Welcome to the concept of "prove your use"!   :biggrin:

Let's be crystal clear, to many of you... this feels like the same sim. In reality, it's not. It's usage is different. FSX could never be used for commercial purposes whatsoever. However, Prepar3D can. In that regard there is a quandary. Do you sell your product for $20 and watch someone make tens of thousands off of it in turn by purchasing your $20 product and adding it to their product and reselling it for a much, much larger 'commercial-use' profit?

 

Of course you don't want to "pay a lot for a muffler"... however, you can't, in turn, expect the developers to take it in the shorts just so you get what you want. There has to be a balance, and I think right now... the balance is unknown and it's going to take some time to find it.

True, but then the cost of that muffler doesn't change based on whether I'm putting it on my private car or a taxi cab.  Just as the cost of a GNS750 doesn't change based on whether it's installed in a private C172 vs a cargo hauling Caravan.  The value of a product doesn't change because of how it's used.  Do you really think Apple is selling their IPads to airlines at higher prices than their more traditional consumer dealings, just because they're used professionally?

As for your statement that "FSX could never be used for commercial purposes whatsoever.", with all due respect Ed, and I mean that sincerely because I do know what you do and with whom, but that statement is a fabrication perpetrated by a few FS developers to cash in on the sometimes less than savvy flight sim crowd, and you and I both know it.  Embry Riddle, UND, Flight Safety, Sporty's, even a few of the majors have been using FS for years to supplement their training, and for the record, none of whom had to pay more for their copies of FSX than any of us not using it professionally.   FSX can indeed be used as a training platform provided it is a part of a FAA certified training device.  In fact, that's been the case since 2008, with its' use being governed under 14 CFR part 61 and 141.  And all of the criteria to meet the necessary requirements are spelled out quite clearly in Advisory Circular 61-136.  And even beyond all that, anyone can use FS to train all they want.  They just can't legally log the hours toward a license, rating or currency. 

Honestly, developers can do whatever they want with their prices as it won't have any effect on me.  But let's at least be straight up about it. As things stand right now, there are only two developers, in my opinion,  that have a legitimate case for raising prices on P3D products. PMDG and, to be totally fair, you.  You both have legitimate liability concerns and programming issues to deal with in order to meet federal requirements for certified use.  But to jack up prices across the board, justified solely by the fact that it's P3D as some are choosing to do, to me, is rather disingenuous. 

Understand, I have no beef with you personally, Ed.  In fact, I've had opportunity to fly your stuff and it's very well done.  I'm simply presenting the counterargument in this as yet unfinished evolution of Flight Simulator.  I wish you well.

Regards,

Jeff

The value of a product doesn't change because of how it's used.

 

That must be one of the most incorrect statements in this whole strange thread! There's no other way a product can be valued -- there's no "intrinsic absolute value" to these products, they are worth more to those that need them than those that don't. A commercial venture who needs a product to make their enterprise work just has to value it more than those flying on their home PCs for fun now and then.

 

Do you really think Apple is selling their IPads to airlines at higher prices than their more traditional consumer dealings, just because they're used professionally?

 

That's surely to do with pricing policies, not value. And if they are being purchased by the airlines rather than the pilots I wouldn't be that surprised if they did have a specific contract arrangement.

 

As an after-note, I have no axes to grind here and don't normally contribute to this sort of thread. I've kept my own products the same price for all the years since I made is payware, and it's a lifetime purchase regardless of the application -- P3D or FSX. Of course, if P3D 64-bit ever came to fruition before I shuck this mortal coil I would need to denote a 64bit version of FSUIPC as version 5 and charge again, because it would certainly be a great deal of new work.. 

 

Regards

Pete

 

 

if P3D 64-bit ever came to fruition before I shuck this mortal coil I would need to denote a 64bit version of FSUIPC as version 5 and charge again

 

And I will pay again ... because it is of value to me ... just as AVSIM is of value to me. 

 

 

That must be one of the most incorrect statements in this whole strange thread! There's no other way a product can be valued -- there's no "intrinsic absolute value" to these products, they are worth more to those that need them than those that don't. A commercial venture who needs a product to make their enterprise work just has to value it more than those flying on their home PCs for fun now and then.

