1 hour ago, kevinfirth said:

Mike, it will be what it will be.  It's good they are providing the option for the pay to use voices.  It's a commercial decision the devs need to make, in their interests not anyone else's.  If they set a certain price point and there are enough people who are willing to pay, whether you think any price is fair or not is quite immaterial.  Welcome to capitalism baby!  At the end of the day, either do without, pay up, or see if any of the other alternatives suit you better.  Choice is good.

What alternative will there be to using paid for voices ?

It’s like cell phone companies used to do. You paid a specified rate for a plan that fit your needs, that put you at a data cap. If you exceed the data cap, you had to pay X number of dollars for an extra Gig of data. (At the time, I believe it was $10.00 per Gig) Now they just sell unlimited data plans etc , etc.

If this ATC program is going to be as good as is claimed, then they should be sitting down with ASOBO/ MICROSOFT. If it basically is pretty much a finished product sell it to them and be retained to maintain, update and improve the product under contract for the amount of time ASOBO/MICROSFT  plan on supporting flight simulator.  Seems like that would get the “ATC” monkey off ASOBO/MICROSOFT’S back. Just a thought, that’s all.

4 hours ago, kevinfirth said:

Mike, it will be what it will be.  It's good they are providing the option for the pay to use voices.  It's a commercial decision the devs need to make, in their interests not anyone else's.  If they set a certain price point and there are enough people who are willing to pay, whether you think any price is fair or not is quite immaterial.  Welcome to capitalism baby!  At the end of the day, either do without, pay up, or see if any of the other alternatives suit you better.  Choice is good.

Hi,

Capitalism I get, but when you see statements like this  "The B-ATC devs don't make any money from you buying voice credits. The money goes towards the third party service providing the voices."  it only confuses the issue even further. 

2 hours ago, Matchstick said:

What alternative will there be to using paid for voices ?

Not much out there, but there are alternatives. You may not like the voice quality, but you do have choices. 

1 hour ago, Mike_CFII_MEL said:

Hi,

Capitalism I get, but when you see statements like this  "The B-ATC devs don't make any money from you buying voice credits. The money goes towards the third party service providing the voices."  it only confuses the issue even further. 

How is it confusing?

1 hour ago, Tuskin38 said:

How is it confusing?

Simple, it's an untrue statement and untrue statements cloud the truth, hence making things confusing. 

7 minutes ago, Mike_CFII_MEL said:

Simple, it's an untrue statement and untrue statements cloud the truth, hence making things confusing. 

I'm curious as to what makes you believe it's an untrue statement?

 

13 minutes ago, Gate99 said:

I'm curious as to what makes you believe it's an untrue statement?

 

Lets look at today's capitalistic world. Only one statement can be correct, either they are going to make money off of these voice credits or they aren't. What do you believe? I think you'll find more individuals in my camp than in the other.

Only one of us are right, but I don't think that kind of poll would go over very well.

Edited October 2, 20232 yr by Mike_CFII_MEL

12 minutes ago, Mike_CFII_MEL said:

Lets look at today's capitalistic world. Only one statement can be correct, either they are going to make money off of these voice credits or they aren't. What do you believe? I think you'll find more individuals in my camp than in the other.

Only one of us are right, but I don't think that kind of poll would go over very well.

So you believe that they would not be happy enough just making money off selling the product but would also add additional profit in marking up the price of the voices packages they offer?

18 minutes ago, Gate99 said:

So you believe that they would not be happy enough just making money off selling the product but would also add additional profit in marking up the price of the voices packages they offer?

I can't think of ANY for profit company being happy breaking even on an ongoing basis, not one company comes to mind.

1 hour ago, Gate99 said:

So you believe that they would not be happy enough just making money off selling the product but would also add additional profit in marking up the price of the voices packages they offer?

Absolutely! Do Microsoft just get money from selling the sim or do they make money off the marketplace?

Of course they're going to mark it up.

 

G

Look at Amazon Polly voice pricing

Amazon Polly’s Neural voices are priced at $16.00 per 1 million characters for speech or Speech Marks requested

Based on this (I don't know what the BATC devs intend to actually use), their proposed pricing seems comparable.  From this data I dont think they're scalping anyone, but even if they were, that's business, either pay or dont 😁

6 hours ago, Mike_CFII_MEL said:

I can't think of ANY for profit company being happy breaking even on an ongoing basis, not one company comes to mind.

So you think that if the developers of BATC sold it, for lets say $30 that they would be only breaking even and not making any profit?

2 minutes ago, Gate99 said:

So you think that if the developers of BATC sold it, for lets say $30 that they would be only breaking even and not making any profit?

I just dont think this is a valid debate for any of us to be having.  The devs can decide what their business model is and how much they want to charge.  We have the luxury of choosing whether we wish to pay what they're asking for the product that is offered.  Id like Lamborghinis to be £5000, but wanting it to be so doesn't make it happen! 🙂

On 9/29/2023 at 4:42 PM, flibberflops said:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/subscription

an amount of money that you pay regularly to receive a product or service:

Which means it is not a subscription.