Will DCS Black Shark 3 be required to continue using the KA-50 in DCS

[Sryan]

@Troll

All I’m saying is that there will be a cost associated with updating two versions

I sure hope I am not driving ED into ruin by owning the L-39 that gave me the C and the ZA, the P-51D which gave me the D-25 and D-30, the spitfire which gave me the clipped and non clipped versions and the gazelle that even has 3 versions for it!

In reality, most of the code behind these variants is likely similar, and I hope that will become the case for the hog and the shark as well. Run the suite 3 and suite X version on pretty much the same code and have the new features only available to the upgraded suite X version. Same with bort 24 and bort 25 of the shark. I can envisionage the same for other modules. I’d be happy to buy a F-86F2 or F-86F40 upgrade if it ment the F-86F35 we have now gets a touch of love in the process. If the L-39ZA was a sold upgrade that facelifted the L-39C in the process I would have been a happy owner.

[Troll]

Look, I don’t know what the cost is associated with maintaining a DCS module. I’m assuming it is something, or we would be able to still use the Hawk.
And you’re talking about versions of the same module, not different modules. And I’m assuming the new A-10 and BS will be new modules, as having them as versions in the same module would defeat the purpose of keeping those lights on.

So, assuming that maintaining the old modules requires some sort of work, which cost money, there must be a price ED is willing to pay to be able to drop the module completely. If all the current owners would be willing to buy the new module, great! ED can drop the support for the older module. So, it’s quite possible that a buyer incentive may even be financially positive for ED and let them turn on more lights
I’m not saying ED should throw their money away.

[Kinger]

I can see what you are saying about paying for a subscription when you are not using the product, but think of it another way. You only subscribe for the times (let’s call them months) that you want to play and in those months you find that the product is much better developed/supported due to the constant inflow of cash.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not campaigning for a subscription based product (as I already have that with Iracing), but on the other hand it does seem to make a lot of sense in order to keep the lights on.

[Sryan]

The Hawk is a bit of a special case, in my opinion. From what I understand, and without the intent to attack its original developers, the Hawk had the bad luck of being an early 3rd party module and being designed with too many dependancies on the core simulator and therefore constantly had the rug pulled out from under its landing gear. As far as I understand, ED offered VEAO to take over the Hawk from them in order to continue development for it for the sake of us simmers, but VEAO refused when they called quits. I even believe its part of the contract these days that when a dev forfeits supporting their modules, rights will be handed over to ED.

This will be the first paid update to a module. So we’ll have to see how they’ll handle this, wether its the way you think, the way I hope or some totally different way. In the end it hardly matters to me as I’ll be flying the updated versions of these aircraft anyway. Wether they’ll call it a whole new module or a module upgrade or a module variant doesn’t really matter to me. For me, they’re all just planes.

@Kinger

I can see what you are saying about paying for a subscription when you are not using the product, but think of it another way. You only subscribe for the times (let’s call them months) that you want to play and in those months you find that the product is much better developed/supported due to the constant inflow of cash.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not campaigning for a subscription based product (as I already have that with Iracing), but on the other hand it does seem to make a lot of sense in order to keep the lights on.

First of all feel absolutely free to campaign for a subscription model. I understand you guys have a vision for how the sim could improve and I will always give your arguments a fair amount of thought and respect. For me such a model would still not work, however. Rather than pondering about which plane I will take out of the hangar this day, I’ll be pondering if I would get my worth out of being subscribed for the month, and probably be unsubscribed more months of the year than I would be. Also, even if they would sell me shorter periods, a week, a day, even a 4 hour session, I cannot envisionage myself enjoying it any more than I do now as I would be flying planes so hard to get my money out of it rather than spending a few hours fumbling in the editor, being relaxed and having a good time at my own pace. I can totally understand your side of the coin. I have friends who are subscribed to that Origin gameservice for a monthly fee. They say they like not having to make buy decisions, they just wait for new games to come out and then download and play without any further thoughts. I can totally imagine there are people who would like to see that in DCS. You start up the sim, pick a plane you’re interested in without thinking about if you own it, if you have a map that that craft would be enjoyable to fly on and without worrying if you have enjoyable supportive asset packs and campaigns to go with it. But it would not be for me. I rather worry if I really need that MiG during a sale and end up buying it anyway.

[Franze]

Here’s probably the way I’d deal with older modules:

At the 5 year mark from complete release (NOT EA release), look at what needs to be improved, remade or redone. Cost/benefit ratio applies here; if it doesn’t cost much to keep it going, then roll QOL improvements into the price for new buyers. Otherwise, start a process on creating the next iteration, make users aware that in a couple years there will be an upgrade and it will cost money.

7 year mark, new version built with new improvements rolled in, final updates to old version done. Old version will be supported for a while longer, with the new version taking priority. New buyers get new version, old buyers get option to buy new version at a discount. Both exist in the game ecosystem for a while.

