New Pay Model

A paid upgrade to core dcs Is not a good idea: you pay to upgrade from 1.5 to 2.5, for example, just to find ka-50 cockpit lights constantly and heavily bugged? I'd be for a subscription, but in this situation even a subscription Is not acceptable. Nevertheless, ED must find a way to keep core engine and every single module constantly and quickly updated: the more new modules we'll have, the more difficult It Will be to keep them updated all together. Maybe, for the future, ED could leave modules development to 3rd parties and focus only on core game. In this way, every 3rd party should keep only a few modules updated and It would be up to them to update.

A paid upgrade to core dcs Is not a good idea: you pay to upgrade from 1.5 to 2.5, for example, just to find ka-50 cockpit lights constantly and heavily bugged? I'd be for a subscription, but in this situation even a subscription Is not acceptable. Nevertheless, ED must find a way to keep core engine and every single module constantly and quickly updated: the more new modules we'll have, the more difficult It Will be to keep them updated all together. Maybe, for the future, ED could leave modules development to 3rd parties and focus only on core game. In this way, every 3rd party should keep only a few modules updated and It would be up to them to update.

I think that is ED's long term plan for many years now. If we think back far enough to before there were this many 3rd Party affiliates (or even none at all) I dont think ED had the staff split 50/50 between Core Engine and Aircraft. In my opinion this would be ideal. ED should focus on core DCS World while 3rd Parties can develop modules of all kinds.

Absolutely No to subscriptions. I already paid substantial money for the modules I have. I don't do subscription gaming and if I was left with no choice, then I would just walk.

Absolutely No to any notion that DCS should become like certain P2P/P2W arcade games currently on the market. Though I'm pretty sure the person that wrote that was trolling, because it's completely against everything DCS is supposed to be about.

If ED needs money that badly, then I would go with a nominal fee for each major release of the base software. Though I would prefer to keep the current system.

As for the maintenance of modules. Once their completed, then it shouldn't cost that much to maintain them, since all the really expensive work has already been done. But I'm not against the idea of paying a small fee every few years for updated versions either.

I think the current system works.

We buy a module, we get it. Some portion of those funds also go towards maintaining core, another portion to basic maintenance of the module.

The module gets fairly dated eventually.

A big-ish update to a module happens (i.e upgrade for Ka-50) that adds functionality and isn't just for squashing bugs- it keeps the module playable and relevent and generates more revenue down the line.

DCS at least appears to be generating money. There are also reasons besides money that things go the way they do too.

I don´t think we can or should tell ED how to run its business, But as a brain storming exercise i will leave my opinion:

ED needs more 3rd Parties to grow, more people selling the product. ED needs to get its revenue from 3rd parties sales.

While ED can concentrate in maintaining the Core Engine.

That said, ED could charge once a year maybe a renewable license for the game, Kind of an Upkeep fee or expenses.

The problem with the financial system is that you can not survive with only 4 or 5 3rd parties, making one or two modules a year.

They need not 1 plane a year but several less complicated aircraft more often. Why, why super jets from 2000´s when the 60´s 70´s and 80´s are full of very interesting planes that share the same basic technology and systems.. why sell and F-18 and an F 16 in the span of 2 to 4 years, when maybe a Thud, a Corsair II, a Mig 17 and an SU 17 in one year would be more profitable....

Give us Full detailed ground objects and vehicle packs, give us ship packs, AI plane packs...

KISS!!!!! Keep it Simple Stupid!

ED should develop core systems, radar 60´s, radar 70´s, engine radial, engine turbo prop, engine gen 1 Jet, gen 2 Jet... so 3rd parties can tweek, and develop modules fairly fast , easy and in a Reliable way! there are a plethora of 3D artists out there, but very few coders, the SDK should have an emphasis on CODING packages...

This system is doom to fail with 5 3rd parties where one quit, a few are struggling making Just "good enough" modules, and (so far only two stars, one proven the other one we will see)....

Disclaimer: sorry for being so blunt.

You need more parties doing Maps (no rocket science there, juts plain manual labor ;) 1 map every 3 years is just Not enough (earnings wise)

You need more parties doing simpler jets (Look at the Mig 19, relative fast development (faster than any module so far from idea to sale, good all around quality, and a LOT OF FUN! to fly).

you need Vehicles and objects OFICIAL packs, not just MODS, easy sales.

