Whats your thoughts on this folks ?

Mine , its gonna suck

I would have preferred the Arma3 way of doing it

If you want to host a dedicated server you just download that and go for it
No extra cost involved , with the current ED method server hosts are going to
have to buy stuff just to host a server for others to use , pretty crap


EDIT:
Could the morons who attack other posters and not the content that other posters make
please F*** off, I don't want this thread closed

The price of the discounted bundle i find acceptable.

I understand why they split it up into two packages, although i don't agree with that decision.

So if I go to the expense of renting a dedicated server on the internet

I also have to pay for Normandy and AI units if I just want to host missions for people (as in I am NOT playing on this copy) ?

Normandy 1944 + 1944 AI's = 60$ that is equals to (worthless, IMO) NTTR price without exclusive AI's.

Normandy 1944 without AI's is for ones that don't like WWII but want a new European map for play "Final Countdown" style - after all DCSW is more about "what if's" than anything - and if they get tired of this can buy the AI's 1944 pack and try something different. No one is loosing, IMO of course.

Just noticed I get both as part of the WW2 Backer rewards. 2 aircraft and Normandy + AI, all for $40 ... good stuff.

Nate

Me, I am concerned that just for hosting NOT playing a dcs server

That I will have to pay out for stuff not really necessary for eg


Example a fair implementation for both NTTR / Normandy + AI units in 2.5 would be

I can host a server fine with all these installed BUT if I try and click on a player slot ( if MAP == Normandy or NTTR ) I cannot join a slot

Should be easy enough to implement

Where did you notice that? As a backer it's what I would expect. If I wasn't a backer I would be extremely 'irked and exasperated' at the continued BS money grab from this company. What's next? Paying for the clouds, paying for the trees? The water? C'mon if your going to sell a map for a 'combat' simulator you need to include the ai. Otherwise it's just a simulator.

The way I see it, especially with the bundle pricing, this is a way to collect income on the work they did on the 3D objects as well as the integration with Combined Arms, but without really gouging the consumer. Buy the first WW2 map as a bundle, then you can just buy the maps for future releases like Iwo Jima without paying $60 every time. We also have to remember that the objects in DCS World were not always free; they were payware for 8 years (19 if you count Flanker). It also gives people the flexibility to just buy the asset pack and use NTTR as North Africa. Would I have liked the asset pack as a free add-on? Sure, but ED's 3D modelers have to eat as well.

The dedicated server is a different issue, but one that will hopefully be fixed shortly after 2.5 goes live. Unfortunately, we're at the mercy of ED's ability to maintain a schedule for the dedicated server.

Like I said, a la carte.







The Jedi Master

What makes you think ED will not just go for combined arms 2 - WW2 edition and ask for more money for it?

Lols , dedicated server after 2.5 goes live ? Can't tell if serious or extracting the urine

Well that's a start...

maybe I should be clearer , ED acting delivering on a schedule is what I find an alien concept

Will these WWII tanks be drivable using CA? That alone would be a factor in purchasing the add-on pack. If not, I dont see the use if I'm only looking at Normady for a Cold War map.

The DCS: World War II Assets Pack will continue to grow with DCS: Combined Arms compatibility and free asset additions that includes:
<...>

One which I addressed with my own concerns about ED's ability to manage a schedule.

EDs ai isn't exactly state of the art. If their policy is to now charge for ai assets for their theatres they had better employ a dedicated ai programmer or programmers because if folk are going to be paying for this stuff they are going to want value for money. I can see more and more delays as more and more paid for content will need patching, upgrading, tweaking. Look at the way APCs are deadlier than SAMs

Same for me so I'm happy enough. I do dislike packs that split the online 'community' though. I'm just pleased it's finally nearly here

- WWII Assets PACK
If User wants WWII Units to Place on Caucasus / NTTR, But doesnt want Normandy

-WWII NORMANDY
If User Wants Normandy for Alternate Scenario (ie F-86/MiG-15, etc) or has no Need for WWII Units

-Bundle
If User Wants Both (And it's 47.99 For Pre-Purchase), $47.99 is the Map+Assets, Cheaper than the NTTR Terrain,
if User Backed Enough During Kickstarter to receive Normandy Terrain, they will get the WWII Assets

So is it the Price that's bugging you? or the fact that it was split?

If A User just wants WWII Assets why should he be forced to buy Normandy Too?
If A User just wants Normandy, why should he be forced to buy the Assets Too?
They are Split/Cheaper Options for Convenience.

My opinion??

I don't care and I won't buy this that's for sure.

And what's next from ED?
Buying a Tank Hull DLC/Addon plus a Tank Turret DLC/Addon and plus a Track DLC/Addon in order to have a working tank in DCS?? And on top of this, plus a Tank AI DLC/Addon in order to give the AI the ability to control the Tank??

Thanks but no thanks...

whats next ?

this maybe ?

http://i.imgur.com/ouw8ubU.png

LMAO except its not that funny as it seems to be the way things are going

OK,that was quite humorous

This is what happens when you waste money on bad development, you just try to milk all fools out there with lame motivations!!!!

Yes, it seems like the AI pack is basically CA: WWII edition.

There should be a cheaper version for people who do not own CA who just want targets to attack or protect while they fly, though.

People who do not have CA don't fly around Georgia with nothing but planes and buildings to shoot at.



The Jedi Master

No it should be free

CA WW2 for those that want to control WW2 stuff on the ground

+1

My god, ED are outdoing themselves.

They can ram it.

Let's see how long this one lasts!!



What happens when SoH comes out? Or a Korean theatre? Will these be available as theatre/assets/bundle options as well? When does the milking stop?



And what's the level of realism on the CA map? Are ground units bogged down by terrain depending on the unit being wheeled/tracked/etc? How about pew-pew between units? How long before people complain of ballistics and penetration inaccuracies?

ED always had modules for sale, I assumed new ground units would just be another module because of all the work that went into it. Would have definitely been nice if it was released for free, except that's a lot to give away and still keep working on releasing more for free in the future.

How long would it take to just 3D model and texture the B-17G? That thing looks incredibly detailed, more than any WW2 plane I have ever see out there.







No one would be here if you added the mudspike forum rules hehe.

Sorry, but I don't think they're making DCS M4 Sherman or DCS Jagdpanzer IV, so why the need to pay for it? The ground assets should be included in the price of the theatre. Unless something special has been planned, these won't be any different from the ground units we already have in the game but will obviously be WWII assets....

