New Pay Model

I don't necessairly want money to be poured into speed of development of the number of things we already know and make sense to be developed, these things take time and even if 10x the people look at it they can't all holdy 10 mouses and 10 keyboard or all help holding one mouse and 1 keyboard

It only scales up to some point. I would wish some of these upgrade dollars to go directly to maintenance of all the other areas of DCS overall, things which aren't regularly touched, to be freshened up, modernising other parts of the program.

I tried recently enabling some of the dev/debug options and I wasn't able to get much to show up, there are many references to "dev console" but I couldn't open it, while editing the LUAs.

There's also the internal inconsistency of namings, particularly with F-18C I seen the names of the folders differ significantly for liveries/cockpit/shared stuff, i think the name is like "f18c_hornet" or something. It's not that big of a thing but as I get more into DCS my self I start caring for it like it's my house, want to keep things organized even if it's won't change much in practice heh.

There could be a livery manager perhaps, which would be helpful to just view all the detected custom liveries for an overview (without having to place each unit in ME and select loadout and open the livery combo box and scroll). Since this sim is ought to be highly moddable there could be some cleanups there as well particularly in the filesystem structure so that everything that's part of the core is nicely segregated and/or labeled away from the so that it's clear and organized.

I'd probably list this into a wislist thread along with the other things I discussed in the newsletter thread just a moment ago.

YES!!!

Love it!

That would give ED a steady income.

Those like me who have a lot of modules could have that total sum added to a grace account. Not needing to pay untill all of that was accounted for. Make ALL modules and content available from first logon to ALL.

The team could do with some expansion. Give them a chance to grow larger. DCS is becoming a beast of a game and needs more people.

Let them grow!

To be clear, I would gladly pay 10$ a pr month for this game.

Maybe get a secondary team that focuses on narrated game content in multiplayer servers and have THAT be subscription based. Narrated missions are the best. And if for a test start ED could start a subscription based narrative content I will say, open wide, here comes my subscription.

We pay pr month for films and other content. Why not this?

10$ per month would have been cutting ED's income to a half only with the money I gave them for the last 4 years. Can't see how they could make more money with a strategy like that.

And that said even I don't want a subscription model. Cause if I decided not to continue spending money or to spend less money I want to keep what I own. Guess that's just an opinion but it's mine for sure.

Maybe once the year 2371 rolls around...

Selling an Early Access every few months is already a subscription model :)

*runs for cover*

The reality will be that at some point ED may be forced to go into subscription model. How many hot-selling modules that everyone wants to get are there left to be developed? The list is only getting shorter and shorter.

Currently the modules get the most of development time. C'mon, after so many years there is not even a B-29 for the MiG-15 to shoot at. Yes the core is free but DCS is for the most part an exceptional plane simulator but it lacks behind in the overall air warfare environment simulation. It's like having a most detailed F1 car simulator with a few race tracks but without a F1 season.

ED should consider starting to charge a subscription for the core game (maybe include FC3 and F-5 in it) and keep additional fees for all other modules. This should bring more attention to the core of the game, including so much needed AI units.

As much as I hate subscriptions myself I would like the DCS to keep growing. I remember a time where a software was bought on a CD (or even a floppy). You bought it - you owned it. You could lent it to a friend or sell it. I was like with a pair of jeens. Now we came to a model when one does not own the trousers but only a right to ware them. Lenting or selling them is not possible at best if not illegal. Also a shop owner has a right at any moment to spy on your apartment. The subscription model is that we have to pay every year for being able to ware the trousers. It's just a bigger rip-off, just making customers to get less and own less for their hard paid money. The best part is that the marketing guys are able to convince pople it's acctually better for them. It is what it is but saying it's good for the customers is a bunch of !@#$%. It's just to take more $ and keep the steady flow of cash.

Nevertheless just don't make a marketing bs. Be honest that a new model is needed to keep maintaining the development and growth and people will support it - like they support the so much controversial early access mode.

I don't quite get the point that it should be ED's only chance to survive with starting a subscription model. They constantly earned money to grow till now and they are quite creative to find subjects to do so for the future. Or has anyone ever bought a carrier DLC for any other flight sim?

