Proposal: Free modern onboarding and/or trainer module

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, LucShep said:

Sales numbers are not as it was then. 

How are you privy to EDs sales figures?

1 hour ago, cfrag said:

More simply put: any savvy dealer will give you the first fix for free.

Well again, every aircraft in this game has a free trial. 

1 hour ago, LucShep said:

One could argue that the F-15C module is already extremely affordable and etc (like you just did), sure.
But it is the comodity of having it already in the game, ready to be used, without any hoops and hassle of the extra content payment, download and installation to a newcomer (who is just dipping his/her toes into the water), that makes this the kind of decision that should have been (IMO) already made by ED.

This has been discussed before. “no plans” to give this away since it’s too high-value…

 

Edited Saturday at 10:15 PM by SharpeXB

[draconus]

2 hours ago, LucShep said:

The F-15C is cheap as chips ($7.49) and there's also (still, I think) the 50% discount on the very first purchased module.

No, there's no first purchase discount anymore. And the FC aircraft are way too cheap imho.

[LucShep]

5 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

How are you privy to EDs sales figures?

Well again, every aircraft in this game has a free trial. 

This has been discussed before. “no plans” to give this away since it’s too high-value…

Privy to ED's sales figures?
No.

Indications that player numbers have been lower than they were during the pandemic?
For sure. 

Steam charts clearly indicate a boom in 2020 (like happened with every PC and console game) but then active userbase has been decreasing since the beginning of 2023.

https://steamcharts.com/app/223750#All

We're not counting the non-Steam users here. But I'd guess is safe to say their chart would be similar.

Again - having free trials is great. 
But there is no such thing for Steam users, where a huge portion of the userbase is, and from where newcomers also come from (I'd wager far more than non-steam newcomers).

DCS belongs to a niche genre of PC gaming. Relying on the current userbase only is short sighted.
Newcomers must be taken into account. Once interested they will add to the userbase who continuously invests on paid content - what sustains DCS and makes it grow.

Again, you only have one chance to do well on first impressions...

I think sacrificing a simpler to operate, already mature (zero impact on development) and cheap (low revenue) module, to turn it into free default/included content, is the easiest and probably best solution to lure in new players. And the good old F-15C is the right module for that.
 

5 hours ago, draconus said:

No, there's no first purchase discount anymore. 

Well, that's unfortunate but it's understandable.  I didn't know that it had ended, I stand corrected.
 

Edited 21 hours ago by LucShep
spelling(?)

[SharpeXB]

58 minutes ago, LucShep said:

I think sacrificing a simpler to operate, already mature (zero impact on development) and cheap (low revenue) module, to turn it into free default/included content, is the easiest and probably best solution to lure in new players. And the good old F-15C is the right module for that.

Well like NL just said, it’s too high value to give away. That question has already been asked and answered, not even the topic here really. 

58 minutes ago, LucShep said:

Again - having free trials is great. 
But there is no such thing for Steam users

DCSW is free, so just have a separate install to trial modules with. If trials are something anyone really wants so much they can convert away from Steam altogether. 

Edited yesterday at 01:24 AM by SharpeXB

[Luca Kowalski]

15 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

DCSW is free, so just have a separate install to trial modules with. If trials are something anyone really wants so much they can convert away from Steam altogether. 

That’s not what I’m proposing.

The people this demo plane would be aimed at aren’t those actively searching for a trial or willing to jump through setup hoops. They’re people who don’t know DCS, and who aren’t already invested in military aviation like we are. And that’s a very large group.

They’re not hesitant because of money — they’re hesitant because of effort.
And people are frugal with their effort. Most won’t invest time, keybinds, or configuration steps just out of curiosity.

This isn’t about convincing someone who’s already on the fence.
It’s about giving someone who’s still on the sidewalk a chance to peek inside.

Some observations based on the feedback so far:

Some frame the idea as unnecessary — because they didn’t need it.
I completely understand that: DCS works for people who are already motivated.

Others suggest using existing trainer modules with the 14-day trial — which is fair, but still not the same as a purpose-built, zero-friction experience.

A few point out that “if it doesn’t sell, it’s not worth making” — a valid business lens, but not the only one.

---

But here’s the gap I think we’re missing:

A lot of people in DCS got here because they already wanted to fly a Hornet, a Tomcat, a Viper.
But most people outside the DCS community don’t have a favorite fighter.

