New Pay Model

[TAW_Blaze]

What they actually make an attempt to critically analyse stuff? Instead of just believing it'll yield positive results.

 

 

 

Are you for real?

 

This topic is on a subscription model, my posts attempt to analyse subscription models people like you have proposed. I'm grateful that people are proposing potential models as it gives us something to work with. All I'm trying to do is solve the question: how does this compare in practice to the current model? And what are the results for developers and customers?

 

I've given an attempt at what I'll admit is very crude and flawed analysis - but I simply do not have the data to take it any further, but I would like to.

 

And what have I found from this analysis albeit crude? That the subscription models proposed here are far from the 'light at the end of the tunnel' you so desperately want it to be. I'm sorry, but you just seem to stick your fingers in your ears, not listen to anything being said while insisting that it is the way to go without any verification or critical reasoning. You proposed a model and I tried to analyse it and pit it against the current system.

 

In terms of the proposed subscription models:

• Best case scenario - it ends up being a minor advantage to developers.
  
• Worst case scenario - it ends up disadvantageous for developers and makes them less money, all the while being largely unpopular with the customer base.
  

With the best guess being roughly the same as the current system, providing no incentive either way.

 

 

As for your accusations? Well, unless you're going to give me something specific, I'm just going to assume that you don't like my answer, can't rebut it, and now you're getting desperate...

 

Oh, but I missed the whole point, so tell me what was that then zaelu?

 

 

 

I have. I have engaged and tried to solve it - there is no dilemma here, I just took your model and did some very crude analysis on how it would actually play out compared to the current model, the assessment didn't come out favourably. Just because it didn't some out favourably doesn't mean I haven't engaged - I'm not going to to use confirmation bias to justify a point.

 

 

 

Hint - it's already been addressed! The majority consensus on this forum is 8/10 against a subscription, with people saying they would drop DCS if it went subscription - resulting in LESS income for developers, even with a subscription.

 

Why is this so difficult?

 

 

 

I have found an answer, just because you don't like it doesn't mean I don't understand it. And no I'm not just going to believe it to be absolutely true without any analysis or reasoning. Belief dictating what's true or not I'll leave to the ideologues and conspiracy theorists.

 

 

IMO part of the issue is currently devs are only getting paid indirectly for core development and really your main income is shiny modules. However when you already have plenty of shiny modules another one barely adds to the experience.

 

Now I'm not saying a sub based business model will by itself fix the problem, but it's one way to make it more direct. In general I also hate subs :)

 

I'm curious to see where we get by the end of the year with this newfound focus on core features and also some multiplayer focus. So far my experience is mixed:

- multiple game breaking patches

- decent attempts at being transparent about what is happening in the background

- critical bugs that are reported correctly seem to get reasonable focus

[Northstar98]

Finally! Now that was a breath of fresh air!

Quote

IMO part of the issue is currently devs are only getting paid indirectly for core development and really your main income is shiny modules. However when you already have plenty of shiny modules another one barely adds to the experience.

For the issue of the core being funded indirectly, I'm not too sure, I just don't see the issue of having paid modules pay for what is free content. Oh well, maybe I'm missing something.

I'll disagree on barely adding to the experience though, but this is just a matter of opinion.

Edited December 11, 2021 by Northstar98
formatting

[CAmastersgt]

Here is a suggestion for keeping the current pay model over the subscription model:

 

 

CROWD FUNDING prefered modules. Player could donate $10+ for their favorite aircraft to be modeled. This could work for both ED and other module contributors. Using polls they could find which are the most likely aircraft everyone has an interest in, then ED and others can set up crowd funding for those aircraft that can be accomplished and made into a module. It can even extend into existing work like Dynamic Campaigns, Maps, and Features. This could significantly speed things up in development.

 

Depending how much you crowd funded then you will get that much off or a comparable discount when the product is offerred to the public.

 

Just an idea but it is workable. Maybe it is my MBA shining through but it fits the marketing management principles of delivering products that the people want. Might be a good idea to try a trial project.

