Don't be too hard on iFly. I suspect they may be trying to protect themselves from the increased exposure  to litigation since many people who use it for P3D could use it for training purposed not for recreation. I do not think it gouging and I suspect you will see other addons increase their prices for P3D for the same reason.

 

Mmm, so likely that people in china are going to get sued over something like a license. :lol:

Well, as long as the freeware I'm using doesn't double in price...

 

If you don't like the price, don't spend - very simple!

Well, not every one. Milviz has already set the price for the forthcoming KingAir 350i to be the same for either FSX or P3Dv2, or for $20 more, one will be able to be licensed for both sim versions.

 

And I will be happy to support any developer with this policy. Quite reasonable imo.

 

Andrea

 

 

That comes right from the self appointed King of America. :ph34r:

Let's not turn Avsim into one of those sites where there is always some nitwit who wants to make every story something about Obama.

Nikkia,

 

Your comments only show your ignorance when it comes to litigation in the aviation industry. When an airplane crashes the lawyers will sue everyone who has anything to do with the accident. From the airline to the manufacturers of the individual components of the airplane. If you have been following PMDGs reasons for not supporting P3D it is because P3D is for training and commercial use whereas PMDGs products are for entertainment. In the event PMDG was to endorse the use of their products for professional training purposes they could be liable in the event of a lawsuit. Hence the reason for their decision. You can be assured that when PMDG does allow the use of their products for professional training purposes their EULA will be more comprehensive. And the additional legal expenses as well as insurance to protect them from a judgement in the event of a successful lawsuit against them will only increase the cost of their product for commercial use. Whether a company is in the US, China or Timbuktu will not dissuade a litigious attorney from filing the lawsuit.

IMHO there should be a Academic version too which costs $25 less than the FSX version. After all, Academic P3D2 costs less than FSX initially. If I remember well that was around 70 bucks.

If iFly had to do work to make their already developed product work properly in P3D then I think it's reasonable to charge more.  But if they're charging more for that license they had better also be providing support in P3D.  If certain features don't function in P3D, which it seems like it could happen, then by releasing a separate license with separate pricing they are creating a responsibility for themselves to fix it.

 

 

I would really like to know why and if this is what to expect going forward.

It may be, but I'll tell you how I dealt with it. I bought the Majestic Q400.  If I want to buy another 737, its the NGX, not a 2d copy of the iFly..

I figured high prices would occur at first, but I also think they will subside--for a couple of reasons. Remember P3d's original price? Wasn't v1.3 somewhere in the $500 rage with no inexpensive options?  This has since been reduced to more reasonable price scales due to (as other have said) simple economics. I believe 3rd party devs will follow suit. In addition, as P3d develops into a more robust and stable platform that is well supported by LM, it will likely eat into the FSX market share and force developers to follow.

 

Nikkia,

 

Your comments only show your ignorance when it comes to litigation in the aviation industry. When an airplane crashes the lawyers will sue everyone who has anything to do with the accident. From the airline to the manufacturers of the individual components of the airplane. If you have been following PMDGs reasons for not supporting P3D it is because P3D is for training and commercial use whereas PMDGs products are for entertainment. In the event PMDG was to endorse the use of their products for professional training purposes they could be liable in the event of a lawsuit. Hence the reason for their decision. You can be assured that when PMDG does allow the use of their products for professional training purposes their EULA will be more comprehensive. And the additional legal expenses as well as insurance to protect them from a judgement in the event of a successful lawsuit against them will only increase the cost of their product for commercial use. Whether a company is in the US, China or Timbuktu will not dissuade a litigious attorney from filing the lawsuit.

 

Kinda harsh calling someone ignorant, but I get your point about litigation. I also disagree with it. I'm a lawyer and have worked with aviation litigation attorneys and cases. Yes, everyone gets sued following a crash (like every other lawsuit), but many also get dismissed along the discovery process... but that's besides the point.  Your basically arguing that if a plane crashed, and if the pilot had some exposure and/or training on P3D/PMDG, that suddenly those companies would get sued out of existence. Or that this exposure explains a $30-$100 (or more) increase in unit price over an identical FSX version.  It is a tenuous link. I could argue this point all day in a more substantive manner, but I'll just keep this short: I purchased P3D. I'm not a pilot, but I am currently training on an F-22 Raptor.  I'm getting quite good at flying it. I added various airports and terrain from Orbx and some weather programs. If I ever crash an F-22 in real life and cause all sorts of causalities and property damage, can I sue LM and all the 3rd party developers?  But it is different for, say, American Airlines, that might use it with real pilots.  But American Airlines does not contract the purchase of licenses the same way you or I do.  There are differences.

