New Pay Model / subscription discussion

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

3 hours ago, upyr1 said:

Ideally they work out a licencing agreement with some model manufacturer, that would keep the costs down. As for incentives, first the models would qualify for mile points and there would be a discount code when there is a module and model for a given aircraft (or other vehicle). 

 

The licensing is but one step.

They kind of need a means to make them. Setting up a 3D printing facility in office, sourcing the right plastics, etc. finding a way to effectively store inventory, etc. There's no way they'd be able to even come close to matching the $35 I can spend on a Viggen kit from a dedicated manufacturer with that production infrastructure already in place. And, the moment us nerds find out which company is the manufacturer, we'll just go buy that kit and not pay the mark up, you know?

Of course, this is assuming the usual scales of 1/72 to 1/32. Going smaller might be more feasible?

Still, despite being fraught with obstacles, it's a better idea than a subscription.

Edited December 10, 2024 by MiG21bisFishbedL

[OldFlyer]

We have to remember the core game was free for us to acquire. This might be an unpopular opinion, but personally I think it is fair that substantial addons to the free base game are purchasable DLCs, and that includes things like a future dynamic campaign. Not everyone will use a dynamic campaign, so why not sell it as a DLC to those that want it. Selling high quality liveries, asset packs, etc. are also good ideas that don't split multiplayer communities.

Obviously enhancements like Vulkan, AI behaviour, etc. have to be part of the base game and not chargeable.

ED is a business and they are here to make money first and foremost - it is in our best interests that they do make money. They've said a few times that they don't need money, why in that case are modules in EA for years and years. Better to sell DLCs, speed up development time, move on to the next project. More happy customers.

To close this, I don't support a subscription model in any shape or form.

[scommander2]

9 hours ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

iRacing is on Steam, you can charge a subscription fee there.

Thanks and good to know...

[Beirut]

I don't mind if they charge for "extras", like a dynamic campaign or new cockpits for older modules. As long as it doesn't get weird like that other flightsim from years ago that charged you $1 for a scarf the pilot could wear. 

 

If ED makes good stuff, I will give them money. Simple as that.

[sthompson]

12 hours ago, Dangerzone said:

These discussions seem to come from a perspective that the lack of development in certain areas is because of financial hardship, and ignore all the things that ED reps have said over the past few years as to why development is slow - and not once has it been finance. 

The problem is not development of new tech but rather lack of support for older tech. As long as ED can rake in the money by releasing lots of modules that then lose support they will not have a financial problem. But they also will not have a financial incentive to provide support for older modules. The proposal is about changing incentives, not solving a financial problem. With the current model ED will lose (and probably has already lost) customers who are disillusioned with support levels on existing tech. At the very least, such customers are less likely to continue to shell out for new modules if they are unhappy about bugs in the old ones.

[sthompson]

15 hours ago, Dangerzone said:

Subscriptions just encourage companies to get lazy and lose incentive to develop as much - especially when there is no competition.

Perhaps, but they do create incentives to respond to customer complaints and fix bugs. For example, Quicken has gotten much better and more reliable since it switched to a subscription model.

[draconus]

1 minute ago, sthompson said:

Perhaps, but they do create incentives to respond to customer complaints and fix bugs.

How? What will guarantee that they won't just pour more money into developing more modules?

[upyr1]

4 hours ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

The licensing is but one step.

They kind of need a means to make them. Setting up a 3D printing facility in office, sourcing the right plastics, etc. finding a way to effectively store inventory, etc. There's no way they'd be able to even come close to matching the $35 I can spend on a Viggen kit from a dedicated manufacturer with that production infrastructure already in place. And, the moment us nerds find out which company is the manufacturer, we'll just go buy that kit and not pay the mark up, you know?

Of course, this is assuming the usual scales of 1/72 to 1/32. Going smaller might be more feasible?

Still, despite being fraught with obstacles, it's a better idea than a subscription.

