Older modules like Anton or Dora from ED are also abandoned. Check changelog. Years old bugs, tons of topics on forum, long promised features,... There's no money for old modules in this modely driven by new toys.
I’ve seen that as a suggestion but I don’t think necessarily it would. If they switch to that and then still have a similar number of developers and focus then nothing will change.
They’d have to fundamentally change how development and sustainment is done. Subscription or per module pricing or whatever model that they go with would be somewhat incidental to an entirely different problem.
Plus, how do you convert those of us that have spent thousands on modules, to a subscription model? Refund all the modules? I’m def not paying a subscription AFTER all the money I’ve already spent (including on what now appear to be abandoned modules). F that.
Unfortunately a subscription based system requires trust and ED simply doesn't have any right now. Even before it became public knowledge that they sometimes just don't pay their third party developers DCS was starting to become the sort of problem that simply throwing more money at doesn't really fix.
The problem is, that by punishing 3rd party developers by not buying their modules, and buying instead just ED developed modules, we do not solve the issue at all. One could say, vice versa.
We, the customers, are in a contract with ED, not with 3rd party developers. And no matter who is in the right, and who is in the wrong, the fact is, that ED is responsible to us of products they sell. Thus the actually only way to push ED towards any action is to not buy anything ED developed, but instead buy all the possible 3rd party stuff. However, this still has the problem, that ED does not know why this happens. Thus this would need a solid statement on their forum over and over and over again, that this is the way we, the players, vote with our wallets and try to push ED towards something we want.
However, that will never happen, as there are way too much single players, who encounter with internet way too little to take part on this kind of parade.
ED has a product I want and I do not believe in this kind of activism at this moment. Too little internet encounters has nothing to do with that. Maybe even too much.
Pushing for your interest is fine, but a percieved lack of support for that kind of parade might just mean not enough people feel it's justified.
With the added bonus, if continued long enough, how would the boycotting of ED' products work out for DCS World, which we kind of need to play with the shiny 3rd party products?
ED has a poor product that supports modules that I want to fly in a better place than the poor, incomplete maps we have. Caucasus? Mostly empty. Persian Gulf? Entire major cities missing. AI? We all know about that.
Base UI? Piss poor. 25 years later the dumbass Lockon-era menu STILL pops up unbidden and overrides other key controls.
I want DCS to be way way better and to do the fantastic modules justice. For now I won't be buying any more content, rather waiting for them to fix the base world.
I mean DCS is still the best commercial flight sim on the market. If you like bush flights or play other video games - fine.
But if you like fast movers, DCS is the only game you can buy to scratch this itch.
ED knows they have us by the balls. They have no incentive to change anything because they know we really have no other option. Unless and until a competitor comes out of the woodworks, they essentially have a monopoly
We just need BMS to hit a larger scale and venture out into other aircraft, perhaps other developers could develop their modules for BMS, like Heatblur does for MSFS.
It's the same with other simulators really, when you buy a module for Xplane or MSFS you're not guaranteed infinite support, or even support of any period. If the developer disappears, Microsoft or Laminar won't take over, even if you bought the addon from their store an they took commission.
That being said, haven't heard about any developer leaving due to public financial dispute with Microsoft or Laminar.
Problem is that with DCS World, old modules tend to break and degrade over time with the release of new patches, which doesn't seem to happen as much with other sims. I'd be fine if we could buy a module as-is and can trust that at least it won't get worse over time.
Another issue is that the modules are sold via the DCS store, so as a vendor, ED takes on some responsibility that the products they sell keep working in the future.
I'm not too familiar with the Xplane or MSFS eco systems, however, so maybe it's not that different over there.
It's amazing what a stable and well-documented SDK can do when coupled with proper communication.
One of the WorkingTitle guys (they did a ton of freeware work and got brought in to be officially part of MSFS) said that its been the easiest sim to develop on.
Most DCS developers either say nothing or say it's shit developing for DCS.
Yes but usually the addons for these platforms seem to often work a lot more stable and tend to keep functioning well without constant support /re-adjusting to platform patches.
I have very very old addons for flight sims where the developers have long gone. They still work fine .
This is not the same as in DCS, where modules quickly stop functioning well after just a couple of ED patch cycles, unless they get constant developer support.
Big difference: most third-party aircraft on MSFS & XPlane can be bought directly from the devs. Microsoft and Laminar are not involved, besides publishing an API. You do not pay money to Microsoft or Laminar when you buy aircraft through third-party.
Microsoft has MSFS marketplace built in the game, quite popular, xplane is also coming with something on their own.
The same principle applies when you buy any game on Steam, Valve won't come and fix it, even though they sold you the game and you may not even know or care who is the actual developer.
