In case you were referring to me directly, I wasn't comparing my HOTAS to software and I sure as heck wasn't saying the software should be priced the same as hardware. The point I was making was that people will be willing to buy products priced "above the norm" provided that the product is "above the norm" in quality as well. If it is worth the price tag, people will buy it. The "worth" bit is subjective though.... I'm happy with my Saitek Combat rudders while others won't settle for anything less than MFG/Baur/Slaw quality, but even then, there's no denying that the MFG/Baur/Slaw pedals are quality products. So while I may be happy with War Thunder tank gameplay, there's no denying that Steel Beasts is a quality sim.

A sim may be worth $100, and some may be a hard sell at $40.



Not totally true; as been pointed out by others, each copy of an ED module costs a Starforce key... as to how much that key is, I have no clue. But other than that, I agree with your post!

No, I wasn't referring to you directly. Your post somehow reminded me of an argument that I've read a lot of times, specially here in the DCS World forums which is something like:
"If a HOTAS costs X why won't DCS (or other simulators) also costs X as well"

This is something that I totally and completely disagree with.




And how much is this cost (for each Starforce key)? I would say and bet big money that it would be "peanuts" compared with the raw materials needed to build each (and only one) HOTAS controller.
And also, the Starforce key is something optional (for or to ED) while the raw materials needed to build each HOTAS controller are NOT optional, that's for sure

As a discussion point, would you pay £200-£250 for a simulation that had Falcon's DC engine with DCS' graphics and modules? In other words, what is the "upper limit" for a combat flight simulator's wet dream?

The sad truth is that regardless of 'DCS' being free of charge most of us have already spent well over £200-£250 already.......without the DC.

I bought the Blackshark 3 times lol (Russian version of BS first on initial release, followed by the international version with english text and then BS2) which was probably a bad start and not helped by ED not having a clue how these 'integrated modules' were ever actually going to be integrated into the world.

True... at today's ED pricing, £250 is just a little over 4 of the more expensive modules. So maybe 4-6 high-fidelity aircraft. And we have people here bragging they have everything ED has in their store...

Video game software has maintained practically the same price point over many years. Falcon 4.0 was $54.95 in 1998 which put into a handily Googled CPI inflation calculator is $81.36 in 2016 dollars.

Still...Falcon came as a complete package with dynamic campaign, excellent radio chatter, immersive and lively battlefield...etc. Things DCS still doesn't have after being developed starting with Flanker for 25 years.

Not to mention what came with it...massive printed binder manual, the cost of making gold CD's, keyboard layout cards...etc.

You're conveniently neglecting to mention that it was an utterly broken mess at release. Much of what makes Falcon great is the unpaid work of the community, suggesting that due to these circumstances, Falcon is worth far more than what it can be had for.

Yeah, that arguement is no longer valid. If you're content with the Caucasus/1.5 flying the Su-25T and the unarmed TF-51, then sure. But I really dont believe there is anyone left that hasnt invested some serious money in ED and DCS. Whether by building a rig to run it properly and/or buying the modules.

But like the gif above, so many people will throw their money at anything new, the current schedule will not be affected enough to make anyone take notice of the underlying problems that people have been bringing up. And many arent simply gripes, but true issues that continually get blown off.

-Jeff

Actually, I paid $60 for F-19 Stealth Fighter in 1989. That is $117 today.
F3 was $65 in 1991, that's $115 today.

Roughly speaking, a sim should cost double today what they did in those early days.

For that money, we received a flyable plane (check), several theaters (ok, miss), many appropriate air, ground, and naval objects (ok, depends on if plane matches original release era), and campaigns for each of those theaters that were dynamically generated and not scripted (yup, miss again).


So, if ED was to release a Hornet sim that included NTTR, Black Sea, Straits of Hormuz, dynamic campaigns for all of those theaters, and a roster of era-appropriate objects (if it's notionally 2000 or 1995 or 2005 the planes and ships and all should reflect the OOB in those theaters with those nations) for $120 that had no major bugs in it, yes I would go for it.

The so-called modules we get today with a single flyable plane and perhaps a scripted campaign on a terrain that's been around for a decade that's good for one run before you're bored with it? No way would $100+ be acceptable.



The Jedi Master

Actually...it wasn't an "utterly broken mess" at release. The campaign would crash at certain points and other niggly bugs. But the developer released 5 patches in 7 months bringing it to 1.08 which was pretty damn good.

So by the middle of 99'...we had all the things I mentioned...dynamic campaign, excellent radio chatter, immersive and lively battlefield, massive binder manual, keyboard layout cards, etc.

I'm not talking about the BMS or other versions...we were talking about value versus today's offerings. What you got for your money back then far exceeded what you get now.

Let me just quote myself from this thread:



Those people will **HAVE TO** throw their money at the next new thing, in order for them to keep their training wheels on. Otherwise, they will then look up and realize how sterile their world is. Then there's also the part of the population that simply "doesn't know any better." It's hard to appreciate what BMS can offer if the person hasn't tried BMS... and sometimes, the reputation of Falcon is enough to discourage a simmer from trying it.

