Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
rsrandazzo

Multi-Platform Pricing Policy Expectations FSX/P3D/Xplane

Recommended Posts

Wait...was that because of my statement?  If so sorry but i wasn't even predicting the price, i have NO idea how much they will be; i was simply saying that $200 would be a bridge too far for me personally.

 

I've seen the $200 price pop up a few times.  No, it wasn't because of your statement :smile: .  No need to apologize B) .

As of right now, your guess is as good as mine :lol: .

Share this post


Link to post

Why don't we just wait and see?!?   B)

 

Much more fun to repeat the same 4 things 73 times on each page, feigning concern, in a not-so-cleverly veiled attempt to get more information out out of PMDG, isn't it ?

 

Well isn't it ?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

 

 


That scary thought occurred to me as well.  When other companies are offering free P3D versions as well as the versions for FSX; PMDG are going to have to offer something extra for the (one presumes) more expensive versions of there Aircraft from P3D

 

No reason they should.

 

The training version will be more expensive - but it is NOT meant for the same market. They will offer something extra - but not in the way of the addon - rather in the end of support, licensing and usage options.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

 

 


The training version will be more expensive - but it is NOT meant for the same market. They will offer something extra - but not in the way of the add on - rather in the end of support, licensing and usage options.

 

I hope so, i want to move over to P3D, given the issues i am having with DX10 on FSX; but can't until i can move my PMDG aircraft over...every thing is compatible or the companies are releasing updates (FOC)

Share this post


Link to post

There is a world of difference between learning how to fly "for fun, personal reasons" using a desktop simulator and being enrolled in an actual aviation training program (i.e. Academic Institution).  Just because you are "learning" doesn't correlate to an Academic License.  I think the intent of the 'Academic License', as stated by Lockheed Martin, is pretty clear.  From the Prepar3D website:

 

I think Mathijs of Aerosoft, the biggest publisher and developer of flight sim content, put it quite nice, I can at least not find a better way of expressing it:

 

 

 

  1. Lockheed sells the Academic license to anybody, no need to proof you are a student,
  2. They are including add-ons made for the entertainment market in their base product
  3. They invited us specifically to make our consumer products compatible (which you are NOT allowed to use for non hobby use btw)
  4. We are talking to them regularly and they have never made any problem of us promoting the P3D to consumers in the hobby market. 
  5. They link to companies like IRIS, Carenado etc on their webpages.

 

Draw your own conclusions. My conclusion is that P3Dv2 is a very good successor to P3D which was a step up from FSX. If you start using P3Dv2 it is hard to go back to FSX, even though a lot of stuff is still missing.

Share this post


Link to post

I think Mathijs of Aerosoft, the biggest publisher and developer of flight sim content, put it quite nice, I can at least not find a better way of expressing it:

 

 

Mathijs' statement simply emphasizes the "wink and nudge" position of LM.

Share this post


Link to post

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. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

So I'm in the store and there are two apparently identical variations of my preferred toothpaste-

One is labelled "Home use", the other says it is "Professional grade - used by more dentists than any other brand!".

Which to choose? Well, since I'm not a dentist, I suppose the choice is mandatory.

On the other hand, why would they even display the professional grade in a store where it might be purchased by non profs like me? Will the Dental Association come around to inspect my bathroom?

I hate decisions- maybe I'll just have a nervous breakdown instead!

january

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

Mathijs' statement simply emphasizes the "wink and nudge" position of LM.

 

I do agree to a point.

 

I'll say this though, Oliver. First, I think you and I tend to see things in a similar way, most of the time when I read something you post I find myself in agreement, and we have shared a laugh or two at some of the sillier things that are posted across AVSIM.

 

With that in mind, I'd ask you to consider that without wink/nudge, there is no forward development of the platform, full stop. No one else is going to bother. I understand to a degree the hesitation some might feel towards using a product that isn't completely transparent in it's purpose, I really do. On the other hand though, like I said, no one else is doing anything about it, and there will come a day when even PMDG can do no more with FSX. 

 

At first I will admit I was a bit offended that LM wouldn't just clear the air a bit, and not doing so seemed a bit disrespectful to the community without which there wouldn't even be an ESP platform to begin with. Having taken a step back though, I understand, at least I think I understand, why it is this way, and LM through their actions, if not their words, has shown me at least that they are making a real effort to take us seriously.

 

It would be a grave mistake for LM to burn bridges with our community, especially when you consider that the approach they are taking is to provide only the core simulation. They will need the knowledge and experience of those that have developed for our sims moving forward, if not to provide solutions directly, then to help them avoid years of work to arrive at the same conclusions. 