10 year mark, new version takes priority, old version is deprecated; old buyers have the option to upgrade at the above deal, but will have to use older DCS World version to use their previous version. Old version no longer actively supported from this point.

Much of this depends on whether or not the module needs improvements or changes. For both the A-10C and especially the Ka-50, they’re both getting to the point where they’re old enough that they need significant changes and upgrades, which costs money. I’m personally OK with paying the price for an upgrade after a period of time, as there’s usually an advantage for doing so – A-10C with JHMCS, Ka-50 with MLWS. So as long as the upgrade cost isn’t prohibitive, it’s all good.

As noted before, my main hangup with DCS going to subscription is for those of us that have already paid into it. I preordered the F-16 and F-14, paid full price for the F/A-18 and the Persian Gulf in 2018, and have done most of my module purchases in less than 2 years. Should DCS go to a subscription model, I expect to get a few years of free use of DCS, since that’s what I’ve paid for in effect. I’m not the only one, so ED would in effect be running only on their existing funds for a huge number of existing customers.

Going to a subscription model right now would be a very bad move for ED, since their customers aren’t full of types who like that software model. However, they could potentially roll out the option to get a subscription while retaining the existing payment model. Those who have paid in still have their licenses, new buyers get the option to try before they buy and possibly buy a module they prefer over the subscription. This way, ED can figure out if a subscription model substantially helps their finances, doesn’t change much, or is just another tool in the box.

I’ll be honest: one of the key hangups I have with the subscription model is I don’t see it changing ED’s work ethic. Paying a subscription and then waiting 3 years for critical bugs and problems to be fixed wouldn’t fly for me. There seems to be this belief that throwing money at ED would fix problems, but that’s not the way the world works – never has, never will.

[smokinhole]

Good points @Franze. Another fair way to do it is to let us “rent” planes for 10 years. That eliminates the burn of buying today, late in the development cycles, only to have the model update to a new version in 6 months. The BS 1, 2/FC 1, 2, 3 charade pissed me off at the time. I’ll admit it. Most of you are more forgiving and I find that admirable. My marriage to ED has been in occasional need of counseling. They do something out of the blue like the Caucus upgrade and now Guam and it’s honeymoon time all over again. But every few years they come home from a late-nite bender and start throwing upgrades against the wall with IL2 crying in the other room and I feel like calling 9-1-1.

[Anklebiter]

Another option would be to go free to play and to subsidize the cost with ads and cosmetic dlc.

Kidding, I’m kidding!

[Franze]

@Anklebiter

Another option would be to go free to play and to subsidize the cost with ads and cosmetic dlc.

But who’s gonna sponsor the Russian planes?

[Wes]

Add kill-cams with “this highlight brought to you in part by…” and tons of add-on skins for $4.99 each.

NO!

[SkateZilla]

From my understanding it will be similar for both A-10C and Ka50.

Ka50 3.0 Replaces Ka50 2.0 on eshop.

A-10C 2.0 Replaces A-10C 1.0 on eshop.

There will be only one version on eshop. Old versions discontinued.

Existing A-10C and Ka50 Licenses will be upgradable at a discount.

Existing A-10C and Ka50 Licenses will remain active and supported as is (w/ New Cockpit Models).

A-10C v2 and Ka50 v3 will have New Cockpits and External Models as well as revamped systems and new systems.

A-10C v2 Features have not been finalized nor announced yet.

Ka50 v3 has had a feature list announced.

Its also unclear if the new External Models will replace the old ones or not.

[schurem]

@Anklebiter

subsidize the cost with ads and cosmetic dlc.

…is how they’ll start out, but before long we’ll be buying premium -C5 spAMRAAMs and golden cluster bombs.

[BeachAV8R]

Advertisements popping up on the TGP page…

[Wes]

Missions cost pilot energy, you get so much energy per day. You can buy energy refills for $2.99 or wait 8 hours.

Fuel costs in-game currency, or you can buy tokens with real money to exchange for currency.

[Franze]

@BeachAV8R you forget that particular dude is firmly bought & paid for by Team Boeing.

I’m sure Kalashnikov Concern, KRET, or JSC might be willing to sponsor some of the aircraft. Question is, will it be worth anything? Anyone got some spare change for an AK-12, a Zhuk radar, or an Mi-8?

[BeachAV8R]

@Franze

@BeachAV8R you forget that particular dude is firmly bought & paid for by Team Boeing.

The moderators correctly hid my post. Wise decision.

[komemiute]

I’m very ok with this.

[smokinhole]

Me too. Totally acceptable spousal behavior

[Hangar200]

@SkateZilla

Existing A-10C and Ka50 Licenses will be upgradable at a discount.

Should I give you my credit card details now?

[SkateZilla]

I dont work for ED,

but if you wanna get me a new 5900XT in a few months or pay my Hospital Bill, lmao