I'm not poor, and i'm not mc Scrooge, but ...

[Csgo GE oh yeah]

I'm not poor, i have good disposable income.

But i just can't seem to get myself to pay 80 dollars for 20% finished F16 ?

This goes for all modules above 40 dollars to be honest.

 

I'm not ranting, i try to purchase F16 but everytime 'common sense' (?) seems to stop me. I just get the strong feeling i'm being scammed everytime i try to click the 'pay' button.

 

Triple A game titles , that cost 50 to 100 million dollars to make, are half the price of one DCS module.

 

I mean, is this a russian thing ?

Anyone know that game "Escape from Tarkov"from Russian developer ? It costs 40 to 140 euro's for "beta" version .

 

Can someone explain the pricing point of the modules to me ?

Because if it is because it's a 'niche market', and not a lot of copies are sold then it seems like there might be a problem in the long run because with pricing like this it's also kind of a self fulfilling prophecy.

 

How can i make friends who never played DCS attracted to the game like this ?

[Airhunter]

It's what you get when you have a monopoly. Only get modules on a sale (which there are plenty of). As for the F-16, if your thing is purely air to air then it's rather decent at this moment, anything else I'd rather get the Hornet or something else like the A-10. Just my two cents.

[greenmamba]

Buy a finished module and wait for the F-16 module to be finished. A-10C is good fun.

[Mars Exulte]

If you think it's too much don't buy it. Period. It's a free market, obviously lots of people disagree with you.

 

As to why, because each aircraft requires approximately 3-5 years from start to finished and relatively bug free. The original A-10C took about 7 years to get to its current condition, and has had some free facelifts along the way.

 

So that's why. It's not Pokemom or War Thunder you do not need nor are you expected to buy ALL the modules. EACH MODULE is effectively a self-contained game with all the associated costs and development time. Whether you think it's worth it or not is irrelevant, the fact is the development of these things is very expensive on their end.

 

It's also not out of the ordinary if you look at other flight sims that charge $20 for airports, or $20-40 for a specific plane that generally is not modeled in as much detail as these. So yes, you're being a tightass, and completely ignoring the fact this isn't a ''puppy mill'' style development where they release plane packs every 90 days.

 

If you're not satisfied with a module's status then don't buy it. Period. No drama thread or complaining about progress required. Wait until it's finished. The F-16 began development somewhere between 1.5-2 yrs ago (October 2018 I believe), so you can expect it to be about 1-2 yrs before it's nearing ''completion'', possibly 3.

 

Some of why the 16/18 are progressing relatively quickly compared to old modules is they are similar aircraft with similar systems and weapons that a lot can be shared between them. They're more or less developing in parallel, kinda 2-for-1 if you will.

[Csgo GE oh yeah]

I just wish there was some way to combine all the efforts of all the various parties and make them focus on one , or maybe 2 vehicles at a time.

Because right now it seems there's just so many different modules, made by many different entities.

 

The capabilities and resources of the content makers is just way too scattered and un-focused.

 

I mean, they're literally like, "ok what plane should we do next ?" . Someone yells "i want the HiMat!

Ok , we start now , maybe is finished in 9 years, meanwhile you can buy early acces for 80 dollars :thumbup:

Just imagine if energy was focused on only 1 or maybe 2 GREAT modules, instead of all these little side projects :(

 

And as for your "it costs time" argument , well that is so relative because it says nothing about costs. Are 5 people working on it ? Or 50 ?

Edited June 14, 2020 by Csgo GE oh yeah

[Rudel_chw]

...

I'm not ranting , i try to purchase F16 but everytime 'common sense' (?) seems to stop me.

 

It certainly looks like a rant … if you think it is too expensive, just don't buy it instead of posting this :mad:

[Rudel_chw]

...

I mean, they're literally like, "ok what plane should we do next ?" . Someone yells "i want the HiMat!

Ok , we start now , maybe is finished in 9 years, meanwhile you can buy early acces for 80 dollars

 

OK, now you are just trolling … another one for the ignore list :doh:

[Furiz]

Well the F16 is in EA meaning they don't have funds to complete it and then release it, instead they need a funding solution, which is EA, it is a not finished product.

