Iraq Preview & Pre-Order

[rob10]

Not sure IMHO that this is an EA issue.  I see this more as an issue that the new map making tech ED is trying to use (and I get why they've moved that way; being able to create bigger maps with less work/$ is a good goal) is currently not up to the task.  I hope the upcoming update to Afghanistan proves me wrong on that, but I'm currently in the camp of just double the price of maps and go back to the old production methods unless massive improvements to the new system is possible.  That's why I'm holding off on Iraq when in past I'd have pre-ordered without thinking.

[Schmidtfire]

Iraq map has potential for sure, but I'm holding off on a purchase. It's just not a good value proposition at launch (half the map, no new AI units, no included campaigns). At the same price as a AAA studio title. There are plenty reviews on Kola and Afghanistan, and while some players are happy with them, It looks like Iraq will be another very early launch. 

So perhaps in the future. I also need that FF MiG-29 to fully enjoy the Iraq map 

[YoYo]

2 hours ago, Schmidtfire said:

So perhaps in the future. I also need that FF MiG-29 to fully enjoy the Iraq map 

Don't forget that the MiG-29A will also be EA so if you are waiting for it and want to have it you have to accept the current system or wait probably some period until EA ends for it. Kola map is currently at a really good level. One of the coolest maps. I have Afghanistan and I certainly don't regret buying it too. Honestly, I've been on PG map a bit rescently and there are similar cases reported for Afghanistan and somehow it didn't bother some people that much back then ;). As for the campaign for Iraq, how can you expect it if the map isn't there yet? Add a few months after the release and maybe something will appear, but I don't remember any map having a campaign from the release. I have Iraq in my library and all I want is to be able to fly there, lol .

[Dgpm]

It really worries me when I read some constructive critics to actual ED business model and instead of considering them, they only understand that there are some people that wants to be angry always.

 

Early access with 30% discount when I never get 70% of the product finished means that I overpaid the product. It’s especially clear with the F15E with no expectation at all to get it ever close to be a finished module, may be with some luck it keeps working as it is now.

 

May be I’m wrong but it seems to be Early Access or nothing.

[3WA]

On 10/19/2024 at 3:05 AM, KIWIHAWK said:

I'm not bothering with this map. ED need to fix the game and focus on completing the content they've already released.

 

ED needs to put in some vehicle modules, better units for the infantry / mechanized, and better Ai for all.

[Mr_Burns]

On 10/20/2024 at 12:52 AM, MAXsenna said:

I've never made a map, while teams can get too large in other businesses. Then it makes sense to expand and teach/bring up junior members, if we want more maps faster. Pretty sure a huge team wouldn't accomplish that. 

I think the term is 3 women can’t make a baby in 3 months!

[NIAGARA MOHAWK]

PS: ED maybe time to release a WWII map and War bird or 2 , maybe things calm down a bit and bring in some $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ , you would think you've had enough time to get it polished up a bit for release .... Just Saying ... Wallets are ready to be Opened !!!!!!!!!!!!

[Dangerzone]

If people have paid good money for products/promises not delivered - I think we're getting to a point where maybe the blame needs to be shared. If it's "Once - shame on them, Twice, shame on me" - then where should we be 10 times over? Things have gone on the way they are long enough that we know we're not going to change ED with their priorities - and we know how things are. As unfortunate as it may be - we don't get to decide how DCS is developed - we just get to play the hand we're dealt. Either we're happy to buy what they're delivering, or we're not. 

Seeing this, and then expecting something different from ED is... well - what's the saying. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?

The fact is, many are happy with pre-purchasing, and EA. For those that aren't - and have been burned by EA before - they need to take some onus on themselves to learn from their mistakes. This isn't saying that I agree with the way that ED is doing things (I don't), nor am I defending them... just to question how long before we take some responsibility for our own actions and happiness - especially when we have a good idea how things will turn out, but get on the hype train anyway - and then complain when we have a repeat cycle. 

We can pre-order, or for the sake of ~$6 - we can wait until it's released, and see what others who have purchased it say. That's $6 well invested in my books, so I'm happy to wait. Pre-order makes no sense to me. Pay for a product with no ETA, and no way of knowing how good it is. But I understand others see it differently, so great they have the option.  

