New Pay Model

[zaelu]

Care to comment posts #140 and #168 ?

 

... yeah I didn't think so.

 

I've read them but no. I have no comment. Sorry.

 

 

Well yes. I've already bought plane, helis, maps and campaigns as one-time purchases. Many have. What does a subscription do to that?

 

Starting off as a subscription service is one thing. Making radical changes to how payment and ownership works, after acquiring a fairly large playerbase who've paid large sums of money, is another.[..]

 

As I mentioned already, I bought modules/maps etc of around 700$ so I should be worried about such system too... but no, I am not. "Everything is subject to change" LoL

 

I have Lock on Disk somewhere... It is useless to me. If I install next year the Original Black Shark 1.0 and play it (if it will run) in parallel with the future upgraded DCS Black Shark 3.0 I will see again... it is in fact a service not a buy now play forever game. So why getting myself so stiff? If I end up playing an up to date game maybe faster developed with same or better price... heck even for free in the future maybe... why not?

 

I know... many will say... A operating system for free? And an office suite? Hah! Not in a million years!! Yeah... tell that to Google.

 

I will confess, my 3 tier based system is inspired from Stadia subscription model. I find it good and... inspiring. Free service, premium subscription for full service and pricey perks. Everybody is happy, freeloaders, spenders, developers... etc. If only will work... :) (Stadia)

Edited November 20, 2019 by zaelu

[Xilon_x]

to make a DCS subscription I have to simulate all the forces of land, air, sea, and even space including military satellites, from all over the world.

I must have the whole world available as in reality.

 

such as IVAO and IVAC for the current flight simulator -------- also for military use.

Edited November 20, 2019 by Xilon_x

[MacEwan]

to make a DCS subscription I have to simulate all the forces of land, air, sea, and even space including military satellites, from all over the world.

I must have the whole world available as in reality.

 

such as IVAO and IVAC for the current flight simulator -------- also for military use.

 

 

No offence, but we cant even simulate an accurate ATC with the current system, so how do you expect everything you just said to become a reality?

 

For many years ED has been locked into releasing incomplete modules in "Early Access" to keep the money flowing. This ultimately ends up preventing core features from being completed, bugs from being fixed, and the "Early Access" modules are forever stuck in an incomplete state because ED needs to roll out the next EA module to keep the money flowing again. This is the downward spiral we are stuck in right now.

[Hawkeye_UK]

Anyone worried about ED and costing - suggest leave that to them - However here's an idea for anyone wanting to support ED why don't you buy some modules and gift them to the community - problem solved for all the people "concerned".

 

Reality is they have a smallish team with limited resources however the frustration largely comes not from the length of time but the historical poor communication to the community on updates which they have recently tried to improve re features and timescales. This current undertone stems from the Viper release and as highlighted to them 3 months ago was going to cause some raised eyebrows and kickback from some sectors.

 

Subscription and tech tree - oh my lord this is a simulator not Call of Duty....as i said for those concerned buy modules and give them away.

[Xilon_x]

then I will never do a subscription if I don't feel completely immersed in reality ........ I hope that in the future a true global simulator will come out that involves all the forces. I wouldn't call it D.COMBAT SIMULATOR but I would call it D WORLD WAR SIMULATOR including also the possibility of using mass destruction weapons.

[CommanderRabb]

Since cloud streaming has now been brought into this...

 

Absolute hard no to that. Even more than any subscription. I don't care if everyone else is doing it in the future. I still wont do it. Even if that means doing without, or having to play 20 year old games.

 

Anyone worried about ED and costing - suggest leave that to them - However here's an idea for anyone wanting to support ED why don't you buy some modules and gift them to the community - problem solved for all the people "concerned".

 

I doubt they'll take your advice. That would require paying the asking price for stuff, instead of scheming up ways to avoid it, or offload onto everyone else.

Edited November 20, 2019 by CommanderRabb

[Yurgon]

Stuck at work, waiting for some time-consuming task to finish. Sorry for wall of text. :D

 

- What's the problem exactly with Su-25T time and FC3 level systems ? Are the other options on the market generaly as good as DCS ?