Pete, as developers go, you're probably the most straight up guy I've come across in this hobby over the last two decades.  I've bought your products in the past and I will again down the road I'm sure, but I stand by my statement nonetheless.  In the case of software the intrinsic value lies in the work it takes to produce a product that meets a specific need, not necessarily in how the end user uses that product..  As a simple analogy, we can agree that a hammer is a hammer.  Is it more valuable to a carpenter than it is to, say, a homeowner?  Certainly.  The carpenter's livelihood depends on it.  But when the carpenter and the homeowner are standing in line to pay for that hammer, no one asks them what they're going to use it for.  They both pay the same price because the value is in the materials, not the end use.  

At any rate, I will simply agree to disagree and let it go at that.

Regards,

Jeff

 

Incidentally, Pete...I personally hope you're still kicking around long, looooong after P3D breaks the 64 bit barrier!!  :smile:

Let's be crystal clear, to many of you... this feels like the same sim. In reality, it's not. It's usage is different. FSX could never be used for commercial purposes whatsoever. However, Prepar3D can. In that regard there is a quandary. Do you sell your product for $20 and watch someone make tens of thousands off of it in turn by purchasing your $20 product and adding it to their product and reselling it for a much, much larger 'commercial-use' profit?

 

 

But no, it can't. P3D in it's delivered form is still not FAA approved for training purposes, you need to pay a 3rd party integrator such as Redbird a lot more money to be able to use it in such a capacity.

 

For one thing, the FAA demands a constant and guaranteed frame rate for simulation for certification purposes, P3d, like ESP before it and FSX cannot guarantee that.

 

Neither is there any difference in implied liability, P3d is still sold 'as-is' and no liability by LM is taken.

 

The stated usages of P3d are in learning about the physics behind flight, the basic concepts of piloting - without any implied use as a "simulator" as it is legally defined by the FAA, and for use by systems integrators to produce FAA approved equipment for simulation (leaving the sticky legal aspect of making it FAA compliant to the third parties).

 

Given that redbird have used FSX and X-plane in the past for their FAA simulators, the state of P3d as a 'professional' simulator is no more or less than FSX and X-plane.

 

Also, I'll point to the following disclaimer on flight1tech's page for the 737NG:

 

 

IMPORTANT - This product is for home / academic use and is not licensed to be used for training, or any professional or commercial use.

 

So that extra $20 (or extra $80 if you already own the FSX version) does not pay for any extra 'professional' use, it's still an entertainment product at the end of the day.

 

 

As a simple analogy, we can agree that a hammer is a hammer. Is it more valuable to a carpenter than it is to, say, a homeowner? Certainly. The carpenter's livelihood depends on it. But when the carpenter and the homeowner are standing in line to pay for that hammer, no one asks them what they're going to use it for. They both pay the same price because the value is in the materials, not the end use

 

Surely your analogy is wrong. A carpenter will likely buy a better hammer for his work than a homeowner buying a cheaper one for a bit of DIY.

 In the case of software the intrinsic value lies in the work it takes to produce a product that meets a specific need, not necessarily in how the end user uses that product..  As a simple analogy, we can agree that a hammer is a hammer.  Is it more valuable to a carpenter than it is to, say, a homeowner?  Certainly.  The carpenter's livelihood depends on it.  But when the carpenter and the homeowner are standing in line to pay for that hammer, no one asks them what they're going to use it for.  They both pay the same price because the value is in the materials, not the end use.  

 

No, I think you are mixing up PRICE and VALUE. They are two different things. Surely you've heard the saying "he knows the price of everything but the value of nothing". Things only have value to the person wanting or coveting them, or in the use they are put to. Gold is valueless except to those who want it. And whilst it used to be relatively useless (except for cement in the Inca buildings of Peru and for teeth fillings), it of course is very useful in electronics these days. So it is valuable to electronics firms. -- but the price is more controlled by the value to others as a desirable metal or a currency reserve.

