Just now, rheinis said:

Instead, DTG should focus COMPLETELY on making a top of the line Next Generation flightsim, and let the addon business do their part and make their own money. If FSW is any good, DTG will make the profit it deserves and there will be no one who complains about it.

Except the problem is that this business model does not work in 2017! If it did work, we wouldn't be talking about DTG - we'd be celebrating the release of Microsoft Flight Simulator 2018.

This is EXACTLY the problem that MS had with FS: they sold people a copy of the base sim, developed by Aces at enormous expense, at ~£30-£50.

The addon business then most certainly went and made its own money. And MS was left with a loss. That's why they stopped developing it.

47 minutes ago, JimmiG said:

I agree Steam is very convenient for keeping track of all your purchases, downloads etc. and automatically re-installing everything after you wipe your drives and keeping everything updated. However the price premium does tend to be pretty high, if you look at X-Plane and FSX SE. Not worth it for that one time every 3 - 5 years when I have to re-install everything.

So while some like the idea of Steam, and are willing to pay a premium to get their content via this platform, it should absolutely not be mandatory. Neither for developers nor for customers. If a developer feels like they only want to publish on their own site or via their own storefront, they should be free to do so. Somehow this has worked beautifully for X-Plane and FSX, ever since they arrived on Steam.

 

21 minutes ago, rheinis said:

To me, that's just borderline criminal. Or - if some may find this too clearly put - at the least insanely greedy... It just doesn't feel right, period.

Instead, DTG should focus COMPLETELY on making a top of the line Next Generation flightsim, and let the addon business do their part and make their own money. If FSW is any good, DTG will make the profit it deserves and there will be no one who complains about it.

@JimmiG@rheinis I repeat and finaly hope that you guys understand this: DTG NEVER forced anyone to purchase something on STEAM. All developers ARE ALLOWED to sell SW in THEIR OWN SHOPS! If you don't want to pay premium, then you ARE ALLOWED to buy the package on the DEV's own shop!

DTG only wants that the DEV's supply ALSO (so not exclusively) a STEAM wrapper! What is not to understand from this statement?

 

Take for example X-Plane. You can buy it directly from the Dev's own homepage OR steam (I choose steam). Major DEV's as REX, HiFi tech, Aerosoft,...are already offering their products also via steam.

48 minutes ago, rheinis said:

To me, that's just borderline criminal. Or - if some may find this too clearly put - at the least insanely greedy... It just doesn't feel right, period.

Instead, DTG should focus COMPLETELY on making a top of the line Next Generation flightsim, and let the addon business do their part and make their own money. If FSW is any good, DTG will make the profit it deserves and there will be no one who complains about it.

Look how that turned out for the Microsoft flight simulator franchise....

Oh wait....they aren't around anymore and disbanded ACES.

3 hours ago, skelsey said:

Except the problem is that this business model does not work in 2017! If it did work, we wouldn't be talking about DTG - we'd be celebrating the release of Microsoft Flight Simulator 2018.

This is EXACTLY the problem that MS had with FS: they sold people a copy of the base sim, developed by Aces at enormous expense, at ~£30-£50.

The addon business then most certainly went and made its own money. And MS was left with a loss. That's why they stopped developing it.

Actually, the "old" business model of just selling the sim and allowing 3rd party devs to take full income does work in 2017.

You just have to be the kind of company that doesn't rely on the base sim for all your income, with lots of other irons in the fire. Like P3D's LM with all their corporate and government contracts, and XP's Laminar with an app for phones, a pro version for FAA certified hardware, and other outside corporate contracts. That's why the developers of both P3D and X-Plane survive in the "traditional' way for flight sims, without a cut of the 3rd party add-ons. 

DTG is in a different situation, not as diversified. They need to survive and make as much as possible from the base product as well as the add-ons. They have an apparently successful model of doing that with the train sims, so it's not surprising that they want to do this with a flight sim. 

Quote

The addon business then most certainly went and made its own money. And MS was left with a loss. That's why they stopped developing it.

I don't think that was the only reason MS stopped developing Flight Simulator.

I've heard the ACES team had reached a point where they wanted to make enough fundamental changes past FSX that it couldn't be done without breaking backwards compatibility for existing add-ons (which indirectly led to MS Flight). 

Another reason was that at the time, MS was in the process of moving away from PC gaming entirely, in favor of promoting XBox as their gaming platform. MS Flight was a last gasp to keep something going with PC "games," but their heart wasn't in it. XBox was their baby, and they didn't realize that Steam would soon help restore the PC gaming market. 

4 hours ago, GEKtheReaper said:

 

@JimmiG@rheinis I repeat and finaly hope that you guys understand this: DTG NEVER forced anyone to purchase something on STEAM. All developers ARE ALLOWED to sell SW in THEIR OWN SHOPS! If you don't want to pay premium, then you ARE ALLOWED to buy the package on the DEV's own shop!

DTG only wants that the DEV's supply ALSO (so not exclusively) a STEAM wrapper! What is not to understand from this statement?

