Vertigo72

That would make testing completely inadequate. Possibly the worst suggestion I read so far.

ED may or may not have a resource/ staffing problem. It may or may not have financial problems. I dont know. But its besides the point, Im not arguing for increasing or decreasing our cost or EDs revenue. The point is how the resources that they have are spent. ED are more focused on new modules and things hardly anyone ever asked for, and that regularly results in breaking the game for many of us, because these new modules bring in money. Its their only relevant source of income. And they are not spending nearly as much as most of us want on tackling issues with existing modules, and improving the underlying game engine, because they have no real financial incentive to do so. If they manage to double VR frame rates, implement dynamic campaigns, have new clouds and weather model, we will all be over the moon, but their sales numbers will barely budge. The people who most loudly oppose subscription and already own all the modules, will not spend an extra dollar. But if ED announces and let users preorder a B52 or B17 or ww2 carrier or whatever else, regardless if its not even remotely ready, and even if requires all kinds of changes in the game core that gives all kinds of trouble to everyone, then money flows in. A subscription model removes their financial incentive to focus as much effort as possible on constantly making new (and unfinished stuff, forever growing the list of bugs and missing features), and it creates an incentive for them to grow their customer base and keep those people happy, regardless if that is achieved by making B17s or having better graphics and performance and fixing age old bugs. As long as ED makes most of its revenue from selling new modules, this doesnt solve the problem. Charging for DCSW may generate extra income for them, it may also hurt sales and onboarding (without a free version, I likely wouldnt be playing DCS right now, even with a free trial). The core problem would remain that they have more incentive to produce more and new and unfinished stuff rather than fixing the stuff they already have.

How weird. Most people accuse me of proposing a money grab for ED, you accuse me of the opposite. Maybe that is because I have made no effort to determine how much a reasonable subscription fee would cost? But what I find even more depressing is that you would oppose it because you want me to "pay as much as you paid". Im sorry, but thats just stupid for an endless number of reasons. Ignoring the aspect that you have already enjoyed your modules for possibly almost a decade, and that you can continue to enjoy them for another decade for free, tell me, how incredibly upset where you during the free trial, when everyone could fly all the modules for free? How unfair was that ? Secondly, depending on how high that subscription fee is, and how many years I would continue playing the game, I may well end up paying more than you. Does that make you happy? But most importantly, if a subscription model brings in new players and temporary players who only pay for a few months on and off, and lets users pay modest monthly fees to experiment with or fly different new planes and maps they otherwise would not buy, it provides ED with a predictable source of income that does not depend solely on releasing new unfinished or crappy modules every 2 weeks; it would give ED an incentive and the means to spend more on fixing the old modules you all paid for, as well as the core game no one paid for. You would get more bang for your buck, but it would anger you?

By that logic, if this is to be believed, operating an F16 costs over $22K per hour. So it wouldnt be unreasonable if DCS with the viper module costs a couple of $100K ?

yeah I saw that. But thats really "next gen", if you can have mach 4 and propulsion from launch to impact 100+Km away thats obviously even better than what I proposed. And btw, if that missile ever makes it in to DCS, we may have a problem. My thinking was using traditional rocket motors, how do you get the most bang (literally) for your oomph. You need thrust initially to get up to speed and altitude. But then having a coast phase, even if it slows you down, really is not a bad thing to maximize your range for a given amount of thrust/fuel (Im biased, Im a glider pilot, gliding is efficient ;). Especially when the missiles fly almost in the stratosphere. Its only a bad thing in the terminal phase, especially at lower altitude, where not having propulsion on a missile, you lose most maneuverability right when you need it most. Hence my idea to have another "stage" or pulse at the end. Apparently that does exist, but its not as widespread as I would have imagined it to be.

