New Pay Model

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.

Oh that sounds attractive to me. Having paid more than any subscriber ever will and have disadvantages in the future.

Oh that sounds attractive to me. Having paid more than any subscriber ever will and have disadvantages in the future.

This is something I don't get... What are the disadvantages you see?

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.

It's the fact it is a niche product which is why a subscription service would not work! And all I get from those in this thread pushing the idea, it seems to me, is that it's all about figuring out how to get the modules they want without being able to afford them...

In order for a subscription service to work you need a LOT more people willing to part with money each month than who actually play the game.

This is how "buffet" economics work, for food it relies on being able to feed the occasional customer who pigs out and eats twice what he paid in food by having 10 customers who only eat a small percent of the price they paid in food, as well as the economies of scale with a large number of customers and a limited menu of items that concentrate on lower cost at wholesale, spending less per person to have them walk away satiated. People love the buffet as they get a decent selection of items, and they KNOW that can eat until they are satisfied.

A subscription service is like a buffet, it needs a large customer base to work. Netflix is a good example, though their costs are the licensing for content and for infrastructure to serve the streaming video rather than for food. But they succeed by servicing tons of different niche markets with their service - scifi nuts, anime fans, old movie buffs, sappy and crappy soaps, etc. Streaming services that pander to only one niche rarely survive unless it's VERY big niche or there's other things going on and it's a part of something bigger.

DCS only services one niche (though there are a few sub-niches as well), and that's the "Military Aviation High-Fidelity Simulation" niche. This is a niche of people willing to climb that steep learning curve to get as close as they could ever hope for to flying some of the greatest aircraft to grace this Earth! As it's the ONLY game in town to offer a high-fidelity product, it's only because of the worldwide reach of Eagle Dynamics that allows them to service this niche at all and remain in business (though I think they also service militarys around the globe with simulation services and this civilian offshoot of DCS World is simply allows these military customers to cover some of the cost, I suspect that's what happened with the Eurofighter, they're recouping some of the cost for training software thru a civilian export Typhoon simulator model, they build a mil-spec simulator for training and gut it for us to have fun and we all share the cost).

This niche simply is NOT big enough to support a reasonably priced subscription service as the average participant could not be classified in the "casual gamer" category that you find on things like World of Tanks or Elite Dangerous. The learning curve for DCS and it's modules are way too steep to be able to effectively create a large enough base to make a subscription service work.

They COULD go with a subscription service with micro-transactions with Modern Air Combat if they were willing to create a persistent world and dumb it down to the level of some of their competitors. But it would be a completely different product from DCS World.

This is something I don't get... What are the disadvantages you see?

You have to ask amazingme

You have to ask amazingme

Oh, I understand now. It was about the "implied disadvantages" since he said something about only subscribers having advantages. I think it was just a mishap on his part. The phrase should have been split in two better and maybe made a bit more clear.

But thinking about it more.... because I think about this not only as a "poll" but actually how would ED implement it if they decide internally that is the only viable road... it's clear it has to be started in paralel with the current model with the ability to stop it if is not working and revert it.

So if we think a bit... it can be done with current options already and this month was a good test.

You see, we had access to payware planes for 2 days. The planes are still installed but not active... so in the future they can be easily reactivated/deactivated.

So tier 1. Free model can be easily made already. Keep prices on modules just the same and instead of having just TF51 and Su-25T free (which are not enough imho in 2020 especially in VR) now you also have access to the rest of the content but for very limited time. Which is fine.

After a while... a Tier 2 can be introduced. Pay 10-15$or€/month and have access to all released modules out of EA/Beta. Stop paying and you revert to base/free model where you can buy the modules or wait for the free days.

After that... tier 3. Pay 20-25$.€/month and have access to all modules EA any other goodies. On top of it you can add the minor pay for access to one specific EA module but stay in Tier 2. IE pay 30$ to acces in first 4 months, 20 in next 4 months and just 10 for access in the last 4 months of EA year.

All this time you can still keep the pay for modules model and decide after 2-3 years if it's worth it to switch to the new one. Once is decided is OK... just increase prices on paid model a little so it wouldn't make sense much to buy modules and people are nudged to subscription and the stop it.

Voilà! All in one.