Whether it's VR Headsets, DCS Modules, DCS terrains, etc - it's pretty obvious to me that trailers and content creators do not give accurate representations of what users will experience. For me, waiting until something is released, and seeing real consumer recordings on youtube, and feedback is far more valuable than $6. 

To keep my own sanity, I have changed the way I perceive Early Access. It now means - have it 'as is', and don't expect frequent ongoing development. Then when development comes (could be a few weeks, could be a year, could be 2 years) - it's a bonus. If I don't like the module or map how it is in Early Access - I have no expectations for anything to change, and thus won't buy. (At least until something does change). But I have come to expect now that teams will be 'distracted' by the next thing as soon as they get the EA out the door, and simply plan accordingly. The FA18 getting out of EA without the DTC is proof of that. You only get what's available now - everything else is a bonus. 

That's not saying that teams aren't doing ongoing development - but I think the DCS 'world' that we live in is at a place where one in the hand is worth two in the bush for many. Our choice is to either keep being upset and wanting ED to change their priorities... that never comes - or lower our expectations, and decide with lower expectations if something is worth it or not. 

We don't get to make the (DCS) world we live in, we just get to choose how we interact with it. 

Lowering expectations can make life more enjoyable. It means I don't commit $'s to something I'm not satisfied with, and when things exceed my expectations, and it's really the only way for me to maintain my interest in DCS, Nothing else has changed - but I'm happier because my expectations are realistic within the DCS borders. It also saves me spending some $'s on things I'm not satisfied with in advance because I get to review before I commit - while allowing me to focus on the things that are at or exceed a level I'm happy with and enjoy those. 

For people who are upset with Pre-Order, or Early Access - I'd strongly recommend that you give changing your priorities a try. I know - "if we accept it, it will never change". Well - people haven't accepted it, and it still didn't change. So now the question is - how valuable is your happiness and sanity? DCS is here to serve me. To bring me joy. If it gets to the stage it's work, or it's causing me mystery - it's better to walk away. 

As for the name-calling to the mods here - that's totally unacceptable, just as much as someone abusing someone behind the counter in retail for a decision that a CEO at a chain-store has done. I've modded forums before. It sucks. Can't speak your mind because even if you agree with some people - you're paid to represent a company and that's your job. If you're frustrated - focus on the issues at hand. Leave personal attacks out of it - because in the end - what you're saying says far more about you than it does about the people you're slandering. 

Edited October 23, 2024 by Dangerzone

[BIGNEWY]

I've had a tidy up in the thread, removed the personal insults and replies. 

Please read the rules before posting, really is disappointing to see some of the comments. 

 

If you do not like early access it is completely optional. For the majority of people who do enjoy it thank you for supporting our work, your purchases show us that we are still on the right track and will continue to bring new content to you all. 

thank you 

 

[Gierasimov]

There is one thing I am interested in Iraq map tech - in the early seconds of the video it seems that ground clutter / vegetation is NOT popping up like it does in the sim, instead it is rendered nicely.

@BIGNEWY is there any info about whether it was just "trailer magic" or in fact ground clutter is now rendering to the max of PC potential ?

[BIGNEWY]

1 minute ago, Gierasimov said:

There is one thing I am interested in Iraq map tech - in the early seconds of the video it seems that ground clutter / vegetation is NOT popping up like it does in the sim, instead it is rendered nicely.

@BIGNEWY is there any info about whether it was just "trailer magic" or in fact ground clutter is now rendering to the max of PC potential ?

I will ask the team and check it out myself later and let you know. 

[Boosterdog]

3 hours ago, Dangerzone said:

If people have paid good money for products/promises not delivered - I think we're getting to a point where maybe the blame needs to be shared.

 

This is again going down the "Its EA what do you expect?" road. Which grinds my gears a little. Most, if not all, of us using EA know full well what it is and accept it. The point some seem to be missing is that at no point was there any mention of the terrain textures being placeholders. No promo launch media showed the huge area of SW map covered in low rez fuzzy "detail" (use advisedly since there is no detail whatsoever). No promo media showed the crevices of mountains to be no more that brown smudges on amorphous lumps or unfinshed rivers to be oddly coloured streaks in the landscape. At no point has a firm roadmap as to how or if this will be improved been committed to. What has come out SINCE many bought the map in good faith, is that ED will finish its plans to create Hi fidelity Islands acroos the whole map and see whats left in the engine to POSSIBLY look are redoing SOME areas to an UNDEFINED level. None of this was made clear by ED before pro-order and franklly, I dont think it was even a consideration before some kicked off about it. 