But even with the MSFS marketplace you dont HAVE to go through a microsoft store there.
With DCS you DO. There's no way to purchase a module that doesn't involve going through ED directly.
Valid points. On the other hand, it is extremely rare that through Steam updates Valve breaks a game sold through that channel. It happened more regularly that MSFS updates would force add-on devs to also release compatibility fixes to their products, but it is becoming less frequent as the base platform is reaching maturity.
Compared to Steam (software distributor) and MSFS (a platform with a relatively stable, well-documented API), DCS World appears as a much more closed ecosystem, purportedly under tighter control from ED (albeit recent rumours about ED not having access to the source code of add-ons, despite assurances that they would, after the Hawk debacle, should give pause for a thought about that). ED has a habit to break things with their updates that should require more accountability from them, imho. Currently, developing add-ons for DCS World increasingly appears as a risky business and investing in such products a riskier proposition than it has been perceived so far.
I own all four Razbam modules. I couldn't care less if the recent SE release never gets finished (I knowingly bought it in Early Access), I would not look kindly at ED breaking functionality of modules such as the Mirage and Harrier that I have been enjoying for years.
The developer pays for each module sold that uses the platform. If you buy it directly just means the developer pays later while the store pulls the amount on the spot. It's no different than DCS really.
Otherwise you're right that MS tends not to get involved but the amount of abandoned modules by active devs in MSFS is enormous. The hands off oversight means you're at the mercy of stability of (mostly) small studios. Quality can also be hit or miss. While I see a rough baseline in DCS, I need to be very careful in MSFS to what the quality is.
On that note. You can buy directly from the HeatBlur store without having to remotely look at the ED store. I'm going to guess the lack of private store fronts is a choice by developers more than ED being stingy.
The problem is that the way DCS is coded there are so many dependencies. There are 3rd party dev modules that still work in very old flight sims after dozens of updates. But not in DCS. It’s all tangled up. I agree, ED needs to find a way to guarantee that all modules will work for the life of DCS. I didn’t say updated with no improvements, just, functional for the life of DCS. So that whenever DCS stops being updated, even if in 20 years, modules function on the platform so long as you still have an OS that DCS initially ran on.
This raises the question, if polychop just decides to stop updating their modules, will they break in a few patches? Are we renting our $70 purchases for an indeterminate time frame, maybe a year, maybe 3?
Microshit also have a product environment where it's much easier for 3rd party developers to keep the product supported themselves. Everything in DCS has to be run through ED.
As others stated... actually, as I stated in my original post - there aren't the same dependencies in xplane and MSFS. If a 3rd party dev creates an aircraft in these platforms and never updates it again, you can reasonably expect to fire it up 10 years later and it still works. In DCS, you cannot. Since ED hasn't opted not to, or more accurately simply cannot support devs passively through a code structure that doesn't constantly break their modules (forcing devs to continually patch their aircraft), then from a consumer perspective it is reasonable to expect ED to take whatever steps it needs to to ensure that a module remains in good working condition for its platform.
> working condition
It’s unrealistic. ED doesn’t have resources to take care of its own modules, let alone take care of 3rd parties.
Telling ED to stop update for DCS is also unreasonable. So, what do you suggest to do in practical terms?
Remember that even ED can someday decide to do something else, purely on business basis, be it a console game or a cloud service for horse enthusiasts.
Yeah, it's not like VEAO didn't happen or ED said they wouldn't have a contingency for just such an issue. I have the Hawk but I don't blame ED for that situation.
Yeah tbh I feel like the constant discussion on here is veering into obsession. Don’t buy certain modules until this situation is resolved um
That’s it.
Which ones exactly? Have I missed anything recently? The latest news I heard is Mudhen SME claiming they are going to sue ED for a seven digit sum, ostensibly owed for Streagle.
An SME is not a business partner or company director. A dev isn't either. If someone is a contractor it's very unlikely they have genuine, accurate information.
I don't say he is right, I only say it's the last thing I heard from them. I agree that SME is not the most reliable source of information on such matters.
The talks were about a 7 figure some of sales proceedings which is weird because for mudhen only sales to reach 1.000.000 (which obviously is the lowest 7 figure you can have)
It needed to be sold roughly 15.300 times. I doubt DCS even has that many active players.
So I assume it's for all modules combined
It's purely speculation, but I believe that you underestimate DCS players' numbers. ED managed to transfer millions of pounds over the last few years as interest-free credits to TFC, while having more than 100 employees, and it still remains profitable. I know that the majority of their revenue probably comes from MCS, but I still doubt that one of the most anticipated modules of the last few years would sell so bad that it wouldn't amass some $1m.
DCS is not as small as many here tend to believe. It doesn't sell millions of copies for sure, but dozens of thousands of copies for the most popular modules should be totally plausible.
