I wonder if.......?

[PHo17]

I think that "FS Ferrari" (what comes to price) doesn't even exist. Speaking of cars a Ferrari costs some ten times the price of an ordinary car (in my country Finland even more because cars are here heavy taxed). In FS world that means "Ferrari" should cost at least $200. I don't see many addons of that kind. Let's call it "FS Mercedes"

 

[Dumonceau]

When I read a thread like this I wonder how many still remember the CFS1 and CFS2 day when everybody contributed to his abilities and knowledge. People still regarded flight simmimg and developing for flight simulators a hobby. Netwings and simviation were filled with freeware and you could fly nearly any aircraft you wanted.

Over the years I've seen a lot of freeware designers gong into payware and rapidly becoming frustrated about disappointing sales, unsatisfied paying customers, the product ending up on a pirate site and colleague designers who are ruining the market as this colleague is designing exactly the same model as they are.

Were we just naive or really happier in those day?

Just a thought.............
Huub

Couldn't agree with you more Huub! I guess that nowadays, we're quite spoilt!

Dumonceau

 

[bazzar]

Ferarris cost what they do because of what they cost to make. The market for them is very small, comparatively, so they sell fewer.

If people can live without deep systems, multiple complex features and bespoke coding, then the cost of an addon would alter accordingly.

But I don't see that happening any time soon.

"More for less" has always been the traditional demand in any consumer category.

But then, when has a tennis-player ever won an argument with an umpire?

 

[dhasdell]

But then, when has a tennis-player ever won an argument with an umpire?

John McEnroe?

 

[huub vink]

Yes.

The costs have risen but the prices haven't. So, quite honestly, from a buyers perspective, this is good news.

And sadly, it cannot last.

Kat

I only a agree partially. In general what payware designers want, is a refund for the costs they make. The more complex a model becomes, the costs for documentation, visits, required software etc. will rise. Also the amount of hours needed to make the model will rise.
As an example: In general a FSX model is much more complex than an FS9 model. Take for instance the textures. In FS9 more or less just a texture and an alpha layer. In FSX a spec map, a bump map and the actual texture an all which their own alpha layers. And textures are just one of the more simple things.

Nevertheless it is remains a balance between the costs made and the refund expected.

I'm currently trying to help Dutchcheeseblend to finish his Fokker D-XXI. He has been working nearly daily on this model for more than a 18 months already. Both he and I made costs. We both bought several books on the subject, traveled to visit museums to do research. But still the model will be released as freeware. Why? Because he did it as hobby and doesn't expect any refunds.
Most payware designers I have worked with, want to have at least the money (real costs) spend on developing the model back. Most freeware designers I've worked with don't really care about the money, because went they don't want to spend money they just don't spend the money. And when they do spend money, they consider it part of their hobby.

For me the main difference between payware and freeware designers is that freeware designers create want they want and payware designers create what they think their customers would buy.

To get back to b52bob's question, I think simple models which can be developed within a reasonable amount of time and with a reasonable amount of money involved will not sell enough. When I fire up one of my 3 FS9 installs an climb into Paul Rebuffat's Bf109s, even I think "wow it still looks nice from the outside, but it really isn't from this age anymore....."

Just my 2 cents,
Huub

 

[Lawman]

Pirates will never buy anything. That is why they are pirates.
So, no increase in sales there.

Sorry bazzar, but I don't believe that is necessarily true. Illegal offerings tend to lower the moral threshold for someone who still might have bought the product legally if there had been no illegal alternative. After all, why spent your money when you can get it for free with (almost) zero chance of getting caught? The true issue regarding piracy and illegal downloading is thus a moral one. Many people even believe they have the right to download illegaly, so you can see how far our society has derailed regarding basic morals and values.

We live in a market which is governed by supply and demand. If I want a product that someone offers me bad enough, it is worth the asking price to me and I am apparently prepared to pay that price. But if I'm not willing to pay the asking price, that doesn't mean I am then allowed to just take it for free. Because that's just plain greed: "Me want!".The same holds true regarding the question of the OP: if you think the asking price is too high, you can either wait and hope it will be on a sale, or simply say "Sorry, this product is not for me" and move on.

 

[huub vink]

Hi Lawman,

Personally I think Bazz is actually quite right in his opinion that pirates won't buy the products they illegally download. There is nothing really black or completely white, so there surely be exceptions. I can fully understand the frustration from payware designers when their products end up in the illegal circuit, but I think the economical crisis and current price development contribute much more to disappointing sales than piracy does.
In general I don't think people buy more because other people steal less......