Next thing you know we'll have DCS Hangar Bay and DCS Runway Lighting System.... and the naval aviator's favorite, the DCS Meatball.

Here's the leaked business plan for ED 2017:

But it is. That's why you can get the bundle for $60. You get the choice of purchasing the full theater, or going a la carte (e.g. if you want to use WW2 units in NTTR/North Africa and don't care about Normandy or vice versa). Ask yourself this: if ED announced the Normandy theater for $60 without mentioning the asset pack, would there be this much drama?

That argument is moot when they're going to give more away in the future for free. One would probably be able to pick up the asset pack in a sale for $5 in the future. How much does CA go for in a sale $10? It's not the point though. The point is they're charging for every piece of a module that ever other developer bundles into one product. Giving it's size and If the quality of the NTTR textures and the vast empty spaces of that theatre are any indication of what's to come from Normandy the price of the map alone would warrant including the ground units. And as others have said, this business model is going to kill DCS online. Not that DCS online is all that healthy right now.

60 bucks for a map is way too much, simply as that and this is regardless this new way to milk fanboys. If ED productivity is too low up to the point to increase the cost of their map addons, well this is their own problem. That being said, it is not about the map or bundle price, it is about asking money for AI units. What is sad, is the fact that worshipers will simply buy into this because this is the typical modern gamer/fanboy stereotype who accept really bad business practice just to play their beloved game/console.

Do you think they should have just priced the lot at say $59.99 and be done with it? That way everyone has all the assets on their system ready for MP, I do get they want some sort of return for the work involved. Perhaps in hindsight releasing the assets would bring in more sales for being the nice guy? hehe

DCS: Normandy 1944 Map and DCS: World War II Assets Pack bundle will be sold for $59.99, and the stand-alone DCS: Normandy 1944 Map for $44.99 and the stand-alone DCS: World War II Assets pack for $29.99.

Could be worse at $2.50 each like some devs do on steam

$2.50 Tanks and Mobile Artillery
$2.50 M4 Sherman Firefly
$2.50 M4A4 Sherman with "Rhino" hedge cutter
$2.50 Mk VIII Cromwell
$2.50 Jagdpanzer IV
$2.50 Sd.Kfz. 162
$2.50 Tiger I
$2.50 Tiger II
$2.50 Panther V
$2.50 Panzer IV
$2.50 Sturmpanzer IV Brummbär, Sd. Kfz. 166
$2.50 Jagdpanther G1

I still hope ED is gearing up to put more money and development into the consumer side by doing all this, instead of relying on 70%?? income from commercial and military contracts. We may get more priority things done and have a full-time team working on the consumer side.

Oh dear god... While I sort of keep some cautious optimism for what DCS could still be for ww2 simulation, this is really hard to defend. Ice's meme with the burger before and now is spot on really. I'll get that stuff since I was foolish enough to back the ww2 KS, but I can't imagine that this will sell well with that strategy. If that's really the way they see themselves handling their ww2 side, that's got to be good news for IL2!

Think about what that would do to multiplayer, there would be people who haven't paid/don't want certain assets for whatever reason. Either you wouldn't be able to join a multiplayer game because of incompatibilities or you will see other players attacking units you can't see or can't fire at. The way they're going is just a less volatile version of what you suggest....either way it's absolutely nuts and will harm them more in disgruntled users more than it will their own greed in trying to milk the fans.

LoL
and at the same time, so spot on!

Maybe I'm being "narrow-minded" but it's unbelievable that there are people defending this kind of business but "whatever suits your fancy" - Guess there are people who likes being "robbed". Perhaps a "masochism" tendency??

Did none of you support the failed WW2 kickstarter way back?

I wasn't defending their decision, was looking at it from a business standpoint and why they went the way they did to recoup the money invested. Thinking a bit more about it now, releasing the assets for free would have been a better idea? and made ED more money and would get even more off the fence to join in with the ww2. Once in there is more they could potentially be interested in and buy in the ED shop now, like other (ww2 planes) and in the future, A-10C etc. I mean having much more people in would be better long term than a quick profit recoup now perhaps?

LOL, I didn't notice the fries missing.....is that intentional or are they in alpha and we'll never get to see the edible end-product?

I guess that we could also look at burglars/robbers from a business standpoint as well - Afterall they must recoup the money they invested in buying guns/bullets, knifes or whatever they use to steal people and on top of that they must earn to feed themselves, their families and even their addictions (alcohol, tobacco and/or other drugs).
But in the end this is clearly and beyond any doubt a WRONG "practice".

What ED is doing here is also clearly and beyond any doubt WRONG! It may not be "criminally wrong" (but if we look into details it shouldn't be that far from that thin line between legal/illegal) but it "sure as hell" is "morally wrong"!




It's not a matter of WWII assets being free or not.
If ED wants to release a WWII scenario the assets should be MANDATORY to be included in the product, period - there's no other way around (at least IMO).

A flight sim developer selling you a WWII scenario without assets is the same as a car dealer selling you a car without an engine!
You wouldn't buy a car without an engine would you? Why would you buy a WWII scenario without assets?


And people still wonder why combat flight sims is a dying genre, I wonder why...

It is a map/terrain not a scenario. You can pretend it is any year that you wish.

Because some/several people want the map for this this.

DCSW = DCS W'hat if.

It didn't fail. The kickstarter was a success. It met it's goals. What failed was what came after ED fired RRG and took over. I backed it and many others did. That's not the point. You can't build a community with a "I'm all right jack" mentality. It's a cash grab that's going to split MP. One of the many reasons ED give for not releasing the SDK (another kickstarter broken promise) is how it would split MP as some folk wouldn't have the mods needed for certain servers. It's greed pure and simple, there is no other way to justify it.
If ED were anywhere near competent in their planning and choice of modules there would be no need for the cash grab. They could feed their families quite well if that's the argument for this policy. However with their many military contracts I'm sure they all eat fairly well. What we're seeing is the continued abuse of their fan base and I'm really surprised some folk are defending this and trying to justify it. I'm not surprised DCS online is so empty.

I dont know if this is a good idea or not, it might not be that bad, but what really amazes me is how many people just "forget" things and get "happy" just because an "announcement" has been done...am I the only one who seems to notice that:

1- They still NOT giving us a FORMAL RELEASE DATE (late may means nothing, especially coming from ED).

2- Even if they release the map in "late may" thats NOT the Q1 target they told (and even less end of 2016 ), so again one more Delay™.

