Jump to content

  •  


   
Where Flight Simulation Enthusiasts Gather from Around the World!

HOT SPOTS:
 rarrow.gif The 2014 Demographic Survey! - NEW!

rarrow.gif What's new in the Library

rarrow.gif Member Blogs

rarrow.gif Member Reviews - Contribute a Review!
rarrow.gif Bargain Hunters Forum
rarrow.gif Classified, Want, Swap Ads

rarrow.gif AVSIM Team Speak System

rarrow.gif Video Library
rarrow.gif Image Gallery
rarrow.gif Community Links Library
rarrow.gif Tutorials

rarrow.gif FS9. FSX & P3D CTD Guide

rarrow.gif FSX / P3D Configuration Guide

rarrow.gif AVSIM Publications 



Simulation's Premier Resource!

AVSIM is a free service to the flight and simulation communities. Please help us keep it that way. Donate what you can today! Thank you for your support!











. . .
Photo
- - - - -

CaptainSim reviews.


  • Please log in to reply
37 replies to this topic

#16 mgh

mgh

    Member - 5,000+

  • Members
  • 7,392 posts
  • Joined 10 Years, 3 Months and 15 Days Ago.

Posted 04 June 2009 - 08:19 AM

All I'll say is this, when a payware title costs more than a PC game that just got released that week, something is severely wrong.

What title - what game?

Gerry Howard


Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

#17 Tim_Capps

Tim_Capps

    Bearrister & Aviator

  • Members
  • 953 posts
  • Joined 5 Years, 3 Months and 3 Days Ago.

Posted 04 June 2009 - 12:04 PM

With 78% of the earth's population buying Wads of Warmongering and 80% buying Sims so they can find entertaining ways to murder tiny people in swimming pools and burning kitchens with no way out (at least my kids do; should I be concerned?) they can probably get rich selling products at a relatively low price. Flight Simmers are up there with DNA matches, e.g. 1 in 6 trillion, and .000002% of those will ever buy an addon airplane.So they have to charge more to make a living at it. I don't see anything wrong with this at all. It's just economcs. I don't know how many flight sim developers have real private jets and country houses on the Amalfi coast, but it can't be more than a few.The pleasure per dollar for a good quality sim is pretty high if you fly it much.As for reviewing developers, I don't care about that when I read a review of a particular airplane. Maybe Sucky Airplanes, Ltd.has produced a gem for once. Maybe Can Do No Wrong, Inc. blew it on a particular title. Support is probably a legitimate issue for a review, and so does the return policy. Beyond that is gossip. Besides, companies change. We have seen well respected companies disappear off the face of the earth. Others seem to learn from mistakes and make efforts to change.If you pay $60 for an add-on you don't like from a company you don't trust and it ruins your month, maybe you should take up a more predictable hobby like bowling. "Rolls-Rite 300 ball is a cube I want my money back" is sometimg you just don't see very often.I always take the view that no one sets out to make a bad product. Sometimes cash flow issues tempt companies into a premature release, and it takes some patching before it realizes it's potential. That may be less than ideal, but is not unusual in this hobby.

519l.jpg

 

Bicentennial Pilot: Captain Sim L1011, 737-200; Flight 1 / Coolsky DC-9

Class, Not Glass: 1976 and the NO SMOKING Light is OFF


#18 Peter Clemenko

Peter Clemenko

    Member

  • Members
  • 683 posts
  • Joined 6 Years, 1 Month and 5 Days Ago.

Posted 04 June 2009 - 12:44 PM

What title - what game?

Any title.... The fact is, that payware is cost prohibitive. I myself am a 19 year old college student, I can't afford to drop a ton of cash on an addon, especially with the economy as bad as it is. It's almost impossible for me to find a job, even at mcdonalds in this economy. Top that off with the fact that things such as ArmA 2 and Rise of Flight are coming out soon for 40 dollars each, and even things such as DCS Black Shark only costs 40 now, and you can see where I have a problem with an addon aircraft being the cost of 2 whole new sims. Younger people are a lot tighter on money than older people, and payware developers only seem to think about people who have decent jobs, not those of us who are young and struggling to get by. The price needs to change on payware, as when you can buy a whole new sim that only just got released, or is for pre-order, for 40 dollars, and the average price of payware seems to be above 50, something is seriously screwed.While I believe the payware devs deserve to make a living, they also need to keep it affordable for the younger simmers.Oh, and for the record, AVSIM reviewers don't get paid (at least I don't...)... When people complain about reviewers... remember this, we don't see a dime of that ad money the developers put toward advertising on the site, we don't get paid at all, our only compensation is that we get to keep any software we review (and rarely if ever the hardware).

Peter Clemenko III
Former AVSIM Staff Reviewer
All posts on the fourm are my own, and not representative of AVSIM.

PFE Expansion voice actor

"Solving new problems is what keeps us moving forward as individuals and as a society, so don't back down." Garry Kasparov
I do what I believe is right, not what is popular.


#19 Tim_Capps

Tim_Capps

    Bearrister & Aviator

  • Members
  • 953 posts
  • Joined 5 Years, 3 Months and 3 Days Ago.

Posted 04 June 2009 - 02:15 PM

Peter, I'm 51 years old and have worked all my life at many jobs that suck, served in both the Army and the Navy, endured law school and many obnoxious clients, lawyers and judges, and can barely walk due to a bad back.But yeah, I can afford add-ons :( . Consider it one of the compensations for the prospects of inevitable decline and impending death that comes with getting older. Put that way, does it sound so bad? :( Anyway, please do consider the role economics play in trying to run a profitable business selling a product almost nobody wants, no matter how good it is.I would trade the inability to buy add-ons to be 19 again (with 51 years of experience, of course; otherwise, no way). Not to make light of your frustrations, because I would like to see dedicated simmers enjoy all the wonderful products that are available, but companies will charge what the market will bear, and what they need to make per unit to stay afloat. Comparing a flight-sim add-on to a mainstream entertainment product is really apples to organges.I agree that at some point, people are going to balk. I think all of us have our expectations about what is fair to pay for an add-on, and it is a heck of a lot higher today than it was a few years ago without necessarily the same degree of improvement. I don't know how much is nostalgia and how much is fact, but when I think of products like the Ready for Pushback 747, and PSS' Concorde, I remember them as pretty darned good. On the other hand, we're starting to get it pretty good in FSX, too, with the promise of much more to come.Even worse, some devious companies put their prices in Euros instead of good old U.S. dollars, and who knows how much you're actually paying in this silly Belgian Monopoly money that is all the fad in the Old World. I think the Euro was invented just to get Americans to pay more for flight sim add-ons than they otherwise would tolerate, because 40 Euros sounds reasonable and then it turns out it is like 800 dollars or something on your credit card statement.

