Official Expansions

[upyr1]

29 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

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.

This is the reason I keep saying we need more playable modules.  I would love to see combined arms II and Fleet Ops even if they are some sort of strategy game built on the dcs engine 

[Northstar98]

On 5/11/2023 at 4:59 PM, SharpeXB said:

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

Wow.

I take it you've completely given up on trying to rebut my points and are just flinging anything at the wall in a desperate attempt to make something stick? I take it because doing so would require having some sense of arguing in good faith, something you apparently have a "personal problem" in achieving.

On 5/11/2023 at 5:02 PM, Exorcet said:

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.

Agreed.

Edited May 12, 2023 by Northstar98
spelling

[SharpeXB]

6 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Wow.

I take it you've completely given up on trying to rebut my points and are just flinging anything at the wall in a despare attempt to make something stick? I take it because doing so would require having some sense of arguing in good faith, something you apparently have a "personal problem" in achieving.

Well a ridiculous discussion gets ridiculous responses. Going on for 3 pages about a $14 add-on is ridiculous. 

[Northstar98]

27 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Well a ridiculous discussion gets ridiculous responses. Going on for 3 pages about a $14 add-on is ridiculous.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_the_stone

[SharpeXB]

5 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_the_stone

Why does this matter to you so much? You just said you have no trouble with buying it. It doesn’t hurt DCS, if anything hurts the game it’s people not paying for things. None of the DLC creators seem to have any trouble selling content that requires extra purchases such as the Super Carrier, Asset Pack or Maps. Seems like a non issue. 

[draconus]

19 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

So it can be changed?

Maybe it shouldn't. Maybe mission creators should just use AP whenever they deem necessary and stop looking for users that are not interested. If the mission is good it will sell and create more incentive to buy the pack. Same with servers.

I'm against the asset packs generally but I bought SC and CA because I was interested. I'd probably buy other such packs too and advertise them if they broaden up my possibilities and immersion but I don't understand the movement to allow everyone to join unrestricted. If one wants to test the DLC he can do so for 2 weeks. Why not advertise the pack more instead, since you own it and like it.

Edited May 12, 2023 by draconus

[Northstar98]

17 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Why does this matter to you so much?

Because I'd rather things improve than not.

17 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

You just said you have no trouble with buying it.

Indeed I did, several times in fact. It's almost as if buying it doesn't make the problem go away.

17 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

It doesn’t hurt DCS, if anything hurts the game it’s people not paying for things.

It certain circumstances, it does hurt DCS.

If somebody wanted to make a server that was more accessible, they may be disincentivised to purchase the asset pack, knowing that, by design, it fundamentally makes a server less accessible, in a way that isn't the case for the majority of other paid-for content, including content directly comparable to the assets pack (SC Arleigh Burke and Kuznetsov). This results in a potential lost sale that ED otherwise wouldn't have lost had this restriction not been present.

It does not follow that paid-for content should restrict people who don't own it from accessing servers with it present - again, the majority of paid-for content in DCS does not do this. And there are potential solutions, that remove the restriction that maintain an incentive to purchase it.

17 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

None of the DLC creators seem to have any trouble selling content that requires extra purchases such as the Super Carrier, Asset Pack or Maps. Seems like a non issue. 

Yes,

Obviously a problem that is exclusive to multiplayer won't be an issue in predominatly single-player content...

I've even said I'd keep the asset pack the way it is for single player content and in the mission editor...

See, this is why you should read things and actually make an attempt to understand them before commenting on them, it would save you typing out points that have already been addressed and don't even apply...

3 hours ago, draconus said:

Maybe it shouldn't.

Okay, why?

Again:

• Other paid-for content, including content that's exactly like the asset pack, does not do this.
• Potential solutions exist that maintain the asset pack has paid-for content, maintain an incentive to purchase the assets pack, while allowing owners and non-owners to play together. Let me be clear, the multiplayer restriction is the only problem I have with the asset pack.
• Said potential solutions have already been deployed by ED for other content (even going beyond what I suggested) and in other titles.

3 hours ago, draconus said:

Maybe mission creators should just use AP whenever they deem necessary and stop looking for users that are not interested.

Why should they when the majority of paid-for content doesn't incur the same restrictions? Because at the moment, server owners may avoid use of the assets pack.