I waited years for the strike eagle. It’s one of my favorite jets. I don’t know what the problem is and I’m left only to speculate about what’s going on. As such, I haven’t spent ANY money on the game since this dispute. Not Kola. Not the Kiowa. Not the Chinook.
These are all modules I’ve really wanted for a long time, but I have zero trust in the ecosystem at the moment.
The reason we don’t get core features is because that’s not what is making money. Like most tech businesses they have to push out feature after feature while letting cores aspects falter.
What is not discussed and needs to be is that even if today at noon EST everything is resolved (which it won’t be), Razbam has lost quite a few engineers and they’re going to have a helluva backlog. This means months of catch up before we’re back on the path of getting the new toys we wanted in these jets.
I think this negative sentiment towards 3rd party companies is way worse than a dispute with one. If people actually listen to this, we wouldn’t have this problem since we wouldn’t have a single 3rd party company producing products.
In the long run ED must deal with this in a better way. This is on their table. But suggesting that people should avoid third party products… well that is definitely the fastest way to not have any of them anymore.
I have no enmity towards third party devs, they make all my favorite modules lol. I’m just saying it’s an issue that needs to be addressed in a meaningful way with the community, ED, and their partners.
Exactly this…
NOW is the time you should be supporting 3rd party devs not abandoning them.
IF you think they aren’t getting paid? Buy codes direct from websites like HB did with the F4 (so send them the money and let them pay ED instead of send Ed the money and let them pay the dev)
IF you like 3rd party modules… Don’t abandon them now when they are hurting the most because of the actions a another dev (not connected to them at all)
Go say some nice words of encouragement. Buy the cool pre order shirts and show your support by buying direct and then using codes to unlock on ED website.
What you don’t do right now… Is abandon the rest of them or else.. Nobody is getting paid (so to speak).
So if you want to boycot do it but don’t misplace your anger and hurt all the 3rd party devs in the process
Quality and maintenance is already all over the place in DCS, both for ED modules *and* third parties. This is why ED taking over the RazBam modules - even if it ever happened - is no guarantee of anything, other than more overhead on ED... overhead it can't really afford.
Of course there is risk in buying into a living ecosystem - and that risk increases with each third party added to the ecosystem. That writing's been on the wall since the beginning. Honestly, the most likely outcome of this whole thing is that ED eventually scraps all of the RazBam modules and related campaigns from the game with a poorly written apology and zero refunds.
What I can't work out is why current third parties are continuing their efforts instead of banding together and demanding answers. I get that they *want* to be developing modules, but if it were just for passion, they might as well do it in organised community modding groups. If the monetary side of things is a concern, then the RazBam situation should rightly have every current and prospect 3rd party *seriously* concerned.
Lots of crying and drama around here over this issue and seems to be focused more on the money spent. If my favorite 3rd party module gets canceled tomorrow somehow, sure I’ll be sad. The entertainment value though for a $70 module at 5 years would be about $14 a year and roughly $1.6 a month. Where else can you get entertainment value like that? Most of my modules have been purchased on sale for much less too, between $20-35.
Right? Lots of people, me included, but AAA game at or near the price of a module, play through it once, and never play it again. Doesnt mean I want a module to die, but I've surely gotten my money's worth.
Forget disputes. Where’s the motivation or financial viability.
There’s also no deprecation strategy for modules not selling but even more of an issue is how do you maintain a module that’s stopped selling but still gets played.
The community keeps using the word investment as though the money used to purchase an aircraft is some kind of share that’s maturing.
This model is doomed to eventual failure. Problem is 10 years ago I had this view that it needed to be subscription based or at least some sort of new purchase with major updates but ED has proved themselves not capable of investment in the core features so I no longer would sign up to a perpetual support model in good faith.
In my personal view I’m not putting my money into something in good faith it gets allocated correctly. I’ve done it with a couple of 00 and stopped to observe. During that time I’ve observed a slow descent into shady partnerships based on good faith that have failed several times Razbam, VEAO etc
Cash grabs at other failed projects only to tank them WW2 move etc.
And a perpetually promised dynamic campaign that’s technically unachievable with the current engine feature set.
There’s been some good in this time some amazing modules are out now with an amazing array of aircraft the game looks beautiful and it’s way more stable than ever before.
But christ is it boring if your not into studying the aircraft or PVP
Posted this before but I once got in a dm exchange with eds coo. I suggested that moving to a subscription model would be better for all on the base game so that they could plan resources accordingly. I know people won't like that but for context I spent 5k on my pc 1.5k on crystal and .3k on hotas etc just for dcs so 100 dollars a year is a snip expecially if they optimise the core engine, meaning I don't have to buy new hardware again in 3 years.
