Jump to content

Battlefield Productions - Third Party Content Provider, A vision for the future


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Gierasimov said:

When you BUY something, you can at least ask where is my moneys worth, beggars can't be choosers though.

 

Look. I'm not that far from your position. Actually I think that WWII asset pack is not that expensive, but for arguments sake: that whole thread is about that this is simply not true. CA is out now for how long? 8 years? And ground warfare simply lacks almost everything.

 

I have posted above that ED pretty much understands, what is missing and has it in some way on their agenda, but that interview happened now also some years back and CA/ground modelling etc. doesn't seem to enjoy any priority. But maybe 2023 when the choppers are more finalized and those pilots complain.

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, draconus said:

@StevanJ Your friends are clearly not into DCS, it's not because of some assets and you cannot do anything about it so get over it already. Other games are other games with different target market. You act like you don't see a difference. You can still enjoy WW2 birds in DCS MP if you want to and are on a budget. You buy on sale, fly in Caucasus, attack free asset targets... there you go with just 20 bucks.


Suggesting someone isnt a fan of the game because they cant afford it is actually really offensive, but i understand the point youre trying to make.
We do our best to enjoy WW2, but MP just isnt there. The popular servers all require 'the asset pack'.
Thats why we all work together in our squad to create the missions and campaigns that we feel benefit everyone, not just those who have paid for the asset pack.
When we build our campaign and missions, the getting new people involved is what is always about. Keeping them involved is down to ED/DCS.
 

And besides..
They each spent $80 on the Hornet plus the Maps, and they each contributed their part to the missions and campaigns I make with them (go to user files and check the top 3 rated files).
Its not about the assets. Its about the cost of the assets to enter online play. If thats going to happen with the introduction of new £70 'Tank Modules', but you wont be able to play the game online without the new £30 'modern asset pack', then youll have to start asking if it actually makes economic sense for anyone.

We all agree that DCS is far better than Il2 (bugs and all), but when it comes to actually getting together and playing online (which is massively shared target market) DCS lacks, and its due to the fact no-one can enter a popular server and experience the real game with with other people in the Warbirds.
When you account for the number of people who want to play online (go see how many servers are on Il2 multiplayer right now-), unless we see changes that limit people, and keep them out of servers due to any asset packs, we can be assured that DCS Warbirds and any furture modules will never really see any changes in numbers as we move to the future, and thats only going to hurt the game.

While im okay to pay for DLC and the luxuries of 'add-ons' not everyone else is. And unfortunately people who discriminate against those with poverty, simply dont understand why the popularity stays with Il2. Not everyone has the money to buy every single module. So when it comes to money, we have to go with the game thats 1- most popular and 2- best value.

While DCS by far has the market for modern jets, it just doesnt when you look at Warbirds. And that outlook can be shared on with the prospect of a FPS style module in the future.
And ill always say that ED/DCS can charge us as much as they want for Modules, but dont charge us for new assets.

Having a 16 year old explaining that they want 'the £70 tank module' for christmas is fine, having them explain that they'll also need the '£30 modern asset pack' to play it, is not.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(the following applies to both community mods and DLC assets packs)

 

DCS sets out to cover more than 70 years of warfare, it's ludicrous to  expect ED to flesh out all these eras with air, ground and naval units, free of charge.

No matter how vehemently a part of this community is opposed to assets packs and feel entitled to get them at no cost, there isn't a reality in which refusing to buy a product gets you said product for free.

 

But in the long run the current system will benefit neither the anti assets packs nor the pro assets packs.

The first group  is locked out of a serie of servers and SP missions/campaigns because they dont own a DLC while the 2nd group has less content to enjoy because server admins/mission designers are concerned about accessibility.

 

I discovered yesterday that the Aerobatic Online folks were running a modded server which doesn't require you to have any mods installed in order to join.

The missing mods are replaced with placeholders models.

Right now there are some limitations but if such a system could be expanded and become the norm, both for assets packs and mods, it seems to me everybody would win.


Edited by Eight Ball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Eight Ball said:

(the following applies to both community mods and DLC assets packs)

 

DCS sets out to cover more than 70 years of warfare, it's ludicrous to  expect ED to flesh out all these eras with air, ground and naval units, free of charge.

No matter how vehemently a part of this community is opposed to assets packs and feel entitled to get them at no cost, there isn't a reality in which refusing to buy a product gets you said product for free.

 

But in the long run the current system will benefit neither the anti assets packs nor the pro assets packs.

