Opinions on the asset pack

[Northstar98]

On 2/23/2022 at 7:45 PM, SharpeXB said:

Yes they should. Really this is the primary use for the assets, as targets or objectives etc.

But you can do both of those with free assets, even free WWII assets, so clearly there's something more to it than that...

Last time you led me on to believe that players wouldn't like to see lower quality assets, so clearly the quality of the units in the asset pack is important.

You also told me that target ID is important, so it matters that the asset depict the unit it's supposed to depict.

Which leads me right back to my proposed solution:

In MP, make it so that non-owning clients can see the asset pack units (even at a far reduced quality, be it one of the existing LODs, or something ambiguous, to what degree is arbitrary and up to developers), or replace the model with a free equivalent, but make it such that they can't be interacted with (such as CA).

For SP, nothing should change - missions and campaigns using the asset pack cannot be played on unless the asset pack is owned.

And for people creating missions, (either for SP or MP), again, nothing should change - the assets should be unavailable to be spawned for in their own missions, unless they own it.

The only other problem here is tracks, but you could go down a similar route to the proposed solution for MP if you really wanted to, though it seems that this is far less prevalent an issue.

The asset pack now doesn't split multiplayer up, while still having plenty of incentive to purchase it for MP clients and for people playing SP (who are the majority according to ED) and/or design missions (be they SP or MP) absolutely nothing has changed - they still need to purchase the asset pack to do anything with it.

And once again, I own the asset pack, I am satisfied that what I got was worth the money, and I would be in favour of similar asset packs in the future, so long as the problem of splitting up MP can be adressed.

On 2/23/2022 at 7:45 PM, SharpeXB said:

So allowing non-buyers to interact with them is essentially giving them away for free.

No it isn't, and you practically admitted this isn't the case in the last one.

On 2/23/2022 at 7:45 PM, SharpeXB said:

And creating workarounds like this just discourages buying the content.

The current situation can be argued as discouraging as it is.

And again, in the last thread you practically admitted that the incentive to purchase still remains with my proposed solution.

And for the SP crowd (like me), who according to ED are the majority, or people who want to make missions featuring the asset pack, absolutely nothing has changed.

Edited February 25, 2022 by Northstar98

[Beirut]

6 hours ago, Tippis said:

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.

 

$37. I paid $37 for Combined Arms & WWII Assets Pack. And I am very happy with my purchases and the features those products offer. There's tons of content.

 

And I value DCS' work very highly. It's a great flightsim. I think my last purchase was the Tomcat before Christmas and I'm really enjoying it.

 

6 hours ago, Tippis said:

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…

 

Not sure about last year, but probably six to eight modules in the last two-years. I've taken part in some giveaways set up by the Stormbirds blog site, which is a fantastic flightsim news & reviews site that covers DCS really well. The guy running it writes good articles. You should definitely check it out.

 

And to help out the community, my fellow flyer Callsign112 is being generous and gifting a WWII Assets Pack, and I am happy to join him, will you and @Northstar98 be joining us and make it four WWII Assets Packs? 

 

[shagrat]

Am 20.2.2022 um 20:10 schrieb upyr1:

I hope ya'll have plans to add some more asset packs in the store. I'm willing to pay to get cold war assets

The problem mentioned above is, it is likely that you need to create your own missions with assets from the packs included.

For mission designers an asset pack simply means to reduce the potential audience to the subset of users owning the asset pack. If you are a campaign developer this may directly reflect in sales.

For me when creating multiplayer missions for our small group, it is a difficult decision and usually I decide against anything, not in the core game, to prevent creating blocking points to join.

That said, I am aware how much work and ressources go into the asset creation and update for the DCS core and WWII models. I would rather prefer a way to reflect this in the module prices, instead of a separate DLC.

What I would love to see, is for the community Mods to have a way to tell DCS an AI replacement model to show, if the mod is not installed... 

[freehand]

21 minutes ago, shagrat said:

 

That said, I am aware how much work and ressources go into the asset creation and update for the DCS core and WWII models. I would rather prefer a way to reflect this in the module prices, instead of a separate DLC.

 

So you would like to see 2 prices for the modules one to include the asset packs and one with out is this correct or am I misunderstanding ?

edit: Looking back Your probably saying a slight increase in the module price to cover the cost of the assets if that is the case I am not to sure about that as I know some people just like to fly a war bird and not interested in missions e.t.c 

Edited February 25, 2022 by freehand

[shagrat]

vor 13 Stunden schrieb Beirut:

 

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.

