Would a software subscription model help ED/TFC to succeed?

[pelton]

Flight simulation is specialised and possibly diminishing hobby, yet for us enthusiasts it is enormously exciting and some spend a lot of money on improving our experience. I’ve been a fan from the Flanker 2.0/2.5 days (I bought but never got into), all the LOMAC/FC iterations and then onto BS (played a little) and A-10 (loving it). Over this time these $40-$60 “games” have leveraged the purchase of 2 new PC’s, 5 graphics cards, 3 40”+ displays, 3 TrackIRs, most of the Saitek sticks and finally the Wartog HOTAS. I hate to think how much money this adds up to.

So since ED/TFC’s brilliant work is predominantly driving this expenditure I was wondering how they might see a greater share of this money so that they could keep our hobby moving forward as we need it to.

I work in the commercial software industry and an increasingly common pricing model there is software subscriptions. A regular annual payment that provides support and licences for all future releases of the software.

So would it make commercial sense for ED to, in addition to the $60/game pricing model, have a subscription pricing model that provided predictable income to support on-going investment in the DCS series? The extreme example of success in a subscription model is World of Warcraft which monthly takes huge amounts of money from their customers. I doubt that a monthly pay-to-fly model will work for flight simulation though.

ED/TFC must have analysed the flight simulation market in detail to support their business plan and at some stage considered a subscription pricing model. I imagine challenges would be how to add value to a subscription compared to just waiting to buy the game. Options might be to limit beta access to subscribers, providing on-line servers for subscribers, have an “insider/stakeholder” community. Maybe even (gasp!) have two levels of realism, simulator for subscribers, game+ for gamers.

I understand that not everybody will be lucky enough to have additional money to spend on their hobby but they freely donate their time and skills to the community. Perhaps ED/TFC could sponsor subscriptions for the deserving.

We are all passionately interested in seeing ED/TFC succeed in the long term so what ideas can we come up with to help them succeed commercially and ensure our hobby gets the future it deserves.

[winz]

I understant the payment for MMO, when after buying the title I require additional, prolonged, support from the developer side. Server housing and internet connectivity Blizzard requires for wow aren't cheap, not to mention the 24h customer service and additional content beeing put into the game via patches.

 

I don't understand, why should I pay additional funds, when I'm not using any additional services provided by developer. What would I, a customer, gain? Why should I pay for using a produch I allready bought? I don't like milking the customer, even if it seems to be the trend nowadays.

 

I'm okay with microtransactions, buying additional campaigns, etc. I'm also ok with increased price for their product, A10C is inasne bang for the bucks.

Edited February 16, 2011 by winz

[Toxe]

If they could provide some additional value for subscribers then, yes, I would be fine with a small monthly fee. But I honestly dont see what this additional value should be?

 

I think the Rise of Flight model is pretty interesting. But then again this wouldn't be possible for DCS. I dont see ED releasing new planes every couple of month. (Although I'd love to. F-16 please? Pretty please? :lol: )

 

But who knows, maybe they can come up with some nice ideas. Maybe the Flight Simulator model might work, where you can buy terrain/regional or airport packages that improve certain parts of the world/map.

[Arclight]

I guess a small subscription fee would give more certainty to on-going support. Maybe buy, quite literally, a little time in between releases to patch previous products.

 

One particular example in this case would be the funding of the work required to make the modules actually compatible. At this point, there's no more than good intentions to make BS compatible with the A-10C. But ED isn't going to be making much money in the meantime from BS; it's fair to assume most people that were going to buy it already have. So you get a situation where you're working on an older project without any return.

 

 

I think a subscription model would make a lot of sense here, though I'd prefer to go without... at least until ED folds and I'm left wondering what went wrong. :D

[evilnate]

I would pay more for each title for sure, but subscriptions make me feel very icky.

 

I know there are tons of people who want to support ED/TFC and ensure their lifespan, but remember that the entertainment market is not their only source of income.

 

If you really want to support ED, I suggest buying copies of DCS titles for your friends so they get hooked like I do. :)

 

*edit*

 

Not to mention that if you think people on these boards act as if they are entitled to something now, see what subscriptions do.

Edited February 16, 2011 by evilnate

[Shake3000]

no thanks. There's a reason i quit WoW a couple years ago.

[Malefic Rage]

Hello folks, may as well make my first post something to ruminate. :)

 

I've been considering this issue myself recently - what manner of financial model could a small company like Eagle Dynamics utilise to give them both an element of financial security and the motivation to continue development of a niche consumer product like the Digital Combat Simulator series. I actually think a subscription-based model may not be a bad idea.

 

Consider:

 

Currently ED release each product on a self-contained, individual basis as is most traditional entertainment software. An instalment is released, users are given technical support and post-deployment patches are issued to correct bugs and gameplay issues. At some point, resources must be reallocated away from the current release in order to focus development on the next instalment. Given enough time, sales for the release will dwindle to a point where it is no longer financially viable to continue maintaining previous instalments in the series. Given that users are likely to want to combine different aircraft, missions and other functionality in multiplayer and possibly other scenarios in addition to wanting older instalments updated with newer DCS technology as the core engine is developed, this makes it difficult for ED to balance the wishes of the users against the costs of maintaining older instalments and the costs of developing new instalments.

