Multi-Platform Pricing Policy Expectations FSX/P3D/Xplane

[mgh 89]

 

 

When I refer to the community I refer indeed that the many developers that for the most part consider themselves part of our community at large. The idea that they would all contract to LM in a situation after LM has treated the community at large poorly, and that in the mean time LM is just using the community until such time as they can provide for themselves seems very cynical to me, without evidence of that intent.

 

in what way has Lockheed Martin treated the community at large poorly?

 

Did those developers whose aircraft are in Prepar3D v2.0 provide them free of charge to Lockheed Martin or were they contracted?

 

We do have a different understand of the word "cynical." I can see nothing cynical in Lockheed Martin contracting with developers to provide add-ons. 

 

My quotes were to re-emphasise the point as to where Lockheed Martin's priorities are.

[Brian Doney 127]

 

in what way has Lockheed Martin treated the community at large poorly?

 

 

 

Gerry,

 

It was a hypothetical. I just re-read it and there is no way otherwise to interpret what I typed. This is what happens when you kinda pick only certain parts from a conversation to reply to. 

 

I feel at the moment you are making me defend a point I never made. Everything you quoted from LM, has nothing to do with what I said, nor, does any of it even conflict in any way with what I said. They do not address the same points, at all.

 

I will try one more time, to state as simply as I can.

 

LM have repeatedly stated that they have no interest in developing P3D as anything more than a core simulation that will allow for modular, bolt-on, third-party products to provide further features and enhancements. That has nothing to do with the military, or whatever else. It is simply what they have stated.

 

We are not talking about their marketing strategy. We are discussing their development plans for the platform, the actual nuts and bolts coding plans, as stated by them. My secondary point was, that it would be short sighted of them to refuse and or exclude the experience of those that have developed for this engine, or similar versions of it, since long before LM even considered the P3D project. Opening a bridge only to burn it down is senseless.

 

Not that they have done so, or that they even will. I personally don't believe that they will, but there are some in this community that take the very cynical view the LM is just waiting to pull the rug out from under. If I mistakenly attributed that view to you, well, I have already apologized for that once.

 

Their goals for the platform as a larger scale training aid are entirely separate from their actual development goals. It's an entirely separate discussion.

[mgh 89]

I'm afraid I still don't understand what you posted previously

 

Has Lockheed Martin treated the community at large poorly or not - and, if not, what would you regard as poor treatment?

 

how do you envisage Lockheed Martin excluding the experience of those that have developed for this engine?

 

What's wrong with Lockheed Martin (or anyone else) contracting with developers to provide add-ons?

 

I agree that Lockheed Martin is developing P3D as no more than a core simulation that will allow for third-party add-ons, and I believe that I was one of the first to say so

 

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/426851-lockheed-answers-community-questions/page-1

 

I believe that the key reason for is related to its overall strategy because the requirements of its commercial customers undertaking serious training are likely to be so specialised that they will need their own specific  add-ons and will develop their own add-ons, either in-house or by contract.

[LTPuce 5]

Captains-

 

There seems to be some Utopian GroupThink Discussion that FSX users will be given some type of magic pass to move their product licenses over to P3D or Xplane, or that suddenly PMDG's development priorities have shifted magically with an announcement tonight.

 

None of these are the case.  Today's announcements are an effort to collect and consolidate a few years of posts on the topic of FSX, P3D and Xplane development.  Any user who sees our announcements today as anything other than an explanation of where we are going and what we are working on would be best served to read carefully.

 

As I have been saying for almost 18 months:  PMDG is working to expand our ability to push products on three platforms:  FSX, Xplane and P3D.

 

I am frequently misquoted as having said that PMDG will not develop for P3D.  What I have said all along is that we will not develop a consumer product for P3D due to Lockheed Martin's EULA restrictions.  The products we produce for P3D will be enterprise products, and will be licensed quite differently than our FSX products have been licensed.  P3D is a different platform with different requirement for PMDG and our license partners.