 

The point isn't remotely the price tag. It's only about the fact, potential players don't have it and can't join a mission or server. For SP and campaigns it's maybe a simple "you need to buy another DLC for this to work" discouragement, but for Multiplayer it is a severe blocker in my opinion.

If ED would find a way to include the cost into anything, but a separate product, that would help a lot.

Think of it that way: what if you would need every module used in a mission, to play it, because the AI/uncontrolled Version is not part of the core game?

Play an F-18C or F-14 mission with F-5E as Iraqi enemy plane? Need to buy the DCS: F-5E Tiger

It's not exactly the same, but the basic principles are. So why can't we cross-finance all the DCS World assets through the modules, maps and campaigns, instead of creating another divider?

And I absolutely agree the asset pack is very much worth the money, but I would rather not pay it separately, but included into the module purchases.

 

 

[shagrat]

vor 15 Minuten schrieb freehand:

So you would like to see 2 prices for the modules one to include the asset packs and one with out is this correct or am I misunderstanding ?

edit: Looking back Your probably saying a slight increase in the module price to cover the cost of the assets if that is the case I am not to sure about that as I know some people just like to fly a war bird and not interested in missions e.t.c 

 

No, I want to increase the module price and that pays for the assets, like it does already with all the other assets in DCS Works, from the updated and new Soviet era Tanks, BM-21 Grad, the new Insurgents, new firetruck, support vehicles, three new Russian soldiers, Landrover, updated AI plane models, TACAN mobile emitter, new ships from Arleigh Burke, to Handy Wind and the Supertanker, Windsocks, slingloadable objects and the technicals we saw in the AH-64D teasers... You already pay for all that, with every purchase you make.

There is no "Naval Asset Pack" or "Persian Gulf Asset Pack". And that is a very good decision on EDs side.

[Tank50us]

8 minutes ago, shagrat said:

And I absolutely agree the asset pack is very much worth the money, but I would rather not pay it separately, but included into the module purchases.

I'd say include it in the cost of maps, or make the purchase scheme similar to Super Carrier: You don't own it? You can still shoot it, they can still shoot you, but you can't interact with them beyond that. You won't be prevented from joining a server/mission that has a USS George Washington, but you are prevented from joining a server because someone put down an infantryman with an M1 Garand.

[freehand]

8 minutes ago, shagrat said:

No, I want to increase the module price and that pays for the assets, like it does already with all the other assets in DCS Works, from the updated and new Soviet era Tanks, BM-21 Grad, the new Insurgents, new firetruck, support vehicles, three new Russian soldiers, Landrover, updated AI plane models, TACAN mobile emitter, new ships from Arleigh Burke, to Handy Wind and the Supertanker, Windsocks, slingloadable objects and the technicals we saw in the AH-64D teasers... You already pay for all that, with every purchase you make.

There is no "Naval Asset Pack" or "Persian Gulf Asset Pack". And that is a very good decision on EDs side.

mm Interesting and valid point.

[Beirut]

12 minutes ago, shagrat said:

The point isn't remotely the price tag. It's only about the fact, potential players don't have it and can't join a mission or server. For SP and campaigns it's maybe a simple "you need to buy another DLC for this to work" discouragement, but for Multiplayer it is a severe blocker in my opinion.

 

I understand that it makes some servers unavailable for people who don't own it. But sometimes ya just gotta own things to do things. If you want to fly on a DCS WWII server, you have to buy a DCS WWII plane. And there it begins. if you want to fly on a DCS WWII server that uses the Assets Pack, then you have to buy the Assets pack. It's business.

 

And I think the price in this case bears a great deal upon the point. We're talking about less than $14 on sale. $14 in the DCS world is a very low and reasonable price for good content that you can both use yourself and that allows you to join servers you wish to join. As I stated before, if this was an issue of the new clouds costing $75, for example, and you had to have them to fly in any server, then there might be an issue. At less than $14, I just can't see this as any kind of serious issue at all.

 

12 minutes ago, shagrat said:

If ED would find a way to include the cost into anything, but a separate product, that would help a lot.

 

That's fine. And I don't mean to sound unfriendly, but can we arrange that cost to be included in things you want to buy and not things I want to buy?

 

I'm happy with my existing freedom of choice to buy or not buy any DCS module. Actually, that is the DCS super deluxe enchilada with extra cheese for me: freedom of choice. I buy what I want and only what I want. There is nothing I have to buy - only things I want to buy.

