Paying money??? (rant)

The game has to detect the ownerstatus in any case. With or without a "dimished version", otherwise it couldnt decide to allow you to land... ;)

And the graphical goodies can just be on a higher LOD (Level of Detail -> Cut / paste Operation).

Arma 3 did a similiar thing to lock DLC items (Lower textures).

 

You got a better idea? You prefer having two carriers next to each other? :smartass:

I'd prefer if you didn't own the carrier, you can't interact with it. :smartass:

So we are getting a pay to play carrier while the Stennis model is still not correct and too small?

:pilotfly:

Gonna try to elevate the analysis here because ya'll are all over the place.

 

Who says the choices are binary?

 

[1] WW2 Asset Pack Sales Model. (DLC Required to join server and place objects in SP)

[2] Models are visible but can't interact without the DLC (Where things are stated to be)

[3] Non-owners can spawn and land on the CV, basically limited to the current functionality of the Stennis, where they can't see the deck crew at all. (What I think it should be)

[4] Non-owners get 3 + the new comms so all the game mechanics are shared for all players. (What I want it to be but have to be pragmatic about it)

[5] Free for all, cost of project subsidized by increase price of other modules or whatever else. (What it is in the multiverse of Rainbows and lollipops)

[...]

good write-up!

i think a major factor will be the price. i think we can agree, that the price will not directly correlate to the work that went into the module, because even ED would be hard pressed to say how many workhours went into this modules specifics compared to underlying mechanics, that will also be the basis for other modules and general improvments to dcs world. as an example: if airfield ground crew and new airfield ATC would have been released for free before the carrier, the value proposition for the carrier would be (emotionally) worse. or: if you paid 50€ now for the supercarrier, how much would you willingly pay for the russian carrier, since with all the systems in place it would be less of an development milestone. 25€? 10€? only 5 (rhetorical question. please don't answer.)?

all i'm trying to say is, that the pricing will seem "arbitrary", because it will neither correlate to workhours, nor to users value proposition (It will of course not be arbitrary to ED's management).

Therefore, for all i know the pricing could be anything between 10€ and 70€ and considering Grimes post, i wonder if it would not be better to go for solution 1 (which is considered the worst from a users perspektive, but is clean and simple) and in return keep the price as low as possible, additionaly maybe make it in a bundle with the WW2 asset pack and call it "essentials bundle"... afffordability vs. compatibility so to say...

Well, ED can count me in to purchase, regardless of cost, as soon as it’s ready for Early Access/download!

Given what a small proportion of the purchasing population the MP community is (& that there will likely be a discount for existing hornet owners anyway), they could probably make it that to play offline off the supercarrier you have to own it, but to use it online only the person hosting has to...

You'd have some people that bought the F/A-18, flew online and never bought the carrier, but probably most would buy it (both to own it, and to practice traps/landing procedures offline).

& even if there were a few freeloaders, they'd still have to buy (one or more) something(s) to land on it with to use it, so it's still generating revenue.

Given what a small proportion of the purchasing population the MP community is (& that there will likely be a discount for existing hornet owners anyway), they could probably make it that to play offline off the supercarrier you have to own it, but to use it online only the person hosting has to...

 

You'd have some people that bought the F/A-18, flew online and never bought the carrier, but probably most would buy it (both to own it, and to practice traps/landing procedures offline).

 

& even if there were a few freeloaders, they'd still have to buy (one or more) something(s) to land on it with to use it, so it's still generating revenue.

I disagree. This is a separate module and everyone who wants to use it should have to pay for it; period. The new carrier is not the same as something directly tided to the hornet like TWS.

It is a module in its own right and everyone should be paying to use it. If I recall what they are looking at doing is making it so in order to spawn and land on it you need to own it, and that's fair play.

I think BoneDust was refering to "linking" those units to the Carrier, so their waypoints get moved when the carrier is moving. Currrently you need to use a script to have those units to update their waypoints every now and then.

 

Btw, instant buy.

Yes sir, that is what I was referring to. :thumbup:

I see a lot of concerns about splitting the multiplayer community and to be honest, I don't really see it. I mean, I can see why it is brought up but when I really think about it, I can't really see how paid assets like the Carrier, WWII pack, or even the additional maps are ever really going to be a massive issue because there will always be a strong emphasis on the free, default content on public servers anyway.

Think of it like this. When you look at most public servers, you will see a bias towards maps, modules, and content that is already built into DCS. Those public servers are going to want as many new, fresh players as possible and the only way that can work is to at least include the free aircraft and use the Caucasus map and default assets. Some servers might elect to use another popular map like the Persian Gulf but even then, they will try to include as much free content as possible in order to create as few barriers to entry for new players as possible.

Now here is where things get tricky. The moment you build a mission for a specific aircraft (like the Hornet or Tomcat for example), you have created a server that splits the community. Heck, I would argue that the community is already "split" because DCS's content allows for private groups to set up servers with no free content included at all. With the release of every new module, the potential to "split the community" grows and since it is neither logical nor practical to expect modules for free, I am not sure where I should start considering split communities a problem.

When the carrier module comes out, I strongly suspect that the servers that want to be inclusive will include both carrier versions and that will be fine enough. It is the same thing when those same servers include the free aircraft for new players or a whole assortment of aircraft to allow anyone to fly what they own or like. Alongside that, you will have servers that specialize for their own purposes and that is fine as well.

That's why I thought make it free to use for clients in MP.

Be a shame to have all the time and effort go into it only to have it disappear into SP & still have the old carrier appearing in all the MP youtube clips.

That's why I thought make it free to use for clients in MP.

