New Pay Model / subscription discussion

[Northstar98]

Hi all

 

This thread has nearly run its course :)

 

We have no plans to change our pay model.

 

Please keep the topic on DCS and not other sims

 

thanks

 

Victory! :worthy:

Edited June 18, 2020 by Northstar98

[Vertigo72]

Im not going to keep replying to every objection as most of them I already explained. But Ill reply to this:

 

Okay, you keep bringing up "Millions of customers", tell me Vertigo, if there is a userbase that large interested in full-fidelity military aircraft, don't you think they'd be over here?

 

If ED offered a cessna 172 in DSC as free module in stead of the TF51, you think millions would be playing it? If so, I think they missed a trick there.

 

you may be too young to remember how MS single-handedly turned a tiny niche market (PC flight sims) in to market of 10s of millions of copies when they launched the original flight simulator and subsequent MS combat flight simulators.

 

There where others who did it before MS did. Some arguably did it better. I played Falcon 1.0 in EGA graphics. Chuck Yeagers aircombat. Then microsoft came along and steamrolled the market AND, made it 10, 100x larger. Why werent all those people interested in (combat) flight sims playing Chuck Yeagers aircombat before? There are many reasons, like marketing budget and arguably better execution or more user friendly or whatever, but it boils down to being made by microsoft.

 

FS2020 IMO is going to be even bigger event than the original. The original allowed people to fly. cool, they could already do that with other sims if flying on PC is what they wanted. This one will allow them to fly over their own house, their own city, the place they go on holiday, their own school yard in full 3d. See it in detail that even google maps does not offer. In VR. Its going to be every bit as disruptive as the original.

 

And even if only 1% of the people that MS will (re)-introduce to flight sims will have any interest in flying a military jet, and then being able to shoot something or drop some bombs, it will be a bigger market than DCS is or is likely to ever become.

[schmiefel]

Hi all

 

This thread has nearly run its course :)

 

We have no plans to change our pay model.

 

Please keep the topic on DCS and not other sims

 

thanks

 

 

Thanks!:thumbup:

[schmiefel]

@Vertigo72 again you should simple check the facts (again Wikpedia helps getting those facts together as not only the release years you compare are not correct) before you start instructing others how the world (should) work like in your mindset.

 

 

Edit: But as mentioned by BigNewy those things have basically nothing to do with DCS and the topic over here

Edited June 18, 2020 by schmiefel

[Northstar98]

Im not going to keep replying to every objection because I can't.

 

Fixed it for you.

 

If ED offered a cessna 172 in DSC as free module in stead of the TF51, you think millions would be playing it? If so, I think they missed a trick there.

 

Certainly sounds like an aircraft that someone interested in full-fidelity military aircraft would be interested in. I mean, not sure it fits on our current theatres, but sure why not, there are several people on here interested in non-military aircraft (myself included), because DCS is superior, at actually simulating flight.

 

And if they missed a trick offering a free aircraft, that would make them money how exactly?

 

Plus, you're on the verge of committing an equivocation. DCS World tailors to a very specific niche. Other flight simulators cater to a more ambiguous, but larger niche, there are features in DCS World, that make it more unsuitable for the large majority of that larger niche, namely a world map, lots of improvements to weather and radio communication. However, what it loses with that IMO it makes up for with features that make DCS cater specifically to the full-fidelity modern combat aircraft niche, and MSFS2020 doesn't.

 

you may be too young to remember how MS single-handedly turned a tiny niche market (PC flight sims) in to market of 10s of millions of copies when they launched the original flight simulator and subsequent MS combat flight simulators.

 

Ahh yes, Microsoft Combat Flight Simulator, focused on WWII I see, wonder what it's legacy is today? Oh right, nothing. The last one was released 2 decades ago, with Microsoft essentially completely abandoning the genre and they've never touched modern aircraft. I wonder who are the main players in that arena now?

 

Hint: ED is one of them.

 

...but it boils down to being made by microsoft.

 

Yes, Microsoft is the messiah, that's why they were completely overtaken in combat flight simulators by literally everybody else still here, oh wait, no it doesn't. And they've never done a flight simulator focused on modern, military aircraft. So again you're ignoring the niche DCS currently and naturally lends itself to, and that MSFS2020 does not. But because you can't argue that point, you're going to subtly equate the 2.

 

I mean, why are you playing DCS again?