 

I didn't make that point, but as I understand it the argument was that the currently free part of DCS is limited to these 2 aircraft. There's nothing inherently wrong with them, they're just limited (like any other DCS module).

 

For newcomers to check out 5 modules means purchasing all 5 of them separately. Even if modules don't cost 80 bucks each, it's still a considerable amount of money just to check out, for example, a jet trainer, a fighter, an attacker, a chopper and something from a strange country. :smartass:

 

Also, does everybody intend to buy ALL modules, maps, campaigns, etc, available, so they would have to spend high amounts ?

 

Again, I think the point is that many of us here have been hanging around so long, we've gotten most modules anyway, especially because many modules were very special and new when they came out. But for newcomers today, there's just this huge amount of modules.

 

If they could test them out using a subscription model, it might turn out a lot more tempting to do just that and then stick around once they've seen the quality they're getting.

 

- How can the A-10C (or anyother aircraft) be "old", for a recently arrived owner that as just bought it recently ?

 

There's this load of ancient bugs and problems that have all been reported and acknowledged, but not fixed.

 

The cockpit is showing its age (actually many players installed the fantastic HD mod as soon as it came out) and apparently isn't as VR friendly as some of the newer modules.

 

The A-10C is by far my favorite module, and it's completely amazing that a cockpit rework is being done for free. The term old probably didn't mean that there's not enough to learn. It meant the module isn't quite up to date.

 

Which is one of the big points: With more and more modules, there's an ever growing bag of liabilities to drag the old stuff along and somehow get it up to date.

 

If that doesn't happen, we'd all own a copy of a dead product that, without active support, would quickly lose its value.

 

Imagine for instance an amount of people (new players / youngs / not realy niche and hardcore fans) that start spend 1 or even 2 months subscription.

During that period they'll try to get the most of it while they can, only superficialy experimenting every aircraft and terrain, and when that monthly subscription ends many of them probably will call it a day.

 

That is certainly a possibility.

 

Because to keep learning the full fidelity systems an F/A-18 Hornet or A-10 Warthog do have, it takes time; and after a while that eventualy sends the message: "Yeah to keep learning more about this Aircraft you have to keep paying."

 

Well... yeah, that's the inherent nature of a subscription model. You can be against it, but I find it a weird argument to say "that's the way it is, and the way it is is why it's bad". :smartass:

 

Let's turn it around. Since most of the modules take a lot of time to master (personally, I wouldn't say I've actually mastered any DCS module), it's easy to do the math. At X Dollars per month, how much would it cost me to get proficient during the next 2 years?

 

At the same time, the subscription would probably offer access to other modules, so the price tag already includes more stuff than just that.

 

Is that worth it?

 

If the sum is roughly equal to the sum I'd be paying to purchase modules, yeah, it'd be worth it for me.

 

And again, I'd rather pay subscription in order to get great product sustainment than purchase a slew of semi-finished modules that spend years in early access in an environment that's partly broken and unbroken with every update, while core-features with a benefit for all modules trickle in at a rather slow rate.

 

To the "NO! NEVER" faction: we're all lucky that ED does sustain all of its products. But there's not really any obligation or guarantee for them to keep doing so. Everything "stable" or "feature complete" could be frozen right now, and newer DCS World features could be tied to asset packs or newer modules or to a non-free DCS World 3.0 release. "Owning" a copy is pretty much worthless without continued support. So you're either okay with the status quo, or taking it for granted that others pay the bills for sustainment, or you're doing it yourself by purchasing more modules.

 

In the long run I just can't imagine that the current model is going to carry its own weight.

 

And then there's this hilarious "If you have too much money, buy modules you don't want/give it to charities" argument. It's not about paying more. It's about tying fees to the promise of a certain quality of the base game and all existing modules. If I were to purchase another 5 copies of the Viper, it would signal to ED "the Viper is selling great, we should do more very early access modules!" - which is rather the opposite of my intention. ;)

Edited November 20, 2019 by Yurgon

[Xilon_x]

let's pretend that in the virtual world I am Italy that at a certain point in 2021 due to misunderstandings he decides to start attacking France. What tense should I use to make a surprise attack? do before the reconnaissance flights to understand the weak points. how many aircraft do I have at my disposal? uaooooooooo this is a serious simulator.