The entire point of the licensing agreement would be to have some model company produce the kits.  Also the licensing agreement would state that if there are CAD files / 3d renderings that could be used to produce both a kit and an AI asset ED and the model company would share them 

 

 

[sthompson]

49 minutes ago, draconus said:

How? What will guarantee that they won't just pour more money into developing more modules?

There is no guarantee. A subscription model would incentivize doing whatever keep subscribers happy. If that means cranking out shiny new modules and ignoring bugs then it will not solve the problem with long standing bugs not being fixed. But I think there is plenty of evidence in these forums that a lot of the user base would like more attention on fixing bugs, and ED would be more responsive to those concerns if there were dollars behind it.

[draconus]

2 hours ago, sthompson said:

...ED would be more responsive to those concerns if there were dollars behind it.

Subscription or not, you don't decide where the money goes.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

5 hours ago, upyr1 said:

The entire point of the licensing agreement would be to have some model company produce the kits.  Also the licensing agreement would state that if there are CAD files / 3d renderings that could be used to produce both a kit and an AI asset ED and the model company would share them 

 

 

I get that, but again, We'd still be paying a mark-up for an existing kit.

 

 

4 hours ago, sthompson said:

There is no guarantee. A subscription model would incentivize doing whatever keep subscribers happy. If that means cranking out shiny new modules and ignoring bugs then it will not solve the problem with long standing bugs not being fixed. But I think there is plenty of evidence in these forums that a lot of the user base would like more attention on fixing bugs, and ED would be more responsive to those concerns if there were dollars behind it.

That's a huge leap and, again, add value for those of us who have been here and made purchases.

[Dangerzone]

15 hours ago, cfrag said:

Well, there are many directions to go , and I think we all know that no matter which direction ED take, there will be detractors. To me it is becoming increasingly apparent that a lack of sustained, steady income is eroding the base product - which happens to be the free product. Coincidence? I don't think so, others do.

I don't see the same contrast. From my observation, there's lack throughout all products - not just the base product. Many paid modules still in EA. Those that aren't are still missing some very much sought after features (still waiting on DTC for instance). Bugs introduced into paid maps years ago still remain unaddressed (Persia with the floating line for example). 

And in saying that, I also need to credit ED - as a lot of work has been put in this year on the core product. Multithreading, DLSS, Fog, VOIP, and we even a drag and select in the mission editor now. 

So from my view, the gaps in DCS don't seem to be in any one area - the strengths and weaknesses seems to be more or less consistent throughout both the core and paid modules. 

I'm quite willing though to concede that my perception might be limited and I'm wrong - and lack of income is eroding the base product - and if so - I'd be more than happy to pay for upgrades like other software for a perpetual license, even if it costs me more over that time than a subscription. I just wouldn't want a path where people lose access to what they already have if they go through some tough financial hardship.

While we're all disagreeing here in this thread - I think the one thing we all agree on is that our passion even though we disagree on this matter is for the same outcome. To see DCS thrive, and move 'onwards and upwards '.

It's the passion I see in the community that I find encouraging, even if we disagree on the best way forward.

But likewise, the discouragement I see when bugs aren't addressed and lack of understanding from ED that gives me greater concern than any income concern I have. What good will more income do if the core attitude doesn't shift to start with? 

And I think this is where I conclude on the matter: I would summise that ED's success or failure I will stem more from the decisions they make in this area, more than the financial (given that they are apparently financially stable). The more recent discouragement I've observed with moders and designers - especially within the MP community (particular server admin's, mission designers, scripters, etc) and no perceived change of direction from ED with their approach is likely to affect DCS's future far more than even if DCS was able to double their income.

But then again, I'm also told that MP is a very small part of the userbase, so again my concerns are filtered through the lens of a portion of the community that may not matter as much to the success of DCS, even though I suspect otherwise. 

Edited December 10, 2024 by Dangerzone

[upyr1]

4 hours ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

I get that, but again, We'd still be paying a mark-up for an existing kit.

