Minimum Viable Product

[Tank50us]

This isn't so much a specific wishlist item, but more a general thing sim wide.

Basically, I believe that maybe ED, and the third parties, should adopt the "Minimum Viable Product" approach to future modules.

For those that don't know what that term means, it means that the minimum things necessary to make the product viable for sale so that it's in our hands that much sooner.

An example of this in action could be the F-111 Aardvark. The initial release could have the following:

• Basic Cockpit Functionality (lights, switches, working HUD)
• Start-up procedure
• A functioning flight and damage model
• A passable 3D Model
• Gun, Fox2, and 'Dumb' bombs

Subsequent updates would add:

• a more detailed model as needed
• an AI B/N
• Additional weapons
• Targeting pods
• additional variations
• and more

Why go through it like this? Well, the sooner a module is in the hands the player, the sooner bugs get spotted and squashed. Also, it means that future players will see new aircraft/helicopters coming to the game much more regularly, which translates to more sales. After all, if it's in the game, people can't claim it to be vaporware, and even if they don't like the state it's in, they at least know it's here, and improvements are being made, so it's that much more likely to see someone buy it, even if they don't buy it day one.

The other advantage is that this focuses the development on very specific things at very specific stages, and better allows more focused testing. For example, if the only bomb available day one is a Mk82, and the only missile available is the AIM9M, and the bug needing a good squashing is located somewhere in the weapons, odds are pretty good it's in one of those two areas.

Now, I know not everyone likes this business model, some believe it to be a case of "selling a broken product." But, I don't see it that way. I see it as the very thing that could avoid much of the drama we've seen recently. So long as the player base is willing to understand what they're buying and the dev team is able to handle the bugs, I really don't see an issue here.

[Vakarian]

You know about that meme, "find the difference between these two pictures?"

This is in no way different than the current early access model apart from the name and that what you're suggesting would "release" even more barebones modules. 

[Northstar98]

Most EA modules already come close to a MVP state when initially released - this is a distinction without a difference.

And ED have already arguably gone below even MVP state in the past, it doesn't need repeating (F-16).

Modules don't get finished enough as it is and that's where scopes are very narrow (and even then stuff that fits said scope gets forgotten about).

Speaking completely frankly - the last thing we need is the bar to be lowered any further.

[cfrag]

7 hours ago, Tank50us said:

I believe that maybe ED, and the third parties, should adopt the "Minimum Viable Product" approach to future modules

After more than 3 decades of suffering through management fads, let's hope that ED are kind enough to spare us and their hard-working employees this one. Truth is: there is exactly one Minimum Requirement that makes a product qualify as WVP: find someone who purchases it. Everything else is marketing talk from some consulting know-it-all who want to sell their particular brand of methodology. How do I know? I was one of them. RUP, Agile, SevenSigma, Lean, Prometh, CPM, Prince, Kanban, Xtreme  - you name it, I sold it. I'm certified (and literally certifiable  ) in all of them. A good project manager can do waterfall in any methodology. MVP is merely marketing gobbledygook, designed to shield incompetent managers from accountability.

So, realistically, what's an MVP to ED? Whatever they can sell. Looking at the past decade, EA is what ED sell (with a single one of them limping across the finish line) - a minimalistic approach to both quality and completeness. I think that ED know what 'viable' means to their customers because their EA products sell well enough. The "minimal" term may be debatable, and I do not want to find out how much less quality us customers would be willing to accept. Let's hope and see if ED's approach of min-maxing products keeps them and us alive for the coming years. And I'm still hoping for a damage model to arrive for my EA YAK that I purchased 7 years ago.

[Tank50us]

1 hour ago, cfrag said:

The "minimal" term may be debatable, and I do not want to find out how much less quality us customers would be willing to accept. Let's hope and see if ED's approach of min-maxing products keeps them and us alive for the coming years. And I'm still hoping for a damage model to arrive for my EA YAK that I purchased 7 years ago.

That's why I created the example I did with an F-111. Basically, it would be a good enough module on initial release that most people would be happy with it, especially if there's a detailed plan made public, and also stuck to.

I know that some are looking at this and thinking that what would release is a few polygons and a UFO flight model, and that's not in anyway what I'm thinking. Basically, release in a state that minimizes the time frame to release, and focuses the team to get something in the hands of players that is a viable aircraft for regular mission work. The quirks that appear under certain, very specific conditions, or certain rare failures can come later, as can the more advanced weapons. But I think most players will be happy if the plane can be started, shut down, fly, and do what's asked of it on day one, even if what they're getting is essentially the earliest model of the aircraft in question.

[SharpeXB]

This is already being done now. It’s called “Early Access”. In terms of the language used, the words “early” and “access” have more positive connotations than “minimum” or “viable”. Many people might want something “early” but less would probably find a product labeled as “minimum” very appealing. 

Edited December 24, 2024 by SharpeXB

[cfrag]

49 minutes ago, Tank50us said:

Basically, it would be a good enough module on initial release that most people would be happy with it, especially if there's a detailed plan made public, and also stuck to.

I believe that if I learned anything in the past years, I recommend that people only focus on the first part: if people are happy with what is released, that's good. I now tend to disregard anything else -- be it announced, promised, alluded to, inferred, suggested, mentioned or otherwise indicated that might be delivered by the kind people at ED as irrelevant until the point in time that they actually deliver. Case in point: I'm still waiting (after 7 years) for the delivery of a damage model for the YAK. It wasn't promised, I know. It was acknowledged that it's missing.

57 minutes ago, Tank50us said:

Basically, release in a state that minimizes the time frame to release, and focuses the team to get something in the hands of players that is a viable aircraft for regular mission work.

Agreed. And as a customer expect that whatever you get will be the near-final state if sales numbers don't allow for a clear progress path after EA release. So, buy what is available now, not what has potential to come later. Unless you are an perennial optimist like me.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

On 12/24/2024 at 8:26 AM, cfrag said:

 

Agreed. And as a customer expect that whatever you get will be the near-final state if sales numbers don't allow for a clear progress path after EA release. So, buy what is available now, not what has potential to come later. Unless you are an perennial optimist like me.

This sounds like the request is for more responsibility in EA release scheduling. I mean, as far as ideas go, it ain't a bad one. After all, we all remember the Viper's launch. It was MVP in the most generalized sense. As in, you could use it.