We shouldn't be to narrow minded and see just one way. A successful company is outstanding when it sees ways beyond. I hope ED does not go against 80% of the voting people here and I have trust in them to continue to find ways to drain more than twice of the amount of money out of my pocket while you see me with a smiling face, and not ways for half of that amount or nothing at all with a frown.

A subscription based model would not change early access imo. The conversation would simply shift from "they need to keep pushing early access modules to have stable income", to "they need to keep pushing early access modules so that people get new content and remain subscribed".

A better conversation to have is how far can we go with early access. We've had some releases that arguably went too far (e.g. Viper, Harrier), and some that were pretty much complete and very well received (Tomcat, Thunder). The question that DCS devs need to answer is whether it's possible for everyone to go for the latter kind of early access while remaining profitable. If the answer is yes, then that practice should be encouraged, for example by buying those modules. If the answer is no, unless a miracle happens and flight sims become more popular, we are stuck with the current model.

Or has anyone ever bought a carrier DLC for any other flight sim?

Yes, FS X: Acceleration in 2007 which came with a fully-working carrier and Hornet. It was tons of fun, and frankly worked better than the current DCS carrier...

The conversation would simply shift from "they need to keep pushing early access modules to have stable income", to "they need to keep pushing early access modules so that people get new content and remain subscribed".

That new content wouldn't have to be early access modules like it does now.

The question stands: how can they earn significantly more money with collecting half of what I gave them the last 4 years?

If this question leads to too much arguing I have another one:

Plz reckon your spendings on DCS and devide it by the months you use DCS. How much is it for each of you per month? And how much would you accept to spend on a monthly subscription model in the future?

@Jester: I hope the new DCS supercarrier is not close to comparable to that one you mentioned, which I own too btw.

I suggest the people who would "gladly pay" do so. Not a subscription but a charitable donation because they clearly think ED is a deserving cause. There seem to be a great many people eager to pay more by one means or another. Good luck to them but you do not speak for the majority I feel certain.

EA should be time limited. My preference would be a max of 12 months by which time it must be a complete feature finished product.

The reality will be that at some point ED may be forced to go into subscription model. How many hot-selling modules that everyone wants to get are there left to be developed? The list is only getting shorter and shorter.

Currently the modules get the most of development time. C'mon, after so many years there is not even a B-29 for the MiG-15 to shoot at. Yes the core is free but DCS is for the most part an exceptional plane simulator but it lacks behind in the overall air warfare environment simulation. It's like having a most detailed F1 car simulator with a few race tracks but without a F1 season.

ED should consider starting to charge a subscription for the core game (maybe include FC3 and F-5 in it) and keep additional fees for all other modules. This should bring more attention to the core of the game, including so much needed AI units.

 

As much as I hate subscriptions myself I would like the DCS to keep growing. I remember a time where a software was bought on a CD (or even a floppy). You bought it - you owned it. You could lent it to a friend or sell it. I was like with a pair of jeens. Now we came to a model when one does not own the trousers but only a right to ware them. Lenting or selling them is not possible at best if not illegal. Also a shop owner has a right at any moment to spy on your apartment. The subscription model is that we have to pay every year for being able to ware the trousers. It's just a bigger rip-off, just making customers to get less and own less for their hard paid money. The best part is that the marketing guys are able to convince pople it's acctually better for them. It is what it is but saying it's good for the customers is a bunch of !@#$%. It's just to take more $ and keep the steady flow of cash.

Nevertheless just don't make a marketing bs. Be honest that a new model is needed to keep maintaining the development and growth and people will support it - like they support the so much controversial early access mode.

Already mentioned it here - personally I HATE subscriptions and the sorts.

However I also understand your point, and thank you for calling things (subscriptions) as they are.

The question stands: how can they earn significantly more money with collecting half of what I gave them the last 4 years?

1) A subscription doesn't need to earn them more and 2) You're not their only customer. Some people would pay more than what they otherwise would have.

@Jester: I hope the new DCS supercarrier is not close to comparable to that one you mentioned, which I own too btw.