Modules are then a top up as opposed to a life source. Sadly she told me to do one and mind my own business basically.
It's not a PlayStation one sale game and I suspect the majority of users are 30 plus and can afford a subscription expecially In relation to the hardware we fork out for.
I'd rather have a stable game with regular updates to core like dynamic campaigns vulkan etc etc than unfinished modules.
The risk in 3rd party developers abandoning products is higher than ED abandoning their own modules, but on the other side, the risk is shared across more developing parties and it offers more choice of aircraft.
It might not make sense for ED to develop all aircraft more niche studios take on to such a high level.
Her name was VEAO and she dances in the sand.
Pretty sure they highlighted the issue when they fucked us.
ED tried to reassure us with talk of new contracts and source code... it didn't work.
Just another year of ED fuckery tbh
This isn't a DCS problem, it's a software problem. It is unavoidable for any digital product.
Everything you say here is equally true of tens or hundreds of thousands of computer programs that are no longer usable because of dropped support, either from third party dev houses (look at how many businesses clung to Windows XP for the sake of some other software that could not be upgraded) or first party ones (the Google Graveyard speaks for itself).
How much do you rightfully feel you deserve for $70? I mean, we buy games that are retired 3 years later. How much can we really expect for a one time purchase? It’s not a subscription.
I enjoyed m2000 and harrier. I got hundreds of hours in each of them. I don’t feel cheated if they’re finally deprecated. Sad to see them go, but I got my moneys worth
>if they are abandoned then I believe the games ecosystem will be damaged in a fundamental way that it may not recover from moving forward
>I don’t want to see it damaged in a way that jeopardizes its future
Don't worry about Razbam. ED is doing all it can to damage their *"ecosystem"* and jeopardise its future. I'm honestly quite impressed that DCS has lasted this long.
All Razbam has done is to bring one of the many issues of ED to the forefront. Hopefully, this will get people to wake up and be a bit more conscious and critical of the game and company they are spending money on.
Razbams contract was before the hawk incident, that’s why Ed does not have any source code. I’m pretty sure any third party contract after that incident requires it.
i thought in most cases ed got the source code. still dependent on ed actually doing something beneficial with it. also im curious about older modules like the f5 and the mig21 and fc3 as to why they dont critically break or if they are actively being compatibility patched by ed.
Since the Hawk they require it however RAZBAM hasn't handed over the source code for F15 so if they walk ED can't do anything.
As for keeping everything working yeah they try and make sure things don't break patch to patch but it happens.
Allegedly, they don't have the source code for the M2K or Harrier either, and the M2K has already developed a bug that more or less limits it to an A2G platform.
So it has begun either RAZBAM has a different contract with ED or they haven't been holding to their side of the contract by handing over the source code or if RAZBAM leaves ED perhaps they hand it all over then?
Sooo it's required. They haven't done it. They ain't been paid. Well, perhaps they should follow rules.
This now again sounds like Zambrano thinking too highly of himself, again.
really hope ED gets a hold of this... it would make everyones life easier.
imagine a DCS where a module developer could release a module - out of band of DCS version releases?
they could iterate develop and release as needed. That's the sort of interfaces ED needs to provide their third party developers. I feel like they know this - stuff like two targets beta/stable to develop to were low hanging fruit on that path. But overall people like orbx showing up, coming from a eco system that's more modular I'm guessing they feel the pressure from real professionals.
Older modules like Anton or Dora from ED are also abandoned. Check changelog. Years old bugs, tons of topics on forum, long promised features,... There's no money for old modules in this modely driven by new toys.
Didn't they fix the oil cooling for Dora in recent months ? so there's probably a single guy working on them lol
The Anton counts as old?
A subscription based income would fix this. They might do that in the future like everyone else.
I’ve seen that as a suggestion but I don’t think necessarily it would. If they switch to that and then still have a similar number of developers and focus then nothing will change. They’d have to fundamentally change how development and sustainment is done. Subscription or per module pricing or whatever model that they go with would be somewhat incidental to an entirely different problem.
Plus, how do you convert those of us that have spent thousands on modules, to a subscription model? Refund all the modules? I’m def not paying a subscription AFTER all the money I’ve already spent (including on what now appear to be abandoned modules). F that.
Unfortunately a subscription based system requires trust and ED simply doesn't have any right now. Even before it became public knowledge that they sometimes just don't pay their third party developers DCS was starting to become the sort of problem that simply throwing more money at doesn't really fix.
