#4252232 - 04/23/16 04:30 PM
Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus
[Re: Aeronautico]
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,922
Paradaz
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,922
UK
|
I would think campaign design detracts not a single bit to any other effort
Probably I am just being naive: please tell me why. Have a look through the thread, ED are creating patches to support some of these campaigns (one of the campaigns had a dedicated patch just for that campaign) and we'd like to think they are actually doing some testing on the campaigns too and may well have to make some tweaks etc before they are released. There will undoubtedly be additional effort into getting it out of the door with a valid installer etc. Now what happens when a DCS World patch breaks a campaign.....is the original campaign author going to make the necessary tweaks and fixes? Probably not, it will most likely be ED that does that and now multiply it by how many campaigns are out there. What happens when the dev branches get merged......all the campaigns have to be tested again, potentially more integration and validation work required. And so forth.....it's certainly not the case that there isn't any effort on ED's part. But, not to worry...it's providing additional funds for all the extra work they give themselves by being totally incompetent in many other areas.
On the Eighth day God created Paratroopers and the Devil stood to attention.
|
|
#4252263 - 04/23/16 06:35 PM
Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus
[Re: Flogger23m]
|
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 623
Sobek
Professional scapegoat
|
Professional scapegoat
Member
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 623
|
But now it seems like a lot of these upgrades are becoming paid DLC.
Like what? Is there an example that leads you to believe that? Did you have to pay anything for, say, the move from dx9 to dx11? What about the sound engine updates? Not sure i see any evidence supporting your opinion.
Last edited by Sobek; 04/23/16 06:37 PM.
|
|
#4252283 - 04/23/16 08:09 PM
Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus
[Re: Sobek]
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 4,183
Force10
I'm just a
|
I'm just a
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 4,183
CA
|
Like what? Is there an example that leads you to believe that? Did you have to pay anything for, say, the move from dx9 to dx11? What about the sound engine updates? Not sure i see any evidence supporting your opinion.
Black Shark 1 to 2 comes to mind. I bought BS1 a little late and then BS2 came out with virtually no warning that they were working on it. It was pretty smart though...if folks like me knew BS2 was coming out, I might of held off buying BS1. Of course BS2 made the module have the ability to plug into the DCS world and did have some bug fixes to BS1. Since this is a thread about campaigns...I imagine releasing Nevada with no campaigns except available in DLC form could be an example?
Asus Z87 Sabertooth motherboard Windows 7 64 bit Home edition Intel I5 4670K @ 4.4 ghz 16 gig 1866mhz Corsair Vengence Pro memory EVGA GTX 970 Superclocked 4gb Video Card Intel 510 series 120gb SSD (boot drive) Samsung 840 1TB SSD Onboard Realtek sound ______________________________________________________
Oddball from Kelly's Heroes: "If we're late, it's cause we're dead"
|
|
#4252296 - 04/23/16 09:11 PM
Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus
[Re: Paradaz]
|
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 623
Sobek
Professional scapegoat
|
Professional scapegoat
Member
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 623
|
Is there any news on the carrier that was mentioned last year? That sounded very much like payware DLC possibly supporting the F18 - given the way everything is seemingly heading in that direction I'd be very surprised to see ED putting additional effort into something that doesn't really need it only to release for free on the assumption that the F18 will actually come with a naval platform to launch/land on anyway. There was only ever talk of doing a DLC higher poly model and including the ability to walk around the carrier. Never heard about "the carrier" being exclusively DLC.
