Is DCS Too Big To Fail?

[@Enigma89]

I think this video is going to enrage some people and be completely obvious to other people. My underlying point here is with the lack of competition, the momentum of DCS and the lack of caring from a lot of players, that DCS is going to keep doing what they are doing because they are winning with their current formula. Despite me wishing it, I do think it is unreasonable to expect them to change from that formula, it's very clear that they aren't deviating from their winning formula. It will be frustrating to some but once you come to terms with this, it does become a lot less frustrating. DCS may not be the exact game that I want but it does offer somethings that are compelling. So for that reason, I include it in my portfolio but I don't expect it to be the be all end all for simming. It's just one of many games and I treat it as such. Reaching this conclusion made me right size my time investment to the game and I think that it is worth sharing because I am much more at peace now than I was before. This video was really, IMHO, trying to be therapeutic and not trying to flame anyone. So I hope this is well received and that it sparks a discussion. LMK what you think.

[@Tepnox]

I like therapeutic videos. I think you are not alone with your opinion. It is a symptomatic problem for years and the player base won't revolt it seems. As long as they get their money with half baked early access shit and broken lazy implementations, they won't change anything and feed us shit. Understandable from a developer point but very sad from a customer point of view. Vote with your wallet doesn't work anymore for alot of people it seems - looks like the playerbase of DCS has accepted the circumstances.

[@jansvoboda4293]

I agree with you. DCS is actually minor sim for me to explore some full fidelity aircraft. Its on pause for quite some time as the performance even on SP was bad for me in VR. I miss most the full fidelity F-14 and UH-1. I played IL-2 a lot including with virtual squadron When the popularity on servers decreased I used your advice to try WT sim so I am exploring some Banhees, Cougars, Demons and Crusaders. Compared to IL-2 I like how you can have at least rudimentary communication with strangers on team a few buttons without TeamSpeak. Typing is not an option in VR. Each has it's pros and cons.

[@navuek]

You sound completly reasonable IMO

[@Uploadvideoschannel]

healthy discussion welcomed.. more thought with reason, and not just negative rant.

[@FurryButBald]

Nice honest video. I agree with your points. I think the only possible competitor that would have least dev time to catch up is ms flight sim if and only if it enables/adds combat abilities. As 2024 flight sim is close to release, I am not seeing them doing it. So yes dcs remains the 900lbs gorilla as you put it.

[@721MrG]

DCS is too big for my SSD...

[@721MrG]

@@testthepest6259 I'll give it a try. Thanks.

[@Leon_Portier]

Too big to fail filesize wise LOL

[@thomascarman1276]

That moment when you question only getting a 1TB dedicated drive for DCS...

[@721MrG]

@@thomascarman1276 I did get 1TB M2 drive that was on sale and dedicate it to DCS, but... The trend with DCS is that with every update my folder grows up so I might swap it for 2TB very soon.

[@MusicSoundPlayer]

Have fun with the hdd hickup every 15 seconds

[@prodbyelija]

the main thing keeping dcs from failing or falling into obscurity is the fact that there is no other simulator attempting the genre of a variety of full fidelity aircraft, and different scenarios in a massive sandbox combat flight sim, as well as extremely beautiful visuals. I couldnt say if that is a good or bad thing, but it definitely is a factor.

[@_DANZIG_]

this is IT. no competition

[@deadpxl]

The video specifically breaks down the reasons for why there's no competition.

[@dimitri1154]

I can appreciate what BMS does, but I just can't get past the BAD sound effects (engine and missile launches sound so flat) And the graphics at low altitude detracts from the immersion

[@networkgeekstuff9090]

then again, after you get fulll with all the button pressing, you will find out the DCS world being really really really sterile and without any proper challenge what to achieve with the planes. But yes, it will sometimes take years to realize that the game loop of learning a plane for 20 hours and then going through all the content for it in like 90 minutes sux and all you are left with is never-ending team deathmatch multiplayer

[@tonyascaso6254]

Customers who do not discern that not buying the product sends the message to ED to change and not continue down a flawed, unsustainable business model. The majority of people are just module and map collectors. I would like to see the stats of purchasers versus people who actually fly the sim.

[@dampsok]

You hit the nail on the head when you described DCS as a digital museum.

[@CodyU571]

One of my favorite things about this software is preserving in laser accurate detail machines we will never see fly again. Also the appreciation of what pilots overcame to accomplish incredible missions under incredible stress.

[@NewsStuff-y5o]

This is true. I only play SP and once I learn the aircraft there isn't too much else to do. I don't blame the game but that is what it is.

[@Munky332]

"Digital COCKPIT simulator" -- buttons go clicky click, har har.

[@Czar66]

@@NewsStuff-y5o For me is the opposite... After I learn the aircraft the actual fun begins. Perhaps for everyone, what's missing is the dynamic campaign. Getting into a dynamic scenario with the aircraft you know has been a greater joy than learning a module from zero.

[@kontoname]

​@@Czar66 There is nothing to be had beyond museum stuff really - we just lack the planes for ANY scenario. There is not ONE single complete-ish scenario. Not WW2, not early, mid or late cold war and certainly not modern. Not even a single CONFLICT is complete. If you think this is wrong, well, then name one. It's literally nothing but a hollow husk of a digital museum for a few select (and mostly NATO) aircraft. We don't have proper radar simulations, no comms ladders, no proper weather, no electronic warfare, no jamming, SAMs are horrible, we don't have IADS... Heck, we don't even have decent modding support. Or where are all the cool DCS custom maps? It's literally... a museum for a few cockpits. Nothing else.

[@Scoobydcs]

Dcs needs a proper rival

[@MobJarley_]

I'd say it's only rival is IL2, even though it's set in ww2. IL2 Korea is coming soon. IL2 is the perfect middle ground between DCS and Warthunder. Not too complicated, not so easy.

[@odysseus9797]

The problem is they're aren't enough people interested in flight Sims. Dcs servers are barely populated outside of like 5 or 6. If half of the playerbase migrated to a new sim, multiplayer would really became boring. Wether I would be willing to jump to a new sim after spending hundreds of dollars here is an other question also

[@Scoobydcs]

@odysseus9797 private servers are plentiful. I never touch public servers and rarely do single player either. There's plenty of people to do it. I do get your point that its a niche and hugely demanding player base though 😆

[@mzaite]

@@odysseus9797because as fidelity continues to increase, less and less people can play them.

[@Raiders1917]

I'd say it already has one in the form of Falcon BMS.

[@JSDFEnthusiast]

Arizona tea is still 99 cents. WD-40 is still the same. The Viggen still starts. And the roads are still paved. I'm in my lane, happy.

[@tacticalbacon9877]

Could dcs be better? Yeah i guess so. Is dcs already far better than any alternative? Yep. Am i gonna go somewhere else or heck even look? Nah.

[@PaddyPatrone]

Despite all the drama, this year was the most fun I ever had with DCS lol.

[@stevebarnett-f5o]

As far as I am concerned, the Razbam fiasco is the end of my spending any money on DCS, whoever is at fault, things should never have gotten to where they are. My next purchase is a copy of Sea Power.

[@LeoH3L1]

SAME.

