Regarding the hype: yep, ED is an specialist on hype marketing. They do what I call "hype and drop": they hype up a new feature or product in the newsletters, in the videos, and then they drop a new sale, a new (unexpected) module, and once their pocket is full, they drop the development of old products to focus on the newer ones. Rinse and repeat. They've always done that, but since the Razbam debacle people got wind of it and are very wary to buy new things. As you said, ED has to hype things in order to sell more, and they are very good at it, but it only makes the DCS experience broader, but not deeper.
I'm not sure that they drop development on old products. I'm sure they move some people off of those projects as they mature, which is pretty reasonable and normal. But until a product is fully complete and bug free enough I believe they have teams dedicated to them. But, you make some good points and I think what you're saying about broader not deeper rings true.
@311Gryphon yeah, you are right. I exaggerated when I said they drop the development of old products. But they do increase their technical debt at the release of new products. They eventually deliver, but it is taking them longer and longer to do so. And it gives the impression they could or should be working on things to make the increase the sense of immersion. They promised a new and reworked Supercarrier ATC, but it is nowhere to be seen, not even mentioned in the newsletters. Although I recognize that the fog and the Marshalls will increase immersion by a lot. I've played a few hours of IL-2 and BMS, and they do make you feel like you are part of that world. DCS does not do that, and I believe they should be focusing on this and not on new incomplete maps and helicopters. And don't get me wrong, I love DCS. It is basically the only sim I fly today, and I want to see it thrive and grow.
@@sloppydog4831 Ah yeah, I tend to agree with that. I've never felt that drawn in by IL-2 or BMS but I don't play them as much and I don't play them correctly. If you're referring to things like ATC then yeah, that's 100% correct. The ATC in DCS is a huge distraction that pulls you out of the simulator and reminds you that you're operating in code. If they could fix that, the ground AI behavior, and some damage models I think those would be huge wins.
I happily pay for an update for any of my favorite modules, as long as it's more then overdue bug fixes and eye candy. Specially for the F-5E some flight model and avionics updates would be welcome. The proof will be in the pudding.
Oh, boy. Lots of DCS TH-camr went on vocal about this on social media. Anyway, the Black Shark 3 and A-10C II paid upgrades did bring to the table new features. The F-5 paid upgrade it seems that is bringing some new high def textures and bug fixes. Not even all the promised features are done, some are in the "coming soon" state. In the end, you are paying for a overdue patch that is not even ready yet. This is the factor that is making lots of users mad with ED: lots of promises and not so much on deliveries. They end up delivering, bit it takes them too long to do so.
Thing is I could grudgingly swallow the $10 upgrade for an old module, but to see the list of promised features with "(coming soon)" next to them. They're pulling Early Access on a plane upgrade. And $10 says the ADI is still broken.
I would also pay for updates to existing modules that would almost be classified as different models, ie an F-16A or F-16D, although some I would expect would be completely new or different versions… full fidelity F-15C, F-18E Super Hornet.
I would as well. If it's a different block/version that has different features (even if there is some commonality) I'd pay for the other version. That would also avoid confusion with which version is used for which missions and things like that.
@@ryanw1433 Yeah, that was my main point. Also it was pretty confusing in the Facebook post because they listed the bug fixes like it was part of the new features being part of the update. I think it was more clearly stated elsewhere, but there has been a lot of confusion about it. Anyway, yeah I think I'd have left that out of that part of the comms and maybe said somewhere else that they're including bug fixes for both versions.
The legacy Black Shark and A-10 are both still functional, so I'm not worried about that aspect. I believe the vortices etc are going to be added to the unremastered F5 too. Paying extra for something I've already bought still feels greasy, but if it's a model upgrade on par with the black shark III maybe I'll still pull the trigger on it. I expressed the same feelings about the black shark and had a bunch of "just buy it bro, you can't afford ten dollars? I'd pay 30 dollars, price of a coffee, price of a coffee" people responding, but whatever. It still bugs me that they added vortices to the J-11, but the Su-27 and 33 still don't have any.
