New Pay Model

If I could add some fuel to the fire, seeing that it is 1 April and all...

Let's assume for one moment that the additional revenue from a subscription could be beneficial to fixing the core elements in DCS that would benefit everyone. It is also clear that people who are enjoying the current free model would expect to continue to do so.

One solution could be to allow Open Beta access only to subscription members ( I apologise if this has been suggested in this thread before). Being a subscription member would also allow access to voting on priority features/fixes in DCS. The stable release would remain free as always.

The subscription should not replace the current fee model for modules, but there could be some kind of discount offered as an incentive for subscription members.

This entire thread is the result of user frustration due to things taking forever to get fixed, and the OP has proposed a divisive but plausible solution.

The way for ED to end this thread is to acknowledge this proposal, provide a response, and then shut it down.

If I could add some fuel to the fire, seeing that it is 1 April and all...

 

Let's assume for one moment that the additional revenue from a subscription could be beneficial to fixing the core elements in DCS that would benefit everyone. It is also clear that people who are enjoying the current free model would expect to continue to do so.

 

One solution could be to allow Open Beta access only to subscription members ( I apologise if this has been suggested in this thread before). Being a subscription member would also allow access to voting on priority features/fixes in DCS. The stable release would remain free as always.

The subscription should not replace the current fee model for modules, but there could be some kind of discount offered as an incentive for subscription members.

 

This entire thread is the result of user frustration due to things taking forever to get fixed, and the OP has proposed a divisive but plausible solution.

The way for ED to end this thread is to acknowledge this proposal, provide a response, and then shut it down.

Sent from my Redmi 5 using Tapatalk

Warmbrak said:

Let's assume for one moment that the additional revenue from a subscription could be beneficial to fixing the core elements in DCS that would benefit everyone. It is also clear that people who are enjoying the current free model would expect to continue to do so.

The problem here is that you need to provide an incentive to customers into purchasing the subscription. If the current model is financial favourable to customers, then that's what they're more likely to choose to do.

I don't doubt that having more money coming in is beneficial, the main issue I have is what kind of benefit are we talking here? Is it little-to-minor? Is it a paradigm shift? Is there even a benefit at all, weighing up all the factors?

Warmbrak said:

One solution could be to allow Open Beta access only to subscription members ( I apologise if this has been suggested in this thread before). Being a subscription member would also allow access to voting on priority features/fixes in DCS. The stable release would remain free as always.

A similar thing was proposed in this thread before, the issue is that ED relies on the OB for public testing - the OB exists by design for the public to test things out and report back to ED. In a similar breath, Nick Grey (ED's founder), said that ED wouldn't survive as a business without EA modules, which are already controversial and a very inconvenient truth. Putting these 2 things behind a subscription pay wall, may end up worse for developers, not better.

Warmbrak said:

The subscription should not replace the current fee model for modules, but there could be some kind of discount offered as an incentive for subscription members.

Again, why would users pay the subscription? And as for discounts, what about the current sales that take place at least every quarter?

The other thing is, if customers are paying more to gain access to a discount, then doesn't that kinda undermine the discount?

Warmbrak said:

This entire thread is the result of user frustration due to things taking forever to get fixed, and the OP has proposed a divisive but plausible solution.

Indeed it is, and it's a regrettable truth.

However, I'm going to call into question the plausibility of a subscription model, being an actual, effective, solution to the current issues.

Yes it makes developers more money, and that's obviously a good thing, but what does that extra money coming in actually translate to in practice?

In software projects, simply adding more resources into fixing a problem doesn't always translate into proportional benefits. This is because not all tasks are easily divisible.

Think of it like this: A pregnant woman takes 9 months to have a baby, you won't get a baby in 1 month by adding 8 more women. What takes 1 coder 6 months to do, doesn't take 6 coders 1 month to do.

Absolutely NO

I love the current model. I got to test it out free (with 2 free planes)...and then started buying the addons. I have few addons but still learning FC3. It is fun the way the current model is.

I do not want any monthly payments period. How many things are monthly payments - it is quite annoying.

Current model is the best of both worlds. Stick to the script ED. Don't change anything - more planes and more campaigns (with story) and more interactive tutorials lol.

Back to FC3 F15

No..

Absolutely NO:(

I'm absolutely 100% in agreement that a subscription model is worth paying for, on the proviso that we see real and tangible benefits to core game issues that have been around for over a decade now.

I'm absolutely 100% in agreement that a subscription model is worth paying for, on the proviso that we see real and tangible benefits to core game issues that have been around for over a decade now.

Then by your own words you disagree. There is no way to hold ED to that proviso - it would in effect be ‘money for nothing’ as you have no way of ensuring that any improvements come any faster.

