New Pay Model / subscription discussion

[BIGNEWY]

folks please keep the tin foil hats for reddit. 

As mentioned we have no plans to change to a subscription model. Our current payment model works well for us and has done for well over a decade, we continue to grow as a company with the support of the community. 

thank you 

[cfrag]

2 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

and now ED has Kodak...

I may have been unclear, or something has got lost in translation - my apologies. I'm not saying ED is Kodak. I'm saying that "no worries, the past 15 years were successful" can be misleading to gauge what is going to happen. Past performance is no indicator for future. Kodak is merely a cautionary tale.

[cfrag]

16 hours ago, Hiob said:

On the topic of the „subscription epidemic“ - interesting watch: (mostly the second half is about subscription, but the whole bit is very good)

Not to mention the fact, that at the end, the narrator tries to sell you a subscription for "Surfshark".  How's that for integrity.

Of course, there's also a deep disconnect in point of views here: That subscription-bashing-yet-selling-them video looks at sales models from the perspective of consumers. That's not the business angle, that's the angle of his viewers, his marks whom he sells to. A business' aim is to make money, not make the customer happy. That (making customers happy) is incidental, and required only when a business wants/needs to make repeat business with the same customer. If you think a (any) business has your best interest at heart, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell to you...  

So business-wise, subscriptions make a lot of sense for business, for exactly the reasons listed in the (really nice, thank you!) video. Why? Because with subs, companies can get more money out of us, their customers. Customers dislike subscriptions for the same reason. It's a market, and the truth, as always, is probably somewhere in the middle where the profit line intersects with what customers are willing to endure. 

[Hiob]

On 5/7/2024 at 3:41 PM, cfrag said:

Not to mention the fact, that at the end, the narrator tries to sell you a subscription for "Surfshark".  How's that for integrity.

Yeah, that irony wasn't lost on me....

I'm a consumer (well, I'm a business owner as well but operating in a completely different field (thank god)) - therefore my dislike for anything sbuscription is from that perpective first and foremost. And from that perspective, he pretty much nailed why I feel so strongly about (against) it.

Either way, regardless on the postion on the topic, I think the video is an interesting watch.

 

Edited May 9, 2024 by Hiob

[Daemoc]

3 minutes ago, cfrag said:

So business-wise, subscriptions make a lot of sense for business, for exactly the reasons listed in the (really nice, thank you!) video. Why? Because with subs, companies can get more money out of us, their customers. Customers dislike subscriptions for the same reason. It's a market, and the truth, as always, is probably somewhere in the middle where the profit line intersects with what customers are willing to endure. 

While this may be the bottom line, in the end it is much worse than that.

Subscriptions are the worst thing to happen to the entertainment industry as a whole. You have zero agency with a subscription. Good, bad, absolutely worthless, you still pay for it. At least when I buy a module or a tv series as a physical copy I only support what I like. Even if I don't "own" it.

Paying for netflix, prime, whatever? No thanks.

90% of the industry is garbage and the only thing that keeps these clowns afloat is everyone paying for convenience. The game industry is going the same way, but I guess that's what people want. You pay for ****, you get ****.

Is 10-20 bucks a month going to break the bank? No, but I would rather burn my money than give it to someone with zero say in how it is spent.

Well, besides taxes for obvious reasons.

[cfrag]

22 minutes ago, Daemoc said:

Subscriptions are the worst thing to happen to the entertainment industry as a whole.

Perhaps. But they aren't new, and I think inevitable. I've had year-passes for our local zoo, my gym, Opera (yeah, my mother...) and local swimming pool since 1990. These "game passes" and similar merely have arrived at the video-game genre. I'm not saying it's good. It's merely the stringent result of business logic. Video games now are big business, and so have their business models become.

22 minutes ago, Daemoc said:

At least when I buy a module or a tv series as a physical copy I only support what I like. Even if I don't "own" it.

