Official Expansions

[SharpeXB]

26 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Do you think you should have to own every module on a server in order to join that server, even if they're modules you have no interest in?

Obviously that’s not how the aircraft modules work. But those have separate AI and player controlled uses. You don’t have to buy an F-14 to see it in the game as AI. Nor do you have to buy it to play against someone who owns it online. 
But the asset pack is all AI. If people could see it and interact with it online without buying it, who would pay for it? Not enough people would buy it to make it feasible. It’s a dilemma for sure, how to pay for this content. But again it’s funny that a $29 add-on generates so much discussion. 

[Northstar98]

1 minute ago, SharpeXB said:

But the asset pack is all AI.

Nope, CA exists. While it may be unpopular, the fact that certain units are playable means that they aren't "all AI".

1 minute ago, SharpeXB said:

If people could see it and interact with it online without buying it, who would pay for it?

• People who want to create their own missions for it (both SP and MP).
• People who want to play single player missions and campaigns with it.
• People who want to see high-quality assets in missions and/or people who want to see the actual unit instead of free placeholder replacement.

1 minute ago, SharpeXB said:

Not enough people would buy it to make it feasible.

Based on?

1 minute ago, SharpeXB said:

It’s a dilemma for sure, how to pay for this content. But again it’s funny that a $29 add-on generates so much discussion. 

As far as I'm concerned, it's got nothing to do with the price, it's the implementation. I don't think people should be required to pay for addons that they may not even be interested in, in order to join servers featuring that addon and there are examples of paid-for content in other titles that don't segregate players, while maintaining an incentive to purchase said content.

The only exception is maps, but IMO, that's a more difficult issue - for instance if maps were able to used in multiplayer but nowhere else (kinda like the other WW2 sim), that would mandate having all of them installed - which incurs heavy storage requirements. If it was a lower quality equivalent and the terrain geometry didn't match - that would incur much greater issues than merely having an object that looks different.

[SharpeXB]

7 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Nope, CA exists. While it may be unpopular, the fact that certain units are playable means that they aren't "all AI".

True. Hardly anyone plays CA though

7 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

• People who want to create their own missions for it (both SP and MP).
• People who want to play single player missions and campaigns with it.
• People who want to see high-quality assets in missions and/or people who want to see the actual unit instead of free placeholder replacement.

Apparently there aren’t enough people in these categories. 

7 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

The only exception is maps

Well that’s the same dilemma. These things have to be paid for. And if you want to use it online you need to own it. 

7 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

it's got nothing to do with the price

Then just buy it and stop complaining. Heck, wait for a sale. 

Edited May 10, 2023 by SharpeXB

[Rudel_chw]

15 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Then just buy it and stop complaining. Heck, wait for a sale. 

 

agree ..

 

[Northstar98]

17 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Apparently there aren’t enough people in these categories. 

And this is based on?

17 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Well that’s the same dilemma.

Except I mentioned why it's much more of an issue than asset pack units. It's not exactly the same thing and its solution isn't as easy to solve (again, owing to the far greater disk space requirements for maps and that mismatched geometry would potentially cause much greater issues than just having units be placeholder).

17 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

These things have to be paid for.

Nothing I've said would stop them being paid for. I even gave you an example where this has been put into practice (a certain other WWII sim even does this for maps - you can join multiplayer servers with maps you don't own and even create your own missions on them, you are just prohibited from using them in single player).

17 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

And if you want to use it online you need to own it. 

But why does this have to be the case? Why can't there be other solutions that don't incur a restriction, but maintain the incentive to purchase?

And you don't have to be using it for the restriction to be in place - it can be a single unit placed in a far corner of the map, far from any action and the restriction will still apply.

17 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Then just buy it and stop complaining. Heck, wait for a sale. 

Again - I own the asset pack. I was happy to pay for the asset pack - the problem still exists - it hasn't gone away just because I'm on the other side of it.

And again, why should somebody have to buy something that they potentially aren't even interested in, just so they can join a server that potentially only has a single unit from the asset pack on it?

The supercarrier used to work like this - even for assets that have no extra functionality like the Arleigh Burke and the Kuznetsov. You had to own the SC module to join servers using the assets. Then it was changed such they could - I wonder why.

Edited May 11, 2023 by Northstar98
grammar

[Rudel_chw]

3 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

And again, why should somebody have to buy something that they potentially aren't even interested in, just so they can join a server

 

That's the purchase reason: to join a server that uses those assets.

 

3 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

that potentially only has a single unit from the asset pack on it?

