21 hours ago, Ron Lefebvre said:

What a rip off. Same plane as he 300ER. Take out seats and add freight. Sorry. 34.99$ is the max I was willing to pay.

I was so sicked for this.

Price is fine if all you buy is the 777F, but if already own the 300, there should be a HUGE discount here.

I am out.

 

Not to mention the insulting 3$ rebate on the 300.

 

But at the same time, for most people £39.99 so $50 for the Fenix A319/A321 is a bargain even if it probably reuse 90% of the A320 code?

Regarding MSFS sounds...

Cockpit: Cat purring half asleep on couch, dog chewing my slippers.

Switches to......

External: Dog barks, leaps out of window after cat, neighbours call police.

 

27 minutes ago, rjquick said:

OK. So, if we follow that logic, only one person should ever be charged for an FS aircraft. All the subsequent 'sales' are just exact copies and require no effort, raw materials or anything. It's not like they are selling actual planes. Why are thousands of people being charged for nothing? That goes for the core FS2020 and FS2024 simulators as well. You are just buying copies. Unless, perhaps, there is more to this whole price for software thing. I often wonder where the money for a software engineer's paycheck comes from.

You are using a logical fallacy known as reduction ad absurdum, where you attempt to discredit an assertion by reducing it to an absurd degree,  in the same sense that the burger analogy was.  It is established by most that pricing for software should cover the costs of producing and maintaining it and reasonable profit levels.  This is the base assumption we should be going off of.  There of course are those who argue that all software should be free, and those who feel that profits should be unlimited and unfettered by anything other than the ability to acheive them, but these are at the end of the day unsustainable views.  Very few begrudge programmers being compensated for their work, or publishers reaping the benefits of the risks that they take.  That doesn’t mean that we can’t or shouldn’t debate those who regularly and repeatedly push the envelope of what most would agree is solid business ethics.

PMDG isn’t pharma bro, but they have been well over the line many times and will do so again.

We also have to consider the work involved in providing updates subsequent to the initial release. These are provided free of charge, but they obviously involve time and effort from the programmers. Now, you could argue that certain "updates" are actually bug fixes, or corrections for features that should have been there in the first place......but once you go down that road, forever will it dominate your destiny.

Edited December 7, 20241 yr by Christopher Low

8 minutes ago, ShawnG said:

You are using a logical fallacy known as reduction ad absurdum, where you attempt to discredit an assertion by reducing it to an absurd degree,  in the same sense that the burger analogy was.  It is established by most that pricing for software should cover the costs of producing and maintaining it and reasonable profit levels.  This is the base assumption we should be going off of.  There of course are those who argue that all software should be free, and those who feel that profits should be unlimited and unfettered by anything other than the ability to acheive them, but these are at the end of the day unsustainable views.  Very few begrudge programmers being compensated for their work, or publishers reaping the benefits of the risks that they take.  That doesn’t mean that we can’t or shouldn’t debate those who regularly and repeatedly push the envelope of what most would agree is solid business ethics.

PMDG isn’t pharma bro, but they have been well over the line many times and will do so again.

Thanks Shawn. You have worded it better than I would have been able to!
 

@rjquick

Honest work should be rewarded by correct remuneration of course. 
The cost of development is normally spread over the expected number of customers for your product. 
Rewarding loyal customers that buy very similar products of yours (where some of your development hours were shared) by giving them a discount could actually be a very successful sales tactic to generate even more revenue. 
 

Every developer is free to chose how they want to price their work, so is every customer in deciding if they want to follow or not. 

1 hour ago, sloppysmusic said:

Regarding MSFS sounds...

Cockpit: Cat purring half asleep on couch, dog chewing my slippers.

Switches to......

External: Dog barks, leaps out of window after cat, neighbours call police.

 

xplane has that great plugin where you can individually set internal and external sounds 😞

57 minutes ago, ShawnG said:

That doesn’t mean that we can’t or shouldn’t debate those who regularly and repeatedly push the envelope of what most would agree is solid business ethics.

PMDG isn’t pharma bro, but they have been well over the line many times and will do so again.

I push back on this being a matter of "business ethics."

First: For-profit businesses exist for one reason and one reason only: to provide goods and services which will produce a profit for its stakeholders. Apropos, Randazzo's proclivity for expensive toys ain't going to pay for themselves.

Second: Historically, the "invisible hand" determined pricing for any goods and services in capitalist markets. Businesses will establish whatever price they wish at whatever profit margin they wish, and if a good or service is too expensive, it won't sell well, and the price must be lowered, or the business will fail. This is especially true for non essential goods and services / luxury items (of which all things MSFS are one).