Charging for the base game means no more free version, and without the existence of a free version, i would not have been lured (back) in to DCS. It would be a mistake IMO. In all likelihood, the release of a V3 will just be an arbitrary cut off point, as the game is under constant development. And if they released V3 tomorrow, it would mean anyone who bought the falcon or super carrier would never get the fully functional module they paid for? And especially if ED do continue to fix all the missing features and bugs in V2.5 and its modules, the creation of subscription in V3 will just split the community, with one (large) part staying on 2.5 and only some upgrading to v3 which at least initially wouldnt be worth its money, and that is just bad for everyone. General aviation simulators are much more a single player thing. It doesnt matter nearly as much if you split the community there, which by glancing over the forums, it quite obviously is. Everyone seems to be on different versions. Understandable given the price of the core. Im also unsure how successful it is. And how exactly you are going to prevent them from spending all your subscription money on more EA modules? Or on features for modules you don't care about? Instead of improving core, which is absolutely essential for the existence of DCS. ive tried to explain that many times now. There is no business model where users take over development roadmap, and I wouldnt want them to. The point is how does ED make their money? If it is only from (pre)selling new modules (or creating new arbitrary version cut off points), then creating new modules is where their incentive lies, creating all the problems we see now. If they receive monthly subscription fees, their incentive is in growing their customer base and keeping those subscribers happy. Regardless if that is achieved by creating new content or improving the core or fixing old stuff. Now that argument falls at least partially apart if they charge a subscription per module. Then again ED may have an incentive to create more modules in order to sell more subs, but they would risk losing subs in older neglected modules. And subs per module would be a bad idea for many other reasons too, it makes much more sense to me have "all you can eat" subscriptions at least as an option in a tiered system. Restricting subscription to core only will guarantee us a core improvements. Why? Why dont you follow your own logic here, there is no way to prevent ED from using the core subscription money to invest in B17s modules, especially if these modules are still their main source of income. Yeah, they will be able to say that. What would prevent them from saying it?

If I use an analogy to try to explain something, and you then change the basic premises of my analogy to "prove me wrong", then whats the point? I tried. Then Ill fire you. Cancel my sub. I dont need your bread

Its a simplification. You are correct that obviously they cant sell modules if their core doesnt work or is woefully out of date. But the incentive to invest in significant improvements in the free core is pretty low, its a long term indirect immeasurable kind of ROI, and thats a difficult sell in any company, and the first thing that gets sacrificed if there is any kind of problem or financial pressure or when there are more urgent bugs that need fixes and when users on forums raise their pitchforks. Or of all them combined. And then you risk getting in a feedback loop, where sales are down, money gets tight and pressure is on releasing new content to spur sales, which creates more urgent problems that need fixing, and more angry customers, risking more sales, making you even less likely to devote resources on reworking the core, because its payoff, if it exists, is 5 years in the future at best. Google can invest significant resources to reap rewards 5 years in the future, I doubt ED can. No, thats a bad idea. Running DCS servers is expensive and costs a lot of time. Good luck making money on that. You would also be competing with your customers who run their own servers, and who dedicate endless free time to making missions and MP content. There is no point in competing with that, leverage it instead.

Lets see how I can explain this. You are a baker. I am your only customer, I pay you for each loaf of bread. But your kitchen is dirty and I want you to clean it. You cant charge for me that, we have a deal that I pay you per bread, cleaning would mean producing less breads, you have a family to support, so all you do is bake breads, because that is your only revenue source, and in the process you make an even bigger mess of the kitchen. If instead of paying you per bread, I pay you a monthly salary for all your breads, how hard would it be for me to convince you to bake a few less breads and clean the damn kitchen? No, they would not. That is not the point. They could earn exactly the same. BUT, it would be far less dependent on pushing out new (buggy, unfinished) content. You almost get it! Right now making more new modules is their only way to get money. With a subscription model, its not about constantly making more new modules, its about making sure customers dont cancel their subs. Maybe some people will cancel if there isnt enough new content, but I bet most will be far happier if ED fix their existing content rather than keep pushing new stuff.