 

I have never seen an actual mission that only uses a single unit of an assets pack, any mission designer that decides to use extra assets will strive to make the most of it and use as many units as benefits their mission.

[Northstar98]

37 minutes ago, Rudel_chw said:

That's the purchase reason: to join a server that uses those assets.

It can be a reason, but why should it be a reason, when no other payware content (apart from maps), including content with assets that are completely comparable to the asset pack don't work that way?

37 minutes ago, Rudel_chw said:

I have never seen an actual mission that only uses a single unit of an assets pack, any mission designer that decides to use extra assets will strive to make the most of it and use as many units as benefits their mission.

I'm afraid this doesn't refute the point I'm making - the point was that the restriction will still kick in even if there's a single unit from the asset pack. I, as someone who owns the asset pack, was happy to pay for the asset pack and would be in support of future asset packs, think this is a bit unreasonable and there are potential solutions to this that still maintain the incentive to purchase, without incurring any restrictions. There are even other titles (even titles within the same genre) that have implemented these solutions.

Edited May 10, 2023 by Northstar98

[sirrah]

55 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

But again it’s funny that a $29 add-on generates so much discussion. 

You're missing a major point here:

 

We're not talking about one asset pack for $29 (one asset pack for this price would never cover the costs to develop all the additional assets that are "needed").

 

We're talking about multiple asset packs. Maybe one for air units, one for maritime, one for ground units, one for civil units, one for static units, etc. Or packs per era, or map related. Whatever the asset pack approach would be, it would never all fit in one single $29 pack.

[Beirut]

If it's interesting, if it's well made, if it's fun, I'll buy it. 

[SharpeXB]

12 minutes ago, sirrah said:

You're missing a major point here:

 

We're not talking about one asset pack for $29 (one asset pack for this price would never cover the costs to develop all the additional assets that are "needed").

 

We're talking about multiple asset packs. Maybe one for air units, one for maritime, one for ground units, one for civil units, one for static units, etc. Or packs per era, or map related. Whatever the asset pack approach would be, it would never all fit in one single $29 pack.

Well then buy em. Or don’t. Everything can’t be free. 

[Dragon1-1]

I think it could work if it was divided by era. Basically, you "buy an era" and get a full collection of era-appropriate AI assets. So, we'd have a modern pack, an 80s (late Cold War) pack, a 60s to 70s Vietnam pack, the current WWII pack covering late WWII front and Korea (Eastern assets would have to be added), Pacific pack (very different lineup from WWII Europe) and perhaps an early WWII pack, if that timeframe gets developed someday.

Naturally, there would be cross-pollination between them - you'd have an 80s era T-72 and a modern one, which would only differ in details, but with a 3D model designed in a smart way, it could be done, and even save some work. To discourage using multiple packs on a server (thus avoiding the problems with the barrier to entry), particularly enduring assets should be represented in each asset pack, even if the only difference would be stat changes. Really enduring kit such as Soviet flak guns or the An-2 should be free for everyone, just like now. 

Most people aren't interested in every era, so they could only buy packs that they do care about. Some would buy them all right away. Others would buy them on a sale, or if something made them interested in a specific era. The point is, it'd be a way to customize things without having to spend too much money to get everything at once.

Edited May 10, 2023 by Dragon1-1

[sirrah]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

Well then buy em. Or don’t. Everything can’t be free. 

It's not about what I (or you) buy...

We're talking about the MP part of DCS getting even further scattered when multiple asset packs are added. So, to many, me included, asset packs are not the solution. What is? I don't know. But luckily I'm not the one that should provide this solution. I get paid for other stuff

 

Also, nobody here is saying everything should be free (if you read more carefully what other people write before drawing conclusions, you'd see that).

 

 

 

@Dragon 1-1; I have to agree, if it really has to be "asset packs", something like "10 year era-packs" would probably suit best. Although that would still result in a lot of packs that would have to contain units that can be used on all maps (I can see the complaints already about missing units)

Edited May 10, 2023 by sirrah

[SharpeXB]

10 minutes ago, sirrah said:

It's not about what I (or you) buy...

We're talking about the MP part of DCS getting even further scattered when multiple asset packs are added. So, to many, me included, asset packs are not the solution. What is?

I’m sure ED can figure out a way to monetize these things. All the handwringing is unnecessary. 

[79Au]

I'll just throw in my 2 cents, a couple thoughts. First of all I agree with OP, we just need to find a solution for this whole multiplayer stuff. Because at this rate (5 units per year) we're gonna run out of decent assets soon. We already have heaps of Nintendo64 era assets that are still in the game like the russian bombers or our beloved S-3B that ED "promised" to replace... 3 years ago?

