Would a software subscription model help ED/TFC to succeed?

[empeck]

The last few years ive played a game/sim called Railsimulator/railworks.

The add-on market for it is enormous; extra routes, trains, sound packs, etc.

 

To get the most out of that sim, you need to purchase some of the add-ons, and that makes the game expensive.

 

 

You don't have to own everything. Base product is already playable full game. I don't have any addons for Railworks yet, but I play it from time to time, and it's fun. Same thing with FSX - I buy planes I like, and sceneries I want to have.

 

I'm very surprised ED haven't released additional DLC yet - I'm talking about campaigns and maps. I'd gladly pay ED for example 20 or 30 bucks for a quality Afghanistan, Iraq or Korea terrain compatible with both DCS modules.

[Teej]

Part of the reason I play flight sims is to get away from the subscription / unlockables extortion crap of console games.

 

No thanks.

 

Kinda like when Ferrari released their F1 game with the test track. I bought in at that point knowing that extra tracks would cost more money later. However, when they released Mugello, the pricing was such that people who bought in early like me were screwed - the amount we'd already paid, plus the mugello upgrade, was _higher_ than the cost of someone just signing up to buy the test track & mugello together. I realize they later altered their pricing plan slightly, but when that came out, I uninstalled the test track and didn't look back. FTS.

Edited February 16, 2011 by Teej

[galagamo]

I'm all for supporting the Devs that are worth supporting, but I dont like the idea of a subscription. If ED chose that route I wouldn't be here and my money would have been spent elsewhere Im' pretty sure I'm in the majority on that.

Even though this is a niche market, the basic rules of economics do still apply.

Like the upgrade patch for DCS:BS, they should charge for that, I wouldn't blame them, and I would certainly pay.

DLC is also a great way to generate income.

We want tangible products, not dependents.

[Le0kong]

One thing i think ED could do to get more people into DCS is a lower entry, for these who have been burned many times by other other sims who promised a lot and deliver very little or these who are unsure they will be able to learn and play it properly.

Example. You pay something like $5, and get the full DCS A-10 for 1 or 2 months, if you like it and want to continue playing you buy the normal $60 full-price (less the $5 you already paid). If you want give up, you lose only the $5.

It may need a stronger DRM for the time expiration, but gets removed when you pay the full price.

 

I normally don't like this method in others areas, but for something like DCS it looks okay for me.

 

DISCLAIMER: I DO NOT OWN ANY BUSINESS, NO BUSINESS EXPERIENCE, AND A FAMILY HISTORY OF DISASTROUS BUSINESS DECISIONS... still... :D

[SonofEil]

I'm actually suprised that it hasn't been mentioned here, but there is a top-tier simulator out there that already employs the subscription model, and make no mistake, they are making unheard-of profits for a small group of sim developers. It's called iRacing, and it's now easily the most popular auto racing simulator available. And in their particular instance I don't think they would have reached their level of popularity if it hadn't been for their subscription model and the competition structure they utilize.

Racing sims have suffered a similar fate as us flight folks. Interest has plummeted in the last decade while costs have skyrocketed. Most of the guys in the sim racing business have taken one of two roads; partner with the bigshots for (poor-quality) console releases (simbin), or offer contract services to race teams and auto companies while maintaining a smaller niche PC release pipeline based on their contract work. (Sound familiar?)

But it's not working so well for them. Contracts come and go. Race teams evaporate as fast as indie developers, and the niche releases get pushed back by years because of it (rFactor2).

My point is that we are a small niche that requires rediculous time and money to produce quality products for, and the current business model hasn't worked for years. (<-How many developer interviews do I need to reference for that one?)

 

ED will innovate its own business model and so far they have business to survive and prosper for a good chunk of time.

 

Are you speaking with the knowledge of ED's sales figures and financial statements? While I certainly don't have them in front of me either, from the beginning I strongly suspected that the whole "pre-purchase" idea came about as a need for a cash infusion. Not that I would ever expect you or any of the ED team to admit that, or that there's anything wrong with it in the first place.

 

[...]with ED being a relatively small team and handling the military part of their business as well, throwing is subscription is just asking for a whole lot of things that I imagine they might not want to do right now.

 

To keep a subscription model you have to run servers, matches, have people judge 'fairness', and then deal with a whole mess of people arguing what is technically correct or not. Maybe some day - but right now, who the heck needs such a thing?

 

I'd rather see a well managed persistent world server instead if it was subscription based. Before that comes to pass, I'd like to see a dedicated server binary.

 

All of the above is absolutely true. I won't argue for one second that ED should try and migrate DCS to a subscription model. That would be nearly impossible to accomplish properly in it's current form. But I will argue that subscriptions have allowed a previously struggling simulator development team to flourish, and that maybe we, as a community, should be more open to alternatives to support the rediculously talented people that make our hobby possible.

Edited February 17, 2011 by SonofEil