 

 

Incidentally, Pete...I personally hope you're still kicking around long, looooong after P3D breaks the 64 bit barrier!!   :smile:

 

Well, thanks, and I hope so too. Mind you, dementia or other debilitations might make that iffy. I'm 71 this year. Nothing guaranteed at this stage! ;-)

 

Pete

Surely your analogy is wrong. A carpenter will likely buy a better hammer for his work than a homeowner buying a cheaper one for a bit of DIY.

Not only that, but the carpenter will almost certainly get a trade discount- and end up with a better hammer at an overall lower cost! 

Pricing is all about maximizing profit, both current and future.

january 

That must be one of the most incorrect statements in this whole strange thread! There's no other way a product can be valued -- there's no "intrinsic absolute value" to these products, they are worth more to those that need them than those that don't. A commercial venture who needs a product to make their enterprise work just has to value it more than those flying on their home PCs for fun now and then.

 

 

That's surely to do with pricing policies, not value. And if they are being purchased by the airlines rather than the pilots I wouldn't be that surprised if they did have a specific contract arrangement.

 

As an after-note, I have no axes to grind here and don't normally contribute to this sort of thread. I've kept my own products the same price for all the years since I made is payware, and it's a lifetime purchase regardless of the application -- P3D or FSX. Of course, if P3D 64-bit ever came to fruition before I shuck this mortal coil I would need to denote a 64bit version of FSUIPC as version 5 and charge again, because it would certainly be a great deal of new work.. 

 

Regards

Pete

 

I think that would be the honest thing to do, Peter: a 64 bit FSUIPC would be a substantially new baby.

 

I just hope you will have to work on it soon: we need a 64 bit sim.

As a simple analogy, we can agree that a hammer is a hammer. Is it more valuable to a carpenter than it is to, say, a homeowner? Certainly. The carpenter's livelihood depends on it. But when the carpenter and the homeowner are standing in line to pay for that hammer, no one asks them what they're going to use it for. They both pay the same price because the value is in the materials, not the end use.

 

Sorry Jeff, but that's a poor flawed analogy.  I expect the average carpenter does, in fact, pay more for many of his tools than does the average homeowner, as he buys for things like durability and precision that matter less to all but enthusiast non-commercial users.

 

But that aside, you can't equate software licensing with simple physical goods without peeling back the next layer of the onion as above.  Believe me I pay more for servers and commercial software in my work environment than I do for equivalent home use items, and for good reasons having to do with number of eventual end users, reliability and level of service expectations.  What Ed and Pete are suggesting is that a developer selling to a commercial environment reasonably expects to be paid a higher fee for something that will, in turn, be used to sell a service to many others.  That complicates pricing as Ed describes, and each vendor is going to have to find their own way to balance this.  It's an evolution and will likely be a while shaking out.

 

Scott

Edited February 4, 201412 yr by tttocs

 

 

Not only that, but the carpenter will almost certainly get a trade discount- and end up with a better hammer at an overall lower cost!

Pricing is all about maximizing profit, both current and future.

 

True and the end use is important.

Part of what will influence the price, will be how many will be purchased.  I know that there are way more people still using FSX than P3Dv.2.

My FSX runs so good now, I'm not even tempted to get into P2Dv.2, so I won't be buying any addons for it, as I'm sure many others will not be also.

Thus, all those who purchase them will pay a premium, until the bulk of simmer are persuaded to come over.

My FSX runs so good now, I'm not even tempted to get into P2Dv.2,

 

At the time, Henry Ford also thought the Model T was as good as it gets. Fortunately wiser heads prevailed and the Model A soon displaced it.

Life changes- now and then for the better! (Although at 80+, I'm not sure of the latter!)

january

Part of what will influence the price, will be how many will be purchased.  I know that there are way more people still using FSX than P3Dv.2.

My FSX runs so good now, I'm not even tempted to get into P2Dv.2, so I won't be buying any addons for it, as I'm sure many others will not be also.

Thus, all those who purchase them will pay a premium, until the bulk of simmer are persuaded to come over.

 

I think you are quite wrong here. I don't see Orbx charging a premium. Nor do I see Aerosoft, Fly Tampa, ActiveSky Next, Opus, and FSPilots charging a premium.

 

The only ones charging a premium are those that are quite happy to "pricegouge" the customer and I will avoid those like the plague - because they do not deserve the support of this community.