DCS: A Way to out of Endless Early Access

Dear fellow pilots,

I made a short powerpoint presentation regarding a different business model for DCS,

"DCS: A Way out of Endless Early Access"

This does not have any specific intent, other than my own curiosity about DCS from a management science viewpoint.

Although the content may explore the possibilities of ED exploiting more from its customers, I do not have any connection with Eagle Dynamics. I am just one of the (frustrated) customer.

Comments are welcome, especially if about similar line of thought experiments.

The slideshare version: here.

The pdf version: here

Better DCS Business Model (1).pdf

Wow!

Some people really appear to have a lot of spare time during this crisis! :eek:

Was a good luagh though! :megalol:

Think about all the time you could have used to fly around and shoot stuff, instead of doing this :doh:

Hi

 

First of all thank you for editing the profanity out of the feedback, I appreciate it.

 

If you have not seen this comment by Mr Grey owner of Eagle dynamics please take the time to read, it does give an insight into why we have the early access model.

 

Thank you

Thanks BiGNEWY for reminder. But I do hope everybody just could think of this post as a though experiment or a what-if scenario about future DCS Business Model, extending current early access model.

ED and third parties make more money, some people get new planes fast, others can enjoy more stability. Win-Win-Win, isn't it?

Many other good business incorporates multi-tier pricing mechanism to discriminate its customers and it's working well. I think it's perfect for DCS.

Dear fellow pilots,

 

I made a short powerpoint presentation regarding a different business model for DCS,

"DCS: A Way out of Endless Early Access"

 

I don't think business is the business for you my friend :music_whistling:

I think the ED community is great. Consulting and improving for free

haha NICE

Thanks for the morning laugh. Don't quit your day job.

It can be improved if dcs is converted to a stock company and has a distributor. And porting to UE4./

It's quite funny to see someone trying to be a CEO. Zakk95, try it !

And for the others who are not happy with the delays (me neither), there are no obligation to help ED in early access...

As consummers, we can decide what we do : paying in EarlyAccess, paying only "full" module, etc... And if the majority is not happy, ED will know it badly...

So zak, don't play the CEO, play the customer ;-)

Hahha, this is hilarious.

Although I have a number of issues regarding early access / pre-ordering, my main issue with ED's financing model is that it distorts the market, and does not reward ED for providing what users of the product actually want.

Personally, of all the DCS aircraft that are available there are only a few that I truly want. When I pay $x for an F-18 I would like that $x to go into F-18 development. I am very keen for the base engine, and VR performance, particularly, to be worked on, and am happy to pay for this. I do not want to buy an aircraft that I'm not going to use to fund this.

I think the model that the company that makes the F-35 uses for its flight sim is the way to go: a chargeable base system upgrade every two years or so. I would be happy to pay around $100 - $200 for this. I would also be happy to pay a proportionate upgrade fee for each aircraft I actually want to own, every time there is a base product upgrade, to bring those aircraft up to date.

P.S. Are you a fan of a certain space sim (best d* one ever) that has been going nowhere for nearly a decade? They have a business model that you might like.

It's quite funny to see someone trying to be a CEO. Zakk95, try it !

 

And for the others who are not happy with the delays (me neither), there are no obligation to help ED in early access...

 

As consummers, we can decide what we do : paying in EarlyAccess, paying only "full" module, etc... And if the majority is not happy, ED will know it badly...

 

So zak, don't play the CEO, play the customer ;-)

Thanks for the advice :)

You commented about a very important points but had to left out in the slide itself:

The Prisoner's Dilemma

Network Externalities

Even some of us want to wait for the stable release, if many other players are playing on the openbeta, their expected value of the DCS is significantly reduced.

Only one persons want to play football, all others want to play soccer:

1) Play alone miserably

2) Play soccer. less fun than football, but well.

So it's not an independent, closed decision. others' decision affects your utility/value/fun.

The problem of current BM is pushing everybody into prisoner's dilemma. Giving up multiplayer because i want stability but all others left for the openbeta? That's not the product value ED promised.