So I'd definitely buy as many asset packs as possible, since I'm a singleplayer guy who likes to build missions, and just admire virtual tanks, trucks, planes, KC-10s... Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those preorder, or shut-up-and-take my-money people. And I understand that the demand for AI asset packs is limited. But something needs to be done and I believe it would make ED and 3rd party devs a little bit of money.

I'd buy generic as well as country specific asset packs. Imagine ED released a proper Iraq map, and a couple weeks/months later we get an "Iraqi forces asset pack", and a "coalition forces asset pack", for 20-40 bucks each. That would be absolutely wicked.

Public servers use an overhauled, "base" free asset pack that provides a range of sam systems and other units, but nothing country specific. similar to what we have now (more free WWII assets would be nice though, the paid asset packs should be 100% optional and "non-essential") That way players can create and play all kinds of multiplayer missions without paying a single cent, but they will lack the last bit of fidelity, country specific versions, liveries etc.

Or just make asset packs single player only, but I think there's a lot of private servers that focus on a certain setting or conflict, and that their players would love some more variety too.

I come from P3D/FSX and I loved the huge selection of add ons that allowed people to customize/"shape" their simulator to fit their needs/interests. And I feel like the current system that requires everyone on a server to own everything is dragging DCS down, especially for the singleplayer guys.

Edited May 10, 2023 by 79Au

[upyr1]

While I favor more modules over asset packs, if we must have asset packs then we should have a lot of them with discounts for the overlap.

For example let's say we have a WWII Europe pack with Axis(brown), Blue and Red.

An East front with red and brown and a western front with blue and brown.

Let's say the east and west are both 2/3 of the WWII pack and 1/2 of each other. You get the Western pack the price of the WWII pack drops by 2/3 and the pack of the Eastern pack drops by 1/2.

I would also bundle assets with maps. 

[draconus]

17 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

It can be a reason, but why should it be a reason, when no other payware content (apart from maps), including content with assets that are completely comparable to the asset pack don't work that way?

I'm afraid this doesn't refute the point I'm making - the point was that the restriction will still kick in even if there's a single unit from the asset pack. I, as someone who owns the asset pack, was happy to pay for the asset pack and would be in support of future asset packs, think this is a bit unreasonable and there are potential solutions to this that still maintain the incentive to purchase, without incurring any restrictions. There are even other titles (even titles within the same genre) that have implemented these solutions.

That's the devs decision and as it seems it works for them for years.

Why a single non-mission relevant asset can restrict someone from joining? The same way if you want to use one button on the full fidelity module - you have to buy it as whole and then it's your decision on how you use it.

If there are people not interested in buying the pack it means just that - they're not interested in the assets. Why do you want to forcibly allow them to join your mission and make them see some silly low fidelity or totally different assets than others? Let the marketing done in the devs departmens.

[Northstar98]

On 5/11/2023 at 10:40 AM, draconus said:

That's the devs decision and as it seems it works for them for years.

It's also been a point of contention for years and has been a solved problem in other titles for years - go figure.

Explain to me why the Arleigh Burke and the Kuznetsov from the super carrier, which on release behaved exactly like the asset pack (i.e if they were used in a server, you'd have to own them to join) and now does not? Heck they made all the assets themselves free, just without the SC specific functionality - which is beyond what I've been suggesting.

On 5/11/2023 at 10:40 AM, draconus said:

Why a single non-mission relevant asset can restrict someone from joining? The same way if you want to use one button on the full fidelity module - you have to buy it as whole and then it's your decision on how you use it.

Eh? They're not comparable at all.

If I want to join a server that has modules on it I don't own - I can do so no problem. Even for modules that include items directly comparable to the asset pack, like the supercarrier -  which incidentally, used to behave exactly like the asset pack and now doesn't - I wonder why.

On 5/11/2023 at 10:40 AM, draconus said:

If there are people not interested in buying the pack it means just that - they're not interested in the assets.

And why should that mean people should be prohibited from joining servers with them? Again, apart from maps, no other paid-for content works like this, including content that's exactly like the asset pack.

If I'm not interested in 'x' module, I don't have to own it in order to join servers featuring them.

If I'm not interested in the supercarrier, I don't have to own it to join servers using it (even if they only include assets from supercarrier with no new functionality - such as the Kuznetsov and Arleigh Burke).

Why should the asset pack be different? Especially when solutions exist (some of them even implemented in other titles and even by ED themselves (and they went beyond what I've suggested)) that maintain an incentive to purchase, without entailing a multiplayer restriction between owners and non-owners?

