New Pay Model

[Top Jockey]

I want:

 

Free as it is now for everyone. Helps to build and keep a user base, including the occasional players.

ONE TIME payment for additional content of whatever kind.

 

Subscription and I'd say goodbye. As a working man there are times I can't spend time with DCS (can be weeks) and no way that I have to pay regardless.

 

Precisely the same here.

[ngreenaway]

I've played games on a subscription model, and came to resent them. With that monthly bill (even if it was paid in advance, quarterly or annually) I felt an almost obligation to play because that's what I was paying for to the point where I started neglecting other games or interests of mine. Gradually they became almost an albatross hung from my neck

 

I don't need that. If I need to step away from DCS for weeks, then so be it. Ive made a substantial financial contribution already, as have most of us, to the point where I've purchased modules I have little interest in simply to support devs. I want to be able to focus on other interests or obligations in life without worrying about getting my use out of a subscription, or whether it's worth renewing, or whatever

 

The system, as it currently exists, isn't in need of an overhaul. It works fine

[LaRata]

1 - No subscription … DCS Modules cost are very expensives. We are ready pay in full the modules.

 

2 - We need a final and full operational modules... not have beta modules for years …

[The_Pharoah]

Thats a big NO from me. With the current model, the onus is on the developers to work hard and fast to get out new modules to keep the $$ rolling in. With $$ rolling in without having to necessarily 'earn' it (not being facetious - I know devs earn $$ for what they do), there is potentially a lack of urgency there.

Then you ask yourself, at what point do you know you're getting value for money? I'm in Aust. Our exch rates are crap. Everything that comes out is USD which is almost double for us. So if its say US$40 that could be potentially AUD$70/month. What happens if I can't pay for that month? Do I suddenly lose access to all my modules? to online play?

 

No thanks.

[OPEC]

Come on guys, thats stupid.

 

Nobody is talking about 40 Dollars. Those subscriptions range from 5 to 10 Dollars, witch is basically nothing.

 

The point is: every company needs a more or less stable cashflow in order to hire, plan and develop. And unless ED has the most amazing crystal ball on the planet, they have no chance of forecasting their monthy income. How on gods green earth are you supposed to plan on that basis?

 

There is a reason why the big shots are moving away from a "pay once/use forever" model towards a subscription. It's simply the more stable way of making money and therefor to run a business. Because let's be honest - even the guys at ED need a salary at the end of the month. Thoses sales have to cover the cost of development, future support and maintaining the core of the game. And all of that on a base where you do not know how much money you make on a module?

 

Besides - I'm shure that they would be able to drop the prices for new stuff pretty much, because they do not have to calculate a "panic fee" in case it does not sell like they anticipated.

 

From a business point of view: Free2Play with DLC's may work for games like pubg or apex, but not for a niche simulation like DCS. Period.

[The RDN]

Would be in favor of a subscription service, ONLY if it meant hiring additional developers to work steadily on core game mechanics that are outdated, and in keeping existing products current and it good working order. Think this idea has merit tbh.

 

Exactly… I'm not a fan of subscription model, but with the actual model they're goin' on the wall…

[Vertigo72]

No one likes subscriptions. I dont either. I refuse to pay the 3 euro or whatever for my ring doorbell. I refuse to pay in app subscription fees for my smart thermostat. It doesnt matter how low the amount, I bought the hardware, I dont want a service I could easily do myself if only ring allowed me to store my own videos or tado let me decide if Im home or not instead of charging me a fee to determine that based on my GPS coordinates (yes, really).

 

But I do think the idea has merit for something like DCS as it aligns our and EDs incentives so much better. ED is a company, it has staff to pay, it has shareholders to please. The current model gives them only incentives to be focused more on new paying modules, release those modules (way too) early, and doing things that bring in dough but hurt us overall like fragmenting the community with paying map modules or carriers.

 

It also provides them with much less incentive to improve or fix the base layers. Why focus on VR performance when no is paying for a "VR module", why have people work on unpaid under the hood stuff like new weather models when you can instead assign your expensive salaried developers to work on a new module that will actually provide revenue? How can they afford to keep working on DCS world platform when they dont regularly release new paying modules?