519l.jpg

 

Bicentennial Pilot: Captain Sim L1011, 737-200; Flight 1 / Coolsky DC-9

Class, Not Glass: 1976 and the NO SMOKING Light is OFF


#20 Inactive Member_Astradan_***

Inactive Member_Astradan_***
  • Guests
  • Joined 44 Years, 7 Months and 28 Days Ago.

Posted 04 June 2009 - 05:53 PM

It isn't just about age Peter - you're looking at things purely from your vantage point - experience says that when you do this, well.... the world never seems to fit your needs. :( Then again, I was the same at 19.As for not getting paid as Reviewers, well this is not strictly true - we get a free copy of every add-on that we review. So if you want more add-ons for free, get more reviews in! :( D.

#21 Peter Clemenko

Peter Clemenko

    Member

  • Members
  • 683 posts
  • Joined 6 Years, 1 Month and 5 Days Ago.

Posted 04 June 2009 - 08:27 PM

It isn't just about age Peter - you're looking at things purely from your vantage point - experience says that when you do this, well.... the world never seems to fit your needs. :( Then again, I was the same at 19.As for not getting paid as Reviewers, well this is not strictly true - we get a free copy of every add-on that we review. So if you want more add-ons for free, get more reviews in! :( D.

LOL.... true that, however about my supposedly comparing mainstream games to fs addons, no I don't do that, I compare full on simulator prices to sim addons. ArmA 2 is a Infantry Sim, DCS Black Shark is a KA-50 Combat Flight Sim, and Rise of Flight is a WWI Combat Flight Sim. All in all, not necessarily comparing apples to oranges. The biggest issue I take with the pricing though is that it discourages people from being honest. Think of this, would someone who is younger and not able to afford as much rather drop the money they could spend on 2 games on an addon, or would they spend the money on the two games, and pirate the addons. I know a LOT of people are going to balk at what I just said, but it's what normally happens nowadays. I myself believe in paying the developers for good work, I believe in the fairness of compensation for work, however I don't believe that charging as much as they do is nessasairly the answer. Think of this, it's quite possible that if prices were to go down, more younger people would be willing to buy the products. That would in turn actually increase profit because less people would ether pirate or go without. Sometimes you have to balance the price with the volume sold. It's pretty obvious that people will pirate no matter what, however when you lower the price to something which the younger crowd can afford, there will be less piracy in the first place. I personally believe that if I were to pirate, it would just karma me in the end, as I intend on becoming a software programmer myself once I'm out of college (hell right now I have some ideas already for games to make), and I believe that what goes around comes around, the less you pirate, the less chance you have of your stuff getting stolen when you release work. You have to remember however, that the younger crowd doesn't necessarily think with their brains, and as such, we tend to do stupid stuff (I just spent my first year of college perusing a major that turned out not to be for me, when I should have switched from visual communications to computer programming right after i saw my grades drop from my not being neat enough...) The problem becomes, most younger people will see the 80 dollar price tag on a single aircraft and go "hmmm, I could buy 2 of the latest games for that one aircraft, maybe I don't need to buy it...." In the end, I believe that even though the devs should make a profit, they should also try to incorporate the WHOLE community, rather than just the well to do portion. Personally, while I respect all of your opinions on this, I have to say, that I believe that the best way to prevent piracy in general is to not charge so much for a single addon, and that winds up benefiting EVERYONE in the end. Less cease and desists sent out by the ISP, less profit lost by the devs, and more people can enjoy flight simulation the way it was meant to be. I myself am heavy on Combat Simulators in general, and as such, I prefer genuine combat sims compared to a FSX addon. One thing I have learned, is that FSX will NEVER be able to truly simulate combat aircraft correctly, and as such, I try to stick to civilian flight in FSX. If I want to fly a combat aircraft, I fly a CFS. If I want a shooter, I don't go with COD4, I go with ArmA, and if I want to fly civilian aircraft, well that's where X-Plane and FSX come in. I know I'm going to catch a LOT of flak for my statements just now about piracy, however I can't count the number of times where I have seen people say they will just pirate it because it's too expensive. It's the same reason people pirate the various high end development tools like photoshop and 3ds max, they can't afford it. I feel that developers should make a profit, however they have yet to hit that sweet spot for the pricing, especially when something like DCS is 40 dollars when it hits retail shelves. And before anyone says I'm comparing apples to oranges on the DCS comparison, I dare you to download the manuals off the DCS page.... That is when you will read the 500+ pages of how to operate the sim and have your jaw slacked.... I personally do support developers, however they need to actually get the pricing down. I can't validate paying 80 dollars for an MD-11 addon for FSX when I can get an equally in-depth simulation of a KA-50 which is a stand alone combat sim for 40, and then getting in addition to that the most advanced commercially available infantry sim for 40 dollars too.... It's not so much comparing apples to oranges when you actually try the various things I'm talking about. Personally, 95% of the time, I avoid mainstream crap... The few exceptions include things such as Fallout 3, the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. series, and things like that. Other than a few select mainstream games, all of my gaming funds goes to simulations and hardware for using my simulations. I also take serious offense to people expecting me to be talking about just mainstream games, as 90% of the time, I'm looking ether for simulations, or the most complex strategy games I can find. (Stuff like Hearts of Iron and Harpoon, not C&C.....)... The world of simulation goes far beyond FSX... There are all kinds of sims out there, and FSX if you ask me is actually overrated.... If you ask me, MS really screwed the pooch in the development of FSX. They should have focused on support of ALL new hardware technologies, rather than just trying to maintain reverse compatibility. That is one of the main reasons why I avoid FSX when I can, because even with my rig, it still is slow as molasses. 90% of my simming can be narrowed down to these sims: ArmA, X-Plane 9, DCS Black Shark, Falcon 4.0, Vehicle Simulator, and rFactor.To sum it all up, my personal belief is that the reason simming has declined compared to what it was is just that people are intimidated, and the world has been dumbed down by consoles. The best way to combat this is to keep it to the point where anyone can get into it, not just the wealthy. That's my personal belief on how to SAVE the flight simulation genre. The genre is just too intimidating for newcomers, they ether get sticker shock, or they expect everything to play like Ace Combat, and then are met with intimidating responses when asking questions. And 90% of the time the responses aren't even meant to be offensive, it's just that the terms used are things that the person doesn't understand at their level of experience.

Peter Clemenko III
Former AVSIM Staff Reviewer
All posts on the fourm are my own, and not representative of AVSIM.