Although I have a number of issues regarding early access / pre-ordering, my main issue with ED's financing model is that it distorts the market, and does not reward ED for providing what users of the product actually want.

 

Personally, of all the DCS aircraft that are available there are only a few that I truly want. When I pay $x for an F-18 I would like that $x to go into F-18 development. I am very keen for the base engine, and VR performance, particularly, to be worked on, and am happy to pay for this. I do not want to buy an aircraft that I'm not going to use to fund this.

 

I think the model that the company that makes the F-35 uses for its flight sim is the way to go: a chargeable base system upgrade every two years or so. I would be happy to pay around $100 - $200 for this. I would also be happy to pay a proportionate upgrade fee for each aircraft I actually want to own, every time there is a base product upgrade, to bring those aircraft up to date.

 

 

P.S. Are you a fan of a certain space sim (best d* one ever) that has been going nowhere for nearly a decade? They have a business model that you might like.

A sound, reasonable pay-as-you-go model, which can work perfectly with DCS. We all love aircraft but we need that to work and upgraded as we want.

Maybe kickstarter like funding / subscription per aircaft? Need to think more about this..

About space sim, i dont play space sim much. I bought X3 (VR) and Elite Dangerous but dont play much of them as there are no content update recently..

In contrast, DCS is a fantastic platform and I love to visit user files campaign sections almost every day. Recently there are a lot of quality, even fully voice-acted user missions and campaigns. DCS is a good platform to play with!

Well this idea between bad and worse. Sorry no better terms. I would use stronger language , but for fear of a nasty message from Forum Admin. Thanks for playing. $500 per month for DCS, even with all modules, is pricing out of the market. This would be economic suicide for ED. Not even professional applications are that costly on subscription. Autodesk Maya $195 p/m. Side Effects Houdini $399 for two year subscription. Unreal Engine - free , but with 10% royalty to developers, of any titles shipped, orm income earned. Prepare 3D, a true professional flight simulator based on MS FS engine, is nowhere any near that.

I look at bugs in DCS and missing features/bugs in modules as indicative of real live aviation. No aircraft is developed perfect , and delivered trouble free. Every type has its quirks and missing features, that become available later.

First F-16 was daylight only and had electrical problems. See story of Afterburn.

F-35 , is well known.

737-8MAX , does more need to be said.

TU-154 is probably the most crashed civilian airliner post 1960's.

F-14A had weak engines and problematic yaw control.

F-111 was so dangerous to the crews that USAF only allowed experienced aviators to transition to the type.

Chinese J-15 is a flawed WIP copy of first SU-33 from Ukraine. Chinese have not got the FBW to work quite right. Yet it is in service.

With in world of DCS, every new module, even of older aircraft, is a new type. Lessons learned from one module are not necessarily shared among new modules. Especially different developers. Even the same development. Case in point. DCS: A-10C TPOD implementation is excellent. DCS: AV-8B/NA TPOD implementation is OK to good. F/A-18C TPOD ehh.. not so much.

I think this would be very toxic for the reputation of DCS.

In F2P games, having very expensive high end content is referred to as 'whale hunting'. In games that have 'openly' followed that path, even where the 'whale' content is purely cosmetic, a lot of contempt is aimed at the developer for engaging in such practices, generally resulting in players abandoning the game and moving to others where they individually feel appreciated by the developer.

Reputation damage is real, within the flight sim and gaming community in general, DCS would immediately just get meme'd on as 'that game that costs $500 a month and that doesn't even include servers'. It'd be a punching bag for toxic pricing and poison new players from visiting the game who might otherwise have given it a go.