The thing with OB is that its not really a beta in the sense that its used for testing. And the reason I suggest limiting access to it, is to prevent that everyone considers it the default version so that issues in the beta channel dont affect the majority of players. If 70% of online players use the beta, they are not testing, they are playing. You can do a lot more with a lot less people doing actual more methodological testing. But sure, there are other ways to ensure people default to the stable version and run beta to actually test besides restricting OB to subscribers; it just seems like an approach that would be effective, while providing an incentive for many, but can be entirely avoided if you dont want to pay subs. It kinda is their fault too, when they sell modules that require OB and are faster at hotfixing beta channel bugs than stable release.

Yeah, stop all new modules, which today is basically their only source of income. So they have to fire 2/3 of their staff, and that will ensure we finally get vulkan and new clouds and fixes for all existing modules. Maybe not. What requires more trust? Buying full price early access modules and pray they will eventually work, or pay a tiny monthly subscription for them and each month be free to assess it its worth continuing to pay?

yes, that too! Why not? I currently have 4 high fidelity modules. Would I like to fly some of the others? Or some of the other maps? Sure. But none of them enough to pay the full price. Take the WW2 stuff and maps. One or two planes, ww2 assets and the two maps would set me back, what, almost 200 euro? I wont commit to that, because I dont know Ill like it enough. I dont know if enough other people will like it and there will more servers and campaigns. But would I pay 10 euro a month for it? Yeah, I certainly would. At the very least for one or two months and then re-asses. What does it cost ED to give me access to those modules? marginal cost to them is zero. Its a win win. They get my 10 euro, I get to play with new toys I would otherwise not play with. Its not unlike the recent free trial, only permanent and not entirely free. Simply because they would get revenue that does not depend on making new modules. Currently close to 100% of their revenue depends on pushing out new content to old customers. New modules that create new problems, which then upsets everyone and need fixing. Which means they have even less time to fix all the other existing problems . If they manage to get half their revenue from subscriptions rather than selling new modules, that would mean ED would get half their current revenue even without releasing any new modules. That means they are under much less pressure to produce new content (and new problems) and they could devote half their development team to fixing old bugs and improving the underlying DCS world engines.

and why not 4. Dont change anything for those who dont want a subscription. But offer subscriptions as an alternative to buying modules. If only a relatively small part of their revenue would come from users renting their modules rather than buying, that would already provide ED with a lot more financial room to work on fixing problems rather than working solely on creating new problems. I mean, new modules ;)

Sure, but would you believe me if I told you that I dont get to write product roadmaps for Autodesk or Microsoft, despite paying a monthly subscription to their products? ;) The point is not we would have a loaded gun to their head. They point is that subscription revenue instead of new module sales revenue, makes them a lot more free to work on whatever it is they want and that they think will keep us happy, and not just new content or new versions; just like autodesk has to keep me happy, but doesnt have a reason to cripple my old software or withhold new features or improvements from me, just so they can sell me an upgrade every x years; they just do what they do best, and I reap the benefits, or I get to vote with my wallet. I have no beef with ED at all. Nothing is perfect, by and large I think they do an amazing balancing job with DCS. But we are getting to a point where realistically, they should freeze new content for quite a long time to be able to work through a backlog of issues and sorely needed rewrites. IMO that is just not financially viable with their current business model which relies so heavily on new content. And new content means new issues. This could spiral out of control quickly. I dont think thats fair to old customers, who paid for modules but werent told they would stop working or stop being supported without a subscription for the DCSW layer. It also doesnt leverage the possibilities that subscriptions offer; like the marginal cost of modules being zero. If you step back its silly that they sell maps as modules. It hurts everyone, you buy it, no one else does, servers with that map are empty. If it was a subscription we would get to fly anywhere or change every so often. Priced right they could also entice me to pay for modules that Im not interested in enough to pay the full amount. Or let me test them for a month (which admittedly they just did with the free trial). They can also still sell modules, one approach doesnt exclude the other. In fact, done right, they ought to be very complementary. Paying subscription for x time grants you module licenses and vice versa, owning module licenses gives you access or discounts to subscriptions, etc, etc.. Plenty of possibilities to please almost everyone.