The only way (on the assumption that they need more money, and that higher income will lead to faster more competent delivery which requires better management and methodologies) to deliver that would be a more ‘major feature’ charge for fully completed, tested and delivered improvements to the core sim, with ZERO EA nonsense.

To continue from the other thread:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=4275811#post4275811

In what reality do you think that this software would be functional if you paid a subscription fee? Many other games have gone the route of having people subscribe and they have periods where they go through days, and even weeks of down time after updates or whatever. Their internet play is certainly no better than it would be.

Quite honestly, ED's current model isn't the issue here. I would like to think that It's more their lack of foresight.

At this point, I barely ever fly DCS any more. I don't purchase any modules, and I would certainly never entertain a subscription. It would be a disaster for all of us and for ED. The community would pretty much drop to unsustainable lows.

I do not, I'm merely considering the business part. However such a drastic change in business model would have to be backed by equal changes in the development team.

This is all putting aside all the history and bad experiences in general. Obviously doing this would be a big leap of faith, but I'd take the chance because I care about it.

More importantly, ask yourself this - if you don't care, why do you even bother posting on the forums?

Because not every solution is throwing good money after bad. The core of the sim is in its current state (as has been faltering for the past 12 years) is because of their failures, not mine as the consumer. I shouldn't have to pay them to fix something that shouldn't be broken in the first place. I also shouldn't have to "incentivize" them to complete their modules by paying some random "getting out of EA tax." Their incentive should be my ceasing to patronize their company if they do not deliver. And you are automatically assuming that all will be right with "just the right amount of funding." Where did this magical 10 Euro per month cost come from? I can make it seem even better; if we send 5 Euro per month as a tithing, ED will be able to fix the VR issues, MP issues, AI, weather, ATC, missile logic, and release a dynamic campaign in under a year. No idea how, just more money = great success (?).

 

A subscription model will kill this game fast. Few will bank on the game getting better because we're throwing more money at them. Those that do will see their money not spent how they believe it should be (or success reached at an unacceptable rate) and will cease to subscribe and we'll be either back to module payments or worse.

 

The core game being the "experience" from what I've seen is wholly because of the community as far as MP goes. From blue flag to users creating their own campaigns, it is the people who provide for the combat experience. ED has made a really cool cockpit simulator but the combat environment portion of this experience is severely lacking.

There are is always a lot of drama surrounding ED and plenty of bad experiences to go around. I didn't say money alone will solve the problem. But a change in business model would also be an indicator that they recognize what the real problem is.

Bottom line is there is no alternative and in the end I'd like to see them be more and more successful because this is where I spend a lot of my time.

no simulator until today uses an annual card payment method.

even microsoft simulator do not understand why dcs should use it the new payment method.

I'd rather leave it as it is.

Actually iRacing uses an ongoing payment system that I'm very happy to support. They have a very active development schedule and talk about it weekly in their official podcast (including segments with various members of the development and production team).

If DCS did this I would also be happy to pay an ongoing fee if the amount of development matched iRacing's.

Bring on fancy weather, terrain and VR improvements!!!!

Actually iRacing uses an ongoing payment system that I'm very happy to support. They have a very active development schedule and talk about it weekly in their official podcast (including segments with various members of the development and production team).

If DCS did this I would also be happy to pay an ongoing fee if the amount of development matched iRacing's.

Bring on fancy weather, terrain and VR improvements!!!!

This is the very thing that turned me away from iRacing.

Paying a subscription and then having to pay for tracks and cars just rubs me up the wrong way as a consumer.

Whats the point of offering a subscription model and then 80% of people stop buying modules because they have abandoned the sim?

no simulator until today uses an annual card payment method.

 

even microsoft simulator do not understand why dcs should use it the new payment method.

 

I'd rather leave it as it is.

Steel Beasts PRO PE also has a subscription OPTION. Now, it's two completely different games, but I bought a one-year sub ($39USD) as buying the full game is $125 USD, and when major updates happen, you have to pay on top of that to get them (the move to version 3.0, 4.0, etc). It will take 3 years to cover the cost this way, and by then I'd have to pay more to get the newer version anyways. I may not even be playing it that long, who knows?

I think with DCS, they may have to charge for big upgrades like full game engine upgrades, otherwise we may never see a new engine that actually has modern support for API's and multi-core CPU's. Just the nature of the beast with niche games like this. There's a reason there are literally no other military sims in existence anymore. Used to be that's all there was on PC, but they either went under, or just dropped sims altogether (i.e. Microprose, Jane's, etc.). I mean, they already sell the maps and things like the NS430 and WW2 Assets Pack.

mm do not like the look of this I will be holding back on a module in the sale the thread is still open and makes me a little nervous.

