New payment model - How could it work?

[OPEC]

Hallo from Germany,

 

Since i feel like we are, well, not hitting a dead end with the other payment thread but kind of turning around in circles i would like to start a poll on how to improve the future of DCS.

 

From what I read there are a lot of people fine with the idea, of paying more for the core of DCS, DCS World. I do not want to force my idea on anybody and far be it from me that i could. But I would be very much interested on how a future business model could look like to improve both DCS and ED's financial situation in order to hire more staff to work on core improvements like vulkan, weather, ATC and so on...

 

So what i like to do is start a poll with various ideas of how it could look like in the future.

 

So let me explain the options I'm thinking of:

 

- You pay once for DCS World 3.0. Maybe 99,99$, but again, thats just a shot in the dark. Therefore you get support for that version until DCS World 4.0. It has to be a stable version with all the promised features.

 

- A monthly subscribtion of maybe 5-10$ for DCS World only, starting with 3.0. You can still use all your modules in DCS 2..., but if you want to upgrade to 3.0, you have to subscribe. With beginning of 3.0 there is no more support for 2... All future modules for 3.0 would have to be purchased extra, the conversion of your existing modules from 2.... to 3.0 is free of extra charge, but within the monthy payment.

 

- A higher monthly subscription of maybe 20-30€ including all modules already existing and all modules to come for DCS 3.0. No extra charge.

 

 

 

- Leave it as it is. Since I can not ad this as an option afterwards (maybe some admin would be so nice to do so) - feel free to just write it in the comments. I will later on count them. Thanks

 

 

Please remember: it's just collecting ideas. I can not do any of this, I'm not with ED or any other developer. I'm driven by a huge like for DCS and the desire to make it better faster. Thats all.

 

 

If you have any Ideas on what options could be added to the poll, feel free to post.

Edited June 12, 2020 by OPEC
Leaving as it is...

[Tom Kazansky]

first of all, does ED need a different business model?

 

 

source?

[Pyker]

Thank you very much for picking up the discussion!

 

 

I vote for the first option :-)

 

 

BTW I won't mind if support for 2.5 stops when 3.0 is released. I have the stable 2.5.5, I have some modules that work reasonably well with it and that's good enough for what I paid. I understand that to get 3.0 (upgraded) versions of modules that I already bought, I'll have to pay something. It's just a matter of how much it will cost to upgrade a module (how big the discount is for existing users) and how much added values (features, fixes) the upgrade brings (like for the base DCS world).

 

 

It is such a pity that with the current model, more satisfaction (for me) with DCS would not come from spending more on software (certainly not on more modules, I already don't have the time to play with some of those that I bought - ironically it's because those modules are so well done) but rather from spending more on hardware, for which ED will not get a cent. Only improving the base DCS (ATC, AI, vulkan, etc.) would give me an incentive to spend some more money on ED software (DCS world base) rather than on hardware.

But that's just me.

 

 

Kazansky: just consider "not changing anything" as a fourth option and feel free to vote for it. It's just a poll.

[amalahama]

So because you didn't like the result of the previous poll, you make a new one this time omitting the winner - keep things as it is today. Very northkore-ish

[Pyker]

So because you didn't like the result of the previous poll, you make a new one this time omitting the winner - keep things as it is today. Very northkore-ish

 

 

Do they make opinion polls in North Korea ?

I voted no in the previous poll because I thought it was not a good solution. But my opinion is that there is indeed a problem and that to keep things as they are today is not the best solution.

Edited June 12, 2020 by Pyker

[amalahama]

Do they make opinion polls in North Korea ?

 

Dunno, but if they do, definitively it'd be like this!

[tugais]

The only other commercial combat flight simulation has a better business model from my point of view.

 

They charge you for a base game and you get access to 8 planes, a dynamic campaign and you can fly on any other maps from others volumes in multiplayer. Plus, they offer a Premium version of the base game with two additional aircrafts ; if you do not wish to buy this premium version, you can always pay for those premium aircrafts as a single airplane.

 

When they improve their core game thanks to the development of the next intallment of the series, all the previous volumes get the updates for free. The preorder runs for several months before being released and the new aicrafts and new features are added step by step to the core.

 

At the end of the day, I think they have a much clearer vision of their customer base and to the attached revenues. This must play a key role to their way to handle development.

[wizav]

We don't need more subscription... hulu,wwe,cable, you name it.. and now DCS .. NO!

 

I will make one time payments for modules I like.

[notproplayer3]

Why isn't there an option in your poll to leave things as it is ???

 

It looks very one sided if you omit including this option.

[OPEC]

So because you didn't like the result of the previous poll, you make a new one this time omitting the winner - keep things as it is today. Very northkore-ish

 

 

It was a completly different question. I'm not asking if or if not they like a subscribtion based model, in case you missed that point. Besides that I'm telling you the same thing here as i did in the other thread - If you don not have anything usefull to say, leave it alone.

