Ah, well as I lost all interest in MP-only shooters about 10 years ago because I HATE public servers (and playing those games with like 3-4 people you know well is pointless), I find them all to be charging about 10 TIMES what I perceive their value to be.

I think I paid $7 for CoD 4, and as it took me 4 hrs to finish the SP part (I never touched MP) it was still too much. Haven't bought one since.

Last MOH I bought was Airborne for $10, that was ok for that price as the SP actually existed.
Last BF I bought was BF: Vietnam, but I preferred BF:42 and its 2 addons and the mods for it. Haven't bought one since, and I won't.

So, the problem obviously is that people like me that think BF is WAY overpriced are in the minority, leading devs to spend tens of millions making derivative games that offer nothing new to the mindless MP shooter but sell like cheap drugs, while devs that attempt to do more interesting games struggle.





The Jedi Master

I think you're being a little pedantic in your replies here....Nimits originally stated that in his opinion in wasn't a study sim because of the lack of appropriate environment. I also agree that it's fundamentally lacking especially when DCS are the devs that are really pushing the boundaries with realism and atmosphere, yet the release of the P-51 without anything related to go with it just completely goes against the grain.

You gave the example in the quote above about the P-51 simply not having to fight in a modern era against modern defense systems etc but then on the flip side of the coin, you have ED pushing their 'Combined Arms' with statements like this:

.

So its all a little confusing - the P-51 doesn't have to go into battle against modern era hardware....but feel free to do all of the above...it's like reading a small print disclaimer. Personally, I'd say that paragraph alone is enough to completely negate the term 'Study Sim' when the devs are pushing it as a feature of the game/sim. ED seem reluctant to give us any indication of the way future releases will work, when they'll be and what they'll be releasing. Like many others have mentioned previously, ideally there would be other aircraft from the same era to do battle with at the very least or a range of realistic targets to go up against. To my knowledge ED have only really said that other 'classics' will be released but the term 'classics' is obviously very broad and doesn't guarantee anything to anyone.

Personally, my biggest reservation since the announcement of BS2 is that ED still don't know where they are going and are making it up as they go along. There is no coherent path of integration, they are lacking in communication and are reluctant to announce what they are committing to for whatever reason....probably in case it doesn't work out. There is no doubt the P-51 is lovely to fly but in its existing guise I won't be spending any more money on ED's products until I can see where it is all going. I'm certainly not going to spend the money on the P-51 and Combined Ops if down the line it means we have to upgrade yet again to BS3, A10C 2 and FC3 just to get their products integrated of which most of us have already bought twice over just to get to the stage of where we are now and we're still awaiting the Nevada terrain/environmental engine which could also force additional changes and cost on us.

What are you on about?

Nate

Exactly what your quote says.

Until I can see that the release of Combined Ops and the Nevada Terrain doesn't require yet more payware/patches/upgrades such as BS '3' and A10C '2' and P-51 '2' (content we have already purchased) just to pay for integration work that was never scoped for, then I'll happily sit it out.

The complete lack of communication tells its own story in my opinion. Combined Ops was never mentioned until recently.....do ED actually know which direction they are going in? I'm losing faith and I'm probably not the only person.

Yeah they've not said a thing - certainly didn't set out a clear roadmap in November 2011.

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=81589



Nate

Yeah, well the quote below that you conveniently missed out underneath the November 2011 roadmap is my reservation:



Just like it did when the BS2 payware announcement came out of the blue. Like I said, I'll happily sit it out until I know where they're really going and how they're dealing with future integration work. ED haven't done anything of late that puts my mind at rest.

It might be clear to you, but having software that 'allows' other software to work with it (aka integrated) was the promise behind the first DCS BS module......and 'allows' became very different to 'having to pay additional funds to have an existing product work with a new one'

Fair enough, the move to DCS:-World (+ the free Su-25T) has pretty much made integration a given - you'll find out soon enough. CA will be in Open Beta this month if all goes well.

Nate

Since the term "study sim" is something we flight sim fans created on our own, I am not sure how pendantic one can be about the specific definition. But assuming we want to use Wikipedia as the source of all knowledge here, the Wikipedia article lists "Study Sim" as a sub-category of "Combat Flight Sim," and further defines "Combat Flight Sin" as a game "used to simulate military aircraft and their operations."

Considering about the most warlike thing you can do in DCS: P-51 is shoot down a KA-50 or land it on a Nimitz-class carrier, DCS is not accurately simulating the operation of the P-51 as a military aircraft.

Sure, if you choose the most arbitrary things you can do to not operate it realistically, then that are the things one would do in the sim. Thank god this list of yours is not exhaustive.

Finally! I agree, Nimits! Fist to the monitor, brother and gently dap mine. Yup, never mind what others have been doing because those are the only two war-like things you n I know how to do in DCS P-51D. Here's a toast to our lack of imagination. And here I thought I was the only simmer not mentally equipped to get down with other AI aircraft or fly a mission with other people online because DCS Stang is a pain in the beehind to fly. I, too, prefer Oleg's line up...IL2 on up to COLD where flying is easy as peeing.

To the dude complaining about ED's lack of direction. Frankly, I prefer the bull shizzle Oleg and his team have been shoving up my rear end about all the goodness CLOD could do. Oooh, and those screenies and newsies about their next big thing really help me forget about all the promises that were kept when CLOD was released. I'm no fan of ED's lack of PR and I loath the way they always seem to deliver exactly what they did not promise.

Thumbs up to both of you! Waaay up...