As far as SimConnect for FSX ...

 

But other option here is to deploy the SimConnect.dll version you use along with your application, just make sure it's in the root of your apps dir/location so it's used.  This is what GoFlight (GIT) does and they're using a much older SimConnect.dll ... and they have NOT needed to update for each P3D V2.x release.

Unfortunately that won't work or will be unreliable, for reasons i'm not able to go into here.

 

 

 

Personally I think the best approach is to operate separate EXE using whatever SimConnect.dll you want, runs in a separate address space so reduces VAS footprint.

 

My 2 cents.

Agreed Rob, that's the way I've always done it.

This is a personal view, not an institutional view. Discussions are now in the public domain and so after keeping my mouth shut for many months I feel free to comment at last.

 

I don't have any prejudices one way or another about the quality or performance of a given sim. But I do have views on the Dovetail DLC structure and as other developers are now feeling free to comment  I think it is perfectly ok to contribute..

 

No doubt FSX-SE is an improvement over FSX-MS and the evidence is clear. Well done Dovetail on that, and an unequivocal "congratulations". That's as far as it goes. 

 

Those who purchased the Steam edition for bargain basement prices are rightly enthusiastic about the re-launch and I agree it is wonderful that FSX might have a longer future. But those celebrating the bargain they just bought might like to think about why anyone would be willing to sell the core sim for next to nothing. The answer is obvious. It is to create a new mass market in order to sell DLC. That's absolutely fine as well. Now let's look at how and why FSX/FS9 users have in the last 12 years or more had access to high quality addons which without doubt have kept FSX going:

 

It is almost entirely due to Microsoft's laissez-faire approach to third party content. They intelligently realised that a relaxed attitude was symbiotic and the lifetime of FSX was hugely extended by that approach. That is not the case now. Dovetail is not an organisation full of nice, touchy feely people who have the welfare or interests of sim pilots in mind. It is a private equity financed institution whose goal is to maximise what it perceives to be a gap in the market. Nothing wrong with that either. The problem arises when it comes to control. It is no secret, and therefore public domain, that Dovetail either directly or through middlemen "partners" have approached various developers with a view to flogging their stuff on Steam but with a total contempt for the developers' right to a decent per unit revenue.

 

Dovetail has attempted to do this by clamping down on any discussion outside of their boardroom. They do not want you, the customer, to know just how the cake is going to be divided up, because they know it will be very embarrassing if it was known.

 

The problem is that they are trying to persuade some developers to accept a deal that is entirely reliant on a supposed huge turnover based on very low unit price but high unit cost to the developer. The "seduction" being attempted is that it doesn't matter that the unit profit (for the developer) is absolutely tiny. What matters, it is argued, is that they'll sell so many everyone will be winning. But there is not a shred of evidence to back this up. In fact there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. Step forward "Flight" - which had a business model even more extreme than Dovetail's intended marketing strategy: an entirely free sim followed by DLC absolutely controlled by the "Flight" team. Almost every developer I know of said it wouldn't work and it didn't. Many developers tried to contact staff at "Flight" to tell them that even in their own interests their strategy was doomed. They were right. They were ignored.

 

FSX is not, and never will be, an MMOG. It is too sophisticated and requires too much concentration. While there might be a large number of new users taking it up and showing interest, those that keep up the enthusiasm will eventually exercise their freedom to look far and wide for added content they feel is reasonable quality. And here is a very important fact: Users of flight sim software are not stupid. They know quality when they see it. They also realise that if they purchased something dirt cheap there must be a reason. 

 

Now we come to what I can only describe as, and forgive the bluntness, intimidation. Some developers who have commented publicly either (quite rightly) ignored an unenforceable non-disclosure gag or they were lucky enough not to have it imposed on them. The less lucky among them have been told in no uncertain terms that if they are to open negotiations they cannot discuss just the workings of the deal, but they can't even discuss that negotiations took place at all. Now, NDA's are perfectly reasonable 90% of the time. We've all signed them and they are fair and just. No-one wants their trade secrets, methods or intimate business practices revealed and I respect that.

 

However, it was clear from the very start that the imposed non-disclosure on some developers was nothing whatever to do with protecting intellectual property and everything to do with preventing it being known a simply appalling deal was being offered. In some cases, and I am sure of my facts here, some developers were offered a staggeringly low 22.5% of the total revenue after all the middlemen took their cut. It was argued that this wouldn't matter because the turnover would be so high it was win-win for everybody. In real terms the revenue cut offered to some translates even lower after their own admin, website and bandwidth costs - as low as 15% after other costs, per unit. 

