DCS Players Have Had Enough - A youtubers opinion

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

14 hours ago, Creampie said:

To join any multiplayer server with mods  you 100% download them when you go to join the server, in every other game. This is not an abnormal thing for most games with mod support.

 

In ArmA 3, servers will prompt you. It won't automatically do it. And that still doesn't negate the fact that it's annoying to download several gigs of crap you won't otherwise use because the mook running the server wants one tiny item in a massive pack.

Also, there's no hyper complex methods here. You drag, you drop, and servers will tell you what mods are required. If you can't figure that out, I'm genuinely sorry. This will not benefit DCS in any way, shape, or form. It could even worsen it as enthusiast crafted mods now just enter into the software and further cause instability. Something DCS definitely doesn't need help with. Especially, considering, that DCS' backend and core features are the chief complaint for so many people, myself included.

Modders should be appreciated for their enthusiasm and will to make neat things, but they are far from saviors. Keep banging that gavel, by all means, and just say "You don't have to use it" but at the same time, that would include a great many people.

Especially people who do not have the best internet. DCS runs pretty well on crappy networks, in my experience, so this would be a fantastic barrier to entry for people who aren't fortunate like myself. So, why should ED put in the time and effort into making this happen when they have so many more glaring issues they need to address?

Edited November 10, 2024 by MiG21bisFishbedL

[Aapje]

I think that this is really a feature request that should be split up into a different topic.

[Harlikwin]

On 11/7/2024 at 7:05 AM, Aapje said:

What I know is that the more code/modules are in a project, the more work it is to maintain everything. And it's worse when the platform is getting changed, since that tends to require fixes in other code/modules. And the state of the art moves on too, so older modules either fall out of favor or need to be brought up to modern standards. But if modules will not generate enough sales if you bring them up to the state of the art, but you also can't abandon them, because the people who bought them expect to be able to keep using them, then the project will forever have modules that cost effort to maintain, but have low sales and reflect poorly on the product.

So I have a hard time seeing it as a sustainable model to keep making modules, creating more and more work in maintenance and making it harder and harder to improve the game engine, without causing tons of rework in existing modules. Then the project is likely to run out of developers to maintain the standards they started with and certain features will never be implemented, because they require an excessive amount of (re)work.

There is a reason why certain competitor products are releasing new game engines, either leaving old content behind on the old engine, or demoting old content to second tier status, and adding ways to get income from upgrading old modules.

I personally think that a pivot will need to be made in the next few years, in a way that will anger many people, but that is needed for the long-term viability of DCS.

 

The two  main things ED needs to fix are

1. Core game stuff thats variously either broken, sucky or missing entirely. And thats a long list.
2. Have a consistent set of standards for modules, be that their own stuff thats fallen behind (i.e. F5, F86, huey etc) and update them. But most importantly have a set standard for sensor modeling and it needs to be a high standard. Currently the Razbam M2k and F15 and the Heatblur F4 are the gold standard for radar modeling in DCS, the F16 and 18  are nowhere near it, and the less said about modules like the F5 and  mig21 the better but they are in Dire need of updates to bring their radars to the same standard on modeling as the rest of DCS. Honorable poor mention to the F1 radar as well, but at least its being worked on. 

[sirrah]

13 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

2. Have a consistent set of standards for modules, be that their own stuff thats fallen behind (i.e. F5, F86, huey etc) and update them.

Hey @Harlikwin, first of all, no offence to you
I see this "expectation" a lot about ED having to update their older modules. Although I'd love to see an updated Huey, I'm always wondering when seeing these requests:

Are you indicating that ED should update their older modules for free? - I don't see how updating a decade old software (game) can be expected from any dev. I mean, A lot of developers release remasters of their old games, but hardly ever do they do it for free.

Or:

In case you mean that ED should update their older modules as payed DLC's (like for instance they did with the K-50 and A-10C); Sure, the community can ask. Some people would be interested in this, others won't, but wouldn't ED know best if such an update would be a feasible business case?

We can of course share our wishes, but at some point, when enough people share the same wish, it appears that these wishes for many tend to change in expectations/demands.

[Aapje]

@sirrah

Quote

Are you indicating that ED should update their older modules for free? 

The F-86F is still being sold for $50 today and on the shop page there is absolutely no indication that you are buying something that is built to poorer standards and is not getting updates.

So how would a random consumer who looks at the store know that some modules are built to lower standards? And it may also be off putting to consumers of new (early access) modules to see that some significant bugs never get fixed in those older modules, which raises questions about what state newer modules will be left in.

