I saw the links. Apparently, we will all be flying by standing in front of a big screen flapping our arms.I can't wait to be flying to Orlando and get a Disneyworld banner displayed at the top of my screen.I can't wait for every single thing I want in an add-on to depend on whether the people running the server like it or not. "Yeah, um, that new automatic up and down thingy? I'm afraid that just won't do." The workarounds so much of the best add-ons depend on might be a thing of the past.I can't wait to reproduce hours of frustration at the office with server glitches with hours of frustration in my hobby with server glitches. (I like my own hours of frustration with my own computer, thank you, at least it is under my control.)I'm looking forward to becoming a Level 32 Super Flight Captain in MS Wings Over the World! Every flight I can have a 12 year old crashing into my 7-7 with his F-18 so he can "go up a level." Instead of VAs, well all be in Clans.Every flight can begin with a realistic clearance by talking to someone in Bangalore. "My name is Sally. How may I assist you?"Then there will be FBI agents knocking on my door. "Good evening sir. We've noticed you've made several flights violating airspace over the White House. We'd just like to talk with you for a few minutes."The past record of inefficiency, inconsistency, unwelcome surprises, constant contact with goofballs online and in-your-face commercialism demonstrated by the internet gives me no hope in this future. I cannot imagine that we would be safe to enjoy our hobby without intrusion. The best solution to any problem lies at the least centralized, most localized level that can reasonably address that problem. In flight simming that means my computer and local digital media with all my stuff on it, with optional internet access for what I want when I want it.As someone who uses MS Live because it is kind of like Mac dot com, which they changed to Me dot com, which is just embarassingly stupid to have in your address, but Live is free, I experience arbitrary changes "BING!" and get to watch the same stupid silent movie of the dopey chick chatting online with some loser saying "No <giggle> NO! <fluffs hair>" In the name of all that is holy why would anyone turn over their flight simming to these people?

Will e-books be the end of print books?

Maybe not, but given time print books will be what newspapers are now.

Will online publications be the end of the news paper.

Not sure where you live, but I'm sure there is a big city near you with a large newspaper that has gone bankrupt. Craiglist has more to do with this than anything since up to 80% of a newspaper profit was classified

Will movie downloads be the end of blu ray and DVD.

Yes, netflix streaming and people are tired of buying the same movie over and over ( VHS, DVD, Blue ray )

I suppose you could site two examples that have really changed consumers spending patterns, the MP3 has made a large dent in the CD sales and the adult magazine has all but disappeared from the corner store in favor of online viewing.In the end I think people want to hold something in their hands, I know I do. I enjoy making the trip down to the store picking up the item and bring it home. To me it is that simple, but trends and consumer habits do change so we will have to watch and see.

This will change as we get older and younger people take our place, we used to laugh at a "cashless sociey", but how many people even carry cash aymore ?

I find the general cynical attitude a little astonishing.The trend is absolutely a positive one

We all have opinions and who knows how all of this will come out for our hobby. Having said that I am always amazed at some comments as to why MS did what they did. I have read many posts on several forums that MSFS had to be a big money maker...maybe it wasn't...who really knows. But if it was I don't think a company would kill it. It is kind of like the comments one reads after a news article about a hot button topic like health care and someone will say that insurance companies should not make a profit....I thought that is what bushiness do. I can't say or even really have an opinion about any of this as to how it will work out. But I am not going to put a comment on here like I am speaking with the knowledge that an on-line MSFS would be dumbed down. That is assuming and we all know what happens when one assumes. Right now I will enjoy what I have in FSX and when and if something better comes out...be it on-line...X-Box.....or whatever I will go that route. Now before someone starts yelling and screaming how on-line...X-Box...PS3...could never do the sim justice you would have to just wait and see wouldn't you? All of this...meaning internet...PC....bandwidth....is changing so much there is no telling where it will all be in just a few short years. Regards

http://venturebeat.com/2009/06/12/electron...e-distribution/ :(

Every flight can begin with a realistic clearance by talking to someone in Bangalore. "My name is Sally. How may I assist you?"Then there will be FBI agents knocking on my door. "Good evening sir. We've noticed you've made several flights violating airspace over the White House. We'd just like to talk with you for a few minutes."The past record of inefficiency, inconsistency, unwelcome surprises, constant contact with goofballs online and in-your-face commercialism demonstrated by the internet gives me no hope in this future. I cannot imagine that we would be safe to enjoy our hobby without intrusion. The best solution to any problem lies at the least centralized, most localized level that can reasonably address that problem. In flight simming that means my computer and local digital media with all my stuff on it, with optional internet access for what I want when I want it.As someone who uses MS Live because it is kind of like Mac dot com, which they changed to Me dot com, which is just embarassingly stupid to have in your address, but Live is free, I experience arbitrary changes "BING!" and get to watch the same stupid silent movie of the dopey chick chatting online with some loser saying "No <giggle> NO! <fluffs hair>" In the name of all that is holy why would anyone turn over their flight simming to these people?

