Jump to content

New Pay Model


MacEwan

New Pay Model  

907 members have voted

  1. 1. New Pay Model

    • Yes
      149
    • No
      732
    • Only if it doesn't slow down the rate that new modules are being released
      27


Recommended Posts

But that's okay we have a different metric - the number of forum users, which is about 90000 - lets assume that only half actively play DCS (seems reasonable enough) and we've got our 50,000 users.

 

 

How many of those are bots? How many are inactive? How many participate in this forum but don't buy from ED? The number of forum users is about the worst choice after a random number generator.

Good, fast, cheap. Choose any two.

Come let's eat grandpa!

Use punctuation, save lives!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look at the poll ED held 5 years ago:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=151627

 

the overwhelming winner was dynamic campaigns. Guess what no one voted for? A larger carrier with deck crew. 5 years later we do have the super carrier, but we still dont have a dynamic campaign engine.

 

What we do have are two additional multirole 4th generation fighters. Which was the second most requested feature and a dynamic campaign is in the works. Other requested features were the dedicated server and new maps, which they delivered.

 

Recently ED held a poll on what's most important to players flying the F/A-18 and have altered their development efforts around this. Which is ironic because it also highlighted the problems with the community. Ground radar came top, despite it being a feature mostly ignored by real pilots. You can also note that the most popular request was for dynamic campaigns yet the least most popular request was for actual missions and campaigns.

 

They may not have delivered a dynamic campaign engine yet, but there are definately plenty of other examples where they have listened. And working on modules doesn't mean other features cannot be developed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many of those are bots? How many are inactive? How many participate in this forum but don't buy from ED? The number of forum users is about the worst choice after a random number generator.

 

:doh:

 

Next time how about we read the whole post?


Edited by Northstar98

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are not answering any of my points. It sounds as you are trying to defend DCS as a product against someone who is critical of DCS. Thats not the discussion Im having. Im talking about the broken business model. I want to find a solution that enables ED to focus more on doing the things we want.

 

Look at the poll ED held 5 years ago:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=151627

 

the overwhelming winner was dynamic campaigns. Guess what no one voted for? A larger carrier with deck crew. 5 years later we do have the super carrier, but we still dont have a dynamic campaign engine. And thats not because ED are evil, or greedy or incompetent. Its not because they do not want to deliver what customers want, it is because with the current business model ED can not focus heavily on what we want, at least if those things relate to the free underlying game engine

 

In that same poll, 4th generation, multirole fighters also scored well. We did get those in spades. Because those dont run contrary to their business model. New content is their only business model, its what brings in revenue. And so we also got more WW2 and vietnam era planes that hardly anyone voted for, while we did not get the dedicated server that twice as many people wanted. But the planes bring in revenue, a dedicated server does not. New clouds do not, implementing Vulkan and improving VR performance does not, better netcode does not, dynamic campaigns probably do not, no matter how badly we might want them. No matter even if many of us would gladly pay more to make those happen and many of us will spend the equivalent of 10 high fidelity modules on a new nvidia card to get only a marginal performance improvement that is unlikely to fix our VR trouble. To put it extremely simplified: ED are not selling what most of us right now would like to buy, and they do not have a model to do so.

 

 

You want an anwser fro me to the question of a new subscrition based funding model etc?

That's simple: No I don't need a new funding model, because its not my business, I don't have the necessary facts to even consider about, but I can always decide with my own wallet if that what ED offers suits me or not.

 

 

On your side with all the lack you find that ED doesn't deliver to please you I really wonder why you take that much effort in trying to change something that is far out of your reach and not just turn away and look for a playing ground that better meets your request?

 

 

Plus: You can't offer any real business case just some "thoughts" on your own what might be right or better to solve all the current and future problems, completely ignoring that the majority of the user base that had a motion to anwser this poll denied the question. I really wonder if you have run at least some kind of real business at all or if your are just another more or less well trained theoretical business "developer".

 

 

For me its clear: If ED some day decides to switch to a kind of a subscription based model I am out and put some more "game stuff" in the bin where already a lot of still abandoned games reside ... :pilotfly:

Primary for DCS and other flightsims: i9 12900K@default OC on MSI Z790 Tomahawk (MS-7D91) | 64 GB DDR5-5600 | Asus TUF RTX3090 Gaming OC | 1x 38"@3840x1600 | 1x 27"@2560x1440 | Windows10Pro64

Spoiler

Secondary: i7 11700k@5.1GHz on MSI Z590 Gaming Force MB| 64 GB DDR4-3200 | PowerColor RX6900XTU Red Devil | 1x 32"@2560*1440 + 1x24"@1980*1200 | Windows10Pro64