Exodus 1977

 

I did not intend for it to be harsh. I think you are interpreting my comment incorrectly.

 

ignorant 

adjective

1. lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man.

2. lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of quantum physics.

3. uninformed; unaware.

4. due to or showing lack of knowledge or training: an ignorant statement.

 

If in the definition used above I was referring to defintion one I would agree with you. But in the context that I used it I meant she was lacking knowledge or information of a particular subject. Just as I am ignorant of how to present a case before the bar.

 

I agree with you that many cases are indeed dropped before they ever get to trial. But that does not limit a company to the cost of litigation, even in cases where they are dismissed. I have paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in defending against frivolous lawsuits in which none ever went to trial and in which no settlements were paid in the twenty years I was in the restaurant business. And your and my opinion are irrelevant on the subject of weighing the risk to a company involved in producing sotware for flight simulation. Theirs is the only opinion that counts. One only has to look at PMDGs position on P3D to see they are following the advice of THEIR lawyers on the risks involved in supporting PMDG being used with P3D. I think PMDGs position is not a sound position, nor do I think they have a significant risk of serious litigation. But as long as they feel they do, they are the ones that will take steps to protect themselves. And that means increased costs. After twenty years in the restaurant business I can tell you that it has been my experience that corporate lawyers, or those who represent corporations are risk adverse. Companies have to take risks in order to stay in business, The only way I could eliminate any risks in my business was to shutter the doors.

Nikkia,

 

Your comments only show your ignorance when it comes to litigation in the aviation industry. When an airplane crashes the lawyers will sue everyone who has anything to do with the accident. From the airline to the manufacturers of the individual components of the airplane. If you have been following PMDGs reasons for not supporting P3D it is because P3D is for training and commercial use whereas PMDGs products are for entertainment. In the event PMDG was to endorse the use of their products for professional training purposes they could be liable in the event of a lawsuit. Hence the reason for their decision. You can be assured that when PMDG does allow the use of their products for professional training purposes their EULA will be more comprehensive. And the additional legal expenses as well as insurance to protect them from a judgement in the event of a successful lawsuit against them will only increase the cost of their product for commercial use. Whether a company is in the US, China or Timbuktu will not dissuade a litigious attorney from filing the lawsuit.

That is a bit over the top don't you think. It's like saying that you would be sued if you are in an accident and you use a NASCAR simulator at home. Not !!!

Let's not turn Avsim into one of those sites where there is always some nitwit who wants to make every story something about Obama.

So you are calling me a nitwit! I would say your may be a bit touchy!! :American Flag:

 

 

I did not intend for it to be harsh. I think you are interpreting my comment incorrectly.

ignorant 
adjective
1. lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man.
2. lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of quantum physics.
3. uninformed; unaware.
4. due to or showing lack of knowledge or training: an ignorant statement.

If in the definition used above I was referring to defintion one I would agree with you. But in the context that I used it I meant she was lacking knowledge or information of a particular subject. Just as I am ignorant of how to present a case before the bar.

 

You don't call Grandma hoary no matter how white her hair is.

 

Hook

Your comments only show your ignorance when it comes to litigation in the aviation industry. When an airplane crashes the lawyers will sue everyone who has anything to do with the accident. From the airline to the manufacturers of the individual components of the airplane. If you have been following PMDGs reasons for not supporting P3D it is because P3D is for training and commercial use whereas PMDGs products are for entertainment. In the event PMDG was to endorse the use of their products for professional training purposes they could be liable in the event of a lawsuit. Hence the reason for their decision. You can be assured that when PMDG does allow the use of their products for professional training purposes their EULA will be more comprehensive. And the additional legal expenses as well as insurance to protect them from a judgement in the event of a successful lawsuit against them will only increase the cost of their product for commercial use. Whether a company is in the US, China or Timbuktu will not dissuade a litigious attorney from filing the lawsuit.

If there's such risk for devs, I don't think selling P3d version 20$ higher than FsX version will save them. Price should be 20000$ for each copy or something like that.

A manufacturer of any recreational or consumer product who discovers his product is also being used professionally, is going to be very tempted to raise the price.

Reason is that the product is likely now more valuable in the eyes of many consumers.

That's a major reason why pickup trucks cost more than cars!

 

Pricing of anything is based on PERCEIVED utility by the customer. Actual cost to manufacture only sets a minimum price. Final asking price is determined by estimating maximum profitability at a varying number of units sold. 

Consider how the pricing was determined for Viagra!

january

 

 

So you are calling me a nitwit! I would say your may be a bit touchy!! :American Flag:

OK.  Let's not turn Avsim into one of those sites where there is always some genius who wants to make every story something about Obama.