New payment model - How could it work?

The answer is in the FIRST post.

 

Personally, the reason why I do not like a subscription model is that I have the feeling that it limits my choices as a customer. With a subscription model, I don't really know what I pay for, apart from the access to the game. Do I get bugs fixed ? Dunno. Do I get software optimizations that extend the life of my hardware ? Dunno. Do I get every month new content that interests me ? How many hours am I going to play this month ? There's always this feeling that you might not get a run for your money.

 

I prefer a new paid version. When a new version of a game is released, I can wait for the reviews to be published and then decide, based on the reviews, whether it is worth upgrading to the new version, or whether it's better to stick with the old version for one more year until the next version, or until my next hardware upgrade. For instance if the new version brings nothing in which I'm interested.

 

Of course ED's best interest and mine are not necessarily identical...

This is not a mainstream game . That would be probably the end if we would buy or don't buy DCS:3.0 because of good or bad reviews.

Imagine the steam reviews of DCS if lets say if it would be a 60$ game with one full fidelity module an a single short campaign. I am pretty sure it would be mixed if not worse because this game is not mainstream but a lot of people who don't get this genre would probably still buy it then get disappointed /frustrated after they realize the fact this is not for everyone and need dedication to get anywhere . Beside the two hour refound period of steam would be probably enough for a cold start .:D

Maybe. But ED has nothing for sale that interests me anymore. Maybe I'm in the minority.

X-plane does not seem to be doing too bad on Steam. I would hardly call xplane 'mainstream'.

Leave as is.

my 2cents...In any case, if I pay for a subscription I will have the guarantee that ED will deliver a complete module. Every time Ed releases an update, it messes with something that was working ... so there is no subscription for me.

I love DCS, I would pay for DCS 3 if the offer was on the table. I would probably pay a subscription as well, however that is me and a bunch of others that would do it as well, provided, again, that a solid offer is presented.

A subscription model is dangerous. It has to be solid experience for the subscriber to retain and renew, once person resigns from it, getting them back to subscribe is rather difficult.

So, I think, leave it as is.

Haha like in the real world, with the real military contractors missing deadlines and asking for more money... Yeah that will make DCS an even more realistic military simulator! :-)

I just wanted to say. I'm an open minded customer who loves DCS too much so I would like to know, if ever happens, if ED is not financially profitable, if they think of a new revenue model to make it profitable.

What I dont want is to wake up one day to read a post saying "Dear customers we've gone bankrupt... farewell". I would love some notice before so actions can be taken.

I'm not happy with any of the options, so I can't vote.

BTW, what is meant by DCS 3.0? A total rewrite of the entire sim?

I'm not happy with any of the options, so I can't vote.

 

BTW, what is meant by DCS 3.0? A total rewrite of the entire sim?

Following the same path we've had over the years with DCS World 2.0, 2.5 ... it would be a major new core feature or rather or combination of new enhancements. It does necessarily mean a complete rewrite since that is not feasible.

I imagine DCS world 3.0 as the support for vulkan, bigger maps or a dynamic campaigns accompanied by new weather engine....

I'm not happy with any of the options, so I can't vote.

 

BTW, what is meant by DCS 3.0? A total rewrite of the entire sim?

It just means a version of DCS world ('core') that is significantly improved compared to 2.5, to justify the price.

Obviously, the more improved it would be, the more we would be ready to pay.

Of course 'improvement' does not necessarily mean the same thing for all of us. It can be optimization, bug fixes... Or new features.

I do think we should make a onetime payment for DCS world. This would create revenue for core game features, and incentivize ED to improve the core of the simulation in order to sell new copies. As for including all paid modules, you can't. Several companies make modules, and they get paid by selling those modules. Also if you bundled everything into one it would be prohibitively expensive.

I like the idea of paying a one time fee for the DCS program. Maybe give the SU-25T, and the F-5E as the included module. I would gladly pay for the base game if it ment more money going into the core game for features, and units.

I voted Yes on option 1 and I'm putting my money on it that is if ED would be honest about doing so by dedicate/hiring to make a division to only work on DCS 3.0 from ground up to clean the spaghetti code and bugs.

With the so many broken promises I highly doubt that.