Some interesting information from Nick Grey on a youtube comment

Yeah, Good solid campaigns and missionspacks would be golden.

+1 I love the default F-18 Mission "Red Flag" with all the voiceovers. I would instantly buy more of them. That is exactly what you need for immersion.

Gesendet von meinem SM-N975F mit Tapatalk

Campaigns and missions is something anyone can do. You can too. You can give them away or sell them alongside the 100s of campaigns or 1000s of SP missions that are already out there. Why would you want ED to spend their time doing stuff 'anyone' can do?

As for why not more people or businesses are doing it; DCS campaigns on steam tend to have less than a dozen reviews (and often not very good ones at that). I doubt this is a big money maker for ED or the creators.

Because they might make a profit from it.

Because I don't have the time to learn all the tricks of the mission/campaign editor. I'm too busy learning and practicing flying, AAR, carrier recovery, dogfighting, etc. And I find no fun in creating complex missions, only in playing them.

And if I do the mission myself, where's the surprise?

Thus I'm ready to buy good missions made by somebody (ED or anybody else, I don't care).

Campaigns and missions is something anyone can do. You can too. You can give them away or sell them alongside the 100s of campaigns or 1000s of SP missions that are already out there. Why would you want ED to spend their time doing stuff 'anyone' can do?

 

As for why not more people or businesses are doing it; DCS campaigns on steam tend to have less than a dozen reviews (and often not very good ones at that). I doubt this is a big money maker for ED or the creators.

You are talking about DLC campaigns build by 3rd parties has bad? :doh: That is a "great" feedback :doh:

You are talking about DLC campaigns build by 3rd parties has bad?

Not sure what "has bad" means, but I dont see much difference on steam between EDs own and third party campaigns in either popularity or rating. But if you think its a huge money maker, go for it. You can hire some voice actors on fiverr. Probably even template artists. You make something for the community and get rich doing it. Or not, find out.

Why would you want ED to spend their time doing stuff 'anyone' can do?

3rd party and Free to user Missions/Campaigns all have a very limited shelf life...as ED care little for "Content" they break them incrementally with every single update...for a while the creator or interested users try to parch them with each update to keep them working...but eventually they get abandoned...

In theory if ED made their own and SOLD them...they'd be OBLIGATED to keep them supported and working

I would pay the price of any triple A game for the base game if it helped ED

I've never understood why ED releases so many plane modules but so little content to enjoy with them.

Similar for me.

I had hoped to see more payware campaigns, more free small quality missions (playtimes 30-180 minutes), all kind things that shows what the DCS World is capable and is about.

But mainly it has so far been "Here is the modules and here is the mission editor, go have fun".

3rd party campaigns and even some missions could be good way to get more small "one man studios" to create them if there would be easy way to get paid for it etc.

First of all, I do not have a 50" monitor... yet.

 

I get the argument that not everbody can pay that. What k dont get is saying: "I cant afford a subscribtion but i would pay more for certain modules." That makes no sense what so ever. And Im beeing polite here.

 

I do have more or less all of them... I do have all of them, exept spotify, because i do have amazon to be honest and I think the idea is not that bad. I can spare five bucks a month more easily that lets say 70 to 100 bucks. Lets take MS Flight Simulator 2020 (whitch btw. comes out August 18th) - 70 Bucks in the normal Version, free with xbox game pass. So i can play that one 14 month before i hit 70€. And game pass is not even 5€. Before I hit 14 Month Im probably bored already and use it for a new game without having bought a 70€ game i do not use and probably can not resell.

To be fair I get your points there. It's easier to pay 3,99€ a month than dropping 69,99€ at once for sure. The problem just is that the more subscriptions you're running, it just adds up. And seeing posts like these:

How about actually charging for the base DCS World simulation?

 

Stop with the silly DCS is free mantra, charge $80 and release a new version every 2 years. That way you could actually monetise upgrades to AI, weather, ATC, graphics engines etc. Basically all the items people have been requesting for years, but that continually get left behind because ED needs to focus on revenue producing products first.