 

They should absolutely keep the free version to onboard new players, but once people are hooked, I think its fine to have a subscription based model. Maybe even just for online play or to get access to all the modules. But the a model where you pay 60 euro once, and then expect the game to continue to evolve and expand and improve for the next 10 years is simply not sustainable.

Edited June 11, 2020 by Vertigo72

[OPEC]

Exactly… I'm not a fan of subscription model, but with the actual model they're goin' on the wall…

 

 

Exactly that. It's not pleasent if you have to commit to something in a financial way, but the way they'r on right know is not going to work. Simply because as Vertigo72 also stated their only income is the early release of new stuff. And the more incomplete the new modules are going to get, the more people will not buy them in the beginning, reducing the cashflow even more. The wheels of the bus go round & round...

[metzger]

The point here is, most people don't want to commit to pay while they use the content, but they expect ED to get some money once and commit to maintain support and keep up to date forever.

 

I also hate subscriptions but +1 for ED implementing it in some form ONLY if this will mean better and polished overall product with resolved, maintained and timely updated content with equal quality.

[Bersagliere81]

5$ per month isn't a great deal for us, and I believe it will maintain ED. I'd go for that

[Pyker]

No. I am against a subscription. I want to buy a game and then enjoy it for as long as I want like if it was a book or a record. If ED wants to release paid versions every two years like MSFS and other franchises, that is better than a subscription because then I can continue playing the older version and choose whether and when to upgrade.

 

Paid upgrades would give an opportunity to ED to fix the stuff that is not yet satisfactory (track recording, AI) without losing money. A module such as a new map or the supercarrier (or a future improved ATC) could each be/have been part of a paid upgrade, as an incentive for existing customers to upgrade, and an incentive for ED to release them only when finished.

 

It could reduce the temptation for ED to release plane modules too early (unfinished).

Edited June 11, 2020 by Pyker
More details

[Northstar98]

MOHAB said:

Come on guys, thats stupid.

 

Nobody is talking about 40 Dollars. Those subscriptions range from 5 to 10 Dollars, witch is basically nothing.

Okay, except this could net them less money than the current model, especially when 80% of people want to keep the current model, and are strongly against subscriptions.

For instance I've poured about $875  into DCS over 5 years - or on average roughly $175 per year or about $15 per month. So a subscription would have to be at least that expensive just to attain parity with the current model. Of course taking me as a baseline, and I exclusively purchase stuff when it's discounted (often by a significant amount), of course not everyone owns as many modules as I do, but not everyone waits for sales either.

Comparing it to me personally, $5 - $10 is objectively worse for ED, in the case of $5 it's 67% worse! You guys proposing a subscription model really need to look at the maths of this.

MOHAB said:

The point is: every company needs a more or less stable cashflow in order to hire, plan and develop. And unless ED has the most amazing crystal ball on the planet, they have no chance of forecasting their monthy income. How on gods green earth are you supposed to plan on that basis?

Yes but you're assuming a stable income can only be achieved through a subscription and that the current model isn't working. How many flight simulators charge a subscription again?

MOHAB said:

There is a reason why the big shots are moving away from a "pay once/use forever" model towards a subscription. It's simply the more stable way of making money and therefor to run a business. Because let's be honest - even the guys at ED need a salary at the end of the month. Thoses sales have to cover the cost of development, future support and maintaining the core of the game. And all of that on a base where you do not know how much money you make on a module?

They move to a subscription because it nets them way more money at the expense of the users, often pricing people out of using their software - it's basically just greed.

Look at Autodesk and Adobe... Used to be able to pay a hefty price but it's yours forever, now you pay more than that hefty price (by a long way in some cases) every 4 years.

MOHAB said:

From a business point of view: Free2Play with DLC's may work for games like pubg or apex, but not for a niche simulation like DCS. Period.

Citation very much needed.

Pretty much every niche simulation I can think of uses either F2P + DLC, or has a paid base client + paid DLC from the get go, not a subscription.

