DCS Economics

[Scarecrow]

First off every DCS product is worth every penny but recent releases and price changes got me thinking about price structure and future releases.

 

DCS A10c was my first purchase and the entertainment it has provided has well exceeded what I originally paid for it.

A few weeks ago I bought P51 when it was on sale for silly money because for me P51 is not going to give as much entertainment as A10c does. Now like I said P51 is worth every penny at RRP but owning A10c has left me with a sense of entitlement about what I get for my money.

 

My thoughts are; will FastMover be the same price as P51 and Huey? FastMover will be more complex to R&D so a higher price would be fair to pay, but at what price does it become prohibitive for bringing new players into the sim?

I don't think the EDGE maps should be free, they cost money to make but again at what point does the pricing become prohibitive?

I think what ED are doing is amazing and I'm happy to pay fair price for it but I just wonder if BS2 and A10c have given the community inflated expectations.

 

Would love to hear others ideas on the subject.

[tintifaxl]

I paid 60 USD for A-10C and 40 USD for the P-51, neither were overpriced for the countless hours of entertainment they have provided.

[Lucas_From_Hell]

I don't think the expectations are inflated - as you can see people are going absolutely crazy over the UH-1H, which is a fairly simple ride.

 

And about EDGE maps, I think they should stay free because otherwise we'll end up with a 'class divide' where the more committed gamers with enough money in their pockets will be flying EDGE and the rest - less committed lads and committed ones who can't afford the maps at said moment - will be left with the old map (the same thing that happens in "Member-Only" areas of numerous online games), and I think that's kind of against the DCS:World idea of having everyone together.

[CyBerkut]

I think it is up to the publisher to decide what amounts they want to sell their products for, and then the market will either buy them, or they will not.

 

The publisher needs to cover costs while developing, plus get some sort of profit. Some customers will attempt to consider that sort of thing in their purchasing decisions, while others will simply look at what they find valuable to their own purposes.

 

If the publisher starts out too high for many, those customers will hold off until the price drops to what they consider to be fair... or even forgo ever purchasing it.

 

The usual goal for a publisher is to maximize profits. That does not always equate to selling the most copies of the program (especially in the early phase where R&D costs are being recaptured). It's possible in some cases to make more money by selling to fewer customers at a higher price.

 

At some point, if they manage to cover their R&D expenses, it can start to make more sense to eventually lower the price to gain more market penetration. Sometimes, it comes down to factors outside of the product in question... for instance, it may be worthwhile to the company to take a smaller profit on one product in order to more deeply establish their "brand", with an eye toward making their other offering(s) be perceived as more valuable.

 

Bottom line: The publisher is going to set their price at a given time, to suit their own purposes. If they fulfill the desires of a bunch of customers, it's a beautiful win-win. If they don't match up well, they may have to modify their pricing decision, or improve their offering in some other way. The publisher will measure the success of their pricing decision by how their profit pans out. How the customers vote with their wallets matters heavily. How some of them talk about it in forums, etc... will not matter as much.

[Scarecrow]

I paid 60 USD for A-10C and 40 USD for the P-51, neither were overpriced for the countless hours of entertainment they have provided.

 

I agree but I'd say 60 USD for A10C is a bit low it had to be at least 3 times the work of P51?

My point is not that things are over priced but that previous products have been underpriced so as to be accessible.

[cichlidfan]

 

And about EDGE maps, I think they should stay free because otherwise...

 

What do you mean by 'stay free'? Nevada will be only be free to those that pre-purchased the A-10 over two years ago. It will not be free for anyone else, and I doubt any future maps will be free either.

[NineLine]

I don't think the expectations are inflated - as you can see people are going absolutely crazy over the UH-1H, which is a fairly simple ride.

 

And about EDGE maps, I think they should stay free because otherwise we'll end up with a 'class divide' where the more committed gamers with enough money in their pockets will be flying EDGE and the rest - less committed lads and committed ones who can't afford the maps at said moment - will be left with the old map (the same thing that happens in "Member-Only" areas of numerous online games), and I think that's kind of against the DCS:World idea of having everyone together.

 

 

I dont think its really fair to ask for future maps to be free, I can only assume the great deal of work that goes into them. Do I think they should be as much as an aircraft (but perhaps they will be, I have no clue the amount of work that goes into them), no probably not but they shouldnt be free.

 

I cant afford the Huey right now, I will probably get it next payday, but because I cant afford it doesnt mean it should be cheaper or free... people will always buy new modules based on interest, money and such. Price of those modules has to be based on development time and costs that went into them....

 

They are charging less than currently popular FPS, I am ok with that as long as the content is new and fresh... I got off the Call of Duty bandwagon when it was hard to tell they game you just bought for 60 bucks was a new game.

[Lucas_From_Hell]

Terribly sorry, my bad there. Something made me think it was coming within a future update :doh:

[Scarecrow]

I think it is up to the publisher to decide what amounts they want to sell their products for, and then the market will either buy them, or they will not.

 

The publisher needs to cover costs while developing, plus get some sort of profit. Some customers will attempt to consider that sort of thing in their purchasing decisions, while others will simply look at what they find valuable to their own purposes.