On 5/11/2023 at 10:40 AM, draconus said:

Why do you want to forcibly allow them to join your mission and make them see some silly low fidelity or totally different assets than others?

"forcibly allow them" what are you talking about? How does one "forcibly" allow somebody to do something Draconus? I'm not trying to "force" people into servers they don't want to join and I don't want to "make" them see low fidelity or totally different ones. The only thing I want to do do, is allow owners and non-owners of assets pack to join the same server. The same way non-owners and owners of modules can and how owners and non-owners of the supercarrier can.

And if players can join servers, but find either low-fidelity assets or replacements undesireable, then they'll have an incentive to purchase the asset pack, without incurring the multiplayer restriction!

Why do you want to force people to own stuff they may not be interested in, just so they can play on what's otherwise a free server?

Edited May 12, 2023 by Northstar98
grammar

[draconus]

51 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

And if players can join servers, but find either low-fidelity assets or replacements undesireable, then they'll have an incentive to purchase the asset pack, without incurring the multiplayer restriction!

They won't have an incentive, because they're not interested in the first place, especially if they can join the server without owning DLC. What they will do is probably making bug reports that they see poor quality objects or ones from wrong era or something different than their friends.

There may be server using Asset Pack - which you can ignore - and then there may be other server using core assests - which you can join freely. Same with existing SP missions. If you don't have the map you won't play that mission either.

Yes, they changed their mind about SC in MP, but they didn't about WWII AP - it is what it is, why beat the dead horse again?

[SharpeXB]

21 minutes ago, draconus said:

Yes, they changed their mind about SC in MP

Isn’t it still the case that you can’t trap on the SC without owning it?

[Northstar98]

1 hour ago, draconus said:

They won't have an incentive, because they're not interested in the first place

But they might end up being interested in it, if they were able to join servers using it.

1 hour ago, draconus said:

especially if they can join the server without owning DLC.

Which results in even less incentive to purchase the assets pack and potentially for owners of the asset pack to not include it in multiplayer missions they make.

1 hour ago, draconus said:

What they will do is probably making bug reports that they see poor quality objects or ones from wrong era or something different than their friends.

And said bug reports can be answered? What's the issue? I hope you're not suggesting that we shouldn't do anything that could potentially lead to people making bug reports due to them not being familiar with something or how it works. When a procedure for something changes in an update and a player is confused because the old method doesn't work and makes a bug report, the solution is to educate, not revert the change and make no changes in the future (unless it's in error).  

1 hour ago, draconus said:

There may be server using Asset Pack - which you can ignore - and then there may be other server using core assests - which you can join freely.

Which again, results in there being potentially less incentive to purchase the asset pack.

I mean, you're kinda helping justify how the assets pack not only hurts players who want to

1 hour ago, draconus said:

Same with existing SP missions. If you don't have the map you won't play that mission either.

Except that maps in DCS carry heavy storage requirements - it's far less feasible to apply the same thing with maps, than it is with assets.

Though it's ironic that paid-for maps preventing non-owners from joining is also a solved problem in another title.

1 hour ago, draconus said:

Yes, they changed their mind about SC in MP, but they didn't about WWII AP - it is what it is, why beat the dead horse again?

So it can be changed? This isn't some inevitability that's impossible to change, it's not something that's set it stone and can't ever be changed - evidenced by the SC.

Especially when not only would this allow owners and non-owners to play together (which taks away much of the criticism of the asset pack), owners would potentially be more likely to include it multiplayer missions they make.

42 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Isn’t it still the case that you can’t trap on the SC without owning it?

AFAIK specific SC functionality (new communications, deck crew etc) are locked out.

Personally, I'm absolutely fine and completely on board with this - it doesn't prevent non-owners from joining servers featuring assets from the SC module, but still maintains an incentive to purchase it - it's a pretty perfect balance and it even goes beyond what I've been suggesting.

Edited May 11, 2023 by Northstar98

[Exorcet]

23 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

For instance:

• You could set it up such that the asset pack is available in multiplayer missions, but cannot be used in your own or single player missions unless purchased (a certain WW2 sim does this with its maps).
• You could have the models replaced with either a lower LOD (which should exist anyway) or with the nearest free equivalent.

I like the idea of tying in relevant units to modules. So for instance the F-86 would have come with B-29 and Tu-4 AI and possibly a higher selling price if deemed necessary. Barring that though, your ideas are huge improvement over now. It's bothering having to worry about potentially greatly reducing the accessibility of my missions just because I want to add a single unit from an asset pack into it. DCS has a decent unit list, but some time periods are pretty scarcely populated, like Korea as I mentioned above. That early Cold War era is one of the big problems because it can be beneficial to pull a unit or two from the WWII pack, but then you might end up barring a bunch of people from your mission. In a WWII scenario you'd expect more players to have the pack since it's marketed for WWII.