Edited December 11, 2021 by Northstar98
formatting

[Vertigo72]

Here is a slight variant on the proposed subscription based model that may solve more than one problem and be more palatable to users who object to periodic subscriptions:

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=277691

[Northstar98]

Yeah but ED are reliant on the OB in order to do mass testing and bug reporting, without having to pour tonnes of money and resources to do it in house. The current system is, in the words of one if ED's founders and current CEO, Nick Gray: "it's the most efficient way by miles."

From around 17:00 - 25:00

Personally this video from the times I've shown should be mandatory viewing for anyone downloading DCS.

Edited December 11, 2021 by Northstar98
formatting

[Pyker]

Here is a slight variant on the proposed subscription based model that may solve more than one problem and be more palatable to users who object to periodic subscriptions:

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=277691

 

To pay a subscription to do work as tester of WIP makes much less sense to me than to buy an improved and FINISHED new version of a game every two years.

[OPEC]

Okay, except this could net them less money than the current model, especially when 80% of people want to keep the current model, and are strongly against subscriptions.

 

For instance I've poured about $875 :surprise: into DCS over 5 years - or on average roughly $175 per year or about $15 per month. So a subscription would have to be at least that expensive just to attain parity with the current model. Of course taking me as a baseline, and I exclusively purchase stuff when it's discounted (often by a significant amount), of course not everyone owns as many modules as I do, but not everyone waits for sales either.

 

Comparing it to me personally, $5 - $10 is objectively worse for ED, in the case of $5 it's 67% worse! You guys proposing a subscription model really need to look at the maths of this.

 

 

 

Yes but you're assuming a stable income can only be achieved through a subscription and that the current model isn't working. How many flight simulators charge a subscription again?

 

 

 

They move to a subscription because it nets them way more money at the expense of the users, often pricing people out of using their software - it's basically just greed.

 

Look at Autodesk and Adobe... Used to be able to pay a hefty price but it's yours forever, now you pay more than that hefty price (by a long way in some cases) every 4 years.

 

 

 

Citation very much needed.

 

Pretty much every niche simulation I can think of uses either F2P + DLC, or has a paid base client + paid DLC from the get go, not a subscription.

No one said the the modules should be in that fee. The fee would basically go into the Code of the Sim and would include the maps, since that is what makes the heart of the Sim.

 

Since there are a lot of third Partys involved, you can not include their work into that. So yes, you pay 5 bucks, i dont think thats gonna hurt anybody, you get the maps and pay maybe a little less for each module.

 

And 5 bucks times the amount of players minus taxes could improve a lot.

 

Gesendet von meinem SM-N975F mit Tapatalk

[Northstar98]

MOHAB said:

No one said the the modules should be in that fee. The fee would basically go into the Code of the Sim and would include the maps, since that is what makes the heart of the Sim.

How is this supposed to work? So on top of modules I have to pay a flat rate that on average (for me) costs me 33% more. What would happen to the modules I already own, if I can't use the base client?

It would make more sense for ED to charge for the base client instead of being completely free, and offer upgrade packs - exactly the same thing as P3D/FSX.

MOHAB said:

Since there are a lot of third Partys involved, you can not include their work into that. So yes, you pay 5 bucks, i dont think thats gonna hurt anybody, you get the maps and pay maybe a little less for each module.

Okay, but if I'm paying extra, so I can save money on modules, where's the advantage either way? They cancel each other out.

And if you think nobody is gonna get hurt on $5 a month, you're simply not doing the maths.

Fact is, that with the current system, provided players buy modules, developers can make a lot more than $5 a month. Even so I don't think an extra $5 a month, per player is going to fix much of anything.

Edited December 11, 2021 by Northstar98
formatting

[Vertigo72]

No one said the the modules should be in that fee.

 

Actually, I am saying that.

 

The goal should not be to raise overall costs, the primary goal should be to align player interests with ED interest. Like many, I really want ED to spend more resources on fixing the game core and existing modules. But no one pays for that. The only way we financially support ED is by buying (new) modules and that achieves the exact opposite, as that gives them to signal and incentive to make even more new unfinished modules and rush new features that enable them, and force everyone on the open beta branch and do more early access releases that break the game for everyone.