3 hours ago, draconus said:

If the mission is good it will sell and create more incentive to buy the pack. Same with servers.

Except that doesn't necessarily require a restriction in multiplayer in order to be the case - as evidenced by the majority of paid-for content. Especially when you look at it from the perspective of server owners.

And if the asset pack didn't have the multiplayer restriction, it would potentially be used more often (including non-WWII missions, after all, the assets pack contains items like Czech hedgehogs and dragon's teeth that are still in use to this day), which would also create incentive to purchase the asset pack.

3 hours ago, draconus said:

I'm against the asset packs generally but I bought SC and CA because I was interested. I'd probably buy other such packs too and advertise them if they broaden up my possibilities and immersion

You don't own the asset pack? You mention you purchased SC out of interest, so I take it you don't have interest in the WWII asset pack?

Why should that mean that you are restricted from joining servers with it (and they don't have to be WWII servers either)? Again, you wouldn't be restricted from joining a server with the SC on it, why should the assets pack be different?

3 hours ago, draconus said:

I don't understand the movement to allow everyone to join unrestricted.

It makes missions more accessible, lowers the cost of entry and, at least in certain circumstances potentially creates more incentive to purchase and use the asset pack.

I think requiring somebody to purchase something they may not be interested in is unreasonable when this isn't the case for the majority of other paid-for content, including content exactly like the assets pack. 

3 hours ago, draconus said:

If one wants to test the DLC he can do so for 2 weeks.

This doesn't solve the problem. Heck, I might trial the asset pack, be interested in purchasing it but decide not solely because it prevents non-owners from joining servers using it, when other paid-for content does not.

Edited May 12, 2023 by Northstar98

[draconus]

15 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

It makes missions more accessible, lowers the cost of entry and, at least in certain circumstances potentially creates more incentive to purchase and use the asset pack.

The servers and missions are accessible for those interested and that's all that matters. Why would MP be any different in that? If more servers and missions used AP it would be more popular. I have no problem that I can't run the mission with AP because I didn't pay for it, I have accepted it. If some well done modern campaigns start using WW2 pack because of the damn hedgehog I'll probably buy the the damn pack if I want to play the campaigns, and that's how it works.

19 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

I think requiring somebody to purchase something they may not be interested in is unreasonable...

Nobody forces anyone to purchase anything, especially those which are not interesetd. They have other options and they can decide for themselves.

You think that more accessible packs would bring more money to ED, I don't, but only devs have the numbers and I bet they know how to make business, doing it for 30 years, without random forum marketing specialists.

[Northstar98]

44 minutes ago, draconus said:

The servers and missions are accessible for those interested and that's all that matters.

Except they're not - try again.

People interested in a server and mission and people interested in asset packs isn't a mutually inclusive group. It doesn't follow that someone interested in some mission would also be interested in owning the asset pack. Someone might be interested in a server using the assets pack but not interested in the asset pack itself.

If you instead meant that the servers are accessible for those with the asset pack, you're right, but no-one said otherwise and it doesn't address anything I've said...

44 minutes ago, draconus said:

If more servers and missions used AP it would be more popular.

Yes! Heck, that was even one of the points I explicitly brought up! See, this is why you should actually read and actually address the things I'm saying - because now you're agreeing with some of my points seemingly without realising.

44 minutes ago, draconus said:

I have no problem that I can't run the mission with AP because I didn't pay for it, I have accepted it.

Whether you personally accept it is an irrelevancy. What was asked is why should you have to accept it, when paid-for content entailing a restriction in multiplayer is a non-sequitur and isn't the case for the majority of other paid-for content. So once again, you're not actually addressing anything I've actually said.

44 minutes ago, draconus said:

If some well done modern campaigns start using WW2 pack because of the damn hedgehog I'll probably buy the the damn pack if I want to play the campaigns, and that's how it works.

Once again, not addressing anything I've said.

44 minutes ago, draconus said:

Nobody forces anyone to purchase anything, especially those which are not interesetd.

Then you either don't understand how the asset pack works or are once again not addressing what I've said. Noticing a pattern here...

44 minutes ago, draconus said:

You think that more accessible packs would bring more money to ED, I don't

Erm, then why did you say this?

1 hour ago, draconus said:

If more servers and missions used AP it would be more popular.