Mostly. Unless, as I discovered, your DVD player quits on you, and you have to purchase a new one only to find out that because of region-coding you no longer can watch the DVD that you purchased 10 years ago. So, no, I got screwed even then, it merely took me longer to realize. And should the producer of a video game that you purchase go out of business, a few OS releases later you may also find yourself no longer being able to play that game for lack of updates. So nothing has changed much in the past 39 years, it's merely become more obvious

22 minutes ago, Daemoc said:

the only thing that keeps these clowns afloat is everyone paying for convenience.

Guilty as charged. I still loved watching 'Fallout' season one, though. 

22 minutes ago, Daemoc said:

I would rather burn my money than give it to someone with zero say in how it is spent.

Now that's an interesting sentiment. I never assumed that I can tell anyone how they spend the money I give them. I don't think that was ever in the cards for me. Not when purchasing a car, going to the zoo, or reading the newspaper. TBH, even my godson ignores me when I tell him how to spend the few Francs that I give him when we are at the zoo.  But I think I know what you mean - voting with your wallet. Threatening to withhold future funding if they don't do as you would prefer them to do. Yeah, it feels bad, but I think its best to acknowledge that you don't have (and never will have) that power.

Edited May 7, 2024 by cfrag

[felixx75]

"As mentioned we have no plans to change to a subscription model. Our current payment model works well for us and has done for well over a decade, we continue to grow as a company with the support of the community." --> https://rb.gy/cubodi

After tis statement (which was actually already known beforehand) this whole discussion is more or less obsolete...
 

[Exorcet]

3 hours ago, virgo47 said:

I was thinking about "modules" like this. I'd also buy a module called "L-39 bugfixes"... However, ED is not very transparent about what is sold in what quantities at this time, so how would I know whether it even makes sense?

 

This sort of exists already. BS2/3, A-10 2, etc.

2 hours ago, markturner1960 said:

The problem I think is the current business model is not sustainable long term......there is a limit to how many modules people will buy and a limit to how many there to make still....If we want ED and DCS to survive and grow going forwards, what is wrong with being frank and open with the community that buys the product about how it goes forwards? Its clear ( present troubles if we are to believe the conjecture, are an example) that the lack of known, regular income is starting to hurt...you cant rely on external developers producing stuff at the required dates and state of readiness regularly enough to make accurate financial forecasts and plan your cash flow. I would be very happy to pay a subscription as long as it had added value and clarity on what you get. The world changes and business need to change with it, sad fact of life. 

We're on the 4th release of FC. ED will never run out of modules to sell. The current business model has no obstacles that I see on the horizon, though I personally would like module sales to be tied more closely to DCS core features. If they need more money, which there is no indication of, they can just keep updating modules.

[cfrag]

19 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

We're on the 4th release of FC. ED will never run out of modules to sell. The current business model has no obstacles that I see on the horizon

Agreed. I believe that the point of the discussion revolves around the sustainability of providing free and regular updates of existing, non top-selling modules. Because the one-off business model pretty much dictates that ED focus on fixing top-sellers and creating shiny new ones. My Yak, my Albatros, and many other of my modules (Nevada, Christen Eagle, Mi-8, ...) can count themselves lucky if they receive a single update a year. So I think it's less a question of ED's survival, it's more a question of which of our pet models remains flight-worthy over time. 

27 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

I personally would like module sales to be tied more closely to DCS core features.

Indeed. How much I would like a good, comprehensive update to Mission Editor... You know, multi-object select, undo, just to name a few that I'm dearly missing.

[Exorcet]

30 minutes ago, cfrag said:

Agreed. I believe that the point of the discussion revolves around the sustainability of providing free and regular updates of existing, non top-selling modules. Because the one-off business model pretty much dictates that ED focus on fixing top-sellers and creating shiny new ones. My Yak, my Albatros, and many other of my modules (Nevada, Christen Eagle, Mi-8, ...) can count themselves lucky if they receive a single update a year. So I think it's less a question of ED's survival, it's more a question of which of our pet models remains flight-worthy over time.

