the use I get out of it with my own SP missions, I can also enjoy the MP server thing without any hassle if and when I want.

And then there are the campaigns that I am able to open with it. I haven't bought many, and haven't even completed the few I did buy, but very happy, and seriously impressed with the couple I picked up from Reflected. Really like the skins you get with his campaigns too. Just another perk the Assets pack helped me unlock I guess. 

 

Edited February 24, 2022 by Callsign112

[Baldrick33]

5 hours ago, Exorcet said:

I also support a non divided community. The cost of assets is a non issue for me, but splitting the the community and increasing the difficulty of mission making/server running is something I'm concerned about. Including asset cost into modules or something similar would be for the best in my opinion.

The issue is the numbers playing WW2 online is minuscule compared to sales of WW2 modules. So the vast majority get to choose if they want to pay the extra without any concerns of a divided online community. I guess one could argue the divided community suppresses numbers online but I think it would still be a small minority if the asset pack was included.

[Beirut]

12 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

Edit ( @Beirut, had to edit this because I didn't quote you, and then found the long post between us when I finally did.) Considering the price point of the Assets pack especially on sale, I can't honestly say it was something I had to seriously think about For me the much bigger issue was deciding  whether or not I should get involved in DCS World to begin with.

But just in the short time I have been here, ED has made some really nice additions to the assets pack that I never even expected, so I couldn't be happier with the goodwill ED has shown. And I haven't tried the MP thing yet, but in addition to all the use I get out of it with my own SP missions, I can also enjoy the MP server thing without any hassle if and when I want.

And then there are the campaigns that I am able to open with it. I haven't bought many, and haven't even completed the few I did buy, but very happy, and seriously impressed with the couple I picked up from Reflected. Really like the skins you get with his campaigns too. Just another perk the Assets pack helped me unlock I guess. 

 

Given the price point, and that it really opens up the WWII experience, I think it's a good deal and a good module to have. Like most everyone here I've shelled out the big bucks for some premium planes, and I buy every map of course, but the Assets Pack ranks amongst the least expensive of the modules. I think any risk of division it might theoretically cause for a small minority of flyers is offset by its frequent availability at a very reasonable on-sale price.

 

If there was a module that caused an actual split in the MP community, and made flying problematic for a lot of people, and cost four or five times as much as the Asset Pack - imagine the new clouds costing $75 for example -  then there might be a legitimate argument. As it stands, there isn't.

 

[Callsign112]

37 minutes ago, Tippis said:

…and that demonstrate that my assertion is wrong… how? When it was released, DCS World consisted of a whole lot more, and the value it added was even less back then.

The point is, it was not a viable product. There's a strong argument that it still isn't, even with the additions that have been made to it over the last five years. As such, they should have figured out a better way of creating it. And they did — it just took a little while. Now that they have that better way, they could solve a whole bunch of problems that arose from that flawed first attempt.

Yes, a wide variety of assets are needed to populate the game world and make it varied and interesting, but that can be made to happen in a number of more or less clever ways. The WWII asset pack is well entrenched in the “less” section of that continuum.

I think I answered it somewhere in that whole mess, but I fully understand if it got lost in the general back and forth.

Basically, the problem is the chain of consequences that its restrictiveness causes:

0. Ultimately, the best in-game asset in DCS is other players. This is not related to the asset pack, but provides an important foundation for all MP.

1. If a mission uses it, that locks out a whole bunch of people — in particular it locks out that most precious of commodities: the new player who with a bit of indoctrination coaxing and support can be turned into a die-hard DCS-head and stick around for a long time and have a lot of fun with the rest of us.

2. To give these players (and older ones who have less than zero interest in a bunch of WWII stuff for any number of reasons) the kind of free stomping ground needed to grow that potential player into an actual player, there needs to be zero restrictions. Preferably fewer(!)… somehow. Thus, no asset pack assets.

3. But this then becomes a vicious circle and a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy: asset pack never used -> no reason to ever build missions using the asset pack -> no content means no reason to buy the pack -> no-one has the asset pack, be they new or old -> the asset pack can't be used because the most important asset is the players -> asset pack is never used… repeat.

4. That whole loop robs the asset pack of what little value proposition it may have had, and it does so by necessity.

5. With no value to be had, ED miss out on sales. It also gets an ever-increasing reputation of being worthless and pointless, which further robs ED of sales. As that new player in step 1 becomes more established and start spending more money, they retain the lesson that the asset pack holds no value so it remains unbought, and the lesson is passed on to the next new potential prospect that comes along.