Beautifully written post and very entertaining too. It is this aspect of "online gaming" which worries me. Some posts on this thread are failing to distinguish between the two issues: One is the convenience of downloading huge software instead of buying a DVD - and that's fine if you have the bandwidth. But the other in my view far more important issue is that of external control, inevitable dumbing down in order to appeal to the massive customer base needed to sustain the organisation set up to promote the online "game", the fact that you HAVE to be online in the worst cases, and the inevitabel increased costs to the consumer. Already a fairly well known racing sim sells you the core software with ONE car, then in order to get extra cars you pay further "premiums" to gain access. It becomes a perpetual fee paying scenario which never lets up. Live for Speed is a racing sim which notably doesn't share these misgivings. It works very well, is efficient, runs fast and is non-intrusive. But I doubt very much that excellent example will be followed by the vast majority of large corporations entering this market. Mark my words!Rob Young

Hi Jim, (at Hi-Fi)It is not the online nature of downloading large pieces of data, or even "playing" online that worries me. It is the clear trend that is emerging that you MUST be online that is worrying.Rob Young

What is worrying, but so banal in fact, is that the real questions are somewhere else entirely. When one reads through the hundreds of responses (about 40.000 views, and 400 responses) generated by the Aerosoft project (http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?showforum=109), one sees that the "online future" or what the "gamers" "do", "don't", "like" and such is just not there. All the rest is.

This whole idea is completely bonkers and is a classic example of bean counters making wild assumptions in order to manipulate people into buying things in a way they would prefer not to, then justifying the paradigm by making wild and unsubstantiate predictions, which are absurd, about what they feel the market will be in xxx years time.Rob Young (It goes without saying this is a personal post).

Rob,I respect your posts, and many of your ideas in them. However, when I read statements like the above, especially at the very top of a post, I generally disregard the credibility of the remainder of the entire post. Why? Hypocracy.We are ALL "bean counters". I have to laugh my a** off every time I see someone refer to the people who run businesses as "bean counters", just because the person doesn't agree with the "bean counters" methods of operation, product development direction, or financial management concerning profit\loss.Anybody remember the Jeff Foxworthy "You Might Be a Redneck" routine? Well...."If you have ever balanced your own checkbook...You Might Be a Bean Counter.""If you have ever driven 3 miles out of your way to get to a gas station that sells gas for 2-cents less per gallon than the one you are near...You Might Be a Bean Counter.""If you have ever run ANY sort of commercial enterprise as a "for profit" endeavor, and are STILL in business...You Might Be a Bean Counter.""If your "Group" status in a forum is listed as "Commercial Member"...You Might Be a Bean Counter.""If you yourself are a Bean Counter, and you use the term in a derogatory way against people in another Commercial Endeavor who do the SAME things you do in YOUR Commercial Endeavor...You Might Be a Hypocritical Bean Counter."No offense intended Rob, but some of the statements in your posts seem a lot to me like "the Pot calling the Kettle Black", and ruin the credibility of the entire post. And it could also ruin the credibility of your "Commercial Association", regardless if you post a disclaimer at the end of it saying it is only your personal view and not that of the "company". I'm beginning to think I might prefer to spend my "beans" somewhere else...at least at a company that recognizes THEY are "bean counters" also.Respectfully submitted, of course.FalconAF