[HC_Official]

And then there's this hilarious "If you have too much money, buy modules you don't want/give it to charities" argument. It's not about paying more. It's about tying fees to the promise of a certain quality of the base game and all existing modules. If I were to purchase another 5 copies of the Viper, it would signal to ED "the Viper is selling great, we should do more very early access modules!" - which is rather the opposite of my intention. ;)

 

 

You could buy 5 copies of the A-10C tho ? Or some other older "more completed" module, that would avoid the issue of Early access

[Yurgon]

You could buy 5 copies of the A-10C tho ? Or some other older "more completed" module, that would avoid the issue of Early access

 

"Hey boss, should I finally fix those A-10 bugs?"

 

"Leave them. The module is still selling great! Can't be that bad, then."

 

:D

[Jester986]

I've given away 3 c-101's, 3 flaming cliffs, 2 yak-52s, 2 F-5's, and 2 L-39's. But I still think a subsccription service would provide more incentive and ability to upgrade DCS versus our glut of EA modules.

[Xilon_x]

who guarantees me that even if you pay a subscription, you have access to Italian airplane, you can do the tornado mb339 amx eurofighter thyphon ecc.ec.

Do you guarantee the mapping of my Italian territory?

let me understand what the conditions of this subscription are? what guarantees you pay a subscription?

[b0b]

Most companies move away from subscription models except when they have either a niche customer base (which if DCS went this way figure 50% of the people leave and then they would have their niche base) or they have a way to force you to use their product. So go ahead and keep pushing for a subscription model and kill the game. They make more money selling modules than they would on a subscription base. Not to mention say bye bye to all the 3rd party developers.

[MegOhm_SD]

Interesting debate...but realistically, this is premature. DCS is not in a state where subscription would be appealing.

 

Our DCS World will have to eventually make a turn where it all comes together.

 

Maybe revisit this when ED gets its vision of DCS all fleshed out to where it needs to be...

both to the satisfaction of their customers and themselves.

 

So by all means, continue the debate for the next several years.

Edited November 20, 2019 by MegOhm_SD

[zaelu]

Interesting debate...but realistically, this is premature. DCS is not in a state where subscription would be appealing.

 

 

Now this is a good counter argument!

[Top Jockey]

@Yurgon,

 

Thank you for your reply.

I understand you like subscriptions, well I don't - because of the reasons I mentioned.

 

One reason is mainly, I do not like the fact that: one is only allowed to play his hobby during limited time periods, and upon continuously paying fees.

(After a while, I feel that starts being financial exploitation.)

 

For instance, if you buy the Hornet today, it will cost you 79.99 $.

But instead you prefeer to sign a subscription for, let's say 15.00 $ a month... well:

 

- when you subscribe for the 6th. month, you are already spending more than if you had bought the module;

- if you do not whish to spend the money on a given month's fee, you don't play at all... because the Hornet isn't yours - you were only renting it.

(Obviously very bad business model, for the costumer who intends to stay with a module years in a row.)

 

So, via subscription service: how many times do you want to pay for your Hornet ?

[MacEwan]

And again, I'd rather pay subscription in order to get great product sustainment than purchase a slew of semi-finished modules that spend years in early access in an environment that's partly broken and unbroken with every update, while core-features with a benefit for all modules trickle in at a rather slow rate.

 

To the "NO! NEVER" faction: we're all lucky that ED does sustain all of its products. But there's not really any obligation or guarantee for them to keep doing so. Everything "stable" or "feature complete" could be frozen right now, and newer DCS World features could be tied to asset packs or newer modules or to a non-free DCS World 3.0 release. "Owning" a copy is pretty much worthless without continued support. So you're either okay with the status quo, or taking it for granted that others pay the bills for sustainment, or you're doing it yourself by purchasing more modules.

 

In the long run I just can't imagine that the current model is going to carry its own weight.

 

And then there's this hilarious "If you have too much money, buy modules you don't want/give it to charities" argument. It's not about paying more. It's about tying fees to the promise of a certain quality of the base game and all existing modules. If I were to purchase another 5 copies of the Viper, it would signal to ED "the Viper is selling great, we should do more very early access modules!" - which is rather the opposite of my intention. ;)

 

Well said.