That is nothing to do with EA. EA should be a purchase made in the knowledge that ceratin defined features and items will be delivered over a period of time. It should not be a gamble. 

As for the sharing blame and fool me once argument. Strawman. I've bought EA since 2016. Whith the exception of the RAZBAM Harrier "Ta da we declare it finished" debarcle I've never felt overly triggered. Even the slow development pace of the SC and the still missing items from the WW2 asset pack do not concern me. The issues with the textures and the lack of any concrete plan for improving the Afghanistan map in this regard falls well outside of impatience with progress. 

[BIGNEWY]

2 minutes ago, Boosterdog said:

This is again going down the "Its EA what do you expect?" road. Which grinds my gears a little. Most, if not all, of us using EA know full well what it is and accept it. The point some seem to be missing is that at no point was there any mention of the terrain textures being placeholders. No promo launch media showed the huge area of SW map covered in low rez fuzzy "detail" (use advisedly since there is no detail whatsoever). No promo media showed the crevices of mountains to be no more that brown smudges on amorphous lumps or unfinshed rivers to be oddly coloured streaks in the landscape. At no point has a firm roadmap as to how or if this will be improved been committed to. What has come out SINCE many bought the map in good faith, is that ED will finish its plans to create Hi fidelity Islands acroos the whole map and see whats left in the engine to POSSIBLY look are redoing SOME areas to an UNDEFINED level. None of this was made clear by ED before pro-order and franklly, I dont think it was even a consideration before some kicked off about it. 

That is nothing to do with EA. EA should be a purchase made in the knowledge that ceratin defined features and items will be delivered over a period of time. It should not be a gamble. 

As for the sharing blame and fool me once argument. Strawman. I've bought EA since 2016. Whith the exception of the RAZBAM Harrier "Ta da we declare it finished" debarcle I've never felt overly triggered. Even the slow development pace of the SC and the still missing items from the WW2 asset pack do not concern me. The issues with the textures and the lack of any concrete plan for improving the Afghanistan map in this regard falls well outside of impatience with progress. 

Everything you need to decide to purchase is on the product page, the newsletter and the FAQ, if you are not happy with the information you should not purchase and wait. 

[Boosterdog]

26 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

If you do not like early access it is completely optional. For the majority of people who do enjoy it thank you for supporting our work, your purchases show us that we are still on the right track and will continue to bring new content to you all. 

thank you 

 

With respect - my purchase of Afghanistan should not be viewed as an indication that ED is on the right track. In the same was you pointed out that I dont speak for everyone please recognise that your sales figures do not accurately reflect 100% satisfaction with your current policies nor account for the frustration I feel at those concerns being brushed off and ignored. 

 

11 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

Everything you need to decide to purchase is on the product page, the newsletter and the FAQ, if you are not happy with the information you should not purchase and wait. 

The FAQ was atlered AFTER purchase. Moreover it was added to after a back and forth from ED insisting the SW was fully complete and the protest of many about the low quality of large areas of it. Please dont gaslight me. 

[BIGNEWY]

9 minutes ago, Boosterdog said:

With respect - my purchase of Afghanistan should not be viewed as an indication that ED is on the right track. In the same was you pointed out that I dont speak for everyone please recognise that your sales figures do not accurately reflect 100% satisfaction with your current policies nor account for the frustration I feel at those concerns being brushed off and ignored. 

 

The FAQ was atlered AFTER purchase. Moreover it was added to after a back and forth from ED insisting the SW was fully complete and the protest of many about the low quality of large areas of it. Please dont gaslight me. 

If you are not happy with the information and would rather wait its not a problem, I am not gas lighting you. 

[Avalanche110]

Bought Afghanistan, its really good. looking forward to the update. 

Bought Iraq, it looks really good. Lots of fun scenarios and varied terrain.  Looking forward to release.

EA works just fine for me. Keep up the good work ED.

[BIGNEWY]

Just now, Avalanche110 said:

Bought Afghanistan, its really good. looking forward to the update. 

Bought Iraq, it looks really good. Lots of fun scenarios and varied terrain.  Looking forward to release.

EA works just fine for me. Keep up the good work ED.