Lets say I do that. I buy all my friends the modules they dont have yet, like the viper and F18 and super carrier modules. What am I doing exactly then? Im sending Ed a signal that I want new modules, even when buggy and unfinished, even if they require users to run a beta version that gets broken regularly. The reality is I want them to do the exact opposite. I want them to concentrate on fixing stuff, improving underlying code, not releasing new content and new modules and introducing new problems. Im not going to subsidize the very thing I dont want them to do! So FWIW, I did just buy the Ka-50. I havent flown it yet, I may not for a long time if ever; but ED going through the trouble of updating an old model and giving it a new cockpit even though that most likely will not generate meaningful new sales has to be applauded. Its the closest thing I can do to voting with my wallet for the things I want.

Here is one problem; no one pays for a VR module. Or a vulkan port. Or a more efficient graphics engine. These arent modules that can be sold by ED. Similar things apply to fixing old bugs and old modules. And thats not criticism of ED or me trying to call them money grabbers. They run a business, they have shareholders, they have to pay salaries. The problem is the business model depends on selling ever more (prelease, buggy) new modules that introduce ever more bugs, where as most users I suspect, arent really craving for new modules as much as they are wanting ED to fix whats already there. The things that help ED make money are largely the things that upset us, and so many of the things that we would like to see are the things that ED has to do as "charity". ED has to find a way to make money from pleasing customers and doing what they want, regardless if they want new content, or if its improving or fixing existing content or modernizing underlying engines for graphics, and weather, and AI etc. Being under financial pressure to constantly bloat the game with new stuff, that will further add to the list of unfixed bugs, is getting counter productive. So yes, Im for (at least an optional) subscription based model rather than a pay for new content model.

Thats why I suggest to make the scheme optional. You can buy modules and own them in perpetuity like now, or you can sign up for a subscription model where you "pay as you go". And since the marginal cost of giving users access to more modules is zero to ED, such a scheme could allow users to have access to all modules, or at least all map modules, or they can make it tiered so that you can pick a certain number of modules depending how much you want to pay or whatever, you can make it as flexible as you want. The two schemes arent even mutually exclusive. You could (and should) give people who already own modules credit towards the subscription based model, so if you already own 20 modules, instead of being angry you are asked to pay a subscription on top, you would get enjoy the new system for perhaps a few years free of charge, or heavily discounted, as you would have no incentive to pay for it anyhow - unless or until a lot new modules have arrived. And vice versa, once users have paid in to the subscription model for X months, you could award them with perpetual module licenses for their favorite planes, so even if they stop paying, that money isnt wasted. There are countless ways of doing this, and Im not saying I know how to do it exactly, but in general, ED being more reliant on people being generally happy about their work and wanting to keep paying their sub, than being reliant solely on creating ever more new early access modules that break stuff that gets everyone angry, and that may never all get fixed properly, has got to be a good thing.