[AeriaGloria]

Why not have it so after that 6 month, when you have spent one subscription more than $80, the module is yours. If you drop it before 6 months say at 4, you lose it, but if you rent it again later for two months, you end up with it permanently because you’ve spent more than $80

[Yurgon]

I understand you like subscriptions, well I don't - because of the reasons I mentioned.

 

Actually, I don't even like subscriptions.

 

I just think they make the most sense in certain situations/for certain markets. :)

 

For instance, if you buy the Hornet today, it will cost you 79.99 $.

But instead you prefeer to sign a subscription for, let's say 15.00 $ a month... well:

 

Yeah, if it was 15 $ a month for just the Hornet, the numbers just wouldn't add up.

 

But if you got the Hornet, plus maybe a few more modules, plus 2 terrains, for maybe 10 bucks a month, where does that put you?

 

Hornet plus Black Shark 2 (the oldest module, not counting Black Shark 1) plus Persian Gulf sets you back 180 bucks if my math doesn't fail me.

 

Imagine you could get all of this for 10 bucks a month, and opt once a month to try other modules or other terrains - that would be one and a half years of a lot of options and trying out stuff.

 

Such a deal doesn't sound that bad to me.

 

- if you do not whish to spend the money on a given month's fee, you don't play at all...

 

That is exactly right. Maybe I just don't have time for DCS, or I wanna dig into another game for a while, so I cancel the subscription and renew it once I've got the time again. Why not? I certainly do it like this with Netflix. And since canceling and renewing is literally almost just a single click (maybe 5 clicks, really), I also like to come back once my interest is renewed.

 

So, via subscription service: how many times do you want to pay for your Hornet ?

 

If the Hornet and the environment were ever in a finished state, once would be just fine. Like we purchase a car, and that's it. The car is then ours, for all intents and purposes, to do with it whatever we like.

 

But software is different from hardware. It doesn't wear down from use, but the environment changes at such a rapid pace...

 

Just imagine that every few years roads and traffic lights and traffic signs and other cars would change so drastically that your car would become entirely incompatible with traffic -- your car would still be yours, it's just unusable. Unless the manufacturer keeps upgrading and updating the car so it remains compatible.

 

I kinda wouldn't wanna be forced to purchase a Camaro to help keep my Pontiac compatible with the roads (metaphorically speaking; I don't own or even want to own a car right now :smartass:).

 

So leasing a car would seem a lot more sensible than buying one that could become obsolete at any moment.

[nessuno0505]

You never buy software. Software belongs to its developer. You buy the license to use It. Usually either you pay once and you have support until the next major release, for which you have to purchase another license; or you pay a subscription and you have access to the last major release as long as you continue to pay your subscription. DCS is an anomaly, since you pay once but have support for several years through various releases, but sometimes they ask you to pay again (black shark iterations, for example).

[Jester2138]

For instance, if you buy the Hornet today, it will cost you 79.99 $.

But instead you prefeer to sign a subscription for, let's say 15.00 $ a month... well:

 

Obviously, that's a horrifically overpriced subscription and not a good example. Realistically, subscription services are priced at less than 1/12th of the normal purchase price so that you "even out" after a year or two of ownership.

 

That would make the flagship module Hornet subscription more like $3-7 a month depending on how ED plays it. Most modules would be even cheaper. And you could switch what you're subscribed to without paying extra. Hornet one month, Tomcat the next; and it would actually be cheaper in the 1-2 year timeframe than buying them both outright.

 

For the "I just want to OWN it" crowd, what about the Hawk? You never own software that's dependent on someone else maintaining it.

Edited November 21, 2019 by Jester2138

[twistking]

Obviously, that's a horrifically overpriced subscription and not a good example. Realistically, subscription services are priced at less than 1/12th of the normal purchase price so that you "even out" after a year or two of ownership.

 

That would make the flagship module Hornet subscription more like $3-7 a month depending on how ED plays it. Most modules would be even cheaper. And you could switch what you're subscribed to without paying extra. Hornet one month, Tomcat the next; and it would actually be cheaper in the 1-2 year timeframe than buying them both outright.