 

Sorry for being long-winded again, I'll just sum up with an old saying: Don't let perfect be the enemy of the good. If there is to be a future for flight simulation, we really aren't in a position right now to do so.

Share this post


Link to post

 

 


It would be a grave mistake for LM to burn bridges with our community, especially when you consider that the approach they are taking is to provide only the core simulation. They will need the knowledge and experience of those that have developed for our sims moving forward, if not to provide solutions directly, then to help them avoid years of work to arrive at the same conclusions.

 

I'd suggest that flight simulation enthusiasts need Lockheed Martin more than Lockheed Martin needs us.

 

I think what we are seeing is effectively the tip of the iceberg and that Lockheed Martin's internal training divisions are already developing add-ons for their training purposes. Similarly I'm convinced  there'll be external companies doing the same thing.  I doubt if such add-ons that will never become available to flight simulation enthusiasts. Surely, if Lockheed Martins want knowledge and experience it will contract it.

Share this post


Link to post

You may be correct, but if so, that would be in stark contrast to their stated goals for the platform. 

 

Not that it still couldn't be the case, but, I'm not sure I'm willing to be quite that cynical without good reason.

 

There are surely some very intelligent and capable people working on this project for LM, but that does not invalidate the years of experience the developers in our community have gained. We also have some very intelligent and capable people producing products for our use, and it has taken them many years to move things forward to what we have today.

 

I'm not saying LM can't do it on their own, rather, it would be a bit short-sighted, and maybe even unnecessary, to try.

Share this post


Link to post

Why is being realistic regarded as being cynical?

Lockheed Martin's aims were;

Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT) and Microsoft Corp. entered into an intellectual property (IP) licensing agreement that allows Lockheed Martin to further develop the Microsoft ESP PC-based visual simulation software platform to better train warfighters for battle.

"The training needs of our military and civil government customers continue to expand,” said Chester Kennedy, vice president of Engineering at Lockheed Martin’s Simulation, Training & Support business unit. “Seeking out and developing new innovative solutions such as this one based on the proven Microsoft ESP technology allows Lockheed Martin to provide our customers with new and tailored training systems more quickly and cost efficiently.”

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/press/2009/nov09/11-30warfightertrainingpr.aspx
 

Prepar3D ® – Lockheed Martin’s mid-fidelity visual simulation software – demonstrated its strategic role in the future of serious training at this year’s Defense GameTech Users’ Conference in Orlando. The annual conference is the centerpiece of an effort by the Department of Defense to advance game and virtual world technologies to improve training and human performance.

 

http://www.prepar3d.com/news/2011/04/3795/

I've seen nothing to suggest Lockheed Martin's strategy has changed.

Of course there are intelligent and capable people producing products for our use but, as I already said, if Lockheed Martin, or anyone else, wants those capabilities they can contract them.  It doesn't need the "community".

Share this post


Link to post

I think we are have a bit of a communication issue, if that is my fault I apologize, and will attempt to clarify.

 

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.

 

If that's not what you were trying to say, then I have misunderstood you and for that I apologize. Perhaps I am the one being to cynical in my interpretations.

 

The quotes you have provided don't really conflict with other statements from LM, as to their goals of only really focusing on the core simulation  so I'm not sure how to address them.

Share this post


Link to post

I do agree to a point.

 

(...)

With that in mind, I'd ask you to consider that without wink/nudge, there is no forward development of the platform, full stop. (...)

 

 

And I agree to that, Brian.

 

I've seen that happen with Fly!, with Flight Unlimited and a few more platforms.

 

After having sticked to FU (II+III) for quite a while, MSFS was finally good enough for me to change platforms again. I "had to" dump FU.

 

In a couple of years the same thing may happen to XP, replacing my 400 GB (and still counting ...) FSX installation.

 

I also agree that there's a quest for even more realism, for even better graphics, for even more system details and even more features mimicking RW aviation.

 

Definitely a number of people just feel bad simply to stick to FSX, instead of exploring the opportunities of P3D, v2.0 in particular.

 

Well, among my favourite aircraft, PMDG B777 and MD11 are top of the list, so going on with FSX may be a bit easier for me than for some of my fellow simmers.

Share this post


Link to post

 

 


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.

Share this post


Link to post
 

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.  :P

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Share this post


Link to post

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

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Share this post


Link to post

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. 

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
×
×
  • Create New...