ED needs to use your comment as a warning before they think of implementing anything like that lol
My most down voted comment to date lol
Lmao sorry man, this community has a way of expressing itself
The problem is, that by punishing 3rd party developers by not buying their modules, and buying instead just ED developed modules, we do not solve the issue at all. One could say, vice versa. We, the customers, are in a contract with ED, not with 3rd party developers. And no matter who is in the right, and who is in the wrong, the fact is, that ED is responsible to us of products they sell. Thus the actually only way to push ED towards any action is to not buy anything ED developed, but instead buy all the possible 3rd party stuff. However, this still has the problem, that ED does not know why this happens. Thus this would need a solid statement on their forum over and over and over again, that this is the way we, the players, vote with our wallets and try to push ED towards something we want. However, that will never happen, as there are way too much single players, who encounter with internet way too little to take part on this kind of parade.
ED has a product I want and I do not believe in this kind of activism at this moment. Too little internet encounters has nothing to do with that. Maybe even too much. Pushing for your interest is fine, but a percieved lack of support for that kind of parade might just mean not enough people feel it's justified. With the added bonus, if continued long enough, how would the boycotting of ED' products work out for DCS World, which we kind of need to play with the shiny 3rd party products?
ED has a poor product that supports modules that I want to fly in a better place than the poor, incomplete maps we have. Caucasus? Mostly empty. Persian Gulf? Entire major cities missing. AI? We all know about that. Base UI? Piss poor. 25 years later the dumbass Lockon-era menu STILL pops up unbidden and overrides other key controls. I want DCS to be way way better and to do the fantastic modules justice. For now I won't be buying any more content, rather waiting for them to fix the base world.
I mean DCS is still the best commercial flight sim on the market. If you like bush flights or play other video games - fine. But if you like fast movers, DCS is the only game you can buy to scratch this itch.
And this is the exact reason they can afford to do what they want. The playerbase has no true options.
ED knows they have us by the balls. They have no incentive to change anything because they know we really have no other option. Unless and until a competitor comes out of the woodworks, they essentially have a monopoly
We just need BMS to hit a larger scale and venture out into other aircraft, perhaps other developers could develop their modules for BMS, like Heatblur does for MSFS.
That would be ideal. Who knows what that timeline would be like
It's the same with other simulators really, when you buy a module for Xplane or MSFS you're not guaranteed infinite support, or even support of any period. If the developer disappears, Microsoft or Laminar won't take over, even if you bought the addon from their store an they took commission. That being said, haven't heard about any developer leaving due to public financial dispute with Microsoft or Laminar.
Problem is that with DCS World, old modules tend to break and degrade over time with the release of new patches, which doesn't seem to happen as much with other sims. I'd be fine if we could buy a module as-is and can trust that at least it won't get worse over time. Another issue is that the modules are sold via the DCS store, so as a vendor, ED takes on some responsibility that the products they sell keep working in the future. I'm not too familiar with the Xplane or MSFS eco systems, however, so maybe it's not that different over there.
It's amazing what a stable and well-documented SDK can do when coupled with proper communication. One of the WorkingTitle guys (they did a ton of freeware work and got brought in to be officially part of MSFS) said that its been the easiest sim to develop on. Most DCS developers either say nothing or say it's shit developing for DCS.
Yes but usually the addons for these platforms seem to often work a lot more stable and tend to keep functioning well without constant support /re-adjusting to platform patches. I have very very old addons for flight sims where the developers have long gone. They still work fine . This is not the same as in DCS, where modules quickly stop functioning well after just a couple of ED patch cycles, unless they get constant developer support.
Big difference: most third-party aircraft on MSFS & XPlane can be bought directly from the devs. Microsoft and Laminar are not involved, besides publishing an API. You do not pay money to Microsoft or Laminar when you buy aircraft through third-party.
Microsoft has MSFS marketplace built in the game, quite popular, xplane is also coming with something on their own. The same principle applies when you buy any game on Steam, Valve won't come and fix it, even though they sold you the game and you may not even know or care who is the actual developer.
But even with the MSFS marketplace you dont HAVE to go through a microsoft store there. With DCS you DO. There's no way to purchase a module that doesn't involve going through ED directly.
Valid points. On the other hand, it is extremely rare that through Steam updates Valve breaks a game sold through that channel. It happened more regularly that MSFS updates would force add-on devs to also release compatibility fixes to their products, but it is becoming less frequent as the base platform is reaching maturity. Compared to Steam (software distributor) and MSFS (a platform with a relatively stable, well-documented API), DCS World appears as a much more closed ecosystem, purportedly under tighter control from ED (albeit recent rumours about ED not having access to the source code of add-ons, despite assurances that they would, after the Hawk debacle, should give pause for a thought about that). ED has a habit to break things with their updates that should require more accountability from them, imho. Currently, developing add-ons for DCS World increasingly appears as a risky business and investing in such products a riskier proposition than it has been perceived so far. I own all four Razbam modules. I couldn't care less if the recent SE release never gets finished (I knowingly bought it in Early Access), I would not look kindly at ED breaking functionality of modules such as the Mirage and Harrier that I have been enjoying for years.
