Question for upcoming aircraft developers

[YYZatcboy]

We would obviously be including the license fee in the purchace price... Why should your hard work go unpaid.

[arno54]

I guess there is another option...

Devs could buy a lot of serials on their own, and supply each unit with a dedicated serial, on demand.

Then, they COULD propose their product "$40 with serial and no nagware, $35 without serial and with nagware", so that each customer can have a fair choice depending of their own beliefs.

my 2 cents...

EDIT : to be clear, this way Ben's work would be rewarded AND customers out of XA have a fair choice. Sounds like win-win to me.

[Ben Russell]

I guess there is another option...

Devs could buy a lot of serials on their own, and supply each unit with a dedicated serial, on demand.

Then, they COULD propose their product "$40 with serial and no nagware, $35 without serial and with nagware", so that each customer can have a fair choice depending of their own beliefs.

my 2 cents...

EDIT : to be clear, this way Ben's work would be rewarded AND customers out of XA have a fair choice. Sounds like win-win to me.

Let me ponder this one. Could be an interesting option here.

[YYZatcboy]

+1. Ben, let us know. As I told goran, I am a fan of getting you paid, and keeping the users and Jack and I sane

[Ben Russell]

Concerns:

- Minimum bulk-discount quantity gets set at ___ users?

- Delay for customers to receive their serial numbers.

You(armchair/etc store) will have to process the sale -> serial -> customer step.

- Increased complexity.

I have to invest a bunch of time up-front to create a bulk-serial system for return-on-investment that's so far in the red it's laughable.

Preferable end result is a bulk-generator that can be tied to a web-store so that the serial number gets generated within seconds of a purchase. This isn't going to happen. I'm not paying for it.

You'll still need to be up-front with your customers about Gizmo licensing.

It may even cause more confusion.

[Xflyboy]

Seeing that I started this crap, why not just have a "Developers Fee" (a set fee) that the developer could incorporate into their final product and costs, like most things business like.

[Ben Russell]

Seeing that I started this crap, why not just have a "Developers Fee" (a set fee) that the developer could incorporate into their final product and costs, like most things business like.

This model was attempted last year.

The numbers don't add up to a sustainable business model.

Users hate DRM.

Users find complex DRM/license levels "too confusing".

So now we have an Open Source product that anyone can pickup - in some ways it does less - in some ways more.

When it was closed source, and a developers fee was imposed, there was a huge risk that the product would simply die out because the monetary return isn't realistic.

I feel like I'm going around in circles.

[Jack Skieczius]

I have added a note on the Q400s product page that serves to inform our customers of the nag screen before purchase. This hopefully will minimize incidents like this one.

Perhaps setting up a, "what is Gizmo", page on my site will help as well.

As one of the only developers to sell a Gizmo enhanced product outside of X-A, discussions like this were bound to happen. I hope these are just Gizmo growing pains. As more people use Gizmo, it is my hope that customers will be more understanding of why the nag screen is there.

$10 dollars is not a bad price at all to pay for a Gizmo license key.

And as for offering an option, i think Ben has a point when he says "complicated". Right now our customers have the option just the same.

[Xflyboy]

First let me say this was NOT intended to be a slap in anyones face. You and the developers need to be paid for your efforts.

I was was totally surprised with this when I purchased the aircraft. I honestly thought that it would come with a license like the stuff I've purchased here at XA.

Ben, you offer a product for developers and you and the developers need to work something out regarding licensing for use of your product in their product, this should not be an issue as a consumer, as a consumer I want a finished complete product ready to go as it should be without any hidden objects, fees or what have you.

Developers have to figure out how they want their product to be delivered with a "supply" product that is incorporated into their product.

I applaud you for your work and I applaud the developers that use your product, in the end I personally just want a product free of anything that has to do with the development of the product.

[Cameron]

Ben, you offer a product for developers and you and the developers need to work something out regarding licensing for use of your product in their product, this should not be an issue as a consumer, as a consumer I want a finished complete product ready to go as it should be without any hidden objects, fees or what have you.

The way Ben is approaching this is also done in the FS world all the time. First thing that comes to mind is FSUIPC or WideFS. These products run the same "model" as Gizmo and are highly successful. As the market evolves you will NEED to come to expect this, Ed. I'm sorry, but it can't always be tailored to you, and while you're not alone in your assessment (I'm sure of that), it is part of the "growing up" process for X-Plane and IS healthy. Perhaps in time you'll see why.

Quite simply:

If you purchase a $10 Gizmo license you will have your nag screen disappear for EVERY aircraft that EVER uses Gizmo from that one-time, simple $10 purchase. It's really as easy going as that. This is NOT an every aircraft affair.

Yes, the developer should disclose the issue, and it sounds like Jack and Joe have done so now. The logistics of incorporating the license into products like the Dash is not there, and to do so would require far more investment than return for Ben. X-Aviation has long time worked for the infrastructure we have in place to accomodate this (years), but it's not something that can be cross-deployed.

That's the reality of it, and I see it fair. Even more-so because Gizmo still WORKS full on without purchasing a license, unlike the FS counterparts they call FSUIPC and WideFS.

[arno54]

Probably devs should privately discuss this with Ben to find a workaround, because today, from the end-user point of view, a Gizmo-enhanced plane is MAYBE a better plane but is DEFINITELY a tricky purchase.

When a guy buys a plane, he wants it 100% featured and does not care HOW it works nor WHO did each part of the job.

Whinning that this is not fair will not change the speed the Earth spins : that's just the way it is.