Rob,I respect your posts, and many of your ideas in them. However, when I read statements like the above, especially at the very top of a post, I generally disregard the credibility of the remainder of the entire post. Why? Hypocracy.We are ALL "bean counters". I have to laugh my a** off every time I see someone refer to the people who run businesses as "bean counters", just because the person doesn't agree with the "bean counters" methods of operation, product development direction, or financial management concerning profit\loss.Anybody remember the Jeff Foxworthy "You Might Be a Redneck" routine? Well...."If you have ever balanced your own checkbook...You Might Be a Bean Counter.""If you have ever driven 3 miles out of your way to get to a gas station that sells gas for 2-cents less per gallon than the one you are near...You Might Be a Bean Counter.""If you have ever run ANY sort of commercial enterprise as a "for profit" endeavor, and are STILL in business...You Might Be a Bean Counter.""If your "Group" status in a forum is listed as "Commercial Member"...You Might Be a Bean Counter.""If you yourself are a Bean Counter, and you use the term in a derogatory way against people in another Commercial Endeavor who do the SAME things you do in YOUR Commercial Endeavor...You Might Be a Hypocritical Bean Counter."No offense intended Rob, but some of the statements in your posts seem a lot to me like "the Pot calling the Kettle Black", and ruin the credibility of the entire post. And it could also ruin the credibility of your "Commercial Association", regardless if you post a disclaimer at the end of it saying it is only your personal view and not that of the "company". I'm beginning to think I might prefer to spend my "beans" somewhere else...at least at a company that recognizes THEY are "bean counters" also.Respectfully submitted, of course.FalconAF

FalconAF,For me "bean counter" has a different definition. It used to be for example in my place of work, that there were ideals and goals that drove the organization. After the goals and vision were set-the "accountants" came in, and did what they had to financially to meet the goals.Now what I see, is the bean counters come in with their spreadsheets and they dictate what the goals will be-which increasingly get lower and lower.Kinda like when Kennedy said we would place someone on the moon in a decade in the early sixties. No one including the scientists had any idea how it would happen, but once they had a goal and vision they made it work. If Kennedy had made this pronouncement today, I am sure the beancounters would show up with their spreadsheets and explain exactly why it would not be possible.Imho of course...

Rob,We are ALL "bean counters". I have to laugh my a** off every time I see someone refer to the people who run businesses as "bean counters", just because the person doesn't agree with the "bean counters" methods of operation, product development direction, or financial management concerning profit\loss.No offense intended Rob, but some of the statements in your posts seem a lot to me like "the Pot calling the Kettle Black", and ruin the credibility of the entire post. And it could also ruin the credibility of your "Commercial Association", regardless if you post a disclaimer at the end of it saying it is only your personal view and not that of the "company". I'm beginning to think I might prefer to spend my "beans" somewhere else...at least at a company that recognizes THEY are "bean counters" also.Respectfully submitted, of course.FalconAF

Hi Falcon,It's a question of degree isn't it? Of course we are all "bean counters" in our own way, but some of them are more obsessed with counting beans than thinking about what they want to achieve, to the poiint where, as Geofa says, the sight of the original goal is lost. I doubt that any developer frequenting this and similar forums do what they do purely as an excercise in accountancy. They do it because they like it. But I didn't say accountancy or financial common sense was not desirable. All along my posts on this thread have been to point out that some, not all, of the larger corporations running online games are generally speaking not interested much in either the quality of their product or their customers. And the second point is that it concerns me that they seek to impose undue control over the end user. Those sum up my points. I don't see any hypocracy in that. Cheers,Rob Young

Hi Falcon,It's a question of degree isn't it? Of course we are all "bean counters" in our own way, but some of them are more obsessed with counting beans than thinking about what they want to achieve, to the poiint where, as Geofa says, the sight of the original goal is lost. I doubt that any developer frequenting this and similar forums do what they do purely as an excercise in accountancy. They do it because they like it. But I didn't say accountancy or financial common sense was not desirable. All along my posts on this thread have been to point out that some, not all, of the larger corporations running online games are generally speaking not interested much in either the quality of their product or their customers. And the second point is that it concerns me that they seek to impose undue control over the end user. Those sum up my points. I don't see any hypocracy in that. Cheers,Rob Young

