Current path of the DCS franchise. Do we need a course correction?

[Gecko6]

First off Moderators, I am not bashing nor am I criticizing ED.

 

My concern is not cause for being banned or penalized for speaking out. The intent is to inspire discussion and promote a healthy dialog within our Community.

 

I truely support and applaud everyone involved with DCS. Especially the 3rd Party Devs. Your aircraft are of the highest quality and I have many hours of enjoyment from the ones I own.

 

Thank You

 

 

With that being said

 

I have to voice my concern over the latest practices of promoting DCS to the masses.

 

The constant sales to cover up the lack of information maybe diminishing the value of all Mods for DCS.

 

If I can expect a weekly sale and force bundling of Mods to make up for anemic information on progress? Why would I pay full price?

 

Am I thinking too much into this or do I have a valid point?

 

Discussion Points for the Community consideration.

 

1. What can be done to help ED promote DCS and still have their Primary focus on the backlog of work they have?
    
    
   
2. As the DCS Community, what is our responsibility to ED and the 3rd Party Devs that bring us the outstanding content that we seek? They need the Return on Investment to us!
    
    
   
3. Finally lets all agree that timelines move and issues arise. No developer in their right mind purposely screws with their customers for fun. They have honorable intentions but are at the mercy of the coding gods.
   

 

I hope my post is respectful enough to remain open and remains productive.

[wilbur81]

First off Moderators, I am not bashing nor am I criticizing ED.

 

My concern is not cause for being banned or penalized for speaking out. The intent is to inspire discussion and promote a healthy dialog within our Community.

 

I truely support and applaud everyone involved with DCS. Especially the 3rd Party Devs. Your aircraft are of the highest quality and I have many hours of enjoyment from the ones I own.

 

Thank You

 

 

With that being said

 

I have to voice my concern over the latest practices of promoting DCS to the masses.

 

The constant sales to cover up the lack of information maybe diminishing the value of all Mods for DCS.

 

If I can expect a weekly sale and force bundling of Mods to make up for anemic information on progress? Why would I pay full price?

 

Am I thinking too much into this or do I have a valid point?

 

Discussion Points for the Community consideration.

 

1. What can be done to help ED promote DCS and still have their Primary focus on the backlog of work they have?
    
    
   
2. As the DCS Community, what is our responsibility to ED and the 3rd Party Devs that bring us the outstanding content that we seek? They need the Return on Investment to us!
    
    
   
3. Finally lets all agree that timelines move and issues arise. No developer in their right mind purposely screws with their customers for fun. They have honorable intentions but are at the mercy of the coding gods.
   

 

I hope my post is respectful enough to remain open and remains productive.

 

Hear, Hear!

[Gecko6]

1. The first thing that comes to mind to help out ED with development would be to not expect a weekly update or release.
    
   The standard for SW development is 2 week sprints and a Monthly release. I would be totally cool with a release on the first Friday of the Month. That frees up Wags from having to put together the newsletter every week.
    
    
   
2. The second thing would be to go back to quarterly sales. On limited modules.
    
    
   
3. The third thing would be to stop asking for aircraft that devs never even said they would do. And support the development of the current modules. For example:
   
   • No F-117
     
   • No F-4 Phantoms even tough I would totally buy that day 0.
     
   • No F-16
     

 

All this does is create noise in the forums and I am sure it frustrates the devs. "It would me."

 

[The Black Swan]

Definitely not meaning any offense by this but... how hard can it be to make the newsletter?

[wilbur81]

1. 
    
    
    
   
2. The third thing would be to stop asking for aircraft that devs never even said they would do. And support the development of the current modules. For example:
   
   • No F-117
     
   • No F-4 Phantoms even tough I would totally buy that day 0.
     
   • No F-16
     

 

All this does is create noise in the forums and I am sure it frustrates the devs. "It would me."

 

 

Hear, Hear!!! I'd go even further and put the brakes on Third Party aircraft altogether until there's more stability within the basic foundation of the sim. Every time a 3rd party aircraft is released in alpha or beta form, there's additional support required (I'd guess) to eliminate bugs, add missing features, etc... further delaying some of the more foundational needs/updates that ED has committed their primary resources to. Maybe I'm wrong here in my understanding of how third party modules dilute ED's workload?

[Darkwolf]

The constant sales to cover up the lack of information maybe diminishing the value of all Mods for DCS.

 

If I can expect a weekly sale and force bundling of Mods to make up for anemic information on progress? Why would I pay full price?

 

That is quite speculative, it could also just be caused by a need of money to keep the ship floating :)

 

Why would I pay full price?

 

That pretty much happened and is likely to be a reason of the bundled sales.

A year ago, they were discounting up to 70% on modules, and they were sales on a very regular basis. Everyone was waiting for sales. Then they said they would stop that and started "bundled" sales.

