New Pay Model

Who ever made up this idea, GO TO HELL

You still pay for the maintenance

Not on a subscription basis

and insurance and road taxes

Well if I don't pay those, then I get abducted...

and gas

Also not funded by a subscription...

Not on a subscription basis

Many actually do in order to have predictable maintenance costs, like VW care plan.

But no matter if you prefer to pay for it as needed or on a contractual basis with periodic payments or if you prefer to stop being able to drive the car when it breaks down, .. as an owner you do not expect eternal free service for your car because thats simply not a viable business model.

When you buy a car you get warranty and typically get at least your first year of maintenance for "free", but at some point you should expect to stop getting free maintenance.

Its not fundamentally different with DCS.

Many actually do in order to have predictable maintenance costs, like VW care plan.

 

But no matter if you prefer to pay for it as needed or on a contractual basis with periodic payments or if you prefer to stop being able to drive the car when it breaks down, .. as an owner you do not expect eternal free service for your car because thats simply not a viable business model.

 

When you buy a car you get warranty and typically get at least your first year of maintenance for "free", but at some point you should expect to stop getting free maintenance.

 

Its not fundamentally different with DCS.

Except once software has been finished, you usually don't have to perform maintenance on it.

Plus repair packages from the dealer (subscription or otherwise) are still more expensive (often by a significant margin) than a one-time at an independent repair shop, the same is true for consumer electronics... Again - subscription, easy way to make money, given enough time they're always more expensive than paying one-time. If it isn't more expensive than a perpetual, then it isn't a well thought out subscription.

In DCS, it's closed source so we don't have a choice...

Except once software has been finished, you usually don't have to perform maintenance on it.

Its completely reasonable to expect bug fixes or delivery of features that are clearly missing like if you bought any EA modules.

But you actually expect to receive new features no one ever promised you and upgrades like Vulkan and to keep receiving those in perpetuity. If we push the car analogy to the breaking point, thats like me expecting my car dealer to give my 5 year old car a newer more fuel efficient engine, because thats what everyone else is getting today.

But you actually expect to receive new features no one ever promised you and upgrades like Vulkan and to keep receiving those in perpetuity.

No I actually don't, stop putting words into our mouths. Also features nobody promised? Okay 'promised' but at least teased? Well someone clearly doesn't like reading the newsletters...

If we push the car analogy to the breaking point, thats like me expecting my car dealer to give my 5 year old car a newer more fuel efficient engine, because thats what everyone else is getting today.

Are you serious? What is this false dichotomy?

I said earlier on that I would be more than happy paying for upgrades if need be. I recognise that the cost of development isn't 0, especially for major tasks like Vulkan API. You even acknowledged it earlier on, so not sure where you're getting "oh you don't want to pay a subscription, what are you some kind of free loader, expecting everything for free".

DCS already offers paid upgrades (BS1 -> BS2 -> BS3, WWII assets, Supercarrier, A-10C II(?)), sure they can be controversial, but the cost of development isn't 0, so I'm happy to pay for improvements, especially big ones. It's not even different to basically, every other flight simulator out there (down to upgrading individual airfields).

I'd be happy to pay for:

• Upgraded vehicles
  
• Upgraded terrains
  
• Upgraded weather
  
• Upgraded communications
  
• Upgraded xxxx modelling (far too many to list)
  

Obviously not comprehensive.

If ED wants to charge for an upgrade to Vulkan? Fine, that doesn't mean adopting a subscription model - and the percentage against is only going up it seems.

Lets go back to that new engine you were talking about, if I were to purchase a new engine and pay for the work required to install it, would that be done as a one-time purchase and I have the new engine perpetually, or would I pay a subscription for the engine and only get to keep it, so long as I keep paying for it, effectively renting the engine?

Yeah, except I said I'd be willing to pay for upgrades. But you seem to be equating not wanting a subscription = expecting everything for free - false dichotomy.

Ok. But there has to be a mechanism that allows you to pay for those upgrades, and all of them that I heard have serious drawbacks.

Most base layer upgrades can not realistically be sold as optional modules. I can see it maybe for dynamic campaigns, but not for the graphics engine, or AI and even less for the network layer or server side of things.

A non free base layer that periodically gets updated to a new version like many other sims do, fragments the community, especially it splits the online community and makes maintenance of modules and delivery of WIP modules a nightmare.