PFE Expansion voice actor

"Solving new problems is what keeps us moving forward as individuals and as a society, so don't back down." Garry Kasparov
I do what I believe is right, not what is popular.


#22 Tim_Capps

Tim_Capps

    Bearrister & Aviator

  • Members
  • 953 posts
  • Joined 5 Years, 3 Months and 3 Days Ago.

Posted 04 June 2009 - 11:39 PM

I'm glad you didn't take offense at any of my ribbing or opinions.One thing you're missing, though, is that younger people who really want to get into flight simulator don't have to buy an $80 add-on. FSX has some really nice airplanes and a lot of challenges, especially with some of the console-type missions. When I remember what FSX has out of the box and try out something like the Acceleration carrier missions, that is some pretty cool stuff even for an jaded old simmer. Heck, even saving the freakin' baby rhino is a challenge and has sort of an interesting plot. So compare your one-trick pony type of games with an open-ended complete and realistic world of flying without add-on one, and I don't think we're seeing entry price as the obstacle. Even among add-ons, there are some very nice ones, especially for beginners, that don't cost an arm and a leg. Most young people are not going to want a complex MD-11, anyway. Let's face it, those are premium products, and some people are going to want them that don't have the disposable income. That's just life.And how are these poor kids who can't afford an $80 MD-11 going to afford the computer good enough to run it right?"The greying of [insert hobby here]" is a frequent topic of discussion all over. It doesn't matter if it is miniatures wargaming, model railroading, or flight simulation, it seems that younger people just aren't interested in dad's hobbies. I have three sons, 19, 19, and 24. I finally got one of them to make a serious effort at learning to do touch and gos with the default Cessna at our local field, but I don't think it will stick. Consoles are part of the reason. I am continually amazed out how much more I know about computers than my kids. It should be the other way around. But to them, computer game memories are of side-scrollers or the First Wing Commander, or Doom. And of dad going nuts trying to get computers to work :-) (Come to think of it, that's not so much a memory as a daily occurence.) Games = consoles, like it or not. I think maybe some of this thinking was behind Microsoft's decision re: FS.But then there is WoW. If you're an average young male, why would want to take the trouble of poring over boring manuals when you can be Ragnorak the 20th Level Weapons Master in a semi-social environment that provides a continuous stream of instant gratification and rewards. But I bet if you had to tweak and sweat and get frustrated to get WoW to run on a computer like we do, WoW would be a flop. I almost added "too." But I don't think we're a flop. Yet. But we can't shoot things, or blow them up, and we're pretty much limited to people who are already interested in aviation for whatever reason.I don't know the answer, and I'm glad my livelihood doesn't depend on it. I'm in the criminal justice system. There will always be crime, and every year more things are made illegal. Maybe the idea of flying just isn't as exciting now. People are used to cattle-class with no amenities and taking their shoes off for the TSA folks. I grew up in "The Jet Age." I remember reading about this huge new airplane called the 747 in the Weekly Reader. I saw my big brother off to the Navy in a TWA DC-3 from the local airport. I had the pleasure later of riding many different kinds of military transport, including helos across trackless sea to land on an impossibly small helo pads. In other words, aviation has always had hold of my imagination.It may mean other things in this day and age.Even so, look at all the kids in the VAs. There's still interest there. And I wonder if flight simulation is doing better in countries other than the US, as a percentage of population. My guess would be yes. The non-US developers would seem to indicate that, too.

519l.jpg

 

Bicentennial Pilot: Captain Sim L1011, 737-200; Flight 1 / Coolsky DC-9

Class, Not Glass: 1976 and the NO SMOKING Light is OFF


#23 Peter Clemenko

Peter Clemenko

    Member

  • Members
  • 683 posts
  • Joined 6 Years, 1 Month and 5 Days Ago.

Posted 05 June 2009 - 12:11 AM

One thing you're missing, though, is that younger people who really want to get into flight simulator don't have to buy an $80 add-on. FSX has some really nice airplanes and a lot of challenges, especially with some of the console-type missions. When I remember what FSX has out of the box and try out something like the Acceleration carrier missions, that is some pretty cool stuff even for an jaded old simmer. Heck, even saving the freakin' baby rhino is a challenge and has sort of an interesting plot. So compare your one-trick pony type of games with an open-ended complete and realistic world of flying without add-on one, and I don't think we're seeing entry price as the obstacle. Even among add-ons, there are some very nice ones, especially for beginners, that don't cost an arm and a leg. Most young people are not going to want a complex MD-11, anyway. Let's face it, those are premium products, and some people are going to want them that don't have the disposable income. That's just life.And how are these poor kids who can't afford an $80 MD-11 going to afford the computer good enough to run it right?

touche, good points... However I must remind you of this, 90% of the time, these kids who do want it and can't afford it will just pirate it... The best option IMHO is to make it affordable, and then if they decide they don't like it, then they can get a refund.... Pull the licence key, make it useless... As far as my using the MD-11 as an example, it was just that, one example. There are at least dozens if not hundreds more things guilty of the same issue the PMDG aircraft have regarding pricing. It's not just about the MD-11, it's about payware in general. Admittedly, most people won't have the comp for it, however those who are running flight sim in the first place may very well be able to handle it, especially considering how cheap comps are nowadays. Perfect example, I could build a comp that could run FSX easily for less than 1000 bucks if I bought the needed parts online. The main issue is that the various payware addons are priced so high that it encourages people to pirate it. The fact is the best way to prevent piracy if you ask me is to drop the price and institute a fair refund policy. A lot of people pirate things because they can't afford them or they don't want to buy it without trying it first. A good demo and a refund policy, along with cutting prices would go a LONG way to stop piracy.Oh, and regarding calling things like DCS and ArmA 2 one trick ponies, I recommend you try them before you call them that, you might be in for a shock....

"The greying of [insert hobby here]" is a frequent topic of discussion all over. It doesn't matter if it is miniatures wargaming, model railroading, or flight simulation, it seems that younger people just aren't interested in dad's hobbies. I have three sons, 19, 19, and 24. I finally got one of them to make a serious effort at learning to do touch and gos with the default Cessna at our local field, but I don't think it will stick. Consoles are part of the reason. I am continually amazed out how much more I know about computers than my kids. It should be the other way around. But to them, computer game memories are of side-scrollers or the First Wing Commander, or Doom. And of dad going nuts trying to get computers to work :-) (Come to think of it, that's not so much a memory as a daily occurence.) Games = consoles, like it or not. I think maybe some of this thinking was behind Microsoft's decision re: FS.

Yup, the consoles have dumbed down the nation, and it shows, a lot of people now only want COD4, and not real interesting things.