Last edited by Sobek; 04/23/16 09:14 PM.
|
|
#4252297 - 04/23/16 09:13 PM
Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus
[Re: Force10]
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 1,943
Nate
Member
|
Member
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 1,943
Dublin, Ireland
|
Since this is a thread about campaigns...I imagine releasing Nevada with no campaigns except available in DLC form could be an example? It should be noted though that all modules tend not have their campaigns added until the product leaves Beta. Nate
|
|
#4252298 - 04/23/16 09:17 PM
Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus
[Re: Force10]
|
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 623
Sobek
Professional scapegoat
|
Professional scapegoat
Member
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 623
|
Black Shark 1 to 2 comes to mind. I bought BS1 a little late and then BS2 came out with virtually no warning that they were working on it. It was pretty smart though...if folks like me knew BS2 was coming out, I might of held off buying BS1. Of course BS2 made the module have the ability to plug into the DCS world and did have some bug fixes to BS1. Funny, that somewhates foils Floggers argument. Though his point was with regard to DCS World, and by implication so was mine.
|
|
#4252403 - 04/24/16 09:06 AM
Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus
[Re: Force10]
|
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 378
mrskortch
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 378
|
Since this is a thread about campaigns...I imagine releasing Nevada with no campaigns except available in DLC form could be an example? Since there are so many aircraft available to fly I wonder what the reaction would be if some aircraft you don't own got a campaign with the purchase of a terrain. Someone has got to lose out either by not owning an aircraft or disinterest in it.
|
|
#4252529 - 04/24/16 06:43 PM
Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus
[Re: Sobek]
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,168
Flogger23m
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,168
US
|
But now it seems like a lot of these upgrades are becoming paid DLC.
Like what? Is there an example that leads you to believe that? Did you have to pay anything for, say, the move from dx9 to dx11? What about the sound engine updates? Not sure i see any evidence supporting your opinion. Textures and aircraft carriers come to mind. I wouldn't be surprised if more upgrades become payware.
|
|
#4252701 - 04/25/16 05:13 AM
Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus
[Re: Flogger23m]
|
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 623
Sobek
Professional scapegoat
|
Professional scapegoat
Member
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 623
|
Textures and aircraft carriers come to mind. I wouldn't be surprised if more upgrades become payware. That's some bonus features for the carrier, not the carrier itself. And textures, well, that's just textures. Buying or not buying into that makes no difference to what missions you are able to join.
|
|
#4252864 - 04/25/16 06:41 PM
Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus
[Re: Sobek]
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,168
Flogger23m
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,168
US
|
Textures and aircraft carriers come to mind. I wouldn't be surprised if more upgrades become payware. That's some bonus features for the carrier, not the carrier itself. And textures, well, that's just textures. Buying or not buying into that makes no difference to what missions you are able to join. ED has yet to confirm if everyone will get enhanced aircraft carrier assets or if we will be stuck with the same ones from 2003 (or earlier) that we've paid for multiple times now. And upgrades are just upgrades and you don't need them? Fair enough, but you're proving my point. By your logic the new weather effects/engine in development can be payware to as long as the original version is free. Where does it end? AI units? New countries? Mission editor changes? Advanced AI behavior changes? Being able to join a server has little to nothing to do with the topic at hand. I don't own an M2000C, and if I join a server with only M2000Cs I won't be able to play regardless. Same with terrian. You're essentially saying upgrades should be withheld and sold as payware, but aircraft and terrian modules are bad because not everyone can join the same server. That doesn't make any sense to me. The original concept of DCS World was a nice one. One base game that gets upgraded while you buy new aircraft, terrian and campaigns. Fair enough. Aircraft (and even terrian) are full price titles in themselves. We'd get gradual updates while paying a bit more for modules. But now we're being charged for various upgrades on top of that and will have to juggle draconian DRM for an abundance of things including texture files. If they're going that route then lower the price of the modules. The original concept sounded great, but I'm not so sure I like where it is headed.
|
|
#4253081 - 04/26/16 09:35 AM
Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus
[Re: Sobek]
|
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 488
Snoopy_476th
Member
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 488
Warner Robins Ga, USA
|
And textures, well, that's just textures. If we're talking about the updated textures to Georgia than it could cause a problem in MP (same with the free texture mods that people have created) because I could be seeing a brown field but while trying to talk on another ACFT they are seeing a yellow field making the talk on using geo references difficult if not impossible. In the 476th we highly frown upon (but don't restrict) the use of different ground texture mods. As to the carrier, if it does end up being payware to even get the new model that could cause issues as well in MP. Someone creates a mission using the new model, aircraft spawn locations most likely won't be the same as the free carrier so someone who doesn't have the payware wouldn't be able to use the same carrier. We'll see, I too am not a fan of the "pay for everything" philosophy that seems to be happening but for me it will just mean I don't purchase as many products as I have in the past and hopefully it won't degrade the MP experience much because with out MP I wouldn't be flying DCS at all, I just don't enjoy SP. The original concept sounded great, but I'm not so sure I like where it is headed.