Yes unfortunately. I do feel like most modules are underpriced considering what they are. I have no insight on the subject but I do wonder what would happen if ED increased the price for niche modules. They could also simultaneously increase sale discounts to retain the interest of bargain hunters. Though if I recall the Yak at least came from a contract outside of DCS itself, so figuring out where the balance lies on priorities might be complicated.

34 minutes ago, cfrag said:

Indeed. How much I would like a good, comprehensive update to Mission Editor... You know, multi-object select, undo, just to name a few that I'm dearly missing.

Something like CA seems like it would be a good module to tie into this, among other things.

[virgo47]

1 hour ago, Exorcet said:

This sort of exists already. BS2/3, A-10 2, etc.

That's not the same. That means waiting for ED to refresh the module. There is no incentive for them to refresh older modules based on the demand from users. Currently, they don't even bother to systematically fix the bugs that crop up in some modules from update to update. Also, sadly, BS3 was not trialable, so if one had BS2 and wanted to upgrade to BS3 just to see what was fixed, there was no way to do it. (Granted, the upgrade price was reasonable.)

[JCTherik]

20 hours ago, Daemoc said:

Subscriptions are the worst thing to happen to the entertainment industry as a whole.

I personally hate subscriptions, but it's important to say that it's not the subscription itself that's at fault, because it does make a logical sense to pay an ongoing fee for an ongoing service.

What's really causing prime, netflix, uber, apple and other services to become crap is when the companies change the rules of the contract after you make a purchase, when they abuse their market position, sell their services below cost to push out competitors, monopolistically increase prices once they corner the market, remotely brick people's devices, block user repairs, obfuscate the terms and conditions, make exclusive deals with movie producers, etc.

Most of those behaviours are either a grey area, unlawful or straight up illegal, but most of them are also largerly unenforced.

It's a regulation problem for the most part.

For DCS, subscriptions would make little logical sense, because ED isn't providing an ongoing service, you either fly offline or on community backed servers, the only ongoing service ED is providing is the multiplayer server list.

You could say that providing updates and fixing bugs is an ongoing service, but most modules are sold early access, with fairly defined end goal, with a promise that they will be finished in the future, so it's not an ongoing service, it's just keeping up with the promise they made earlier. Once a module is considered finished it rarely gets free updates until a big overhaul is brought in, but the overhaul is usually not free.

Fixing the base game is an ongoing cost for ED, but the base game is just a bunch of code that's shared by all of the modules. The modules wouldn't work without the base game.

A bug in the base game is quite literally a bug in all of the modules, so it makes sense to have the base game included in the price of the modules.

[Daemoc]

23 hours ago, cfrag said:

Threatening to withhold future funding if they don't do as you would prefer them to do. Yeah, it feels bad, but I think its best to acknowledge that you don't have (and never will have) that power.

 

I do have that power. Everyone does. I pay for zero subscription services, but I get your point. My little boycott may not change the industry and I am ok with that. I am not a junkie either and I take comfort in the fact that I have a little willpower.

For the most part, good games always work. If a game is worth playing, there is always a fan base that keeps them going. I own the disc versions of the only two fallout games that were worthy of the title and I still play them to this day. Oddly enough, they only games that truly disappear are the ones that require online activation and payment to play. Which is just about all AAA games now.

And for the record, I do understand that DCS falls into that category, but despite the multitude of little issues it has, I think it is worth it. So I choose to support it.

 

2 hours ago, JCTherik said:

I personally hate subscriptions, but it's important to say that it's not the subscription itself that's at fault, because it does make a logical sense to pay an ongoing fee for an ongoing service.

What's really causing prime, netflix, uber, apple and other services to become crap is when the companies change the rules of the contract after you make a purchase, when they abuse their market position, sell their services below cost to push out competitors, monopolistically increase prices once they corner the market, remotely brick people's devices, block user repairs, obfuscate the terms and conditions, make exclusive deals with movie producers, etc.

Most of those behaviours are either a grey area, unlawful or straight up illegal, but most of them are also largerly unenforced.

It's a regulation problem for the most part.

For DCS, subscriptions would make little logical sense, because ED isn't providing an ongoing service, you either fly offline or on community backed servers, the only ongoing service ED is providing is the multiplayer server list.