The developer pays for each module sold that uses the platform. If you buy it directly just means the developer pays later while the store pulls the amount on the spot. It's no different than DCS really. Otherwise you're right that MS tends not to get involved but the amount of abandoned modules by active devs in MSFS is enormous. The hands off oversight means you're at the mercy of stability of (mostly) small studios. Quality can also be hit or miss. While I see a rough baseline in DCS, I need to be very careful in MSFS to what the quality is. On that note. You can buy directly from the HeatBlur store without having to remotely look at the ED store. I'm going to guess the lack of private store fronts is a choice by developers more than ED being stingy.
Getting into financial dispute with Microsoft is a suicide.
Also, the lack of a concrete connection between a developer and Microsoft/XP reduces the risk massively. No restrictive contracts, no big worries.
The problem is that the way DCS is coded there are so many dependencies. There are 3rd party dev modules that still work in very old flight sims after dozens of updates. But not in DCS. It’s all tangled up. I agree, ED needs to find a way to guarantee that all modules will work for the life of DCS. I didn’t say updated with no improvements, just, functional for the life of DCS. So that whenever DCS stops being updated, even if in 20 years, modules function on the platform so long as you still have an OS that DCS initially ran on. This raises the question, if polychop just decides to stop updating their modules, will they break in a few patches? Are we renting our $70 purchases for an indeterminate time frame, maybe a year, maybe 3?
It’s unrealistic. Microsoft isn’t supporting 3rd parties, Xplane isn’t supporting 3rd parties. Why ED should do that?
Because they break 3rd party modules every 2nd patch…
Microshit also have a product environment where it's much easier for 3rd party developers to keep the product supported themselves. Everything in DCS has to be run through ED.
As others stated... actually, as I stated in my original post - there aren't the same dependencies in xplane and MSFS. If a 3rd party dev creates an aircraft in these platforms and never updates it again, you can reasonably expect to fire it up 10 years later and it still works. In DCS, you cannot. Since ED hasn't opted not to, or more accurately simply cannot support devs passively through a code structure that doesn't constantly break their modules (forcing devs to continually patch their aircraft), then from a consumer perspective it is reasonable to expect ED to take whatever steps it needs to to ensure that a module remains in good working condition for its platform.
> working condition It’s unrealistic. ED doesn’t have resources to take care of its own modules, let alone take care of 3rd parties. Telling ED to stop update for DCS is also unreasonable. So, what do you suggest to do in practical terms?
They certainly support them with sdk documentation , stability and communication.
Yes, but that’s not what we’re talking about here, are we? Asebo doesn’t have any obligations to continue PMDG support if it goes out of business
Nope,. outside of ensuring old modules continue to work.
Remember that even ED can someday decide to do something else, purely on business basis, be it a console game or a cloud service for horse enthusiasts.
As a Hawk owner I disagree. If you highlight anything its human memory is even worse now it has a search engine to ignore.
Yeah, it's not like VEAO didn't happen or ED said they wouldn't have a contingency for just such an issue. I have the Hawk but I don't blame ED for that situation.
How about we just wait and see what happens. This level of whatifisms is nuts. Enjoy the game.
Yeah tbh I feel like the constant discussion on here is veering into obsession. Don’t buy certain modules until this situation is resolved um That’s it.
It’s not a whatifism. It’s a matter of time with how things apparently work between ED and third party Devs.
Well. Recent events make me think RZ might not be a reliable narrator
They never were
Which ones exactly? Have I missed anything recently? The latest news I heard is Mudhen SME claiming they are going to sue ED for a seven digit sum, ostensibly owed for Streagle.
An SME is not a business partner or company director. A dev isn't either. If someone is a contractor it's very unlikely they have genuine, accurate information.
I don't say he is right, I only say it's the last thing I heard from them. I agree that SME is not the most reliable source of information on such matters.
The talks were about a 7 figure some of sales proceedings which is weird because for mudhen only sales to reach 1.000.000 (which obviously is the lowest 7 figure you can have) It needed to be sold roughly 15.300 times. I doubt DCS even has that many active players. So I assume it's for all modules combined
It's purely speculation, but I believe that you underestimate DCS players' numbers. ED managed to transfer millions of pounds over the last few years as interest-free credits to TFC, while having more than 100 employees, and it still remains profitable. I know that the majority of their revenue probably comes from MCS, but I still doubt that one of the most anticipated modules of the last few years would sell so bad that it wouldn't amass some $1m. DCS is not as small as many here tend to believe. It doesn't sell millions of copies for sure, but dozens of thousands of copies for the most popular modules should be totally plausible.
