New Pay Model

I don't have a problem paying for DCS A-10C Warthog 2 upgrade!

Infact I'm not sure if all those core upgrades can be all free, they will be practically, but I think it has to be pulled from somewhere.

But I suppose 3rd party Modules do go into the DCS core partially ... kinda like game publishers.

Payed upgrades are one thing, subscription is quite another.

Subscriptions have been used very successfully in the MMO world. And the insight that DCS is more like a service is spot on - quite similar to MMOs, we get all the fixes and features to the modules, not to mention the core engine, without paying for them specifically (disregarding maps, CA, etc...).

The issue is pressing because tying revenue streams to module releases creates moral hazards and the developers may be pressed to pump out excessive new modules. We have not seen the worst of this but who knows what the future brings.

There is lots of devil in the details. For starters the monthly subscription would probably need to be around $80, which might be a bit difficult to market so it would have to be broken down to say pay $20 to fly all the helicopters, or $20 for all WW2 aircraft, or $30 for all bluefor jets, another $20 to fly all the maps. Remember that people might take the subscription and decide they don't like a given module so it's another $20 or $80 of lost revenue from a single subscription.

With "lifetime" module purchases, player retention is probably much easier than with a subscription. If somebody has a module they like, they will be coming back to DCS without having to make the decision to swipe their credit card every month. Instead they'll want to make the best out of their expensive investment. They may even buy more modules when they get the thing going again and fall in love with what is new in DCS.

The contracts with 3rd party developers would have to be renegotiated. ED would have to sell the model to them which could be difficult. A developer can now recover much of the development costs when the new module is released, whereas with subscriptions it would likely be a really slow trickle and possibly make financing the projects somewhat challenging. When suggesting new commercial models for DCS you always need to think of how it works for the 3rd party developers, even if we lack much of the detailed information on the interactions between ED and 3rd party developers so we'll never be able to say the final word on whether a model could work or not.

@zaelu

A poll of 500 people is indeed statistically relevant deoending on subject. Virtually every poll conducted in the world is on a similar footing. Not so much singleplayer vs multiplayer, as offline players are less likely to visit the forums regularly, but most other topics, yeah, relevant.

Payed upgrades are one thing, subscription is quite another.

+1

@zaelu

A poll of 500 people is indeed statistically relevant deoending on subject. Virtually every poll conducted in the world is on a similar footing. Not so much singleplayer vs multiplayer, as offline players are less likely to visit the forums regularly, but most other topics, yeah, relevant.

Both kind of polls are irrelevant in here because this one takes into account only the current players in the current system which is my assumption (you can say is wrong, sure) are a minority.

Example:

Poll: Asking current players of Warcraft 3:

"would you like a MMO based on Warcraft Universe with monthly subscription?"

yes: 30%

no: 70%

Reality... Blizzard rich. (note. I am not a Warcraft MMO player)

Same for online vs offline. The offliners are mostly on the forum... heck.. I am mostly an offliner in DCS... 95% if not more of the time. 70% I stay in ME basically and I hate it.

The best games I had are online., Offline playing stupid bots and stupid buggy scripts is boring no matter how much "story" I can add.

So in a poll online focus vs offline focus... the offliners would come and vote in bigger number than onliners who most of the time are spending... playing online rather than staying on forum(s)

So if ED are basing their strategy on such polls on this forum...

THE ENTIRE GAME LOOKS LIKE A SERVICE RATHER THAN A FINISHED PRODUCT

(please prove this statement wrong!).

Subscription model software sucks.

 

Adobe, Stadia, Amazon e-reader, whatever - it sucks. Also, anything in the cloud sucks too.

 

DCS's closest similar platform would be iRacing I guess.

Sorry to be pedantic but I see no argument there, just a bit of change of heart by the end of your quote.

What sucks? Paying for internet service for example? Would you rather pay upfront say 2000$ for a 3 year internet access? I take 50$/month... 3 years 1800$ and add or subtract some money because of lack of insurance and distribution for telecom company.

The game looks like a service now. Can you provide a counter argument? Or just... sucks.

