So don't buy it then - this is not rocket science. If you don't believe the module is good enough for you then wait. No-one is forcing you to part with your money for a "pre-alpha" as you termed it.

I agree, don't buy it. Don't allow the status quo for these modules to be "pay for beta". Because judging by that conversation some things may never be implemented, judging by the "we'll see" comment. This comment alone is the reason to not buy a beta. Buy it when it's finished, when you can see everything that is implemented in the module. Until then you're giving money to a team who would rather take your cash than wait to complete their work.

Thanks for the advice.

I have a feeling that if everyone followed this advice...then the developer wouldn't have enough revenue for it to reach a final release. Sort of a quandary.

Not at all - I believe it is called capitalism.

Vote with your wallet. Others will as it suit them. I certainly will.

Nate

That's the whole problem with the current situation. They are selling a beta to fund it's development. The problem is if they don't reach their beta goals the project stalls and those that have bought the beta are left to wait years on end for their product to be finished.
If you can't afford to fund the project without gambling on beta sales don't start it. All you are doing is pissing off your main customers. And your reputation takes a hammering.

Don't buy Betas and you won't be disappointed.

Nate

That should be a sticky over on the ED forums

Those shadows on the canopy are awful.

Valid points.

I was going to pre-order this but now I'm glad I didn't. I don't want another FC3 aircraft. I don't want an alpha/quasi-beta product that will have things added following an unknown timeframe.

Some companies/developers, I'd understand the need to sell a beta. New or small company, first product, big vision, but probably won't find the financial backing if it weren't for beta sales/crowdfunding, fine. Here's a few bucks. ED seems to have taken this a few levels higher and has actually made "selling a beta" their business practice.

Such a pity as I was so looking forward to the first multi-role aircraft for DCS. I guess now I'll be looking forward to trying this out after I purchase it at one of ED's sales, so that'll probably be a year or two from now.

That's exactly what I feel as well. DCS modules are supposed to be a step up from FC3 and - outside of DCS World - FSX/P3D casual approaches to flight modeling. I have grounded the Hawk and C-101 because on the ground they feel like styrofoam when taxiing around, and in the air like toy planes. Considering that an EFM is as much part of the development process as any other aspect of a module, I don't understand why this isn't integral to the release as you suggested. Maybe most 3rd party developers aren't as skilled as ED's own Yo-Yo? I understand that creating an advanced flight model borders on scientific engineering...

Having said that, I would take an FC3-style plane over any DCS module w/ clickable cockpit, so long as that FC3 plane has an advanced flight model (such as Su-27, Su-25(T), F-15) -- yeah, it's really that important and makes a huge difference for me.

And that notion about Razbam being desperate for cash... I believe it's more along the line that they are typically building models for FSX/P3D and customers there are usually less interested in flight modeling, as long as their beloved Boeings and Airbuses have a decent level of systems simulated, and can be flown from take-off to auto-landing via autopilot. DCS is a different beast altogether.

To be honest here, i share nates sentiments wholeheartedly.

It has been written publicly that they do not know what you will get at first release. Its up to you to decide if you are happy with that risk.

Me personally, i want it. But i won't buy it until complete or to a standard that i deem satisfactory. By that time, there will be so many instructional videos, I will have a goid idea how it works too.

The problem lies with the inconsistent labeling of the modules.

Look at the Mig15, it is labeled as beta still, however any BST module is more or less complete at start apart from smaller things. It was like that for Huey, Mi8, Sabre, Mig15.
There should be a warning in bold letters on the M2000c (or Hawk or CC101) that major parts of the things are still in development and might be for a long time. To the new customer there is no difference on the shop page for a Mig15 or M2000c or Hawk, but the difference on the product are ranging from feature complete beta with some tiny issues to literally broken with major features dropped (Second seat on hawk dropped. A plane whose purpose is 2 seats in MP).

If they would label things in 2 categories, like "beta" and "early access alpha" it would remove confusion and make it easier to expect. I am calling it willful neglect on EDs part to not make these distinctions on their shop page based on the development state of the products.

