But... do MSFS users buy addons?

😇

10 minutes ago, Juliett Alfa said:

But... do MSFS users buy addons?

😇

They do, and in a huge number. If in doubt, ask Mathijs Kok from Aerosoft or ORBX, they will tell you. A search in the Aerosoft forum will provide you even an idea of the order of magnitude between P3D and MSFS sales.

Kind regards, Michael

32 minutes ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

More customers = lower prices.  Less customers = higher prices.

More potential customers perhaps. This airport has only just been released. Some here have said that the quality of the default airports is better than P3D so people may not be inclined to buy. Will the price be so low on the marketplace?

As a comparison UK2000 charges 15GBP for their MSFS airports and 18GBP fir the P3D version. A more acceptable difference.

@Rob_Ainscough, I suppose they could just offer the P3D ones for free without support if they don’t plan to update them. If no one is buying the P3D versions they’ve little to lose.

MSFS might look very pretty but there’s so much that still needs doing. I’m reluctant to buy something I still consider in beta with forced updates being a major disincentive.

11 minutes ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

So how does that work with so many MSFS users buying $2000-$4000 GPUs and upgrading CPUs, I/O etc.?

How many is “so many”? I’d humbly submit that Avsim isn’t representative. 🙂 In any case, let’s not conflate willingness to spend on hardware with willingness to spend on addons. (Right or wrong, of course! Speaking for myself, I’m not inclined to spend a ton on either at the moment.)

If you still don’t believe there’s a significant difference in price sensitivity between the two markets, here’s a question: many P3D addon airports are priced above $30. Very few MSFS airports are. What accounts for that?

Here here Ray,

Until i have proper ai i will buy very little if anything for msfs.

I only have a minor interest in ga flying so the pretty scenery is only of marginal interest for me. 

1 hour ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

More customers = lower prices.  Less customers = higher prices.

I would disagree with the above, usually in business :-

More customers = Higher demand = Increase in price.

Less customers = Lower demand = Decrease in price.

 

 

 

 

15 minutes ago, Sparkrite said:

I would disagree with the above, usually in business :-

More customers = Higher demand = Increase in price.

Less customers = Lower demand = Decrease in price.

 

 

 

 

Those tend to be conventional market rules insofar as Supply/ Demand are concerned, but in the case of P3D are we not talking of more of a Captive market? Often, particularly for major airports there tends to be only one high-quality offering for P3D and it's either that or go with the default scenery

This doesn't affect MSFS as much given the default airports are a lot better overall than in P3D, and in my mind at least goes a long way to explain the higher prices for P3D.

Whether this is actually optimal is up for debate but I imagine a number of the older devs probably have at least some idea of their market based on their sales over the years. It's also maybe worth remembering as well the years following the scrapping of ACES and FSX development. MSFS has introduced a lot of new customers & presumably also a lower break-even point for scenery devs.

Edited November 2, 20214 yr by SimeonWilbury

1 hour ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

EDIT: I would venture a guess that many P3D airports weren't updated to it's increasing list of SDK feature support because there wasn't enough sales to justify the extra work that would be hard to "sell" to existing customers who for the most part expect pay once and get lifetime of free updates.

Tell that to JustSim! 😶
They seem to manage well pretty well with their €5 incremental point release update fees and >€6 version updates pricing model.

I think that apart from a vocal few, people were generally prepared to pay upgrade fees if they was something more than just a compatibility fix e.g. P3D v4 to P3D v5.
For instance, look at FlyTampa's upgrade fees, FSDreamTeam's KORD v2, Orbx's Australia v2 and YBBN v2, MK-Studios EKVG and GCTS, among others.

You're right though, insufficient sales volumes to justify the expanded SDK features are absolutely why we haven't seen more topographically-realistic P3D airport sceneries come to market.

 

  

35 minutes ago, mazelda said:

Until i have proper ai i will buy very little if anything for msfs

Things may be progressing faster on this front than some of us P3D simmers may be aware...
 

