Fifty-One Dollars!

[John_Tavendale 453]

>>Lets say PMDG sells 10,000 units at $50. That's $500,000>>gross.>>Ten thousand? :) While no dev will publish sales figures for>quite obvious reasons, I'm quite certain that no single>release has ever achieved such a spectacular number of sales.Bill, you would be surprised mate! :)

[G7USL 117]

Hi Les,Thankyou for your valued assesement.Your post has made me see this subject in a totally different light. It has summed it all up in, a very intelligent way and as such I would ask you too post this same post at the PMDG forum?You have also explained your answer in a unsarcastic way, something I have unfortunately stooped too, due to other views stated that believe that we are all the same when, we aren't.I wish 'CS' every success but think that the 'C-130' could have been reasonably underpriced in order to win back their previous critics?Dave T. .........On the lovely warm Devon Riviera and active 'FlightSim User's Group' member at http://www.flightsimgrpuk.free-online.co.uk/

[mgh 89]

This post seems to have divided into two. One part deals with whether CaptainSim products are value for money: the other with the general price of add-ons. I've never had a CS product so I can't comment on that but I can comment on the general point.A producer can ask any price it choses for a product: consumers can decide if they are prepared to buy it at that price or not. This is known as supply and demand or market forces. The right price is one which generates an acceptable revenue (price * quantity sold) for the producer. Clearly, the price will be influenced by the price of similar competitive products but a higher price can be charged if the product regarded as being of higher quality. Essentially the price is determined by what the market will bear. (In this context, the cost of production is a bit of a red herring. If selling the product at a competitive price doesn't cover the cost of production then the producer has got it badly wrong and will just have to try to minimise its losses on that product. If this happens regularly then the producer's in the wrong business.) If the producer gets the price wrong then it will lose money. The producer is interested in maximising revenue and not in price. If the price is too high then there will be insufficient revenue - the price will be high but the quantity will be too low. If the price is too low then there may still be insufficient revenue - the price will be low but the quantity sold will also be too low. There is the useful concept of Elasticity of Demand (EoD). This measures the percentage increase in revenue as a result of a percentage decrease in price. (This varies between different products and different markets and I've no idea what it might be for add-ons.)If the EoD is > 1 then a reduction in price will result in an incease in revenue. If the EoD = 1 then there will be no change in revenue when the price is changed. If EoD < 1 then a reduction in price will result in a reduction of revenue. There is nothing magic that says the EoD MUST be greater than 1 and note the last case, that shows that reducing price may not necessarily result in an increase in revenue - quantity goes up but not enough to compensate for the reduction in price.

[Guest Wichita]

All I can say to CS is go for it. Just think what the quality will HAVE to be to justify that price. If its lesser quality you'll hear the fallout pretty quickly. I can live without it but I'm sure there is another group that will have to have it no matter the costs. Hope they have fun. I'll stick with the GA stuff at a price point I can live with. I've got a 25% off coupon from Carenado on the already LOW priced Cessna 182,which makes it about $15.00.David

[mgh 89]

Yes, yes, yes, but....a producer can only charge what customers are prepared to pay regardless of its costs. That's called supply and demand and market forces. If they're not getting the "kick back they should" then maybe they're in the wrong business?

[Dillon 2,197]

"If they're not getting the "kick back they should" then maybe they're in the wrong business?"If that's the case then it's the wrong business for anyone and everyone therefore suffers... We may as well warm up to the idea of "Flight Simulator 10 for XBOX2"...

[Guest aarskringspier]

>"If they're not getting the "kick back they should" then>maybe they're in the wrong business?">>If that's the case then it's the wrong business for anyone and>everyone therefore suffers... We may as well warm up to the>idea of "Flight Simulator 10 for XBOX2"...XBOX 360 :(

[mgh 89]

The is no divine right to get "the kick back they should". They'll only get the revenue that consumers are prepared to pay. If that's not enough - too bad. That's the real world for the add-on market.

