New Pay Model

This is not a good thing.

 

Question, with all of these subscriptions, has there been a marked improvement in quality, bug fixing etc? Or are they going subscription for another reason?

 

Let's just dig something up.

 

 

 

I don't know, from my experience subscription anything (with only a few exceptions such as Netflix) is just a super simple way of making a lot more money on a more regular basis, while selling pretty much the exact same thing.

Sent from my ANE-LX1 using Tapatalk

I don't know, from my experience subscription anything (with only a few exceptions such as Netflix) is just a super simple way of making a lot more money on a more regular basis, while selling pretty much the exact same thing. I mean with the Autodesk 3DS Max example it's literally, hey you purchased software 4 years ago, mind paying full price for it again? Cheers, see you in 4 years time!

Of course it can be a money grab and can be used to hide price hikes, especially by quasi monopolists. Even more offensive IMO is forcing users to pay for services they dont need or want. Have a ring doorbell by any chance? But selling a perpetual license can be just as much a money grab, especially for software with built-in obsolesce. What good does it do that your windows 95 license is still valid today?

A subscription model definitely solves a number of important issues. Upfront cost is an obvious one, dramatically reducing switching or canceling cost, there is no more issue of version envy, you always have the latest version and there is no issue with version compatibility. If renting office360 upsets you, imagine how bad it was when we needed to spend 500 to upgrade office just to be able to open documents created in newer versions. That pretty much was microsofts trick to force you buy a new version.

In general though, a perpetual license model IMO is not compatible with a desire of getting constant updates. Sometimes you dont need that. Ever since office 2003 or something, Ive never had any desire to upgrade. It did everything I needed and then some. Thats probably also why microsoft switched to subs (and I switched to libreoffice and google docs). Otherwise hardly anyone would keep buying office upgrades, there is only so much most people need from a word processor or spreadsheet.

But is there anyone using DCS now that is not craving improvements? I highly doubt it. And you can not expect, just because you bought a module 10 years ago, that ED continue to develop and improve your product for another 10 years. Versioning doesnt really work here either. If they EOL 2.5 and release V3 tomorrow, paying or subscription based, how are F16, F18 and super carrier buyers gonna feel about never getting the fully functional modules they paid for? At the same time, you want everyone who flies DCS to be on the same version. Because otherwise MP doesnt work. And it would cause terrible headaches for third party developers having to support users on DCS 2.5, 3, 3.5,...

Subscription model by itself wont make DCS any better, but aside from the incentive thing I explained 2 dozen times now, it also solves those things. And may also widen the appeal and bring in more players if modules can be rented rather then only sold. It may bring in sales from existing users; I would gladly pay for a few months of ww2 planes and maps. I might keep paying for that, I might not, depending on how I like it. I might buy the modules, or not, but I wouldnt have to be worried about spending 200 upfront to find out its not really my thing or I like that other sim better. Ask any new player how he felt about buying his first high fidelity module. Chances are he spent days watching youtube and reading forums to figure out if he would like it, or should buy the viggen or the F5. The tomcat or something easier. The F18 or something more mature. The truth is he cant really know. And buying 20 modules to find out is not really an option either. Paying 15 euro to test them all for a month, or 7 euro to try the F16 for a month, why not ? Its a dramatically lower barrier to entry. And Im just putting numbers there, I havent given it any thought what a reasonable price would be.

...

 

Subscription model by itself wont make DCS any better, but aside from the incentive thing I explained 2 dozen times now, it also solves those things. And may also widen the appeal and bring in more players if modules can be rented rather then only sold. It may bring in sales from existing users; I would gladly pay for a few months of ww2 planes and maps. I might keep paying for that, I might not, depending on how I like it. I might buy the modules, or not, but I wouldnt have to be worried about spending 200 upfront to find out its not really my thing or I like that other sim better. Ask any new player how he felt about buying his first high fidelity module. Chances are he spent days watching youtube and reading forums to figure out if he would like it, or should buy the viggen or the F5. The tomcat or something easier. The F18 or something more mature. The truth is he cant really know. And buying 20 modules to find out is not really an option either. Paying 15 euro to test them all for a month, or 7 euro to try the F16 for a month, why not ? Its a dramatically lower barrier to entry. And Im just putting numbers there, I havent given it any thought what a reasonable price would be.