This is the very thing that turned me away from iRacing.

 

Paying a subscription and then having to pay for tracks and cars just rubs me up the wrong way as a consumer.

 

Whats the point of offering a subscription model and then 80% of people stop buying modules because they have abandoned the sim?

Sorry but that 80% stat directed at Iracing is wholly inaccurate. Everyone who doesn't currently play Iracing complains about how expensive it is, even though in this particular hobby... everything is expensive. I'm sitting on a close to $1000 rig with triples, wheel, peddles etc ... and thats cheap.

If an annual sub would mean more frequent updates and or the ability to acquire more licenses (people seem to forget or don't know that ED or any dev has to purchase a license for any particular aircraft or company), then I'm all for it.

Sorry but that 80% stat directed at Iracing is wholly inaccurate. Everyone who doesn't currently play Iracing complains about how expensive it is, even though in this particular hobby... everything is expensive. I'm sitting on a close to $1000 rig with triples, wheel, peddles etc ... and thats cheap.

 

If an annual sub would mean more frequent updates and or the ability to acquire more licenses (people seem to forget or don't know that ED or any dev has to purchase a license for any particular aircraft or company), then I'm all for it.

That was not directed at iRacing, that was directed at DCS users.

no simulator until today uses an annual card payment method.

 

even microsoft simulator do not understand why dcs should use it the new payment method.

 

I'd rather leave it as it is.

Have Microsoft Simulator commented on this ?

Bruce Killsocks said:

Sorry but that 80% stat directed at Iracing is wholly inaccurate.

The 80% stat, is derived from the poll above. Now it's a small total sample sure, but it's all we really have to go on.

Bruce Killsocks said:

If an annual sub would mean more frequent updates and or the ability to acquire more licenses (people seem to forget or don't know that ED or any dev has to purchase a license for any particular aircraft or company), then I'm all for it.

And here's the thing, there's no guarantee that will happen at all, developers will be potentially more financially stable, which is absolutely a good thing, but it doesn't follow that we'll see a reduction in time between updates/fixes/content releases.

Sorry but that 80% stat directed at Iracing is wholly inaccurate. Everyone who doesn't currently play Iracing complains about how expensive it is, even though in this particular hobby... everything is expensive. I'm sitting on a close to $1000 rig with triples, wheel, peddles etc ... and thats cheap.

 

If an annual sub would mean more frequent updates and or the ability to acquire more licenses (people seem to forget or don't know that ED or any dev has to purchase a license for any particular aircraft or company), then I'm all for it.

Yah, I probably spent $400 on maps/modules this year alone (2019/20 so far). A $50/year subscription fee would probably be a lot cheaper in the long run, so long as I would have access to EVERYTHING all the time.

aleader said:

Yah, I probably spent $400 on maps/modules this year alone (2019/20 so far). A $50/year subscription fee would probably be a lot cheaper in the long run, so long as I would have access to EVERYTHING all the time.

$50 a year is about the equivalent of buying 1 full-price item of paid content per year (be it a module or a terrain).

Now, on average, there are 4 new items of paid content released per year.

So with a subscription model, developers make $50 per year, whereas In the current system, they could potentially make $200 per year... So not sure why a subscription model of $50 per year would be favourable for developers at all, I mean $50 a year is less than what brilliant.org charges...

Now obviously there are discounts and sales, so lets slice that $200 in half. I'm also going to guess that not everybody purchases new content, so let's half it again - we're now at $50 per year...

I'm sorry but I'm not seeing the advantage of this subscription model vs the current model, at worse it cuts developer income to 25% and at best it offers parity. It's only advantageous if someone doesn't buy purchase new content.

Also, if a subscription ends up being cheaper in the long run, it follows that the subscription model is worse for developers in the long run, so even more reason not to go subscription (which I absolutely hate).

NOOO! I hate subscription based software! Single biggest reason i stopped using pro tools. Subscription model is a money machine for the companies that use that model. There is absolutely nothing to gain as a user.

It works with newspapers and media like that where you get a new one everyday, but that is not the case with software.

The reason why so many software developers have shifted is because there is more to gain. They of course don't do it if they loose money. :)

I am getting fed up to the back teeth of coming onto the forums and reading about a subscription based DCS world, if all these people that want a pay monthly deal so badly, then just give ED your $10 a month, be altruistic and stop bothering the rest of us.

...

Now, on average, there are 4 new items of paid content released per year.

 

So with a subscription model, developers make $50 per year, whereas In the current system, they could potentially make $200 per year... So not sure why a subscription model of $50 per year would be favourable for developers at all, I mean $50 a year is less than what brilliant.org charges...

