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

[Pyker]

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.

 

+1

[Presing]

...The situation will only get worst with the current approach once the release even more unfinished stuff splitting the resources even more.

...

 

 

So they release a broken stuff and they ask for money to fix it, right? because they never fix stuffs in FC3. They have beta testers (closed beta testers) and they test stuffs but how good they are in the testing that is for questioning. So you want to be a part of close beta testers and pay for it, go for it. What is out right now need not to be killed. You do not like bugs, you need sometime with ED to get use to it.

Edited June 11, 2020 by Presing

[Minsky]

Having bought nearly everything DCS has to offer, I would still support this subscription idea.

 

I would rather pay a reasonable monthly fee (in exchange for some bonuses or discounts, of course) than lose all my investments when ED will finally drown itself in the early access releases and turn belly-up.

 

Edit: To clarify, I don't want to "just" pay them. I would like to pay for improving and expanding the CORE game (which is free, so technically I haven't spent a single dime on it). And NOT for spewing even more EA stuff or fixing what I've already bought.

Edited June 11, 2020 by Minsky

[Madone]

I don't see why you'd need a subscription when the cash flow comes from the new players buying modules, and the old player base buying more recent ones or what they don't have yet. Subscription is more about renting something, DCS is not Netflix, you'd expect to buy one module and have the choice to not have the others. Some people don't want 20 modules to fly.

[Dudikoff]

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..

 

But, there are no guarantees that a subscription model would make this any better, in fact it could make it worse or eventually even put ED out of business.

 

Even if ED wouldn't get too lenient with this questionably steady stream of income, they would still be under pressure to provide a constant stream of updates even more so than now as the customers are paying each month and if they perceive that ED doesn't provide them their money's worth, the customers might just stop paying for it and the whole thing would start to crumble.

 

For example, how would you ensure which modules the customer base wants developed? You ask five people, you'll get ten opinions. It's impossible to satisfy everyone there or even prioritize features that makes everyone happy and with them expected to pay each month, the customers would only get even more entitled and likely to complain than they are now.

 

Even the polls seem to be highly against the fact that a lot of people are willing to support this model anyway.

 

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.

 

Exactly. It is not a profitable niche and I'm sure ED are constantly reassessing the best way to keep them afloat. Currently, they seem to believe that this model is the most viable one and they should know best having the insight into the sale numbers and the customer structure. And this also means that some lower priority issues will take much longer to develop (like some sort of a dynamic campaign system).

 

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 most. But more importantly, it creates the incentives for ED that lay at the heart of most of DCs problems right now.

 

Overcharging for modules? I would disagree given the amount of work which goes into developing and maintaining these things.

 

For the level of polish and stability people seem to expect, the updates would have to be stretched much further apart to provide enough time for constant re-testing of everything and the modules would have to cost MUCH more to pay for all the extra testers, top designers, architects, managers, programmers and what not.

 

And I'd expect not nearly enough people would be willing to pay for that, which is probably why there's no competition and the last full featured consumer modern military sim went bust more than 20 years ago delivering a broken and unfinished product.

Edited June 11, 2020 by Dudikoff

[oreste]

I think that putting the modules up for sale in the last phase of development is useful because so many people test the module and speed up the hunt for bugs. Otherwise you should take people away from other tasks, put them to test the module but they would never be as fast. The players are not technicians but they have the time and desire to experiment with their module in every way, if there is something found.If the company were to hire other technicians to test the games, it would be forced to sell the modules at higher costs.I would say that's okay, let's do their job in peace.

[Vertigo72]

I would rather pay a reasonable monthly fee (in exchange for some bonuses or discounts, of course) than lose all my investments when ED will finally drown itself in the early access releases and turn belly-up.

 

Good to hear some people can read and think :). And yes, if something like this would be implemented, investment in previous modules should be taken in to account, as you would otherwise have no real incentive to pay a monthly fee anyway if you own all modules. I would propose something like getting x months free subscription for every (large) module you already own. So if you have them all, you may have a few years of subscription and get to fly some new modules for free. When that expires, you can chose to pay monthly for those and everything yet to come or not.

 

This could also work in the other direction. If you paid a sub for x months or years, you become entitled to a perpetual module license.