3- Yesterday they said "late april", today they say "late MAY"...W T F??????????? that could mean 3 damn months more!!!!!!! and being ED you can bet on it (probably not even in "late may" )

Bonus 4- I really cant stop laughing about the hornet news announcement! :

ED: "New news on the Hornet project will be made available a few weeks after the release of the Normandy 1944 map. In the meantime, the Hornet is under VERY active development."

-"few WEEKS" = 2 or more
-"after the RELEASE of the normandy map" = We dont even have a date for this but "late MAY"
-"VERY active development" = It wasnt until now

So basically Hornet news are EONS away from us...well entered june/july ...ED, is this a joke??? why making that announcement about hornet news when you perfectly know its AGES away yet?? you cant be serious...

Btw, anybody else bet for a new "Normandy Live stream" Delay™???

Q1 Fiscal Year is not always January - March for all businesses

Of course, which is what customers use as reference, nice "fair" play...My god

And what does this mean??:




is there anything we should know??

In a fair business model you would get the base software (which includes AI) then a map with a given campaign, and if you want to you can buy new maps/missions (which is where DEVS used to milk, by producing). Are you that blind/fanboy to not see where this is heading to? Base software with nothing and then you have to pay for anything.

I'm done... for me ED can shut their door. I said goodbye to many games due to abusive business practice and ED will not be an exception....DCS in overall is not that great and if you add this i see no point to given them even a penny!

+1

I fully agree with every word you said!

No it isn't. They're not making DCS-level ground units.


Ask yourself this: Why is there a need to separate WWII units with a WWII theatre? What happens when they make a Korean theatre? Then we'll have Korean theatre and Korean theatre units?


What they're doing in the future should have no basis on the pricing now... especially as we all know how quickly ED moves towards this "brighter future" they speak of.


Spot on!


So since it "could be worse," we're supposed to be happy about it? Since it "could be worse," is that supposed to paint ED in a better light? "AAA titles miss their deadlines all the time, so what's wrong when ED does it??"


I hope you're not holding your breath on that one. We've been hoping for ED to see the light for a while now.


From a business standpoint, you'd want your ROI back ASAP. That means a quick production period and get the thing on the shelves ASAP.... not be in production for 5+ years. From a business standpoint, you'd have a much clearer business plan, time estimates, and features to be included. None of this feature creep. None of this 3 dev branches. ED is making a lot of mistakes and bad decisions and is asking the consumer to pay for it.


And how is that relevant? The project may have FAILED to deliver, but it didn't fail to raise funds.


And people will buy Nevada to pretend it's Iraq? No. It's for scenarios set in Normandy. Now what scenarios are set in Normandy? WW3? Cold war?



To be fair, they're learning... even if it's at a snail's pace. After their failures of 2016 promises, I hope they've learned to keep their mouth shut if they can't deliver. You should've seen the "but ED doesn't set deadlines" argument here before!!


That just means there's one guy making sure the zip files for the Hornet are in a properly-labelled external hard drive. From a business perpective, why would you prioritize a WWII project that only has a couple of aircraft? Why would you build a map and assets for WWII? If you consider the Hornet, it could fly in the map they have now, and go up against the assets it has now. But no, they choose to concentrate on the bigger project. Anybody else still think ED has a clue of how a "business" should work? I guess I should re-classify that as "profitable" business...

Hey guys, I now seek refugee in sim hq, just got banned for 1year[b][/b] just for e few not even over the top critic posts about the asset #%&*$#. Way to go ED, I wasnt gonna buy ww2 after todays #%&*$# news, but after the ban I sure hell not gonna buy anything from ED ever again. I also planned to lobby some of my steam buddies to buy into ED(after 2.5 release) now i wont reccomend DCS to anyone. Loosing 1 customer can have impact on 20 potential customers, keep pissing off enough people and it will crash and burn.

Am at the point that I'm not even sure I'll buy the F-18....
Havent touched the sim in nearly a year and seeing how things are going I've some big doubts for the future...

Maybe there is an upside to this after all......perhaps we can relinquish the assets in Caucasus v1.5 and 2.x and the assets in NTTR for a refund if this is how ED wants to carve up their product!

Since you got them for free, then your refund will be....?

You missed the sarcasm. If ED want to try and invent a method of ripping off their customers............

I wouldn't say they were free anyway.....all of ED's products undoubtedly cover a mark-up based on the complete and utter waste of resources they have already made in their shoddy development decisions. i.e. 3 active development branches, feature creep, not identifying milestones amongst 2 million other poor decisions they've made over the years.

Well we don't know that for sure. Don't forget they're redoing the Caucasus for the new engine. Whose to say they wont be selling the assets for that theatre once they unify everything? Once they see how many folk are willing to pay for this stuff who knows what's going to happen.
Oh and welcome kaboki.

Yup, what I feared Is already happening, now to play on Georgian spring Korea server I have to buy the asset pack, got dammit I hate ED.

QUOTE from georgian spring website:

"Looks like it will be available for purchase on Friday and download in six or seven weeks!
For those confused by the various options, I recommend that you purchase the DCS: Normandy 1944 Map and DCS: World War II Assets Pack bundle. The Map on its own would eliminate you from most WWII servers and the WWII assets will be useful in other maps like Georgian Spring!"

Not that DCS MP really thrives at the moment, but it has been worse in the past, but this asset s.h.i.t has the potensial to ruin it completly. The georgian spring server just lost atleast 1 player now. The new ww2 assets should have just went into the free asset pool we already have so it would't restrict players not having it playing on servers they always played on... I cant really fathom the fanboys defending this, if they cared about the MP scene in this game too grow, some bells should have ringed in their head with this news. Oh man this is so bad:(

I know how you feel bro, as most of us here ... I were banned a few days ago. The last thing I said was that the NTTR was forgotten which I think is a FACT!!...Personally I cant find on earth a single reason to PRE-purchase the Normandy map. I really cant understand people giving their money MONTHS before the release and completelly blind...WHY?????is the map going to run out of stock or what???

I purchased the NTTR more than a year ago (out of pre-purchase) and you know what?, after all this time the map is just a pity, plegued with bugs and I cant find the "high quality" of the product they are always talking about...just Las Vegas is well detailed, other than that the map is just a low quality flat blurry mess and week after week for the las 4/5 months we are just getting garbage updates fixing one (random) thing and breaking 3 instead, but looks like I cant complain after all this time since my purchase because its a WIP™. And thats their nasty excuse, you cant complain about a WIP™ product because its that, a "WIP™ product" so you just have to keep it in that state for the next 10 years and no one can complain any more (well or "posting rights revoqued" ) , great plan! .

