Would you pay for DCS?

Between all the modules, maps and missions, I've put more than $1200 USD into DCS since 2011. This poll is too silly to exist. Did not vote.

Agreed,

Collectively over the years I've dumped more than 10k into the proper running of this sim and the purchases made so, yeah..... Just leave it as is.

If the rich want to contribute more, I'm all for it.

What you guys need to do, to increase sales and advertising, is to have a Free Weekend once in a great while, and offer ALL the planes. This will let people try ones they normally wouldn't even consider, and might find they actually want to have. It would also bring in people who haven't even tried flight simulators, most likely the Star Citizen and EVE type crowds.

Also, as some others have said as well, bring in realistic FPS (very realistic, like having to go through the steps to put together, arm, and fire the FIM-92). Also, realistic Vehicle Sim. You will gain SOOOO many players. You really are the next evolution of ARMA.

To be honest, not sure if any of us understood what the OP was really after. And looking at his join date, I'd think he'd understand a thing or two discussed above. Maybe the OP was just ill worded (not verbose enough).

There's a very valid point that the engine and the platform in DCS holds massive value, it's not just about pretty aircraft. At least for me that's a major consideration when acquiring the aircraft modules.

It's just that the monetization is not where all the work is. And people with more money or commitment will buy more modules just to try out stuff and to support ED to develop DCS.

- realistic weather engine with sky/cloud textures, effects like wake turbulence, dynamics models, realtime-update downloads - there were awesome payware add-ons for FS9/FSX back in the days.

 

- a capable AI-ATC engine for at least Towers and TRACONs, that is configurable to feature optional characteristics that can be applied to all DCS: World's maps and aerodromes: 1. US/NATO military / wartime style, 2. Russian/WP Block military / wartime style, 3. close to reallife civilian/military mix according to realworld use and region of aerodrome. Plus realistic western & eastern carrier ops and AWACS/GCI service.

 

Just to give some examples, other topics might be an integrated radio/VOIP engine or the about to arrive dedicated server software.

Basically anything that I have been supporting financially already in the past, like paying for the LOtATC client software and donations for SRS and select public server hosts.

 

Other players might have other priorities and be willing to pay for terrain textures, 3D models, etc.

And others might not be willing to spend more on this game at all.

 

However ED does it, I would love to see major updates to the core engine in all aspects (Vulcan API, multi-threading, etc.) arrive faster.

And I offer the money I don't spend on other games as fuel for an increase in DCS software output and quality.

This is why I voted yes. To support ED in the core engine and simulator.

Monetization in games is perhaps the biggest issue in the industry today.

Monthly subscription models are no longer the norm, and one time purchases are not sustainable. For example there is no revenue stream to fund development for existing/aging DCS modules. It’s easy to hate on lack of development over time, but new sales are what keeps ED and their parties in business.

I am no fan of micro transactions, but the revenue stream is undeniable.

I would be willing to pay a subscription fee for dedicated dynamic MP servers and content. Paying for a content that is not static and adds value to my time invested is palatable.

Just my .02$

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For development, and if yes, how much? Yes means donations or one-time payement.

 

I pay for it every time I purchase a module. I do love DCS and spend considerable time in VR flying the aircraft.

I voted NO. I already fully support DCS. I have every module as is, bar the new Christen Eagle. That`s more money than I`ve spent on any other sim/game, and bought directly from the DCS store. I would qualify that as considerable financial support, which I intend to continue as long as DCS continue to produce quality products such as the F/A-18 et al.

I paid for the A-10C and the included terrain. I paid for BS1, which came with the same terrain. I paid for FC2 which came with same terrain. I paid for the P-51. Then they decided to give away the terrain along with one of the FC2 aircraft. Then they decided to give away an unarmed P-51. There are a lot of people getting things for free that I paid for. Meanwhile, the things that I paid for still have bugs that have existed for years. Nope, I would not pay for DCS since they obviously feel that giving things away is better than getting paid for them.

I'd pay $5 a month if all maps & modules were included going forward :)

The way things stand, ED is forced to output new modules to make a living. And while that's something they are really good at, old modules do get neglected.

 

Software needs to be supported across its lifetime, and with more modules, there's an ever increasing amount of software that does need this support.

 

And while ED are addressing many of these issues, I would love to see a higher priority on the support of everything we already have.

 

So yes, I would pay for that, but this would come with a certain amount of expectations.

 

In the long run, though, it beats the alternative. I'm all for a variety of modules across all time spans, but if that means half the base game and half the older modules will all be broken at one time or another, what good does that do anyone?