[@aaronwhite1786]

That's just the way things go, sometimes. It's impossible to know who's actually responsible, but as far as I'm concerned, it seems very hard for me to think ED is the cause of the problem, especially with them confirming they don't have the source code for the F-15E, which from my understanding, has been a requirement of 3rd party Devs since the VEAO fiasco. I have to assume (and that's all I can do) that Razbam is required to provide their source code the same as anyone else is, and the fact that Razbam hasn't pushed back on the claim that they haven't provided their source code, paired with the rumors that they were looking to work with Microprose on at least one of their titles makes it easy for me to see this being a case of Razbam not wanting to provide their full source code because they want to use the work in multiple games, which could be the potential legal issue regarding a breach of contract. I just find it hard to think ED is the root cause of this problem, because only one 3rd party developer out of all of them has come forward saying they haven't been paid, but then with the leaks of details coming out, it kind of seems apparent why they haven't been paid. If they really are essentially holding their source code hostage while ED is trying to go the slow process of using the courts, I don't see anyone for me to be mad at besides Razbam, who was a developer I was really happy with previously. The Harrier was a blast and one of the first modules I really started flying around in DCS with. The F-15E wasn't a huge appeal to me, but I was getting ready to get it before this whole thing started. Obviously, it's possible things come out that paint a different picture, but from where I'm sitting, it seems to me that Razbam is the most likely cause of this issue, and ED's simply trying to get what they need to prevent the root cause of this entire problem. Without the source code, ED can't guarantee that modules continue working as the game grows. From what I've seen it seems like they are just trying to do what's best for their product, but also the community that wants access to the modules. But, I'm going to keep an eye out and see what develops.

[@stevebarnett-f5o]

@@aaronwhite1786 All true, but, I have Harrier and Mig19, I cannot afford to replace these if/when they break, when that happens, I am finished with DCS. Ideally, I would love to get Skyraider in the future, but this current mess needs fixing first.

[@aaronwhite1786]

@@stevebarnett-f5o I feel that. I think that's what ED is trying to do, in their defense. I don't imagine they want any developer to want to leave DCS, especially not one that's been around as long as Razbam. But if Razbam's not providing the source code ED needs to make sure situations like this can't happen, I don't know that there's much ED can do except go the legal route, which unfortunately is slow and messy.

[@CitizenIosef]

@@aaronwhite1786 the code escrow language was intended to be added to all contracts moving forward from the VEAO fiasco. The F-15E contract pre-dates the VEAO fiasco. Obviously contracts made before the VEAO situation won't have the code escrow language. Now ED might *want* RB to modify their contract, but violating the existing contract by not paying ain't the way to do that.

[@king-amir3401]

The name of the product is literally "Digital COMBAT Simulator" and that is what people expect it to be. So no I disagree and don't think people are misusing it. And it is ED's responsibility to keep improving and live up to their name

[@stscc01]

It is just that, a digital combat simulator. The name doesn't imply it has dynamic campaigns that run on mp- servers with hundreds of players and thousands of units. If those are your expectations, fine, but none of the features that some people expect from ED for the game can be derived from the name.

[@kontoname]

@@stscc01 So you're saying their website got hacked and someone falsely inserted statements like: "Digital Combat Simulator World (DCS World) 2.9 is a free-to-play digital battlefield game." "DCS is a true "sandbox" simulation that is also designed to cover multiple time periods of interest such as WWII, Korean War, Vietnam, Gulf War and others. Current regions to battle include the Caucasus, Nevada Test and Training Range, Normandy 1944, Persian Gulf, Syria, Sinai and others." And much more? Even you will have to see that they claim "current regions INCLUDE [...] Korean War, Vietnam etc.? Right? Just simple examples... Can you please link me the DCS store page to where korea or vietnam are available? Or where we could get a complete set of required units, ships, vehicles and so on? Otherwise please do consider that you should read at least the store page before defending a company, without any source, that is lying to our faces since years. Oh and in case you want a source because your jaw just dropped to the table - here is the link to the product page: www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/products/world/

[@nik72828]

Did you watch the video or are you being obtuse on purpose?

[@BlackbirdDrozd]

Yes, when you own the market as a monopoly you are allowed nonsense like: 1) forever breaking backwards compatibility with community content, missions and multiplayer scenarios and poor admins are forever your free troubleshooters 2) can keep single player content non-existent and tease community with "dynamic campaign is in development" for 13 years 3) release multi-threating with a fanfare while keeping AI and whole simulation on a single threath 4) have IR/flares and IFF simulation in a worse state than your free-to-play competition 5) ATC and AI landing/taxi procedures are worse in DCS than some sims from the 90s 6) Get to a turn fight with AI in a mountanious area only to watch your oponent hit the nearest hill .. always. DCS has graphics and buttons, literally everything else is below average. And yes, I am misusing DCS like the WD40 analogy, but from my perspective it steals the market so that nothing that fits my perspective NOT able to see the light of day because the whole niche market pot is hold by ED.

[@Сталкер-ь2х]

iff simulation is better where and how?

[@skiboi]

​@@Сталкер-ь2х Falcon BMS

[@BlackbirdDrozd]

@@Сталкер-ь2х In DCS the IR is basically a dice roll, with some things like distance, angle and some af on/off added to the probability, it doesn't simulate really what the IR seeker actually sees. You can get rid of Ir missile by just spamming all your flares out, have a look on how for example both War Thunder and BMS models actual view of the seeker head. E.g. in War Thunder pilots have to learn which way to turn if their plane drops flares upwards or downwards and flares IR brightness takes some miliseconds to even get max brigthness and you havet to put that already lit up flare between you and the missile seeker for it to switch track. Also different IR tracking resistance missiles are modeleed like magic2 having reaction to flare by lowering the field of view to avoid flares or aim-9m turning off seeker for split second if registering multiple IR signals in FOV assuming it is being flared and resuming tracking after a while when the flare is already out of peak brightness. Now DCS is again just spamming of flares until a dice roll hits in your favor. Also I have never seen in DCS something like IR missile switching target for another plane if for example a friendly flyes right between the missile and enemy, while in both BMS and WT this is a common thing in big fights that the IR missile will switch target to a completelly different plane that happens to enter in front of its IR seeker. E.g. DCS simply doesnt model IR tracking and missiles point of view properly at all.

[@BlackbirdDrozd]

@@Сталкер-ь2х IFF is not magic that your radar instantly know if a contact is enemy/friendly. For example all contacts are "unknwon" on radars until additional system interrogates them or they have IFF transponder. In war time transponders only REPLY when some radar ASKS them to respond with a code. For example in BMS, all contacts are neutral on radar and can be locked, to not fire on friendlies you and all friendlies have to enter a daily IFF code to the system. And only then your planes IFF responder will respond to others if you are friendly or not. If some plane has wrong code or the IFF transponder can be damaged, you can also ask AWACS if your locked contact is friendly or not. Also IFF interrogation has lower distance pefromance than radar so everything in distance starts as neutral/enemy and can only be changed to fiendly when you get closer. Also IFF request/reply takes a few seconds for each target. And none of this works in DCS, everything is magically enemy/fiendly instantly on any distance.

[@Сталкер-ь2х]

@@skiboi but bms isnt f2p?

[@MusicSoundPlayer]

Multiplayer is 95% ppl staring at f-18 sensors. Anti-social af

[@MusicSoundPlayer]

I guess I’m not a good marketer. I forgot that sociopathic appeal sells

[@jaek__]

play enigmas cold war

[@MusicSoundPlayer]

@@jaek__ I was so confused bc I subbed to this channel but when I got back into dcs, the only Cold War server was heatblurr. I missed the hayday….. 20 ppl max, now

[@preseusstreaming1633]

@@MusicSoundPlayer enigma gave his cold war server to heatblur afaik

[@bigrivercod]

That is a pretty well reasoned analysis Engma. I’m part of the problem. I’m old, but still working full time, and only have so many hours per week to flight sim. DCS, IL2 (and maybe one day BMS) give me a chance to experience in the virtual world all the planes I have loved since I was a kid. They are a virtual aviation museum for me, and I can have fun flying, learning systems and blowing stuff up in single play, or with a couple of friends in MP. I find the prospect of joining large MP servers daunting as I reckon I’d just be fodder for experienced players which I wouldn’t find fun. Hopefully all the things to learn in the modern jets and helicopters will keep me mentally engaged and dementia free for years to come.

