New payment model - How could it work?

Didn't Nick Grey said, that ED has been profitable as a business for every year since it's formation?

In theory i would prefer having a one-time-purchase for as base version every few years that would come with some maps, supercarrier, asset pack etc. included, but this is solely because it would make it easier to get all friends on the same content for multiplayer flying. Just buy current version and play it with your old aircraft you bought seperately... (similar costs to how it is now, but simpler and in addition giving a nice benchmark when comparing features of the new version to last iteration)

BUT the narrative that the current issues with quality control and other things come from a lack of funding, or the "wrong" business model, is total bull***t.

If they could not fund their development from the modules they sell, i would not trust them to do better with any other way of funding.

Again, the owner of ED hismelf has said, that they are profitable every year AND please remember that they also develop another "AAA" game besides DCS, which they obviously also fund from their simulator income (both the professional and DCS).

None of the above, I like the business model the way it is !

If you do something like the above loyal customers get punished (most of us already bought most modules and maps).

Going forward I am willing to pay for new maps and modules, but not the (almost) exact same ones I already bought.

The way ED does this is the way I like it.

I dont like to pay for mostly incremental versions line BF 1 to 5, NFS 1 to whatever, Doom 1 to whatever ... !

But YMMV as it always does :-)

Didn't Nick Grey said, that ED has been profitable as a business for every year since it's formation?

In theory i would prefer having a one-time-purchase for as base version every few years that would come with some maps, supercarrier, asset pack etc. included, but this is solely because it would make it easier to get all friends on the same content for multiplayer flying. Just buy current version and play it with your old aircraft you bought seperately... (similar costs to how it is now, but simpler and in addition giving a nice benchmark when comparing features of the new version to last iteration)

 

BUT the narrative that the current issues with quality control and other things come from a lack of funding, or the "wrong" business model, is total bull***t.

If they could not fund their development from the modules they sell, i would not trust them to do better with any other way of funding.

Again, the owner of ED hismelf has said, that they are profitable every year AND please remember that they also develop another "AAA" game besides DCS, which they obviously also fund from their simulator income (both the professional and DCS).

Hi twistking,

Yes, ED may be profitable. Yes, the current business model may work fine for them. Totally ok with that.

But first of all, its not about leaving stuff as it is. As it is is not working - and I'm not talking about the payment model, thats just one idea on how to improve things. There is always room for improvement und given the facebook pages on dcs and a lot of the threads here on the board there are a lot of problems.

I do not care about problems, I care about solutions. Thats what my job is about. Making the impossible somehow possible. Now that beeing said - I do not know a lot about software development. But I do know a bit about thinking outside the box and finding solutions. So perhaps thats what I'm trying to do here. I'm only throwing around ideas. So I dont get why some people react like they got insulted or somebody is trying to steal from them. Nobody is trying to do that. All I want is an open minded discussion about how to improve things. And discussing a different payment model is one of the ideas.

I already admitted that I forgot to put "leave it as it is" in the poll. So if you fancy that, feel free to say so. And who are you to say what i can or can not ask?

You can ask anything you want but remember as can you, so can I:P

(most of us already bought most modules and maps).

How can you be so sure about that ? Personally, I buy only the modules in which I'm interested. I'll never buy a WWII module for instance. Or a helicopter.

So currently ED gives me zero incentive to give them one more cent.

But I'd pay some money for improved ATC, improved AI, that kind of stuff that does not come with the plane modules.

The only other thing I could be interested in (personally) is: more maps. But they don't do many and I'm not interested in the WWII ones.

But indeed maybe I am an exception?

Very modern day to create a new poll and change the wording because it didn't go your way the last four times this was discussed.

You want to talk about paying for DCS 3.0, fine, no issue there. But for a subscription to even be discussed, I want HARD DETAILS from ED about what WILL BE GIVEN and what WILL BE WORKED on as a result of said subscription. I don't want us as paying customers to start talking about giving them anything more than we currently do because they have yet to prove (in 2020) that they properly know how to many projects/people/resources. Till then, pound sand.

Hello

I only read the first post, not the full discussion.

I juste wanted to say that I find it great as it is.

I certainly do not want to pay a monthly price to have access to all modules; it does not correspond to the use I make of DCS.

I just give my opinion so that you can count it :).

