Maybe $25-30 would be a better range.

However what puts me off is this Nevada map is not free and/or is too expensive! After many years (actually more than a decade) of buying several DCS products/modules and before it Lock On (and I won't even mention Flanker 2/2.5) and always playing them on the same map (Black Sea) and therefore supporting ED, I believe that we customers have "purchased ourselves" the right to have an another map (different from Black Sea) for DCS for FREE.

And this is even worse considering that ED want's to sell the Nevada map for what I consider an "insane" amount of $49.99 USD! That's just as much or even more than most aircraft/helicopter modules.

same quote

A quick scan around the internet and it seems that to purchase a detailed airport scenery for FSX or Prepar3d cost around $20. Area scenery is all over the map depending on the area and the detail but it would seem that you would pay about $30. Right now the only campaign for sale by ED is $10.

Now the NTTR map comes with the area: $30. 4 highly detailed airports: $80. 2 free campaigns: $20.

Cost right now of the NTTR map is $39.99. I think that we are getting a bargain for it.ED has been working on this for years after it was dropped into there lap. I will gladly pay for the new content and I'm sure that I will get my moneys worth out of it. If I didn't think I would get a lot of play time out of the map I would just wait for SOH.

Considering the Number of hours I have put into DCS, and the insanely low cost per hour of gameplay, I don't think that it is unreasonable for them to ask for some compensation for the map.

As usual though, this is just my opinion, and in the grand scheme of things, doesn't mean that much.

See you guys in the skies!

DM

But if a certain mission (MP for example) is played in a map that you don't own and even if you own all the available aircraft you still can't play the game!

Perhaps, but you can't buy it today on the premise of it might be worth more tomorrow.

The history of software development leads towards "what it is today is all it will ever be" far more. While ED does update their stuff over the years, the pace is not much past glacial. Missile modeling for instance? We've had problems with the AIM-120's effectiveness since LOMAC in 2003. I think 12 years and still "working on it" is hardly swift.

The big difference here is that having or not having extra airports and scenarios doesn't limit your gameplay or to be more precise where and how you can fly. If you don't have any extra airports or scenarios (fully vanilla) in FSX you can still fly to, land into, takeoff from and fly around any airports or to fly around any scenario within the game.
Yes, vanilla airports and scenarios aren't as pretty as the extra ones but you can fully enjoy the game (and not limited in terms of gameplay) while flying in FSX.

Now in DCS and by having every extra map payable, this will greatly limit DCS gameplay and playability. DCS by not modeling the entire earth (and only having separate maps) is already much more limited than FSX if you want to "fly around" and by having payable extra maps makes such experience much more limited.

Besides I fully agree with what Flogger23m said, having extra payable maps will create multiplayer incompatibilities and may even create them in single player as well -> Imagine that you buy a new module aircraft that comes with a campaign or missions that take place in Nevada? You can't fully enjoy the product (new module aircraft) that you just bought!
Probably for these reasons I never saw any other company selling extra maps (alone) other than probably Rise of Flight (which BTW I don't play).
I guess a good plan is what BIS done with its ArmA games. They release payable addons that include not only new maps but also new units but the new maps will end up being available for free for the users that don't wish to buy the addon (while the extra units don't). IMO, ED should do something along these lines but that's only my humble opinion...

Resuming I'm not against payable addons as long as they don't break the "game base". Not having extra/addon/module aircraft doesn't break the "game base" because while you can't fly a certain aircraft that you don't own, you can fly what you do own. But if a certain mission (MP for example) is played in a map that you don't own and even if you own all the available aircraft you still can't play the game!

I've always support the concept that the base game and any updates should be free, but aircraft and campaigns can be paid. I shutter to think we might have to buy maps, AI, clouds, AI units, ect. Will make it a nightmare if we plan to play online.

For single player it really isn't much a problem, but my concern is that multiplayer servers with other interesting maps will be difficult to find and have low player population. I've been under the impression that access to AI world war 2 ground units might require owning the Normandy map. Now what happens when someone makes a multiplayer server set in Nevada, but then randomly decides to throw a target Sherman on the test range for fun?

*Failed to connect to server*

As the list of available DLC becomes longer, people who own everything might not even realize what units came with what pack and have difficulty creating missions that are compatible for most players. I strongly encourage ED to enforce all supported AI vehicles being part of the free base game, otherwise the entry cost for a new player to participate in multiplayer could become very high, and first time players trying to connect to a multiplayer server will simply have a frustrating experience.

This could be a separate topic, but it depends. In the example you gave in particular, 12 years and not finished seems reasonable given the subject (missile performance). They're never going to get it right with foreseeable technology and declassified information. There will always be room for improvement, it's just a matter of priorities.

While I am a big proponent of the change to AFM missiles, I think it could have been handled better. Then again, EDGE is a pretty big priority for a decade + old sim engine, so I can't really say that it's surprising that it was put on the back burner for a while. All of this is said from the outside looking in as well, which should be kept in mind.