This can do no good to devs, neither to Ben, nor to end-users. We all need to work together so that the end-users won't be concerned with a "double-purchase".

Right now I have no good idea what to suggest to achieve this, but this doesn't mean there is no way to satisfy a customer AND to be paid for the work.

[YYZatcboy]

Very well said Cameron.

Jack and I are very committed to using Gizmo, Both in the Dash and in other projects we have on the go.

[Jack Skieczius]

Informing our customers better is something on my end i will endeavor to do more, as it is apparent, what we had was not done enough.

I see where you are coming from Ed. you don't want to have this extra bit you have to deal with in products you buy. I am sure many people feel this way. I am not sure however that this will be the norm for many upcoming awesome X-Plane products. There are a few products being developed without Gizmo, but i am sure the features for those take much longer to code then if they had been developed using Gizmo. In short, from what the Q400 does in 1.1, shaved off months of development.

In a year from now, Gizmo could be laid out totally different. This is what i talk about growing pains. I am sure Ben looks at all the feedback from customers and with that helps make a better product.

[Xflyboy]

Cameron,

Why are you beating this with me, I PURCHASED the license to remove the Nag Screen, and secondly, it's not about ME, it's about me and every other consumer, I am just voicing my opinion as a consumer, which I have a right to do. I purchased a product and I'm voicing my concerns about my purchase.

Also, I own FSUIPC & WideFS for my FS sim stuff, Peters product is an "add-on" you either need or want it or you don't, end of story.

Gizmo in this product still is functional yes, but it's in your face letting you know about it, unlike FSUIPC, in the free version of it you don't have a screen asking to you to purchase the full version before you can use it.

I fly both sims and I really enjoy them both, X-Plane is growing yes it is which I'm happy to be experiencing.

However, as a consumer I felt I needed to address this.

As I've said, developers & Ben need to work this out, it should not be something a consumer should be dealing with.

Will you PLEASE, close this thread. Please.

[Cameron]

Will you PLEASE, close this thread. Please.

No, Ed. And you have a tendency to do this. You create threads and regret doing so later on with a request to do so because you feel attacked...or something. Last recollection of this was with the $5 fee for a download key for RealScenery.

My comments are not necessarily directed at just you in this topic. Like you, they are directed to you AND consumers. I am not just trying to solve "your" problem.

FSUIPC is necessary for MANY apps out there. There are some that don't require it. There are many others that do, and I have them as well.

My stance and view on this subject has not changed.

[Xflyboy]

No, Ed. And you have a tendency to do this. You create threads and regret doing so later on with a request to do so because you feel attacked...or something. Last recollection of this was with the $5 fee for a download key for RealScenery.

Yes that was me, how many times have I've done that before!

Your opinions are yours indeed, do what you wish, I've expressed mine and have satisfactorily satisfied mine.

If you have a problem with me, remove me by all means, I'll spend my money elsewhere, no problem.

[Cameron]

If you have a problem with me, remove me by all means, I'll spend my money elsewhere, no problem.

Way to take it to the extreme.

[woweezowee]

If you want to make a statement but don't want it to be discussed by others interested or affected by the topic, then a forum seems to be the wrong place. As you can see Ben and others have taken the opportunity to share some new ideas.

[Ben Russell]

This is highly coincidental - in the last week I changed the nag screens again.

I also changed the price. No notice of this was made because it was basically just hours-days ago now.

Then the Q update came out and, well, yeah..

The next nag system looks like this:

It has no forced-wait timer. You can close it instantly; as many times as you like.

It's a much smaller window.

It appears at random locations around the screen every couple of minutes, the delay is randomly between ~10 and 180 seconds.

It will come back again and again and again.

The watermark stays as it was.

Still fully functional, still free to try out entirely before you risk a dime.

I switched to this approach after trying(and buying! $9.99) some other Mac shareware that does basically the same thing.

I found it to be a nice trade off between irritation, reminder and enjoyment.

You can enjoy your product "more or less" instantly. So very important these days.

You get interrupted now and then at an unpredictable moment.

You can get rid of the screen instantly again so you can keep on that glide-slope, but you know the darned thing will be back again.

I appreciate that all you want to do is purchase a working product. Everyone likes it when batteries are included.

Me, I just wanna make Gizmo better so we can have a better X-Plane... 10 bucks at a time.

( To those who bought in early, thank you for your early-adopter support! ...as you will well know by now, still trying to find the sweet spot. )

[Xflyboy]

I wanted the topic to be discussed, thats why I posted, I have been polite about it but Cameron doesn't like the way I expressing myself I guess.

[Xflyboy]

Ben, I hope you find your "Sweet Spot"!

[Cameron]

I wanted the topic to be discussed, thats why I posted, I have been polite about it but Cameron doesn't like the way I expressing myself I guess.

Ed, get serious. Just because we have differing opinions on Gizmo's model doesn't mean I don't like you expressing yourself.

What I DON'T like is you starting topics and then feeling that you can get them closed when it only satisfies you. If you feel that's how it should be then you're definitely wrong there, and in such instances you need to take it up in PM.

I am not the one throwing a temper tantrum here about never buying products if certain demands aren't meant. This is the same temperament we experienced from you in the RealScenery thread. It's really not necessary.

[Xflyboy]

Ok, Cameron, you're right, I'm wrong...

[Ben Russell]

(I find it very annoying when threads are locked.)

[YYZatcboy]

Thanks for the update Ben. I'm looking forward to finding out what new goodies are inside. Jack has be beginning to script stuff. ( or that's the plan anyway )

Cheers!