New Pay Model

[Jester986]

I would be open to a subscription for the base or even subscription for new modules but I would quit dcs if they went to loot boxes or exclusive skins or weapons etc. I'd say either charge for the update to "3.0" or maybe charge like a 5 dollar month subscription for core maintenance. I'd pay more than that but I know people from vastly different backgrounds want to enjoy dcs. Or maybe 10$ a month gets you 3 modules and 15 gets you 6 and 20 gets you all? Just floating ideas.

[dimitriov]

So basically, I already spent 300 dollars in modules and you would propose me to pay each mont in order to use them ? ;)

[FragBum]

I voted No, does that mean absolutely No? No it doesn't, it would depend on cost and the final model.

 

I wouldn't be interested in trinkets and add on fluff but if it meant serious improvement of and on going development of the DCS engine at a reasonable price point. That if you opted out of it then the level you opt out at is where you stay kinda of thing. Well maybe it has merit.

 

The weird thing is I hate this so called pay model, maybe just old school but I'm usually happy to upgrade software if the features and cost are a reasonable deal.

 

Just saying I could warm to it if and only if it was at a great value for money price point. Keep in mind not every happy DCS user has lots of disposable income.

 

Just a thought and yes I have bought DCS modules just to well help out, I don't fly em I mean I might one day but that is how I work. So maybe if you buy 2 or 3 modules or so a year that covers it else you maybe pay a maintenance fee of say $20 to keep it all going.

[Jester986]

So basically, I already spent 300 dollars in modules and you would propose me to pay each mont in order to use them ? ;)

 

No, not for modules already paid for. But maybe frozen in DCS 2.5 and a monthly rent for the core "DCS 3.0" to use them in that when it happens.

[rrohde]

Instead of subscriptions, module prices should be increased.

 

For the amount of hours I am getting out of each module, they're wayyyy to cheap.

 

Let's start at $99 - minimum. :thumbup:

[Jester986]

I voted No, does that mean absolutely No? No it doesn't, it would depend on cost and the final model.

 

I wouldn't be interested in trinkets and add on fluff but if it meant serious improvement of and on going development of the DCS engine at a reasonable price point. That if you opted out of it then the level you opt out at is where you stay kinda of thing. Well maybe it has merit.

 

The weird thing is I hate this so called pay model, maybe just old school but I'm usually happy to upgrade software if the features and cost are a reasonable deal.

 

Just saying I could warm to it if and only if it was at a great value for money price point. Keep in mind not every happy DCS user has lots of disposable income.

 

Just a thought and yes I have bought DCS modules just to well help out, I don't fly em I mean I might one day but that is how I work. So maybe if you buy 2 or 3 modules or so a year that covers it else you maybe pay a maintenance fee of say $20 to keep it all going.

 

I agree with you and really don't like a subscription model either. But DCS is a live service and they're working to improve it for me no matter how many modules I buy or don't buy. And the current ea model just has an ever increasing work debt. It reminds of a credit card that one day they won't be able to make the minimum payment for.

[DBFlyguy]

Absolutely not. ED needs to learn how to budget and prioritize better, not find new ways to fleece its customers.

[biggness]

NO NO NO, Do no fall for subscriptions . BAD IDEA

[r24]

Well, how about modules costing 2x or 3x more?

[Gunner]

What a horrible idea!

[FragBum]

No, not for modules already paid for. But maybe frozen in DCS 2.5 and a monthly rent for the core "DCS 3.0" to use them in that when it happens.

 

Ah yes but I can see a legitimate point for modules and their publishers as well, we have to be fair here given the KA50 is having a third re-birth and the A10 and maybe a Gazelle Mkii etc.

 

As the DCS engine changes so to the module requirements will also change, the model has to be inclusive with ongoing development for third parties as well.

 

I think this is the rabbit hole perhaps.

[boedha68]

I buy everything what ED releases to sponsor. I don't fly everything, even all the campaigns. Just tot sponsor there hard work. I'll never do a subscription based program. :D

[tom_19d]

No to subscriptions. As others have said, I paid for my modules already (and in the case of EA, I paid for the promise of a completed product down the road). Absolute hard no to any kind of cheesy loot model.

 

I would be fine with paying for the engine every 2-3 years instead of the freeware model, but I would have to see some real progress there (ie dynamic campaign, weather, ATC, etc) to convince me that is the correct path.

