Kevin Hall Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 Our customers with the boxed version can opt for the re-download (4.99) which will allow the new version to be downloaded, so I believe the answer is yes! Lefteris, As a Concorde-X "box" customer I don't think it's at all fair to charge 4.99 (pounds, euros, dollars?) for a compatibility update that's available free to recent download customers. No one else is charging for FSX-SE compatibility updates. Please rethink. Charging customers who have already paid full price a premium to cover your download hosting costs is not fair practice. I can't think of another FSX addon developer that does this (PMDG used to do this but stopped it a few months back). Concorde-X is already an expensive product, which I can no longer use in FSX-SE. Charging 4.99 to make it usable again is a cheek to say the least. If you were charging every customer for the update it might be more defensible, but recent download customers get their update free. Why is that, since the bandwidth cost is the same? Kevin
Lefteris Kalamaras Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 If your box version works well in fsx, why do you need to update? Did you not pay for FSX-SE? Did dovetail give it to you for free? Isn't that essentially an update of Fsx?
Kevin Hall Posted November 12, 2015 Author Posted November 12, 2015 If your box version works well in fsx, why do you need to update? Did you not pay for FSX-SE? Did dovetail give it to you for free? Isn't that essentially an update of Fsx? Irrelevant. No one else is charging for steam compatibility. Some FSL customers get the update free others don't. How about doing what PMDG did? All download customers get the update free and Aerosoft box customers get it free as a download from them.
Lefteris Kalamaras Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 Irrelevant. No one else is charging for steam compatibility. Some FSL customers get it free others don't. Irrelevant? Did you NOT PAY for Steam? Was it anything else BUT an update of the SAME simulator? Did you complain to Dovetail when you purchased FSX Steam at 50 and they sell it twice a year at 5 ? Do you not understand that the cost is ONLY to offset the cost of our ISP charging US for older re-downloads? Do you want us to eat that cost instead? The point is this: People who bought the Concorde in the past 365 days get the free update FROM the ISP, not from us (because they purchased the 365 day update protection). People who bought before then, pay the (tiny in today's numbers) cost so we don't have to pay that cost ourselves when we make absolutely zero income on the FSX update. Understood now?
Kevin Hall Posted November 12, 2015 Author Posted November 12, 2015 Irrelevant? Did you NOT PAY for Steam? Was it anything else BUT an update of the SAME simulator? Did you complain to Dovetail when you purchased FSX Steam at 50 and they sell it twice a year at 5 ? Do you not understand that the cost is ONLY to offset the cost of our ISP charging US for older re-downloads? Do you want us to eat that cost instead? The point is this: People who bought the Concorde in the past 365 days get the free update FROM the ISP, not from us (because they purchased the 365 day update protection). People who bought before then, pay the (tiny in today's numbers) cost so we don't have to pay that cost ourselves when we make absolutely zero income on the FSX update. Understood now? It's irrelevant because as you said yourself the charge for bandwidth and is nothing to do with having paid Dovetail anything (I paid 5, not 50 by the way). You brought in an irrelevant argument to defend the charge. The charge is supposedly to cover bandwidth charges, not because it's for a different release of FSX. If you want to recoup some of your development costs for the Steam update then at least be straight about it and charge everybody. Why does your ISP charge you for older customer bandwidth? Surely bandwidth is bandwidth, regardless of how old the purchase is. No other FSX addon developer charges for extended redownloads that I know of, so how do they manage the cost? Why not release the new version to Aerosoft (as PMDG did with the NGX and 777 for their box customers)? Then FSL doesn't have to bear the download costs for box customers, Aerosoft would host it.