 

The biggest thing about it is that YOU KNOW it is not finished and it is up to you to buy (fund) it or not.

 

 

Wonder what would he say for a 50$ runway:P

[Csgo GE oh yeah]

I get the concept of early access, and i don't have any real objections against it.

(unless if companies would take advantage of consumers in a not nice way "ez money" of course).

 

Not saying that is the case here btw, i just don't know.

 

Just asked for some enlightment on the issue of development time and pricing, but some of you seem really defensive about it without giving arguments that could change my mind .

 

Eh, too bad i guess. No problem though.

[BuzzU]

I'm sorry but if you're going to charge $80 for one plane. It should be finished at a minimum.

 

Come up with a better beta tester program. Don't use the public.

[David OC]

It is a hard niche thats why no one does it anymore and make $. Thats why ED subsidizes their income building civi and military training sims i.e A-10c, mi8 etc. Thats also why they are so detail and thats also what most want here. Mac is possibly what some want. Bit more than w thunder etc. If ed didn't have contracts also, all this would possibly not be a thing.

 

EA is another income source of course to keep more engineers

 

working on making the consumer side better. Aircraft and core improvements possibly.

 

Example

Edited June 14, 2020 by David OC

[schmiefel]

I get the concept of early access, and i don't have any real objections against it.

(unless if companies would take advantage of consumers in a not nice way "ez money" of course).

 

Not saying that is the case here btw, i just don't know.

 

Just asked for some enlightment on the issue of development time and pricing, but some of you seem really defensive about it without giving arguments that could change my mind .

 

Eh, too bad i guess. No problem though.

 

I don't think that you - and a lot other users - really get it. No offense, where should you know from. But at least reading what is stated with every EA Module would help to avoid those debates a lot.

 

In other so called AAA gaming titles you have to pay for each game that maybe lasts a year up to 50..60$ and sometimes more if you add several DLC and cosmetic items sold seperately or in "ultimate" something packages.

 

As others already mentioned: in DCS every full featured module and most of the FC3 ones as well takes x-times what other gaming titles need just to get all the information, licenses etc. together. Until then no line of code is written and no 3D part done.

 

The DCS system consists of a kind of study level military sandbox simulation, what makes DCS World more like an Unreal Engine for developing the gaming / making the simulation models and scenarios within. With the Unreal Engine, you can load for free too, you just get the necessary framework. The parts that make a AAA game on this mean the real task then.

 

Concentrating on one modul at time would be a waste of ressources, as e.g. graphics designers mostly don't code the system and the crew that manages the core framework normally doesn' t design things or codes specialized aircraft systems. So, as soon as e.g. the 3D artwork of a new module is done the graphics specialists could start working on the next module, the marketing people could use this to showcase the next items, and the research team can have a look for new possible and worthwhile objects... That's rather how every development of new products is done.

 

Now, that you can get access to modules in an early development phase, where even not a release date is given, is just a part of the business model ED uses. And no one is forced to buy them or load into the Beta framework where those modules can be used at first. The price tag ED gives to its modules is just in their responsibility and if there won't be enough users willing to pay this, these prices won't work. But no one that's an Battlefield or Formula1 fan would debate how much the 5th or 7th Iteration of rather the same game costs as long as he gets a new toy of the same kind every year. :doh:

Edited June 14, 2020 by schmiefel

[Exorcet]

Triple A game titles , that cost 50 to 100 million dollars to make, are half the price of one DCS module.

The funny thing to me is that the DCS modules are the ones worth the money out of the two. I haven't really bought many mainstream games in a long time because they just aren't worth it to me (others will have different opinions), while DCS has given me a decade of use, more if you count Lock On and other previous versions. Hardcore simulators in general tend to be more about fun and enjoyment in my opinion. Traditional games are full of content gating and prizes that attempt to get people to invest in them with less time spent on the content that the game is supposed to be offering. Simulators on the other hand are 100% content generally.

 

 

 

But i just can't seem to get myself to pay 80 dollars for 20% finished F16 ?

This goes for all modules above 40 dollars to be honest.

Where does the 20% come from? The F-16 is complete enough that it's more involving to use than say the finished FC aircraft. I mainly fly air and air and I'd say that 20% is a really low number to describe the air combat side of completion. It's missing smart AG weapons, but you can still perform ground attack missions.