So what prevents Normandy to become the new NTTR????...when finally they release the Normandy map, it will be in "alpha state" for years, meanwhile they will be "working" on other new maps an so on...

Yeah, I also made the mistake of buying NTTR, and the map quality seems too get worse every patch, also right now I cant even take off with my mirage 2000, because after takeoff its just goes out of control for no apparent reason. Yeah and the overall photo scenery sucks, i can even mod my old FSX too look a million times better. Their reason for not having better photo scenery was that they didn't want the download file to get too big, for me the bigger the better because then i know they would have had alot better quality photo scenery, not this low detail s.h.i.t we got now. And yeah, the waiting that never ends, how hard can it be too make a map, small scenery devs in FSX can make scenery alot faster even with just 1 guy doing all the work..

But i guess they can do probably whatever they want, even if unpopular, because they have no competition in the market, they know that all combat simmers will gather around their product like flies on a fresh pile of s.h.i.t

Hi Kaboki,welcome to the forum. Be careful by-passing the swear filter. Although you are fine to voice your displeasure about all things DCS here without censorship or the risk of a ban,repeated use of swear words may get you a warning. Other than that,carry on

Well put...and I agree.

Welcome aboard

Sorry, was just annoyed that sh.... is even a swear word, I'll stop doing it from now on... sorry for the inconvinience..

Dont care, I'm not buying.

ED AI will never be able to put 100 B17's flying in formation, with a couple squadrons attacking and defending that formation. Thats what WW2 was, and they're never gonna be able to squeeze that out of their engine.
(remember EAW anyone?)

Ha! I use that word so much it's now just an adjective. There's "bad" then there's "Sierra-bad"... or like good -> better -> best -> "this thing's the S!!"

Welcome aboard kaboki! I suggest you start a thread detailing your ED adventures that brought you here and why you're posting here. That way, you can just like to it when questioned by the Pro-ED fellas in this forum.


I'm just waiting for them to pull another Black Shark 2 stunt. "We originally planned to release this for free but since we put so much work into it, you'll now have to pay for it instead!"

I will get the F14 / F18 and the carrier DLC for 29.99 LOL

Do you think the reason behind holding off on the F18 is because this would slow down sales across the board? I mean the Viggen and Normandy would suffer in sales if the F14 or F18 was out now. These are potentially career sim aircraft that you could spend most of your time in. So much to learn and to stay proficient in. Harrier would be fun too.

The rest except for the choppers, I'm not that interested in so will wait and play BMS for now and use DCS for the choppers.

Welcome kaboki
Try taking a break from DCS for a bit kaboki, I'm getting back into BMS after reading this cool essay by DBond My Falcon Odyssey

I'm more worrying about how ED is really doing than the complication, tbh.

They sounded like they are busy with military contract but as it is, ED is in hand-to-mouth operation?

I don't think they're a hand-to-mouth operation, I think they are a bit stuck with the workload and not being able to knock it back?

I was after some thoughts of others have here about what they think of this dilemma, that ED seems to be having with the conflicting contracts over the years that do hurt the consumer side of things, these contract that do need to be on time on and budget and to a very high accurate detail level and would be worth? I'll throw out 500,000 here for a guess with a map, this would definitely come first, right? Before the consumer side when this sort of revenue is on the table. Plus they wouldn’t want to look bad here in that market place, well it’s their main revenue market, for now. It would be hard to turn down any of these contracts or you might miss out if more come down the track from that client.

We all want ED and The Fighter collection to succeed in their endeavor and hope they can juggle all this and stay in business and keep everyone somewhat happy, it will just take longer than we would like it to take on the consumer side, damn it. They need to somehow even out this commitment to big contracts and to the sim consumer side. They need a dedicated team just for the consumer side, you would think there would be enough turnover on the consumer side to have one now. I see it as being something like 70 / 30. 70 being the commercial sim and mil contracts.

It makes sense to me for commercial companies and the military is investing more into training simulations like they did for the A-10A to A-10C training, seeing that it's around 18,000 an hour to maintain the A10 and 41,000 for the F15C. http://nation.time.com/2013/04/02/costly-flight-hours/

I believe that ED don't really have a roadmap for their desktop products at all. Their commercial/military contracts drive everything in their business and the desktop environment is just reactive to that.

I think that ED's real objective was to make easy profit by making minimal changes to their commercial products where possible however they have completely underestimated the task at hand and together with their complete ineptitude and incompetence are now stuck with a busines model that is reactive to their commercial arm but stuck in a rut they cannot get out of where their commercial products absolutely come first meaning resources are prioritised to the detriment of anything and everything for the desktop stuff. This would also explain their random choice of aircraft to form the 'world' and I wouldn't be surprised if their primary goal of creating switchology simulators is the reason why there has veen little attempt at creating time-period assets until recently..

I wouldn't be surprised if shockers like the 3 dev branches are a knock-on effect from changes in the commercial products that ED are trying to align with the desktop products. Multiple changes means it has spiralled out of control and with minimal resources they are literally years behind schedule with every proposed module they are working on.

I've said it a million times on this forum but its so frustrating because when ED actually 'release' products you can see the potential for greatness however it willl probably bever be realised and if it is, its almost guaranteed not to be in our lifetime.

For now the bundle is at same price as we expected the map to be.

In the future... in multiplayer there will be problems. What if others release other maps with other ground units? You will have to own several maps and asssets types to join a server or will have to stay out.

But is clear that ED is simply trying to gain money through different ways. To be observed the word "trying". If people complain and pay... then it might work. I am sure if ED sees it's not working they will change the things. Everything is subject to it...

Some big discussions going on over at the ED forums about this, from both sides and from reputable members too.













Is that some insight into how many units have been sold already? 113,016.45


edit
I have to add these because it's just too funny to leave out, hehe

Wishlist thread





Wishlist thread
SiThSpAwN wasn't happy about the thread if you read it lol.

Yeah!, couldnt agree more with you mate! ... pretty much all the aircrafts are broken right now (yesterday I noticed the A-10C auto pilot was behaving like crazy i.e.) so who knows how many time are we going to wait until they feel its time to START fixing things, at least it hasnt been the case for the last few months and even yesterday, after a week of the biggest disaster...no patch at all?¿?¿?¿?¿? , Oh!, wait, but they started the pre-purchase time of a newer map so everything is fine and we all are happy!!! who cares about things being bugged for months???? they already have our money.