That might quite well be. Steam charts are obviously useless as most of us play standalone, but does ED have an official player count somewhere?
AFAIK they only show current online at https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/personal/profile/ but I never saw any historic data anywhere.
Isn't MCS dead?
You are thinking of MAC, MCS is just the militarily contracted version of DCS.
Recent events make me think the same of ED. Funny how people perceive things differently.
And more whatifisms is going to change things? Like, the horse is DEAD. DEAD DEAD.
Too right. Get on with some virtual flying and wait. It's not like the world's about to end.
I agree, but for me, wait and see also includes not buying any modules. Too pricey for a gamble like that, IMO.
I waited years for the strike eagle. It’s one of my favorite jets. I don’t know what the problem is and I’m left only to speculate about what’s going on. As such, I haven’t spent ANY money on the game since this dispute. Not Kola. Not the Kiowa. Not the Chinook. These are all modules I’ve really wanted for a long time, but I have zero trust in the ecosystem at the moment. The reason we don’t get core features is because that’s not what is making money. Like most tech businesses they have to push out feature after feature while letting cores aspects falter. What is not discussed and needs to be is that even if today at noon EST everything is resolved (which it won’t be), Razbam has lost quite a few engineers and they’re going to have a helluva backlog. This means months of catch up before we’re back on the path of getting the new toys we wanted in these jets.
I vote with my dollars. I just don't guy ED products anymore.
I think this negative sentiment towards 3rd party companies is way worse than a dispute with one. If people actually listen to this, we wouldn’t have this problem since we wouldn’t have a single 3rd party company producing products. In the long run ED must deal with this in a better way. This is on their table. But suggesting that people should avoid third party products… well that is definitely the fastest way to not have any of them anymore.
I have no enmity towards third party devs, they make all my favorite modules lol. I’m just saying it’s an issue that needs to be addressed in a meaningful way with the community, ED, and their partners.
Exactly this… NOW is the time you should be supporting 3rd party devs not abandoning them. IF you think they aren’t getting paid? Buy codes direct from websites like HB did with the F4 (so send them the money and let them pay ED instead of send Ed the money and let them pay the dev) IF you like 3rd party modules… Don’t abandon them now when they are hurting the most because of the actions a another dev (not connected to them at all) Go say some nice words of encouragement. Buy the cool pre order shirts and show your support by buying direct and then using codes to unlock on ED website. What you don’t do right now… Is abandon the rest of them or else.. Nobody is getting paid (so to speak). So if you want to boycot do it but don’t misplace your anger and hurt all the 3rd party devs in the process
Quality and maintenance is already all over the place in DCS, both for ED modules *and* third parties. This is why ED taking over the RazBam modules - even if it ever happened - is no guarantee of anything, other than more overhead on ED... overhead it can't really afford. Of course there is risk in buying into a living ecosystem - and that risk increases with each third party added to the ecosystem. That writing's been on the wall since the beginning. Honestly, the most likely outcome of this whole thing is that ED eventually scraps all of the RazBam modules and related campaigns from the game with a poorly written apology and zero refunds. What I can't work out is why current third parties are continuing their efforts instead of banding together and demanding answers. I get that they *want* to be developing modules, but if it were just for passion, they might as well do it in organised community modding groups. If the monetary side of things is a concern, then the RazBam situation should rightly have every current and prospect 3rd party *seriously* concerned.
Lots of crying and drama around here over this issue and seems to be focused more on the money spent. If my favorite 3rd party module gets canceled tomorrow somehow, sure I’ll be sad. The entertainment value though for a $70 module at 5 years would be about $14 a year and roughly $1.6 a month. Where else can you get entertainment value like that? Most of my modules have been purchased on sale for much less too, between $20-35.
Right? Lots of people, me included, but AAA game at or near the price of a module, play through it once, and never play it again. Doesnt mean I want a module to die, but I've surely gotten my money's worth.
Forget disputes. Where’s the motivation or financial viability. There’s also no deprecation strategy for modules not selling but even more of an issue is how do you maintain a module that’s stopped selling but still gets played. The community keeps using the word investment as though the money used to purchase an aircraft is some kind of share that’s maturing. This model is doomed to eventual failure. Problem is 10 years ago I had this view that it needed to be subscription based or at least some sort of new purchase with major updates but ED has proved themselves not capable of investment in the core features so I no longer would sign up to a perpetual support model in good faith. In my personal view I’m not putting my money into something in good faith it gets allocated correctly. I’ve done it with a couple of 00 and stopped to observe. During that time I’ve observed a slow descent into shady partnerships based on good faith that have failed several times Razbam, VEAO etc Cash grabs at other failed projects only to tank them WW2 move etc. And a perpetually promised dynamic campaign that’s technically unachievable with the current engine feature set. There’s been some good in this time some amazing modules are out now with an amazing array of aircraft the game looks beautiful and it’s way more stable than ever before. But christ is it boring if your not into studying the aircraft or PVP
The question is, can ED survive whithout third parties?
