Jump to content

unpopular idea: make Open Beta a subscription based early access program


Vertigo72

Recommended Posts

I bet this will be a hugely unpopular idea, but I think its a good one that could solve several key problems with DCS development.

 

One issue is that almost everyone runs open beta as if its a release version. If something breaks in what is supposed to be a test version, everyone is up in arms and demands hot fixes because they dont run OB to test stuff, but as their main/only game. This becomes a self reinforcing problem when most servers run OB, meaning users have little choice but also run OB and for all practical purposes, it stops being a beta release, but our main game.

 

The second problem is not unrelated; ED have every incentive to make new modules and sell them early (way, way too early), because new modules are basically their only revenue stream and they do need revenue to pay their developers. New modules tend to require OB, reinforcing the above problem and new unfinished modules risk breaking the game for everyone (think super carrier in MP). ED also have little to no financial incentive in fixing old problems or improving the base layer (VR, performance, weather models, whatever) because no one pays for those. Same with old modules. When they recently updated the Ka-50 cockpit, they basically did that for naught. The time spent on that would almost certainly have a been a lot more profitable if it had been devoted to a new helicopter,

 

This revenue model also creates other problems for us. We have paying map modules and even asset modules that fragment the online community.. Some may have Normandy, others will have channel map. This really doesnt help anyone. But I understand the necessity as ED is not a charity.

 

So here is my proposal to help mitigate both issues: change open beta to be a subscription based early access program. If you want all the latest stuff early, even if its not necessarily finished, you pay a modest monthly fee. included in that fee could be access to all DCS modules (or all modules by ED) in both open beta and stable.

 

For those who hate subscription (and trust me, I hate them too), you are not forced to. You can still buy modules and play them perpertually. But you will only be playing on the stable version and only buy modules if and when they are actually ready. It will promote more stable channel servers and prevent people from being forced to adopt the beta just to have access to populated servers. It will provide ED with at least some predictable income and give them more incentive to fix things and have things tested, rather than rush the introduction of new modules and force us in to the beta.


Edited by Vertigo72
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Subscription definitly NO

 

I already bought everything to sponsor ED too come where we are now. A fantastic sim compare with nothing else. :D


Edited by boedha68

New system:I9-9900KS, Kingston 128 GB DDR4 3200Mhz, MSI RTX 4090, Corsair H150 Pro RGB, 2xSamsung 970 EVO 2Tb, 2xsamsung 970 EVO 1 TB, Scandisk m2 500 MB, 2 x Crucial 1 Tb, T16000M HOTAS, HP Reverb Professional 2, Corsair 750 Watt.

 

Old system:I7-4770K(OC 4.5Ghz), Kingston 24 GB DDR3 1600 Mhz,MSI RTX 2080(OC 2070 Mhz), 2 * 500 GB SSD, 3,5 TB HDD, 55' Samsung 3d tv, Trackir 5, Logitech HD Cam, T16000M HOTAS. All DCS modules, maps and campaigns:pilotfly:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going on that Suggestion, then those who choose the stable version would only have the SU-25, and default mustang to use seeing as basically EVERY other mod could be construed as not finished and final.

 

Not only that, those who do pay the subscription for everything, would rapidly run out of disc space I’m sure.

 

Nope.

Alien desktop PC, Intel i7-8700 CPU@3.20GHz 6 Core, Nvidia GTX 1070, 16GB RAM. TM Warthog stick and Throttles. Saitek ProFlight pedals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going on that Suggestion, then those who choose the stable version would only have the SU-25, and default mustang to use seeing as basically EVERY other mod could be construed as not finished and final.

 

Thats a bit of a hyperbole, but it describes exactly the problem I want to help fix. Why do you expect ED to spend resources to fix a module you purchased 10 years ago and hardly anyone still buys today when those resources can be spend on stuff that actually makes them money? Their incentives are heavily skewed towards releasing more and new and unfinished stuff and it causes problems for all of us.

 

Not only that, those who do pay the subscription for everything, would rapidly run out of disc space I’m sure.

 

If that is a real problem, having access doesnt mean you necessarily need to install every module.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your correct.. It is unpopular...

Intel Intel Core i7-8086K

32 Gig RAM

1 Tb Nvme SSD

EVGA 1080Ti

Win 10 64 Pro

LG 34UM95 34 inch Monitor

Track IR 5

Oculus Rift

HOTAS Warthog...mod'd TDC

SIMPEDS Pedals

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're on the right track and I agree with your general point that the current business model forces ED to take on too much at once.