Completely agree.
|
|
#4253127 - 04/26/16 12:59 PM
Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus
[Re: Paradaz]
|
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 49,716
Jedi Master
Entil'zha
|
Entil'zha
Sierra Hotel
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 49,716
Space Coast, USA
|
It does seem like that while in the past you'd get "a sim" for your money that included a plane (or more), a theater (or more), AI non-flyables, ground units (targets), and so on that would be new/remade/refreshed with every release, we're now in the worst possible outcome of a modular design. For literally decades, since Falcon 3.0, the dream of a modular flight sim has been attempted and collapsed many times. ED finally did it...and it's not turned out the way we hoped at all. Development times measured with multiple calendars for just a plane, while other areas languish for years and years. There's no incentive to make a new terrain because the new plane plugs into it. Would people have bought successive Il-2 sims if each one used the same maps as the 2001 release? Personally, I never cared for half the stuff they bothered to model. Radios? TACAN/DME/VOR? Fine tuning fusing options? While I appreciate the effort that went into the Ka-50, A-10C, Mig-21bis, and others, I find in all cases they spent considerable time on features I will never even touch. The Su-25T is pretty much as far as I need them to go, with the addition of a clickable cockpit. So it's great work, I just think only a fraction of their customers are actually utilizing it. At this point, I wish all these modules would just be made to FC3 levels with a clickable cockpit and then have them move on to the next FC3-level plane or helo. If everything was limited to that, how many more would we have right now that would likely be in a better state since it's not as hard to make the planes work properly when you're only modeling the absolutely necessary systems? Since DCS' first release 8 years ago progress has been what I would describe as glacial all to satisfy the system modeling needs to the minority of their customers. Most of us want a great plane that flies and fights accurately against other great planes but have little to no interest in taking week-long courses to learn how to reroute fuel flow when a flak hit takes out the starboard pump, activate emergency oxygen with the cabin decompression, and so on. Forget a $60 Mirage 2000 that lets me do things only a real 2k pilot would know had to be done, I'd be perfectly happy with an endless parade of $30 FC3-level planes like the Mirage, Falcon, Tomcat, Viggen, Apache, and so on that can get done in a year. Then, if demand is there, retrofit the DCS level systems into them later as paid DLC. Meanwhile, we could have been flying them without that. The Jedi Master
The anteater is wearing the bagel because he's a reindeer princess. -- my 4 yr old daughter
|
|
#4253138 - 04/26/16 01:17 PM
Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus
[Re: Paradaz]
|
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 4,804
ST0RM
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 4,804
Ten Mile, Tn
|
|
|
#4253155 - 04/26/16 02:36 PM
Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus
[Re: Paradaz]
|
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 772
Johnny_Redd
Member
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 772
|
I can't really add much to what JM has said. The revenue from FC level aircraft (with clickable pits) would dwarf the current income of the "high fidelity" betas that are in development for years. There would be more choice, more players and It would also negate the need to charge the customer for every little upgrade. Life simply doesn't allow me the time needed to learn these aircraft systems.
DCS Kickstarter Wags July 2014 "In this July 2014 update, the primary news is in regards to the restructured backer rewards. After a careful review of the older system under RRG, we found it financially unattainable." Wags October 2017 "the investment vs. generated revenue has been excellent for the World War II aircraft. In fact, the P-51D Mustang has twice the cost effectiveness of the A-10C Warthog."
|
|
|
|