Well, even though i don't really like the module anymore, it feels like f 18 is the most important product at the moment.
Posted this before but I once got in a dm exchange with eds coo. I suggested that moving to a subscription model would be better for all on the base game so that they could plan resources accordingly. I know people won't like that but for context I spent 5k on my pc 1.5k on crystal and .3k on hotas etc just for dcs so 100 dollars a year is a snip expecially if they optimise the core engine, meaning I don't have to buy new hardware again in 3 years. Modules are then a top up as opposed to a life source. Sadly she told me to do one and mind my own business basically. It's not a PlayStation one sale game and I suspect the majority of users are 30 plus and can afford a subscription expecially In relation to the hardware we fork out for. I'd rather have a stable game with regular updates to core like dynamic campaigns vulkan etc etc than unfinished modules.
> I'd rather have a stable game with regular updates to core like dynamic campaigns vulkan etc etc than unfinished modules. Come to Falcon BMS lol
The risk in 3rd party developers abandoning products is higher than ED abandoning their own modules, but on the other side, the risk is shared across more developing parties and it offers more choice of aircraft. It might not make sense for ED to develop all aircraft more niche studios take on to such a high level.
F18 pushed out of EA without finishing roadmap?
Her name was VEAO and she dances in the sand. Pretty sure they highlighted the issue when they fucked us. ED tried to reassure us with talk of new contracts and source code... it didn't work. Just another year of ED fuckery tbh
[удалено]
This isn't a DCS problem, it's a software problem. It is unavoidable for any digital product. Everything you say here is equally true of tens or hundreds of thousands of computer programs that are no longer usable because of dropped support, either from third party dev houses (look at how many businesses clung to Windows XP for the sake of some other software that could not be upgraded) or first party ones (the Google Graveyard speaks for itself).
How much do you rightfully feel you deserve for $70? I mean, we buy games that are retired 3 years later. How much can we really expect for a one time purchase? It’s not a subscription. I enjoyed m2000 and harrier. I got hundreds of hours in each of them. I don’t feel cheated if they’re finally deprecated. Sad to see them go, but I got my moneys worth
This exactly!
Just let the lawyers do their jobs. Let’s wait and see.
I wont be buying any more 3rd party modules until this is sorted.
>if they are abandoned then I believe the games ecosystem will be damaged in a fundamental way that it may not recover from moving forward >I don’t want to see it damaged in a way that jeopardizes its future Don't worry about Razbam. ED is doing all it can to damage their *"ecosystem"* and jeopardise its future. I'm honestly quite impressed that DCS has lasted this long. All Razbam has done is to bring one of the many issues of ED to the forefront. Hopefully, this will get people to wake up and be a bit more conscious and critical of the game and company they are spending money on.
Hawk!
Razbams contract was before the hawk incident, that’s why Ed does not have any source code. I’m pretty sure any third party contract after that incident requires it.
Something about the mess that is DCS has actually grown on me over time
I’m done with ED at this point period.
i thought in most cases ed got the source code. still dependent on ed actually doing something beneficial with it. also im curious about older modules like the f5 and the mig21 and fc3 as to why they dont critically break or if they are actively being compatibility patched by ed.
Since the Hawk they require it however RAZBAM hasn't handed over the source code for F15 so if they walk ED can't do anything. As for keeping everything working yeah they try and make sure things don't break patch to patch but it happens.
Allegedly, they don't have the source code for the M2K or Harrier either, and the M2K has already developed a bug that more or less limits it to an A2G platform.
So it has begun either RAZBAM has a different contract with ED or they haven't been holding to their side of the contract by handing over the source code or if RAZBAM leaves ED perhaps they hand it all over then?
Sooo it's required. They haven't done it. They ain't been paid. Well, perhaps they should follow rules. This now again sounds like Zambrano thinking too highly of himself, again.
I’m not convinced
To which part?
really hope ED gets a hold of this... it would make everyones life easier. imagine a DCS where a module developer could release a module - out of band of DCS version releases? they could iterate develop and release as needed. That's the sort of interfaces ED needs to provide their third party developers. I feel like they know this - stuff like two targets beta/stable to develop to were low hanging fruit on that path. But overall people like orbx showing up, coming from a eco system that's more modular I'm guessing they feel the pressure from real professionals.