But then there is WoW. If you're an average young male, why would want to take the trouble of poring over boring manuals when you can be Ragnorak the 20th Level Weapons Master in a semi-social environment that provides a continuous stream of instant gratification and rewards. But I bet if you had to tweak and sweat and get frustrated to get WoW to run on a computer like we do, WoW would be a flop. I almost added "too." But I don't think we're a flop. Yet. But we can't shoot things, or blow them up, and we're pretty much limited to people who are already interested in aviation for whatever reason.

let's just remember that when wow's major community sites get trashed it doesn't make the BBC! Also, remember this, WOW is something where you don't want to be part of that community, I've seen enough of that community to tell you this, it's full of fubar things, including pervs, nutjobs, and addicts....Oh, and WOW isn't instant gratification, it's probably the worst grind you could ever imagine. You literally get quests like "go kill 500 boars" and you keep getting those quests until you reach the level cap, which takes at least a year if you play it non-stop.

I don't know the answer, and I'm glad my livelihood doesn't depend on it. I'm in the criminal justice system. There will always be crime, and every year more things are made illegal. Maybe the idea of flying just isn't as exciting now. People are used to cattle-class with no amenities and taking their shoes off for the TSA folks. I grew up in "The Jet Age." I remember reading about this huge new airplane called the 747 in the Weekly Reader. I saw my big brother off to the Navy in a TWA DC-3 from the local airport. I had the pleasure later of riding many different kinds of military transport, including helos across trackless sea to land on an impossibly small helo pads. In other words, aviation has always had hold of my imagination.It may mean other things in this day and age.Even so, look at all the kids in the VAs. There's still interest there. And I wonder if flight simulation is doing better in countries other than the US, as a percentage of population. My guess would be yes. The non-US developers would seem to indicate that, too.

Very good point, however you have to remember, that things such as just the fact that we are now in an age where flight is just all too common is just killing the wonder of flight for a lot of people. Then there are those who think that flight is just like Ace Combat, and don't want to actually learn how to actually do anything other than instant gratification.All in all, this is what I like about AVSIM, it's a nice place for intelligent debate (it's one of the few places on the internet where things don't always get out of hand when there's a disagreement....). I really do appreciate a good debate every once in a while. And this is a very good intellectual exercise. I can only hope the other participants applicate this kind of debate the same way I do...

Peter Clemenko III
Former AVSIM Staff Reviewer
All posts on the fourm are my own, and not representative of AVSIM.

PFE Expansion voice actor

"Solving new problems is what keeps us moving forward as individuals and as a society, so don't back down." Garry Kasparov
I do what I believe is right, not what is popular.


#24 Tim_Capps

Tim_Capps

    Bearrister & Aviator

  • Members
  • 953 posts
  • Joined 5 Years, 3 Months and 3 Days Ago.

Posted 05 June 2009 - 01:29 AM

I have thought about the piracy argument. (Remember, I defend criminals for a living, although never pirates. People do far worse things with computers these days and it is unbelievably common, but that's another story.)I respectfully invite you to consider whether that is a valid argument, and the unintended consequences of it.I doubt many users of pirated add-ons, especially high-end ones, would be buyers, anyway. In other words, the number of pirated copies torrented does not necessarily equal the revenue lost to the company.We can actually turn this discussion back on topic :( The attitude expressed by the original poster shows a contempt for at least some payware developers. While in no way making any associations to the OP and piracy, it seems clear enough to me that if there is widespread sentiment that payware companies are ripping us off, or gouging us, you then have a ready-made justification for piracy. Charge $80 for this? That's practically stealing. If they're going to be unreasonable, then they deserve what they get, and using a pirated copy isn't a big deal.Pirated copies of movies are pretty common, and don't generate much morale outrage. Why? Because people figure big companies make a lot of money and it isn't really stealing. Would most of the people that watch a pirated movie go into Best Buy and shoplift the same thing? Nope. Moreover, we do not intuitively or morally "get" this whole license concept. I have to go through ridiculous gyrations to make legitimate use of music I paid for from iTunes if I want to transfer "my" music from my iPod to my computer. But I don't own that music, so it isn't really mine, and I'm bound by whatever stupid restrictions Apple builds into their system. Frankly, that frustrates and even angers me. I pay a lot of money for Vista, ("The OS That Hates Software!") but I don't "own" it. I merely have paid for the privilege of using it. If I could get a working copy of Vista for free, illegally, I might think, "Bill Gates doesn't need the money, and $190 for his crap OS isn't worth it."All the dough I've shelled out for add-ons? I don't own a single one. I have merely agreed to pay for the temporary use of a program on my hardware. I can't sell it on Ebay when I'm bored with it because I never owned it to begin with. I can't even give it away to Peter because I feel sorry for him not having a wonderful MD-11 I don't even fly that much because I'm afraid I'll get it dirty :-) (That's how opinions differ. I value Captain Sim because man, those cockpits have been through a lot, and if I get my MCU keys sticky because I'm eating chocolate chip cookies during preflight, who cares?) How many people read those license agreements we solemnly swear we have read, understood and agreed to every time we install a piece of software? Nobody. Because we don't have a choice.We don't think about these things, but people expect to "own" something when they buy it. Anything else is not natural. In fact, a computer+internet creates a moral disconnect that I see every day, and airplane piracy is the least of it, believe me.Ultimately, the license model is a problem. It is not natural and people will never feel anything but resentment toward it. Ever since Thag traded some pretty seashells for a bigger club, humans have believed they own what they pay for.So my point is, piracy is bad and hurts the bottom line of the people who give us so much pleasure with the products they create. But when we complain about the money they charge, we unwittingly create a climate where people are going to feel even more justified "stickin' it to the man." That's one reason I don't like to see company-bashing and will often be seen standing up for companies everybody loves to hate. (I'm not implying that's what you were doing.) Like I've said before, the people making payware are, with some few exceptions I'm not going to name, by and large trying to do something they can be proud of, and that people will like.As an aside, I think Ariane's rolling out "India Knight" was a stroke of brilliance. When they talk about their new customer-friendly policies, it isn't a statement from some faceless company. It's "I'm India Knight, and I want to share with you the changes we're making here at Ariane." Is there really an India Knight, or is she / he like Dos Equis beer's "Most Interesting Man in the World" spokesman. (Great and very effective ads, by the way. I think they should have India Knight saying: "I don't always fly payware, but when I do, I fly Ariane. Three greens, friends.") If you think about companies that are liked, don't they tend to be associated with a named individual? If I say PMDG, what name comes to mind? Or Coolsky? Now how about Captain Sim? Notice the difference? Oooh, Ariane? They want it to be India Kilo, er, Knight, not You Know Who. It may seem contrived, but I like it anyway.This gets back to my point that when you complain about some faceless company, anything is justified. That's why the prosecutor ALWAYS calls my client "the defendant," and I ALWAYS call him "Bob." In death penalty cases we spend upwards of two million dollars (that's right) part of it just to get juries to see the defendant as a human being. So they won't kill him. I bet if the OP sat down and had a few shots of vodka with whoever is behind Captain Sim, he would never, ever come on a forum and say these kinds of things. (Besides if you keep buying products you think are crap, I mean, what the heck? I really laugh out loud about that one.)Finally, before the hack, I would have believed the flight sim community as such would not have harbored pirates. After seeing the truly despicable innuendo that passed for "fair comment" and people actually having the guts to come onto the temp forum and defend under their real names, nothing would surprise me.Wow, what a ramble.