 

Bundling may be an attempt to limit these sales, while allowing new player to startup a module collection at a decent price. that's just what i figured out, not something they communicated.

[Davee]

 

1. What can be done to help ED promote DCS and still have their Primary focus on the backlog of work they have?
   
2. As the DCS Community, what is our responsibility to ED and the 3rd Party Devs that bring us the outstanding content that we seek? They need the Return on Investment to us!
   
3. Finally lets all agree that timelines move and issues arise. No developer in their right mind purposely screws with their customers for fun. They have honorable intentions but are at the mercy of the coding gods.
   

 

1. Not a consumer responsibility.

2. No consumer responsibility. We are "consumers".

3. Not my concern.

 

Let's not get carried away and presume the we the consumer have any obligation to get into the workings of the Manufacturer/Supplier. They presumeabley have the marketing know-how. Sales/profit margins are the sole arbitor of success/continuation of most enterprises.

 

While well intentioned, I think this thread serves no logical purpose between us the consumer and the manufacturer. It is, IMHO, a large presumption to assume that ED want or need this input. It's their process - not ours.

 

My only recommendation if asked by ED, would be to provide a better communications process to manage consumer expectations.

 

It's just Marketing 101.

 

Nothing personal intended.

[NineLine]

First off Moderators, I am not bashing nor am I criticizing ED.

 

My concern is not cause for being banned or penalized for speaking out.

 

First off, contrary to common beliefs on less than reputable sites with less than reputable practices, we dont ban for opinions, even negative ones. Read the rules and you will find out why you might get warning points, or suspensions.

 

 

I have to voice my concern over the latest practices of promoting DCS to the masses.

 

The constant sales to cover up the lack of information maybe diminishing the value of all Mods for DCS.

 

If I can expect a weekly sale and force bundling of Mods to make up for anemic information on progress? Why would I pay full price?

 

Am I thinking too much into this or do I have a valid point?

 

How are sales linked to lack of information??? Sales are savings for the customers, lack of information is information that isnt available. The two are not related what so ever....

 

Lack of information is based on 2 things:

 

1) You get information when there is information to get

2) They restrict information because the community, or at least a percentage of them take estimates as concrete dates. When a delay or change is talked about, the knives come out, and the skies rain blood and tears. I was always on board for at least giving estimates, this last round of drama has pushed be over to the other side, I will ask for less and less as far as timelines go.

 

So where you gather sales or bundles sales are some how a cover for lack of information, I have no clue....

[sobek]

The standard for SW development is 2 week sprints and a Monthly release.

 

While that may be common for Agile processes, not everybody uses Agile.

[Gecko6]

While that may be common for Agile processes, not everybody uses Agile.

 

You are correct and it was just a suggestion to foster dialog.

 

It can be perceived that DCS modules are being devalued. %60 off RazBams Mirage.

 

M2K Milvis $40.00

TacPack $40.00

 

It will cost you around 90 USD to get the Mirage and some of the functionality that we enjoy in DCS.

 

Lockheed does not take their 3rd Party developed aircraft for P3D and conduct a sale on the aircraft.

 

I am not saying the Lockheed model is in anyway better then the ED model.

 

 

Finally, having to do weekly releases or draft a communications update that passes muster with the leadership is time consuming. I have no idea of ED leadership lay awake at night worrying about if the Community is upset or not.

 

We can back off and wait a bit to allow them more development cycles to crunch through the list of items they deemed important.

 

 

 

 

 

 

First off, contrary to common beliefs on less than reputable sites with less than reputable practices, we dont ban for opinions, even negative ones. Read the rules and you will find out why you might get warning points, or suspensions.

 

No disrespect was intended SithSpawn. Many Moderators do not have integrity and I am glad to see that does not exist here.

 

In closing:

 

I want a solid world with good code and stable MP. I do not care about the Hornet. If we have to wait for the job to be done right then I support that. But as a Community member i do not condone unsolicited requests for aircraft and then cry when I do not get the answer I wanted.

[probad]

more like the community that needs a course correction than dcs tbh

[Wizard_03]

more like the community that needs a course correction than dcs tbh

 

+1 totally agree

[Gecko6]

+1 totally agree

 

i can get behind that statement.

[Sryan]

I don't think ED killed off coretex and their super hornet just because they are doing their own C hornet. In that case, why is VEAO still around? Their spitfire Mk XIV would be a direct competitor to ED's Mk IX. And according to their roadmap they already secured the contract to release the Mk XIV module. And how would it make sense from a business sense standpoint? I assume it takes a lot of love, care and nurture to help the 3rd parties out but ultimatly they make the largest investments, and it's ED taking a chunk of the profits.

