New Pay Model

Following this discussion for quite a while I have to state that the arguments given for both sides didn't change the result of the poll in any way. It has always been about 80% : 20%. So minds don't seem to change with all that has been said.

 

My problem with this thread is that it seems to be clear what income ED has or would have with both of the systems. Where do you guys get those numbers from?

the notion that ED doesn't make enough money is a fabrication of the community developed over time, simply based on the perceived state of the development. there is however zero evidence, that this would be the case.

there is however evidence for the opposite: parallel development of a "triple A flight game" (MAC), general increase in staff over the last years and of course the only official response from ED was that they are doing fine.

Then add the military contracts they have. This year they have had another sale of a-10c VR training stations for the air national guard.

Also, as i have mentioned several times, the notion that DCS has a small user base is simply wrong. it's guessworks, but you can try to extrapolate from steam user data. depending on how you guess dcs shop vs steam user base, DCS is doing either well, or extremely well.

i get, that people get frustrated about perceived development priotities, but it could very easily be, that DCS did in fact so well, that ED simply did not feel the need to care that much about customer concerns.

[...]My problem with this thread is that it seems to be clear what income ED has or would have with both of the systems. Where do you guys get those numbers from?

the notion that ED doesn't make enough money is a fabrication of the community developed over time, simply based on the perceived state of the development. there is however zero evidence, that this would be the case.

 

there is however evidence for the opposite: parallel development of a "triple A flight game" (MAC), general increase in staff over the last years and of course the only official response from ED was that they are doing fine.

Then add the military contracts they have. This year they have had another sale of a-10c VR training stations for the air national guard.

 

Also, as i have mentioned several times, the notion that DCS has a small user base is simply wrong. it's guessworks, but you can try to extrapolate from steam user data. depending on how you guess dcs shop vs steam user base, DCS is doing either well, or extremely well.

 

i get, that people get frustrated about perceived development priotities, but it could very easily be, that DCS did in fact so well, that ED simply did not feel the need to care that much about customer concerns.

I want to add, that i myself always wondered about the sense and nonsense of the current model, with it's weird pseudo-free-to-play and it's dependency on feature-modules (assets, terrain, super-carrier).

I am convinced that it would be better for multiple reasons (discussed elsewhere many times) to have major iteration (vers. 2.0, vers. 3.0 etc) as a common one-time-purchase, but this is more about having a simpler modell that feels fairer (less unexpected costs), less trouble with MP/coop dependencies and a better way to "vote with your wallet" by being able to skip or wait for a sale on a major release, that's deemed not worth it.

i still think it's idiotic to fabricate this theories of ED running out of money and promoting price increases, while they - for all we know - might be rolling in cash! (maybe they don't. my point is, we don't know... with everything hinting at them doing well)

Ok, let take how well or not well ED is doing out of the equation. Right now they get a major influx of money when they release a module. Then they have diminishing sales that trickle off over time. As the total number of units they are going to sell decreases because they have already been sold they get less return per man hour spent on a module. On the other hand if I can cancel my subscription if a module isn't completed to my liking in a timely manner they have a financial reason to finish modules and keep them up to date.

The downside to that is if a module isn't popular it will get abandoned even if it happens to be my favorite module.

the notion that ED doesn't make enough money is a fabrication of the community developed over time, simply based on the perceived state of the development. there is however zero evidence, that this would be the case.

there is however evidence for the opposite[...]

Ok, let take how well or not well ED is doing out of the equation. Right now they get a major influx of money when they release a module. Then they have diminishing sales that trickle off over time. As the total number of units they are going to sell decreases because they have already been sold they get less return per man hour spent on a module. On the other hand if I can cancel my subscription if a module isn't completed to my liking in a timely manner they have a financial reason to finish modules and keep them up to date.

 

The downside to that is if a module isn't popular it will get abandoned even if it happens to be my favorite module.

Don't you realize the absurdity of your post? If you hold ED to such low standards, you should restrain from doing business with them for good.

I said multiple times, i understand where that discontent comes from, but if ED would indeed be only driven bei maximizing short time profit against all morality and customer feedback, why wouldn't they try to fu** you over with a subscription,if this would make it even so much easier for them?

I think they deserve to be critizised for their management of certain modules, i think they can be critizised for their plan to sustain DCS development with "feature modules", but if i would assume ED to be a company without any ethics or pride or even foresight, i would definitely not buy anything from them.

Don't you realize the absurdity of your post? If you hold ED to such low standards, you should restrain from doing business with them for good.

 

I said multiple times, i understand where that discontent comes from, but if ED would indeed be only driven bei maximizing short time profit against all morality and customer feedback, why wouldn't they try to fu** you over with a subscription,if this would make it even so much easier for them?

