Most people around here are completely confusing the discussion of whether a product is "worth it" from a personal perspective with the question how a developer should set the price in order to maximize his profit.

 

I'm intrigued, Carlo...

 

As someone who has worked in this industry for twenty years, with market analysis data from previous titles to hand upon which our price points are calculated - I would very much like to know what a finance professor believes constitutes a 'weird pricing point'? Presumably, you feel that because a small number of people complain about the price in a small corner of the Internet (which, I might add, represents a very small portion of general sales) - developers should be adjusting their figures to make everyone happy?

 

Please don't take my post as being facetious - I am generally interested in your reply.

 

The costs you are incurring are mostly fixed costs from development. Variable costs are a minor share. Support costs are not entirely fixed but also not completely variable. So in the end, maximizing your profits comes down to the question of how to maximize your revenues (of course some careful consideration of support costs given a targeted service level have to be made as those costs are not entirely fixed).

 

Demand for flight sim add-ons is highly elastic, especially around 40-50 dollars (this has also been confirmed by Mathijs Kok from Aerosoft). as people are much more likely to impulsely buy a product in this lower price range. A lot of people are willing "to give it a try" if prices are somewhat in line with most other add-ons. This is completely different when add-ons cost in excess of 100 dollars. A very careful analysis of price elasticity (e.g. based on customers interviews) would be required to really find the optimal pricing point because I would expect demand to easily drop to a fourth or a fifth of the demand if prices are set north of 100 dollars compared to a pricing point below 50 dollars. In this case a price in excess of 100 dollars would make absolutely no sense. I'm not saying that I hold all the necessary data or that 50 dollars is the right price, but I think most developers invest insufficient time to understand these things. If you do, then I congratulate you and everything is fine...

 

PS: Customers are certainly willing to appreciate that a lot of work goes into a complex add-on aircraft. However, this is not a linear relationship. If you put in three times the effort, people are not willing to pay three times the price. The only way you can recover those extra costs is from selling training licences but not in the entertainment market...

... because I would expect demand to easily drop to a fourth or a fifth of the demand if prices are set north of 100 dollars compared to a pricing point below 50 dollars. In this case a price in excess of 100 dollars would make absolutely no sense...  but I think most developers invest insufficient time to understand these things... 

 

It would seem that Robert Randazzo has done his homework since he's been moving loads of 777's at a price of 135 dollars (+ another 30 if you also want the 300ER) :-)

As we all know, the demographics of those using flight simulators on PC's have a wide range: Teenages, middle agers, and seniors. The actual percentages probably has not changed that much since FS1, except for a much larger increase in the senior population, owing greatly to both PC availability and amazingly improved graphics, (as well as a whole slew of retired real air pilots who have now taken to flight simming). 

 

The more important demographic is who is buying the largest percentage of payware - I'm sure the companies involved in the payware process are fully aware of these figures, and price accordingly.  

 

As stated previously in the forum, one example is the cost of a smart phone, plus the monthly cost to keep one is way off the charts. But people pay it.  It's a decision they make.   Compare that to the many hours one may do flight simming, sometimes hundreds in some cases.  Buying payware is also a decision. Does one have enough payware aircraft, scenery, weather engines, other apps?

 

I myself did not like paying $90 bucks recently for the Dash 8 Pro - but I really wanted it and bit the bullet. But, it was my decision, and I can't complain about the price to Majestic.  

 

So, my point is, companies in all industries price their products or services based upon what they thinks its worth and who will buy it - I also think in most cases it's not an arbitrary decision on their part: Is it, FSLabs?

 

Cause, I'll probably plunk-down more bucks for the new Concorde after a time.  

Just to add to Mark's comments about alternative Concorde routes. I use PFPX to manually build them. This afternoon I flew from KSEA down to KLAX in a little over an hour.

 

There's a donationware program written by a very clever Frenchman that takes a FSX plan (probably P3D one too) and generates all the information required by Concorde.

 

v1, vR, v2, fuel settings, fuel amount and time reheats are on. It also creates the cards that you load into the three INSs which makes life very easy. You can find it here. http://concordeperformancesystem.unblog.fr/cps-cest-quoi/

 

 

cards that you load into the three INSs

Aah, Ray, I was hoping nobody would mention this as it was my Section Team's job to go out to the pan and load these in the INSs. Between you and Mark, in one evening, you have evoked fond memories.