 

I don't think ED ever implied the hornet was close, not even when coretex shut down. They've always said to not hold your breath until a release date is anounced. And some of us always wanted a somewhat modern 4th gen. And now we're getting a ~'98 F/A-18C with ATFLIR and JHMCS amongst other things. Surely we can show some patience for that?

[SkateZilla]

Honestly, as new - ish member of this community I don't know if things were this bad "back in the day" but I feel like most of this customer aggression has bubbled over after that Thrustmaster press show on the carrier. Cortex lost the 18E (don't care about the real reasons, just the appearance to the public) so ED must not want it competing the 18C. ED had put out an apparent increasing amount of news about the 18C, then TM has a show on an aircraft carrier to announce new hardware.... All this really made it seem like all this new ED stuff was right around the corner. Then........... crickets...... Got the community riled up, and it seems to have not calmed down.

 

 

I don't think ED killed off coretex and their super hornet just because they are doing their own C hornet. In that case, why is VEAO still around? Their spitfire Mk XIV would be a direct competitor to ED's Mk IX. And according to their roadmap they already secured the contract to release the Mk XIV module. And how would it make sense from a business sense standpoint? I assume it takes a lot of love, care and nurture to help the 3rd parties out but ultimatly they make the largest investments, and it's ED taking a chunk of the profits.

 

I don't think ED ever implied the hornet was close, not even when coretex shut down. They've always said to not hold your breath until a release date is anounced. And some of us always wanted a somewhat modern 4th gen. And now we're getting a ~'98 F/A-18C with ATFLIR and JHMCS amongst other things. Surely we can show some patience for that?

 

We've been over this dozens of Times.

 

ED had nothing, nada, Zilch, to do with Coretex folding.

 

They never had a license agreement to begin with.

 

And they clearly stated the team Lead got a New Job and would not have time to work on it.

 

Majority of Cortex members moved to other teams.

 

 

As for thrustmaster having a press conference on a carrier, that has nothing to do with Eagle dynamics.

 

Flight sticks conntrol planes and space ships, until we get a open to puclic space dock in orbit to host thrustmaster events, its always goong to occur in a hanger or carrier, like it has previously.

Edited November 2, 2016 by SkateZilla

[StandingCow]

Speaking of thrustmaster and HOTAS.... god do we need a new high quality HOTAS on the market!

[Rangi]

more like the community that needs a course correction than dcs tbh

 

Pure and simple.

[SageOT]

We've been over this dozens of Times.

 

ED had nothing, nada, Zilch, to do with Coretex folding.

 

They never had a license agreement to begin with.

 

And they clearly stated the team Lead got a New Job and would not have time to work on it.

 

Majority of Cortex members moved to other teams.

 

 

As for thrustmaster having a press conference on a carrier, that has nothing to do with Eagle dynamics.

 

Flight sticks conntrol planes and space ships, until we get a open to puclic space dock in orbit to host thrustmaster events, its always goong to occur in a hanger or carrier, like it has previously.

 

Missing the point of what I was saying. It's the internet and again, only game in town.

 

There was a metric ton of chatter all over the place leading up to that press event. Thrustmaster made a stick for the A-10C, only natural to think/hope/dream/ whatever you want to call it, that when they have a major product release event for flight sim sticks, on a carrier, that... oh boy here comes the 18C stick... and if they're announcing that, that must mean ED is about to release the 18C.

 

Couple that with ED finally mentioning some things about the 18C right around then, and just a few months back the Cortex thing. And, I'm sorry, but the mob got it's hopes up. Heck, Mudspike, or 476th, were live tweeting during it.

 

Then, boom, crash bang. Turns out it was all hype (mob generated, feeding on itself). So what happens then...? Complaining, griping, looking for reasons why the fan made hype ended up not being real hype... And so, it continues, never seemed to lose momentum after that.

 

I -know- ED's official position on the Cortex thing. Like I said earlier, it didn't matter. I was referencing that as something else that folks excited about the 18C were using to build hope that it was coming soon.

 

I'm not arguing any points by the way. Just giving my opinion on why -I- -think- this little online community appears to have gotten a little rowdier than "the norm"

[Drag0nWIng]

why the moderator didn't close this thread...

what's his point...

and the developer released module, after 2 years released, they still fix the bugs, still not good enough for us?

and if you finished every training mission and read the manual carefully, you can fly it pleasurably.

so what?

let forums becomes wishlist?

 

if you think the support which the developer offered is not good enough...

don't buy their module, that's terribly easy.

I just bought module by ED, belsim and mig-21.

 

and ED has given out many future feature on newsletter, hope you can read them...

[some1]

1. Not a consumer responsibility.

2. No consumer responsibility. We are "consumers".

3. Not my concern.

 

This.

 

My only recommendation if asked by ED, would be to provide a better communications process to manage consumer expectations.

 

It's just Marketing 101.

 

And this.