519l.jpg

 

Bicentennial Pilot: Captain Sim L1011, 737-200; Flight 1 / Coolsky DC-9

Class, Not Glass: 1976 and the NO SMOKING Light is OFF


#25 Peter Clemenko

Peter Clemenko

    Member

  • Members
  • 683 posts
  • Joined 6 Years, 1 Month and 5 Days Ago.

Posted 05 June 2009 - 02:00 AM

I have thought about the piracy argument. (Remember, I defend criminals for a living, although never pirates. People do far worse things with computers these days and it is unbelievably common, but that's another story.)I respectfully invite you to consider whether that is a valid argument, and the unintended consequences of it.I doubt many users of pirated add-ons, especially high-end ones, would be buyers, anyway. In other words, the number of pirated copies torrented does not necessarily equal the revenue lost to the company.We can actually turn this discussion back on topic :( The attitude expressed by the original poster shows a contempt for at least some payware developers. While in no way making any associations to the OP and piracy, it seems clear enough to me that if there is widespread sentiment that payware companies are ripping us off, or gouging us, you then have a ready-made justification for piracy. Charge $80 for this? That's practically stealing. If they're going to be unreasonable, then they deserve what they get, and using a pirated copy isn't a big deal.Pirated copies of movies are pretty common, and don't generate much morale outrage. Why? Because people figure big companies make a lot of money and it isn't really stealing. Would most of the people that watch a pirated movie go into Best Buy and shoplift the same thing? Nope. Moreover, we do not intuitively or morally "get" this whole license concept. I have to go through ridiculous gyrations to make legitimate use of music I paid for from iTunes if I want to transfer "my" music from my iPod to my computer. But I don't own that music, so it isn't really mine, and I'm bound by whatever stupid restrictions Apple builds into their system. Frankly, that frustrates and even angers me. I pay a lot of money for Vista, ("The OS That Hates Software!") but I don't "own" it. I merely have paid for the privilege of using it. If I could get a working copy of Vista for free, illegally, I might think, "Bill Gates doesn't need the money, and $190 for his crap OS isn't worth it."All the dough I've shelled out for add-ons? I don't own a single one. I have merely agreed to pay for the temporary use of a program on my hardware. I can't sell it on Ebay when I'm bored with it because I never owned it to begin with. I can't even give it away to Peter because I feel sorry for him not having a wonderful MD-11 I don't even fly that much because I'm afraid I'll get it dirty :-) (That's how opinions differ. I value Captain Sim because man, those cockpits have been through a lot, and if I get my MCU keys sticky because I'm eating chocolate chip cookies during preflight, who cares?) How many people read those license agreements we solemnly swear we have read, understood and agreed to every time we install a piece of software? Nobody. Because we don't have a choice.We don't think about these things, but people expect to "own" something when they buy it. Anything else is not natural. In fact, a computer+internet creates a moral disconnect that I see every day, and airplane piracy is the least of it, believe me.Ultimately, the license model is a problem. It is not natural and people will never feel anything but resentment toward it. Ever since Thag traded some pretty seashells for a bigger club, humans have believed they own what they pay for.So my point is, piracy is bad and hurts the bottom line of the people who give us so much pleasure with the products they create. But when we complain about the money they charge, we unwittingly create a climate where people are going to feel even more justified "stickin' it to the man." That's one reason I don't like to see company-bashing and will often be seen standing up for companies everybody loves to hate. (I'm not implying that's what you were doing.) Like I've said before, the people making payware are, with some few exceptions I'm not going to name, by and large trying to do something they can be proud of, and that people will like.As an aside, I think Ariane's rolling out "India Knight" was a stroke of brilliance. When they talk about their new customer-friendly policies, it isn't a statement from some faceless company. It's "I'm India Knight, and I want to share with you the changes we're making here at Ariane." Is there really an India Knight, or is she / he like Dos Equis beer's "Most Interesting Man in the World" spokesman. (Great and very effective ads, by the way. I think they should have India Knight saying: "I don't always fly payware, but when I do, I fly Ariane. Three greens, friends.") If you think about companies that are liked, don't they tend to be associated with a named individual? If I say PMDG, what name comes to mind? Or Coolsky? Now how about Captain Sim? Notice the difference? Oooh, Ariane? They want it to be India Kilo, er, Knight, not You Know Who. It may seem contrived, but I like it anyway.This gets back to my point that when you complain about some faceless company, anything is justified. That's why the prosecutor ALWAYS calls my client "the defendant," and I ALWAYS call him "Bob." In death penalty cases we spend upwards of two million dollars (that's right) part of it just to get juries to see the defendant as a human being. So they won't kill him. I bet if the OP sat down and had a few shots of vodka with whoever is behind Captain Sim, he would never, ever come on a forum and say these kinds of things. (Besides if you keep buying products you think are crap, I mean, what the heck? I really laugh out loud about that one.)Finally, before the hack, I would have believed the flight sim community as such would not have harbored pirates. After seeing the truly despicable innuendo that passed for "fair comment" and people actually having the guts to come onto the temp forum and defend under their real names, nothing would surprise me.Wow, what a ramble.

I actually do agree with you, the people who do go and bash the payware devs as the OP did do need to at least get a chance to realize that the person they are bashing is human too... No one is perfect, and the guys over at CS, I have a lot of respect for, because they actually put out DEMOS of their aircraft, something which MORE devs should do. And I agree, most of the time, if the person had a drink with the person they were bashing, they would find out they weren't so bad after all. It's all about realizing the other person is a human, just like you.and this part made me laugh:

All the dough I've shelled out for add-ons? I don't own a single one. I have merely agreed to pay for the temporary use of a program on my hardware. I can't sell it on Ebay when I'm bored with it because I never owned it to begin with. I can't even give it away to Peter because I feel sorry for him not having a wonderful MD-11 I don't even fly that much because I'm afraid I'll get it dirty :-) (That's how opinions differ. I value Captain Sim because man, those cockpits have been through a lot, and if I get my MCU keys sticky because I'm eating chocolate chip cookies during preflight, who cares?) How many people read those license agreements we solemnly swear we have read, understood and agreed to every time we install a piece of software? Nobody. Because we don't have a choice.