[OPEC]

Why isn't there an option in your poll to leave things as it is ???

 

It looks very one sided if you omit including this option.

 

 

Good point, thank you. :-)

[notproplayer3]

Good point, thank you. :-)

 

Thanks for acknowledging

[PickleMonster]

Question is very lopsided. And why do you think ED needs a subscription model? Do you think thowing more money at modules will speed things up?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mythical_Man-Month

[Pyker]

Good point, thank you. :-)

 

 

Can you modify the poll to add this as a fourth option ?

If not maybe erase this poll and start a new one with 4 options, since it is still early?

 

 

Anyway, for those who think that leaving things as they are is the best: this is just a poll. I am aware that even if a huge majority of respondents pick one particular option, that does not mean that it is the way to go for ED and that it will work. But if my favourite option has very few votes then it will be a strong sign that it will NOT work. It's just a poll. We're not starting a petition here.

[OPEC]

Can you modify the poll to add this as a fourth option ?

If not maybe erase this poll and start a new one with 4 options, since it is still early?

 

 

I can't - Maybe an Admin would be so nice. But i added it as a fourth option in my first post, so plaese just answer and i will count them in like a week period. Thanks.

Edited June 12, 2020 by OPEC

[sirrah]

Another vote here for "keep it as it is"

 

 

One time payment for 3.0 (depending on what's included) would also be ok for me, but is not going to work. What about people who don't pay for 3.0? Can they still play 2.5? Would they be able to do MP? Would 2.5 and 3.0 users be able to join the same server? A lot of complications there

 

Currently there's already too much complications with MP servers with OB and stable versions.

 

imho, Ideal DCS World would be, that all maps and Supercarrier are available free and servers restricted to stable, so people would only have to buy the aircraft they want and all MP servers would be available to join (I know.. ED and 3rd parties need income.. but it would be nice.. Also, I'd personally pay more for modules to make this possible)

[OPEC]

And why do you Do you think thowing more money at modules will speed things up?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mythical_Man-Month

 

 

Yes, I do. Thanks also for the link, but the main massage is "adding... to a LATE software project."

 

 

And while that may or may not be true, it will certainly help with new projects or stuff that is currently "on hold" and needs to be brought back to life, because no one is working on it currently.

[Tom Kazansky]

Why isn't there an option in your poll to leave things as it is ???

 

It looks very one sided if you omit including this option.

 

 

+1

 

 

So the poll is more like: what do the 19.7% that prefer a subscription model from the first poll want.

Edited June 12, 2020 by Tom Kazansky

[Northstar98]

I voted for one time payment - but only if need be.

 

I'm fine for certain features being behind a paywall, because I realise that for some of this more complicated stuff, the development cost is not 0.

 

The problem is, having paid-for upgrade packs are unpopular, especially if they break multiplayer compatibility. Such as the WWII assets pack and even the Supercarrier.

 

Otherwise, leave it as it is, though some degree of moderated stick shaking may be necessary sometimes.

[schmiefel]

I didn't vote here, because I think the main problem isn't version counting, but the software architecture and technology base DCS is currently at.

 

That's what needs a steep progression or even a shift, but ...

 

I am doing SimRacing as well since some years. And if you look into that much broader "gaming niche" you can find several business models that succeed more or less in parallel.

 

One that is very similar to todays DCS is that of Sector3 doing RaceRoom Racing Experiments (R3E):

• base game with some race tracks and cars is free of charge
  
• underlying simulation engine is technical wise evolving with a certain progress
  
• the graphics engine (still DX9-based) shows its age but still performs very well even in VR
  
• income for the devs mainly results from selling new cars and tracks and in recent times from letting players pay some fees on special organized events including the opportunity of winning prices - there is some additional income from other businesses like game rooms with fixed racing rigs for rent and getting more and more involved in the upcoming eSports part, but that's nothing I see for SimFlying in the Future at all...
  

 

While the shift to a complete new game/sim engine with mostly state of the art graphics technology plus real changes of day and time including night as well is proposed for several years, these developers mainly focus in improving the simulation engine with adding more details to what gets simulated. This new simulation stuff gets released with the new cars and tracks first, so there is a lot interest in getting the new things through buying this new stuff. But those technical improvements also get shifted over to older content by time - without having to pay again.

 

One of the main differences is, that SimRacing especially in the MP part consists of holding certain race events. Some are organized in leagues, what can bei compared to a certain grade with the virtual squadrons in SimFlying.

 

DCS - and other similar military simulations like ARMA, are more like a sandbox, were the players join in scenario like events - that's for SP as well as MP. Several scenarios can build up to something like a campaign let it be static or dynamical. Well in SimRacing its a bit like a complete championship consisting of several races etc.The main difference is that those scenarios had to be handcrafted with tools and add-ons of the simulation and are much more complex if done right than adding just some races with certain cars and tracks into a race schedule and have some kind of point system and maybe racing classes... there's a lot of work around organizing a league, but that's not much different to organize a virtual squadron and that doesn't count for the sim system at all.

