The A2A Comanche costs $50 USD, which to me did seem a bit much for an aircraft type that I've never had a deep interest in, though I also thought $50 was cheaper than what they were going to offer it at, imagining the amount of work that went into it. I paid $38, because I still had a lot of credits left over from past A2A purchases. I really don't want to sound like I'm trying to sell anyone on the product, I just want to clarify why it appeals to me, personally, and others that are enjoying it. You might not like a Piper Comanche, and that's totally fine (it's never been anywhere near the top of my interests in GA aircraft), but one can respect the amount of time, effort and perfectionist-level attention to detail that went into this product. Since purchasing it, I've been becoming more and more interested in the Comanche (both sim and real). Zetar made the assumption that there was no GPS or autopilot (which is incorrect), and then seemed to state that because not having those items it is too expensive while seeming to skip over everything else this product offers (or perhaps I just misunderstood his post). Just the all-new flight modeling/programming and sound modeling/programming is phenomenal-enough on its own to be worth a considerable amount of the purchase price, not to mention the visual model, textures, cockpit functionality, avionics, pax/luggage loading capabilities and dozens of other features that are not systems or failures-related. Obviously, though, if you don't have any interest in the Piper Comanche, none of that matters.
I would imagine, over the three years that this aircraft was under development, there were many thousands of man hours involved in creating it, much like the DCS aircraft (typically 8,000 man hours is about the minimum development time for those, according to the owner of Eagle Dynamics). What is that worth to the end user/buyer? Compare what the A2A Comanche is selling for vs. the DCS aircraft (the closest comparison than any other MSFS aircraft that I know of). On the other hand, I've thought the prices for the Black Square Bonanza and Baron a bit too steep for the amount of work that was done on those, but that's just me (I would like to have them, but not at their full retail prices).
For a lot of people, both the potential for random and user-induced system failures is what makes flying a sim aircraft like this interesting and worthwhile, knowing that everything you do matters and will keep mattering as you continue to build hours on the airframe. The longer you hangar it, and the longer you fly it, the more the airframe ages and wears and the more you have to tend to over time. I don't know about everyone else, but for me I get a heightened sense of responsibility for properly taking care of and managing the aircraft, and I gain a greater sense of accomplishment when I know I've done everything well and the plane is still in good shape when I park it, ready for the next flight (because it could very well be in a sorry state if I didn't make proper checks and operate it correctly). You do everything right and you could very well never experience any failures at all, or you could just happen to one day experience a random failure completely out of the blue (A2A is good at incorporating algorithms for just such a thing, with each part/system having a different level of potential for failure). Keep mistreating it, and you're going to accurately have one problem after another. I know in past Accusim products, if you skip over checking on certain things like trim tab hinges during your walk around, you're liable to eventually have a trim tab failure, whether that be a few hours, a few hundred hours or a few thousand hours later, which you could have seen and prevented ahead of time had you been making the proper pre-flight checks all along (and the same thing applied to checking landing gear, flaps, air intakes, oil quality and quantity, etc.). I also like the fact that, as just another example, if you bring the aircraft out on a really cold day, you're not going to be able to use the exact same start process to get the engine going as you would on a hot day, and the engine is also not going to operate the same in cold temps vs. hot temps (accurate items like that, you simply don't find simulated in most any other addons).
Me, personally, I'm interested in classic and vintage GA types and warbirds built before the 1960s, and I like the looks and the performance of the Piper Comanche (it feels very much like a prop-driven fighter, or an AT-6 with a nose gear). I'm not interested in modern military or civilian jets, or turboprops. So, for those types it doesn't matter how detailed or accurate they are; if they're much more than $10-15 I'm not likely to purchase them since they're likely not to be used more than a few times on my end. However, you won't see me going around to threads about those types of aircraft, having to make comments that they're of no interest to me or making complaints about the cost - I just simply won't buy them or comment about them, knowing full well that others see tremendous value in them that I don't. With this A2A Piper Comanche, and the recently-released FlyingIron Bf 109, I've been flying them a few times a day, so I'm getting quite a good return on my investment in both. In my case, a PC-12 doesn't appeal to me in the least, so even if one were to be released which was considered to be the most accurate, in-depth, detailed aircraft simulation ever made to-date, if it costs much more than $10-15 I wouldn't be buying, as I would likely not use it more than once or twice. Personally, some of my favorites are the old Waco cabin series biplanes, Boeing P-12/F4B, Stearman 75s, AT-6s, BT-13s, P-51B/Cs, P-38s, B-25Js, etc. - any of those, actually done really well, with care and attention to detail, with true-to-life visual models and textures, advanced flight modeling, sounds, systems, etc., like the A2A Comanche, I'd be over the moon, no matter how much they'd cost (within reason of course).