New Pay Model

I've been seeing some people mention lately that they might prefer a Subscription based pay model since it might provide more incentive for the development team to focus more on core features/bugs and on finishing modules that seem to be eternally stuck in Early Access.

While I had initially never considered this, and at first I didn't like the idea, I found myself starting to warm up to it the more i thought about it. I wonder what the masses think about this idea.

Would you prefer a Subscription based model if it meant more focus could be dedicated to core features/bugs and on getting modules into feature complete states quicker?

I dont like subscriptions, I much rather prefer to purchase when I do have spare money. Also, I would hate not being able to play if I let the subscription lapse.

if it meant more focus could be dedicated to core features/bugs

HALF of ED staff is already allocated to core game features while the other half is spread out on all the modules (WWII and modern, carrier, assets etc).

How much more of that 50% would you like to see working on the core components ?

75% core and 25% modules ? 90/10 ?

People dont realize a dynamic campaign, weather system or vulkan stuff aren't done in 18 months, especially for a relatively small team like ED.

People also need to understand that if one coder works for 8 months on a feature, 8 coders wont take a month to complete it.

that's a terrible idea!

i would not mind, if they scrapped the "free to play" aspect (which is a bit of a farce anyway) and went with a standard pay to play and a new version every other year, but the idea of going full anti-consumer with a subscription model is rather outrageous.

lol no

Not at all. Even tho I have suggested that if funds are needed and it's really honest about the core upgrades, I would accept some kind of way to cover for the upgrades so that it doesn't make all the modules cost more,

There's really been an influx of these corporate culture ideas lately, this is what I've been warning 2 years ago, as DCS gets more popular. To spin FC4 off to MAC as a standalone install has probably been the best key decision and it's already foreshadowing returns on investment :)

Looking back when I started in 2014 I kinda feel bad having those rookie ideas myself at the time, I should have taken it more seriously myself from the get go.

I guess the association isn't the best and it perhaps shouldn't say "Free To Play" on the main site, some kind of a unique term, not easy to coin and be self explanatory, Steam stuff is probably standard and sellers can't change the actual string to something custom I think? No?

Conditionally Free?

Even if the circumstances are a bit more complicated, I think the base download actually counts as a DEMO. Except, it's the same install as a fully moduled one.

I've been seeing some people mention lately that they might prefer a Subscription based pay model since it might provide more incentive for the development team to focus more on core features/bugs and on finishing modules that seem to be eternally stuck in Early Access.

Sums up perfectly why I think a subscription model makes a lot of sense.

I actually think it's awesome to have Hornet and Viper in Early Access and it's cool that they're available on MP servers.

But if it was up to me, I'd rather see some of the ancient Hog and Black Shark bugs fixed, as well as a bunch of core game problems. Plus, stuff like a more detailed weather simulation would be more valuable to me than another multi-role jet, no matter how iconic it may be. A subscription model would be much more likely to give the devs an incentive to develop the core game, fix bugs, deliver a more polished product and keep it polished throughout the entire product lifetime.

Just to be clear, I think it's absolutely amazing how ED keep pushing the boundaries of what can be done in flight sims, and how they manage to keep adding new and awesome features. I'd just prefer to see such features added at a higher pace, while my fascination with the modules degrades with each one that comes out.

Wow, “More prisons, but not in my town!”

Hypocrisy at its finest!!

Absolutely NOT!

Very bad idea.

Some people seem to think that a subscription based model would magically solve Early Access and long development times :doh:

Worst idea ever.

Absolutely yes.

Microsoft Office 365 works this way and I am a happy consumer even if some open source office suite alternatives exist. I've tried them but they are not the same.

If a dcs world 365 / module "x" 365 subscription method of some kind could help to get quicker updates even for older modules, less bugs and such, I'm 100% in.

I do not know if a subscription would be enough to get this result (subscription = more money = more developers? a bigger team and so quicker updates?). I do not know but If so then I'd say yes.

I will drop DCS faster than a hot potato if I have to pay a subscription fee to fly my Hornet.

works great at iracing

Just no

thats a stupid ideia to say the least, and comparing with iracing model (with leagues, championships, etc) is dumber yet.

Yes, but only if it speeded up development and only completed planes would be sold.

Nope, I have already paid for most of the modules, I'm not interesting in paying them monthly without them giving some hardcore promises. Plus I'm happy with the current plan

Why do people think we aren’t going to have options? It’s probably going to be an alternative, not a mandate. It’s not like when subscription comes out overnight ED is taking away our modules

please, can someone explain to me, how one would prefer a subscription over a normal pay-per-license-model (you know, like software used to be sold)?

i honestly cannot iamgine, why someone would promote such anti-consumer-behaviour. i'm confused. i'm also sad how quickly people get used to such corperate bullshit, so much that they now seemingly want that bullshit on everything...

*edit* well it seems to be the minority luckily, but i still find it bewildering.

A subscription model would be unfair for the third party developers, if it gave access to all modules, no matter how good or bad they are. All the income would go in one pot and ED would have to decide how much share each dev would get. In the current pay model the customer decides this. 3rd party devs could loose their motivation to create good products with such a subscription model.