... I'd pay for core content as well, and even though I would not prefer it, I'd actually pay a subscription if it got real. I'd even dare to say it would be better to have a subscription for the core, a premium level that includes the modules and the option to be able to buy the modules for use with the regular subscription. But again, I feel like this would put some people off of it. I for one never played games like WoW because of the subscription model, and one factor is this one:

Then again modern times, if the techical-paperwork reasons are out of the way and all is like butter, and a switch happens, with some big reasons explained for the switch, I probably won't avoid DCS because of it, but I would be a weird feeling, like if it's some kind of World of Warcraft and I think it would severely affect my time schedule management to fidddle with when I'm going to play with how long sessions so I don't lose too much time on an active subscription [...]

Point is, if I do pay regularly, I feel I pay something I don't use if I go do something else for whatever reason. And I've had longer breaks from DCS already. Of course you could always drop the subscrition and pick it up again. When I buy things once, I spend a good amount of hours on it, shelve it and can always come back to have more hours with it, as it's just there, ready to rock.

Biggest problem I see with a subscription model is that ED has already burnt up a lot of the trust from the player base.

This is certainly a thing. Doesn't take one very long to see all those "I won't buy another one until you have the other three fixed" posts, no matter if it's regarding EDSA, RAZBAM or someteam else. Those people won't pay subscription fees for sure, at least not until they see the model actually makes things better.

There needs to be a way for us to pay into updating the core engine. It's too much to ask given what we want, ATC, Weather, lighting, better damage modeling, dynamic ever evolving campaigns, net code for multiplayer.

The modules are already too cheap for the depth of simulation, they should run $75 for WW2 and $150 for modern jets....and those are the sale prices.

Stop the constant sales! The COVID sales have done nothing but provide more anger for those that paid higher prices for EA.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

To be fair I get your points there. It's easier to pay 3,99€ a month than dropping 69,99€ at once for sure. The problem just is that the more subscriptions you're running, it just adds up.

Thanks for acknowleging. And I mean, yes, it does add up and over time, you probably ending up spending more, but it just feels so much better. :megalol:

There needs to be a way for us to pay into updating the core engine. It's too much to ask given what we want, ATC, Weather, lighting, better damage modeling, dynamic ever evolving campaigns, net code for multiplayer.

 

The modules are already too cheap for the depth of simulation, they should run $75 for WW2 and $150 for modern jets....and those are the sale prices.

 

Stop the constant sales! The COVID sales have done nothing but provide more anger for those that paid higher prices for EA.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

And thats the point. Nothing against sales, do ten, maybe fifteen percent. but not 50. Stop throwing a portion of your revenue out of the window. People who want a certain module will buy it anyway, sooner or later. Oh - And stop those ridicules pre order sales. Because that is the moment where you can generate revenue. It's new, it's hyped, everybody wants it. Sell it for what it's actually worth.

The modules are already too cheap for the depth of simulation,

It maybe cheap for if you play it on average 4 hours a week for 5 years. A 70 euro module is then < 0.1 per hour. Still not KSP levels of cheap fun, but certainly not an expensive hobby.

But its quite expensive for someone just getting in to it, who may give up after a few hours of training, or finds out he doesnt like the game or doesnt like a particular module. And for anyone comparing it to FS2020 which gives them a dozen high fidelity planes and the entire world map, including their home town and local airport in glorious detail vs 1 or 3 planes and a tiny little map of a region they never even heard of and cant pronounce.

Thats why a sub model can be perfectly complementary to a purchase model. The buy model should be attractive to anyone who gets hooked, especially hooked on a few specific modules. Probably most people posting here. The sub model can be be attractive to anyone dipping their feet in and exploring the game and its modules. Or anyone not ready to commit to playing this for years and years, or not able or willing to cough up the lump sum. Or who wants to explore various maps and try different modules without spending half their monthly salary.

Lets say ED charge 2 euro per month for 1 module. Would that be cheap for you? No, it wouldnt. Not for your favorite modules. It would end up costing you at least twice as much over 5 years, with the prospect of the price going up in the future. But it would be cheap to anyone getting in to it, and it would be for you if have never flown a helo and want to see if its something you could get in to.

ED could also have an option of say 10 euro per month for all maps and modules. Or at least their own content. Even if you already own your favorite 4 planes, and arent interested enough in anything else to buy it, you might be tempted just to have access to the rest. Try a few other maps or that SC module or give that ww2 stuff a try.

they should run $75 for WW2 and $150 for modern jets....and those are the sale prices.