 

I think they deserve to be critizised for their management of certain modules, i think they can be critizised for their plan to sustain DCS development with "feature modules", but if i would assume ED to be a company without any ethics or pride or even foresight, i would definitely not buy anything from them.

whatever bro

In the end it comes down to the following question: do we want ED to keep making vehicular modules (aircraft/ships whatever) AND do the base game stuff in paralell, or do we want them to totally quit on the module side of things and focus solely on the engine/tech/game side of things. And one thinh i think is worth remembering; i surely can believe that a lot of people at ED really like building aircraft. So its not just about what we want, but the people going to the office every work day must finally make that decision as a group. We do like companies that are not only top-down....hey, you guys freaking do what management wants, do we?

So, if they keep making aircraft or other modules in parallel with the game stuff, then there really is no reason to change the business model right now.

First, it probably does not make sense to hire 100 new tech guys and hope that the speed up on the game side of things translates into higher income that balances the increased costs.

Secondly, if the man-hour balance between modules and tech/game development does not change, then there really is no point in charging for non modules stuff that everyone gets so the playbase is not split. So the best way to ensure further game development still remains buying new modules (yeah especially ED ones like F/A-18 and F-16), forget about the EA issues, and rather take them as a "thank you and appreciation by ED" for your continued support.

So, i kinda changed my mind on the "let us pay directly for the core game development" because; this would only make sense if A. they hired a bunch of new staff that would only work on the engine and tech or B. they shifted more and more staff away from module development. And both are decisions that the guys at ED should decide by themselves, not us.

Additionally, i bet DCS would be a worse product if ED would withdraw completely from module development. A good deal of the tech we want like the ground radar or IFF are probably better developedd as part of an aircraft project than in isolation.

Finally, maybe a slight shift in the staff allocation from 50/50 to a golden 66/33 for game and module development would be a more suitable framework. But thats just a ratio that feels good to me, i have no clue whether this would speed up or better the game side of things in any way.

currently DCS is the best air combat simulator on the market there is nothing concurrent but time passes quickly.

Flight simulator 2020 is coming out, I've seen the trailers and the sattellite maps are wonderful, what did you think of the new technology used on the new flight simulator? but remember that flight simulator simulates flight not air combat and weapon systems.

but remember that flight simulator simulates flight not air combat and weapon systems.

... also doesn't cater to low-level flight, either:

(ED's mix of satellite imagery and hand-crafted artwork down low is a lot better than this auto-generated, cloud-pushed static map; the transition from low to high alts in DCS is still stunning)

therefore currently as a technology that serves to represent the terrain at a world level as well.we have not yet arrived.

the high and low flight levels are a test to see the rendering of the ground in effect at low flight levels you realize if the graphics run fast.

If it was for a massive online dynamic campaign that is constantly changing tactics, supplies and increases/decreases AI pilot presence depending on real user online usage on a top notch server then yes I would pay a subscription for this and this only. This would pay for the dynamic campaign for offline users quickly.

I think the current DCS model is good as it is, the free ware brings in new users and can keep them interested with little additional cost as they progress. It also looks after our offline/casual users.

The mass of subscription games online causes a massive drain on user finances, £10 here and £10 there mounts up into a massive payment per month and DCS is not obviously the greatest game that ever existed... it does not catch the imagination instantly... only with time and use does the user realise that it is indeed the greatest game that ever existed.

I would say more diverse paid for modules, Coms for example. You get superb interactive ATC communications that are controlled by keys and/or voice. superior Awacs and AI coms. Additionally it would include a live online coms system that works via the planes coms panels settings. Noise, squelch and line of sight problems (pending on the frequency and mode of coms used) could also be modelled.

Commercial Radio stations that offer easy use of your favourite music, played by tuning into your local radio station and easily played from your favourite (saved) play list... perfect for those days when you go off cruising and sight seeing the newest/oldest map.

If it was for a massive online dynamic campaign that is constantly changing tactics, supplies and increases/decreases AI pilot presence depending on real user online usage on a top notch server then yes I would pay a subscription for this and this only. This would pay for the dynamic campaign for offline users quickly.

 

 

I think the current DCS model is good as it is, the free ware brings in new users and can keep them interested with little additional cost as they progress. It also looks after our offline/casual users.

 

 

I would say more diverse paid for modules, Coms for example. You get superb interactive ATC communications that are controlled by keys and/or voice. superior Awacs and AI coms. Additionally it would include a live online coms system that works via the planes coms panels settings. Noise, squelch and line of sight problems (pending on the frequency and mode of coms used) could also be modelled.

I think we are all looking for what you are looking for. In a dynamic campaign, the surprise effect is very effective, not everything is calculated and programmed, every event causes the consequence of another event.

So paying for access to a rich and fully functioning dedicated server with a ED dynamic campaign...there might be some value in paying a few dollars for that each month, with the rest being as is.

