New Pay Model

I would drop DCS quick if it went to become a subscription based service. I think the model they have set up is part of the appeal of DCS World. Yes I like early access, not at all angry at the pace of development. Things take time and throwing money at problems is most of the time not a good solution. I like the periodic updates and new features coming out. Keeps us all coming back.

That is an easy "NO" to subscriptions.

Once upon a time, a subscription model might have worked. However, that ship hasn't just set sail; it has had a long and illustrious career, just finished its decommissioning ceremony, and is currently being floated to the scrapyard that bought it.

The reversal of the business model is going to be difficult to the point of impossibility. You'd have to square away the desires of current users who have spent quite a sizable amount on their current modules vs. incoming players.

Obviously, you can't just tell us ubernerds who spend questionable amounts on modules to deal with it and restrict our access behind a paywall, but at the same time? What incentive do you give the new players to pay that monthly fee? What incentive do you give the old players to pay the fee, on top of that?

It's not an idea to get worked up over, as so many have, but it's simply just not a feasible idea.

Could you stop spreading the notion that ED need more money? From what we know, they make plenty (which is fine).

 

 

You are right, the poll is worthless with that flawed premise, but after some time, you've come to expect that from those wishlist polls...

If ED is making so much money. Why did he take personal from the Hornet and put them on the Viper? Why not hire more help instead?

I understand other points of view, but I think ED needs a way to keep the core game and the increasing number of older modules always up to date. We already have updated cockpits for the warbirds. It's two years we are waiting for a-10c and ka-50 cockpit updates, to make them work as intended with dcs 2.5 (let's think about ka-50 cockpit lights, bugged since 2.5!). Now we are hopefully close, but what about other modules? Hornet and viper are already updated since developed for 2.5 from the beginning, but f-5? Korea jets? Uh-1 and Mi-8? L-39? Will ED ever update all these modules? In how many years? Maybe, when all of these will be updated, it will be time for dcs 3.0. Newer future modules will work perfectly with the new 3.0 engine, but maybe hornet and viper will need an update, and so all the other modules already updated for 2.5. In this way we will never have a simulator in which all the modules are up to date together. I do not know if a subscription could be a solution, maybe not, but surely sooner or later a solution will be needed. It's inevitable.

If ED is making so much money. Why did he take personal from the Hornet and put them on the Viper? Why not hire more help instead?

That's a question for ED leadership isnt it???

dont panic.

if you look at the figures for this website. ie most people logged in. then you will notice its still growing.

and if ED wants to keep selling modules to new customers then they will have to be updated.

yes this may not happen as fast as some of us would like.

but it will happen.

the a10c and the ka-50, the two oldest modules are being done.

and 3rd party developers such as razbam and polychop are updating textures.

so keep calm and carry on flying :)

If ED is making so much money. Why did he take personal from the Hornet and put them on the Viper? Why not hire more help instead?

Skill set and team integration. The time it would take getting new coders / engineers up to speed with the new written modular adapted code etc. That would take how long? and how much money. I'm playing around with moose and it is fun, still doing my head in tho lol.... slowly getting there and the concepts behind it.

Do you think ED can afford to do this and push forward, at this level of simulation, just with the civi side of sales.

I don't either understand the rumor that a company which sells thousands of 10% finished early accesses 80 dollars would be near bankrupt and suddenly in need for any kind of help.

If Eagle Dynamics wants to improve its income, it may start by selling finished products and not breaking customers trust like it tended to do recently ;)

Feeding such rumor would simply bring a big part of the community to cease investing a single buck in ED, and this would be understandable. Trust is broken for many customers as of today, promising them that paying a certain amount of money each month would allow ED to finish its products would be some kind of suicide, and a deserved one.

It's up to them now. They saw the consequences of failing their word with the F-18/F-16 "duel", would it be voluntarily or part of a management mistake. Their first goal should be to get the trust back, not to find ways to increase the cost of their sim.