6.  ED learn the lesson that assets don't pay for themselves and aren't really worth pursuing. Add another flashy teen fighter instead.

7. The same pattern repeats on a larger scale or “one step up” in the hierarchy: DCS itself gets a reputation for being… if not pointless, then at least same:y and stale — one button-festooned MFD-fest teen fighter is much like the other, and it's always the same three tanks and four AA systems.

8. Only by virtue of a bit of coaching and with an absolutely minimal threshold for entry (see step 1) can that first impression be overcome, but to do that… goto 1 and repeat.

 

Asset packs should be some of the most worth-while things DCS has to offer because they, more than anything, can create a variety of content that gives the actual playable modules some value. But developing them costs, and since assets need to be made en masse to bring about that variety, they're going to need to cost a lot. But at the same time, they cannot create any kind of threshold.

The most negative thing ever would be if we lost the most valuable asset of them all — that other player. The second most negative thing is if we lose out on content because assets make themselves impossible to use because they have to be weighed against the loss of that most valuable asset. This is where we arrive with the choice of not using restrictive assets. Above that are a couple of hybrid states depending on the exact solution — the ideas and details and trade-offs of each of those is a long discussion of its own. But at the very top, there's the optimal state: there is no restriction to entry, only a cornucopia of choices of what to pursue, with each such choice being fully on display to entice new and old players to splash out even more cash on even more functionality. Here, what you pay for is exactly that: functionality, not set dressing. That functionality covers the cost of creating the set dressing as well, and with more set dressing around, there is more oddball functionality that can be added and sold to keep that self-reinforcing spiral going.

 

…of course, there is also the scorched-earth option: get rid of MP altogether. Then there is no most-valuable other player to lose any more and the asset pack problem largely ceases to exist, at least in its current form.

You've misunderstood my purpose then. I see great value in assets, but that value isn't the assets themselves — the value is in the variety of content (that can even be sold, if it's good enough) and functionality (that can also be sold), and also in the opportunities to show off and sell those two to anyone and everyone. I even see some value in the WWII asset pack, but it's just one specific lacklustre instance, and unfortunately, its implementation has reduced the value of specifically this pack even further. I expend my time and energy talking about how we should not repeat the mistake of the WWII asset pack that created that second-from-bottom-tier loop of self-devaluation and self-harm — ultimately, even the WWII asset pack itself could be cured of that mistake and salvaged into something that sells other products and funds even more development.

Well I went back to read the other thread to see if I could find the text that raised the question for me and I think this was part of it:

"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."

TBH, its hard to follow what it is your actually trying to say, except that you seem to think the assets pack has caused a near collapse of the DCS Eco-system. Of course I am not claiming to know anymore than you in terms of what the actual situation is, but something tells me you might be surprised to discover actual sales numbers of the Assets pack. What I can tell you with absolute certainty though is that your entire post has gotten it completely wrong in terms of how it relates to me as a new player.

"1) asset pack never used -> 2)no reason to ever build missions using the asset pack -> 3:) no content means no reason to buy the pack ->4) no-one has the asset pack, be they new or old -> 5) the asset pack can't be used because the most important asset is the players -> 5) asset pack is never used… repeat"

1.) Everyone that joins the various servers that require the Assets pack, and anyone that has purchased one of Reflected's WWII campaigns has used the Assets pack

2) Extensive reasons are provided in the countless MP and SP missions/campaigns/servers that use it.

3)The Assets pack is loaded with content, and more is apparently on the way. It has certainly gotten better even in the short period of time I have been here.

4) This is stretching the limits of your own subjective feelings, and I'm affraid you would need more than a forum post to back it up.

5) The Assets pack is very well used. I myself use it every single time I turn DCS on.

 

[Beirut]

It seems I made a repeated error in the other thread on this issue, and I thought it best to clarify and apologize for that error as it impacts the validity of my argument and those arguments contrary to my own. I repeatedly stated the Asset Pack was available on sale for $15. This was wrong.

 

It was less. 

 

In US funds I paid under $14. I regret my error.

[Callsign112]

The only problem I see is that the difference wont quite cover that Starbucks coffee on your way into work one morning

[Tippis]

54 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

TBH, its hard to follow what it is your actually trying to say, except that you seem to think the assets pack has caused a near collapse of the DCS Eco-system.

