Another example of why flightsim is headed downhill

[Guest Lennyt]

>Hi Fred,>>personally, I'd say that hyperventilating posts like yours are>more responsible for reducing fun in our hobby than any>low-cost payware can do.>>You can rest assured that there are FS users, and probably>quite a few, who will get enjoyment out of Joe's package and>that is all that counts, isn't it? After all, the default>airports he worked on are pretty much barren. Also, I'm sure>he spent quite a bit of time on placing these objects and>that's what he would like to be compensated for. Last but not>least, do a search for Joe Watson in the AVSIM library and>you'll find 50 entries of freeware contributions of his dating>back to 2001. >>In any case, we're looking forward to *your* freeware airport>add-ons with full custom GMax models and high-res textures.>Something tells me though, that's not going to happen because>you seem to prefer watching this hobby die while having some>popcorn and yelling at the screen. Or what was the point of>your post?>>Cheers, HolgerOh nonsense Holger. I guess we should close up all consumer rating magazines. We should throw away all tech magazines, car magazines, etc. which regularly rate consumer products on value, worth, etc. on the basis that the ones doing the rating (consumers after all) should make those cars, home appliances, dvd players, etc. that they`re rating otherwise they can't give a viable opinion. It is nothing but elitism which suggests that consumers should buy and/or shut up. Sorry. Doesn't work that way and the FS market is no prima donna. Every consumer has a right and maybe an obligation to contribute to the pool of opinion regarding what THEY buy. The day you pay for the OP`s salary or pay for the purchase of his products then you can castigate his opinion in the fashion you did.:-)

[ahuimanu 50]

Gee,I dunno. It's a free market, let the buyer decide and leave it at that. If the product is a stinker, it is not the frist (nor the last) in the history of payware titles.Read "Zen and the art of motorcylce maintenance" if you want a good treatise on quality. Simply put, quality is subjective, elusive and internal. I don't know much about the title in question, but it is been chided here as lacking in quality and having a price exceeding its worth. That is for the market to decide; the market being a collection of individuals. If you don't like the wares, move on to the next stall. The guy isn't doing anything illegal after all.I wonder why you are vehemently trying to sway the market against this guy? I realize you say "to send a message," but I think the add-on in question is simply providing a product where a gap is perceived. Honestly, there isn't enough talent out there to have a quiver of "home runs" on every add-on outing. In payware there are average, above average and below average offerings and a market for each. Even if this title is a dog (I won't likely find out as the product doesn't interest me), every dog has it's day.The hobby, and the attendant markets, communities and otaku surrounding it, are certainly not going downhill. As John and Paul said: "It's getting better all the time - it can't get much worse.":-)J-

[Holger 0]

Hi Fred,well, "I of all people" retain the right to make up my own mind about an add-on, the character of its author, and the state of the add-on market and FS community as a whole. If you elect yourself to be spokesperson in all of these matters then you shouldn't be surprised that people talk about *you* rather than what you want them to talk about ;-)Anyway, no need to make this bigger as it is. Next time we'll try to focus on your topic of choice.Cheers, Holger

[Holger 0]

Hi Lennyt,those are good points except I don't think we're responding to the same post.If someone had told us that he had looked at a new payware add-on and found it to be both of poor quality and overprized then my response would indeed have been inappropriate. I fully agree that no one needs to be able to make payware in order to critique it and the same is true for freeware as well.However, the post I was responding to told us that there was a poor add-on, that therefore the developer is a bad person (lack of conscience), that this was further evidence that flightsim is "headed downhill", and hence Dec 21, 2007 was "a sad day for FS". That's not a consumer report it's an attempt at pre-empting discussion.Not sure about others but I prefer to decide for myself about all of these things. And if someone tells me that anyone can make this particular add-on and that it should be freeware then he shouldn't be surprised that I request proof in person.I also would like to think that in a community like ours, in which many developers provide both freeware and commercial add-ons, we can go a bit beyond basic consumer behavior and take the "larger record" of a developer into account. But perhaps that's just me being naive given that the absolute low point in this regard, at least in my mind, was the months-long furor about Pete Dowson making part of his FSUIPC payware. Maybe buying FS add-ons is the same as buying tooth paste...Anyhow, no need to blow this out of proportion either. I've spoken my piece and so have others. With that said I'm logging off for my Christmas break in a festive mood :-rotor Merry Christmas everyone and a happy and healthy New Year!Cheers, Holger

[Holger 0]

Hi J,great summary of the "issue", IMO, and much more eloquent and to the point than my posts. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.Cheers, Holger

[Tom Allensworth 1,532]

And with that, this thread is now locked.