Me, the last thing I ever want is pity, I personally have to deal with being patronized every day of my damn life I have had enough of it... It always annoyed the hell out of me at school when people would treat me different. One thing people don't realize is that, I personally, while I don't think companies should charge as much as they do, and while i rarely if ever agree with the way the EULAs are written, it all comes down to treating the other party the same way you would want to be treated. The golden rule at it's best. I personally when I deal with people sometimes get carried away. I feel that even though people go and moan and complain about these payware devs, the people have to realize their trying to make a living as well. My biggest issue is just that it seems like the way it's priced seems to lock out a lot of the younger folks from really experiencing these greater aircraft. I have no problem with supporting developers, hell I want to write software myself soon, and I'm researching all kinds of things to do it, and I believe that most people don't realize, that even these big payware companies have to have their families supported, however still, I believe that some things just shouldnt be as expensive as they are. My big one I have to say is this though, It's amazing that people have gone and done all this crap even on the temp forum. Some of the things I saw on that forum made me want to reach through the screen and slap the person on the other end for being a smacktard. You don't just go and back up these people who are causing the problems, when people should be trying to find solutions to the whole problem. I find myself as trying to figure out ways that the whole community can prosper. I myself don't just think about the players or the devs, I think about the whole picture. I admit, sometimes, in fact a lot of times, I may be off the mark, however a lot of times, including what I've been saying here, it's my genuine belief that this would lead to the greater good of supporting everyone in the community. The community needs to unite, and it can't do that in this state. The fact is, even though we may disagree on some things, we still all hold a common interest, and that common interest is a bond that holds the whole community together. I had to deal with a lot of smacktards after the attack on AVSIM, including people screwing with my head over IM. If sometimes I act like a smacktard or someone who is out of touch, I apologize, I am honestly trying to state my own opinion on how to make the community better, and sometimes I can be an optimist, and sometimes i'm a pessimist, and sometimes I'm just a flat out smacktard myself.My final word is this, I truly support the developers, however I also support the fairness of supporting all of the community. Not just one sect of it. My firm belief is that people are inherently going to do stupid and evil things. The best option is to keep honest people honest, and don't tempt them to the dark side. We all know what happened with Anikin, and the problem is that can happen with any of us. Imagine the Sith as the criminals and pirates, and the jedis as those of us who try to stay honest, the dark side can be VERY tempting, and it can be hard to resist, however it just winds up hurting us in the end if we do go over to the dark side. I know I just used a Star Wars reference, and really I don't care. I believe that supporting the developers is important, however the bigger focus right now has to be on the big picture. It's best to try to fix the root of the problems rather than just the symptoms. While Payware may cost to much IMHO, it isn't the biggest issue I have. The biggest issue I have is this economy and the global climate towards the economy. The best bet is to find ways to put people to work. I myself have been looking for a while, and I noticed this. When the economy sucks, that's when software piracy seems to be highest, where as when the economy is good, that's when people will actually buy the stuff. I think the ultimate fix for this whole situation is to find a way to put younger people like me to work at decent jobs. With the way the economy is right now, it's a known fact, that when the economy is bad, crime goes up, and when it's good, crime goes down. I feel the best way to fix this whole situation and make everyone happy is to fix the economy, and it all comes down to figuring out ways to put people to work. I myself am glad I work at AVSIM, as it gives me valuable experience, however it still doesn't pay the bills, and the only way to fix that problem is to fix the whole issue, and that starts with issue # 1, the economy.

Peter Clemenko III
Former AVSIM Staff Reviewer
All posts on the fourm are my own, and not representative of AVSIM.

PFE Expansion voice actor

"Solving new problems is what keeps us moving forward as individuals and as a society, so don't back down." Garry Kasparov
I do what I believe is right, not what is popular.


#26 Chock

Chock

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,109 posts
  • Joined 7 Years, 10 Months and 15 Days Ago.

Posted 05 June 2009 - 07:36 AM

I suspect that if the PMDG 747, or the Captain Sim 757, or any other FS add-on was 5 Dollars, it still wouldn't stop the vast majority of people with torrented versions of software from continuing to obtain things that way, because it is about more than simply the money. Torrent pirated versions of software are absolutely rife amongst younger computer users and it is deemed completely socially acceptable to indulge in that sort of thing. It's not just younger people who do that sort of thing either, if a work colleague hands you a copy of the new U2 album on a burned CD, you probably wouldn't look at them in horror for having stolen it, yet that is what they have done.People will have a torrented version of the PMDG 747 because they can, and because it costs them nothing. But I suspect when such a thing comes easily, there will be far less inclination to want to spend hour upon hour studying its finer points and using it 'properly'. Far more likely, is a quick flip round the airfield of their pirated copy of FSX, and the rapid conclusion that it is boring because it cannot drop bombs and fire missiles. Followed by a quick delete of the thing, to make room for the next torrent. To equate that to the copied CD example, if you were perhaps a huge fan of U2, you would probably have been in a record shop on the first day of their new album's release, cheerfully handing over a tenner for it, rather than awaiting the possibility of getting it for free by other means.There are a lot of reasons for piracy. Admittedly, the chief one is probably a deeply seated psychological method of justifying theft when not being in a position to pay for such things, but there is also the sense of having cleverly outwitted 'the man', the 'cool rebel' factor and any other number of justifications one cares to mention. Younger people occasionally have difficulty getting a grasp of the deeper concepts of responsibility and consequences, which is a natural function of generally having less responsibilities at that age. At 15 years of age one might cheerfully snap the radio antenna off a car in the street for the amusement of ones peers, but fast forward another 15 years and find their own car having suffered such damage and the reaction is going to be very different indeed when having spent money on such a car.It's just the way things are. Dropping the price of FS add-ons might suit the occasional young person who genuinely has an interest in such a thing, but I imagine it won't matter one iota to the average person with a pirated copy of it.Al

Alan Bradbury - abradbury@avsim.com

Posted Image

Run! Get to da choppaaa!


#27 Peter Clemenko

Peter Clemenko

    Member

  • Members
  • 683 posts
  • Joined 6 Years, 1 Month and 5 Days Ago.