 

Take for example X-Plane. You can buy it directly from the Dev's own homepage OR steam (I choose steam). Major DEV's as REX, HiFi tech, Aerosoft,...are already offering their products also via steam.

I think you have missed the point, let me give you a hypothetical example.

Lets say i develop an Aircraft for DTG FSW, it's a study level IL-96-300, i want to sell my add on for £100 so i sell this on my store for £100, i get the full £100 from the sale!

DTG force me to sell this add through there store as well.  Now, other customers buy my add on through Steam/DTG, from the £100 i now get £40, assuming that the 60% 30/30 between steam and DTG is correct (this piece of information i don't have).

Assuming through my site i sell 1000 copies of my aircraft i make £100,000.  Assuming that through DTG the same sales i only make £40,000.  Even if you consider the additional sales made through Steam / DTG from people who may not have come to my store, i am still taking a loss of 60%, again assuming that the take from DTG/Steam is the assumed 60%.

So my choice as a developer is to stick a premium on the price charged on Steam / DTG for the exact same product, this assumes that the EULA DTG have allows this, or take this loss on the DTG / Steam side as the cost of doing business.  

Of your list of Dev's HiFi, are only offering there previous weather engine ASN, they are not offering AS2016, REX only the soft clouds add ons.  

Personally, I do think that DTG should be entitled to an amount from the add-on sales, but 60%, even 30% is too much, it doesn't seem to me to be reasonable. 

 

30 minutes ago, WotanUK said:

Assuming through my site i sell 1000 copies of my aircraft i make £100,000.  Assuming that through DTG the same sales i only make £40,000.  Even if you consider the additional sales made through Steam / DTG from people who may not have come to my store, i am still taking a loss of 60%, again assuming that the take from DTG/Steam is the assumed 60%.

So my choice as a developer is to stick a premium on the price charged on Steam / DTG for the exact same product, this assumes that the EULA DTG have allows this, or take this loss on the DTG / Steam side as the cost of doing business.  

They aren't taking a loss.  They are adding revenue they probably wouldn't get otherwise.  So, in your example, they are getting 40,000 more than they would have gotten otherwise, or at least some significant portion of that.  And I suspect they will sell more through STEAM than through their own portal.  Of course, they will make less on each sale, but this is the classic business model: sell a few for a lot, or sell a lot for less.  

STEAM and DTG aren't charities.  They have to make money to stay in business.  

25 minutes ago, Griphos said:

 

They aren't taking a loss.  They are adding revenue they probably wouldn't get otherwise.  So, in your example, they are getting 40,000 more than they would have gotten otherwise, or at least some significant portion of that.  And I suspect they will sell more through STEAM than through their own portal.  Of course, they will make less on each sale, but this is the classic business model: sell a few for a lot, or sell a lot for less.  

STEAM and DTG aren't charities.  They have to make money to stay in business.  

I did make that very point about additional sales due to the medium, but however you slice it they are losing 60% or whatever the take is.  Your statement only works if the company isn't well known, if we are talking about PMDG or A2A i think that most simmers willing to spend £100 on a Flight Sim add on are VERY aware of who they are.  I imagine that the number of the casual audience willing to spend £100 on an add on are minuscule. 

Agreed, that is why i quite clearly said " I do think that DTG should be....", perhaps you missed that part?  I then went on to say that i thought 60% was excessive; to put it another way, would you like to pay 60% income tax on your salary? 

1 hour ago, WotanUK said:

I think you have missed the point, let me give you a hypothetical example.

Lets say i develop an Aircraft for DTG FSW, it's a study level IL-96-300, i want to sell my add on for £100 so i sell this on my store for £100, i get the full £100 from the sale!

DTG force me to sell this add through there store as well.  Now, other customers buy my add on through Steam/DTG, from the £100 i now get £40, assuming that the 60% 30/30 between steam and DTG is correct (this piece of information i don't have).

Assuming through my site i sell 1000 copies of my aircraft i make £100,000.  Assuming that through DTG the same sales i only make £40,000.  Even if you consider the additional sales made through Steam / DTG from people who may not have come to my store, i am still taking a loss of 60%, again assuming that the take from DTG/Steam is the assumed 60%.

So my choice as a developer is to stick a premium on the price charged on Steam / DTG for the exact same product, this assumes that the EULA DTG have allows this, or take this loss on the DTG / Steam side as the cost of doing business.  

Of your list of Dev's HiFi, are only offering there previous weather engine ASN, they are not offering AS2016, REX only the soft clouds add ons.  

Personally, I do think that DTG should be entitled to an amount from the add-on sales, but 60%, even 30% is too much, it doesn't seem to me to be reasonable. 

I understood your point but there are NO prices yet. So why talk abaut prices and revenue and hypothetical add more and more things to the discussion?

Offer your product on STEAM for 130£ and have it on your store for 100£.

And probably all others that do offer SW on steam are plain fools who obviosly have no idea that DTG and STEAM get their part of revenue...dooooh...

You don't lose money on what you don't sell.  Most of the stuff you buy is sold to you through an outlet rather than directly from the maker.  Are all of those companies making the stuff you buy "losing" money or making money when you buy their stuff?  