[@ВячеславФролов-д7я]

Most of the people on mp servers aren't good at all, despite flying there for a long time. Especially it is relevant for fox3 servers. You can become one of the alfa predators of growling sidewinder after a month of flying there for, like, 3 hours 4 times a week. And by alfa predator I mean racking something like 10-1 kd. Being competitive in a pvp fox3 server is a matter of a few evenings

[@ReflectedSimulations]

Okay, unpopular post to follow, I tried to stay well out of this but I feel it has to be said: 1) nobody other than ED and RB know exactly what happened. All we do is speculation, and jumping to conclusions. Sometimes it reminds me of the witch hunt in Spamelot. Maybe ED's at fault. Maybe not. It's all based on contracts none of us have ever seen, potential breaches none of us know in detail, and we have/need a legal system with professionals to sort out this kind of mess. But no, a chairforce pilot like me surely knows better what happened and how to solve it, right? Pitchfork jurisdiction at its best. 2) What I find even more mind bogging is how people think that by not purchasing anything from other 3rd parties, ED will surely learn their lesson and "pay Razbam" (if that's even the f case...) DCS is a sandbox. The more stuff you put in it the more fun it is. The less stuff you have, the more boring it becomes. Who in their right mind would think that driving 3rd parties bankrupt would solve anything? You've got to be kidding me. Let's not talk about me, let's take Heatblur for example. I've never seen a better bunch of enthusiastic professionals, their work raises the bar 1000x, and by bringing us the Phantom and the Tomcat they made my childhood dreams come true. In what parallel universe would it make sense to drive them bankrupt, and make them throw YEARS of hard work in the virtual trash bin, again, just because you think ED did something wrong... 3) This has turned into a lynchmob, self appointed vigilantes torching the whole place. Keep it up and soon you'll lose all 3rd parties who have NOTHING to do with the "situation". Make no mistake, we'll be the first to fall. But hey, that'll teach'em. I'm sure a lot of people will hate me for this post, and if this throws me into the whirpool of cancel culture, so be it. I've been considering myself the luckiest, being able to make a living doing something I'm so passionate about, but at the end of the day I'm not making campaigns to get rich, but because that's how I want to play and enjoy DCS.

[@Enigma89]

I am not sure why you are expecting a bad response. I really think it's clear that the majority of players don't seem phased by anything going on confirmed or allegated. DCS just keeps humming along which is what I wanted to highlight. People get themselves in a tizzy but for most players, they are fine.

[@EbonySeraphim]

@@Enigma89 if anyone has eyes in comment sections of some ED major annoucements, directly on their YT videos, and particularly /r/hoggit subreddit, and maybe even Discord+Twitter too, this year clearly has had some lynchmob "fans." Doesn't matter what good thing ED is announcing, someone is there complaining about "early access forever," "incomplete this," "no atc, bad ai, unrealistic radar, no ECCM" stuff that true or not...why are they posting it in some unrelated annoucement? Someone posted on r/hoggit they were new to combat flight sim and properly picked up that everyone had a default toxic impression of DCS, especially compared to BMS. Of course the real impact towards EDs sales were probably minimal to almost none, but my main concern was that all of the public speculation and toxicity around whatever is actually happening between ED and Razbaam could get large enough to derail a constructive private outcome. It is(was) clear some toxic fans wanted RAZBAAM and ED to completely fall apart, or somehow ED becomes fully "subservient" to all third party module makers (whatever that means) or give someone else a chance to make a platform to develop against DCS. Maybe some "Combat Plane Simulator" arises, nearly identical to DCS with different planes and different aspects of the simulation modeled with a different approach.

[@Ironwulf2000]

100% agree. Especially on point 1.

[@arnaudboucaud1894]

Hi Reflected. ED has no competition. Is it their "fault"? Truth is, it s because they are the best. Like in all competitions. Perfect? No. But the best. Instead of being very mad. Why'don t people start their own company? They will know what this is all about then. I thank ED and HB everyday for my child dream come true.

[@generalgrevous2458]

@@arnaudboucaud1894 🙂👍

[@rossmarbow-combatflightsim5922]

Stockholm syndrome keeping a ton of zombie games alive.

[@GuzmyKawaiiReplays]

Do you know an alternative to DCS? Honest question

[@rossmarbow-combatflightsim5922]

@@GuzmyKawaiiReplays missing the point. if dcs dies something can replace it

[@PhantomMark]

I own most of the content on DCS, I play 95% in single player, with missions and scenarios I created myself.......I hope we get the campaign to help things along a little. I was gutted to have to refund the F15E after waiting since Janes F15 for the chance to have an aircraft like that, very disappointing turn of events with Razbam. Wishing there was a competitor - to help keep everyone honest.

[@ExploringSitkaAlaskausin-wj4wu]

I am flying DCS 90% less than I did 2 years ago. Why? The lack of DCS support for my aircraft the Mosquito. The lack of WWII assets, WWII Ai aircraft, and promised maps. I gave up waiting for the promised WWII Marianas.

[@takodac2469]

@ExploringSitkaAlaskausin-wj4wu Well it takes time to make those assets. you can always reach out and donate to them to help support 3rd party developers get there planes and maps finished

[@keysersoze1855]

Did they ever promise a release date? No I don't believe they did, this is what happens when you feel entitled, happens all the time with DCS, they bitch and whine about modules not being released, then when the module is released into EA, they bitch and whine that it's not complete, and not to their expectations, thats the main problem with DCS players, they expect too much

[@takodac2469]

@@keysersoze1855 Nailed it!!!

[@barneyfromblueshift]

@@keysersoze1855 "Feel entitled" The Yak-52 has no damage model, half a decade later. You folks would give these guys all the grace in the universe.

[@keysersoze1855]

@@barneyfromblueshift "you folks" tells me all I need to know, I never said ED were perfect, they do NOT get an A+ , far from it. All the haters and whiners, a simple question, why carry on playing a game that frustrates the living daylights out of? If I purchase a game, and it's not to my liking, I uninstall it, it really is that simple.

[@freakmusicaddict]

One thing i dont get is, why, when they are supposedly so focused on SP is the AI still after all these years this bad, predictable and annoying to configure.

[@DoradoFever]

Ground AI logic licking the window in the corner... 😂

[@mzaite]

Just because they want to focus on SP, doesn't mean they have the talent to write good AI. But then one has to remember, their real product that DCS is built from is a partial task trainer. The AI's job is to put you in scenarios to work systems, it's not to challenge you legitimately. So it's not a high development priority.

[@freakmusicaddict]

@@mzaite well, yea duhh but why. Its not like ED is some baby company or just getting started. You gotta invest resources ofc.

[@RikkiSan1]

​@@mzaiteI wonder if the AI in their military version is better

[@aaronwhite1786]

@@mzaite I don't even think it's a talent thing. I think it's just the reality of trying to modify a game engine that's as old as the DCS engine is. You're stuck going one of two ways, and neither are fast. The first is you try to cram functionality into the existing engine and workflow and make it work with the game as is. This can limit how good your implementation can be, but is potentially at least a little quicker than the alternative. The alternative is that you do what they've been doing with something like the dynamic campaign where you're pretty much re-writing the entire core of the engine and having to create new ways of handling things from scratch. This often means you're going to be tackling things across almost the entire engine. You can't just create a dynamic campaign engine without creating something that tells the AI what's important and where to go. You can't do that without changing the way radar and SAM/AAA works. You can't do that without changing the way the AI navigates on the ground. There's just no quick or easy way of handling all of that stuff, all while also needing to continue to produce new modules while upgrading and maintaining your old ones, because you've got to keep money coming in. That's the sad reality of flight sims in modern worlds, especially the more niche market of modern combat flight sims. And personally, I think the Dynamic Campaign will eventually drop, like Enigma does. But where I disagree is that it will just drop with the stock DCS AI we're used to now. I imagine in time they will slowly work more AI improvements in, since they have to realize as well as the rest of us that having AI is going to be what makes or breaks the DC.

[@EricaCalman]

Too big to fail? not exactly. It feels like they're intel in 2005, totally dominant in their market but making enough bad decisions that competitors will start coming in and eating their lunch.