Thank you Avalanche, we appreciate the support for our work, I am sure you will enjoy it once early access starts. 

[Thamiel]

4 hours ago, Dangerzone said:

If people have paid good money for products/promises not delivered - I think we're getting to a point where maybe the blame needs to be shared. If it's "Once - shame on them, Twice, shame on me"

Of course. ED would'nt do it if we would not allow them to do it. It pays obviously for less effort. Simple choice. But as of now, the pendulum swinging back with first signs of discontent and disappointment concerning the different semantics of the term "EA", I would wager to predict that ED is realizing that this business model has its limits. At least I hope that they do, because I (and most of you too, as this sim is not known for an overall efficient performance) also invested a lot of money into my rig and DCS. But Im not throwing good money after potential bad money anymore. Yes there will always be those who still dont have enough aircraft in their virtual hangars to realize that they can fly only one module at any given time. There will always be the "first-adopters" among us throwing themselves at everything new (and not caring if it is shiny as well).

Iraq is just the latest example in a growing line.

One has to ask: How many modules and maps were introduced as EA content during the last years and how many modules and maps actually left this status during that time, freeing their ressources for further development and repair.

[buceador]

4 hours ago, Dangerzone said:

If people have paid good money for products/promises not delivered - I think we're getting to a point where maybe the blame needs to be shared. If it's "Once - shame on them, Twice, shame on me" - then where should we be 10 times over? Things have gone on the way they are long enough that we know we're not going to change ED with their priorities - and we know how things are. As unfortunate as it may be - we don't get to decide how DCS is developed - we just get to play the hand we're dealt. Either we're happy to buy what they're delivering, or we're not. 

Seeing this, and then expecting something different from ED is... well - what's the saying. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?

The fact is, many are happy with pre-purchasing, and EA. For those that aren't - and have been burned by EA before - they need to take some onus on themselves to learn from their mistakes. This isn't saying that I agree with the way that ED is doing things (I don't), nor am I defending them... just to question how long before we take some responsibility for our own actions and happiness - especially when we have a good idea how things will turn out, but get on the hype train anyway - and then complain when we have a repeat cycle. 

We can pre-order, or for the sake of ~$6 - we can wait until it's released, and see what others who have purchased it say. That's $6 well invested in my books, so I'm happy to wait. Pre-order makes no sense to me. Pay for a product with no ETA, and no way of knowing how good it is. But I understand others see it differently, so great they have the option.  

Whether it's VR Headsets, DCS Modules, DCS terrains, etc - it's pretty obvious to me that trailers and content creators do not give accurate representations of what users will experience. For me, waiting until something is released, and seeing real consumer recordings on youtube, and feedback is far more valuable than $6. 

To keep my own sanity, I have changed the way I perceive Early Access. It now means - have it 'as is', and don't expect frequent ongoing development. Then when development comes (could be a few weeks, could be a year, could be 2 years) - it's a bonus. If I don't like the module or map how it is in Early Access - I have no expectations for anything to change, and thus won't buy. (At least until something does change). But I have come to expect now that teams will be 'distracted' by the next thing as soon as they get the EA out the door, and simply plan accordingly. The FA18 getting out of EA without the DTC is proof of that. You only get what's available now - everything else is a bonus. 

That's not saying that teams aren't doing ongoing development - but I think the DCS 'world' that we live in is at a place where one in the hand is worth two in the bush for many. Our choice is to either keep being upset and wanting ED to change their priorities... that never comes - or lower our expectations, and decide with lower expectations if something is worth it or not. 

We don't get to make the (DCS) world we live in, we just get to choose how we interact with it. 

Lowering expectations can make life more enjoyable. It means I don't commit $'s to something I'm not satisfied with, and when things exceed my expectations, and it's really the only way for me to maintain my interest in DCS, Nothing else has changed - but I'm happier because my expectations are realistic within the DCS borders. It also saves me spending some $'s on things I'm not satisfied with in advance because I get to review before I commit - while allowing me to focus on the things that are at or exceed a level I'm happy with and enjoy those. 

For people who are upset with Pre-Order, or Early Access - I'd strongly recommend that you give changing your priorities a try. I know - "if we accept it, it will never change". Well - people haven't accepted it, and it still didn't change. So now the question is - how valuable is your happiness and sanity? DCS is here to serve me. To bring me joy. If it gets to the stage it's work, or it's causing me mystery - it's better to walk away. 