[Svsmokey]

Here is a suggestion for keeping the current pay model over the subscription model:

 

 

CROWD FUNDING prefered modules. Player could donate $10+ for their favorite aircraft to be modeled. This could work for both ED and other module contributors. Using polls they could find which are the most likely aircraft everyone has an interest in, then ED and others can set up crowd funding for those aircraft that can be accomplished and made into a module. It can even extend into existing work like Dynamic Campaigns, Maps, and Features. This could significantly speed things up in development.

 

Depending how much you crowd funded then you will get that much off or a comparable discount when the product is offerred to the public.

 

Just an idea but it is workable. Maybe it is my MBA shining through but it fits the marketing management principles of delivering products that the people want. Might be a good idea to try a trial project.

 

Sounds practicible to me .

[Silver_Dragon]

Here is a suggestion for keeping the current pay model over the subscription model:

 

 

CROWD FUNDING prefered modules. Player could donate $10+ for their favorite aircraft to be modeled. This could work for both ED and other module contributors. Using polls they could find which are the most likely aircraft everyone has an interest in, then ED and others can set up crowd funding for those aircraft that can be accomplished and made into a module. It can even extend into existing work like Dynamic Campaigns, Maps, and Features. This could significantly speed things up in development.

 

Depending how much you crowd funded then you will get that much off or a comparable discount when the product is offerred to the public.

 

Just an idea but it is workable. Maybe it is my MBA shining through but it fits the marketing management principles of delivering products that the people want. Might be a good idea to try a trial project.

 

Crowdfunding was used on the old WW2 project KS and was a complete disaster, with ED rescue the project and put money to refloat and complete modules.

[Schmidtfire]

Isn’t Early Access a form of crowdfunding? We fund modules that we hope will be great and completed in the future.

 

On subscription model: Worst idea ever.

 

DCS is a study sim, every aircraft takes X amounts of hours to learn. In general, this is a sim that appeals to a more grown up audience. Grownups usually are dealing with life and has a small amount of hrs every week to spend on DCS. Plus a lot of simmers only fly 1-2 modules, their favourite aircrafts. Should they keep paying monthly for years on end? People will also cut subscriptions in order to get most value. ”I will sign up again for two months when the Typhoon is released” type of thing. Sounds like a total mess that I don’t want to be part of.

[CAmastersgt]

Crowdfunding was used on the old WW2 project KS and was a complete disaster, with ED rescue the project and put money to refloat and complete modules.

 

Thanks, did not realize it ad been tried before. May have been bad implementation or it just doesn't work with this audience/market. Thanks for the info.

[CAmastersgt]

Isn’t Early Access a form of crowdfunding? We fund modules that we hope will be great and completed in the future.

 

On subscription model: Worst idea ever.

 

DCS is a study sim, every aircraft takes X amounts of hours to learn. In general, this is a sim that appeals to a more grown up audience. Grownups usually are dealing with life and has a small amount of hrs every week to spend on DCS. Plus a lot of simmers only fly 1-2 modules, their favourite aircrafts. Should they keep paying monthly for years on end? People will also cut subscriptions in order to get most value. ”I will sign up again for two months when the Typhoon is released” type of thing. Sounds like a total mess that I don’t want to be part of.

 

I agree, and subscription model would have me look elsewhere.

[mhe]

I believe making a payware core with all the engine goodies up to date would be the way to go. If DCS 3.0 comes out with Vulkan, better ATC, efficient multithreading etc, I'd pay good money for that.

 

A mandatory subscription - no, don't do that. But the engine doesn't have to be free, content is paid anyway. But as it stands, there is little incentive to work on the core engine since it doesn't really bring money, it is much more lucrative to have yet another module sold as early access and stuck in said early access for eternity, which is why we see that happen for years now.

 

So make DCS 3.0 payware, make it compatible with existing modules and you have a winner, at least you can afford the resources directed towards making it. After a year or two, you can release it again as freeware and the payware is 4.0 etc.

 

So you can have the best of both worlds - the cheapskates get to keep their freebies and the people willing to pay for quality can do so and get rewarded for it, as does ED.

 

Where is the downside to this proposal?

[Birko]

Where is the downside to this proposal?

 

In this hypothetical scenario, is it essentially charging users to play open beta?- and making stable updates as infrequent as every year or two?

[StressLess]

Where is the downside to this proposal?

