Jump to content

New Pay Model


New Pay Model  

884 members have voted

  1. 1. New Pay Model

    • Yes
      147
    • No
      713
    • Only if it doesn't slow down the rate that new modules are being released
      24


Recommended Posts

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 582
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I dont like subscriptions, I much rather prefer to purchase when I do have spare money. Also, I would hate not being able to play if I let the subscription lapse.

 

For work: iMac mid-2010 of 27" - Core i7 870 - 6 GB DDR3 1333 MHz - ATI HD5670 - SSD 256 GB - HDD 2 TB - macOS High Sierra

For Gaming: 34" Monitor - Ryzen 3600 - 32 GB DDR4 2400 - nVidia GTX1070ti - SSD 1.25 TB - HDD 10 TB - Win10 Pro - TM HOTAS Cougar - Oculus Rift CV1

Mobile: iPad Pro 12.9" of 256 GB

Link to post
Share on other sites
if it meant more focus could be dedicated to core features/bugs

 

 

HALF of ED staff is already allocated to core game features while the other half is spread out on all the modules (WWII and modern, carrier, assets etc).

How much more of that 50% would you like to see working on the core components ?

75% core and 25% modules ? 90/10 ?

 

 

People dont realize a dynamic campaign, weather system or vulkan stuff aren't done in 18 months, especially for a relatively small team like ED.

People also need to understand that if one coder works for 8 months on a feature, 8 coders wont take a month to complete it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

that's a terrible idea!

 

i would not mind, if they scrapped the "free to play" aspect (which is a bit of a farce anyway) and went with a standard pay to play and a new version every other year, but the idea of going full anti-consumer with a subscription model is rather outrageous.


Edited by twistking

My personal wishlist after 2 years with dcs: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=216873

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not at all. Even tho I have suggested that if funds are needed and it's really honest about the core upgrades, I would accept some kind of way to cover for the upgrades so that it doesn't make all the modules cost more,

 

There's really been an influx of these corporate culture ideas lately, this is what I've been warning 2 years ago, as DCS gets more popular. To spin FC4 off to MAC as a standalone install has probably been the best key decision and it's already foreshadowing returns on investment :)

 

Looking back when I started in 2014 I kinda feel bad having those rookie ideas myself at the time, I should have taken it more seriously myself from the get go.

 

I guess the association isn't the best and it perhaps shouldn't say "Free To Play" on the main site, some kind of a unique term, not easy to coin and be self explanatory, Steam stuff is probably standard and sellers can't change the actual string to something custom I think? No?

 

Conditionally Free?

 

Even if the circumstances are a bit more complicated, I think the base download actually counts as a DEMO. Except, it's the same install as a fully moduled one.


Edited by Worrazen

Getting back in action!

1st.: PC Specs WIP: Win10P 2004 (20H1), 1440p@75"32 - MB: Asus ROG Strix X-570E - CPU: AMD Ryzen ... - GPU: AMD Radeon ... - RAM: 64 GB - SSD: Samsung 970 EVO Plus 1TB NVMe

2nd.: PC Specs: Win10P 2004 (20H1), 1440p@75"32 - MB: Asus P9X79 - CPU: Intel i7 3820 - RAM: 32GB - GPU: AMD Radeon RX480 8GB - SSD Samsung 860 EVO 250GB (DCS), Input: Saitek Cyborg X/FLY5

Modules: A-10C I/II, F/A-18C, Mig-21Bis, M-2000C, AJS-37, Spitfire LF Mk. IX, P-47, FC3, SC, CA, WW2AP.

Terrains: NTTR, Normandy, Persian Gulf, Syria.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Sums up perfectly why I think a subscription model makes a lot of sense.

 

I actually think it's awesome to have Hornet and Viper in Early Access and it's cool that they're available on MP servers.

 

But if it was up to me, I'd rather see some of the ancient Hog and Black Shark bugs fixed, as well as a bunch of core game problems. Plus, stuff like a more detailed weather simulation would be more valuable to me than another multi-role jet, no matter how iconic it may be. A subscription model would be much more likely to give the devs an incentive to develop the core game, fix bugs, deliver a more polished product and keep it polished throughout the entire product lifetime.