On the other hand, if every module required a separate subscription, then it would probably end in a total mess. While you are flying with one module, you might neglect the others resulting in wasted money for the customer. Thus some customers might decide that they only subscribe for very few modules and therefore they would not be able to fly those other modules occasionally for a few hours. It would also result in less income for ED, when people subscribed to just a few modules.

Also like others have mentioned here, a subscription model is very bad for the customer. It makes planning ahead your financials harder. Making decisions about when to subscribe or unsubscribe is very annoying.

Last but not least ED is planning to create upgrade modules, which is going to allow them to support older modules without such a crazy subscription model. Currently they are only planing to offer an upgrade for the Ka-50, but I am sure other modules will follow. In my opinion this is the best payment model.

Why do people think we aren’t going to have options? It’s probably going to be an alternative, not a mandate. It’s not like when subscription comes out overnight ED is taking away our modules

If ED had two different payment models, then some customers might find it very unfair. E.g. if the subscription price would be too low compared to the one-time payment, then many people would complain.

please, can someone explain to me, how one would prefer a subscription over a normal pay-per-license-model (you know, like software used to be sold)?

When was the last time you actually purchased software? As in you owned it? :smartass:

Software publishers grant usage rights, and that's what we purchase in most cases, along with pages and pages of legal mumbo jumbo that tells us all the things we're not allowed to do with the software. So I don't see that much of a difference between a legally time-unlimited purchase and one that is subscription based and thus time-limited.

The thing is, if ED were to go out of business today, we'd be pretty much screwed. MP? Gone. SP? Might work for a much longer time in offline mode until a reinstallation is required, but without MP I would probably drop DCS rather quickly.

Some 10 years ago, I was totally against subscription models for entertainment purposes. I wanted the right to own the copies I purchased. Now I have a board full of DVDs that look like total crap on the 36" TV. I still own them, but they're perfectly worthless to me.

On Netflix, I can watch many of the same films and shows for a monthly fee, but at least the upscaling looks better than the one from my DVD player. Hell, I spent some 600 bucks on the TNG remaster on Blu Ray, and now I can watch all of it for 12 bucks a month (not that I'd manage all 178 episodes in such a short time ;)).

I don't even wanna know how much I've spent on DCS modules that I haven't flown more than a dozen or so hours. In the long run, I stick with less than a hand full of modules, but I usually purchase most of the new stuff anyway because it's all shiny and fancy.

What it comes down to: As is, ED will have to push out new modules for all eternity or go bankrupt. Or they could switch over to a subscription model, and the almost inevitable shift in product support would benefit me more than new modules.

Edit:

Last but not least ED is planning to create upgrade modules, which is going to allow them to support older modules without such a crazy subscription model. Currently they are only planing to offer an upgrade for the Ka-50, but I am sure other modules will follow.

I take it you weren't around when ED dared make Black Shark 2 a paid upgrade? I'd call it a shitstorm of rather epic proportions that raged for months. Some of the same voices were also heard when it came to a completely optional BS3 (in addition to a free cockpit upgrade, but I guess some people block "free update" and only get "PAY FOR IT AGAIN?!"). ;)

Let's stick with the Ka-50 for a while. I've heard that it's still high up on the list of best selling modules. After some update, the cockpit lighting was broken in a way that a few really important switches no longer had any visible on or off state, and what little contrast there is is inverted. It has been broken for many months now, if not years. It's great to get a free cockpit upgrade that will address not just these issues, but I'd say breaking core functionality is pretty bad. Keeping it broken for so long is very bad. So I've purchased a module that is either broken, or not compatible with any current DCS version. What a great choice.

My reasoning is that companies just can't delay fixing problems that long when people keep paying in order to access the product.

Now we get this discussion that nobody wants every month? Great.

Makes no sense for DCS (most people fly one or some planes but very extensively, nobody likes every plane), nobody likes it (as the poll shows every month) and it wouldnt encourage ED to get any faster with anything because why should that change anything to it.

100% No

I've owned lots of professional subscription software and ALL of it is hugely better maintained with more frequent free core improvements than competing one-time purchase software.

I think people should get over their knee-jerk distaste for the business model. The results speak for themselves.

Fantastic idea, I suggest yearly payment of.. say 200$, also that way people who can only play the game 2-3 days a week or less could be sure that their planes were available for playing any day they wanted. Also they wouldn't need to plan ahead when they're in mood for playing because the payment would have been taken care of already.

So now that I have bought the modules I wanted, I'd have to start paying subscription fee to be able to play them too. Whoever thought of this must be genius.

If the subsciption fee would be applied only to new modules, ED would loose lots of customers because the majority of the people are against such anti-consumer crap.

Obviously ED would have to concentrate on the new modules which have subscription fee leaving the old modules behind and when the reality is that they all have some issues still, which wouldn't be fixed they would loose that customer base too.

P.S.

You forgot the vote option 4; Only if the subscription makes ED employees superhumans who magically work faster.