There is an underlying assumption to your statement, and that is that there - IS - the interest there, which is merely being held in check by the price point.

Unfortunately that is not the case. If it were you would be absolutely correct about reducing the price.

The problem is that RC is not that that mainstream... and almost fortunately for us, that this is so.

Count the number of AMA members and divide that by 1/8 and you'll have an average market share for the entire RC sim industry.

The figures are quite small and not likely to grow by leaps and bounds... growth over the past 20+ years has been quite linear.

Where can I get those photo realistic backdrops and more of thos planes? I can't seem to find them.

You nailed it, AMA members are 120000, 1/8 is 15000.

15000 potential customers is very small market, and there are 5 $200 simulators that are struggling for piece of it. It they lower the price, they will go belly up, because they can't afford to keep support staf, not to mention investing in new development.

There may be only a small market, but even within that small market, a lower price point will potentially increase that market. I don't know by how much, but it's been proven that lower price brings in more customers. That's the reason why so many RC people are looking for good deals at their price point. If not, then why would we be bargain hunting. There is a reason why so many sites, such as hobbycity.com, bphobbies.com, nitroplanes.com, and other sites that carry the lower end, but good enough products, attract so many customers. The Phoenix simulator has a price point of $160, which is closer to the price point where I would consider buying a simulator, but still not close enough. And I'm sure many RC enthusiasts would fork out the money as soon as these simulators are priced at the level where they think it's worth their money. At around $200, that market will stay put at the current 1/8 of all members. Maybe at $120, the market grows to 1/2? Who knows, but it won't grow if price doesn't change. And if price didn't matter, then customers wouldn't be flocking to sales everytime retailers posted them. That's just the bottom line.

phoenix does not include dummy Tx as Real Flight or FS 1. Quality dummy Tx as the one used in Real Flight is more than $40.

There are 5 simulators that are in $200 range. Don't you think that if it was economically possible, at least one of them would try to reap all sales if they lowered the price to $100? So far, no one has done so. The only conclusion is that this is the price level what would keep them in business. Please note that in the last 10 years, the price have allways been around $200. Because of the inflation the price today is much lower that it used to be. (opps... my bad. -according to Federal Reserve there is no inflation...)

Again lowering price to increase customers and sales that assumes that there is some form of prior interest which the existing price points do not cater to.

With RC sims it's simply not there, no matter how much we would like to think otherwise ( to get the price down for ourselves ).

Even the free FMS download volume bears this out...

"Potentially" in such a small market, is a huge risk for any firm. As it is they have no assurance of any large number of sales.... no matter what they do.

Double, treble, quadruple or multiply by 10 the current figures and you still have a very very TINY market even if you could bring your penetration up to say 80% ( something that will NEVER EVER happen ).


Cutting things too thin will guarantee no future releases.

I'd prefer to see the developers stick around, and not fall prey to this same very logic that decimated the better fidelity flight sims ...

I don't assume anything. And companies never assume either. They take surveys, polls, pass out questionaires, and do market research before making strategic pricing moves. I don't know what kind of market research the developers have done for these flight sims, hence the reason for this forum. If I knew, I wouldn't be writing about it. Since the manufacturers aren't disclosing this information, one can only wonder. What I see are average game developers selling to the mass market their mediocre product at great price points while these great flight sims are being marketed to a narrow market with horrible price points. In any logical sense, it doesn't add up. Hangar 9 and Great Planes, with such great products, should be able to find some way to open their market and lower the price point. And yes, we're always trying to get the price down for ourselves. If not us, who would it be for? We're the ones who are buying it.

Yes it would be nice indeed!

I don't think it will ever happen though given that they have done the surveys, polls, etc.

Given the post above ( note from a Sim developer ), and other discussions with some sim other developers, I wouldn't hold my breath for any marked price drops.

You can get Flight Gear it dose pretty go for a flight sim ....It's FREE TOO.lol

Becuase people keep buying it.
Becuase it's lack of knowlege ,
The same when i spent a bouch of money when i first go into this hobbie.

I'll pay good money...if it's a leap, leap in technology.lol
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

it's not as if i don't have a playstation.lol

Becuase a real model cost $300 , loaded with eq.
since the arf are getting cheaper and cheaper...$65-75 for an arf now...people take chances.lol


you know...it's about getting the balance right.lol

becuase the free stuff motivates the not so free, free stuff too.

"Potentially"............

and what if it doesn't.
Pretend that you're the guy who makes the pricing decisions.
And you've got a lot of friends working for you.
All have families and such and depend on their paychecks.

And since none of us know what the majors have done, why assume they haven't done marketing research that told them they very definitely NOT lower prices? We have no proof that they haven't already done the marketing research.

And if you're assuming what they "do all the time", then assume they do it all the time. And they haven't budged from their pricing, have they. So you can assume they all do marketing research to set the prices and do research to stay competitive. And haven't seen any research that caused them to rethink.



BTW, we already have lower priced sims. Where are they right now in their percentage of the market? So lower pricing isn't working for them. Was it their marketing research that led them astray? Some of them are extremely good values. And should have a lot larger market share, shouldn't they?