 

The crucial thing forgotten in all this is the question of support. Many decent developers spend around half of their entire working time dealing with support. The deals offered as far as I can gather include zero mention of who supports what. It effectively falls to the developer, not Steam, not Dovetail and not the other middlemen, and even if it didn't, I don't want a third party who has little knowledge of my product pretending they can support it. How can any self-respecting developer with a reputation to lose possibly field quality support on per unit sales of less than $6 net per item sold. It is completely untenable.

 

So why are developers signing up? For two reasons. Either they want to sell the dregs of their products that are reaching bargain basement status, or they are desperate to not rock the boat and apparently do not want to miss out on an "opportunity". They are aware that there might be a new fangled simulator coming out at some point in the future and want to keep the door open in case everyone jumps ship to this new sim. I have to tell you that you simply cannot make a whole simulator of any worth in a short time, unless it is very similar to what appeared before.

 

Many will say "deal with it...it's just capitalism", or "who cares, the customer is king". I'm fine with that. If you want your bargain basement sims and convenient downloading of DLC that's your consumer right. I'm just warning that for any decent developer who is interested in producing quality products that are striving for innovations and decent customer service, this business model is a total disaster. It will in the end drive quality downwards.

 

While Dovetail cannot control existing content, or who makes it, their goal is to publish a new sim for which DLC will be controlled. 

 

I think Scott at A2A and Robert at PMDG sum up the situation very well with the public statements below, with which I agree. I must emphasise that mine is a personal view, and not a view on behalf of RealAIr. I do not like and will not succumb to being gagged or censored over a subject which I believe is fair game for public discussion. I refused to sign any NDA and I am therefore perfectly free to comment.

 

-----------------------

 

If you consider that Microsoft's ambition with FLIGHT was to effectively subvert the entire development community so that we came under their economic control - you have what I fear is the future with Dovetail.

 

I have asked rather directly along these lines and been given exceptionally vague answers... hence the concern......If they keep FSX and their next generation of sim platforms open to 3rd party developers without forcing us into their Steam channel- we'll all get along just fine...  

 

R Randazzo 21st December 2014

------------------------------

 

FSX is the flight sim king today primarily because 3rd party developers have been independently creating and marketing addons to FSX without restriction from Microsoft.

 

This has created a delicate balance for 25 years between independent developers of FSX addons and Microsoft. I would respectfully advise Dovetail not to disturb this delicate balance by imposing the burden of additional fees upon independent flight sim developers that already operate in extremely narrow profit margins.

 

Professional developers of flight sim addons have to hire teams of highly talented artists, sometimes numbering in the dozens to collaborate, and these people all need to be paid. The sales price of each download has to be kept to a minimum so customers can afford to purchase them. This creates the narrow margin of profit. If these profits are reduced because of additional fees by Dovetail, a great many of these developers may find it untenable to remain in business or alternatively may be forced to reduce their output.

 

Scott Gentile - CEO A2A Interview at flare path, via www.rockpapershotgun.com

------------------------------------

 

Best Wishes,

 

Robert Young

Robert, I agree wholeheartedly with your excellent summary of the situation, as well as those of both Scott and Robert. From a financial perspective, even a 25% commission to DTG would likely result in a negative net-net ROI for the developer.

 

The suits at DTG appear to be totally oblivious about the actual costs of initial development, and the ongoing costs of support. They also appear to be overly optimistic about total unit sales.

 

At least due to the terms of their license with Microsoft, FSX:SE will remain just as open as it has always been, but I have no doubts whatsoever that their future platform will most likely be a closed environment.

Out of curiosity, how much would the developers consider reasonable to give to DTG as commission? (Does the DTG commission also includes Steam's shares?)

Hi Bill,

 

I have seen your posts about this and agree with everything you have said too. I think it is important that FSX users understand that the average developer is also a customer. I buy tons of addons and some of them are very good. Whatever the inter-developer competition or mutual distrust that might occasionally occur, I believe that Dovetail wants to censor discussion. The third party "middlemen" I had to deal with became extremely intense that no discussions should ever take place between developers. They want a closed shop and I am so glad you spoke up. I wish other developers who feel threatened will join in the discussion.

 

Many thanks Bill and thanks too for being brave and stating your point of view.

 

Rob

Sounds like a poor business strategy if DTG thinks they can be profitable by taking a cut for redistributing. Profit margins are too small. I can only see them being licensed to sell old payware that isn't selling anyways, which seems to be the case now.