Not a free critic from me, I love this sim and am thankful toward the people who brought it to life. Though IMO the biggest threat to ED today is loss of trust, which, eventually, would bring very bad economic results. Answering this problem by raising the prices ? Madness. I would be quite pissed off if the boat sank, as there isn't any other sim like this one, though I'm pretty sure many customers would like real garantees that the promised work will be delivered in short terms. Otherwise, well, the boat may sink.

So basically, I already spent 300 dollars in modules and you would propose me to pay each mont in order to use them ? ;)

I did a quick sum and I think I spent around 700$ since 2009. At a 10 bucks a month that would be 70 months which means around 6 years of "tier 2 subscription" from my proposal.

For sure I had in and outs and burn out times in all those years and for sure I am not a big spender (keep in mind half of this time I lived in Romania half in France. Different incomes and priorities) but I think my case is representative.

I am sure such a subscription model would not be feasible since 2009. In the worst case it will be absolute necessary in 2-3 years at the current rate of modules production. So maybe not 2009, Could work from today. Do or die in 2022.

In 2022 a newcomer will have access to Caucasus map, TF51 (weeeee) and mighty Su25T (a prototype with a 15+ years FM and FC3 level systems). In front of him a wall of modules and maps at 80$ each. Nope! Dead end.

I would gladly give all my modules for free acces to base game and pay when I want to play. For sure I will over pay and not under pay.

And I am a case of "frugalism" in DCS. people that have 2000$ spent in a year on PC+HOTAS+VR will not look at 120+ a year for Full tier 2 access a lot of them going for tier 3... like Rhode here...

The argument, I payed for the game is mine... My Precious is not standing. This day, DCS without continuous support is obsolete in maximum 2 years... so your game will not "live" for 50 years. Hence the reason to upgrade old modules continuously. And creating a scheme of paying for such upgrades in more and more difficult... FC3... FC4... MAC... Black Shark 3 etc. Your precious A10C will be just an old game next year without the upgrade. Not to mention the continuous tweaks... for just about everything. Remember when A-10C was different game than Black Shark?

So its not a gimmick this game as a service. IT IS A SERVICE!

Imho... no matter how you look at it... rental is the future. And probably a DCS World 3.0 is just around the corner maybe with a different name and I would not be surprised if DCS W 2.5 will become just as Lock On, DCSW 1.5... just an old version.

Maybe current customers will have access for some planes they bought already, maybe they will have bonus x months of subscription depending of the amount of planes they bought or maybe nothing.

But they (ED) have to do it or a buyer of DCS W franchise (don't laugh) would for sure do it because it makes the most sense today.

I can only imagine for 3rd parties it could be made a system of pay measured in the amount of time people spend using their modules multiplied maybe with a coeficient of "module/3rd party negotiating power).

Subscription model no, but i'd settle for an in-game store where you could buy skin packs, official missions / campaigns, rent virtual servers for a set period of time and stuff like that. Though i understand this would require a huge effort from ED to build and maintain such products for this sort of microtransactions store

In 2022 a newcomer will have [...] In front of him a wall of modules and maps at 80$ each. Nope! Dead end.

I'm also for the subscription, but I do not think DCS will end if things stay as they are. A 2022 newcomer will have a AAA game with a lot of planes to get started (MAC) and if he'll want to upgrade to study experience he will be able to choose within a large selection of full-fidelity modules in DCS. Why should he buy them all? No reason to do that.

And probably a DCS World 3.0 is just around the corner maybe with a different name and I would not be surprised if DCS W 2.5 will become just as Lock On, DCSW 1.5... just an old version

I don't think so. When you have a growing list of such complex modules and 3rd parties working with you, you cannot suddently stop and change. If there will be a DCS 3.0 it will be something like what we had from 1.5 to 2.0 and then 2.5. All the modules will follow, maybe with slow upgrading in a few years as it is happening now. It is better and less consuming to upgrade a module (new textures for a-10c or black shark 3 for example) than to start all from scratch.

Obviously you and everyone are intitled to his opinion, that's only fair.

In 2022 a newcomer will have access to Caucasus map, TF51 (weeeee) and mighty Su25T (a prototype with a 15+ years FM and FC3 level systems). In front of him a wall of modules and maps at 80$ each. Nope! Dead end.