 

 

Basically, whatever % the module is, it's functioning at a level that lets you do things with it. It is a fully functional DCS aircraft, just not a complete F-16 yet.

[schmiefel]

+1 well said.

 

Plus: it takes many years of full time training to become combat ready on the real thing. I have not enough free time to even try to master the already finished and working parts of this module ...

[ruxtmp]

The whole EA thing is really like a Ponzi scheme, but it supports the game. You just need to be very aware of certain 3rd party developers and their skills. If you start to see a lot of things by one developer in EA you can almost be sure they are hurting for funds and that time lines will be extremely long or worse the modules may never be completed.

[Csgo GE oh yeah]

Some good points, some not so good.

 

"Mainstream games", are completely off the rails today when talking about production costs , the amount of detail and work that goes into them.

Of course i don't know what amount of money a DCS module costs, but i'm willing to bet it's nowhere the 50 to 100 million dollars i mentioned earlier.

Of course there's also a lot of lesser games that don't deserve the 50 dollar pricetag, true enough.

 

I understand that these modules don't sell nearly the same amount of copies as triple A titles, so i understand they can't be sold for 'dirt cheap', but i still wonder if the balance is there. Even when considering the niche market.

 

As i said, how long it takes to develop a module does not matter pricewise , without knowing how many actual man hours are put into the development of a game.

 

This also goes for the argument that it's worth the price because it takes a lot of time to LEARN the game.

Some competitive games are literally free, and will take years to get good at. Difficulty is not a measure of price.

 

The 20% comes from when you could first buy the early access. I don't know exactly how far along the F16 module is, but from watching youtubes i can't imagine it's more than 50% ?

And that's two years later !

 

I feel that once you start asking money for a game, it should be at least somewhat playable (the F16 was not) , AND it should be finished within a reasonable time frame.

I personally don't consider 4 to 5 years (or longer) a reasonable time frame.

 

I don't know how rich or poor ED is, but there is always some risk in an undertaking.

ED has been around for a long time, maybe they don't need a kickstart thing for every module they make anymore ?

[imacken]

I mean look at Razbam. Harrier in EA since when? They released two more modules and I seriously stopped counting how many other they got in the pipeline.

 

But the Mirage is fun, isn't it? So, I forgive them for the Harrier atm!

[schmiefel]

Some good points, some not so good.

 

"Mainstream games", are completely off the rails today when talking about production costs , the amount of detail and work that goes into them.

Of course i don't know what amount of money a DCS module costs, but i'm willing to bet it's nowhere the 50 to 100 million dollars i mentioned earlier.

Of course there's also a lot of lesser games that don't deserve the 50 dollar pricetag, true enough.

 

I understand that these modules don't sell nearly the same amount of copies as triple A titles, so i understand they can't be sold for 'dirt cheap', but i still wonder if the balance is there. Even when considering the niche market.

 

As i said, how long it takes to develop a module does not matter pricewise , without knowing how many actual man hours are put into the development of a game.

 

This also goes for the argument that it's worth the price because it takes a lot of time to LEARN the game.

Some competitive games are literally free, and will take years to get good at. Difficulty is not a measure of price.

 

The 20% comes from when you could first buy the early access. I don't know exactly how far along the F16 module is, but from watching youtubes i can't imagine it's more than 50% ?

And that's two years later !

 

I feel that once you start asking money for a game, it should be at least somewhat playable (the F16 was not) , AND it should be finished within a reasonable time frame.

I personally don't consider 4 to 5 years (or longer) a reasonable time frame.

 

I don't know how rich or poor ED is, but there is always some risk in an undertaking.

ED has been around for a long time, maybe they don't need a kickstart thing for every module they make anymore ?

 

Did you ever check how much marketing budget those multimillion AAA development use? That's sometimes all in all rather 30-50% of the whole budget. Plus add Multi-System development for PC and consoles and then check how many million copies get sold and multiply this with the net debit. Just as an example in 2019 EA sold about 7.3 million copies of BF V in its business quarter.