You should probably take the time to slowly read the numbered list, step by step, and see how one point leads into the other. At no stage was anything of the kind suggested, which leads me to conclude that you read too fast and just filled in the gaps with guesswork. The progression is quite logical. It is also grounded in historical precedent.

The reason why restrictions lead to lost sales and a dearth of content are well-established — it's the same reasons as why SC very specifically does not replicate the way he WWII asset pack works, in spite of that being how ED first wanted to do it. ED can usually be quite intractable when it comes to their business decisions, but the argument as to why splitting the community the same way the WWII asset pack does would be harmful to their bottom line had a very real and immediate effect. This should tell you something.

I should probably clarify one thing, though: I am very deliberate in my use of the words “asset” and “content”. They are not the same. Assets are not content; assets are used to create content. Missions are the primary form of content where this happens. An asset in and of itself does nothing.

54 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

What I can tell you with absolute certainty though is that your entire post has gotten it completely wrong in terms of how it relates to me as a new player.

Then I can tell with absolute certainty that you either didn't actually read the cause-and-effect and the circumstances that give rise to situation described, or you weren't around a number of server communities all came to the exact same conclusion at once. You are also confusing general pattern with specific instance or categorical truth. What you label as “subjective feeling” is something I have actually polled to see how much of a problem it was. It turned out to be a strong correlation with a competing product (a topic we should stay away from for numerous reasons), and not a whole lot more.

It's also worth pointing out the dangers of using yourself as your sample, especially as it relates to that subjective feeling…

As for the “countless” uses of the WWII asset pack, I'm afraid numbers don't agree. The tragedy is that they're far too easy to count, and comparatively very few in number even though it should be helped by the way it directly feeds into the content creation for 8 different modules. Much of it is also just the same thing repeated with different units, and the vast majority it is not even relevant to the topic at hand because it already skips over that most important asset: the other player, thereby if anything reinforcing the point.

Edited February 25, 2022 by Tippis

[Beirut]

Something definitely requires highlighting here: just what is the Assets Pack? It's not just some fancy colours and new grass and some paintjobs. It's stuff! Lots and lots of stuff.

 

Soldiers, airplanes, halftracks, tanks, tank destroyers, cars & wagons, trucks, ships, submarines, trains, artillery, support units, static objects, AAA guns, and radars. An many of those things come in multiple options. And lest we forget, and this ain't no small thing, for less than $14 a lot of this stuff is...................

 

............wait for it...........

 

Player controlled.  

 

 

 

[Tippis]

7 minutes ago, Beirut said:

And lest we forget, and this ain't no small thing, for less than $14 a lot of this stuff is...................

 

............wait for it...........

 

Player controlled

…if you add the additional costs for a total of $70. An easy thing to accidentally skip over and forget.

Granted, this small mistake doesn't really matter since cost was never a factor to begin with, and since it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. But it's worth correcting regardless.

Edited February 25, 2022 by Tippis

[Callsign112]

12 minutes ago, Tippis said:

You should probably take the time to slowly read the numbered list, step by step, and see how one point leads into the other. At no stage was anything of the kind suggested, which leads me to conclude that you read too fast and just filled in the gaps with guesswork. The progression is quite logical. It is also grounded in historical precedent.

The reason why restrictions lead to lost sales and a dearth of content are well-established — it's the same reasons as why SC very specifically does not replicate the way he WWII asset pack works, in spite of that being how ED first wanted to do it. ED can usually be quite intractable when it comes to their business decisions, but the argument as to why splitting the community the same way the WWII asset pack does would be harmful to their bottom line had a very real and immediate effect. This should tell you something.

I should probably clarify one thing, though: I am very deliberate in my use of the words “asset” and “content”. They are not the same. Assets are not content; assets are used to create content. Missions are the primary form of content where this happens. An asset in and of itself does nothing.

Then I can tell with absolute certainty that you either didn't actually read the cause-and-effect and the circumstances that give rise to situation described, or you weren't around a number of server communities all came to the exact same conclusion at once. You are also confusing general pattern with specific instance or categorical truth. What you label as “subjective feeling” is something I have actually polled to see how much of a problem it was. It turned out to be a strong correlation with a competing product (a topic we should stay away from for numerous reasons), and not a whole lot more.