 

My goal is not to have to spend more on DCS, or raise money for ED. My goal is to align my interest with theirs. I want them to able to withhold new stuff until its (more) ready and I want them to spend resources on the game core, but the only I can support that is by buying stuff that directly or indirectly breaks the game.

[Motomouse]

VertiNo just wants to force more players into stable.

 

This is an immoral manipulation ;-)

 

I propose drop stable altogether, force everybody in open beta and force Verti to subscribe it!!!!

Edited June 11, 2020 by Motomouse

[Presing]

Having bought nearly everything DCS has to offer, I would still support this subscription idea.

 

I would rather pay a reasonable monthly fee (in exchange for some bonuses or discounts, of course) than lose all my investments when ED will finally drown itself in the early access releases and turn belly-up.

 

Edit: To clarify, I don't want to "just" pay them. I would like to pay for improving and expanding the CORE game (which is free, so technically I haven't spent a single dime on it). And NOT for spewing even more EA stuff or fixing what I've already bought.

 

 

Not all of modules are supported by ED, meaning, ED is taking money for M-2000c or any other module not directly build by ED but ED do not fix bugs for that module. So, like I already said, ED is releasing module F-18c (69$ that was price i think) and then ask for more money to fix it, cos 2+ years was not enough time/money to fix all the bugs and then they release F-16 with more bugs. In meantime they have only income from other modules from M2000 till Jeff.

 

 

Sheep are for shearing!

[SmirkingGerbil]

Wooooooooooooooooooo I got nothing.

[Presing]

VertiNo just wants to force more players into stable.

 

This is an immoral manipulation ;-)

 

I propose drop stable altogether, force everybody in open beta and force Verti to subscribe it!!!!

 

 

:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

[Motomouse]

Stable is for Sissys.

OB is for real men and women.

;-)

[metzger]

Good to hear some people can read and think :). And yes, if something like this would be implemented, investment in previous modules should be taken in to account, as you would otherwise have no real incentive to pay a monthly fee anyway if you own all modules. I would propose something like getting x months free subscription for every (large) module you already own. So if you have them all, you may have a few years of subscription and get to fly some new modules for free. When that expires, you can chose to pay monthly for those and everything yet to come or not.

 

This could also work in the other direction. If you paid a sub for x months or years, you become entitled to a perpetual module license.

 

My goal is not to have to spend more on DCS, or raise money for ED. My goal is to align my interest with theirs. I want them to able to withhold new stuff until its (more) ready and I want them to spend resources on the game core, but the only I can support that is by buying stuff that directly or indirectly breaks the game.

 

 

Yeah it is a paradox isn't it ? I don't need anymore new modules before they fix everything released and address bugs and issues in older modules and core game.

SP at the moment is close to useless with that borked AI and majority of the missions broken.

 

But how to support and motivate this ? I bought almost all campaigns but I cant really use them.

I own almost all modules and I have the feeling that buying more simply motivates them to rush more and making the problem bigger. So I stopped buying after the Viper and likely will not buy anything new in the near future, unless released finished and working state.

[Vertigo72]

For example, even if ED wouldn't get too lenient with this questionably steady stream of income, they would still be under pressure to provide constant updates, even more so as the customers are paying each month and if ED doesn't deliver, the customers might just stop paying for it and the whole thing would crumble.

 

That makes no sense. First of all I dont really understand why a subscription model makes you think that updates are even more necessary? The idea is not that you pay to get weekly updates, you pay to play the game. Even if nothing would get changed anymore ever.

 

And given that what I propose is optional, if people chose to cancel their sub, do you think they will or would still be buying modules?

 

And the polls are highly against the fact that a lot of people are willing to support this model anyway.

 

Of course. But who votes in those polls? Mostly people who already paid many 100s of euro's on a dozen modules and dont want to spend even more, and fear that their investment would be nullified by having a paid subscription model.

 

But that is not what I propose... again, what I propose is optional, and in order to be at all interesting to those who already have most modules, provisions would need to be worked out (see above). But I bet if the option is given, it would show something very different than those polls. And I also bet the outcome would be very positive even for those who dont buy in to the sub model. Suddenly their friend who doesnt own the F14 can ride along as Rio. They might see their empty ww2 servers filled up. They can actually use all the maps they purchased online too. And most importantly, development would be focused on keeping active players happy rather than on preselling and enabling new stuff that breaks the game.