I can understand that a subscription where you don't have an option other than pay... sucks... but also the alternative of paying a ton of money on parts is not nice either... Add please some 500-1000$ to equipement for internet access above please... How is it now?

Let me reiterate my proposed model

Tier one 1. Free access limited quality, features, time. could be all, could be just some. Or even free access to part of the not already paid modules monthly or daily. etc. IE This week you can access 2 modules you don't have them bought, next week other two. ETC

Tier Two 2. 10-15$ per month. Full quality all modules and feature access. You can add here a smaller payment for some modules. Like... If you want access to EA for Eurofighter pay 30$ to 10$ for first year, IE 30$ first 4 months, 20$ next 4 months and 10$ last 4 months. You can even make the price vary daily in 2020.

Tier Three 3. 20-30$ per month. access to all alphas immediately and a lot of cool stuff, printed stuff, T-shirts, golden missiles, etc.

All existing modules that are already bought are accessible free on full quality by current players/customers.

Also simple way to change payment model monthly.

What sucks here?

What sucks here?

Subscription Model.

I would drop DCS with such a model. Why?

It is simple - I am not a regular player, since besides work I run my small business and study, go outside and meet people. The last weekend I have committed to playing and learning a plane is like a year ago. Even in my long winter vacation I haven't played most of the time. And since the first week of january I only played for 2 days under the week on the beginning of march.

Probably many here have similar problems ("Real Life"), since simulations like DCS tend to have a more grown user base. With the subscription model I would pay monthly for something I probably won't even look at / start for 2-3, maybe 4 Months at a time. And even then when there is no time or good weather for only a couple of hours.

That's why I also don't have netflix etc. I want to own somethin and not depend on it, if the company still exists tomorrow.

Probably there are a lot of people, that mainly play/focus on the Singleplayer and "don't need infrastructure" behind it like in some MMOsomethingRPG like EVE or WoW. And even on the last example it doesn't fit for DCS, since the servers on the MP are run from privates...

^ Pretty much sums up how I feel about it as well.

I own 7 modules and 3 campaigns. If DCS was subscription based I wouldn't even try it in the first place. So one less customer. How's that for an argument?

Many of us have RL problems that for sure are not compatible with paying more than with playing.

@Voodoo_One

You must have missed the first tier my model was proposing. Free.

Also giving the argument "I don't have Netflix" so listen to me is a rather counter one. Somebody that wants to sell a service like... say "4G Phone access" will be little impressed by somebody that brags he has no Electricity contract because he wants to HAVE the product and electricity just flows away...

@HankCzinaski

Let me check... I have 24 planes, 2 paid maps and 2 campaigns (31 things bought in total but some twice, etc). I probably would pay subscription... How is that for an argument?

Anyway. I am afraid my model is not gonna save DCS World. IMHO Corona it will be devastating.

So I'd be Tier Two, would play less caus would get content later and more complete (what is a disadvantage for my style of using DCS), wouldn't pay for each month a year would spend 30% to 50% of what I pay now and would still don't know how ED could profit from this.

So I'd be Tier Two, would play less caus would get content later and more complete (what is a disadvantage for my style of using DCS), wouldn't pay for each month a year would spend 30% to 50% of what I pay now and would still don't know how ED could profit from this.

By enlarging the paying player base. I don't expect DCS W to rich Warthunder or WoW levels but fur sure now has a small footprint.

Again.... imho covid changes everything.

Subscription Model.

 

I would drop DCS with such a model. Why?

It is simple - I am not a regular player, since besides work I run my small business and study, go outside and meet people. The last weekend I have committed to playing and learning a plane is like a year ago. Even in my long winter vacation I haven't played most of the time. And since the first week of january I only played for 2 days under the week on the beginning of march.

 

Probably many here have similar problems ("Real Life"), since simulations like DCS tend to have a more grown user base. With the subscription model I would pay monthly for something I probably won't even look at / start for 2-3, maybe 4 Months at a time. And even then when there is no time or good weather for only a couple of hours.

That's why I also don't have netflix etc. I want to own somethin and not depend on it, if the company still exists tomorrow.