Backup: i7 6700K@4.8GHz | 64 GB DDR4-2400 | PowerColor RX5700XT Red Devil | SSD-500/1000GB | 1x49" 32:9 Asus X49VQ 3840x1080 | Windows10Pro64

Flightsim Input Devices: VPC: ACE2 Rudder / WarBRD Base / T-50CM2 Base with 50mm ext. / Alpha-R, Mongoos T-50CM, WarBRD and VFX Grip / T-50CM3 Throttle | VPC Sharka-50 + #2 Controle Panel | TM Cougar MFD-Frames| Rift S - Secondary: TM HOTAS WARTHOG/Cougar Throttle+Stick, F-18-Grip | TM TPR Rudder | DelanClip/PS3-CAM IR-Tracker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You want an anwser fro me to the question of a new subscrition based funding model etc?

 

Honestly, not really.

 

Im just trying to open people's eyes that there is a problem with the current model, and that putting fingers in your ears and shouting "NO TO SUBS" and 'NO TO PAYING FOR V3" to anyone even raising the issue, is not in your own interest.

 

That there may be better solutions for the desperate server admins or SP campaign addicts or VR pilots who I see buying a $40 super carrier module or new map for the sole purpose of wanting to support ED; and then seeing their servers fall over even harder when they implement it and the VR pilots feeling compelled to give $1000 to Intel and nvidia to maybe get 10 extra FPS. And not realizing their SC module purchase will only add to EDs list of urgent bugs that need fixing, and increase pressure and require more resources rather than enabling them to focus more on the graphics engine or creating a dedicated server that doesnt require a supercomputer to support more than 6 clients.

 

The theory they can do all those things at once is just cakeism. ED has finite resources they need to prioritize and chose what they are spent on, and you can not blame them for spending it on the things that pay their bills. Whatever time and resources they spend on 5 unfinished EA modules and the changes those require in the core game, can not be spent on DCSW dynamic campaigns, or network code or graphics engines or implementing Vulkan or VR APIs. Which likely makes a TON more difference than that $1000 GPU. A lot of people are basically saying they will never pay $5 per month to ED even if that would allow them to fix their performance issues, they would rather pay for modules that make their problems worse and pay $1000 every 2 years to nVidia even though that hardly fixes anything.


Edited by Vertigo72
Link to comment
Share on other sites

:doh:

 

Next time how about we read the whole post?

 

 

Doesn't redeem the failed projection, it only builds on it. There's so many what if's in your calculation that it's utterly pointless, one way or the other.

Good, fast, cheap. Choose any two.

Come let's eat grandpa!

Use punctuation, save lives!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am starting to agree with the others.

Kill this thread now.

 

80% of the masses have spoken.

 

If the rest want subscriptions, please go ahead and make regular monthly donations to DCS. Why put so much effort into arguing and trying to trick us to your bidding?

 

I hope your 20% subscriptions cover the walkout of the 80%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have already paid for modules, I see no reason to pay again for what I have already purchased.

 

You didnt pay for a Vulkan API and reworked graphics engine and performance boosts though. Or better networking code. Or new weather. Or dynamic campaigns. Or various VR APIs. Or anything in DCSW. No one did. If you dont want any of that, then fine. Im sure the current game core is fine for some players who dont use VR, dont care about multiplayer or can somehow manage to maintain good framerates and suffer no major issues; and if so, you get to keep banging your fist demanding you get what it is you actually paid for- thats entirely reasonable.

 

But everyone else who does want those other things to happen eventually, needs a solution to make that happen.

 

If you dont want subs and you even dont want others have the option to pay subs as an alternative to buying modules (I cant for my life understand why), then show me your plan. Who should pay for an improved game core and how? And also explain to me if you think you are entitled to get those things for free.

 

Saying No is easy, but I havent seen anyone who so loudly yells no, show any evidence they actually understand what the problem is, let alone offer an alternative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I paid 1000$+ for this game in 4 years. I hope Vulkan is included ;)

 

Anyone who purchased flaming cliffs 3 7 years ago will share your hopes. That doesnt make it a sustainable business model for ED.

 

ED already got his money, and they already spent it. Same goes for your money btw. You probably dont even believe yourself they kept most of your money in the bank to pay for another 10 years of DCSW development. So who should pay for Vulkan ? Its not gonna be the guy who just ordered super carrier. He hasnt even received yet what he paid for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone who purchased flaming cliffs 3 7 years ago will share your hopes. That doesnt make it a sustainable business model for ED.