To counter your last sentence: the barrier to leave it behind, not give it a second glimpse, if it doesn't feel right from the beginning or abandon the subscription as soon as you switch your sparetime focus is as easy, too.

I for myself would never use a subscription for a computer game. I had once upon Xbox Gold Pass on a 12+1 month rate, but after that period was over I never renewed it, because I didn't use it that much in that time - even if it was bundled with getting a lot of free games only usable during the subscription.

What the subscription "fans" promote as a golden solution for gathering a more substantial funding for core development could lead to a complete financial and product desaster that could let you stand there with nothing more at all.

Following the Hawk Desaster that could happen with ED as a whole, too. Sure. But as long as they can sell single modules in a reasonable rate on more or less fixed prices to a somehow slightly growing user base it would mean a solid calculation base too.

Not so with a subscription system, if its not at least only for a minimum of a yearly basis. Else one would risk that esp. during the time of the year, when most people spent their time outdoors, a lot would cancel their subscription during this phase to start again, when weather gets worst. And even with a years based subscription you have a much higher risk of complete loss of customers due to temporarly changed interest. With the actual thing, the user made a kind of invest in the product and the mental pressure to use it at least now and then, check for new things, buy new modules etc. seems much higher.

E.g. I never got into iRacing for SimRacing despite a lot hardcore users tell you that's the only as real as it gets racing sim and the only place to have really qualified MP races. Why:

• its to expensive for me to use it just once a week or less
  
• lack of fixed time for regular or even organised usage
  
• plenty of good buyable alternatives that I could use as long as its compatible with newer releases of the necessary operating system whenever I like without having or need for renewing a subscription license
  

Long story short: Besides alltime hardcore users I think a subscription model would cut the player base significantly and would result in less money for further development or even the loss of DCSW at all. Military Flight Simulation is a tiny niche in an already small market. And even in the SimRacing Business there is just one developer that offers a subscription model and that one could profit from an already rather professional "player" base with a lot of real world race drivers using it as a training aid. Every kind of PC based flight simulator, even the professional oriented single one, is in my knowledge far away from this.

To counter your last sentence: the barrier to leave it behind, not give it a second glimpse, if it doesn't feel right from the beginning or abandon the subscription as soon as you switch your sparetime focus is as easy, too.

It can not be at the same time a money grab that people here are revolting against, and too cheap so it would reduce EDs revenue. It cant be both too expensive and too cheap.

Prices can be increased or decreased almost arbitrarily and be adapted to what ED sees happening. They can create endless complexity and logic in to subscription fees; if they dont want people renting only occasionally to suit their needs, they can do minimum durations. Or probably a better idea, start with a higher monthly fee so you get some meaningful revenue from occasional or seasonal players (who are unlikely to buy many 70 dollar modules anyhow) and decrease the fees with time so that 12 months costs only a little more than 6. You can even make longer term rents accumulate towards module purchases, allowing long term renters at some point to lock in their investment in to a module, albe it of course at a higher overall price than straight up buying it. That could be 20% above module price or 5x above, I dont know what the right answer is there, I dont have the stats that ED has, but the concept is not too different from leasing cars or other stuff.

However, if people stop playing the game and stop being willing to pay subscriptions, if they "cancel their lease", that is exactly what they should do and be allowed to do, and the signal ED would need to change course and improve whatever it is people want; rather than being forced to push new modules and content via pre-ordering (that may not be the thing people want ), or worse, what you seem to suggest, rely on people getting suckered in to buying a module that on hindsight, they think wasnt worth their money. That can not seriously be the business model you are advocating for?