 

Edited November 2, 20214 yr by F737NG

Now now, I didn't want to get this into a comparison of sims but comparison of pricing in their relative sims.  There are plenty that would argue MSFS is far from Beta, there are plenty that would argue it's in Beta until it supports X feature, this is neither here nor there when the price of the same add-on is significantly more in the prior generation sim than in the more recent.  That is an abnormality in of itself.  

To your point @Rob_Ainscough comparing a Porsche to a Toyota is not a comparable argument.  A more comparable argument would be if Porsche was still selling the 981 which is 5 years old for more than a brand new 718 with all the bells and whistles.  That is essentially what we are asking here.  

Why is the 2018 model MORE than the updated 2021? There is no justifiable business logic for that makes sense that I can rationalize.  

38 minutes ago, F737NG said:

You're right though, insufficient sales volumes to justify the expanded SDK features are absolutely why we haven't seen more topographically-realistic P3D airport sceneries come to market.

And the fact that the implementation only really facilitated default terrain I think, making it much much more difficult for devs to provide proper topographically *and visually* realistic terrain, thereby raising the break even bar.

Basically LM took the 3PD market for granted, didn't put the work in to make it easier for devs and then had that market stolen from under their noses.

3 minutes ago, psolk said:

Why is the 2018 model MORE than the updated 2021? There is no justifiable business logic for that makes sense that I can rationalize.  

Answer: development cost.  Producing add-on scenery content isn't the same for both platforms.  More complex development paths cost more. AND also I don't think the P3D add-on market has properly adjusted yet to the new dynamic.  Things could still yet change. 

10 minutes ago, kevinfirth said:

Answer: development cost.  Producing add-on scenery content isn't the same for both platforms.  More complex development paths cost more. AND also I don't think the P3D add-on market has properly adjusted yet to the new dynamic.  Things could still yet change. 

Maybe but even if development costs were higher 3 years ago market prices are typically adjusted as newer versions appear.  The offset being hardware where it is more difficult to get old silicon and supplies but in a software world it is rare for older software with less functionality to cost more regardless of what it cost to develop it at the time.  2018 software is rarely more than 2021 unless it is rare, limited or hard to get which none of these are. 

I don't mind paying upgrade fees either.  As long as they are worthy updates.  I'm in a weird in between land.  I like airliners.  So I'm still waiting for my favorites in MSFS.  Obviously there are some amazing things about MSFS.  Some big improvements.  One thing I haven't noticed yet is an improvement in quality of addon airports.  The addon airports I've seen look no better in most cases than their P3D versions.  Some would tell me the reason is they are just ports.  I don't know the answer.  But I'm hoping we see airport scenery quality improve as I get ready to spend more time in my msfs cockpit than my p3d one. 

2 hours ago, Sparkrite said:

I would disagree with the above, usually in business :-

More customers = Higher demand = Increase in price.

Less customers = Lower demand = Decrease in price.

The problem here is that if you are trying to argue a traditional supply and demand situation, which by all accounts you are; it doesn't apply here. The "supply" be it an add-on plane, airport, scenery, etc. is a piece of software. It is created prior to it being sold at a fixed cost and as software once created it is an infinite quantity. The better way to look at this for pricing (and arguably what we're seeing with disparate pricing between simulators)  is more of a revenue optimization mindset. I can sell an airport in X simulator at $20 where I expect 1,000 purchases. I can sell the same airport in Y simulator for $10 where I expect 3,000 purchases. The cheaper product just produced 50% more revenue.

3 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

MSFS might look very pretty but there’s so much that still needs doing. I’m reluctant to buy something I still consider in beta with forced updates being a major disincentive.

Ray not to stray to far off the path of this thread, but I'm legitimately curious if you have purchased MSFS or not, and especially if so what still needs doing? Why are forced updates are a disincentive? Is roughly 10 years of free updates worse than paying $200 every few years for a legitimate incense?  I can certainly understand the lack of quality payware add-on planes at this point etc., but the fact the overall consumer market including a fair portion of the "hard-core" simmer segment has moved on is highly relevant to the issue of this thread. And I say the latter as a FSX holdout who understands a lot of what people are going through with P3D right now.

Edited November 2, 20214 yr by MrNuke