[@BuzzK1]

DCS is a good sim, it’s peerless in the sense that no other sim has the variety, fidelity or graphics it has. It just feels like its sole purpose is printing money, modules are prioritised over dynamic campaign, AI fixes or improvements etc as that’s what keeps the money coming in. It feels like ED doesn’t care and the RAZBAM drama reinforces that for me, they care about pumping out new EA (often broken) modules that they can charge full price for and everything else is on the back burner

[@mikeserds2333]

TBH there is a huge list of things they can(or even should) work on. Dynamic campaign is just one of th emany things.

[@bhdemp]

Great job! You obviously put a ton of effort into making this video and it shows. I'm 90% MP and 10% SP player. We have a small squad of 10 and I'll admit, we spend a lot of time criticizing DCS for both their marketing strategy and the technology. But at the end of the day, and you mentioned this, it's all we have, so we soldier forward and continue to invest in it... embarrassingly too much! And that is one topic I don't recall you covering, the cost involved of DCS. I mean, really enjoying DCS. $3K-$5K for an adequate PC, $800-$2K for VR headsets, $1K-$2K for throttles and HOTAS sticks, HD monitors, gaming chairs, Buttkickers, etc... and of course the modules themselves. It's not a young man's sport! Anyway... again, nicely done!

[@bigrivercod]

I'll own up to spending that sort of cash to enjoy flight simming. However the more time I spend simming the less time I have to be annoying around the wife which she is happy with. So it is a win-win situation really :)

[@rgloria40]

DCS needs to concentrate on the Smartphone market since it is much larger now.

[@aussiegta8267]

@@rgloria40 I'm intrigued, how do you plan on planning a full fidelity combat simulator on a smart phone?

[@TheIrishAce]

I haven't bought a module since the drama myself. I don't see the DCS platform as stable as I once thought it was. Think about it if 3 of the top module creators walked in protest the game would cease to function correctly overnight. This is a disaster waiting to happen in my opinion. With my refund for the F15E I only could get store credit so ordered the Kiwoa. I refuse to put any more money into the platform personally.

[@TheGreatRepeller]

and it is run by absolute morons like Bignewsy.

[@Jorendo]

The fun fact about gamers, and you will see it in the comments as well, they always shout for boycots and that they will refuse to buy anything of that company again....and that lasts till about the next new trailer. We keep seeing it happening over and over again. When Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 for the pc was about the release, it came to the attention of pc gamers that there would be no more dedicated servers and mod making was no longer allowed. Ontop of that it was the first PC game that charged console game prices. Were pc games cost you 40 - 45 euros for a new AAA game back in 2008/2009, they charged 60 euros. So gamers shouted for a boycot. There was even a steam group made with people who were gonna boycot. What did we see on the release date? The creators of the boycot group were all online playing CoD MW2 cause the idiots forgot that steam shows people what game you are playing by default. Another example, Activision-Blizzard (yeah same company huh, guess they really piss gamers off). The whole sexual abuse scandal happened, it was the final straw for many gamers, they had enough of all the crap at blizzard. Yet still 8 million people play WoW with a active sub. People still bought Diablo 4 by the masses. DCS is no different. Many here will shout "Well I had enough of them" but those people will still play the game and still buy the modules they want, cause that is how we gamers are. We are only one trailer away from playing again. Sure a few will stick to what they said, but the mass majority of those who make the claim they won't buy and play anymore, still buy and play.

[@Enigma89]

Can't disagree with you.

[@metzger5925]

And.. what exactly will gamers 'win' by boycotting the game they want to play ? Assume hypotetically ED go to bancrupt tomorrow because of boycottin players, what exactly DCS player will gain from that ? Magically motivate some other company to invest gazzilion amount of money to do what ED does for years from scratch and hoping same greatful players will not boycot again at the first sign of issues ? For sake, why not just enjoy the game if you enjoy it ? Report a bug if need, report to wishlists if needed. This is enough.

[@BlackbirdDrozd]

Ok, if I take your argument here, then why is ED constantly breaking even their single player missions? Try loading a year old more complex single player mission, you have a 50-50 chance that something in it will be already broken by AI behaviour or some trigger function changing. I rememebr the FC3 single player campaigns being themselves as ED's own creation brokend for years. So no dynamic campaign or large war scenarios ... but then why even single player content is in state that it is. Just keep backwards compatibility and get out of the ivory tower and integrate something like steam workshop for missions and it would at least make the single player "war museum" argument fly.

[@Enigma89]

Because people keep buying

[@BlackbirdDrozd]

​@@Enigma89 Yes, but I wanted to just say that then it is not even a good "planes museum" ;) And greetings from a fellow burned out DCS abuser.

[@pgm316]

I'm guessing the dynamic campaign won't be free? Got to pay to taste the cake 😂 Falcon 5 has gone quiet. I can't imagine investors taking on anything other than a modern IL2 type game. What confuses me; why is BMS not sold on Steam.

[@networkgeekstuff9090]

​@@pgm316 BMS cannot be probably sold because it is based on leaked source code and work of many vulenteers that would suddenly demand some compensation. So that is a legal hell. Microprose is selling Falcon 4.0 on steam so if they were smart they make BMS a single click install via steam workshop (as if mod) and increase Falcon 4 price if they want. Falcon 5 is still just a hope, we cannot comment on that. If they figure out some way how to bring BMS code legaly inside Falcon 5. that would be a good move as there is lot of simulated content already done in BMS like IFF, great flight model, etc... you just need professional team to change the graphica engine and create modern assets as the models are super old there. So I simply hope Falcon 5 will be based on BMS code as that will make it attractive to investors as a lot of good work is already finished. But I am a programmer, I know how much the law can be a problem if many people contributed to a code that can block that code being monetized until you get approval from all authors.

[@castor3020]

@@BlackbirdDrozd Instead of WD40 aka Water Displacement 40, DCS is WD2.9. Still kind of Crummy at what it does but aw man DCS 40.0 is going to be awesome!

[@kalifornia909]

My biggest issue with dcs is that I see so much potential in it. People are using it outside what it was designed for because they see the potential. That's why when they let us down with performance issues, scandals, and early access modules that hardly make sense to fly it disappoints more. People love these aircraft and yes we get impatient but at the end of the day we spend money on faith of the potential we see.

[@justicier10-7]

As a procedure sim, virtual museum, machinima creation engine... DCS is great. As a COMBAT Flight Sim... that simulates the planes and a large-scale dynamic combat environment... it's very wanting I hate to say. The fact that ED's dynamic campaign system has taken this long and still isn't released... just shows their priorities. Lack of competition breeds stagnation, but if people keep buying, nothing will ever change for the better.

[@dutch_bullet]

The only company truly capable of challenging DCS is Microsoft/Asobo. If they decide to expand MSFS into a combat flight simulator, ED could face serious competition. While MSFS already features high-quality third-party jets, they currently lack weapon and radar systems. In all fairness, if Xbox/MSFS were to head in that direction, it would likely attract far more mainstream attention than ED could ever achieve. When looking at smaller projects, there's no need to have 50 full-fidelity planes-just focus on one, like in the flight sims of the 90s and 2000s. A single, well-executed aircraft can provide a rich experience.

[@stoyantodorov2133]

Thanks for this comment, that's honestly a perspective I didn't see until now. Didn't cross my mind that a developer studio doesn't need to be too profitable to dethrone DCS. Might even eat a loss until they kill the competition. Just needs to be backed by a huge company with money to burn.

[@mzaite]

Meanwhile X-plane is out there with a full backend for weapons and systems that nobody will touch because they aren't flashy charlatans like Asobo.

[@Raiders1917]

​@@mzaiteor Falcon BMS, because "it's old"

[@IndianArma]

I think gaijin is sitting on a literal gold mine with war thunder sim. But gaijin is going to gaijin.