BASE GAME and modules leave as is,

ED Dynamic Campaign servers at say $5 a month access. Could work.

Hello? What does the result of this poll tells you? :music_whistling:

I think the poll results are quite obvious, and the thread presented an interesting conversation with good points made on both sides. I'm interested in seeing how ED handles these challenges in the coming years. Hopefully the right decisions are made for the long run.

Regardless on which side of the argument everyone is on I think it's safe to say we all want DCS to continue to get better and ED to succeed.

Apparently they do recognize the need to keep the core updated as half of their workforce is dedicated to that. Either way it's going to take time to see results. We have at least seen some already through new AI assets, AI behavior, and a handful of other fixes.

Can we get confirmation that HALF their workforce is actively improving the core? Seems unlikely.

Can we get confirmation that HALF their workforce is actively improving the core? Seems unlikely.

So paying for access to a rich and fully functioning dedicated server with a ED dynamic campaign...there might be some value in paying a few dollars for that each month, with the rest being as is.

 

BASE GAME and modules leave as is,

 

ED Dynamic Campaign servers at say $5 a month access. Could work.

I agree. This would be another good option for recurring revenue, and would encourage them to eat their own dogfood and potentially make it better for everyone. They should be able to do a good job of it.

So paying for access to a rich and fully functioning dedicated server with a ED dynamic campaign...there might be some value in paying a few dollars for that each month, with the rest being as is.

 

BASE GAME and modules leave as is,

 

ED Dynamic Campaign servers at say $5 a month access. Could work.

Yeah... it could also not work.

... as I can imagine a lot of currently loyal costumers leaving, by totaly disagree with a susbcription model to be able to access their hobby.

For new / recent / not fidelized costumers (nowadays mostly young people prone to app / subscriptions / quick services), my guess is they can tend to see DCS as another "Ace Combat" after some time, and eventually leave it.

It's not taking away from what they have now so it absolutely won't drive loyal fans away. It's pricing for that new feature only. So they can do anything they currently do now.

Honestly I don't prefer paying for anything and would prefer a completely free everything game.

I voted no. Dont't like the idea. I have almost every module in my library, so I don't feel like paying a monthly subscription on top of it... (Just ran the calculation... USD 872.67 plus some on Steam)

 

BUT, if I would be a new simmer and there would be an OPTIONAL subscription based model and have access to DCS. I might be interested in a service like that.

Flatrate or themed packages would be another question...

 

Example: 14.99$ a month and have access to everything would make the deal worth to me, if I just took the first dive into DCS.

Actually, that seems interesting to me. It doesn't have to be ''either/or'' it can be ''pick your poison''. Purchase a module outright for $80 say OR pay a monthly subscription for wide access to them. Imo, $14.99 is probably slightly low, but regardless this seems like an excellent compromise to me. +1

Considering the complexity of modules, people really aren't going to be bouncing around THAT much. They'll focus on one or two mainly anyway.

ED providing dynamic campaign servers would be a service, you'd expect to subscribe to that - you're not buying anything, you're paying for access and I expect everyone's fine with that, although probably not so fine if it's technically possible to run them yourselves and you're not allowed to. I suspect the temptation after that would be to run *all* MP servers like iRacing does ( and charge subs ), and I'm not onboard with that :p

Actually, that seems interesting to me. It doesn't have to be ''either/or'' it can be ''pick your poison''.

Trying to tell everyone.....

so a subscription would be cheaper for the customer, but also ED gets more money to better fund the development? wow. money from nothing. great!

It's not about total revenue. It's about cash flow.

A transition to subscription model would obviously seek to remain overall revenue neutral. The point is to change where the money comes from in order to alter the incentives and business model and be less dependent on frequently adding new features packaged into single large updates. That's why many companies have switched - it doesn't make you more or less money overall, it just enables you to change your business model to focus more on the core product itself.

Right now ED is totally dependent (according to Nick the co-founder) on frequent early-access releases to remain solvent. This would not be the case after a revenue-neutral switch to a subscription model that generates revenue independently of module releases (enabling more resources to be spent on core updates).

Some kind of subscription model will come sooner or later. Do you really think pushing out new modules will be a successful business model for all eternity? This is a niche market, and the time will come when new modules are not enough to sustain the company.

It will come down to this: either some kind of subscription model is introduced, or the company will go bankrupt. I'll rather play DCS by subscription than not play it at all.

The first stage will be the dynamic campaign. Or did you think you'd get it for free? The dynamic campaign in itself will make people a lot less likely to buy DLC campaigns, which means less profit for ED. Making the dynamic campaign subscription based is probably the only way to make it profitable.

@Fred00

Let's pretend ED will not go bankrupt if they stick to their actual model and sell the dynamic campaign like they sell other modules.

Would you prefer a subscription model instead?