Just woke up from sporting that week long hangover Nate.....

However, during my week long hiatus, I have come to see threads locked from personal attacks made from members...Nate, Sobek, myself and the like.

Straight down to business....we are all members here after all so show some respect (myself including)

I am curious (been asleep after employing MJ's former doctor Conrad Murray to see me through the last 7 days) I may have missed the boat here....Not the ED boat but the free mod boat uploaded by topergood

What is the go with the previously announced paid DLC for terrain? How come I can't buy old mates edit of the grass, trees, seasons etc on the official digitalcombatsimulator site??....Has ED come around on the idea that Diveplane (who is banned at ED) actually provided free and more realistic sounds to the public yet old mate's (name's withheld, as no doubt there is a NDA between current moderators\former moderators of ED forums and SimHQ) may have come around to the idea that paying for something that 1.5 brought out was actually a dumb idea??

I remember a conversation between Tom and I regarding his free skins.....I won't repeat it here in public, however i'd rather pay for a "user" made mod that improves sound, aircraft texture etc than something that improves the grass....the same grass the devs over at ED were smoking when they decided to release paid "user" made mods as DLC....

I ask....where does the focus lay? Sounds, aircraft Textures, Campaigns?? surely I won't be paying 9.95USD for some herbal smoko where I can only legally see it and smoke (from after burners of my F-15) at low level in 5 of 52 states.

Paid mods are in violation of ED's EULA, despite many of them providing key functions to a module that are missing or broken. Devrim's English cockpits...if not fit him, we'd be waiting forever. Sound mods...again adding realistic sounds when the dev either missed it our hasn't delivered.

I don't disagree with your thoughts, but it would have to be on sly. You can't cut out the middlemen.

I think as with everything else, the DLC should be worth the money whether it be skins, terrain, sounds, or whatever. Having said that, "worth the money" is a subjective term and I'm sure a lot of "fans" will happily gobble up whatever ED puts on the store. There have been user-made mods that are worth good money and there have also been paid-for mods that other people think should've been free in the first place.

Having said that, what are the limits to paid mods? Why should there be an "improved sound" mod? Shouldn't sound be one thing they get right from the very start? What aspects of the sim should ED be getting right that mods for it are simply aesthetic preferences and not really be "improvements"?

Apologies if I caused offence, it was meant to be a light hearted comment.

Nate

Oh grow a pair ya big fluffball.

Winfield, can you better define what the discussion question/statement is. I've read your opening post several times now and can't make up what the discussion is about.

And by the way, you can always PM a modder and ask for his PayPal address....

No offence at all.....To me it is just light hearted banter\comments thrown back at those who feel the need throw their hat in the ring in support of their fellow friends\official testers\mods\producers etc etc over at the official site.

my statement is asking what happened to the "official" support of Starway's terrain mod.

posted for reference Starway's terrain mod

Why was it officially supported by ED and once upon a time, had a link to buy it officially and now it is missing on the official DCS site. Starway has a "paypal donation" on his\her official site.....

My question is, why did ED officially bin the idea of supporting user made mods at 9.95USD. Create a post in the "official updates" section of the forums regarding Starway's "paid" terrain content and then pull it from both the forums and the official website.

To me it looks like ED backtracked on the idea and now thrown their "official" support behind "user" made content strictly regarding campaigns rather than paid pre-1.5\2.0 terrain mods which should already be improved with the new graphics engine. So why would a general user pay for something a "user" made when 1.5\2.0 etc is meant to be the "bees knees" so to speak.

Why am I seeing "official" support for "user" made campaigns when way back when "ED\DCS\TFC" once upon a time supported "end-user" made mods. Why pay for a terrain mod which E.D.G.E was much hyped back in 2013\14 should have fixed. If I was going to pay for a mod, I'd rather pay for something that is not "officially supported" on the terrain front.

I would rather pay for a user made mod such as a campaign, realistic sound mod or a skin pack by the "end-user"

I just want to know.......what happened to the "user-made" terrain DLC which kicked off this entire "user-made" campaign paid content. Whilst I am now not able to buy Starway's terrain DLC on the DCS website (which was officially supported by DCS\ED\TFC) to post a side by side review of his\her texture content after numerous updates to 1.5\2.0 etc. I want to know, had I purchased the terrain pack DLC, what am I actually gaining.....and did those who purchased the "officially supported" content get a refund now that it is no longer "officially" available as DLC. Yes I can "donate" to Starway, however why would I want to "donate" for something that was "officially" supported and is now being offered for free.