E.g. I never got into iRacing for SimRacing despite a lot hardcore users tell you that's the only as real as it gets racing sim and the only place to have really qualified MP races. Why:

• its to expensive for me to use it just once a week or less
  
• lack of fixed time for regular or even organised usage
  
• plenty of good buyable alternatives that I could use as long as its compatible with newer releases of the necessary operating system whenever I like without having or need for renewing a subscription license
  

I just looked it up; simracing subscription is $6 per month or $50 per year. Less than one high fidelity DCS module. Did you think that was too much, or the many $100s if not $1000 you would need (or want) to spend on "modules", ie cars and tracks? Im guessing its more the latter.

... And you can not expect, just because you bought a module 10 years ago, that ED continue to develop and improve your product for another 10 years. ...

And yet they DO and they HAVE, both the Black Shark 2 and the A-10 modules for example! :yay:

The analysis you and others have presented in various postings on this thread seem to ignore a most basic fact, a fact so basic that it undercuts what might otherwise be a proposal worth considering by ED.

So just what is this most basic fact?

Except at it's most basic level (the free version), DCS is not readily accessible to the average gamer with only a casual interest in military aviation. DCS does a good job at addressing this with it's free entry into the DCS experience, but military aviation is still a tiny niche when compared to the entire gaming universe as a whole (also keep in mind that quite a few people are literally forced into subscriptions with Adobe and Autocad, but people aren't generally forced into playing games).

And those of us who are willing to spend 15 minutes just to get the aircraft ready to fly before we ever get off the ground are an even smaller niche...

We also happen to be the ones willing to spend US$80 on a professional level module for an aircraft that is legendary, even though that module is NOT completely developed yet! We love the ability to be a part of the development process and are willing to even pay for this privilege!

Yes, it's a privilege to be a part of the development process for such unique and outstanding products and to help shape their future. And not just a part of that process, but an integral part of that process as Nick from ED pointed out in the P-47 video posted in an earlier message on this thread, participation without which developing these products would be virtually impossible...

To try to destroy the DCS experience just to get modules for (almost) free is just wrong on so many levels (and I'll note that while this motive has been spun by others previously in this message thread it's not been refuted at all, but rather tacitly admitted to).

And yet they DO and they HAVE, both the Black Shark 2 and the A-10 modules for example!

I know, and I commend them for it. That changes absolutely nothing about my point. I do not have a problem with ED. I have a problem with a business model that forces them to do these updates almost as charity and against their own narrow financial interest. And that applies much much more to the base DCSW layer than to modules; in theory, their work on the black shark module may spur sales. I for one, just bought it, if for no other reason as to "thank" them for spending resources on old modules, rather than offer presales on new and broken content. But i can not do the same for an improved graphics engine, or new weather, or a dedicated server, or dynamic campaigns or anything in the base layer. And I want their financial interest to be aligned with my and your wishes.

military aviation is still a tiny niche

I keep hearing that, "we are a tiny niche". And while its true, it very much sounds like you want to keep it that way, and oppose any idea's that might help make DCS more mainstream. Maybe it makes you feel special or something? Look at me, I fly DCS. Its so only for elites. Its so hard and so realistic it takes me 20 minutes to take off. You play microsoft flighsimulator a game played by millions. HAHAHAHA. But the reality is that the flight sim market is not insignificant. Microsoft flight simulator sold in the tens of millions. The military flight sim market is not that small either, the original IL2 sold over 2 million copies. God knows how many they sold of the follow up franchises.

DCS is more realistic and harder than FS or IL2. But that should not limit its appeal to just a tiny fraction of a percent of its users. Users of those sims generally crave more realism, not less. And if that where to backfire, and pilots get more than they bargained for, compared to improving realism, its pretty trivial to dial down realism and provide simplified start procedures or helping hands where needed or even simplified flight models (which even il2 pilots probably wouldnt want). Some of that is already in DCS. Done right, DCS should be able to appeal to a majority of IL2 fighter pilots, plus everyone who is looking for more realism than IL2. And of course, anyone wanting more modern stuff. And yet, something is stopping them. For some reason Il2 is at least an order of magnitude more popular. Can you tell me what it is? Because I do have a few hunches. I know what held me back for almost 20 years.

