now that ED is doing it, why not make the 1free flyable the tf51?

[NineLine]

You really cant compare the work that goes into one DCS module to something like War Thunder....

[HellToupee]

You really cant compare the work that goes into one DCS module to something like War Thunder....

 

But work that goes in is beside the point, its sales that come out which matter.

[NineLine]

But work that goes in is beside the point, its sales that come out which matter.

 

You must not have ever had to do a ROI for your work. You have to justify expenditures and show that the return on investment will be equal or greater to what you might put out, or in this case lose. Now I am sure ED has all the numbers it needs to calculate this. And without those, we are really just shooting in the dark. Wags has given us some insight into the costs of creating these aircraft so with a little math I am sure we can figure out what they have to lose, what they have to gain is harder to pinpoint.

 

Dont get me wrong, I get your point. Give away one of your top of the line products, and people will come and buy more. But that is 120 thousand (not include external model, cockpit model, cockpit systems, etc.) that ED will NEVER see any money on, not directly. You are now gambling on the fact that you will sell enough of the other aircraft to cover not only the development of your free one, but the development of those aircraft. so you are starting out way in the hole. Maybe there are people only interested in the P-47, so you give that away, and you lose those sales, and never gain anymore because they are happy have what they wanted.

 

Sure, we know the quality of ED's product. We can say all we want that that wont be an issue, they will move enough of these aircraft to cover all costs and make a profit. But is that really the case? This is a niche market, hence my reasoning behind not comparing War Thunder, sure they promote them self as a flight simulation of sorts, we all know they are going after a broader audience. ED doesnt have the luxury unless they want to adjust their FM to be more compatible to mouse and keyboard control only.

 

And all doesnt take in to account the bigger picture. The Kickstarter. Look at the numbers there and calculate estimated lose of return there? For $1 you get three aircraft that would probably normally sell for 40-50 bucks each. At $40 level, you get 6 aircraft... lets not even get into all the other intangibles that would affect their profits... or the biggest part, all the costs associated with making a FREE WWII environment, complete with similar assets to what DCS World has, AI vehicles, aircraft, voice comms, etc, etc...

 

So yes, I agree.... marketing is huge BUT its only a part of the equation. And looking at the bigger picture, I dont think giving away one of the 3 aircraft being worked on for DCS WWII makes much financial sense... it didnt make much sense before ED took over... it makes less now.

Edited June 13, 2014 by NineLine

[9.JG27 DavidRed]

amen

[Merlin-27]

So yes, I agree.... marketing is huge BUT its only a part of the equation. And looking at the bigger picture, I dont think giving away one of the 3 aircraft being worked on for DCS WWII makes much financial sense... it didnt make much sense before ED took over... it makes less now.

 

Totally agree.

 

I feel the free to play business model with gimmicky add-ons could result in the death of true simulators. The DCS P-51D has given me countless hours of enjoyment and I expect countless more to come. Try to put a cost/value measurement on that. Far better than any $60 console game I have ever bought. They deserve to get paid for that work.

 

I'm ok with the idea of the P-51D being offered free as it has had the chance to produce revenue for ED but anything else, at this point, seems to threaten progress forward.

[Marko321]

You must not have ever had to do a ROI for your work. You have to justify expenditures and show that the return on investment will be equal or greater to what you might put out, or in this case lose. Now I am sure ED has all the numbers it needs to calculate this. And without those, we are really just shooting in the dark. Wags has given us some insight into the costs of creating these aircraft so with a little math I am sure we can figure out what they have to lose, what they have to gain is harder to pinpoint.

 

Dont get me wrong, I get your point. Give away one of your top of the line products, and people will come and buy more. But that is 120 thousand (not include external model, cockpit model, cockpit systems, etc.) that ED will NEVER see any money on, not directly. You are now gambling on the fact that you will sell enough of the other aircraft to cover not only the development of your free one, but the development of those aircraft. so you are starting out way in the hole. Maybe there are people only interested in the P-47, so you give that away, and you lose those sales, and never gain anymore because they are happy have what they wanted.

 

Sure, we know the quality of ED's product. We can say all we want that that wont be an issue, they will move enough of these aircraft to cover all costs and make a profit. But is that really the case? This is a niche market, hence my reasoning behind not comparing War Thunder, sure they promote them self as a flight simulation of sorts, we all know they are going after a broader audience. Ed doesnt have the luxury unless they want to adjust their FM to be more compatible to mouse and keyboard control only.

 

And all this... al this doesnt take in to account the bigger picture. The Kickstarter. Look at the numbers their and calculate estimated lose of return there? For $1 you get three aircraft that would probably normally sell for 40-50 bucks each. At $40 level, you get 6 aircraft... lets not even get into all the other intangibles that would affect their profits... or the biggest part, all the costs associated with making a FREE WWII environment, complete with similar assets to what DCS World has, AI vehicles, aircraft, voice comms, etc, etc...

 

So yes, I agree.... marketing is huge BUT its only a part of the equation. And looking at the bigger picture, I dont think giving away one of the 3 aircraft being worked on for DCS WWII makes much financial sense... it didnt make much sense before ED took over... it makes less now.