Stay safe .

- Keep the current business model

- Augment it with an optional subscription program with benefits such as providing ED miles points as long as the subscription is active, providing early access to subscribers or "temporary sneak-peek builds". This can also be tiered, 5 or 10 $ gets a certain amount of miles, 15$ or more gets more miles and perhaps also said early access. Alternatively it can be so that cheapo subscription gets one "preview build" and more expensive one gets unlimited preview builds. Though this would be more compicated to implement.

An obligatory subscription model is out of question. It would be revoking access to what we all have paid for, and the fallout from community would be of epic, never seen before proportions. Making a DCS 3.0 and allowing that update only as a payware would have a similar effect, and moreover, that update would have to be revolutionary in features and stability, otherwise pitchforks and torches would see a critical mass again.

IF there will a new business model, I think what I suggest above is the workable solution that benefits everyone. Current system, and everything bought with it, would remain as is. An optional subscription would let those who want to support ED a bit more so that hopefully core can be focused on heavier and pushing "low hanging fruit eaaaaarrrllyyyyyyy access" modules as early as possible wouldn't be as necessary anymore for cashflow.

That's a big IF of course. We don't know if ED wants, or needs to consider a new business model. I personally do feel like it is the case, and this the one solution that would work for all parties. But that's a "feel like". In the end, ED decides how they conduct business, and it is them who has relevant data/analytics to make decisions.

All I can say is, I really, really want things to in a state we can at least call "not in total shambles". Things seemed to be heading the right direction for a while, but now we're getting patch on patch withh each breaking one thing or other :/

ED IS getting many new customers lately, wich means more buyers for existing and new modules. But I doubt that will remain healthy in the long run. That's me anyway.

ED made one change recently: no more presales, and modules will be %20 off as long as they are in early access. This is a positive change, and a nice gesture, but I think it is a bandaid, and not really a solution.

[...]

BUT the narrative that the current issues with quality control and other things come from a lack of funding, or the "wrong" business model, is total bull***t.

If they could not fund their development from the modules they sell, i would not trust them to do better with any other way of funding.

Again, the owner of ED hismelf has said, that they are profitable every year AND please remember that they also develop another "AAA" game besides DCS, which they obviously also fund from their simulator income (both the professional and DCS).

Hi twistking,

Yes, ED may be profitable. Yes, the current business model may work fine for them. Totally ok with that.

 

But first of all, its not about leaving stuff as it is. As it is is not working - and I'm not talking about the payment model, thats just one idea on how to improve things. There is always room for improvement und given the facebook pages on dcs and a lot of the threads here on the board there are a lot of problems.

 

I do not care about problems, I care about solutions. Thats what my job is about. Making the impossible somehow possible. Now that beeing said - I do not know a lot about software development. But I do know a bit about thinking outside the box and finding solutions. So perhaps thats what I'm trying to do here. I'm only throwing around ideas. So I dont get why some people react like they got insulted or somebody is trying to steal from them. Nobody is trying to do that. All I want is an open minded discussion about how to improve things. And discussing a different payment model is one of the ideas.

I get where you're comign from, but if we agree that the model works well for ED, works well for most customers and there is no evident connection between the payment model and the problems perceived by the community, then there is no real need in going down that rabbit hole.

Again, i myself think that the pseudo "free to play" approach is a bit nonsensical and i believe that DCS could be a better user/customer experience without the free-to-play-but-pay-for-maps approach, but there's not more to it than that. There is nothing that makes me believe, that this would increase the quality of the product itself. Again, if ED can co-develop a second game (MAC) from their income stream, one should not give to much attention to the business side when discussing the perceived quality issues of the product.

- Keep the current business model

- Augment it with an optional subscription program with benefits such as providing ED miles points as long as the subscription is active, providing early access to subscribers or "temporary sneak-peek builds". This can also be tiered, 5 or 10 $ gets a certain amount of miles, 15$ or more gets more miles and perhaps also said early access. Alternatively it can be so that cheapo subscription gets one "preview build" and more expensive one gets unlimited preview builds. Though this would be more compicated to implement.

 

.

I could get behind this kinda of subscription. Something like that makes sense to me. Even if you added a rotating two day trial for modules and EDMiles buildup over the life of the subscription, I thinking that would be of great benefit to both new and older players. This is the first time I have read that proposal and I like that one.