 

Now on the topic of pricing- I want to dispel some rumors and wishful thoughts right away, just so everybody has a clear expectation of where PMDG is headed with pricing:

 

FSX remains our primary development platform for the time being.  The FSX platform is the core of this community and remains the platform that most of our customers are interested in.  PMDG are diversifying our efforts to multiple platforms in order to expand our business options beyond only the FSX-consumer-simmer market.  Fortunately, our legal counsel and our license partners are open to seeing PMDG make this expansion, so customers who wish to take their simming beyond the consumer-simmer implementation will be able to grow right along with us.

 

Our goal is to provide all of our customers (from individual simmers to global air carriers) with the ability to purchase the simulation solution that fits their requirements and budget- and to that end we will have an array of pricing options available.

 

Here is a summary that may help clarify some expectations:

1) FSX is an entertainment only platform.  This platform will have the same pricing we have always offered and those products are limited to entertainment use only.

 

2) P3D is the platform upon which PMDG will be growing our enterprise product lines initially, with some room being left open to do the same on Xplane if our enterprise customers wish for that platform instead. Over time I anticipate that FSX and P3D are going to diverge rather dramatically in terms of capability for future development.  We intend to capitalize on new features within both P3D and Xplane- so each of our product lines will wind up being distinctly different, especially as we move forward.

 

3) XPlane will have an entertainment pricing option that matches the FSX option.  Eventually it will also have academic and enterprise pricing options that match those on the P3D platform.

 

P3D is an enterprise platform and pricing for P3D based solutions will generally be higher than on FSX, but a very very broad range of pricing options will be available depending upon what type of solution you are purchasing from us.

 

If you are an individual consumer with a price sensitive budget, you will always be able to purchase our products on FSX or Xplane at a consumer pricing level.  If you wish to step up to one of our enterprise solutions on P3D or Xplane, you won't find the cost difference to be too dramatic unless you are buying licenses for training use.  (So there isn't any need to panic- you won't have to pay $25,000 for a solution unless you are running an airline training center, and no BAV doesn't count... :ph34r: )

 

We have been asked a number of times if we will offer a discount price to users who own the FSX version of a given product.  We will likely offer a special promotional pricing deal at the very beginning, but it will be limited in scope and time and it will require that you already have purchased the FSX version of a product prior to the time we announce the promotional pricing...

 

Disclaimer:  We may not offer such a promotional offer depending upon how discussions go with our licensing partners.  Releasing products on P3D is not as simple ans changing the installer path and exporting, as there are a number of limiting factors, legal restrictions, licensing requirements and other considerations that do not exist on the FSX platform.

 

Moving to a multiple platform development process is an expensive process- and is causing quite a bit of expansion behind the scenes at PMDG.  Ultimately I am very excited about it because it means greater access to our capabilities for many of you- but it also brings us the opportunity to show the airline training community what value PMDG can bring to their training process.

 

My first post and my first question,

 

Will PMDG have any kind of customers legitimaty verification (pro/academic or else) in place when buying or using a product for P3D.

 

Olga Vankranendonk

[LTPuce 5]

Have I posted my question in the wrong place?

 

 

Olga Vankranendonk

[mgh 89]

Will PMDG have any kind of customers legitimaty verification (pro/academic or else) in place when buying or using a product for P3D.

PMDG's latest aircraft (B777) is designed not to run in Prepar3d. Any attempt to do so results in a warning message and the aircraft fails to load.

 

I'm sure this principle could be extended to monitor the type of licence.

[LTPuce 5]

Thank you Gerry.

 

I will stay waiting to see if proof of being pro or student is ask when buying a PMDG plane for P3D.

 

Why is PMDG not saying?

 

Olga Vankranendonk.

[mgh 89]

Why is PMDG not saying?

Why should it tell you?