If you raise the price even further without providing a sub alternative, you will dramatically reduce the already tiny inflow of new players. And you will make the existing problem worse, that ED financially depends solely on selling new (probably unfinished, EA) modules to old customers. Old customers who increasingly will already have the modules they really wanted anyway. Its easy to convince your customers to buy a new module when they only have 2. It becomes quite a bit harder once they already own dozens, including all the planes they actually care about. Its a dead end.

BTW, if you wonder why they keep having those 50% sales.. its usually a pretty good sign that they arent selling enough. Increasing the price isnt exactly going to solve that problem.

It maybe cheap for if you play it on average 4 hours a week for 5 years. A 70 euro module is then < 0.1 per hour. Still not KSP levels of cheap fun, but certainly not an expensive hobby.

 

But its quite expensive for someone just getting in to it, who may give up after a few hours of training, or finds out he doesnt like the game or doesnt like a particular module. And for anyone comparing it to FS2020 which gives them a dozen high fidelity planes and the entire world map, including their home town and local airport in glorious detail vs 1 or 3 planes and a tiny little map of a region they never even heard of and cant pronounce.

 

Thats why a sub model can be perfectly complementary to a purchase model. The buy model should be attractive to anyone who gets hooked, especially hooked on a few specific modules. Probably most people posting here. The sub model can be be attractive to anyone dipping their feet in and exploring the game and its modules. Or anyone not ready to commit to playing this for years and years, or not able or willing to cough up the lump sum. Or who wants to explore various maps and try different modules without spending half their monthly salary.

 

Lets say ED charge 2 euro per month for 1 module. Would that be cheap for you? No, it wouldnt. Not for your favorite modules. It would end up costing you at least twice as much over 5 years, with the prospect of the price going up in the future. But it would be cheap to anyone getting in to it, and it would be for you if have never flown a helo and want to see if its something you could get in to.

 

ED could also have an option of say 10 euro per month for all maps and modules. Or at least their own content. Even if you already own your favorite 4 planes, and arent interested enough in anything else to buy it, you might be tempted just to have access to the rest. Try a few other maps or that SC module or give that ww2 stuff a try.

 

 

 

If you raise the price even further without providing a sub alternative, you will dramatically reduce the already tiny inflow of new players. And you will make the existing problem worse, that ED financially depends solely on selling new (probably unfinished, EA) modules to old customers. Old customers who increasingly will already have the modules they really wanted anyway. Its easy to convince your customers to buy a new module when they only have 2. It becomes quite a bit harder once they already own dozens, including all the planes they actually care about. Its a dead end.

 

BTW, if you wonder why they keep having those 50% sales.. its usually a pretty good sign that they arent selling enough. Increasing the price isnt exactly going to solve that problem.

Enviado desde mi RNE-L21 mediante Tapatalk

Your continue comparing of DCS Vs FS on all post has very disturbing. Surely do you like DCS or a FS\XPLANE Clone?

Replace FS with IL2 or Rise of Flight or P3D or xplane or Condor or even Kerbal Space Program if you want, and just about nothing about my point changes. Its not because each of those sims caters to another sub segment of the sim market (for now) that they dont compete for simpilots' time and money. Im willing to bet the overwhelming majority of people here own more than 1 sim and I dont know about you, but I dont have infinite money or time, and I can only fly one sim at the time.

"Can't afford to employ a tester team"

This is also why they can't afford to employ say...a Bug tester team

This is a false economy. it costs far more to fix bugs after release than it does to fix them before, this is a widely known industry principle. That's why software companies do QA and testing, It's not directly because they want to keep bugs to a minimum, It's because bugs affect their bottom line due to the increased cost of fixing them further along the development cycle and the impact it has on sales. There is a balance between a focused amount of structured QA testing and Return On Investment (ROI) In my informed opinion, Ed has failed to get this balance right in the past and will continue to do so unless it realises it pays to test.