 

There are two issues at play. I don't think either of us knows the answer to any of them. First, what would the ED name do to the price? The second is whether or not ED or a model company produced data the other could share. You can be sure that model companies produce a bunch of files when designing their kits, the question though is if any of that could be used to produce an AI asset by ED.  If any data could be shared then I could see how an arrangement could benefit both companies.

 

 

[Vee.A]

On 12/10/2024 at 1:50 AM, cfrag said:

Well, there are many directions to go , and I think we all know that no matter which direction ED take, there will be detractors. To me it is becoming increasingly apparent that a lack of sustained, steady income is eroding the base product - which happens to be the free product. Coincidence? I don't think so, others do.

To add my own 2 cents to the heap of unrequested advice: I'd suggest a split approach to start the migration: offer a free DCS for anyone interested to get them hooked. And a 'pro' version, with subscription that enables additional features like Multiplay with more than 4 people, has "save and resume" for missions, and other amenities that slowly trickle down to the free version over time, but are available to 'pro' first. 

Will that make everyone happy? Hell no. But given the choice of keeping a great game in the future (and pay a subscription fee), or see DCS become more and more obsolete, I will choose the to me more expensive route. One thing is certain: I will continue to play great flight sims in the future. I'm hoping it will be DCS. It's current trajectory sadly is (to me) discouraging.

 

I do still maintain the position that some of the most popular (and probably profitable) modules are ones like the Hornet which are 5 years old. A gift that keeps on giving. Maybe they're on slim profit margins, but it's hard to tell. It's very easy to squander success even with very large ones, however. More money doesn't always fix things. I also think they'd have a very hard time recovering from the fallout, since the core population that keeps things moving along have put a lot of money into DCS already.

[Vee.A]

On 12/10/2024 at 5:06 PM, Dangerzone said:

I don't see the same contrast. From my observation, there's lack throughout all products - not just the base product. Many paid modules still in EA. Those that aren't are still missing some very much sought after features (still waiting on DTC for instance). Bugs introduced into paid maps years ago still remain unaddressed (Persia with the floating line for example). 

And in saying that, I also need to credit ED - as a lot of work has been put in this year on the core product. Multithreading, DLSS, Fog, VOIP, and we even a drag and select in the mission editor now. 

So from my view, the gaps in DCS don't seem to be in any one area - the strengths and weaknesses seems to be more or less consistent throughout both the core and paid modules. 

I'm quite willing though to concede that my perception might be limited and I'm wrong - and lack of income is eroding the base product - and if so - I'd be more than happy to pay for upgrades like other software for a perpetual license, even if it costs me more over that time than a subscription. I just wouldn't want a path where people lose access to what they already have if they go through some tough financial hardship.

While we're all disagreeing here in this thread - I think the one thing we all agree on is that our passion even though we disagree on this matter is for the same outcome. To see DCS thrive, and move 'onwards and upwards '.

It's the passion I see in the community that I find encouraging, even if we disagree on the best way forward.

But likewise, the discouragement I see when bugs aren't addressed and lack of understanding from ED that gives me greater concern than any income concern I have. What good will more income do if the core attitude doesn't shift to start with? 

And I think this is where I conclude on the matter: I would summise that ED's success or failure I will stem more from the decisions they make in this area, more than the financial (given that they are apparently financially stable). The more recent discouragement I've observed with moders and designers - especially within the MP community (particular server admin's, mission designers, scripters, etc) and no perceived change of direction from ED with their approach is likely to affect DCS's future far more than even if DCS was able to double their income.

But then again, I'm also told that MP is a very small part of the userbase, so again my concerns are filtered through the lens of a portion of the community that may not matter as much to the success of DCS, even though I suspect otherwise. 

We did also see other things like ground AI changes and dynamic slots. If you look through the changelogs there are indeed some good improvements that have been made. There's always a lot more to work on though...

[cfrag]

48 minutes ago, Vee.A said:

I do still maintain the position that some of the most popular (and probably profitable) modules are ones like the Hornet which are 5 years old.

