Simulations are getting more expensive – but how many players can still keep up?

Simulations are a special genre. And that is actually their strength. This is not about making something explode every ten seconds. This is about bus lines, timetables, fields, stations, truck tours, harbor maneuvers, subway tunnels, machines, vehicles, and that small feeling of doing something as cleanly and correctly as possible.

But exactly from that, a big problem is currently emerging.

Simulations are becoming more and more elaborate. And when something becomes more elaborate, it usually also becomes more expensive. That sounds banal at first, but it is pretty important for the whole scene. Because modern simulators are no longer just “one vehicle, one route, done.” A good vehicle needs a clean model, an interior, fitting sounds, realistic displays, believable driving behavior, animations, tests, and often also a real license. A route needs landscape, objects, signals, stops, timetables, AI traffic, performance optimization, and many small details that players notice immediately when they are missing.

In short: Simulations live from little things. But little things cost a lot of work.

This does not only affect Train Sim World. It affects bus simulations, truck simulations, ship simulations, subway simulations, farming simulations, and smaller niches like LOTUS, Zusi, or SimRail. Expectations are rising everywhere. Players want better graphics, better physics, real sounds, more content, fewer bugs, console versions, updates, modding, good performance, and ideally still fair prices.

And that is exactly where it becomes difficult.

Because the target audience for simulations is loyal, loud, and very passionate – but it is not automatically huge. A new big action game reaches millions of people. A realistic railway multiple unit, a bus map, a ship simulator, or a new special route reaches a much smaller group. In return, this group often knows its stuff very well. It spots mistakes faster. It expects more accuracy. It does not just want “roughly right,” but as close to reality as possible.

That is nice, but also dangerous.

Because if development keeps getting more expensive, that money has to come back in. Either through more buyers, higher prices, more DLCs, or longer sales periods. But if the buyer base does not grow quickly enough, pressure builds. Then a DLC becomes more expensive. Then prices are argued about. Then players say: “30 euros again?” And developers may think: “You do not even see how much work is in this.”

Both sides are partly right.

Players are right when they say: We cannot keep paying more all the time if the content is not strong enough. Nobody wants to spend a lot of money on a DLC and then get bugs, poor performance, or missing features. Especially in times when many people are watching their money more closely, every price is viewed more critically.

But developers are also right when they say: Good simulation takes time. A real route is not built in one weekend. A realistic bus is not just a pretty 3D model with a steering wheel. A train needs technology, sounds, driving behavior, and a timetable. A farming machine needs licenses, animations, and functions. A ship has to feel different on water than a car on asphalt. Someone has to build, test, and maintain all of that.

You can put it very simply: The community wants more quality. But more quality costs more money.

The problem is only: More money does not automatically mean more buyers. This is where the actual crisis lies. The simulation industry is becoming more professional, larger, and more complex. But many subareas remain niches. A bus simulator does not suddenly become as big as a mainstream shooter. A railway DLC does not automatically reach millions of players. A realistic ship simulator does not become the next big mass hit overnight.

That creates a hard calculation: If a DLC is very expensive to develop but only reaches a limited target audience, the price has to rise or the scope has to become smaller. Both quickly cause anger. If the price gets higher, players complain. If the scope becomes smaller, players complain too. If the content comes later, there is frustration. If it comes too early and unfinished, there is even more frustration.

You can see this in many simulations. With Train Sim World, there are frequent discussions about DLC prices, scope, and roadmaps. With bus simulations, it is about maps, vehicles, performance, and missing details. With truck simulations, expectations are rising for new countries, new cities, and better old areas. With Farming Simulator, players expect more and more machines, brands, productions, and comfort. With ship simulations, many finally expect good physics, good missions, and real harbor maneuvers. Everywhere, the rule is: It should become more, become better, and preferably not become too expensive.

That is a wish everyone understands. But it does not always fit reality.

It becomes especially difficult with real licenses. Many simulators use real brands: trucks, buses, trains, tractors, ships, companies, logos, or cities. That makes games more believable. It simply feels different when a real manufacturer name is on the vehicle. But such licenses are not free and often not uncomplicated either. Then there are platforms like PC, PlayStation, and Xbox. Every additional platform means more testing, more adjustments, and more sources of error.

Updates also cost money. Many players rightly say: “Please keep maintaining your games.” But maintenance is work. Bug fixing, performance improvements, new features, compatibility, support – none of that just happens on the side. Someone has to pay for those hours. And if a studio is small, you notice that even more.

Still, this must not be an excuse for poor quality. Players do not have to accept every price just because development is expensive. If a DLC is expensive, it also has to deliver. Then sound, driving behavior, scope, performance, and everyday gameplay have to be right. An expensive simulation must not only look good in screenshots. It has to convince while playing.

The solution is probably somewhere in the middle.

Developers need to explain better why something costs what it costs. Not with marketing lines, but concretely. How much route is included? Which vehicles? Which features? Which improvements? Which limits? What comes later? What does not come? The better players understand what they are buying, the fairer the discussion can become.

At the same time, players have to accept that good simulation does not come cheaply. Anyone who wants real details, real vehicles, real sounds, good maps, and long-term maintenance cannot always expect prices as if all of that had been created on the side. You cannot demand maximum depth, perfect quality, huge scope, fast updates, and mini prices all at once. Somewhere, the calculation has to work out.

But that does not mean everything may automatically become more expensive. The industry also has to reach new players. Good tutorials, better onboarding, clear menus, and understandable game goals are important. Many simulations are still pretty intimidating for newcomers. If a game only appeals to the old hardcore fans, the target audience stays small. But if it brings in new players and still offers enough depth for experts, it can grow.

That is exactly why games like ETS2 or Farming Simulator are so strong. They are simple enough for new players to start, but deep enough for fans to stay for a long time. That is probably the best formula: easy to start, possible to stick with for a long time.

In the end, the simulation industry faces an uncomfortable question: How much detail can a niche afford? Because that is exactly what it is about. The more realistic, larger, and prettier simulations are supposed to become, the more expensive they become. If the target audience does not grow with them, passion turns into a very hard calculation.

That does not mean simulations are going under in a crisis. Quite the opposite. The scene is alive. There are strong projects, loyal communities, and many exciting niches. But it needs more honesty. About prices. About effort. About expectations. And about the question of what players are really willing to pay.

Because simulations live from details. But every detail has to be built.

And in the end, someone has to pay for that work.

EinfachMory explored this topic using Dovetail and TSW as an example in a video:

Die Probleme bleiben - genau wie die Engine? | Was wird aus Train Sim World?

Dovetail Games hat jüngst angekündigt: Dass UE5-Projekt "Metro Rivals: New York" wird auf Eis gelegt. Das ist für uns ALLE ein Problem. Warum?! Das erkläre i...

www.youtube.com

Do you think modern simulations are becoming too expensive by now – or are higher prices simply unavoidable with more effort?