Sign in to follow this  
DTG_Cryss

Load up the Super Cub and tackle The Last Frontier - 30% Launch Discount

Recommended Posts

I totally disagree with DTG's chosen business model for FSW and favor a traditional approach of software development where the product is developed to completion, presented in full to the audience for purchase, then supported for X number of years with product support.

I believe my sarcastic post before makes more of an impact and explains my reasoning for why much more than the sentence above.

I forgot that disagreeing with anything was verboten. I just can't help myself...

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

54 minutes ago, pmanhart said:

I totally disagree with DTG's chosen business model for FSW and favor a traditional approach of software development where the product is developed to completion, presented in full to the audience for purchase, then supported for X number of years with product support.

I believe my sarcastic post before makes more of an impact and explains my reasoning for why much more than the sentence above.

I forgot that disagreeing with anything was verboten. I just can't help myself...

It's not forbidden to disagree, but people has the right to disagree with you too, don't be mad.  

You have the right to disagree with this model, the same right we have to support it. Simple as that. :cool:

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pmanhart said:

I totally disagree with DTG's chosen business model for FSW and favor a traditional approach of software development where the product is developed to completion, presented in full to the audience for purchase, then supported for X number of years with product support.

I believe my sarcastic post before makes more of an impact and explains my reasoning for why much more than the sentence above.

I forgot that disagreeing with anything was verboten. I just can't help myself...

In that case, you should read your own signature quote...

Plato also said: “An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, pmanhart said:

I totally disagree with DTG's chosen business model for FSW and favor a traditional approach of software development where the product is developed to completion, presented in full to the audience for purchase, then supported for X number of years with product support.

Do not forget the production model. It is much more important. "There are lots of things we would like to do but we also want to get the new sim out some time before 2050", says Dovetail.

Alternative 1: The company is developing the product for 5 years. Then the finished "dead" product is sold and provides support for 5 years.

Alternative 2: The company develops a "sim-platform" (modular system) for 1 year. The fully functional "sim-platform" is sold cheaply to those who want to influence development over the next 4 years. The next 4 to 10 years, the company is continuously developing new modules for the living "sim-platform".

Dovetail previously explained to us:

Quote

We don't view it as a static game. We are not making Call of Duty 4 and then moving on to COD 5. We are building a platform which can be continually expanded. We view it almost like an OS.

It is going to take time and a lot ongoing conversations between us, you the community and the wider world of flight sim developers to build DTG Flight Sim into the new platform we all want it to be.

We have some really big plans of what we would like to see in there both at the day of launch and five years from now. We will be continuing to develop it and add new features for many years to come.

I prefer Alternative 2.

I want to fly a new simulator now. And I do not understand those who will rather wait for 5 years. But good luck. :smile:

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pmanhart said:

I totally disagree with DTG's chosen business model for FSW and favor a traditional approach of software development where the product is developed to completion, presented in full to the audience for purchase, then supported for X number of years with product support.

I believe my sarcastic post before makes more of an impact and explains my reasoning for why much more than the sentence above.

I forgot that disagreeing with anything was verboten. I just can't help myself...

It is apparent that no flight sim will hit the shelves with “everything” included on day one. The sims that have been out for over 5+ years have yet to offer a complete package and rely heavily on 3rd party vendors to fill in the gap. It is interesting how DTG gets criticized when both LM and LR have essentially the same business model that costs much more.

At the same time, FSW is offering more, by partnering with DEVs in the core, and there is much more to come. I think this is a good business model given the realities and constraints of flight sim development.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have now flown some missions from "The Last Frontier". I enjoyed the atmosphere in nice surroundings. Varying missions without getting too long. I liked the landing queue. Good work. :cool:

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, pmanhart said:

I totally disagree with DTG's chosen business model for FSW and favor a traditional approach of software development where the product is developed to completion, presented in full to the audience for purchase, then supported for X number of years with product support.

I believe my sarcastic post before makes more of an impact and explains my reasoning for why much more than the sentence above.

I forgot that disagreeing with anything was verboten. I just can't help myself...

So you disagree with the P3D business model, the X-Plane business model, the Aerofly business model and basically every modern flight sims business model, right?  Or are you continuing to be "sarcastic?"

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not mad or taking anything personal gents, just voicing my opinion. I still fundamentally disagree with an alpha product releasing paid DLC, which I suspect many more would be if it wasn't a flight simulator. These forms of releases are becoming more prevalent, and are hurting the electronic entertainment market's reputation. See Star Citizen, War Z, Starbase DF9 and Next Car Game for some perfect examples... I don't think FSW will collapse like those games did, but do think that selling DLC during Early Access is in VERY poor taste.