They don’t start with motivation — they start with curiosity.
And curiosity needs one thing: a taste.

Not a manual. Not a cold start.
Just a moment where they sit in the back seat and go:
“Whoa… this is great.”

That’s what a demo dual-seat plane would offer. No bindings. No setup. Just:
“Look how beautiful this is. Want to take over the stick? Here — it’s yours.”

No need to install a mod — because that’s extra effort and often unreliable.
No need to start a trial — because that feels like a commitment.
No need to bind a bazillion keys — because no one wants to do all that just to see what it’s like.

And after that moment?
More people will want to learn.
Will want to bind controls.
Will want to take off and land.
Will want to spend money on what’s considered the entry module: FC3.
Will want to jump down the rabbit hole.

Because now they know what’s waiting for them — if they do.

---

And one more point that bugs me:
“The vast majority of players fly single player.”

That’s true — but I believe that’s not a fixed reality. It’s a result of how DCS is currently structured.
Multiplayer, as it stands, is hard to approach for newcomers. Not because it’s unfriendly — but because it requires knowledge, preparation, and confidence most first-timers don’t yet have.

A modern, ride-along demo aircraft could act as a natural bridge — helping players ease into the shared experience by joining someone they trust, without friction or pressure.

People don’t avoid multiplayer because they want to be alone.
They avoid it because the first step feels too steep.

[SharpeXB]

13 minutes ago, Luca Kowalski said:

They’re people who don’t know DCS, and who aren’t already invested in military aviation like we are. And that’s a very large group.

Well if you figure this is a niche genre then by definition the majority of people out there aren’t interested. That is what it is. Hey if the Devs can figure out a way to popularize DCS, great! But I don’t think this is it. Again civy flight sims are very popular and have all the same “problems” yet that doesn’t seem to affect their popularity. So what is it with CFS games?

15 minutes ago, Luca Kowalski said:

Most won’t invest time, keybinds, or configuration steps just out of curiosity.

But in order to do anything with a free module they’ll need to do that. They’ll also need to install the game and configure that too. If someone is too mentally feeble to assign a joystick, this isn’t the game for them. Note how console games have every command pre-assigned. That’s what the typical gamer is like, they aren’t savvy enough to do anything more. Which is amazing to me. 

22 minutes ago, Luca Kowalski said:

That’s what a demo dual-seat plane would offer. No bindings. No setup. Just:
“Look how beautiful this is. Want to take over the stick? Here — it’s yours.”

Again to do even this they’ll need to do all the setup. And anyone I can imagine starting into a game is going to want to fly the plane themselves. I’ve shown DCS to quite a few people and none would find it interesting at all to just ride along. 

25 minutes ago, Luca Kowalski said:

They don’t start with motivation — they start with curiosity.

Certainly. Realize that DCS doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It’s within a whole spectrum of sim and flying games. I’m sure many people find their way into more complex sims after starting out in simpler games. So the whole path doesn’t have to exist here. Simplifying DCS too much to appeal to novice players is sorta counterproductive. 
For myself I started with arcade style flying games, moved on to more sim-type games, then discovered DCS on a Steam sale and got hooked. I suspect that’s not uncommon.

[Luca Kowalski]

25 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Well if you figure this is a niche genre then by definition the majority of people out there aren’t interested. That is what it is. Hey if the Devs can figure out a way to popularize DCS, great! But I don’t think this is it. Again civy flight sims are very popular and have all the same “problems” yet that doesn’t seem to affect their popularity. So what is it with CFS games?

But in order to do anything with a free module they’ll need to do that. They’ll also need to install the game and configure that too. If someone is too mentally feeble to assign a joystick, this isn’t the game for them. Note how console games have every command pre-assigned. That’s what the typical gamer is like, they aren’t savvy enough to do anything more. Which is amazing to me. 

Again to do even this they’ll need to do all the setup. And anyone I can imagine starting into a game is going to want to fly the plane themselves. I’ve shown DCS to quite a few people and none would find it interesting at all to just ride along. 

