FSUIPC and blocking posts

[Guest rogue1]

Whoohoo, finally someone making sense about the real issue. Thanks, BC.Oh, and basket weaving has costs associated with it, but I don't believe that you need to pay any licensing fees, unless of course you are thinking of incorporating a copyrighted design pattern. :-)

[Guest wathomas777]

I understand all this feel good stuff about Pete feeding his family and all that rot, but some of you completely miss the point.If Microsoft were to come out tomorrow with a similar scheme for DirectX there would be anger from all corners from the world, not to mention dozens of lawsuits from software manufacturers. Let's say that Microsoft suddenly decides that DirectX must be self sufficient. And thus makes it a "for profit" venture. Imagine the ire that would be raised from all of us who have software that runs on previous versions of DirectX, If we now either had to hope that Activision, Infogrammes, Sierra, etc. would pay to develop patches for their programs to use the new DirectX license key, or we had to pay Microsoft $20.00 for a Full version of Direct X. And what if this happened with EACH NEW VERSION of DirectX?I guarantee that not ONE of you would support such a plan. EVER! Yet because Pete is a "small time" developer, it is completely OK for him to do this? And all of you flock to his side to support him and his poor family?Here's what's going to happen folks. Freeware developers will probably get the key and reissue upgrades. Payware developers will probably come up with their own system, while, at the same time suing the crap out of Pete. In fact, I will be suprised if they don't get together and issue a class action suit. They will contend that they developped software and hardware with the understanding that this was a freeware interface, and that after development was already done, that Pete changed the rules. It could be consider possibly, breech of contract or whatever. Whether or not this ever amounts to anything is pointless. Pete will have to hire an attorney to defend himself, or "settle" out of court and give out the keys to the litigants for free. So I don't see a huge windfall for him from 'existing' payware developers. New payware developers may bite, but again, it might be easier to develop the thing in-house so that they are not held "hostage" by his licensing arrangement.The true loser in this is the end user, who WILL most likely be forced to buy the full licensed version. Whether or not you feel this is a good deal or not, is your opinion.But I do know, if Microsoft had done this for Direct X, there would be no argument. We would all be peeved. So I don't see the difference. Whether or not I am being screwed by a "small-time" developer, or a "2-ton gorilla" developer, its still the same. The only difference is Pete may send me a nice e-mail thanking me for my "support".

[Guest Bigshot]

Excellent point.

[Guest Ken_Salter]

Microsoft will NEVER do that. Why? Because that would kill MS involvement in game development. Everyone will go to OpenGL. MS would lose control, which I don't think they would ever want that.It remains to be seen if the same type scenario will happen here.IMHO, Adam Smith will figure this situation out....:-)http://saltydogfly2.avsim.net/images/avsim_sig.jpg"I am the keeper of the cheese; you are the lemon merchant"

[Guest wathomas777]

I agree with you completely Ken.Microsoft would NEVER do such a thing, because of the consequences. What my point is, would we feel any different?I mean if Microsoft proposed the EXACT same plan that Pete proposes for FSUIPC would anyone back it?No. Not for a second.One Thing is for sure. This will sure be interesting how it pans out. And I imagine that it won't be pretty.Will.

[Guest JeanLuc_]