 

 

I Agree with your statements.

I think one of the ways ED could bring in some extra revenue is levee a Small one off charge for the DCS world environment something around ten Euro/dollars is not unreasonable. Many will disagree with this statement

But the way I look at it is the money will be used to improve DCS world.

There's only a handful of milsim development teams left in the market

So true enthusiasts should support them

[kazereal]

I feel the free to play business model with gimmicky add-ons could result in the death of true simulators.

 

I completely agree with you here.

 

Free2play often causes crippling of the gameplay so that people are forced to buy some addons and fund them that way, for example, some maps or equipment. This also causes the value of the product to drop since it is not that interesting to customers with a "broken" gameplay of sorts.

 

On simulators this would be a death-blow since simulators by definition require high quality of systems, flight models, 3D meshes and textures etc. to actually be a believable and accurate simulation.

 

The less crippling path of Free2play games is additional skins for characters and other virtual items for customization which don't affect gameplay. This is a matter of taste if it is good or bad approach. Maybe custom skins for planes would be interesting to some.

 

Also F2P game developers may depend on other funds such as advertisements or selling customer profiles to advertises to generate revenue from their product. This would be also very bad approach in simulators..

 

Edit:

By the way, I think ED could try something like subscription-based model for constant income and funding for projects.

I don't know what the content would be or the cost of such subscription but I believe there would be many of us willing to pay some monthly amount to ensure high quality simulations continue to be developed.

That's just my personal opinion though, don't hang me for it :)

Edited June 13, 2014 by kazereal

[Python]

Maybe even a well filmed short intro video to DCS World would work (something that can be disabled in the options perhaps) I have downloaded free games in the past, played them for 5 mins and never tried them again. The SU25 doesn't capture the feeling of DCS World really. But if new people opening it up were subjected to an exciting video showing just what the higher end modules are capable of it may help suck them in a little more. I'm talking lots of A-10c Cannon bursts, F-15s in tight dog fights with the SU-27, The P51 generally being awesome and the Huey thudding along at low altitude strafing targets....

 

A good intro works wonders, I can still remember the first time I fired up Starlancer on the Dreamcast... or even earlier, Earthseige 2 on the Pc as a very young lad! I think I know just the man to make it as well...

[cichlidfan]

Most people don't watch them.

 

Intro video starts...hit escape...never watch it...

 

That is the way it would go for most, so it is a waste of time.

[NineLine]

Most people don't watch them.

 

Intro video starts...hit escape...never watch it...

 

That is the way it would go for most, so it is a waste of time.

 

Yup, better to have an epic GA trailer done up :)

[Python]

Yeah that is true once you've seen them, they can even become an annoyance which is why I mentioned the disable option. But I always watch them at least once. If you make it good enough that is all it would require to prompt more interest.

 

GA is the man of course, but people need to find his videos.

Edited June 13, 2014 by Python

[cichlidfan]

Yup, better to have an epic GA trailer done up :)

 

Except that it needs to not contain anything that cannot be reproduced/seen/heard in game.

[kazereal]

Yeah that is true once you've seen them, they can even become an annoyance which is why I mentioned the disable option. But I always watch them at least once. If you make it good enough that is all it would require to prompt more interest.

 

Well, intro videos are seen when interest is there and you are trying it out having downloaded and installed the game.

 

Maybe better to have something to raise attention enough to download in the first place already?

 

Edit:

Maybe a full startup procedure video would be enough to hook some sim veterans..? ;)

Edited June 13, 2014 by kazereal

[SlipBall]

the title says it all...i really hope ED can still make this project a success out of this mess Luthier had left behind...

so why not make the TF51 the one free flyable for dcswwii?i know there are no guns, but still its a p51 and can be used to have a look at the sim for free.watch the edge normandy map, and get used to the well advanced flight model.

i always felt, that even making one of the announced planes a free flyable for everybody was a total loss.even more so as those announced types are all definitely "everybody's favorites" which will sell very good...not to mention the insane idea by this lunatic to make all planes for free at the intial kickstarter...:doh:

 

In the KS intro vid., Igor Tishin said that they would in 18 months release 20 modules, maybe the TF51 is in that short list.

Edited June 13, 2014 by GT 5.0

[Fenderalac]

I totally agree, giving people an unarmed TF51 to test out and feel how a WW2 combat simulator feels seems to me like a very reasonable idea.

[Scarecrow]

Hell yeah i 1000% agree. Whatever plane is free, make it the trainer version. This provides new customers a demo not a free module.

[HellToupee]

You must not have ever had to do a ROI for your work. You have to justify expenditures and show that the return on investment will be equal or greater to what you might put out, or in this case lose. Now I am sure ED has all the numbers it needs to calculate this. And without those, we are really just shooting in the dark. Wags has given us some insight into the costs of creating these aircraft so with a little math I am sure we can figure out what they have to lose, what they have to gain is harder to pinpoint.

 

I work at a company that spends many 10s of millions of dollars just to change its name so it will be more noticeable.