 

A subscription fee aligns our interest. It removes pressure from ED to release new unfinished stuff that breaks the game and puts pressure on them to keep players happy by doing what they want them to do. Like not breaking the game.

 

But introducing a subscription fee on top of a module price is extremely unfair. Some people have already spent 500+ euro on modules, and no one ever warned them they would need to pay a monthly fee on top of that.

 

An optional subscription fee that replaces or complements module sale solves that (and solves a ton of other problems too, like chicken and egg problems with new maps no server uses because no one has them or empty ww2 servers etc).

Edited June 11, 2020 by Vertigo72

[OPEC]

How is this supposed to work? So on top of modules I have to pay a flat rate that on average (for me) costs me 33% more. What would happen to the modules I already own, if I can't use the base client?

 

It would make more sense for ED to charge for the base client instead of being completely free, and offer upgrade packs - exactly the same thing as P3D/FSX.

 

Okay, but if I'm paying extra, so I can save money on modules, where's the advantage either way? They cancel each other out.

 

And if you think nobody is gonna get hurt on $5 a month, you're simply not doing the maths.

 

Fact is, that with the current system, provided players buy modules, developers can make a lot more than $5 a month. Even so I don't think an extra $5 a month, per player is going to fix much of anything.

No they do not cancel each other out. You have to calculate a certain amount into the price of a module, in case it flops or does not get sold the way you calculated.. That amount is not needed, if you can get the income from some place else, in this case the fee for a subscribtion.

If you do not want to get the subscribtion, you get the world you already have for free, but of course without further Updates like for example the vulkan engine. That way you get exactly what you paid for. The module and a map without further updates. That could work from the mariana map onwards. The maps you already bought could be calculated into some sort of Voucher, like for example a free year on the new payment model.

 

Its actually not rocket sience once you think it through.

 

By the way... 5 bucks is just a shot in the dark. And what do you mean by "if you think 5 bucks aint gonna hurt anybody your simply not doing the math."

 

Well here you go: I take my monthly income, take 5 bucks of of it and I'm still fine. Math done. Happy?

 

 

Gesendet von meinem SM-N975F mit Tapatalk

Edited June 11, 2020 by OPEC

[OPEC]

Actually, I am saying that.

 

The goal should not be to raise overall costs, the primary goal should be to align player interests with ED interest. Like many, I really want ED to spend more resources on fixing the game core and existing modules. But no one pays for that. The only way we financially support ED is by buying (new) modules and that achieves the exact opposite, as that gives them to signal and incentive to make even more new unfinished modules and rush new features that enable them, and force everyone on the open beta branch and do more early access releases that break the game for everyone.

 

A subscription fee aligns our interest. It removes pressure from ED to release new unfinished stuff that breaks the game and puts pressure on them to keep players happy by doing what they want them to do. Like not breaking the game.

 

But introducing a subscription fee on top of a module price is extremely unfair. Some people have already spent 500+ euro on modules, and no one ever warned them they would need to pay a monthly fee on top of that.

 

An optional subscription fee that replaces or complements module sale solves that (and solves a ton of other problems too, like chicken and egg problems with new maps no server uses because no one has them or empty ww2 servers etc).

But you have to raise overall costs. Thats the hole point of the exercise. If there would be enough income to develop more, faster and better, they would shurly do it. And with the current payment model there is no way on earth you can align the players and ED's interest.

 

A monthly subscribtion can only decrease the price of new modules by the "fear factor", witch is basically the amount of money you have to calculate into the price of a module in case it does not sell well.

 

Gesendet von meinem SM-N975F mit Tapatalk

[Vertigo72]

But you have to raise overall costs. Thats the hole point of the exercise.

 

Thats certainly not my goal. And I cant judge if its a necessity or not, I dont have insights in to ED finances. Do you?

 

If there would be enough income to develop more, faster and better, they would shurly do it.