The FS X one worked better than the DCS one does right now, with the exception of I don't recall you being able to actually spawn already on the FS X one.

1) A subscription doesn't need to earn them more and 2) You're not their only customer. Some people would pay more than what they otherwise would have.

Interesting.

1) why change a model when it is not for earning more money?

2) You think those customers who are not like me and would pay significantly more money with a subscription model would want to have a subscription model to do so? Why should they?

Right, and he says clearly the core work is funded by the pre-release money.

"Boyond daily bug fixing, the fundamental issues such as new graphics challenges (Vulkan, effects, mutli-threading etc), network improvements, sound improvements, new damage engine, dynamic campaign, web RTC, new game statistics engine, new weather engine, etc etc are all part of our roadmap and more than 50% of our staff work on these elements which are not directly module related. Without 'early access' few of the these could be done and yes you are right, we only have this avenue to finance ED as well as my personal investment. I wish we had 'office or IOS' to make life easier believe me."

GREAT IDEA! I wonder why we get half baked planes then. Hmm... Core subscriptions man, it's the way to fix it. He's sitting on the answer but the community would basically revolt. So sad to see this die an ugly death or at least limp along in its current form. Docs are pretty bad, the better ones written by Chuck. Tutorials are basically non-existent and created by users on YouTube. Help and community is on this ancient vBulletin forum from the 90s. ECommerce site looks rickety, and the marketing is mostly done by the Grim Reapers. I guess this is the way we like it. Keep the free crap and half baked planes coming! We like complaining about that more than shelling pizza money out for real progress.

End of rant.

I'm still interested in how can ED's income can be significantly raised by taking less of my money?

How much would each of you accept to pay per month for renting DCS?

And how much have you spent per month for owning modules, terrains and campaigns?

If it is more attractive for a lot of customer to rent DCS then it could pay off for ED but the result of this poll tells me those majorities are not here to find.

One thing that many may not have noticed is that ED has been adopting a seasons concept,Something like it was conceived in elite dangerous, or what do you think the paid updates for the ka-50 and a-10c would be? ^^

I find the concept of seasons very interesting and I like it, it allows work on improvements to be financed but without being as restrictive as the subscription model.

Given the modular nature of the dcs I think the concept of seasons fits very well, if worked well there are many possibilities for application.

I'd much rather pay for upgrades, than pay a subscription...

I'd much rather pay for upgrades, than pay a subscription...

+1

I'd much rather pay for upgrades, than pay a subscription...

It's like saying I'd much rather pay 35 000$ for curing a flu than... eh... forget about it. Enjoy paying +200$ per year for upgrades and some EA modules on a slowly dying of attrition game than paying 120$ in 10$ per month on a thriving game with exploding playerbase and resources.

Sure the morons that have the subscription model are just that... poor morons... look at them all they have are millions of cash in their living rooms.

This game is continuously upgrading changing (while choking imho). Like a malnourished child. Growing but... Almost all modules are released as EA or unfinished or requiring patches or requiring constant updating either to work (better) with the core game or at all or... just to keep up with the times... see Ka50 or A10c (because if you still want to sell A10C at full price after 10 years you need to upgrade it to today's standards.

All in all:

THE ENTIRE GAME LOOKS LIKE A SERVICE RATHER THAN A FINISHED PRODUCT

(please prove this statement wrong!)

So why the contortion? Why hiding behind our shadow?

On top of that add basic marketing and crisis of today. A bad product can make somebody not to buy anymore from you. An improving service can make one stay.

My last purchases made me regret spending my money on them. I-16 (aka gear simulator) and YAK52 (aka Early Abandonment) made me basically not to even consider buying other good modules (such as F14, F18 and F16 which I tested and they are great but... no).

In the end... soon a year will pass since my last purchase on ED store.

Would I had payed a 10€ subscription? Most likely. That means 120€ for ED. I am a mediocre DCS player. I am probably in the sweet spot of market niche of ED. ED failing to take 120€ in a year from me is their failure not mine.

In one early post here I said "Google Stadia" or today "Nvidia GeForce Now" schemes look good. Free to play on almost everything then a tunable 2 tiered subscription system.

