Opinions on the asset pack

[shagrat]

vor 6 Minuten schrieb Baldrick33:

Without access to sales data I couldn’t say. If we assume the WW2 stuff sells in lower volumes then the asset development has lower revenue for investment and needs further revenue which if incorporated into the modules would further reduce sales so is sold as an option to those prepared to pay. Pure speculation on my part but that is what this thread is all about which is kind of my point

No, I meant we already pay for the new WWII Assets coming to the WWII Assets, with the normal purchases, like we pay for the modern assets.

I mean stuff like the Howitzers, the M4 Tractor, etc. ED develops assets funded by money earned from their products. It doesn't really matter, where you pay the money. If the money you pay for each module would only flow into the budget of that specific module, we won't have any new assets developed.

[Tippis]

14 minutes ago, Baldrick33 said:

Without access to sales data I couldn’t say. If we assume the WW2 stuff sells in lower volumes then the asset development has lower revenue for investment and needs further revenue which if incorporated into the modules would further reduce sales so is sold as an option to those prepared to pay. Pure speculation on my part but that is what this thread is all about which is kind of my point

This is a key part of why I am fond of the asset tax idea: any module made contributes a certain % to the development of suitable assets for that module. If the WWII era somehow shows to sell a crapton of modules, then they are also accompanied by a crapton of assets to make their world more varied. If the [whatever] era turns out to not really move any modules, then very little time and money is wasted on assets for that era.

There would be a slight downside to whenever a new era is introduced and there's only one or two modules to drive its asset creation, causing a slow and sparse start, but then again, that's just part of the risk you take when opening up a new market: if you want to sell it, you have to sell it, and perhaps over-spend on that first iteration while accepting realistically lower ROI because it lays the groundwork for future expansions of that era.

[Beirut]

4 hours ago, Tippis said:

Since it has nothing to do with price, there is no point in wasting money on some irrelevant side-show . . . 

 

 

Supporting the community is wasting money? Helping out fellow flyers is an irrelevant sideshow? Really?

 

That's okay. Callsign112 and I are happy to support the community and gift some Asset Packs to help address the problem that................. you keep complaining about.

 

But you can watch, we don't mind. 

[Callsign112]

13 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

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.

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

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.

 

Yes you can shoot at/interact with free assets. Were you expecting something different? The key word though is FREE. ED has gifted a selection of assets, two free maps, two free planes, and a very decent free trial period of any and all available modules.

There is enough there that anyone interested can get started in DCS and learn more about what it has to offer. But why are you confusing the free assets with the assets pack? The fact that ED decided to give us a selection of free assets does not mean they have to gift the entire assets pack away.

And I don't disagree with the concept that non-owners could join, but just not interact with paid assets, but why should ED have to jump through those hoops? It would a lot easier for anyone wanting to join a MP server to just get the maps/assets required. 

But what I find funny is the fake argument that the assets pack is dividing the community. What about the player? Shouldn't the player be responsible for the games he/she plays. Why don't I have the same problem as your friends? I can join a MP server if I want to. Why is that? I can also play paid Campaigns without any issues. Why is that? And if you know, don't you think you should let your friends in on the little secret?

[upyr1]

2 hours ago, Tippis said:

This is a key part of why I am fond of the asset tax idea: any module made contributes a certain % to the development of suitable assets for that module. If the WWII era somehow shows to sell a crapton of modules, then they are also accompanied by a crapton of assets to make their world more varied. If the [whatever] era turns out to not really move any modules, then very little time and money is wasted on assets for that era.

I like the asset tax idea, Eagle is reluctant so at the minimum I would like to give users the option to filter servers that use the asset pack. I'd love to see more of the community moders contacting 9line about putting AI assets in DCS core 

[Callsign112]

15 minutes ago, Beirut said:

 

Supporting the community is wasting money? Helping out fellow flyers is an irrelevant sideshow? Really?

 

That's okay. Callsign112 and I are happy to support the community and gift some Asset Packs to help address the problem that................. you keep complaining about.

 

But you can watch, we don't mind. 

Yeah this argument is almost laughable. Personally, I am here because I want to be. When I am ready for HB's F14, I think I would much prefer just buying it instead of claiming HB somehow owes me the thing for free. PM me regarding the assets giveaway. 

[Beirut]

23 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

Yeah this argument is almost laughable.

 

It really is surreal. The same people who say the price isn't a problem don't want to help out because price is apparently a problem. Which it isn't. But it is. But no it isn't. Well, ummm, anyway...

 

23 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

 

Personally, I am here because I want to be. When I am ready for HB's F14, I think I would much prefer just buying it instead of claiming HB somehow owes me the thing for free. PM me regarding the assets giveaway. 

 

I'll do that. 

 

And maybe they can tax the other modules so you get the Tomcat for fee. 

[Northstar98]

2 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

Yes you can shoot at/interact with free assets. Were you expecting something different?

I take it we're still not reading the arguments putting forward? Seems to be the recurring theme here...

2 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

But why are you confusing the free assets with the assets pack? The fact that ED decided to give us a selection of free assets does not mean they have to gift the entire assets pack away.

There it is again...

Do any of you actually read what you're responding to? It must be way easier to make arguments when you can just make up what the person you're arguing against has said, kinda explains a few things actually...

2 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

And I don't disagree with the concept that non-owners could join, but just not interact with paid assets, but why should ED have to jump through those hoops?

Because it would solve the issue entirely, while maintaining the incentive to purchase the asset pack.

And seriously, is "why should developers spend effort" all you've got here? Something that can be applied to literally anything?

2 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

It would a lot easier for anyone wanting to join a MP server to just get the maps/assets required.

You realise they've already done this exact thing for the Supercarrier, right?