It's also worth pointing out the dangers of using yourself as your sample, especially as it relates to that subjective feeling…

As for the “countless” uses of the WWII asset pack, I'm afraid numbers don't agree. The tragedy is that they're far too easy to count, and comparatively very few in number even though it should be helped by the way it directly feeds into the content creation for 8 different modules. Much of it is also just the same thing repeated with different units, and the vast majority it is not even relevant to the topic at hand because it already skips over that most important asset: the other player, thereby if anything reinforcing the point.

 

I won't follow you on this any further, because I think we have both made our points/positions clear. But I will point out before closing the thread with you is that I wasn't talking about you polling a forum to try and form a guess on how much of a problem it might be.

What I was talking about is your claim that "no-one has the asset pack". That is a bold statement, and one that would require more than just your own personal feelings to back up.

Just a simple click on a few of the "campaign" vendors linked on this forum alone can easily demonstrate that your comments are inaccurate.

 It is fairly easy to see that the Assets pack is in fact owned by a considerable number of people that have downloaded DCS. Even by your own admission, you yourself own it, so your comment that no-one has the asset pack is a little bizarre to say the least.

And I was not using myself as the sample to make a point, I simply can't speak for anyone else here, but the point made is valid, your conclusion completely misses the mark as it relates to me as a new player.

There is nothing subjective about that. I can't tell you how other people are using the Assets pack, but what I can tell you is that your claims are not even close to being accurate based on my own experience.

But anyway, I will continue using the Assets pack, while you continue to entertain the patrons of your server with Assets Pack free missions.  

[Beirut]

1 minute ago, Tippis said:

…if you add the additional costs for a total of $70. An easy thing to accidentally skip over and forget.

 

If the additional cost is that Combined Arms is required for the Asset pack to be player useable, which may be the case and what you are referring to, I paid $23US dollars for CA on sale. So the two modules together are $37. That's a lot of content for the money. And it makes DCS a very big sim with a ton of stuff and things to do.

[Tippis]

30 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

What I was talking about is your claim that "no-one has the asset pack". That is a bold statement

No. It's a step in a pattern that you mistook for categorical claim, like I said.

30 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

Just a simple click on a few of the "campaign" vendors linked on this forum alone can easily demonstrate that your comments are inaccurate.

Prove it. Show me the numbers.

e: And note that I'm looking for a comparison here — not just the WWII asset pack in isolation since that tells us nothing.

30 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

And I was not using myself as the sample to make a point, I simply can't speak for anyone else here, but the point made is valid, your conclusion completely misses the mark as it relates to me as a new player.

That's because you as a new player are not relevant to the well-established general pattern. You are too small a sample size, and your subjective perspective is one where you're not able to see the problem in action. I've done the footwork where I have a decently large sample size, and I have watched the very cycle I'm describing in action. I have also seen the same thing happen and seen the same thing reported in other, much larger communities. I can speak for others; I can tell how large a portion own the asset pack, compared to how many use it, compared to how many recommend it, compared to how many are interested in it to begin with, compared to those of us who are just plain old nutcases who buy anything. As you point out, I own it too…

Like you say, you base your assertions on your own (subjective) experience, as one of the haves. I base mine on a broad sampling and polling of haves and have nots, their interactions and discussions and recommendations, as well as on similar reports from other groups.

And the sum of it all is what I've described above: restrictions harm everyone by reducing incentives to buy ED's modules; by reducing ED's incentives to create modules; by reducing content-creators' incentive to create content. The immediate conclusion, especially now that we have a counter-example where ED's opinion on the matter was reversed, is that a far better way to deal with asset packs is not not have those restrictions and to incentivise purchases through other means than “then you can't play”.

27 minutes ago, Beirut said:

If the additional cost is that Combined Arms is required for the Asset pack to be player useable

Indeed it is. Since one of the suggestions made in this thread was to solve the asset pack problem by making functionality the thing that creates value and to have that be what's funding the development of both assets and functions, it's worth being mindful of what that functionality is actually valued at: in your example, $70. A pretty decent chunk of change to support ED's efforts, in other words.

Edited February 25, 2022 by Tippis

[Beirut]

2 minutes ago, Tippis said:

 

Indeed it is. Since one of the suggestions made in this thread was to solve the asset pack problem by making functionality the thing that creates value and to have that be what's funding the development of both assets and functions, it's worth being mindful of what that functionality is actually valued at: in your example, $70. A pretty decent chunk of change to support ED's efforts, in other words.