 

...

 

Your precious A10C will be just an old game next year without the upgrade. Not to mention the continuous tweaks... for just about everything.

 

Some inconsistencies here, which seem more like exagerated "prophecies of doom" to me:

- What's the problem exactly with Su-25T time and FC3 level systems ? Are the other options on the market generaly as good as DCS ?

Are you aware that even today, many people still playing older sims than DCS, light sims also and with the corresponding low fidelity sytems (can't name them but are very well know) ?

- Where is it written that every module will have a minimum 80 $ price ?

Also, does everybody intend to buy ALL modules, maps, campaigns, etc, available, so they would have to spend high amounts ?

- How can the A-10C (or anyother aircraft) be "old", for a recently arrived owner that as just bought it recently ?

Even more, from what I read here, MANY people say it does have an astonishing amount of technical data to read and know about in order to fully use the aircraft ??

Again, isn't the present A-10C features and realism, high above many other sims on the market ?

The argument, I payed for the game is mine... My Precious is not standing. This day, DCS without continuous support is obsolete in maximum 2 years... so your game will not "live" for 50 years. Hence the reason to upgrade old modules continuously. And creating a scheme of paying for such upgrades in more and more difficult... FC3... FC4... MAC... Black Shark 3 etc.

 

...

 

So its not a gimmick this game as a service. IT IS A SERVICE!

 

Imho... no matter how you look at it... rental is the future. And probably a DCS World 3.0 is just around the corner maybe with a different name and I would not be surprised if DCS W 2.5 will become just as Lock On, DCSW 1.5... just an old version.

Well I got news for you:

DCS is not : Netflix, Uber Eats, Spotify, etc, or some sort of pay-per-view, or monthly rental crap - so don't treat it like such.

Therefore DCS is NOT a "service", as for many fans it's not a disposable / expendable item that people put aside if they don't feel like paying the next month subscription fee.

If you don't praise DCS to the same high level of many other fans around the world do - that's your right, no problem whatsoever; but also don't try to devaluate it by classifying it as something ephemeral, superficial and futile like " a subscription service "... that's somewhat detrimental and doesn't suit well.

One of the KEY aspects that keeps a business alive - availability of product.

Can you imagine the many new / recent / experimenting / uncertain costumers, that will turn off from DCS, because on the next month they didn't feel like paying the subscription, as the money already went for something else ?

current customers will have access for some planes they bought already, maybe they will have bonus x months of subscription depending of the amount of planes they bought or maybe nothing.

 

But they (ED) have to do it or a buyer of DCS W franchise (don't laugh) would for sure do it because it makes the most sense today.

 

I can only imagine for 3rd parties it could be made a system of pay measured in the amount of time people spend using their modules multiplied maybe with a coeficient of "module/3rd party negotiating power).

Nonsense because of the reasons I mentioned already.

Monthly subscribe fees and such - that is a WALL, and it can kill a PC sim.

I am usually not a supporter of a subscription model. I just dislike the fact that it's emotionally harder to step away from something for weeks/months if you continue to pay for it. And i like the fact that i can purchase the stuff i want or want to give support on, but still can let DCS rest for some time without that nagging feeling. And if it was a monthly fee that could be canceld on a monthly basis as is the case with most video streaming services, what would be the point? Hopping on and off doesn't provide ED with the stable income that would be the intention behind a subscription model.

But, a subscription on the price level of about 5-6 dollar/euro could work if it was delivering something new and tangible, something where it is more obvious for the enduser that it is a continous cost for the producer and that does not put a second pricetag on somehting you already paid for.

Meaning: moving away from hand crafted maps (yeah, based on sattelite imagery) that we purchase individually now, to the whole globe that you invariably need to stream from the cloud because of the sheer amout of data space required. We see this technology coming on other products on the market, if you want that amount of detail covering pretty much everywhere, than this will likely not be a thing you can put on your hard drive in all its stunning glory. How that would be paid for, is another matter of course. But since it would likely require some streaming aspect from EDs/third party servers, a monthly fee or one-time-payment for a specific time period would be an option that doesn't sound too unreasonable.

