New Pay Model

[norman99]

Re the discussion about a subscription model, I too am definitely not a fan of this idea.

Personally, I’d prefer to go old-school. Relase a complete version of the base game every 2-4 years, for the price of a module, $60-$80.

ED get funding to improve the core, and yet now also have an obligation to make each upgraded version worth the price.

Include FC3 aircraft in the core so new users can play solely with a core DCS purchase.

[BIGNEWY]

Threads merged. 

Folks please treat each other with respect and keep to the rules, keep the conspiracy theories for reddit. 

We have no plans for a subscription model. 

thank you 

[Slippa]

 Very droll.

Glad to hear it too. 

[Silver_Dragon]

4 hours ago, norman99 said:

Re the discussion about a subscription model, I too am definitely not a fan of this idea.

Personally, I’d prefer to go old-school. Relase a complete version of the base game every 2-4 years, for the price of a module, $60-$80.

ED get funding to improve the core, and yet now also have an obligation to make each upgraded version worth the price.

Include FC3 aircraft in the core so new users can play solely with a core DCS purchase.

Surely many folks will like purchase a "free" simulator, ever a ever, only under a wall of Payware to get a "update" core... That dont go to get the core updates more faster.

[twistking]

12 hours ago, norman99 said:

[...] Personally, I’d prefer to go old-school. Relase a complete version of the base game every 2-4 years, for the price of a module, $60-$80.

ED get funding to improve the core, and yet now also have an obligation to make each upgraded version worth the price.

Include FC3 aircraft in the core so new users can play solely with a core DCS purchase.

This is the only acceptable core monetization scheme and the only one that would actively incentivize ED to push meaningful updates. If core updates were deemed lackluster, people would keep playing on the old version. The problem with this are -again- EA modules: There would be pressure to upgrade simply for your favorite module to keep getting updates. It would not be feasible to develop modules for more than one version of DCS at the same time...

Edited May 1 by twistking

[Exorcet]

13 minutes ago, twistking said:

This is the only acceptable core monetization scheme and the only one that would actively incentivize ED to push meaningful updates.

It doesn't matter where ED puts the price sticker. It all goes into their pocket. Charging for the core won't change anything. The modules they sell right now depend on and fund the core already, there is nothing that forces modules sales to only go to supporting module development.

On the topic of subscriptions, I remain against because of increased user cost for no benefit.

[unknown]

The only realistic option for ED would be to implement a "donate for DCS Core development" button and everybody who wants to can happily donate any amount he has in mind at any time, problem solved.

 

But a subscription? No thanks!

Edited May 1 by unknown

[1BRAVO9]

13 hours ago, norman99 said:

Re the discussion about a subscription model, I too am definitely not a fan of this idea.

Personally, I’d prefer to go old-school. Relase a complete version of the base game every 2-4 years, for the price of a module, $60-$80.

ED get funding to improve the core, and yet now also have an obligation to make each upgraded version worth the price.

Include FC3 aircraft in the core so new users can play solely with a core DCS purchase.

I'm not a fan of a completely "new" game periodically.

I would support a mandatory update periodically but not a "new" game. 

[71st_Mastiff]

well Ubi$oft is trying it out, and its going to bite them in the arse.

 

 

 

[Mike Force Team]

I don't want to pay a monthly subscription fee. 

Mike Force Team. 

[Akula]

Can we please stop putting stupid Ideas in the heads of ED’s CEO’s?…..

they’re already trying to get out of the financial mess they put themselves in. 

WE PAID THEM!

THIS IS NOT OUR PROBLEM

Edited May 2 by Akula

[wilbur81]

On 4/28/2024 at 11:03 AM, SMH said:

It's like his 6th post. Not the best way to introduce yourself to the community. "Hey guize! I got an idea! Why don't we pay to fly?" 

It's like his 6th post. Not the best way to welcome a new forum member to this community. "Hey guize! Look at this idiot who has an idea he wants to share?"

I was about to call out a bunch of you (who've trashed him and his idea) as "childish." However, I quickly realized that'd be an incredible insult to most of the children I know; who are undoubtably more gracious, intelligent, and articulate than 90% of the commentators in this thread...