Rob,I agrre with some of both your and Geoffa's points. But I just can't agree with all of them. For instance, to quote some of the things in the above:"...but some of them are more obsessed with counting beans than thinking about what they want to achieve, to the poiint where, as Geofa says, the sight of the original goal is lost."I find it hard to believe that a company like MS isn't "...thinking about what they want to achieve...", nor that "...the site of the original goal is lost." No doubt, MS DOES have a goal. The crux of most of these posts, however, is that if the poster doesn't AGREE with the goal or what MS is "wanting to achieve", then it must be a BAD IDEA, generated by a whole bunch of insider bean counters at MS. It's fine to not agree with a direction a company is taking if you don't like it, but to get almost hostile in accusations towards them is really kinda rediculous. "...they seek to impose undue control over the end user."Like you said in your own reply above, "It's a question of degree, isn't it?" What is "undue control" to one person may not be to the next. I keep reading complaints from posters about having to re-install a piece of software they may have electronically downloaded, only to be "frustrated" because they can't find the registration codes for it anymore, etc, etc. What has happened to the end-user's Personal Accountability? I don't know about anyone else, but if I download ANY piece of software I paid for, and it comes with something I might NEED later to re-install it, I make DAMNED sure I "archive" the information somewhere and somehow. It's a crying shame that a company like Flight1 has to archive the darned stuff for the end-user because the end-user is too damned lazy to do it themselves. A lot of people complain about the cost of addons. How much does it cost a company like Flight1 to maintain all that info because the "customer" hasn't taken control of their own responsibilities to do it? My first reaction to someone who bought a piece of software from me WITH a re-installation code provided, who came to me asking for the info again, would be, "What's YOUR problem? Write the damned thing down somewhere next time!" Yeah...I know...that would cost you some customers if you did that. So the "company" has to babysit the customer. Who's costing WHO money in that case? And yes...the "bean counters" for that company are very aware of what the cost is to the company for having to do that. So they may change their strategies in the future to reduce or eliminate those types of costs. If a future customer finds that to be "undue control", then that may be the customer's problem...not the companies.One other example...and please understand I'm not trying to just single out your posts. But you made a comment in another post here quoted below:

...and the inevitabel increased costs to the consumer. Already a fairly well known racing sim sells you the core software with ONE car, then in order to get extra cars you pay further "premiums" to gain access. It becomes a perpetual fee paying scenario which never lets up. Rob Young

I just can't follow the logic in the above statement. How is the point you are making any different than what Flight Simulator does NOW? FSX comes with a limited number of default aircraft. Numerous commercial developers create addon aircraft, and many of them sell for MORE than the original price of FSX. With some of them, you can actually purchase the "base" addon aircraft, then still pay more if you want other variations of it. Captain Sim is an example with their C-130 and several of their other addon aircraft. Other developers make you pay for additional cargo versions of their "original" passenger versions of the aircraft.It's still up to the consumer if they wish to buy these "addons". No one is forcing any owner of FSX to pay for anything above and beyond their original purchase of FSX. But many FSX consumers still do, and WOULD continue to do so even with a "boxed" version of the next generation flight simulator.So what's the difference if say in the future a flight simulator that runs "online" comes with only a "default stable" of aircraft you could fly in it? If that's all you wanted to fly in it and were happy doing so, then so be it. If you wanted to fly other aircraft that were available "for purchase", and you had the choice to purchase them OR NOT, it's really not any different than the choices all of us have had for the past three or more generations of Flight Simulator.No hard fealings. I'm just trying to look at this as objectively as I can, and some of the arguments people are making don't SEEM to make sense. They seem to be saying "Things are going to get worse!", but the examples used to show things will get worse are the exact way things already are NOW.Rick

"...but some of them are more obsessed with counting beans than thinking about what they want to achieve, to the poiint where, as Geofa says, the sight of the original goal is lost."I find it hard to believe that a company like MS isn't "...thinking about what they want to achieve...", nor that "...the site of the original goal is lost." No doubt, MS DOES have a goal

I think the a better example of this would be EA. They used to be a small game studio that made awesome sports video games, now they are a beast that buys up the competition and cranks out buggy, unispired games. They spent a fortune to be the only people that can make an NFL video game, and now churn out the same game year after year. I'm sure a much better game could be made with an every other year life cycle, but the bean counters wouldn't let that happen. This is not unique to gaming, I've worked in a service industry for many years for both huge nation wide corporations and small mom and pop type outfits. The first thing to go when a company gets huge is the service, and all that matters is the bottom line, Starbucks would be a good example of that.

