Quality vs Price
With the release of the latest high-detail update for the PMDG 737-900, the developer once again demonstrates what it does arguably better than anyone else in the flight simulation space: delivering well-performing, stable Boeing aircraft with a high level of overall quality, including deep and reliable system simulation.
But beneath that surface polish lies a more complicated story—one that raises questions not only about priorities, but also about value.
The Comfort Zone: Incremental Excellence
There is no denying PMDG’s strength. The iterative updates across the 737-600, -700, and now -900 create a consistent and visually impressive product line. The aircraft feel cohesive, mature, and carefully maintained.
Yet, these updates are also fundamentally incremental. They refine what already exists rather than redefining it. The core simulation experience—systems depth, flight model behavior, and operational realism—remains largely unchanged.
PMDG is, in many ways, still operating within its historical comfort zone: delivering completeness and polish rather than taking risks on deeper innovation.
The Real Headline: Stability Remains Unresolved
Buried within the announcement is the more significant admission: WASM crashes in MSFS 2024 are currently the company’s “#1 strategic objective.”
This is not a minor footnote—it is the central issue affecting the user experience.
PMDG openly acknowledges:
- The crashes are not fully understood
- Debugging is extremely limited
- Fixes may require multiple iterations
This creates a striking contrast. While visual fidelity continues to improve, the fundamental reliability of the product remains uncertain.
For users, this disconnect is difficult to ignore. A visually refined aircraft loses much of its appeal if flights cannot be completed reliably. Stability is not a feature—it is the baseline.
Shared Responsibility, Diffused Accountability
PMDG is careful to point out that WASM-related crashes are not unique to its products. This is true. The issue affects multiple developers within the MSFS 2024 ecosystem. However, from a user perspective, that distinction matters little.
Customers do not experience “platform instability” in abstract terms—they experience a flight ending prematurely. The source of the problem becomes secondary to the fact that it occurred at all. Shared responsibility, in this context, does not reduce frustration. It diffuses accountability.
A Pricing Model Under Pressure
If stability concerns form one side of the discussion, pricing forms the other. PMDG’s long-standing approach treats each simulator platform as a separate product ecosystem. Aircraft are not carried forward freely between versions, and even within a single platform, variants are typically sold individually.
With the transition from MSFS 2020 to MSFS 2024, this model has come under renewed scrutiny.Users who previously paid around €70 for a single 737 variant are now faced with:
- An upgrade fee of roughly €30 per aircraft
- Or a full repurchase at standard pricing
On its own, €30 may seem reasonable. But in context, the perception shifts.
The Problem of Cumulative Cost
The issue is not the upgrade fee in isolation—it is the structure behind it.
A user invested in multiple variants can easily reach:
- €100 per aircraft across two simulator generations
- €300 or more for a complete 737 lineup
At the same time, competing products increasingly offer bundled aircraft families at significantly lower total cost. This creates a growing perception gap. PMDG is seen as charging:
- Per variant
- Per platform
Rather than offering a unified product ecosystem.
Evolution or Monetised Completion?
Another recurring criticism is that the MSFS 2024 versions feel less like new products and more like the versions that should have existed earlier. From this perspective, improvements introduced in the new simulator—visual upgrades, refinements, and structural tweaks—are viewed not as a new generation, but as delayed maturity.
This leads to a more uncomfortable question:
Are users paying for genuine advancement, or for the completion of an already purchased product?
PMDG’s attempt to frame the €30 upgrade as “a few cups of coffee” did not help. It has been widely criticized as dismissive, as it overlooks the significant cumulative investment many users have already made in the product line.
A Transition Without a Safety Net
The announced end of life for the PMDG Operations Center 2.0 further reinforces a clear shift away from legacy platforms like FSX and Prepar3D. PMDG is fully committed to the MSFS ecosystem.
Yet that commitment comes at a time when the platform itself—particularly in its 2024 iteration—still presents unresolved technical challenges. In effect, the bridge behind is being dismantled while the road ahead is still under construction.
Conclusion: A Question of Balance
PMDG remains one of the most capable and experienced developers in flight simulation. The level of detail and consistency across its 737 lineup is a testament to that.
But the latest update highlights a growing tension.
On one hand, the aircraft are becoming more visually refined than ever. On the other, stability issues remain unresolved, and the pricing structure continues to test user expectations of fairness and continuity. The question is no longer whether PMDG can deliver high-fidelity aircraft. It clearly can. The question is whether refinement alone is enough—when reliability is uncertain, and value is increasingly debated.
