New payment model - How could it work?

[HC_Official]

Where is the none of the above option ?

 

I have a new and interesting New payment model:

 

We pay for DCS modules, the modules are completed within a reasonable time frame (6 months)

and are feature complete and mostly bug free

 

 

Defo could get behind this model

Edited June 15, 2020 by HC_Official

[Pyker]

I assume this question is directed at me. I’m happy paying precisely the same amount I paid for DCS, DCS 1.5, 2, and 2.5.

 

I suppose I paid for the development of each of these indirectly through purchasing many products staring with Black Shark for the DCS environment. In fact, after just recently adding F-16, supercarrier, and MiG-19 ED has received more from me by a lot than any other software franchise, and I’ve been a gamer for a long time. Seriously, it’s a chicken or egg argument. DCS is doing well with the current model. Why change it if it ain’t broken? But more than anything, a subscription model will do little to grow the community, which is Probably more important for future revenue than just the existing base.

 

My question was directed at everybody, but thanks for your reply!

I agree it is a chicken and egg problem or catch22 or maybe there are even better terms for it: I would like ED to bring improvements and fixes to the base DCS world but I understand that it might not be the majority's interest, nor ED's interest, to focus EVEN MORE than they already do on the base DCs world rather than on new modules. I thought that maybe a system like the xplane system (pay for the base module) could be a better alternative...

[Vertigo72]

Having a monthly subscription, doesn't provide cashflow security either

 

Indeed it doesnt. But it does do something else that the current model can not: create a financial incentive for ED to work on the base layer, if that is what most subscribers want them to focus on, and feel less pressure to produce new EA content modules if subscribers think there is enough content for now and priority should be on fixing the content thats already there and the base layer. I allows ED to move staff and resources from creating new modules to maintaining existing modules or the game core without that imparting a direct hit on their finances.

 

Charging a fixed price for DCSW base layer achieves a similar result. But to be effective it would need to be a recurring thing, so ED would have to create the base layer updates that would sell DCSW v3 but once most people upgraded, they would need to start working on a separate V4 to maintain their incentive. Which creates a whole new set of problems of supporting users on different versions, problems for MP,... and massive headaches for third party developers. Even just the introduction of a non free V3 would cause that problem, as not everyone will update and so many modules are still under active development.

 

Someone suggested a maintenance fee. As long as you pay, you get updates to the baselayer. If you stop paying, you get stuck on whatever version you are on. The concept I think is entirely reasonable and aligns our interest with ED. Not sure how it would work in practice though. Especially when new modules tend to require changes to the base layer. So if you bought that SC module and you dont want to pay the maintenance fee, you;d never get a working module. Anyone playing MP would also de facto be required to keep paying that fee so for them it wouldnt be all that different to a subscription model.

Edited June 15, 2020 by Vertigo72

[Pyker]

Charging a fixed price for DCSW base layer achieves a similar result. But to be effective it would need to be a recurring thing, so ED would have to create the base layer updates that would sell DCSW v3 but once most people upgraded, they would need to start working on a separate V4 to maintain their incentive. Which creates a whole new set of problems of supporting users on different versions, problems for MP,... and massive headaches for third party developers. Even just the introduction of a non free V3 would cause that problem, as not everyone will update and so many modules are still under active development.

 

But franchises such as xplane seem to be able to do that (of course it does not mean it's a better system.), including third party modules.

But it is maybe because developing a civilian airplane module for a civilian simulator is less complicated.

[Vertigo72]

But franchises such as xplane seem to be able to do that (of course it does not mean it's a better system.), including third party modules.

But it is maybe because developing a civilian airplane module for a civilian simulator is less complicated.

 

Id expect it it to be a lot easier to decouple plane modules from a base layer in a civilian simulator. For instance if you change how the radar works in an xplane module, its effects can be confined to the pilot flying that plane. It doesnt really affect anyone else. No one cares if that changes when you detect them, they dont get a spike, they dont use ECM.

