Would you pay $500 for a flight sim?

[andysim]

if it was the most epic flight sim ever created and modeled weather/ice/rain/snow/wind properly then yes I would heh.

[Moby]

Looking at the percentage of people in squads that actually donate anything over $20 is a good indicator. I doubt most people would pay that much for a video game. I know...IT'S A SIMULATOR!!

Still I wouldn't due to the other less expensive games I buy that do pretty well. It would have to seriously do things far above current offerings. I just don't see how a sim could be produced that was so far advanced that it could justify that retail price.

When my wifw pointed out how much I spend on gaming stuff I pointed out it is half of what I used to spend on golf, or other formes of entertainment.

 

Now would I spend $500 on a cool peice of gaming gear....we all have.

[metalnwood]

I dont think how much we spend on our chosen hobbies has anything to do with thier value to us.

 

True, take chess as an example, whats the outlay there and the amount of time people who like playing it actually play it. There's good value in a hobby.

[Alicatt]

My big passion is films, and last year I built a home cinema in my garage, I have been working on it since the early 80s but never had the place to actually build it. I would hate to add up the cost but some where in the £35k to £40k would be about right.

Now I can hook up my PC or laptop in there and use it on the big screen and it gives a very immersive feeling, I did fit a PS3 in and play GT5 /TDU2/Grid/F1 2010 and playing it on the small screen is not the same any more.

I sometimes play Steelbeasts on it but the screen is just to big to hunt around looking for targets.

 

Screen is 3.5m wide

Edited January 27, 2012 by Alicatt

[Succellus]

It would seem I'm not. The market itself is the evidence. A few people on a forum don't make up a market.

 

If you charge $500 for a sim, you better be selling it to professional organizations 'cause other than a few die-hards, you won't be getting customers from the 'entertainment sector'.

 

it seems you re underestimate the market.

I think people will pay such for a FC like simulation with a bit more perfect A10 sim quality.

 

If you propose,: (add "whatever" after the planes suggestions)

4 Fast movers (f16, Su 27, ef2000, Su 37)

2 CAS (Su 25, A10c)

2 naval (f18, su 33)

2 helos (K50, AH 64)

+ 2 AWACS or similar systems

(2 because red side and blue side)

+ better AI

+ Dynamic SP/MP campaign or whatever you name it (with blue VS red and a Mixed one)

A very good SDK for developing periferal interface / or total support for peripherals that already exist (but arent supported in A10)

2 diferent scenários the size A10C

Secure MP servers

and really good users book for each planes,

 

I bet you will get your 500,00 bucks paids. Its just a matter of how you present the pill)

 

its what people have already shelled for LO1, LO2, FC2, LOP, KA50, KA 502, A10C anyway, without counting peripherals, pit building items, multi monitors etc.

Remember those 500 doesn t have to be a one time go, make a monthly fee of 50 for 10 month, and you will have a go. (its barely double for World of arghtcraft, or L(a)EVE it online(alone).

 

The problem with 500 is more psycho than real.

Remember A10C public isn t the average COD kid...Those who don t buy it today won t buy it then.

and even then if you analyse the market cod kid shell 60 per month with add ons + original in a span of 4 months...for games that last 4 month max and then move on to the next cod like game....shelling more 60 bucks for more 4 months... rince and repeat.

Now if the company realeased a 250 bucks games all in one few would pay.

Behind that is the same psycho of the 1,99 buck VS 2,00 price.

 

It would still be 500 buck for a sim.

 

anyway.. what i presented is what we consumers hope DCS will be, because its what has been sold to us on a shorter span than what its end up to be...or am i wrong ? And i guess we will pay way more than those 500 bucks at the end.

I m still waiting for my DCS F18....or SU 33 or whatever... And all i see is same inverted grass mower again (K50), same game again (FC), not that it is bad, but DCS really need a Fast Mover.

Edited January 27, 2012 by Succellus

[Peyoteros]

Hell no, are you mad?!!

[Wolfie]

Would you pay $500 for a sim?

 

No.

[Shaman]

I have already paid more then 500$ for the software that today runs on my mainframe flightsim machine.

[BKLronin]

Isn't Lockheed Martins Prepar3d priced like that? Since it's more than just a flight sim I wouldn't pay that much for it. Also it's hard to find detailed descriptions of what it contains.

[Fleshpiston]

Well -

TMWG - $650

Combat rudders - $150

A10C - $50

 

Raceon (plus all the other bits that go with it) - $30

Fanatec Porsche 911 Turbo S - $400

 

TrackIR - $300 (was in pounds back in the UK)

 

PC - $1300

 

playing games and having a break from the real word - Priceless

[cichlidfan]

playing games and having a break from the real word - Priceless

 

Indeed.:thumbup:

[msalama]

Would you pay $500 for a sim?