 

I wish I'd known you were involved in this project. Could have let you have look at all my Workshop/Hangar Manuals.

 

Once I do manage to her up and away in Steam, I do hope somebody will do a Singapore repaint on one side. my favourite time when at BA. I'll PM you a piece of anecdote later.

Most people around here are completely confusing the discussion of whether a product is "worth it" from a personal perspective with the question how a developer should set the price in order to maximize his profit.

 

Very good explanation. There has been Nobel prize awarded for Economists on these theories.

 

Here is my decision making process on this aircraft. This is not a reflection on the product. This is for the benefit of theory in economics (purchasing decisions).

 

1. I am/was interested in a Concorde... I wanted a nice eye candy (external and internal) VC + as realistic (systems)  as possible.

2. I am willing to pay in excess of $100. e.g. PMDG 777 and all their products meet the requirements so I get them on day 1 release.

3. On this item... The realism (systems)..I am not sure if I want to spend time and effort learning this on this aircraft... Although I wouldn't mind having the realistic systems in the aircraft  If and when I decide to spend time learning the system.  (I once flew the PMDG 747 on FS9 like I fly my Cessna for a whole year before I decided to vest time and effort to learning the systems).

4. The eye candy on VC for this aircraft doesn't seem that good.. 

5. I would like to fly the Concorde the way I fly my Cessna 172 if the VC were gorgeous (until the time I was ready to invest in learning the system to fly it as realistically as possible)..

6. Because the VC is not that eye candy level, the only way I can enjoy this, is if I learn the systems to fly it as realistically as possible. I totally understand folks here love the  FSLabs Concorde because they have learned to fly the Concorde as realistically as possible.

7. I do not have the time to spend at this to learn to fly this aircraft properly, On this basis I am not spending the money to get it  at this time.

8. IF FSLabs improves the VC eye candy, then I would pay the $100+ for it (Remember I am willing to pay the premium prize not just for the eye candy..but also for the realistic system that I may start to use at a later time) 

 

Does that make sense?

<p>After looking through some of the pricing posts, I've decided to pass an opinion on pricing. As time has passed, the pricing of sim products has increased, and so has the quality. The quality may fall into visuals,  systems modeling and flight modeling. It all comes down to the market and what the end user is looking for. I've said before that I'm very big into flight dynamics. From my real world perspective, i've flown light props, light jets, medium jets and heavy jets. From my experience, i've had the typical full range of jet aircraft feel. This is why I feel that flight dynamics is the most important part of a simulated aircraft.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Systems modeling is only skin deep. It's impossible to mimic every system in detail. Let's look at IRS/INS systems. The majority of NAV systems i've used, can't accept present position during the initial power up self test. The system will continue status count down and will flash the align lights at the final step. This either means you entered POS during the self test or the POS you entered does not coincide with last position that was stored in it's memory. I've yet to see this simulated in flight sim. The DC10 will automatically extend the outboard slats to the takeoff position if clean and a stall warning is experienced. Again, you won't find this in flightsim. These detailed system characteristics are difficult to program and simulate. As long as the NAV and auto flight systems allow me to operate the aircraft normally, I'm happy.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Visuals, I feel are the least important of a simulation. If the systems are good enough for normal operation and the flight dynamics are on par, it's a solid aircraft.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The flight dynamics on the other hand is the cream of the crop and the soul of a simulated aircraft. When I buy a simulated aircraft, I expect it to reflect the performance and characteristics of the real aircraft. That's where I draw the line with developers. In the Air Force I performed functional check flights and in the civil world I perform acceptance flights. When you strip an aircraft down to the skin and put it back together again, its my job to ensure that it will perform as advertised. We take the plane through it's paces by checking all power sources, autopilot performance, flight guidance systems, stall adjustments, stalls, engine shut down and air starts, pressurization systems, over pressurization systems, over speed warnings, etc. I also perform similar flights on flight sim aircraft that I buy. I've assisted a few developers with getting their aircraft to match the real world numbers. Real aircraft performance numbers are achievable in FSX. The only limitations a developer will find is not having a pilots perspective. The most overlooked items in flightsim is flight control inertia, stall and ground effect. Real world aircraft yokes are rigid due to artificial feel systems. There is also a little lag/delay between input and airplane response. Stalls will tell you alot about the aircraft. If it stalls properly at different configurations, you know that the lift and lift devices are spot on. Alot of aircraft have too much ground effect. These FSX aircraft will actually flare with little input. When descending to the runway at 800 feet per minute, even when entering ground effect at half the wing span, the aircraft will continue a good rate of sink. There's that lag from inertia because the plane wants to keep coming down. In a no flare situation, you may touch down at 600fpm, but 600 and above is considered a inspectable hard landing. At rotate and flare, the aircraft is a little sluggish. To keep from over flaring, guys tend to do a two to three pump flare technique. I myself like a well timed smooth continues two to three degree change in pitch. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Now back to pricing. When a developer captures the things i've mentioned, I will definitely pay the price for it. Systems are good, but when the feel and performance are spot on, I'm happy. When developers advertise realistic performance and its lacking, i bombard with data and my test info. In the end, each user will shop based on what they are looking for. Some love eye candy and will pay big for it. There are a few developers who cater to this crowd and publish eye candy with no realistic performance. I bought the Concorde a while back with interest in the novelty of it. After some good research and reviews, I felt it was worth the price back then. After purchase, I did notice there were plenty things that I was familiar with and others I read up on. From that experience I felt that the developer put alot of focus into procedures, systems and flight dynamics. I'm not a Concorde or supersonic guy, but I feel that the product definitely met my expectations in regard to my view in flight sims. I think it represents a true perspective of flying the real aircraft and the real aircraft is simulated very well.        </p>