Agreed. And they very much underline the issue. Younger modules that do not sell as well do not receive updates, simply because the business case requires investing into he cash cows, and let the (unfinished, EA) paid modules that do no longer sell well enough languish. Cases in point: YAK, Mossie, SC, Hind, NTTR, Afghanistan ...

52 minutes ago, Vee.A said:

More money doesn't always fix things.

Agreed. In business, though, no money doesn't fix anything. Funds are the lifeblood, and that explains why so many modules seem to be slowly dying.

57 minutes ago, Vee.A said:

I also think they'd have a very hard time recovering from the fallout, since the core population that keeps things moving along have put a lot of money into DCS already.

Assuredly so if this is handled wrongly. I do not claim to have the perfect solution, or even a solution. I'm merely interpolating from where we are today, feeling worried. My investment into DCS (all models, all terrains, all tech, two rented community servers) is substantial. And I would like to see DCS flourish.

[BIGNEWY]

I mean no disrespect, but if we followed half of the advice here or on the internet regarding how to manage a business we would not be in business for much longer. 

We get that you all want products to be completed quickly, but it isn't possible, that is why we have the early access model, it allows us the time we need to bring these projects to you all. 

If early access isn't for you that is fine. We understand and it is completely optional. In many cases for some its best to wait for full release.

There are lots of people here who are very vocal and often negative about DCS ( some repeatedly ), and while all of your voices are important the majority of people enjoy DCS, and they continue to support early access.  

We are constantly working on the core of DCS, we are constantly working on bugs, our teams work very hard and will continue to, you can see the work we do in our changelogs. 

We have been producing DCS for over 17 years now and it continues to grow and expand, to every body who has made that possible with your support and purchases we thank you. 

 

 

[upyr1]

On 12/10/2024 at 4:06 PM, Dangerzone said:

I don't see the same contrast. From my observation, there's lack throughout all products - not just the base product. Many paid modules still in EA. Those that aren't are still missing some very much sought after features (still waiting on DTC for instance). Bugs introduced into paid maps years ago still remain unaddressed (Persia with the floating line for example). 

And in saying that, I also need to credit ED - as a lot of work has been put in this year on the core product. Multithreading, DLSS, Fog, VOIP, and we even a drag and select in the mission editor now. 

So from my view, the gaps in DCS don't seem to be in any one area - the strengths and weaknesses seems to be more or less consistent throughout both the core and paid modules. 

I'm quite willing though to concede that my perception might be limited and I'm wrong - and lack of income is eroding the base product - and if so - I'd be more than happy to pay for upgrades like other software for a perpetual license, even if it costs me more over that time than a subscription. I just wouldn't want a path where people lose access to what they already have if they go through some tough financial hardship.

While we're all disagreeing here in this thread - I think the one thing we all agree on is that our passion even though we disagree on this matter is for the same outcome. To see DCS thrive, and move 'onwards and upwards '.

It's the passion I see in the community that I find encouraging, even if we disagree on the best way forward.

But likewise, the discouragement I see when bugs aren't addressed and lack of understanding from ED that gives me greater concern than any income concern I have. What good will more income do if the core attitude doesn't shift to start with? 

And I think this is where I conclude on the matter: I would summise that ED's success or failure I will stem more from the decisions they make in this area, more than the financial (given that they are apparently financially stable). The more recent discouragement I've observed with moders and designers - especially within the MP community (particular server admin's, mission designers, scripters, etc) and no perceived change of direction from ED with their approach is likely to affect DCS's future far more than even if DCS was able to double their income.

But then again, I'm also told that MP is a very small part of the userbase, so again my concerns are filtered through the lens of a portion of the community that may not matter as much to the success of DCS, even though I suspect otherwise. 

I'd agree that ED's biggest problem at times appears to be the lack of focus. I think the DCS community might be partially to blame for that. Collectivly we've got a thousand different wish lists and sometimes out priorities change. Some of that is just the nature of the sim. I don't think a subscription model could fix that, in fact, I could see it making things worse. If DCS goes completely subscription there are people who would stop using it, if it is an optional subscription then DCS would need to make it worth the price. Even if they had the optional subscription model, there is the issue of whether ED can determine the community's priorities. I don't see ED abandoning EA.  I'm fine with EA as the alternative to EA is to not have modules.