 

Then again, many of us have funded software development, and support!, by paying full price, and if we got shut out of using these modules unless we start paying a monthly fee, I wouldn't be too happy, either. So I guess it would have to be either voluntary, or only apply to new modules, or such a monthly payment might then decrease the purchase cost for modules, without being mandatory for module owners. I'm sure there are ways this could be achieved to everyone's satisfaction. (Except for a very vocal minority, but that's always going to happen.)

This - exactly!!!

It's kind of a touchy subject... It's a niche market, including complicated software development.

Getting the skilled staff to do this is tricky, I imagine.

In an ideal world, for me, it would seem that you'd need a crew to (only) work on the core simulator. I.e., weather, core flight dynamics (if this is tied into that), AI, ATC, ..., a crew working on maps (free(?), and paid for DLC) and crew(s) working on the various modules.

The tricky part is off course as Yurgon says: all the stuff evolves, stuff gets broken, things change. Who is going back to change the module which was released years ago and update it? Who's going to pay for it? Did the customer pay for it when they bought it so many years ago?

Case in point is the Black Shark. BS2 can out years ago, and has received not that many updates, while there is stuff not working correctly or broken.

It is good that ED is working on it (i.e., updates and a new cockpit), and I applaud that vigorously, but it's obviously not on a high-priority. Is it because it's a "free-be" from ED? Is releasing more modules more important? Are they short on resources? I simply don't know, and we'll never know I guess.

Would I pay for (large) updates to already existing modules? HELL YEAH. Black Shark 3? Updated models, cockpit, avionics, etc.? I would buy that in a heartbeat. I've spent a ridiculous amount of hours in the Ka-50 and it is my first love into serious flight simming. Given how much it cost me, money-wise, it was/is an absolute steal.

Would I pay a monthly subscription for usage of DCS:World? Hmm.. maybe.

It would depend. Would that mean that updates (to the core sim and modules) come quicker and more frequently than it does now? If so, I would gladly do so.

I am certain that ED's stellar work in developing those highly accurate and detailed DCS modules for us consumers does not go unnoticed, and decision makers in the industry and governments likely provide much more lucrative contracts for ED. :thumbup:

We don't know (and aren't privy to) how ED makes their money besides the products they sell us.

Alright another option, I hate the idea of subscription software aka a certain graphics software however I have mused on this and being a relative new comer ~3 years I can see an issue trying to sustain further development given the introduction of new technologies and developing DCS moving forward. Also to be considered constant updates to hardware and OS that need to be developed.

Some options.

Purely donations, might help but I do have modules that I only purchased just to add some sort of income stream.

Perhaps make open beta a fee based service and some form of early access discounts for that fee say annual $25 ~ $50. Maybe it's not open beta just some form of "patron early feature service"

Whatever the model it needs to be reasonable for the user i.e. low cost and beneficial to the developer so they can continue development. If you op out of the scheme you go back to stable and pay full price for the modules when "released" and maybe have to shell out for an upgrade from time to time.

So yes I think for the long term future DCS will need to increase it revenue stream.

If you want to donate to DCS just buy more modules :)

I get it, trying to align the revenue motive with the relative values of the modules and the base environment. It's good thinking in concept.

We buy their products. In this price there is already profit for later development, bills ect.

They could be donated if somebody wants, though :)

hi people, thanks for your answers. The idea behind is to stir a discussion. X-Plane for instance is not free (core sim) and is constantly updated. Just like DCS. I undersand that DCS is not merely Caucasus free map and engine, it is more as a platfrom for other, let's call them more seriuos stuff.

Why I started this thread? Just to probe if we are willing to contribute for the development. There is pretty big industry which makes a decent living of creating modules and sceneries for both X-Plane and Prepar3d. Price of the single moderately complex module or scenery is comparable with DCS. If one jumps to wish list in this forum - there are many, many requests for improvement and further development. We have witnessed constant support from ED but I'm wondering what would happen if they hit the ceiling with their resorces? If they even stop developing the core engine....I'm sure there would be a stream of "I'm sorry, I'm sad, what a shame"...type of messages all over the boards...

Yes, some of us payed a lot for the modules. Personaly I have almost all of them just to support the further devleopment. You know, even the modules you payed for were not created from thin air. If you pay..I don't know, 50 € for module developed by (or for) ED, I'm sure that vast majority of the income went into development of the module, not DCS engine. Especialy taking into account that at least 4 yearly generous discounts we are offered.

So my message to developers is > yes, there are people, who are willing to support the development. Maybe even thourgh indigogo or simmilar platforms.