It's the fact it is a niche product which is why a subscription service would not work!

They do, they just become not niche.

And all I get from those in this thread pushing the idea, it seems to me, is that it's all about figuring out how to get the modules they want without being able to afford them...

Ironizing poorer people aside, I think is in the interest of ED as in any other merchant to expand its customer base. 80$ on F14 is something else than 80$ on JF17... You don't see even an effort to make more sense... like 82.34$ F14 and 71.80$ JF17. It's clear it's just a rough homogenisation and not a thoroughly calculated price. Also 80$ means something in Moscow and something else in Los Angeles and something completely different in Karachi or Tehran. Yet the two planes mentioned above would fit geographically all the regions. As a side note on this. I bought most of my modules in Romania I think... less when I came in France. Work and the child make me think twice on buying this module on 80€ or the other module on 80€ and ended up not buying any! Or waiting very patiently for a huge sale. Not sure this is the best for ED.

In order for a subscription service to work you need a LOT more people willing to part with money each month than who actually play the game.

 

...

 

This niche simply is NOT big enough

It needs to be smart so the niche gets bigger. At this moment just yelling/hoping more people will play will not speed up things.

They COULD go with a subscription service with micro-transactions with Modern Air Combat if they were willing to create a persistent world and dumb it down to the level of some of their competitors. But it would be a completely different product from DCS World.

Sure... a lot of mistakes can be done... and this is one of them and I think is what ED has in mind...sadly.

It's the fact it is a niche product which is why a subscription service would not work! And all I get from those in this thread pushing the idea, it seems to me, is that it's all about figuring out how to get the modules they want without being able to afford them...

 

In order for a subscription service to work you need a LOT more people willing to part with money each month than who actually play the game.

 

This is how "buffet" economics work, for food it relies on being able to feed the occasional customer who pigs out and eats twice what he paid in food by having 10 customers who only eat a small percent of the price they paid in food, as well as the economies of scale with a large number of customers and a limited menu of items that concentrate on lower cost at wholesale, spending less per person to have them walk away satiated. People love the buffet as they get a decent selection of items, and they KNOW that can eat until they are satisfied.

 

A subscription service is like a buffet, it needs a large customer base to work. Netflix is a good example, though their costs are the licensing for content and for infrastructure to serve the streaming video rather than for food. But they succeed by servicing tons of different niche markets with their service - scifi nuts, anime fans, old movie buffs, sappy and crappy soaps, etc. Streaming services that pander to only one niche rarely survive unless it's VERY big niche or there's other things going on and it's a part of something bigger.

 

DCS only services one niche (though there are a few sub-niches as well), and that's the "Military Aviation High-Fidelity Simulation" niche. This is a niche of people willing to climb that steep learning curve to get as close as they could ever hope for to flying some of the greatest aircraft to grace this Earth! As it's the ONLY game in town to offer a high-fidelity product, it's only because of the worldwide reach of Eagle Dynamics that allows them to service this niche at all and remain in business (though I think they also service militarys around the globe with simulation services and this civilian offshoot of DCS World is simply allows these military customers to cover some of the cost, I suspect that's what happened with the Eurofighter, they're recouping some of the cost for training software thru a civilian export Typhoon simulator model, they build a mil-spec simulator for training and gut it for us to have fun and we all share the cost).

 

This niche simply is NOT big enough to support a reasonably priced subscription service as the average participant could not be classified in the "casual gamer" category that you find on things like World of Tanks or Elite Dangerous. The learning curve for DCS and it's modules are way too steep to be able to effectively create a large enough base to make a subscription service work.

 

They COULD go with a subscription service with micro-transactions with Modern Air Combat if they were willing to create a persistent world and dumb it down to the level of some of their competitors. But it would be a completely different product from DCS World.

It all depends on the subscription fee and the benefits you'll get comparing to the current model. Zaelu gave a few examples on how it can be implemented. You forget a few things, one of them is that it takes quite some time to fully develop a module and any enterprise needs cash flow, hence the early alpha releases. Having subscribers and a steady monthly income would help a lot in paying the employees. Another one which is closely related is that instead of peeps saving money to buy a single module they would actually pay the devs so they can enjoy ANY module. You compared it with food, DCS is NOT a daily necessity (for some, it is :) ) and the poll would tell us that about a quarter of us would easily become subscribers and would pay whatever fee just to be able to have access to everything ED and 3rd parties have to offer. You also attract new people by having subscribers pay 20$ for all modules instead of 80$ on a single module.