Certainly. Realize that DCS doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It’s within a whole spectrum of sim and flying games. I’m sure many people find their way into more complex sims after starting out in simpler games. So the whole path doesn’t have to exist here. Simplifying DCS too much to appeal to novice players is sorta counterproductive. 
For myself I started with arcade style flying games, moved on to more sim-type games, then discovered DCS on a Steam sale and got hooked. I suspect that’s not uncommon.

Thanks again for the reply.
I think we might be misreading each other a little, so let me clarify a few things:

First off: I never said DCS should be simplified — I said it could be more accessible. That’s not the same thing. Making something easier to try doesn’t mean dumbing it down.

Second: yes, some setup is required. But realistically, you don’t need to bind 50 keys just to ride along in the back seat. A joystick, throttle, and maybe view controls? That’s manageable. If the demo plane spawns ready-to-fly, that’s all someone needs to get a feel for the sim — and to decide if it’s worth going further.

Finally, about civil sims — they do have depth and complexity, but not to the extent of DCS. That makes them cheaper, more approachable, and often more forgiving. DCS is pricier and steeper, with more systems and dynamics — which is great, but it means we need different ways to spark curiosity and draw new people in.

That’s what this idea is about: not chasing the mainstream, but offering a smoother first taste — something social and promising.

Edited 7 hours ago by Luca Kowalski

[SharpeXB]

14 minutes ago, Luca Kowalski said:

First off: I never said DCS should be simplified

I realize that. I was venturing that if ED tried to make DCS appeal to the masses that would mean simplifying the game or adding gamey features that the core sim audience likely wouldn’t find acceptable. So in the end this will always be a niche game which is fine, that’s how the players like it. 

19 minutes ago, Luca Kowalski said:

Second: yes, some setup is required. But realistically, you don’t need to bind 50 keys just to ride along in the back seat. A joystick, throttle, and maybe view controls? That’s manageable. If the demo plane spawns ready-to-fly, that’s all someone needs to get a feel for the sim — and to decide if it’s worth going further.

But you can do this by yourself without a tandem cockpit. You can play along online and do things like share screens etc. Literally having a trainer style aircraft isn’t necessary. And these already exist in the game and are already free to try. Anyone can get a feel of what the game is like with the free aircraft that are already in the game. There isn’t an obstacle in this regard. 
A primary benefit of dual controls in the real world is the ability to feel what the instructor is doing with them. That’s not possible in a PC game or maybe it would be with FFB but a beginner isn’t going to have hardware like that.

23 minutes ago, Luca Kowalski said:

Finally, about civil sims — they do have depth and complexity, but not to the extent of DCS.

In terms of flying they’re actually more complex but don’t have combat systems, in that regard they’re less so. But in terms of these “obstacles” to broad appeal they’re the same. Yet they’re much more popular and without any multiplayer “trainers”. Those players don’t seem to have any trouble jumping right into the game. The reasons that CFS games are so niche is due to other factors IMO

[draconus]

1 hour ago, Luca Kowalski said:

Just a moment where they sit in the back seat and go:
“Whoa… this is great.”

Or like: "So what kind of fighter is that?

It'a trainer, it's slower, doesn't shoot and doesn't bomb.

Man... this... sucks. Why are you showing me this?"

[EricJ]

All I did when I had a question of what to do was use the Editor when it's available, so there's no need for a trainer or training module or whatnot. I mean, sure, going on a server is what most prefer, but you can learn things in an environment where you don't get shot at, or have to worry about anything coming after you, like some experienced player shooting you down when you don't know what's going on. I don't know why people don't make that connection, and insist on some kind of trainer plane to learn something that the trainer plane doesn't have. Like what I do, I fly around and plink stuff with the A-10 so I'm familiar with most of the functions, and so on.

[Luca Kowalski]

29 minutes ago, EricJ said:

All I did when I had a question of what to do was use the Editor when it's available, so there's no need for a trainer or training module or whatnot. I mean, sure, going on a server is what most prefer, but you can learn things in an environment where you don't get shot at, or have to worry about anything coming after you, like some experienced player shooting you down when you don't know what's going on. I don't know why people don't make that connection, and insist on some kind of trainer plane to learn something that the trainer plane doesn't have. Like what I do, I fly around and plink stuff with the A-10 so I'm familiar with most of the functions, and so on.

Again, that’s a perfectly valid answer — from someone who’s already on the inside.

But someone like you didn’t need a demo plane to discover the game. That’s great — it just means… you’re not the target audience.