 

ED already got his money, and they already spent it. Same goes for your money btw. You probably dont even believe yourself they kept most of your money in the bank to pay for another 10 years of DCSW development. So who should pay for Vulkan ? Its not gonna be the guy who just ordered super carrier. He hasnt even received yet what he paid for.

 

 

Well ED did not send me a bill for Vulkan so I assume they see it my way not yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ED probably read our comments and have a chuckle to themselves...how can we even begin to speculate on whether a subscription model would be better, we don't know any of the variables.

 

Most importantly,

 

How many active players does DCS have?

 

What's the average spend per user per year? and how would this compare to a subscription based income if income from selling modules ceased?

 

If presumably this is being done to focus development on core tech (a laudable aim BTW) then is this a result of hiring additional staff? How will this affect profitability and impact subscription price? If instead it involves taking devs away from new products to focus on core tech then the product offer weakens and selling features that attract new players (subscribers!) will suffer...again what impact on subscription price?

 

Then there is the question of third party devs and their income, campaign developers and the remuneration for their considerable efforts. Would this result in the income being shared too thinly, possibly making the development of new modules unattractive..and what of the share of the income? Would Razbam and Heatblur be happy getting paid the same? would they be happy giving up control of their pricing?

 

We also have no idea on the income that ED receives from it's commercial training sims and how that part of the business may impact on the commercial structure.

 

80% of consumers in this poll have also said they wouldn't want to see subscription so a certain amount of lost players (although no where near 80%) would have to be factored in to the payment model.

 

My opinion is that the option for further developing the core sim is the one currently happening, IIRC more than half the ED team are working on core improvements already so it can obviously be done within the current model. Yes perhaps it could be faster, but would a subscription model magically create significantly higher income to enable loads of new developers to be hired? I'm not convinced.

 

I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment of wanting to make things better but I feel the only people who know whats best for ED are ED themselves...my personal opinion, formed only from listening to ED and enjoying the products is that ED want to make DCS the very best it can be and that they love combat flight simulation as much as we do. Let's trust them to deliver in the best way they see fit.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well ED did not send me a bill for Vulkan

 

Indeed they did not. And they CAN not. Which is why they can not focus many resources on Vulkan or VR or dynamic campaigns or any the other base layer issues or requests. They have no where to send the bill and its therefor no surprise that all these things take a backseat to any new module they can think off. Because they can send bills for those.That is the whole problem. How I wish ED could send bills for Vulkan! Then it might actually happen.


Edited by Vertigo72
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed they did not. And they CAN not. Which is why they can not focus many resources on Vulkan or VR or dynamic campaigns or any the other base layer issues or requests. They have no where to send the bill and its therefor no surprise that all these things take a backseat to any new module they can think off. Because they can send bills for those.That is the whole problem. How I wish ED sent me a bill for Vulkan!

 

 

So I should pay even more?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point. We should stop banging our fists arguing the majority should adopt the style of game play and be concerned for what the minority.

 

Perhaps a poll to see which side of this argument the Majority sit...

 

Oh hang on the Majority would prefer the current state of affairs to your proposal...………………….

 

 

So to paraphrase... stop banging your fists demanding a reworked pay model to suit what you want. "Everyone else" doesn't want your solution.

 

By the way you do have an option to pay subs, I am sure ED will take any donations you like. :)

 

 

 

You didnt pay for a Vulkan API and reworked graphics engine and performance boosts though. Or better networking code. Or new weather. Or dynamic campaigns. Or various VR APIs. Or anything in DCSW. No one did. If you dont want any of that, then fine. Im sure the current game core is fine for some players who dont use VR, dont care about multiplayer or can somehow manage to maintain good framerates and suffer no major issues; and if so, you get to keep banging your fist demanding you get what it is you actually paid for- thats entirely reasonable.

 

But everyone else who does want those other things to happen eventually, needs a solution to make that happen.

 

If you dont want subs and you even dont want others have the option to pay subs as an alternative to buying modules (I cant for my life understand why), then show me your plan. Who should pay for an improved game core and how? And also explain to me if you think you are entitled to get those things for free.

 

Saying No is easy, but I havent seen anyone who so loudly yells no, show any evidence they actually understand what the problem is, let alone offer an alternative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I should pay even more?

 

In what I propose, no. My suggestion is enabling subs as an alternative to buying modules. Allowing anyone to "rent" whatever modules they want. You shouldnt have to rent what you already own. But you might want to rent things you dont own yet or arent even out yet. And while ED will not likely charge subscription fees for Vulkan, any form of subscription allows ED to generate revenue that does not depend solely on creating new content, and thus develop the other things we all want and that would entice us to keep paying that subscription. Like Vulkan. Would that be enough? Who knows, but we could at least try.