Mark Wolpert Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 hello, so you tell me, that my order on the release date does not count as much as if i would bought it one year ago? thats not fair - and tbh that will be a reason why i will not support you anymore and i will not buy the anticipate a320 good luck in the future best regards, michael I think this is harsh. The original release was years ago...personally I think the $4.99 is not enough and I would support something equally nominal like $9.99. 1
Lefteris Kalamaras Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 It's irrelevant because as you said yourself the charge for bandwidth and is nothing to do with having paid Dovetail anything (I paid 5, not 50 by the way). You brought in an irrelevant argument to defend the charge. The charge is supposedly to cover bandwidth charges, not because it's for a different release of FSX. If you want to recoup some of your development costs for the Steam update then at least be straight about it and charge everybody. Why does your ISP charge you for older customer bandwidth? Surely bandwidth is bandwidth, regardless of how old the purchase is. No other FSX addon developer charges for extended redownloads that I know of, so how do they manage the cost? Why not release the new version to Aerosoft (as PMDG did with the NGX and 777 for their box customers)? Then FSL doesn't have to bear the download costs for box customers, Aerosoft would host it. So... you paid 5 for the Dovetail upgrade. Did you ask them for a freebie? I guess not. Why didn't you? Answer me this - truthfully - and we can continue our debate.
Kevin Hall Posted November 12, 2015 Author Posted November 12, 2015 So... you paid 5 for the Dovetail upgrade. Did you ask them for a freebie? I guess not. Why didn't you? Answer me this - truthfully - and we can continue our debate. I don't expect Dovetail to sell me FSX-SE for nothing, but if they update it (as they have done) I don't expect to get a bill from them either. This update will benefit all Concorde users, not just those who have FSX-SE. Lefteris, you aren't charging because the update is for Steam. You are charging because of the extra bandwidth cost. Please drop this irrelevant line of argument and answer the points and suggestions I put to you. Namely Why not have Aerosoft host the download for box customers? If you want to cover the cost of the update make it fair and apply it to all customers. Does it really cost FSL 4.99 $/£/€ for each customer to download Concorde-X? It doesn't cost me anywhere near that much to download that amount of data. Thanks Kevin By the way, the A320 looks fantastic. My credit card is at the ready for that release.
Lefteris Kalamaras Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 I don't expect Dovetail to sell me FSX-SE for nothing... Why not? Isn't FSX-SE an update of FSX Legacy, with the removal of old multiplayer, the addition of Steam multiplayer and a few fixes? Essentially, isn't it JUST an update? Lefteris, you aren't charging because the update is for Steam. You are charging because of the extra bandwidth cost. Did I say something different? We're charging only to offset the costs the ISP is charging us to use their download and software licensing mechanism. eSellerate provide a service for the first 365 days after purchase for unlimited, free downloads. That's what I explained as "customers who bought in the past 365 days". If eSellerate did NOT have this mechanism, you would only be entitled to the 3 downloads they provide and it would be YOUR responsibility to back it up. If we provide an update to Aerosoft for boxed product (and at this point, we're not sure we'll go down that path for other reasons I will not discuss here), wouldn't you need to pay to get those updates? How would you be getting new CDs? I am glad you say that other add-on developers stopped doing this - possibly they inherited a large fortune from their grandfather and are able to pay for the ISP out of their own pockets. We are not that fortunate, so we cannot absorb the cost the ISP requires per updated download (this small price tag for you would be thousands out of pocket for us for a product that we continue to support so many years down the line). We could choose not to do any updates - nobody would have argued with that - would they? More mature products reach end-of-life and that's that. So - in the end - it's up to you. If you don't wish to get this update, don't. The existing box installer works fine as it is. By the way, the A320 looks fantastic. My credit card is at the ready for that release. We appreciate the sentiment and we hope to not disappoint .