 

But even so afaik it doesnt even work in xplane either. planes made for older versions will not necessarily work in newer version. Doing that in DCS could render most of your collection of modules worthless. I cant imagine that being a popular solution.

[kotor633]

Um, why should something change with the current payment model? It's good the way it is now: we pay a one-off price for the module we want. And the main program is free of charge. It's a good thing and seems to work.

[Capn kamikaze]

Hell no.

 

I'm not paying for my modules twice.

 

If that was to happen in any form, I'd go fly something else, and not touch DCS again.

 

The poll needs a fourth option, "Leave it as is".

[Pyker]

Um, why should something change with the current payment model? It's good the way it is now: we pay a one-off price for the module we want. And the main program is free of charge. It's a good thing and seems to work.

 

Because, well, some of us (minority? Majority?) have ran out of things to buy from ED. We wouldn't mind paying for an improved ATC or an improved AI or to get a vulkan optimized program (so that our money would go to ED rather than to Intel or NVidia or AMD) but that's not in the ED catalogue. And, well, I am impatient to get those things...

 

Yes the poll needed the fourth option but it could not be changed after it was started unfortunately. I suppose nobody wants another poll. But Mohab will count the votes for 'no change'.

Edited June 15, 2020 by Pyker

[Vertigo72]

Um, why should something change with the current payment model? It's good the way it is now: we pay a one-off price for the module we want. And the main program is free of charge. It's a good thing and seems to work.

 

It only works well if you are that one person who is not eagerly waiting for improvements in the underlying game engine. If you havent already been waiting 5 years for dynamic campaigns and are willing to wait another 5 years to get Vulkan API, a new graphics engine that properly implements VR or more stable dedicated server....

 

If you are not that patient, then you might want to think about a way to give ED financial incentives to make those things happen on a more reasonable timescale, because the current model only gives them incentive to create more (EA) modules and actually penalizes them for doing the other things.

[Vertigo72]

I just had an idea. It may take 5 years to materialise .. it may not be possible. But imagine DCSW is released as a FS2020 addon.

 

Then ED can leave it up to microsoft to maintain the underlying engine for anything that is not specific to military sims. We would get a jaw dropping good 3d/terrain/vr/cloud/ engine with excellent performance, the entire world as our scenery and let ED focus on the things they are uniquely good at, making the planes and flightmodels and AI and all the other stuff that holds it together and that no one else does.

 

Man... I dont even care what business model they would apply to that, Id sell my house in a heartbeat.

[Cake]

I just had an idea. It may take 5 years to materialise .. it may not be possible. But imagine DCSW is released as a FS2020 addon.

 

 

That is certainly interesting.

 

I have long thought DCS should model the world with all its airports and regions, but it seems that has not been the focus and the world is flat status quo may remain for some time. I'd rather start with a rudimentary base map of the world in a minimum level of detail to permit using it for flight between airports and to and from already defined theaters.

 

Maybe at some point DCS should focus on a map of the whole world, and then going forward add and integrate existing and new theatres into it. Hopefully the continents won't drift too far before this happens.

 

I also think there is a whole base of simmers from other genres that would appreciate the fidelity of DCS world if had a bigger selection of regions to fly in.

 

If you consider the size of the world and all its potential areas of interest, and then multiply that by the # of various time periods for which unique details / theatres could be added, there is plenty of room for growth and products that appeal to a large audience.

[mytai01]

There is no reason that a subscription model would make the end results, you seek, happen. You are engaging in pure presumption...not to mention that there are a huge number of people that would abandon ED if they were to do such a thing...It would more likely be a business disaster, and then even YOU would lose...

Edited June 16, 2020 by mytai01

[Vertigo72]

There is no reason that a subscription model would make the end results, you seek, happen.

 

Of course it doesnt guarantee an outcome. A billion dollar check wont guarantee it either. What it does guarantee is that ED can freely shift resources away from ever more new content creation and dubious game engine breaking modules, towards rewriting base layer engine and making improvements in DCSW that users have been begging for for half a decade. So at least a different model CAN make those things happen, the current model makes that almost impossible.