 

 

Now obviously there are discounts and sales, so lets slice that $200 in half. I'm also going to guess that not everybody purchases new content, so let's half it again - we're now at $50 per year...

 

I'm sorry but I'm not seeing the advantage of this subscription model vs the current model...

You see... this is the biggest problem with the people against this proposition.

You have replied to my posts here several times. Long replies that I really couldn't reply to as I considered them fringing on trolling or offtopic. You really bothered into engaging in the conversation yet somehow you've managed to miss the whole point.

So.... I will not answer to your dilema you post here 30 pages into the thread. I want you to really engage and try to solve it and give yourself the answer to it.

Hint. It was mentioned. The answer to the question: "How the developer would raise more money if each player actually plays less on average?" was answered!

PS I don't answer now to the question because I said I will not add more to the topic but I do look at it from time to time. Also. If you find the answer you have more chances to understand it and believe it.

zaelu said:

You see... this is the biggest problem with the people against this proposition.

What they actually make an attempt to critically analyse stuff? Instead of just believing it'll yield positive results.

zaelu said:

You have replied to my posts here several times. Long replies that I really couldn't reply to as I considered them fringing on trolling or offtopic. You really bothered into engaging in the conversation yet somehow you've managed to miss the whole point.

Are you for real?

This topic is on a subscription model, my posts attempt to analyse subscription models people like you have proposed. I'm grateful that people are proposing potential models as it gives us something to work with. All I'm trying to do is solve the question: how does this compare in practice to the current model? And what are the results for developers and customers?

I've given an attempt at what I'll admit is very crude and flawed analysis - but I simply do not have the data to take it any further, but I would like to.

And what have I found from this analysis albeit crude? That the subscription models proposed here are far from the 'light at the end of the tunnel' you so desperately want it to be. I'm sorry, but you just seem to stick your fingers in your ears, not listen to anything being said while insisting that it is the way to go without any verification or critical reasoning. You proposed a model and I tried to analyse it and pit it against the current system, here's what I found:

In terms of the proposed subscription models:

• Best case scenario - it ends up being a minor advantage to developers.
• Worst case scenario - it ends up disadvantageous for developers and makes them less money, all the while being largely unpopular with the customer base.

With the best guess being roughly the same as the current system, providing no incentive either way.

As for your accusations? Well, unless you're going to give me something specific, I'm just going to assume that you don't like my answer, can't rebut it, and now you're getting desperate...

Oh, but I missed the whole point, so tell me what was that then zaelu?

zaelu said:

So.... I will not answer to your dilema you post here 30 pages into the thread. I want you to really engage and try to solve it and give yourself the answer to it.

I have. I have engaged and tried to solve it - there is no dilemma here, I just took your model and did some very crude analysis on how it would actually play out compared to the current model, the assessment didn't come out favourably. Just because it didn't some out favourably doesn't mean I haven't engaged - I'm not going to to use confirmation bias to justify a point.

zaelu said:

Hint. It was mentioned. The answer to the question: "How the developer would raise more money if each player actually plays less on average?" was answered!

Hint - it's already been addressed! The majority consensus on this forum is 8/10 against a subscription, with people saying they would drop DCS if it went subscription - resulting in LESS income for developers, even with a subscription.

Why is this so difficult?

zaelu said:

If you find the answer you have more chances to understand it and believe it.

I have found an answer, just because you don't like it doesn't mean I don't understand it. And no I'm not just going to believe it to be absolutely true without any analysis or reasoning. Belief solely dictating what's true or not I'll leave to the ideologues and conspiracy theorists.

When I started in VR in2016 I found a useful utility called Tridef. It had been around for some time with 3D monitors and TV and I believe had commercial contracts with some TV manufacturer(s).

Tridef 3D was excellent and became very popular in VR for those of us prepared to tweak and experiment and we got many popular games running very nicely in 3D in our VR headsets.

Then they decided to develop a new utility called Tridef VR. It wasn't perfect, but it showed a lot of promise and the devs got MSI to back them on development, though this meant early trials were confined to those owning MSI graphics cards.

So things were looking really good for Tridef VR, even though it was effectively just Tridef 3D, without the need to actually tweak or configure any 2D games, it was effectively 3D plug & play.

Then they announced the 'price'. It was to be a subscription model. The amount wasn't that large, though it was more than I was prepared to pay - but there was a huge uproar from the customers and potential customers. I was quite shocked at the level of slating the devs got on their own forums over this proposed subscription payment model.

But it never came to pass, because within months the company went bankrupt. Whether MSI dropped their support, or due to the reaction of the Tridef customers or something else, I don't know.

What I do know is that within a short time of announcing this highly unpopular payment model, a previously successful and popular dev team went down the pan.