 

I don't see them improving FSX for long if they can't be profitable. However, I'm enjoying the VAS improvements for now.
 

P.S. This could work though, but small chance. It depends on a big enough consumer base that they hope to attract with Steam. Is it plausible to bring in enough Steam users out of the 70 million or so? I'm no soothsayer, so I can't tell, but probably not. Steam users like cheap DLC. FSX payware is anything but cheap.

Sounds like a poor business strategy if DTG thinks they can be profitable by taking a cut for redistributing. Profit margins are too small. I can only see them being licensed to sell old payware that isn't selling anyways, which seems to be the case now.

 

I don't see them improving FSX for long if they can't be profitable. However, I'm enjoying the VAS improvements for now.

 

P.S. This could work though, but small chance. It depends on a big enough consumer base that they hope to attract with Steam. Is it plausible to bring in enough Steam users out of the 70 million or so? I'm no soothsayer, so I can't tell, but probably not. Steam users like cheap DLC. FSX payware is anything but cheap.

 

Yes you are right, The initial push is to persuade developers to sell old product. But they also want new products, at a huge cut between themselves and Steam. They are betting on consumers not investigating outside of Steam. Have a look at the current support requests on DLC for sale and you will see that things are not quite as easy as they assumed.

What stops them from eliminating competition to their DLC by eventually breaking compatibility with third party developers who market their products independently, and outside of their business model?   Is this something to consider, or am I reading too much into what has been said in the last few posts?

What stops them from eliminating competition to their DLC by breaking compatibility with third party developers who market their products independently, and outside of their business model?   Is this something to consider, or am I reading too much into what has been said in the last few posts?

 

Probably nothing. I think it would turn out to be slugfest for the loyal, paying customers. I'd rather not see that. Fragmented consumer base =  smaller profit margins.

What stops them from eliminating competition to their DLC by eventually breaking compatibility with third party developers who market their products independently, and outside of their business model?

You aren't reading carefully enough. DTG is prohibited from making that sort of change to the existing "look and feel" of FSX by the terms of their license contract with Microsoft.

 

Those restrictions however will likely not apply to whatever new product they develop. It is the future that I am concerned about.

developers' right to a decent per unit revenue.

A supplier  (not even a flight simulator developer)  has  no  right to any level of revenue. The market will decide what revenue they get. If the market changes then suppliers will have to respond it, one way or the other. Those who can't respond will simply fail.

 

There's still an existing  a market for FSX/FSX-SE, Prepar3d, and X-Plane, so the sky isn't going to fall if Dovetail launches a new flight simulator with DLC.  Either such a new flight simulator will succeed with its DLC where (ever it comes from)  or it won't. If it fails than that's DoveTails problem. If DoveTails business model is based on low-priced high-volume DLC because that's all the market will bear than then that's surely a reasonable approach.  Anyway, developers could add 25% to their selling price and test the market themselves.

 

Anyway, I suspect this is simple a matter of some developers "getting their retaliation first" in a commercial skirmish about levels of commission.

 

Profit margins are too small. I can only see them being licensed to sell old payware that isn't selling anyways, which seems to be the case now.

 

 

Yes you are right. However even older products occasionally deliver what people want and are still high quality if not cutting edge. But if one looks at the figures, you could launch those products on every single portal that exists and give away 50% and you'd make a better return than selling them througn Dovetail/Steam. The key thing here is that the portal is NOT the product. Anyone can buy anything through a range of portals. Steam is just one of them. And let's be clear. Steam is taking 30%. I don't know why this is such a precious subject. It's the truth. Dovetail is taking another percentage. There is simply nothing but peanuts left. 

Steam is taking 30%. I don't know why this is such a precious subject. It's the truth. Dovetail is taking another percentage. There is simply nothing but peanuts left. 

One developer who has since opted out was being offered 5% as his "cut" of the sales, since DTG demanded 65% and Steam insisted on 30%...

 

Right! Now pull my other leg.

Edited February 1, 201511 yr by n4gix
Corrected percentage splits.

One developer who has since opted out was being offered 5% as his "cut" of the sales, since DTG demanded 30% and Steam insisted on 65%...

 

Right! Now pull my other leg.

 

 

Are you sure you didn't switch the names DTG and Steam? Because i never ever heard of Steam taking such an high percentage.

 

 

None of the devs answered me before so i'll ask again, what would you consider a reasonable cut for Steam and DTG?

 

 

what would you consider a reasonable cut for Steam and DTG?

 

A combined percentage in the range of 25-30%.