Is AWS dying?

[groundbum2]

I've not played for 3 months as I got bored. I figured out the formula to get #1 in lots of areas and could apply it rote by rote in game after game. The sheer tediousness of using a click click interface on a 1000 plane fleet drove me bonkers - I know a better GUI could do this in one keystroke and after 20 years in IT I've a good idea what is easy to do and what takes a lot of effort. The sheer obstinacy "that's how it is" drove this paying customer away.

tips - get more players so it's more interesting rather than the same faces in the same locations
         do this by getting pax cbd implemented and really listening to what the players want, for me much better big fleet GUI

Simon

[tungstennedge]

Same for me, while I have not been playing for nearly as long very few world manage to engage me anymore. Big fleet GUI is a pain. Price micro should be easy to implement, but its not so everyone charges 104%. Seven days should be one button. Ive also seen scheduling in other games where for each plane, you drag certain flights along the time of the week- I found this particularly engaging and would be infinitely more attractive to new players.

At the end of the day, with the game seemingly being developed by one person with other focuses, progress will be slower than interest in the game increasing. Hopefully a change of mindset, or getting more players onboard via mobile, or taking on more help from the development side of the game could help revive interest. Maybe if Sami follows through and actually tests a world without OOB could be very fun, but for now I await changes before I commit more time to this beloved but dying game.

[Cornishman]

Well said Simon and tt !   There is far too much obstinate, "this is the way we do it / that is the way it is", coupled with the few obstinate supporters who evidently would also go-along with an argument that the world is flat just so as to be seen as being loyal.... or whatever their reasons. Well that's OK, there will always be those that hate any changes and they too can have their opinions of course.

The overall game is wonderful... it really is, to me and to many.... but you have to allow criticism and act upon it... not dig your heals in!  For example, the Features Request pages on this forum are probably the biggest waste of time.... very little ever comes of anything anyone ever says or suggests there.  That is a problem.

[swiftus27]

Let me ask you all this.  If the features many of you are crying for are implemented, how much per week are you willing to spend for AWS?   

[Cornishman]

No problem with paying more for a better version / development of this game. It's really not expensive as things stand when comparing to other games out there, but in it's current state - it is too full of limitations and too "stuck-in-the-mud". Just my humble opinion
Jack

[Continental Sky]

Let me ask you all this.  If the features many of you are crying for are implemented, how much per week are you willing to spend for AWS?

Easily quadruple the existing price. I am surprised that the game can even exist at current price; I have just had a look, there is 1,078 players in all GWs. That's ~2,000 EUR per month; I suspect it can cover the hosting costs, let alone to earn something so to be motivated to develop the game further...

The standards will probably differ, but I would say, with implementation of majority of the improvements proposed by players, 10 EUR per month is realistic price.

The attractiveness could be increased through discounted pricing on quantity - I currently play 4 GWs, so 40 EUR per month would be indeed too much entertainment; but 10 EUR for one GW and 20 EUR for 3 or 4 GWs sounds sane to me.

[Viscount Bailey]

I too have become less and less motivated to play the game --> REASONS:  too stale and absolute blank refusal to listen to anything anyone ever suggests (very much with you on that one Cornish). Always just excuses why nothing is going to change, unless occasionally being told that there are plans for the future -  ad infinitum!

But it is really something that should be of concern to the owner/manager of this game that, as you say Continental, there are apparently 1078 players and you get to see - what, about 30 or 40 people at most who regularly get involved in anything here in the forums?  Heck, this particular thread started with a survey that totalled just 36 responses !  OWCH.   and then, of those 36 that can actually be bothered to take part in these threads, 50% voted that either this game is dead or that it needs to be rescued !  WOW.  If you don't listen to that and take action then you really don't care about your customers!

Harsh but honest.

[Karl]

I realize how difficult it is to create a business simulation of any kind.  I have some limited experience in this area.  So, AWS fits the bill for some, and not for others. 

I do not have access to any subscription numbers, but from observing the number of players in each game and the name of the airlines and players in each game, I would say things are stable.  It seems to me that AWS has a certain group of loyal players, and from time to time, it sometimes attracts new players - some of whom get disenchanted for several reasons.  Some obviously stick with it and learn through experience.  Some leave for good.  Some come back every so often.to try again.  The loyal followers remain.  But, let's face it.  Even though there a good number of aviation enthusiasts in the world, most are interested in memorabilia, schedules, photos, aircraft, etc.  How many in this relatively elite group want to build and manage their own airline?  Then, if it takes a lot of work, who wants to participate?