And Ill give you a hint; its not the 20 minutes you spend doing a cold start. Not sure what DCS plane takes more than ~12 for INS alignment worst case and most players will spend less than 5. But if IL2 players would object to how long it takes to get airborne, thats a trivial easy fix: pre align the INS or enable hot starts. Done. 2 million extra potential customers. So thats not it.

BTW, 20 minutes also will not impress many P3D or x-plane players. It takes longer to start a 747. And that is also a pretty big "niche" (even though I cant for my life understand why anyone sees more fun in starting or flying a 747 than a fighter)

To try to destroy the DCS experience just to get modules for (almost) free

Ok. At the risk of getting myself banned. **** you. **** YOU. That is not even close to what I want to achieve.

More than 80% of the DCS community rejected your proposal. You tried and you failed. Just leave it with dignity. You are making yourself a fool now

More than 80% of the DCS community rejected your proposal. You tried and you failed. Just leave it with dignity. You are making yourself a fool now

I ran a poll in a home owner association forum. I asked if they would be willing to pay rent on their homes. 98% voted no, so clearly, renting homes is not a viable business model.

I ran a poll in a home owner association forum. I asked if they would be willing to pay rent on their homes. 98% voted no, so clearly, renting homes is not a viable business model.

But it DID correctly represent THAT market (home owners), so renting a home to home owners IS not a viable business model...

Just like making module owners "rent" the modules they own is not a viable business model either...

I think you're on to something here! :doh:

PS- You're SO silly, I really hope they don't ban you for using naughty words to cuss me out a few messages back in this thread... I forgive you!!

BTW- I don't think ED is going to ignore basic economics just so you can get (almost) free modules, but they seem to be open to doing more free weekends with particular modules, so you actually MAY get the chance to try them out before deciding to save enough money to eventually purchase them for yourself. TIP - wait for the sales!

But it DID correctly represent THAT market (home owners)

Indeed. But thanks for providing further evidence you actually want to see DCS remain a niche product that appeals only to its current narrow customer base. You dont want to broaden its appeal and have a gazillion new paying customers help fund platform improvements to DCSW.

Indeed. But thanks for providing further evidence you actually want to see DCS remain a niche product that appeals only to its current narrow customer base. You dont want to broaden its appeal and have a gazillion new paying customers help fund platform improvements to DCSW.

:prop:

Let us know when the mothership lands....

This is a long thread and I am still reading through it but wanted to chime in anyway.

A big NO for subscriptions.

I work in software. When I went from working 20 hrs a day in industry to relaxed hrs at a financial institution it was a big shock. At one point the whole team decided to go to the bar across the street during the work day to watch the World Cup for 2 hours. Say what?!

Then the economic crisis of 2008 hit. That entire team got laid off.

I respect the DCS developers for having a passion for airplanes and simulating reality. I think a subscription model though would hurt both end users and the developers.

In the end, users need to be patient for fixes, but developers could better target what the masses want.

E.g. I will most likely never buy the Viggen. Why? Because no one from my background has ever flown it. It has taken part in no wars. Only one country flew it. I prefer more personally relevant history over what if scenarios.

I like the two extremes of air frames. Small long slim sexy planes like the F-5, and short fat ones like the A-4, Su-25, and yes, the Viggen. But for me the historical appeal is missing.

Maybe the developers really wanted to make that plane. However I don’t imagine it would get a lot of attention around the world. And if it doesn’t, there won’t be too many sales. I could be completely wrong. But if I am not, I would like to suggest to developers that they poll us more for what we all want, before they fully commit.

The MiG-19 is not ready yet, but it is playable. I like how it came out. I have a lot of fun with it so far. There is so much more I am waiting for. But looking on the bright side, I have been waiting since 1994 to fly it in the level it is available at today. They say they even will add an earlier version. I can wait patiently for it, and in the meantime play the other modules.