 

FS2020 IMO is going to be even bigger event than the original. The original allowed people to fly. cool, they could already do that with other sims if flying on PC is what they wanted. This one will allow them to fly over their own house, their own city, the place they go on holiday, their own school yard in full 3d. See it in detail that even google maps does not offer. In VR. Its going to be every bit as disruptive as the original.

 

Yes you're excited, as am I, though I'm not sure shilling it on a competitors forum is a great thing to do - I am now understanding why rule 1.15 is a thing.

Edited June 18, 2020 by Northstar98

[Red Dragon-DK]

Hi all

 

This thread has nearly run its course :)

 

We have no plans to change our pay model.

 

Please keep the topic on DCS and not other sims

 

thanks

 

+1 :thumbup:

[Silver_Dragon]

From my estimation P3D is basically a mod of FSX, it's not completely different, P3D was built off of FSX. Because they share an identical base, developing addons that are compatible for both is a lot easier.

 

Sorry by the offtopic, but only informative:

 

P3D coming from Microsoft® ESP™ (ESP), a commercial visual simulation development platform, paralel to FSX. In fact, Flight Simulator X was not designed or licensed for any commercial use.

https://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/8da2cb1d-f949-4092-a21e-303c33df7bd5/what-is-the-difference-between-microsoft-esp-and-the-games-products-you-produce?forum=ESP

 

Microsoft sell them to Loockeed Martin and 2009 and was builder under that system.

Edited June 22, 2020 by Silver_Dragon

[Northstar98]

Sorry by the offtopic, but only informative:

 

P3D coming from Microsoft® ESP™ (ESP), a commercial visual simulation development platform, paralel to FSX. In fact, Flight Simulator X was not designed or licensed for any commercial use.

https://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/8da2cb1d-f949-4092-a21e-303c33df7bd5/what-is-the-difference-between-microsoft-esp-and-the-games-products-you-produce?forum=ESP

 

Microsoft sell them to Loockeed Martin and 2009 and was builder under that system.

 

Meh, I'm happy for anybody to fact check me.

 

But even so, it still goes to show the reason why the 2 are basically inherently compatible with each other.

 

My point still stands that no single addon/module/whatever has ever been made for 2 fundamentally different software without requiring at least a major redo.

[Vertigo72]

Aw maaaaan; just when you guys convinced me making a high fidelity military simulation based on FS2020 is stupid, impossible and will never happen, I see this:

 

https://www.vrsimulations.com/rhino.php

 

Tacpack and F18-F rhino, the follow up to their F18E superbug module, are being developed for FS2020 with an ETA somewhere in 2021.

 

WTF?

 

Those 2 guys think they can do it. In less than 10 years even. Silly buggers. What do they know, right, you guys here are the experts. Its not like they already sold combat enabling FS mods and high fidelity F18 modules to the military. If they had even tried, they would know its not possible and no one cares.

 

So other module developers will see the folly and not bother implementing tacpack API to weaponize their military FS2020 planes. I mean, sure, some did it for tacpack on FSX/P3D, but none of them will any sell modules for FS2020 because, well, they just wont, its a civilian sim with bad weather. Just look at those screenshots, it rains and snows and freezes like all the time. We want icing on our cake, not on our wings or cockpits.

 

It may have iceland and every other patch of land on the planet in 3D, but who even wants to fly over iceland? I bet even icelanders dont. That volcano could blow up again. What people really want is clear blue skies and beaches. Paying extra for endless tiny brown desert map modules and waiting forever for playable VR framerates. ED clearly has nothing to worry about.

Edited June 24, 2020 by Vertigo72

[Gentoo87]

On 11/16/2019 at 4:42 PM, MacEwan said:

I've been seeing some people mention lately that they might prefer a Subscription based pay model since it might provide more incentive for the development team to focus more on core features/bugs and on finishing modules that seem to be eternally stuck in Early Access.

 

While I had initially never considered this, and at first I didn't like the idea, I found myself starting to warm up to it the more i thought about it. I wonder what the masses think about this idea.

 

Would you prefer a Subscription based model if it meant more focus could be dedicated to core features/bugs and on getting modules into feature complete states quicker?

I recently opened a thread on this.

My idea falls along the lines of "make the subscription a choice" 

For me my subscription option wouldn't be to connect to servers or get free planes. I would like to contribute to ED's bottom line as an investor. 

Don't take away a buyers decision to purchase a module and go about there day. 

847 people replied to this post. 

147 +25 said yes Extra 20k in free money per year @ 10/month for development in this small pool of people.
739 just wish to purchase modules. 