A maintenance fee that gives users the right to keep upgrading their base layer to the latest version has similar issues given that most new modules depend on changes in the base layer so customers who bought that SC or F16 or whatever module must have access to that updated base layer. Maybe there are workarounds, like including enough free maintenance duration with every module, but its not hard to see how that will cause problems. Also for online pilots who need to be on the same version this would be almost identical to a compulsory subscription. Or at least a subscription to online flying.

If you have any better ideas, Im all ears.

I don't have any better ideas because I'm not a software engineer. But to me I think DCS has bitten off more than it can chew in it's current state. This is because it's based off of old stuff, never designed to be what it has become

With what Kate Perederko said about the underlying code base. It sounds to me that the only way we're really going to get through this is with a major rewrite - which would probably be the biggest nightmare in history, to the extent that I would've probably died before seeing anything like it, and I'm one of the younger ones here.

. It sounds to me that the only way we're really going to get through this is with a major rewrite - which would probably be the biggest nightmare in history, to the extent that I would've probably died before seeing anything like it

I highly doubt their current business model can even support that. Thats a ton of work with no obvious ROI like ever. They can not possibly do that and then give that new base layer for free. All the more reason to think about changing that business model.

But if you are going to take such drastic steps, then I have an alternative. And Im confident you wouldnt mind digging deep in your wallet for this one. I know I wouldnt. Make DCSW a FS2020 addon. Okay, you would be limited to current day maps, which is a bit of an issue especially for ww2 modules. But Id sell both my kidneys to have DCS with FS2020 graphics/VR /terrain/weather engine. And then ED no longer has to maintain those things and can focus on what they do best; the planes, the flight models and the system modelling.

I highly doubt their current business model can even support that. Thats a ton of work with no obvious ROI like ever. They can not possibly do that and then give that new base layer for free. All the more reason to think about changing that business model.

As do I, the thing is, it's most likely the old base layer "spaghetti code" - Kate's words, that's causing the issues and eventually, something will probably have to be done about it.

But if you are going to take such drastic steps, then I have an alternative. And Im confident you wouldnt mind digging deep in your wallet for this one. I know I wouldnt. Make DCSW a FS2020 addon. Okay, you would be limited to current day maps, which is a bit of an issue especially for ww2 modules. But Id sell both my kidneys to have DCS with FS2020 graphics/VR /terrain/weather engine. And then ED no longer has to maintain those things and can focus on what they do best; the planes, the flight models and the system modelling.

I'd hold up on that one until it's released. Though personally, switching over to MS2020 seems just as drastic and most likely unworkable (in the same boat as a rewrite). I mean people have dreamed about merging Outerra and DCS, but it's a similar story.

I've been seeing some people mention lately that they might prefer a Subscription based pay model since it might provide more incentive for the development team to focus more on core features/bugs and on finishing modules that seem to be eternally stuck in Early Access.

 

While I had initially never considered this, and at first I didn't like the idea, I found myself starting to warm up to it the more i thought about it. I wonder what the masses think about this idea.

 

Would you prefer a Subscription based model if it meant more focus could be dedicated to core features/bugs and on getting modules into feature complete states quicker?

I actually like the system of purchasing the modules instead of subscription based.

Once I've bought it I own it (As long as the server stays running).

I first downloaded this game around Christmas time and they had a %50 off sale of a lot of their stuff. So instead of spending $150 on a couple of planes I was able to spend the same amount on several planes from the different eras that I love.

Keeping up with monthly subscriptions is a pain.

The only thing I do agree on is that if it's released as an "Early Access" then it needs to be finished or have a team that's constantly upgrading or tweaking each module.

I'd hold up on that one until it's released.

As if you'd have any other choice :)

Though personally, switching over to MS2020 seems just as drastic and most likely unworkable (in the same boat as a rewrite). I mean people have dreamed about merging Outerra and DCS, but it's a similar story.

The more I think about this, the more this seems like an inevitability.

Unlike outera, FS2020 is an actual state of the art flight sim with everything a regular flight sim needs and an SDK; being from microsoft, those tools will just work. It will also no doubt obtain many millions of users soon after its released. Military plane addon modules are therefore a 100% certainty. Id be even surprised if we didnt recognize the names of some of the module developers. Think about it, if you have already done all the research and already have a super detailed F14 or mig or whatever 3d model, cockpit, textures, sounds.. and you "only" need to port the flight model to give you access to maybe 100x more customers, wouldnt you? Initially it may not be for combat, but Im sure plenty of FS pilots will like to fly in a tomcat or F16 and buzz through a photorealistic landscape in VR. I would.

.