Like people pay when frustrated, people pay for silly things when they have more than one weak argument.

EXAMPLE:

Make F-18C free!. Crazy isn't it? Yeah... but only with medium cockpit resolution textures. make them not bad. Usable but not top notch.

Make all the planes free the same way

ALL!

Then put 10-15$ subscription to have access to full awesomeness.

Make F14 free as a RIO with full textures so that back cockpit creates pressure on buyer to actually jump to paid subscription.

Make some parts of the game full quality for same reason.

Advertise full quality by all means just to create the pressure.

For a little more quality, for supporting the developer, for hype, for liking since childhood a plane, people will choose subscription rather than free. Not all but enough to create a big stream of money.

Worried about 3rd party devs? Use that tick in options to provide statistics to the game developers so they know how much a module is played monthly and pay a share to the 3rd party devs like the music industry is doing with radio and streaming.

With "gorrona" around us... people will think twice before buying a 80$ money on the table EA plane. And if they feel disappointed... you can bet the next 80$ EA plane will have less chance.

IMHO... there is no argument against subscription. Is better for everyone. More money for ED, less money for each player to pay yearly (because more players and more chances of paying 10$ this month too or maybe next one than paying NOW 80$).

The poll results are not relevant. The poll results don't show what players that look ad DCS and walk away would do.

Same as a poll with Online versus Offline. Irrelevant.

....

IMHO... there is no argument against subscription. Is better for everyone. More money for ED, less money for each player to pay yearly (because more players and more chances of paying 10$ this month too or maybe next one than paying NOW 80$).

The poll results are not relevant. The poll results don't show what players that look ad DCS and walk away would do.

 

Same as a poll with Online versus Offline. Irrelevant.

Wow, this statement is quite wrong ..It may be your personal opinion, but its definitely not true in absolute terms.

Did you even think as far as that there are players who do not want to spend 80+ $ per year for new modules?

Not because they don't like to play DCS or lack the resources.

But not everyone needs or wants a shiny new module every few months.Some are happy with what they got module-wise . So why should these players pay for something that they don't need or want?!

Especially from you, since you mentioned that you haven't bought any more new modules after your disappointment in the last ones you bought.

Why you would still be willing to sink 120$ into a subscription under these circumstances is totally beyond me..

Somehow you seem to think a subscription model would be the magical cure to DCS's problems.

Well I think it wouldn't . Personally I 'm not too happy how ED is handling and approaching many things and not all of them are due to financial restrictions they may or may not have.

They had lots of options to change/ focus on certain things at points and didn't for whatever reasons.

That's ok, their trainset,

But if you think the EA problem issues or core deficiencies will magically disappear , just because you pay a monthly fee now, I think you' re severely mistaken.Because it would require ED to radically change their mindset and I don't see that happening.

That I would find super frustrating, putting more money into this and still getting not what I want from it.

Besides, the Issues DCS faces now are of a scale that can't be fixed in a month or two. Even if they got additional income from subscriptions (it would be likely less than you think) it would take at least maybe a year to tackle the most important ones. And lots of ppl will simply skip and aim to join afterwards, once things are fixed, they'll just keep playing their last free/classically bought version & modules.

Then that subscription -> more developement cycle comes to screeching halt..This "transition period" to a "better" sim is a huge issue in itself.

If you are thinking ppl will not pay 80$ but, at the same time apparently think they are unable to add up in their head 12x100=120$ for a still sub-par product... hmm Don't know what to say..

So is subscription better for you? maybe. For everyone, no.

BTW , DCS doesn't feel like a service to me. It feels hampered , if not even buggy at times. Still provides fun , though.

But given the way ED handles things and the way they choose what they focus on, no I probably won't spend more money on it , until that changes, if it ever does.

Regards,

Snappy

@zaelu:

ED would have got way less money from me if I had to pay 10$ for the months I used it. And guess what there are months I would think about not paying even those 10 bucks cause I don't have the time to use it.

I still want to know how ED could make more money out of "me" with a subscription model.

@Snappy

That's why I said a model like Stadia or GeForce Now. They have free access! People that don't want to pay 10 or 80 or 120 or more... don't pay. But still have access.