I don't think we can compare the present lowered priced sims to the good ones. The $30 sim isn't even close to something like Phoenix or FS One. It's apples and oranges. It may be $30, but I rather spend my $30 on something else. The reason I think there is potential stems less from market research and more from observation. I also am a hardcore video game player and I see many crappy games out there sold to the large market of youngsters. And if crappy games appeal to such a large market, there has to be a way to get those great sims out there too.

Which sim is that??? [:-]

Heh.

Tell that to the "Clearview" sim developers.

I think they would disagree.


In a way you've re-affirmed what others have been saying.

The sims that cost more have larger developement staffs, which results in the difference you are noting.

So it goes round and round....

Our perception of how we would like things does not mean that we have it right though.

Crappy games die quick deaths ( I hope! ).

But games and their markets have no relation to specialized simulators.

There are other cheap sims on the market and they've all done quite poorly.

The purchasers seem to expect a certain level of fidelity and quality.

This takes a lot of effort and investment, but the return is from a limited base of users.

THAT's the problem vis-a-vis the price point.

Lowering the price is not going to increase the market. The market is simply too small.

Everything you say would be applicable if they could sell the sims to the "game" crowd.


They cannot.


A typical game purchaser would quickly tire of an RC sim... just image the reviews in the game magazines.

There is nothing there to hold a gamers attention.

Simmers purchase the programs because they are fullfilling a specific need, something the average purchaser does not have.

Unless you are into RC or just getting started, you have no interest in paying anything for an RC sim.


Unfortunately for us, the market is simply too small and lowering the price will NOT increase the market size.


I would think that this has been studied ad-nauseum by the marketing people at Horizon, Great Planes, etc.

Not only the market for RC simulators is small, the market for general flight simulators for consumers is small as well. Go to download.com, select "Games" and then "Simulators". List the titles and see what is available - very few titles, most of them old and obsolete.

Another vote for FMS. I learned to fly a CP heli with it. The simulation is not perfect, but it is not needed to get you past crashing. You can fine tune your abilities with the real thing.

Some people seem to speak too much on other's behalf. Microsoft's Flight Simulator franchise is one of the best selling "flight simulators" out there, and it appeals to a large market. If people were getting so bored of it, they would be releasing the 3rd installment with another expansion pack. Let's not think we know it all here. And editor's reviews aren't right all the time. I've seen many a times where a game gets a bad editor review while actual gamers give it high marks. It's one person's opinion, not the opinion of the mass audience. And even many poorly reviewed games sell well. I guess we'll never know how well the "RC flight sim" will appeal to the mass market, since they aren't marketed for it. And finally, there probably isn't a large number of downloads for flight sims because most people don't even know they exist. Before I got into RC airplanes, I didn't know they existed. The only sim I heard of was Microsoft Flight Simulator, and that's due their marketing. Since I never picked up an RC magazine before, I never knew about them. And, in my opinion, a vast majority of the gaming world hasn't either.

I have tried the ClearView simulator.
It does have a nice look, however it feels much like FMS and it does not appear to have much configure ability.
If there are planes and helis available that have a realistic feel, they do not seem to be included in the demo.
When I compare it to RealFlight G3.5/G4, Reflex XTR or AeroFlypro Deluxe, ClearView does not measure up.
It seems to be flying through jelly and response times are like moving in slow motion compared to more realistic sims.

No disrespect intended, but then should this be addressed by the marketers and developers instead?

They are not around here to answer these queries, just us mere mortals.

So we end up going back and forth.

You did bring this into the discussion with the comparison to games though.

That "crappy games" sell well though has little to no bearing on RC sims. These are two completely different arenas however as you point out below....


That's assuming though that the companies have never considered it.

I would assume that they have at least polled and looked into it.

Indeed discussion with some of these developers has indicated that they wish they could penetrate the "mass market" but find that there is no demand.

Hmmm. I've always found the Flight Sim Libraries to be rather VAST...

You can usually arrive to them with a simple google search.

Places like http://www.flightsim.com have a huge database of downloads as do other sites.

PC Flight sims seem to do rather well, but the military high fidelity flight sims were decimated by low "game" level pricing.

Long gone is Janes and others of their ilk.

Maybe...

But this is going back to the games market.

I would HOPE that the marketing people have at least considered something like what you are saying in their pricing decisions.

I don't think you are wrong at all, but all indications I've seen point to that they have considered and researched it, at least to some extent.

Wouldn't it be rather foolish for them to do otherwise?

I agree that FMS is truly fantastic for what it offers.
Extraordinary considering it is completely 100% free!

Holy cow, Hangar 9 just lowered the price of FS One to $80 without a controller. Maybe they're paying attention to these forums. For $80, I'm getting one!!! That is unbelievable!!! Thanks a bunch Hangar 9!!!

With the controller it's an even better deal.

I did some training for a bunch of newbies last week and they all asked me about sims ( I had three machines set up at the field for them to use... ).

