Just Flight Bae 146 update

[Car147 2,279]

If you factor in all that's happening in the World today, what with household bills going through the roof, war, pandemic (it's still here believe it or not) I think a lot of people will find it hard to justify a high price on anything at the moment. Time will tell if this addon attracts as many as they hope for. $20 cheaper could make all the difference.

[wiler 394]

13 minutes ago, Car147 said:

If you factor in all that's happening in the World today, what with household bills going through the roof, war, pandemic (it's still here believe it or not) I think a lot of people will find it hard to justify a high price on anything at the moment. Time will tell if this addon attracts as many as they hope for. $20 cheaper could make all the difference.

How can JF justify $80 if PMDG comes out at a lower price point, which is what Randozzo has been hinting at for the base pack... It owuld be perposterous to pay $80 for a 146 from JF when a PMDG is maybe <$80.  Now if JF is selling like hotcakes(doubtful at $80) then maybe PMDG matches the $80 or evens goes higher... 

[Donka 645]

1 hour ago, wiler said:

How can JF justify $80 if PMDG comes out at a lower price point, which is what Randozzo has been hinting at for the base pack... It owuld be perposterous to pay $80 for a 146 from JF when a PMDG is maybe <$80.  Now if JF is selling like hotcakes(doubtful at $80) then maybe PMDG matches the $80 or evens goes higher... 

PMDG is looking at that for one variant. JF are selling 3 variants for this price. I'm not including the cargo or state variants as I believe PMDG will also include the cargo variant.

[honanhal 1,420]

2 hours ago, Ridvan Celik said:

I think what people are missing with this whole thing about lowering prices for MSFS aircraft because the market is bigger, is that the higher fidelity aircraft will have the same effect it did with people in P3D and FSX, intimidate the casual crowd. So I think pricing higher fidelity aircraft at a higher price point or similar to P3D/FSX prices is totally valid.

This is a classic self-fulfilling prophecy. Yeah, there’s absolutely no doubt that if you set a very high price for an addon (let’s just stipulate that “higher than the cost of the base sim” is a very high price) only people with either a strong interest in the plane or more disposable income than they know what to do with will buy it. And when the anemic sales figures duly come back, there will be a line of people here saying “see, this was a study level addon and only a few people bought it, which proves the study-level market is exactly the same (ie small) as it was with P3D. And that’s why developers are forced to price these study-level addons high, because their sales are low.”

You see the fallacy here? (Hint: what effect does increasing the price of a product have on expected sales?)

The real test of “can a study-level addon attract a lot of buyers?” is something aggressively priced like the Wing42 Boeing 247. That’s as niche as they come. If it now sells well — we’ll see — that will be strong evidence that pricing Is more likely to scare off purchasers than whether an addon is “study-level.”

James

[rick celik 1,243]

14 minutes ago, honanhal said:

This is a classic self-fulfilling prophecy. Yeah, there’s absolutely no doubt that if you set a very high price for an addon (let’s just stipulate that “higher than the cost of the base sim” is a very high price) only people with either a strong interest in the plane or more disposable income than they know what to do with will buy it. And when the anemic sales figures duly come back, there will be a line of people here saying “see, this was a study level addon and only a few people bought it, which proves the study-level market is exactly the same (ie small) as it was with P3D. And that’s why developers are forced to price these study-level addons high, because their sales are low.”

You see the fallacy here? (Hint: what effect does increasing the price of a product have on expected sales?)

The real test of “can a study-level addon attract a lot of buyers?” is something aggressively priced like the Wing42 Boeing 247. That’s as niche as they come. If it now sells well — we’ll see — that will be strong evidence that pricing Is more likely to scare off purchasers than whether an addon is “study-level.”

James

I understand what you're saying and I get it. But what I'm trying to point out here is that flight simulation is a very very different market. 

Being niche in a nice then selling a study level plane that's not all that popular anymore that's like niche in a niche in a niche in a niche... if you catch my drift? Realistically how many casual Toms are going to jump into it? How many hard core simmers will buy it? How many do they need to sell to make money on it? End of the day its a business and they aim to make money off it. I don't agree with over the top pricing, but I do agree on price management to get things right so that its one affordable for their target market and two profitable on their end. This is all IMO. 

Flight simulation like most other hobbies aren't cheap. 

Edited April 1, 2022 by Ridvan Celik

[honanhal 1,420]

5 minutes ago, Ridvan Celik said:

Being niche in a nice then selling a study level plane that's not all that popular anymore that's like niche in a niche in a niche in a niche... if you catch my drift? Realistically how many casual Toms are going to jump into it? How many hard core simmers will buy it?

