Aerosoft’s project manager Mathijs Kok had some interesting insight on the economics of addons for Microsoft Flight simulator compared to other sims.
Although I feel we still need some stabilizing in prices, but I think overall that will be the case. I will take a few months before all publishers fully understand how the increased development costs are balanced against bigger sales. It’s a fine balance. This market is far more price determined then many readers here believe. High-end, high-cost is not what makes the money. It gets the attention but far in the end products that are far less glamorous actually make most money. A fine example is our Twin Otter. Has been selling for 8 years rather well and it broke even with development costs 2 weeks after release.
Basically, the topic is that MSFS’s addons can afford being a bit cheaper overall than those of other sims because the market is much bigger.
Not sure why the sarcasm. Not everyone knows the concept, and hearing it from one of the most experienced developers in the industry (Kok’s been around for a long, long time) is certainly interesting for me.
Together with previous posts by Kok, it’s also pretty much a confirmation that addons for MSFS sell a lot more than addons for other sims, which is certainly a good sign for this one.
That being said, I haven’t heard about this before university, to be honest. Economy certainly wasn’t a subject in high school.
I wouldn’t exactly assume everyone here is an university graduate, or studied this specific subject, so I wouldn’t consider someone who isn’t familiar with economy of scale necessarily ignorant.
I know about it mate. I have a degree in journalism and one in brand management. I wasn’t talking about myself.
But to keep on-topic, we actually didn’t know for sure that economy of scale was in action with MSFS in comparison with other flight simulators.
We know this one sold over a million copies, but I don’t believe we have any specific sales data for other products (unless I missed it). I certainly assumed this was likely the case, but I appreciate hearing a confirmation from someone within the industry.
Also, it’s nice to hear that addons may end up costing less, because they ain’t exactly cheap.
I think the fact that a FS2020 scenery/ac can be sold cheaper due to the larger user base should be obvious not only to 3rd party dev who has developed for another sim but also to anyone who has completed a secondary school education. Don’t need to know terms like economy of scale or have a university degree for that. And who does not know what ROI means?
On the other hand I find the statement “A fine example is our Twin Otter. Has been selling for 8 years rather well and it broke even with development costs 2 weeks after release” more a rip-off admission than an explanation for a price stabilization need.
Would love to be able to interrogate Mathijs Kok using any preferred method to get more information.
They made a very good product that pople want and paired it with a reasonable price, and it sold a lot for several years. Any product’s goal is to make a profit, not to break even.
But hey, you can ask him. He responds quite often in the Aerosoft forum, which I linked. Do keep in mind that he can be rather brutally honest at times
It’s certainly a hint that’s not what makes the big money. I woun’t have thought it is to begin with. Study-level aircraft have always been a niche product.
You’ll have developers working on them, but their goal certainly isn’t to bring in really big bucks.
If anything, at the very least with MSFS they’ll have a bigger pool of people to sell to, but I don’t expect them to break out of being niche and suddenly sell truckloads.
They won’t. The only PMDG product I bought was their Beech 1900 from their “lite” collection back in MS9 days.
I am happy that the FBW team is working on the A320, but every button functioning on the cockpit doesn’t interest me. I am interested in the plane being able to fly and controls streamed down appropriately.
There is a term, some use for less expensive aircraft in this sim, and that is Cheap and Cheerful (Thanks to our brothers in the UK). And that is where my interest lies. I don’t care if every single instrument and system in a twin otter is meticulously modelled. In fact I don’t want that. I want the feeling that I am a pilot without having spend the hours certifying for that platform.
If that makes me a mere “gamer” than so be it. I am glad that the platform can support “study level” aircraft and that those individuals can be satisfied. But I want something fairly easy to fly, is convincing in it’s response to controls, and is complex enough to convey that I am flying something more complex, but simple enough to prevent me from information overload, or requiring hours of study just to get off the ground.
Are you of the opinion that a price can never be a rip-off? Even if there is no, or almost no, competition?
Do all Microsoft products have reasonable prices in you opinion?
I can understand if that was only you own subjective opinion but if not how do you define ‘a reasonable price’ and how would you know if the price is reasonable without an insight into the company accounts?
Some my interpret this statement as a direct jab to another vendor, known to sell higher priced add-ons which were lately announced to be scheduled for release much later than initially planned.
Some others might conclude it is certainly easier to have higher ROI and higher sales when there is no competing products available either.
I’m respectfully wondering why Aerosoft is saying this right now. They are one of the oldest and most respected third party vendor, and their CRJ is certainly very anticipated in FS2020, yet, all this just to say some might be wondering what is the goal of such statement in the end.
NB: I’m not drawing any conclusion nor trying to say there is a conspiracy theory (there are enough of these right now IRL). This is just a different way to read the same story.
No. I am of the opinion that Aeroosoft’s Twin Otter isn’t. And it is a fact that what Kok said doesn’t in any shape or form read (or imply) as admitting a ripoff.
I define a reasonable price as a price that a whole lot of people are happy to pay for a product given its value, which apparently is the case with the Twin Otter.
No, it wasn’t, as your post certainly appears to imply that a product that made a handsome profit is a ripoff. If that’s not what you meant, that’s fine, but that’s certainly how it read.
I wouldn’t read it like that simply due to the context of the rest of the thread. I’m quite sure that Aerosoft doesn’t need to throw jabs at anyone.
The goal was to answer a question from a user on whether we can expect lower-priced addons compared to other flight simulators. I wouldn’t read more to it than that.
There will hopefully be some community driven addons like there were for the legacy sims.
I am definitely not opposed to buying a well made commercial addon as I have for all the other sim versions. In some cases even multiple times because I lost the all important Key files or becaue I wanted to fly that aircraft in that other sim with the X.
But the big commercial outfits rarely make the vintage aircraft I like and for that the FS community has always been a incredible fountain of skill.
Already we can see some outstanding Mods for existing aircraft that greatly improve the functionality and realism like the DA40NX or DA62.
One big problem with MSFS at the moment for both commercial and non-commercial developers seems to be that the SIM is still very much changing and so often what worked before is not working anymore after one of those mandatory updates (which I hate by the way)
Let’s hope so. And let us also hope that FS2020 will attract new devs that will not first charge rip-off prices - that some long-time simmers may call ‘reasonable prices’ because they paid those prices before in the x-plane/P3D niche markets - and then, after loyal customer have purchased, slash those prices to sell their overpriced product to the majority (millions) of FS2020 users. Some of the loyal customer may then start using the term rip-off.
Thank you for your reply. I have admired most of you posts but in this case (or tonight) an attempt to have a debate with you seems fruitless. We must there agree to disagree in a friendly way and move on.
or becaue I wanted to fly that aircraft in that other sim with the X.