Good point.
There’s also i think a reputational risk to MSFS if they are bothered by that.
Also people will buy when first released, you can’t assess it until then, and prior to a stack of poor reviews are lodged.
Also it’s unrealistic to expect buyers to spend time on forums before they buy items they expect to trust the marketplace to be reasonable quality.
I expect the forum members are numerically a very small proportion of the total number of users.
Does anyone verify prices before uploading to the marketplace? These lighting additions are not worth that much…
No, it’s not unrealistic to expect people to do some homework before purchasing anything, be it a livery skin in a computer game, or a brand new BMW car. If people are going to blindly buy stuff (of which I confess to be guilty of at times) then you might get burnt. It’s not rocket science to look at reviews or YouTube videos for example before buying. It’s what I did when considering this week’s LXGB release. After doing my homework I decided that the product was not for me.
I was tempted to purchase last week’s Southampton/Portsmouth night scenery. But to be honest I rarely fly at night unless it’s a long flight. So it just didn’t seem to be economical for me.
Well, in this case, based on what you commented, indirectly, we will have to wait for a quality addon, waiting for interest in things without value, it makes perfect sense then. Well, there is no one here dictating anything to anyone. There is no shortage of paper aircraft in the store. So this dictation is meaningless talk. Sorry.
As is your reply.
I have some CS liveries which I think are very good. Admittedly his first 777s, which I purchased without doing my homework and regretted, is poor. I’m not sure what the latest 777s of his are like.
True, but it could be even better. There’s no shame in wishing for that.
I’m wondering if you read what I wrote:
“Also people will buy when first released, you can’t assess it until then, and prior to a stack of poor reviews are lodged”
Also…How many reviews have you found for the products on sale yesterday. What did they say?
Ah, there aren’t any?
The LXGB product has been out direct from the developer since February, I believe it is. Admittedly three months ago, but it is still relevant as it’s the same product.
There were complaints in those reviews that the Rock of Gibraltar looked awful. There are even some forum posts in which screenshots of the new LXGB Rock and that of the Asobo default were compared. The overall consensus for it seems to be that the airport itself looks very nice, but that the Rock is awful. Looking at the pictures in the product marketplace page, the Rock does look 
Perhaps you have never been to Gibraltar. I have been there many times with the Navy. The Rock does not look in real life how it is rendered in the product.
So, i guess I’ll try one last time in case the phrase “when first released” is too cryptic:
For the average buyer (doesn’t spend their life on a forum), when a product is new or otherwise not previously released / not old
And that didn’t address the other point (granted as i said they may well not care… should they do?debate as you feel you have the inclination.):
There’s a reputational risk to MSFS/Asobo/MS by association through their official marketplace, that a continuous torrent of poor/or catering for the lowest denominator releases can produce.
But is there a torrent of “poor” releases? Surely that is down to the individual to decide what they consider to be poor or good. Just because some see it as poor, doesn’t mean others will do. If somebody is only interested in liveries or night scenery, then the past couple of weeks have been good for them. If others are only interested in so-called “study level” aircraft, then it has been poor. It’s subjective. Personally I generally look at airports mostly, so the marketplace has been good for me as there certainly has been a lot of choice.
I stick with my sentiment about doing homework when deciding whether or not to buy. Just because a product was review three months ago does not mean it doesn’t give the potential buyer a good feel for the product and whether it will be suitable for them or not.
I have to wonder if the large amount of fluff released this time around is due to the fact that there is nothing else to release. I am wondering if the relationship between the sim and 3rd party devs has been eroded by SDK changes that frequently break their products and the fact that the devs cannot do support on this forum anymore. We all had very high hopes for this sim…
Agree with those on XBOX that after getting more excellent planes like the ATR and soon to be PMDG 737 some consideration should be given to have good liveries prioritised. I knew PMDG might not be there as they mentioned also next week but was really hoping to start seeing some decent liveries to use with the ATR which given it has been the most successful aircraft so far would make a lot of sense especially since we have 4 pretty lousy liveries in the stock one. Patience…! 
I would like to see some liveries for the ATR. At the moment I am flying about in a magenta aircraft.
And quite a few of us in the very earliest stages saw the writing on the wall. Unfortunately it’s being confirmed “on the fly” so to speak.
However I’m being reminded constantly that it’s a 10 year programme. Ok…
Yeah I really don’t get their business model, sure it’s nice to give them recognition but realistically who will ever be this interested in a clunky slow prototype from the 30’s with very little real life info.
For the rest I of course agree with the rest of the comments, it’s really shameful that who knows how many legit devs are getting their updates pushed back because the usual Captain Sim and friends keep pushing their garbage out
I’ve not used any CS products since when they used to make decent products for older sims.
I know the CS 777 for MSFS uses the Asobo 747 systems cludged into it, but I wonder, with AAU2 bringing a lot more functionality to the default 747 will that also make the CS 777 a semi-decent product?
This makes sense and is probably the only way MSAsobo can approach this. It’s not like CaptainSim is creating a car that’s been found to be defective and is killing people - then the government could step in and stop their sales. Whether their product is quality or not is subjective, and the opinions of a few people on a web forum isn’t sufficient because clearly someone is buying it. Just like almost everything else out there in the world that’s for sale that isn’t inherently dangerous, it’s ultimiately up to the consumer to make the decision as to whether the product is worthy of purchase.
That said, the real problem I see here is the assertion that their products are “flooding” the marketplace and due to limited staffing, apparently MSAsobo can’t clear the other higher-quality products fast enough. That’s why I believe Stendec341’s suggestion has merit and would essentially kill two birds with one stone.
However, one problem with introducing this would be products with a low number of ratings. If one or two people gave unwarranted low ratings (e.g. blaming the vendor for MSFS defects) and there were only five or six total ratings for a product, their score could be artifically reduced.
I keep reading statements that the “higher quality” products are being delayed due to all the “lower quality” products flooding the Marketplace.
Does anyone actually have a list of known “high quality” add-ons that are being delayed?
As I read the forum, I don’t see many pending add-ons that have been announced here. I know that PMDG still has to get their remaining 737 fleet into the Marketplace, but I know from reading PMDG’s forum the reason they aren’t available isn’t due to the Marketplace backlog.
For all the outrage, could we see precisely what the outrage is aimed at? What are you all expecting to see come up for sale here that warrants such reactions?
I agree that the argument that low quality products are delaying higher quality products is weak, as there isn’t strong evidence for it.
The better point focuses on how low quality addons harms the reputation of the Marketplace, especially for users who don’t know better and then run into MS’s limited refund policies.
I don’t buy the relativistic “who is to say Captain Sim is low quality?” argument either, because we’re not talking about an abstract market but a marketplace created, maintained and implicitly endorsed (rightly or wrongly) by MS. Requesting a reasonable quality standard for the marketplace makes sense.
