Would you pay for a monthly DCS subscription?

Nope, I would NEVER agree to a subscription model for DCS. It's a ridiculous idea, so instead of paying for individual EA modules, the ENTIRE game would constantly be in EA with zero incentive to fix things, because they have a steady stream of cash and no accountability? Yeah you can count me out.

They get my money when they produce results, not before.

Great to see the feedback here. It seems like the option of a dedicated online war might be of enough appeal to justify this. Or not. I do find it a little odd that players are happy to spend the equivalent of 5 years worth of subs on a joystick, but won’t shell out the cost of 5 cappuccinos a month for the platform that runs our entire hobby.

If ED ran their business like a western company, we’d have much better visibility on their financial health. I hope that if the company does start to struggle, it would approach the community early enough to raise funds, as we all adore DCS. I think most players would help get the company back on their feet, as we know that our hobby wouldn’t be the same without ED leading the charge. But having visited Moscow and St Petersburg game studios a few times, from my experience Russian companies operate beneath a shroud of secrecy.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=255290 - was done at length recently.

 

Answer is still no, unless it's a service.

 

As far as accountability goes, if people have to sub to fly their already owned aircraft, ED have *zero* pressure to release anything new.

The concept of ARR (Annual Recurring Revenue) would tell you that's not true. The fact that you bought a product with a perpetual license is more of a reason for them *not* innovate. After all, they already "got" your money.

While this has been hashed before, I would happily pay for a subscription. They could keep the free tier, or have 3, 5, 10, all you can eat plane model. Basically a tiered service. And they could even let you check in and out different models on a monthly rotation. You couldn't do it every day, but on a monthly basis, let you try something new.

I dont see squeezing more money out of current customers as the answer to more revenue. Like any other business building your customer base is the better solution.

I think MAC was a good idea for bridging the gap from gamer to flight sim.

Maybe they could look into a promotion with hardware makers. Logitech, Thrustmaster, or someone who makes a VR headset. Offer a discount or free module with purchase to expose people to DCS and lure them in.

This has been shot down more times than I have. Waste of time, moving on.

The concept of ARR (Annual Recurring Revenue) would tell you that's not true. The fact that you bought a product with a perpetual license is more of a reason for them *not* innovate. After all, they already "got" your money.

Is AAR not related to ongoing services? discrete releases of modules are not ongoing services. Moderated dynamic campaigns *would* be an ongoing service.

If I buy a module, sure they have my money, but they aren't getting any more of it for sitting around doing nothing. If I have to pay constantly to fly my aircraft they've got a constant income stream without doing anything at all - they don't have to pay ongoing upkeep on a piece of software running on my own machine.

NO! in current trend.

 

Adobe has shown that they can be making billions per year and they do not release almost any updates or new features. Completely opposite than what they promised when they adapted the subscription model by stating that their customers would receive monthly updates and new features etc in rapid succession, instead in months or years even. They still maintain the same update period as when people paid normal price for 2-3 years, but now they pay it every year for full price and they need to keep paying to use the tools.

I'd say that Adobe is a bit of an outlier compared to the dozens of successful content subscription services - iRacing, Xbox GamePass, PS+, Spotify, Microsoft Office, etc. I don't think picking out one bad example means all subscription services are terrible, and Adobe has started to massively cut prices as a result of the negative feedback around their service.

So ONCE you cancel your subscription, no updates, no new modules... NOTHING.

It'd be the same as every other game on the market, other than MMOs, If you cancelled your subscription you get to keep all of your modules for life. You wouldn't lose anything at all, but ED would need to finish all existing modules first.

And you need to purchase a 6/9/12 month subscription instead one month or so.

Sorry if my post suggested this, I didn't intend it to. I think a monthly subscription fee would be fine.

I have bought many modues but only used a few of them long enough to justify my purchase but I have seen it not as a waste but a "fee" to support ED and the developement of this platform.

So in effect it seems you've made up your own subscription model if you're choosing to buy extra modules that you don't play. I'd guess a small portion of the community did so, and it would be interesting to see exactly how much they spend in "supportive" modules, and then average that out over a year. Even just two modules would cover the cost of an annual subscription, and ED would have the financial freedom to start developing more than just modules. I think this is why ED went down the path of releasing an entirely new game - they'd be well within their rights to make all existing modules limited to DCS 2.5, though the community would not be happy. They wouldn't leave though, as there's no place else to go.

Personally I'd prefer to not buy "supportive" modules that I don't use, and to know that ED doesn't have to release an entirely new game to boost revenue.

Why? It's already a "live service" for which we do not need to pay. Why would we do that?

Please see the initial Pros and Cons that I put into my post. I think the pros far outweigh the cons, on the proviso that ED invested their regular, reliable income back into the game. Obviously with enough profits for the owners to be happy chaps!

eh… thats the red line i'm proud to have never crossed, and i never will cross it.

 

>> NO, i will never ever pay for a montly fee, be it DCS or any other game. <<

 

for many different reasons (i dont see the necessity to write the reasons here and now, but feel free to ask if you really care).