 

Others are suggesting DCSW V3 should become payware or even subscription based. If that is what happens, someone will have to decide if you should get V3 with vulkan for free or at a discount or not at all and if the same thing applies to that FC3 owner. I dont have the answer to that. And I dont think versioning is a good idea for those and many other reasons.

 

But to come back to your question of should you pay even more to get vulkan (and the other improvements); let me answer that with a question: how long do you want to wait and would it be worth anything to you to get it sooner? If youd have a hypothetical choice between getting a frame rate doubling vulkan API in 5 years for free or getting it in 5 months for a small fixed or even recurring fee, would you not consider it?

 

If we want ED to focus more on the non module stuff and get those improvements sooner than the 5 years people have been waiting for dynamic campaigns, that requires ED divert resources away from projects that currently generate revenue to projects that do not. If nothing offsets that loss in revenue, it simply isnt going to happen.


Edited by Vertigo72
Link to comment
Share on other sites

... Who should pay for an improved game core and how? ...

 

You mean the one they offer for free? Why, that's pretty easy to answer:

 

 

The same people who've been paying for it all along - me and everyone else who's ever purchased ANYTHING from ED, that's who, and we do this by nutting up and just PAYING the asking price rather than trying to convince others that we should get ALL the modules for (almost) free though some lame-ass subscription scheme!

 

 

Speaking of DCS World, if FREE with 4 working aircraft isn't currently bringing in millions of new users to the game, how is charging for a subscription going to do it?!?!?

 

You've yet to explain the mechanism of how this is supposed to work!

 

 

Inquiring minds want to know...


Edited by StressLess
Yes! Four aircraft: Su-25T, TF-51D, A-4E & MB-339 - for free! Is ANYONE being denied the awesomeness of DCS??

HP Z230 - Win10 Pro, i7-4770@3.30Ghz, 16GB RAM, EVO 1TB SSD x2, GTX 1660 Super 6GB, Quest 2 VR/TrackIR5; GIGABYTE AERO 17 HDR XD - Creator series laptop

DCS World - Terrains: all; Modules: all but MB-339, Mirage F1, Mosquito, I-16, MiG-19P, Yak-52, F-5E, L-39, C-101, MiG-15bis, MiG-21bis, & F-86F; Campaigns: various

On My Radar - The Typhoon, and I'm still hoping for a Norway map to go with it!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mean the one they offer for free? Why, that's pretty easy to answer:

 

So you actually believe because of your past purchases, ED owes you 5 or 10 or more? years of ongoing development and new features in the game core, even if no one ever promised you that. And no one else must pay for it, you think ED have put all that money aside that they dont depend on any new module sales to pay for any of that. They dont need to to sell anything for another 10 years. Because you already paid. 10 years worth of future development sits in a piggy bank and is earmarked to give stressless free new stuff for the next decade.

 

What fantasy world do you live in?

 

You've yet to explain the mechanism of how this is supposed to work!

 

Ive explained it a bazillion times, but its pointless to even talk about possible solutions as long as you fail to grasp or acknowledge the problem. There seems to be none in your fantasy world, so please stay there. You probably already have dynamic campaigns and vulkan and max settings 90FPS VR there too.


Edited by Vertigo72
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want to rent I want to own. If ED would ever go for a subscription model for those 19% of this community or for 10% of the other poll about this I hope they don't forget to offer a pay and own option for the vast majority of us here. Maybe there could be both like with owning, leasing or renting cars. But I want to buy and own my car and I want the same with my DCS.

 

 

Good luck to all of you that try to convince the others. I'm outa here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crass idea.....and if it was implemented,it would be the day I'd say goodbye.

Chillblast Fusion Cirrus 2 FS Pc/Intel Core i7-7700K Kaby Lake CPU/Gigabyte Nvidia GTX 1070 G1 8GB/Seagate 2TB FireCuda SSHD/16GB DDR4 2133MHz Memory/Asus STRIX Z270F Gaming Motherboard/Corsair Hydro Series H80i GT Liquid Cooler/TM Warthog with MFG 10cm Extension/WINWING Orion Rudder Pedals (With Damper Edition)/TrackiR5/Windows 11 Home

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. But I want to buy and own my car and I want the same with my DCS.

 

You still pay for the maintenance (and insurance and road taxes and gas) of your car though. That isnt funded by your dealer selling new cars to other buyers. And I think you'd agree thats a business model that can not work. If your car needs work after some warranty period, someone needs to pay for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ED probably read our comments and have a chuckle to themselves...how can we even begin to speculate on whether a subscription model would be better, we don't know any of the variables.

 

 

Couldn't agree more.

Without adequate amount of data all of this is just pointless speculations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...