Missed opportunities ?

[Jeff Nielsen 1,386]

Agreed Peter, but you got the wrong "Geoff", it Jeff...lol.

[Guest Peter Sidoli]

what does Geoff stand for and what does Jeff stand for ;-)Pete

[Jeff Nielsen 1,386]

I have no idea...lol

[Guest smoys]

>Personally, I hope MS keeps this as fun game and resists the> (minor) pressure to turn it into a 'simulator'. Most of the>supposedly competent desktop 'simulators' I know are not fun.>Neither are many of the other simulators I know.It depends on what your definition of fun is. We obviously are looking for different things in our respective FSs.>The current flight modelling seems ok for many 'aircraft' by>all informed reports. Not sure which informed reports you are referring to.> (Interesting that the generic, default 744 is similar in many respects to the specialised PS 1.3 and>PMDG variants. Interesting also that the 'high-end' add-in>aircraft are so well received, including endorsement from the>manufacturers of the real thing.)I can't comment as I have never flown them.>If you hold grudges about 20 years ago, maybe you should attempt time travel - and then,>having succeeded in that, do better by the standards of what's around in 1985.Ouch. Not sure why the insult was necessary but I have no grudge. I merely pointed out that in 20 years of development, we have not seen much improvement in the areas that I mentioned.>Systems modelling can be a costly bore.Again, that depends on what you're looking for in your FS.>Actully, there's not that much more to a basic electrical system from a pilot's perspective than a battery and generator.A basic system yes, a more complex system no. If you fly GA aircraft then it's pretty basic. If you fly commercial aircraft then it is a bit more involved.>The 'masses' keep MSFS going, so it is churlish to mock them.No one was mocking them so it is churlish to suggest that I was.>In my view, MSFS provides the best overall experience for a>desktop PC. Some of the reputable add-in developers add to>that.I agree. For the type of flying I do, MSFS is the best overall experience. But that doesn't mean that it is not lacking in several areas or that large improvemnts couldn't be made.Mike

[Guest Jaguar XJ6]

All understood now, thanks. Guess it must be difficult being the developers and having to make the decisions. Luckily for me, I just have to buy 'n' fly! Hard to comprehend sometimes the magic that the software and hardware works.Regards

[Guest MattNW]

I have to agree that promoting add on companies too much would lead to a major headache for Microsoft. You also have to take into account the fact that hard core simmers are a minority in the flight sim market. The most vocal minority but still a minority. Just recently a friend of mine who works for a radio station took a ride in a hospital's new Life Line helicoptor (left seat, not on the gurney). He was talking about his experience and how the chopper worked. I chimed in with a more detailed explaination of what he saw as a passenger and within 30 seconds his eyes had glazed over. :D Not everyone is as interested in aviation as we are. Most who purchase FS 2004 just want to fly a time or two a week and then fire up the Playstation for some "real" gaming. As it is Microsoft has a lot to say about add ons. In the Learning Center they have this."Add-OnsAmateur and professional software developers all over the world have created easy-to-install products that can enhance your Flight Simulator experience. Check the shelves of your local computer store, and be sure to search the Web for downloadable add-ons (many are freeware or shareware). The Flight Simulator Web site maintains links to sites with downloadable aircraft.If you enjoy flying a variety of aircraft, add-ons offer literally thousands to choose from. There are also add-on avionics packages that simulate the latest display and navigation technology, and specialized scenery areas that make the Flight Simulator world even more realistic. A few add-ons even enable Flight Simulator pilots to fly together in a radar-controlled environment over the Internet

[mabe54 17]

I found out about this topic in a Blog (T

[LAdamson 240]

>>If you like MSFS really complicated and do not mind paying for>it, hey, that

[mabe54 17]

Payware! Cry somewhere else. The people freely have cast their vote. Live with it.All humans are entitled to expectations since they are free but also humans must never forget expectations

[Guest kurtj]

I think MSFS should have two different versions of FS. One for the casual flyer and doesn't care about realism etc. This will be labeled fs0x version. Then for us Pro simmers there should be alot more features, better weather, better ATC, etc. etc. This will be the Pro version. They did something like this with fs2000 and 2002, so the next version it would be nice to go back to this again. Just my thoughts.