 

I just even can't guestimate how many copies ED sells, but if you only look at the player base comming through Steam its roughly 1.300 people playing DCSw at all ( https://steamdb.info/app/223750/ ) - the MP User statistic could be derived from each ones user account ( https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/personal/server/?login=yes ) and shows less than 2.000 the moment I wrote this - and that's including the only free module users. So add non MP users etc. and let it be in its 10.000 for each module its still far off from what EA gaines from one popular franchise game in its release quarter.

 

tl&dr : it makes no sense debating price tags for DCS. ED has its numbers what makes sense to demand for a module. If that doesn't meet your expectations you could take a look at the competition.

 

The F-16 e.g. is still available for 2(3) other civilian flightsimulators and costs between 25 $ to about 30€. Then check if you can do 20-50% with that what DCS already delivers for 80$. Or you take the road to a long time abandoned F-16 sim that is now community supported for free if you still have or get access to the old original product.

 

Users / customers have their choices...

[rrohde]

The funny thing to me is that the DCS modules are the ones worth the money out of the two. I haven't really bought many mainstream games in a long time because they just aren't worth it to me (others will have different opinions), while DCS has given me a decade of use, more if you count Lock On and other previous versions. Hardcore simulators in general tend to be more about fun and enjoyment in my opinion. Traditional games are full of content gating and prizes that attempt to get people to invest in them with less time spent on the content that the game is supposed to be offering. Simulators on the other hand are 100% content generally.

 

Well said! :thumbup:

 

Another thing to note - none of the so called AAA games model anything to the extent and complexity that DCS does. ASM/PFM don't exist in AAA games - eye candy and polish does. Yet we demand ASM/PFM perfection from ED. So it's a totally different market and - just because games and simulations run on PCs, doesn't mean that they should be compared on equal terms.

 

For fun, someone should make a line chart that compares the complexity of ED's DCS modules to the level "knowledge/comprehension of what it takes to make DCS by the average armchair pilot". The graphs should show the complexity of DCS modules going up, up, up over the years, while the level of the armchair pilot's comprehension hasn't kept up and kinda tapers off (or maybe shows a downward trend that accounts for all the strange posts popping up on these forums lately). :music_whistling:

 

So yeah, there's definitely a delta between DCS and it's "nay-saying" user base...

 

Side bar - wouldn't it be fun if OP struggles to justify getting a highly realistic F-16 in early access, but he's perfectly fine to pay $$$ for Star Citizen ships for a rather buggy alpha release?

Edited June 14, 2020 by rrohde

[imacken]

If it takes a company say, 5 years to develop a major module, and say you have a team of 6 working on it - a conservative estimate I would say - then their salaries alone would cost IRO 6 x 5 x 40k, i.e. $1.2m. At $60 per sale (taking off tax etc.), that is 20,000 sales to just pay the team costs. Not to mention the zillion other company costs and non-fee earning personnel.

 

In this very basic example, they probably would need to sell 40k units to break even.

 

Just a hypothetical, fantasy scenario, of course.

[tintifaxl]

If it takes a company say, 5 years to develop a major module, and say you have a team of 6 working on it

 

 

I don't think the majority of modules we have now were that expensive to make. Hopefully the F-16 isn't. :cry:

[Csgo GE oh yeah]

Well said! :thumbup:

 

Another thing to note - none of the so called AAA games model anything to the extent and complexity that DCS does. ASM/PFM don't exist in AAA games - eye candy and polish does. Yet we demand ASM/PFM perfection from ED. So it's a totally different market and - just because games and simulations run on PCs, doesn't mean that they should be compared on equal terms.

 

For fun, someone should make a line chart that compares the complexity of ED's DCS modules to the level "knowledge/comprehension of what it takes to make DCS by the average armchair pilot". The graphs should show the complexity of DCS modules going up, up, up over the years, while the level of the armchair pilot's comprehension hasn't kept up and kinda tapers off (or maybe shows a downward trend that accounts for all the strange posts popping up on these forums lately). :music_whistling:

 

So yeah, there's definitely a delta between DCS and it's "nay-saying" user base...

 

Side bar - wouldn't it be fun if OP struggles to justify getting a highly realistic F-16 in early access, but he's perfectly fine to pay $$$ for Star Citizen ships for a rather buggy alpha release?