If you just look at one known aspect, I think you can determine that the vast majority of hard core flight simmers are more inclined to want to keep things under their own control. That is to say, when ACES closed down and it seemed that FSXI might not happen, or at least not in the way we know it, the outcry was predictably large. But when the online aspects of FS underwent changes, although some were dismayed, it did not garner the same levels of dismay as the notion there might be no FS at all. That appraisal might not be the most conclusive or scientific test of course, but it does at least point to the fact that flight simmers are less inclined to think online flying is as important as keeping things under their own control. Online flying is far more dependent on things like VATSIM than anything MS have offered.An online 'MS Super Flight Sim World' type of program, where you have to sign up and drip feed money away, might seem an attractive proposition to the book-keepers at MS, but I can't imagine it would appeal greatly to many long term flight simmers. There is a history of such things going into spectacular nosedives when they are tried too, as things get dumbed down and changed without the wishes or desires of the core users. And make no mistake, they would be dumbed down. Just look at how many of the really top notch add-ons have had to sidestep the MS SDK in order to get things to work that were not capabilities of FS. There'll be none of that allowed in an MS-controlled environment, so you could kiss PMDG-style realism goodbye for a kick off.Take a look too, at how Sony massively shot themselves up their own &amp;@(&#036;* when they tried that with the online RPG, Star Wars Galaxies: An online Star Wars role-playing game seemed (an indeed was) a license to print money for them, when it was PC based. But the moment they dumbed it down and revamped it so that it could be ported over and expanded to consoles, it disappeared in a puff of ill-thought-out greed, since it was more of a slow burner than the typical twitchy console games which succeed. They of course tried to back-pedal like crazy when they discovered what had been obvious to its user base from the start, but by then it was too late and the cash cow had galloped off to pastures new.So, if people don't turn out to want to seriously fly their simulated airliner whilst being constantly buzzed by 12 year olds in F-18s whilst a 'U SUX!! I AM the kickass l337 roxxor' message from said 12-year old on his trial account appears in a text window across the screen, then they simply won't do it. And that will indeed leave the window wide open for a successor to FS from another company. One that is aware that you can't fit a square peg into a round hole, however much you imagine doing so would make more money if you could manage it.I'm inclined to not only think MS has not got it right, but suspect that they have in fact got it staggeringly wrong.Al

Hi Jim, (at Hi-Fi)I don't think anyone would argue that downloadable software is desirable if it is either relatively small in size (example: Live for Speed), or represents an update or currently needed data (example: FSX weather or Hockey/football games teams or schedules), or NEEDS to be played online for any tangible enjoyment to be gained. But there is a vast catalogue of decent application by developers with very large resources (eg: FSX) which really doesn't require online status, and in terms of practicality is always going to be better in DVD form - or CDs in the past, because of the huge file sizes needed, unless or until broadband is so effortlessly quick globally that it doesn't represent any problem at all. I doubt whether that will be the case even in five years time. A significant number of global flightsim customers are still on either dial up or slow adsl connections.But worse than this is the concept of COMPULSORY online status just in order to run and enjoy software, and this is what I suspect is going to be the default requirement for a large number of so-called state of the art "games". Even though multiplayer, downloading weather, accessing charts on the fly etc etc is desirable for some of the time, that is entirely different from HAVING TO BE connected at all times just to start and use an application.Behind this apparently "practical" step is something much more sinister: it is in some cases just gratuitous control freakery. I doubt whether some major developers could even explain the logic of it. In the worst cases it is simply keeping tabs on users. My answer would be: "go away and leave me alone to enjoy what I have". Not every game or piece of software needs or requires constant internet connection to use, and indeed my greatest pleasures with FSX and FS9 before it were discovering and learning things while gloriously alone and unfettered.Sure, I can see that some games by their nature need to be downloaded, updated and "played" on line, but flight simulator is not one of them, unless you CHOOSE to do so, which is fine. It is choice that is the key.It is not the online nature of downloading large pieces of data, or even "playing" online that worries me. It is the clear trend that is emerging that you MUST be online that is worrying.Rob Young

Rob, I think you've hit the nail on the head. These companies want to know what you're doing every minute so they can figure out ways to sell you new things, sell information about your activities, etc. I recently had the pleasure of installing GTA IV for someone which requires Games for Windows Live. What a total mess. It doesn't add anything to the game experience and has turned me off from any game that uses Games For Windows Live. It's entire purpose is to track when you play the game, how you play the game, etc. Hell, they should be paying you for this. My hope is that these games die a quick death and their companies go back to stand alone games, but kids now days couldn't care less and I think we are just in for more of it.

It is not the online nature of downloading large pieces of data, or even "playing" online that worries me. It is the clear trend that is emerging that you MUST be online that is worrying.

What has led you to the conclusion that one "MUST be online" to play? All the blog posts (and other sources) have indicated that off-line, solo use will be possible, so I don't forsee the situation you envision occurring at all.What may be required is that after X number of times launched for solo, off-line pay, one might be required to have internet access for re-validation of one's installation.In any event, one would want to "login" periodically if only to check for any recent updates or bug fixes to the program...