 

In trying to get a sufficient number of subscribers to this niche to make it work!

 

And if there are that many people interested in paying money to play DCS World to support it as a subscription service, why don't we see them flocking to DCS as a free to play option as it is currently? There are zero (count them - 0) show-stopper problems in DCS World that would prevent any and all from having fun and enjoying themselves! So, where are they?

 

You're trying to solve a problem by using a resource that doesn't look like it exists, namely a subscriber base of sufficient size to support a niche service. No, if you build it, they aren't necessarily going to come!

 

If you REALLY think that throwing more money at it will solve the problem, then set up a Patreon account for ED and each of the developers and do monthly payments of whatever amounts you feel you could afford.

 

There's NO reason whatsoever that ED needs to setup as a subscription service when you are OK with paying a monthly amount to them and can do so today thru Patreon or PayPal!!

 

With a well thought out and executed campaign to get others to join you in donating to the cause, you could be proactive in solving the problem you perceive to exist without screwing the rest of us over!

[chaser]

Some people seem to think that a subscription based model would magically solve Early Access and long development times :doh:

 

Worst idea ever.

 

Have to agree

[jasonbirder]

A subscription model might (and I stress might) engender a greater degree of accountability from ED

At the moment - any bugs/delays/queries/complaints are essentially shrugged off...

You've already purchased the module/early-access module - so what incentive is there for ED to be responsive? If there were an ongoing Financial relationship it would encourage them to be more responsive (even if only in terms of comms) as there is the risk of losing that forward revenue...

I'd happily pay money out...for the promise of accountability

[FalconPlot16]

I won't pay for every month.

[amazingme]

A subscription model might (and I stress might) engender a greater degree of accountability from ED

At the moment - any bugs/delays/queries/complaints are essentially shrugged off...

You've already purchased the module/early-access module - so what incentive is there for ED to be responsive? If there were an ongoing Financial relationship it would encourage them to be more responsive (even if only in terms of comms) as there is the risk of losing that forward revenue...

I'd happily pay money out...for the promise of accountability

Probably that's the reason why they didn't go for the sub model.

 

Sent from my Redmi 5 using Tapatalk

[StressLess]

A subscription model might (and I stress might) engender a greater degree of accountability from ED

 

Again, where are these subscribers going to be coming from? This economic model only works with a critical mass of subscribers providing sufficient cashflow to cover the cost.

 

The subscription itself is NOT an actual product, people aren't going to join simply because a subscription exists! So we need to ask what tangible value does a subscription bring to DCS World's existing offerings that will attract new players to come spend money every month?

 

And subscription service does not guarantee accountability! Look at the forums for ANY major subscription game and you will find copious amounts of postings about ancient bugs that are "shrugged off" by the developers, going all the way back to some of earliest online subscription services (anyone remember Meridian 59?). Heck, that's even true of non-game subscriptions where a service like Adobe's Creative Cloud comes to mind (a service that ONLY works because of a quasi-captive subscriber base as Adobe CC provides tools that allows their subscribers to make good money, while a gaming service generally wouldn't). There are tons of postings about bugs in Adobe CC that have been in product releases going back years!

 

This idea of a subscription seems like a clever idea, but clever ≠ smart! Once you start looking beneath the hood you find that doing a subscription service creates other problems and isn't well suited for niche markets where the value added is questionable. It makes it hard to add the critical mass of subscribers needed to make it work.

 

And an honest review of other subscription services shows the actual stated problem that going subscription is purported to resolve would, with a high degree of certainty, only be exacerbated by the switch.

 

Now a more interesting (and smart) solution to cashflow for the developers would be to offer a significantly cheaper version of each of their modules that are locked to game mode, that can then be upgraded to full fidelity at any time. There is little that would need to be done to support this to the module manager as they would be distinct modules (so they can't be hacked to give full fidelity) and it would be a simple change to their store as each module would be independent and the full fidelity module would replace the gaming module entirely on upgrade (since you can always turn on game mode if so desired).

Edited April 11, 2020 by StressLess
'Cause I just LOVE editing!

[Birko]

Not to mention that it's very sucky to give people something free for years, paid for by optional not-inexpensive downloadable content, and then put a paywall behind the downloaded content they already paid for.