About the photo scenery, thats exactly what I think about it, whats the point doing a photo scenery if the quality of the images is utterly low???as you said there are many other products with this kind of tech looking miillions times better, hell, you cant even look in the distance and recognize where are you looking due to the extremely blurry texture quality, in 2017, WTF?¿?¿? and as you said, the excuse they gave is just hilarious. Whats the excuse for the mesh quality????also file size?? for a damn map this size, and specially this price it should look absolutelly stunning!! and it not only is "far" from perfection, but they didnt even managed to make all the damn map inside their own boundaries to look at the same level of quality!!!!!!!!!!! , I mean, I couldnt believe when I read that "not all places have the same level of quality"?¿?¿? what?? ...I guess with "not all places" they mean the 99% of the map and with "quality" they mean that 99% of the map is even a bigger crap than the other 1%.

Why so many years for this??...I think its clear...because they were doing other things. I cant believe a "professional" team of workers could need nearly the time ED needed (years) to achieve this:





This is maxed out settings, 16.000ft and well inside the map "quality limits"...and then you find lots of people talking about how good performance of NTTR is (when doing this screens, my gtx 1070 OC'd usage was like 25% so not sure the quality/performance ratio is that good)...what a joke!!

And what about the "expansion" patch??:




there you have!!! TOP quality product!...look at all that fine work!!!... it just looks real, details are amazing!!

Cmon ED!, seriously?? all this time at 60$ for this??and not even seasons?? ...starway/barthek would have done a million times better job in a few hours.

So, talking about normandy again, I would safely bet , it will follow the same trail as NTTR...think about it, we havent seen a sxxt! and people have already pre-purchased the map, in a few days they will have well recover the investment and then they will move to the next "never ending" project in the list to put it in pre-purchase state and so the wheel can continue spinning.









+1

ED is too coward to only focus on military sim products but at the same time too greedy to leave commercial sim market...so they pretend to be "working for us" when they spend 99% of their time working for military side of the coin.

@Watermanpc

Where are all of your autogen buildings and vegetation? And at what resolution are you running NTTR/2.0? I'm sorry, but mine doesnt look like that. I'm running at 3440x1440 on a 980. Smooth as silk.
And have you ever been to the actual NTTR? It is very sparsely populated.

IMO, NTTR is missing the exact feature that has everyone up in arms over Normandy. No range objects, aside of what are stock or in CA. Luckily the gents over at the 476th have provided us with outstanding coverage. But there are a butt load of SAMs/AAA missing. This should have come as thr asset pack with NTTR to fill it up.

-Storm

This reply is hilarious

Yeah, I have to be happy with backing that project. It wasn't cheap ($250) but I ended up with 12 aircraft keys, another ED product key, and the Normandy map with the Asset Pack along with other goodies.

12 aircraft keys! 2 of each aircraft. Can't give them away or sell them. Kind of sums up the thinking of some folk. "Look what I got!!! I'm so happpppp..... wait a minute"

And this one
"Well, I have purchased the Normandy map and the asset pack, although I don't really like the WW2 aircraft. I just wanted to support ED, because I think it's the best flightsimulator around.
I would have preferred ED to finish DCS 2.5 first, but I'm not the guy who decides what they're doing."

Oh but by buying this stuff you pretty much are deciding what they do in the future.

Yes. I have given most of them away (you just have to work with the system). The dollar value of what I received is more than equitable (based on retail prices) for what I spent.

Besides, my flight sim rig is has cost me more than twenty times that amount. The cost of software is so, relatively, small that it does not even cause a blip on my radar.

EDIT: By the way, it is considered good form, and polite, to source your quotes.

Do you want to share how you managed to give most of them away? I've tried, but was told I cannot and that its against the EULA.
By the way it is considered good form to bundle assets with the map you're selling.

ED's product and ED's decision. I think it sucks that I have to get a bunch of options on a car just to get the one I want, because they bundled them.

As for giving things away, they stopped that only recently, and the ability to do so will return. I have been giving things away for years.

Well "you have to work with the system" is a moot point as the system isn't in place. Yes its their product, their decision. We will see how it all pans out.

Just for the record, non-used keys can be gifted again (doesn't apply to "second hand" ones, sadly), but binding them to other account is done only by filling relevant support ticket. Not what I'd call a good system, but better than nothing for now.

What makes you think it'll come in at that price? At this rate, you'll have to buy the carrier as DLC, then the meatball as DLC, and the tailhook as DLC!



So you hold off on the items that will "sell like hotcakes" to sell some obscure modules? Really? How big was the cry for the C-101 or the L-39 or even the F-5E? Compare that to even just the speculative market for the Tomcat/Hornet/Harrier/Strike Eagle? So you have potential cash cows but you don't make them so that you can sell some small-fly stuff?



BMS does not have choppers.



Or they could listen to their customers and divert resources to the stuff that the customers really want? Stop the "juggle" and buckle down, focus, and GET THINGS DONE.



Ah yes... we're so bored of doing acrobatics in Black Sea and Nevada, we can't wait to do acrobatics over Normandy. Really? Which one of his three brain cells were firing when he made this statement?



Would you be so kind as to provide opposing screenshots of the above locations showing us how it looks on YOUR system?



Typical fanboy response. But I don't blame him; I bought DCS BS2 for the exact same reason, but this was a very, very different time.



Again, you missed the point... the SYSTEM you speak of no longer exists, and the replacement has not yet been implemented. Saying "you just have to work with the system" when there currently isn't any just displays how the discussion just went over your head.



If the product is so good, why have you been "giving them away for years?"



Just because you are content about not getting your money's worth does not mean the rest of us are in the same boat, or that we are not justified for wanting good value for OUR money. I could spend $60 on a sim and consider it money well spent, then go and spend $5 on a DLC and consider it a waste.

Thanks for making this reply Paradaz

That's my thoughts too, that ED is getting busy with too many other contracts and are struggling to balance out the development on the consumer side which would be the main causes for the frustrating delays we have. They must have a team for the ww2 assets, most of the team would be 3d model and texture artist.




Related



So the problem is the overall picture right? We know it's a good simulator as Paradaz puts it "you can see the potential for greatness" We potentially will have a great all round product at some point? Better weapons and AI, we are paying for this slow development future by buying more things so ED can eventually get there at some point? mmm. I don't feel ripped off with little I have spent on choppers in DCS and like the simulation, frustrated a little, that more hasn't gone into fixing up the promised areas quicker for stuff we have paid for already. They need to get this sorted out really, it's been too long, hasn't it? They have many supporters that keep investing in the consumer side and they deserve a little more infomation about where things are at I guess.