37 minutes ago, draconus said:

Or like: "So what kind of fighter is that?

It'a trainer, it's slower, doesn't shoot and doesn't bomb.

Man... this... sucks. Why are you showing me this?"

Thanks for chiming in!

I get it — if your main draw to DCS is fast jets, weapons, and action, a trainer might sound... underwhelming. But that’s exactly the point: this idea isn’t meant to impress someone who’s already deep into the game.

It’s for the ones who aren’t there yet. The people who’ve never touched DCS, have no idea what HOTAS means, and just want to feel what it’s like to be in that cockpit — to experience the sim before deciding if it’s for them.

If someone’s first question is “Where are the guns?”, they’re probably not the kind of newcomer this is designed to reach. And that’s totally fine.

But for those who would otherwise bounce off the game before they even get started… this might be their way in.

[SharpeXB]

Honestly it sounds like you’re trying to force people to play the game who really just don’t want to. DCS doesn’t appeal to everyone. And that’s ok.

[Luca Kowalski]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

I realize that. I was venturing that if ED tried to make DCS appeal to the masses that would mean simplifying the game or adding gamey features that the core sim audience likely wouldn’t find acceptable.

That would be a completely different topic, one that I didn't start.

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

So in the end this will always be a niche game which is fine, that’s how the players like it. 

I'm suggesting a way to make this game more open to public without changing its heart.

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

But you can do this by yourself without a tandem cockpit. You can play along online and do things like share screens etc. Literally having a trainer style aircraft isn’t necessary. And these already exist in the game and are already free to try. Anyone can get a feel of what the game is like with the free aircraft that are already in the game. There isn’t an obstacle in this regard. 

I refer to my previous explanation about people being frugal with their time and effort.

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

A primary benefit of dual controls in the real world is the ability to feel what the instructor is doing with them. That’s not possible in a PC game or maybe it would be with FFB but a beginner isn’t going to have hardware like that.

That wasn't why I suggested a demo plane.

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

In terms of flying they’re actually more complex but don’t have combat systems, in that regard they’re less so. But in terms of these “obstacles” to broad appeal they’re the same. Yet they’re much more popular and without any multiplayer “trainers”. Those players don’t seem to have any trouble jumping right into the game. The reasons that CFS games are so niche is due to other factors IMO

Cost per plane is one of those factors, which is a huge factor.

[=475FG= Dawger]

This thread is silly. 

If someone wants to "ride along" they can watch a live Discord stream.

Anyone who actually wants to fly will make the effort to do what is required to fly. 

No matter what, some effort will be required in order to actually fly in DCS (or anything else).

Arguing that DCS needs to try to grab folks that are "frugal" in the effort department is ridiculous. DCS is pointless and tedious effort by definition.

Just read a few threads regarding Cold Start procedures and any effort to circumvent that pile of pointless tedium.

Creating something that hides the level of effort required in DCS is not going to win new long term customers.

Edited 5 hours ago by =475FG= Dawger

[EricJ]

1 hour ago, Luca Kowalski said:

Again, that’s a perfectly valid answer — from someone who’s already on the inside.

But someone like you didn’t need a demo plane to discover the game. That’s great — it just means… you’re not the target audience.

Thanks for chiming in!

I get it — if your main draw to DCS is fast jets, weapons, and action, a trainer might sound... underwhelming. But that’s exactly the point: this idea isn’t meant to impress someone who’s already deep into the game.

It’s for the ones who aren’t there yet. The people who’ve never touched DCS, have no idea what HOTAS means, and just want to feel what it’s like to be in that cockpit — to experience the sim before deciding if it’s for them.

If someone’s first question is “Where are the guns?”, they’re probably not the kind of newcomer this is designed to reach. And that’s totally fine.

But for those who would otherwise bounce off the game before they even get started… this might be their way in.

I'm currently not affiliated with ED in any way right now. I was, but that's about it. Nobody has approached me or otherwise, so we're all clear. Sure I know some people, but I'm like most, we're still members but not privy to any inside information about current work, but I'm out of the military (left in 2013), so I'm VEEEEEEERY rusty on JTAC-style controls and such (even though I consulted on the JTAC portion, though mislabled as one as I was a JFO at the time). And I don't keep up because I really don't need to.