 

I want to compensate the folks at ED for improvements, but frankly 4th gen fighters don’t do it for me, just like I’m sure Vietnam, Korea, or WW2 ere aircraft don’t appeal to others. Everyone needs the engine though, so that is where I would prefer to spend my money. And as for the subscription v 1 time argument; I am more than willing to pay a premium for a complete product, just not promises. That is why I have moved away from EA.

 

As for the actual question posed by the poll: I’m not sure a sudden infusion of cash is what ED needs to suddenly make everyone happy with progress, so I don’t really buy the premise of the question.

[SmirkingGerbil]

Instead of subscriptions, module prices should be increased.

 

For the amount of hours I am getting out of each module, they're wayyyy to cheap.

 

Let's start at $99 - minimum. :thumbup:

 

 

Out of all things posited here, this makes the most sense. Even if initial up front cost is increased, still cheap vs. a monthly bill, but increases revenue to some degree.

 

:thumbup:

[twistking]

Instead of subscriptions, module prices should be increased.

For the amount of hours I am getting out of each module, they're wayyyy to cheap.

Let's start at $99 - minimum.

Out of all things posited here, this makes the most sense. Even if initial up front cost is increased, still cheap vs. a monthly bill, but increases revenue to some degree. [...]

Could you stop spreading the notion that ED need more money? From what we know, they make plenty (which is fine).

[...] to those delusional souls, that just want more money to be thrown at ED in hope for change, please be informed, that ED probably has enough money. i don't want to start a discussion about ED finances, because it's probably not allowed here, but if you take the only metric you'll get - the steam stats - you'll see that DCS does decently on steam alone. i've compared it to a triple A racing sim, that is exclusively on steam and DCS holds up.

If you consider that the majority of DCS players are not on steam, you end up with DCS doing "well" or "extremely well" depending on how you estimate ed-launcher vs steam.

dcs might be a niche, but be assured it's generating enough money without collecting alms.

 

i understand peoples frustration about development priorities, or better: percieved development priorities, but if you are already frustrated, why would you opt for an approach that is so obviously anti-consumer and effectively lessens your power as a customer.

 

so, if you still feel another business model would be more viable, why not advocate for a normal pay-to-play one-time purchase with a new version every other year. you'd be effectively paying for new features - or you wouldn't if you'd find the new version not worth your money and you could keep playing the old one.

 

it's not rocket science!

[...] As for the actual question posed by the poll: I’m not sure a sudden infusion of cash is what ED needs to suddenly make everyone happy with progress, so I don’t really buy the premise of the question.

You are right, the poll is worthless with that flawed premise, but after some time, you've come to expect that from those wishlist polls...

[sirrah]

Introducing a monthly fee would be awfull for people like me that, by average, only have about 3 hours DCS playtime a week... So for me it's definitaly a big NO.

[Top Jockey]

Instead of subscriptions, module prices should be increased.

 

For the amount of hours I am getting out of each module, they're wayyyy to cheap.

 

Let's start at $99 - minimum. :thumbup:

 

Agree.

 

Although the minimum value for a given module is debatable, indeed I do prefeer that possibility 1000 times more, than any type of subscription.

[denissoliveira]

I, here for Brazil, is difficult to sign because of the exchange that varies a lot. Increasing the value makes my situation worse, so the way it looks is great. I expect the promotions, but modules like viper and tomcat, this paid installment, taking up to a year to complete!

[GhostriderC6]

No

[Fred901]

Surely not !

[SmirkingGerbil]

Could you stop spreading the notion that ED need more money? From what we know, they make plenty (which is fine).

 

 

...

 

We get it, you are adamantly against subscription, ED makes enough money, and you don't want price increases.

[pocketedition]

No

[Quekel]

Never I will pay for subscription..

[ApoNOOB]

Sorry just don't have the money for it. This is already a insanely expensive hobby and I have to save up for most of the stuff. There is a notion around to have a subscription based model to simply support ED, without thinking about the consequences and nuances about what that payment model would look like.

 

 

If it is only about supporting ED, buy & gift modules, petition for something like Patreon etc.

 

 

Not having read the whole thread, I don't know if people tried to imagine such a system already, but generally it will leave a majority unsatisfied, once you lay it out. Is it one fixed number for everything? How much do you need to add per module? How does demand (via $ by customer) work in terms of dev-time priority etc. How to determine the subscription price for countrys with weaker economies? Will monthly payment method work for everyone globally?

 

 

 

The more you think about it, the more brittle such a constructs becomes.

[ThorBrasil]

Never I will pay for subscription...