 

Were the core DCS engine released as a standalone, core product with aircraft, theatres and other significant features deployed as extension modules for the DCS engine, then ED could do something along the lines of charge a one-off purchase fee for major modules and an annual maintenance subscription for the core DCS engine. Consumers could then purchase as much or as little of the suite as they wish. With a modular architecture and continuous revenue from the core engine, ED may then have the financial security to continue development of the product suite as a whole, needing to update modules only when necessary to fix issues and maintain compatibility with the core engine.

 

Of course, the possibility of doing so depends very much on the architecture of the software and how much of ED's focus lies on consumer products compared with specialised military and other private projects.

 

Naturally, these are just my own thoughts on the matter. ED may already have very specific plans for the series. Debate is welcome.

[bmbpdk]

The last few years ive played a game/sim called Railsimulator/railworks.

The add-on market for it is enormous; extra routes, trains, sound packs, etc.

 

To get the most out of that sim, you need to purchase some of the add-ons, and that makes the game expensive.

 

If ED decides to "rely" on these add-ons to secure a future for the game, many players will back out, because you will spend alot of hard-earned money on it, money the most of us dont have.

 

If ED will sell "premium-user" add-ons for a reasonably price, i would say yes, othervise no.

 

At the other hand, a small monthly subscription-fee for the multiplayer-part, perhaps 5-10 USD, would be ok, because then each player could choose whether or not to use this function, many players dont use this function.

A member in a clan/group/wing would then feel that they are worth spending, and players that dont play multiplayer, dont have to play for a function he/her dont use.

 

In short:

Pay for a function you use, dont pay for a function you dont use

[winz]

then ED could do something along the lines of charge a one-off purchase fee for major modules and an annual maintenance subscription for the core DCS engine.

So, I would pay for a promise that the engine ,on say DCS:BS, will one, unspecified day, be udpated with A-10C improvements?

Did I rephrased it correctly? That sound like milking for me.

Say the price for the upgrade package, and we can discuss whether or not it is reasonable. But having to pay more, for the same, dependant on how long the development will take... Nono.

Edited February 16, 2011 by winz

[winz]

At the other hand, a small monthly subscription-fee for the multiplayer-part, perhaps 5-10 USD, would be ok, because then each player could choose whether or not to use this function, many players dont use this function.

Why should I pay for the abilty to play on someone elses (non EDs) server?

[skypirate]

I commented about that in another post but hey, won't hurt to do it again:

 

I own FSX.... it costs itself 50 USD...

I own [i don't want to count how much] add ons for [i don't want to count what ammount].

This puts me in the dedicated flight simmer group.

 

Now,

I would pay (reasonable amounts) for DCS add ons provided they are of the same quality: new maps, new campaigns, new aircraft modules.

 

BUT, I don't think that I have to pay extra for updates for already purchased product. Example - FSX and "Ariane Design": I have the 737, not a bad product but very bad fiscal policy from the developers. Every time they update something together with fixing of the previous version bugs they ask for more money (read the full price of the product)

:pain: well, I flushed A.Design down the drain together with their creation.

 

I don't feel like paying for a multiplayer subscription too. Someone above said "I feel itchy" about it. Well I do too.

 

So,

how ED will survive: increase the end product price. My customer opinion is product of the A-10 calibre should cost approx. 90-100USD.

[Shake3000]

That is ridiculous. Beside the fact that we do not play on ED's servers, I don't have 5-10 USD monthly to spend it on game, so if, hypothetically, ED introduce this kind of payment, I'll stop to buy modules. Simply, to expensive for me.

 

Maybe they should start to sell bombs. Unguided bomb - 0.5 USD, and guided bomb 1 USD. TGP rent 5 USD/h, fuel price 1 USD/gallon. :megalol:

 

Better not crash, new A-10: $1000 :D

[Komrad]

The theme of this thread seems to be that ED are having trouble developing and supporting extensions to the DCS series or at least they will have in the future.

 

Nobody knows how much money ED make from their commercial contracts but I am willing to bet the sum is considerable.

 

I think it fair to say that they consider the gaming market a topup to their finances rather than their main focus and also they love making simulators for us users.

 

If ED were to consider that it was not financially viable to develop for and support the gaming market then I personally would not be happy with an ongoing subscription solution.

 

Personally I would be happy to pay slightly more on a one off basis but thats as far as I would go.

 

 

Bryan.

[GGTharos]

I see the OP, and several people promoting this subsription thing haven't bothered checking out what ED's business model actually is.

 

I'm fairly certain that subscription is a 'thanks but no thanks' useless headache for ED, at least right now.

 

Their income is probably quite secure given the success of TBS.

[bmbpdk]

Why should I pay for the abilty to play on someone elses (non EDs) server?