 

One of the other great competitors in SimRacing with a subscription based business model is iRacing. There you not only have to buy most of the cars and tracks but also have to pay a steep monthly/yearly fee to use the content. The main and so far only focus there is helding organized MP races and league championships. Most of this is done by the developer itself. To make a Championship on your own, one - a private racing league e.g. - even has to rent the MP server module.

 

Now, if you look at the main differences between SimRacing and SimFlying I mentioned above, you will maybe recognize that such a subscription model would mostly work in the organized MP squadron based part of DCS - and that's a real small niche inbetween the whole Military SimFlying niche.

 

Well there's the 1st option left: paying a substantial price for every main release of the base simulation aka DCS World plus maybe some upgrade fee for your "older" modules to use them further in new main releases. While this kind of business model works very well for a lot of game franchises (no matter if its something like the F1 series or Battlefield) even without having an option to pay for upgrades of older stuff I have big doubts that this would be a real option for that kind of advanced simulation we have with DCS and its modules. I fear it would just lead to a more splitted player base of those (few) that what would like to keep up with every main shift and those left behind that would like to stay on a certain development status even if it gets abandoned with a new release.

 

Though after a big wall of text I think the only way to stay with what we have with DCS and its advanced complex military flight simulation is the kind of R3E business model with paying development progression by selling new aircraft modules, maps/scenarios and campaigns while doing a more or less slow progression in the further development of the base technology.

 

If and when ED as the developer has or gets the ressources - skilled developers and finance and time - to do a substantial technology shift so that the DCS engine would get more use of modern hardware and therefrom performs much better and more reliable than what we get and have to live with at the moment, well, that's a question only ED Management could anwser to...:huh:

[Mfezi]

Same as the other comments: I can't vote in this poll, because none of the options say "keep the current payment model".

[Snappy]

Well MOHAB , the previous posts were actually useful, problem is, you dont like the opinions voiced.

 

What makes youeven think the current problems are primarily money related? A lot of it has probably more to do with the internal structures of ED, the spaghetti code and their quality management.

 

Personally I don't think throwing more money at them will necessarily have the effect of fixing those issues.

It will increase their income maybe (remains to be seen) but you still get no say in how they spend that money.So they could just keep going, churning out new EA cash cows while the core sim and older modules slowly come apart even more.At this point I m no longer convinced they can actually fix their house.

 

Regards,

Snappy

Edited June 12, 2020 by Snappy

[OPEC]

Well MOHAB , the previous posts were actually useful, problem is, you dont like the opinions voiced.

 

What makes youeven think the current problems are primarily money related? A lot of it has probably more to do with the internal structures of ED, the spaghetti code and their quality management.

 

Personally I don't think throwing more money at them will necessarily have the effect of fixing those issues.

It will increase their income maybe (remains to be seen) but you still get no say in how they spend that money.So they could just keep going, churning out new EA cash cows while the core sim and older modules slowly come apart even more.At this point I m no longer convinced they can actually fix their house.

 

Regards,

Snappy

 

 

Hi Snappy,

 

Let me put it this way: what do you need to change a spagetthi code and a QC Managment? While you are completly right when you say that i do not have any say in how they use their money, i do strongly belive that a lot of problems can be solved simply with manpower. If you only have that much staff there is a limited amount of stuff that can be tackled and you end up with having to make decisions on what to do first. And as I said before - The Problem is that maybe to many resources are used to fix or implement stuff that the loud minority demands, instead of taking care of the core problems like the spagetthi code. And thats going to be a problem because without a working base there will be no more flying around.

So what I would like to see done with a different payment model is that ED implements a team of codes who's only job it is to take care of the core - DSC World and bugs. Not modules only World. That way, at least in my imagination there would still be the same amount of modules beeing released, the same amount of new features can be added but in the same time you have a team of coders who will constantly improve the core and defeat bugs.

 

And that is, I hope we can agree on, a matter of money. As you said - They can not fix it, so the best solution would be to start all over, probably with a DCS 3.0 and a bit more manpower / better QS system.

 

In conclusion - I do not have a problem with the answers given in the other thread nor do i not like the opinions voiced. Thats totaly fine and i do accept that. But in the same way I do accept that i would be happy if other people accept that I'm just trying to get a better "overall picture" of the current payment mood of the community. I'm not trying to force anything on anybody, I'm just curious.

[Furiz]

Your pool is very one sided. Don't really see the purpose of asking the same question in 3 different ways.

And who are you in ED tehat you are even asking something like this, I think they have people employed for financial stuff.

[OPEC]

Your pool is very one sided. Don't really see the purpose of asking the same question in 3 different ways.

And who are you in ED tehat you are even asking something like this, I think they have people employed for financial stuff.

 

 

I already admitted that I forgot to put "leave it as it is" in the poll. So if you fancy that, feel free to say so. And who are you to say what i can or can not ask?