Hi Ken,it would be interested to see how it evolves indeed. However, and let's see this for a minute how the current offered price structure and licensing system only do good for freeware, and won't help in any way the payware offering:- a user will expect the payware add-on to include a license. But given that a lot of people are going to purchase their license anyway because many reported in these forums that we all need to support Pete, there is an opportunity for a vendor not to pay Pete a license fee in order to save more and avoid increasing its selling price, in expecting selling to a huge FSUIPC customer base.BUT- a vendor will not expect a user to have paid his user license (universal, works with any product then), and will include the FSUIPC license fee in its products, thus increasing its selling price to cover the cost. But given other vendors could choose to design their own alternate solutions to be competitive, this vendor could not only loose sales in choosing FSUIPC because of the increased price of its products, but also because to the market as many are starting to point out, a customer would feel like having purchase the same license twice.The problem is that each side is expecting the other to purchase FSUIPC, and in turn either no one will use FSUIPC to avoid the uncertainty of the market base, or everyone will purchase FSUIPC and it will be paid more than twice for the average customer.This will most likely be evolving around "stay competitve toward other vendor who do not require FSUIPC" or others that will build their own system.All this of course if FSUIPC is still a need for vendors with FS2004 only if the new expected FS2004 SDK does not improve much on the FS2002 SDK. Because the root of the uncertainty, hence the market Pete is creating, is based on something that no one knows yet. Yes, no one knows what Microsoft can come up with in the 2004 SDK (Software Development Kit) and what features not available in the FS2002 SDK but only present in FSUIPC so far could now be available to any developper for the next version...Hope this helps!

[BobP 56]

>I'm a guy with a very expensive PFC console that will have to,>HAVE TO buy the full FSUIPC or my investment is in the tank>for FS2004.>>BC I also have a large investment in PFC equipment. I'm wondering if we'll get double charged? I plan to buy the $20 FSUIPC and note that PFC also plans to charge me a fee for the FS2004 drivers. I understand the fee is to cover their cost to Mr. Dawson. I'm going to email them, and suggest they EAT that as a cost of doing business. This accreditation/licensing approach is border line funny. Does he (Mr. Dowson) have any idea how many FS users are worldwide? Is he prepared to go from a 1 man shop to filling orders for perhaps 50,000 simmers? Reviewing hundreds of add-ons monthly? I support Mr. Dowson and plan to buy his product, but this approach is naive, complicated and won't last long. My guess is that developers are already writing their own modules. They HAVE to in-order to regain control of their products. The smart ones will talk to each other and work out a specification for the module to ensure they don't trample each others calls. BobP :)

[Splash_One 0]

Looking back at the "User Behind the Screen-name" post(In the Screenshot Forum) there is a huge lot of us that DO NOT have jobs, since we are under the working age, and our only income is chores or helping other people out with chores... For me, personally, I saved saved up about $6,500 for flying lessons to get my PPL. This should hopefully cover all the rental, instruction, materials, etc. I was also saving up to buy a nice headset. Yes, $22 may not sound much when it comes against a $400-$500 headset, but that can be a weeks' worth of savings. "Think of the children!", once said on the "Save the Children" commerical... :+Jason :-wave

[Guest]

I'd like to give some support to those who question this move from freeware to payware. One thing I couldn't see mentioned is this: Pete, a person who obviously endorses actions like changing freeware into payware unannounced, will provide a key to any author of freeware that says their work is freeware. WHAHAHAAHA! Am I the only one seeing the irony here? How much time for the first "freeware" add-on developer that turns payware 10 minutes after accreditation? I'd like to see Pete protest against THAT! :-)Vince

[Steve Cannell 4]

My GOD !! I hope not. This would probably take another couple years. :-(I'm still waiting for a legitimate update for the PSS 747 and 777. I mean heck I forked out more than a couple hundred dollars for a FS aircraft addon that lasted a couple months. It is a flightsim addon, and should be brought to current FS standards. I'm not saying for free, that would be ridiculous but this long a wait is unacceptable. I have a lot of money invested in these addons. We can't even get an answer as to wether there will actually even be any update.I bought the Airbus, it's a wonderful addon, I flight it 90% of the time but I did so trusting that PSS would do right by it's customers. MY opinion they haven't. So the airbus was my last purchase and it will stay that way until they make these updates available.

[Guest hankusaf]

You sound like a person that just had his welfare check cut off and is crying to the govt. You got a free ride for years, now it is time to anti-up. When you contribute as much to the community as Peter has then come back with your complaints. Until then give the man his rightful due and pay up or don't use his productHank C