So places like PC Pilot magazine has all the DCS aircraft as platinum, which they are in detail, should there be a warning at the end of each article the sim outside the aircraft is bronze/silver or only at 70/100 etc.




The easy stuff here that can be pumped out quicker for some profit and to fill up the shop to pay for the loooong development for the F18 and other weapon, AI and ATC stuff I hope, isn't it? The other trainers of third parties are just trainers for them to practice what it takes to build one in the sim I was thinking.


Ice,
I will still use the choppers in DCS
Other than that I will use BMS until the F18 and F14 are out.



This looks like it was Kaboki's thread HERE, the newest member here.

Funny thread Ice, you should take a look.

Your buddy SiThSpAwN wasn't happy, hehe

One of the members had a little justified criticism for him in the thread.

Well, the old days when you could have every flight sim on the market are certainly gone. The IL-2 Eastern Front series look absolutely beautiful, but if you want the be up to date and own all three, well...150 bucks or so? Then you'll want those add on planes. Those are some of the ones I'd want most. So, 300 to 400 dollars and you probably aren't finished yet.
What are we talking if you wanted all ED's stuff. Vegas, Normandy, AI units, add on planes...etc. 4 to 500 dollars? You could wait for the sales, of course.
I'm out it. You have to fly flight sims an awful lot to make any of that a worth while purchase.
Please post lots of screenshots, though. I still do enjoy looking at them.

I thought this post here was funny, So I did a quick pic

The possible future of combat sims

That's what you would think, but then if that were true, then why don't they have a team for all the other projects they were doing? No, it seems more likely that ED has only one "team" who is doing everything under the sun and that explains why a lot fo things are slipping through the cracks.



We should've been there at the beginning, or soon thereafter.



They don't need to "practice" on anything. It's their code. If they don't know how to work with their own code, well....
As for pumping out stuff quicker, why pay development for 10 small things for "some profit" when you can pay for 1 big thing and start your own currency?

Well, I guess you should ask this to ED ...as I said, thats MAXED OUT settings, and for some reason, in NTTR, as soon as you climb a few hundreds of feet from the ground all vegetation is gone.

Also, I highly doubt yours is not looking exactly the same budy, unless you have an especial edition?? . Seems like Razbam has the same as me at least, look at this shot

About res, I dont know why would map texture/mesh quality change with the resolution, but if you are interested I play at 2560x1080 (21:9) and about running the game "smooth as silk" with a 980, well, its perfectly possible (adjusting settings of course, especially at 4k UW as you use) with that card (I did it with a 970) as soon as you dont fly over Vegas nor low near the few vegetation the map has, other than that the game should run 200fps on a Gforce 200 as its nothing but a flat plane with a low res texture pasted on top but as I said, this is not the case, look at your gpu usage in the middle of a lost area where there is basically nothing but texture in the ground and tell me it is justified...

Finally, being a desert doesnt mean that ist just an empty extension of terrain, there are lots of bushes and trees everywhere in nevada.

Don't worry, i can garantee everyone see the same as you, just some people live in denial and choose not too see the obvious flaws in NTTR.

The autogen drawdistance was actually good a few patces ago, but they changed it so now the smallest autogen just dissapear way too soon, why they did it I have no idea, maybe they tought it would increase performance, but my performance in NTTR has gotten worse after these patches that took away all the details in the map.. Maybe it's just work in progress and that the details will come back eventually, but i think ED should communicate better of why they do these changes and if it's supposed to stay that way.

80+80+70 (BoK pre-order)+25 (Ju 52 Collector Plane) = 255$ (normal sales).

IME, the Beta version and early release of DCS A-10C had a very good range in draw distance, but when I left the sim years ago, it seemed like they chopped it in half which looked awful once at altitude. I see they've continued this tradition....

They are gone if we as customer accept this ("immoral" IMO) kind of business model!
If we as costumers don't accept this you can bet that ED or any other sim developer that follows such business mode will revert to the "traditional" business model of releasing "complete sims" (with at least one fully flyable aircraft plus map/scenario plus assets/units and plus at least one campaign and missions).

For this I'm doing my part by I refusing to buy anymore DLCs which are "incomplete" and any other similar sim that follows a similar business model!

What you said can be applied to the business market in overall. People don't understand that they have the power and the control to drive the market thus the price. Unfortunately there are just too many fanboys out there that are just proud to finance a given brand, they might argue the price but they will be in the day one queue.
If my memory doesn't trick me the PS3 launch in japan was a fiasco due to their price that was considered too expensive, making the wii going viral in japan. The result of this was that after a few months sony decided to drop the price of the PS3 and games up to the point where it became basically the cheapest among other countries even though the cost of life in japan is way higher.

I don't understand the mental process that some people goes through, instead of fighting for their own best they just buy the cr*p that is thrown on them like abusive DLC practices, alpha versions sold as and for the same price of gold versions, full price pre-order digital delivered games and the worst of the worst ........ season pass ....... actually maybe the new era of PS X.5 / Xbox x.5 might be even worse
I know people that seems to be proud to being fuc***d up. Basically i quit the videogames (used to buy a lot in a year, now i hardly buy 3 games), because not only games are hardly innovative and/or lacking features but also they feel unfinished (either due to bug or because they are aiming for abusive DLC) and if you add the ridiculous amount of money required to get into this (sometime even to keep playing the game in a fair competition) i just say f**k you, i'll find a better hobby.

Absolutely xXNightEagleXx, everything that you say is spot on!

And if this wasn't so sad it would be comical to see that it's these same "fanboys" that say "This is how things are nowadays" and "The old days are gone" who are guilty about this same situation.
It's also "comical" to the point where I would be willing to bet serious hard cash that the vast majority of these "fanboys" wouldn't accept this kind of behaviour from other businesses (and with other business I'm even mentioning non-ED combat flight sim developers) but when it comes to ED they accept everything! Ultimately they don't understand it's their fanatic behaviour that's killing our hobby (PC combat flight simulations).

I think it has something to do with the "be thankful ED is doing this otherwise we wouldn't be flying anything" mentality.... they think ED is the only option. They do not think this way regarding other businesses so the rules are different there.

From what I've seen, ED underestimates the time it will take them to do almost everything.

The reason, as always, is feature creep. They estimate X months to do Y features, but then once they start the project they wind up with 2Y or 3Y features. Surprise surprise, it now takes 2X, 3X, or 4X months. Meanwhile, the next project, which was start in X+1 months now doesn't start for 4X+1. Then THAT project gets feature creeps and takes a lot longer.