Quote

 I don't see how updating a decade old software (game) can be expected from any dev.

Isn't the entire marketing claim by ED that DCS World is not a game that has a limited shelf life, but a modular platform that will keep getting more and more modules and updates?

Anyway, I argued before that I think that DCS is painting themselves into a corner by adopting this strategy of adding more and more things, while it seems impossible for them to maintain it all. And I also think that all the weight of having to keep the existing modules working and somewhat up to date, will slow down development on the game engine greatly.

Quote

We can of course share our wishes, but at some point, when enough people share the same wish, it appears that these wishes for many tend to change in expectations/demands.

It's the job of ED to manage expectations. Otherwise they create their own critics.

[sirrah]

34 minutes ago, Aapje said:

@sirrah

The F-86F is still being sold for $50 today and on the shop page there is absolutely no indication that you are buying something that is built to poorer standards and is not getting updates.

So how would a random consumer who looks at the store know that some modules are built to lower standards? And it may also be off putting to consumers of new (early access) modules to see that some significant bugs never get fixed in those older modules, which raises questions about what state newer modules will be left in.

Isn't the entire marketing claim by ED that DCS World is not a game that has a limited shelf life, but a modular platform that will keep getting more and more modules and updates?

Anyway, I argued before that I think that DCS is painting themselves into a corner by adopting this strategy of adding more and more things, while it seems impossible for them to maintain it all. And I also think that all the weight of having to keep the existing modules working and somewhat up to date, will slow down development on the game engine greatly.

It's the job of ED to manage expectations. Otherwise they create their own critics.

Fair points

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

1 hour ago, Aapje said:

@sirrah

The F-86F is still being sold for $50 today and on the shop page there is absolutely no indication that you are buying something that is built to poorer standards and is not getting updates.

So how would a random consumer who looks at the store know that some modules are built to lower standards? And it may also be off putting to consumers of new (early access) modules to see that some significant bugs never get fixed in those older modules, which raises questions about what state newer modules will be left in.

Isn't the entire marketing claim by ED that DCS World is not a game that has a limited shelf life, but a modular platform that will keep getting more and more modules and updates?

Anyway, I argued before that I think that DCS is painting themselves into a corner by adopting this strategy of adding more and more things, while it seems impossible for them to maintain it all. And I also think that all the weight of having to keep the existing modules working and somewhat up to date, will slow down development on the game engine greatly.

It's the job of ED to manage expectations. Otherwise they create their own critics.

Honestly, hitting a lot of them points dead on. The reason I haven't touched anymore of the WWII options is because of the state of the F-86 and MiG-15. If those gunfighters are forgotten and still feature objectively incorrect physics, I have no reason to believe ED will address anything further in the WWII fighters. They put a bandaid on the F-86's guns and that's about it. It's been a literal DECADE for that. It's been unacceptable. So, where is my incentive to buy the Mosquito? So, yeah, not parting with money for that.

We're told that ED is doing fine behind the scenes, I believe that, so I'm at a loss as to why they don't review their priorities and address them.

And yes, we got an newsletter about core changes. Not enough to give us lip service, though. I think most people want to see actual, quantifiable changes made to the core game in 2025.

[virgo47]

1 hour ago, Aapje said:

@sirrah

The F-86F is still being sold for $50 today and on the shop page there is absolutely no indication that you are buying something that is built to poorer standards and is not getting updates...

Although I (thought I) knew what I'd get into, I bought many of these older modules, just because I liked the plane. I tried them before and went for it. I look at this from a few perspectives and I quite agree with your assessment. Older, old-standard module should probably go down with the price somewhat. A minor counterpoint is, that there are sales, often 50% for most of the older modules, but yes, from the pure apples-to-apples perspective, they are less value however you look at it.

I don't expect ED to update the standard of the module. It would be nice, but that would be a really big burden. Sometimes they revamp their iconic modules (Black Shark, A-10C), you pay the upgrade price, that's OK.

What bothers me personally most are bugs. Bugs accumulate over time - and it seems that if the module flies and can shoot at least one of its guns, it's OK with ED. Sometimes we celebrate bug fixes like flaps finally working properly in a Mustang after years, it feels like Stockholm syndrome, really. And tons of trivial bugs related to controls which are just "features" now. I'm over-sensitive to bugs, so it seems.

[nessuno0505]

19 ore fa, virgo47 ha scritto:

What bothers me personally most are bugs. Bugs accumulate over time - and it seems that if the module flies and can shoot at least one of its guns, it's OK with ED.

