Eagle Dynamics, please remember your promises

[kotor633]

I think that the statement "no one is forced to buy EA modules" is a quick one, but not thought through. What would be the alternative? Not using DCS? Waiting years until the module that really interests you is out of EA? Which would mean that ED would have to forego sales. And you would have to ask yourself how long ED could compensate for something like that... Simply buy another, finished module? That you might not be interested in or not at all (and thus spend money unnecessarily)? In the ED shop, if I haven't miscounted, 22 products (21 if you leave out the F-15E due to the RB/ED situation) are marked as EA. It's possible that my line of thinking isn't entirely correct, but I do think that if you choose ED you are somewhat forced to buy EA products. The business model is designed for this. Polychop was a positive exception with their Kiowa last year. And yes, EA doesn't necessarily mean that it's bad per se.

[Hiob]

3 minutes ago, kotor633 said:

I think that the statement "no one is forced to buy EA modules" is a quick one, but not thought through. What would be the alternative? Not using DCS? 

Well....Yes! Exactly that.

Think of the alternative. ED could just release a given module as is ("Those are the features, take it or leave it") and then do or don't add features later, maybe even as paid "DLC".
Which is exactly what a lot (A LOT) of software/game developers do. Would you be happier that way?
 

Software - especially one with that kind of complexity - is never "done". It's just the nature of the beast. At least ED is open about that.

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

On 1/11/2025 at 3:35 PM, cfrag said:

now is an empty phrase, just marketing speak - devoid of meaning

Sadly a lot of what ED has been saying has been reduced to that. I too hope that changes at some point...
"The most realistic desktop simulation of a MiG-29 on the market" ... uh-huh... as opposed to what exactly? The only competition is their own FC3 iteration. Not exactly an exciting comparison.
Now if they would claim that about the DCS: F-16C, that *would* be saying something as there is an obvious point of comparison. But I don't think they will in that case, since it would be a false statement 

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

4 hours ago, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:

Now if they would claim that about the DCS: F-16C, that *would* be saying something as there is an obvious point of comparison. But I don't think they will in that case, since it would be a false statement 

Considering the obvious competitor fully admits to their version being a Frankenviper, any good marketing.. well viper would be able to spin it as such. Gotta be ambitious!

[Phantom453]

On 1/12/2025 at 6:19 AM, NineLine said:

What modules in Early Access have gone 5 years with no improvements?

Missing Early Access improvements is one thing (Yes, I'm looking at you Yak-52).  However, I paid for 5 aircraft under the DCS WWII: Europe 1944 Backer Rewards Program 11 years ago and the Me.262A-1 from that bundle still hasn't even seen the light of day yet, never mind going into Early Access and then sitting on the shelf without updates for for years on end.

[NineLine]

On 1/11/2025 at 2:48 PM, cfrag said:

The Yak-52 has gone 7 years without becoming final, and with no damage model to speak of...

And what is the intended timeline for finalizing the Viggen? It's also 7 years since I purchased it in EA.

The Yak-52 has received some improvements in that time.

The Viggen you will need to talk to Heatblur about this, but I am pretty sure its received plenty of fixes and updates in that time. 

6 minutes ago, Phantom453 said:

Missing Early Access improvements is one thing (Yes, I'm looking at you Yak-52).  However, I paid for 5 aircraft under the DCS WWII: Europe 1944 Backer Rewards Program 11 years ago and the Me.262A-1 from that bundle still hasn't even seen the light of day yet, never mind going into Early Access and then sitting on the shelf without updates for for years on end.

We have done our best to honor as much of that Kickstarter as we could, but it's just not possible. We felt there was many more interesting aircraft to introduce to WWII, the 262 was from the 3rd Party that started that Kickstarter and later folded. 

[cfrag]

Dear NL, thank you so much for chipping in - It is good to see you.

1 hour ago, NineLine said:

The Yak-52 has received some improvements in that time.

My apologies for being obscure. I believe ED when you say that "Eagle Dynamics and all of our third parties strive to make this [EA] period as short as possible"

I also believe that, after 7 years, you fell well short of that claim when it comes to the Yak-52. I do not want to quibble over details. The Yak-52 has no damage model to speak of, and adding some minor fixes over the years (to me) fall into the realm of maintenance, not development. The Yak-52 still needs to be developed into a full product. And that is what I feel that you (ED) meant when you sold an Early Access product: that you will finish development as soon as possible.

1 hour ago, NineLine said:

The Viggen you will need to talk to Heatblur

I beg to strongly differ. You (ED) sell the Viggen, you (ED) took my money. I believe that ED knows what accountability is, and that you (ED) will not try to dodge your responsibility. I am your loyal customer, not HB's, nor any of your other valued contributors. I value your products (after all, I own all modules, maps and tech that you sell, including the Hawk, and they are all "ED products" to me), and I do feel that I am entitled to point out the occasional thing that I am not fully satisfied with. The long EA times that (as I feel) belie ED's "as short as possible" statement is a most prominent one; a blemish on ED's reputation that I hope that you (ED) will remedy in the near future. I know and understand the realities of your business. Please understand the realities of my perception of ED - that, after many years of trust, I feel that I did not yet receive what I hoped that you promised to deliver so long ago.

Edited January 17 by cfrag

[BIGNEWY]

1 hour ago, cfrag said:

Dear NL, thank you so much for chipping in - It is good to see you.

My apologies for being obscure. I believe ED when you say that "Eagle Dynamics and all of our third parties strive to make this [EA] period as short as possible"

I also believe that, after 7 years, you fell well short of that claim when it comes to the Yak-52. I do not want to quibble over details. The Yak-52 has no damage model to speak of, and adding some minor fixes over the years (to me) fall into the realm of maintenance, not development. The Yak-52 still needs to be developed into a full product. And that is what I feel that you (ED) meant when you sold an Early Access product: that you will finish development as soon as possible.

I beg to strongly differ. You (ED) sell the Viggen, you (ED) took my money. I believe that ED knows what accountability is, and that you (ED) will not try to dodge your responsibility. I am your loyal customer, not HB's, nor any of your other valued contributors. I value your products (after all, I own all modules, maps and tech that you sell, including the Hawk, and they are all "ED products" to me), and I do feel that I am entitled to point out the occasional thing that I am not fully satisfied with. The long EA times that (as I feel) belie ED's "as short as possible" statement is a most prominent one; a blemish on ED's reputation that I hope that you (ED) will remedy in the near future. I know and understand the realities of your business. Please understand the realities of my perception of ED - that, after many years of trust, I feel that I did not yet receive what I hoped that you promised to deliver so long ago.

Thank you for sharing your feedback in this thread, we can only do our best to meet your expectations. I hope we can but I am sure in the future if we do you will make a thread and let us know. 

For now this thread is done and we look forward to meeting our goals. 

thank you