A better way to do asset packs...

[Tank50us]

So, I was browsing a thread, and I got to thinking: "How can ED, or any third party release an Assset pack that doesn't tick people off?" Right now, you have situations where people can make a pack that is sold, or is free, and there's no grey area. If it's something that people have to buy, then those that don't buy it get locked out completely. In some cases, like with the WW2 Assets Pack, if you so much as have one dude with a Garand down on the map, you lock anyone without the pack out of the mission. The Super Carrier Module (SCM) runs into a similar issue: if you lack the pack, you can't land on the carrier or take off from it.

 

Now, I fully understand why this is the case. A lot of work goes into the making of these modules, and the people who make them don't work on hopes and dreams, since you can't give hopes and dreams to the cashier or landlord.

 

Now, is there a happy medium? I'd like to think so, and one such area where we can see that, is in the very planes we fly. You see, if I put an F-14 down in a mission, and someone doesn't own a Tomcat, they aren't excluded from the mission, they just can't fly the Tomcat. Now, sure, one could say the same thing about the SCM, but I'd argue that the SCM should still allow the most basic interaction with the ship (landing and taking off), but all of the other features (the PLAT Camera, direct control of the ship, the upcoming ready room, etc) they should be what's locked behind the pay-wall.

 

So, my proposal is thus:

 

Those that pay for an asset pack, we'll say for example, a JSDF Pack, they get certain perks that only come with the pack, such as taking direct control over certain units, as well as being able to fly any aircraft that are unique to the pack (For instance, say the Mitsubishi F1 was part of the pack). Those that don't pay for it, can still see the units, can still order them around (if they have Combined Arms), can still land or take-off from any ships in the pack, and don't have to worry about getting excluded from a mission if the mission designer put down a dude with a Type-64 Rifle down somewhere in the map, but just won't get access to the pilot/driver seat of any unique craft available.

 

So what do you guys think? Do ya think this would work? Or do you think I'm some crackpot? Discuss!

[Dragon1-1]

Not a bad idea on its own, but flyable aircraft are usually in their own module (they take a lot to make), and Combined Arms is a bit of a redheaded stepchild of DCS, so there's a problem of making sure the purchase actually offers something of value to its buyers. SC, if you could land on it without the DLC, would have very little reason to buy it (since everything else is basically eyecandy).

 

There's also an issue of disk space. The fact that WWII is a separate download had really helped me keep the install size down, so that it fits on my 500GB M.2 SSD. DCS really doesn't like being run off a HDD, so that's kind of important, especially with hardware prices as inflated as they are. It is possible to make something like Marianas a "free DLC", but adding a free DLC with a paid component would be technically complicated and I'm not sure Steam supports that sort of thing.

[MAXsenna]

I don't mean to be negative, but as you say this have been discussed to death elsewhere. So why start a new thread?
You now know who will show up here and what they will write!
80% are single players like me, and probably get the assets/SC to play missions and campaigns where required, along with the required module/map. On sales the cost is not that high anyway. And new players do get a first time 50% rebate anyway. That's how I feel about it.
But
I don't find your comparison with the SC a good one, as it doesn't break MP. Why should they be allowed to land exactly?
As for the assets, a solution could be non owners would still be alowed to join, as both you and others already have advocated for.
This is an expensive hobby, but compared to the hardware....

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[Crash *]

Is a very difficult subject. ED would also like to earn money with her work. Good work must be rewarded.

 

For example, I would like additional material for the Mi-8. I would love to have paramedics, stretchers and a working winch, and more. But helicopters are not as profitable as jets. And the Mi-8 is not a tank killer, so even fewer people who are interested. So why spend time and manpower to program all of this. You can make more money with the F-18.

 

The only thing I can think of would be a crowfunding for such an additional package. If there is enough in the pot, additional people are hired to take care of it. The money would already be there, so no risk.

The problem is, however, that in a few years all of the additional clutter has to be updated again, which again costs time and money. I have no idea for that now. Asking people to pay extra every few years becomes a questionable point with the current payment model.