Sheesh

 

Edited May 2 by wilbur81

[Dangerzone]

On 5/2/2024 at 6:09 AM, 1BRAVO9 said:

I would support a mandatory update periodically but not a "new" game. 

"Mandatory"? I can't see how that's any better than subscription. Maybe a paid update to keep up with the latest core, or pay nothing and keep using the older version would be fine, but once you start forcing people to pay more for things they've already paid for - it's a nope. 

I don't mind what they did with the A10 and KA50 TBH. Paid updates to use the newer versions OR the opportunity to keep the old. I've upgraded each time myself, even though I don't fly them much anymore (more an Apache person now), but it keeps the development going and it's not big bikkies. 

Anything that forces people to pay to be able to continue to use products they've purchased in the past is a straight no from me.

[Hiob]

On the topic of the „subscription epidemic“ - interesting watch: (mostly the second half is about subscription, but the whole bit is very good)

 

[Mig Fulcrum]

I really can't understand why anyone would pay monthly for DCS (or anything IMHO). Do you really hate your money?

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

6 hours ago, Mig Fulcrum said:

I really can't understand why anyone would pay monthly for DCS (or anything IMHO). Do you really hate your money?

A lot of folk believe throwing money at the problem will fix things.

Too bad it ain't that simple.

[felixx75]

1 hour ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

A lot of folk believe throwing money at the problem will fix things.

Wich problem?

[markturner1960]

On 5/2/2024 at 2:19 AM, Akula said:

Can we please stop putting stupid Ideas in the heads of ED’s CEO’s?…..

they’re already trying to get out of the financial mess they put themselves in. 

WE PAID THEM!

THIS IS NOT OUR PROBLEM

 

 Of course it’s our problem……whatever the truth of what is going on behind closed doors, it’s a fact that cash flow, circumstances and the market can often give previously viable and healthy companies big problems…….and sometimes, they close. Not saying it will happen and of course I hope it won’t, as personally I have invested several hundred pounds in their product - however you should realise that if these problems occur, what we have now won’t exist. Short of all going back to Falcon BMS, we would be fooked. So it’s our problem. If we all want a decent combat flight simulator to fly in. 

[cfrag]

10 hours ago, Mig Fulcrum said:

I really can't understand why anyone would pay monthly for DCS (or anything IMHO). Do you really hate your money?

One (loving/hating money) has nothing to do with the other (using it). Money is our civilization's standardized way of trading value using a tokenized intermediate. If you don't think that you receive value you should not exchange value-tokens. 

So if I want to continue to receive something that I perceive as valuable (for example: water, electricity, heat, service in my flat), I'm expected to reimburse the parties that deliver that value. I doubt that this is news to anyone. 

So if you derive value (for example: you enjoy watching a series on a streaming service, listen to music, live in a rented flat, or play a game) from the consumption of something, you can be expected to reimburse those who deliver by exchanging value-tokens. If you think that you do not receive value, do not consume the offered value. In other words: You can't have your cake without reimbursement, and you can't have it and eat it at the same time. 

This is neither revolutionary, nor unexpected. "Trade" has been with us for far over a millennia or three. So if you don't understand why anyone would be willing to pay for a service rendered, you may want to question some foundational assumptions of your life. That "why would you pay money for anything" sentiment shows to me a remarkable lack of understanding of the world around you. It's not a philosophical question, we live in reality.

Edited May 7 by cfrag

[JCTherik]

I think rather than trying to allocate more money to the core game, it may be worth considering releasing releasing parts of the source code as opensource, even temporarily.

Not under GPL or MIT license and not the whole game, the game should still be shipped as binary, otherwise people would just compile custom hacked clients.

But for example, while working on the vulcan and render pipelines, having the render code temporarily public would allow some useful comments and help from knowledgeable community members.

Throw in enough scaffolding to be able to compile it and render a trackfile, but not enough code to actually play the game, that might uncover bugs early, compare things on more hardware, show off the progress and perhaps get some usefull pull requests from the community here and there.