Anyway, I don't disagree with a trainer, but you're right, I'm not the target audience (good point), but it'll take years for development, and never perfect in the eyes of players and so on.

Edited 4 hours ago by EricJ

[SharpeXB]

3 minutes ago, Luca Kowalski said:

Cost per plane is one of those factors, which is a huge factor.

Some of these cost as much as DCS and the game isn’t free either. 
 

I think that it would indeed be necessary to change the heart of the game in order to popularize it. Just compare DCS to the popular air combat games and note the differences.

4 minutes ago, Luca Kowalski said:

I'm suggesting a way to make this game more open to public without changing its heart.

[cfrag]

Ah, the wonderful world of dreams and wishful thinking, where ambrosia springs eternal, and everything arranges itself to my wishes.

2 hours ago, Luca Kowalski said:

a purpose-built, zero-friction experience.

Please describe how DCS can become this, as it is lightyears away from that, and I am genuinely interested in ideas how ED can achieve that. A trainer will not magically erase the friction of setting up bindings, an abysmal UX, terrible missions etc. I'm all in with a frictionless experience, sign me up now. How on earth will a trainer aircraft/module magically erase the fact that you still have to bind controls, go online, find the mission where your instructor is, and join their aircraft (I'm assuming that the student is spared having to create a training mission and host it). There's no magic wand you can wave these issues away. Not with a trainer, anyway. 

2 hours ago, Luca Kowalski said:

A lot of people in DCS got here because they already wanted to fly a Hornet, a Tomcat, a Viper.
But most people outside the DCS community don’t have a favorite fighter.

Fair enough. Then why would they come to DCS? In five seconds or less, please summarise what DCS does well as a game, why I should try it. It's the Hornet, Tomcat, Viper, and Apache. Blow stuff up, with a dash of realism.

2 hours ago, Luca Kowalski said:

That’s what a demo dual-seat plane would offer. No bindings. No setup. Just:
“Look how beautiful this is. Want to take over the stick? Here — it’s yours.”

Ah, magic tech. I see. So student sits at home, connects their new $20 Joystick generic brand "Funstick" with 5 axes, 10 buttons to their computer; magically joins you (let's not sweat details, we are in a dream). You control the aircraft for a while, then you tell him "You have controls", and by magic DCS knows that that the values read from HID Device A, analogue input 3 at the remote computer should be interpreted as a Yoke's pitch. Axis Inverted, of course, with a 20% curve. Sure. Say, what's the colour of the sky in your world?

That kind of tech does not yet exist. For any game. Maybe when AI gets more advanced.

And heck, yeah, if DCS could do that, I'll be incredibly happy too. 

2 hours ago, Luca Kowalski said:

Multiplayer, as it stands, is hard to approach for newcomers. Not because it’s unfriendly — but because it requires knowledge, preparation, and confidence most first-timers don’t yet have.

A modern, ride-along demo aircraft could act as a natural bridge

You do realize that this "modern, ride-along" system requires the neophyte to be on-line and connected with you, creating a catch-22, right? To ride with you, they need to be on-line, and to learn how to fly on-line, they need to ride with you. Or is this, too, solved by magic?  DCS' on-line experience is terrible, yes, and should be massively improved to make the entire experience more user-friendly. How do you suggest that ED overcome this? With a trainer module that requires going on-line?

Are you trolling?

[Luca Kowalski]

2 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Some of these cost as much as DCS and the game isn’t free either. 
 

I think that it would indeed be necessary to change the heart of the game in order to popularize it. Just compare DCS to the popular air combat games and note the differences.

Thanks again for the reply.

 

I still believe we're talking about two very different things. You're discussing what it would take to make DCS more popular overall — possibly by changing the game. I'm talking about how to make it easier to get into, without changing the game.

 

One is about the core — the other is about the door. My idea is focused on that door.

 

And let’s be honest: Microsoft Flight Simulator comes with dozens of aircraft out of the box, for the price of a single full-fidelity DCS module. And that’s before you even add maps or campaigns in DCS.

 

So no — price isn’t the only factor. But it’s a big one. Especially when you’re just curious, and don’t yet know if the game is for you.

 

That’s why a free, modern, multiplayer-ready demo plane could help. Not to compete with MSFS — but to let people try DCS in a way that doesn’t ask for money, time, or friction up front.