Some users say they wait years for a fix they want. So the solution is to trick me into paying for something you want that I don’t want? With a brand new monthly tax?

Free health care in Canada is great, and I would be gladly willing to pay more taxes to cover your health care, but not your air plane.

I wouldnt buy modules at all if they didnt go on sale.

i bought the A10 in 2012.. i didnt pay for another until ED started sales LAST YEAR and i think they learned a valuable lesson because they are regularly having sales now. As an example i bought the Harrier, Mirage, MiG15, Flanker, Black Shark.

i keep expecting Heatblur to catch on. Because ive wanted that Viggen AND the Tomcat since i first saw them. Something tells me ill be getting whatever goes on sale. 80 is just too steep. Id end up buying a TigerII or Hornet or a Mi8 before what i really want.

Subscription? would end my affair with DCS

Bad Idea for a niche community

Currently, DCS is my absolute favorite sim and go to hobby! What ED and the rest of these developer companies do is nothing short of amazing work. However, I can't always sit down and fly because life happens (work and school). Also, with a one time price.. one may consider that the amount of time that they've used the module and had fun was totally worth it, even for a relatively high price like the F-14 Tomcat. For example, I have spent enough time with the F-14 to feel like I've done okay with that $80. With a subscription, you'll never get there in regards to feeling like you've gotten your money's worth and may even sour the experience forcing you to learn, fly, and then give it up before you've spent north of $200 for the thing.

I love DCS World and will always support the modules and add to the collection because it's such a great product! Literally the best! BUT I WILL COMPLETELY GIVE UP ON DCS WORLD IF THEY FORCE A SUBSCRIPTION... and I'd never think twice about it!

On the contrary, I'd be open for the OPTION of a subscription OR full lifetime purchase. I think that's fair and will address most parties needs.

As a final statement, I strongly recommend that all developer companies proceed about their funding plans in this regard very carefully. If they attempt to sell the idea that a subscription service would allow them to develop more effectively and they passed the idea, then later the end users find that subscription service was not to their liking for whatever reason (development time still slow, cost too much, bugs for months, etc.) it could potentially ruin DCS World for a lot of people forever. Please consider this.

I have a lot of software. Some are old and not updated because the companies (Adobe, Microsoft) have forced subscriptions on everyone. I have CS6 and Windows 7 because I refuse, categorically, to buy into a subscription. I don't have any other computer games with subscriptions or season passes for that exact reason.

I seriously doubt ED will ever go to subscription service for DCS. They would lose way too many customers that way... both current ones as well as prospective new ones.

Can't believe this thread is still going. Fairly confident thousands would abandon ED/DCS World if a subscription model was introduced.

BAD FOLLISH IDEA!!!!!!

Worst idea lets forget it..

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.

No.

end users find that subscription service was not to their liking for whatever reason (development time still slow, cost too much, bugs for months, etc.) it could potentially ruin DCS World for a lot of people forever. Please consider this..

When at least part of your revenue depends on keeping customers happy, you risk losing revenue when you do not manage to keep them happy enough to keep paying the sub. Thats not only a truism, thats the whole point: ensuring ED's interests are fully aligned with their customers desire.

The current situation is far more dangerous, as sooner or later it puts ED in a situation where it can not afford to do the things its customers want (like fixing and improving the free base layer), and are instead forced to do the exact opposite (create more and more new content at the expense of performance and stability of that base layer, and at the expense of resources to improve that base layer). Their interests can get diametrically opposed to ours, and that simply can not have a happy ending.

BTW that things take time is not the main problem. The current model of EA modules already requires users be patient and pay for stuff that it is far from finished and often isnt even really useable yet, and that by itself does not appear to be a huge problem. As long as progress is made, most of us have no problem buying modules that arent finished yet and can take years to complete. As long as that module is something we wanted, as long as we see progress, that is not a major issue and I dont see why subs would change that. The issue is when you can not buy the things you want, and are even asked to pay for the exact opposite.

It can not be at the same time a money grab that people here are revolting against, and too cheap so it would reduce EDs revenue. It cant be both too expensive and too cheap.