 

12 minutes ago, shagrat said:

Think of it that way: what if you would need every module used in a mission, to play it, because the AI/uncontrolled Version is not part of the core game?

Play an F-18C or F-14 mission with F-5E as Iraqi enemy plane? Need to buy the DCS: F-5E Tiger

It's not exactly the same, but the basic principles are. So why can't we cross-finance all the DCS World assets through the modules, maps and campaigns, instead of creating another divider?

And I absolutely agree the asset pack is very much worth the money, but I would rather not pay it separately, but included into the module purchases.

 

I understand the nature of the limitations. I simply don't see those limitations as serious at all. The module is easily available, has good content, and is inexpensive. I think those factors reduce any problems inherent to the MP issue to being very small problems indeed.

 

Just to say, I've always enjoyed your posts and I hope I didn't come off as unfriendly.

 

[shagrat]

vor 35 Minuten schrieb Beirut:

 

I understand that it makes some servers unavailable for people who don't own it. But sometimes ya just gotta own things to do things. If you want to fly on a DCS WWII server, you have to buy a DCS WWII plane. And there it begins. if you want to fly on a DCS WWII server that uses the Assets Pack, then you have to buy the Assets pack. It's business.

 

And I think the price in this case bears a great deal upon the point. We're talking about less than $14 on sale. $14 in the DCS world is a very low and reasonable price for good content that you can both use yourself and that allows you to join servers you wish to join. As I stated before, if this was an issue of the new clouds costing $75, for example, and you had to have them to fly in any server, then there might be an issue. At less than $14, I just can't see this as any kind of serious issue at all.

 

 

That's fine. And I don't mean to sound unfriendly, but can we arrange that cost to be included in things you want to buy and not things I want to buy?

 

I'm happy with my existing freedom of choice to buy or not buy any DCS module. Actually, that is the DCS super deluxe enchilada with extra cheese for me: freedom of choice. I buy what I want and only what I want. There is nothing I have to buy - only things I want to buy.

 

 

I understand the nature of the limitations. I simply don't see those limitations as serious at all. The module is easily available, has good content, and is inexpensive. I think those factors reduce any problems inherent to the MP issue to being very small problems indeed.

 

Just to say, I've always enjoyed your posts and I hope I didn't come off as unfriendly.

 

The thing is, if you go the road "I only want to pay for what I want to buy"... Shouldn't that consequently mean: "Modern Naval Asset Pack", the new "SAM Asset Pack" instead of getting more models as part of the DCS World core? What about the "Insurgent Asset Pack"?. Or the AI models for airplanes?

Why are the majority of new or updated assets included in the normal map, module and campaign purchases and others not?

Currently I don't have a choice to pay a "reduced" price for a module or map, if I don't need/want an SA-5, for example.

Don't get me wrong. I am absolutely fine to pay for the SA-5 with my AH-64D Apache pre-purchase, or when I bought the Syria map, or the F-14B. The thing is, why not consequently use the concept for all assets, that are part of the core game?

I never heard people complain about the "free" (not really) updates and new assets coming to DCS World, without paying a separate "Asset Pack" they simple think of these as "free" because they don't see the budget transferred from their new fighter jets to the development of a "Handy Wind" Cargo ship with a helipad that benefits the helicopters they don't fly?

It is basically just using the current financial model for all DCS World assets (apart from the Combined Arms experience) and include it, so the mission designers and campaign developers don't need to think twice about including the new howitzers from the WWII Asset Pack into a 80ies or Desert Storm like mission/campaign to represent a fixed artillery position. Or the M1 Garand Soldier as stand-in for a Vietnam era US grunt, for a 60ies / 70ies Huey campaign? 

Edit: ...and talking about a price tag of 14$ on sale, that would mean a price increase of 20 cents or the like for every module sale...? likely bringing in more(!) than the Asset Pack purchases, in the long term, and make available some more money to add assets to the DCS World core. Just saying...

Edited February 25, 2022 by shagrat
Corrected auto correct...

[al531246]

Assets should come with map packs. It's that simple.

A WW2 map purchase should give you all the assets for that era.

A Cold War / Vietnam map purchase should come with the assets for that era.

This way money comes in and there's no community divide. Money is not the issue with asset packs, it's the divide. ED will eventually change how the WW2 asset pack works, it's merely a waiting game until the realization hits home.