I was hard pressed NOT to recommend FS-One to the newbies at this new price point, for the novice, although I favor G4... so most went away deciding to get FS-One.

I just got the new Hangar 9 catalog. FS One is not listed there at all. Considering that they where listed in last 3 catalogs on two pages, and that they sell now at $80 I can make only one conclusion - they are clearing out and getting out of the sim market alltogether. So long for $100 price point - it just can't support full featured sim with hardware in a box sold via the retail channels.

In my opinion, if users want flight sims like FMS to be as good as top of the line flight sims, FMS should look for sponsorship from companies that make rc equipment The best rc flight sims cost money to make and as far as I know they rely on their customers to pay for the continued development of the simulator. Why not have sponsors pay all the costs? That way FMS could have better physics, models, and higher quality scenery.

I think it would be awesome if users or better yet people who are new to the hobby could test out different planes and radio systems. There could be virtual Hitec, Futaba, Spektrum radio systems and different companies can show off how their better performing their models airplanes compare to other companies models.

Maybe companies might be willing to pay for advertisements on the airplanes and helicopter models.

Just an idea. Wouldnt companies want to prove their products are better than their competitors?

The demand for simulators and R/C products in general is there, and in mass quantaties. How many times have you had your plane (1st break in tank, no flying or taxiing), helicopter (1st break in tank, or electric "park" heli), or car outside running in the neighborhood and someone comes up and starts to ask about it? They think it's really cool, but get turned off as soon as they ask the big question, "How much does it cost?". When you say something in the neighborhood of $500, they get shocked, and the RC hobby has lost another customer. People have the Wal-Mart price mentality and think that all RC's should be under $100. Granted, we know that our Blade CX2/Axe EZ/insert coax heli here is better than the Air Hog helis sold for $60. The general public that has never had exposure to hobby RCs are looking to buy things cheap.

If a company like Horizon would take a heli like the mCX w/Tx for $129.99, include FSOne Solo w/ an interface to connect it to the included controller as well has a Horizon catalog, advertise it on TV and/or other mass means (in a target "test bed" area first), and sell it at Wal-Mart, Target, or Radio Shack, I think that they would do well. As a test bed, only sell it at a couple of stores to see how many people actually respond to it. Once they buy that heli, enjoy it, see how much better it really is, look through the included catalog, then they would be more prone to look for an LHS or the Horizon website to buy the larger, more capable, and more expensive products.

Similar could be done with FSOne since they've lowered the price, even if it is temporary or clearance. Even at $100, it would be possible to get people to buy it at Best Buy, Wal-Mart, etc... Just look at the game Guitar Hero ($90-$100 depending on console, $50 for Nintendo DS), and Rock Band ($160+). As for Microsoft's flight simulator series, $60 for the software, plus you have to buy your own controller to get any enjoyment out of it ($20+ for a decent joystick with rudder capabilities). By that time, you've spent at least $80 to get flying on that. They can also invest a couple grand into a demo Kiosk at the testbed store to let people try it before they buy it to get more interest in it.

The later would probably be the best bet, as high end companies that begin to mass market their product usually get labeled as a mass market company and don't get the as many customers looking for a high end product. Take Mongoose bikes for example. Years ago, Mongoose bikes were considered top of the line. They ran into money troubles and decided to add a mass market line under the Mongoose name (the bikes sold at Wal-Mart). Once they did that, many people looking for a high end bike would see a Mongoose at a bike shop (still the high end Mongoose of before), and pass it up thinking of the bike they saw at Wal-Mart earlier. Now, it's hard to find a high end Mongoose in a bike shop. Some bike shops still carry them, others can order them if you ask for one, or you can order them on the internet.

If they mass marketed just the sim, they would not loose their high end image by mass marketing their planes, helis, boats, and cars. They would be using the mass marketed sim to advertise their "real" RC products. That would open up the sim to a larger market, making them cheaper for us in the hobby, allowing the developers to make more money off of the product, and possibly get a few new people into the hobby. As a plus to Horizon, those new hobbiests would most likely look for Horizon branded products as a result.

The same could be done with RealFlight for Great Planes if they were willing to drop their price to $100 or less.

I'm not a businessman or a marketing specialist by any means, these are just my opinions and observations.

Maybe Mike is keeping an eye on this thread.

Your compairing the price to games and a flight simulator is not a game its a tool. Look at the price of other software that doesnt sell millions of copies like a hit game does or charge a monthly fee to play like most of the big online games now do. I am a software engineer and we make simulations so I understand how much work something like this would take. Some of the software packages we use at work are > $3000.00 a copy. I bought my simulator over the winter for something to do while being stuck inside. I didn't even have any intention of getting back into flying rc for real, just got sick of flying from the tower view on ms flight sim lol. Needless to say the sim got me hooked again and since I have bought a dedicated vehicle to haul my planes and have spent more money on models and gear then I would care to think about. I have an insane amount of hours on the sim since January of this year when I bought it. If I figured out the price per hour on the sim it would prolly be in the cents and it was by far the best investment I have made in this hobby.