 

Just to be clear, I think it's absolutely amazing how ED keep pushing the boundaries of what can be done in flight sims, and how they manage to keep adding new and awesome features. I'd just prefer to see such features added at a higher pace, while my fascination with the modules degrades with each one that comes out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely NOT!

Very bad idea.

MODULES: A10C Warthog,AJS Viggen,AV8B Harrier,BF109 K4,C101 Aviojet,F14 Tomcat,F16 Viper,F5 Tiger,F86 Sabre,FA18C Hornet,FW190A8,FW190D9,I16 Ishak,JF17 Thunder,KA50 Blackshark,L39 Albatros,Mirage2000C,MI8MVT2,MIG15BIS,MIG19P,MIG21BIS,P51D Mustang,P47D Thunderbolt,SA342 Gazell,SpitfireIX,TF51D,UH1H Huey,Yak52.

OTHER:Flamming cliffs,Combined Arms,WW2 Assets Pack,SuperCarrier.

TERRAINS: Nevada,Caucasus,Normandy,Persian Gulf,Syria.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely yes.

Microsoft Office 365 works this way and I am a happy consumer even if some open source office suite alternatives exist. I've tried them but they are not the same.

If a dcs world 365 / module "x" 365 subscription method of some kind could help to get quicker updates even for older modules, less bugs and such, I'm 100% in.

I do not know if a subscription would be enough to get this result (subscription = more money = more developers? a bigger team and so quicker updates?). I do not know but If so then I'd say yes.


Edited by nessuno0505
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just no

Thing is....Zuckerberg is definitely an Alien... Some Kind of Grey Hybrid

 

Cooler Master HAF XB EVO Test Bench, ASUS P8Z77-V, i7-3770K @ 4.6GHz, Noctua AC, 32GB Corsair Vengeance Pro, EVGA 1080TI 11GB, 2 Samsung 840 Pro 540GB SSDs Raid 0, 1TB HDD, EVGA SuperNOVA 1300W PS, G930 Wireless SS Headset, TrackIR5/Wireless Proclip, TM Warthog, Saitek Pro Combat Pedals, 75" Samsung 4K QLED, Oculus S, Win 10

Link to post
Share on other sites

please, can someone explain to me, how one would prefer a subscription over a normal pay-per-license-model (you know, like software used to be sold)?

i honestly cannot iamgine, why someone would promote such anti-consumer-behaviour. i'm confused. i'm also sad how quickly people get used to such corperate bullshit, so much that they now seemingly want that bullshit on everything...

 

*edit* well it seems to be the minority luckily, but i still find it bewildering.


Edited by twistking

My personal wishlist after 2 years with dcs: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=216873

Link to post
Share on other sites

A subscription model would be unfair for the third party developers, if it gave access to all modules, no matter how good or bad they are. All the income would go in one pot and ED would have to decide how much share each dev would get. In the current pay model the customer decides this. 3rd party devs could loose their motivation to create good products with such a subscription model.

 

On the other hand, if every module required a separate subscription, then it would probably end in a total mess. While you are flying with one module, you might neglect the others resulting in wasted money for the customer. Thus some customers might decide that they only subscribe for very few modules and therefore they would not be able to fly those other modules occasionally for a few hours. It would also result in less income for ED, when people subscribed to just a few modules.

 

Also like others have mentioned here, a subscription model is very bad for the customer. It makes planning ahead your financials harder. Making decisions about when to subscribe or unsubscribe is very annoying.

 

Last but not least ED is planning to create upgrade modules, which is going to allow them to support older modules without such a crazy subscription model. Currently they are only planing to offer an upgrade for the Ka-50, but I am sure other modules will follow. In my opinion this is the best payment model.

 

Why do people think we aren’t going to have options? It’s probably going to be an alternative, not a mandate. It’s not like when subscription comes out overnight ED is taking away our modules

 

If ED had two different payment models, then some customers might find it very unfair. E.g. if the subscription price would be too low compared to the one-time payment, then many people would complain.

Link to post
Share on other sites
please, can someone explain to me, how one would prefer a subscription over a normal pay-per-license-model (you know, like software used to be sold)?

 

When was the last time you actually purchased software? As in you owned it? :smartass:

 

Software publishers grant usage rights, and that's what we purchase in most cases, along with pages and pages of legal mumbo jumbo that tells us all the things we're not allowed to do with the software. So I don't see that much of a difference between a legally time-unlimited purchase and one that is subscription based and thus time-limited.