 

Overcharging for modules? I would disagree given the amount of work which goes into developing and maintaining these things.

 

Its not a matter of what I think they are worth; its simple math. Maintaining and updating DCS world game core, graphics engine, terrain engine, networking code, server, Ai engine etc is not free. Its not funded by donations or patreon. So who pays that? Anyone who purchases modules. Hence, they have to be sold with an extra margin to allow funding the development of all the things that no one pays for.

[Dudikoff]

That makes no sense. First of all I dont really understand why a subscription model makes you think that updates are even more necessary? The idea is not that you pay to get weekly updates, you pay to play the game. Even if nothing would get changed anymore ever.

 

How many users would pay just to be able to play the game even if nothing gets fixed, added, implemented? That sounds like charity or something and is wishful thinking, IMHO.

 

And maybe we're not frequenting the same forum. I see a bunch of anger here when ED messes up some open beta patch and constant claims about unfinished modules and people refusing to buy further modules.

 

If people were paying a monthly fee, their level of expectations and complaints on perceived value would get only higher, IMHO.

 

Of course. But who votes in those polls? Mostly people who already paid many 100s of euro's on a dozen modules and dont want to spend even more, and fear that their investment would be nullified by having a paid subscription model.

 

So, you're saying the outcome is not representative because it doesn't support your view? The result might not be reflecting all the customers, but if people found the idea of a subscription appealing, there would have been more support in the poll, surely.

 

But, ultimately, if ED finds the idea has some merit, they will consider it, I'm sure.

 

And given that what I propose is optional, if people chose to cancel their sub, do you think they will or would still be buying modules?

 

If you make it optional, but limit beta access to paid subscribers, whatever extra money is there (and I doubt it would be enough as I don't see that many people willing to throw their money around with such little expectations as you describe) would first have to be spent on a bunch of paid testers basically to replace all the feedback they get on the discovered bugs they missed in their pre-release tests.

Edited June 11, 2020 by Dudikoff

[Vertigo72]

How many users would pay just to be able to play the game even if nothing gets fixed, added, implemented? That sounds like charity or something and is wishful thinking, IMHO.

 

So you think they would cancel their subscription if that was offered as an option, but they would not stop buying modules when "nothing gets fixed, added, implemented" ?

 

That is not what this would change. Not the expectation of update frequency by users and as far as Im concerned, not even how much ED makes in revenue. The change is in the incentive. ED would no longer be financially reliant on pushing out as many unfinished new modules as possible, and forcing users to run unfinished beta's that regularly break the game for everyone, but it would be reliant on keeping paying customers happy by providing them with the things they want; like fixing age old bugs, improving graphics and performance and weather models and Ai and countless other core game elements that can not be sold as modules. Things we currently can not vote for with our wallet. The things, that if ED does them currently, it has to do as "charity".

 

And maybe we're not frequenting the same forum. I see a bunch of anger here when ED messes up some open beta patch and constant claims about unfinished modules and people refusing to buy further modules.

 

Which is exactly what Im trying to solve here. Exactly. Think about it; if people stop buying existing modules today, for whatever reason, what can ED do to increase their revenue? Fixing old stuff isnt gonna help, no matter how loud we shout on the forum. Its not going to make someone who already owns all modules or all the modules he wants, buy another module. But making a new module, a WW2 carrier or new map or an F4 Phantom or whatever else and offering it as early access long before its ready, that will bring in cash. Even if it causes all the problems being discussed here and all the problems that is causing users to revolt.

 

Or look at it the other way; lets say I want to incentivise ED to implement Vulkan API and fix VR performance and fix all the age old bugs and finish the modules that arent finished but we already paid for. I even want to throw money their way. The only way I can do it, is buying new (half broken) modules that depend on OB. Signaling to them the exact opposite of what I actually want.

 

So, you're saying the outcome is not representative because it doesn't support your view?

 

Sigh. Is that what I said? No.