[@sim_nowotny]

MS/Asobo has shown that you can have 50 well-made planes with 100% fidelity. There are many extraordinary 3rd party developers who can contribute a lot. And as I said in a post above, they've already made a lot of progress with the civil simulator: Photogrammetry, auto-generator of buildings, weather, countless mods that the community could contribute, 3rd party developers, flight physics, DX12, DLSS FG, Navigraph, etc. Even the potential to release just one map and that's enough: The whole world. The only drawback is that if they are going to compete seriously with DCS they should separate the simulators between Xbox and PC platforms. And they should stop that silly speech that their fighter planes don't carry bombs or missiles because they don't want to foment war, pfff.

[@Dracomarine]

I won't be buying anything until the situation is addressed. Not even resolved, just addressed by ED. Not even mad, I just cannot trust my modules to not just stop working at some point.

[@vimfuego8827]

All modules will stop working at some point so stay at home for the rest of your life and do nothing ! Play the game, you bought your modules so why not enjoy them cos the RB/ED thing ain't going to change anything.

[@Dracomarine]

@@vimfuego8827 nah, Ill go play another game. Hopefully one with a community that isn't international champions of Strawman construction.

[@vimfuego8827]

@@Dracomarine OK, no lost to anyone, enjoy.

[@Dracomarine]

@ lost profits for ED. I won’t be the only one, either

[@vimfuego8827]

@@Dracomarine Not enough to make even a pin prick to EDs customer base. The vast majority continue to play super carrier, helos, WWII, Cold War jets and the high fidelity modules regardless of the Razbam garbage caused by Razbam themselves. Good riddens to them.

[@ambientlightofdarknesss4245]

Dcs isn't too big to fail. it has no compettitors to make it fail. It's why games like war thunder can still make massive amounts of money despite having a dogshit buisness model. DCS is the ONLY game where you can fly a massive amount of jets in an actual combat enviornment.

[@RazloTPD]

Big fan of this video. It's rare to see such an honest, fair video about what DID fundamentally is. Thanks for creating it.

[@mj533]

My last purchase was the F15E so needless to say that I will NOT be purchasing anything from ED or any developer until the dispute is resolved in a positive manner for PLAYERS. Also ED needs to get their shit together when it comes to the promised dynamic campaign… there are too many aircraft and too few missions or campaigns!

[@AliAhmed-jw4cs]

I disagree. DCS is not too big to fail. If a sim comes out tomorrow that has a more hardcore and "realistic" Sim experience the hardcore players will move to that straight away because it'll be seen as the new challenge and that'll draw consistent numbers and sap those of DCS slowly over time as long as that product is better than DCS.

[@gustavomazonave8536]

With the way Falcon BMS is now, i wish MicroPose would be the next big competitor to DCS, now not focused only on the F-16, but other fighters as well

[@aussiegta8267]

Like the F=15E from Razbam????? To soon................

[@parab225]

Digital Cockpit Simulator golden age confirmed.

[@dimitri1154]

Its really not as bad as people make it seem. People ask for way too much. What we are asking for takes years and years to build. Flight sims are extremely niche and have small dev teams.

[@nikolaideianov5092]

​@@dimitri1154 yeah another example of this is warthunder There just isnt anything that close to it

[@Tepnox]

​@@dimitri1154I don't expect much but still hope for patches that don't break features each and every time. And yet I still get disappointed each time thx to ED. Their quality policy is a hassle and not functional at all. Now even more they discontinued Open Beta. Now we are back to monthly updates and hope a hotfix comes around next time if ED pleases to do so. This goes on and on for months - no wonder the Early Access idea gets overstretched and modules stay in developer hell for years to come.

[@dimitri1154]

@@Tepnox maybe i dont play as much, but I don't really experience anything game-breaking or any major bugs really. I play my scripted campaigns that I get off steam, and I'm pretty happy with that.

[@lukewilliams8835]

@@dimitri1154yeah I’ve been saying this people need to understand this

[@lefty59th18]

Simulator is only a title, that only means an opportunity. The WAY you use it, makes the game a simulation.

[@test-16132]

True, I'd even say that DCS is a game, which takes a lot of efforts and proper settings to use as a simulator.

[@dienicy]

I misuse DCS. I'm expecting finished modules instead of increased requirements.

[@r.m.8367]

I have owned ED products for over 20 years. It was very clear, even in the early years, that only a small number of people were enjoying multiplayer (largely because of the steep learning curve and competative barriers for new players). Frankly, I gave up on getting constantly shot down until the cold war server came along, and I realized that PVP in early generation jets was my forte! I agree that offline customers are DCS' bread and butter, and so I fault them in not providing a dynamic campaign YEARS ago. For offline players like me, there is no reason to buy the modules without one. The ratio of cost to hours played is simply too low. So every 2 years I check the status of the DC, yawn, and then go play MSFS.......

[@TomP-148]

If DCS had decent competition I would assume they would get their act together. Half the community is done with their BS, while the other half is too new to know

[@aussiegta8267]

Over 10yrs, hardly to new to know. I just don't bitch like a two year old every time I get what they advertise, but not what I wanted.

[@starfleethastanks]

HB certainly helped DCS by releasing the F-4 when they did.

[@qwert4461]

In Germany, we use WD-40 for EVERYTHING 😂

[@RicheUK]

Yeah, especially on top of Cornflakes in the morning :)

[@ajkulac9895]

Same in Croatia

[@qwert4461]

@@RicheUK loool

[@chrisgoblin4857]

I bought the Phantom on release because it was Heatblur. Their F14 and Viggen are outstanding and I could trust their quality. I wouldn't buy a Razbam module even before the drama as they seem to leave things unfinished for very long periods of time.

[@DerekSpeareDSD]

Been flight simming since Dos3. DCS has no real competitor. They could increase their revenues and reach significantly if they would just make the whole world a map a la Flight Sim 20/4 and Xplane. Then let the "community" to offer scenery and aircraft via their own store within DCS, either for pay or free, and let the users decide what is good and what isn't based on a community feedback system. Alternatively, they could offer a separate civil/military sim to compete with the others since they have a huge user base and a ton of good will. ED's spat with one of their 3rd party makers is dumb. ED has not handled it well. It's childish that situation and makes both parties look bad.

[@benjaminbrowning206]

I feel like you only scratched the surface of DCS's problems.

[@mzaite]

They avoided a lot to push their thesis.

[@TheGreatRepeller]

You cant talk about DCSs problems and not mention that giant canuck turd called Bignewsy.

[@mattboggs6304]

He can't be too negative or he runs the risk of losing early access to unreleased games like Sea Power, and sponsorships from War Thunder etc.

[@tyray3p]

I mean I dunno about anyone else but if games like Nuclear Option or VTOL VR did similar things like DCS where outside companies could produce and sell their own planes I would jump ship so fast. I mean I already play these two games more than DCS by far. They've got that perfect blend of having all the fun realistic aspects of air combat (especially VTOL VR) while having none of the boring sloggish aspect of it like needing to watch a 13 hour playlist on youtube of how to fly your plane because seemingly no one other than Razbam actually makes tutorials for their planes.

[@Tuscarora]

WWII multiplayer is over for anyone who has trouble spotting the enemy and that's probably most people. There is no point in flying when the enemy can see you from 10 miles away and through ground clutter and you can't see them

[@slammerf16]

and clouds

[@AngryCassowary]

Even though ive always wanted to get into DCS but all the issues that have happened this year has been the main reason i havent gotten it yet. Luckily im very happy with Falcon BMS and its scratching the itch in the mean time

[@GamerFromSpace]

I'll be honest I've been kind of distancing myself from dcs, for someone who doesn't want to pay or has space for all the maps. I just feel like the game hasn't changed a lot, not a lot of major features, understandably there is mostly blue for aircraft but what's annoying is that my most anticipated plane, the strike eagle has been essentially dead in the water. NGL I think that's when I stopped playing, when the razbam controversy happened and I really hope it will get resolved

[@connla]

I wonder if somewhere deep in microsoft there is a temptation to rekindle the microsoft combat flight simulator brand built on top of what MSFS 2024 lays down.

