Price disparity between MSFS products and P3D

[RayP]

I notice the FT products for MSFS are considerably cheaper than the equivalent for P3D. Are they cut-down versions that take less time to create?

If they are the price difference is understandable. But if they're the same quality why would they be so much cheaper?

Example: Athens for MSFS is $17.99 whereas the P3D equivalent is 33% more expensive at $24.

[EasternT3]

Hi Ray,

Yes some airports for MSFS contain 'ported assets' from their P3D counterparts, however some airports are build from the ground up,

The price difference is simple economics, P3D had/has roughly 30,000 users, MSFS has sold over 2 million copies, therefore bigger user base = lower unit prices, it's not just FT, every developer in the MSFS universe has reduced prices from what P3D was

[RayP]

Hi EasternT3,

Firstly, are you an employee of FT or just another customer like me? Where did you get those P3D & MSFS numbers from?

If what you say is true then P3D customers have subsidised the MSFS products. I find that disappointing. And the amount of subsidy seems excessive. UK2000 have priced their MSFS airports just a few pounds below the P3D ones - not 30% as FT have done.

And if sales for P3D products have fallen as seems the case why not apply a discount for P3D airports so they are equally priced or even cheaper? Many other developers have dropped their P3D prices but not FT.

[Er!k]

Don't forget MSFS has default satellite imagery where P3D has not. This imagery is one of the most expensive parts for developers to buy. In the past they only took the airport perimeters, but today you will see the nearby areas covered as well...

[RayP]

Don't forget MSFS has default satellite imagery where P3D has not. This imagery is one of the most expensive parts for developers to buy. In the past they only took the airport perimeters, but today you will see the nearby areas covered as well...

Does Athens have satellite imagery? I’m not sure it does.

But why no response from Fly Tampa? It was a direct question to them and they have yet to respond. I am a customer who has bought 5 or 6 of their products so I feel a reply is reasonable.

[george[flytampa]]

The prices were initially set low by other devs believing sales would be FAR greater than fsx/p3d/xplane. It didn't turn out that way but the prices sort of stuck.

Its more work now if anything. We have PBR texturing and cpu power for more detailed modelling.
However, the MSFS SDK is the best of the bunch (when it works).

All our MSFS scenery has satellite imagery, known as CGL. Athens was surrounded by red/brown fields by default and looked goofy to me, so it had to go.

[EasternT3]

Hi EasternT3,

Firstly, are you an employee of FT or just another customer like me? Where did you get those P3D & MSFS numbers from?

If what you say is true then P3D customers have subsidised the MSFS products. I find that disappointing. And the amount of subsidy seems excessive. UK2000 have priced their MSFS airports just a few pounds below the P3D ones - not 30% as FT have done.

And if sales for P3D products have fallen as seems the case why not apply a discount for P3D airports so they are equally priced or even cheaper? Many other developers have dropped their P3D prices but not FT.

Hi Ray,

I am a customer, however spend a lot of time round various customer forums, the MSFS number can be widely found online, the P3D came from Aerosoft as they were discussing the decreasing viability of P3D. 30,000 was the height of P3D, it's a lot lower now.

I don't find it disappointing, I have spend thousands on FSX/P3D, so to finally have a sim where prices are lower across the board is very refreshing. Don't forget UK2000 is a one man band and no longer a top tier developer so probably can't afford to reduce their prices as much, where FT/Aerosoft/Orbx has more room in that respect.

The prices were initially set low by other devs believing sales would be FAR greater than fsx/p3d/xplane. It didn't turn out that way but the prices sort of stuck.

This is very interesting George, from the posts I've seen, it looks like MSFS has far greater sales, albeit this might only apply to aircraft, as these were the products in question

[Dehowie]