I see what you’re saying, too. But I think you’d have to agree the proposition that very few people will buy a study-level plane, even if it’s priced low, hasn’t actually been tested (until the Wing42 product at least). Even the lower-than-expected prices we’ve seen, like the PMDG DC-6, have been baby steps, not an aggressive pricing strategy.

And the planned pricing for the Bae146 definitely won’t put that proposition to the test… (For whatever it’s worth, I’m reasonably interested in the BAE146 as an aircraft and what you’d probably call a “hardcore simmer,” but at this price point, I’m out. And I’m sure virtually no “casual simmers” will be in either.)

James

[Treetops45 1,082]

I think we are seeing a 'curated' release to create interest. (Videos from JF & hand picked pre-release reviewers)

At USD80 I would expect on release an aircraft that looks, sounds & flies like the real one, with a range of variants & liveries, & navigation & other systems that emulate those in the real aircraft.

& a good manual for the manual readers.

Some buyers will wait for post release reviews before purchasing.

T45

[bendead 1,085]

I really don't get this strategy, why not price a single variant around 50-55$, sell each other variants at 9-12$ a pop and still make available a bundle package at 80$

From a lot of forum, pricing seems to be an issue, why not making a cheaper entry level. Those already willing to pay 80$ would buy the bundle or a couple of variants they want, VIP and cargo for exemple, anyway.

 

[Bernard Ducret 790]

Inasmuch interest one may have in this plane, it will never match that of an Airbus or a Boeing largely represented in real world airlines, hence most of us would buy it to diversify our fleet for fun and/or learn a new airplane (several -  including myself - had previous versions in FSX and P3D, so this is not something totally new either). I agree that this package is far too big for most potential buyers, see PMDG offering only one version at a time of their B737 for MSFS when it is probably one of the most expected airliner for this platform.

So for an occasional flight, this is too many variants flown once in a while only. Hence an exorbitant cash outlay for something that will unlikely become your prime airliner. In every aspect this marketing approach is simply dead wrong and throwing this add-on market off track at probably the worst moment when most have to watch carefully before making a hobby expense which is arguably one of the first lines that one would cut or reduce in their budget nowadays.

Edited April 1, 2022 by Bernard Ducret

[Fiorentoni 4,228]

1 minute ago, Bernard Ducret said:

Inasmuch interest one may have in this plane, it will never match that of an Airbus or a Boeing largely represented in real world airlines, hence most of us would buy it to diversify our fleet for fun and/or learn a new airplane (several -  including myself - had previous versions in FSX and P3D, so this is not something totally new either). I agree that this package is far too big for most potential buyers, see PMDG offering only one version at a time of their B737 for MSFS when it is probably one of the most expected airliner for this platform.

So for an occasional flight, this is too many variants flown once in a while only. Hence an exorbitant cash outlay for something that will unlikely become your prime airliner. In every aspect this marketing approach is simply dead wrong and throwing this add-on market off track at probably the worst moment when everybody has to watch carefully before making a hobby expense which is arguably tone of the first line that one would cut or reduce nowadays.

You make it sound like the whole world was burning. I can guarantee you that not "everybody" has to watch carefully before making a hobby expense. I'd say most of the flight sim guys and even more most of the target group of the 146 will have no problem spending 80 dollars for an addon, at least financially. What will matter more is: Is it worth it? Will I fly it enough with the other planes on the market and the Fenix/Maddog/PMDG planes coming soon?
Apart from that expecting a developer to reduce his prices in a financial crisis is a rather strange concept of economics... it's usually the other way around, inflation will raise prices since the devs also have higher costs (electricity, hardware etc.) and need to remain profitable.
That said I'll probably not buy it for 80 dollars, but I might for 50-60 if it's really good and study level.

[Bernard Ducret 790]

36 minutes ago, Fiorentoni said:

You make it sound like the whole world was burning

Because you think it is not? Glad for you, you are lucky.

37 minutes ago, Fiorentoni said:

Apart from that expecting a developer to reduce his prices in a financial crisis is a rather strange concept of economics...

This is only one of the elements of my post, if you read it carefully, you cannot, in fairness, write what you did. Having managed a few companies worldwide in the past and gone through a number of crises of all kinds, I have a habit to put a market in its context as well and do not stop at the product on offer. So I do stand by my words.

[abrams_tank 7,423]

1 hour ago, Fiorentoni said:

Apart from that expecting a developer to reduce his prices in a financial crisis is a rather strange concept of economics... it's usually the other way around, inflation will raise prices since the devs also have higher costs (electricity, hardware etc.) and need to remain profitable.
That said I'll probably not buy it for 80 dollars, but I might for 50-60 if it's really good and study level.