 

Prices can be increased or decreased almost arbitrarily and be adapted to what ED sees happening. They can create endless complexity and logic in to subscription fees; if they dont want people renting only occasionally to suit their needs, they can do minimum durations. Or probably a better idea, start with a higher monthly fee so you get some meaningful revenue from occasional or seasonal players (who are unlikely to buy many 70 dollar modules anyhow) and decrease the fees with time so that 12 months costs only a little more than 6. You can even make longer term rents accumulate towards module purchases, allowing long term renters at some point to lock in their investment in to a module, albe it of course at a higher overall price than straight up buying it. That could be 20% above module price or 5x above, I dont know what the right answer is there, I dont have the stats that ED has, but the concept is not too different from leasing cars or other stuff.

 

However, if people stop playing the game and stop being willing to pay subscriptions, if they "cancel their lease", that is exactly what they should do and be allowed to do, and the signal ED would need to change course and improve whatever it is people want; rather than being forced to push new modules and content via pre-ordering (that may not be the thing people want ), or worse, what you seem to suggest, rely on people getting suckered in to buying a module that on hindsight, they think wasnt worth their money. That can not seriously be the business model you are advocating for?

 

 

 

I just looked it up; simracing subscription is $6 per month or $50 per year. Less than one high fidelity DCS module. Did you think that was too much, or the many $100s if not $1000 you would need (or want) to spend on "modules", ie cars and tracks? Im guessing its more the latter.

You seem much too be focused on the plain financial aspect and regret the other points I made, why I (!) won't pay for a "game" (!) on a subscription base and the more

• what makes you expect that more money at all would solve the problems DCS struggles from at the moment?
  
• what makes you expect that a subscription rate would bring substantial more interest and users to such a high-level simulation?
  

Just as a sidenote:

I was very involved in the development of the SimRacing game Project CARS 2 version (already a minimum backer on version 1). I payed a real high amount for beeing part of the second version, spent much more time during the development phase then after release playing it. But the deep inside knowledge of game development I learned from taking part as a hardcore Beta tester there was worth all the money for me. Project CARS (Community Assisted Racing Simulator) was started to develop a SimRacing game on the demands and with the focus on the hardcore racing simulation users interest. That worked that well for the 1st Version that some substantial backers got back several times what they spent to get it started. That financing model was abandoned for the second version and changed more to a focus on peop!e that wanted to spent money to get really deep involved in the development process.

Long story short: what was started as a kind of a hardcore SimRacing community project was broadend to the mass market of racing games. And to attrackt more players they now - and after selling the whole project to one of the major game publishers - dumb down the simulation part and add more gaming and fun features. I am quite sure: from a business perspective abandoning simulation to attract the more casual players will gain them a lot more money then they ever could have made with the 1st attemp by making a hardcore SimRacing community driven racing simulation game and develop it further from this starting point.

Whats the point vor DCS: if ED really wants and needs to make much more money they only would have to dump DCS, switch to MAC and get in competition with World of Aircraft. Then even a subscription model would make sense, because with pushing out a rather simple and accessible but shiny and solid kind of simulation game one could attract much more people on a regular basis so that temporarly user shifts wouldn't even be noticable. One just has then to provide a stable base and release from time to new models, scenarios (aka maps) with a standard system so that the user doesn't have to change its habits for playing successful in a competitive environment.

But such a system would be far of the study sandbox simulation we have today with DCS.

I doubt that's what the majority of the DCS simulation community is looking for. There you have to have some passion for getting used to use the stuff you pay for - and for getting a substantial development progress. Because with such a complex system its not easy to change things on one side without risking to break something on the other.

Back to my Project CARS example: introducing a much more complex weather simulation in the second version resulted in a bunch of new problems that had to get solved to get it work at all. After that process it had a very sophisticated weather simulation which worked very well in human MP scenarios, but as soon as AI gets involved the experience gets its flaws simple because there is no PC hardware on the market that could keep up with simulating all the stuff for a human players car to a significant number of AI controlled cars, too. In the end the whole attempt for a more realstic weather simulation was more of a showcase then beeing accepted and honored or even used by the majority of the player base. The hardcore simulation racers liked it - the player base that delivers the most money wants a more shiny and casual access.