The myth of MSFS sales is exactly that.
First most people dont "BUY" anything they get access to it with game pass so a huge swathe of the "sales" are not sales at all they are simply access passes.
Most come in fly over there house then never use it again..done.
Then look at the user base.
Most people using MSFS have absolutely no interest in buying any aftermarket products for something they didnt even pay for as they have access via game pass.
The casual user for online flying with friends isnt into PTU operation on the A320. they dont care about the planes nor do they pay for highly detailed airports. Casual use is MSFS main user base easily.
Then of the remainder how many want to spend money on scenery for a so called simulator with no aircraft worth flying.
Lets be brutally honest here its the guys who want great scenery to go with their high fidelity aircraft are the ones who have made the scenery devs who they are.
The very people using FSlabs, Majestic, and PMDG are not fly by nighters happy with a broken Baron surrounded by Bing ortho and airports that need replacing.
Xplane which has hundreds of freeware airports completely superior to some of the garbage being touted as payware for msfs.
Those who want the full experience.
Those people are not in MSFS they are still in P3D and xplane using high fidelity addons.
Those like me who went over and bought some products are now back in P3D and xplane sick of the entire Asobo experience of an broken game with higher maintenance time than any other simulator ever.
Even at its worst Austins efforts to upset devs a few years back(now long gone) pale into insignificance with the ridiculous update system of Asobo breaking multiple payware addons with each update.
I uninstalled my entire MSFS setup to make more drive space for far higher quality scenery than MSFS can ever give me in preparation for xp12 and P3D 5.3 updates.
To me right now Xplane is the big winner right now but P3D is also gaining new users tired of poor quality low fidelity aircraft wanting more accuracy NOW.
There have been multiple extremely high quality addon aircraft released recently 747-200(incredible), JF/Thranda BAE146(again increedible) the Q400 for xp simply outstanding plus its amazing fleet of GA stuff particularly Thranda with the porter,Beaver etc. All of which can be flown in tailored ortho to a far higher detail level than MSFS.
People have jumped back to using P3D for its superior aircraft as well.
With the PMDG 737 still looking months away from release for ONE aircraft(And a 1970's tech aircraft at that so the easiest to integrate other than a no tech DC-6) thats appearing to be getting further away rather than closer and Asobo still making updating a shambles of monumental proportions for every payware dev MSFS is as a platform a disaster.
Why FT isnt focusing more on xplane surprises me. Its user base(along with P3D) are THE users who do pay for aftermarket aircraft. Its freeware base has drawn lots of new users wanting a more realistic flight experience than that offered by MSFS so seemingly added plenty of users.
Xplane needs a Kai Tak badly and an opportunity lost right now by FT with the 747-200 out.
The opportunities are there.




The people using xplane and P3D are the people who want top quality products the FT provides those very people are the ones who paid for FT products for almost 20 years. Its great to see EHAM V2 but xplane is an expanding platform with now a fleet of fabulous aircraft and with new lighting in xp12 and the option of easily creatable stunning ortho far beyond anything in MSFS it awaits more FT conversions.

[EasternT3]

The myth of MSFS sales is exactly that.
First most people dont "BUY" anything they get access to it with game pass so a huge swathe of the "sales" are not sales at all they are simply access passes.
Most come in fly over there house then never use it again..done.
Then look at the user base.
Most people using MSFS have absolutely no interest in buying any aftermarket products for something they didnt even pay for as they have access via game pass.
The casual user for online flying with friends isnt into PTU operation on the A320. they dont care about the planes nor do they pay for highly detailed airports. Casual use is MSFS main user base easily.
Then of the remainder how many want to spend money on scenery for a so called simulator with no aircraft worth flying.
Lets be brutally honest here its the guys who want great scenery to go with their high fidelity aircraft are the ones who have made the scenery devs who they are.
The very people using FSlabs, Majestic, and PMDG are not fly by nighters happy with a broken Baron surrounded by Bing ortho and airports that need replacing.
Xplane which has hundreds of freeware airports completely superior to some of the garbage being touted as payware for msfs.
Those who want the full experience.
Those people are not in MSFS they are still in P3D and xplane using high fidelity addons.
Those like me who went over and bought some products are now back in P3D and xplane sick of the entire Asobo experience of an broken game with higher maintenance time than any other simulator ever.
Even at its worst Austins efforts to upset devs a few years back(now long gone) pale into insignificance with the ridiculous update system of Asobo breaking multiple payware addons with each update.
I uninstalled my entire MSFS setup to make more drive space for far higher quality scenery than MSFS can ever give me in preparation for xp12 and P3D 5.3 updates.
To me right now Xplane is the big winner right now but P3D is also gaining new users tired of poor quality low fidelity aircraft wanting more accuracy NOW.
There have been multiple extremely high quality addon aircraft released recently 747-200(incredible), JF/Thranda BAE146(again increedible) the Q400 for xp simply outstanding plus its amazing fleet of GA stuff particularly Thranda with the porter,Beaver etc. All of which can be flown in tailored ortho to a far higher detail level than MSFS.
People have jumped back to using P3D for its superior aircraft as well.
With the PMDG 737 still looking months away from release for ONE aircraft(And a 1970's tech aircraft at that so the easiest to integrate other than a no tech DC-6) thats appearing to be getting further away rather than closer and Asobo still making updating a shambles of monumental proportions for every payware dev MSFS is as a platform a disaster.
Why FT isnt focusing more on xplane surprises me. Its user base(along with P3D) are THE users who do pay for aftermarket aircraft. Its freeware base has drawn lots of new users wanting a more realistic flight experience than that offered by MSFS so seemingly added plenty of users.
Xplane needs a Kai Tak badly and an opportunity lost right now by FT with the 747-200 out.
The opportunities are there.