A by product of this is release state. When you have Y features, you have the time to thoroughly test them all. With 3Y you do not, not unless you want to take 7X months and the financials won't allow that. So you release at 4X in a "beta" state to get the money flowing so you can finish it later. The problem is you're behind on the next project, too, and that money was scheduled to come in on a date that is probably about to pass! This means people have to start that next project while the previous isn't totally finished. Yet by pulling people off that one, the time to finish it goes out even FARTHER.
Repeat this a half dozen times and you're in a giant hole of obligations and schedules and partly completed work.



The Jedi Master

So when it comes modern jet PC flight sims what other options are there? I can't think of any.

I was wondering the same thing.

What exactly are you looking for in a "modern jet PC flight sim"? If all you need is a modern jet in a flight sim, FSX/P3D/XP10/XP11 should suffice. If you want a little pew-pew, FSX@War and DCS can cater to that. If you want a modern jet in a combat flight simulation, there's BMS. If you want a modern jet with "modern" graphics, there's DCS or maybe even Flaming Cliffs.

How is DCS and alternative to DCS?

Which developer besides Eagle Dynamics is currently making modern air COMBAT jet simulations? And BMS doesn't count since it's based on a flight sim that came out 19 years ago.

Well...you can scratch ED as well since it's based on a flight sim (Flanker) that came out 25 years ago. Right?

DCS is still being developed by the company that owns and has access to all of the code. BMS devs are just trying to glue things onto the old code.

Well...glue or not...BMS still has a fully modeled fast mover with functioning air and ground radar modes. Which fast mover has ED produced that can match that? Just curious...

How many aircraft has BMS produces from scratch?

Sorry but not buying the analogy. BMS is a community-led modding of a flight sim that was commercially released in 1998. There's no way you can say that's the same as what we currently have with DCS World.

So, just because something built with passion in mind instead of profits automatically makes it inferior? Yes...DCS is obviously newer code but we have branching versions with different levels of broken things going on between them. It seems
more like a modding community built platform than BMS does which has one stable version.

It doesn't matter to me really...all I know is that I have DCS modules collecting dust on my hard drive while I wait for them to match immersion that was accomplished 20 years ago. So I fly BMS while I wait...and it appears I will be flying it for years to come
since ED has no interest in making an interesting and lively battlefield.

The ideology that we should just throw money at ED because they appear to be the last flight sim developer based on whatever yardstick you choose to measure with doesn't wash with me.

Sorry, so when a couple of "modders" add stuff like full 6DoF, fully-clickable cockpits, stable multiplayer, buddy lasing, and numerous other theatres, it doesn't count as "modern" because the base platform is 19 years old??



Hahahahahahahaha.... that's even worse!! Being shown up by devs that are "just trying to glue thing onto the old code" doesn't really do much for improving ED's credibility.
As for a company that has access to all of its code.... how long does it take them to build a theatre? What's taking 2.5 so long? Why is the draw distance so low? Why are there still bugs in stuff that have been around for YEARS???

Don't get me wrong, BMS has bugs too... but at least the guys over there have the honesty to either say 1) it's hardcoded and we can't do anything about it, 2) it's in the pipeline but rather low priority at the moment, or 3) we're checking how to fix that.



Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!! OMG!! The comedy just writes itself!!
Sorry, cichlidfan. Please answer the first question. Heck, I'll be the more mature individual and answer your question -- "None."
Now your turn. "BMS still has a fully modeled fast mover with functioning air and ground radar modes. Which fast mover has ED produced that can match that?
Please... please.... I know you like ED and DCS flows through your veins, but please, please, please focus and try to answer the question.

What's the qualifying factor here? Being developed by PAID individuals?
What exactly about DCS World are you talking about? The AI? The single map (and one in development) that you can fly in? You do know that the "world" is just a sandbox where other "modules" are injected into... like saying FSX has a "world" and Carenado are selling "modules."

Wherever you feel it fits into the continuum, there is also Combat Air Patrol 2.

Yep...been watching this one. When they get the dynamic campaign up and running I will pick this one up.

Is it a "when" and not an "if"??

The Analogy is actually quite easy to understand:

BMS -> Based on a sim (Falcon 4.0) which used an old version of DirectX (6.0 perhaps?). But since then BMS team which has access to the code (note that they are not simple modders since and again they have access to the code!) they updated to code the newest version of Falcon BMS which now supports DirectX 9.0 among many other new features such as GPS and Man-in-the-loop weapons, Data Cartridge (DTC), etc...

DCS -> Based on a sim (Flanker) developed for Windows 95 and MS/DOS (perhaps it didn't even use DirectX). But since the team (DCS) has access to the code they have been updating it and the latest "stable"/pseudo-release version also supports DirectX 9.0 (ED promises to support DirectX11 or 12? in the future but that's yet to be seen) which have added many new features but also breaking many other features in the process.

So except for one being FREE (BMS) and the other PAID (DCS) and one being STABLE (BMS) and the other being a BUGGY MESS (DCS), I can really see an analogy between both sims.

And if one is to be considered "better" than for my part I'm 100% sure that title isn't bestowed to DCS, that's for sure! Actually it should be a shame for ED that the BMS team which can be considered "part-time modders" (as you put it) but above all that works for free are way and much more professional than a "professional" developer like ED!


And like others already said here, there is at least an another "modern fighter sim" developer (if you want to exclude BMS - which again doesn't make any sense): the developer of CAP2.

Then if you want "prop sims" then for example you have the WOFF (a WWI sim) developer - BTW, the latest version of WOFF doesn't even need CFS3 anymore! And these devs are currently developing a WWII sim.


Again I find quite odd that people get so "defensive" about ED which ALWAYS screws up and messes things time over time but at the same time refuse to give any chance to other developers only to later claim that ED is the "only" developer around....

DCS has been DX11 (your DX9 video card won't run it) for a long time now.

Technically, Just counting the F-16 Blocks in BMS, I'd Say between half a dozen and 10, since they re-wrote most of the avionics and flight models from scratch, replaced the external and cockpit models, for several different versions of the F-16.

if you're gonna Divulge Lineage to determine the origins.
1.
BMS is Based on Falcon 4.0, which is Based on Falcon 3.0 and Falcon AT which is MS-DOS as well,

It's more Like:
BMS Exists by Piggybacking updated Engines (Graphics, Avionics, Flight Models, Terrains) onto Falcon 4.0s Existing Base Code.