Posted 05 June 2009 - 10:47 AM

I suspect that if the PMDG 747, or the Captain Sim 757, or any other FS add-on was 5 Dollars, it still wouldn't stop the vast majority of people with torrented versions of software from continuing to obtain things that way, because it is about more than simply the money. Torrent pirated versions of software are absolutely rife amongst younger computer users and it is deemed completely socially acceptable to indulge in that sort of thing. It's not just younger people who do that sort of thing either, if a work colleague hands you a copy of the new U2 album on a burned CD, you probably wouldn't look at them in horror for having stolen it, yet that is what they have done.People will have a torrented version of the PMDG 747 because they can, and because it costs them nothing. But I suspect when such a thing comes easily, there will be far less inclination to want to spend hour upon hour studying its finer points and using it 'properly'. Far more likely, is a quick flip round the airfield of their pirated copy of FSX, and the rapid conclusion that it is boring because it cannot drop bombs and fire missiles. Followed by a quick delete of the thing, to make room for the next torrent. To equate that to the copied CD example, if you were perhaps a huge fan of U2, you would probably have been in a record shop on the first day of their new album's release, cheerfully handing over a tenner for it, rather than awaiting the possibility of getting it for free by other means.There are a lot of reasons for piracy. Admittedly, the chief one is probably a deeply seated psychological method of justifying theft when not being in a position to pay for such things, but there is also the sense of having cleverly outwitted 'the man', the 'cool rebel' factor and any other number of justifications one cares to mention. Younger people occasionally have difficulty getting a grasp of the deeper concepts of responsibility and consequences, which is a natural function of generally having less responsibilities at that age. At 15 years of age one might cheerfully snap the radio antenna off a car in the street for the amusement of ones peers, but fast forward another 15 years and find their own car having suffered such damage and the reaction is going to be very different indeed when having spent money on such a car.It's just the way things are. Dropping the price of FS add-ons might suit the occasional young person who genuinely has an interest in such a thing, but I imagine it won't matter one iota to the average person with a pirated copy of it.Al

Meh, I guess you're right. Still I believe that software should be generally affordable, which is something that is firmly rooted in me. Piracy is going to always be a problem, however sometimes it's best to try to fix the problems causing it rather than just egg them on. Unfortanatly, a lot of people just are d-bags, and do this kind of stuff, however a lot of other times, it can be just the cost. I agree that there needs to be some barrier, however I don't think that jacking the costs up so high that the legit user with the legit interest can't afford it is necessarily the answer. My personal answer is to drop the price enough to justify being able to make a profit, while still not making it prohibitive to the younger crowd. I have seen a lot of times where people would just pirate something just to pirate it, however other times where they do it in protest. Spore is a perfect example of protest. It quickly became the most pirated game of last year because of the Secrom DRM. People decided to not buy it because they wanted to protest the rental drm. In the end, they found that they didn't like it, and it was a mediocre game (which sucks because the GDC tech demo was nice, and they watered it down for the common man rather than having something cool and unique to the PC.) In the end, you're right, it also boils down to the rebel and cool factor, however you have to remember, that while not all piracy can be stopped, some can be avoided by simply keeping things accessible. It's nowhere near a perfect world we live in, and it never will be, however the best option is always to try to control the problems, and find solutions to try to reduce the issues. Crime will always be an issue, but I feel that sometimes it can simply be avoided by playing things smart. Sadly, we live in a world of the bottom line, where greed is good, and people would kill each other for money. The biggest issue I see is that people don't stop to think about how what they do affects people other than them. Piracy screws over the devs, the devs in turn raise the prices and punish the legit consumer, and the pirates rebel over the punishing the legit consumer and pirate more. It's a very vicious cycle, and it's sad, because everyone deserves to make a living, however it's also important to keep things from escalating. I myself see piracy as a major problem, but it's not the only problem. And the worst part is, no matter what is done, the evil will never stop. In the end, it's about removing the cool factor and the economic factor. Once people's eyes open to the truth, I feel they may very well realize what they are doing is wrong and that they need to stop, the question becomes, how do we open their eyes.

Peter Clemenko III
Former AVSIM Staff Reviewer
All posts on the fourm are my own, and not representative of AVSIM.

PFE Expansion voice actor

"Solving new problems is what keeps us moving forward as individuals and as a society, so don't back down." Garry Kasparov
I do what I believe is right, not what is popular.


#28 beachdog2001

beachdog2001

    Member

  • Members
  • 90 posts
  • Joined 6 Years, 9 Months and 29 Days Ago.

Posted 07 June 2009 - 03:23 PM

"Still I believe that software should be generally affordable, which is something that is firmly rooted in me"Peter,Interesting discussion so far. However....How do you feel about Mercedes Benz or Lexus cars, homes on the beach in Newport Beach, CA, an island in the Caribbean or a private jet? How about a great meal at a fine restaurant or a high end set of clothes? Should these be "generally affordable" so that young people and others without means can afford them as well? Where does this sense of entitlement come from that says that flight simulator software should be less expensive so that people that can't afford it can use it? Says who? :( What is it about young people these days that makes them think that they should be able to have everything (anything) without having to work for it? This may be how it works in the homes of successful Baby Boomer parents, probably of Liberal persuasion, that have a guilt complex about having their kids suffer even a little bit, but in the real world, things don't really work like this. You actually have to work and sweat...hard...to be able to afford the things that you want..like "expensive" ($80? :( Ohhhh the outrage, can you feel it now? :( ) payware addons for flight simulator. Nobody is going to hand you anything but grief for free. The sooner you get over this and stop whinning about it, the better off you will be. There is one theory in life that says that this is one of things that you work towards in your life, the ability to be able to afford the things that you want. There are other things to work towards of course too such as inner tranquility, peace and respect of your fellow man, connection to the Mother Earth, a relationship with God and all that, but you need to get over this idea that the world owes you anything, especially because you are young. It is not PMDG's fault that you can't find a job, that people are starving in Africa, and that people in other nations may be repressed, have no freedom of speech or are discriminated against, nor is it their responsibility to provide you and/or them cheap versions of their software in an effort to make it more "fair", what ever that means.These products cost what they do because the people that created them have decided that price is the appropriate balance between what it cost them to produce, what they think the market will bear in response to that price, including the effects/consequences of piracy (you don't think that every developer hasn't thought long and hard about this issue?) and what they find as an acceptable return on their investment at that price. Same thing for Mercedes, Lexus, Versace, WalMart, and McDonalds. That you can't afford them is too bad, but not really their problem or part of their business model.This is what should be "firmly rooted" in you by now, not the idea that anything should be cheaper so that people who can't afford it can use it.
P4 3.2GHz HT, 2GB RAM, nVidia 7600 GS 512MB AGP, WinXP SP3, FSX SP2, FSG mesh, UTX, GEX, ST, REX2, nHancer, Dell 24", NickN optimized
Posted Image
Posted Image

#29 Peter Clemenko

Peter Clemenko

    Member

  • Members
  • 683 posts
  • Joined 6 Years, 1 Month and 5 Days Ago.