The first group  is locked out of a serie of servers and SP missions/campaigns because they dont own a DLC while the 2nd group has less content to enjoy because server admins/mission designers are concerned about accessibility.

 

I discovered yesterday that the Aerobatic Online folks were running a modded server which doesn't require you to have any mods installed in order to join.

The missing mods are replaced with placeholders models.

Right now there are some limitations but if such a system could be expanded and become the norm, both for assets packs and mods, it seems to me everybody would win.

 


I agree, its the example of buying the Supercarrier, then being able to fly with those that have it, without having to go out and buy it to enjoy it.
There should be no exclusions for anyone when trying to enjoy the game.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Eight Ball said:

I discovered yesterday that the Aerobatic Online folks were running a modded server which doesn't require you to have any mods installed in order to join.

The missing mods are replaced with placeholders models.

Right now there are some limitations but if such a system could be expanded and become the norm, both for assets packs and mods, it seems to me everybody would win.

I believe that is what Battlefield Productions was considering in one of their latest posts.  Lower end models or some such for people who didn't own them.  Some type of compromise, so people didn't get locked out of server play.  Though personally, I think around 90% or more people who play DCS play only single player.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That would be a fine compromise, and would also help those with lower-end machines. For a fast jet player, ground units don't have to be pretty, but they do have to be numerous. This eats into performance, particularly video memory, which is surprisingly limited even on the latest GPUs. With my 11GB variant of the 1080ti, I have more than everything but the latest Radeons and the 3090 (and Titan RTX, but I never heard of anyone using that). Considering how much video memory the maps and aircraft eat up, anything on the ground needs to be optimized with that in mind. I think DCS already has trouble because of video memory, and it's particularly problematic because the cost of getting much more than 16GB is enormous.

 

If you drive a helo, or a tank, or even something like the A-10, this calculation might be different, but by far, most people only see the vehicles in the TGP, so while they can't be too ugly, they don't need 4K textures, either. Let's face it, if you have enough disposable income for a graphics card with 24GB of video memory, you can afford an asset pack.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team

Please try and stick to the threads topic. 

 

 

thank you

 

smallCATPILOT.PNG.04bbece1b27ff1b2c193b174ec410fc0.PNG

Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status

Windows 11, NVIDIA MSI RTX 3090, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 64GB DDR @3200, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, HP Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/27/2021 at 7:45 AM, StevanJ said:

then youll have to start asking if it actually makes economic sense for anyone

 

  Video games do not make ''economic sense'' period. Nor do most hobbies. They are leasure activities, ie ''luxuries'' and serve no purpose other than passing time. You either enjoy it or not. You either consider it ''worth it'' or not. This ''Oh why would I pay $60 for THIS and THIS when I could spend $60 on THIS instead'' approach is irrelevant. You're minmaxing your wallet as to which parts of a video game you're going to buy based off arbitrary ''worthiness''. If a certain group of people are so hard up for cash they can't afford a certain hobby they should probably consider another hobby.

 

  You're not going to get DCS: Arma Edition without paying for it, nor is it remotely reasonable to expect that. You're not going to get DCS: WWII without paying for it, when creating that in the first place means ''everything from scratch''. They provide one rough playpen for free, if you prefer the red or yellow instead, then you have to buy it.

 

  What these guys are proposing is basically Combined Arms 2. Whether they do it, or ED does it, you're going to have pay for it either way, because the original is outdated and substantially improving it to the level people want will take a lot of time and money = you're going to have to pay for it. At least this way you have a better expectation of it being done in a timely fashion as ED themselves are stretched a bit thin overhauling the engine and working on a few of their own modules. Also priorities, this is a flight sim first and foremost by nature, at least for the time being. If you want other stuff prioritised, paying somebody to do so is the best option.

  • Like 5

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mars Exulte said:

 

  Video games do not make ''economic sense'' period. Nor do most hobbies. They are leasure activities, ie ''luxuries'' and serve no purpose other than passing time. You either enjoy it or not. You either consider it ''worth it'' or not. This ''Oh why would I pay $60 for THIS and THIS when I could spend $60 on THIS instead'' approach is irrelevant. You're minmaxing your wallet as to which parts of a video game you're going to buy based off arbitrary ''worthiness''. If a certain group of people are so hard up for cash they can't afford a certain hobby they should probably consider another hobby.

 

  You're not going to get DCS: Arma Edition without paying for it, nor is it remotely reasonable to expect that. You're not going to get DCS: WWII without paying for it, when creating that in the first place means ''everything from scratch''. They provide one rough playpen for free, if you prefer the red or yellow instead, then you have to buy it.