DCS Exists by the Developers Evolving and Replacing the Engines of What Using to be Flaming Cliffs. DCS has replaced the underlying engines multiple times since LockOn, has Re-Compiled the Source code from 32-Bit to 64-Bit, recompiled from separate Executable (UI/Render Engine) into a Single Executable, replaced a DX9.0 Graphics Engine with a DX11 Engine, and Will Eventually replace current Lighting/Shading Engine w/ a Deferred/PBR Rendering and Lighting System, Not to mention half a Dozen Terrain Engine Evolutions.

2.
BMS is Only Free if you legally purchased Falcon 4.0
DCS is Free to play if you dont mind being limited to the Su-25T and Caucasus.

...and with all of this...which sim would you say is one cohesive, immersive flight sim package? It's pretty clear that DCS will always be a never-ending stream of different levels of unfinished pre-alpha's, betas etc. that will take years...if at all...to become the complete package with period correct foes on the ground/sea/air that BMS offers right now.

IMO of course.

**rimshot** - Skatezilla.

I'm not sure why this is even an issue for some.
If I buy a car and like the way it drives...I don't really care if it was based on a chassis from 20 years ago...all I know is that it drives better than the yaris that was built all new from the ground up.

DCS is a commercial product.

BMS is not, not since LP vanished and the prospect of building onto F4: AF went with them.
Likewise the EECH updates, the EAW updates, CFS2 and 3 updates that required the game (excluding the latest WOFF)...

If you refuse to accept that fact because somehow it threatens your opinion of BMS (and really, why would you care if someone else thinks it counts or not?), that's too bad.

It may be an immaterial distinction to you.
It is not to others.

Is there ANYTHING they can say that will make you think BMS is outdated and doesn't count?
Then why do you think there's anything you can say that will convince them of the opposite?



The Jedi Master

The difference is if that car has a literal 20 year old chassis inside the new body. It's the difference between flying a FW190 that was restored after it was found in the ice and flying a replica made of new materials.

It doesn't matter to some people. To others it does.



The Jedi Master

*gasp!!* *horror!!*
£8.09 for the Falcon Collection on GoG or £6.99 on Steam...
£4.99 for just Falcon 4.0 on Steam...
How dare they require that you need to LEGALLY purchase Falcon 4.0? The nerve of those unpaid modders having to bow down to the IP holder of Falcon!! The nerve of them, doing work for free, but asking **US** to fork over our hard-earned money!!

And what do you get for all of that cash? Just one... **ONE** multi-role aircraft!! Three campaigns. A few other theatres with campaigns too. Multiplayer. Are you **REALLY** getting good value for your money there?


Let's compare that to the awesome FREE offer by DCS...
One big, big, BIG!! map that's been around since.... LOMAC?
One A-G Russian attack aircraft and an unarmed P-51!!
Any campaigns? Any other theatres? Oh, those are DLC for the low, low price of $10 per campaign DLC with limited replayability and $30-$60 for each additional aircraft and $45-$50 for each new terrain.

After all, these devs have mouths to feed and bills to pay and all the work that they do fixing the stuff that was broken when they tried fixing the stuff that was broken when they tried fixing the stuff that was broken.... it's all fair, right?

Just want them to clarify their criteria for saying what they say, for instance, what constitutes a "modern" flight sim? Does it have to have "modern" aircraft? So Jane's F/A-18? Does it have to be made recently?? So IL-2 BoS? Does it have to have been coded recently? So CAP2? How much of the old code can be allowed for it to be classified as "recently"? If that's not clarified, then BMS goes all the way back to Falcon 4.0 and DCS goes all the way back to LOMAC at least.

I find it funny that they apply one criteria to one sim and another criteria to another sim and then rant and rave because of it.

Sure. But if the new car has only 3 wheels, the side window missing, no rearview mirror, and 2 of the cylinders not working but they expect you to give them full price now...and they "promise" they will finish it later? Not to mention you see them working on the next 3 wheeled wonder when yours isn't finished yet? lol

I guess some of us would rather have the one that runs smooth and is complete.

Everyone is different in their needs

I dunno,

i know alot of airforce pilots, and they dont see the different F-16 Blocks as "ONE" Aircraft.....

Is CAP2 being done by those involved with the last version of Combat Air Patrol? I can't imagine someone unrelated to Kinnney's Mad Catz team would expend the required effort. Did you SEE Combat Air Patrol before MadCatz shut it down?

And I don't know how you missed the sarcasm of the entire post.....

What we have currently with DCSW is a few modding teams trying to "glue things" onto the old code and new code. The difference is these jokers are charging $50 for their half finished 'mod' and hoping they make enough money to finish their modding projects. The majority of the DCS 3rd party teams are not professional studios. They are part time modders and it shows. Folk want to charge $50 for their part time project they better have thick skins. VEAO have very thin skins. They couldn't handle the criticism of their very expensive mod. "Were not talking to you guys anymore" and they're not the only ones. ED don't know their own roadmap. It's as if they're throwing darts at their to do list "ok everybody it's Normandy this month" it's all a bit of a joke isn't it. Why prioritize Normandy when it's the black sea map that's holding up the unifying process? Nothing about DCSW makes much sense to me anymore. It all seems very unprofessional.

Yet there's no alternatives.

CAP2 is still incomplete, far more than others, and there's no guarantee it will be finished. SF2 is dead, there will be no SF3.
FSX/P3D were never meant for combat, the last engine that could do it right was CFS3's and that's OLD now. CFS4 looked to have some good updates to it, but the code for that is buried in Redmond and will never see the light of day, and it's old now too anyway.
BMS isn't professional because it's not commercial.
EECH isn't professional.

ED is literally the only proven game in town, but since they've had the other side to keep them going we have no idea if they'd still be here if they were commercial alone. It's quite possible they'd have gone under long ago and we'd have nothing but mods of old sims.


I haven't bought a used car in 25 years. I will never trust that whoever came before didn't abuse it to the point that it will fall apart early and perform poorly. I only buy new cars, then keep them for a dozen years or so until I'm tired of them.
Similarly, I have no interest in BMS because it's still F4. I put hundreds of hours into F4. I'm done with it. I barely put that much time into F4: AF because it felt just like F4 with a new theater...which didn't feel that different.

I am blessed/cursed with a very good memory. I can't play a game with a story like Skyrim or Deus Ex or even Doom and then play it again until at least 3 years have passed, maybe more. Even then I remember large amounts of the game. I played Bioshock on release, didn't play it a second time until the recent Remastered release and I remembered pretty much the whole thing. It looked better, but it still felt like I'd done it all before. It was disappointing.




The Jedi Master