As for the DCSW functionality; they've even added most (all?) those things to FSX (google tacpack if you are unfamiliar). Not saying its where DCS is today, but it allows multiplayer combat with radar, weapons, tacan, AAR, IFF, carriers,.. If FSX SDK allowed these things, I cant see why FS2020 SDK will not. And so if ED doesnt do it, someone else will, like the creators of tacpack. That may not be as good as DCSW, I have no clue. But think about it; if you are ED and you have this outdated spaghetti code game engine you can hardly afford to maintain let alone rewrite, and you are facing a 1000lb gorilla who just released a mind boggling good looking flight sim, that will soon support the very same plane modules by the very same developers as your own platform, and you have someone else developing a combat system for all that? What do you do?

Honestly Im beginning to think ED have no other choice than do this. FS2020 is shaping up to become this whale thats going to eat everyone else's lunch in the flight sim business. If you have the choice between developing on it, or competing against it, its not much of a choice. At least ED are in a position where they can carve out a nice niche for themselves on top of FS2020. Unlike most of the other civilian flight sim makers, Id hate to be in their shoes.

@Vertigo72: Following your recent posts and arguments it sounds more and more like you think of ED as complete business noobs that don't have a clue how to run successful their job? If that would be the case no finance model at all would secure the future of DCS because its business consists just of hot air.

On the other side I believe ED has - unlike yourself - a very good knowledge of their business and know very well how to calculate their demands.

Then: paying for new developed graphics engine etc.

Paying for such fundamental updates won't be any problem as ED can ask everytime for payed updates of their already released modules to be used with new features like Vulkan etc. to use them within a new core system (name it DCSW 3.0 or something like that). They already do this for the KA-50 or the A-10. Same is for every 3rd party developer that could ask for an update price if his module needs a fundamental rewrite / update to be used within a new core system.

No one needs a subscription based model for this.

Then its on each customers decission if he'd like to further use its already owned modules within a new system as well or if he'd like to stay with the old one that maybe gets abandoned with no further updates.

That route would be much more than any other major publisher in this market does it as they just ask the full price for any new version of their games and stuff or just role out a so called new game that most of the time just features minor system updates - if at all - if you take a look at the most serial franchises like F1 and other ...

I have all the modules I want, which is most of them, going back to 2012. I have no objection to a subscription model provided it is optional. Those of us who have bought modules over the years would be unaffected unless we chose to subscribe. Those who opt for the monthly fee would have access to what they want. This would affect me in no way.

I highly doubt their current business model can even support that. Thats a ton of work with no obvious ROI like ever. They can not possibly do that and then give that new base layer for free. All the more reason to think about changing that business model.

 

But if you are going to take such drastic steps, then I have an alternative. And Im confident you wouldnt mind digging deep in your wallet for this one. I know I wouldnt. Make DCSW a FS2020 addon. Okay, you would be limited to current day maps, which is a bit of an issue especially for ww2 modules. But Id sell both my kidneys to have DCS with FS2020 graphics/VR /terrain/weather engine. And then ED no longer has to maintain those things and can focus on what they do best; the planes, the flight models and the system modelling.

O.k. - just read this "statement" ..now I am pretty sure you don't have any clue what you are talking about at all and how different those systems are, how different the demands are etc...

Just as a small example: No civilian flight simulator needs a real collission model for objects - be it static or moving elements. But any military simulation needs this as you want and need to blow up things in there. And that is one of the huge ressource hogs DCS has as you have to calculate each kind of collission within the envorinment and even have to calculate different moving objects in relation to each other within the simulated world.

Integrating DCS into something like this would maybe deliver better real weather and a global simulation of the world, but you will end just simulating base patterns and plain navigation flying - all the strategic elements would be reduced to the training mode as you barely would see a rocket impacting and destroying something in a somehow realistic way etc.

And even if someone in the cilvil simulation world would like to expand the technology (there are / were certain attempts to do this, which resulted far from the experience you already get with specialized simulations like DCS) it would kill the computing ressources there, too - maybe much more than in an specialized military simulation engine like DCS has. E.g. you just can't place procedural generated objects on the maps to enrich the envorinment, but you have to place real 3D objects that could get destroyed as well... have fun calcluating the

a) financial demands doing this for the whole planet

b) find enough computing ressources to do this within the already very complex simulation environments civilian flight sims have - where most parts are not very relevant if at all for a military flight simulation.

I am done with this debate now...