 

I don't like subscription models. However, I think there is a lot of merit in charging for DCS 3.0. i.e. similar model to X Plane. It would provide a steady revenue stream to work on the core engine and relieve the pressure to come up with a "blockbuster" module every year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An optional subscription program with benefits (like ED miles accrue every month, perhaps earlier access etc) is, at this point, necessary.

 

People love rejecting the idea immediately without consideration. Understandibly so, and they are right that a obligatory subscription model is a very bad idea at this point for both us, the end users, and ED.

 

But, keeping current business model, BUT also offering an optional subscription program for who like to participate would benefit both sides qiute nicely in my opinion.

 

While I am one of the more ardent critics of ED, I would happily throw a tenner each month to help make working on the core more, and new producs less to be a more viable thing.

 

Regardless of a new pay model or not however, the mammoth in the room is that "stable" isn't, and de-facto stable "open-beta" is at a place a lot less desirable than what it should be.

 

It is a dilemma, and there is no right choice currently. It's more "you pick your own poison" kind of deal. JF-17, even though it was one of the most stable releases, took more than half a year between being released to open beta and being available on stable branch. That is just one example, if an extreme one. Also we all know that stable is almost never really bug free, and sometimes even new problems introduced on one beta can creep into next stable. Lately, new features and fixes can take incredibly long to come from open beta down to stable. Mostly because open beta seem to break one thing or another on most updates, and needs a hotfix or fix on next update.

 

On the other hand, "it's open beta stop complainin, play stable instead" got old long ago, and doesn't hold much water at all. Due to reasons above, open beta is de-facto release branch of the product... modules offered for sale are first on open beta, and stay available only there for extended periods of time. This makes people who are excited and want to experience what they have paid for switch to open beta. Similarly, most of the multiplayer servers, more so the popular ones, are on open beta, due to all these reasons. And while it may not be the majority, a very good portion of the community is there online.

 

It's not like people are using open beta as stable and complain for it's own sake, at this point, open beta, in practice, has become the default branch. Heck, "at this point" makes it sound like a new development, but no, it has been so for quite some time now.

 

I don't really know what can a solution to this be. But clearly, one needs to be thought about.

 

As it is, this is bad for us consumers, it is bad for 3rd party devs who has to juggle changes and things break in their modules outside of their control, and it is bad for ED who needs to fight the situation of two steps forwards and one step back, while having to face (frankly justified) riots of the community.

 

DCS is the sim I always dreamed of for decades. When it works right, I enjoy immensely experiencing the really well done aircraft here, more or less without equal in industry. Thing is, when it works right is becoming more and more of an elusive, imaginary state of existence for DCS. Perhaps it is a time for stepping on the brakes, and steady the track the car is driving on for a bit.

Wishlist: F-4E Block 53 +, MiG-27K, Su-17M3 or M4, AH-1F or W circa 80s or early 90s, J35 Draken, Kfir C7, Mirage III/V

DCS-Dismounts Script

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This whole OpenBeta shambles should be abandoned. Beta testing should be done by a selected group of testers only for bug finding. As soon as a new module or feature is tested in Beta and found sufficiently stable, it should be added to the Stable branch. The general public should only have access to Stable, so that also the multiplayer servers can only run Stable. A new module should only be released when it can run reliably on the Stable branch, sure it can still be in early access with not all systems working, but it should be able to run without major issues. Right now what is released as OpenBeta are experimental builds that belong in Alpha releases, and should not be released in public. Since ED only updates the Stable branch from the latest OpenBeta it means that it can take ages for normal small bug fixes and new features to make it to the Stable branch. The Stable branch should receive those as soon as they are tested, and not linked to the experimental Alpha releases which they are calling OpenBeta. It's a completely stupid way of software development and the game has the reputation now of being unreliable and often broken. The only reason they are getting away with this is that they have zero competition.


Edited by Arjan2856
Link to comment
Share on other sites

WE should be paid to do bug hunting.

 

If that is what people actually did, methodically testing each every line in the change log in controlled conditions and reporting back, then sure, that could be considered a job. But that is not what 99.999% of OB players do. They play the game, pick their favorite plane and when something doesnt work, like you know, the radar in the hornet, or they dont get their AI kills, instead of testing everything else, they throw a tantrum and complain they cant play the game anymore as its broken and it needs a hot fix.

 

This job is not for free, our love for aircrafts should not be exploited.