As for comparison, for 50€ one can buy a full-priced full featured FPS game like Far Cry 4, COD, BF2. All of which offer extreme value if you compare the volume and quality of the 3d assets in each game. Those games are released within clean timeframes and have countless man hours of high quality work.

Beta is supposed to mean "feature complete". If the EFM isn't included, and it's supposed to be, that would make it an alpha. Unless they decide to change the description to SFM and later offer an EFM upgrade. Lower the cost a bit for it and then charge people to get it later if they want it.

Of course, the danger with that is it doesn't change how much time they put into it, but it does expose them to people who will be happy with a "good enough" SFM for a lower price and never want to pay the extra money for a better FM later. By forcing everyone to pay for the advanced one you get people who might choose to save money and forget it coerced into getting it.

Personally, I have found the more advanced FMs to be different but not necessarily better than the simpler ones. The F-15C in particular became a more twitchy ride but it didn't really become better.

I've got no problem with FC-level planes, and frankly wish more would be released. Then let the devs use the proceeds from those sales to fund the advanced upgrades to be sold later to the smaller crowd that hate FC level. The people who like FC-level planes get theirs for less, the ones who want to upgrade later can do so but get to fly the plane now, and those who don't like FC planes can wait for the final release, largely subsidized for them by the earlier FC plane buying crowd.

Beats paying full price for a beta that may never be what you thought you were getting.




The Jedi Master

I agree - the terminology should be "early access" I think. Also I'm all for more FC level aircraft, it just makes sense.

Nate

Not at $50-$60 a pop.

Certainly not - using the current FC module price point.

Nate

Exactly, if they release a $25 plane with an SFM and so on it would do well. Perfect for those planes that are hard to get accurate information on. Too classified for DCS? Ok, FC it then!




The Jedi Master

Supply vs. demand.

Those titles are far more accessible to a greater number of consumers. so demand is greater, which means more copies are bought at $40-$60 a piece. All you need is a gaming PC, mouse, and KB to enjoy them.

On the other hand, high end flight sims are way less accessible:

-You can't just 'pick up and play'; you need to first know at least some semblance of how to fly an aircraft.

-There's a lot of time required just to get to the part where you can blow something up. (for me, time is the biggest issue. I'm glad we're getting more multi-role aircraft because I feel I get better return on my time-investment; eg. once I learn all the systems on multi-role aircraft, I can play a wider variety of mission types). You can try using the basic systems model, but I found with DCS A-10C that's pretty much just as hard, because there's not any training for that level of play, so you're still just as confused.

-You can opt to play using just a single joystick or game pad, but that's going to be way more difficult than using a dedicated HOTAS.

-DCS is still lacking a plane the larger gaming community actually cares about, which keeps it relegated to being a 'fringe' title.

-With most missions it's tough to figure out where to go or what the objectives are, unless you study all the briefing material in depth (more time invested)

-Keep in mind, many of the main stream titles aren't really more complex than DCS or it's modules, DCS has to simulate lots of complicated aircraft functions, which main stream titles don't.

All of this means that there's a smaller audience to sell too, so either the price needs to go up (and simmers grab for their pitchforks and torches if you dare do that) or quality/timelines suffer.

I agree with most points, however the game being niche and selling less copies is also a problem, because those few who do actually buy niche games usually pay more so the developer can compensate. And there is no competition for DCS to pressure it into lower prices or higher quality or shorter development time. For comparison there is more gameplay value in a Mig21 or A10c than there is in a Mig15, but the price is the same.

I do not agree however on the complexity. BF4 for example has a graphics engine of supreme quality that must have cost a lot of money and manpower to develop. SO it is very complex in a different area. Flying a plane in Bf4 is not as engaging as in DCS but that is not because the developers are less capable at their work, but simply because the customers do not care much about this part of the game. I am sure if flight sims were not a niche market all of a sudden, EA Dice could bang out DCS level modules of better quality in shorter time because they can throw more highly paid programmers and artists at the problem than ED can.