Ha ha ha...yeah it's really weird to me when people want to posture up like their purchasing decisions mean they are highly successful and yours mean you aren't. Oh well.
One thing I like about DCS is that it sticks with its environment unlike 1c who will drop a project for another in a hot second although I luv's iL-2 I still am a paying customer. Back to the F5 i got it for less than ten bucks with the Flaming Cliffs 2024 along with the F86, and MiG15 what a deal. I also spent many hours playing Lock on Modern air Combat so the standard key commands were well received by me. So for the time being I am thrilled with DCS. Back to the the video topic. There may be a market for the F-5 Remastered, however it does not interest me at all. I know not to criticize ED in any way or you get placed into the outskirts of society. Happy and Un-Happy with DCS is a toggle switch on my HOTAS.
LOL, I need to bind my happy/unhappy functions I think. That's pretty funny! DCS is pretty solid, all things considered. I just gave a short presentation on DCS to my project team at work for a fun thing we were doing. They were all pretty impressed with it. They're software devs for a different kind of software so it was fun showing them the kinds of stuff other companies are doing in other markets.
What a weird take. 1C stuck with the same engine for 10 years, way longer than Asobo. I think that DCS is actually getting dragged down by legacy code, which you can tell by how many things they break when they change things.
@@aapje interesting to know, thanks. Cliffs of Dover went with their own game engine in 2011 by the end of 2013 they were done with it. I think the game developers all share the same strategy string out the players for $.
Simple: 1/ make a survey of the most requested features. 2/ make a roadmap with deadlines based on those features 3/ keep the deadlines - and, if unable - communicate the reasons + new deadline 4/ if you do not have cash, do a kickstarter for those features
Oh man, 7000 man-hour is more than five years of work for one man just for making more detailed cockpit and enhance aircraft model. Plus new textures and new pilot model (or just placing and tweaking camera, not sure how to understand this)? waw, I want to work in ED!
I don’t think 7,000 is that much, especially if they’re talking about the time spent on the original plus the remaster. And they’re probably using coders who are bright, but live in areas with lower costs of living and not paying them $50 an hour.
Community Communication has always been an issue with ED. However, there secretive attitude towards communication mode is there own downfall. We have the aircraft for Vietnam yet no map, we have BMS that has the Adriatic and Korean Peninsular, if you want to beat them then they are going to have to compete and they are not. Now with Falcon 5 on the horizon those calls are going to get louder and more persistent and they simply have not got it in them to communicate that, even though we are only a few weeks away from 2025 and Beyond. Also MSFS is adopting weapons, how is that going to effect the DCS Model? I want DCS to thrive but they simply struggle to get products out to us and they seem to not listen to the community.
yup some people are going "its only $10" - whats worst is ED (Ninelines) sarcastic responses, or their claims of 7000man hours to update a model (no way - or they were ripped off. But......little $10 updates for every single module out there starts adding up, and only a matter of time til old is abandoned (I dont recall seeing any regular A10C update in recent times- tho I could be wrong)
The original A-10C is still working and it was one of the more complete and robust modules anyway. I assume that if they fix a bug with the A-10C II that also applies to the older one that they'll patch it, but I don't know. Anyway, in that case the original A-10C was a solid enough module that it can still stand on its own, for now anyway. Even if they do abandon it. And yeah, the sarcastic remarks are always counter productive to their cause. I know it gets old answering the same questions over and over again (I've had to do it much of my career). But you should never go out of your way to make the customer feel dumb or like they misunderstood something basic. There's nothing quite like reading a confusing Eagle Dynamics update then asking for clarification then being treated like a moron for their bad communication. It's not always their fault, but they also need to take some lessons in bedside manner.