You could say that providing updates and fixing bugs is an ongoing service, but most modules are sold early access, with fairly defined end goal, with a promise that they will be finished in the future, so it's not an ongoing service, it's just keeping up with the promise they made earlier. Once a module is considered finished it rarely gets free updates until a big overhaul is brought in, but the overhaul is usually not free.

Fixing the base game is an ongoing cost for ED, but the base game is just a bunch of code that's shared by all of the modules. The modules wouldn't work without the base game.

A bug in the base game is quite literally a bug in all of the modules, so it makes sense to have the base game included in the price of the modules.

I agree these tech companies are are quickly becoming monopolies and that is a problem, but that is not the reason for the state of the industry. In fact, it proves my point. These entertainment companies make more money than they ever have and they somehow make a worse product. Is that because they have a monopoly, or because people still choose to pay for the **** product they make anyway and complain about it later.

It's funny. Just the other day a video popped up in my youtube feed about some game review. I don't even remember what is was about exactly, but this guy was up in arms about this new game he bought and how the devs destroyed the IP. So I get that people can get a little obsessive about IP's, but what I found to be the most ironical of the entire situation was the fact that they knew what the game was before they bought it. Then threw a fit about how bad it was after the fact.

Why? Why would you buy it in the first place. You knew exactly what is was and you bought it anyway.
I guess the word junkie fits quite well.

 

Anyway, I digress. In the end, it is of my opinion that even if DCS went to a sub model, it would not magically fix the old bugs and engine. At the end of the day, even a sub model is driven by new content and that is where their priority will stay.

 

[felixx75]

oh, still arguing...
Just a small reminder

On 5/7/2024 at 2:55 PM, BIGNEWY said:

folks please keep the tin foil hats for reddit. 

As mentioned we have no plans to change to a subscription model. Our current payment model works well for us and has done for well over a decade, we continue to grow as a company with the support of the community. 

thank you 

[draconus]

Another reminder: you can always go and buy a module/map/campaign from the E-shop or Steam. You can do so every month, every year, every day, whatever. The subscription is already there, optional.

[markturner1960]

Well if there is to be no changes to the present system, then maybe the question or wish list should be : Can ED be more open and upfront with its customers regarding updates/ bug fixes and features releases to both in house and 3rd party modules and the core game.

I think this would generate much more good feeling and go a long way towards easing the feeling that a lot of loyal customers have, that they are being a little bit taken advantage of. 

There seems to be some people who entertain no criticism of the current situation, which I really do not understand and seem prepared to cut ED as much slack as they want..... ( so fed up of reading "what do you think EA means???" ) I think we would mostly agree that somewhere in the middle exists a place where we would all be happier. Customers like to feel they are being listened to. I know ED is not obligated in the least to do this, but I think they should be more open and honest about the roadmap for updates etc going forwards. 

They must know what resources they have in terms of coders and artists etc and where these people are working and how long what they are working on will take....whats wrong with sharing some of that with us? We have put up our money after all, which must count for something.....as we are reminded at each press release....."Thank you for your passion and support"

[BIGNEWY]

2 minutes ago, markturner1960 said:

Well if there is to be no changes to the present system, then maybe the question or wish list should be : Can ED be more open and upfront with its customers regarding updates/ bug fixes and features releases to both in house and 3rd party modules and the core game.

I think this would generate much more good feeling and go a long way towards easing the feeling that a lot of loyal customers have, that they are being a little bit taken advantage of. 

There seems to be some people who entertain no criticism of the current situation, which I really do not understand and seem prepared to cut ED as much slack as they want..... ( so fed up of reading "what do you think EA means???" ) I think we would mostly agree that somewhere in the middle exists a place where we would all be happier. Customers like to feel they are being listened to. I know ED is not obligated in the least to do this, but I think they should be more open and honest about the roadmap for updates etc going forwards. 