You can lure some more 3rd parties with some transport or civilian planes that will sell less but at least is another income.

but for that you NEED to work on the Core, ATC, VOR ILS, MAPS, more MAPS....

I am for subscription.

Even if it is 5 bucks per month (per user), ED will get a lot more revenue than it is now

As for the maintenance of modules. Once their completed, then it shouldn't cost that much to maintain them, since all the really expensive work has already been done. But I'm not against the idea of paying a small fee every few years for updated versions either.

It's almost 2 years the 2.5 is out and we have only warbirds updated (and of course newer modules developed for 2.5 from start, such as f/a-18 and f-16); we still have to see a-10c and ka-50 updated, not to talk about ex belsimtek modules such as korea jets, f-5, l-39, uh-1 and mi-8, whose update is even yet to be planned. And this just to deal with textures and 3d models, I do not mention bigger and smaller bugs, reported from years and yet to be addressed.

I know ED has an ambitious project: such a complex military simulator, with a lot of modules meticulously depicted down to the smallest detail, and all together running and interacting each other in the same environment; it is a huge task and it is the main reason why we all love this software: there are no other comparable ones. Nevertheless, the main fault of dcs is its update policy, we are only discussing a way to improve it. Maybe a subscription is not the solution, but a solution has to be found.

They need not 1 plane a year but several less complicated aircraft more often.

You need more parties doing simpler jets (Look at the Mig 19, relative fast development (faster than any module so far from idea to sale, good all around quality, and a LOT OF FUN! to fly)

Yes... and no.

Ok for easier and faster to develop modules (dcs ww2 goes in this direction and is a beloved setting by many virtual pilots).

Meh for mig-19. It can be fun, but its quality is a bit lower than modules such as f-5 or Mig-21. Easier to develop doesn't have to mean lesser quality: quality and detail is the core reason for dcs, otherwise there are other more casual titles that already do something different.

Ok for more 3rd parties, let's hope they will come.

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 think that is actually a statement pro subscription, seeing as product sustainment doesn't happen out of thin air and the financial pressure to prioritize said sustainment is a good thing in my book. :smartass:

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.

The end result might well be very similar to a subscription model anyway. ;)

However, I'd be sort of opposed to purchasing a fighter I'm not interested in, in order to get and/or fund unrelated features that I do want to have. (And yeah, I'm aware a subscription model would actually do very much that same thing. Funny how the mind works :))

I keep thinking a multi-tiered subscription model would make the most sense.

For instance:

Tier 1, Free: DCS World, Caucasus, Su-25T, TF-51D

Tier 2, 5$/month: Tier 1 plus 2 terrains and 4 modules per month; terrains and modules can be changed after each month of subscription

Tier 3, 10$/month: Like Tier 2, but 4 terrains and 10 modules per month

Tier 4, 15$/month: Unlimited access to all terrains and modules

That is certainly just a rough example. I guess the pricing should be adjusted for individual markets so as to not shut people from poorer countries out. And I have no idea how to handle the various FC3 aircraft that are available for individual purchase right now; if all of FC3 was a module of its own, people would have access to FC3 plus 3 more fully clickable modules with Tier 1 and up. Might not be the wisest choice to handle FC3 as just one module. Anyway, like I said that's just a rough idea. ;)

Other than a couple maps, I have everything I want in the Hornet. They can't charge me for that I've already paid for and I'd never go for a monthly charge.

If ED decides to go subscription model, for me, it's bye-bye.. I'd rather fly some other sim that's more customer friendly.

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...

Based on what? Netflix and Prime subscription?

If ED decides to go subscription model, for me, it's bye-bye.. I'd rather fly some other sim that's more customer friendly.

Even if it's free to play? Subscription means automatically less customer service?

I keep thinking a multi-tiered subscription model would make the most sense.

 

For instance:

 

[...]

Key is the more you give the more you get. Also it's simpler to give more.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=4110233#post4110233

There is a big part of community that pay a lot on modules at full price and would give money for a tier 3 passing over a tier 2 very happy. That's why they need just some extra to be worth it. Access to early access and beta versions and some "specials" would be enough I am sure - and I mean no disrespect!

This will also end the way to end the current Beta as Release version problem.