We're not talking about a tax.  We're talking about the cost of doing business.  For many, many businesses, a 40% markup profit is quite good indeed.  Your local restaurant would be happy with that.  

16 hours ago, WotanUK said:

I think you have missed the point, let me give you a hypothetical example.

Lets say i develop an Aircraft for DTG FSW, it's a study level IL-96-300, i want to sell my add on for £100 so i sell this on my store for £100, i get the full £100 from the sale!

DTG force me to sell this add through there store as well.  Now, other customers buy my add on through Steam/DTG, from the £100 i now get £40, assuming that the 60% 30/30 between steam and DTG is correct (this piece of information i don't have).

But with the 100 you get through your own store you still have to pay for that store, the support etc etc

I am not a dev, nor do how know how the business works, so bear with me here.

I develop an aircraft for FSW, and sell it from $150 in my storefront.   Now, as per the EULA or whatever agreement is in place, I have to also make it available on Steam.  I can't price it at $150, as DTG and Steam will take their cut (60% in total, if I remember correctly, and if I work it out correctly, comes to about $92-94).  That means as opposed to the full $150 I get from my storefront, I now get about $56 per sale. However, if I am allowed to adjust the price, then I can increase the Steam price with at least $50-75 (depending on my margins, which I think in game development, are pretty narrow).  If this price adjustment for Steam is NOT allowed, then I wouldn't touch FSW with a barge pole, unless my storefront sales can cover the losses made on Steam sales.

Just my layman's analysis of the scenario. C&C allowed, no need to sugar coat.

 

 

 

 

Put simply, selling on steam can only work if DTG doesn't offer a peanut and ask for a watermelon in return.

I hate to be a Debbie Downer on this, but I can see coffin nails coming for Flight sim. Its starting to look like the Lead Pursuit matter all over again with Allied Force and Falcon 4.0.

Here are my thoughts on this. I have owned nearly every MS Flightsim from FS95 to FSX, I have a tonne of third party addons for FSX and P3d and the only reason that makes these sims great are addons.

If you live in the US and Europe you are OK, but if you live in Australia you get jack Squat in the default scenery department. I can't see small third party Dev companies going over to Steam without jacking up their prices to cough up 30% Steam is going to ask.  Or for example look at a third party the Aircraft/Addon you would like to use that now retails on their own site for $89.99 for FSX and all funds go to that company which is justly deserved, this will mean that the third party may jack up the price to 116.99 just to cover the Steam fees to get the same funding.

The only reason I can see them going for the Steam way is for $ales. It resurrected FSX from the dead when it launched on Steam, so many kids got their hands on it drove up the sales because they can play online and screw around on it and have turned it from what it was originally a flight simulator in to a game.

This is what I can foresee in the future is going to happen to flight simulation:

FSX finally dies its long overdue death as it is not supported anymore yet again.....................................RIP FSX you served us well.

Dovetail Games realize they screwed the pooch on this and change their minds about the Steam store restriction.................Probably not as contracts may have already been signed with Steam.

FSW does really well with lots of third party Dev support ported over on to the new 64bit system........................Needs to address the Steam store idea as it was the community that made FSX to what it is today and not some company.

FSW does horribly and is pulled from the market or a permanent bargain bin sale item to recoup costs ........................Console kiddies will keep it alive for a while but it will eventually ware off, The community boycott the product because of the restrictions on content providers and costs, and also if it was removed from Steam, and you upgrade your hard drive or uninstall that's it,  it's gone forever plus all those addons are gone yet you paid for it. Give me a downloadable installer any day.

P3D come out with a 64bit version..........Which is probably going to be a long time off just yet, all the Devs who don't make the switch to FSW still get support providing they can port over to 64bit.

X-Plane 11 gets a lot more third party Dev support..................................................People and Devs switch from the MS ESP platform, and can they offer their content without restrictions either free or payware plus it is already a 64bit platform.

The 30% steam requires isn't the problem. Almost every flightsim retailer out there takes about that much, from FSPilotShop of flightsim.com, to simmarket, to the FlightSimStore, and Aerosoft and JustFlight.

The problem is what DTG decides they want to take in addition to Steam.

Look, i don't think anybody on here should be talking about a "boycott" of DTG's new Flight Sim, that is a massive over reaction on the communities part.  DTG are a business, they have to make money; i think i made it clear above i believe that they should take a percentage of sales from add on providers, so that they can develop the Sim further.  Personally i will be buying the new sim, just to see what it's like and to support simming in general.

I also think it's worth remembering that the company complaining did charge users full price (actually slightly more than full FSX price) to have the aircraft they had purchased in P3D.  I have bought the 737 and the 777 effectively twice now.  Again, they also have to make money, but i was personally rather disturbed by this practice.

My concern was that 60% (assuming again that figure is correct) is far to much, it will strangle the add on market for the sim.  If the developers add a 60% markup on there aircraft to cover this charge, that's me out of simming; we are very close right now to the maximum i would be prepared to pay, in fact with FSL A320 was at the very top i would be willing to pay.  How many of you would be prepared to pay £160 per aircraft for the top level stuff?