I just think it's a fair business model. Every other sim in the market does this. I would rather pay from time to time an "upgrade" for a plane that I have, so it keeps getting developed and modernized than pay every few months for an incomplete plane, or a subscription model with monthly fee. Even the core sim, Asobo just released a new version of MSFS with a lot of new features. LR released some time ago X-Plane 12. PMDG from time to time has an upgrade, just like FlightFactor, Colimata, every other developer.
That sounds reasonable if it's done right. I'm just not a big fan of paying for what feels like a one off upgrade that doesn't add any new features but isn't an actual replacement. I'm pretty much against subscription models and refuse to play any games that do that. ED has stated in a few places they don't ever plan on doing that (at least for now) so I don't think it's something we need to worry about. And I could be persuaded to come over to the subscription thing just for DCS if it looked right and was priced right.
@@311Gryphon I played WoW for a long time, so I can't really talk about subscription. Ofc it must be done right, but I think a visual upgrade is a feature by itself. Especially when it's optional, the old plane won't get locked or lose features like some X-Plane addons did
@@RogueBeatsARG They are calling it "remastered" whereas the detractors are saying it's "just an update." You can twist language to fit your political/business needs. The reality is the product was improved, which required development time (money). They have to get that back somehow. You can argue they will get it back in good will, which is certainly possible, but it's also valid that a business charges money for their services.
@ Bro... its just a texture update. a modder could do that for free, if you want to cope and justify your bad monetary decition its ok, its your money but dont try to go all intelectual on me.
Regarding the hype: yep, ED is an specialist on hype marketing. They do what I call "hype and drop": they hype up a new feature or product in the newsletters, in the videos, and then they drop a new sale, a new (unexpected) module, and once their pocket is full, they drop the development of old products to focus on the newer ones. Rinse and repeat. They've always done that, but since the Razbam debacle people got wind of it and are very wary to buy new things. As you said, ED has to hype things in order to sell more, and they are very good at it, but it only makes the DCS experience broader, but not deeper.
I'm not sure that they drop development on old products. I'm sure they move some people off of those projects as they mature, which is pretty reasonable and normal. But until a product is fully complete and bug free enough I believe they have teams dedicated to them. But, you make some good points and I think what you're saying about broader not deeper rings true.
@311Gryphon yeah, you are right. I exaggerated when I said they drop the development of old products. But they do increase their technical debt at the release of new products. They eventually deliver, but it is taking them longer and longer to do so. And it gives the impression they could or should be working on things to make the increase the sense of immersion. They promised a new and reworked Supercarrier ATC, but it is nowhere to be seen, not even mentioned in the newsletters. Although I recognize that the fog and the Marshalls will increase immersion by a lot. I've played a few hours of IL-2 and BMS, and they do make you feel like you are part of that world. DCS does not do that, and I believe they should be focusing on this and not on new incomplete maps and helicopters. And don't get me wrong, I love DCS. It is basically the only sim I fly today, and I want to see it thrive and grow.
@@sloppydog4831 Ah yeah, I tend to agree with that. I've never felt that drawn in by IL-2 or BMS but I don't play them as much and I don't play them correctly. If you're referring to things like ATC then yeah, that's 100% correct. The ATC in DCS is a huge distraction that pulls you out of the simulator and reminds you that you're operating in code. If they could fix that, the ground AI behavior, and some damage models I think those would be huge wins.
I happily pay for an update for any of my favorite modules, as long as it's more then overdue bug fixes and eye candy. Specially for the F-5E some flight model and avionics updates would be welcome. The proof will be in the pudding.
Oh, boy. Lots of DCS TH-camr went on vocal about this on social media. Anyway, the Black Shark 3 and A-10C II paid upgrades did bring to the table new features. The F-5 paid upgrade it seems that is bringing some new high def textures and bug fixes. Not even all the promised features are done, some are in the "coming soon" state. In the end, you are paying for a overdue patch that is not even ready yet. This is the factor that is making lots of users mad with ED: lots of promises and not so much on deliveries. They end up delivering, bit it takes them too long to do so.