Why do some potential players get frustrated and leave?

No one doubts that it takes a long time, a lot of trial and effort, a lot of bankruptcies, and a lot of work to figure out the ins and outs of the AWS program.  This is not unusual with any type of simulation.  Every simulation has its quirks.  While AWS tries to replicate the real world, the constraints of the program can make the simulation only so real.

Some would-be-players seem to think real-world practices will always work in AWS.  Sometimes they do.  Sometimes - not so much.

For instance:  Why are there alliances before the 1990s?  Why can a player use a 1950s prop well past its real-world life expectancy - at least until noise regulations require replacement? Why will simulation passengers continue to fly on old prop aircraft in high numbers when competitors offer non-stop jet service?  A player has to sometimes go against real-world practice to be profitable in AWS.  This can frustrate new players with high hopes for an easy form of entertainment based on their enthusiasm for commercial aviation.

I also understand that passenger demand in a simulation has to be based on some standard.  It is simply not possible to cater to local needs throughout the world.  I also understand the requirement for AWS to provide an atmosphere that allows competition and not domination.  I have learned to live with this and make the best of it.  However, a new player might not understand that in AWS there is usually more demand from a mid -sized city to an international destination than to a major city.  For example, in the AWS 60's and 70s more passengers want to fly from IAD to Johannesburg than to LGA, CLE, CVG, STL.....!  Cargo to almost any international destination is profitable.  Demand between real-world cities in the US is always in the 30 - 50 range, while a route to many British airports will be 100+!

As to the 30 - 50 passenger demand, it seems to me that very few aircraft manufacturers make aircraft that fit the AWS demands.  Aircraft either lack the range or they have high passenger capacity.  Neither fit into many AWS routes.  (I have learned how to adapt to this situation, but these flights are not very lucrative.)

It seems to me that any player who chooses to fly turbo props between mid-sized cities will struggle with low demand, aircraft with restraints, aircraft from multiple companies with engine makers - more than intercontinental aircraft types and engines.  Combining turbo props with jet aircraft can lead to a challenging AWS financial situation.

Also, competition, as noted is good; however, competing with long-time well-established players and airlines can be very frustrating to newcomers.

All of this - and more - can contribute to why a player joins and why a player may move on.

[Sami]

Just a quick comment here from the side. Some of you say that nothing is listened and nothing is done based on user feedback - that's not true and exactly the opposite! I do have a grand plan on how to develop things, but a large portion of the good ideas is from the players, especially many of the smaller things and UI improvements. And same for the bug reports - I'm very greatful of the observations there.

But these welcome suggestions and observations do necessarily not mean that I would be jumping through hoops quickly and without consideration to implement every suggestion, and that's why "your idea" is not necessarily implemented. And since there has been, and there is, the bigger idea on how to develop the sim in the long term making drastic changes to the core and major concepts or structures just when some single user requests it is not very likely. (And for that reason I am rather surprised to read that the strategical development decisions are thought somehow to be a matter of public voting?)

For the pricing and things: Since I do have a real job and my livelihood is not tied to the success here, and AWS is so niché genre simulation, AWS is always a steady side-business. And I'm very pleased of that - we've been around for so many years now! Hiring several full-time employees is of course not a reasonable thought, nor a risk worth taking in my mind. Unless we wish to make this into a kids mobile game with jewels, gems and bonus points one could buy, and perhaps that way create more revenue. But that's not at all where you guys want this to go, I'm sure. And for that reason I also wish to keep the pricing reasonable, and I'd feel for example doubling the price would perhaps scare away some people. I like doing this and coding AWS, and money is not the main motivator, and I'm happy on the financial status and balance. Or to say it in other words - it can't be a freeware hobby project due to the time it takes, but I'm happy to manage AWS a side-gig next to my real work, since this is mentally very rewarding and we have a nice community here too. And of course the financials have been good enough that I have been able to hire freelancers for temporary projects, like the mobile UI design, which has been a big investment.

