Dunno, maybe just a regional dealership sort of thing? I guess because of ties to Russia and the region, so they have licenses to resell or something. Sort of a satellite office for sales? I bet they would give a delivery timescale though 
Because DCS is always evolving.
ED and the other module makers are caught in a momentous ‘Catch 22’ where they need to add features to the core software in order to add functionality to new modules, breaking old modules in the process.
All the while they need new funds to survive, so new modules are started.
So, I think that setting meaningful deadlines and releasedates that they can keep, is nearly impossible. And when they try, they fail and customers get upset.
To actually finish their modules, as in finish them in the sense that all features are present and functioning would mean stopping the progress of development of DCS and then keeping it there until all modules are done. And not starting any modules that need new features incorporated in the DCS core…
Quite frankly, I think ED and DCS would cease to exist due to lack of funding.
This huge hamster wheel is what made VEAO quit. It’s why Heatblur haven’t finished the Viggen, etc.
So for the customers who want finished modules, I say that I understand that, but be careful with what you wish for.
I think the reason why things are the way they are, is due to unfortunate circumstances rather than an elaborate plan to screw customers over.
3 Likes
ah makes sense, thanks.
So, less Catch Me if you Can and more Glenngarry Glenn Ross?
A lot on that page is old news.
But no matter how well funded the rest of the organization is, I doubt that they would keep pouring money down a drain, just because they can.
Or, said differently, the day DCS stops making money it will be cancelled. I doubt the sales provision on a Bombardier jet will keep the Greys from axing the entire ED team, if that part of the branch isn’t carrying its weight.
And, if making sims like DCS was easy and/or very profitable, wouldn’t there be competitors…?
3 Likes
Good stuff, thanks @Troll
I don’t think it is malicious either (plus Hanlan’s razor and all that) and it is a catch-22 situation for sure.
Really the only other thing we differ over slightly is how much they need to use this approach rather than if they see that it is sort of working for them so far and are continuing (with some evolution like you said). I also am not sure sure if they are that near to being broke either, or if this is the only way. As I don’t think we’ll ever get good data on that, so it’s more just a feeling though.
My ask would just be that they put some sort of bookmark end on the intention of when EA should be over, even if they have to risk being wrong and people using it against them (like it’s a tennis match or something, they have the money).
It’s all I have. Do you have something that shows them losing money unless they do this approach? 
That is true, but I think it’s more the market size and the fact that there is an incumbent. ED has some really excellent and specialized engineers, and they probably are a fantastic rate compared just because of where they live. It might be a bit of a unicorn, but maybe not just because their approach is the right one.
1 Like
No, but restoring and operating classic aircraft has never been a huge moneymaking business. But the Greys love their aircraft.
Imperial War Museum won’t host the TFC Flying Legends at Duxford, because
Given the financial pressures which have resulted from the coronavirus pandemic over the past few months, IWM Duxford has been required to examine all future events and consult with key partners to ensure that, as a charity, the organisation is able to maximise income and remain financially stable. It was therefore mutually agreed that TFC would seek an alternative location to host Flying Legends, which will be confirmed at a later date.
Is TFC a financial burden for IWM?
But at any rate, I base my assumptions on my extensive knowledge of being an employee for 30 years or so. Any department not meeting its financial goals will be ‘restructured’, irrespective of the financial condition of the corporation, or its owners.
So, it’s hard to say if they are making money, and how much. What are the financial demands on ED? Profit margins?
I just think that some of the big players would be joining in, if there was money to be had, in this line of business…
Which is why I was happy to see the announcement of MSFS2020. Maybe. Just maybe, this will mean more customers with money to spend on a brand new virtual aircraft and maybe have at least two different brands to chose from.
No. But it’s the approach they have committed to…
This will sound like a cop out but I’ve heard from very close sources there that TFC hasn’t paid a penny to Duxford for years now and is in so much debt to IWM that they decided to pull the most profitable show for TFC of the year and put their own event on. There are rumors of pushing TFC out the door entirely
1 Like
That doesn’t sound too good.
1 Like
One question on the “ED cannot develop if they don’t have funds and therefore Early Access is a necessity” angle:
ED appears to get most of its money from professional contracts. DCS is their side hustle, and the only reason we have DCS at all is because they spun it off of their professional developments. If that is indeed true, doesn’t that invalidate the premise of ED hurting for money so much that they need the early access model?
1 Like
From my point of view even that ED didnt need to be profitable in the past doesnt mean that they didnt turn out profitable using this EA approach. There are always motivated managers who wants to turn profit.
And there always can happen anything to any company, thats why I dont do pre-orders. I clearly remember the fiasco with IL-2 Cliffs of Dover pre-order. And I was the lucky one who didnt pre-order even then.
They have listed three, and there are some simulator centers that buy the DCS pro license. Are there more? How much money have they made on these projects?
I have no idea.
But like I wrote above, the best indicator of a marginal market is the absence of competitors.
“Appears” is probably the key word here…
That is also a possibility. Just because you make money doesn’t mean you can’t make more.
Either way, they have chosen this business model for a reason.
I don’t think they can change that easily.