 

If you make it optional, but limit beta access to paid subscribers, whatever extra money is there (and I doubt it would be enough as I don't see that many people willing to throw their money around with such little expectations as you describe) would first have to be spent on a bunch of paid testers basically to replace all the feedback they get on the discovered bugs they missed in their pre-release tests.

 

The point is not generating extra income.

 

It can be priced such that it produces more or less or the exact same amount of income ED has now. The point is aligning their financial incentives with doing what the community wants to see done. Whatever that may be. If most people actually prefer to have a buggy larger carrier with humans walking on the deck than finishing the viper or fixing (VR) performance issues in the graphics engine, then that would still happen. But I suspect most people have different priorities that are not priorities to ED because they cant be sold as a modules and do not generate revenue. You can then write angry posts on the forum that their priorities are messed up, but that doesnt pay for salaries.

Edited June 11, 2020 by Vertigo72

[Minsky]

The point is aligning their financial incentives with doing what the community wants to see done. Whatever that may be.

 

God, no. I don't want the community to write a roadmap for DCS.

It's not a patreon startup, and users aren't the project managers.

ED is not perfect either, but at least they've been doing this stuff for decades, and survived somehow.

 

So yeah, we should express our opinions. Be vocal if needed. But dictating to them what exactly they should do, and in what particular order? I don't think this is a good idea. Besides, this "user-driven development" won't save you from subscribers, complaining about ED not implementing this or ignoring that.

 

So, I think that ED should continue to release payware modules, but move the core DCS World to a subscription-based model with a very reasonable price.

 

Payware modules are their main source of income, so they will continue to create and improve them to their benefit - no matter what.

 

The core game generates no direct income, so they need some incentive to start pushing it forward for real - to our benefit.

[Wizard_03]

Yep it's a nope from me, one of these stupid threads show up every couple weeks usually after a rough patch. I would have thought the last one with a poll was clear.

 

The majority of players are absolutely against paid subscription plan and EDs hardline base would immediately abandon them if they even started to go down that road.

 

But we'll say it again just so there's no doubt.

[Vertigo72]

God, no. I don't want the community to write a roadmap for DCS.

It's not a patreon startup, and users aren't the project managers.

 

Sure, but would you believe me if I told you that I dont get to write product roadmaps for Autodesk or Microsoft, despite paying a monthly subscription to their products? ;)

 

The point is not we would have a loaded gun to their head. They point is that subscription revenue instead of new module sales revenue, makes them a lot more free to work on whatever it is they want and that they think will keep us happy, and not just new content or new versions; just like autodesk has to keep me happy, but doesnt have a reason to cripple my old software or withhold new features or improvements from me, just so they can sell me an upgrade every x years; they just do what they do best, and I reap the benefits, or I get to vote with my wallet.

 

ED is not perfect either, but at least they've been doing this stuff for decades, and survived somehow.

 

I have no beef with ED at all. Nothing is perfect, by and large I think they do an amazing balancing job with DCS. But we are getting to a point where realistically, they should freeze new content for quite a long time to be able to work through a backlog of issues and sorely needed rewrites. IMO that is just not financially viable with their current business model which relies so heavily on new content. And new content means new issues. This could spiral out of control quickly.

 

So, I think that ED should continue to release payware modules, but move the core DCS World to a subscription-based model with a very reasonable price.

 

I dont think thats fair to old customers, who paid for modules but werent told they would stop working or stop being supported without a subscription for the DCSW layer.

 

It also doesnt leverage the possibilities that subscriptions offer; like the marginal cost of modules being zero. If you step back its silly that they sell maps as modules. It hurts everyone, you buy it, no one else does, servers with that map are empty. If it was a subscription we would get to fly anywhere or change every so often. Priced right they could also entice me to pay for modules that Im not interested in enough to pay the full amount. Or let me test them for a month (which admittedly they just did with the free trial).

 

They can also still sell modules, one approach doesnt exclude the other. In fact, done right, they ought to be very complementary. Paying subscription for x time grants you module licenses and vice versa, owning module licenses gives you access or discounts to subscriptions, etc, etc.. Plenty of possibilities to please almost everyone.