BTW, other than AFS2, I'm not aware that P3D and XP proclaim to be in a continuous alpha form in order to sell copies via "Early Access."

Look, I get what you guys are saying and we can agree to disagree on what is an acceptable method of selling copies of a game or simulation. I've just seen this song and dance so many times before and want to voice my displeasure. I'm not attacking anyone personally.

I wish DTG all the DLC-fueled success in the future, and all my fellow simmers a bright and happy flight simming future.

 

BTW, I spoke because I had something to say, not because I just had to say something... don't misunderstand the quote. And no, I don't believe myself to be wise... I am arguing with people on an internet forum after all... at least it's not Twitter!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Games as a service is the new norm.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, pmanhart said:

I'm not mad or taking anything personal gents, just voicing my opinion. I still fundamentally disagree with an alpha product releasing paid DLC, which I suspect many more would be if it wasn't a flight simulator. These forms of releases are becoming more prevalent, and are hurting the electronic entertainment market's reputation. See Star Citizen, War Z, Starbase DF9 and Next Car Game for some perfect examples... I don't think FSW will collapse like those games did, but do think that selling DLC during Early Access is in VERY poor taste.

BTW, other than AFS2, I'm not aware that P3D and XP proclaim to be in a continuous alpha form in order to sell copies via "Early Access."

Look, I get what you guys are saying and we can agree to disagree on what is an acceptable method of selling copies of a game or simulation. I've just seen this song and dance so many times before and want to voice my displeasure. I'm not attacking anyone personally.

I wish DTG all the DLC-fueled success in the future, and all my fellow simmers a bright and happy flight simming future.

 

BTW, I spoke because I had something to say, not because I just had to say something... don't misunderstand the quote. And no, I don't believe myself to be wise... I am arguing with people on an internet forum after all... at least it's not Twitter!

So things like this have been attempted before and failed? I've never heard of any of those examples that you mentioned. Star Citizen sounds vaguely familiar, but I don't know why. I've never played it. I can see how it might be concerning to someone if one of their prior favorites got screwed up by a failed attempt at (I don't know what to call it, so I'll make something up) open development. They would be valid concerns if based on experience.   

At any rate. I'm thinking about buying the mission pack. It costs less than 1 ticket (and popcorn) for Star Wars. If I can get close to 2 or 3 hours of entertainment out if it, I'm cool with that. I've been having a blast with the built in ones. 

I do think we need to start a chant or something to prod the devs into giving us more scenery. The lack of buildings at major airports tells me that they've got scenery complexity turned all the way down and locked there on purpose. Quit holding back! I wanna see what it is really going to look like!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 15/02/2018 at 9:08 PM, ca_metal said:

 

4QFZwaq.jpg

The amphibious and tundra tires models came to the sim on the phase 2 update (january). Now they released some missions suited to those.

It's easy to forget the hard work Dovetail have put into FSW but that quite beautiful screenshot really does the job! Thanks ca_metal and Dovetail!

Edited by dtrjones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/02/2018 at 6:27 PM, pmanhart said:

I totally disagree with DTG's chosen business model for FSW and favor a traditional approach of software development where the product is developed to completion, presented in full to the audience for purchase, then supported for X number of years with product support.

I believe my sarcastic post before makes more of an impact and explains my reasoning for why much more than the sentence above.

I forgot that disagreeing with anything was verboten. I just can't help myself...

 

OK you are talking about closed development, well that could go one of two ways - it could stink or it could just be bad haha. Sorry but development has moved on. No longer can any large development process be done behind closed doors it's too risky least of all a flight simulator which needs constant prioritisations during development which the community can and does help with.

Your approach is being considered by Remex's Deadstick (who are developing just up the road from me in Guildford) so that's something to look out for, but the scope of that simulator is in some ways more limiting but in other ways more expansive - however we don't really have a say. I just don't feel that approach would be suitable for a product like FSW which ultimately the community will play such a key role in future development of it's functionality and accompanying DLC.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect your ideas about what kinds of development work and don't work don't really have much basis in reality.  It's fine for someone to suggest that they like a certain process, or that they'd like to have say in the development process, but to declare that "closed" development simply can't work anymore for any particular market smacks of hubris, (or typical forum "expertise").  

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this