New Pay Model

[freehand]

ED have plenty of money that's why the thread is still open.

[crippler]

It looks like we pay xbox prices for module and get mediocre and unfinished a/c. A pay service isn't going to get more value for your dollars as history has shown.

We get a module and it is "WIP" and then another module comes out and the previous module is never completely finished. It sounds to me that they stop working on a module when the complaints fall to a certain threshold. It is a business that is trying to balance getting more money and less work or minimal work.

[Ramstein]

when people make a headline they write it not as a question, but as fact... please learn to write it correctly if posed as a headline addressing the community... thanx :doh:

[drwenck]

I spend a lot of money on my VR and motion platform gaming setup. 2080TI, Ryzen 7 3800X, 32GB Ram, SSDs, etc.

And it's frustrating to see some areas (even if very few) give 3/4, or worse, reduction in frame rates when a few aircraft are parked/taxiing at an airbase. Literally from 100fps down to 20 because models aren't optimized and/or the base simulator doesn't utilize multithreading or cull unseen or overly numerous polygons. (Settings far from max, 1.4 pixel density)

This is after many hours of tinkering and modding with shaders, textures, nackground apps, system settings, etc.

 

I don't blame the guys at Eagle Dynamics. The current payment setup literally doesn't reward them to invest heavily in the underlying game mechanics, nor does a single payment setup make module developers responsible to deliver an evolving product.

 

I personally own at least 75% of the modules available in DCS, and I understand that changing the current setup could potentially mean more investment on my part, but unless there is impetus to change, why would they?

 

I don't know the answer, but if you look at nature (Charles Darwin) then if there is a driving force for change, then there is more likely to be one. If the guys only get paid every time they release a new module, why in the hell would they invest a large amount of resources into things other than new modules?

Maybe the answer is both (I raise the iRacing scenario again) where both the modules AND the software attract fees. I would also suggest an in-game rating system for modules that gives users the ability to give a star rating and a description at the end of missions, to make developers more responsible for keeping their modules current and optimal.

If a module isn't up to scratch, prospective purchasers will see, and the feedback will drive the developers to maintain their product or risk low sales as the product ages/fails to adapt over time.

Similarly, if the base simulation is part of the fee structure, it has a chance to evolve and stay as competitive as possible.

Maybe one way Eagle Dynamics could transition would be to offer existing purchasers a discount and/or credit to transition payment types?

 

You have to think. What will DCS look like in 5 years time if the main financial driver for the software is predominantly focused on releasing modules? Do you think it will get the same attention to the flight model, weather, ground/scenery, graphics, etc. that Microsoft Flight Sim gets in that time?

What if Microsoft opens up its policy on war simulations? (they have previously, and if someone in an office decides they'll satisfy the cost vs. reward analysis to import a dozen airframes from P3D into the MSFS2020 engine, then what happens?).

 

I don't say any of this to offend anyone. I say it because I care greatly about DCS, and I want it to be something we see grow and grow and grow.

 

If you've already invested in DCS, great! - but it exactly that, an investment. iRacing has the community, development and realism it has right now because of the model they've decided to go with. Not because they purely decided to charge $30 per car and left it at that.

[Ourorborus]

No, No and No

 

I have already walked away from Adobe, Microsoft and several other software solutions because of this model.

 

It is a trap that only leads to rising prices and user disenchantment.

[zaelu]

You can cry no about it but I think is coming. This month of free trial on most of modules was a dry test imho. They could do it more and more often to see if sales spike positively to "demo" incentives .

Then... they can run it in paralele no problem. Buy the module and have it all the time or wait for it to be demo again. This is a good incentive.

 

Then they could bring in the subscription as an alternative.

 

What I would also like is for them to consider using lower fidelity models/textures for demo/free version. A good example is the Macchi mb399 free mod community module. If all modules would be free at that quality and then have the F14 or F18 level of quality as payware would be a great strategy imho.

Edited May 12, 2020 by zaelu

[Northstar98]

zaelu said:

You can cry no about it but I think is coming. This month of free trial on most of modules was a dry test imho. They could do it more and more often to see if sales spike positively to "demo" incentives .

I really do not see how you make the connection between the current free trial + 50% discount period and ED potentially trialling a subscription model....

zaelu said:

Then... they can run it in paralele no problem. Buy the module and have it all the time or wait for it to be demo again. This is a good incentive.

 

Then they could bring in the subscription as an alternative.

Completely undermining the point of the subscription, if I get to keep my modules and pay for them full price and have them perpetually, what's the incentive of paying the subscription? I'm just paying more for the exact same thing.

Edited December 11, 2021 by Northstar98
formatting

[Ourorborus]

Subscription pay models only work for companies that own a well established monopoly that people require in order to do business, i.e for income generating purposes. Two successful examples are Microsoft Office and Adobe creative suite. Both only work because the end user MUST pay the subscription or risk losing their income. Both companies have created mass resentment and lost most of their casual user base. The Adobe example has created a resurgence in competitive software aimed at the consumer/prosumer market.

 

Another example is Cakewalk Recording software. The company went under 12 months after going to a subscription model as most of it's (very loyal) user base were home amateurs operating on a shoe string who could not afford the risk of ransomware. Better to go to another product that they buy once and keep using until it no longer works, than be forced to continue to pay for the privilege.

 

This is different to software that requires an ongoing subscription to access the service (read many online games, Netflix etc) because in this model you are paying for the service, not the product. At any time the user can decide they don't want to watch movies anymore and end their subscription.

 

DCS is neither necessary for income generation nor an ongoing service. (unless the subscription applies to multiplayer only). It is a product that people purchase for enjoyment, and play until the next shiny thing looks more appealing (other game/sim/new module) so they can walk away if they don't like the subscription model, and based on history they will.

[crippler]

It should be freeware if you have everyone helping you fix it! It is considered; I am throwing this p.o.s out there for demonstrations.

 

 

 

I think that it is false advertising when you say pre-release, beta blah blah blah and then do not receive the product or worse a poorly functioning product that takes years to finish

[drwenck]

@Ourorborus (and most others) I completely get your point :)

Subscriptions aren't ideal, all I want Eagle Dynamics and the user base to think about is how they go forward with development.

Some people might want more and more aircraft, but for me (and maybe at least one other user) I'd like to see more resources invested into improving the very core of the sim.

 

How do I, for example, incentivize them to spend the time on making the turbulence and weather effects more realistic? What about better VR integration/optimisation?

 

Hell, I would be very happy to pay $60 for a weather/turbulence mod, another $60 for a VR performance pack, same again for an engine upgrade, ground texture pack, fancy shaders, etc. if it improved things without bugs and was written and updated with robust coding...

The thing is I'm pretty sure a percentage of people would think that those items should be part of DCS. But there's not a ton of incentive (other than complaints) to bring these features into existence.

 

I guess the question is... what can WE do to make it worthwhile for Eagle Dynamics to spend time on underlying processes, whilst at the same time keeping existing modules unbroken and relevant?

I hope there's an answer

...anyway, I'm off to the store to buy another module

[Mfezi]

I would definitely walk away from DCS if it changed to a subscription model, as I have done with several other types of software.

[Ourorborus]

@Ourorborus (and most others) I completely get your point :)

Subscriptions aren't ideal, all I want Eagle Dynamics and the user base to think about is how they go forward with development.

Some people might want more and more aircraft, but for me (and maybe at least one other user) I'd like to see more resources invested into improving the very core of the sim.

 

How do I, for example, incentivize them to spend the time on making the turbulence and weather effects more realistic? What about better VR integration/optimisation?

 

Hell, I would be very happy to pay $60 for a weather/turbulence mod, another $60 for a VR performance pack, same again for an engine upgrade, ground texture pack, fancy shaders, etc. if it improved things without bugs and was written and updated with robust coding...

The thing is I'm pretty sure a percentage of people would think that those items should be part of DCS. But there's not a ton of incentive (other than complaints) to bring these features into existence.

 

I guess the question is... what can WE do to make it worthwhile for Eagle Dynamics to spend time on underlying processes, whilst at the same time keeping existing modules unbroken and relevant?

I hope there's an answer

...anyway, I'm off to the store to buy another module

 

dr

 

your point is well made and highlights the limitation of the Early Access Model. Most of the money is made on modules in early access so when the funds run short the only solution is to release another module in early access.... and thus it perpetuates and nothing is ever really finished. (I mean no disrespect to the awesome team at EA, If I did not think your product was the best/most enjoyable/most detailed sim available I wouldn't be here.) As a result user's get frustrated by the feeling of paying for incomplete products. This is compounded when asked to pay in advance for an early access product that is then delayed. (aka Supercarrier)

 

This would pale in comparison however to the user dissatisfaction generated from a subscription model. It is known as ransomware as no matter how many thousands of dollars you have already spent on the software, you lose it all if you don't pay the next months fee.

 

Perhaps there is some value in admitting the perfect sim is unobtainable by a small team and look at what has worked for X-plane and MSFS for decades. Opening the SDK somewhat to allow third parties to develop things like improved clouds etc. I too would love better VR support and clouds that don't rotate, and I know if this were a problem in X-plane there would be a third party module that fixes it. At last count I think there were about 8 third party add ons to fix Xplane ATC. All different dependant on the desired user experience (accuracy/ feel/ multiplayer/etc).

 

I love the detail and sense of purpose this sim has and would hate to see ED go under due to losing a significant portion of its user base due to an ill conceived idea about ransomware.

[fjacobsen]

I wouldn´t like that model - that would remove the last possible pressure on ED and 3rd parties to finish their modules.

 

It would be better that You only have to pay like 30% of the final price for EA, and once it reaches release version, You pay the last 70% (re-activation of the module).

 

The release version should then not be put on sale before 1 year after release, otherwise You would feel cheated.

 

This would mean that they will get money to develop core sim and modules, but also keep the pressure on them to finish their modules.

Once finished the customer can then decide wether they find the release version worth the last 70% or back out - kind of ensuring quality.

 

The ratio could be different ie. 30/70 40/60 or 50/50. Main thing is to keep them "motivated" to finish their products and deliver what the promised.

 

An expected time for developement should also be given, and if delayed beyond a reasonable time, then the last payment should be reduced.

 

Problem right now is that the rebate for EA isn´t that big. Those who buy EA modules actually put a good portion of faith into the developers, but might be left with an unfinished product that takes unreasonable time. If then the release version is put on sale a few month after rlease, then as an EA backer You feel really cheated.

 

 

An example...

I paid the pre-order amount of 64$ for the F-16C when pre-order was opened.

The final release price is set to 80$ , so I got a 16$ rebate for putting my faith into this project even before having the chnace to fly it.

Now it´s allready on sale for 40$ and it most probably get´s on sale a few month after release !!

That kind of business model makes me feel both stupid and cheated and it really shouldn´be that way.

On top of that the time it takes to finish the F-16C has been postponed until when ?

 

 

Offcourse no one forces me to buy EA stuff - no one are foced. But according to ED this business model is necessary for them to fund developement.

I just find that it should be clear to everyone that those who really are backing them, and put a decent amount of faith (and money) into their business, often end up been put on the backburner.

 

 

Just my thoughts...

Edited May 13, 2020 by fjacobsen

[Tom Kazansky]

The Viper is a bad example. ED stated several times that it was part of a very exceptional sale due to these hard times of Corona. So can you give another example please?

[98abaile]

This thread is still going?! I can't understand why there is a small group of individuals that want to f*ck over everyone else and somehow conflate that with helping ED. Especially since they've already said they're not planning on changing their model.

[fjacobsen]

The Viper is a bad example. ED stated several times that it was part of a very exceptional sale due to these hard times of Corona. So can you give another example please?

 

Sure....

AV8B

I paid 50$ for EA

Final price when released (still EA) 70$

On sale now for 35$

 

F/A-18

I paid 60$ for EA

Final price for released (still EA) 80$

On sale now for 40$

 

And so forth...

 

Bottom line for me is that I buy the modules on Pre-purcase, that means even before I have a chance to fly and try them, cause I want to back ED.

Doinf so, I pay money for something I don´t know what will become.