[@dontaddmehobo]

Microsoft, the company who couldn't keep up support for mixed reality on THEIR OWN os for 5 years? Excellent candidate to start making a game, fuck it up and stop, but that's about it.

[@aussiegta8267]

With the influx of combat aircraft in MSFS you have to wonder if that is the strategy. That said, most have rubbished the flight models and system models.

[@connla]

@@aussiegta8267 yeah but the big appeal that MSFS could bring is the world scale, the original combat flight sim brand was pushing to do wider and wider scale recreation of theatres (with quite the dynamic western front theatre in part 3) and a reoccurring restriction popping up in other flight sims like IL2 and DCS is a lot of warplanes were built with much larger theatres in mind. It opens up for Microsoft to be the defacto simulator for all the larger warplanes, B52's, B29s, the U2, the goddamn SR 71. If they wanted a corner of the market to dominate that would be an easy entry point to start building a base from.

[@acebubbles5023]

my PC can’t handle multiplayer. I have 2,000 hours and 70% of it is single player with the other 30% being on a server with me and 1 and MAYBE 2 friends. if it’s a server like Enigmas Cold War my PC gets a frame ever 5 seconds

[@appa609]

I think upgrading the AI pilots should actually be the #1 priority of DCS right now. It's such a no brainer. The field has advanced at such a startling pace in the last 10 years that a good undergraduate CS student can probably do it as a school project in a semester. Once the AI actually knows how to act like a human, the possibilities are endless.

[@frankybluesy3492]

I discover DCS 3 years ago and for me it was the best Simulator ever. I've bought a lot of module since (f-18, f-16c, f-14, f-4, FC3, Huey) But since last year, my playtime is almost nothing. I'm 38 years old and not so much playing in MP server and mostly play in SP. The content in SP is not so good exept some good campaing. Its been so many years that ED talk about the Dynamic Campaing and I'm still waiting ...

[@jasonirby3382]

I think a major mistake is players compare DCS to some idea of a perfect sim in their head. It is only fair and reasonable to compare DCS against the currently existing competitors. Who beats DCS on all features across the board? IL2 better WW2 gameplay (so far) but inferior graphics and sound and IMHO, FM. Perhaps WWII dev being abandoned now for years to come. BMS better campaign, but fails on graphics and breadth. WT? lol. Combat Pilot? Doesn't exist. Might not for years. We can re-evaluated after Midway is released. Many a slip between cup and lip but looks promising ....someday. None of those have helicopters. MSFS doesn't make things go bang. When I find something that is better across the board on all features, I'll buy it.

[@mzaite]

The problem is, the community as a whole KNOWS how to make it work. Just not profitably. Which is fine for a hobby, see BMS. ED just can't play with modders because their "real" product needs to be secure enough for governments to buy them. So people get frustrated that ED won't implement a thing they know how to already do. But that they spent thousands of free hours working specifically and only on.

[@jasonirby3382]

@@mzaite I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but it is an academic argument. Who surpasses them on all features across the board? If there is an existing competitor that does, I'll switch my spending over to them. I can think of a million things DCS ought to do, I just can't find a real, existing competitor that does all that better than DCS, even with all it's flaws. Maybe's, coulds, just wait and see 5 years from now, hmmm maybe. Until then, I don't see a better option for the things I want.

[@muhammadsaleh7229]

The actual problem lies within us , nowadays it seems like people have forced themselves to either play too much realistic games or too arcadey ones . There is no in between , if anyone mentions a simcade , people get angry. Back in the 90s , more focus was done on giving the feeling of being in combat not feeling the aircraft . If developers nowadays use the 90s flight sim tactic which Janes and many others did back in the day , we would again get a revival of flight sims . Simcades are easier to make and appeal more people

[@mzaite]

Problem is Janes was the beginning of the end because they even got too fidelity drunk. The 90's Microprose boom was built of playable mockeries of fidelity that were fun, but not terribly realistic, but as realistic as any flight sim could be at the time. Janes and Falcon 4 were the beginning of the end due to exponential realism growth.

[@Mo-GC]

Yeah, I really enjoyed games like Jane's USAF back in the day. This is why I'm truly high on games like Nuclear Option, we need more games like this.

[@corvanphoenix]

It's called Digital Combat Simulator though not Digital Procedure Simulator. They sure don't advertise it as not being designed to stimulate combat either.

[@karlhungus545]

I'm not buying anything new until I see the dynamic campaign. The AH 64D was my last. On AI, if BMS can do it with the MUCH older Falcon 4 engine, there are no excuses in DCS, other than lack of effort. I thought we were in the 'age of AI'? 🤔 Single player is where 90% of players spend their time. Unfortunately, as in most games, other than coop, multiplayer is more work and time commitment than its worth.

[@EmeraldCoast826]

It's already failed for me and some of my friends. When it's time to boot up a flight sim, DCS hasn't been picked in two years. For us, it's dead Jim.

[@takodac2469]

Dcs I don't think was ever a hop on and play for a few hours game. some missions I make alone take hours to make and can take 2 or 3 hours to fly and do all I wanna do. Literally have 2 friends that prefer ace combat because it's simple they just hop on and fly and shoot almost immediately. When they watch me play dcs they don't get why I do ground starts and set up my nav. they want me to just fly into the hot zone they always say this is so boring and slow, we wanna see war. So I don't think it's fair to act like it's a casual game. it take time to learn aircraft and how each fly individually!

[@stoyantodorov2133]

@@takodac2469It can be hop and play depending on module. I fly the MiG-21 and the startup procedure is so simple that I can complete it even after a years long hiatus.

[@takodac2469]

@stoyantodorov2133 True!! the mig 21 is simple. But everytime I try to convince people to play dcs, they don't wanna have to learn the switches. like all the people ive convince to play, stop at the t51 start up because they just don't wanna have to learn the easiest procedure!

[@Denkmaldrubernacht]

If war thunder sim had more love, it could entirely fit the niche of a good fidelity simulator with more hop on hop off accessibility

[@takodac2469]

@anrw886 If it also had more players too! 🤣. I remember I waited 20 min to find a server and I just canceled que and said fuck it imma play dcs!

[@NyteStalker89]

No product is too large to fail. It just takes some missteps to disillusion the community at large.

[@thesleepylax]

"Digital museum" was an incredibly poignant choice of words. Using that to describe DCS from now on.

[@Seventeeenth]

Ive been having more fun on the pve servers such as shadow reapers. You kinda hit the nail on the head with the statement that dcs is more like a virtual airshow where the focus is to show off systems in a somewhat realistic combat environment.

[@takodac2469]

@Seventeeenth Kongo!!! And I agree PVE is alot of fun, but I see people's issue. they think dcs is like warthunder or other fight games where it's fast in and combat up the butt. I'm the last one of my group to stay true to dcs. Everyone who I know I've gotten into dcs don't like the learning curve it's not something alot of people wanna put time into doing. they would rather get their dopamine and get out.

[@rutrose2000]

I mean when it takes 7 or 8 years to bring a module to a playable state does it really matter? Whats the point of getting fired up and excited of what could be close to a decade before you can play it? The state of the game is one of perpetual meh.

[@J-Dads]

I agree that Early Release has certainly been abused in the past, but the Kiowa and F4 releases are two of the most recent releases and both are in an advanced state and highly playable / fun. So I hope ED and devs are learning from previous mistakes.

[@Chief-rx5zr]

As someone who was looking into DCS and deciding whether I want to commit and what module I’d want, I greatly appreciate this perspective of the game. I think I’m still interested in the PvP aspect, but going in knowing the game priority will make it easier to understand, thank you for the well throughout video.