Thing is I could grudgingly swallow the $10 upgrade for an old module, but to see the list of promised features with "(coming soon)" next to them. They're pulling Early Access on a plane upgrade. And $10 says the ADI is still broken.
I would also pay for updates to existing modules that would almost be classified as different models, ie an F-16A or F-16D, although some I would expect would be completely new or different versions… full fidelity F-15C, F-18E Super Hornet.
I would as well. If it's a different block/version that has different features (even if there is some commonality) I'd pay for the other version. That would also avoid confusion with which version is used for which missions and things like that.
As far as the bug fixes go, they’ve already said elsewhere, those will be included with the existing module
Agreed, but I think the video’s point is that such bug fixes shouldn’t be spotlighted in the marketing material.
@@ryanw1433 Yeah, that was my main point. Also it was pretty confusing in the Facebook post because they listed the bug fixes like it was part of the new features being part of the update. I think it was more clearly stated elsewhere, but there has been a lot of confusion about it. Anyway, yeah I think I'd have left that out of that part of the comms and maybe said somewhere else that they're including bug fixes for both versions.
The legacy Black Shark and A-10 are both still functional, so I'm not worried about that aspect. I believe the vortices etc are going to be added to the unremastered F5 too.
Paying extra for something I've already bought still feels greasy, but if it's a model upgrade on par with the black shark III maybe I'll still pull the trigger on it. I expressed the same feelings about the black shark and had a bunch of "just buy it bro, you can't afford ten dollars? I'd pay 30 dollars, price of a coffee, price of a coffee" people responding, but whatever.
It still bugs me that they added vortices to the J-11, but the Su-27 and 33 still don't have any.
Ha ha ha...yeah it's really weird to me when people want to posture up like their purchasing decisions mean they are highly successful and yours mean you aren't. Oh well.
One thing I like about DCS is that it sticks with its environment unlike 1c who will drop a project for another in a hot second although I luv's iL-2 I still am a paying customer. Back to the F5 i got it for less than ten bucks with the Flaming Cliffs 2024 along with the F86, and MiG15 what a deal. I also spent many hours playing Lock on Modern air Combat so the standard key commands were well received by me. So for the time being I am thrilled with DCS. Back to the the video topic. There may be a market for the F-5 Remastered, however it does not interest me at all. I know not to criticize ED in any way or you get placed into the outskirts of society. Happy and Un-Happy with DCS is a toggle switch on my HOTAS.
LOL, I need to bind my happy/unhappy functions I think. That's pretty funny! DCS is pretty solid, all things considered. I just gave a short presentation on DCS to my project team at work for a fun thing we were doing. They were all pretty impressed with it. They're software devs for a different kind of software so it was fun showing them the kinds of stuff other companies are doing in other markets.
What a weird take. 1C stuck with the same engine for 10 years, way longer than Asobo. I think that DCS is actually getting dragged down by legacy code, which you can tell by how many things they break when they change things.
@@aapje interesting to know, thanks. Cliffs of Dover went with their own game engine in 2011 by the end of 2013 they were done with it. I think the game developers all share the same strategy string out the players for $.
They couldn't have given us a refueling probe?
Simple:
1/ make a survey of the most requested features.
2/ make a roadmap with deadlines based on those features
3/ keep the deadlines - and, if unable - communicate the reasons + new deadline
4/ if you do not have cash, do a kickstarter for those features
In the newsletter, they said the bug fixes are gonna come to the original F5 as well free of charge so they’re not charging to fix the bugs
Yeah the Facebook post was just a touch confusing. And I'm good with I just don't think I'd have marketed it that way.
Oh man, 7000 man-hour is more than five years of work for one man just for making more detailed cockpit and enhance aircraft model. Plus new textures and new pilot model (or just placing and tweaking camera, not sure how to understand this)? waw, I want to work in ED!
I don’t think 7,000 is that much, especially if they’re talking about the time spent on the original plus the remaster. And they’re probably using coders who are bright, but live in areas with lower costs of living and not paying them $50 an hour.