 

Probably there are a lot of people, that mainly play/focus on the Singleplayer and "don't need infrastructure" behind it like in some MMOsomethingRPG like EVE or WoW. And even on the last example it doesn't fit for DCS, since the servers on the MP are run from privates...

I would also be forced to drop it if they were to switch to such a model. I would hate to do it, but I would out of principle. I have to pay enough in rent just to have a place to live and am not about to start paying to rent games too.

If ED really needs a future cash flow, then they should go make a clone of those P2P arcade flight games and put the subscriptions and microtransactions on that. Use the money gathered there to fund the development of DCS World.

And or charge a small fee for major version upgrades of the base software and major updates of modules.

By enlarging the paying player base. I don't expect DCS W to rich Warthunder or WoW levels but fur sure now has a small footprint.

 

Again.... imho covid changes everything.

Hm... no warthunder, no WoW on my machine..... no DCS subscription for me please.

I'm not that social to vote for a change that doesn't suit my preferences. Poll says I'm not alone. Don't wish you good luck with your suggestions. Most I can do is to accept your different opinion.

Subscription? No way. I could see something like a charge for the base game (maybe for online play) to include something like FC3, the Supercarrier, and Combined Arms for something like $50

I will pay subscription for a dedicated WWII or cold war servers with all the whistles and bells, active development of missions or dynamic campaigns and a proper in-game voice communication system. The online gameplay of DCS leaves a lot of room for improvement.

Sure, we have player run servers with a mess of external voice software like SRS and team speak. As a new player to DCS I can tell you they SUCK. Sure if I log in with friends we can use teamspeak, but as a single player PUG there is 0 communication.

WARNING! Death by far too many words ahead. Scroll, past the line for my attempt at analysis.

zaelu said:

What sucks? Paying for internet service for example? Would you rather pay upfront say 2000$ for a 3 year internet access? I take 50$/month... 3 years 1800$ and add or subtract some money because of lack of insurance and distribution for telecom company.

Well, that is a service and arguably an important one.

And erm... hang on... Your example is 2 subscriptions, just different terms; either 3 years for $2000 or monthly at $50, which already works out cheaper over the 3 year one, suggesting you didn't do the maths on that one.

The argument is between a one-time, but more expensive fee, that gives you the product perpetually - as in forever. And subscriptions, where you essentially rent the software, where you pay a smaller amount, but pay the amount of a regular basis, when you stop paying, you stop having access. Kind of the difference between buying a house and renting one.

zaelu said:

The game looks like a service now. Can you provide a counter argument?

Sure thing.

Firstly define service. And no, disagree, it's not a service, it's just a long-term WIP product. And just because something looks like a service doesn't and shouldn't necessitate a subscription model.

I'd much rather pay a one-time fee for upgrades, for instance: I'd be willing to pay for upgraded theatres, upgraded weather, upgraded weapons, upgraded assets.

Obviously, where I can justify the price and so long as multiplayer isn't affected (i.e players who own different things can't play together), there should be a downgraded, free equivalent, that lacks the features of the paid one. And paid assets shouldn't necessarily replace free ones. For instance, if ED were to do a paid Caucasus map, rebuilt from scratch, accurate and maybe expanded, the free one should still be around for multiplayer compatibility for players who don't own the paid one.

zaelu said:

I can understand that a subscription where you don't have an option other than pay... sucks... but also the alternative of paying a ton of money on parts is not nice either... Add please some 500-1000$ to equipement for internet access above please... How is it now?

Again, your example compared 2 subscriptions, not perpetual vs subscription. And also that ton of money once, usually is cheaper given a long-enough time (typically less than a decade).

It should've been a 1 time fee of $2000 for a perpetual license or a $50 per month subscription license. For up to 3 years and 4 months, the subscription is the better option, afterwards, the perpetual one quickly becomes the better option for the customer.

Though your example was the internet - something that mandates upkeep like maintenance, it's also more subject to failure, which something has to pay for, so a subscription makes sense because maintenance is included. Data centres need to be powered etc. A subscription makes sense here, because the internet actually has running costs.