 

Edited July 24, 2021 by Gentoo87

[LucShep]

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

[Belphe]

I love DCS and I strongly believe that the feeling is mutual. It keeps spoiling me by fulfilling my childhood dreams and creating emotions I never thought were possible at my age. Our relationship has its ups and downs but I'm generally very happy.

Unfortunately, the very same reason we all adore DCS for - realism, could become its doom. We are inevitably getting close to a moment where no new "blockbuster" platforms could be introduced. I know that Cold War era presents many opportunities but I also believe that e.g. the Viper (being a modern 4th Gen aircraft) attracted more interest and generated more income for ED than e.g. the Sabre.

At the same time, the ground units' logic, behaviour and interactivity become more and more lacking as we demand "a living battlefield". Improvements are required to older elements of the SIM to match both our expectations as well as the capabilities of the newly introduced platforms. It only seems reasonable to think that those updates should come free of charge. And that creates a problem because smaller potential to release "hot" rides and more "housekeeping" to do for free are a terrible business model.

And what if DCS had a monthly subscription? I mean, we spend thousands on fake aircraft gear and aviator glasses! Would e.g. a $10 be too much to ask? ED could better predict their budget and focus more on upgrading the SIM's overall standard instead of chasing new aircraft to build and charge us for. At the same time, we could be more demanding and expect stable flow of general quality of life improvements. Of course, new aircraft and map modules could still cost extra but we would at least be sure that our SIM is safe and work continues on making it even better.

I know that many of you will hate this idea but please try be reasonable. We truly have something special here and we should do our best to preserve it. On the other hand, there are many "Sunday Fliers" among us that would probably not be willing to pay but we have many options available here (MP access, switching modules on and off, etc.). Let's have a polite discussion! I'm curious what you all think.

[Vakarian]

How about no? This was "discussed" many times before, it always revolves around few different points and ends with one of ED members coming in, saying they won't change their business model and that's it. 

Little forum search would have found you this in a no time if what you are truly interested are opinions of the people.

[Belphe]

3 minutes ago, Vakarian said:

How about no? This was "discussed" many times before, it always revolves around few different points and ends with one of ED members coming in, saying they won't change their business model and that's it. 

Little forum search would have found you this in a no time if what you are truly interested are opinions of the people.

People change, as well as their options. Some also grow up. Thanks for your input.

[BIGNEWY]

16 minutes ago, Belphe said:

I love DCS and I strongly believe that the feeling is mutual. It keeps spoiling me by fulfilling my childhood dreams and creating emotions I never thought were possible at my age. Our relationship has its ups and downs but I'm generally very happy.

Unfortunately, the very same reason we all adore DCS for - realism, could become its doom. We are inevitably getting close to a moment where no new "blockbuster" platforms could be introduced. I know that Cold War era presents many opportunities but I also believe that e.g. the Viper (being a modern 4th Gen aircraft) attracted more interest and generated more income for ED than e.g. the Sabre.

At the same time, the ground units' logic, behaviour and interactivity become more and more lacking as we demand "a living battlefield". Improvements are required to older elements of the SIM to match both our expectations as well as the capabilities of the newly introduced platforms. It only seems reasonable to think that those updates should come free of charge. And that creates a problem because smaller potential to release "hot" rides and more "housekeeping" to do for free are a terrible business model.

And what if DCS had a monthly subscription? I mean, we spend thousands on fake aircraft gear and aviator glasses! Would e.g. a $10 be too much to ask? ED could better predict their budget and focus more on upgrading the SIM's overall standard instead of chasing new aircraft to build and charge us for. At the same time, we could be more demanding and expect stable flow of general quality of life improvements. Of course, new aircraft and map modules could still cost extra but we would at least be sure that our SIM is safe and work continues on making it even better.

I know that many of you will hate this idea but please try be reasonable. We truly have something special here and we should do our best to preserve it. On the other hand, there are many "Sunday Fliers" among us that would probably not be willing to pay but we have many options available here (MP access, switching modules on and off, etc.). Let's have a polite discussion! I'm curious what you all think.

Thank you for flying with us for so long and supporting our work, we do appreciate it. We are working hard on many new things in DCS and always will, DCS has no end goal currently, we continue to update, progress and add new content and features, we have now reached our 15 years anniversary bringing great combat flight sim entertainment to thousands of users and we continue to grow.

I have merged your thread with another about subscription, it has been discussed many times before but we have no plans to change our payment model, what we currently have has kept DCS going and advancing for many years already, we feel it is the best option for DCS. 

kind regards

bignewy
Associate producer

[Hiob]

@Belphe

When there is one curse of modern living, it is fricking subscription model everywhere....... So, no thanks!