Another reason is that not everybody working on a module do the same job. There are different aspects of every module that aren’t equally labour intensive or time consuming. In short, you can’t have employees on idle, so when their job is finished on a particular module, you need to start a new one, to keep them busy.
But in the end, they could keep their modules under wraps until they are finished and then release it to the users. This would not keep them from engaging idling workers in new modules and the sales of each module would probably be around the same. Perhaps even more as it would perhaps lead to happier customers…?
But, they would not get the funds while they develop the modules, as such a business model means that they get their sales when the module is done, and only then.
So, by choosing the EA business model, they want the funds flowing while they develop their modules… Why?
The assertion that ED must have a continuous stream of funds in order to support development both old and new is not the same as saying they are broke, or nearly so. I think they are more flush than ever. But they are a business. There is the mature way to run a business that keeps stakeholders happy. And there is the hobbyist/Etsy kind of business that just wants the world to be happy and vegan right up until the IRS knocks on the door.
Let’s consider the x-plane.org model. If you aren’t familiar, x-plane comes with a dozen or so planes of decent quality. But the really good stuff isn’t sold by the developer. The good stuff is either sold or given away at x-plane.org. Once you get a sizable hanger filled with dozens of helicopters and planes and sceneries you realize you’ve committed to the part time just of keeping them up to date. Because x-plane itself is not in stasis. It is improving constantly. The two more recent changes were the Experimental Flight Model and Vulcan. Both rendered models either broken or almost so until the developers updated them. As the user you are stuck with checking the creators link in the forum to see if an update has been posted. You then go to your account at the store and download the update for EACH model that’s changed. An exception exists where some developers use the “Shade Tree” autoupdater. Pretty awesome but certainly the exception rather than the rule.
ED handles all that nonsense for us. And yes constant World updates demand a huge amount of endless work from the module developers. THOSE poor people are the victims of this model, certainly not us. They row slave ships bringing us the goods. Remember the Caucus upgrade? The new Ka50 cockpit? The new A-10C cockpit?
It’s not perfect. All I am claiming is that it is not nefarious. I still say that minds generally cannot be changed. My mind was changed but not by compelling arguments from any of you. It was changed by the new Caucus map, actually. That’s the day where I sat still for a moment and tried to see things from ED’s perspective. “Why did they do this?” They did it because they are a business.
6 Likes
I feel for all the campaign and mission makers out there. Even just subtle changes to the map, AI, or mission editor can have drastic cascading effects I’m sure.
2 Likes
Because its a business and because we allow that way… EA reality is more because the users begging. Ofc it enters into a win-win situation to many devs/users relationship. Money comes earlier and people (that dont mind to deal with bugs) fix their anxiety earlier because too much hyped.
This kind of relation i know and understand but sadly in my view it enters into a situation were the nasty line is coming close and close and when the company gets too much confortable, we have bad situations like what we have in cyberpunk fiasco (this was a extreme example and i know that was not EA, but is an example of expectation and hype vs lets release something subpar because everyone wants it).
Only because its business and understandable and have reasons, not means that everyone needs to agree (for example medicines industries have tons of examples in this departments lolol). So, specifically only to EA system, the way is so nasty and over abused today that like 1% or less of EA games released on steam really finally get finished and with success, mayority of them die before released…
Thanks that DCS is far away from the nasty examples, but i can’t be happy having DCS all the time bugged and incompleted and pretending on the dream of being a better product when in the final and stop to think no its not, because instead of finishing some old products, no, they keep releasing more incomplete contents to the infinite pile of incompleted dlcs.
I don’t mind to have EA products, BUT when the very old ones are finally completed!
Imagine now a hardware company start to sell a specific equipment that they never finish and only selling more and more new incompleted products to stack them, ohhhhh yeah its a business, ofc its a business. Even selling drugs and ilegal weapons are a business, but only because have “business” tag and the both (seller and buyer) are happy it not means that its all ok and we all need to agree.
Its like microtransactions in games, its also a business but its killing many franchisings and games.
So instead of we have a great and excellent dcs with some few mods but excellent done, we have a eternal bugged combat flight sim with screwed campaigns and bugged mods because we can’t wait and they need more money earlier. And we live like the horse (users) with the carrot (expected dcs and what dcs should be) in our front that we never catch it.
Well, the carrot, to borrow your analogy, is uncatchable. Even the MOST complete DCS module will not satisfy all users. Anyone with a search engine will argue the tiniest details of any module…sometimes because they enjoy the argument more than finding entertainment in an entertainment product. We aren’t churning out combat fighter pilots here. The range of DCS consumers is wide ranging. I’d suggest that maybe playing to the upper part of middle or the lower part of high end realism is pretty good for most of us. For those that want the most realism - you must wait until the product is finished, or accept that stuff won’t work. I think you (not you specifically whoever is reading this) can be vocal about things that are broken if the expectation through observation of how previous modules were brought to market doesn’t match up to what is being sold under the same “Early Access” banner. The only way around that is to be very specific about what Early Access means for each specific module.
I’ll be honest. I never read the Early Access promo page. I just like collecting shoes. 