With DCS, if it was feature complete and bug free, there'd be next to no running cost on the part of the developers, the only upkeep would be multiplayer and security, all other costs are up to the user, it requires no input from developers, unless of course bugs appear and new content gets added - which developers can charge for and thus make money. Part of the money raised from selling new/upgraded content can be used to develop the base client, this is the exact model DCS currently uses, more analysis down below.

Let me tell you a story of AutoDesk 3DS Max. There once was a time where you could buy an expensive, perpetual license, which in today's money equated to a little over $4000. This was a one time fee, that bought you that specific version, for you to use, forever. It was very powerful software that worked and was used the world over, and probably did exactly what you wanted it to do.

A few years ago though, they dropped perpetual licenses, switching to only allow subscriptions. These subscriptions now cost $205 monthly, $1620 yearly or $4375 for 5-years, as we can see if you wanted the software for more than 4 years, you would've been better off with the perpetual, provided you can do away with extra features in new versions.

So lets see what we have, lets say you want the software for 5 years, and you're willing to forsake features provided by the subscription:

• For perpetual you have $4010
• Paying monthly, that's $9840. Already more than double
• Paying yearly that's $8100. Again, over double.
• Paying for the 5 years $4375, more reasonable but still over $300 more expensive, and you still have to pay a large amount.

And this is only over 5 years, lets try over 10; paying the 5 year rate twice would be double the perpetual. For software that essentially, does the same thing.

After those 10 years, you'd have to keep on paying just to use the thing you already have. Sure, subscriptions come with upgrades (which in some cases raises the price), full-time support packages, cloud storage. But having a quick look, it seems that many new features people either don't want or aren't that interested in, but they have no choice other than to pay the subscription, which after 5 years, becomes way more expensive than the software you got with a perpetual license, and only gets more and more expensive as time goes on.

It's a similar story with Adobe.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

zaelu said:

Let me reiterate my proposed model

 

Tier one 1. Free access limited quality, features, time. could be all, could be just some. Or even free access to part of the not already paid modules monthly or daily. etc. IE This week you can access 2 modules you don't have them bought, next week other two. ETC

Tier Two 2. 10-15$ per month. Full quality all modules and feature access. You can add here a smaller payment for some modules. Like... If you want access to EA for Eurofighter pay 30$ to 10$ for first year, IE 30$ first 4 months, 20$ next 4 months and 10$ last 4 months. You can even make the price vary daily in 2020.

Tier Three 3. 20-30$ per month. access to all alphas immediately and a lot of cool stuff, printed stuff, T-shirts, golden missiles, etc.

 

All existing modules that are already bought are accessible free on full quality by current players/customers.

Also simple way to change payment model monthly.

 

What sucks here?

Tier 1 is what we already have, except we have active development. We just pay for addon modules. ED is currently doing limited time free trials, and a specific module(s) have been free trialled in the past for a limited time.

Before I address your paid subscriptions though, let's compute the total cost of DCS World, as it currently stands. We'll assume that everything was bought full price and the only bundle is FC3. For the time being I'll ignore future modules and terrains that aren't currently present in the E-Shop (I've ignored paid campaigns as they typically rely on other paid-for content, and all the tools to build your own are provided for, free of charge, in the base client).

The total figure I get to is $1847.63, this gives you access to modules perpetually, though in the case of the Ka-50 and A-10C(?) there may be paid upgrades. You get the base client and everything it has to offer, and all it's updates for free. You're typically able to preview the exterior model of modules you don't own (only WWII assets and SC are exceptions), so you can build missions for them, without actually owning them.

I'll also compute the average price new content costs, which works out to about $50 (I've just summed the price of all available content in the E-Shop (so excluding BS1, Hawk etc), with the exception of the individual FC3 aircraft. I then, divided that by the total number of items available, which works out to 37).

Finally, let's compute the average number of new paid content that gets released a year (so new modules, new terrains). I'm going to use SilverDragon's unofficial roadmap as a source:

• 5 modules in 2012
• 4 in 2013 (counting FC3 as one module, as it's essentially the same price as one, despite it containing aircraft that can be purchased separately)
• 5 in 2014
• 5 in 2015
• 3 in 2016
• 4 in 2017
• 2 in 2018
• 5 in 2019

With another half-dozen or so planned for 2020 and beyond.