Subscription Model - Debunked

zaelu said:

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.

Well, it was addressing points you made but I know, the whole thing was very long and there's only so much time in a day. But the TL;DR of it all was:

From your proposal:

- Tier 1 is basically what we have now.

- Tier 2 is also, basically a carbon copy of what we have now. Given on average 4 items of paid, new content gets added per year, at an average price of $50, that means $200 per person, per year on average with the current model; provided the vast majority of players do that (which isn't that far fetched) then the current system is superior for the developers than Tier 2 ($200 per year compared to $120 - $180).

If we compare a player who has paid for all content to date (~$1850), and doesn't buy any more. Against a new player paying your 2nd subscription tiers, it'll be 10-15 years before developers reach that $1850 - this isn't advantageous to developers in any sense of the word, compared to what the current system permits. It's identical to worse. It only is beneficial to developers if players pay for standalone content by itself (like in the current system) and pay for the subscription, essentially paying twice to accomplish the same thing.

- Tier 3 is better for developers over Tier 2 (they make money faster), but all it does is halve the time. If you've been playing DCS for 5 years and own most modules, you're about in the same boat. Afterwards however, it becomes more expensive to the customer, for at least IMO no advantage as far as DCS itself is concerned over your Tier 2. It gets worse too, putting public testing behind a paywall, that you have to pay double for over Tier 2 (what I took from "access to all alphas immediately" feel free to correct me if my take is incorrect) this completely undermines the point of the OB branch, which is vital to ED.

zaelu said:

My point was quite simple.

...

It's called the current system.

zaelu said:

The data mining tick in options

Oh great, just what everyone wants, more spyware, awesome.

zaelu said:

All in all is not about paying more and having less access

Paying more is a mathematical fact of pretty much every subscription out there compared to a perpetual one, given time. It only isn't when:

1. The perpetual is just so expensive, that a subscription will end up cheaper even given tonnes of time (such as the end of the product's life or the life of the customer) - can't think of many examples in the real world apart from insurance.
2. The time frame is short (in the Autodek 3DS Max, and your Tier 3 example <5 years).

And no, a mortgage is not a subscription. I mean first you try and contrast perpetual vs subscription by comparing 2 subscriptions, and think I won't notice. Now you're implicitly equivocating paying in installments as meaning subscription - they are not. A mortgage isn't a subscription, it's the equivalent of a perpetual license, but spread out - once the property you're paying the mortgage for is paid off, you stop paying the mortgage. Renting on the other hand, is, in that you pay for it continuously, like you do in every subscription. And if you do the maths, given a long enough amount of time, you will pay more in rent, than you would have had you bought the property.

zaelu said:

it's about generally paying less having more access for players/customers and bringing more clients and more money for ED.

But it doesn't though! Check the maths! Tier 2 is no different, compared to someone who has already purchased much/all of the content developers make less money and it's only after 5-15 years when they start making more. And if players buy new paid content within a year of pre-order/release, then they make basically identical amounts of money, in which case this system has no benefits either way. Of course, for players who only play a few modules, it's worse for them, and is hardly an improvement for developers either, over the current system.

And gives more access? No it absolutely doesn't, you pay basically the same amount if not more, for the exact same thing. Again tier 2 is ~3-4 modules a year (about as many that get released a year, on average) and tier 3 is equivalent to 5-7. Assuming players purchase modules basically as they come out (or within a year). Tier 2 is no different, at all, compared to the current system, it only becomes better for developers and worse for customers after 10-15 years.

Tier 3 is worse for customers, better for developers but offers no fundamental improvement over Tier 2, what option do you think players are going to choose? And this is the only tier that nets ED more money, given the assumptions.

zaelu said:

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.

It isn't though! Again, check the numbers. Tier 3 is straight up lose for customers, for essentially negligible gain over Tier 2. And Tier 2 takes ages (~half-3/4 of my current age) before it can even hope to favour developers.