 

not to mention that there are a huge number of people that would abandon ED if they were to do such a thing...

 

Where to do what thing? If current users will abandon ED if they offer optional subscription models or move to a non free DCSW base layer or they introduce maintenance contracts or do anything else that I can think off to achieve the goal I mentioned above, then DCS is doomed. The only thing ED can then do is create new module after new module exploding the number of bugs and issues and they will never ever be able to truly focus on the stuff that so many are craving for but no one is paying for. They will be digging an ever bigger hole that they can not get out of.

Edited June 16, 2020 by Vertigo72

[OPEC]

Um, why should something change with the current payment model? It's good the way it is now: we pay a one-off price for the module we want. And the main program is free of charge. It's a good thing and seems to work.

 

It does. Apart from one little detail: It does not.

 

You do not go to an italian restaurant, order a pizza and say: "Oh btw... I'm only paying for the salami and the chilis, the dough, tomato sauce and cheese i free I guess, since it's the main ingridient."

 

Thats not how the world works. In the end you get what you pay for. You did not pay for DCS World as such, so logically we all have no right to comlain about it since it was free. "Am g'schenkten Gaul..." You know the saying.

 

I do not want to enforce a subscribtion model, just suggesting that with a payed base there might be a better chance of having it maintained properly.

[OPEC]

I just had an idea. It may take 5 years to materialise .. it may not be possible. But imagine DCSW is released as a FS2020 addon.

 

Interesting, but with a big catch. From what I see in the signatures here, a lot of people would have to upgrade there systems by a lot in order to play at a decent resolution and with all the details FS2020 is offering, you would not be able to play offline, unless you have a squizillion TB of space, you need the most juicy internet connection, and so on, and so forth.

 

So - While i like the idea, I guess i would set off almost as much customers as a subscribtion. I think DCS should be DCS, MSFS2020 should be MSFS2020.

[Vertigo72]

Interesting, but with a big catch. From what I see in the signatures here, a lot of people would have to upgrade there systems by a lot in order to play at a decent resolution

 

I actually think the opposite. The min/recommended/ideal specs that MS have published for MS2020 are arguably lower than what they realistically are for DCS today, especially VR.

 

You can take them with a grain of salt, but Im more confident it will be possible to get good frame rates on FS than DCS.

 

and with all the details FS2020 is offering, you would not be able to play offline, unless you have a squizillion TB of space, you need the most juicy internet connection, and so on, and so forth.

 

I think you will need to be online realistically yes. They say 5Mbps minimum. not sure if downloading/buffering will be possible as most of us tend to focus on a specific theater, where those 747 pilots cross the planet.

[schmiefel]

I actually think the opposite. The min/recommended/ideal specs that MS have published for MS2020 are arguably lower than what they realistically are for DCS today, especially VR.

 

You can take them with a grain of salt, but Im more confident it will be possible to get good frame rates on FS than DCS....

 

I just wonder were yout got the system requirements for VR in the mentioned MS flight sim to compare it with DCSW? Everything I could state on this is under a strict NDA and I couldn't find any public informations on VR for it so far?

 

I think you will need to be online realistically yes. They say 5Mbps minimum. not sure if downloading/buffering will be possible as most of us tend to focus on a specific theater, where those 747 pilots cross the planet.

 

 

Another guesswork out of nothing ...

[OPEC]

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=4418882

 

All right... since this is now on the table, i think we should reconcider....

 

Gesendet von meinem SM-N975F mit Tapatalk

[=Mac=]

I don't care HOW they make their money so long as they make ends meet and maybe a little bit more. I want them to keep on keeping on. As for subscription, not only no, but hell no. Everyone who knows me, knows how much I love DCS. I have everything except campaigns. But the moment I have to start paying a monthly fee, I take my computer and throw the entire thing into the trash. I will fly no more.

 

If ED wants to charge more for something, I will sell 20 gallons of my blood to get it. But ask me to spend a dollar a month for anything and I walk away.