Now you get stuck in a Catch22 dilemma.

[*]what makes you expect that more money at all would solve the problems DCS struggles from at the moment?

How often do i need to say this? Im not asking for a different or parallel funding model to increase (or decrease) EDs revenue. Im asking for a different funding model that allows them to focus on the things we all want (even they want I bet), rather than a funding model that forces them to focus on new content, the only thing that currently makes them any money - and probably not the thing most of us want right now. Even the poll in this thread shows at least that much.

Read the forums. How many people would be willing to sell their first born to get smooth 90FPS VR performance, a new weather system, more stable netcode and servers, dynamic campaigns? Hundreds if not thousands will not even think twice to spend $1000 on a nVidia 3080Ti. Which will not solve their problem and not be nearly as effective as a rewritten graphics engine.

But how can ED seriously invest in working towards that goal, and redeploy resources away from new content creation, when not only they will not get that 1000 for providing a much bigger performance boost or even achieving those other goals; when it doesnt make them a dime, and will even decrease their revenue from new content?

what makes you expect that a subscription rate would bring substantial more interest and users to such a high-level simulation?

I have no evidence to provide that isnt anecdotal. It may or may not materialise, but its not my main goal, although it is something that has a good chance of panning out as a happy side effect.

DCS currently has extremely high barriers to entry. System requirements, financially (certainly to anyone interested in trying a bunch of planes and a bunch of maps) and learning curve. Thats why its a niche. Anything that can lower these barriers and increase its appeal to the millions of IL2 players should be carefully considered.

The complexity and realism shouldnt be a hindrance. General aviation sims are no easier to learn and Im yet to meet an IL2 player who is asking for less realism, simpler flight models or lower fidelity cockpits. And compared to creating that realism in the first place, it has to be trivial to optionally scale down realism where needed or desired. Enable hot starts and any IL2 player can be "airquaking" in WW2 planes after 15 minutes.

But tell him he needs to spend 250+ dollar to have 3 partially working planes, one and a half small maps, and then he'll get 23 FPS in VR and hardly any active online servers, that a BIG BIG ask.

Eliminating very high up front costs while offering a broader set of planes and maps through a pay as you go model could be a big step in that direction. It could help resolve chicken and egg problems particularly for the ww2 modules. But again, thats not my main reason, see above.

How often do i need to say this? Im not asking for a different or parallel funding model to increase (or decrease) EDs revenue. Im asking for a different funding model that allows them to focus on the things we all want (even they want I bet), rather than a funding model that forces them to focus on new content, the only thing that currently makes them any money - and probably not the thing most of us want right now.

 

Read the forums. How many people would be willing to sell their first born to get smooth 90FPS VR performance, a new weather system, more stable netcode and servers, dynamic campaigns? Hundreds if not thousands will not even think twice to spend $1000 on a nVidia 3080Ti. Which will not solve their problem and not be nearly as effective as a rewritten graphics engine.

 

But how can ED seriously invest in working towards that goal, and redeploy resources away from new content creation, when not only they will not get that 1000 for providing a much bigger performance boost or even achieving those other goals; when it doesnt make them a dime, and will even decrease their revenue from new content?

 

 

 

I have no evidence to provide that isnt anecdotal. It may or may not materialise, but its not my main goal, although it is something that has a good chance of panning out as a happy side effect.

 

DCS currently has extremely high barriers to entry. System requirements, financially (certainly to anyone interested in trying a bunch of planes and a bunch of maps) and learning curve. Thats why its a niche. Anything that can lower these barriers and increase its appeal to the millions of IL2 players should be carefully considered.