But there ARE things that clearly don’t appeal to me, so I don’t collect those shoes (WW2 era stuff). No amount of completeness will compel me to buy those products.
3 Likes
I know that perfection standards and perception is different from different people. But i’m not picky and i’m not the guy like some are, that do a fuss and a war only because the rivet is 1,5mm off or because the max speed is 700kn instead of 700,5kn but its strongly annoying see that for example f-18 was years to get terrain radar and some ground weapons modelled that completely cuts to half some of their operational capabilities (as an example)
1 Like
Well ground radar was one where they didn’t want to rough it in for the Hornet, but rather design it into the game so that future modules can use it too. That I can accept delay for.
Your point is still valid, to provide an example myself here:
I find it a bit ridiculous that the CBU-99 / MK-20 had it’s fuzing changed, removed the old fuze (where as each model had one or the other so we need both) and then never completed. Rockeye’s are still hard coded at 1500ft burst altitude from that change and we’ve lost the time delay fuze, and the eventual height options haven’t materialized yet.
So yes, those types of problems do reek of a bit of loss of focus and I can certainly sympathize with that frustration.
1 Like
Most of what I have to say probably has been said already, since this discussion kind of comes back every year… lol, but still:
My only real concern is when EA and the modules profitability start delaying progress on the base system. I can understand the DLC being the service that we pay for and the base system being the free OS. But even the free OS needs updates and they need to take it into account. They certainly made some effort to communicate their work on the base systems is going hard throughout most of last year, (and 2.7 will be a good measure of that).
I don’t mind the Viper for instance, I don’t mind the time it took them to develop the Hornet, really. I think those modules were fun and worth the money, even with the minor bump of the F16 real early days.
I however am really worried about the Supercarrier, a module that is a fan favorite because of all of the cool things it brings to DCS, but for me it has a sour taste. I am convinced that it, in reality, should be an OS update. First it was just a ground crew update and some better ATC (using their own LOMAC engine). Now they got into making ready rooms and features that according to them, will make the game even better. Tell me one good reason why those features are so needed on the carrier, but are superfluous on the ground? That kind of modularization might be a good development approach, but should not be a good pricing, marketing strategy.
That is the EA that bothers me. Much more so than Yaks or F16s. Because as great as it is, the system is dated
One of these days I was watching a LOMAC video. It’s amazing to think how good it was for it’s time. Especially since we are still basically just playing that 2003 game with better graphics. Then to hear that podcast with Nineline talking about the AI… Sure I get it, it’s not as bad as the worst forum users exaggerations, but it’s far from okay. We’re in 2021. It’s been almost 20 years. Look a those wingman commands… Exactly the same.
So that is what bothers me. Sure, sell the planes, I love buying them, we are all pretty hardcore, we will keep buying them. They are worth their cost. But only if their sales actually help to move the game forward.
Now the company changed a lot an probably grew a lot after the Hornet. I bet VR had a big impact for this new boom in Flight Sims and they were in a very good position. This is great and I think we have signs they are still adapting to this change.
Their insistence on advertising their roadmap with a bunch of base systems changes are a good sign they know they cannot get away with flashing in progress new aircraft in front of us indefinitely. Afterall this is a combat flight sim and it doesn’t work like FSX did. It’s not just about the novelty of learning to fly a new plane. And I think they know it. Now let’s wait for the next releases (especially that 2.7 that is on the corner) and see if they are actually going in the right direction. My hopes are high.
Perhaps. Now, I’m not someone you should turn to for economical advice, but I googled the revenue of ED and Asobo.
Annual Revenue:
ED: $0.63 Million
Asobo: $17.8 Million
They are both rather small developers. The employee numbers I could find was 55-150 for ED and 210 for Asobo.
There are probably a multitude of reasons why one should not compare the two and the numbers might be wrong, for all I know. I mean, 630.000 bucks is impossible for 55 employees, let alone 150. So there probably is something missing here. The ED figures are at the Swiss HQ that has just 5 registered employees. Perhaps the Moscow dept. has its own figures. But, AFAIK, they moved the sales to Switzerland and that’s where their legal disclaimer says they are situated. So it’s not unreasonable to expect that the sales are registered where the legal company is situated. In any case, I just can’t find any evidence supporting that the high fidelity combat flightsim market is where the money is at…
I have to agree on this. I am not so worried about the slow materialization of modules, but the base game. That project is even larger, more complex and provides some of the most complex systems simulation to modules (missiles, flight dynamics, sensory physics etc.) as APIs.
I think I even saw some interview, where idea of rewriting the whole base game would be required in some stage, which most often is the fate of all big SW projects. I wonder how that undertaking is going to work financially.
Luckily I have a solution to this: make more of the base game open source. Then it is possible for anyone to contribute small bits and ED can decide whether they merge the pull requests. This sounds radical, but I see this kind of hybrid model as the winning solution in the future for the big projects, which DCS certainly is.
I know opening parts of software is painfull, but there are benefits to it. Who would have believed 20 years ago that Microsoft is today endorsing Linux and even turning many of its own software to open source.
P.S. Maybe should have mentioned that I am not even joking 
2 Likes