Development costs rise because models become much more complex. However for me models have become far too complex already. In my CFS1 and CFS2 day I could jump in an aircraft and immediately chase the enemy. Now I have to study the complete manual before I am even able to start the bl**dy thing! And in some cases (like a very beautiful freeware Mig) I'm not even capable to start the thing even after studying the manual....... and when I finally manage I have forgotten how I did it the next day

Based on Rudyjo's post I understand I'm more a Alabeo man than an A2A person. Perhaps to answer Bob's question, we should compare sales numbers of Alabeo and A2A.

Cheers,
Huub

 

[Lawman]

Hello Huub,

I recognize the feeling. But it seems this is a niche market where the wishes of the "hardcore simmers" are prevalent because they're the ones who spend/are willing to spend the most and keep returning. And the motto of the FS-franchise is after all "As real as it gets". There are a few developers who cater for customers like yourself (and sometimes me), but the end result can never be the same as a "hardcore" simulation. That's why there are Fords and Ferraris. I personally think most developers have mastered the art of making a beautiful external model. But it is in the VC (with its myriad of different skills required) where there are significant differences.

I agree with you and Bazzar that the true pirates (who merely pirate for the sake of it) do not constituate lost sales. My point is that their activities also entice others to not buy that product legally, but take the illegal offering instead. And that could very well be a lost sale.

 

[Rudyjo]

One thing I have noticed over the years is that I still use the A2A planes that I bought 5 years ago.
The Alabeo planes tend to get used for a week, and then rarely used again.

If you consider the purchase price and the number of hours that you use it, the A2A planes can be considered to be cheaper.

Another example of "You get what you pay for" is tools.
I have many Milwaukee, Porter Cable, Bosch, Delta, and even Craftsman tools that I have owned for over 30 years that still work as they did when they were new.
I paid about 50% more for them than a Black and Decker would have cost, but if I had bought only Black and Decker tools, they would have been thrown away and replaced many times over the years.
The more expensive tools are cheaper in the long run.

Porter Cable is now owned by Black and Decker, most Craftsman tools are now made in China, Milwaukee sold out to another company years ago. In their quest for higher profits, they no longer have the quality that made them last a lifetime. I'm glad I bought those tools when I did, I have to be very desparate to buy those brands anymore. For the most part, they have lost me as a customer and I'm sure there are many people like me. It's actually cheaper to spend a little more time and money and do it right the first time.

 

[wombat666]

I suppose this is one of those discussions that is two sides of the same coin.
Huub put it exactly how I feel, 'I'm more a Alabeo man than an A2A person. Perhaps to answer Bob's question, we should compare sales numbers of Alabeo and A2A.'
That aside, 'As Real As It Gets' is not a very clever slogan, as here we are, seated in front of a PC, many with expensive hardware and multiple monitors, 'flying' virtual aeroplanes, which is not exactly 'Real'.
Me, I like to kick the tyres and light the fires, get airborne and enjoy the scenery, others can sit there and run a 30+ minute checklist and startup procedure which they enjoy and that is understandable, but I believe they are a minority.
I rather be 'Flying'.
Perhaps I'm (just me, myself) a simple suck, but my life is complicated enough without spending my limited leisure time adding further complexities to a hobby.
I do have other interests and I prefer to race one of my cars or bikes on days when the weather is fine, provided I'm not overseeing a home building (marathon) project.
We are all different but we share an interest in 'Simulated Flight', however, it would be (never going to happen unfortunately) sensible if developers made an attempt to communicate with one another to avoid duplications.
More to the point, certainly release the complex 'Pet Projects' but why not intersperse them with something for simple sucks like me.
I was interested at the number of 'requests' for products that should be 'TacPac'? enabled, given the ridiculous price of that software, why so?
It adds to developer costs, so I believe, and what exactly is the point of dropping pretend munitions in a Civilian Flight Sim?
I'll get 'orf me soapbox and take my medication now.



PS: Let's remember, 'Piracy' is a given, we don't like it, but it is a given, and while I'm at it, we do not bash the Developers, it's their choice and their products.

 

[SkippyBing]

however, it would be (never going to happen unfortunately) sensible if developers made an attempt to communicate with one another to avoid duplications.

Oddly in most industries that would be considered illegal, imagine if Ford and GM agreed that one of them would make all the compact cars and the other all the SUVs.

 

[wombat666]

Oddly in most industries that would be considered illegal, imagine if Ford and GM agreed that one of them would make all the compact cars and the other all the SUVs.

I know that very well Skippy, it's known as 'Collusion', and in this case it wouldn't be illegal, it would simply be 'Common Sense'.
And FWIW, it is fairly common throughout manufacturing, even came across it myself.

 

[Francois]

As a publisher (AND FS hobbyist) of FS products and having TRIED this scheme of lowering the price beyond regular (for example with our Plum Island title) I can tell you that it doesn't work that way...... unfortunately.