Edited December 13, 2024 by upyr1

[Grodin]

I think subscription model could be good but only if it guarantees faster developement and finishing modules and listening to customers for wanted features. I would absolutely pay a sub fee for better ground AI, dynamic campaign and loads of different things that are now labeled as "not realistic for the simulated year" like fine lets do an option for 2 years newer model to get this feature like SDB for F16 would really rock.

 

I think funding the developement with new EA modules is problematic because it just adds more things to fix and robs dev time from the older modules that have stopped bringing in money. I would rather buy the f16 module again or buy a subscription if that means we get a sniper pod faster instead of getting a new module that takes all the dev resources.

Edited December 13, 2024 by Grodin

[freehand]

I have no intention ever paying for a subscription & thank the heaven above ED will never go down that road.

 

[plott1964]

9 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

I mean no disrespect, but if we followed half of the advice here or on the internet regarding how to manage a business we would not be in business for much longer. 

We get that you all want products to be completed quickly, but it isn't possible, that is why we have the early access model, it allows us the time we need to bring these projects to you all. 

If early access isn't for you that is fine. We understand and it is completely optional. In many cases for some its best to wait for full release.

There are lots of people here who are very vocal and often negative about DCS ( some repeatedly ), and while all of your voices are important the majority of people enjoy DCS, and they continue to support early access.  

We are constantly working on the core of DCS, we are constantly working on bugs, our teams work very hard and will continue to, you can see the work we do in our changelogs. 

We have been producing DCS for over 17 years now and it continues to grow and expand, to every body who has made that possible with your support and purchases we thank you. 

 

 

Some people thrive on complaining. They could not survive if they didn't complain about something (and as you said "repeatedly") everyday. If you are one to complain, my advice is to do the following:
1. Put yourself in the other's shoes.

2. Offer constructive and well thought out solutions.

3. Try to have a desire for mutual success.

If you can not do that, then you are most likely a big part of the problem.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

4 hours ago, Grodin said:

I think subscription model could be good but only if it guarantees faster developement and finishing modules and listening to customers for wanted features. I would absolutely pay a sub fee for better ground AI, dynamic campaign and loads of different things that are now labeled as "not realistic for the simulated year" like fine lets do an option for 2 years newer model to get this feature like SDB for F16 would really rock.

 

I think funding the developement with new EA modules is problematic because it just adds more things to fix and robs dev time from the older modules that have stopped bringing in money. I would rather buy the f16 module again or buy a subscription if that means we get a sniper pod faster instead of getting a new module that takes all the dev resources.

Guess what a subscription model would not guarantee, though?

That ship sailed over a decade ago.

[Dangerzone]

11 hours ago, upyr1 said:

 I'm fine with EA as the alternative to EA is to not have modules.

Fully agree. Actually - I love the idea of EA. The ability to get feedback from the community as the module is being developed would in my way of thinking be quite an asset for the developers. I understand bugs with EA as well, and have no problems with that. It's a privilege to have access during the development phase before something is complete. (Although at times can be painful too ). The time for EA being developed I think is well known too. While I would always like things done a bit quicker - I'd much prefer to have EA as it is, as opposed to no EA at all. 

That aside, I'm looking forward to the day when we have more stability with the non-EA stuff. With the core, AI, ground units, events, API/scripting, etc. Stability so mission designers, app dev's, server operators, and scripters can rely on DCS being stable enough from release to release for the non-EA stuff, and when bugs are introduced that they get prioritized so that we can have continued success with the content generation side of things. The end of this year has finished good in regards to the amount of bugs being addressed, and I'm hoping as we get further down the track now that MT/ST dual builds are a thing of the past, and we get closer to the newer technology that we'll see more fixes in the year to come.

[lee1hy]

Look at the graphic from iracing. This is what subscription payment looks like.