I'd love to hear. I personally think that the majority of issues that the community loves to complain about - mainly that the core DCS platform needs more love, and the lack of finish on modules - could be solved with a subscription model.

The fact that modules are now being released with less features suggest that ED needs to pump these out to stay afloat, which isn't a great sign. If we had a sub model, ED could invest more resources into completing these modules, and the overall financial health of the company would be steadier. I have absolutely no visibility of ED's finances, but as somebody who has closely analysed the game development community for a couple of decades, I see some worrying signs. No one thing is a red flag, but there's quite a few little red threads here and there.

For the hundredth + thread like this one, again,

 

NO, NOPE, NO, NADA, NOT HAPPENING,

That would be the end of me as a Eagle Dynamics Customer :furious:

I see your disdain for this idea, but a red emoji face doesn't really explain why, nor inspire confidence that you've actually thought this topic through. I can only assume you don't like the idea of a monthly sub as you have to spend that small amount each month on sunscreen, which is far more important than the hobby you love possibly more than most other recreational activities? It's a question of priorities mate! :megalol:

You'd honestly give up this pastime because you need to pay the same as 5 coffees per month (that was just a spitball figure of $20, ED would know what a reasonable amount would be that would give them the breathing room to work on DCS as a whole)?

I would pay, but max 5-7 dollars per month in the current state. If DCS used the tech similiar to MFS2020 (streaming scenery) and included all the advanced weather elements and a proper ATC, then 20 bucks or more for sure.

I would pay, but max 5-7 dollars per month in the current state. If DCS used the tech similiar to MFS2020 (streaming scenery) and included all the advanced weather elements and a proper ATC, then 20 bucks or more for sure.

I think I'd leave if they did that. Try pausing their video sometime when they're at low altitude. It looks like crap.

@GunSlinger

It's nobody's responsibility to ''explain why'' they dislike it on such a tired topic. You're not being original. If you want to know why it's disliked, go read the other 39 threads on it instead of being lazy.

I think I'd leave if they did that. Try pausing their video sometime when they're at low altitude. It looks like crap.

Let’s just say my experience on the matter is beyond pausing videos.

 

It's nobody's responsibility to ''explain why'' they dislike it on such a tired topic. You're not being original. If you want to know why it's disliked, go read the other 39 threads on it instead of being lazy.

Nice animation. Pity doing this results in nothing coming up about subscriptions:

https://imgur.com/a/69v1uk9

The few that people have linked to included a whopping 5 sentences about the subject to kick off such a complex hypothetical. They're rather lacking in depth, like all of the posts saying it's a bad idea.

Is AAR not related to ongoing services? discrete releases of modules are not ongoing services. Moderated dynamic campaigns *would* be an ongoing service.

 

If I buy a module, sure they have my money, but they aren't getting any more of it for sitting around doing nothing. If I have to pay constantly to fly my aircraft they've got a constant income stream without doing anything at all - they don't have to pay ongoing upkeep on a piece of software running on my own machine.

The incentive is to keep building and adding on to keep the customer base growing and have recurring revenue to invest more into the core of the product.

In a way, we sorta kinda have it already. If you take F16, F/A18, and F14 from prerlease, it's a lot of money. That would probably add up to a few years worth of monthly subscription. With new "releases" like radar, weapons etc. being added.

So I know the knee-jerk reaction is to say "Hell no!" in reality, we almost have it as a service. You just pay a lump sum ahead of time while getting incremental updates.

And I do have every module DCS has (except MiGs) and my reasoning is that I'm able to support them and DLC makers. Small contribution to a hobby that I really enjoy.

EDIT: I was just reading the "thank you Nick Grey" and I said "who's that?" And coincidentally, what I wrote above is pretty much what the ED founder wrote https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4045236&postcount=4

I wonder why they wouldn't post something like that here.

The incentive is to keep building and adding on to keep the customer base growing and have recurring revenue to invest more into the core of the product.

 

In a way, we sorta kinda have it already. If you take F16, F/A18, and F14 from prerlease, it's a lot of money. That would probably add up to a few years worth of monthly subscription. With new "releases" like radar, weapons etc. being added.

 

So I know the knee-jerk reaction is to say "Hell no!" in reality, we almost have it as a service. You just pay a lump sum ahead of time while getting incremental updates.

 

And I do have every module DCS has (except MiGs) and my reasoning is that I'm able to support them and DLC makers. Small contribution to a hobby that I really enjoy.

 

 

EDIT: I was just reading the "thank you Nick Grey" and I said "who's that?" And coincidentally, what I wrote above is pretty much what the ED founder wrote https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4045236&postcount=4

 

I wonder why they wouldn't post something like that here.

I read that post too, was rather interesting and also the impetus to finally post something I'd been thinking about for a while. I think the sustainability of the financial model Mr Grey talks about isn't the safest bet. The only reason I think a subscription model would be good is that it practically guarantees the ongoing success of ED, and I get to fly my favourite sim for many years to come. So me offering to pay money each month is actually very selfish!