I question whether you passed your introductory economics course.  In the case of Just Flight, revenue = # units sold x price per unit. As I mentioned before, because the BAe 146 is a digital copy of software, there is no extra production cost to sell an additional copy of the BAe 146. So if Just Flight wants to maximize their revenue, it's about maximizing that revenue function above, which is (# units sold x price per unit).  Inflation should have no bearing on Just Flight's pricing decision because like I said, there are no production costs to sell an extra copy of the BAe 146.  The only extra costs that Just Flight needs to consider is any support costs from each extra unit of the BAe 146 sold.  But the extra revenue Just Flight will make if they can maximize their revenue function will probably more than offset the extra support costs.

In addition, the demand curve for something like the BAe 146 for MSFS is definitely a concave demand curve. Being a concave demand curve (and not a linear demand curve), by lowering the price by $20 USD, the number of units sold could be double or triple, because it is a concave demand curve.  

For anyone getting into economics or starting a business, raising your price when you have no production costs to sell an extra unit is absolutely the wrong move to make.  You are not maximizing your revenue, period.  Raising your price is a valid strategy if the production costs of your good rises, but in the case of digital software like the BAe 146, there isn't really an increase in production cost for each additional unit of the BAe 146 sold.  And never, never, price your goods based on your fixed costs like electricity, this is a rookie mistake you can make as a business owner: https://impactpricing.com/blog/fixed-costs-matter-to-your-business-not-your-pricing/

 

 

Edited April 1, 2022 by abrams_tank

[Cpt_Piett 4,655]

1 hour ago, Fiorentoni said:

Will I fly it enough

I struggle with this. I spend most of my time in MSFS using only a few planes (FWB, Kodiak...). It takes time and effort to learn the systems and handling of various airplanes. The 146 seems interesting and fun - just not sure how much I end up using it to justify the price...

[Fiorentoni 4,228]

7 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

I question whether you passed your introductory economics course.  In the case of Just Flight, revenue = # units sold x price per unit. As I mentioned before, because the BAe 146 is a digital copy of software, there is no extra production cost to sell an additional copy of the BAe 146. So if Just Flight wants to maximize their revenue, it's about maximizing that revenue function above, which is (# units sold x price per unit).  Inflation should have no bearing on Just Flight's pricing decision because like I said, there are no production costs to sell an extra copy of the BAe 146.  The only extra costs that Just Flight needs to consider is any support costs from each extra unit of the BAe 146 sold.  But the extra revenue Just Flight will make if they can maximize their revenue function will probably more than offset the extra support costs.

For anyone getting into economics or starting a business, raising your price when you have no production costs to sell an extra unit is absolutely the wrong move to make.  You are not maximizing your revenue, period.  Raising your price is a valid strategy if the production costs of your good rises, but in the case of digital software like the BAe 146, there isn't really an increase in production cost for each additional unit of the BAe 146 sold.

 

 

You are right on that, didn't think about software as a special case.
Anyway we can agree that they - like any other company - will try to maximize revenue and set the price according to that. You maybe think like Bernard that they need to adapt their pricing to an economic crisis by lowering it - I'd disagree, since flight sims and especially study level add ons are hardly something the poor commoner will use (generally speaking). I never met a flight sim dev doing anything like that, and there were some crisis in the last 20 years. Pricing influences a lot of factors (and is influenced by those viceversa), short and long term. I'd think JustFlight knows what they are doing?
EDIT: Again I'm not necessarily defending their pricing, for me personnally it's too high as I already said.

Edited April 1, 2022 by Fiorentoni

[abrams_tank 7,423]

4 minutes ago, Fiorentoni said:

You are right on that, didn't think about software as a special case.
Anyway we can agree that they - like any other company - will try to maximize revenue and set the price according to that. You maybe think like Bernard that they need to adapt their pricing to an economic crisis by lowering it - I'd disagree, since flight sims and especially study level add ons are hardly something the poor commoner will use (generally speaking). I never met a flight sim dev doing anything like that, and there were some crisis in the last 20 years. Pricing influences a lot of factors (and is influenced by those viceversa), short and long term. I'd think JustFlight knows what they are doing?
EDIT: Again I'm not necessarily defending their pricing, for me personnally it's too high as I already said.

No.  They need to adapt their pricing model to maximize their revenue.  And revenue = # units sold x price per unit.  Even in an economic crisis, there is still an optimal price to maximize that revenue function.

Also, you don't set your price based on your fixed costs like electricity. Fixed costs like electricity should never be a factor in a business's pricing decision: https://impactpricing.com/blog/fixed-costs-matter-to-your-business-not-your-pricing/