Also, considering the price point (and as you say, design) you'll have very few people buy in to that. Lets say 20 people dip in at that level, adding an extra $10,000 a month to the ED coffers. That's still really not big money, you could maybe hire 2 or 3 extra developers, which is great, but again isn't going to put an end to EA. However, that's not considering the loss of new users entering the funnel on account of the toxic pricing memes that'd forever be associated with the sim.

new closed beta testing is great. should help deal with mp bugs we get.

suggestion: closed beta testers don't need to be YouTube people. Being part of closed beta testing shouldn't be for some of the community testers to increase their hit counts.

criticism: not a fan of holding back bug fixes for modules in order to wait weeks for a SC that some don't really care about - so, ie. a much needed Viper DL fix is ready, but we have to wait for SC to have it ? I don't like that very much :)

Well this idea between bad and worse. Sorry no better terms. I would use stronger language , but for fear of a nasty message from Forum Admin. Thanks for playing. $500 per month for DCS, even with all modules, is pricing out of the market. This would be economic suicide for ED. Not even professional applications are that costly on subscription. Autodesk Maya $195 p/m. Side Effects Houdini $399 for two year subscription. Unreal Engine - free , but with 10% royalty to developers, of any titles shipped, orm income earned. Prepare 3D, a true professional flight simulator based on MS FS engine, is nowhere any near that.

 

I look at bugs in DCS and missing features/bugs in modules as indicative of real live aviation. No aircraft is developed perfect , and delivered trouble free. Every type has its quirks and missing features, that become available later.

First F-16 was daylight only and had electrical problems. See story of Afterburn.

F-35 , is well known.

737-8MAX , does more need to be said.

TU-154 is probably the most crashed civilian airliner post 1960's.

F-14A had weak engines and problematic yaw control.

F-111 was so dangerous to the crews that USAF only allowed experienced aviators to transition to the type.

Chinese J-15 is a flawed WIP copy of first SU-33 from Ukraine. Chinese have not got the FBW to work quite right. Yet it is in service.

 

With in world of DCS, every new module, even of older aircraft, is a new type. Lessons learned from one module are not necessarily shared among new modules. Especially different developers. Even the same development. Case in point. DCS: A-10C TPOD implementation is excellent. DCS: AV-8B/NA TPOD implementation is OK to good. F/A-18C TPOD ehh.. not so much.

Only ED will know the optimal price to draw the line between VIP and the rest of us. Anyway my opinion is ED and the module makers must draw cash somewhere to improve its service and finish the early access.

I think if the right price is set, the business will work well just as the same as the 1st class of international flight, Penthouse on a casino hotel.

I just want to mention here that we are well aware of the problems in open beta, which is why stable version has not been updated yet. If we had updated stable version there would have been even more complaints.

 

Open beta is a public testing build, and is used for finding problems before they go to the stable version.

 

We can not force server admins to use a particular build, it is up to them, and I appreciate new stuff comes to open beta first, but that is the development cycle.

 

Thank you

Stable is on the last stable version 2.5.5.

2.5.6 hasn't been stable.

The length of time between stable 2.5.5 and unstable buggy 2.5.6 shows that ED has made a big mistake trying to make 2.5.6 stable and at the same time try to push a SC.

I think SC has caused extra delays.

See above post, a single module shouldn't be controlling stability of other modules, and shouldn't prevent ED from getting 2.5.6 into a stable version with less bugs, perf fixes, VR fixes, and bugs marked as fixed but not delivered

When I already have my favourite module, I only want the game world/engine/features/graphics/optimization to improve so I can enjoy using the module even more.

The only way for me to help fund it, is by buying more modules. But I do not want other modules as I wouldn't use all of them substantially.

Though, sure that would help them, and over time would get me a better game world, but I don't really want to pay for something where I can't immediately see that I am getting something out of it.

So how can I get what I want?!

new closed beta testing is great. should help deal with mp bugs we get.

 

suggestion: closed beta testers don't need to be YouTube people. Being part of closed beta testing shouldn't be for some of the community testers to increase their hit counts.

 

criticism: not a fan of holding back bug fixes for modules in order to wait weeks for a SC that some don't really care about - so, ie. a much needed Viper DL fix is ready, but we have to wait for SC to have it ? I don't like that very much :)

Including not only the rich but also powerful, influential people is tremendous idea i think. "To enter, be rich or be famous". simple and effective, and even better for the community in general, because influential people will say in the perspective of the rest of us.

About wanting the different module priority, someone on the reddit suggested interesting idea about something like "per module funding / pricing/ payment." I think it's valuable enough to develop into a BM, as I myself couldnt care less about supercarrier. :)

I just want to mention here that we are well aware of the problems in open beta, which is why stable version has not been updated yet. If we had updated stable version there would have been even more complaints.