Replace FS with IL2 or Rise of Flight or P3D or xplane or Condor or even Kerbal Space Program if you want, and just about nothing about my point changes. Its not because each of those sims caters to another sub segment of the sim market (for now) that they dont compete for simpilots' time and money. Im willing to bet the overwhelming majority of people here own more than 1 sim and I dont know about you, but I dont have infinite money or time, and I can only fly one sim at the time.

This. There's also other pursuits to consider.

It maybe cheap for if you play it on average 4 hours a week for 5 years. A 70 euro module is then < 0.1 per hour. Still not KSP levels of cheap fun, but certainly not an expensive hobby.

 

But its quite expensive for someone just getting in to it,

 

The sub model can be be attractive to anyone dipping their feet in and exploring the game and its modules. Or anyone not ready to commit to playing this for years and years, or not able or willing to cough up the lump sum.

 

Or who wants to explore various maps and try different modules without spending half their monthly salary.

 

Lets say ED charge 2 euro per month for 1 module. Would that be cheap for you? No, it wouldnt.

 

ED could also have an option of say 10 euro per month for all maps and modules. Or at least their own content.

 

If you raise the price even further without providing a sub alternative, you will dramatically reduce the already tiny inflow of new players.

 

It becomes quite a bit harder once they already own dozens, including all the planes they actually care about. Its a dead end.

 

BTW, if you wonder why they keep having those 50% sales.. its usually a pretty good sign that they arent selling enough. Increasing the price isnt exactly going to solve that problem.

Struck a nerve with you apparently.

I don't necessarily support a subscription model. I used to be able to buy a copy of a WORD processor and use it for years, usually until the next version of Windows came along. Now the only option is a monthly or yearly leach attached to my wallet, and everyone wants in....

Watches can cost $10,000 or $10, Rolex and Timex both tell time, one does it with more style and accuracy. Rolex doesn't make excuses/apologies for cost and they aren't trying to put a watch on every wrist.

DCS is the Rolex of combat flight sims and it costs money to produce authentic realistic simulations. No apologies should be made for producing and charging for a premier product. If a $60 map is equal to half your salary, you have much bigger problems than map costs.

There is already a model in DCS for casual flyers, FC3.

The forums are full of those looking for free and that isn't a sustainable business model. The hook for the deeper game is provided by the free engine, base map and 2 planes. There are too many free aircraft mods present. Why would anyone pay or want to pay? This sandbox should be closed to licensed 3rd parties.

In other game arenas "X" game, slightly improved is sold on a yearly or bi-annual schedule with paid DLC interspersed quarterly and you pay a yearly fee for the place to play those games. A similar structure could be applied here. The issue is the transition, too much has already been payed for on a promise to finish later.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Not that my opinion means squat but DCS for ME (please read that carefully As I don’t want to get into another debate with our resident trolls, FOR ME) Hasn’t ran well since The 2.56 update.

I spend more time rebooting, and fudging around trying to get up with a plane that actually functions on all levels with a non stutter, non Warp experience, than enjoying.

I am planning on one more investment, a 30xx card. If that doesn’t make things tolerable in my world I’m cashing out. So whatever they need to do to fix this get on with it but if it’s giving more money in the HOPE that it gets better later, forget it.

Love it when it does run tho!!!

Ditto, they have the FC3 planes to hook new players and casual pilots put one or 2 FC3 planes on base system and charge for them, ED need to stop this "free to play" crap, and totally need to stop with 50% discounts.

The forums are full of those looking for free and that isn't a sustainable business model. The hook for the deeper game is provided by the free engine, base map and 2 planes. There are too many free aircraft mods present. Why would anyone pay or want to pay? This sandbox should be closed to licensed 3rd parties.

A very good point beeing made here. There is no incentive for a lot of users to buy stuff, since allmost everything is available for free. And also I do think that this community is on of the things, that makes all of this so special - I totally agree. Licensed third party only, finished product sold via ED only, everybody gets a slice of pie. That beeing said - only for aircraft mods, not skins etc...

and totally need to stop with 50% discounts

Ahh, yes that is VERY sensible...but that also means modules need to be released finished and (relatively) bug free doesn't it?