 

For the "I just want to OWN it" crowd, what about the Hawk? You never own software that's dependent on someone else maintaining it.

 

so a subscription would be cheaper for the customer, but also ED gets more money to better fund the development? wow. money from nothing. great!

 

or wait, could it be that in the end the customers would indeed pay much more?

look: i've spent maybe 25€ (?) on DCS in the last two years (yak-52 on sale), but had much fun flying DCS with my older modules. your value proposition does not cut it for me.

 

if you are so keen on spending more money - and this an honest question - why don't you donate money to ED, or - as suggested by others - buy modules and give them away to community members?

ED already increased the prices recently (which is fine by me. you can still get your money worth out of every module - except combined arms maybe) and - again - if you extrapolate from the steam statistics, DCS is doing well from a user base and therefore probably also doing well with sales. it's a bit of a niche maybe, but it's also the only competitor... and add their military contracts to that.

oh wait, maybe don't start donating all your money, because ED are probably doing fine!!!

Edited November 21, 2019 by twistking

[Richard Dastardly]

There's this load of ancient bugs and problems that have all been reported and acknowledged, but not fixed.

 

The cockpit is showing its age (actually many players installed the fantastic HD mod as soon as it came out) and apparently isn't as VR friendly as some of the newer modules.

 

The A-10C is by far my favorite module, and it's completely amazing that a cockpit rework is being done for free. The term old probably didn't mean that there's not enough to learn. It meant the module isn't quite up to date.

 

Which is one of the big points: With more and more modules, there's an ever growing bag of liabilities to drag the old stuff along and somehow get it up to date.

 

If that doesn't happen, we'd all own a copy of a dead product that, without active support, would quickly lose its value.

 

 

They've obviously decided the cost of a new A-10 cockpit will be made up for in some way ( maybe they're gambling on VR takeup, I don't know ). There *is* value in updating old products if they're still on sale - primarily so old products don't look dated & unattractive to more recent owners of newer ones. Unless you subscribe to individual modules seperately ( ouch ) there's no drive whatsoever to do this in a subscription model, as long as there's a new shiny aircraft around. Is your model that of renting seat time in aircraft modules individually? even then there's only so much time users have to give, and if they don't like an old module they'll just get in a new one instead.

[Top Jockey]

Obviously, that's a horrifically overpriced subscription and not a good example. Realistically, subscription services are priced at less than 1/12th of the normal purchase price so that you "even out" after a year or two of ownership.

 

That would make the flagship module Hornet subscription more like $3-7 a month depending on how ED plays it. Most modules would be even cheaper. And you could switch what you're subscribed to without paying extra. Hornet one month, Tomcat the next; and it would actually be cheaper in the 1-2 year timeframe than buying them both outright.

 

For the "I just want to OWN it" crowd, what about the Hawk? You never own software that's dependent on someone else maintaining it.

 

You nailed somed point there, but:

 

1.

The 3$ - 7$ a month (as 1/12th of the purchase price value), I'll admit could be very attractive for a lot of people, but that to financialy work for ED:

 

- one subscription fan would have to pay the montly fee for at the least roughly 12 months total... and speculating that this type of cosutemer being recent / youth / not harcore niche user, it might probably get tired of DCS before that time;

- or, there would have to be at the least, 12 times more people to pay 1 month subscription, than the current amount of ED's purchasing costumers...

 

2.

Regarding the "I just want to OWN it" crowd - that's precisely my case.

 

As I HIGHLY praise the F-14 the F/A-18 and even the low fidelity MiG-29, it is out of the question having to repeatedly pay some fee to gain temporary access to them.

 

How can I tell you - it's not mandatorily a money issue; it's the unambiguous sense of ownership of an aircraft module you highly praise.

Edited November 21, 2019 by Top Jockey

[Tom Kazansky]

Following this discussion for quite a while I have to state that the arguments given for both sides didn't change the result of the poll in any way. It has always been about 80% : 20%. So minds don't seem to change with all that has been said.

 

 

My problem with this thread is that it seems to be clear what income ED has or would have with both of the systems. Where do you guys get those numbers from?