So you think they would cancel their subscription if that was offered as an option, but they would not stop buying modules when "nothing gets fixed, added, implemented" ? That is not what this would change. Not the expectation of update frequency by users and as far as Im concerned, not even how much ED makes in revenue. The change is in the incentive. ED would no longer be financially reliant on pushing out as many unfinished new modules as possible, and forcing users to run unfinished beta's that regularly break the game for everyone, but it would be reliant on keeping paying customers happy by providing them with the things they want; like fixing age old bugs, improving graphics and performance and weather models and Ai and countless other core game elements that can not be sold as modules. Things we currently can not vote for with our wallet. The things, that if ED does them currently, it has to do as "charity". Which is exactly what Im trying to solve here. Exactly. Think about it; if people stop buying existing modules today, for whatever reason, what can ED do to increase their revenue? Fixing old stuff isnt gonna help, no matter how loud we shout on the forum. Its not going to make someone who already owns all modules or all the modules he wants, buy another module. But making a new module, a WW2 carrier or new map or an F4 Phantom or whatever else and offering it as early access long before its ready, that will bring in cash. Even if it causes all the problems being discussed here and all the problems that is causing users to revolt. Or look at it the other way; lets say I want to incentivise ED to implement Vulkan API and fix VR performance and fix all the age old bugs and finish the modules that arent finished but we already paid for. I even want to throw money their way. The only way I can do it, is buying new (half broken) modules that depend on OB. Signaling to them the exact opposite of what I actually want. Sigh. Is that what I said? No. The point is not generating extra income. It can be priced such that it produces more or less or the exact same amount of income ED has now. The point is aligning their financial incentives with doing what the community wants to see done. Whatever that may be. If most people actually prefer to have a buggy larger carrier with humans walking on the deck than finishing the viper or fixing (VR) performance issues in the graphics engine, then that would still happen. But I suspect most people have different priorities that are not priorities to ED because they cant be sold as a modules and do not generate revenue. You can then write angry posts on the forum that their priorities are messed up, but that doesnt pay for salaries.

Thats certainly not my goal. And I cant judge if its a necessity or not, I dont have insights in to ED finances. Do you? That is not the main problem. Most of us do no want "more" (modules) or "faster" (release of modules). Certainly not nearly as badly as we want the DCS world base layer fixed and improved and age old bugs in existing modules fixed. Why is ED not spending as many resources on that as on, say super carrier? Because no one pays for a better graphics engine, or VR fixes, or AI, or recording and playing back tracks, or <insert 1135 old problems here> where as super carrier, even when barely functional, even when breaking the game for people who are not interested in it (but forced on the OB servers that run them), does pay ED bills. If you had run a poll last year which matters more to you; having more acceptable frame rates in VR, improved weather model or having a larger carrier with human models on the deck, what do you think would have gotten more votes? Im guessing not the carrier. But by having a module sale business model rather than a subscription one, doing what we want does not pay EDs bills. It often costs them money. While doing what many of us do NOT want, does pay the bills. We can not vote with our wallets. Every time we pay ED for something, it sends them the opposite signal, gives them incentive to produce more (unfinished, game breaking) modules rather then spend resources on fixing our problems. THAT is the problem.

Actually, I am saying that. The goal should not be to raise overall costs, the primary goal should be to align player interests with ED interest. Like many, I really want ED to spend more resources on fixing the game core and existing modules. But no one pays for that. The only way we financially support ED is by buying (new) modules and that achieves the exact opposite, as that gives them to signal and incentive to make even more new unfinished modules and rush new features that enable them, and force everyone on the open beta branch and do more early access releases that break the game for everyone. A subscription fee aligns our interest. It removes pressure from ED to release new unfinished stuff that breaks the game and puts pressure on them to keep players happy by doing what they want them to do. Like not breaking the game. But introducing a subscription fee on top of a module price is extremely unfair. Some people have already spent 500+ euro on modules, and no one ever warned them they would need to pay a monthly fee on top of that. An optional subscription fee that replaces or complements module sale solves that (and solves a ton of other problems too, like chicken and egg problems with new maps no server uses because no one has them or empty ww2 servers etc).