Posted 07 June 2009 - 04:28 PM

"Still I believe that software should be generally affordable, which is something that is firmly rooted in me"Peter,Interesting discussion so far. However....How do you feel about Mercedes Benz or Lexus cars, homes on the beach in Newport Beach, CA, an island in the Caribbean or a private jet? How about a great meal at a fine restaurant or a high end set of clothes? Should these be "generally affordable" so that young people and others without means can afford them as well? Where does this sense of entitlement come from that says that flight simulator software should be less expensive so that people that can't afford it can use it? Says who? :( What is it about young people these days that makes them think that they should be able to have everything (anything) without having to work for it? This may be how it works in the homes of successful Baby Boomer parents, probably of Liberal persuasion, that have a guilt complex about having their kids suffer even a little bit, but in the real world, things don't really work like this. You actually have to work and sweat...hard...to be able to afford the things that you want..like "expensive" ($80? :( Ohhhh the outrage, can you feel it now? :( ) payware addons for flight simulator. Nobody is going to hand you anything but grief for free. The sooner you get over this and stop whinning about it, the better off you will be. There is one theory in life that says that this is one of things that you work towards in your life, the ability to be able to afford the things that you want. There are other things to work towards of course too such as inner tranquility, peace and respect of your fellow man, connection to the Mother Earth, a relationship with God and all that, but you need to get over this idea that the world owes you anything, especially because you are young. It is not PMDG's fault that you can't find a job, that people are starving in Africa, and that people in other nations may be repressed, have no freedom of speech or are discriminated against, nor is it their responsibility to provide you and/or them cheap versions of their software in an effort to make it more "fair", what ever that means.These products cost what they do because the people that created them have decided that price is the appropriate balance between what it cost them to produce, what they think the market will bear in response to that price, including the effects/consequences of piracy (you don't think that every developer hasn't thought long and hard about this issue?) and what they find as an acceptable return on their investment at that price. Same thing for Mercedes, Lexus, Versace, WalMart, and McDonalds. That you can't afford them is too bad, but not really their problem or part of their business model.This is what should be "firmly rooted" in you by now, not the idea that anything should be cheaper so that people who can't afford it can use it.

I think your comparing a luxury car with a piece of software... not a good idea...A couple things to remember....First of all, it isn't just point and click to pirate a car.... where it is with software. Piracy can easily be slowed when you aren't charging more than the base sim at it's release price for the addon... My belief is that if you cut prices to the point at which they are not more expensive than a full blown sim, that is when you can say it's at a reasonable price, however when an ADDON is more expensive than a full sim.... There is a MAJOR issue. I have no problem with making a profit... however I also believe that there should be a bit of perspective, why pay 80 dollars for a single aircraft, that isn't even a stand alone sim, when you can get something like DCS Black Shark, which is a full blown study level combat flight sim, for 40... The point is that addons should not cost more than full on simulators.... You seem to want to compare a luxury car, which is a standalone product, to an addon aircraft, which is just an addition to the flight sim in question. The problem with your logic is that you want to say that something that is the standalone should be cheaper than the addon. That's pretty much saying that you should buy the viper for 40k, and the spoiler to put on the tail of the viper for 80k.... You can't say that a single EXPANSION PACK to a flight simulator, is worth more than a full blown flight sim... Unless that expansion pack did something MAJOR... as in adding more content than the original sim had itself, then you can't say that the additional content should be more expensive than the base simulator.... I'm not saying they should be dirt cheap, I'm saying they shouldn't cost more than a frickin full sim....

Peter Clemenko III
Former AVSIM Staff Reviewer
All posts on the fourm are my own, and not representative of AVSIM.

PFE Expansion voice actor

"Solving new problems is what keeps us moving forward as individuals and as a society, so don't back down." Garry Kasparov
I do what I believe is right, not what is popular.


#30 Chock

Chock

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,109 posts
  • Joined 7 Years, 10 Months and 15 Days Ago.

Posted 07 June 2009 - 05:43 PM

I don't see why there should be some mysterious rule that says an add-on must always cost less than a host sim, especially for no other reason than 'because it should'. The vast majority of add-ons are much more of a niche product than a broad-based simulator, and the limited market they can garner is going to mean they will probably have to be relatively costly simply to recoup the costs of development outlay and offer some profit on top. I daresay PMDG et all have considered the relative economics of a higher price point versus a lower one with volume sales, and having done the sums, decided which way to go based on what made the most commercial sense.DCS Black Shark is going for a much wider target market than a Boeing airliner add-on for FS, Black Shark is therefore likely to be better equipped to survive from volume sales than something far more esoteric, thus more able to support itself at that price point. Flight sims where you can blow stuff up are always going to be an easier sell than the excitement of tuning an ILS frequency and making an announcement about the peanuts being served :( I like all that stuff, and I daresay most AVSIM people do too, but the average person is going to find all that airliner stuff about as exciting as watching paint dry, and the relative numbers of sales will reflect that.The same logic applies to FSX to some extent: There will be helicopter, GA, airliner, seaplane, soaring and even ATC fans who will buy it, so it has a broader appeal, which allows it the luxury of making volume sales. By the same token, I paid far more for both the Condor and Silent Wings soaring simulators than I did for FS, because of that same logic. Whether I like it or not, soaring sims are a niche market, and if I want one, I have to pay the price which makes them a viable product to create.As it turns out, all this is a moot point with regard to the CS 757, which was the start topic for this thread, since it is not more expensive than the host sim. I paid I think 25 quid for the CS 757 for FSX, and although I can't remember exactly what I paid for FSX, I know it was a lot more than that because I bought it the day it came out, and it sure wasn't 25 quid. On the other hand, the Ariane 737 I bought for FSX was indeed more than the sim, but it was up to me to get my hand in my pocket, nobody forced me to buy it.I've paid well over 100 quid for flight sim stuff in the past, and a hell of a lot more for hardware too. I'd certainly prefer not to pay that price, and it would be nice if I did not have to, but I doubt dropping the price would have any huge effect on piracy, and where costs relative to the host sim are concerned, probably not an economically viable option anyway.Al

Alan Bradbury - abradbury@avsim.com

Posted Image

Run! Get to da choppaaa!