I see.

Nate

Good to see we cleared that mess up mate

ED couldn't protect the files with DRM, so they couldn't put it in their store.

Normally, modders are strictly forbidden to ask for money for their work, but considering everything was ready to go, the announcements already been made and the release date given; they decided to compensate Starway to exempt him from this rule, considering it was ED that cocked up.

Starway had to think about the way he wanted to get paid for his, and came up with the Paypal + tiered support solution. He received his target donation, so he released it. The PayPal link on Starway's site still works, so apparently ED still allows him to receive compensation (or more likely, they just forgot about it, like they do with their own work)


Well, you can look at it from 2 angles.

1) Some developers highly support the mod community because they see them as an enrichment to the game. The mod community does a lot of work to improve the base game without costing the developers any time and money. Therefore, those companies only see it fit that the modders get rewarded: They allow a donation page, or even offer jobs to the modders. Kerbal Space Program and Cities:Skylines are excellent examples of this and really the only games I like to play besides DCS)

2) Some developers see mods earning money based on their base game as profiting from the developers' work. Because of this, they would like to get a cut of the pie. Before you jump to conclusions: Remember that a lot of modules started out as DCS mods. If ED doesn't do what they're doing, why would Third Party devs launch their stuff through the official store? Launching it themselves would cut out the middle man and save a lot of money.

And remember RRG Studios' Normandy 44 project? It was a company thay had nothing to do with ED and their Kickstarter smelled like BS from the start. Yet people, for reasons unknown, trusted them with their money and when everything fell to pieces ED was blamed and was held accountable, even though they had nothing to do with it.

Imagine a world when this happens when a mod brakes, which happens A LOT. By demanding a piece of the action they are legally accountable, but at least they earn money on it.


You probably agree with me that 'Good work must be rewarded', no? You can reward the maker by donating to him. I love this concept, since you can pay what it is worth to you instead of a fixed amount of money. The concept is also very successful, so it really is a win-win situation.

Well, poor quality work gets rewarded.
So I'd prefer to give some back for the modders who fix what gets omitted.

Personally not a big fan of the idea of paid mods

I think if people would like to donate to something they think is worth of money thats up to them

A paid mod isn't a mod. It's a 3rd party DLC for the most part.

The problem is most modders don't have the time, aptitude, or temperment to support a commercial product.

A free mod you put out there, you ask for donations, but you may not get much. If it doesn't work for someone, so what? Too bad. If a patch breaks it, so what? Too bad.

A PAID mod aka DLC you get paid for, minus the main company's cut. If it doesn't work, you have to put the time in to fix it. If a patch breaks it, same thing, even if it's been months since release. You need to listen to complaints, do more testing, be responsive, etc etc.

It's not for every modder.



The Jedi Master

Jedi understands the difference between a "mod" and "DLC" or "addon". A mod is an unofficial modification to a game or program. Once it becomes official it is no longer a "mod". Likewise, donations are an excellent idea. They are not mandatory, and won't require people to constantly fix an item and like the mods themselves, are given for free in good faith. It also can probably get around potential legal issues. I'd support the concept of donations.

if you guys are in the donate mood - go to Lockonfiles and donate some, all that hosting freeware does not come cheap

Sadly there's a few of the paid content that feels and looks more like a mod.

All too true...



The Jedi Master

The problem with paid mods or 3rd party content as some call it is the same as with the paid scripted campaigns - you never know when ED are going to release a patch that breaks compatibility. The fact that the modder gets paid does not automatically mean they have an incentive to fix the mod when something like that happens (if it is at all in their power), to that ED will get around to fixing the compatibility. At the end of the day, the fact that DCS isn't really an open platform and also is a constantly developed platform, more and more content from more and more authors will result in a mess and serious delays in development provided any of the devs actually care to keep everything working.

Much of that constant development is what is breaking the content.

When your base platform is never stable, reality is that you should not be trying to add outside features (3rd party modules). They, in this case VEAO, apparently are not getting the same info on what is being changed in each incremental patch, therefore work is being wasted and lost. Or they are using the patch excuse to cover their shortcomings. I'm not making a judgement, just giving both sides.

I'm really at a loss here with the current weeks news and project updates. Not unexpected, but just amazed on how easy it is to lose credibility. And then just shrug it off and give the impression of "Oh well, deal with it".