 

Well my opinion de jour is that it depends, although I'm not sure on what exactly :D Which then makes my position a strong "maybe" I suppose?

[Kjay]

I bought this simulator in 2004 for $350. It's a procedural simulator for the Boeing 747. There is no outside scenery but you can interface with MSFS for that.

http://aerowinx.com/html/simulator.html.

 

I just spent $2000 for a new PC build to run DCS. This doesn't include the cost of the hardware (TM Warthog, TrackIR, Rudder Pedals). $500 is a lot of money for sim software and it would have to offer lots of functionality. However, if it was high enough in quality (Content and Physics), I would atleast consider it.

[zaelu]

I wouldn't.

 

reasons:

 

1. Best things in life are free. If something tends to be towards good/better/best then also it tend towards free.

 

If you think for a second is not like that... think more than a second... imagine your favorite plane... mine is always changing but right now would be... a Su-34... (yeah... the ugly ducky). OK... how much does it cost a Su-34 pilot to fly his plane? Nothing! He's payed to do it.

 

2. Best games I played in my life were the ones highly modable or with good content from community. Take Il2. Had great missions and amazing skins before it was opened for real mods. And I can add a lot of games that were amazing just because they were full of free mods.

 

My number one grudge with Lomac/FC/DCS was poor to no modding. Locked and maze-like modable content. From missions to skins to things more complex... like... new planes.

 

Do you think a 500$ sim would be open?? ha! In your dreams... such a coin bringer would be locked as Fort Knox.

 

 

 

Instead of a 500$ sim I would like a open platform so many teams would bring content payed or free. And the developer that creates such a platform will earn big money... provided it is not a huge team with a huge dinosaur in its back... like Ms.

 

I would love a world of planes game (not the actual one in development) in which people and teams would contribute to it with planes and missions and scenery and improvements... free or not... much like wikipedia...

 

I know is a dead dream... because at this point technologies has to be milked for money...

[Moa]

My number one grudge with Lomac/FC/DCS was poor to no modding. Locked and maze-like modable content. From missions to skins to things more complex... like... new planes.

 

It looks like ED are set to address this issue - there are clues if you look at the rationalization of the formats for Simple Flight Model aircraft (which is good enough for most purposes) in the BlackShark 2 directories. I'm sure ED are continuing work in this vein as they move toward future projects.

 

I'm keeping a close eye on this as I did get fed up with modding ED products due to the limitations, bugs, and lack of full documentation of the interfaces - plus my pathological dislike of Lua (I hate weakly typed programming languages and the lack of decent Lua tools and libraries). But there is a hope that ED are sorting this out now - so they deserve credit for this and our patience, so they can complete whatever they have planned without us hassling them too much.

 

Meanwhile, I'm not sitting on my hands and have started a project to produce a jet combat flight sim by the end of this year. I have already had a lot of help from fellow simmers that are aware of the project and are helping out in ways they can (gathering technical documentation, offers to test things for me; thanks especially to 104th_Presing, A.S. and 104th_Crunch). I'm sure it won't be anywhere near as good as DCS:Jet, whenever that arrives, but it will be something and the client will most likely be under a GPL license. It will also be a base we can work from, slowly but surely. The server cannot for security reasons (recent FC2 hacks attest to this). My reason for starting something is that if the community never starts a combat simulator then in five years we'll still be in the same boat as now (no community combat simulator).

 

Meanwhile, please support ED by buying their products (no-one pirate, kk). We want to have lots of viable simulator choices if we can - for our hobby, 'less is more' does not apply, more is more.

Edited February 19, 2012 by Moa

[Cedaway]

The pricetag is limitative. The sim may stay accessible. Not in term of complexity but in term of price. I've read there is much core fans able to spend 500$ to play a sim. OK, good for you. Now, I've a familly, a full time job and not the time I wish to play. I've spent so much in PC and peripherals (just read my sig), I don't think I would spend 500$ more to play a game (OK, it's a hardcore sim but for us it is ALSO a game), even if it's the best sim of the world.

 

And you know what? 1 or 2 years later the release of the 500$ sim, another one will come, even better, even eye-candier,... and why not also at 500$?

 

OK, I've spent 330$ for a HOTAS Warthog. But I'm sure (I hope) I will use it the next decade or more.