 

Oh boy, you have no clue whatsoever about what goes into game titles these days. :(

 

"A team of approximately 1,000 people developed Grand Theft Auto V over several years." Let that sink in for a moment if you will. I mean really think about it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_Grand_Theft_Auto_V

 

Insinuating that creating a DCS module is more complex, or more whatever/anything is just completely ridiculous, i'm sorry.

 

@Schmiefel, good points. Sale numbers, i did not know they were so 'low'. (1300 playing on steam)

Excellent, i just might buy the F16 after all.

Altough i'd much rather have Razbam hurry the F up with the F15 !

Edited June 14, 2020 by Csgo GE oh yeah

[Mars Exulte]

HiMat? Never heard of that, googling now, but I want one if it exists! =)

 

That said, ''combining all the parties'' it doesn't work that way. Some guys make models, some make textures, some make systems, some make flight models, some are flight engineers responsible for explaining how things are supposed to work to the coders, and some are former pilots relating their feedback about it all. You can't ''double up'' on everything necessarily, when things are independent of each other. Small teams are focused on each aircraft and work together on. Only so much can be done at one time.

 

Also, once a 3d model is complete, why NOT start on another? Should those guys all get fired? Or just sit around with their thumb up their butt because they don't know anything about avionics and aerodynamics? Much more sensible to put them to work.

 

Yes, this does end up with a series of modules in various stages of development, but so what? If they fired everybody except one team, then you'd be in the same situation only with ONE plane, instead of twenty.

 

As for 3rd parties, that's the whole POINT of them, so that multiple teams can share the workload (and expense). From ED's perspective, 3rd party planes are basically free money. They get a cut of it, and don't have to do any work. Cutting them out would DRASTICALLY reduce ED's income. It's not necessary, it doesn't make any sense, and it's not going to happen.

 

@CSGO

About GTA, from a coding perspective, no, the GAME is no more complex, it's true. Code is code. However GTA is not required to make highly realistic aircraft with fully modeled avionics and a plane that behaves according to very exact criteria in what is basically a virtual wind tunnel. Is DCS more complex than GTA? No, not from a coding perspective. Is a GTA coder worth a shit for DCS? No, not really.

 

Just a ''coder'' isn't any good. It has to be a coder who either knows about aircraft/aerodynamics etc, or who can at least interpret that information (ie he's been trained) from someone who DOES. He then has to compare ingame results to performance charts and references and actually understand what he's looking at. Pulling a random coder and dropping him into DCS would be about as useful as pulling a random off the street and asking him ''does this plane feel right to you?'' He can code a storm, but if he doesn't know jack about planes he's not going to do much good.

 

So, in this case it's better to have 20 guys that know wtf is going on, than 300 guys who are great coders, but only a few of them know what's going on and the few that do have to be used to qualify the work of all the others. It's not necessarily going to be faster, because you're going to have that chokepoint.

 

-edit

I googled HiMat. Yes, I want one.

Edited June 14, 2020 by zhukov032186

[Csgo GE oh yeah]

Yeah you're right i guess.

I'm not saying ED should ever cut ties with other developers by the way.

 

I just wish there was a way for them to finish modules a little faster, and perhaps with a bit higher quality from the start of release.

 

Probably not possible with small teams though, sadly.

 

@developers, please don't make HiMat kthx

Edited June 14, 2020 by Csgo GE oh yeah

[Pikey]

Oh boy, you have no clue whatsoever about what goes into game titles these days. :(

 

"A team of approximately 1,000 people developed Grand Theft Auto V over several years." Let that sink in for a moment if you will. I mean really think about it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_Grand_Theft_Auto_V

 

Insinuating that creating a DCS module is more complex, or more whatever/anything is just completely ridiculous, i'm sorry.

 

@Schmiefel, good points. Sale numbers, i did not know they were so 'low'. (1300 playing on steam)

Excellent, i just might buy the F16 after all.

Altough i'd much rather have Razbam hurry the F up with the F15 !

I used to share a building with those guys in Edinburgh. What Rockstar spent in pizza alone could have bought ED. And they also sent them all on a holiday for one of the GTA's. I'm not sure I understand this thread though. Price has little to do with anything. It's all about wether you want something enough. Just look at peripherals for the sim market. If you are going to complain about 60 dollars, are you OK with 600 for a joystick?