>Ignore the troll. He has an agenda against all commercial>enterprise and won't stop at anything to achieve it.ALL Huh....Check your mail there jeroen

>My personal spending limit on any one single addon is usually>25 dollars. however, I have recently expanded that limit to>25 euros based on dollar value. This is a personal economic>limit that prevents me from being killed by my wife...>>EricI work on a different value system - I don't tell her.Andy b

>I usually dont like to spend more than $50. That reminds me,>anyone know if pcaviator will have a after christmas sale?>If they are still there after Christmas I guess they may.Andy b

Go Back and read my thread again.I don't say all developers, and I complement some even though I don't do it specifically by name, some of them know I respect their work.But you like some others here, ignore any of of those comments I make preferring to lump me in as not liking any payware and that is simoply not true.I also listed a paypoint I would feel comfortable with. Others can list theirs, but you choose to ignore what I listed as my own.Why, because I choose to offer an opinion and because I use my own opinion to question where my money goes.I've bought payware, and I will most likely do so in the future, but face it there are some developers out there that I would not give any amount of money to.And I wonder if you have some developers that you would not give money to.And I use MSFS to sharpen my real world pilot skills as well. It's pretty good on procedures, but still does not match real world flying. In some areas it is oretty good, and in some not so good.I just state my reasons, and I will continue to do so.And when I see supporters out there CLAIMING they know things about these developers without offering any proof, I can offer my alternate opinion, since they are the ones making the claim.The way some here expect us to think no payware developers are making money off of us is simply a charade, IMHO.

While I agree with most everything you said, and do not mean to imply that I disagree with you, I think that ROI does take into consideration the market and capture rate of the market. It is a balance that is hard to find. My company manufactures hard technology, and makes software as well. While our hard technology prices are pretty static based on Non-recurring engineering cost, software is slightly different. In fact we have two different market analysis teams, and two different criteria for setting price. The software team does look at number of units sold. They review the market and then analyze our predicted capture rate, and then judge it against our competitors. Always, a strategy to gain our capture rate, involves competive pricing adjustments, and outweighs the number of units sold as a sole determining factor. My point is, if predictors told an add on developer he was going to sell 500,000 copies, I am pretty sure they could afford to to reduce their profit margin to gain a more competive advantage. Balancing NRE, ROI, Market, and capture rate, with the a sales strategy and risk mitigation (risk of not hitting you capture rate), is a fuzzy art. There are text books on it, but few of the authors have ever sold 5 million anythings. All points well taken and appreciated.Dennis

I would pay any price (use common sense here. lol) for an add-on that I felt really was worth it and it came from a team of nice people.I always loved it when people "suggested" that payware aircraft are "priced to high". Sure, some come from some developers that many of us have come to know as "more trouble then it's worth". However, there are a LOT more that are not like this, IMO (at least 99% of the mainstream add-on developers are not). Saying, "$35 is way to much for an add-on" is somewhat ridiculous. Since the person saying it is usually not an owner of the add-on, that statement has somewhat flawed logic. The correct statement should be, "$35 for an add-on is way too much for ME". You can't make generalizations about fs add-ons with regard to their cost. FACT.Many of those same people have had NO experience in add-on development ever. Many think that beta testing is getting to fly around before release for "funzzies" and that it is the easiest task in the world. Wrong. Being responsible for the detection of issues that could effect the sales of an add-on is a big responsibility and it requires a LOT of time. If people could actually see how much work the add-on creators who do the actual design work had most people's jaws would hit the floor. After personally bearing witness to design efforts on a number of occasions, I can honestly say that FS-addons are usually priced lower then what I feel is deserved. Time is money...and add-on developemnt time is EXPENSIVE.In a past thread, I commented about how I thought Misty Fjords was WAY too much, but the more I think about the more I realize how wrong I was. It is easy to see how many people thoroughly enjoy that add-on and swear by it. For me to say that it isn't worth it is somewhat hypocritical on my part, as I am commenting on a products worth that I do not even own.

Gee I wonder why payware is creeping up in price????I`m sure it has nothing to with threads like these I bet.P.T Barnum said it best and one is born every minute.Have fun Troy

I don't really have a limit! If I want something bad I will save for it! Some developers I would not touch! PMDG I wouldn't hesitate. I so sick of people complaining about the price!! I paid $67.90 for the NG series and to me it was totally worth every last cent. If the 747/MD11 is around $67 I will happily buy it! With out these amazing addons I would not enjoy flightsim nearly as much. Other good developers such as flight1 & dreamfleet I also purchase from on a regular basis.

>For such an aircraft, let's say SuperConnie, Shackleton Mr3,>or B-29, I would pay up to 500 euro's, that's about 550 US>bucks. Jaap, just FYI 500 euros works out to about $665 at the moment. The exchange rate is currently about 1.33 dollers to the Euro.Simon.

My spending limit is not really defined. If the aircraft is one I particulaly want to fly, and is of top quality, than I will obviously be willing to pay more. At the moment I would struggle to justify over

>For such an aircraft, let's say SuperConnie, Shackleton Mr3,>or B-29, I would pay up to 500 euro's, that's about 550 US>bucks. Don't know if it fits all the mentioned points but Wings of Power (http://www.shockwaveproductions.net) has an impressive B-29 with great flight dynamics. Best of all it comes together with a Lanc, B17, B24 and PB4Y-2 al hevving equally great exterior, 2d panel, VC and flight dynamics.I think the go-flight stuff will not work for all buttons though. But hey it isn't 500 Euro either

yes, Joe is on a mission and anyone he disagrees with is bombarded with abuse...He's just sending it as private messages because he knows it would never be allowed to stand in open forum.So let's expose him here for all to see.The Hypocrite said From: Sonar5Date: Dec 14th 2004 The Hypocrite said:"Ignore the troll. He has an agenda against all commercial enterprise and won't stop at anything to achieve it."You see jeroen, that is where you show your obvious IGNORANCE, and your childish hypocrisy.I never said ALL commercial enterprises, and there are some I do support. Please show me where I said ALL.Perhaps you need help in simple English language and maybe you need to read what is written instead of your warped interpretations of words that are not there.FSD is one developer, and I have purchased from them and I may again when they release the Skymaster 337.But you are too Ignorant to read everywhere I post, and you assume you know me, when you have no clue.Troll... Huh....Look in the Mirror, Hypocrite.

I don't have a set limit as to what I will spend on payware. I look at each item that comes up and ask myself what would that product add to my personal flying experience. If the answer is positive I may consider a purchase Victor

This one has gone south and is now closed. Notice, we are rapidly reaching the point where discussion of vendor's pricing, etc. are going to be taboo subjects.