You do not need an "all singing and dancing" high tech FFS for this course which junior birdmen often think is their best bet.
But ATO marketing departments like to promote their high fidelity contemporary type FTD's as the best way to secure a first job - it surely isn't coincidence that those offering APS in a 738 sim were apparently 'partnering' with RYR to provide flow to the airline? A student pilot and their money are easily parted by targeted, confident sales pitch, particularly where technology is concerned (I recall the introduction of the G1000 and the schools suggesting the improved chances of finding a job on an EFIS type if you trained in a DA40/42 instead of a PA28/34, irrespective of the suitability of the type for training, etc.).
The question really should be, how did we manage before MCC/JOC/APS? I don't recall type-ratings taking any longer than they do today or the ability of freshly minted CPL/IR holders to acclimatise to a multi-crew environment, or modified R/T (in the UK at least, CAP413 is used at IR level as well btw). In any event, a lot of multi-crew discipline could be conducted in a more cost efficient manner in the classroom complemented by inexpensive cockpit trainers, rather than the high-end devices often used. The real difference lies in the basic ability of these individuals in my view; many simply don't appear to have competently grasped the fundamentals of attitude and speed control in a light single which makes the transition to a CS23/25 type and associated multi-crew concept more of a handful.
APS is a significant increase in cost to the student over MCC and further widens the gap between those with genuine ability and interest versus those with the facility to pay. It is a travesty that the time and effort devoted to creating APS was not spent reinforcing the front-end of training, and that EASA feels that deficiencies in basic training can be smoothed-over through adoption of a course of approved training in a more complex, faster paced training environment. But then of course, there's comparatively little profit in single-engine piston training vs what you can make per hour in a FFS.