And no not just the Nimitz-Roosevelt class, the Kuznetsov and the Arleigh Burke too, which used to be in exactly the same boat (hah) as the asset pack and then the implementation was changed to something that goes even beyond what I proposed.

RAZBAM are doing an asset pack for the Falklands, I wonder why they've decided to include it with the map...

2 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

But what I find funny is the fake argument that the assets pack is dividing the community.

I take it "fake argument" now means "argument I don't like"?

It objectively does, that's how it works. Only it's an exception to the rule because nothing else but maps does this.

I mean, do you think 4YA had no reason to exclude the asset pack on their WWII training server for no (or at least fake) reason?

2 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

What about the player? Shouldn't the player be responsible for the games he/she plays.

Why should players be forced to shell out money on something they potentially don't care for, just to join a server which for literally anything else but maps, is completely free?

Edited February 26, 2022 by Northstar98

[Beirut]

10 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

Why should players be forced to shell out money on something they potentially don't care for, just to join a server which for literally anything else but maps, is completely free?

 

There is precisely and exactly nothing being forced. No one is being forced to play DCS. No one is being forced to buy a WWII fighter. No one is being forced to fly online. And no one is being forced to fly online in servers that use the Assets Pack. From start to finish and everywhere in between, it's free choice.

 

If someone choses not to spend the $14 required in order to fly on a server that uses the Assets Pack, that is 100%, start to finish, in every single case, and without exception, their choice. And those people enjoy their freedom of choice regarding what they will or will not purchase from DCS to precisely and the exactly same degree as you and I. 

 

It's completely fair. 

[Callsign112]

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

I take it we're still not reading the arguments putting forward? Seems to be the recurring theme here...

There it is again...

Do any of you actually read what you're responding to? It must be way easier to make arguments when you can just make up what the person you're arguing against has said, kinda explains a few things actually...

Because it would solve the issue entirely, while maintaining the incentive to purchase the asset pack.

And seriously, is "why should developers spend effort" all you've got here? Something that can be applied to literally anything?

You realise they've already done this exact thing for the Supercarrier, right?

And no not just the Nimitz-Roosevelt class, the Kuznetsov and the Arleigh Burke too, which used to be in exactly the same boat (hah) as the asset pack and then the implementation was changed to something that goes even beyond what I proposed.

RAZBAM are doing an asset pack for the Falklands, I wonder why they've decided to include it with the map...

I take it "fake argument" now means "argument I don't like"?

It objectively does, that's how it works. Only it's an exception to the rule because nothing else but maps does this.

I mean, do you think 4YA had no reason to exclude the asset pack on their WWII training server for no (or at least fake) reason?

Why should players be forced to shell out money on something they potentially don't care for, just to join a server which for literally anything else but maps, is completely free?

 

My initial comments were in reference to your groups view point that because you can see and shoot at the SC and other free assets, you should be able to do the same with assets from the pack.

There are vast differences between the SC and the assets pack.

Being able to see the SC is like being able to see other planes that you don't own fly around. The value in the SC or other flyable modules is not in being able to see/shoot them. This should be so blatantly obvious to everyone that it shouldn't need to be discussed further.  But apparently not for your group.

The value of the assets on the other hand comes from being able to see them. There wouldn't be much point for movie theaters if everyone was able to see the films for free. This should also be blatantly obvious. But again, apparently not for your grouup.

I don't mind paying for the assets pack because I use it, and I want to see it developed further. There are after all a lot of assets still missing that would be really nice to have. And I don't see that happening, especially not in a timely manner, without support. I also purchased all the war birds not because I have gotten around to learning/flying them all, but because I want to see more WWII planes developed.

I would not mind paying extra for a map/module because it included assets. And I think allowing non-owners to join a server where they are restricted from using the assets would be an effective way to solve the problem being created when a group of people want to join a server that requires the assets pack. In other words, I think it could work, but I am not here to tell ED what its business model should be. They produce the products, and I decide if I want to purchase them. I also think that even if ED did implement something like this, it would likely cause other problems. So I get why ED might not even bother.

If RAZBAM includes assets with a map it releases in 2023, excellent, but the WWII Assets pack and Normandy map were released before, so it is a poor example to support the demand that the assets pack be free, or that some workaround be implemented so that non-owners can join but no use. Which is sort of what your doing with your SC example. The SC and Assets pack are two very different products, leaving your use of it in this discussion pointless. 

And fake means fake. Not being able to play a computer game because you aren't equipped to play is not an excuse to demand that you be equipped for free.

By your groups own admission, the response to servers that require the Assets pack was to go join one that doesn't require it... Problem solved, making this entire discussion fake because it is based on a fabricated problem.

If you own the Assets pack, then you have no problem joining what ever server you want. If you don't, and you refuse to purchase, then you are free to join/start your own server that doesn't use it. I think that is what members of your group did, and yet they are still here explaining how the Assets pack is somehow a problem for them.

The only problem being pointed to by your group is that it can't use a product it doesn't want, or see a value in.

Again, if they see no value in it, or potentially don't care for it, no one is forcing them to shell out money for it. You are trying to create what I would call a fake scenario, because the simple answer is, DON'T BUY IT, go start a server that doesn't require the Assets pack, and you should have pretty much solved your problem along with anyone else that refuses to purchase.

The Assets pack isn't preventing anyone from accessing MP game play. Have you ever heard the rule, no shirt, no shoes, no service? There is a similar concept being applied when a server has restrictions.

And like your misuse of the SC example, it might help your outlook some by realizing that assets and maps have more in common in the way they deliver value than assets and flyable modules/SC does.

The fact that a company might include assets with a map sometime in the future doesn't change that.

[BIGNEWY]

Thank you all for the feedback, but this thread has reached its conclusion. 

We have no plans to change how the asset pack works in DCS, devs do work, they need to be paid. 

Thank you