21 hours ago, DJJose said:

Here's another link for you:

http://www.allflightmods.com/microsoft-flight-simulator-2020/msfs-kcdk-george-t-lewis-airport-florida/

Please note the release date: 9-4-2020

I've been using it since release and as someone who has trained student pilots in that airfield, I'm willing to pay for anything better than freeware, but the price does not reflect reality.  FSDT is an example of reasonably priced airports that are 10 times the size of KCDK at 1/2 the price.

So it's ridiculous for anyone to pay that much!

Thx for this.

Since we're boasting about our add-on collection, I took a peek at my P3D add-on folder and I have more than 500 payware add-ons. This does not include add-ons for Fs9, FSX, or XPlane.

My MSFS add-on collection has over 100 payware add-ons and over 500 freeware mods.

Size of Official add-ons folder is 125GB

Size of MSFS folder controlled by linker is 211GB

I'm a passionate simmer. Price is never my only determining purchasing factor.

Now that the point has been clearly made by me and others, I hope to see more devs become in touch with this community. If the best of the best, Flightbeam, FSDT, and LatinVFR get it, so can every other developer.

Much love. It's been fun, but I'm done with this thread!

 

43 minutes ago, DJJose said:

I'm a passionate simmer. Price is never my only determining purchasing factor.

Price matters significantly to me; that's because I'm basically a miser, and each time a dead president leaves my pocket, it's like god killed a kitten.

MSFS is a miser's dream: runs well on old hardware and has a ton of outstanding mods and freeware scenery. 

MSFS is the gift that keeps on giving.

4 minutes ago, Ricardo41 said:

each time a dead president leaves my pocket, it's like god killed a kitten.

Hah! love that, made my day - thank you!

16 hours ago, kaosfere said:

That's an awfully bold statement  -- and I don't say just that to quibble about the "90%" figure, as was done up-thread.

The issue of the legality of the use of Google imagery in freeware scenery is not nearly as clear cut as you are making it out to be.   I wrote a lengthy post about this that I suspect most people didn't (and won't) read because it practically became an essay.   The basic thrust, though, was that Google's licensing docs are a nightmare of confusing and contradictory clauses, but with some study and rational thought two things become, to me, fairly clear:

1. Re-using Google content in commercial scenery without a license is almost certainly a no-go and asking for trouble;  however
2. There is a very credible fair-use argument to be made for freeware, especially when it's just a ground poly, not a 3D rip from Google Earth.

 I won't get into the four-fold test for fair use in detail -- one can read that post, or do their own Wikipedia research if they wish -- but I will say that I could make a strong case that using ground images from Google, as one would in a free airport scenery, is almost the perfect application of a fair use claim in my mind because:

1. It is non-commercial.   Even commercial works can make fair use claim, but it's harder to carry.
2. It uses only a small portion of the whole, as a few square miles is a very tiny portion of the earth's surface.
3. It does not devalue the original work.  NO ONE is going to buy or download a flight sim airport just to look at the ground when it's free online.
4. Most importantly, it is a true transformative work, in that it uses a portion of the original work to create an entirely new, and different, creative work.

It's this ability to use a prior creative work to make something new that adds to the culture that is at the very heart of the concept of fair use.  It's meant to balance the rights of a creator with the interest that society has in a productive, creative environment.  It prevents the stifling of creative work by the sort of blanket "that's someone else's, using it is illegal" argument that's often made in discussions like this.

The giant caveat on all this, of course, is that this is specific to US law, but there are similar concepts elsewhere. The even bigger caveat is that I am not a lawyer, but I am a very interested layman who cares a lot about both the importance of IP law and the importance of having reasonable limits on it*. 

My case here could certainly be disputed.  That's fine -- it's not a simple situation.  But that is why it's important to acknowledge the nuance, and not try to scare people away from creating their own transformative works with the chilling effect of the big "P word".

* (And I've been sued by Hollywood for it, and won, but that's a completely different story.)

That behavior doesn't surprise me here...made up false statistics and discouraging something one is biased against with outright false information.

Never fails...

Edited February 7, 20215 yr by blueshark747

So, let me get this straight. Are we now expecting developers to release products at insanely low prices, even if that ultimately means that they lose money? This Cedar Key product may be the same price as some larger airports, but is it not worth considering that a small, niche location like this may only sell a fraction of the number of copies in comparison?

Edited February 7, 20215 yr by Christopher Low

26 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

So, let me get this straight. Are we now expecting developers to release products at insanely low prices, even if that ultimately means that they lose money? This Cedar Key product may be the same price as some larger airports, but is it not worth considering that a small, niche location like this may only sell a fraction of the number of copies in comparison?

I have no intention of shelling out anything like $20+ for a small airports unless it is a niche and important airports that I would like to use a lot ...like Lukla, Paro, Courchevel  that expands on what MSFS have already provided for these.  or my home airport 52F North West Regional.  What it costs to the developer is not germane to the discussion. Its their choice to price it at cost Plus, sure, for maximizing profit, Nothing wrong with that. I am no socialist. 🙂 Some of us who agree with the OP are high volume purchasers of add ons, we know what we are talking about too. If I were a commercial developer, It would help to read this thread and use this information. In any case, what is so special about this small airport that it needed to be developed with spending so much money (costs?) Was there a big demand for it? Where lots of people asking for this airport? Unless I am from that area, It wouldn't make sense for me, I tell you what. I'd like Tampa Intl, FL, I'd like KFLL Lauderdale, FL. Or Cochin airport in India, Mangalore Table top Airport in India (there have been a few accident there while landing. 

Edited February 7, 20215 yr by Manny

8 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

So, let me get this straight. Are we now expecting developers to release products at insanely low prices, even if that ultimately means that they lose money? This Cedar Key product may be the same price as some larger airports, but is it not worth considering that a small, niche location like this may only sell a fraction of the number of copies in comparison?

 

Its certainly not my niche. But at the and of the day customers will vote with their cash and developers will adjust acoordingly. If the developer thinks its ok to put a product out with (what some customers will consider minor visual enhancements)  but there is a freeware version out that does the job then there are going to be comparisons drawn and those with no loyalty to the developer or is just looking for basic enhancements will just get the freeware version. Its not as if there was no runway there in the first place, The freeware improved on this and the developer will have to further improve his product to demonstrate its worth.

What the developer should be doing is proper market analysis and adjust to market forces to avoid taking a "bath" when customers have a higher expectation and vote by withholding their cash. 

I understand some may not like it but businesses cant win all the time. To me this seems like one of those cases. If they make a loss on this scenery they will have to assess why and come back with a more compelling product at a development cost that works for them and the customer. Marketing is also important to highlight why the product is sufficiently superior to consider purchasing.

Thats the reality of it at the moment. The advantage of this new platform is the scenery and you have some very talented and passionate people out there who has put out some decent quality freeware and the community is grateful. Payware now requires a marketable step above that level and/or price adjustments as the market dictates.

 

Just my observation.

Cheers

ok, this has been an interesting thread but we are  now just rehashing the same premise. Time for this one to go.

This same discussion has been going on for years, bottom line, it is a business decision by the developer. His sales figures will indicate whether or not it was a good one. As the consumer, you have two options - buy or  not buy. Beating the dev over the head because you disagree with their pricing is not one of those options.

 

Vic