As for the name-calling to the mods here - that's totally unacceptable, just as much as someone abusing someone behind the counter in retail for a decision that a CEO at a chain-store has done. I've modded forums before. It sucks. Can't speak your mind because even if you agree with some people - you're paid to represent a company and that's your job. If you're frustrated - focus on the issues at hand. Leave personal attacks out of it - because in the end - what you're saying says far more about you than it does about the people you're slandering. 

 

Extremely well put!  I think you hit all the points perfectly.  EA is akin to a builder asking for a proportion of the payment in advance in order to purchase the necessary materials, this is common practice in the construction world, perhaps not so common in the video game market but in DCS it exists for the very same reason, or so it seems to me.

[Thamiel]

2 minutes ago, buceador said:

EA is akin to a builder asking for a proportion of the payment in advance in order to purchase the necessary materials (*), this is common practice in the construction world, [...]

(*) "and complete the building with them." (- small but important addition IMHO)

Thats not what happens here. There is no guarantee that EA content will eventually be finished, there is neither timetable nor deadline published. ED is notoriously known to claim months when there are years of development ahead. There are even hints that this payment in advance is not used for the build it was payed for but just for the bare necessities of keeping things going.

[Lionel Mandrake]

32 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

If you are not happy with the information and would rather wait its not a problem, I am not gas lighting you. 

You've completely ignored the fact he clearly stated that the information was changed AFTER he purchased. Which one would reasonably label as gaslighting.

[pjbunnyru]

map is bought, although after kola and afganistan I told myself - not to make such purchases anymor.
mig29 will be my last purchas of early acces. I doubt that this plane will be ready right away, but maybe))
ed need to focus on refining products that have already been released.

[BIGNEWY]

9 minutes ago, buceador said:

Extremely well put!  I think you hit all the points perfectly.  EA is akin to a builder asking for a proportion of the payment in advance in order to purchase the necessary materials, this is common practice in the construction world, perhaps not so common in the video game market but in DCS it exists for the very same reason, or so it seems to me.

Early access is optional, if people don't like to use it they wont, and that is fine, I would rather people wait if they are not happy. However a large portion of the community do enjoy early access, the process of helping with reports on the forum, giving feedback and making wishes for what they want to see added helps us make the product better. 

Just now, Lionel Mandrake said:

You've completely ignored the fact he clearly stated that the information was changed AFTER he purchased. Which one would reasonably label as gaslighting.

 The FAQ is there to share information, if information changes or we need to clarify for some we will edit it.
 

[mikey69420]

52 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

Everything you need to decide to purchase is on the product page, the newsletter and the FAQ, if you are not happy with the information you should not purchase and wait. 

Just to make it clear, when on the product page it is written:

"Eagle Dynamics and all of our third parties strive to make this period as short as possible. Once the module exits Early Access, you will automatically have the Release version."

Does this mean that your company has a contractual obligation towards the customers to develop the product out of early access or are you not obligated to do so ? 

[HILOK]

If you’re not making money, you don’t have a product

i feel like these 2 posts need more attention:

18 hours ago, Thamiel said:

As a sidenote: it just occured to me, that building on EA to that extent shares many similarities with those of a snowball system: For a promise of the future, you cash in money (adding to your future workload in doing so) to keep your current activities alive and your only salvation is to promise even more things for the future and/or to a bigger base of customers to keep going. I wonder if ED has a clue of how long it will take to complete the current available EA content with available ressources. Or the other way around: when will be the point, that new EA content is advertised without being able to deliver it in full? As a customer, I could not say if this point has already passed or not.

3 hours ago, dryheat94 said:

So if everyone stops buying EA products, then there is no more product, because ED keeps saying this is the only way they can develop products in the future. Doesn't sound like a very sound business model. All I can do now is try to look past my mistakes and not make the same mistakes again. I will use what I have and ignore any future EA products. There really is no other option. It got easier to accept my bad choices after I realized what a pyramid scheme this business model looks like.

at some point, i fear both ED and we, the customers, may have to face that the only way forward might be to pause on new modules and go with some kind of subscription model. this would allow ED at last to focus on fixing and finishing what's already there.
-maybe not the worst thing, considering many people, as they say, buy all modules not to use them but simply to support DCS