I'm over-sensitive to bugs, so it seems.

You are not alone.

As nice as it would be to see an f-86 updated in graphics, the aircraft would still be very enjoyable even as it is, provided, however, that the countless bugs that have come out over time are fixed. First of all the bugs, and I'll stop complaining. Then, if there is time left over and it is economically advantageous, maybe even the upgrade as for the a-10 and ka-50.

Edited November 13, 2024 by nessuno0505

[BIGNEWY]

2 hours ago, nessuno0505 said:

You are not alone.

As nice as it would be to see an f-86 updated in graphics, the aircraft would still be very enjoyable even as it is, provided, however, that the countless bugs that have come out over time are fixed. First of all the bugs, and I'll stop complaining. Then, if there is time left over and it is economically advantageous, maybe even the upgrade as for the a-10 and ka-50.

 

We fix lots of different issues every patch, it all depends on dev time, and priorities which the project managers decide. We have to work with the resources we have and stay on budget. 

Those priorities wont always match yours or mine, but it is clear work is being done ( see our change logs ). DCS will never be completely bug free, we would love it to be, but that isn't realistic, and that is why if you read the EULA ( that you agreed to ) you will find it mentioned. 

I do hope many of you here continue to enjoy DCS, have fun and look forward to future fixes and content. 

thank you 

[sirrah]

2 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

We fix lots of different issues every patch, it all depends on dev time, and priorities which the project managers decide. We have to work with the resources we have and stay on budget. 

Those priorities wont always match yours or mine, but it is clear work is being done ( see our change logs ). DCS will never be completely bug free, we would love it to be, but that isn't realistic, and that is why if you read the EULA ( that you agreed to ) you will find it mentioned. 

I do hope many of you here continue to enjoy DCS, have fun and look forward to future fixes and content. 

thank you 

I (and I'm sure many with me) will indeed continue to enjoy DCS and I'm grateful that ED made it possible to enjoy it for such a long time already


Just curious about your thoughts/reaction @BIGNEWY on what's pointed out by others in a few posts up, regarding prices of some of the older (and let's face it, somewhat outdated) modules.

For instance:

• F-86F -> $50,-
• MiG-21bis -> $50,-
• UH-1H -> $50,-
• Mi-8MTV2 -> $50,-
• NTTR map -> $50,-

Despite bugs that might have infected (some of) these modules, they are still a lot of fun to play with, but are these prices still realistic for such dated modules.
(I mean, personally, I don't really care as I already own all of these modules and also I know about all the sales and the trial option. But prices for these modules without sale discount, do indeed seem quite steep to me) 

[BIGNEWY]

45 minutes ago, sirrah said:

Just curious about your thoughts/reaction @BIGNEWY on what's pointed out by others in a few posts up, regarding prices of some of the older (and let's face it, somewhat outdated) modules.

We feel the price point is fair for the work we have put into them, we also have many sales during the year that hopefully helps if people are looking for deals. 

We like to revisit our older modules when dev time allows it, and we do continue to fix bugs and make tweaks where needed, again it depends on free dev time. 

thank you 

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

6 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

We feel the price point is fair for the work we have put into them, we also have many sales during the year that hopefully helps if people are looking for deals. 

We like to revisit our older modules when dev time allows it, and we do continue to fix bugs and make tweaks where needed, again it depends on free dev time. 

thank you 

They are a fair price point, but that's just the initial purchase. I don't need to tell you that improvements happen iteratively here, for better and for worse. That's how it is,  it's a model that might be necessary, so I'm not going to argue against its employment since that's utterly pointless. But, there are issues with trust in the company in regards to those modules.

Now, if I buy the Hornet, I know that updates with that are forthcoming. But, if I buy the MiG-21bis? Not so much, Mag3 is swamped as it stands. If I buy the F-86, there's no real indication that we're getting assets etc. to really fit them into any scenario outside of obscure, reserve units. And, those fixes have been a very long time coming, as long as a decade for some. We've had them acknowledge, but no one was willing to make the fairly rudimentary changes?

This is what we're trying to say, really.

Sure, these offerings are less than the more updated, newer modules, but it seems that extra $20-$30 gets them attention. And, there's nothing to indicate to customers that this is the case unless you read these forums. If you've done that, you've probably already parted with money. Deal with it, at that point, I guess?