I would pay, but max 5-7 dollars per month in the current state. If DCS used the tech similiar to MFS2020 (streaming scenery) and included all the advanced weather elements and a proper ATC, then 20 bucks or more for sure.

For $20 perbmonth they could have a team of 5 devs who run a centralised server farm that runs an online war. They could even have people manning the AWACS and ATC. The possibilities are freaking amazing. I remember being awestruck when I played iRacing, and think a dedicated online team for DCS could do the same.

i tried to explain in my previous post, anyway for me its a bad idea because:

1) me personally dont like montly fee, i never payed a montly fee for a game and never will.

that a very personal reason, i'm "that kind" of person, some can say i'm a sith because i live of absolutes, but thas it.

2) a montly fee system would discourage any new "almost casual" player from playing DCS, only veterans will pay it, cutting off new "fresh meat" . And yes, i know many people that started to play just because a friend was playing it, then started to like, then bought a cheap module (f15 or su27 mainly) , and so on… .

3) montly fee is not a direct control on products or devs work, in fact i think its LESS leverage because having a steady income makes devs do what they want even more , i would instead pay for a finished product or a "finished update step 2" product, a thing i can buy knowing exactly what it is and what it does. real market works like that, you create a product, and sell it.

you create a new version with real improvments, and make customers pay for the new version, and so on.

i dont know guys, ED has 125 people… and we all would pay more (in different ways ok) for a better product (read: more complete modules, more update to modules, updates to core engine, less bugs, more new modules ecc..), but seems they struggle to deliver it.

from a commercial point of view, its sad see a market willing to pay money , and an offer unable to take full advantage of it.

maybe i just miss Igor times…

i tried to explain in my previous post, anyway for me its a bad idea because:

 

1) me personally dont like montly fee, i never payed a montly fee for a game and never will.

that a very personal reason, i'm "that kind" of person, some can say i'm a sith because i live of absolutes, but thas it.

 

2) a montly fee system would discourage any new "almost casual" player from playing DCS, only veterans will pay it, cutting off new "fresh meat" . And yes, i know many people that started to play just because a friend was playing it, then started to like, then bought a cheap module (f15 or su27 mainly) , and so on… .

 

3) montly fee is not a direct control on products or devs work, in fact i think its LESS leverage because having a steady income makes devs do what they want even more , i would instead pay for a finished product or a "finished update step 2" product, a thing i can buy knowing exactly what it is and what it does. real market works like that, you create a product, and sell it.

you create a new version with real improvments, and make customers pay for the new version, and so on.

 

i dont know guys, ED has 125 people… and we all would pay more (in different ways ok) for a better product (read: more complete modules, more update to modules, updates to core engine, less bugs, more new modules ecc..), but seems they struggle to deliver it.

from a commercial point of view, its sad see a market willing to pay money , and an offer unable to take full advantage of it.

 

maybe i just miss Igor times…

Plunking down $5 to try out FA18 for a month may hook someone who otherwise wouldn't have. Today you have to pay for the entire module just to try it.

Would you pay US$X a month to subscribe to DCS as a live service?

I already pay Netflix, Amazon, Spotify and other entertainment sources monthly to always have new and high-quality content delivered.

Also with the people of the squadron I fly with, we put an annual fee to buy hosting for the multiplayer server.

So yes, it's a model that already works and would not bother me if this means having needed features (and additional content) delivered faster and with higher quality.

Absolutely NO!

Me and other players also had paid certain amounts of money for modules and stuff to keep the wings are rocking.

So now you're asking on top if we are willing to pay additional for money.

Plunking down $5 to try out FA18 for a month may hook someone who otherwise wouldn't have. Today you have to pay for the entire module just to try it.

on that i totally agree.

but a free trial week 2/4 times a year would be even better in my opinion.

No! I hate subscription plans on software.

Since I've paid towards server upkeeps, domain subs, hosting subs, hardware and software updates in strict relation to DCS, paying for a service isn't out of the question at all.

But there is no added service they can provide right now, it's as simple as that and this is why all the nopes come into this thread.

ED has to work on the multiplayer items like the RTS, hosting, Multiplayer scalability, multiplayer performance and stability, Scripting API fixes and additions and a lot of web interoperability before they could begin to think about something they could provide "as a service". They already have the means for providing free weekend (F-14 most recent) and their own security in place now they ditched SF and they are testing those on the community/customers now.

Other than that, there is nothing that the community cannot do with hard work and tears much better than ED can, without any risk or guarantee. You just have to see the MP community and see what efforts go in to see how ED couldnt keep up with that.

I'd love to put in a regular payment to ED to ensure their efforts on development are looked after and I got my "bug of the day" fixed faster. But there's nothing for me to buy and I won't buy double modules because that is nonsensical. ED have to come up with ways to get more regular funding themselves and it has to start with a quality core product, not this ancient bug ridden platform.