wouldn't it be great if we could trade planes...

[heywooood]

anyone here like me who owns a dozen or more payware aircraft they never use? In some cases they are too resource intensive for our rigs (who would admit THAT?)
In some cases the experience is diminished by A) poor visibility from the VC or B) a niggling defect that the developer will never address and cannot be altered in texturing (paint) or C) some other, more nebulous reason.

Don't mean to start a ruckus - I know all of the reasons why this cannot be done. It just irritates me every time I look in that folder - like whenever I upgrade my PC I'll poke around to see if an old purchase will work better now,
or whenever a new thread is opened on an old airplane because someone has created a new mod or livery or something useful to try on it...and there they all are - dormant in a most expensive boneyard.

Sure would be great to be able to exchange them for ones I would use...

[Mickey D]

It would likely be a violation of the EULA and what about support for the product if it goes south. Non-starter I think.

[Stefano Zibell]

He knows all the reasons this can't be done.

Thankfully (or not) I don't own many payware.

Carenado 185, 172, 10$ Captain Sim 777, and now the A2A Cub.

[JamieC]

I agree that it would be good to be able to do, but as the original poster said, I understand the rules why we cant.

[BendyFlyer]

I hear you on this. I have a couple, I keep them just in case but in an inactive hangar. Some fortunately have been replaced later by quality work by other developers. I am now fairly ruthless in regards to junking stuff and making it known that the product is a dog.

I have only taken to a couple with the knife to try and fix them and they were fixable but the mob who made them just will not do it or cannot for whatever reason. I guess it is the only one of two I have published but I did so in such a way as to not breach any issue of copyright or the EULA. That is a very tricky area but if you are not purporting to offer the changes or fixes as anything but a temporary patch (and use at your own risk) and refer to the owners of copyright as having the ultimate responsibility they cannot complain or take action. You are not reselling or diminishing the product or using appropriating any intellectual property. The key issue is one of the common law (everywhere actually) with respect to the offering of goods and services - that is it must be fit for purpose - do what it claims it can do, if not they are actually actionable at law for damages, so there is a point for some developers to consider when they jump up and down about their rights, it is called fraud or misrepresentation, if it is not fit for purpose. I as the owner of the product as long as I am not breach their rights (to ownership or trade) I am entitled to take action to rectify or change the deficiencies. One day I might send a bill to some folk for that work. LOL.

[heywooood]

He knows all the reasons this can't be done.

Thankfully (or not) I don't own many payware.

Carenado 185, 172, 10$ Captain Sim 777, and now the A2A Cub.

exactly...and although I was an enthusiastic customer before, very slowly it has made me a little more thoughtful before I buy anything these days.

it's tough though, especially this week. Just look what has rolled off the assembly line in the past 7 days or so - lol

[Bjoern]

After having discussed the issues with the respective support team, I could fortunately trade a few planes for bonus points or get a refund.
This, of course, won't work if you've owned the aircraft in question for quite a while.
I've got a few dozen Euros worth of points stacked up somewhere and absolutely have no idea what to do with them.

Trading original, genuine, physical copies of add-ons on DVDs shouldn't be an issue.

[Stefano Zibell]

exactly...and although I was an enthusiastic customer before, very slowly it has made me a little more thoughtful before I buy anything these days.

it's tough though, especially this week. Just look what has rolled off the assembly line in the past 7 days or so - lol

No joke is it? Had meself the coin to spare, i'd be jolly snagging some P-47, Turbo Otter and D-18.

But I'm fairly happy with the stuff I fly. Freeware and Payware.

[heywooood]

No joke is it? Had meself the coin to spare, i'd be jolly snagging some P-47, Turbo Otter and D-18.

But I'm fairly happy with the stuff I fly. Freeware and Payware.

no - it's serious money alright...and yes those are the recent releases, plus the Bulldog etc..I was referring to, lol

and yes it's ok to periodically peruse the hangar file and occasionally pull one out of mothballs - either to remind myself of why they were parked, or to discover my PC upgrades have made them relevant again.

Yes Bjoern - the DVD's could readily be traded without issues but I was lamenting the very nature of the digital beast - the fact that the same trade and barter system does NOT apply..yet

[Paul K]

It's an idea but I would feel guilty. Some of the models I have shouldn't be inflicted on any other unsuspecting simmer.

[Vitus]

You'd easily see the other side of the discussion when you try to make a living of creating add-on for the sim. The current price model for add-ons reflect the terms set in the EULA, one person = one license, non-transferable. If you want to extend the license to allow for trading, the prices would probably triple to offset the reduced revenue. Don't forget also that with every customer you need to provide resources for support as well. So if add-on creators start to allow trading of their digital copies, not only do they have to face a decrease in sales, but also an increase in support tickets for every add-on they sell.
While I share the frustration with the high prices for DLC nowadays, I can appreciate the fact that the flightsim world is a niche industry with a small customer base, compared for instance to other genres.

P.s.: this reminded me of an episode of "extra credits" in which they discuss the pricing of games, which is kind of related to the topic:

[IanP]

That's a really good video actually Vitus and it is very much related to the topic, I agree.

As someone - possibly Baz - said a while ago, there really are only two primary models for sales in the FS world: A very high production rate of low-medium quality add-ons costing pricing that people will be prepared to pay or a very low production rate of very high quality add-ons, which far fewer people will be prepared to pay the much higher cost of. This applies less so to scenery than aircraft, but the principle still applies at a basic level.

Regarding trading things, in principle yes, it would be a brilliant idea, but I also agree that it would absolutely destroy the income of developers so I cannot see a way it could happen, without a completely new pricing/payment structure.

Cheers,

Ian P.

[heywooood]

I completely agree with all of the points made in opposition to my original post..I made it clear that I already knew it was a non-starter for all of these reasons and more.

I just thought that an open discussion of what I thought to be a common issue might be therapeutic or helpful in some small way...even if it is for points like the one Vitus makes, that describes the market and efforts made to balance work load with
ROI (return on investment) from the developer side.

WE know what our frustrations are - it's helpful periodically to visit theirs and understand the limitations..no matter what our expectations might be.

I think we're damn lucky there is so much enthusiasm for all things related to flight, flying, aircraft, and flight simulation - I believe it has helped make FSX P3D what they are, even if at times we can be a bit overly critical of the work..or the cost.

I hope I haven't ruffled feathers, or upset apple carts. Not my intention at all. Just civil discourse

[heywooood]

It's an idea but I would feel guilty. Some of the models I have shouldn't be inflicted on any other unsuspecting simmer.

LOFL

(the F was never silent)