Funny how 80-something % of the poll says 'no' but most of the posts are someone saying 'yes', the pro-subscription is a very loud minority.

It isn't needed. Most people don't want it. Let it go.

The cold never bothered me anyway.

Personally I will NEVER play a game with subscriptions anymore. If DCS goes to subscriptions, I will stop playing it permanently.

I think that is actually a statement pro subscription, seeing as product sustainment doesn't happen out of thin air and the financial pressure to prioritize said sustainment is a good thing in my book. :smartass:

 

 

 

The end result might well be very similar to a subscription model anyway. ;)

 

However, I'd be sort of opposed to purchasing a fighter I'm not interested in, in order to get and/or fund unrelated features that I do want to have. (And yeah, I'm aware a subscription model would actually do very much that same thing. Funny how the mind works :))

 

I keep thinking a multi-tiered subscription model would make the most sense.

 

For instance:

 

Tier 1, Free: DCS World, Caucasus, Su-25T, TF-51D

 

Tier 2, 5$/month: Tier 1 plus 2 terrains and 4 modules per month; terrains and modules can be changed after each month of subscription

 

Tier 3, 10$/month: Like Tier 2, but 4 terrains and 10 modules per month

 

Tier 4, 15$/month: Unlimited access to all terrains and modules

 

That is certainly just a rough example. I guess the pricing should be adjusted for individual markets so as to not shut people from poorer countries out. And I have no idea how to handle the various FC3 aircraft that are available for individual purchase right now; if all of FC3 was a module of its own, people would have access to FC3 plus 3 more fully clickable modules with Tier 1 and up. Might not be the wisest choice to handle FC3 as just one module. Anyway, like I said that's just a rough idea. ;)

From what I'm reading here, a lot of costumers (where I'm included), don't like not even one bit of the condition : only being allowed to access our hobby for a limited time period, and upon paying some frequent fee.

To be perfectly honest - that's what would ruin it all for me.

Already were mentioned other ways of helping ED if needed be, along this thread.

Eitherway, and again highlighting my position regarding subscriptions of any kind:

The suggestion you mention as "Tier 4", can also have ambiguous results for ED finantialy speaking.

Imagine for instance an amount of people (new players / youngs / not realy niche and hardcore fans) that start spend 1 or even 2 months subscription.

During that period they'll try to get the most of it while they can, only superficialy experimenting every aircraft and terrain, and when that monthly subscription ends many of them probably will call it a day.

Because to keep learning the full fidelity systems an F/A-18 Hornet or A-10 Warthog do have, it takes time; and after a while that eventualy sends the message: "Yeah to keep learning more about this Aircraft you have to keep paying."

So I'm afraid that could drive people to the mindset:

Ok "I've seen one, I've seen them all", much like Ace Combat arcade style, and that could end up being a invitation to leave the DCS sim aside after some time.

I have no idea how to handle the various FC3 aircraft that are available for individual purchase right now

FC3 will eventually become MAC and it will have nothing more to do with DCS, except maybe server interactions online...

Funny how 80-something % of the poll says 'no' but most of the posts are someone saying 'yes', the pro-subscription is a very loud minority.

 

It isn't needed. Most people don't want it. Let it go.

 

The cold never bothered me anyway.

Personally I will NEVER play a game with subscriptions anymore. If DCS goes to subscriptions, I will stop playing it permanently.

Many are just playing around with the idea, sure ED and even the new civi sim 2020, was looking at doing it perhaps at one stage..... It works for iracing tho. That's works I guess in how they have also setup the competitive system and keeps more of the serious players in etc.

It generaly would not work in these flight sims. It's not Netflix

"Netflix expected to add 5 million subscribers in the second quarter of 2019. It didn’t come close. The streaming video giant only added 2.7 million. "

Netflix currently has 151 million paid subscribers worldwide.

At say $10 bucks....

That's 1.51 billion with a B US$ A MONTH.....:cry:

You can make some serious content with that to throw around.

It isn’t a binary choice.

Subscription model and pay per piece can exist simultaneously.

In my experience, subscription software is much better supported than one time payment versions.

I currently have several of each type for business at the moment and when given the option, always choose subscription.

Bad idea!

The end result might well be very similar to a subscription model anyway. ;)

It's actually based on the current DCS model. It's what ED does now, just with a little more focus on the core.

