Congrats, Gaijin. You somehow managed to piss off both sides of the playerbase with the exact same aircraft.
First, when the F-14D was announced on June 5th, you locked one of the most iconic and anticipated US aircraft behind an $79.99 premium pack , with no researchable equivalent. People immediately asked for a Tech Tree F-14D, and the answer — whether explicitly stated or simply communicated through the way the aircraft was released — was that if you wanted the Super Tomcat, you had to pay for it.
So people paid.
Now, barely two months later, you announce that you’re adding a researchable F-14D after all.
And not even a meaningfully different version.
According to your own announcement, the Tech Tree aircraft will be a “direct analogue in terms of load outs and performance” to the premium F-14D, with alternative skins being one of the few stated differences.
Seriously?
You managed to create the worst possible sequence of decisions:
1. Refuse to give US players a researchable F-14D when the aircraft is released.
2. Put it behind an $80 paywall instead.
3. Let people spend $80 because that’s apparently the only way they’re getting an F-14D.
4. Two months later announce that you’re adding essentially the same aircraft to the Tech Tree anyway.
How out of touch with your own customers do you have to be to think this is a good way to handle a premium release?
And before someone says “but the premium still has premium bonuses” — obviously it does. That’s not the point. The point is that a huge part of the appeal of that pack was access to the F-14D itself , because there was no researchable counterpart. Had players known from day one that an essentially identical Tech Tree F-14D was coming shortly afterward, how many of them would still have spent $80?
And somehow the monetization isn’t even the most frustrating part.
We’re apparently getting another F-14D with essentially the same performance and loadouts , instead of using the opportunity to represent a genuinely different configuration — such as an F-14D(R) with historically appropriate distinctions.
Meanwhile, the existing F-14D still has multiple technical issues and disputed implementations.
The Phoenix family has had repeated reports regarding its behavior and missing capabilities. There are reports concerning the F-14D’s HUD implementation. There are reports concerning its cockpit/MFD functionality. There are also multiple reports and discussions regarding the implementation of the AIM-54C/C+.
So instead of addressing those issues and making the aircraft we already paid for accurate and complete, we’re apparently getting another near-copy of it in the Tech Tree.
Same aircraft.
Same AIM-9Ms.
Same Phoenix implementation.
Same problems.
But hey — different skins.
At this point I genuinely want to know what the thought process was.
If a Tech Tree F-14D was acceptable after all, why wasn’t it announced alongside the premium in June?
If the intention was always to evaluate community feedback, why sell the premium first and only clarify the existence of an equivalent researchable aircraft after people had already bought it?
And if you’re going to add another F-14D anyway, why make it a direct analogue instead of taking the opportunity to model a genuinely distinct F-14D configuration?
Adding a researchable F-14D is absolutely the right decision.
The way you handled getting there is the problem.
You created an unnecessary controversy, monetized the absence of a Tech Tree version, waited until after people bought the premium, and then announced that the researchable aircraft will essentially be the same thing.
Congratulations.
You somehow made adding a Tech Tree F-14D — something the community actually wanted — feel insulting.