The sim market is a tiny one. I thanks ED for the great quality of their sims but I don't want to see this market disapear because of 'inaffordability' of the sims regarding the 'restricted' mass of consumer.

 

Just keep it as it is. Now, if a dev want to devellop and sell a 500$ or more sim, I'll not buy it. For sure.

Edited February 20, 2012 by Cedaway

[Total]

I lamented over the cost of a new HOTAS when my X52 finally gave up the ghost. I couldn't bring myelf to pay for the TMWH nor the X65F. I went with CH and. even at that, was hesitant to spend $200 on something I'll use for a game. I'm glad I did, but those will last me years.

 

I have to perform maintenance on the vehicles, finish renovating the house, put money in savings for the vacation, put money back for the ole rainy-day fund, food, bills, etc

 

In World of Tanks right now, I have over 625,000 XP I haven't converted. At this point, it would cost me over $100 to convert it all at once.

 

I just can't bring myself to spend hundreds of dollars on gaming. Not when there are more practical and realistic things I will have put on the back burner if I do spend the money.

 

I'd love to say I have the means to pay whatever I want in order to enjoy my gaming to the fullest, but the truth of the matter is that I do not and I refuse to put it all on a credit card and get charged 10-20% interest on top of that. It just doesn't make sense. My home, vehicles, and such will (should) be here long after the game has lost it's appeal.

 

So - no. I would not spend $500 on a game until at which time I have $500 that I don't and will not need for anything else.

[OutOnTheOP]

For that matter, I would have (sort of) paid $500 for DCS:A-10C. That is to say, I would NOT have actually ponied up the cash on a whim on the chance it was a good game, BUT, if I knew beforehand how good a simulation it is, I could have easily justifed it being worth it. After all, I play DCS:A-10 easily 20 times as much as my next most liked games- if I spend 10 times the time and derive 10 times as much enjoyment from DCS:A-10C as I do from any other game I spent $50 on (and I DO)... well, then $500 wouldn't really have been unreasonable.

 

That said, if I'd seen it on the shelf for $500, I wouldn't have been willing to risk it; that's too much to pay on a gamble.

[Scooternutz]

I wouldn't. Look at what you get for free with BMS. It is an awesome sim for free.

[16th Widowmakr]

I wouldn't. Look at what you get for free with BMS. It is an awesome sim for free.

 

A free Addon which wasnt free to begin with! You have to have F4 to install BMS correct? I can't tell you, and I don't want to know, what I have spent over the years keeping up with F4. Computer upgrades, internet service upgrades, controllers, joysticks, rudder pedals, Masterpilot (remember those?) etc. Video cards, memory, the list goes on. I have been flying it since 1999! Would I lay down $500 for a sim to start? Probably not. I can't think of what it would be or do in order for me to justify that kind of initial investment. Unless of course it comes with a motion based platform but then it would be around $20K or more wouldn't it so $500 for the sim itself probbly wouldn't be out of the question. Provided I hit the lottery and could afford it! LOL

[Scooternutz]

You know it Widow! I have spent more on the stuff than the sim. If I hit the lotto I would get that full motion sim!

[rainbird]

After playing Falcon 4.0 with the BMS mod for free, I already feel I have the best sim available and it costs me nothing. Its dynamic campaign engine makes it second to none. And ED have already told me that such a campaign engine will _never_ again be produced commercially due to the modern day commercial climate of the sim market. So I basically have the greatest sim which will ever exist and which continues to be developed by the BMS team.

 

I can't see what more a $500 commercial sim would offer over Falcon 4.0/BMS - apart from a wider variety of aircraft and I'm not too fussed with aircraft variety since I prefer to spend my time mastering a single mature craft model. So craft variety is not an issue for me.

 

The $500 premium would probably simply be a way of covering the developers costs for the sim market's lack of ability to produce economies of scale these days. Sad but true.

Edited February 27, 2012 by rainbird

[sobek]

And ED have already told me that such a campaign engine will _never_ again be produced commercially due to the modern day commercial climate of the sim market.

 

That i would like to see. :huh:

 

ED has always been vocal about doing a DC, but not all at once.

[rainbird]

If and when we do get a dynamic campaign engine, it is VERY unlikely to be a real time campaign engine like Falcon. I highly doubt we'll ever see such a campaign engine again, as the man hours needed and the cost of making one are simply not sustainable in this day and age imho.

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1406650&postcount=617

 

Sure, ED hope to come "close" but it will be impossible for them to match. It's just not commercially viable today.

[sobek]

Eddie is not an ED official. That is his personal opinion right there, as he himself mentioned, so don't take it as word from ED.