I'm completely aware that ED is a business and needs to make money to keep the lights on - and I'm fine with everything they think to seem fit for that purpose.

But please stop with those unsolicited ideas nobody asked for!

Edited January 18, 2024 by Hiob

[Slippa]

36 minutes ago, Hiob said:

When there is one curse of modern living, it is fricking subscription model everywhere....... So, no thanks!

Bang on.

(that’ll be £6.50 a month for twelve months, just for commenting. Thanks for your custom and your data I’ll now be selling, pleasure doing business with you).

I hate it and it’s everywhere.

[Evoman]

I will now hopefully close this thread with the previous post that was perfectly fitting. 

 

[Apollonaut]

First of all, I love DCS and my only motivation with this post is to help it exist forever.

The beginning of the post will be slightly controversial, but I have tried to avoid this framing. The end of the post contains a suggestion that I made on the DCS Facebook group to which several commenters expressed agreement. 

Hypothesis

If we accept the recent gossip with respect to Razbam and ED as true, then it means ED is surviving off of Early Access buys and mod developers are not getting paid on time because of it. I have suspected this for a long time, so I'm biased toward accepting it. So to start off with, I am assuming everything both ED and Razbam said in their posts is generally true, and I am not accusing anyone of lying or acting in bad faith. I have seen this happen before, to other studios developing other games which I will not mention. I do not believe ED or Razbam are acting in bad faith, I believe we are all only human, and ED is just responding to incentives embedded in their business model, which is not an easy thing to work around or change. I am making these assumptions with the full understanding that I may be wrong to do so. I am pulling this thread recently because this pattern matches other patterns I've seen in the gaming industry.

But I could be wrong. The point of this post is not to validate these assumptions or accuse anyone of wrongdoing but rather to explore what could be done in the case that they are true.

I don't see an easy, incremental solution solution here. Why don't I see a solution? Because ED can't really sue. They can, and I'm assuming they'll probably win, but if Razbam lost two developers, it's likely they actually can't perform their duties under the contract (if two key employees left, perhaps a judge would consider that a legalistic 'act of God'). And even if a court were to disagree, the practical outcome would be Razbam formally declares bankruptcy and stops existing, still leaving the modules without developers and with nothing changed on ED's side except an even bigger hole in their pocket from legal fees.

The Pitch
 

This might be stupid and naive because I'm an engineering student (with 14 years in the working world, part time and full time, mind you), but maybe the solution here is to come clean, show us their books, share blame with Razbam (or better, agree to apologize to each other, not blame each other, and publicly bury the hatchet), blame the Early Access model's terrible incentive structure, admit to only being human, and ask the community for donations to reset their finances on the condition of abolishing the Early Access model while agreeing to not litigate with Razbam and other third party devs. The agreement to not litigate the issue I believe would be necessary in order for ED to set a crowdfunding goal without exposing themselves to legal liability. However of course I'm not a lawyer and I have no real idea about this, but it would be counter productive for ED to say "we need $2M to cover all debts" and then to have a third party developer say "but you said your finances were in good standing when I decided to work with you, I'm suing!" And there would have to be an agreement about how the raised funds are distributed between ED and the third parties. 

The Case for a Subscription Model
 

From then on ED could change to a subscription model to take a lot of guesswork out of their business model: with more consistent income it would be easier to estimate the rate of module development they can sustainably afford, and therefore they'd also be able to give more precise answers to what third party developers can expect in compensation.

If $50 a year for access to all modules results in double the development time, I'm all for it. To be honest, I would be willing to pay substantially more, but let's just say $50 for the sake of argument. This would also end the ridiculous partitioning of the community via "modules" that affect the core game and even server access (The Super Carrier and the WWII Asset Pack) as well as incentivize ED to work more on the core game (map updates, AI, performance etc. mostly AI and dynamic campaign).

Under a subscription model, these core game improvements would become a force-multiplier that increases longevity of subscriptions and word-of-mouth subscriptions since each individual module would become more fun to fly as more features are added, more bugs are squashed, the prettier the graphics, the higher the framerates, and the AI gets more intelligent and the campaigns get more dynamic.
 