I could get behind this kinda of subscription. Something like that makes sense to me. Even if you added a rotating two day trial for modules and EDMiles buildup over the life of the subscription, I thinking that would be of great benefit to both new and older players. This is the first time I have read that proposal and I like that one.

So basically some sort of a voluntary subscribtion and in relation to how much your monthly payment is, you get certain benefits?

I like the idea.

There are most likely pros and cons with every imaginable payment model. But to me it's pretty obvious that ED need to find a way to sustain a healthy development of the DCS core. And one of the key factors is financing it - over time. The current model drives ED to release unfinished modules and new features, because that's what generates income.

I truly believe they need to take a step back and take a good look at their complete business model - as well as their development model. I know it's possible to develop complex software without these kind of blatant bugs. But you need to be willing to make and accept changes throughout the whole system. I also know it's not possible to do this without proper financing.

Sooner or later they'll figure this out.

There are most likely pros and cons with every imaginable payment model. But to me it's pretty obvious that ED need to find a way to sustain a healthy development of the DCS core. And one of the key factors is financing it - over time. The current model drives ED to release unfinished modules and new features, because that's what generates income.

 

I truly believe they need to take a step back and take a good look at their complete business model - as well as their development model. It know it's possible to develop complex software without these kind of blatant bugs. But you need to be willing to make and accept changes throughout the whole system. I also know it's not possible to do this without proper financing.

 

Sooner or later they'll figure this out.

agreed.

So basically some sort of a voluntary subscribtion and in relation to how much your monthly payment is, you get certain benefits?

 

 

 

I like the idea.

Yea, I would be ok with that. $5 a month builds 1500 EDMiles a month on top of normal purchases. $10 - 2500 EDMiles, 5 days of Free Trail for use on any ED module. $20 - 3500 EDMiles, 7 days Free Trial on ALL Modules.

I'd very much prefer to keep the current model, but I understand the idea behind this - to generate income for the core features.

A voluntarily subscription that does gather some ED miles wouldn't be too bad actually.

Another thing I thought of was rather simple: Make it possible to donate to the project. That way, everyone could add to the thing to their likings and possibilites their wallets grant, without having the need to do so to keep going on.

No, no, no.....

Why do so many people think that a subscription model is a savour to the current problems. It's naive.

The problems are communication, poor dev and build organisation and structure (using SVN) and a dev team that isn't diverse in location and currently have no internal competition.

Having a monthly subscription, doesn't provide cashflow security either as it allows players to dip in and out as they please, aka when things go wrong. Imagine how many subscriptions would have been cancelled in the last 2 months since 2.5.6, or in the last few weeks. It also provide's less security for third party dev teams. Do you not think they have thought this through.

Your $5-£10 a month subscription that you raised ranges for an annual cost of $60 to $120 dollars. At the lower end of the spectrum that's not even one module that a player would buy, ED release's quite a few modules per year, of which many players would spend more money.

Need to think through idea's before posting bad ones plus its a non starter for large sectors of the community.

Shades of the Mythical Man Month.

Adding more people to a project won't speed it up - nine women pregnant for one month won't make a baby faster - and adding money is essentially the same concept.

Keep it as is! Face palm emoji here.

Listen to this interview to have a better understanding of why things are the way they are. Pay in particular attention to what is said after 16:50.

nine women pregnant for one month won't make a baby faster - and adding money is essentially the same concept.

But two people will usually paint the baby's room faster than one, won't they? (Even if it doesn't make the paint dry faster, I know). Anyway.

From the many 'keep it as it is' answers, it looks like many, maybe the majority, of DCS users like to buy and fly new planes regularly (but wished that there were less bugs, of course). So was I wrong to believe that there were more of them who (like me) haven't bought many aircraft modules and prefer to stick to the same planes for a very long time, but miss (and would be ready to pay extra for) a better ATC, a better AI, or other things that would make the game more entertaining overall like a dynamic campaign engine (which I personally do not miss), whatever, that is, things that will not come with new airplane modules?

(Supercarrier is an interesting case because it actually is a module that brings a bit of ATC.)

Because that was the idea behind the first option in the poll.

But two people will usually paint the baby's room faster than one, won't they? (Even if it doesn't make the paint dry faster, I know). Anyway.