The problem is that an interesting phenomenon has occurred. Prices for non-essential items are at all-time highs, corporate profits are at all-time highs, but consumers continue to pay whatever is asked. The "invisible hand" seems to be broken. People complain about the absurd prices of Disney World and then fill the park to max capacity anyway. People complain about the ridiculous price of luxury clothing and accessories. Yet, everyone is draped in Louis Vuitton and Gucci, and the parking lots are full of Porsches, BMWs, and even Lamorginis. In return prices are driven higher, the richest 1% and corporate CEOs will soon be measured in the trillions, not billions, and people keep buying more.

Meanwhile back here in the make believe world of MSFS, the PMDG 777 is definitely a non-essential luxury item. $59 for the 777F is the price PMDG feels will deliver the business and personal profits they require. That has nothing to do with ethics. Price too high? Don't buy it. People are still buying it so if you want to cause a price decrease then the vast majority of simmers must refuse to pay that price and it will come down.

That said, if you wanted to refer to an example of questionable business ethics, then refer to the time PMDG tried to sell its products in UK Pounds to make extra profit, even though it's e-commerce site is in the US and it has no business presence in the UK. And of course, that is not only unethical, it is illegal.

Edited December 7, 20241 yr by Mike T

3 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

I own the Fenix and the PMDG 737-777. The Fenix sits in the hangar gathering dust most of the time. 

The Fenix is probably the best airliner ever developed for a flight sim it runs rings around the PMDG 737.

18 minutes ago, Sylle said:

Thanks Shawn. You have worded it better than I would have been able to!
 

@rjquick

Honest work should be rewarded by correct remuneration of course. 
The cost of development is normally spread over the expected number of customers for your product. 
Rewarding loyal customers that buy very similar products of yours (where some of your development hours were shared) by giving them a discount could actually be a very successful sales tactic to generate even more revenue. 
 

Every developer is free to chose how they want to price their work, so is every customer in deciding if they want to follow or not. 

The concept of a sale or 'buy one, get one for a $1' to draw customers is nothing new and would be up to the company to decide if they want to go that route. The price of anything is what someone is willing to pay for it and selling enough to maintain and/or grow your business. They will know soon enough if their pricing was set too high for the demand.

IMO pretty much all of the FS software is surprisingly cheap. You are paying once for something you will be using for several years and it is even updated through that period. If you actually figured how much it winds up costing you per week or per use, it would be very small. I would guarantee that anyone would spend many times that amount on more frivolous things during that time. You just don't think about it because it happens in small increments.

 

2 minutes ago, jason74 said:

The Fenix is probably the best airliner ever developed for a flight sim it runs rings around the PMDG 737.

But boring to fly, it flies itself.

2 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

But boring to fly, it flies itself.

MaddogX Is just your style then Bob. Highly recommended

Michael Moe 

Edited December 7, 20241 yr by Michael Moe

how about when they coded their installer to not allow installation into p3d which was at the time 98% identical to FSX.  and then sold what was a 99 dollar addon in fsx for 140 dollars for the exact same product, only with an updated installer...  Not illegal, sure, but...  

In specific terms, the pricing is what it is.  I dislike the fact that the pricing policy is all over the map.  i.e the 737-800 family is one product, but the 777LR and the 777F is 2, despite being just as similar.  They used to be the American Airlines pricing model, and now they are the Ryanair/Spirit Airlines pricing model.  

Actually when I think about it, the perfect analogy is right there.  PMDG and RR = Ryanair and Michael O'leary.  Ryanair is in no danger of going out of business, but O'leary sure can't keep from pushing the buttons... 

On 12/5/2024 at 6:44 PM, El Diablito said:

....beacause they launched an EFB that isn't fancy enough and in record time you're denying yourself the privilege of flying outstanding aircraft? Hence the "cutting off your nose to spite your face" comment.

You should look past your frustration and get on board, I can't imagine anybody would have their overall flying experience tarnished just because of an EFB, which didn't even exist when both aircraft were launched into service anyway.

you cant accept PMDG are no longer the king of the hill

Edited December 7, 20241 yr by jason74

8 minutes ago, jason74 said:

The Fenix is probably the best airliner ever developed for a flight sim it runs rings around the PMDG 737.

Not as a simulation of a 737 it doesn't, it's good though - equal to the Toliss Airbus's not sure about the FSLabs though always hear people saying that was superior.

11 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

But boring to fly, it flies itself.

No more so than the Boeing airliners, unless you are married to the trim wheel that is...

 

G

12 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

But boring to fly, it flies itself.

last time I flew the PMDG 737 it was automated like the Fenix A320 just like all modern airliners and flew its self