Incentives Beat Willpower

I got fat during COVID. You know how I lost weight? I didn't just will myself into not eating junk food, I deliberately kept it out of the house. I set my alarm on my dresser so I'd have to physically get out of bed earlier than I was used to, to encourage myself to go to the gym. When I lived on campus, I would leave my car keys in my locker in my building's gym so I couldn't get to school until I'd physically entered the gym. I created incentives for myself so I wouldn't have to rely exclusively on willpower. Does this mean I'm still lazy and undisciplined? Yeah probably, but so what, the point is the problem has been fixed (well I should still lose more weight...).

Early Access creates bad incentives. Maybe the right team of people could muster the collective will to avoid the pitfalls of early access. But maybe it's much easier to just make the incentives the team is subjected to less error prone.

It might be easier to endure a transient disruption for the benefit of a steady-state incentive structure that is easier for ED's team to understand and which presents much less temptation to spend money ED may not have. The subscription model, however much some people may hate it, would better align ED's incentives, the third party developer's incentives and we, the customers' wishes and dreams. 

The Devil's in the Details

People should receive free temporary subscriptions depending on how much money they've already spent. And a lot hinges on the exact subscription fee too. $50 a year, in my opinion, is on the cheap side, while I would say the price of an inexpensive monthly cellphone bill is on the higher side. And maybe it should be stratified by module, or by 3rd party developer. Maybe each module costs $5 a month (use a transferable credit system for this, don't make people go through customer support if they want to simply substitute one module for another), or maybe you can get all ED modules for $10 a month. If the subscription is too low, development will slow to a crawl, and if it is too high, too many customers may be lost. And maybe the optimal quantity doesn't even exist. Maybe the fee required to sustainably develop the product(s) at a sufficient pace (according to we the customers) doesn't exist or is too high to retain customers and this whole post is pointless.

Feasibility and Credibility

I'm not an expert of business modelling or marketing. But I'm not an idiot either and I think some folks at ED should take this suggestion and run some numbers just to see if it's feasible. The first step after this would be that non-litigation agreement with Razbam and possibly the rest of the third party devs before ED would be able to admit without liability how much crowdfunding they'd need for a reset. Suppose for example every American user and every European user donated $10 to this campaign. How far would that go? Add in the Chinese and Russian users and do the purchasing power parity conversion. How far would that go? I think ED says they have close to 200k total customers. Maybe half stopped playing the game. 100k give $10, that's $1M. Maybe not enough for a reset, but maybe this would be enough to facilitate a transition to the subscription model? 

Anyways, I want to acknowledge that the premises of this post may be wrong. Maybe one of the parties is misrepresenting something, maybe I'm completely off the mark, maybe I have been drinking too much and not sleeping enough and my logic sucks, maybe I am arrogant to presume to know anything about ED's and Razbam's internal considerations, and maybe nobody has considered this and just needs to see it articulated in writing in order to consider the possibility that it might be just what they need. I just want ED to see this and consider it. I think a subscription model would be better for every party here.

Thanks, 
your biggest fan, who does not want to see ED or any 3rd party developer fail

PS 
I pretty much exclusively fly the F-18 (4 years), am proficient with the F-14, F5, and have dabbled with the F15E, AV8, and both Mirages.

PPS
Some context for the uninitiated: the product ED and third party developers are producing for us are complicated, relative to other software projects. The talent ED needs is expensive. People who are good C++ programmers *and also* able to read papers on electromagnetic wave theory (radar), or computational fluid dynamics (flight model), or artificial intelligence (dynamic campaign, dogfighting, BVR etc) do not come cheap, and they could be doing things more interesting than making games. I don't believe it's an understatement to say that a real time system which simultaneously models multiple complex processes like AI, CFD and EM waves, while synchronizing these processes with 3D graphics, is near the bleeding edge of software engineering. That's just a fact. 

"It's not just a game, it's a simulator" (of complex physical phenomena that no other game even bothers with)  

[freehand]

Please do not drink before posting on the forum thanks.

[toro 6]

I for one would be quite willing  to consider a subscription fee. the current business model promotes offering a steady stream of new products in order to generate needed revenue. It does not encourage improving what already exists.  

 

 

Edited April 27, 2024 by toro 6

[Don Rudi]

Just because you make weird assumptions about ED's alleged business model, I shall pay a subscription?  No, thanks.

[Doughguy]

The moment subscription comes, im off.

[Apollonaut]

Somebody brought this up in the Facebook group, which I hadn't considered. For what it's worth, if a mod wants to delete the post, no hard feelings.

"We don’t know the exact nature of the dispute or the associated problems that it brings up. Though well meaning, this may also further inflame tensions by bringing up yet another contentious topic in the community.

This may warrant some reconsideration at the very least."