Unless you think that a more multiplayer friendly asset pack would be less popular than one that wasn't? If that is what you think, then I would love to see you justify it.

44 minutes ago, draconus said:

but only devs have the numbers and I bet they know how to make business, doing it for 30 years

Are these the same people who after it was complained about, changed the supercarrier assets such that they didn't incur a restriction in multiplayer? Even going beyond what I've been proposing? Bit of own goal that one is isn't it?

44 minutes ago, draconus said:

without random forum marketing specialists.

Oh yes, when you can't address the point being made, just attack the person making them! Very convincing stuff.

[DD_Fenrir]

[SharpeXB]

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

It's almost as if buying it doesn't make the problem go away.

It’s only a problem for this guy

 

[draconus]

52 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Someone might be interested in a server using the assets pack but not interested in the asset pack itself.

Can't access: this server/mission requires WW2 Asset Pack.

User 1: I don't want it so I'll choose something else.

User 2: OK, I'll buy the pack because I want to play on this server/mission.

No problem here. Let users decide. No one forces anyone. Not all modules are or have to be treated equally.

Edited May 12, 2023 by draconus

[Northstar98]

1 hour ago, draconus said:

Can't access: this server/mission requires WW2 Asset Pack.

User 1: I don't want it so I'll choose something else.

User 2: OK, I'll buy the pack because I want to play on this server/mission.

Mission editor: I won't purchase the asset pack or use it in my missions if it's going to stop non-owners from joining my servers.

1 hour ago, draconus said:

No problem here.

Nope, a problem still very much exists. Even for people who actually own the asset pack (like me)!

Had you read what I said and actually made any attempt whatsoever to engage with it, you'd know that - but you didn't, so you don't. Common theme apparently...

Edited May 12, 2023 by Northstar98

[Dr_Pavelheer]

Clearly you guys play SP exclusively so it doesn't affect you, but locking content behind a myriad of DLC's would mean the end of small communities that can't afford to force people to buy everything if they want more than a dozen of people to take part in an event, hell, some people seem to take issue with installing free mods required do join.

 

If more money is needed to develop assets then ED should either raise the ED tax and increase the prices or encourage third parties to provide assets with their modules, either way joining server running mission using said new assets shouldn't require any more purchases other than the currently running map and aircraft module (or Combined Arms if mission allows it and you swing that way).

 

Even EA realized that locking maps behind additional paywalls was a mistake and newer Battlefield games allow you to play all of them. Back in BF3 days servers running DLC maps were an extremely small minority, it was hard to find one with decent latency so everybody played base game maps even after EA started giving away DLC's for free(!) on a couple of occasions.

 

Inb4 get a job, I've spent upwards of 300-400$ on this game.

Prices aren't the issue, fragmentation of community is.

Edited May 12, 2023 by Dr_Pavelheer

[SharpeXB]

38 minutes ago, Dr_Pavelheer said:

Prices aren't the issue, fragmentation of community is.

Fragmentation due to a $14 add-on. Sure… sounds like somebody needs to get a job. 

[sirrah]

21 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Fragmentation due to a $14 add-on. Sure… sounds like somebody needs to get a job. 

Mate, with respect, but are you just stubborn or do you really not read other people's arguments?

As I tried to explain to you before, we're not just talking about one $14 addon. If we were, yes, it would be a non-discussion. If all these "missing" assets are added by means of asset packs like the WWII pack we have now, that would call for many MANY asset packs, not just one pack containing everything.

You keep telling people here to get a job, but this discussion isn't about money. Most if not all people here know development costs money and nobody is asking anything for free. The OP wished for more asset packs. Some people here (including myself) wonder if more asset packs would be the best solution.

 

As I mentioned before, personally I'd gladly pay more for modules and wouldn't mind if ED had less (or no) sales, if that would mean they could work on adding more assets.

Or just make maps more expensive and use the extra income to include map and map era specific assets Razbam somehow managed to include a few new assets with their SA map (which they even made available free even to those that didn't buy SA)

[draconus]

1 hour ago, Northstar98 said:

Mission editor: I won't purchase the asset pack or use it in my missions if it's going to stop non-owners from joining my servers.

That's entirely your decision. I'd like all my friends to play DCS but they are simply not interested even if they all can afford a gaming PC and a bunch of modules.