This is what I mean when I say ED's priorities are not where they need to be. I'm sure they'll tell you that they feel their priorities are correctly arranged, but it should be pretty clear from this thread that the customer base disagrees. This is a lot more damaging to ED's reputation than any kerfuffle with RB. As I mentioned, I've stopped buying WWII modules since I've no assurances of any issues within their code being addressed in a timely manner thanks to my experience with the F-86's issues. I'm not comfortable with parting with my money for products that don't get issues addressed for years.

So, ED can make a choice here: Review what it's doing in regards to supporting its software and communicating intentions or find itself increasingly getting recommendations against. The situation with the Sabre's guns were absolutely unacceptable. We cannot let that happen again. We want to maintain DCS' health as a game and to do that? At the very least, decent explanations as to why delays occur or why some high priority fixes have been outright backburned are in order.

And sure, it's ED's right to decline to comment on those issues. But it's also the customer's right to tell others to save their money in the event of unsatisfactory service or product.

Edited November 13, 2024 by MiG21bisFishbedL

[Xhonas]

2 hours ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

This is what I mean when I say ED's priorities are not where they need to be. I'm sure they'll tell you that they feel their priorities are correctly arranged, but it should be pretty clear from this thread that the customer base disagrees. 

 

If ED listened to their player base they would have way less negative feedback.

[SharpeXB]

37 minutes ago, Xhonas said:

If ED listened to their player base they would have way less negative feedback.

There will always be negative feedback. You can’t please everyone. And they do actually listen. 

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

There will always be negative feedback. You can’t please everyone. And they do actually listen. 

Eventually, they do. But, some things? Some things are just hand waved.

And yes, there will always be negative feedback, there's no avoiding that. But, there really would be less. Some things ED has done defy logic. They've been provided with hard proof of certain things and still refuse to make the needed changes. 

DCS really, really needs to start shaping up in some very specific ways and, frankly, waiting for complete customer aggravation isn't the way to go about it.

We've asked for improved AI flight models and behavior to better reflect their performance. We've gotten that, but certain aircraft aren't affected by it and they refuse to do anything about it.
We've asked simple fixes that have taken literal years to get to us.
We can hear this same song and dance about how ED believes its priorities are in order when, frankly, they really aren't.

The customer base is asking for ED to actually step back and do some housekeeping. We're all eager for the Fulcrum, we're all stoked for updates to the Viper and Hornet, we love the Hind, we love the Apache, but more than anything?

We'd like the sandbox we use these toys in to feel like a game of the mid 2020s and not an updated LOMAC. With times being tough and, frankly, set to get tougher, we're going to be demanding value out of our entertainment. It's no longer a question of "Well, what other modern combat sims ARE there with this variety, really?" and more "What other things can I do that are more fulfilling given my reduced fun stuff spending?"

ED can choose to ignore this, of course, but it'll be to their detriment.

Edited November 14, 2024 by MiG21bisFishbedL

[TheFreshPrince]

You might as well talk to a wall, that would do as much. Apparently they need money, so they sell everything as it is at maximum prices. But if you are already in DCS, you know you can wait for the next sale and you know what's worth it and what not. And as they said, with the EULA they don't owe you anything. So it's entirely your problem if you're not satisfied. Luckily, DCS also offers free trial periods for most modules, so you can actually test it before buying. It's a system that is somewhat unfair to new players, but offers some fair points to those who do some research or already know the drill.

[Xhonas]

6 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

There will always be negative feedback. You can’t please everyone. And they do actually listen. 

I'm not saying that there would be be zero negative feedback, I'm saying that there would be way less. I mean, perhaps they do listen but can't do anything about it because, from my perspective, it feels like they don't nearly all the times.

[nessuno0505]

23 ore fa, BIGNEWY ha scritto:

We fix lots of different issues every patch, it all depends on dev time, and priorities which the project managers decide. We have to work with the resources we have and stay on budget. 

Those priorities wont always match yours or mine, but it is clear work is being done ( see our change logs ). DCS will never be completely bug free, we would love it to be, but that isn't realistic, and that is why if you read the EULA ( that you agreed to ) you will find it mentioned. 