 

 

I paid $37 for Combined Arms & the WWII Assets Pack. Not $70. And there's a ton of some pretty sweet content between them. That said, the WWII Assets pack alone, if one wants it in order play on a WWII sever that uses it, is still available for less than $14. That's a very low price not only to get the content to use yourself, but to gain you access to servers that use it.

 

If less than $14 is what is keeping someone from using DCS in the way they want to use it, then perhaps it's best to say that DCS is not for them.

 

That said, I would still like you to join me in gifting a WWII Assets Pack each  the next time there is a sale. Let's step up and help the community. Are you in?

[Callsign112]

45 minutes ago, Beirut said:

 

If the additional cost is that Combined Arms is required for the Asset pack to be player useable, which may be the case and what you are referring to, I paid $23US dollars for CA on sale. So the two modules together are $37. That's a lot of content for the money. And it makes DCS a very big sim with a ton of stuff and things to do.

CA and the WWII assets pack is how I was introduced to DCS. I didn't actually have plans to get into the flying side mostly because I don't have the system to really support it, but having enjoyed flight SIMs since before color monitors were a thing, I gave in mostly because there is only so much drooling one can do on the dashboard of a TF-51D.

But I still consider CA hands down the best value for the money I spent in DCS. I know that probably wouldn't hold true if I was in MP, but I have gotten more use out of Single Player CA than any other module I own. Just the number of drive-able vehicles, including the ones that come with the WWII assets pack, is amazing not to mention all of the other modeled equipment you get. But having said that, I probably have a higher interest in the ground war than what is obviously the average player here. But yeah I completely agree, the CA/WWII assets pack has really added multiple dimensions to my DCS experience. So +1 @Beirut

 

@Tippis, I don't know what else to say. Like I said, I won't follow you on this further. Lets leave it for another thread. I'm sure we wont have to wait too long.

I asked why you expend so much energy and time on something you clearly don't see a value in, now I have to really wonder.

I wish I could help you out somehow. I realize that I am in the more comfortable position here being completely happy with my Assets pack purchase, but outside of understanding that you have the completely opposite feeling, I don't see what your point is, or where your taking this. I think I got it, people you know refuse to purchase the Assets pack, but the problem has nothing to do with purchasing it, and no-one has the Assets pack, but we should understand that as an imaginary step in a pattern. If you ask me, I think the whole got a little cra-cra about 10 pages ago. So yeah.... hows that server thing bin workin out for ya  

[Callsign112]

46 minutes ago, Beirut said:

 

I paid $37 for Combined Arms & the WWII Assets Pack. Not $70. And there's a ton of some pretty sweet content between them. That said, the WWII Assets pack alone, if one wants it in order play on a WWII sever that uses it, is still available for less than $14. That's a very low price not only to get the content to use yourself, but to gain you access to servers that use it.

 

If less than $14 is what is keeping someone from using DCS in the way they want to use it, then perhaps it's best to say that DCS is not for them.

 

That said, I would still like you to join me in gifting a WWII Assets Pack each  the next time there is a sale. Let's step up and help the community. Are you in?

Dude, forget these guys. I'm in for one Assets pack during the next sale. How do we pick the two luck people?

[Beirut]

4 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

CA and the WWII assets pack is how I was introduced to DCS. I didn't actually have plans to get into the flying side mostly because I don't have the system to really support it, but having enjoyed flight SIMs since before color monitors were a thing, I gave in mostly because there is only so much drooling one can do on the dashboard of a TF-51D.

But I still consider CA hands down the best value for the money I spent in DCS. I know that probably wouldn't hold true if I was in MP, but I have gotten more use out of Single Player CA than any other module I own. Just the number of drive-able vehicles, including the ones that come with the WWII assets pack, is amazing not to mention all of the other modeled equipment you get. But having said that, I probably have a higher interest in the ground war than what is obviously the average player here. But yeah I completely agree, the CA/WWII assets pack has really added multiple dimensions to my DCS experience. So +1 @Beirut

 

 

Agreed, CA is a great module. I was doing some night vision APC hunting in some kinda vehicle and had a great time scooting around and hammering the buggers. And getting into the AAA vehicles and hunting helos never gets old.  Often as not, I kind of forget CA is there. I'm looking through my list of planes, wondering what I feel like flying, and then I remember that flying isn't the only option.  I might end up in a jeep touring the gorgeous Marianas scenery. It's pretty good fun.