[Guest av84fun]

There have been other similar threads but I tend to agree that both MS and certain of the really advanced add-on developers are missing a huge opportunity...which is nothing new for MS given, with all due respect, their abdication of the search engine and ISP markets. Here's the deal. MS sells MSFS for, call it $60.00. But a small segment of the simming community is perfectly willing to pay, say $25.00 for a single add-on product.Given the laws of price elasticity, if the add-on price was dropped to, say $9.95 or maybe even $5.00 AND MARKETED BY MS through a strategic alliance after thorough "certification testing" (which MS does all the time anyway with thrid party driver aps)then the UNIT SALES of those add-ons would almost certainly expand to a vastly greater degree than the price cut.In other words, if you cut a price in half, you wil very likely sell well more than double the units depending on the degree of price elasticity. If you own a gas station, lower gasoline by 50% and see what I mean. Your tanks will be dry in an hour or two.My guess is that at $5.00, a really advanced add-on aircraft would sell AT LEAST TEN TIMES more units than at standard prices.Since MSFT has no bandwidth cost issues, the UNIT cost of new units sold would be essentially zero and even if MS took a 20% share of sales, the developer's profits would skyrocket.10,000 units at $25.00 = $250,000.00100,000 units at $4.00 (80% of $5.00) = $400,000 etc.What if the price was dropped to $1.50 and a half million MSFS users bought the product? Answer? HOME RUN!!!!!!!!!I DO NOT BELIEVE that the vast majority of MSFS users (that great sea of users who do not buy add-ons) would simply refuse to improve the functionality of their sim...period.What they are refusing to do, in giant numbers, is to pay 40% of the cost of the sim for a single add-on.Look at the DL stats for certain freeware aps...BUT REMEMBER...the majority of MSFS users don't even lurk let alone join the forums where the freeware is made available so the majority of users don't even know the freeware exists.But if such add-ons were advertized on the original MSFS packaging and on its web site, nearly 100% of the user community would know of the products thereby reducing the buy/no buy decision to merely price.

[Jeff Nielsen 1,386]

You make a logical point to the extent of you didn't factor in costs. If I'm reading you wrong let me know.Namely credit card processor costs that would exceed the amount of the (your proposed) sales price. Essentially those numbers would actually be in the negative before your payroll (usually paid per unit because devers aren't full time) and any other operating expenses.Payware d/l numbers aren't anywhere near freeware numbers either.It's a nice thought but there is a line somewhere. You're thoughts are correct though to the extent of the more we sell the more we can discount, but not any where near what you're proposing.

[Guest av84fun]

Sam Walton thought that the LOWER he could get his prices, the richer he would become. KMart disagreed!(-:Jim

[Jeff Nielsen 1,386]

Yeah, but he had the margin to play with. Anyone can take a 60.00 product and reduce it to 40.00 and still make a profit You're talking about taking a 40 or 50 dollar product and reducing it all the way to nothing...LOL. Do the math.*There is some play there if we were able to boost our sales by another 100%, but not nearly as much as you think.*

[n4gix 4,947]

>Yeah, but he had the margin to play with. Anyone can take a>60.00 product and reduce it to 40.00 and still make a profit >>You're talking about taking a 40 or 50 dollar product and>reducing it all the way to nothing...LOL. That is absolutely correct, Jim. There are many who assume that because the product is "software," that there's no real costs involved. In fact, a rather significant part of each "unit's" sales price simply covers the costs of distribution:1) bandwidth2) website hosting3) credit card processing fees4) advertising5) license fees for use of a 'secure wrapper'Add to the above those (thankfully few) contract developers who insist on 'cash on delivery' rather than accepting a fixed percentage of net sales, and the costs can rather quickly eat up 30% or more of the gross sales price.