 

[SharpeXB]

7 minutes ago, Luca Kowalski said:

I'm talking about how to make it easier to get into, without changing the game.

A Catch-22 because the nature of the game makes it difficult. 

7 minutes ago, Luca Kowalski said:

That other game comes with dozens of aircraft out of the box, for the price of a single full-fidelity DCS module.

That’s an indicator that these civy sims must have 10-50x as many customers. (Note these nor the game is free) Yet they don’t need any such trainers to attract them. There are all sorts of other reasons DCS is a niche. 

[Luca Kowalski]

10 minutes ago, cfrag said:

Ah, the wonderful world of dreams and wishful thinking, where ambrosia springs eternal, and everything arranges itself to my wishes.

Please describe how DCS can become this, as it is lightyears away from that, and I am genuinely interested in ideas how ED can achieve that. A trainer will not magically erase the friction of setting up bindings, an abysmal UX, terrible missions etc. I'm all in with a frictionless experience, sign me up now. How on earth will a trainer aircraft/module magically erase the fact that you still have to bind controls, go online, find the mission where your instructor is, and join their aircraft (I'm assuming that the student is spared having to create a training mission and host it). 

Can you be so kind as to quote the part where I said that a trainer would magically erase the friction of setting up bindings, an abysmal UX, terrible missions etc. I think I missed the part where I said that.

14 minutes ago, cfrag said:

Fair enough. Then why would they come to DCS? In five seconds or less, please summarise what DCS does well as a game, why I should try it. It's the Hornet, Tomcat, Viper, and Apache. Blow stuff up, with a dash of realism.

Maybe because a good friend told them there's this great game they're playing?

19 minutes ago, cfrag said:

Ah, magic tech. I see. So student sits at home, connects their new $20 Joystick generic brand "Funstick" with 5 axes, 10 buttons to their computer; magically joins you (let's not sweat details, we are in a dream). You control the aircraft for a while, then you tell him "You have controls", and by magic DCS knows that that the values read from HID Device A, analogue input 3 at the remote computer should be interpreted as a Yoke's pitch. Axis Inverted, of course, with a 20% curve. Sure. Say, what's the colour of the sky in your world?

The sky is mostly blue with dashes of white, sometimes grey, and at night is turns black.
For the rest, I refer again to a previous explanation, in which I explained that a basic setup is manageable, I suggest you read it.

22 minutes ago, cfrag said:

You do realize that this "modern, ride-along" system requires the neophyte to be on-line and connected with you, creating a catch-22, right? To ride with you, they need to be on-line, and to learn how to fly on-line, they need to ride with you. Or is this, too, solved by magic?  DCS' on-line experience is terrible, yes, and should be massively improved to make the entire experience more user-friendly. How do you suggest that ED overcome this? With a trainer module that requires going on-line?

That's not how I experienced flying with my friends, usually it's the game that crashes, but that's another topic.

28 minutes ago, cfrag said:

Are you trolling?

No, are you?

[trev5150]

Why should ED capitalize development on basic flight training modules when MSFS and X-Plane already exists? DCS was never meant to teach people how to fly.

I didn't read the previous three pages, so I'm not reacting to anything but the original post.

Buy the Yak 52, then the Christian Eagle II, then the L-39 or C-101 if you want to role-play a new pilot. If you need to learn how to fly, get MSFS and do the lessons. Don't ask a company in an industry that is already niche to spend millions they don't have on a product that already exists and can do the job far better, when they are already a decade behind current gaming technology with their product's ecosystem and desperately trying to keep their head above water just finishing any of their beta and early access stuff.

[EricJ]

1 hour ago, trev5150 said:

Why should ED capitalize development on basic flight training modules when MSFS and X-Plane already exists? DCS was never meant to teach people how to fly.

I didn't read the previous three pages, so I'm not reacting to anything but the original post.

Buy the Yak 52, then the Christian Eagle II, then the L-39 or C-101 if you want to role-play a new pilot. If you need to learn how to fly, get MSFS and do the lessons. Don't ask a company in an industry that is already niche to spend millions they don't have on a product that already exists and can do the job far better, when they are already a decade behind current gaming technology with their product's ecosystem and desperately trying to keep their head above water just finishing any of their beta and early access stuff.

This