[Beirut]

3 minutes ago, shagrat said:

The thing is, if you go the road "I only want to pay for what I want to buy"... Shouldn't that consequently mean: "Modern Naval Asset Pack", the new "SAM Asset Pack" instead of getting more models as part of the DCS Works core? What about the "Insurgent Asset Pack"?. Or the AI models for airplanes?

Why are the majority of new or updated assets included in the normal map, module and campaign purchases and others not?

Currently I don't have a choice to pay a "reduced" price for a module or map, if I don't need/want an SA-5, for example.

Don't get me wrong. I am absolutely fine to pay for the SA-5 with my AH-64D Apache pre-purchase, or when I bought the Syria map, or the F-14B. The thing is, why not consequently use the concept for all assets, that are part of the core game?

 

We work within the structure as it is set out. There are things we like, things we don't, and things in between. The things in between, such as the Assets Pack as it is sold separately, we judge on the merits. As I have pointed out, the merits are good content, good price, and allows inclusion in "preferred" servers. 

 

I understand that some may see the sold-separately aspect of the Assets pack to problematic, but I have to come back to the price point: it's low. That alleviates 90% of the problem.

 

3 minutes ago, shagrat said:

I never heard people complain about the "free" (not really) updates and new assets coming to DCS World, without paying a separate "Asset Pack" they simple think of these as "free" because they don't see the budget transferred from their new fighter jets to the development of a "Handy Wind" Cargo ship with a helipad that benefits the helicopters they don't fly?

 

There are many things I would change in DCS if it were up to me. Just as there are many things you would change if it were up to you. And they're not necessarily the same things. So we meet in the middle and discuss it. In the case it's the Assets pack. Would I prefer it being free? Sure, why no. But it's not. DCS made the choice that it's not. So now we have to judge it as a purchase based on the merits. As stated above, I think the merits justify the cost.

 

3 minutes ago, shagrat said:

It is basically just using the current financial model for all DCS World assets (apart from the Combined Arms experience) and include it, so the mission designers and campaign developers don't need to think twice about including the new howitzers from the WWII Asset Pack intima 80ies or Desert Storm like mission/campaign to represent a fixed artillery position. Or the M1 Garand Soldier as stand-in for a Vietnam era US grunt, for a 60ies / 70ies Huey campaign?  

 

DCS obviously sees some kind of happy cash flow happening with the Assets Pack. And so we pay. Actually, we pay for every single thing DCS has decided not to make free. 

 

As it stands, people on both sides of the Assets Pack issue agree the price is low, that it's not a problem to purchase, and it provides good content. I just can't find a problem  in that.

[shagrat]

Gerade eben schrieb al531246:

Assets should come with map packs. It's that simple.

A WW2 map purchase should give you all the assets for that era.

A Cold War / Vietnam map purchase should come with the assets for that era.

This way money comes in and there's no community divide. Money is not the issue with asset packs, it's the divide. ED will eventually change how the WW2 asset pack works, it's merely a waiting game until the realization hits home.

Well, actually they should be part of the core. Like for example the Landrovers and SCUD that you can place not only on the Persian Gulf, or need to own the Persian Gulf map to play a mission on the Syria map, because someone put a Landrover in?

Or what about the new technicals (insurgent Pickup-Truck with Dshk/.50 Cal). Part of the "next" map, or only available if you buy the Apache?

You see the problem?

Simply add 20-50 cents to each module price (sale or no sale) or make it $1 if necessary and include the game assets into the core game, so you can simply put a WWII M1 Garand US soldier into a Marianas Vietnam scenario, or a couple WWII howitzers on a Syria map BASF modern Syria civil war scenario without checking first which Asset Pack this belongs to.

[shagrat]

vor 2 Minuten schrieb Beirut:

 

We work within the structure as it is set out. There are things we like, things we don't, and things in between. The things in between, such as the Assets Pack as it is sold separately, we judge on the merits. As I have pointed out, the merits are good content, good price, and allows inclusion in "preferred" servers. 

 

I understand that some may see the sold-separately aspect of the Assets pack to problematic, but I have to come back to the price point: it's low. That alleviates 90% of the problem.

 

 

There are many things I would change in DCS if it were up to me. Just as there are many things you would change if it were up to you. And they're not necessarily the same things. So we meet in the middle and discuss it. In the case it's the Assets pack. Would I prefer it being free? Sure, why no. But it's not. DCS made the choice that it's not. So now we have to judge it as a purchase based on the merits. As stated above, I think the merits justify the cost.

