5 minutes ago, Maxis said:

🤣

My issue with the Marketplace is the rate of updates. Don't care too much about the encryption (as long as its not the invasive damage your system report home type). If they speed up that process so it appears without unreasonable delay (24 hours after appearing on the developers own website) then im on board with supporting it.

Agreed.  I think Asobo/Microsoft should shorten the process so that updates from developers can make it into the MSFS marketplace faster.

12 minutes ago, Janov said:

Genuine question (yes, yes, I am a Troll 🙄 - just humor me):

If a third-party product costs 50$... and you buy from the marketplace, then doesn´t the developer get LESS money (50 - Microsoft´s share) than if you buy it from that developer directly (50 - nothing)?

Wouldn´t it be also beneficial (to the add-on market) to make sure that they make as much money as possible - to promote further development of add-ons?

 

Economy of scale. Look it up. That answers your questions

29 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

 I agree with you that updates take too long in the MSFS marketplace.  And it also takes a long time for a new product to make it to the MSFS marketplace.  .

Indeed. Contrary to technical issues with encryption, hidden folders etc, this is one aspect MS could improve without modifying any technology immediately. I really don't get why they don't, if this is critical for their revenue.

A lot of people (including me) buy addons within the first couple of days - or never. I have to admit, I only bought those addons from the Marketplace which are not available elsewhere (like the Carenado Ovation).

Kind regards, Michael 

2 hours ago, abrams_tank said:

I know this quote from Randazzo of PMDG is posted in another thread, but I thought this topic deserved its own separate thread so I am posting Randazzo's quote again.  Randazzo also gives us some good insight on the commission breakdown that Microsoft gets, and that Valve gets:

So, you will remember that Asobo said MSFS is a 10 year project.  The key line here from Randazzo is that Jorg, who represents Microsoft in the Asobo + Microsoft partnership, was able to convince the higher level execs at Microsoft to go forward with MSFS, because he convinced the higher level execs at Microsoft of the revenue stream for MSFS.  This is the key point and the important part that Randazzo discloses.  The other key point that Randazzo discloses is that Microsoft takes a 30% cut, which is quite fair, IMO.  In fact, Microsoft takes a lower cut than Valve does.  The problem though is if users purchased MSFS via Steam, in which Valve gets their cut, and then Microsoft gets their cut too.  That's unfortunate that Valve eats into the revenue of 3rd party developers, but as Randazzo said, 3rd party developers still get a healthy revenue stream overall because the entire market is larger, with Steam + the Windows Store combined (knowing what Valve gets, I am glad I purchased MSFS via the Windows Store).  

Now on to the part of MSFS being a 10 year project.  The purchases in the MSFS marketplace caught the attention of Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella recently:

This is good if we want MSFS to be a 10 year project. And moving forward, I hope that Satya Nadella continues to see decent revenue for MSFS from the marketplace, because then Microsoft will continue to allocate a certain budget to Asobo to keep making MSFS better.

For this reason, I think we should purchase from the MSFS marketplace when possible.  Ok, if a product won't come out in the MSFS marketplace at all, or you have to wait two months for it to show up in the MSFS marketplace, then it's understandable if you have to purchase it outside the MSFS marketplace.  Having said that, if I have a choice to give my cut to Microsoft versus giving a cut to say, SimMarket, I would prefer that Microsoft gets my cut because at least Microsoft getting my cut will help MSFS to become a 10 year project.

in my honest opinion this is not true

simply because the ecosystem is far more expanded than just the 'marketplace'

to give an example:  a developer earn some money selling on a shop other than 'marketplace' in return buy some hardware; those in the hardware shop will also buy from marketplace; and circle goes round and round.

 to say 'buy only from a place' when there are many devs do not sell on marketplace; some are young and need support as much as anybody else work on projects.

 

3 minutes ago, pmb said:

Indeed. Contrary to technical issues with encryption, hidden folders etc, this is one aspect MS could improve without modifying any technology immediately. I really don't get why they don't, if this is critical for their revenue.

A lot of people (including me) buy addons within the first couple of days - or never. I have to admit, I only bought those addons from the Marketplace which are not available elsewhere (like the Carenado Ovation).

Kind regards, Michael 

From my understanding, I think Asobo will do some testing with new updates from 3rd party devs.  I am going to guess that one thing they test for is to make sure new updates from 3rd party devs don't CTD the sim, or cause other players to CTD in multiplayer.  Unfortunately, this takes time and lengthens the approval process in the MSFS marketplace. 

Having said that, waiting several weeks for an update is too long.  Microsoft/Asobo need to shorten the update process in the MSFS marketplace.

1 minute ago, abrams_tank said:

From my understanding, I think Asobo will do some testing with new updates from 3rd party devs.  I am going to guess that one thing they test for is to make sure new updates from 3rd party devs don't CTD the sim, or cause other players to CTD in multiplayer.  Unfortunately, this takes time and lengthens the approval process in the MSFS marketplace. 

Having said that, waiting several weeks for an update is too long.  Microsoft/Asobo need to shorten the update process in the MSFS marketplace.

testing all new updates from 3rd party devs ?

do not think so; will take a year for each update to test all single ones

13 minutes ago, Maxis said:

Economy of scale. Look it up. That answers your questions

Now - if the economy of scale comes into play - would that not enable third-party devs to significantly reduce their prices to the end consumer (unless they had to share the profit with Microsoft), though?

9 minutes ago, arsenal82 said:

in my honest opinion this is not true

simply because the ecosystem is far more expanded than just the 'marketplace'

to give an example:  a developer earn some money selling on a shop other than 'marketplace' in return buy some hardware; those in the hardware shop will also buy from marketplace; and circle goes round and round.

 to say 'buy only from a place' when there are many devs do not sell on marketplace; some are young and need support as much as anybody else work on projects.