Products sell because people like them and if they do, the price is less important apparently. Of course it has to be in synch with other products and the quality and breadth of what is offered. Most of Simon Smeiman's planes sell for around 17 Euros..... and he works on one for over a year too !

For what it is worth, both Simon and I are WITHOUT a fixed income, and often without any income at all, so we feel the pain of our customers all too well. We are also not the yougest around anymore, unlike some of our esteemed competitors. It is one of the reasons I installed the 65+ discount for some of our products. And it also explains why we sell very nice, complete, multi-verision and interesting aircraft for only 17 Euros.

And yes, we COULD do nicer things...... IF we'd sell more than 300 of any given model at any time ;-) DAMHIK

 

[SkippyBing]

I know that very well Skippy, it's known as 'Collusion', and in this case it wouldn't be illegal, it would simply be 'Common Sense'.
And FWIW, it is fairly common throughout manufacturing, even came across it myself.

I'm not sure how the Flight Sim market gets an exemption from collusion. I also don't see how it's common sense, if only one company was going to make a specific aircraft then the customers have no choice, even if the only available model is rubbish. As it is there are two or three Phantoms coming out soon each of which will have to be top notch to get sales.

 

[Lawman]

I'm not sure how the Flight Sim market gets an exemption from collusion. I also don't see how it's common sense, if only one company was going to make a specific aircraft then the customers have no choice, even if the only available model is rubbish. As it is there are two or three Phantoms coming out soon each of which will have to be top notch to get sales.

Nobody (in any field of business) is obligated to make a competing product. Let's take cars as an example (but you can fill in any product you like, including FS-addons): if Honda markets a car that runs on hydrogen, General Motors isn't required to also make a similar car just so that consumers have a choice. Should the CEO of GM say to the CEO of Honda "We are not gonna make/market a car that runs on hydrogen", they would simply be saying "We have no intention of competing against your product". But the CEO of GM could also make the same statement to the motoring press instead of the CEO of Honda and the end result would be exactly the same. A lot of people wrongly assume that a monopoly is illegal by definition. It is not. It's the abuse of a monopoly that's illegal.

 

[SkippyBing]

Nobody (in any field of business) is obligated to make a competing product. Let's take cars as an example (but you can fill in any product you like, including FS-addons): if Honda markets a car that runs on hydrogen, General Motors isn't required to also make a similar car just so that consumers have a choice. Should the CEO of GM say to the CEO of Honda "We are not gonna make/market a car that runs on hydrogen", they would simply be saying "We have no intention of competing against your product". But the CEO of GM could also make the same statement to the motoring press instead of the CEO of Honda and the end result would be exactly the same. A lot of people wrongly assume that a monopoly is illegal by definition. It is not. It's the abuse of a monopoly that's illegal.

So the abuse would be say company x agreeing to make an FSX Wonderjet 2000, company y agreeing not to, and then company x charging $100 a copy?

 

[Lawman]

So the abuse would be say company x agreeing to make an FSX Wonderjet 2000, company y agreeing not to, and then company x charging $100 a copy?

No, that would not be illegal but just the workings of the free market. What would e.g. be illegal would be company X saying they'll make an FSX Wonderjet 2000, company Y agreeing not to compete under the provision that company X charges $100 a copy instead of $90 and give the "extra" $10 to company Y as compensation for not competing.

 

[Dumonceau]

No, that would not be illegal but just the workings of the free market. What would e.g. be illegal would be company X saying they'll make an FSX Wonderjet 2000, company Y agreeing not to compete under the provision that company X charges $100 a copy instead of $90 and give the "extra" $10 to company Y as compensation for not competing.

So either way, under the rules of the so-called free market, the customer is s-c-r-e-w-e-d.

I for one think that whenever an addon is released at a price that is higher than the whole sim, that this amounts to greed. Pure and simple.

I'll get off me soapbox now...

Dumonceau

 

[Lawman]

So either way, under the rules of the so-called free market, the customer is s-c-r-e-w-e-d.

I for one think that whenever an addon is released at a price that is higher than the whole sim, that this amounts to greed. Pure and simple.

I'll get off me soapbox now...

Dumonceau

I can understand your POV and it is of course your prerogative. Unfortunately, that's capitalism for you. But more importantly: nobody is forcing you to buy that (non-essential) product.

 

[SkippyBing]

So either way, under the rules of the so-called free market, the customer is s-c-r-e-w-e-d.

I for one think that whenever an addon is released at a price that is higher than the whole sim, that this amounts to greed. Pure and simple.

I'll get off me soapbox now...

Dumonceau

That's simply not true.

Back of the envelope maths indicates I'm lucky if I make about £1 an hour on the average model we produce. To make the minimum wage, in the UK, we'd have to charge around 8 times more (and still get the same sales) which would mean charging about £100 or $160 an aircraft.

And that assumes we haven't spend anything on references, manuals etc.