 

The thing is, if ED were to go out of business today, we'd be pretty much screwed. MP? Gone. SP? Might work for a much longer time in offline mode until a reinstallation is required, but without MP I would probably drop DCS rather quickly.

 

Some 10 years ago, I was totally against subscription models for entertainment purposes. I wanted the right to own the copies I purchased. Now I have a board full of DVDs that look like total crap on the 36" TV. I still own them, but they're perfectly worthless to me.

 

On Netflix, I can watch many of the same films and shows for a monthly fee, but at least the upscaling looks better than the one from my DVD player. Hell, I spent some 600 bucks on the TNG remaster on Blu Ray, and now I can watch all of it for 12 bucks a month (not that I'd manage all 178 episodes in such a short time ;)).

 

I don't even wanna know how much I've spent on DCS modules that I haven't flown more than a dozen or so hours. In the long run, I stick with less than a hand full of modules, but I usually purchase most of the new stuff anyway because it's all shiny and fancy.

 

What it comes down to: As is, ED will have to push out new modules for all eternity or go bankrupt. Or they could switch over to a subscription model, and the almost inevitable shift in product support would benefit me more than new modules.

 

Edit:

 

Last but not least ED is planning to create upgrade modules, which is going to allow them to support older modules without such a crazy subscription model. Currently they are only planing to offer an upgrade for the Ka-50, but I am sure other modules will follow.

 

I take it you weren't around when ED dared make Black Shark 2 a paid upgrade? I'd call it a shitstorm of rather epic proportions that raged for months. Some of the same voices were also heard when it came to a completely optional BS3 (in addition to a free cockpit upgrade, but I guess some people block "free update" and only get "PAY FOR IT AGAIN?!"). ;)

 

Let's stick with the Ka-50 for a while. I've heard that it's still high up on the list of best selling modules. After some update, the cockpit lighting was broken in a way that a few really important switches no longer had any visible on or off state, and what little contrast there is is inverted. It has been broken for many months now, if not years. It's great to get a free cockpit upgrade that will address not just these issues, but I'd say breaking core functionality is pretty bad. Keeping it broken for so long is very bad. So I've purchased a module that is either broken, or not compatible with any current DCS version. What a great choice.

 

My reasoning is that companies just can't delay fixing problems that long when people keep paying in order to access the product.


Edited by Yurgon
Link to post
Share on other sites

Now we get this discussion that nobody wants every month? Great.

 

 

Makes no sense for DCS (most people fly one or some planes but very extensively, nobody likes every plane), nobody likes it (as the poll shows every month) and it wouldnt encourage ED to get any faster with anything because why should that change anything to it.

Servus! :smilewink:

My DCS:World-Modules:

A-10C, UH-1H, F-86F, Fw-190D9, MiG-21bis, P-51D, Mi-8MTV2,Bf-109K4, MiG-15bis, L-39C, Hawk, NTTR, Mirage 2000C, SA342M Gazelle.

 

Wishlist:

P-40, F-104G/S, Saab J-35 Draken, A-1H Skyraider, Su-17/22M4. :music_whistling:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've owned lots of professional subscription software and ALL of it is hugely better maintained with more frequent free core improvements than competing one-time purchase software.

 

I think people should get over their knee-jerk distaste for the business model. The results speak for themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fantastic idea, I suggest yearly payment of.. say 200$, also that way people who can only play the game 2-3 days a week or less could be sure that their planes were available for playing any day they wanted. Also they wouldn't need to plan ahead when they're in mood for playing because the payment would have been taken care of already.

 

So now that I have bought the modules I wanted, I'd have to start paying subscription fee to be able to play them too. Whoever thought of this must be genius.

 

 

If the subsciption fee would be applied only to new modules, ED would loose lots of customers because the majority of the people are against such anti-consumer crap.

Obviously ED would have to concentrate on the new modules which have subscription fee leaving the old modules behind and when the reality is that they all have some issues still, which wouldn't be fixed they would loose that customer base too.

 

P.S.

You forgot the vote option 4; Only if the subscription makes ED employees superhumans who magically work faster.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...