However, I'd be sort of opposed to purchasing a fighter I'm not interested in, in order to get and/or fund unrelated features that I do want to have. (And yeah, I'm aware a subscription model would actually do very much that same thing. Funny how the mind works :))

This is why I suggested only linking specific and relevant features. Like AWACS upgrades to a modern fighter that will use AWACS most of the time. The clouds/lighting example brought is a bit too general to be linked to a module in my opinion. I used the OV-10 only as a stretch example.

I keep thinking a multi-tiered subscription model would make the most sense.

 

For instance:

We all have different opinions it seems no problem with that, though I still wonder what a subscription would really cost. Really rough math suggests I'd have spent more for DCS with the unlimited sub (the restrictions on the lesser tiers aren't really appealing) than I have with the current model and I don't even take advantage of DCS sales often.

Netflix currently has 151 million paid subscribers worldwide.

At say $10 bucks....

That's 1.51 billion with a B US$ A MONTH.....:cry:

 

You can make some serious content with that to throw around.

I only wish flight sims were big enough to drawn in that large of a crowd, no matter what the pay model I don't think DCS will reach the same number of users just because of its niche nature.

It isn’t a binary choice.

 

Subscription model and pay per piece can exist simultaneously.

 

In my experience, subscription software is much better supported than one time payment versions.

Exactly, people seem to automatically reject without considering opinions/benefits etc.

Funny how 80-something % of the poll says 'no' but most of the posts are someone saying 'yes', the pro-subscription is a very loud minority.

 

It isn't needed. Most people don't want it. Let it go.

Sounds too me you are afraid of it can becoming reality... You say like... Shhht... don't rock the boat!! :D :D

Unfortunately the boat might be sinking already. No game developer/publisher can afford to say: We plan only for current customers. The new players in few years will not know about DCS only because it will not be on a game streaming service. Secondly because it is not Free 2 Play (Tf51/Su25T being just a demo)

Also don't take a poll like this as final proof. Even the Oposants would be persuaded if they see a formula with Base Game F2P all content available at decent quality and subscription making them pay less or comparable each year the amount they already pay for so called modules.

I say so called modules because the modules need servicing every few updates and sometimes total revamping every few years (VR ready Cockpits, BPR textures, new codding, new high poly models, etc etc etc) exactly like a service type rather than a buy once product.

There is another misconception that Flight simmers are offliners... if is like that then flight sims have zero future.

Well, seeing how ED has once again proven they can't even hit their own deadlines, absolutely NO to a subscription model, NO to increasing module prices, NO to any kind of way of giving them extra money until they can figure out how to actually deliver advertised products in a reasonable amount of time. If the vocal minority saying "yes" to a subscription has money they want to give away, I'm sure there is local charity in your town that will actually make good use of it.

Sounds too me you are afraid of it can becoming reality.

Well yes. I've already bought plane, helis, maps and campaigns as one-time purchases. Many have. What does a subscription do to that?

Starting off as a subscription service is one thing. Making radical changes to how payment and ownership works, after acquiring a fairly large playerbase who've paid large sums of money, is another.

Now if there was a system with both subscription or one-time purchase I don't see the harm, except maybe the devs actually making less money, who knows.

E.g. in the shop for a module,

Buy now: $69.99

or

Subscription: $6 /month

Sounds too me you are afraid of it can becoming reality... You say like... Shhht... don't rock the boat!! :D :D

 

Unfortunately the boat might be sinking already. No game developer/publisher can afford to say: We plan only for current customers. The new players in few years will not know about DCS only because it will not be on a game streaming service. Secondly because it is not Free 2 Play (Tf51/Su25T being just a demo)

 

 

Also don't take a poll like this as final proof. Even the Oposants would be persuaded if they see a formula with Base Game F2P all content available at decent quality and subscription making them pay less or comparable each year the amount they already pay for so called modules.

I say so called modules because the modules need servicing every few updates and sometimes total revamping every few years (VR ready Cockpits, BPR textures, new codding, new high poly models, etc etc etc) exactly like a service type rather than a buy once product.

 

There is another misconception that Flight simmers are offliners... if is like that then flight sims have zero future.

Care to comment posts #140 and #168 ?

... yeah I didn't think so.