I want to point out, in light of Kate Perederko's words on reddit, particularly the reference to spaghetti code, the issue we are currently facing isn't going to go away any faster just by throwing more money at it or throwing more developers at it. I think it's safe to say that

@Lunatic98

Seriously I don't find myself in your quotes and interpretations of my words so... very sorry, I don't understand what you are trying to address by reinterpreting my words..

Also, I will take a break from this thread again... Corona is more important.

zaelu said:

@Lunatic98

Seriously I don't find myself in your quotes and interpretations of my words so... very sorry, I don't understand what you are trying to address by reinterpreting my words...

I'm quoting you directly, you can click the arrow in the quotes to see where they come from. I am addressing things, as they were written. The only things I've had to interpret for myself were things that weren't made clear, though the only example of that is "golden missiles"

All I've done is give my take on the mathematics of your proposal - the TL;DR of my findings is that it's not looking too good for anyone, in fact, could even be worse for developers than the current model.

Now, if you think I've misinterpreted what you're saying, or have otherwise made an error on absolutely anything I've posted here, then absolutely call me out on it and I'll make corrections - I'm more than happy to listen to and address criticisms and edit accordingly. I am well aware of the flaws in my limited analysis. I can even list them if need be.

But I can't make a correction if I haven't got something specific to work with...

zaelu said:

Also, I will take a break from this thread again... Corona is more important.

Indeed it is. Stay safe.

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...

Well put.

It all depends on the subscription fee and the benefits you'll get comparing to the current model. Zaelu gave a few examples on how it can be implemented. You forget a few things, one of them is that it takes quite some time to fully develop a module and any enterprise needs cash flow, hence the early alpha releases. Having subscribers and a steady monthly income would help a lot in paying the employees. Another one which is closely related is that instead of peeps saving money to buy a single module they would actually pay the devs so they can enjoy ANY module. You compared it with food, DCS is NOT a daily necessity (for some, it is :) ) and the poll would tell us that about a quarter of us would easily become subscribers and would pay whatever fee just to be able to have access to everything ED and 3rd parties have to offer. You also attract new people by having subscribers pay 20$ for all modules instead of 80$ on a single module.

At $20 a month you could play everything for 4 months for $80, or I can buy the F-14 module for the same amount and play it for, how long?? Forever!

If you can afford to pay $20 a month for 4 months, you could instead SAVE $20 a month for 4 months and then fly the F-14 for, how long?? Forever!

Now what if, for whatever reason, you can't pay that $20 monthly fee after 4 months, say there's a worldwide pandemic and you've been laid off? Well you as a subscriber are stuck with a login screen, while I as a module owner can still fly...

And $20 a month is too expensive for what a subscription can offer right now, and because this niche is so small would likely be not enough to make it work anyways as there'll be a bunch of extra work now to try and service the subscribers and adding extra content to justify the cost...

You want the ED team and it's partners to have a stable income, sign them up on Patreon (or a similar service) and subscribe so you send them a few bucks every month to help out...

I bet you'd get a LOT more subscribers that way, where they contribute what they can, when they can.

PS- the "buffet" analogy I used previously was appropriate, while food IS a necessity, eating at a "buffet" isn't (though the point there was to teach how "buffet" economics work), it was my other example of "buffet" economics, Netflix, that was an apples to apples comparison to DCS World as a luxury...

jlummel said:

And $20 a month is too expensive for what a subscription can offer right now, and because this niche is so small would likely be not enough to make it work anyways as there'll be a bunch of extra work now to try and service the subscribers and adding extra content to justify the cost...

Exactly. Freaking. This.

And even assuming you could justify it, $20 a month from crude analysis, doesn't really net developers more money than the current system on average.

Add to this - I really wish people proposing subscription models would do the maths, put simply unless they're charging $20+ per month, I'd argue that it's unlikely that they'll see a financial benefit of any significance, compared to the current system. Again, ~4 items of paid content a year, on average with an average price of $50 each.

I also wish people would give a quick look into divisibility, if the problems DCS is facing aren't easily divisible then just throwing money at it, or throwing developers at it, isn't going to change much.

jlummel said:

You want the ED team and it's partners to have a stable income, sign them up on Patreon (or a similar service) and subscribe so you send them a few bucks every month to help out...