 

That is not the main problem. Most of us do no want "more" (modules) or "faster" (release of modules). Certainly not nearly as badly as we want the DCS world base layer fixed and improved and age old bugs in existing modules fixed. Why is ED not spending as many resources on that as on, say super carrier? Because no one pays for a better graphics engine, or VR fixes, or AI, or recording and playing back tracks, or <insert 1135 old problems here> where as super carrier, even when barely functional, even when breaking the game for people who are not interested in it (but forced on the OB servers that run them), does pay ED bills.

 

If you had run a poll last year which matters more to you; having more acceptable frame rates in VR, improved weather model or having a larger carrier with human models on the deck, what do you think would have gotten more votes? Im guessing not the carrier. But by having a module sale business model rather than a subscription one, doing what we want does not pay EDs bills. It often costs them money. While doing what many of us do NOT want, does pay the bills. We can not vote with our wallets. Every time we pay ED for something, it sends them the opposite signal, gives them incentive to produce more (unfinished, game breaking) modules rather then spend resources on fixing our problems. THAT is the problem.

Edited June 11, 2020 by Vertigo72

[Pyker]

That is not the main problem. Most of us do no want "more" (modules) or "faster" (release of modules).

 

Every time we pay ED for something, it sends them the opposite signal, gives them incentive to produce more (unfinished, game breaking) modules rather then spend resources on fixing our problems. THAT is the problem.

 

I agree that it is the problem. "Perverse incentives" some people call that (I heard).

 

But I disagree with a solution forcing me to pay every month even if I have only one hour available to play that particular month.

 

I prefer to buy a new iteration every two years (ok, even every year) IF I decide, based on reviews, that it is a worthy upgrade, and that my PC can still run it. I prefer the possibility to skip the upgrades that I do not need or that I do not WANT (e.g. because an update becomes too much for my PC, which is more or less whart's happening to me now with 2.5.6). Same as for FS or xplane.

[Vertigo72]

But I disagree with a solution forcing me to pay every month even if I have only one hour available to play that particular month.

 

Thats why I suggest to make the scheme optional. You can buy modules and own them in perpetuity like now, or you can sign up for a subscription model where you "pay as you go". And since the marginal cost of giving users access to more modules is zero to ED, such a scheme could allow users to have access to all modules, or at least all map modules, or they can make it tiered so that you can pick a certain number of modules depending how much you want to pay or whatever, you can make it as flexible as you want.

 

The two schemes arent even mutually exclusive. You could (and should) give people who already own modules credit towards the subscription based model, so if you already own 20 modules, instead of being angry you are asked to pay a subscription on top, you would get enjoy the new system for perhaps a few years free of charge, or heavily discounted, as you would have no incentive to pay for it anyhow - unless or until a lot new modules have arrived. And vice versa, once users have paid in to the subscription model for X months, you could award them with perpetual module licenses for their favorite planes, so even if they stop paying, that money isnt wasted.

 

There are countless ways of doing this, and Im not saying I know how to do it exactly, but in general, ED being more reliant on people being generally happy about their work and wanting to keep paying their sub, than being reliant solely on creating ever more new early access modules that break stuff that gets everyone angry, and that may never all get fixed properly, has got to be a good thing.

[Pyker]

Thats why I suggest to make the scheme optional.

 

you can make it as flexible as you want.

 

The two schemes arent even mutually exclusive.

 

Please don't get mad but to me it sounds more to me like 'you can make it as complicated as you want.'

I admit I am not very smart but...

I don't understand why anybody would want to get into such an optional scheme. Or how that would create an incentive for ED to fix stuff in the core DCS world app (graphics, AI, etc).

 

But I admit I have problems with the complicated stuff in DCS in general (radar modes etc.) ;)

[mcl896b]

The answer to this is... it depends...

If I’m going to have to pay a subscription per module that I’ve already paid for... then no. I paid the money for those modules in good faith that ED would deliver them in working form at some point. If I’m now expected to pay a subscription for updates that rectify issues with the modules I’ve already paid for then no.

If they were to change their model to a subscription service on the basis of access to new content then I’d be open to it, but I’d want to see the Ts and Cs first. Particularly since I’m not a multiplayer dude, I play on my own (by choice).