I gave the example with graphics quality but you can limit some non essential features like access to more than x skins or even limit the playtime per day/month.

If you think it through you can find solutions that work in the win-win scenario. Even better than many F2P games that march of "frustration incentive".

And is not like people can't add. People can add but price is also a feeling factor. There is no "Absolute Value" either. So for example, do I like F14? Absolutely. I played VR the two days of testing with a friend... basically just fooling around and I got hooked. Do I (personally) buy it (even with 20 bucks discount)? NO! Sorry HB/Cobra, excellent job but no.

But would I pay 120 spread on 12 months for access to ALL the content? Probably. And if a free version exists and you have the alternative to opt out at any moment and "downgrade to free" and bit lower quality/options/time... even better.

But now everybody that is interested has the chance to pay even little and a lot more incentive than TF51/Su25T.

After that.... the distribution comes in.

@Tom Kazansky

Here you are the lucky one... you are the one who pays less and enjoys more. Welcome to distributed systems. :)

Bezos didn't got king of the hill selling expensive yachts or expensive shoe laces, but selling a lot and cheap.

Of Course it remains to see if this strategy proposed in this thread is to the liking of ED but IMHO.... this is not the time to sell diamonds. Nope!

P.S.

Someone trying to throw wrenches in the wheels of this might say... But I have payed full price to all the modules... Now I have to pay subscription???

No. You and the rest of 1000 of people that paid all the modules for full price can have them all at full quality and features and time for free! Yeah. Why? Because it doesn't matter! The target is to sell to hundreds of thousands not just to a thousand that will stop buying when money not being enough the products get worse and worse.

Also for people in this category I have proposed several pages ago to have a third tier of subscription where a lot of bells and whistles are given. Why? Because people in this category will happily be able to pay it for many reasons (nothing offensive) and they should be able to do it. Look at how AAA games are sold (with or without subscriptions). 40-50$ Normal price. 150$ Gold access for Diamond players. Put a gold plated weapon just for few and they'll pay triple. I kid you not if a gold shader for AMRAAM would be available for 2 times the price of 10$ subscription. There will be buyers. And listen. You don't need to do it in spite. You don't need to ruin the simulator. You just need to add it as a bonus. Make a 20-30$ 3rd tier subscription and add access to Alpha and early access to not released modules or early access to info or T shirts or 3 manuals of they choice etc etc etc and just throw in... Gold plated shader for Fox3 missiles, I kid you not... a lot of people that were still hovering over the Tier 3 button will click it then!

Third tier could have the chance to even get paid lessons in DCS :D

Jokes aside.... With enough money flowing ED/DCS could even put a fourth tier for flight schools. Yeah... compete with M$. What? Corona? Social distancing and price cuts...

Subscription model software sucks.

Adobe, Stadia, Amazon e-reader, whatever - it sucks. Also, anything in the cloud sucks too.

DCS's closest similar platform would be iRacing I guess.

I have avoided iRacing not due to interest but because I can't guarantee that I will have enough seat time to make use of the money spent every month. Assetto Corsa and local leagues/servers gives a casual sim driver like me more than I need without the monthly payment.

But it's free to play you say... till the terms and conditions change and that model, book, program that I've been using has been withdrawn by the publisher/company due to market pivoting, bogus digital rights management issues, censorship rules, or 'just 'cuz' of some company principle's whim.

Don't say it can't or won't happen - do some googling for examples.

I could get behind a 'pay what you want' for the base program and/or an optional monthly payment via Patreon or some other platform (in-house?).

For example I support Wikipedia, Firefox, Elementary Linux, and a bunch of other enginerds with Patreon/Youtube presences monthly.

I do this because I like what they are doing and don't mind sending them some money every month to support them. How much I send is up to me and I can change or delete the payment at will if I want. It's totally optional.

So,

• keep the payment schedule as it - it's what ED is used to,
  
• make optional monthly payments available for those that would choose to support ED this way.
  

I'd expect a non-small number of regular fliers would flip a few bucks a month to support ED. I would.

$0.02