 

That was just the only option that i could think off, that perhaps should require a monthly fee, without "forcing" everyone to pay for something they perhaps dont use

[bmbpdk]

Better not crash, new A-10: $1000 :D

 

LOL

[pelton]

I see the OP, and several people promoting this subsription thing haven't bothered checking out what ED's business model actually is.

 

I'd guess that its the military contracts that make the consumer business possible but of course I'm not in a position to know.

 

The quality of the simulation available to us for $60 is superb. My feeling is that the value of DCS is much greater than what we pay for it.

 

This is great for us the consumer short term but are there innovative ways we can help ensure that DCS evolves and survives long term?

[beers]

The quality of the simulation available to us for $60 is superb. My feeling is that the value of DCS is much greater than what we pay for it.

 

I'd guess that, being a Russian company, some of the ED staff might have experienced a bit of life under communism. I have found that few people born into capitalism have the drive and passion for capitalism that is found in someone who was born in a country without it.

[Jinja]

I'm fairly certain that subscription is a 'thanks but no thanks' useless headache

 

This was my exact thought when I read the original post.

 

I'm also in commercial hardware/software and for my company it would be an unnecessary business hassle. After all it will cost money to support/manage this model, above and beyond the existing, simpler model.

[GGTharos]

I'd guess that its the military contracts that make the consumer business possible but of course I'm not in a position to know.

 

No, they can survive independently if necessary ... without subscription.

 

The quality of the simulation available to us for $60 is superb. My feeling is that the value of DCS is much greater than what we pay for it.

 

Right, I suggest not asking for things to get more expensive ;)

 

This is great for us the consumer short term but are there innovative ways we can help ensure that DCS evolves and survives long term?

 

No, there aren't. The product is availble for you to buy. Don't try to 'innovate' things out of people's price ranges or spending habits.

ED will innovate its own business model and so far they have business to survive and prosper for a good chunk of time.

[GGTharos]

Yep, exactly - and with ED being a relatively small team and handling the military part of their business as well, throwing is subscription is just asking for a whole lot of things that I imagine they might not want to do right now.

 

To keep a subscription model you have to run servers, matches, have people judge 'fairness', and then deal with a whole mess of people arguing what is technically correct or not. Maybe some day - but right now, who the heck needs such a thing?

 

I'd rather see a well managed persistent world server instead if it was subscription based. Before that comes to pass, I'd like to see a dedicated server binary.

 

This was my exact thought when I read the original post.

 

I'm also in commercial hardware/software and for my company it would be an unnecessary business hassle. After all it will cost money to support/manage this model, above and beyond the existing, simpler model.

[Malefic Rage]

 

I don't understand, why should I pay additional funds, when I'm not using any additional services provided by developer. What would I, a customer, gain? Why should I pay for using a produch I allready bought? I don't like milking the customer, even if it seems to be the trend nowadays.

 

I wouldn't expect a significant subscription, I was thinking something along the lines of $20-$30 per annum, something that I believe most people can afford in return for continual improvement of the product range and intercompatibility of extensions/modules.

 

 

So, I would pay for a promise that the engine ,on say DCS:BS, will one, unspecified day, be udpated with A-10C improvements?

Did I rephrased it correctly? That sound like milking for me.

Say the price for the upgrade package, and we can discuss whether or not it is reasonable. But having to pay more, for the same, dependant on how long the development will take... Nono.

 

Perhaps I didn't explain myself clearly; What I mean is that by paying a subscription for continuous maintenance of the core DCS engine, any extension the user has purchased such as aircraft, new terrain/theatres, etc would immediately benefit from the improvements such as new rendering technologies, improved AI routines, flight modelling, multiplayer compatibility, etc.

 

 

The theme of this thread seems to be that ED are having trouble developing and supporting extensions to the DCS series or at least they will have in the future.

 

I don't think that is the case. My impression was that the discission was about the hypothetical financial models that a small company serving a niche market such as ED could follow to maximise their success and what would consumers of that product be willing to accept. As the OP already mentioned, it is likely that ED have already investigated the market, considered their options and developed their own plans.

[Geskes]

Subscription is also not fair because in the way it is put here, I get punished for being an early customer. If I wait out before three modules are out the door I can get them all three for their base price at the fidelity of the third one.

 

This then does not seem a good model because people will actually wait.

Instead you should look for ways to convince people to commit early, while the iron is still hot.

 

Then there is the issue of having to take into account backward compatibility for everything you make which might limit your options. You obligate yourself to keep upgrading everything you have made and suppose you run into a technical impossibility and it is not feasible to keep upgrading say FC2, then you have a big big problem with all your subscribers who paid. What if a big delay happens of 6 months? Must feel like a rip-off for the subscribers.

 

This is a bad idea.

[pelton]

ED will innovate its own business model and so far they have business to survive and prosper for a good chunk of time.

 

Thanks, it is reassuring that there are many happy years/releases ahead for us all.

[Boberro]

Well so far ED seems to be pleased how matters are and if they are pleased so far there is no need to help there more than buying product they are making... They know what they do and surely have plans to get enough income to survive and develop their company.

Edited February 16, 2011 by Boberro