Edit: And I am quite sure you haven't tested the new MS flight sim but just have seen pretty marketing screenshots and video clips else you would have a better idea of what a kind of a highend system this thing needs to let all the fancy new graphics and weather effects shine ... no need to anwser to this as that is all under NDA and I don't want any one to compromise himself.

@Vertigo72: Following your recent posts and arguments it sounds more and more like you think of ED as complete business noobs that don't have a clue how to run successful their job?

To be quite frank, based on at least some recent business decisions they made, I certainly can not accuse them of being commercial masterminds. Nor would I even want them to be, Id much rather think of them as highly skilled developers with a passion for military aviation than business gurus with only a passion for profit.

Even so , I suspect ED do understand this very well, its hard to imagine its not affecting them every day, or whenever a staffing decision needs made or a road map is brought up. But with customers like the ones posting here, who refuse to even try to understand the issue and contemplate solutions, I would find it hard to come with a solutions myself. ED cant even raise the issue without risking an uprising. Its most fervent supports may well be their worst enemies.

Then: paying for new developed graphics engine etc.

Paying for such fundamental updates won't be any problem

Yeah so your solution is a paid core and versioning. Thats hardly a novel thought. But it has its own rather serious problems. If you release V3 tomorrow, what happens to F16 and SC buyers? What happens to the already limited online community if only half the user base upgrades, and next year it gets split over 3 versions. Then multiply it by two if you factor in "stable" vs "OB". What happens to the third party content producers and module developers with their unfinished modules who have some customers on 2.5 some on 3 some on 3.5 ? Sure doesnt sound like "no problem" to me.

Just as a small example: No civilian flight simulator needs a real collission model for objects

And when you drop bombs on a wooden shed in DCS you can see individual wooden planks flying around and interacting with each other and the splinters causing damage to our planes. Or maybe Im confusing with another game now.

The performance impact can not be the main reason of DCSs poor performance. It performs poorly in single player when nothing is shooting or exploding. I dont think I ever even noticed a big difference when there is.

ll the strategic elements would be reduced to the training mode as you barely would see a rocket impacting and destroying something in a somehow realistic way etc.

Yeah I will miss the current ability of shooting out individual windows in the Burj Khalifa and causing realistic damage to all the buildings in DCS.

Sarcasm aside, with just particle and light effects alone you could make explosions and fires that look a heck of a lot better than what we currently have. Thats really not a high bar. DCS has some things it does very well graphics wise, at least as good as what Ive seen from FS2020, like atmospheric and light effects and pbr rendering of metals. But its explosions and fires/smoke and damage modelling look worse than most 15 year old games. Its pretty hard for a FS2020 port to do even worse here.

As for altering the geometry and replacing building meshes with destroyed buildings; we do not have that ability now in DCS.

In FS2020 selectively replacing AI generated buildings on a map with your own custom (and thus destructible or replaceable) mesh, most certainly is possible, its how developers can make custom airports and landmarks - so in theory worst case solution you could make entire cities and maps like that; it just would be a similar amount of work as placing buildings on a map for DCS now. And you could even make ww2 maps like that. Just not for the entire planet.

But Id also be very surprised if microsoft could not provide 3rd party developers deeper real time access to the AI/building generator to allow replacing of generated building meshes with custom ones or piles of rubble . That sounds like a trivial feature to implement if it isnt already in there.

Edit: And I am quite sure you haven't tested the new MS flight sim but just have seen pretty marketing screenshots and video clips else you would have a better idea of what a kind of a highend system this thing needs to let all the fancy new graphics and weather effects shine ...

I dont even care what MS used to produce those videos and their demo's. Even if its highest end PC hardware available on the planet, it will be about the same as what many DCS pilots already have anyway, but they dont get smooth VR performance with a terrain and weather engine that doesnt look anything like FS2020. Really, your are grasping here. Feel free to be a MS or FS hater, but there is no denying it looks *stunning* and it actually runs smooth, enough people can attest to that.

...

I dont even care what MS used to produce those videos and their demo's. Even if its highest end PC hardware available on the planet, it will be about the same as what many DCS pilots already have anyway, but they dont get smooth VR performance with a terrain and weather engine that doesnt look anything like FS2020. Really, your are grasping here. Feel free to be a MS or FS hater, but there is no denying it looks *stunning* and it actually runs smooth, enough people can attest to that.

Now it gets childish: where did I state anything against other flight sims or even said something about hating other sims? I just stated that grahically and technical advanced sims like the new MS flightsim need a top notch pc system ... and the lack of knowledge you show concerning VR in this says everything.