@@ryanw1433 That's a good point. It could just be the total time. I hadn't thought of that.
@@ryanw1433 fair enough. My understanding was that the hours were spent only on the upgrade.
Community Communication has always been an issue with ED. However, there secretive attitude towards communication mode is there own downfall. We have the aircraft for Vietnam yet no map, we have BMS that has the Adriatic and Korean Peninsular, if you want to beat them then they are going to have to compete and they are not. Now with Falcon 5 on the horizon those calls are going to get louder and more persistent and they simply have not got it in them to communicate that, even though we are only a few weeks away from 2025 and Beyond.
Also MSFS is adopting weapons, how is that going to effect the DCS Model?
I want DCS to thrive but they simply struggle to get products out to us and they seem to not listen to the community.
yup some people are going "its only $10" - whats worst is ED (Ninelines) sarcastic responses, or their claims of 7000man hours to update a model (no way - or they were ripped off. But......little $10 updates for every single module out there starts adding up, and only a matter of time til old is abandoned (I dont recall seeing any regular A10C update in recent times- tho I could be wrong)
The original A-10C is still working and it was one of the more complete and robust modules anyway. I assume that if they fix a bug with the A-10C II that also applies to the older one that they'll patch it, but I don't know. Anyway, in that case the original A-10C was a solid enough module that it can still stand on its own, for now anyway. Even if they do abandon it. And yeah, the sarcastic remarks are always counter productive to their cause. I know it gets old answering the same questions over and over again (I've had to do it much of my career). But you should never go out of your way to make the customer feel dumb or like they misunderstood something basic. There's nothing quite like reading a confusing Eagle Dynamics update then asking for clarification then being treated like a moron for their bad communication. It's not always their fault, but they also need to take some lessons in bedside manner.
I suspect that the 7000 hours refers to all the man hours spend on making the F-5E, not just this upgrade. It seems like marketing hyperbole to me.
That's a good point. It never occurred to me that they may have had the marketing department spin it a little. But I bet you're right.
I just think it's a fair business model. Every other sim in the market does this. I would rather pay from time to time an "upgrade" for a plane that I have, so it keeps getting developed and modernized than pay every few months for an incomplete plane, or a subscription model with monthly fee.
Even the core sim, Asobo just released a new version of MSFS with a lot of new features. LR released some time ago X-Plane 12. PMDG from time to time has an upgrade, just like FlightFactor, Colimata, every other developer.
Subscription, but an annual fee is preferable, and it should be modest, like $5 per module.
That sounds reasonable if it's done right. I'm just not a big fan of paying for what feels like a one off upgrade that doesn't add any new features but isn't an actual replacement. I'm pretty much against subscription models and refuse to play any games that do that. ED has stated in a few places they don't ever plan on doing that (at least for now) so I don't think it's something we need to worry about. And I could be persuaded to come over to the subscription thing just for DCS if it looked right and was priced right.
@@311Gryphon I played WoW for a long time, so I can't really talk about subscription. Ofc it must be done right, but I think a visual upgrade is a feature by itself. Especially when it's optional, the old plane won't get locked or lose features like some X-Plane addons did
you need to PAY for an Update?
I think we should be paying a maintenance subscription annually. It would help keep things running smoothly.
@@ryanw1433 nah where i come from, Updates are Free, DLC is DLC but an Update? bruh DCS players getting scammed
@@ryanw1433 LMAO
@@RogueBeatsARG They are calling it "remastered" whereas the detractors are saying it's "just an update." You can twist language to fit your political/business needs.
The reality is the product was improved, which required development time (money). They have to get that back somehow. You can argue they will get it back in good will, which is certainly possible, but it's also valid that a business charges money for their services.
@ Bro... its just a texture update. a modder could do that for free, if you want to cope and justify your bad monetary decition its ok, its your money but dont try to go all intelectual on me.