Which is IMO a better solution to a subscription, developers can make more money, without seizing control from users.

You don't understand.. ED could add the subscription along with the current model. A steady income would bring only benefits. Just try to think outside your boxes for a bit. Nobody said ED should rely only on one or the other.

Sent from my Redmi 5 using Tapatalk

iRacing has a monthly charge and you still have to pay for all the content. The content is always finished when you buy it. For the monthly fee, they put on all the races (online only), pay for servers, and keep track of all the race results and give you a rank.

If DCS charges a monthly fee. What do we get for that if we still pay for content and a lot of it is unfinished for years?

iRacing has a monthly charge and you still have to pay for all the content. The content is always finished when you buy it. For the monthly fee, they put on all the races (online only), pay for servers, and keep track of all the race results and give you a rank.

 

 

 

If DCS charges a monthly fee. What do we get for that if we still pay for content and a lot of it is unfinished for years?

Sent from my Redmi 5 using Tapatalk

Steady income means more content.

 

Sent from my Redmi 5 using Tapatalk

That is a huge assumption to make.

You don't understand.. ED could add the subscription along with the current model. A steady income would bring only benefits. Just try to think outside your boxes for a bit. Nobody said ED should rely only on one or the other.

And how would you do that without cannibalizing one or the other income stream and inadvertently crashing the stream that currently exists? The subscription devalues the sales of modules in a dangerous way, but drives up the costs of development and maintenance over where it's at currently by needing to service the subscriptions, potentially draining resources from completing modules.

Worse yet, subscribers who get into problems and can't keep the subscription up will start demanding free access anyways, they'd point to the module owners and say "Wahhh, they get to play for freeeee!!!, Why can't we too??? It's not fair!!". And they'll cry "Racism!!" or that they're being "ironized" or "poor shamed", because that's what whiners always do when they don't get their way, whether or not it actually makes any sense (which it wouldn't at all, just like it never does in pretty much every other case of virtue signaling)...

It could get real ugly, real fast! And right now, you already have free play, no need to cry about it!

You can get into DCS World for free and fly BOTH the Su-25T and the TF-51D to your heart's content in a wide and ever changing world of scenarios! And if you feel you want more of a challenge, then you add the modules that suit your interests and aptitude, and your time budget as well as your pocketbook (it can take months or even years to master any of these flight modules, $80 for the F-14 is a great deal for the hours of play it gives you, the VERY reason why this IS and always WILL BE a niche market).

If this is merely, as I've speculated in the past, just about figuring out how to get access to modules you can't afford, well then try a savings account, or a piggy bank, or even an old soda can with a slit cut in the top, and save up for it like the rest of us do... Oh, I think I DO understand, only too well... Outside the box, sheezsh...

And how would you do that without cannibalizing one or the other income stream and inadvertently crashing the stream that currently exists? The subscription devalues the sales of modules in a dangerous way, but drives up the costs of development and maintenance over where it's at currently by needing to service the subscriptions, potentially draining resources from completing modules.

 

Worse yet, subscribers who get into problems and can't keep the subscription up will start demanding free access anyways, they'd point to the module owners and say "Wahhh, they get to play for freeeee!!!, Why can't we too??? It's not fair!!". And they'll cry "Racism!!" or that they're being "ironized" or "poor shamed", because that's what whiners always do when they don't get their way, whether or not it actually makes any sense (which it wouldn't at all, just like it never does in pretty much every other case of virtue signaling)...

 

It could get real ugly, real fast! And right now, you already have free play, no need to cry about it!

 

You can get into DCS World for free and fly BOTH the Su-25T and the TF-51D to your heart's content in a wide and ever changing world of scenarios! And if you feel you want more of a challenge, then you add the modules that suit your interests and aptitude, and your time budget as well as your pocketbook (it can take months or even years to master any of these flight modules, $80 for the F-14 is a great deal for the hours of play it gives you, the VERY reason why this IS and always WILL BE a niche market).

 

If this is merely, as I've speculated in the past, just about figuring out how to get access to modules you can't afford, well then try a savings account, or a piggy bank, or even an old soda can with a slit cut in the top, and save up for it like the rest of us do... Oh, I think I DO understand, only too well... Outside the box, sheezsh...