 

  What these guys are proposing is basically Combined Arms 2. Whether they do it, or ED does it, you're going to have pay for it either way, because the original is outdated and substantially improving it to the level people want will take a lot of time and money = you're going to have to pay for it. At least this way you have a better expectation of it being done in a timely fashion as ED themselves are stretched a bit thin overhauling the engine and working on a few of their own modules. Also priorities, this is a flight sim first and foremost by nature, at least for the time being. If you want other stuff prioritised, paying somebody to do so is the best option.


For the last 5 years the 'freemium' business model has driven software, 'leisure' activities and other hobbies.
You want to try golf? go pitch and put- Pay £6.50 to rent a club, a golf ball, and play it. Want to do more? Buy your own clubs and join a Golf Club.
You want to to get into RC Cars/Airplanes? You buy the cheapest you can fly it/drive it in the park, and then join an RC club- the more you get into it.
You want to get into a modern flight sim? Buy the DCS FA18 and fly with other people (including people who have other modules- AND the supercarrier) on Caucasus .
Theres a reason why joining a club for your hobby is free, Ive been a member of a shooting club for 2 years, and ive never had to pay anything.
We buy the targets from the club, and buy the pellets too, to which they make their money- Its like paintball.

Thats the business model, that you and i agree works for everyone, and is fair to get involved in.

Should i want to get into DCS Warbirds, Or DCS Combined Arms 2, Ill pay for it, ill take ac chance like every other module Ive paid for.
But not being able to play Warbirds or the Combined Arms 2 module because i havent been able to get into a server due to an asset pack- or my friend hasnt been able to purchase an asset pack because he cant afford it, should not rule me out of the gameplay online. Those same players, like myself will just go to other games, when really we should be trying to keep them with DCS, and increase the number of the player base making it more popular.

Should i have to pay for a £70 DCS Combined Arms 2, then a £30 DCS Modern Asset pack, like ive done for the Warbirds, then I wont buy it. Because whats the point in playing a game- i cant play with friends.
Thats the lesson ive learnt from Warbirds and the DCS WW2 Asset Pack.
My squad has grown on Discord from 20 to nearly 200 players on Discord, and while DCS is better, if we want to dogfight, we all just log in to Il2, because anyone can play.
Its THE only reason why Il2 has over 50 servers online now (go check) FILLED with WW2 players, and DCS has only 1 server (go check) with around 22 players.

If i have to purchase an Asset Pack to enjoy the 'Combined Arms 2' module, then ill pass on the module.
While im sure the 'die hard fans will' buy the pack, and make an argument for the pack to stay, they'll be playing with a number similar to those on the warbirds right now.
Or theyll just enjoy the single player side of it.

Instead Ill just play on Il2 Tank Crew, because thats the most popular. Or Battlefield, or the new upcoming sequel from EA to Battlefield 4.
Im sure if Battlefield Productions outlay the cash for this module, and no one plays on it, it wont be around for long.
If they can integrate the game to allow anyone to 'jump right in' and experience the battlefield, then itll probably become a serious module for serious people.

Without the players, there is no game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Thas post has converted on another "They have split the comunity", "give me free", "Company X make Y", please, dont continue hijack the post.

If someone like continue the OT. Open them on the "Chit Chat" section.

 


I apologise if that how it comes across.
I was contributing an opinion to the original post, that im 100% behind new growth via new modules, but i was only explaining the reason to why i probably wouldnt buy a future module.

Might i also add that ive spent nearly £1000 on Modules, and ill continue to purchase new modules until i reach £2000.
Ill do my best to continue to support DCS in anyway i can, and keep the community together while i try my best to push numbers into the game.

My squad also do there utmost to grow player numbers, by creating new campaigns and missions for the game in there free time..

Not a single one of them expect anything for free.
And all we can do is try to explain why we wont play certain modules and why in the hope it benefits the game, and the player numbers.
I didnt think i was trying to split the community. Just voicing an opinion.
However- Ill back out, as i think my opinion is being mis-read and misconstrued and i dont want anyone to be offended..
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, StevanJ said:

And all we can do is try to explain why we wont play certain modules and why in the hope it benefits the game, and the player numbers.

 

I don't think you understand what you're trying to say.

So, you're issue is not that you're poor, obviously.  You, or your friends, just don't want to have to buy assets.