This works out to about 4.

To summarise:

• Total cost of all current content in DCS: ~$1850
• Average cost of paid content: ~$50
• Number of new paid content that gets added per year: ~4

With that out of the way, let's move onto your proposed tiers:

For your 2nd tier of $10-$15 a month, that works out to $120-$180 a year, or about the cost of 3-4 modules worth per year. This coincidentally, is about as many new modules get released a year on average, so works out the exact same as we have currently, at least hypothetically (of course this assumes that everyone buys new content, which they almost certainly don't, but without data I can't make a watertight conclusion).

Now if a new player bought all the modules say, within a year, then developers take their share of $1850 in one go, whereas tier 2 spreads it out over a longer period. There maybe isn't a clear, obvious advantage either way - it's the same amount both ways right? Well, it's arguably worse for developers, as they only see the full $1850 after a decade. I don't know, but to me, this seems to put them in a more precarious situation than the current situation.

For your 3rd tier, I really don't see the appeal, I'd be paying double for what in DCS amounts to just immediate access to EA stuff. Thing is, here EA stuff usually has a discounted price (usually small, ~$10 or so) and on the OB modules have to be given access, otherwise it completely undermines the entire point of the OB - for public testing.

But anyway $20-30 a month, that equates to about 5-7 modules per year, a significant boost over the current system, given its assumptions. If I play DCS for 5 years, I get $1200 - $1800. So provided you buy most to nearly all the current modules & terrains at full price, you're about the same after 5 years. So by my reckoning it's not really an advantage either way, it doesn't really make developers more money, and it's basically the same deal for the customer, as it is right now.

So if people go for tier 2 then, given the assumptions laid out, developers are more likely to be making less money, not more. And in tier 2, they make roughly the same, given the assumptions.

I do have a couple of points I'd like to address in tier 3:

1. What are "golden missiles" if you're thinking of locking certain loadouts behind a paywall, or giving some an unrealistic buff, then no way, absolutely out of the question, Jose.
2. Free merchandise? Why wouldn't developers with merchandise, just sell that instead? Heatblur used to sell T-Shirts, looks like they've gone from their website now. And what happens if I'm not interested in the free merch? Am I really paying double tier 2 just for EA, which at the moment is discounted, and I get it as soon as it's ready for public testing.

Of course, if anyone wants to correct me, I'll gladly make corrections.

@HankCzinaski

Let me check... I have 24 planes, 2 paid maps and 2 campaigns (31 things bought in total but some twice, etc). I probably would pay subscription... How is that for an argument?

You must have misunderstood me. I wasn't trying to make it a "who's got more modules" contest. What I'm saying is that atm we're both ED customers but with subscription model ED would lose me as a customer who bought those modules and campaigns. That's my argument.

With "gorrona" around us... people will think twice before buying a 80$ money on the table EA plane. And if they feel disappointed... you can bet the next 80$ EA plane will have less chance.

If your argument is that, why do you think people would pay for a subscription?

If your argument is that, why do you think people would pay for a subscription?

Also, if you were to stretch out the big money purchases, it comes out less than a subscription. $80 for the Hornet in Spring of '18, then F-16 drops in Fall of '19. And that's making the huge assumption that you buy it day one.

There's also the possibility of waiting for a sale. We've done this song and dance, before. A subscription is just going to alienate previous and frequent consumers.

@Voodoo_One

 

You must have missed the first tier my model was proposing. Free.

I just want to point out again that one recurring problem in this thread is that all subscription tiers, prices, whatever, are completely made up.

You can propose a free tier, but that doesn't mean such a thing would exist. It's hard to know without being inside ED.

I was going to estimate the sub cost needed to match current prices in DCS but I see Lunatic98 already did. A subscription might look nice at first, but in the long run it just loses value compared to a one time purchase.

In addition, ED has options to create cash flow like through module updates. For me this is much better than a subscription because I have total control over what I buy and what I pay and when.