No. We don't mention that bit because it is inconsequential considering the Falcon timeline. If we apply that as a factor, and apply that as a factor for BOTH DCS and Falcon, DCS still looks like a laughing stock. If you also bring in the "unpaid work of the community," ED then looks like the total bumbling idiots they are, being shown up by people who do mods on their spare time.*


*Disclaimer: ED might well be staffed by programming geniuses, but until their management pulls their collective heads out of their [insert location here], it's hard to appreciate the hard work and talent of these coders and programmers.

Exactly!

Yeah and you're conveniently neglecting that even in the very first version of Falcon 4, AMRAAMs did work as they supposed to something that DCS after more than 20 years coming from Flanker as others here pointed out and including LOMAC still doesn't!

So with all due respect criticizing Falcon for its bugs in order to praise DCS doesn't make much sense

Not a snowball's chance in hell!!

Similar as others pointed out in the meanwhile (guess both you and Jedi Master, I believe) I guess I could go up to $100 USD (note US Dollars but definitely not UK Pounds) for such as game that you described.

Obviously this cost (or money that I would be willing to spend) could increase depending on whatever other addon aircraft or addon packages that could come up next for the game.
But again I would definitely not pay more than $100 for an "initial" package, that's for sure.

IMO the best game and addon strategy that I ever seen for PC simulations was the one from Falcon 3 (yes, Falcon Three) where the initial package was awesome and then two very good addons came out later (the Hornet and Mig-29) where each of these two addons not only included a flyable aircraft but also a new theater/map and a proper dynamic campaign (the Hornet even included Carrier ops) - Yes, these were PROPER addons, well worth the money (and name).

For such a price (£200-£250), I would require as "bare minimum" the entire NATO fleet of combat aircraft modeled to Falcon 4 level and with campaigns and gameplay of also Falcon 4 and the graphics of DCS but with the capability to model AT LEAST as many objects as Falcon 4 can and of course at least one map/theater for each of Earth's continents and even so I would have to think A LOT (more than twice, that's for sure)!

To get past the perpetual training wheels state (nice one Ice), we've got some great mission builders in our group to keep the fresh feeling. Manually overcoming the lack of a DC. It's work, but the best we can do. With many of us discovering a module we may have dismissed (for me, the Gazelle), we've gotten out of our stagnation and began adding more capabilities to our flight sessions.

Instead of an all out A-10C or Mirage mission, we're now adding a standby helo CSAR for when one of the dudes gets popped. And so on. Our imaginations are overcoming ED's imposed sterile environment.

But offline, this sim is frustrating without the DC. Online partnerships are the life blood. Along with a well built long mission.

I should have used a different $60 1998 video game as example. But yeah, instead of a $100 (2016 dollars) complete experience we get a $50 incomplete experience as often as we're willing to pay for it. Part of that is the complexity of modern flight sims which are beyond what they used to be. The other part is running out of money, motivation, public scrutiny, whatever before a combat flight sim experience is achieved.

It's like building a house and running out of wood before you put on a roof. If you separate the actual being in an aircraft part of DCS with the battlefield dynamics the game is utterly bare bones.

IMO, DCS is the worst flight game i have ever bought. The amount of entertainment it gives me is so little, each module last for 3 weeks max because as soon i leave the extensive training phase i see no more pleasures, i might extend it to one and half month but it feels like having to work on the monday.

- For some aircraft there are little to none valid opponents. It is just a mix of multiple era aircraft that makes no sense.
- The aircraft acts weirdly because there is no proper ai system but just a script system that is used as an ai system
- Most mission are ridiculous either due to the missing ai, which force the agents to acts like a robot with no intelligence, or bad designs.
- Some mission feel just like an arcade game, like destroy the front line before your ground troops get themselves killed because they keep advancing instead of holding for you to clear the path. There are even missions like DEAD missions using an A10-C where the same campaign deploys aircraft that are 1000 times better to that task. Let's not forget the A10-C campaign that is basically a whole copy and paste of troop layouts with just a slight diversity due to the mission task.
- Bugs, bugs, bugs and bugs. Some that are 3 years old.
- Awful support, because in my house the support starts from the forum, since it's an official forum. When an user point out something wrong, you should not ban them but take notes.
- Awful development, 3 years old bugs, 3 versions developed at the same time, no official roadmap (with bugs included), development that has 25 years background...do i have to add more?
- Unrealistic BVR weapons behavior the last years...but hey....weapons behave according to their official documents.
- Fugly ATC
- Did i said about bugs? bugs bugs bugs!
- Closed mind company that make life hard for 3rd party except for a couple. They say that their software is modular, i say not at all. Xplane is modular, FSX is modular and many others. That **** is not modular in fact each module breaks something that it shouldn't break and also requires them to recompile part some code otherwise the game will not recognize it.
- Development priorities are ludicrous.
- The EULA that is changing for the worse and their activation system that at this point makes no sense. If you want to restrict the EULA fine but at least stop this counted activation thing.
- The multiplayer that feels like a Call of Duty of the air.
- Dammit i almost forgot....bugs bugs bugs!

Surely there are more things, but these are enough to lead to the conclusion that undoubtedly this is the worst flight game i have ever bought. I regret having wasted too much money. A discounted A10-C + HUEY would have been enough for the inner child inside me. I hope that in the future things will change but i'm not referring to changes in ED but rather to new developers that start to do things properly because ED can't, in other word a new game possibly western so they focus on western aircraft...honestly i don't give a **** about eastern aircrafts....a matter of taste.