[Guest allcott]

>The is no divine right to get "the kick back they should".>They'll only get the revenue that consumers are prepared to>pay. If that's not enough - too bad. That's the real world for>the add-on market.Ah if only it were that simple. Unfortunately, the issue with Captain Sim goes way beyond simple price-elasticity arguments into the core nature of their business model, and how they chose to regard their customers. There is a superlative history of excellent products falling by the wayside, and terrible products being a success, based not on any kind of price model at all.Captain Sim can charge whatever they like (or whatever they think the market will bear, which is not the same thing), but with them it's not just a price issue - as we see every time CS gets mentioned in these forums there are those of us who have been grossly mishandled by the developer, to the point where we no longer have any trust in their ability to deliver - and `deliver` means the whole business model, not just a pretty Hercules. And we feel we have a duty to warn other consumers before they too, are ripped-off, insulted or threatened. And lets remember that CS KNOW their product is not fit for sale - their recent actions demonstrated that in plain public view. Even their beta testers have lost faith in the Captain Sim way-of-doing-things, and it is reflected in the almost complete absence of trust in the company and its staff, not its products. No amount of price flexibility with their Hercules is going to rebuild that trust. Only their actions. Now, they claim to be responding to consumer demands by inviting potential customers to set the price but that's a fallacy, an illusion, another lie (select according to personal emphasis). Just like it's increasingly likely they will release a half-finished product on those customers then, presuming their business model hasn't changed, threaten the customer for daring to complain after they paid over-the-odds for a bugged project.Can you really stick with your price theory in the light of all that? Does it really matter of it's $5.1, $51 or $151 bucks if the price you pay is to be both disappointed and threatened?The only solution is for CS to really listen to their customers and actually deliver - support for previous products, a free and frank open forum for the exchange of information and a generous number of press copies of the Hercules to trusted, independent reviewers BEFORE they release it to the public. If they unanimously pass it fit for release, then by all means lets return to simplistic price discussions. But at the moment you're puting the cart before the horse. At the moment, I don't think CS are fit to trade with AT ANY PRICE.Allcott

[mgh 89]

"Can you really stick with your price theory in the light of all that?"Yes, it's very simple. All developers (including CaptainSim) get the revenue that consumers are prepared to pay - how else do they get their revenue. No one forces anyone to buy an add-on, it's a voluntary decision.

[Guest jaapverduijn]

"(...) At the moment, I don't think CS are fit to trade with AT ANY PRICE (...)"If only a few decades ago a bunch of guys would walk up to me, declaring: "You're a betrayer and we, as ex-Soviet military, know how to deal with those", I'd have whipped out the faithfull 1911 A-1 in order to help them reconsider their position.Today, the Colt having been sold long ago and myself constantly tottering on the edge of a deep and in fact quite invitingly looking (grin!) grave, my approach is somewhat more peaceful but not less firm: I simply do no business with criminals who threaten either me or anybody else. A company that not only sends emails to their disgruntled customers but also (wouldya believe it?!) POST ON THEIR WEBSITE: "You are betrayers and we, as ex-Soviet military, know how to deal with those", should not be assisted WITH their business, but assisted OUT of it.Not that they need much assistance, they seem to do a pretty good job all by themselves.Be well!Jaap Verduijn.

[Dillon 2,197]

Shows you what I think about XBOX (concerning FS that is)... :-roll

[Guest johns]

I was very much looking forward to the release of the PMDG747 until I saw the price and then I thought no thanks I hope PSS do not fall into the same trap Johns

[Manny 1,293]

I would have paid $100 for the Eaglesoft's Cirrus. Cause I wanted that plane.A Herc?..Well Not sure If I would pay $20 ..no matter who produced it... cause I don't really need it.I bought the PMDG 747 and now its in the hanger. For me..its too much of a work to fly the plane. Thats not a reflection on PMDG.If Know the team that built the Flight1 ATR-27-500 built anything..I'll want it... and would be prepared whatever price they decide. Cause.. I now trust them to do an amazing job. so amazing..But I confess, I once ######ed about Flight scenary's price of their Rhode Island scenary..and I later changed my mind. I bought their scenary and felt it was worth every penny. So..it all depends.

[Guest McFly]

My own opinion is that FS2004 is a bargin. To experience the simulation of flying an airplane in such a beautifully crafted environment even in it's stock form is truly amazing. An addon aircraft in the $50+ range or any price range for that matter is up to the individual to decide if it's right for you. I don't think that any developer is looking for their primary customer to be a teenager on a $20 per week allowance. Demographics show that most simmers are 30 years + and more than likely married with children. I don't find it ridiculous for any developer that's producing a quality product to ask a a fair price for years of development. My wife and I had dinner last night at the Claim Jumper. . . $58.00Terry