 

 

DCS obviously sees some kind of happy cash flow happening with the Assets Pack. And so we pay. Actually, we pay for every single thing DCS has decided not to make free. 

 

As it stands, people on both sides of the Assets Pack issue agree the price is low, that it's not a problem to purchase, and it provides good content. I just can't find a problem  in that.

The price  is an interesting argument. What is your guess, you pay for the "free" assets coming to the game, or put differently, how much of the price you currently pay for a new jet or helicopter is for the core game and the included assets? 

You don't think, the developers do this in their free time and as a hobby without getting paid, do you? 

So the point still stands: why is it necessary to pay some assets through the modules and some through a separate Asset Pack, if in the end we pay for the Assets anyway?

[HC_Official]

putting none playable items that should be part of the core game was not a great idea

ED should have done WW2 CA and charged customer to "interact" with the ww2 assets and for everyone else who just wanted the assets available for mission etc would have been fine

[Beirut]

3 minutes ago, shagrat said:

The price  is an interesting argument. What is your guess, you pay for the "free" assets coming to the game, or put differently, how much of the price you currently pay for a new jet or helicopter is for the core game and the included assets? 

 

I haven't the foggiest.

 

3 minutes ago, shagrat said:

You don't think, the developers do this in their free time and as a hobby without getting paid, do you? 

 

My best guess is no.

 

3 minutes ago, shagrat said:

So the point still stands: why is it necessary to pay some assets through the modules and some through a separate Asset Pack, if in the end we pay for the Assets anyway?

 

Because that's the way the developer set it up, it seems to work on some level because the business is still running, and whatever problems exist because of the sales format can be completely eliminated for less than $14. And it's not just that it's less than $14, it's that it's less than $14 for good content that also allows you access to the WWII servers you want to fly on. 

 

I suggest people pay the $14 if they want it and don't pay it if they don't want it. That solves the problem 100% right away.

[DD_Fenrir]

I find it incredulous that people can justify WW2 Asset Pack elements as not being worth paying money for as they are not "interactive".

If something is to be an object for you to expend ordnance on as a target, you are interacting with that object. END OF DISCUSSION.

Someone has toiled to research drawings photographs and specifications.

Someone has then toiled to coalesce this information and attempt to render it faithfully as a 3D model with animations and perhaps optional cosmetic variations. Also a destroyed/damaged model, as this a combat sim and it's likely to get destroyed at some point by someone.

Someone has then had to UV map, texture, and provide specular maps for a healthy model. Then repeat for damaged and destroyed models.

Someone has then had to apply certain AI logic, if required, to the completed 3D model. Apply warehousing parameters if applicable. Weapon parameters, if applicable.

Then it has to be introduced to the game code, made to be recognised in the engine.

Then it has to be bug tested, making sure it meets parameters of performance and quality.

 

The current WW2 Asset Pack stands at 50+ units.

 

For the price of 3 beers.

 

 

Seriously, you guys need to get out more.

 

Edited February 25, 2022 by DD_Fenrir

[Nealius]

I think it cost me one beer during a sale and after applying bonus points 

[shagrat]

vor 31 Minuten schrieb DD_Fenrir:

I find it incredulous that people can justify WW2 Asset Pack elements as not being worth paying money for as they are not "interactive".

If something is to be an object for you to expend ordnance on as a target, you are interacting with that object. END OF DISCUSSION.

Someone has toiled to research drawings photographs and specifications.

Someone has then toiled to coalesce this information and attempt to render it faithfully as a 3D model with animations and perhaps optional cosmetic variations. Also a destroyed/damaged model, as this a combat sim and it's likely to get destroyed at some point by someone.

Someone has then had to UV map, texture, and provide specular maps for a healthy model. Then repeat for damaged and destroyed models.

Someone has then had to apply certain AI logic, if required, to the completed 3D model. Apply warehousing parameters if applicable. Weapon parameters, if applicable.

Then it has to be introduced to the game code, made to be recognised in the engine.

Then it has to be bug tested, making sure it meets parameters of performance and quality.

 

The current WW2 Asset Pack stands at 50+ units.

 

For the price of 3 beers.

 

 

Seriously, you guys need to get out more.

 

 

Yep, but you paid also for the 200+ and future assets in DCS World, just with a different payment model (included in every module, map or campaign purchase). 