Also, if we keep adding packs, things get more and more divided and more and more complex. It's an unnecessary headache.

[SharpeXB]

20 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

AFAIK specific SC functionality (new communications, deck crew etc) are locked out.

Personally, I'm absolutely fine and completely on board with this - it doesn't prevent non-owners from joining servers featuring assets from the SC module, but still maintains an incentive to purchase it - it's a pretty perfect balance and it even goes beyond what I've been suggesting.

Such feature nuances don’t exist for the Asset Pack though. Obviously ED figured not enough people would be motivated to buy it if they could just use it online for free. 

[Northstar98]

2 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

I like the idea of tying in relevant units to modules. So for instance the F-86 would have come with B-29 and Tu-4 AI and possibly a higher selling price if deemed necessary.

Yep - I'd be happy with that, especially for maps. Unfortunately only the South Atlantic has gone down that route (to my knowledge RAZBAM are providing a free asset pack and a paid one, however, if you purchase the map (a map these assets are probably going to best fit on) you get that paid for asset pack included.

2 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

Barring that though, your ideas are huge improvement over now. It's bothering having to worry about potentially greatly reducing the accessibility of my missions just because I want to add a single unit from an asset pack into it. DCS has a decent unit list, but some time periods are pretty scarcely populated, like Korea as I mentioned above. That early Cold War era is one of the big problems because it can be beneficial to pull a unit or two from the WWII pack, but then you might end up barring a bunch of people from your mission. In a WWII scenario you'd expect more players to have the pack since it's marketed for WWII.

Also, if we keep adding packs, things get more and more divided and more and more complex. It's an unnecessary headache.

Don't get me wrong - I am in favour of paid-for asset packs, I was happy to pay for the WWII assets pack, I think the assets pack is worth the money. I would be in favour of other similar packs in the future.

However, because of the way the multiplayer implementation is handled, it makes me not want to use it in my missions, because it means people can't join if they don't own it. So even though I've paid for it, I still feel like I can't use it the way I want to do and (apart from the maps) it's the only thing that does this.

And it doesn't matter if I'm just using some of its assets as purely decorative (such as Czech hedgehogs or dragon's teeth - which are still used to this day) or if they're units I expect players to directly interact with, the restriction applies just the same.

3 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Such feature nuances don’t exist for the Asset Pack though.

True, the asset pack only really provides assets (the only other thing is searchlights - at the moment that functionality is exclusive to the assets pack, everything else are either core or CA features).

But the same was also true of the Arleigh Burke and the Kuznetsov. They have no feature nuances (the latter isn't even a new unit), yet they were both changed to allow everybody to use them, in both SP and MP - which is even more generous than what I've been suggesting.

And there are still feature nuances to the asset pack that could be locked out, as I've already described.

19 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Obviously ED figured not enough people would be motivated to buy it if they could just use it online for free.

Which is ironic considering that the current set up can actually disincentivise people from purchasing the asset pack, at least in certain cases. For instance, let's say somebody is interested in making multiplayer WWII missions. They might be considering the WWII assets pack, but because of the multiplayer restriction, it makes their server fundamentally less accessible, providing a reason to not purchase the asset pack.

Yes, this also applies to maps, but as I've said an explained previously, that's a much more difficult problem to solve (even if it has been done in another title).

[SharpeXB]

13 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

They might be considering the WWII assets pack, but because of the multiplayer restriction, it makes their server fundamentally less accessible

Well less accessible to people without jobs who still live with their parents but yet own a $$$ gaming PC. Seems like a personal problem…

[Exorcet]

15 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Don't get me wrong - I am in favour of paid-for asset packs, I was happy to pay for the WWII assets pack, I think the assets pack is worth the money. I would be in favour of other similar packs in the future.

However, because of the way the multiplayer implementation is handled, it makes me not want to use it in my missions, because it means people can't join if they don't own it. So even though I've paid for it, I still feel like I can't use it the way I want to do and (apart from the maps) it's the only thing that does this.

And it doesn't matter if I'm just using some of its assets as purely decorative (such as Czech hedgehogs or dragon's teeth - which are still used to this day) or if they're units I expect players to directly interact with, the restriction applies just the same.

I understand, I also own the WWII pack, the price is a non issue. The problem for me is dividing players or having to make millions of versions of a mission to be compatible with many packs, if DCS goes down that route.