 

Given the frequent sales and how much content there is in CA & WWII Assets Pack combined, I think more noise should be made by the powers-that-be about how much you get and how little you pay.  Definitely worth the price.

 

 

[Callsign112]

Let me know if your serious about the assets pack gift. Should be pretty simple to do.

[Beirut]

1 minute ago, Callsign112 said:

Dude, forget these guys. I'm in for one Assets pack during the next sale. How do we pick the two luck people?

 

Excellent! 

 

I've gifted stuff before and used "pick a number from 1 to 10". If there are two gifts, maybe 1 to 15 or whatever.

 

Considering the loudest voices who stated over and over and over that the cost of the Assets Pack was not and is not an issue at all, each time I ask them to join in and gift an Assets Pack I get nothing but dead silence. Maybe the cost really is the issue after all.

 

Anyway,  @Tippis & @Northstar98 we have two WWII Asset Packs to be gifted on the next sale. Would you gentlemen like to join us in helping the community and gift an Asset Pack each? Sending out four packs would be a good start to get some people onto the servers. Gentlemen? 

[upyr1]

1 hour ago, Beirut said:

 

Excellent! 

 

I've gifted stuff before and used "pick a number from 1 to 10". If there are two gifts, maybe 1 to 15 or whatever.

 

Considering the loudest voices who stated over and over and over that the cost of the Assets Pack was not and is not an issue at all, each time I ask them to join in and gift an Assets Pack I get nothing but dead silence. Maybe the cost really is the issue after all.

 

Anyway,  @Tippis & @Northstar98 we have two WWII Asset Packs to be gifted on the next sale. Would you gentlemen like to join us in helping the community and gift an Asset Pack each? Sending out four packs would be a good start to get some people onto the servers. Gentlemen? 

I wish people who are constnatly talking about subscriptions would do asset pack giveaways 

[Tippis]

2 hours ago, Beirut said:

I paid $37 for Combined Arms & the WWII Assets Pack. Not $70.

Maybe so. $70 is still what the functionality is valued at, and you should be careful not to ascribe modules with features they don't actually… well… feature. If you don't value ED's work as highly as they do, then that's fine and all, but it doesn't actually change anything.

2 hours ago, Beirut said:

If less than $14 is what is keeping someone from using DCS in the way they want to use it

The only one who believes this is something that happens is you. Hence your fixation with an assumed problem that everyone else has declared a non-issue, and why your repetitive calls to “solve” this non-issue goes unanswered: because it misses the mark. As I explained elsewhere, almost the exact opposite is what ends up happening — it's the ones who spend the $70 who end up not getting the functionality and content they paid for, whereas those who paid nothing get to use DCS the way they want to.

As for donations, let me ask you this: how many modules did you provide to other players last year? How much bandwidth? How much hardware? How much tech support? You're obsessing over what amounts to a rounding error on a cup of coffee. If you want to step up and contribute, especially to something actually is a problem rather than a completely imaginary one, you're going to need to aim a lot higher…

 

2 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

I asked why you expend so much energy and time on something you clearly don't see a value in, now I have to really wonder.

And I answered you in full and in extensive detail. There really isn't anything left for you to wonder about. It would be nice if you could at least extend the common courtesy of actually addressing the answer I gave you rather than just skipping over it and then acting confused.

2 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

I wish I could help you out somehow. I realize that I am in the more comfortable position here being completely happy with my Assets pack purchase, but outside of understanding that you have the completely opposite feeling, I don't see what your point is, or where your taking this.

Then you have “realised” something that has never been said, and “understood” something that isn't the case. These are complete inventions on your part with no basis in anything that I've written. My point cannot be made clearer than it has been. I can only advise you to read what I've actually written and stop filling in the skips and gaps in your reading with assumptions born out of who-knows-what. If any of the steps don't seem to follow from the previous one, or if the conclusion doesn't seem to follow from the previous steps, be specific: ask about the thing that confuses you.

Your position is not more comfortable because you're happy with your purchase — it's because you're lacking a broader perspective and insight. That's not actually a very happy position to be in, but it's hard to tell from the inside. Hence why I am giving you such extensive and detailed answers about the bigger picture.

[freehand]

lol what are you talking about they give there reasons but you twist it around because you do not agree which makes no sense.

Edited February 25, 2022 by freehand