Kevin Hall Posted November 12, 2015 Author Posted November 12, 2015 Why not? Isn't FSX-SE an update of FSX Legacy, with the removal of old multiplayer, the addition of Steam multiplayer and a few fixes? Essentially, isn't it JUST an update? Did I say something different? We're charging only to offset the costs the ISP is charging us to use their download and software licensing mechanism. eSellerate provide a service for the first 365 days after purchase for unlimited, free downloads. That's what I explained as "customers who bought in the past 365 days". If eSellerate did NOT have this mechanism, you would only be entitled to the 3 downloads they provide and it would be YOUR responsibility to back it up. If we provide an update to Aerosoft for boxed product (and at this point, we're not sure we'll go down that path for other reasons I will not discuss here), wouldn't you need to pay to get those updates? How would you be getting new CDs? I am glad you say that other add-on developers stopped doing this - possibly they inherited a large fortune from their grandfather and are able to pay for the ISP out of their own pockets. We are not that fortunate, so we cannot absorb the cost the ISP requires per updated download (this small price tag for you would be thousands out of pocket for us for a product that we continue to support so many years down the line). We could choose not to do any updates - nobody would have argued with that - would they? More mature products reach end-of-life and that's that. So - in the end - it's up to you. If you don't wish to get this update, don't. The existing box installer works fine as it is. We appreciate the sentiment and we hope to not disappoint . Re a new CD, my understanding is Aerosoft's PMDG box customers got a download of the new versions. I'm happy to accept that you have reasons not to pursue a similar solution. I appreciate your candour in discussing this openly. Many people in your position would not have done so, so I thank you for that. I had hoped I might persuade you to reconsider your decision but accept that that won't happen. My post wasn't meant to be a rant but how you title this thread is up to you, I probably deserve it. I'm very sorry to have disrupted what was a significant announcement for FSL. That was never my intention and I won't raise such a subject again. Sincerely, Kevin
Lefteris Kalamaras Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 Kevin, in all honesty, I appreciate your comments because they were always respectful and never insulting. You voiced your opinion, I explained the situation and that's that. If we can't have a civilized conversation whereby two sides can communicate their opinion, we are not human after all. I did, however, delete a couple other posts that were clearly trolling. Those trolls can return to the dungeons from where they appear when significant news items are posted. They feed on argument for argument's sake and I will not stand this for a second. Once again - you didn't disrupt and thank you for expressing your "rant" .
Lefteris Kalamaras Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 Nikola, that wasn't for you. The person whose comment was deleted knows who it was. He tries again, he'll be banned. Your comment was unfortunately a side-problem of the topic split.
Tim Smith Posted November 14, 2015 Posted November 14, 2015 Yeah, It kind of stinks to pay to update as it seems to be something that is becoming increasingly uncommon in 2015. But the explanation makes sense, and FSL are not the only developer who still do this (VRS to name one). Just think of it as something you might have to deal with when buying from the small independent, niche developers.
GavinPrice Posted November 15, 2015 Posted November 15, 2015 I agree. Although I'm happy to pay for an update. It seems unfair that just because you bought the product within the last 12 months you get the update free, whereas customers who bought before that are "penalised" for wanting to update their software to the latest version. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
bobruels44 Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 I have to agree that it would be frustrating to have to pay again for an update. This is making me consider not buying any of your products because of this. Other companies (read PMDG) no longer charge to re-download their products. Other stores like FlightSimStore, Aerosoft, and simMarket, to name a few, seem to allow updates of the products, for no cost to the customer, Obviously they take a cut of the sales, but overall it provides a better experience for the customers. At the very least it would be better to consider in the future to make everyone pay for a service pack to cover dev costs rather than only making some people pay to cover bandwidth. Just my opinion however.
Lefteris Kalamaras Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 Thank you for your opinion. We had another option: Not issue an upgrade at all. Simply focus all our resources to getting the A320-X out and that's that. After all, the Concorde-X is almost six years old now and it had two service packs that everyone enjoyed. I've explained now three times that we make absolutely zero money on this. Not a cent. It simply means we will not have to actually eat the distribution costs ourselves (on top of the developer resource cost which is *very* tangible, I assure you - we could instead have those developers be working on something else that would bring new money in). Do you still feel you're entitled to the rant? 2
Lefteris Kalamaras Posted November 19, 2015 Posted November 19, 2015 I am closing the topic - it served its purpose.
Recommended Posts