 

The complexity and realism shouldnt be a hindrance. General aviation sims are no easier to learn and Im yet to meet an IL2 player who is asking for less realism, simpler flight models or lower fidelity cockpits. And compared to creating that realism in the first place, it has to be trivial to optionally scale down realism where needed or desired. Enable hot starts and any IL2 player can be "airquaking" in WW2 planes after 15 minutes.

 

But tell him he needs to spend 250+ dollar to have 3 partially working planes, one and a half small maps, and then he'll get 23 FPS in VR and hardly any active online servers, that a BIG BIG ask.

 

Eliminating very high up front costs while offering a broader set of planes and maps through a pay as you go model could be a big step in that direction. It could help resolve chicken and egg problems particularly for the ww2 modules. But again, thats not my main reason, see above.

As I did most of my past years (doing flight sims since the Amiga500 times and tried most flight focused "games" since then) simflight stuff on the civilian focused side _because_ the military stuff was much too complex for the time I could spent with flight simulation, I am quite sure you underestimate the level one has to step over to get what DCS simulated planes already deliver.

I think ED knows very well where their market share is with their current product beeing a study level sandbox simulator. And they know as well what problems they currently have and maybe what they will be running into in the future if they can't keep up with hardware and software development. But as I mentioned from my own experience in gaming and simulation software development its not all about money to develop new stuff and new systems / game engines without breaking stuff or even abandon some things. And if I take a look at where DCS is now and even the oldest modules get a substantial refresh I think ED is doing a great job securing already done purchases and make great progression as well. There are drop backs, yes, there are sometimes even one step forward and two back, too. But that's real live of developing and maintaining complex software architectures.

Plus: the people you get for designing and coding new modules and the ones you need for core engine development are quite different. Those are highly skilled people that even if you have all the money don't grow on trees - else every one with enough money could bring up something like DCS from the scratch and sell it on a low cost subscription fee to the masses...

And in which todays and past flight sims do you get at least the level of simulation your so called "partially working planes" in DCS deliver already? So the bang for the buck I already get out of my DCS stuff is worth the passion it needs to get some steps further.

Maybe its that I am still not retired nor am I a scholar or student anymore with p!enty of freely adjustable time, so that the time I could spent for learning DCS stuff is so less that the already working things are nearly too much to cover for me. But that doesn't hold me back from buying and trying new stuff like the already fantastic Channel map and the lovely P-47. Not only because I easily can afford the 80 bucks ED calls for, but its even with the actual performance problems and sometimes only partial working things a lot of fun and experience to play around with it.

Maybe it would be a good advice for everyone seeing DCS on the doomsday side already to enjoy more what we already have and get more passion that good things need time to come. Or do you have nothing else to spent your time on if DCS works not so well for some weeks?

You are not answering any of my points. It sounds as you are trying to defend DCS as a product against someone who is critical of DCS. Thats not the discussion Im having. Im talking about the broken business model. I want to find a solution that enables ED to focus more on doing the things we want.

Look at the poll ED held 5 years ago:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=151627

the overwhelming winner was dynamic campaigns. Guess what no one voted for? A larger carrier with deck crew. 5 years later we do have the super carrier, but we still dont have a dynamic campaign engine. And thats not because ED are evil, or greedy or incompetent. Its not because they do not want to deliver what customers want, it is because with the current business model ED can not focus heavily on what we want, at least if those things relate to the free underlying game engine

In that same poll, 4th generation, multirole fighters also scored well. We did get those in spades. Because those dont run contrary to their business model. New content is their only business model, its what brings in revenue. And so we also got more WW2 and vietnam era planes that hardly anyone voted for, while we did not get the dedicated server that twice as many people wanted. But the planes bring in revenue, a dedicated server does not. New clouds do not, implementing Vulkan and improving VR performance does not, better netcode does not, dynamic campaigns probably do not, no matter how badly we might want them. No matter even if many of us would gladly pay more to make those happen and many of us will spend the equivalent of 10 high fidelity modules on a new nvidia card to get only a marginal performance improvement that is unlikely to fix our VR trouble. To put it extremely simplified: ED are not selling what most of us right now would like to buy, and they do not have a model to do so.