[Exorcet]

A subscription model might (and I stress might) engender a greater degree of accountability from ED

At the moment - any bugs/delays/queries/complaints are essentially shrugged off...

You've already purchased the module/early-access module - so what incentive is there for ED to be responsive? If there were an ongoing Financial relationship it would encourage them to be more responsive (even if only in terms of comms) as there is the risk of losing that forward revenue...

I'd happily pay money out...for the promise of accountability

But if the current case is, "we have your money and we don't care", how does a subscription solve that? With a sub you're sending your money to them continuously. They have it even if they don't put out modules.

 

 

And it's not like modules leave them free of risk. I've stopped buying WWII modules because I don't feel like DCS damage model and AI are good enough to make them worth buying. When those things are fixed I'll consider picking up WWII again. Other people have done similar things for their own reasons (disappointment with core updates, module EA being too long, etc).

[Northstar98]

StressLess said:

Again, where are these subscribers going to be coming from? This economic model only works with a critical mass of subscribers providing sufficient cashflow to cover the cost.

 

The subscription itself is NOT an actual product, people aren't going to join simply because a subscription exists! So we need to ask what tangible value does a subscription bring to DCS World's existing offerings that will attract new players to come spend money every month?

 

And subscription service does not guarantee accountability! Look at the forums for ANY major subscription game and you will find copious amounts of postings about ancient bugs that are "shrugged off" by the developers, going all the way back to some of earliest online subscription services (anyone remember Meridian 59?). Heck, that's even true of non-game subscriptions where a service like Adobe's Creative Cloud comes to mind (a service that ONLY works because of a quasi-captive subscriber base as Adobe CC provides tools that allows their subscribers to make good money, while a gaming service generally wouldn't). There are tons of postings about bugs in Adobe CC that have been in product releases going back years!

 

This idea of a subscription seems like a clever idea, but clever ≠ smart! Once you start looking beneath the hood you find that doing a subscription service creates other problems and isn't well suited for niche markets where the value added is questionable. It makes it hard to add the critical mass of subscribers needed to make it work.

Absolutely freaking all of this

Edited December 11, 2021 by Northstar98
formatting

[chaser]

A subscription model might (and I stress might) engender a greater degree of accountability from ED

At the moment - any bugs/delays/queries/complaints are essentially shrugged off...

You've already purchased the module/early-access module - so what incentive is there for ED to be responsive? If there were an ongoing Financial relationship it would encourage them to be more responsive (even if only in terms of comms) as there is the risk of losing that forward revenue...

I'd happily pay money out...for the promise of accountability

 

You know thats not going to happen ...Right ?

[BuzzU]

I'd still like to know what we get for paying a subscription that we don't have now? Offering servers means nothing to single players.

 

Getting completed planes is a fantasy.

[will-]

I'd still like to know what we get for paying a subscription that we don't have now? Offering servers means nothing to single players.

 

Getting completed planes is a fantasy.

 

they are presuming ed will get more money, and in return we would get faster updates progress towards the game.

 

i just don't see how anyone would want this without actual numbers... doing a vote is pointless if net/profit is less then the model they are doing now. you'd think someone would post some actual facts.

 

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[amazingme]

We probably worry too much about ED's financial situation and the owners are laughing their ass off when we pay for an unfinished product. The fool is the one who pays the money not the one who asks for the money.

 

Sent from my Redmi 5 using Tapatalk

[Tom Kazansky]

ED has given me more than it took from me.

[Worrazen]

We probably worry too much about ED's financial situation and the owners are laughing their ass off when we pay for an unfinished product. The fool is the one who pays the money not the one who asks for the money.

 

Sent from my Redmi 5 using Tapatalk

 

Yes, gamers should care about the game, at least keep the complaints about the game to the game, report bugs, make sensible and realistic wishlist, talk more quality than quantity, we don't need to become NEOGAF where everyone's a homemade expert on company stocks. (even tho I had some "epic" fun times there haha)

 

 

I was also guilty of this back when I was a teenager, for a year or two ... until I figured out how many hours I wasted on being an unpaid analyst for Nintendo.:lol:

Edited April 12, 2020 by Worrazen