 

Personally, I only have my PC and all of the expensive hardware for DCS World anyway. I would be happy about a way where everyone can get their extra stuff, without some feeling left out and the Devs get paid either.

[Callsign112]

27 minutes ago, MAXsenna said:

I don't mean to be negative, but as you say this have been discussed to death elsewhere. So why start a new thread?
You now know who will show up here and what they will write!
80% are single players like me, and probably get the assets/SC to play missions and campaigns where required, along with the required module/map. On sales the cost is not that high anyway. And new players do get a first time 50% rebate anyway. That's how I feel about it.
But
I don't find your comparison with the SC a good one, as it doesn't break MP. Why should they be allowed to land exactly?
As for the assets, a solution could be non owners would still be alowed to join, as both you and others already have advocated for.
This is an expensive hobby, but compared to the hardware....

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk
 

I just want to say, that was very well said... Thank you!

[Qiou87]

I think the SC is fine as it is. It doesn't break MP. The WW2 pack breaks MP by dividing the community ; there I see a problem.

Why not simply replace all assets with boxes of the size of the unit if the person doesn't have the asset pack? Therefore, if you don't pay, you can join the mission, but the units look bad. Fine, if you don't pay, you don't enjoy the nice work the devs did. At least you can play with your friends, and after a while of being tired to see boxes on the ground, you pay for the pack. It would make sense in my view: more people playing the game means more revenue down the line. Today we have a paywall that simply turns some people off. Adding boxes instead of the assets is to have the right target size, but not waste dev time on lower-quality models for example.

 

It would also possibly motivate other third parties to make asset packs, and mission makers to include as many of these shiny assets as possible. I would love for assets to be a profitable part of the DCS business model, but it simply cannot be if it divides our small community.

Edited October 12, 2021 by Qiou87

[MAXsenna]

I think the SC is fine as it is. It doesn't break MP. The WW2 pack breaks MP by dividing the community ; there I see a problem.

Why not simply replace all assets with boxes of the size of the unit if the person doesn't have the asset pack? Therefore, if you don't pay, you can join the mission, but the units look bad. Fine, if you don't pay, you don't enjoy the nice work the devs did. At least you can play with your friends, and after a while of being tired to see boxes on the ground, you pay for the pack. It would make sense in my view: more people playing the game means more revenue down the line. Today we have a paywall that simply turns some people off. Adding boxes instead of the assets is to have the right target size, but not waste dev time on lower-quality models for example.
 
It would also possibly motivate other third parties to make asset packs, and mission makers to include as many of these shiny assets as possible. I would love for assets to be a profitable part of the DCS business model, but it simply cannot be if it divides our small community.

You know, that is actually the best idea so far. Just like the servers where they have added the A-4. If you haven't installed it, you see an Su-27 or something!


Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[upyr1]

18 minutes ago, Qiou87 said:

Why not simply replace all assets with boxes of the size of the unit if the person doesn't have the asset pack? Therefore, if you don't pay, you can join the mission, but the units look bad. Fine, if you don't pay, you don't enjoy the nice work the devs did. At least you can play with your friends, and after a while of being tired to see boxes on the ground, you pay for the pack. It would make sense in my view: more people playing the game means more revenue down the line. Today we have a paywall that simply turns some people off. Adding boxes instead of the assets is to have the right target size, but not waste dev time on lower-quality models for example.

I think this would be fine- or a random vanilla asset of a similar type. Though I thought an asset cache could work too. This would keep what ever asset in a hidden temp file that would be a real pain to find so the assets would show up in a future mission unless it gets cleaned out due to a lack of space. Though I think a compromise approach would work best. Where you get a warning like this mission requires a download of X size 

[Mars Exulte]

People whinging about asset packs need to take a long walk off a short pier. You want the shiny toys? Pay for them. That's it. It's no different than every OTHER game that sells expansion packs or themed sets, and it's definitely no different than every other sim that in many cases charge for individual compounds, cities, structures.

 

[Tank50us]

32 minutes ago, Mars Exulte said:

People whinging about asset packs need to take a long walk off a short pier. You want the shiny toys? Pay for them. That's it. It's no different than every OTHER game that sells expansion packs or themed sets, and it's definitely no different than every other sim that in many cases charge for individual compounds, cities, structures.