Sent from my Redmi 5 using Tapatalk

That is a huge assumption to make.

Sent from my Redmi 5 using Tapatalk

amazingme said:

You don't understand.. ED could add the subscription along with the current model.

What? So I get to pay for the same thing twice? But if I pay for it once I'm not hindered? How the hell is this supposed to work?

If the current model was kept, what's the incentive to buy into the subscription exactly? You see, keeping the current model just undermines the subscription, which in the case of zaelu's proposal, only provides a benefit to developers at it's most expensive tier, which as far as DCS is concerned offers the player the same as the previous tier, just at double the cost. And that previous tier? Basically puts them in a similar position, if not worse than the current system. So, the tier that gives the best outcome for developers, is the one with the least incentive for customers, when they have better options available - sounds promising.

amazingme said:

A steady income would bring only benefits.

I agree, but I think you're equivocating steady income with a subscription model, and a non-steady income with the current one.

How many businesses function, with a steady income, without going subscription again? In fact, better than that, how many flight simulators out there operate using a subscription?

amazingme said:

Just try to think outside your boxes for a bit. Nobody said ED should rely only on one or the other.

Sure, I'll turn my brain off and think outside the realms of actually doing the maths

And the 2 coexisting doesn't make any sense, as described above. What's the incentive to customers? And if the current system remains, why not just add donate links - it achieves the same thing.

But sure I'm really convinced that a subscription is going to be the magic wand that solves all our problems.

Hint - throwing money at this kind of a problem, isn't going to make it magically go away, I can add as many bakers as I like to a bakery, eventually I will run into a task isn't divisible - one that I can't speed up by adding more bakers. This is especially a true of software development to a late project, like DCS. Only in the case of DCS, it has the problem of legacy and spaghetti code, which can be a nightmare to deal with, take this from Kate Perederko, ED's Chief Operating Officer:

"...we have a lot of legacy code, a lot of spaghetti code and want to improve it with a new generation of DCS World. How ambitious you are when you start doing some new task? Well, we love new tasks but if the code has thousands of related pieces it becomes a nightmare. Sometimes it’s better to leave it as is. We had many talented developers in the past who wrote the code and left the project and now we see that we need to refactor it or rewrite completely..." Source.

This doesn't sound like an easily divisible task on their hands, and therefore, simply throwing more money at it, might not significantly improve the situation.

amazingme said:

Steady income means more content.

Not necessarily. A steady income could even mean less content, as developers are less incentivised to produce more content (they're less dependent on the revenue from the content itself, and can use the subscription, it doesn't actually require them to sell their products, just the subscription). Of course they'd need a way to justify the subscription, otherwise there's no incentive (even negative incentive) for customers to purchase a subscription, over the current model.

amazingme said:

If you have more money then you can afford more things, it's just common sense.

Look, it really is not as simple, as you think it is. Okay they have more money, and they can afford new things. Tell me, what are these things that are going to significantly improve DCS? With more programmers, they could make more modules, but that's hardly the key issue here - the key issue is sorting the base DCS World client out (it's such an issue, that ED have half their resources working on it).

What? So I get to pay for the same thing twice?

 

And how would this work? If the current model was kept, what's the incentive to buy into the subscription exactly? You see, keeping the current model just undermines the subscription, which in the case of zaelu's proposal, provides no obvious benefit to develeopers.

 

 

 

I agree, but I think you're equivocating steady income with a subscription model, and a non-steady income with the current one.

 

How many businesses function, with a steady income, without going subscription again?

 

 

 

Sure, I'll turn my brain off and think outside the realms of actually doing the maths. :doh:

 

But the 2 coexisting doesn't make any sense - they both offer the same thing. zaelu's proposed tiers only become an obvious advantage to developers when you go for the most expensive 3rd tier, only it's double the price, for what is offered by the second tier, and the second tier? At best it's a minor to no advantage over the current system and in some cases even worse!

 

But sure I'm really convinced that a subscription is going to be the magic wand that solves all our problems.

 

Hint - throwing money at this kind of a problem, isn't going to make it go away - the problem with DCS is that A.) it's built off of Lock On, and was never designed for the modular set-up we have now.