 

Demand for flight sim add-ons is highly elastic, especially around 40-50 dollars (this has also been confirmed by Mathijs Kok from Aerosoft). as people are much more likely to impulsively buy a product in this lower price range. A lot of people are willing "to give it a try" if prices are somewhat in line with most other add-ons. This is completely different when add-ons cost in excess of 100 dollars. 

 

 

This is exactly how I purchase.

 

Well Done...

Professor. 

Well, if Ray does manage to haul his PC down to Cosford 2016 in October, I can see quite a few interested spectators (myself included) taking a long, hard look at that Concorde VC :smile:

So what are the procedures for getting the 4.99 update fee?

On the product page near the bottom of the description is a small link Under the title FSX only for those with expired download. Click it and it will take you to the purchase page.

Lucky you, Mark, having it working in FSX-SE.......................................if only I could do the same. Still waiting at the FSL Forum for somebody to crack this in FSX-SE.

 

Aagh, mentioning IAD, what nostalgia that evokes. Working the night shift after having just done a 'lates' on what we at BA jokingly referred to as 'ghosters', to prep her for the next morning departure, and as the union rules were that one could not return to the 'lates' until an 8-hour period had expired, to look up over the Hounslow skies and see it gliding gracefully as it lined up for 27R, was so satisfactory.

 

And by sheer coincidence, one of our Sat free channels is showing the movie, Mach2 featuring a |BA Concorde !!

What is the problem?

Aah, Ray, I was hoping nobody would mention this as it was my Section Team's job to go out to the pan and load these in the INSs. Between you and Mark, in one evening, you have evoked fond memories.

What memories you must have Rick.

 

I wish I'd known you were involved in this project. Could have let you have look at all my Workshop/Hangar Manuals.

Sworn to silence until recently ;-)

 

Once I do manage to her up and away in Steam, I do hope somebody will do a Singapore repaint on one side. my favourite time when at BA. I'll PM you a piece of anecdote later.

Hopefully not Pepsi on the other side!

Well, if Ray does manage to haul his PC down to Cosford 2016 in October, I can see quite a few interested spectators (myself included) taking a long, hard look at that Concorde VC :smile:

Chris,

 

I have a Sony 32" TV running at 1920x1080. Spent a lot of time tweaking the picture to optimise it for computer use. Out of the box it was horrible.

On the product page near the bottom of the description is a small link Under the title FSX only for those with expired download. Click it and it will take you to the purchase page.

 

What is the problem?

All related in the FSL Forum. I don't have the energy to repeat all that I stated here, then in the FSL Forum. It causes FSX-SE to hang.........and hang..........

We're working on this issue Rick. We should have a solution for you soon.

We're working on this issue Rick. We should have a solution for you soon.

Thanks, Andrew. Take as long as you want. After all, we have waited a fair bit for this to sail through our skies, so what's a bit longer time?

We're working on this issue Rick. We should have a solution for you soon.

 

Ah OK an existing issue.