For the forums: The recent years have seen a strong trend where these traditional forums are losing focus and people are moving to other medias. For AWS the Discord is fairly active, but we'd like to keep the forums alive since these are good archives and nicely tied together with the main website/system. If you have thoughts on how to make these more lively, let me know. But I think the division of the social side into multiple platforms/medias is inevitable, like in all other social media platforms globally.

And also, it seems that some of you missed by latest news update from last week too: https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,89289.0.html

[Viscount Bailey]

Uh-huh, OK Sami, I hear you    You may well be correct that you feel the opposite is true, that then means something is regularly done in response to feedback ?  If you say so, but I dont' see that as a customer to be honest. I mostly just watch but don't often get involved to comment - anyway I also greatly respect that you say this is a niche game for a niche audience. I fully agree and for sure, a lot of that consideration needs to be taken when we talk about this subject.  No, I also don't want jewels and gold coins like those crappy mass games for kids  - It was good to point that out Sami.   But also, it is true that your existing audience has an appetite for something a bit more (stopping well short of the jewels  )  Anyway - a healthy debate is one where a lot of varying opinions are being brought forward.
David

[DanDan]

... Unless we wish to make this into a kids mobile game with jewels, gems and bonus points one could buy, and perhaps that way create more revenue....

ok, no, please do not go into the direction of pay-to-win-mobile phone games! they are terrible (except for pocket planes, which is kind of fun but ... exhausting!). and i would not call them a simulation in any case

but airline simulations are not a niche. there is also airline empires that i like for how price management works and customers seem smarter . and the ife options are kind of nice, even if not very intuitive - but they exist and make a bit of a difference. and yes, the connecting passengers there are a good feature (although they are an approximation that certainly doesnt live up to the standards Sami sets for AWS). and the flight planning in airlinesim is great, also the way different kinds of passenger seats can be selected is great.
and both of them have hundreds and hundreds of players more than AWS. still in my opinion, AWS is the best - but maybe instead of limiting to this statement, we should be looking at what is great in those other simulations, and try to go and try to learn from their strenghts.

and i like the project "nonprofit" character of AWS. and i dont mind Sami making decisions - someone has to, and it is not a democratic process, that is fine (and i have been annoyed with lots of decisions myself, like the employees in aws that stay with the airline for 200 years ). but maybe it would be helpful if the community could be helpful and do some work? just think of the "airport data"-collection-tool. when it was released, lots of people made efforts, to some extent quite coordinated, to get data collected. maybe the community could be integrated, not making the decisions on where the journey goes, but possibly being able to provide data for aircraft and Sami could just take a look over it and say: thats fine, accepted. (which in turn would mean he could use his time better for those important works and decisions).

regarding player numbers: it seems to me, there is a lot of "hardcore" players with their total expertise doing research and all, and there is some basic casual players, but they dont stay long in the game. maybe it would be helpful if those werent excluded from the game so much as its currently the case (and there are quite a few factors that i mentioned before how possibly that could be done). and more players would certainly also enrich the game for those hardcore players.

p.s.: thanks for that update, i was very delighted when i read it. and i hope that other improvements are now going to be easier to be implemented and gameworlds easier to be managed

[Todorojoz]

Uh-huh, OK Sami, I hear you    You may well be correct that you feel the opposite is true, that then means something is regularly done in response to feedback ?  If you say so, but I dont' see that as a customer to be honest. I mostly just watch but don't often get involved to comment - anyway I also greatly respect that you say this is a niche game for a niche audience. I fully agree and for sure, a lot of that consideration needs to be taken when we talk about this subject.  No, I also don't want jewels and gold coins like those crappy mass games for kids  - It was good to point that out Sami.   But also, it is true that your existing audience has an appetite for something a bit more (stopping well short of the jewels  )  Anyway - a healthy debate is one where a lot of varying opinions are being brought forward.
David

Sami actually implemented a few suggestions just in the latest AoF launch. We started 5 years earlier and he added a couple of aircraft updates. As he mentioned, he listens to feedback and if it can fit into the grand scheme of things it gets added. All of that came from feedback from both the Forums and AWS and was gameplayer pushed start to finish.

The issue is everyone has a different opinion on what they wish AWS was, and it can't be 300 different ways. Just because something someone wants isn't implemented doesn't mean it's not heard.

We recently were able to start ordering more than 3 planes a week. That was honestly a risky move Sami made and it makes it easier for big airlines to grow even larger and faster to take room from smaller airlines. But it was done and likely calculated.