I do hope many of you here continue to enjoy DCS, have fun and look forward to future fixes and content. 

thank you 

I will certainly continue to have fun with DCS, and I don't see what the EULA has to do with it since I am not asking for a refund: I have no right to it and to be honest it would be completely unjustified. I understand that the priorities of the developers may not coincide with those of everyone; what I can say is that, at this point, they no longer coincide with mine. I will continue to enjoy the a-10, the ka-50, the korea jets, the huey and the mi-8 and all the other older modules I own, which remain absolutely enjoyable, but I will not buy the ch-47, the apache or the mig-29,  at least until I'll see the older modules bugs managed; I'm not asking for a graphical upgrade, I've already said that graphics are the least important thing to me, and I'd be willing to pay the same price of the a-10c II for each of the older modules just to have a bug fix upgrade that puts them back on track (I understand that noone can work for free). These are my priorities, I don't find there is anything wrong with exposing them in a forum where you can dialogue with the developers. If the developers priorities are different from mine I can understand and I'll resign myself to it.

Edited November 14, 2024 by nessuno0505

[BIGNEWY]

1 minute ago, nessuno0505 said:

I will certainly continue to have fun with DCS, and I don't see what the EULA has to do with it since I am not asking for a refund: I have no right to it and to be honest it would be completely unjustified. I understand that the priorities of the developers may not coincide with those of everyone; what I can say is that, at this point, they no longer coincide with mine. I will continue to enjoy the a-10, the ka-50, the korea jets, the huey and the mi-8 and all the other older modules I own, which remain absolutely enjoyable, but I will not buy the ch-47, the apache or the mig-29,  at least until I'll see the older modules bugs fixed; I'm not asking for a graphical upgrade, I've already said that graphics are the least important thing to me, and I'd be willing to pay the same price of the a-10c II for each of the older modules just to have a bug fix upgrade that puts them back on track. These are my priorities, I don't find there is anything wrong with exposing them in a forum where you can dialogue with the developers. If the developers priorities are different from mine I can understand and I'll resign myself to it.

 

The EULA isn't just about refunds, I pointed it out for this section 
 

Quote

3.2 You acknowledge that the Program has not been developed to meet your individual requirements and that it is therefore your responsibility to ensure that the facilities and functions of the Program as described in the Documentation meet your requirements.
3.3 You acknowledge that the Program may not be free of errors or bugs and you agree that the existence of any minor errors shall not constitute a breach of this Licence.

Bug reports here on the forum, if done correctly with a good description and a track example help a lot to make DCS better, and I would encourage anyone with an issue to report in the correct forum section. Nineline, Myself and other team members spend a lot of time reproducing issues and reporting them internally. I understand that the speed of fixes or the priority of fixes may not be what you or I would like, but we do work very hard and we do fix lots of issues each patch. 

thank you  

[Aapje]

19 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

We feel the price point is fair for the work we have put into them

This reminds me of the people who paid €3000 for a 3080 during the mining boom, and then expected top dollar on the 2nd hand market later on because they paid so much themselves, completely ignoring how their price compares to other options that buyers have.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter how much work you put in. What matters is how much value that product provides to customers compared to other ways they can spend their money.

19 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

We like to revisit our older modules when dev time allows it, and we do continue to fix bugs and make tweaks where needed, again it depends on free dev time. 

There is never any free dev time. There are only choices what to spend dev time on. You act as if it is out of your hands, but you clearly have a choice to spend more (or less) time on bug fixing versus implementing new features or new modules.

What I see a lot of people remark is that they can accept that older modules are built to worse standards, but that there are significant bugs that severely hamper their enjoyment or even cause them to bench the module. In the latter case, those are effectively module-breaking bugs that reduce the value of the module to €0 for them, since they consider it unusable. $50 is a lot of money for new buyers as well, if they discover that they will quickly toss the module aside.

Now, I understand that it is probably financially not very rewarding to fix old modules, since the people who complain typically already bought it and won't rebuy it, and you get relatively few new buyers (especially if the price/value proposition is not great anyway). However, I think that you are causing significant harm to your reputation, which seems to typically don't show so much in short term sales, but impact the general willingness of customers to buy things. For example, see the unwillingness by MiG21bisFishbedL to buy WW II modules or the general unwillingness of nessuno0505 to buy new modules.

In my view, the best companies make sure that their products match or exceed the expectations caused by the marketing and the price point. From the DCS fanbase I see a lot of disappointment, which at the very least suggests that the expectations are not managed, but also that certain choices may not match what a lot of people want.

[BIGNEWY]

33 minutes ago, Aapje said:

This reminds me of the people who paid €3000 for a 3080 during the mining boom, and then expected top dollar on the 2nd hand market later on because they paid so much themselves, completely ignoring how their price compares to other options that buyers have.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter how much work you put in. What matters is how much value that product provides to customers compared to other ways they can spend their money.