[BIGNEWY]

Folks you all have opinions and that is fine, but please treat each other with respect here. 

thank you

[Dr_Pavelheer]

@SharpeXB Except you're proposing not one addon but many. And considering how some systems were used over the decades it wouldn't be unreasonable for one mission to require multiple of those asset packs, take for instance Yom Kippur where tons of WW2 stuff was used along with more modern systems.

And it doesn't matter if an asset pack is 5$, 15$ or 50$, what matters is it requires additional purchase and without it people aren't able to join.

But then again you're clearly smarter than all those analysts working for multi-billion dollar corporations

Edited May 12, 2023 by Dr_Pavelheer

[Northstar98]

42 minutes ago, draconus said:

That's entirely your decision.

A problematic decision I wouldn't have to make, that's problematic for both owners, non-owners and even ED.

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

Fragmentation due to a $14 add-on. Sure… sounds like somebody needs to get a job. 

If you actually read the things you're responding to, you'd find that people who experience this problem own the asset pack.

To quote myself:

Quote

It's almost as if buying it doesn't make the problem go away.

Edited May 12, 2023 by Northstar98

[Exorcet]

2 hours ago, Dr_Pavelheer said:

Clearly you guys play SP exclusively so it doesn't affect you

 

I play SP, own all the packs, and this is still a problem. If you want to share missions at you need to take into account if it uses packs or not, and the more packs there are, the worse this gets.

I've already had to clone missions because of the existence of packs:

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3308427/

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3315425/

Now in this particular case, it's not that much trouble because DCS only has a limited number of packs (currently) and the SC pack was changed to be more user friendly, but the I think the problem is made clear. If we had many packs and they locked users out of missions, I as a mission maker would face a lot of wasted time planning my missions around packs instead of content.

[NineLine]

Thank you all for your opinions on this, it is greatly appreciated. I think its something to consider for sure, the costs associated with model creation at the levels expected by today's flight sim customers are huge, but this also gives people the ability to support the content they are interested in. It's certainly something to have a discussion about, so keep it up. We are watching and listening!

PS, be kind to each other, at the end of the day we all want the same thing, the very best Combat Flight simulator possible.

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, sirrah said:

are you just stubborn or do you really not read other people's arguments?

Yeah I see three pages of wordy diatribes over a $14 add-on. All these arguments contradict themselves by saying cost isn’t a factor and then go on to state the problem is people having to buy it. So which is it?

Edited May 12, 2023 by SharpeXB

[Dr_Pavelheer]

@NineLine While you're here, perhaps you could pitch to the team idea of optional server-side licenses for maps?

It would greatly help incorporate new maps as they come out, since it's easier for a community to raise the 500$, 1000$ or whatever would a fair price be than to expect everybody to buy a map, especially newcomers. In the current model it is difficult to organize anything involving new maps, be it current South Atlantic, Sinai that's "two weeks out" or others like Kola Peninsula which is a damn shame considering the amount of work that creating a map requires. I think it would also help boost individual sales just like trial.

Perhaps server side licenses could be an acceptable compromise for the asset packs as well

[Northstar98]

31 minutes ago, NineLine said:

Thank you all for your opinions on this, it is greatly appreciated. I think its something to consider for sure, the costs associated with model creation at the levels expected by today's flight sim customers are huge, but this also gives people the ability to support the content they are interested in. It's certainly something to have a discussion about, so keep it up. We are watching and listening!

Thank-you for the response, I appreciate it.

Just to be clear: I am in favour of paid-for asset packs, I was happy to pay for the asset pack. Should future paid-for asset packs be considered in the future, I would most likely be in favour of them, especially if they fill out current maps with relevant units.

The only problem I have with the asset pack, is if somebody doesn't own it, for whatever reason, they cannot join servers using it. This fundamentally make servers less accessible and therefore potentially encourages owners of the asset pack to not use it in their multiplayer missions, when they otherwise would have.

I believe there's potential solutions to this problem that keeps the asset pack paid-for content and maintains the incentive to purchase it.

For example, keep the asset pack restricted to non-owners in single-player missions and their own missions, but allow it in multiplayer. Even if it means that assets are only rendered for non-owners at a reduced LOD (and said reduced LOD models should exist regardless, if they don't already) or with a placeholder-like replacement (similar to how missing textures are handled - some of which included in paid-for campaigns).