I think it's perfectly fine to voice opinions of coarse, but we should also have realistic expectations of our requests.

[MikeS]

without doubt, many players wouldn't be able to afford the rates you mentioned! EUR10 a month, that is EUR120 a year, for a game?

Easily quadruple the existing price. I am surprised that the game can even exist at current price; I have just had a look, there is 1,078 players in all GWs. That's ~2,000 EUR per month; I suspect it can cover the hosting costs, let alone to earn something so to be motivated to develop the game further...

The standards will probably differ, but I would say, with implementation of majority of the improvements proposed by players, 10 EUR per month is realistic price.

The attractiveness could be increased through discounted pricing on quantity - I currently play 4 GWs, so 40 EUR per month would be indeed too much entertainment; but 10 EUR for one GW and 20 EUR for 3 or 4 GWs sounds sane to me.

[groundbum2]

I think we've reached an impasse. The developer has stated he's in the exact spot he wants to be, cost neutral, a bit of hobbyist coding, and has no intention of changing anything. And on the other hand are lots of players, myself included, with ambitions for the next level of AWS who are getting increasingly vociferous in the face of do nothing.

Seems to be walk or shut up time to me..

Simon

[Sami]

and has no intention of changing anything.

No, I did not say that. Don't twist my words please.

Anyway, I am inclined to close this thread, since I have already answered the questions here, and also the completely separate announcements have been posted for everyone to see. But I still see some sort of negativity continuing here, of which I'm not very happy. Again, if you wonder why 2021 has been very quiet, I urge to read the public announcement I made and read a bit between the lines at the first part to truly understand it (can't go into details in public really). But that doesn't mean AWS would be somehow going away or being stopped. No.

[DanDan]

to clarify what sami probably is referring to... https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,89289.msg526326.html#msg526326

i was very glad to have read about all the work that was done in the background in 2021, and i am looking forward to all the upcoming changes!
nonetheless i would be very happy if there could be a "backlog" of upcoming works/changes displayed, not with a timeline, but with a prioritization. and maybe an open forum with ideas could help you with finding the best decision for AWS, possibly even with outsourcing some of the work.

[Continental Sky]

without doubt, many players wouldn't be able to afford the rates you mentioned! EUR10 a month, that is EUR120 a year, for a game?

Probably, I see the total sum is a bit high; but when you look on a weekly level, as it's charged now, it's 2 or 3 eur per week. If someone enjoys a game, I still don't think it's too much - it's a beer in local pub, or a betting slip, or pack of cigarettes, majority of people have those small entertainment expenditures, so the space can be found.

[Mort]

without doubt, many players wouldn't be able to afford the rates you mentioned! EUR10 a month, that is EUR120 a year, for a game?

A lot of MMOs charge around $15 a month as a subscription, and have between them millions of subscribers..

[Cornishman]

No, I did not say that. Don't twist my words please.

Anyway, I am inclined to close this thread, since I have already answered the questions here, and also the completely separate announcements have been posted for everyone to see. But I still see some sort of negativity continuing here, of which I'm not very happy. Again, if you wonder why 2021 has been very quiet, I urge to read the public announcement I made and read a bit between the lines at the first part to truly understand it (can't go into details in public really). But that doesn't mean AWS would be somehow going away or being stopped. No.

Hey Sami, we get your probably a bit annoyed / upset with this thread seeming to be negative.  I don't see it as negative - the one thing I think that all people here would agree is that what you have done up to now is fantastic. Me too... I know I can "moan-on" a bit myself and at times seem to be negative.  We all get frustrated at things and want somewhere to go to voice our opinions.

I hope you don't close this thread because  it would almost be a little like the ostrich burying its head in the sand (totally a misconception that happens by the way  )  It is a healthy thing to let folk speak about it... just extract all the positive suggestions and comments and then hear the the grumbles and decide if anything needs dealing with those grumbles.  If we don't hear both the beautiful things and the ugly things in life then we only learn half of what is to be learned.

So I'm sure it won't be the last time I grumble (heheee  ) but please just use this as a bit of knowledge what your followers are calling out for.
We luv's ya really Sami ! 
Jack

[NovemberCharlie]

I think Sami's point isn't necessarily the feedback, but the manner in which it is presented...