One-time payments cant contribute enough to such enormous project like DCS. I would think that best model will be

1) Modules payments as it is today

2) Free Caucasus and modules like it is today with some restriction like "Trial / Demoversion / Multiplayer Restriction / Future Dynamic campaign restriction etc."

3) 5-9 $ monthly subscriptions, for full use. Ofcourse I would want to see better core/engine focus then. And not having things delayed regularly by 3 years.

Otherwise they will be spamming modules which will grow older (and potentially bugged) with every update and they will have more and more problems in future with their optimalization, as they will need to spam more and more to have finance. So they will have no time to keep other modules up-to-date and still developing new things. And the trap is bigger with every module released. They should focus maximum energy after hornet on the game core. Being more user friendly, dynamic, pretty. I would never go play different fly sim just because they push out some module fancy to me. (for those who think more modules = more players) I dont care aboout JUST modules. Its whole complex game why I play DCS. They should not overestimate the quality of the modules against whole simulator environment.

It just cant go a long way with one-time payments for ever-lasting development project. (The quality will get worse in time, or the development will just literally stop at one time because of its enormous size - I think the problem is already real - (the yearly reports of upcoming fetures next year which actually come in place 2-3 years later)

1)People will always pay for what they like in reasonable manners. If not, there is no demand for such product. I am sure DCS is on the up trend and with new technologies emerging in the future it will be even better. VR/Motion platforms/Peripherals - this all has best use in simulations.

2)People who dont want to pay, are not customers to be focused on anyway. Dont forget the 80/20 rule. its 20 % base who make 80 % profit to ED. So no need to focus on people who dont want to pay for the product.

Current plan is by my honest opinion non-sustainable for better future. (not far away future)

We buy their products. In this price there is already profit for later development, bills ect.

They could be donated if somebody wants, though :)

Actually there is NO PROFIT for future development, BUT EXPENSES for future development. They profit by selling, not developing. And that is why they never cant develop more for something they have already been paid for (at least not for a long time)

If monetisation is required, then maybe go the route of new functionality modules that could be sold, eg weather, Updated ATC, Japanese WW2 assets.

If monetisation is required, then maybe go the route of new functionality modules that could be sold, eg weather, Updated ATC, Japanese WW2 assets.

That is exactly what I am talking about as the biggest trap.

Weather upgrade = updating of ALL modules/terrains which are already paid = wasting yesterdays profits or new modules profit (do you see the tightening of the lopp?). They cant make it out with one-time payment. Its like someone would urge today developers to update games from 1985 to today standards, because they paid them. And that is what we literaly wants with updating once bought modules.

With monthly subscription they can afford it. But they cant sink money from new modules to old ones. And with making new weather effects, every module will have to gain new textures, physics or something i cant even imagine. Same scenario with regular updates of core.

I certainly wouldn't pay for monthly subs, the amount I/we have already paid is enough for more than a few AAA titles, including some very large and complete "other flight sims.

I love ed stuff yes, but we still have very few modules that are bug free, this should be a priority over more new stuff

I love ed stuff yes, but we still have very few modules that are bug free, this should be a priority over more new stuff

Which is the root of the problem. Once the module is sold there is little motivation to fix anything.

Agree.

But thats the problem with financing. Would you work on something you have already done and been paid for? Once the buyer took it and used it for a lot of time and then come back that for some reason he wants you to do something free for him on it?

No you wont. You need to work on something that feeds you. Its not charity.

They cant be good with financial model used in games which are developed, sold, looked over for half year and forgotten. And that is how their cash flow from modules work, except the community expect them to work on them endless, which is not possible.

The modules are not very connected. I dont fly on other terrain than caucasus even that i got all the others because i would have to spend hours to make a mission or kneeboards to be able to play same a/c on same difficulty level like on caucasus. And I would like to, I like them, but they just making new module and dont adjust the ones that has been made for new content. Its a shame how much user work must be put into it to have nice working conditions. I dont care much about reasonable money to pay. But if they going to push modules and no upgrades to gameplay maybe someday I would rather suffer worse A/C modelling for much better whole experience.

This will never be solved actually if they are dependent on making new modules. With every new modules, the amount of work to make core change is multiplied.

On the other hand, they have commercial licences which I dont know how work, so I stop in this thead here. Lets hope they have something big, hidden for us.

We? I already contribute plenty, I own nearly every product. If ED are in need of financial support, let them suggest a new business model.

In reality the reason you started this thread was to virtue signal. Stop trying to masturbate your ego by trying to spend my money.

Harsh.

I already do , I pay for modules / terrains

Which is the root of the problem. Once the module is sold there is little motivation to fix anything.

That is why I will never pre-order again