[@Enigma89]

If you agree with this video then you may be interested in supporting Combat Pilot's Patreon which was announced today in this video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/qZqTZZd8a6eprZo Combat Pilot let me know about this when I already had this video basically done, so seeing as it was on trend I gave them a shout out. It is a huge risk to make these sort of games and working capital, especially in an high interest rate time is not easy. So if you are keen you may want to lend your passion and support.

[@EpicNinjaRides]

Not everyone wants to fly Warbirds though, does Combat Pilot plan to evolve into jets at any point? If not then it’s going to be doa for a lot of DCS players.

[@madaxe606]

All very well said. I think too many of the hardcore players have lost sight of just how different they are from the core customer base for DCS. Customer surveys show that MP sweats are a minuscule fraction of ED’s customers. Moderating my expectations for what I can get out the game has definitely gone a long way to helping me simply enjoy what DCS does well. That said, I hope that thoughtful critiques of ED’s decisions will result in productive changes to ensure that the game thrives.

[@MonkeyDLuffy368]

I work in game development, our company decided to sell a cosmetic DLC for $12, much higher priced than our standard $5. I was against the idea, thinking it was overpriced and would reflect negatively on our game. Two months later and it has earned more money than all of our previous cosmetic products combined. There was a very large silent majority who just bought it anyway. There is a growing population of people who buy first and ask questions later. Reminds me very much of the meme of the "Boycot MW2" steam group, where 75% of the members were still playing MW2. Many of those in the starkest opposition still begrudgingly play the game day after day. Very common in MMOs, Mobas, etc. If the silent majority who live in ignorance continue to buy, and the biggest complainers still begrudgingly buy, then who is left 'voting with their wallet'? The 10% of the 10% who both dislike the current state of things AND think it's bad enough to stop purchasing? While the complaints are valid, it's simply not enough to rock the boat and incite change. There is nowhere else to go, if people want the type of game DCS offers at the end of the day they must come to DCS to get it. Games like League of Legends, World of Warcraft, Call of Duty, War Thunder, etc have all gone through similar if not larger scandals and protests. At the end of the day they're all still standing thanks to the support of the millions of silent whales who continue to subscribe and purchase.

[@mariushusejacobsen3221]

DCS is essentially a large library of distinct simulator games that interoperate. Any new game will have to compete not with the individual modules, but the DCS alliance - the whole library of DCS modules, allied against the newcomer. To catch up, you'll have to put in an equivalent amount of effort, which will take time, and you'll be inferior until you catch up. The genius masterstroke that set DCS on this path was to integrate disparate platforms (ka50, a-10c) into the same environment, DCS, and keep adding to it. Letting terrain and aircraft be modules that could be mixed at will. Letting these all interact in a multiplayer setting, at their full level of detail. Just about every game before it with a decent level of detail/fidelity, was a standalone title that only ever interacted with itself. The sole exception I know of is the novalogic f16/mig29 titles. (I heard that a particular pair of ww2 escort destroyer/uboat games never interoperated properly, but were at least intended to.) The biggest strength of DCS is that long legacy of still-useful work. The weaknesses of DCS are manageable byproducts of that. ED could perhaps manage the weaknesses better. Beware calls to 'replace the engine' etc. That usually adds at least a decade to the development time (see Arma 4) but in DCS' case that's essentially a call to abandon DCS. I do also play a good bit of vtol vr, and intend to make another try at getting F4BMS going, but DCS is 'home'. Here's to hoping Modern Naval Warfare are successful in going the same path. (As for 'going beyond its intended uses', there's a saying about real time sandbox games, whether DCS or Arma or otherwise. Any increases in performance is immediately consumed by players deploying more units, and thus apparent performance stays the same.)

[@spaghetti9845]

DCS gets their real income from the military contracts they do and we end users get the stripped left overs that trickle down as an afterthought. The only reason the modules we have exist is because some military somewhere asked for it in MCS and they figured they could make a buck selling it to the public. 3rd party devs are another story, which is why they have a different variety of aircraft than the stuff ED publishes. You could dedicate a whole video to the shady business practices of ED.. like them laundering money for example. Interestingly, you can point all this stuff out to people and they will still defend ED and say razbam is scum. If you want proof, take a look at your receipt next time you buy something. ED is a RU company, but your billing goes to a 3rd party company in zurich.

[@cha5er]

somehow i feel a little bit of bias in this video... we don`t even know what happen between RB and ED.... what would be your solution? punish HB with not buying F4 for example? beat the small ones to get the attention from the big one? it will be a loss for us all, if this is not going to end well... i`m not a english native, so maybe i didn`t get whole point of the video, but for me it sounds like that you criticise people who simple just enjoy and support the game, by how it is, and i think most people experience that it is just a constant beta... but this is the best one we had... if no one support this, its probably going to die... don`t get me wrong, a good 2nd challenger on the market would be beneficial for the genre... maybe the next falcon iteration would be an option... i see very slow, but steady progress, not happy with every decision, but in summary happy with it...

[@littleponygirl666]

You are absolutely right. I'm one of those who play DCS on MP and while it's really fun it also is extremely difficult to pull off meaningful missions. The game simply doesn't support it. It's a sandbox, no DTC and no easy way to plan missions so yeah, I'm not the target audience. Been meaning to get back to BMS for the longest time already so maybe this finally gave me the reason.

[@JohnGaltAustria]

Microsoft could do it, if they really wanted to.

[@UrMumSaysHi]

That’s not how you spell Microprose

[@blanchbacker]

Microsoft cares too much about their kid friendly image. I’ve been hoping for years

[@JohnGaltAustria]

@@blanchbacker I wouldn't consider some games on Xbox "kid friendly". I guess Microsoft considered it once and decided that the return on investment just wouldn't be enough, which is understandable.

[@blanchbacker]

@@JohnGaltAustria I get what you’re saying, but they definitely are straying away from M games and realistic depictions of violence in their first party titles. Halo Infinite was rated T and has no blood, which is a JOKE lol

[@mzaite]

Not working through Asobo they can't. If they had a totally different team start from scratch maybe, but that's AAA costs for a game that maybe will sell as well as Forza if they're very lucky.

[@Rahul_Raju]

I miss the good old days playing Janes USAF, IAF, FA18, Combat flight simulator etc. We really are in a Sim dark age.

[@dq9275]

Great video. Very fair analysis!

[@jimmy5004]

Two things regarding the F-4 release. Some of us bought it direct from the Hearblur store. Also, I’m guessing there were a lot of pre-purchases prior to all the drama.

[@jimmy5004]

People aren’t going to stop flying modules they already bought, especially in multiplayer if that’s their thing. The true test will be how well the Iraq map does. It came out of nowhere, after this drama. That’s probably a better gauge as to if people will still shell out money and purchase new things versus continuing to enjoy things they’ve already bought.

[@anthonydevellis6708]

Fantastic analysis. I completely agree with you. Nail on the head, bullseye, whatever you want to call it. Especially the point about the lack of vision for what it could be. Can't blame them for taking the safe route in such a niche space.

[@tim-3705]

what i truely hate about the razbaam ED situation, is the fact that some parts of the community blindly assume that it is ED's fault. And that they are a big meany corperate corperation, that does meany things just for the sake of being evil. I personally feel that it could be very possible that razbaam is to blame. And as a community we should wish for the situation to be rezolved, without "picking a side" and appointing one side as the underdog.

[@TheGreatRepeller]

You should pick a side. DCS fanbois are on team PUTIN and far too stupid to know it.

[@rondaxen88]

100% agreed.

[@marian_ws]

props for getting through this without mentioning falcon bms even once, just a testament to how well thought out your videos and points you make are. love the wd-40 hook.

[@keysersoze1855]

In fairness, both CEO's after the initial spat have kept their mouthes shut, it's the Razbam devs who have always kept the fires stoked, and they're not helping. If a game riles people up that much, delete it from your HDD and move onto something else.