[bjratchf 80]

This whole achilles heel is based again on that stupid word "Entertainment".  It lingers around like a bad fart and it should be buried. Never seen a proper definition of it and it doesnt belong in flight simulation as the way it has evolved. Im assuming MS meant it to include gaming titles, and xbox.ps4 etc. This simulation as it is today goes way beyond entertainment gaming, with aircraft like PMDG because of its complexity and detail. So its called "entertainment license" only because its cemented into FSX and MS stipulates thats what it is. But who buys and flys a PMDG type aircraft immediately. Cant happen. You gotta know what your doing or your watching tutorials and asking the community alot of questions. Thats alot more than gaming, and emphasizes even more when your using real world charts and navdata. Theres even courses like AOA teaching procedures and techniques. That to me fits right in with P3D and its motto of simulation and learning. So I understand there is a business model here at stake where marketing to enterprise commands a much higher price, but I see it unfortunate that PMDG fsx users may be left out only because of high price. A shame.

 

Here we have something that is viable and improves upon fsx, taking advantage of scaling hardware today, and provides improvements to developers via hooks they can use which would probably reduce alot of limitations put on to them by the fsx platform. I like advancement, and after 7 years with fsx its time to move on, and I hope PMDG doesnt leave us in the dust by either enterprise type prices in p3dv2 or forcing us to remain with old and tired fsx. Its time to retire this "entertainment" stigma and accept the fact we are learning by simulating. Whether we can be real world pilots or not. Its what ive been doing since PCs started to become mainstream. 

That is my .00001c worth but I stand by it because im passionate about flight simulation as way more than just gaming. 

 

Exactly. And this is again why everyone qualifies for the student license for P3d. 

[Sirius8000 0]

Thank you Gerry.

 

 

Why is PMDG not saying?

 

Olga Vankranendonk.

 

It is beneath their dignity

[mgh 89]

 

 

This whole achilles heel is based again on that stupid word "Entertainment".

 

The words personal, consumer, and entertainment no longer appear in in the Prepar3D v2.0 Professional EULA.

[LTPuce 5]

When we take city bus and we want to take bus as student we have to show student card to bus driver, not a student we can take bus too but not with same benefit.

 

They should tell me if I need proof to buy plane to use like student, maybe I do not understand PMDG post.

 

Olga Vankranendonk.

[Don t moderate me this way 882]

The words personal, consumer, and entertainment no longer appear in in the Prepar3D v2.0 Professional EULA.

 

 

Their website is still very specific about consumers and entertainment:

 

http://www.prepar3d.com/product-overview/prepar3d-license-comparison/

 

http://www.prepar3d.com/frequently-asked-questions/

[mgh 89]

 

 

Their website is still very specific about consumers and entertainment:

 

The EULA forms the entire agreement between Lockheed Martin and the purchaser and overrides anything on the website.

[Guest]

I know I probably shouldn't ask this question, but I'm going to anyway because LM's EULA just seems to be a sticking point to some people.

 

So my question to those hung up on LM's EULA ... why?  And, have you sought out an appropriate lawyer to get their "official (in writing)" opinion of the EULA and how it relates to you?

 

I've passed the EULA over to my own lawyer for review (yes I had to pay for such a review) and I've also passed the EULA to my companies legal department (a small business lawyer) and in both cases I asked "am I in violation of anything or could I be summoned/sued or have legal action against me?".  Both lawyers responses was NO (even as a 3rd party content provider).  Now this is just a legal opinion (from two lawyers) and a court would ultimately make a decision (but I'd probably win the lottery before it got to a court).  

 

I also asked both lawyers the same question "are they aware of any cases where someone was prosecuted for using software for entertainment"?  Both lawyers indicated they are not aware of any such case(s) in their careers (these are lawyers with over 25+ years experience).

 

Now I'm fully aware that some are probably using the EULA as a means of leverage to promote their "other" platform of choice and/or have some Bias towards LM/P3D and the "real reason" has little to do with any legal implications.  But for those of you really hung up on the EULA (and not because it's not your platform of choice), what's your actual fear/concern of what might happen to you and the probability of it happening?

 

But I thought EULA discussions were forbidden in AVSIM ... so I'm guessing the longevity of my response here may be short lived.

 

Rob