 

But you expect highly skilled full time developers to spend their time for free to provide you with updates and improvements even 10 years after you bought something? I hate to break it to you, it doesnt work like that. If you spend 60 euro on a module, you pay for the work that went in to it. You may reasonably expect bugs to be fixed, but you dont get a perpetual claim on the devs time to keep making improvements. Who is paying for new weather models? Who is paying for VR performance improvements or improved AI or whatever?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your correct.. It is unpopular...

 

Its hard to give much credence to posts basically saying "no" 30 seconds after I posted my thread. People read subscription and go ballistic. But lets see how unpopular it really is when they are given an option to pay 7 euro for a month for full access to every DCS module or even free access to all modules for a certain time based on prior purchases.

 

Forum warriors went nuts when MS introduced office 360,and when autodesk went subscription based with fusion 360 and mostly everything else, but I dont see it hurting their sales. And more importantly, now they no longer have conflicting interests in maintaining old versions vs pushing new releases and users no longer have to balance paying large sums upfront or even significant sums for modest product upgrades vs keep using old versions. Everyone has the latest version and product development is 100% focused on keeping existing customers happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tell me what was stable version and playable/bugs free version starting from Lock On till now? Every patch come from ED with or with out new modules are fill with bugs. Prices for modules, 50+dollars and you want paid subscription, no F. way. FC3 (from FC till FC3 changes are flight models and some visuals, FC then FC2 and now FC3, all ware full prices), Ka-50 (sold 2 times by now, Ka-50+ is coming and you still have to pay for it) A-10C, Mustang, F/A-18C, F-16C, and maps. And that was not enough money to not be a lazy, to finish one product and make it bug free one year after release. And you want to give them more of my money or they will turn off options what we have now. Who push them to release anything in any time frame, tell me, is it Ubisoft or any other publisher or it was just their greed. They can put a Patreon account or what ever they want for people to donate but start taking out what was already in the game just to make more money it is great way to kill community and the product.

 

What will be your next idea, something from EA or maybe something from Bethesda????

Rocket brigade who retired F-117

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You would probably need to operate both consumer models together in this instance, especially as a lot of customers own early access modules that are already fully paid.

ROG Z690 Hero ● i9-12900K 5.5GHz ● Giggy RTX 3090 OC ● 32GB 4800MHz ● Firecuda M.2s ● Reverb G2 ● Win11Pro //// A10CII ● AH64D ● AJS37 ● AV8BNA ● C101 ● CEII ● F16C ● F5EII ● F86F ● FA18C ● FC3 ● I16 ● KA50 ● M2000C ● MI8 ● P47D ● SA342 ● SPIT ● UH1H ● Y52

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An optional subscription program with benefits (like ED miles accrue every month, perhaps earlier access etc) is, at this point, necessary.

 

People love rejecting the idea immediately without consideration. Understandibly so, and they are right that a obligatory subscription model is a very bad idea at this point for both us, the end users, and ED.

 

But, keeping current business model, BUT also offering an optional subscription program for who like to participate would benefit both sides qiute nicely in my opinion.

 

Let's presume that there is some model where these two different payment models can coexist in parallel.

 

I can see the merit of the idea ED not needing to push out new models too often and could perhaps have more resources to focus on some of the neglected core sim features (like e.g. dynamic campaign).

 

But, I'm curious how would you control what all this extra money from subscription gets invested into and how would you ensure that you actually get a better product compared to the current model? Just because you sink more money into something, doesn't mean you'll get more results.

 

It would still be this super complex product with a bunch of modules and where customers expect consistent stream of weekly base system updates and new modules.

 

If it was so easy and worth bothering with, I'm sure there would be some competition in this field.


Edited by Dudikoff

i386DX40@42 MHz w/i387 CP, 4 MB RAM (8*512 kB), Trident 8900C 1 MB w/16-bit RAMDAC ISA, Quantum 340 MB UDMA33, SB 16, DOS 6.22 w/QEMM + Win3.11CE, Quickshot 1btn 2axis, Numpad as hat. 2 FPH on a good day, 1 FPH avg.

 

DISCLAIMER: My posts are still absolutely useless. Just finding excuses not to learn the F-14 (HB's Swansong?).

 

Annoyed by my posts? Please consider donating. Once the target sum is reached, I'll be off to somewhere nice I promise not to post from. I'd buy that for a dollar!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I swear people aren't even reading :)
They probably do partially, but most of them refuse to think.