Which is what Battlefield Productions is probably mostly going to be about.  You're in the wrong thread.  If you want free assets, you need to talk to ED, not BP.

To me, an asset and a module are basically the same thing.  You're going to have to pay for it.

If you don't like that, you're in the Wrong Game.  Sorry if you're friends can't afford it, but that's not BP's problem.

And neither is it ED's or the Communities'.  This is a business who is selling a product.

Enough.

BP said something about they were considering what to do on servers when people didn't own the assets, a few posts back, but this is all VERY early, so who knows what is going to happen.

We hardcore players are not going to let people like you derail what we have been waiting YEARS for.  FINALLY, a Third Party has taken interest in The Ground, Vehicles, and AI.

THANK YOU SO MUCH BATTLEFIELD PRODUCTIONS!


Edited by 3WA
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, 3WA said:

 

I don't think you understand what you're trying to say.

So, you're issue is not that you're poor, obviously.  You, or your friends, just don't want to have to buy assets.

Which is what Battlefield Productions is probably mostly going to be about.  You're in the wrong thread.  If you want free assets, you need to talk to ED, not BP.

To me, an asset and a module are basically the same thing.  You're going to have to pay for it.

If you don't like that, you're in the Wrong Game.  Sorry if you're friends can't afford it, but that's not BP's problem.

And neither is it ED's or the Communities'.  This is a business who is selling a product.

Enough.

BP said something about they were considering what to do on servers when people didn't own the assets, a few posts back, but this is all VERY early, so who knows what is going to happen.

We hardcore players are not going to let people like you derail what we have been waiting YEARS for.  FINALLY, a Third Party has taken interest in The Ground, Vehicles, and AI.

THANK YOU SO MUCH BATTLEFIELD PRODUCTIONS!

 


Ive read every one of BP's posts, including their view of assets, I understand what im saying.
Its very clear you dont understand my issue, Or what im trying to say.. You havent even properly read my last post.

I dont think my opinion needs re-visiting.

"People like me"..? Look- Id really appreciate it if you can keep this towards topic, without trying to diversify the post and segregate me into a corner, I came to share an opinion- Its done. Just add a 'like, laugh or whatever and move on without trying to make this offensive towards whatever it is you dont like about my opinion..

'Hardcore players'? Im not sure why you feel that the squad i fly with isnt Hardcore, when a majority of the Campaigns, and Missions theyve built are currently rated number 1 on user files, by the current player base.
Every single one of the people i fly with go out of there way to contribute as much as they can to make this game a fulfilling experience and getting others into the servers, even offering a 'Module Giveaway' at christmas.
I think youre obviously looking for an argument, and id appreciate it, if you could leave it here.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

haven't noticed this till now, did some reading of the forum. maybe i missed it and its already been answered.

 

i have my own dedicated server... as it works now with "mods" i have to install the module on server for those with the module and then those that don't have the module are excluded at least from the mission that includes the module on the server. i assume this works the same way. 

 

every dcs update would i have to re-install this module?

 

if i were to put this on my server would i have to purchase a module just for the server?

 

i imagine there would be additional add ons of new vehicles for additional price. how would this work if the server was updated but the users didn't purchase the additional vehicles, or the server wasn't updated and the user had purchased the additional vehicles?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Battlefield ProductionsSingle Player / Multiplayer "Live Training Ranges"............ heavily needed with various landscapes and ground target layouts.

 

Again once the Dynamic Campaign engine and new Theaters at different era's and Maps are developed a great opportunity to have more ground content and further advance the sim to encompass more.

 

Tactical and Networked Ops night and day Air Land Sea exercises with radio (menu) command player controlled functionality. 

 

More toys............ is GOOD! 😉:joystick:

 

Example .............  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Edited by WRAITH
  • Like 2

 

DCS FORUM SIG.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/26/2021 at 3:28 PM, 3WA said:

>> I want something.

>> I don't want to pay for it.

 

THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS.

This is what destroys other major sims.  People waiting around for years for semi, hazily promised stuff that never appears because said people didn't want to pay for it.  These people aren't ED.  They are coming in to build what ED did not.  The Ground.  So you are going to have to pay them to do it, the same as you pay ED for planes.

 

If you want to play on the servers, you're going to have to buy the assets they are using.

 

The Ground is what is going to bring people to DCS.  Imagine eventually playing ARMA and CRYSIS like mods in DCS.  THAT is what is going to bring people to this sim.  And many of them will be willing to PAY for it.