 

From the many 'keep it as it is' answers, it looks like many, maybe the majority, of DCS users like to buy and fly new planes regularly (but wished that there were less bugs, of course). So was I wrong to believe that there were more of them who (like me) haven't bought many aircraft modules and prefer to stick to the same planes for a very long time, but miss (and would be ready to pay extra for) a better ATC, a better AI, or other things that would make the game more entertaining overall like a dynamic campaign engine (which I personally do not miss), whatever, that is, things that will not come with new airplane modules?

 

(Supercarrier is an interesting case because it actually is a module that brings a bit of ATC.)

 

Because that was the idea behind the first option in the poll.

I can certainly agree to those types of improvements that will make DCS better overall. Of which many of them are already currently being improved upon. It is just taking more time than what many here would like. There are things that are just going to take time to do.

Like most things in life come at just the right time when the right elements come together the same thing could be said of game development.

Not sure it is "So many people" It is a small number of very vocal people. The last poll proved that. Consequently this poll does not include the option maintain the status quo. Those few vocal people are trying to prove an argument without providing a null-hypothesis.

No, no, no.....

 

Why do so many people think that a subscription model is a savour to the current problems. It's naive.

 

The problems are communication, poor dev and build organisation and structure (using SVN) and a dev team that isn't diverse in location and currently have no internal competition.

 

Having a monthly subscription, doesn't provide cashflow security either as it allows players to dip in and out as they please, aka when things go wrong. Imagine how many subscriptions would have been cancelled in the last 2 months since 2.5.6, or in the last few weeks. It also provide's less security for third party dev teams. Do you not think they have thought this through.

 

Your $5-£10 a month subscription that you raised ranges for an annual cost of $60 to $120 dollars. At the lower end of the spectrum that's not even one module that a player would buy, ED release's quite a few modules per year, of which many players would spend more money.

 

Need to think through idea's before posting bad ones plus its a non starter for large sectors of the community.

I"m sorry, "So many people" who what ?

My latest post was not about the subscription model rejected in the other poll, it was about the alternative (paid DCS 3.0, to give a bigger incentive to ED to focus more on it). That's fine for me if a majority prefer the existing model. I'm just curious, like Mohab.

It's indeed a pity that it was not possible to modify the poll after Mohab started it, to add the "status quo" option, but that's not his fault.

I like the current model because it provides something for everyone. Let’s face it, for some the cost of a single module can be a stretch, especially in today’s environment.

Currently, if you have the necessary hardware you can play totally free on a couple modules. This is great. As someone who has been using ED products since the original flanker demo was out, I think this is a step toward building a bigger community, which benefits us all.

Some, like me, have all or most of the modules. I’m not against paying for stuff, but I’d much rather “own” than “rent”. For example, some of the modules I’ve bought have been used less than a handful of times. This is ok with me, because I own the right to use them in perpetuity and like the fact that I’ll likely use them later on some occasion. I’ve spent far more on DCS than I ever would have if it were a subscription model. I’m ok with this, but I’m not ok with paying a subscription for something I’ve already bought, and what I bought was the ability to use each of the modules including in a multiplayer environment that is compatible with other users going forward. A subscription model would surely mess this up.

OK. And would you be ready to pay for DCS world 3.0 ? Never? Or only at certain conditions (features or fixes) ?

Edit: assuming that all your modules would still work with dcs 3.0 or that the module upgrades would be cheap.

OK. And would you be ready to pay for DCS world 3.0 ? Never? Or only at certain conditions (features or fixes) ?

 

Edit: assuming that all your modules would still work with dcs 3.0 or that the module upgrades would be cheap.

I assume this question is directed at me. I’m happy paying precisely the same amount I paid for DCS, DCS 1.5, 2, and 2.5.

I suppose I paid for the development of each of these indirectly through purchasing many products staring with Black Shark for the DCS environment. In fact, after just recently adding F-16, supercarrier, and MiG-19 ED has received more from me by a lot than any other software franchise, and I’ve been a gamer for a long time. Seriously, it’s a chicken or egg argument. DCS is doing well with the current model. Why change it if it ain’t broken? But more than anything, a subscription model will do little to grow the community, which is Probably more important for future revenue than just the existing base.