Whenever I boil it all down it results in this ^^^ - there is little/no competition. And why is that? The market is too small = not enough profit. This isn’t the 90’s [flight sims’ zenith?] any more. FS2020 might have helped DCS, a bit. Just pure speculation on my part.
Perhaps it does reduce down further to ‘Systems’; large variety, each sometimes uniquely complex. At least when I compare it with the racing sim market. And as mentioned in a thread somewhere else here recently: the appeal of ‘flight’ is waning, for whatever reason(s).
I’m admittedly not the most representative type; if it wasn’t for VR (best move DCS made IMO) I might likely have already drifted away from the hardcore mil. flight sim genre; got my ‘fix’ on anything related decades ago, the only advancements since have been the number of pixels pushed per frame, with better lighting.
Because its free and everyone can change you will easy get 300 versions that no one is better than other and you can’t merge them because concurrency of same changed files because some did X feature in file Z and other changed Y in the same file Z. Also it stopped to be a mess of developing without any quality control and central objectives and 3rd party devs will give up because the so messy it will. They will release the Tornado on DCS Lion version that already have better AI or on the DCS Panda version from other community that have better clouds and ground mesh?
That is a nightmare! I like linux and have some machines in my home running linux, but many times linux is the anarchy of OS and sometimes to have some success specially when you need to have 3rd party development works you should have a some kind of tyrant and centralized style of OS and in DCS case is imperative that it should be only 1 version and not 200 versions community made.
This is very well said, and really is for me the main “issue” with the early access/free base game direction that’s happened. (“issue” in quotes because in the end I don’t feel super passionate about it one way or another, but it probably is good to have a yearly back and forth about it. Particularly here since you can actually have one without it turning bonkers).
Guess it’s kind of what I was trying to express by mentioning more ‘traditional’ releases, as there is a delineation that naturally occurs when something is released, patched a bit, and then the next release occurs.
You would expect there to be improvements/differences in core things like AI, graphics, radio calls, etc. in the new game you’d pick up from the company, even if they were only moderate.
Don’t get me wrong, I know they are working on core engine stuff, it just seems to lagging way behind the rate at which new a/c are coming out.
I sometimes wish they would actually charge something for DCS World, and then when the next ‘big’ update happens they charge you again. Not that I’m eager to be throwing money around but I feel if they did that, they would have to have new ‘core’ improvements ready to justify what the charge was for.
I dunno, probably not a great idea in the end because people would want an option to stay with the ‘old’ DCS World, and then eventually they’d be having to support a bunch of versions.
So, basically for me early access a/c feature issues aren’t as important as the feeling (which who even knows is correct or not?) that core stuff is always going to be taking a back seat.
Funny come to think of it so did I. But a lot of that had to do with the fact I barely played it enough to justify the initial expense, let alone paying for more upgrades.
With one exception I have yet to own DCS module that I wasn’t thrilled with from day one. And as for that exception, it’s weaknesses were well advertised and yet I bought anyway so that I could participate on a particular server. Sorry but there is really no reason to ever be disappointed by a model’s lack of capabilities on day one. Let other users build the REAL feature list for you. They can save a few bucks and be the early adopters the rest of us can rely on. I wanted the Tomcat. But I didn’t buy it until others were happy with it. The Harrier is all I ever really wanted. But I didn’t buy that either until Razbam let Beach take it for a spin. I did buy the Mi24 site unseen. But that’s because I know that at it’s very worse it will be nothing less than a really cool looking Mi8. And that alone is worth my money.
To add a bit on this subject. I just heard Matt Wagner’s interview. In it he explains that most of the work on AI right now is on the super carrier. Then they will go to AI aircraft, and then the rest. That, to me is a big problem. Because, they could prioritize they way they see fit. I don’t mind they starting AI rework for the Carriers, but he did say Supercarrier. So a systems-wide refurbish will start by what? the most important? No, a paid module. That is somewhat disapointing. The supercarrier, as much as I like it, I really can’t swallow. Seems more and more like a money grab, unfortunately. Hope the supercarrier module is a one time mistake, and not the rule.
Yeah, that’s true.
Same for the assets packs…
OTOH, I paid $18 for the SC with the Hornet discount and ED miles. So not the most expensive module I’ve bought.
But I can’t help but wonder if it wouldn’t be a better option to pay for the DCS core software and maybe even for major upgrades to DCS, instead of paying for DLC that should be a part of DCS…? I totally understand that ED need the money, but maybe there is a smarter way of getting people to pay for their efforts…? They could still offer DCS and Caucasus for free, but in order to install new maps, for instance, you need to unlock DCS with a payment…? I don’t know what the best solution is, but some DLC should be part of the DCS core, for everybody.
Probably. But then again, allocating their resources for max efficiency can’t be easy. I guess there are a lot of people going back and forth between projects, and since they can’t have people doing nothing, there will be a tasking que that piles up…
I slightly prefer the way 777 does this in IL2. New maps and planes come with essentially a new game. Yes, the Career has its weaknesses. That aside, the payoff to both 777 and the customers is big. I can’t wait for Normandy and the Normandy Career. But I have paid for it and now, while I wait, I can fly some of the new planes that come with it. A DCS version of this would be the Falklands War. For $150 we’d get the map, the GR3, the A-4, the HMS Invincible and the Campaign. While we wait we get the GR3 now.
Very true. It’s more of a personal feeling that those stuff can interfere, less so an accusation. As I said before, they do seem to be picking up the ball they dropped last year!
If you have a paid version of DCS and also a free version of it, you should need to maintaining 2 version of the software and that is more workload and not so good for 3rd parties dlcs.
If they need to have a free core base, all the others advantages need to be paid and separated.
Having the supercarrier vs ground crew on core is the problem of a dilema.
They need a core and only 1 version of the sim to easy on dev versions and control maintenance, that core they decided to be free because its really hard to get more users with a paid dcs world even if its 5€ only. The common people if its free install and try, if its 5€ they postpone for months for a sale and fear to death of a bad investiment if they not like. Then they need money, every costy effords go to addons, its why you have a SC with all bells and whistles and no ground crew outside it. If they put ground crew every where in the core free version imho the SC only sell like less than 20% of current users. Saying in other words i think that big mayority of SC sells and hype is their ground crew on SC.
That’s a good point. However there is not much we know about the differences in developing WW2 and modern aircraft. I feel those planes such as the Hornet can be incredibly taxing. And I see their current EA model to be a big part on why we’re able to get this ever increasing stable of aircraft to fly. But it’s certainly something to consider.