 

Imagine playing something like Crysis' Power Struggle in a DCS:World mod.  Ka-50's vs. Apaches in a map with varying terrain, buildings, canyons, etc.  People running around with stingers and igla's trying to take control of various areas.  Player controlled study-level sim tanks, IFVs, APCs, SAMs, and AAA prowling the area.  A Massive Realistic Sim FPS.  A DREAM a lot of people have had for YEARS.

Yeah, I know infantry and such will probably start as a more RTS style control, like Combined Arms, but I hope to eventually reach full FPS.

 

And the more people that come in, the more DCS and the Third Parties can make.  Then, maybe the prices will start coming down a bit, to draw in more and more.

 

Well said.

 

I think it comes down to whether or not you are here to support the reason your here.

 

Anyone frequenting Starbucks could easily spend $180.00US/ month there just to have someone pour their coffee, but $70, or $35 on sale for the WWII assets and CA is too much? Lets see, 20 large what ever your drinking plus a microwave warmed muffin = 5minutes preparation time = 100 minutes, or 1.7 man hours vs 100's of man hours in research/design/development of any given map/plane/vehicle.

 

And anyone with the same outlook that bought the F14/F18/F16 and expected to get the Persian Gulf map for free because of it might be shocked to learn that we would probably still... be waiting for the Persian Gulf map.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, it's all priorities.  You have to pay for what you want.  It just comes down to how much do you want it?  Of course, if the company wants to sell it, they need to offer it for a price people can be comfortable with.  Supply and demand.  It's all a balancing act.

 

I want an actual, decent HOTAS, but the prices are pretty high.  Been wanting one for years.  Priorities, priorities, priorities.

 

Nothing in Life is for free.


Edited by 3WA
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do some things for the infantry, various forces. Classical soldier, paratroopers, special force, JTACs (which really looks like JTACs). Some work for ground units there are. Regarding the award, all work deserves a salary. Whine for new vehicles or packs at 5€ or 10€ and spend behind 400€ for a hotas or 1000€ for a graphic card . I don't see where the problem is.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Worg said:

Whine for new vehicles or packs at 5€ or 10€ and spend behind 400€ for a hotas or 1000€ for a graphic card . I don't see where the problem is.

EXACTLY!

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Worg said:

Do some things for the infantry, various forces. Classical soldier, paratroopers, special force, JTACs (which really looks like JTACs). Some work for ground units there are. Regarding the award, all work deserves a salary. Whine for new vehicles or packs at 5€ or 10€ and spend behind 400€ for a hotas or 1000€ for a graphic card . I don't see where the problem is.


For the people that think everyone spends "400€ for a hotas or 1000€ for a graphic card . And don't see where the problem is. "
 


Not everyone can afford a Hotas or a £1000 GPU.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not saying otherwise. But that people constantly want all free, it's impossible. This year with ED we'll get some beautiful clouds and a new free ATC. I think we are lucky already on this side. 🙂

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Worg said:

I am not saying otherwise. But that people constantly want all free, it's impossible. This year with ED we'll get some beautiful clouds and a new free ATC. I think we are lucky already on this side. 🙂


100% behind an all accessible 64 player server that any person can play on with each of the modules they've paid for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, StevanJ said:


For the people that think everyone spends "400€ for a hotas or 1000€ for a graphic card . And don't see where the problem is. "
 


Not everyone can afford a Hotas or a £1000 GPU.

I'm am not sure what point the linked video is supposed to make? Even if the OP of the comment you were linking your video to would have used a 100 euro HOTAS, and a 400 euro GPU, the point being made would still be valid, you have to pay for it. An analogy would be like buying the RX580 and expecting to get the RAM for free.

 

One question about the video, do you know if the performance of the GPU is affected when the app is run in full screen mode?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

I'm am not sure what point the linked video is supposed to make? Even if the OP of the comment you were linking your video to would have used a 100 euro HOTAS, and a 400 euro GPU, the point being made would still be valid, you have to pay for it. An analogy would be like buying the RX580 and expecting to get the RAM for free.

 

One question about the video, do you know if the performance of the GPU is affected when the app is run in full screen mode?


The point of the video was to suggest that not everyone goes out and spends their money on expensive hardware to enjoy this game.
Some people can do with a basic setup and enjoy the basics, in order to enjoy the gameplay.

Some people might buy 'the tank module' but might not want to buy 'every other' ground unit module on offer from BP just to enjoy using the module in the the game.

If youd like any questions answered regarding the video, start a post and invite me to come discuss it, dont take the topic of discussion away from Battlefield Productions.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...