Be a shame to have all the time and effort go into it only to have it disappear into SP & still have the old carrier appearing in all the MP youtube clips.

Honestly, I don't really see the point in making it free for only one specific subset of players arbitrarily. There are a significant amount of multiplayer only players who would essentially be getting all the benefits that players who pay get without ever having any drawbacks. A good chunk of the online community ONLY plays on public servers and their experience would be subsidized by those who may not even play online (or at least not on public servers). That doesn't really seem right to me. Why should some pay while others fully benefit for free arbitrarily?

it's really complicated, if you consider all aspects of it.

i just hope, that ED can make the module very affordable. if they were able to sell it for less than 20€ (maybe f-18, f-14 owners exclusive offer, with others paying more), public servers could maybe just drop the old carrier and call it a day...

may i say again, that the free-to-play-aspect of DCS really shows it's weakness with these kind of modules. making the carrier, new weather, vulkan and new map part of one-time-purchase 50€ DCS 3.0 would seem so much more simple.

I think anyone expecting DCS:Supercarrier to be anything but a full priced module is going to be disappointed. No idea what any Hornet discount will be, but you ain't getting a $25 carrier, sorry to tell you. The market's been set higher than that.

I have no problem understanding that they will take money for the new carrier, but I'm very very dissepointed that small but VERY visual "bugs" will have to wait for years while new and very advansed stuff is made.

i just hope, that ED can make the module very affordable. if they were able to sell it for less than 20€ (maybe f-18, f-14 owners exclusive offer, with others paying more)

Sorry for barging in the topic uninformed, but I'm just wondering how many non-F14/18 owners would buy the carrier module they can't use? I don't see that as a realistic customer category.

Also, why would this ownership influence the price of the upgraded carrier module? The F-18 and F-14 owners already have a perfectly workable carrier to land on, while the F-14 owners should also get the Forrestal carrier for free as well.

Unless of course e.g. ED plans to make a new discounted bundle consisting of the F-18 and the new carrier, which would make it slightly unfair for the current Hornet owners..

DCS is my favorite VR application, but a better performing Engine like Vulkan, is more important than anything else. With the Super Carrier and a animated Airfield Crew,we need more performance,even with the fastest CPU and GPU Today. Perhaps ED will get a Reverb and can try to optimize the VR experience with the current Engine. We will see

Gesendet von meinem SM-G973F mit Tapatalk

may i say again, that the free-to-play-aspect of DCS really shows it's weakness with these kind of modules. making the carrier, new weather, vulkan and new map part of one-time-purchase 50€ DCS 3.0 would seem so much more simple.

Total speculation; you have no idea, and your suggestion makes no sense anyway.

The planes you can fly for free are extremely limited, but it gives potential customers a taste of what they can expect. If they like it and want more they'll have to buy a module for $50+ anyway.

Demanding $50 from existing customers makes even less sense.

When ED announced the carrier, Wags mentioned a Hornet Bundle. Since the carrier was delayed a couple years it was mentioned that owners of the (PreOrder?!) Hornet will receive a discount.

If this is still planned... Who knows. Maybe.

I think anyone expecting DCS:Supercarrier to be anything but a full priced module is going to be disappointed. No idea what any Hornet discount will be, but you ain't getting a $25 carrier, sorry to tell you. The market's been set higher than that.

Why do you guys expect a "Full Module" Price? It's a 3d Model with 4 textures. Couple of animations. It's not a study sim carrier simulation module...

I would be a bit dissapointed in a price higher than 30-40$ (Similiar to CA or WWII Pack). I will still buy it, but I understand anybody who declines. :music_whistling:

I predict the carrier will be $80 and maybe $60/$70 if you own the Hornet/Tomcat.

Cool story bro! glad you're not buying it. I'll buy it and have fun. ED has been more than generous by providing free updates for the last decade. i'd've paid for the new Caucus map given all their hard work making it. They're also drastically updating weather, damage models, AI behavior, creating new missions and models all for free. If they're spending time to devote to a super carrier with animations, textures, models, etc i'm willing to buy.

Cool story bro! glad you're not buying it. I'll buy it and have fun. ED has been more than generous by providing free updates for the last decade. i'd've paid for the new Caucus map given all their hard work making it. They're also drastically updating weather, damage models, AI behavior, creating new missions and models all for free. If they're spending time to devote to a super carrier with animations, textures, models, etc i'm willing to buy.

This. Whatever the price, I'm sure it will be well worth it. Plus all their efforts that goes into updating the core game.

So we are paying money for a carrier? This really sounds silly.

Yes, we are, and no, it doesn't. Rather, what really does sound daft is to expect to get it for free, since making the bugger is a carpload of work. So may I courteously suggest you not buy it?

Yes, we are, and no, it doesn't. Rather, what really does sound daft is to expect to get it for free, since making the bugger is a carpload of work.

Absolutely :thumbup:

So may I courteously suggest you not buy it?

Here you're too polite. I would suggest the OP to try invest, lets say 5000 working hours in creating a product which then he would like to sell, having to explain on the way to those claiming it's "silly" he wants to charge for it, how big of a trolls they are.

Time and effort with constant additions. Sign me up and sign my wallet up.

Well, it better be a huge discount (50% off) for Hornet owners (in my opinion it should be free for all Hornet owners as an excuse for the massive delays, lies and making the Viper a priority over it), otherwise I'm not getting it.

Lol, i can't understand all this people crying on price :D This is something NEW! All people who love's carrier ops can give all money for this. Stop crying! dont want? dont buy! and stop crying :D Cant wait for Super Carrier! Take my money now! :D Nevermind how much!