 

Take this from Kate Perederko, ED's Chief Operating Officer:

 

"...we have a lot of legacy code, a lot of spaghetti code and want to improve it with a new generation of DCS World. How ambitious you are when you start doing some new task? Well, we love new tasks but if the code has thousands of related pieces it becomes a nightmare. Sometimes it’s better to leave it as is. We had many talented developers in the past who wrote the code and left the project and now we see that we need to refactor it or rewrite completely..."

 

(Source:

)

 

This doesn't sound like an easily divisible task on their hands, and therefore, simply throwing more money at it, might not significantly improve the situation.

 

"But it'll pay for more developers" Yeah, but Fred Brooks, and his famous observational law (albeit a crude one) wants a word.

 

 

 

Not necessarily. A steady income may even mean less content as developers are less incentivised to produce more content seeing as now they make more money. This is of course assuming that developers are even able to produce more content and justify the price.

 

 

 

Oh for...

 

You're really dodging the question of precisely how a subscription model significantly improves DCS. Okay they have more money - how does this significantly improve the situation?

 

It really isn't as simple as you think it is.

Sent from my Redmi 5 using Tapatalk

amazingme said:

Math IS simple

Then why aren't any of you actually trying to do any of it then?

amazingme said:

As long as you understand it.

You don't say.

amazingme said:

I believe we already went too far with this discussion. The bottom line is, in current (financial) situation we wait, they wait, we re angry

And how does a subscription model solve any of this?

And holy freaking hell, so what, you think people will be less angry, participating in a model they clearly don't want, paying more money, for the same thing?

Right.

amazingme said:

they don't give rat's ass, and so on.

Free base client with no paywall, free updates ~ every week or 2. We have the founder and the COO giving us transparency on hoggit, very, very active team providing help - "they don't give a rat's ass" yeah, right.

It's interesting that the proposed solution to them to not giving "a rat's ass" is to throw more money at them. Intriguing.

amazingme said:

now you do the math

Hmm, the current financial model means waiting for both us and them, and some of us are foaming at the mouth...

So how do we fix it?

Ooh! I know, we'll add a subscription model! Yeah, all of that long-winded development, arduous bugfixing and working with legacy code that gets in the way, or the spaghetti code that's a nightmare? That'll all magically be solved way faster. Somehow!

And even better people will absolutely love it! It's not like anything like this has caused any form of backlash in the past right? Right!?

Oh wait.

If you have more money then you can afford more things, it's just common sense.

 

Sent from my Redmi 5 using Tapatalk

You're assuming they are going to reinvest it into the product instead of just taking a bigger paycheck.

And there's the question about where this influx of new subscribers will come from, in sufficient quantity to make the subscription model work? That's assuming they don't get a mass exodus of current players due to getting stabbed in the back by going subscription!

And if there was this untapped resource of tens of thousands of new players, why not get them in on the current pay-for model which is free to start and swell the coffers so that cashflow wouldn't become an issue for a long time?

It would seem the basic assumption is that people would be more willing to pay a smaller subscription fee for DCS World (buffet style), than to play for free (as they can now) and then spend their money (or not) in a targeted manner that fulfills their particular needs perfectly (à la carte).

I don't see it... BTW- ever noticed that most restaurants are not buffets?

But starting from the time when Black Shark 1 first came out, I added things to my stable of DCS products over the course of 10 or more years, mostly as I've wanted them, or as the sales happen where I can plan for the future by grabbing modules I'm interested in but not planning to play right away.

Sometimes there are months or even years between purchases and when I can devote any extra play time for DCS. Unlike a MMORPG, at least with DCS I don't have to re-learn everything after a hiatus (all in the name of that ever illusive idea of "balance")!

I would imagine that I'm average in this regard and, if true, it bodes ill for DCS as a high-fidelity simulation devoted to realism moving to a subscription service. The niche is too small to support such an economic model. Heck, it's likely the ONLY reason their current pay-for model is even viable is their worldwide reach! Without the Internet, their market would severely limit what they would be able to do, for example as a DVD-ROM product I don't think BS1 really did that well!

I hope somebody from ED ends this.

I hope 19.75% don't ruin what 80.25% want.

I hope I will play DCS in 10 years like I play it now.

I don't even like beeing a subscriber to this thread anymore. (Thank gosh it's free)