 

 

Which is why I wrote this the way I did. The ones that don't pay just get the shiny thing to look at, and those with combined arms can tell it what to do, but if you drop the script for the pack, boom, you get all the cool stuff that comes with it, similar to the aircraft modules. But I also agree with the idea that it should still be an optional download for the sake of saving room on hard-drives (if ya don't want it, don't download it at all). And I'm not really complaining about it. I'm just trying to figure out a viable solution to something that is admittedly a complex issue.

[Shmegegge 1-1 Aero]

53 minutes ago, Mars Exulte said:

People whinging about asset packs need to take a long walk off a short pier. You want the shiny toys? Pay for them. That's it. It's no different than every OTHER game that sells expansion packs or themed sets, and it's definitely no different than every other sim that in many cases charge for individual compounds, cities, structures.

 

Hey, I'm open to donations

[Tank50us]

8 minutes ago, [TF-108] Aero said:

Hey, I'm open to donations

 

As am I! (and my group admittedly... servers cost monies ya know!)

[StevanJ]

3 hours ago, MAXsenna said:

I don't mean to be negative, but as you say this have been discussed to death elsewhere. So why start a new thread?
You now know who will show up here and what they will write!
80% are single players like me, and probably get the assets/SC to play missions and campaigns where required, along with the required module/map. On sales the cost is not that high anyway. And new players do get a first time 50% rebate anyway. That's how I feel about it.
But
I don't find your comparison with the SC a good one, as it doesn't break MP. Why should they be allowed to land exactly?
As for the assets, a solution could be non owners would still be alowed to join, as both you and others already have advocated for.
This is an expensive hobby, but compared to the hardware....

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk
 

[Callsign112]

On 10/12/2021 at 11:56 AM, Tank50us said:

 

Which is why I wrote this the way I did. The ones that don't pay just get the shiny thing to look at, and those with combined arms can tell it what to do, but if you drop the script for the pack, boom, you get all the cool stuff that comes with it, similar to the aircraft modules. But I also agree with the idea that it should still be an optional download for the sake of saving room on hard-drives (if ya don't want it, don't download it at all). And I'm not really complaining about it. I'm just trying to figure out a viable solution to something that is admittedly a complex issue.

While being able to jump in the vehicle and drive it around is a really big deal for me and others I am sure, that feature and the tech pack that provides it is completely separate from the assets themselves.

Being able to see the full featured environment without having to pay for it would likely have a negative impact on sales of the assets and their development. It would be sort of like allowing you to fly around in the Persian Gulf map without owning it. 

As a DCS World user, I realize I have received a lot of free assets, 2 free planes, and soon to be 3 maps for free. I also realize that there is a give and take that has to happen to make the whole thing work, and I think ED is doing their part. The suggestion above from @Qiou87 is probably one of the best approaches I have heard yet that might just work if the idea included all types of interaction. In other words, to be able to see the asset and destroy it with your plane, you would have to unlock those features with the assets pack. This would allow everyone to join, while maintaining the incentive for ED and its third parties to continue developing them. I think there is some logic in the argument that you should be able to take off and land on a block floating in the ocean if you want to join your friends, but if you want to enjoy the experience of the Super Carrier, you should have to support its development like everyone else. Everyone wins in this scenario.

I view plane/jet/helicopter modules quite different from the way I view the maps, and assets/tech packs. For me the planes/jets/helicopters are optional in the sense that I decide which modules I want to buy based on my interests. The maps and assets/tech packs are only optional in the sense that I will get them when I can afford them. I need all of the assets and maps if I want to maximize my options for creating authentic missions, or to join others that have done the same whether it be by downloading their creation as a single player mission, or joining them on a multi-player server. If I have all the assets and maps, I can go anywhere in my Mustang, and you can try following me in your Messerschmitt, or visa versa. To me, the maps and assets/tech packs should be considered an integral part of the DCS world sandbox I use to fly my favorite plane/jet/helicopter in.

Edited October 13, 2021 by Callsign112