I don't know what your "mission" is with all that, but it shows quite a lot of one more armchair warrior that are so typical for internet forums today.

I don't want to rent I want to own. If ED would ever go for a subscription model for those 19% of this community or for 10% of the other poll about this I hope they don't forget to offer a pay and own option for the vast majority of us here. Maybe there could be both like with owning, leasing or renting cars. But I want to buy and own my car and I want the same with my DCS.

 

 

Good luck to all of you that try to convince the others. I'm outa here.

This is pretty much my same sentiment. I have no interest in any subscription model because I play games and sims off and on so it would be a waste of money for me in the long run. :thumbup:

Feel free to be a MS or FS hater, but there is no denying it looks *stunning* and it actually runs smooth, enough people can attest to that.

Nowhere did he say anything like that.

You're just pissed because the majority of responders after you came with your opinion, disagree with you. That's in their right!

Also, initially Microsoft Flight Simulator wouldn't have support for VR, imagine that, but that was a bad move, so now it will.

Can you say something more about the add-ons to make a civilian fligtsim a military one. I am interested, because I didn't know anybody would ever be successful at that. Also there's some belief that after 9/11 MS will never let anyone bomb anything in their sim anymore.

We'll see about that, I think.

Sent from my ANE-LX1 using Tapatalk

God, is this thing still on?

A short summary for the newcomers: Vertigo72 is right, all of you saying otherwise are wrong, polls are wrong, ED have been in the unsustainable business for almost 30 years and are thus also wrong.

... I don't know what your "mission" is with all that, but it shows quite a lot of one more armchair warrior that are so typical for internet forums today.

@Vertigo72 wants to get access to all the modules for (almost) free rather than pay for them like the rest of us have. In another message thread he even proposed making access to the beta version of DCS subscription as a way of doing this (so not only will no new DCS users be generated to help pay for this, ED would lose most of their beta test team as a result of such a lame idea as well)...

Yeah, he's shown that he's pretty naïve about business and the game development industry! But, MAN, does he want what he wants, damn the rest of us!!

Of course by now he's so far into this he needs to try to save face from looking like an idiot, so I can't imagine he'll give this dead horse up anytime soon! :pilotfly:

The premise that it would result in better service is completely unsubstantiated...

@Vertigo72 wants to get access to all the modules for (almost) free

You can repeat that lie as often as you like, it doesnt make it any more true. My sole goal is finding a way that allows ED to spend (substantially) more resources on the base layer, instead of constantly having to produce new content and modules, and be able to do so without having to shoot themselves in the foot financially, and without causing all kinds of other undesirable effects. I want to be able to spend money on DCS knowing my money will allow them to make the game run smoother and faster and more stable, instead of only being able to spend money on modules that where created at the expense of that goal and often achieve the exact opposite.

If you have any better suggestion, Im all ears.

Can you say something more about the add-ons to make a civilian fligtsim a military one. I am interested, because I didn't know anybody would ever be successful at that.

I didint even know it existed until yesterday. The point is not how successful they are or where, or how good their implementation is, the point is there are apps and addons that allow users to turn FSX (or P3D) in to a military simulator with most of the functionality you would expect, like multiplayer, radar, weapons, sams, IFF, AAR, mission editors, destroyable target etc.

have a look here:

https://www.vrsimulations.com/tacpack.php

or more details here:

https://forums.vrsimulations.com/support/index.php/TacPack_Documentation

Here is a video a DCS pilot introduces an F18 in P3D:

Ive fast forwarded it, I just wanted to get a feel for it. The FSX engine is obviously not state of the art anymore, but that F18 module actually looks impressive. And given that tacpack apparently is just 1 full time dev and 2 part time after hour developers, and they created both that F18 module and all the underlying stuff to make it work in FSX, I find it deeply impressive. YMMV.

Here is another one showing a phantom with a better terrain mod:

Cant really judge its realism or anything but it doesnt really look horrible, given what they are working with.

So again the point is not that those addons would be better than DCS. Im quite sure they are not. But it does suggest that it may perfectly possible to turn a modern civilian simulator like FS2020 in to a military one through addons and API. And I can see DCSW becoming that addon and bringing together what I am confident will be the best (looking) flight simulator and terrain/mapping engine with what already is the best military simulation to create something rather frigging awesome.

And if ED do not do it, someone else will, like those tacpack guys. The result may not have the scope and depth of DCSW, but Im gonna want to play it anyway. Im going to want it real bad.