There is never any free dev time. There are only choices what to spend dev time on. You act as if it is out of your hands, but you clearly have a choice to spend more (or less) time on bug fixing versus implementing new features or new modules.

What I see a lot of people remark is that they can accept that older modules are built to worse standards, but that there are significant bugs that severely hamper their enjoyment or even cause them to bench the module. In the latter case, those are effectively module-breaking bugs that reduce the value of the module to €0 for them, since they consider it unusable. $50 is a lot of money for new buyers as well, if they discover that they will quickly toss the module aside.

Now, I understand that it is probably financially not very rewarding to fix old modules, since the people who complain typically already bought it and won't rebuy it, and you get relatively few new buyers (especially if the price/value proposition is not great anyway). However, I think that you are causing significant harm to your reputation, which seems to typically don't show so much in short term sales, but impact the general willingness of customers to buy things. For example, see the unwillingness by MiG21bisFishbedL to buy WW II modules or the general unwillingness of nessuno0505 to buy new modules.

In my view, the best companies make sure that their products match or exceed the expectations caused by the marketing and the price point. From the DCS fanbase I see a lot of disappointment, which at the very least suggests that the expectations are not managed, but also that certain choices may not match what a lot of people want.

I am very sorry we do not meet your expectations, I do hope one day we can. But thank you for your feedback. 

Best regards

bignewy

[Rudel_chw]

1 hour ago, Aapje said:

From the DCS fanbase I see a lot of disappointment,

Thats because dissapointed users will always vent it on the Forums, while satisfied users don’t have the same urge. I find it funny when people want a low price while at the same time demanding not only bug fixing, but also constant improvements and facelifts. On my personal case, I dont feel unsatisfaction because most bugs are not really as bothersome to me as some users say, and I manage the cost of the hobby by mostly purchasing at Sales, or using miles, or pre-purchase discounts. My only un satisfaction is the Razbam-ED conflict, but the Sim is otherwise pretty great.

[Aapje]

2 hours ago, Rudel_chw said:

Thats because dissapointed users will always vent it on the Forums, while satisfied users don’t have the same urge.

That's actually not true. Typically for every person who complains, there are a lot of people with the same issue who don't bother complaining. And the people who abandon the game will pretty much never complain on the forum, because they have moved on.

Of course a company shouldn't make the mistake of trying to solve every complaint, but it's also a mistake to only listen to those who are satisfied.

Quote

I find it funny when people want a low price while at the same time demanding not only bug fixing, but also constant improvements and facelifts.

That's one way to look at it. Another way is that a better job might be possible at setting expectations and convincing people that the right decisions are being made. And with the latter, the issue doesn't have to be that the communication is poor, but the decisions can be poor as well, of course.

I personally think that flight sim games have been doing a poor job at providing the players with a good single player experience where they have fun things to do. As a result, a lot of players buy games, but not play them as much, or never get into the game in the first place. By growing the consumer base, you can actually have more things (lower prices, more bug fixes and/or more improvements), because more money comes in.

I'm seeing some sims respond to this user demand to have more things to do, which at least according to Asobo, is the main thing their players ask for, so the question is whether sims that don't improve on this front, get left behind.

What I would do if I was in charge of DCS, would be to invest heavily in a dynamic campaign and somewhat unpredictable AI (in the good way), even if it doesn't get the best return on investment in the short term, but as a way to add value to all modules, and to grow the player base. And I would focus development more on creating a coherent set of aircraft and matching map(s) that fit well together for a certain time period. And I would plan for obsolescence, where either the game engine, or preferably just the plane API's, get frozen and an incompatible game engine or API is introduced. So at that point, one can fix the major outstanding bugs, and then planes should keep working in the same way, albeit without getting improvements. So that would prevent having more and more modules to maintain over time, which doesn't seem sustainable, while players can still enjoy what they bought.

But of course ED gets to do what they deem the best and consumers get to choose whether to buy it or not.

[nessuno0505]

6 ore fa, Aapje ha scritto:

What I see a lot of people remark is that they can accept that older modules are built to worse standards, but that there are significant bugs that severely hamper their enjoyment or even cause them to bench the module.

Exactly this.

I don't demand that the f-86 has the same graphics as the apache, but that once it reaches the peak of its development it keeps it that way over time, and that it does not progressively lose value not because newer things came out, with better graphics, additional features or whatever, but because the features that were there have gradually been lost and it takes years (and sometimes it never happens) to get them back as they were before.

Edited November 14, 2024 by nessuno0505