 

Compared to a free aircraft i would say more is lost through the frequent sales, half modules i have bought were 75% off, i would have paid full price but the sales are so frequent now i just waited, right now they are 60% off.

Same with the kickstarter, giving me a lot of aircraft on the cheap i would have paid full price for.

 

So yes, I agree.... marketing is huge BUT its only a part of the equation. And looking at the bigger picture, I dont think giving away one of the 3 aircraft being worked on for DCS WWII makes much financial sense... it didnt make much sense before ED took over... it makes less now.

If you are looking at the bigger picture its not one of 3 aircraft, its one of many, not just ww2 aircraft but all of DCS. We have 3 additional modules about to release in the next couple of months, VEAO alone is developing 4 additional ww2 aircraft.

 

This is a niche genre, but you misunderstand the comparsion with warthunder, world of tanks etc Their genres were non existent until they created it, had they put an upfront cost to get started with the game they would have never even got off the ground.

[NineLine]

I'm not sure that makes sense to me... you are saying giving away a module hurts less than selling it for 75% off? How does that add up?

 

Bottom line, IMHO, the KS was poorly thought out. I am pretty sure if you backed enough Ilya would have gave you his first born. Its too much, and I am almost going to bet that its part of the reason we are where we are at now... We will just have to see what ED is going to be able to do with it all... they said they will do their best.

 

 

 

I work at a company that spends many 10s of millions of dollars just to change its name so it will be more noticeable.

 

Compared to a free aircraft i would say more is lost through the frequent sales, half modules i have bought were 75% off, i would have paid full price but the sales are so frequent now i just waited, right now they are 60% off.

Same with the kickstarter, giving me a lot of aircraft on the cheap i would have paid full price for.

 

If you are looking at the bigger picture its not one of 3 aircraft, its one of many, not just ww2 aircraft but all of DCS. We have 3 additional modules about to release in the next couple of months, VEAO alone is developing 4 additional ww2 aircraft.

 

This is a niche genre, but you misunderstand the comparsion with warthunder, world of tanks etc Their genres were non existent until they created it, had they put an upfront cost to get started with the game they would have never even got off the ground.

[MACADEMIC]

I'm not sure that makes sense to me... you are saying giving away a module hurts less than selling it for 75% off? How does that add up?

 

Bottom line, IMHO, the KS was poorly thought out. I am pretty sure if you backed enough Ilya would have gave you his first born. Its too much, and I am almost going to bet that its part of the reason we are where we are at now... We will just have to see what ED is going to be able to do with it all... they said they will do their best.

 

Agree absolutely. Initially he wanted to give away the Bf109-K4, the P-47 and the Spitfire Mk IX for free to everyone, regardless of if or how much they backed. Financial suicide. I hope now that none of that will be for free, and ED will walk a sustainable path with this project.

 

The only thing that puzzles me is how much free reign he seems to have had with the whole Kickstarter, and that it doesn't seem to have been reviewed internally by his partners before launch.

 

MAC

[NineLine]

A

The only thing that puzzles me is how much free reign he seems to have had with the whole Kickstarter, and that it doesn't seem to have been reviewed internally by his partners before launch.

 

MAC

 

Again, I dont know the official answer to this, but how I understand it is that it was his project, it was all his decision, he would have to make sure the funding was there, etc... ED Partnered to help with internal resources such as the core of the game and people. I dont think ED had any obligation to pick this project up, they could have let it sink with RRG, but I think a number of key factors dictated why they would step in and save it... again... all assumption on my part.

[MACADEMIC]

I dont think ED had any obligation to pick this project up, they could have let it sink with RRG, but I think a number of key factors dictated why they would step in and save it... again... all assumption on my part.

 

No legal obligation, but probably a moral one since they threw their weight behind it, which is why many people backed it who wouldn't otherwise have touched it with a ten foot pole. Therfore it would have made sense to know (and approve) his plans beforehand.

 

But oh well, I don't think the reason the project now continues is altruism alone - in the long run, it makes a lot of business sense to bring the WWII crowd into DCS.

 

For my part I'm relieved they've taken over.

 

MAC

[NineLine]

No legal obligation, but probably a moral one since they threw their weight behind it, which is why many people backed it who wouldn't otherwise have touched it with a ten foot pole. Therfore it would have made sense to know (and approve) his plans beforehand.

 

But oh well, I don't think the reason the project now continues is altruism alone - in the long run, it makes a lot of business sense to bring the WWII crowd into DCS.

 

For my part I'm relieved they've taken over.

 

MAC

 

I agree... Its in a much better place, hopefully a more realistic place as well...

[HellToupee]

I'm not sure that makes sense to me... you are saying giving away a module hurts less than selling it for 75% off? How does that add up?

 

Because its selling modules to your existing audience rather than growing it, its worse than a freebee because it slashes the value of every module and exhausts future sales because people picked up 4 modules for the price of one.

[NineLine]

Well the fact is they already offer 2 free aircraft... right now... I think thats plenty... my opinion though.

[SlipBall]

The facts that ED partnered with the Fighter collection and the subsequent development of the P-51. Indicate to me that they intended all along, to move in the direction of WW II with/or without Ilya.