 

more like the community that needs a course correction than dcs tbh

 

Good luck with that. If you think that you can change how random people around the globe think and react, you might as well wish for global peace and prosperity.

Edited November 2, 2016 by some1

[NeilWillis]

Yet again, the same ground is gone over again and again, in different guises. It is simply nauseating! The bottom line is always the same.

 

Folk hear a snippet of information, with vague, unreliable release dates - unreliable simply because no one can possibly know at what point a project will be complete.

 

Even the Alpha testing stage can, and always will, find snags that may cause considerable delays.

 

From these vague forecasts, everyone goes into a frezy - yes nothing short of manic hysteria ensues, which is absolutely beyond the pale, and utterly unwarranted.

 

The next step is the inevitable pushing back of a release - and releases will get pushed further and further back each time someone here cries derision at the slightest bug - we have all seen them.

 

Then the recriminations begin. "But you PROMISED a release this year" Blah blah blah.

 

ED made no promises, and never missed a deadline by more than a couple of weeks at most in all the time I have been on this forum. Read that last paragraph again, and let it sink in guys!

 

Third parties also always experience set backs. It is the nature of the beast when you take on highly sophisticated, expensive development work.

 

If it was down to me, I'd be happy for the moderators to delete every wish list, every comment speculating about how soon they'll get any module to the market place, and every bitchy, unwarranted whine about how the radar on X module doesn't have the facilities that were in fact never available on that particular production tranche. As for debating why companies fold - FFS guys, there were hopes dashed, livelihoods lost, and people's lives turned upside down! What business is it of ours to rub salt into the wounds by wild, unsubstantiated debating about who's fault it was?

 

What is the inevitable result of people taking vague forecasts and turning them into perceived but totally fictitious promises? Less information, less communication, and therefore less insight into the future of our hobby.

 

The choices are pretty clear. Cut the utter nonsense and finger pointing that results from these well meant, and completely reasonable and informative announcements, or lose them altogether. Don't you get it?

 

ED don't need to change, they don't link any offer to any announcement regarding the future. Their sales strategy is not ours to question. What needs to happen is people need to wind in their childish expectations, and derail the hype train that ONLY the forum is ever responsible for stirring up. We also need to stop having these discussions as if we're ever likely to influence ED - don't kid yourselves, you really don't make one jot of difference.

[StandingCow]

I'd rather not see conversations about if modules are correct go away, I am sure sometimes it makes ED aware of something they may not have been otherwise. Good civil conversation is good for both the consumer as well as the devs, and contrary to what some other websites may say, the mod team here does a pretty good job of steering conversation in the right direction.

 

Hype is a problem in the gaming market as a whole, look at No Man's Sky as a perfect example.... but not ALL of the blame is on the consumer, unreasonable hype can be squashed by a dev team before it gets out of control with solid communication.

 

Again I will point out that people aren't upset at the possibility of a delay or missed date (well the reasonable ones aren't), but rather at the conflicting information between the newsletter and something mentioned on the Russian side of the forum by a dev. Had that info (assuming it is even accurate) been out in an official newsletter to everyone, then, sure there would have been disappointment by users as well as the devs, but there wouldn't have been this ****storm.

 

In conclusion, I don't think there needs to be a course correction, but more careful communication wouldn't go amiss. I just hope this doesn't push ED to one extreme (NO COMMUNICATION).

Edited November 2, 2016 by StandingCow

[tintifaxl]

ED don't need to change, they don't link any offer to any announcement regarding the future. Their sales strategy is not ours to question. What needs to happen is people need to wind in their childish expectations, and derail the hype train that ONLY the forum is ever responsible for stirring up. We also need to stop having these discussions as if we're ever likely to influence ED - don't kid yourselves, you really don't make one jot of difference.

 

This. :thumbup:

[QuiGon]

If I can expect a weekly sale and force bundling of Mods to make up for anemic information on progress? Why would I pay full price?

 

Am I thinking too much into this or do I have a valid point?

 

There is a reason, a very important one even: Pre-orders or day 1 purchases.

[wilbur81]

Hype is a problem in the gaming market as a whole, look at No Man's Sky as a perfect example.... but not ALL of the blame is on the consumer, unreasonable hype can be squashed by a dev team before it gets out of control with solid communication.

 

Again I will point out that people aren't upset at the possibility of a delay or missed date (well the reasonable ones aren't), but rather at the conflicting information between the newsletter and something mentioned on the Russian side of the forum by a dev. Had that info (assuming it is even accurate) been out in an official newsletter to everyone, then, sure there would have been disappointment by users as well as the devs, but there wouldn't have been this ****storm.

 

In conclusion, I don't think there needs to be a course correction, but more careful communication wouldn't go amiss. I just hope this doesn't push ED to one extreme (NO COMMUNICATION).

 

Agreed. :thumbup: