New Pay Model

[Northstar98]

MOHAB said:

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.

Well this certainly is a minefield...

And what incentive to ED have now for actually fixing stuff, if they're now not dependent on selling modules but the subscription? Using a subscription to recoup from bad optics sounds like a no no to me. I mean how you worded this to me at least, sounds like ED has less of an incentive to actively develop modules if they aren't going to take a financial hit when it doesn't go to plan. What's the point in risking module development if I can just sell subscriptions? I

And what I meant by cancelling each other out is that by paying more (via a subscription), to gain access to a discount - kind of negates having a discount, does it not?

What I meant by cancelling each other out, is that I have to pay more (for a subscription), but as an incentive

MOHAB said:

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.

So I'm paying for upgrades? Okay fine. Only instead of a flat charge, it's a subscription.

MOHAB said:

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.

No not rocket science by any means, just the financial gymnastics participating at the Olympics.

MOHAB said:

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?

No, no, no...

I meant that $5 a month probably isn't going to make much difference at all when compared to what the current model permits. I also thing there's a massive citation needed for how this subscription is going to even begin solving our problems any quicker than what the current system permits.

Edited December 11, 2021 by Northstar98
formatting

[Pyker]

Same for me.

I would be OK with ED saying "DCS 3.0 will have vulkan and improved features and fixes for x y z that will benefit all modules and it will cost x$ with free updates until version 4.0. For the modules that you already bought, you get a discount on the new versions." Pretty standard and straightforward, no?

 

This way, you buy the new DCS or an upgrade of a module that you already own only if it significantly improves something. So ED gets more money but also has an stronger incentive to keep fixing and improving the stuff that we already bought (instead of releasing new modules and never finishing them).

[Vertigo72]

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

 

yes, that too!

 

I admit I am not very smart but...

I don't understand why anybody would want to get into such an optional scheme.

 

Why not? I currently have 4 high fidelity modules. Would I like to fly some of the others? Or some of the other maps? Sure. But none of them enough to pay the full price. Take the WW2 stuff and maps. One or two planes, ww2 assets and the two maps would set me back, what, almost 200 euro? I wont commit to that, because I dont know Ill like it enough. I dont know if enough other people will like it and there will more servers and campaigns. But would I pay 10 euro a month for it? Yeah, I certainly would. At the very least for one or two months and then re-asses. What does it cost ED to give me access to those modules? marginal cost to them is zero. Its a win win. They get my 10 euro, I get to play with new toys I would otherwise not play with. Its not unlike the recent free trial, only permanent and not entirely free.

 

Or how that would create an incentive for ED to fix stuff in the core DCS world app (graphics, AI, etc).

 

Simply because they would get revenue that does not depend on making new modules. Currently close to 100% of their revenue depends on pushing out new content to old customers. New modules that create new problems, which then upsets everyone and need fixing. Which means they have even less time to fix all the other existing problems .

 

If they manage to get half their revenue from subscriptions rather than selling new modules, that would mean ED would get half their current revenue even without releasing any new modules. That means they are under much less pressure to produce new content (and new problems) and they could devote half their development team to fixing old bugs and improving the underlying DCS world engines.

[OPEC]

Well this certainly is a minefield...

 

And what incentive to ED have now for actually fixing stuff, if they're now not dependent on selling modules but the subscription? Using a subscription to recoup from bad optics sounds like a no no to me. I mean how you worded this to me at least, sounds like ED has less of an incentive to actively develop modules if they aren't going to take a financial hit when it doesn't go to plan. What's the point in risking module development if I can just sell subscriptions? I

 

And what I meant by cancelling each other out is that by paying more (via a subscription), to gain access to a discount - kind of negates having a discount, does it not?

 

What I meant by cancelling each other out, is that I have to pay more (for a subscription), but as an incentive

 

 

 

So I'm paying for upgrades? Okay fine. Only instead of a flat charge, it's a subscription.

 

 

 

No not rocket science by any means, just the financial gymnastics participating at the Olympics.

 

 

 

No, no, no...

 

I meant that $5 a month probably isn't going to make much difference at all when compared to what the current model permits. I also thing there's a massive citation needed for how this subscription is going to even begin solving our problems any quicker than what the current system permits.

Well... since it's an additional income, I guess it's gonna make a big difference. 5 Dollars times let's say 50.000 players who would go for that kind of model we're talking a quarter million dollars GOP. I guess that is not to far off, given the fact that lock on sold about 50k units in the US alone by 2005.

I guess you could do a lot with that amount of money.

 

I'm aware of the fact that you would have to charge the already bought modules up against the subscribtion.

 

 

 

 

Gesendet von meinem SM-N975F mit Tapatalk

[OPEC]

Simply because they would get revenue that does not depend on making new modules. Currently close to 100% of their revenue depends on pushing out new content to old customers. New modules that create new problems, which then upsets everyone and need fixing. Which means they have even less time to fix all the other existing problems .

 

 

 

If they manage to get half their revenue from subscriptions rather than selling new modules, that would mean ED would get half their current revenue even without releasing any new modules. That means they are under much less pressure to produce new content (and new problems) and they could devote half their development team to fixing old bugs and improving the underlying DCS world engines.

 

I see we are not to far away from each other.

 

 

Gesendet von meinem SM-N975F mit Tapatalk

[Pyker]

 

If they manage to get half their revenue from subscriptions rather than selling new modules, that would mean ED would get half their current revenue even without releasing any new modules. That means they are under much less pressure to produce new content (and new problems) and they could devote half their development team to fixing old bugs and improving the underlying DCS world engines.

 

How does a subscription for (i.e. Renting) unfinished or buggy stuff rather than selling unfinished and buggy stuff create an incentive for ED (or any software company) to finish and debug that stuff?

They make extra revenue, fine, now why would they waste it in fixing old products that they already sold rather than investing it in making more new modules to make even more revenue?

Edited June 11, 2020 by Pyker

[Vertigo72]

How does a subscription for (i.e. Renting) unfinished or buggy stuff rather than selling unfinished and buggy stuff create an incentive for ED to finish and debug that stuff?

 

Lets see how I can explain this. You are a baker. I am your only customer, I pay you for each loaf of bread. But your kitchen is dirty and I want you to clean it. You cant charge for me that, we have a deal that I pay you per bread, cleaning would mean producing less breads, you have a family to support, so all you do is bake breads, because that is your only revenue source, and in the process you make an even bigger mess of the kitchen.

 

If instead of paying you per bread, I pay you a monthly salary for all your breads, how hard would it be for me to convince you to bake a few less breads and clean the damn kitchen?

 

They make extra revenue

 

No, they would not. That is not the point. They could earn exactly the same. BUT, it would be far less dependent on pushing out new (buggy, unfinished) content.

 

rather than investing it in making more new modules to make even more revenue?

 

You almost get it! Right now making more new modules is their only way to get money. With a subscription model, its not about constantly making more new modules, its about making sure customers dont cancel their subs. Maybe some people will cancel if there isnt enough new content, but I bet most will be far happier if ED fix their existing content rather than keep pushing new stuff.

[Pyker]

You're going to buy my bread anyway because I am the only baker in town. I don't need to make better bread. You know what my bread tastes like, you've been eating it for years, you know it is possible to make better bread but you buy from me because nobody else makes bread.

 

If you pay me a salary I won't spend it to make better bread or clean my kitchen. I'll use it on advertisement and new pastry recipes to attract more customers. Because the regular customers like you, they are not going anywhere. And you're going to buy my pastries too because you're tired of bread. Even if my pastries don't taste that good. Doesn't matter if you pay by the piece or monthlly, if you spend the same.

[Vertigo72]

If I use an analogy to try to explain something, and you then change the basic premises of my analogy to "prove me wrong", then whats the point?

 

I tried.

 

If you pay me a salary I won't spend it to make better bread or clean my kitchen

 

Then Ill fire you. Cancel my sub. I dont need your bread

Edited June 11, 2020 by Vertigo72

[Northstar98]

Wait, why am I buying bread from a dirty kitchen?

[wilbur81]

I'd be another person who'd gladly vote for the base DCS World download to be, in itself, a paid product. Something so good shouldn't be free. :thumbup:

[StressLess]

I wish these people would quit trying to present schemes to get all the modules for (almost) free, modules that a lot of us have paid good money for, as something that's altruistic! Shame on you!

 

Pay your money like the rest of us have and you can fly ANY module you want, whenever you want!

 

As explained by Nick in that video posted earlier in this thread, we already have a good thing going, and we are getting better and higher quality modules than could be produced otherwise for such a small niche market, so quit trying to break what is working (as imperfect as it is)!!

[nosaMtrevoC]

And what would happen to the $1k in modules (and much more for many) that we've already spent?

 

I now have to pay monthly for a product I already own?

[amalahama]

People voted No. Period. Stop bashing the dead horse

[FrankA]

I've spent 683.83 not even counting the small international banking fee on DCS modules. So no!

[Pyker]

I'd be another person who'd gladly vote for the base DCS World download to be, in itself, a paid product. Something so good shouldn't be free. :thumbup:

 

That is my opinion too.

I believe this is more palatable than a subscription.

And then ED would have an incentive to improve the base DCS world (vulkan, optimization, and so on).

Again, same as xplane or msfs.

 

Vertigo: Sorry I was not trying to prove you wrong. What I meant is: My opinion is that your idea will not solve our problem, and here is the reason why I believe so. Just an opinion.

Edited June 12, 2020 by Pyker

[OPEC]

People voted No. Period. Stop bashing the dead horse

 

 

Yeah. Like 850 People. Thats not what I would call representative.

 

 

 

@Vertigo

 

 

See - I would go that far and pay you for coming to work. So - no matter how you turn it - In order to tackle all teh problems and wishes out there for DCS, they have to get more resourses. And that becomes a matter of money, sooner or later. Right no it is not looking like they have what it takes to do everything within a reasonable period of time so somethings got to change. And I dont mind throwing in a little bit of extra money, if it helps supporting the product i like. And i guess I'm not the only one. Maybe its just time to rethink the Free2Play and go to a paid model for DCS World. For interested people make it a 4 weeks trial so they can check out wether they like it or not.

Edited June 12, 2020 by OPEC

[StressLess]

Yeah. Like 850 People. Thats not what I would call representative.

 

Then you don't understand how polling works!! It's a small sampling of a larger population to determine overall trends.

 

How big do you think polling samples are usually? It's common for a country as large as the US (370 million or so people) to have polls that only sample a thousand or so, even on major issues! :noexpression:

 

So while polling on a message board is not strictly scientific, it still does adequately reflect it's larger population for this discussion.

 

These results are significantly outside the margin of error as well, despite not being scientific, and as such are still useful in determining the overall trend:

 

The customers say NO to DCS being a subscription service! :thumbdown:

Edited June 12, 2020 by StressLess
'Cause I hate freeloaders...

[Pyker]

So what about the alternative ? DCS world 'base' module not free anymore, to finance upgrades?

Would anybody care enough to start a poll about that?

[OPEC]

Then you don't understand how polling works!! It's a small sampling of a larger population to determine overall trends.

 

How big do you think polling samples are usually? It's common for a country as large as the US (370 million or so people) to have polls that only sample a thousand or so, even on major issues! :noexpression:

 

So while polling on a message board is not strictly scientific, it still does adequately reflect it's larger population for this discussion.

 

These results are significantly outside the margin of error as well, despite not being scientific, and as such are still useful in determining the overall trend:

 

The customers say NO to DCS being a subscription service!

First of all- using two exclamation marks is not proofing your point, it looks, well...

 

And if you would know anything about surveys ( and i guess you do, since your explenation is pretty on point) than you also know that for a survey to be representative you have to choose very carefully who you ask. Let me give you an example. If you would ask everyone in germany about a generell speed limit on the Autobahn. If you would only ask men, you would not get a valid result. If you would ask men and Women, both 50% but 20% of them do not have a car, its again not representative.

 

So no, asking everyone, also its a Survey on a Massage board is not gonna get you anywhere, because there is always the Trend that people who are against something tend to have a bigger voice Despite beeing the minority. People who do not care simply do not take Part. So i would be extremly careful with surveys, if they are not in a sientific pattern.

 

The Trend I'm seeing when reading the comments here is that a lot of people are willing to spend more money on it, the question is just how.

 

Gesendet von meinem SM-N975F mit Tapatalk

[Vertigo72]

I wish these people would quit trying to present schemes to get all the modules for (almost) free,

 

How weird. Most people accuse me of proposing a money grab for ED, you accuse me of the opposite. Maybe that is because I have made no effort to determine how much a reasonable subscription fee would cost?

 

But what I find even more depressing is that you would oppose it because you want me to "pay as much as you paid". Im sorry, but thats just stupid for an endless number of reasons. Ignoring the aspect that you have already enjoyed your modules for possibly almost a decade, and that you can continue to enjoy them for another decade for free, tell me, how incredibly upset where you during the free trial, when everyone could fly all the modules for free? How unfair was that ? Secondly, depending on how high that subscription fee is, and how many years I would continue playing the game, I may well end up paying more than you. Does that make you happy?

 

But most importantly, if a subscription model brings in new players and temporary players who only pay for a few months on and off, and lets users pay modest monthly fees to experiment with or fly different new planes and maps they otherwise would not buy, it provides ED with a predictable source of income that does not depend solely on releasing new unfinished or crappy modules every 2 weeks; it would give ED an incentive and the means to spend more on fixing the old modules you all paid for, as well as the core game no one paid for. You would get more bang for your buck, but it would anger you?

Edited June 12, 2020 by Vertigo72

[OPEC]

I wish these people would quit trying to present schemes to get all the modules for (almost) free, modules that a lot of us have paid good money for, as something that's altruistic! Shame on you!

 

Pay your money like the rest of us have and you can fly ANY module you want, whenever you want!

 

As explained by Nick in that video posted earlier in this thread, we already have a good thing going, and we are getting better and higher quality modules than could be produced otherwise for such a small niche market, so quit trying to break what is working (as imperfect as it is)!!

 

 

That post just proves that you did not get the hole point of it. It's not about getting anything for free. It's just a look at the business side of things. You can not plan your gop properly, the way it's running right now. But you need to, in order to plan your business, hire staff and so on and so forth.

 

So the idea is to bring ED a more or less constant cashflow in order to make strategic decisions regarding the future of ED and the hole business. Because making a lot on money once is not gonna provide you company in the future - therefor you have to release more and most of the time more early in order to get that cashflow. And this is where our ideas are coming into place.

[Dudikoff]

So what about the alternative ? DCS world 'base' module not free anymore, to finance upgrades? Would anybody care enough to start a poll about that?

 

That's an interesting idea, kind of like Prepar3D or X-Plane where you have to pay for each major new release (e.g. v3, v4, and so on).

 

I would be OK with that if the extra money would allow ED to hire some extra people to work on some aspects of the base game that were never developed (e.g. a better campaign system, better AI, weather system, IADS, etc.) so we actually get to enjoy those during our lifetime.

[Vertigo72]

So - no matter how you turn it - In order to tackle all teh problems and wishes out there for DCS, they have to get more resourses. And that becomes a matter of money, sooner or later. Right no it is not looking like they have what it takes to do everything within a reasonable period of time so somethings got to change.

 

ED may or may not have a resource/ staffing problem. It may or may not have financial problems. I dont know. But its besides the point, Im not arguing for increasing or decreasing our cost or EDs revenue. The point is how the resources that they have are spent. ED are more focused on new modules and things hardly anyone ever asked for, and that regularly results in breaking the game for many of us, because these new modules bring in money. Its their only relevant source of income. And they are not spending nearly as much as most of us want on tackling issues with existing modules, and improving the underlying game engine, because they have no real financial incentive to do so. If they manage to double VR frame rates, implement dynamic campaigns, have new clouds and weather model, we will all be over the moon, but their sales numbers will barely budge. The people who most loudly oppose subscription and already own all the modules, will not spend an extra dollar. But if ED announces and let users preorder a B52 or B17 or ww2 carrier or whatever else, regardless if its not even remotely ready, and even if requires all kinds of changes in the game core that gives all kinds of trouble to everyone, then money flows in.

 

A subscription model removes their financial incentive to focus as much effort as possible on constantly making new (and unfinished stuff, forever growing the list of bugs and missing features), and it creates an incentive for them to grow their customer base and keep those people happy, regardless if that is achieved by making B17s or having better graphics and performance and fixing age old bugs.

 

Maybe its just time to rethink the Free2Play and go to a paid model for DCS World

 

As long as ED makes most of its revenue from selling new modules, this doesnt solve the problem. Charging for DCSW may generate extra income for them, it may also hurt sales and onboarding (without a free version, I likely wouldnt be playing DCS right now, even with a free trial). The core problem would remain that they have more incentive to produce more and new and unfinished stuff rather than fixing the stuff they already have.

[amalahama]

MOHAB, people hate your idea, the vast majority of DCS community likes the current model, take it!