I don't have any issue with the price! On the contrary. Make every module price $5 more and invest that into more assets for all maps and modules and I am a happy man.

I just don't see the difference/logic in "hiding" the price tag of things like the SA-5, Landrovers, new T-72B, BTR-82A, Cobra APC, VAB Mephisto, etc  the new Ships, slingloadable cargos, the numerous updates on Buses, BM-21 Grad, Fuchs APC, stuff like Windsock, tires, flags... All paid for simply (and happily) through buying all the modules, campaigns, etc. Btw. I own every module, the WWII Asset Pack and most of the Campaigns. I don't have an issue paying for it, but it bugs me that I can't use the assets I pay for in any of our Multiplayer missions, because there is a chance, someone will join and does not have the necessary pack installed...

If they would simply include the Asset Pack(s) into DCS World core and let us pay through the modules, like we already do, with ALL the other assets, nobody would even argue about the "price" or "dividing the community".

Edited February 25, 2022 by shagrat

[Beirut]

3 minutes ago, shagrat said:

 

 

I don't have any issue with the price!

 

But here's the thing, I think everyone who says they have no issue with the price... has an issue with the price.

 

If the Assets Pack was free, like the Marianas map, there would be no discussion. None. If the Assets Pack were .50 cents, there would be very little discussion. Almost none. But as the price rises vertically, the discussion increases exponentially. When we finally hit the actual price that it is, there seems to be very much discussion. And as I have said before, the two loudest guys who absolutely insist that the price is not a problem in the least, also absolutely refuse to join Callsign112 and myself in gifting an Assets Pack.

 

I think we need to be clear: this is all about the price and nothing else. 

[freehand]

Depends on the quality of the asset the normal assets are not on par with the paid assets.

This all boils down to multiplayer. 

Edited February 25, 2022 by freehand

[Tippis]

16 minutes ago, Beirut said:

I think we need to be clear: this is all about the price and nothing else. 

No, we need to be clear: this has nothing to do with the price. It has too do with the restriction on participation.

The only one who has expressed an issue with the price is you. Witness for instance your attempt to somehow rewrite the price as being 1/5 of its clearly defined official value.

[Beirut]

12 minutes ago, Tippis said:

No, we need to be clear: this has nothing to do with the price. It has too do with the restriction on participation.

The only one who has expressed an issue with the price is you. Witness for instance your attempt to somehow rewrite the price as being 1/5 of its clearly defined official value.

 

If it has nothing to do with the price, then please join Callsign112 and I in gifting an Assets Pack during the next sale.  And @Northstar98 is welcome to join us as well.

 

Sending out four assets pack would be great. Are you guys in?

[Northstar98]

6 hours ago, Beirut said:

But here's the thing, I think everyone who says they have no issue with the price... has an issue with the price.

Are we now just straight up making things up?

6 hours ago, Beirut said:

If the Assets Pack didn't split MP up, like the Marianas map, there would be no discussion. None.

FTFY.

6 hours ago, Beirut said:

If the Assets Pack were .50 cents, there would be very little discussion. Almost none. But as the price rises vertically, the discussion increases exponentially.

You realise that much of the grievances with the asset pack, come from people who own it?

It's almost like, the asset pack being payware isn't the problem, and, as has been brought up over and over again, it's multiplayer implementation that's the problem - just you keep ignoring it over and over again, presumably because acknowledging that (which, so far you haven't, I mean, you haven't even quoted us about it, unless it's something you can mine), would blow your narrative out of the water.

6 hours ago, Beirut said:

I think we need to be clear: this is all about the price and nothing else. 

And I think we need to be clear: no it absolutely isn't, as I have made clear over and over again.

5 hours ago, Beirut said:

If it has nothing to do with the price, then please join Callsign112 and I in gifting an Assets Pack during the next sale.  And @Northstar98 is welcome to join us as well.

Which will achieve what exactly? I've gifted the asset pack before, but unless I can gift it to everybody, the problem which you keep ignoring over and over again still absolutely remains, and that's because, wait for it...

THE ASSET PACK BEING PAYWARE, ISN'T THE ISSUE.

Edited February 25, 2022 by Northstar98

[Beirut]

3 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

And I think we need to be clear, no it absolutely isn't, as has been made clear over and over again.

 

 

Since the cost is no issue, I take it you will be joining Callsign 112 and myself in gifting an Assets Pack during the next sale?