 

If the publisher starts out too high for many, those customers will hold off until the price drops to what they consider to be fair... or even forgo ever purchasing it.

 

The usual goal for a publisher is to maximize profits. That does not always equate to selling the most copies of the program (especially in the early phase where R&D costs are being recaptured). It's possible in some cases to make more money by selling to fewer customers at a higher price.

 

At some point, if they manage to cover their R&D expenses, it can start to make more sense to eventually lower the price to gain more market penetration. Sometimes, it comes down to factors outside of the product in question... for instance, it may be worthwhile to the company to take a smaller profit on one product in order to more deeply establish their "brand", with an eye toward making their other offering(s) be perceived as more valuable.

 

Bottom line: The publisher is going to set their price at a given time, to suit their own purposes. If they fulfill the desires of a bunch of customers, it's a beautiful win-win. If they don't match up well, they may have to modify their pricing decision, or improve their offering in some other way. The publisher will measure the success of their pricing decision by how their profit pans out. How the customers vote with their wallets matters heavily. How some of them talk about it in forums, etc... will not matter as much.

 

It's an interesting question to ponder which way will they go with FastMover, sell it low to establish the brand or sell it as a Premium product to reflect the higher cost of production.

[jrsteensen]

I'm sort of in the feeling that $60 is the top dollar most will pay for a quality sim. Is it worth more? Probably. I think $60 is the magic number for most people.

[Scarecrow]

I dont think its really fair to ask for future maps to be free, I can only assume the great deal of work that goes into them. Do I think they should be as much as an aircraft (but perhaps they will be, I have no clue the amount of work that goes into them), no probably not but they shouldnt be free.

 

I cant afford the Huey right now, I will probably get it next payday, but because I cant afford it doesnt mean it should be cheaper or free... people will always buy new modules based on interest, money and such. Price of those modules has to be based on development time and costs that went into them....

 

They are charging less than currently popular FPS, I am ok with that as long as the content is new and fresh... I got off the Call of Duty bandwagon when it was hard to tell they game you just bought for 60 bucks was a new game.

I knew the EDGE maps were gonna cost, the only thing that puzzles me is the historical map. I think to create an immersive 40's era environment we need a few NPC aircraft variants, which will cost, otherwise the map will still be pretty sterile.

[NineLine]

I knew the EDGE maps were gonna cost, the only thing that puzzles me is the historical map. I think to create an immersive 40's era environment we need a few NPC aircraft variants, which will cost, otherwise the map will still be pretty sterile.

 

Based on Wags comments you could assume that we will see some WWII objects added with their expansion into that era, whether its by ED or by 3rd Parties.... How those would be added I have no clue... my dream would be "Combined Arms - WWII" :)

[Scarecrow]

I'm sort of in the feeling that $60 is the top dollar most will pay for a quality sim. Is it worth more? Probably. I think $60 is the magic number for most people.

 

If FastMover were to come out next week I'd say that quite rightly in order to indicate the complexity of the simulation 80 or 90 wouldn't be asking to much. I just wonder what it will be when that day comes.

[Scarecrow]

Based on Wags comments you could assume that we will see some WWII objects added with their expansion into that era, whether its by ED or by 3rd Parties.... How those would be added I have no clue... my dream would be "Combined Arms - WWII" :)

 

Poor Oleg Maddox that was his dream :cry:

[NineLine]

If FastMover were to come out next week I'd say that quite rightly in order to indicate the complexity of the simulation 80 or 90 wouldn't be asking to much. I just wonder what it will be when that day comes.

 

I dont know at all, but I doubt that ED would charge that much for a module, I would have to think right around 40 to 60 would be their range.

[Scarecrow]

Well that's good bang for your buck right there. Just goes to show how commited the team are to making the modern computer age aircraft when it must take long time to make ROI.

[NineLine]

Well that's good bang for your buck right there. Just goes to show how commited the team are to making the modern computer age aircraft when it must take long time to make ROI.

 

Well dont quote me on that, I mean I am just basing that on past sales... As I said I have no insight into pricing of future modules...

[Scarecrow]

Well dont quote me on that, I mean I am just basing that on past sales... As I said I have no insight into pricing of future modules...

Don't worry like I say I'll pay whatever they charge it. Just hope they sieze on the WWII theatre idea and populate the map and the skies for a real feel. If they do that the WWII market is theirs. I'll still buy BOS but I'm rooting for ED:)

[CyBerkut]

It's an interesting question to ponder which way will they go with FastMover, sell it low to establish the brand or sell it as a Premium product to reflect the higher cost of production.

 

I don't think Eagle Dynamics is going to feel much need to sacrifice initial profits in the interest of establishing their brand. They are well established in the eyes of most potential customers. I suspect the balance they will be seeking is what initial price point is going to yield the maximum profit.

 

Considering the appetite for a high fidelity air-to-air combat fast-mover that exists... I would expect the initial price to be no lower than what their other offerings have been, and quite possibly a good bit more. As long as they are delivering the goods, that should work out fine for them. If needed, they can always lower the price or throw in some additional content/bling.