They must know what resources they have in terms of coders and artists etc and where these people are working and how long what they are working on will take....whats wrong with sharing some of that with us? We have put up our money after all, which must count for something.....as we are reminded at each press release....."Thank you for your passion and support"

Hi markturner1960,

when we have news we share it, when we fix bugs or add features we add them to the change log. If we have development news to share we share it in newsletters, we are as open as we can be, and I am sorry if that is not enough for you. 

We are getting off topic in this thread now, so please stick to the pay model topic in the thread. 

thank you 

 

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

I wonder if ED could sell powdered horse bones as some kind of flim-flam remedy over facebook? That could get them income considering this particular horse has been rendered down to dust.

[Akula]

On 5/7/2024 at 2:25 AM, markturner1960 said:

 Of course it’s our problem……whatever the truth of what is going on behind closed doors, it’s a fact that cash flow, circumstances and the market can often give previously viable and healthy companies big problems…….and sometimes, they close. Not saying it will happen and of course I hope it won’t, as personally I have invested several hundred pounds in their product - however you should realise that if these problems occur, what we have now won’t exist. Short of all going back to Falcon BMS, we would be fooked. So it’s our problem. If we all want a decent combat flight simulator to fly in. 

NO!, This is not our problem! Whatever financial woes ED has now is for THEM to resolve using the funds WE HAVE ALREADY GIVEN THEM.

- And imagine if they adopted your scare tactic of "Pay us monthly or we close up shop and now you're left with Falcon BMS." 

 

Thank god you don't run the company. 

Edited May 11, 2024 by Akula

[Dannyvandelft]

Chatting on Discord just now, and felt like bringing it up here to the devs.

 

ED is developing 3 modules right now, that we know of, plus many more in EA. Meanwhile QOL things are falling behind. Things like, drogue basket behavior, AI models that look old, AI behavior to incoming missiles, and AI behavior overall. ATC, and so on, and so forth.

 

It seems like, I could be wrong, that ED is focusing much harder on building modules to sell, than maintaining/improving the world those modules live in.

 

I can only speak for myself, but I'd gladly pay a subscription fee, let's say $15 a month, for ED not having to build modules, or less modules, and can direct all, or most of their devs to said above QOL improvements.

 

The model I'd use would be similar to World of Warcraft.

 

$15 monthly for the base game, for ED to maintain and improve the world we fly in. Focusing most if not all devs to upgrade AI, ATC, AI models, things like drogue physics, weather, updating old modules, and so on.

 

3rd parties bring their modules as normal, for their normal prices, and will be viewed as expansions, i.e. The Tomcat is The Burning Crusade, The Phantom is Wrath of the Lich King, etc.

 

Having all these modules coming out is great, and I'm looking forward to a lot of them, but the world we use them in has to be kept up as well, past adding terrains.

 

Anyway, my 2 cents.

 

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

 

 

[BIGNEWY]

Hi Dannyvandelft, 

More than 50% of our team work on the core of DCS, the fact is it does take a lot of time, but we are always moving forward. I've been playing DCS for well over a decade and have seen many changes already. It may seem slow progress for some, but we can only work as fast as our resources allow. Many of the core tasks are huge projects and we will share progress closer to completion of those tasks, so look out for future newsletters.

Regarding the payment model, we have to sell modules, and terrains to keep DCS growing and to be able to pay our teams, they work very hard on very complex projects. Again it takes time, we are a relativity small company but have a very dedicated team.

It has been discussed many times about subscriptions, it is not something we plan to do. Our current payment model works best for us and DCS to keep it progressing. 

best regards

bignewy

 

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

It'd be extremely difficult to sell a monthly fee to people like me who have already purchased several things. It offers us no value whatsoever. Sure, there's the altruism of making DCS the best it could be, but realistically? $15 a month isn't going to do that. At that point, it just become a charity for employed developers. I'm not so altruistic, I think. Sometimes, throwing money at a problem isn't enough.

[freehand]

Here we go again...subscription fee

 

[Slippa]

[Hiob]

We need some kind of „thumbs down“ reaction possibility. That would save so many harsh comments - simply downvote such „glorious“ ideas.

Worked pretty darn well in the early days of youtube.