So the model could be like this: pay individually for specific aircraft/modules, no strings attached.

Pay monthly/yearly for getting access to that ever evolving streamed "spherical globe" that has got it all.

Key to whatever route ED will take in regards to future financing; is to be more open about what the costs are for certain aspects of development and product continuation. On reddit Mr. Grey stated that he as (singular?) owner has as of yet not taken out a single dollar as profit for himself. Which should mean all income goes to keeping the business alive, i.e. employee sallaries, rent, equipment, licencing and other upkeep costs. So if ED was open and honest about what would be directly financed from a subscription in regards to the overall world terrain and engine/tech, i actually might consider this. And yeah, they don't have to give us numbers on how much they earn through their consumer side products, but other companies do this too. The video streaming portals do tell how many subscribers they have and one can come up with rough numbers on how much income that generates and whether the service you get is fair for what you and everyone paying for that service chime in.

So the price of one module per year to ensure a hopefully "speedier" development of the base game would be ok in my opinion.

Still sounds like a slippery slope to me.

And how do you prevent ED from ‘encouraging’ people to use subscription by making the advantages more than cosmetic? Not as blatantly as TorWunder (you know what I mean) but I’m sure that someone sufficiently motivated by increasing the revenue stream with scant regard for the customer (note I am absolutely not saying this exists, it is a hypothetical) would find a way...

Whatever way of financing: it is a balancing act and staying on the good side of the consumers always means you have to deliver fair value for money. And overall, i feel that people paying for DCS are pretty observing and critical towards what they are getting for money spent.

And if it was a monthly fee that could be canceld on a monthly basis as is the case with most video streaming services, what would be the point? Hopping on and off doesn't provide ED with the stable income that would be the intention behind a subscription model.

I think the idea would be that people would have the tendency to distribute almost evenly within a year in their on/off periods thus a median flux of money will be provided from this category. The core would be the constant subscribers And the "premium subscribers... let's call like that the tier 3.

At least this is how Netflix etc thrive.

Again... just as an example I give you my case. It's the only one I know for sure. And I think a can be placed in the middle..ish of the range.

I have Netflix and Prime subscription in house. I never watch Prime, wife does sometimes. Almost never Netflix, wife does a bit and daughter with Kids profile... so extra I don't know how much for both profile being able to access at same time.

Yet... I payed around 65$ to DCS W this year, got totally disappointed by the Yak52 case and sworn not to pay for an "early" ever. So No F-14, No F-16, no F-18 either. Crazy isn't it?

Result:

On a 10€/month ED would have received from me 120€ this year and maybe I wouldn't have noticed the total abandonment of Yak52 and maybe ED would had had enough money to even finish it... (I know is not much of a plane but is funny.)

Still sounds like a slippery slope to me.

It could be for sure... Especially if something like EA or Northrup would buy DCS... :)

[...]I have Netflix and Prime subscription in house. I never watch Prime, wife does sometimes. Almost never Netflix, wife does a bit and daughter with Kids profile... so extra I don't know how much for both profile being able to access at same time.

 

Yet... I payed around 65$ to DCS W this year, got totally disappointed by the Yak52 case and sworn not to pay for an "early" ever. So No F-14, No F-16, no F-18 either. Crazy isn't it?

 

Result:

 

On a 10€/month ED would have received from me 120€ this year and maybe I wouldn't have noticed the total abandonment of Yak52 and maybe ED would had had enough money to even finish it... (I know is not much of a plane but is funny.)[...]

Wow, so this is you arguing for DCS to be a subscription service. I think your problem is a very interesting one: You are suffering from having too much money. Also you are kind of a financial masochist, so it seems. Very peculiar, but to each his own...

I would rather support a kick starter campaign to promote the development of core engine features. Strongly against subscription model.

Why should we donate money to ED to improve the core features of the sim? That’s product sustainment after all.

The fact it is free means that there is no financial pressure to do so, as people would likely be much less relaxed about some of the issues with it if they’d paid for it...

We do pay for the development, through modules. I much prefer that flexibility and simplicity over paying a continuous subscription.