 

E.D. has made some unconventional moves along the way that some have found quite puzzling (P-51D for instance). I think their view comes out of a different paradigm than what many thought it should be. First off, they also do sim development for government entities, so they don't necessarily live or die solely upon the success of the DCS product line. Second, it looks like they have taken a 'longer view' with their 'DCS World' approach, and leaving room for vehicles from different eras, etc. While many don't have all that they want right now (whether it be modern era air combat with multiple high fidelity vehicles to choose from, or a fully fleshed out WWII era combat environment, or...), the framework to make it feasible has been laid down. Between the tools that E.D. has already laid out, and the opening up to selected 3rd party developers... I think E.D. has made some good, saavy choices. It's not an immediate gold mine, but it sure looks like it will pan out in the long run.

 

Spectrum Holobyte had a plan to have an Electronic Battlefield Series, IIRC. Their decisions eventually ran up against a harsh reality in the software publishing business, and they did not get to finish pursuing that vision.

 

E.D. appears to have arrived at a better way to approach that dream, couched within the circumstances that exist in the software business now. While it is hard to patiently wait for the next installment, it is interesting to watch the story unfold.

[NineLine]

Poor Oleg Maddox that was his dream :cry:

 

He is more than welcome to purchase and play any WWII content we might see here :) Maybe he can apply to be a 3rd Party Dev, might take him 7 years for proof of concept though :)

[EtherealN]

I'm sort of in the feeling that $60 is the top dollar most will pay for a quality sim. Is it worth more? Probably. I think $60 is the magic number for most people.

 

If FastMover were to come out next week I'd say that quite rightly in order to indicate the complexity of the simulation 80 or 90 wouldn't be asking to much. I just wonder what it will be when that day comes.

 

While I definitely agree with Scarecrow (tbh, I feel sims of A-10C's fidelity level and compleexity are easily worth triple digits), there is of course the fact that most down agree - and extremely critically, most retailers don't agree! Set the price too high, and you absolutely guarantee that no "normal" game retail chain is going to stock your game.

 

Deciding on prices is extremely complex stuff.

 

But one thing we should remember when it comes to the prices as well: how many AAA titles do we see that are still receiving support 2-3 years after their release? That of course ties into DCS World as a platform - while I don't have any knowledge about the economics, I strongly doubt it would have been economically feasible to keep A-10C "current" this long if it wasn't for DCS World.

[Lucas_From_Hell]

I think Lock On takes the cake on development and support - after all, Flaming Cliffs 3, technically speaking, an add-on to the original LOMAC. That's 2003. Ten years of it and it's still one of the best flight simulators ever. Second to, well, DCS :D

[Scarecrow]

it is interesting to watch the story unfold.

It certainly is interesting and the decisions ED have made about diversification are very clever in maintaining a steady reliable income from modules that can be produced quicker.

[Rusty_M]

I think EtherealN has got it pretty much covered there. Is it worth hundreds of dollars? Possibly. Would enough people but it for such a high price? Probably not. I know I'd be more reluctant and probably spend less overall if each module took up a whole month's spending money instead of about one week's worth.

 

They have to find the most profitable sweet spot in terms of finding the right number of customers to buy their product.

[Kaktus29]

i think ED lacks the business tricks such as selling in small parts a one piece..

 

make things optional as much as you can, thus selling individual parts of the same module for instance cheaper but when you put all parts together you get to the A-10C selling for 120 USD..

 

what i mean is having A-10C module that would cost 40 $ but would not be able to use night vision gear, or certain types of weapons, or radio, or this elements would be simulated more arcade like.. So if you want better fidelity of the said module you pay 5 bucks more to get this system etc..

 

Advertising industry does this all the time, give people a "choice" so they end up with more freedom and thus in the end make it possible to empower them when they make a purchase more.. then couple this with the buyer psyche of wanting the whole thing-like solving a puzzle or wanting to "finish those lines in tetris)" one continues buying in an effort to finally have all the puzzle done.. And what is best it can be done over time, so if a person really can't afford spending 120 USD for A-10C one can start with 45 USD and in one year slowly one part after another and you get to full worth of the high fidelity system.

 

I'm not saying do it exactly as i said here, but use such a system since it works in other industries that sell products to people..

 

it also empowers the buyers to be more "precise" like a smart guided bomb and go where they will do most of the damage.. if someone just wants to fly high-fidelity A-10C and hear the cannon go BRrrrrrrr,Brrrrr, Brrrrr but not wanting to pay for other high fidelity systems in the A-10C that are in the end part of the price why not enable this person-noob as it is but still-an opportunity to buy this "stripped down" A-10C and enjoy his Brrrrrr runs.. after awhile he will get itchy.. and think to himself.. hmm, i wonder how a cluster bomb goes.. and he goes for it.. etc etc..

 

Same is with cars, very few people buy the whole thing money up front.. and even when buying a car there are many choices of getting the car with better engine, better sound system, navigation, etc etc.. if you can't afford it you pay less for a lesser version ..

 

It works, .. and i hope ED maximises this to full extent.. it will be good for them and us as customers..