[OPEC]

I don't care HOW they make their money so long as they make ends meet and maybe a little bit more. I want them to keep on keeping on. As for subscription, not only no, but hell no. Everyone who knows me, knows how much I love DCS. I have everything except campaigns. But the moment I have to start paying a monthly fee, I take my computer and throw the entire thing into the trash. I will fly no more.

 

 

 

If ED wants to charge more for something, I will sell 20 gallons of my blood to get it. But ask me to spend a dollar a month for anything and I walk away.

No you wont. Well, maybe you, but not the mayority. See, there is no alternative to DCS. So trust me when I say - 80% of those saying they will quit DCS will return on a long term.

 

Gesendet von meinem SM-N975F mit Tapatalk

[HC_Official]

where is the ... "none of these things will actually make things better" option ?

[Pyker]

where is the ... "none of these things will actually make things better" option ?

 

The answer is in the FIRST post.

 

Personally, the reason why I do not like a subscription model is that I have the feeling that it limits my choices as a customer. With a subscription model, I don't really know what I pay for, apart from the access to the game. Do I get bugs fixed ? Dunno. Do I get software optimizations that extend the life of my hardware ? Dunno. Do I get every month new content that interests me ? How many hours am I going to play this month ? There's always this feeling that you might not get a run for your money.

 

I prefer a new paid version. When a new version of a game is released, I can wait for the reviews to be published and then decide, based on the reviews, whether it is worth upgrading to the new version, or whether it's better to stick with the old version for one more year until the next version, or until my next hardware upgrade. For instance if the new version brings nothing in which I'm interested.

 

Of course ED's best interest and mine are not necessarily identical...

[norman99]

I posted this in another thread, but it’s relevant here.

 

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.

 

This includes ending support of previous versions when the latest is released. Also, don’t try to maintain backwards support for multi player across versions, as that will just continue to restrict future development. Yes there will be some fracturing of the community across versions as people upgrade in their own time, but MSFS worked for 2 decades with this cycle, and it’d work here too.

Edited July 14, 2020 by norman99

[Vertigo72]

I posted this in another thread, but it’s relevant here.

 

How about actually charging for the base DCS World simulation?

 

You mean, like the first option in the poll on top of this thread?

 

Im not against it, but first of all, it would need to actually offer something. Just drawing a line in the sand and calling the current software DCS 3.0 and putting a price tag on it will not be received well. Especially not if that means EOL-ing 2.5 before all those F16/SC/whatever module owners still havent received what they paid for.

 

You will also still want a free trial version at the very least. You want people to download it and try it and Im not sure the typical 2 week free trial, which may well mean 2 free saturday afternoons, is enough for something like DCS. FWIW Ive downloaded and installed it at least 4x over the past 5 years before I decided I wanted to buy it.

 

I would even consider making a free "demilitarized" version, with a range of included modules. Some jets, some warbirds, some choppers. Pretty much no one here would be satisfied with that, 99.9% of us will pay for a weaponized version, but it could attract people who would otherwise buy civilian or ww2 sims or who have already bought it but want to test fly jets or warbirds or choppers and they may well one day want to pay to have that trigger do something. It would also give DCS simmers a sort of "try before you buy" opportunity, let them see if they actually like some types of modules.

[Sharkh]

I am pretty sure there are enough people at ED with expertise in economy and bussiness management who know the exact numbers of their company so they probably won't charge for a montly sub or make DCS 3.0 B2P just because 100 people vote on this or that at this forum.

 

Personally I think neither of those option would be better we currently have and it would just generate less income not more while also turning away a lot of potential customer who are new to this genre.

 

I am almost sure this product and ED as a company are still in the bussiness exactly because they chose this bussiness model. I am trying hard but I can't imagine any other way what could work better with 100% confidence.

 

This bussiness model and the developement process of DCS has flaws probably and its not perfect but It has been working for years as it seems.

 

I doubt you we will "invent the wheel" here .

 

I did not vote because I don't think any of those option would be the solution for anything but I find the least bad one is the "B2P DCS:3.0".

Edited July 14, 2020 by Sharkh