 

 

I've proposed tying core features with modules more explicitly before. Let us know more clearly what modules fund what core features so that players can invest in them.

I could totally get behind that, but I think all the maintenance on the core is probably not practical to distribute as new modules. Normally bug fixes are just going to be changes to existing code. But if you could, would you pay for a Cloud improvement module, but not a better Night Lighting module for instance? What if one improvement was dependent on another? It gets hairy to maintain for them and us.

I’d also be fine with them charging reasonable prices for core upgrade versions. Hopefully they could figure out a schedule where you could save some money by waiting and not upgrading every single release.

I don’t advocate that planes or maps etc, require subscriptions. If they screw up and underprice a plane and lose money, well, that’s too bad. New version (someday far in the future) new module and new fee. I’m just really concerned that they have no incentive to put developers on the core fixes and improvements.

I would rather support a kick starter campaign to promote the development of core engine features. Strongly against subscription model.

+1 for a kick starter did they not do one before with ww2 birds?

I would rather support a kick starter campaign to promote the development of core engine features. Strongly against subscription model.

This ^

Why should we donate money to ED to improve the core features of the sim? That’s product sustainment after all.

 

The fact it is free means that there is no financial pressure to do so, as people would likely be much less relaxed about some of the issues with it if they’d paid for it...

I'm not against other forms of supporting ED; if needed be.

What I'm completely against is, some kind of subscription plan.

As I do not agree with the condition of: only being allowed to access my hobby for a limited time period, and upon paying some frequent fee.

Either the module is mine or it isn't.

I agree something needs to change as I don’t think the EA model is sustainable.

I don’t think subscription is the way to go - especially if you’ve sunk $$$$ into Ed already.

Kickstarters I wouldn’t touch with a barge pole as they are not legally enforceable.

If anything - once ED have proven that they can and are making significant improvements in the base game beyond all quibble, then I would *tentatively* support a ‘major release’ charge for that work on an ongoing basis. So using history the move from 1.x to 2.x IF ED actually deliver (looking at bugged lighting in Ka50 since 2.x)

I could totally get behind that, but I think all the maintenance on the core is probably not practical to distribute as new modules. Normally bug fixes are just going to be changes to existing code. But if you could, would you pay for a Cloud improvement module, but not a better Night Lighting module for instance? What if one improvement was dependent on another? It gets hairy to maintain for them and us.

To clarify a bit more, I'm not really advocating the selling of core components. You wouldn't buy Clouds or Night Lighting. Besides the FC3 example funding AFM missiles, a hypothetical example would be a new DCS fighter that is co-released with updated AWACS AI. We'd buy the module, an aircraft, as usual but development of the AWACS AI will be considered part of the scope of the module such that ED would work on both simultaneously and the playerbase would know that buying this aircraft would support the AWACS work.

The module becomes more than just an aircraft, but also expands a bit in scope to include relevant supporting DCS functionality. If you want to consider the clouds and night example, perhaps (and I'm stretching for the sake of example) that could be connected with an observation aircraft (OV-10). Whether you buy it or not, DCS gets the improvements. However players would be able to give direct support for the feature by buying the aircraft module. The supercarrier module might have also been an example if bundled with the F-18, but ED chose to make it a stand alone product.

I’d also be fine with them charging reasonable prices for core upgrade versions. Hopefully they could figure out a schedule where you could save some money by waiting and not upgrading every single release.

Paying for DCSW core is reasonable and if they did go that route I'd agree in wanting the releases spaced out. I prefer even more the current model though where I don't really have to worry about planning purchases to keep the core up to date, and it's also hard to say how much alternatives would cost.

I don’t advocate that planes or maps etc, require subscriptions. If they screw up and underprice a plane and lose money, well, that’s too bad. New version (someday far in the future) new module and new fee. I’m just really concerned that they have no incentive to put developers on the core fixes and improvements.

Looking in from the outside it's definitely hard to grasp how ED goes about things sometimes. 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.

No, seems far too complex an idea for it to come to any manageable fruition i am afraid. ED charge enough imo to fund both the aircraft dev and the core sim