 

Open beta is a public testing build, and is used for finding problems before they go to the stable version.

 

We can not force server admins to use a particular build, it is up to them, and I appreciate new stuff comes to open beta first, but that is the development cycle.

 

Thank you

Thank you BIGNEWY. We all know you guys are working as hard as you can. I am trying to make it better by changing some systems / mechanics around here.

You are not forcing the server admins to use particular build. But human nature (as economics say), like prisoner's dilemma, drives everybody to use openbeta.

All the fancy new modules are there, I want to try it, a guy tommorow also want to try it, and the next..

If I run a stable multiplayer server, I will lose most of the players whenever the new EA modules launches. No need to run an empty server, because it's a multiplayer server..

It's nobody's fault, it just is. Maybe ED foresaw it or not (even many smart business do not), but I think what matters is how do we solve this prisoner's dilemma. In theory maybe it's not ED's problem in the first place. Does governments responsible for economic collapse of a small town because a new city has built right next to it?

Stable is on the last stable version 2.5.5.

 

2.5.6 hasn't been stable.

 

The length of time between stable 2.5.5 and unstable buggy 2.5.6 shows that ED has made a big mistake trying to make 2.5.6 stable and at the same time try to push a SC.

 

I think SC has caused extra delays.

 

See above post, a single module shouldn't be controlling stability of other modules, and shouldn't prevent ED from getting 2.5.6 into a stable version with less bugs, perf fixes, VR fixes, and bugs marked as fixed but not delivered

The real problem is that the so called "stable" version is also full of bugs, some existing for years or decades and critical core features being neglected for eternity.

Basically ever since I've flown DCS, in order to be able enjoy and excel at flying and employing the aircraft existing in it, you have been absolutely required to not only know how the aircraft and it's systems are supposed to work, but also to follow patch by patch what little bugs get added and understand how exactly those bugs work.

In my opinion this combined with a lot of things being straight up ignored in terms of development creates a very toxic environment for the community. Essentially I feel like I'm a walking encyclopedia of A2A combat related bugs (or missing features resulting in absurd and unrealistic behavior, however you want to call it, since very often it gets labeled "this is always how it worked"). The rest I generally choose to ignore but I know other people that are stuck in that corner too.

There's no way this is a serious post right? Every single bit of "reasoning" is so deeply flawed it's not even funny...

I think this would be very toxic for the reputation of DCS.

 

In F2P games, having very expensive high end content is referred to as 'whale hunting'. In games that have 'openly' followed that path, even where the 'whale' content is purely cosmetic, a lot of contempt is aimed at the developer for engaging in such practices, generally resulting in players abandoning the game and moving to others where they individually feel appreciated by the developer.

 

Reputation damage is real, within the flight sim and gaming community in general, DCS would immediately just get meme'd on as 'that game that costs $500 a month and that doesn't even include servers'. It'd be a punching bag for toxic pricing and poison new players from visiting the game who might otherwise have given it a go.

 

Also, considering the price point (and as you say, design) you'll have very few people buy in to that. Lets say 20 people dip in at that level, adding an extra $10,000 a month to the ED coffers. That's still really not big money, you could maybe hire 2 or 3 extra developers, which is great, but again isn't going to put an end to EA. However, that's not considering the loss of new users entering the funnel on account of the toxic pricing memes that'd forever be associated with the sim.

I am either not happy with the possible influence of toxic whale hunting to the sim community. But as was classical role playing games, strategy games and other traditional, value oriented contents. When pushed to competition against ever increasing development cost due to technological advancement and toxic gambling money, they all submitted to capitalistic poison: be the devil to survive from the devil.

Hope we can find another way to survive this time. I love sim community, but at least for me it seems that we have to choose between the monopoly and the "toxic discriminatory pricing"

Regarding the specific amount, it's only my guess so once ED put their minds on it, im sure they will find the right price, to extract money from the both sides.

Anyway, ED is a business, not charity. Only money will move them (or any business) to the right direction.