Subscriptions make sense for certain things, but generally I'd avoid them. I don't think they have much a of play in games where you're buying products, not services. DCS is no exception.

Exorcet said:

I just want to point out again that one recurring problem in this thread is that all subscription tiers, prices, whatever, are completely made up.

Agreed, in that sense my limited analysis doesn't really count for much apart from that particular proposal. In general though you can sum it up like so:

This one is for solidworks, but generally it's the same kind of thing but with arbitrary times. Obviously prices, prices for new paid content, and how much new paid of content gets added per unit time will change the gradients.

There always comes a time where a subscription ends up more expensive than perpetual, and often for the a similar thing perpetual offered.

Exorcet said:

In addition, ED has options to create cash flow like through module updates. For me this is much better than a subscription because I have total control over what I buy and what I pay and when.

Absolutely this, so long as everything is compatible where feasible. I know that the 2 main upgrade packs we have in DCS - WWII assets and Supercarrier are a little controversial, as is BS3, but for me, they're the way to go, they're not perfect and maybe things can be changed to support mission designers (so maybe they can place down the assets but not be used outside the ME? Idk.)

[quote=zaelu;4260226

THE ENTIRE GAME LOOKS LIKE A SERVICE RATHER THAN A FINISHED PRODUCT

(please prove this statement wrong!)

So why the contortion? Why hiding behind our shadow?

My last purchases made me regret spending my money on them. I-16 (aka gear simulator) and YAK52 (aka Early Abandonment) made me basically not to even consider buying other good modules (such as F14, F18 and F16 which I tested and they are great but... no).

Would I had payed a 10€ subscription? Most likely. That means 120€ for ED. I am a mediocre DCS player. I am probably in the sweet spot of market niche of ED. ED failing to take 120€ in a year from me is their failure not mine.

you proved yourself wrong.

you proved yourself wrong.

Which part prove what part wrong there? Your logic on my words eludes me.

I just want to point out again that one recurring problem in this thread is that all subscription tiers, prices, whatever, are completely made up.

They are mere proposals in a obscure thread on an obscure subforum, nothing more. And they are inspired from other similar services. There are Free to play games, 10-15-20$/€ per month games and premiums schemes. I even gave examples Stadia, GeForce Now etc.

If your argument is that, why do you think people would pay for a subscription?

Ever heard of mortgages? Do they make sense for you?

I take it you never payed for something in several installments?

...long post

Sorry I can't really answer to your post as I find it not really on what I meant and I don't want to waste time one debating fake arguments.

My point was quite simple.

Make all people pay a similar rate and give access to everything. You can make a module that sells a lot at 80 bucks and make one that sells less at 80 bucks. IE F14 vs JF17 That is risky. Have money coming to you constantly and a failed module is not riscky.

Now you have a problem that maybe you lose some of the clients that dodge between modules and sales. Introduce the free tier in front so you can include everybody. Now you just need to think of a scheme to make these apparently contradicting tiers work. So you can make a lot of things... all already implemented or you can be innovative. But clearly there are 2 tools now in ED's arsenal. The data mining tick in options, and the possibility to give access to modules for limited time. They are powerful. You can make free stuff be available like it was this month. 2-3 days one or two modules. And you rotate ad infinitum. Every demo session is just an ad to buying into the product. You can keep it like it is now... or you can ( ED knows better but judging by the speed of development I wouldn't say they have an ocean of money add here Corona) make a subscription. You can make a subscription with an entry fee too... like I said, First year when the module sells best... put a diminishing access price. Example. 30-10$ to access JF17 first year then from next year can be included with simple subscription. It's doable.

Add a 3rd premium tier because there are money there and you need to cover that spectrum too.

All in all is not about paying more and having less access is about generally paying less having more access for players/customers and bringing more clients and more money for ED. The idea behind my tiers was win-win. And there is no contradiction there. No matter how many modules I bought, full price or not.

People don't understand that DCS is a 'niche' product, a product that requires many man hours of R&D and a subscription model would really help ED become better. At least, they could 'split' the fan base into two categories: subscribers and non-subscribers and offer some advantages for the first category, a model which all parties would benefit from.