I do this cuase I have the faith that ED eventually will deliver.

 

By putting these EA modules on sale, the people buying them now had plenty of time reading into the feedback from us who took the chance, and they will have instant acces to the module. Is it fair that they can have these modules cheaper than us who took the greater risc ?

 

As I said - it´s my own decision to buy on pre-order, or buy the EA modules on day one of their release. But I have done so because I want to keep this sim alive, and for this to happen (according to ED), this business model is required.

 

In my eyes the pre-order price should be the lowest the module ever will be at, until it has been a finished release version long enough to grant it to be put on sale for a price lower than the pre-order.

[Tom Kazansky]

Ok. I see. You mean modules should only be on sale at least 1 year after the end of EA.

[fjacobsen]

Ok. I see. You mean modules should only be on sale at least 1 year after the end of EA.

 

 

Nope

One year after final release (V1.0).

[StressLess]

Nope

One year after final release (V1.0).

 

This problem with sale pricing is simple, if you find a price you're willing to pay, pay it and buy the module - if you are willing to abide by the conditions it's offered under (such a EA).

 

At that point you have access to the module for your use, and that's what you are buying - right here, right now access.

 

Now if it goes down in price the next day, are you going to beat yourself (or ED) up over your inability to see into the future??

 

Take some personal responsibility, you didn't have to make that purchase right there and right then, you COULD have waited to see if the price was going to drop. But you did buy it and for the money spent you got access to the module immediately, and you MUST have thought at that point that the price was worth what you where getting...

 

ED certainly isn't responsible for YOUR inability to foresee future events, and it's simply NOT FAIR to blame ED because you're stuck having hindsight instead of foresight (a problem that plagues the rest of the human race as well, welcome)!

 

Simple fact is, when you bought it that was the going price, you thought the price was right, and you weren't coerced into spending the money, there was nothing forcing you to make that particular decision at that particular time...

 

So suck it up and learn from the experience you just paid for with cold hard cash...

 

Me personally, I like sales, they are great! Eventually the F-14 will go on sale at 50% off, but I bought it during this recent sale in April because it's an awesome module. For that extra cash I just spent, I get to fly that gold standard module as much as I want between the time I bought it and the time it goes on sale for 50%. Experience tells me that I got a GREAT deal...

 

I also got the Supercarrier (pre-purchase) and F-18 (EA) bundle, also on sale, and I know that I would not have access to the Supercarrier module for a while AND that the target release dates would almost certainly slip (and they did), but when it gets here, I'll be able to (hopefully) land that big beautiful F-14 on it as often as I want before either module ever goes on sale again, rather for the same price or cheaper. Experience tells me that I got a GREAT deal...

 

BTW- yeah, I only have hindsight too, and I almost got a hernia trying to see into the future on that F-14 50% off sale, but strain as I might I'm only human - some days it sucks to be me...

Edited May 14, 2020 by StressLess
Because subscription services SUCK!! Predicting the future and foreseeing the future are not the same thing, BTW.

[Tom Kazansky]

Nope

One year after final release (V1.0).

 

 

That's what I meant with "after the end of EA". I hope ED will not follow your proposal. Just mho.

[mastershotgun]

My opinion is that there is nothing wrong with the pay model... Only thing I would change/add is full offline mode without online activation at all...

[Birko]

I'm sure a subscription model works in certain conditions. One of the cirumstances where it doesn't work is when you give loyal customers the middle finger, probably give consumer law the middle finger, and put the things they've already bought behind a new paywall.

[Evoman]

I highly recommend everyone hearing this interview with Nick Grey From ED to better understand how complex and work intensive it is to develop a new module. Pay special attention at 15:52 min on ward.

Simply throwing more money at ED is not going to improve things to the level some would imagine.

 

 

[DthFrmAbv]

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.

[ngreenaway]

ED doesn't need armchair-CEOs. If they were in need of a new revenue stream, they would've rolled it out by now. (Or it could also be that MAC, in addition to reducing the learning curve into DCS, provides that revenue)

 

Additionally, I have no problems with the current development cycle. Not losing any sleep over incomplete EA projects