Some guys are having difficulty understanding the differences between patches, updates and upgrades. Also ESDG could have communicated this a little bit more effectively in the first place.Patches are a fix to make something work eg an existing aircraft work in FS X. If it's a small fix and achievable, it should usually be free. Developers and Publishers though, have to decide how far back in their catalougue they should go to decide what products to patch.Updates are an update of an existing product to make the existing product work in FS X and also to support some new features of FS X. It's up to the developer to decide whether to charge to cover costs or not.An upgrade is essentially a new product e.g. where an aircraft has been completely re-worked to take advantage of new features, such as FS X materials and animations and re-modeled to a higher fidelity. Consider other products eg having purchased Office 2003 I don't expect Office 2007 for free - the same applies to FS addons.If there's any criticism to level at Eaglesoft they should perhaps have anticipated there would be some confusion over product upgrades for FS X and explained this on their website. They produce nice products and are entitled to charge for these products.When publishers/developers know that a new version of FS is being released and it's close to release time they should perhaps announce their update/upgrade policies for their add-on products and perhaps also consider discounting existing products or offering low cost purchase options on new products for purchasers of existing products as ESDG are doing.I think many other developers would be similar. Aerosoft announced their update policies for their products last month. http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/viewtopic.php?t=8797 They are similar to those outlined above and appear to be reasonable, as is ESDG.

For the work/time developers put in to update their products, I don't mind paying the fee. I'm sure there's many other things they could do with that time (like create totally new products and drop past products cold. PSS comes to mind here which I hope doesn't repeat itself with FSX)...

>For the work/time developers put in to update their products,>I don't mind paying the fee.You know, it's funny. This is the only product (product area) I've ever been involved with where other users/consumers have even dared to suggest that I consider the work/time developers put in when I decide whether or not a "buy price" is appropriate or not. I've never done it before and don't understand the argument or see the point now.I make purchases based on costs/beneifts for ME... not out of some desire to ensure anyone else is earning a living or even that X or Y company will be around some time in the future. This may sound cold-hearted, even heartless. So be it.As illustrated by the freeware "market" from FS4 through 9, certain individuals will "fill the niche" should payware not be available - and their motivations and numbers will be different than those involved in payware products. I've been surprised and pleased with 90% of the freeware I have found - at least as much as the payware products I've bought or considered buying. Ultimately, as the post-Hurricane Katrina economy in my area illustrated quite clearly, no one owes anyone a job, a purchase or any such thing. As much as I can appreciate them, developer skillsets are essentially products/services that can and will be marketed --- if the price is too high for the consumer, then that skillset/product will not find a willing market... but that's not my concern. "The market" will decide which payware companies survive. Buying and/or keeping an unsatisfactory product is charity, not a good financial model.