Between any form of subscription model and finished and polished product with up to date graphics and features of all modules vs the current no system with bugs and some features untouched since lomac - I'd choose the subscription. The situation will only get worst with the current approach once the release even more unfinished stuff splitting the resources even more.

 

Sent from my Redmi 4 using Tapatalk

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I bet this will be a hugely unpopular idea, but I think its a good one that could solve several key problems with DCS development.

 

One issue is that almost everyone runs open beta as if its a release version. If something breaks in what is supposed to be a test version, everyone is up in arms and demands hot fixes because they dont run OB to test stuff, but as their main/only game. This becomes a self reinforcing problem when most servers run OB, meaning users have little choice but also run OB and for all practical purposes, it stops being a beta release, but our main game.

 

The second problem is not unrelated; ED have every incentive to make new modules and sell them early (way, way too early), because new modules are basically their only revenue stream and they do need revenue to pay their developers. New modules tend to require OB, reinforcing the above problem and new unfinished modules risk breaking the game for everyone (think super carrier in MP). ED also have little to no financial incentive in fixing old problems or improving the base layer (VR, performance, weather models, whatever) because no one pays for those. Same with old modules. When they recently updated the Ka-50 cockpit, they basically did that for naught. The time spent on that would almost certainly have a been a lot more profitable if it had been devoted to a new helicopter,

 

This revenue model also creates other problems for us. We have paying map modules and even asset modules that fragment the online community.. Some may have Normandy, others will have channel map. This really doesnt help anyone. But I understand the necessity as ED is not a charity.

 

So here is my proposal to help mitigate both issues: change open beta to be a subscription based early access program. If you want all the latest stuff early, even if its not necessarily finished, you pay a modest monthly fee. included in that fee could be access to all DCS modules (or all modules by ED) in both open beta and stable.

 

For those who hate subscription (and trust me, I hate them too), you are not forced to. You can still buy modules and play them perpertually. But you will only be playing on the stable version and only buy modules if and when they are actually ready. It will promote more stable channel servers and prevent people from being forced to adopt the beta just to have access to populated servers. It will provide ED with at least some predictable income and give them more incentive to fix things and have things tested, rather than rush the introduction of new modules and force us in to the beta.

I see, you forget, if someone buys early access modules, he makes his contribution to OpenBeta. And this often many weeks before the module is rolled out in OpenBeta.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm curious how would you control what all this extra money from subscription gets invested into

 

How do you think it happens now? Who is paying for new weather models, VR updates, Vulkan API implementation, AI improvements? I dont see these as modules on steam, but the code doesnt write itself.

 

Likewise when I buy the tomcat or gulf map, I dont get to vote if my money is spent on any of these. And if you purchased 500 euro worth of modules, you dont get better Ai or VR performance than someone who only bought one.

 

The reality is that we all depend on DCS world base layer to be improved, and no one is paying for it; or, if you prefer, we all are (those that have any modules) but very unequally and with no relation on how we use it. And what is worst of all, is the ED have no incentive to maintain it or improve other than doing what is needed to sell more new modules. A subscription model removes the incentive to rush new things that arent ready, and it gives them an incentive to keep customers -who can cancel their sub at any time-, happy and work on the things customers want, not on the things that will enable the sale of new modules..

 

It would still be this super complex product with a bunch of modules and where customers expect consistent stream of weekly base system updates and new modules.

 

hmm? Why?

 

If it was so easy and worth bothering with, I'm sure there would be some competition in this field.

 

Well, its a niche market, even compared to commercial aviation sims, and very very difficult to get in to. Making something from scratch that could compete with DCS would be a mammoth undertaking and a huge financial risk with very little prospects.

 

Just because you sink more money into something, doesn't mean you'll get more results.

 

Agreed. But expecting work to be done when no one is sinking money in it is not realistic either, and thus ED need some way to finance their work. They do that now mostly by selling new modules to old customers. They have to overcharge for those to subsidize the common work. The irony is that actually hurts the most dedicated players who own the most modules most. And not just financially, if you bought WW2 planes and assets and maps and cant find a good server because almost no one else has it. if I had a subscription, I might occasionally fly a P47 or something in Normandy, but itsnt worth 100 euro to me. You should want others to have a subscription.

 

But more importantly, the current model creates the incentives for ED that lay at the heart of most of DCs problems right now. A focus on producing and releasing new modules that arent finished and may even ruin the game for everyone.


Edited by Vertigo72
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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