Whose greed? Microsoft's for offering what it's prepared to pay, or the 3rd party developers for wanting more?Surely, it's just a normal commercial situation?

Gerry, far too many people misuse the word "greed" as though it were synoymous with "reasonable profit." If there were no "reasonable profit" to be made, they couldn't pay their employees, the light bill, their water bills, etc., nor would they be able to pay a reasonable dividend to their investors.In short, it's the inevitable result of sheer ignorance of basic economics that's the proximate root of this gross misunderstanding.

It's not just the %, and we really don't know for certain how much that % is, that they have been asked to give away to MS, but also the control and intellectual property rights on all their products.

It is the demand for the IP rights that's the fly in the ointment. The developer pours heart and soul into a really nice aircraft for "Flight." Developer receives his 70% share of all sales. He should be happy, right? Good potential for higher sales. Whoopee!But, since MS now owns the IP rights, they can then take the source files, make minor changes from -say 737-xxx version- to 737-yyy version, then sell it themselves and not owe the original developer anything at all......Oops! Sales of original 737-xxx slow down, maybe stop entirely......that could legitimately be argued as an example of "greed..."Now, I'm not saying that the above will happen, only that it could happen, and there wouldn't be a bloody thing the poor developer could do about it.That is the (partially) hidden risk.

Gerry, far too many people misuse the word "greed" as though it were synoymous with "reasonable profit." If there were no "reasonable profit" to be made, they couldn't pay their employees, the light bill, their water bills, etc., nor would they be able to pay a reasonable dividend to their investors.In short, it's the inevitable result of sheer ignorance of basic economics that's the proximate root of this gross misunderstanding.

Actually, profit comes after expenses have been deducted. :wink:So, the question is what is reasonable to pay to investors. There was a time when 5% profit was minimum and 10% was good. Today, the greed factor pushes these figures much much higher.

It is the demand for the IP rights that's the fly in the ointment. The developer pours heart and soul into a really nice aircraft for "Flight." Developer receives his 70% share of all sales. He should be happy, right? Good potential for higher sales. Whoopee!But, since MS now owns the IP rights, they can then take the source files, make minor changes from -say 737-xxx version- to 737-yyy version, then sell it themselves and not owe the original developer anything at all......that could legitimately be argued as an example of "greed..."

I agree

Actually, profit comes after expenses have been deducted. :(

Well, not precisely. In accounting terms there are two types of profit:

1. Gross profit (after operating expenses) aka: COGS - Cost of Goods Sold
2. Net profit (after all other expenses, including dividends paid)

It is the latter that is carried forward on the balance sheet as "Retained Profits."

I don't mean to argue with you. While you are technically right, the expenses you have listed cannot be factored into greed, as they have to be paid. You might have an issue with how expensive the rent is, but I would not put it to greed.The greed I am talking about can only come from Net Profit, which in the case of MS goes to those with stock options and other stock holders. The greed of these people pervades many business and MSFS is its latest casualty.

The greed I am talking about can only come from Net Profit, which in the case of MS goes to those with stock options and other stock holders. The greed of these people pervades many business and MSFS is its latest casualty.

Personally, I would apply the "greed" label to the rediculous salaries + bonuses some corporate suits are demanding, and the astronomical contracts that are frequently given to professional sports players.

Is this greedOrbx have plans to sale there software to the commercial customer for the prices listed below.Regions $4000 eachAustralia $7,000Airports $2,500 eachThis software has already been made & is in use on there customers home computers.So this could be a 95% profit deal all 40 items total $112,000.$100,000 profit?What would the expenses be?Greed?

Greed?

Rational business decision. The likelyhood of even ONE sale is minuscule at best...

Is this greedOrbx have plans to sale there software to the commercial customer for the prices listed below.Regions $4000 eachAustralia $7,000Airports $2,500 eachThis software has already been made & is in use on there customers home computers.So this could be a 95% profit deal all 40 items total $112,000.$100,000 profit?What would the expenses be?Greed?

Commercial license usually involves mulitple installs. Perhaps this commericial account will install 500 copies. When you start to multiply it out any assumption of greed is no longer relevant.

Edited January 9, 201214 yr by MarkW

Rational business decision. The likelyhood of even ONE sale is minuscule at best...

So making $100,000 profit from $112,000 is not greed.We make the best software if you want it that's the price if you don't you can go else where, oh hang on there's no where else for you to go.It's the fact Orbx is thinking about it, thinking about being greedy, Llikelyhood of ONE say or not.Now wonder why they are upset that they are not able to join MS Flight the IP right's half the story?Perhaps this commericial account will install 500 copies, Perhaps not.

It also take's away the belief that third party developers are poor & make very little from the sale of software. On the back of FSX that MS get nothing in return.And Orbx feel hard done by.

Hmmm, a few things need clearing up in this thread, which seems to be devolving into a circular argument.1. No third party developer has been offered any $ from MS to make content for Flight. Negotiations never got that far. I may be wrong, but that is the information that I have based on discussions with fellow developers.2. Third party developers have NOT baulked at any royalty percentage deal because none has been offered and no percentage has ever been tabled to them. A lot of the discussion in this thread is pure speculation and just plain wrong.3. No third party developer can make any content for Flight, because there is no SDK. Not now. Not in the beta. Not after release. If MS decide to release an SDK it will be a very different beast to FSX because of how Xbox Live third party titles are controlled, certified and published. There are fees to be paid by the 3PDs, royalty agreements to be signed, and content to be tested, verified and signed for listing in the Flight in-game store. Because this is a highly complex and technical process, I doubt if it happens at all, that it will be offered to any more than a handful of developers. 4. At this stage of the game, we have no interest in creatng content for Flight because it is an unknown market size, it has unknown backwards compatibility, and because we don't have an SDK or any MS tools.5. Our commercial pricing is for full commercial licenses sold to aerospace organisations usng fully commercial Prepar3D licenses on dedicated simulation or training hardware in the defense, goverment, flight school, academic, and aerospace industries. It is priced at a level that allows for-profit exploitation of our intellectual property. Compared to the prices for visual databases being charged in these industries, Orbx's commercial prices are actually the lowest in the world and laughably underpriced. Consider a CAE simulator costng $5million and you get some perspective. We have sold many commercial licenses at those pricepoints but you need to understand that it is a completely different part of Orbx's company focus and very much removed from the sales to the enthusiast market we have traditionally been selling to. The is no different to Aerosoft's parent company selling commercial licenses for many thousands of euros for other high end projects.There is a reason I don't get involved in discussion on these forums too much - there seems to be too much hysteria focused on what is NOT known, versus discussion based on factual infromation which is known. Too many supposed expert opinions, too many soapboxes, and just too much "noise".Blaming third party developers for how Flight has devolved from potential FSX replacement to a game, is both laughable at best, and insulting at worst.

...that could legitimately be argued as an example of "greed..."

Or as straightforward negotiation?Possibly Microsoft tried that on because it didn't really care whether it had 3rd party developers on-board or not, so had nothing to lose. May be it even guessed they would walk away?.

If people begin to talk about "greed" regarding commercial activities, i have to lower my expectation.Anyone ever run a business here ?! Do you live from love and fresh water only ?