 

 

[virgo47]

On 5/1/2024 at 8:55 PM, unknown said:

The only realistic option for ED would be to implement a "donate for DCS Core development" button and everybody who wants to can happily donate any amount he has in mind at any time, problem solved.

I was thinking about "modules" like this. I'd also buy a module called "L-39 bugfixes"... However, ED is not very transparent about what is sold in what quantities at this time, so how would I know whether it even makes sense? Perhaps then something like a donation effort with the goal amount where it would make sense to start something with such dedicated money. Currently, there is no way how one can "vote with their money" on priorities.

It's still their business and the topics/options would have to come from their side anyway.

As for subscription, I don't agree with it either.

But ED must do something about overall quality and care for older modules as well - as we will only get more and more modules and if all of them get worse over time after "finished" it will likely bring some sour feelings. Not to mention many people can be put off by simple things like missing bindings (not actual bindings, but even actions in controls) for some planes/devices, buggy bindings (e.g. toggle is not toggle or bindings doing nothing or other things), buggy training lessons, etc. This all sounds trivial for long-term users and they know how to overcome it - or enjoy the plane otherwise - but I know it can be off-putting. And most of these bugs are pretty cheap. But instead of fixing them in the next version after being reported, they often take well over a year(s).

And with fewer people put off by things like that, they could make more money. Speculation perhaps, but quality is important.

Edited May 7 by virgo47

[markturner1960]

The problem I think is the current business model is not sustainable long term......there is a limit to how many modules people will buy and a limit to how many there to make still....If we want ED and DCS to survive and grow going forwards, what is wrong with being frank and open with the community that buys the product about how it goes forwards? Its clear ( present troubles if we are to believe the conjecture, are an example) that the lack of known, regular income is starting to hurt...you cant rely on external developers producing stuff at the required dates and state of readiness regularly enough to make accurate financial forecasts and plan your cash flow. I would be very happy to pay a subscription as long as it had added value and clarity on what you get. The world changes and business need to change with it, sad fact of life. 

[Silver_Dragon]

21 minutes ago, markturner1960 said:

The problem I think is the current business model is not sustainable long term......there is a limit to how many modules people will buy and a limit to how many there to make still....If we want ED and DCS to survive and grow going forwards, what is wrong with being frank and open with the community that buys the product about how it goes forwards? Its clear ( present troubles if we are to believe the conjecture, are an example) that the lack of known, regular income is starting to hurt...you cant rely on external developers producing stuff at the required dates and state of readiness regularly enough to make accurate financial forecasts and plan your cash flow. I would be very happy to pay a subscription as long as it had added value and clarity on what you get. The world changes and business need to change with it, sad fact of life. 

ED has a company with 33 years old... and DCS has 15 years old. Surely has not sustainable at long term?

About building modules... ED and 3rd parties has making only a little part of the more remarked modules on the aviation history, and has many aircrafts on modern / Cold War / WW2 with can build. We dont talking about maps / other stuff modules will can build on a future.

Edited May 7 by Silver_Dragon

[cfrag]

33 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

ED has a company with 33 years old... and DCS has 15 years old. Surely has not sustainable at long term?

Uh, that sounds strangely similar to what people said about Kodak. Now, I'm not saying ED are about to go under or in any danger, but what happened to Kodak was partly the result of not moving with the market. I'm sure the kind people at ED are constantly looking at options, and for the time being have decided to stick with the old-school 'one-off' business model. I wish them well, and also am happy to state that I'd stick with them should they go subscription.

[Silver_Dragon]

18 minutes ago, cfrag said:

Uh, that sounds strangely similar to what people said about Kodak. Now, I'm not saying ED are about to go under or in any danger, but what happened to Kodak was partly the result of not moving with the market. I'm sure the kind people at ED are constantly looking at options, and for the time being have decided to stick with the old-school 'one-off' business model. I wish them well, and also am happy to state that I'd stick with them should they go subscription.

"old school"... o yeah.... ED was in the past first by a study under control of external publishers SSI/Ubisoft....(Flanker to Lomac), publish your own products (FC to A-10C), and now has Base free with your projects and 3rd Parties products (DCS World), and now ED has Kodak...

Edited May 7 by Silver_Dragon