The people using xplane and P3D are the people who want top quality products the FT provides those very people are the ones who paid for FT products for almost 20 years. Its great to see EHAM V2 but xplane is an expanding platform with now a fleet of fabulous aircraft and with new lighting in xp12 and the option of easily creatable stunning ortho far beyond anything in MSFS it awaits more FT conversions.

I cried in laughter reading this, your assumptions are so off the mark, it hilarious, do us all a favour and go read material produced by aerosoft showing MSFS sales dwarfing P3D AND XPL sales combined. XPL is a great platform with some awesome aircraft not even available for P3D, but your analysis (if you can call it that) is so wrong for MSFS

Go look at forums, where countless people have pledged to moving over from P3D one PMDG and A2A aircraft are in MSFS, as for the updates, asobo learnt from SU5 and 6 and 7 have been pretty perfect.

Stop burying your head in the sand and realise MSFS is a sim that can be used, and stop trying to` grasp at straws, like the 737 is only 70's tech, go tell Robert that and he'll tell you how hard it is to program...

[Benncpp15]

FT has released some Xplane scenery already so why don't they do more? Because XP doesn't sell.

MSFS is the future. Every month is gets better. Another year, it will have PMDG jets, DX11 and hundreds of gfx features Austin Meyer hasn't even heard of yet.

RIP XPLANE.

[Abriael]

Another year, it will have PMDG jets

More like another month, if the signs are what they seem to be.

It's absolutely undeniable that Microsoft Flight Simulator is the future (and the present), and those who deny it are indeed burying their head in the sand.

There is a reason why developers are jumping ship by the droves from P3D and Xplane to MSFS, and it's not some sort of fad. They know what's good for their business. As advanced aircraft made by reputable developers launch on MSFS, most of the holdouts among their customers will follow.

If one wants to stick with obsolete sims (and yes, Xplane is an obsolete sim, and from what we've seen so far, Xplane 12 won't be much less obsolete. The Flightsim Expo panel was a farce and the "new" lighting is years behind what MSFS has. Laminar simply doesn't have the resources to invest in modern tech), that's fine, but perhaps it's time to stop badgering developers with the continuous port begging. Be happy that some still release their scenery on other sims as secondary platforms, while it lasts (and it likely won't last long).

Their responsibility is to put food on the table, not to keep relevant simulators that aren't kept relevant by their own first-party developers, who not only have no way to compete with Microsoft, but aren't even really trying.

[RayP]

The prices were initially set low by other devs believing sales would be FAR greater than fsx/p3d/xplane. It didn't turn out that way but the prices sort of stuck.

Its more work now if anything. We have PBR texturing and cpu power for more detailed modelling.
However, the MSFS SDK is the best of the bunch (when it works).

All our MSFS scenery has satellite imagery, known as CGL. Athens was surrounded by red/brown fields by default and looked goofy to me, so it had to go.

Hello George. Firstly, my apologies for not replying earlier. I’m not getting notifications when a reply is posted. If anyone could tell me the email address used I’ll add it to my allowed list.

I really don’t mind what MSFS prices you set but now that you’ve said scenery takes longer to produce for that sim perhaps you can review your P3D prices. I have most of your products anyway but I think it would show good willing to your P3D customers.

And don’t forget there are still a significant number of customers staying with P3D which is stable and has a very solid SDK. New airports are always welcome. 😉

[trisho0]

MSFS is nice eye candy. But it lacks many functions to simulate deep study level Airline systems. And also they have very restrictive sandbox environment, so many system cannot cross-talk in memory. No memory sharing, so very difficult to code advanced study level systems and also MSFS does not support native C++ code. Terrible environment to code and created advanced level airliner systems.
Maybe one day MSFS will catch-up to P3D. So, sceneries also may still hold the price lower than other sims.
Paricio Valdes

[Abriael]

Maybe one day MSFS will catch-up to P3D.

MSFS has already left P3D leagues behind the moment it was released.