[@tigeriausf.e5180]

Glad to see someone pointing out how much of a monopoly ED has on military aviation simulation. As much as I think ED is not the best publisher, I can't find myself playing any other sim. Especially with the amount of money I (and many others) have sunk into it. Nothing else comes anywhere close to DCS. ED continues to shoot itself in the foot by doing things like the Razbam situation. By now, the F-15E would have arguably been the top dog compared to all the other 4th gens. We *could* have had a better targeting pod or a datalink page by now. But instead, we have a bare-bones strike eagle that has no real reason to be used compared to the capabilities of the F-16 and F-18. It's just extremely frustrating to see a module I was extremely excited to learn the in's and out's of, come to a screeching halt. it had so much potential to be among the best modules in quality, functionality, and useability. Now its dead, with no real hope to get resurrected.

[@99AudiMan09]

excellent insight, sir. Well said on all points and you remained Objective. I appreciate the video!

[@Jhoson14]

well said Enigma!! One of the Reasons i'm sticking to IL-2 series instead. Fun MP, decent perfomance and easier to fly casulaly once in a while

[@chembleton]

I've bought loads of modules but tbh I've stopped playing because I just don't find it fun. Not even remotely. Yes it's meant to be a super realistic sim but it's still a game and should have some element of fun. Too many unfinished modules also doesn't help.

[@ZJ517]

I think a better analogy for DCS is Microsoft Excel - one that is versatile enough for users to start, and keep, using it to do things that it was never designed for, and then being criticised for not being capable to handle these additional application well enough. In both cases, versatility is what make them so successful, whilst being some panned at the same time.

[@bjrnchrstn]

Im spending more time on setting up my vr settings in a decent way than playing the game. All because DCS is on a sh#%t dated platform.

[@Screamingtilltheend]

I'm hoping that this rumor that razbam and micropose is true. Purely to give DCS a proper rival...and an alternative because honestly? I'm pretty sick of DCS and burnt out of all the bullshit and issues. I love IL2 and even WT sim is pretty decent but I'd love a real DCS competitor and Falcon 5 could absolutely do that.

[@mrwolverinio]

With how shady razbam has been outside of the current debaucle I don't have confidence in that team in any form to produce and sustain a product

[@cagneybillingsley2165]

dcs should have understood their niche and not gone into the ww2 space. it was a money grab afaic

[@bird.9346]

I very much doubt that Falcon 5 will go beyond a "sim lite" thing, and as was mentioned you shouldn't have much hope in Razbam in general...

[@Screamingtilltheend]

@@cagneybillingsley2165 ww2 dcs is actually pretty good at quite a few things but ww2 dcs was a thing from the very start. Took them long enough to implement it but it was very early in development that ww2 dcs was announced

[@bird.9346]

I mostly agree with what you said. I've always felt that DCS was originally meant for aviation enthusiasts to nerd out over airplanes in either focused singleplayer missions or smaller multiplayer ones. It wasn't really meant to be an expansive multiplayer "game." Maybe the dynamic campaign will push them towards some new routes, but I feel as more folks are added into the community who don't fit the original intended audience the more angry parts of the community become. I will also say I very much dislike the plain toxicity I've been seeing in many of these communities Personally for me in many ways DCS is a dream come true.

[@RevBDes]

DCS needs proper ground units

[@ajkulac9895]

And proper naval units

[@Sunnfjordingen]

I personally would give ED credit for how they have developed the game. Instead of trying to please every user, they've sticked to their path and focused on their vision for the game. A rare trait in todays gaming world. There are many games I wish were developed based on what I want, but were never made. I.e if I really want a "Apple picking simulator", and my only option is a kids game that is focused on something completely different, but happens to have an apple picking minigame in it. Then there is no point in attacking my only option just because there isn't anyone else to be upset with. They made a product the way they wanted it. Take it as it is, or leave it. I've got over 2000 hours of playtime and not a single minute has been spent in multiplayer, because I actually figured DCS is an SP game mainly. I've found so much appreciation in mastering my modules in SP scenarios I've built myself in peace. And regarding the controvercy; Nothing is settled and we don't know all the details. It doesn't concern us at the moment.

[@IL2TXGunslinger]

Ive lived and played combat flight sims since the 90’s. It absolutely astounds me that any company is left. I have bought most DCS modules since the beginning - even when not actually active. Why? I simply wanted to help the genre survive and the fidelity of each and every module was so much higher than any other offerings. This video is the most balanced I’ve ever seen anyone do. The angry mobs rarely win - and often simply don’t understand labor $ and complexities. No combat sim will ever be developed in the West - the labor costs are way too high. People complain about the cost of DCS modules - but can you imaging the price to break even if the employees were in the US? In any event - thanks for making this - and thanks again for all your sacrifice in building, designing and managing the Cold War Server.

[@AdastraRecordings]

Central banks are the only things too big to fail, or at least too big to not be bailed out, until the Empire they exist within falls.

[@arnaudboucaud1894]

Also. In real life. Sh... happens. The deal between RB and ED, it s like a divorce. Parents will try to make the best for their kids. I believe ED has the will to do so, but they cannot do everything they want.

[@MrStefan232]

The company just needs to complete a full fidelity Su-25T that is free to the public or finish the Caucasus map and they would never worry about money again

[@thelespauldude3283]

I also think DCS is being missused, especially multiplayer servers. It feels like servers are slowly turning into call of duty lobbys where everyone does their own thing, often completely misusing their aircraft and then getting mad because its not doing what they want it to do, while on the other hand the server owners only really care about getting as many people as possible on their servers to see them donations flying in. I think this also has to do with that a lot of the newer players in DCS are relatively young and simply dont understand what a combat flight sim really is about, so they think they are getting a warthunder-like experience where they can just hop on and do some casual gaming but then get frustrated because they dont know what they are doing while thinking they know exactly what they are doing and thats when it starts to become a toxic environment. I rarely play on puplic servers anymore because of the amount of hate and rage thats going on there combined with absolute zero interest in realism. People taking off from taxi ways, landing on occupied runways, two people landing on the same runway in oppsite directions and then blaming each other for 30 minutes in Chat... It seems like the average player doesnt care about the realism of DCS anymore, they just want to fly and shoot at stuff without having to think too much about it. I hope ED will stay on their path of realism instead of trying to please the average player by turning DCS into something it wasnt meant to be.

[@APenRopeApina]

Excellent overview!

[@CodyU571]

Ive been waiting for this conversation to come up.

[@simmybear31]

They need to follow the shining example of IL-2 Great Battles - a shining example of how to keep a franchise growing with FINISHED releases!

[@zaelu]

If MSFS opens up to modding "gun damage" DCS is done for. Not on the spot... but the writing would be on the wall.

[@cagneybillingsley2165]

keep wishing. microsoft devs are jamal, ran jeet, and muhammad couldn't even model toilets correctly.

[@sargentwolfLL]

dcs is the only way i can complete my childhood dreams of being an apache pilot (or maybe one day comanche pilot) i serve in the army but was injured and cannot reenlist. so this is the only way to be one. i will always love this game and understand its a flying museum, i love that term and will start using it to describe the sim. you nailed all the points.

[@kyungholee7219]

what a brilliant reflection! I have learned a lot and you changed my perspective on DCS and Warthunder, or something similar.

[@felipe96150]

Let me continue misusing the product. "Two, eject"

[@2amProFilms]

I dont think PVP is ever the focus of any game devs when PVP and PVE are mixed into the same game. PVP will always take a back seat when PVE is involved.

[@Patrick-oy6er]

I'm done buying modules in DCS . They go half done for what feels like forever. Now they're selling the pre-order for the Iraq map and the Afghanistan map isn't done yet FFS.

[@ToxicPlayer1298]

I hope this game fails and a better company takes over, stealing money infront of the costumers is crazy also releasing half finished ass modules over and over and then wanting an absurd amount of money is also crazy