I totally agree the whole Early Access model is ridiculous and to everyone (ED included) that says Early Access pays for module development...that's just a disaster waiting to happen...surely 100% of income later is better than 50% of income now (for an established business able to manage cashflow/borrow at low rates)

Agreed. I don't think I've ever bought a module at full price. The ones I'm really interested in, I'd have paid full price anyway, if there had not been EA discounts or sales all the time. The ones I'm not interested in, I'll never buy them even at 50% discount.

DCS community is the only one petitioning the devs to INCREASE prices. What a time to be alive! By the way, ED doesn't have regionally adjusted prices, unlike most other gamedevs. So a Russian like myself and an American or Dutchman would pay the equal sum... Which is already quite high, as most AAA titles for PC nowadays cost around 2k rubles pre-covid, and an F/A-18 costs more than 5k rubles... Already. And you want this sum to increase even more. And no sales. Do you really think community wouldn't shrink after this? It certainly would even in the rich western countries, and the ex-soviet one would almost cease to exist, because buying a module costing 10k rubles, for which you can buy 5 AAA games, in a country which is quite poor, is not even funny, it's straight insanity. I know this genre is quite a narrow niche, and requires some passion be default... But if you require just THIS level of sacrifice for the sake of flying just one virtual airplane... I believe that the number of copies saled would drop so much it would diminish extra gain from increased price. Not everyone is as fanatic as you are here.

No offense, just saying that not everyone is ready to buy the top PC, full HOTAS set and VR set and pay hundreds of dollars for the sake of flying a few virtual planes. You might be the ones, and might mostly communicate with people with the same mindset, but I don't really think that this is the case for the silent majority of the community. Even among the simmers such people aren't the majority. Most view the sim as just a game, and have a threshold for the amount of cash they can spend on it. And ED would lose them if they accept what you offer.

Struck a nerve with you apparently.

 

I don't necessarily support a subscription model. I used to be able to buy a copy of a WORD processor and use it for years, usually until the next version of Windows came along. Now the only option is a monthly or yearly leach attached to my wallet, and everyone wants in....

And despite there being 100% free perpetual license alternatives to office, I dont see MS sales suffer a whole lot from moving to a subscription model.

Having zero marginal costs forces you to rethink your business model. How you optimize sales especially if you have a bunch of indirectly competing products, like various plane or map modules. Your first 'favorite' plane module maybe worth a whole lot to you, probably much more than the current price, but a 37th plane module will be all but worthless to most. Who has time to learn them all ? Having a fixed price per module clearly is not going to give the best results for ED or you. There is simply no way to match customer value and price.

Subs also make much more sense if you dont sell a simple "boxed" product, but a platform that is constantly being supported and improved. Who pays for that? You could do versions, but do you really dont want ED (and heatblur and razbaam and all the others) to have to support all their modules and unfinished modules that may take years to complete on various different DCSW versions? With a subscription model you can avoid that. With versioning, like P3D, you get a mess. And it would be a whole lot bigger mess for DCS.

Watches can cost $10,000 or $10, Rolex and Timex both tell time, one does it with more style and accuracy. Rolex doesn't make excuses/apologies for cost and they aren't trying to put a watch on every wrist.

 

DCS is the Rolex of combat flight sims and it costs money to produce authentic realistic simulations. No apologies should be made for producing and charging for a premier product.

Pointless analogy. I dont see rolex having problems finding customers for their products, marginal production cost of a rolex watch is very much non zero and finally and most crucially, their business model depends on being exclusive/expensive/highend; even if they could sell watches for $50 they would destroy their own brand. Nothing of that translates to DCS (except perhaps for the snobbery of some users?).

Raising prices does not just lead to increased revenue for ED, it may very well do the opposite. If ED do so frequent 50% sales, I think they know why they do it, they see the numbers.

The forums are full of those looking for free and that isn't a sustainable business model. The hook for the deeper game is provided by the free engine, base map and 2 planes. There are too many free aircraft mods present. Why would anyone pay or want to pay? This sandbox should be closed to licensed 3rd parties.

So now you do think these free, low fidelity modules do compete with the "rolex" then?

In other game arenas "X" game, slightly improved is sold on a yearly or bi-annual schedule with paid DLC interspersed quarterly and you pay a yearly fee for the place to play those games. A similar structure could be applied here. The issue is the transition, too much has already been payed for on a promise to finish later.

Indeed.