That makes no sense. First of all I dont really understand why a subscription model makes you think that updates are even more necessary? The idea is not that you pay to get weekly updates, you pay to play the game. Even if nothing would get changed anymore ever. And given that what I propose is optional, if people chose to cancel their sub, do you think they will or would still be buying modules? Of course. But who votes in those polls? Mostly people who already paid many 100s of euro's on a dozen modules and dont want to spend even more, and fear that their investment would be nullified by having a paid subscription model. But that is not what I propose... again, what I propose is optional, and in order to be at all interesting to those who already have most modules, provisions would need to be worked out (see above). But I bet if the option is given, it would show something very different than those polls. And I also bet the outcome would be very positive even for those who dont buy in to the sub model. Suddenly their friend who doesnt own the F14 can ride along as Rio. They might see their empty ww2 servers filled up. They can actually use all the maps they purchased online too. And most importantly, development would be focused on keeping active players happy rather than on preselling and enabling new stuff that breaks the game. Its not a matter of what I think they are worth; its simple math. Maintaining and updating DCS world game core, graphics engine, terrain engine, networking code, server, Ai engine etc is not free. Its not funded by donations or patreon. So who pays that? Anyone who purchases modules. Hence, they have to be sold with an extra margin to allow funding the development of all the things that no one pays for.

Good to hear some people can read and think :). And yes, if something like this would be implemented, investment in previous modules should be taken in to account, as you would otherwise have no real incentive to pay a monthly fee anyway if you own all modules. I would propose something like getting x months free subscription for every (large) module you already own. So if you have them all, you may have a few years of subscription and get to fly some new modules for free. When that expires, you can chose to pay monthly for those and everything yet to come or not. This could also work in the other direction. If you paid a sub for x months or years, you become entitled to a perpetual module license. My goal is not to have to spend more on DCS, or raise money for ED. My goal is to align my interest with theirs. I want them to able to withhold new stuff until its (more) ready and I want them to spend resources on the game core, but the only I can support that is by buying stuff that directly or indirectly breaks the game.

How do you think it happens now? Who is paying for new weather models, VR updates, Vulkan API implementation, AI improvements? I dont see these as modules on steam, but the code doesnt write itself. Likewise when I buy the tomcat or gulf map, I dont get to vote if my money is spent on any of these. And if you purchased 500 euro worth of modules, you dont get better Ai or VR performance than someone who only bought one. The reality is that we all depend on DCS world base layer to be improved, and no one is paying for it; or, if you prefer, we all are (those that have any modules) but very unequally and with no relation on how we use it. And what is worst of all, is the ED have no incentive to maintain it or improve other than doing what is needed to sell more new modules. A subscription model removes the incentive to rush new things that arent ready, and it gives them an incentive to keep customers -who can cancel their sub at any time-, happy and work on the things customers want, not on the things that will enable the sale of new modules.. hmm? Why? Well, its a niche market, even compared to commercial aviation sims, and very very difficult to get in to. Making something from scratch that could compete with DCS would be a mammoth undertaking and a huge financial risk with very little prospects. Agreed. But expecting work to be done when no one is sinking money in it is not realistic either, and thus ED need some way to finance their work. They do that now mostly by selling new modules to old customers. They have to overcharge for those to subsidize the common work. The irony is that actually hurts the most dedicated players who own the most modules most. And not just financially, if you bought WW2 planes and assets and maps and cant find a good server because almost no one else has it. if I had a subscription, I might occasionally fly a P47 or something in Normandy, but itsnt worth 100 euro to me. You should want others to have a subscription. But more importantly, the current model creates the incentives for ED that lay at the heart of most of DCs problems right now. A focus on producing and releasing new modules that arent finished and may even ruin the game for everyone.

Indeed. But no matter, the idea, or rather, the title -which is probably all they read-, doesnt need to be endorsed by posters. The idea, or something like it, needs to be implemented.

Its hard to give much credence to posts basically saying "no" 30 seconds after I posted my thread. People read subscription and go ballistic. But lets see how unpopular it really is when they are given an option to pay 7 euro for a month for full access to every DCS module or even free access to all modules for a certain time based on prior purchases. Forum warriors went nuts when MS introduced office 360,and when autodesk went subscription based with fusion 360 and mostly everything else, but I dont see it hurting their sales. And more importantly, now they no longer have conflicting interests in maintaining old versions vs pushing new releases and users no longer have to balance paying large sums upfront or even significant sums for modest product upgrades vs keep using old versions. Everyone has the latest version and product development is 100% focused on keeping existing customers happy.