 

Again, you have to understand the concept of larger market size and economy of scale.  It's not just the cut that Microsoft takes, it's also the number of products that the 3rd party dev sells.

The home flight simulator market is much smaller without MSFS and a 3rd party dev sells 10 products at $10 but takes 100% on each product sold. This 3rd party dev makes a revenue of 10 x $10 = $100 USD.

The home flight simulator market is much larger because of MSFS and a 3rd party dev sells 20 products at $10 but takes 70% on each product sold. This 3rd party dev makes a revenue of 20 x $7 = $140 USD.

$140 USD is greater than $100 USD, get it?  And it is $140 USD because MSFS has enlarged the total market size for the home consumer flight simulator market. 

Edited June 23, 20214 yr by abrams_tank

30 minutes ago, Janov said:

Genuine question (yes, yes, I am a Troll 🙄 - just humor me):

If a third-party product costs 50$... and you buy from the marketplace, then doesn´t the developer get LESS money (50 - Microsoft´s share) than if you buy it from that developer directly (50 - nothing)?

Wouldn´t it be also beneficial (to the add-on market) to make sure that they make as much money as possible - to promote further development of add-ons?

 

Sort of, but you have to balance the increases exposure with presumed increase numbers of units sold than the direct-to market - especially on the Xbox front That’s the calculus each developer needs to make to decide what’s best for their own bottom line.

Just a casual poll of the responders to these threads show that the community has a mix of both types of purchasers.  The early buyers will be direct from the 3PD and then the “legs” for a products shelf life will come from the Marketplace picking up people who don’t follow sim news as closely for example.

This profit structure for a developer is not unlike the returns to a studio for a feature film release (remember, way back in 2019 when we had films in theaters…).  On opening weekend, the studios are granted a large share of the ticket returns.  That’s why opening weekend box office returns were closely watched and reported.  After that the amount kept by the theaters is incrementally increased, week by week.  This is to promote them keeping a successful film in theaters longer.  This is the “legs” a film gets - continuing to make some money well after the initial rush is over.

I see analogues in this model to our 3PD releases.  So long are there are people who purchase both ways it will keep the overall market happy .. to use the same analogy it keeps the studios making movies, and keeps the theaters open to show them…

p.s. here’s hoping that theaters do come back once the world comes out of its hibernation.

2 minutes ago, Janov said:

Now - if the economy of scale comes into play - would that not enable third-party devs to significantly reduce their prices to the end consumer (unless they had to share the profit with Microsoft), though?

Yes, why do you think PMDG lowered the price of the DC-6 to $55 USD for MSFS when it was $70 for X-Plane?  And have you paid attention to airport sceneries that are much cheaper in MSFS than it is for P3D & X-Plane?

Edited June 23, 20214 yr by abrams_tank

6 minutes ago, Janov said:

Now - if the economy of scale comes into play - would that not enable third-party devs to significantly reduce their prices to the end consumer (unless they had to share the profit with Microsoft), though?

So you think MS is a charity case and should not get a cut out of providing a potentially very large revenue access point for developers within the game ? Can you tell me how any product is going to be installed on the Xbox version when it comes out independent of the in game marketplace ? 

Edited June 23, 20214 yr by Maxis

35 minutes ago, Janov said:

Genuine question (yes, yes, I am a Troll 🙄 - just humor me):

If a third-party product costs 50$... and you buy from the marketplace, then doesn´t the developer get LESS money (50 - Microsoft´s share) than if you buy it from that developer directly (50 - nothing)?

Wouldn´t it be also beneficial (to the add-on market) to make sure that they make as much money as possible - to promote further development of add-ons?

 

How come you don't apply that same logic to the developer who crated the environment that allows third-party addons to exist?  After all, without the environment, there are no third-party addons; thus, I'd rather ensure the finical viability of the former.  Also, we shouldn't feel bad for the third-party developers as MSFS charges NO licensing fees, which is antithetical to most developer/third-party relationships.  Finally, there's the customer convenience factor to consider; the customer benefits from having all thier add-ons on a single platform, which facilitates easy updates/patch notifications.  Thank god we no longer need a third party application to manage our third-party applications.  I have no desire to return to that paradigm

Edited June 23, 20214 yr by kingm56

9 minutes ago, Janov said:

Now - if the economy of scale comes into play - would that not enable third-party devs to significantly reduce their prices to the end consumer (unless they had to share the profit with Microsoft), though?

Selling on the marketplace doesn’t lower the support and infrastructure costs (Microsoft is responsible to store the files and provide support)?!

Is there data showing how much larger the MSFS Marketplace audience is comparable to other sources provided to 3rd party developers?  What if a developer placed his product at $20 on the Marketplace (more for the advertising... getting the word out), and sell it for $10 at their own site or the typical known FS sellers?  Does MSFS have a clause stating a developer cannot sell at a lower price than the Marketplace?  Doesn't Amazon have some sort of grip like that on a seller? 

1 minute ago, Clutch Cargo said:

Is there data showing how much larger the MSFS Marketplace audience is comparable to other sources provided to 3rd party developers?  What if a developer placed his product at $20 on the Marketplace (more for the advertising... getting the word out), and sell it for $10 at their own site or the typical known FS sellers?  Does MSFS have a clause stating a developer cannot sell at a lower price than the Marketplace?  Doesn't Amazon have some sort of grip like that on a seller? 

MS would have their download and revenue dataset and the individual Commercial Entity would have their own individual sales information. I have yet to see any marketplace platform or commercial entity freely divulge that type of information publicly and i doubt MS or Any commercial entity would provide it unless it is used to promote the use of the marketplace to Commercial developers for "buy in" Which would make that information  "unavailable unless that person is in a need to know classification"