Edited June 11, 2020 by Vertigo72

[Minsky]

The majority of players are absolutely against paid subscription plan and EDs hardline base would immediately abandon them if they even started to go down that road.

 

Between these three options:

 

1. Subscription-based everything. Free game time in exchange for all your purchases. Community dictates what should be developed next (be it a core feature, or a new module/feature you personally don't care about).

2. Don't change anything. Wait forever for new core features like the dynamic campaign or new clouds. While ED continue to choke the platform with early access stuff.

3. Subscription-based core. Retain all your purchases. Pay or don't pay for the new modules. Get new core features before your death.

 

...I think the last one sucks slightly less than the others.

 

And shouldn't the "hardline base" be the most supportive group? Instead of simply abandoning the platform they heavily invested into?

[Vertigo72]

1. Subscription-based everything. Free game time in exchange for all your purchases. Community dictates what should be developed next (be it a core feature, or a new module/feature you personally don't care about).

2. Don't change anything. Wait forever for new core features like the dynamic campaign or new clouds. While ED continue to choke the platform with early access stuff.

3. Subscription-based core. Retain all your purchases. Pay or don't pay for the new modules. Get new core features before your death.

 

and why not

 

4. Dont change anything for those who dont want a subscription. But offer subscriptions as an alternative to buying modules. If only a relatively small part of their revenue would come from users renting their modules rather than buying, that would already provide ED with a lot more financial room to work on fixing problems rather than working solely on creating new problems. I mean, new modules ;)

[TheGuardian]

and why not

 

4. Dont change anything for those who dont want a subscription. But offer subscriptions as an alternative to buying modules. If only a relatively small part of their revenue would come from users renting their modules rather than buying, that would already provide ED with a lot more financial room to work on fixing problems rather than working solely on creating new problems. I mean, new modules ;)

 

4. NO, NO, NO. None of those things will fix anything. You're adding complexity to an already complex system. ED needs to prove they can actually function under the resources they have. Stop with the new module development, fixing the damn code and get their ducks in a line so every patch doesn't break something major. They do those things, maybe, maybe we can start talking about subscription. Until then, there is no way to trust them to complete their work. END OF STORY.

 

This aint AutoDesk or Adobe we're talking about. This is a platform that isn't required for a business to operate. This is for us play pilot big damn difference.

[Exorcet]

Closing off the OB defeats the point. It needs to be accessible so testing is as thorough and varied as possible. The problem is that people don't want to wait in the stable version. That's not ED's fault.

 

 

Both branches can coexist on the same machine, and still people choose one or the other. As far as "not paying for core" goes, I am. I haven't bought WWII aircraft in quite a while. DCS does modern fairly well, but WWII doesn't work well with the AI or the previous damage model. I'm looking to buy the A-8, P-47, etc, but it's not happening until I feel like DCS is ready for them.

[Vertigo72]

ED needs to prove they can actually function under the resources they have. Stop with the new module development,

 

Yeah, stop all new modules, which today is basically their only source of income. So they have to fire 2/3 of their staff, and that will ensure we finally get vulkan and new clouds and fixes for all existing modules. Maybe not.

 

Until then, there is no way to trust them to complete their work. END OF STORY.

 

What requires more trust? Buying full price early access modules and pray they will eventually work, or pay a tiny monthly subscription for them and each month be free to assess it its worth continuing to pay?

[Vertigo72]

Closing off the OB defeats the point. It needs to be accessible so testing is as thorough and varied as possible.

 

The thing with OB is that its not really a beta in the sense that its used for testing. And the reason I suggest limiting access to it, is to prevent that everyone considers it the default version so that issues in the beta channel dont affect the majority of players. If 70% of online players use the beta, they are not testing, they are playing. You can do a lot more with a lot less people doing actual more methodological testing.

 

But sure, there are other ways to ensure people default to the stable version and run beta to actually test besides restricting OB to subscribers; it just seems like an approach that would be effective, while providing an incentive for many, but can be entirely avoided if you dont want to pay subs.

 

The problem is that people don't want to wait in the stable version. That's not ED's fault.

 

It kinda is their fault too, when they sell modules that require OB and are faster at hotfixing beta channel bugs than stable release.