I hope Gates figures out how to generate some more $ on this stuff

HelloBill left Microsoft many years ago, do try and keep up

How many individual payware addons have been sold for FSX? Two million? If MS could get $1 royalty for every add-on sold it would help make it worthwhile to them...

Fielder,Unfortunately, an amount like $1M USD to a corporation like MS is akin to having 50¢ US in your pocket, consisting of a quarter (.25), three nickels (.05) and a dime (.10)... it's a trivial amount.$1.00 royalty on a $50.00 ORBX add on is miniscule (1%). Now, taking the 'proposed' 3PD model that MS put forth, which was 30% ($15.00 on a $50.00 product), and if 2M units were sold...then you're talking a substantial amount of cash influx (approx. $30M USD), and that's just for ONE add on package, like PNW!But, throw in the 'intellectual' properties that 3PD's were required to include in the Agreement and I can see why a company like ORBX balked and hit the road. That's a lot to give up for a narrowerslice of the pie.

So true. If MS would just open up and treat us like adults, and share their vision with us,if the vision is good they have nothing to lose. If they are not confident well....it is just wait and see.

Trevor,Interesting tactic MS is using, isn't it? It seems like that's the way Marketing is going these days; dangle little tidbits of the productin front of the buyer's eyes stringing them along, and hook them when the Product is released.Creating and releasing a 'Service Pack 3' for FSX? In my most humble opinion I have to agree with those who replied; it wouldn't be in Microsoft's best intereststo do that, while at the same time promoting Flight. That would be going back on every comment Joshua Howard made regarding the earlier versions of MSFS,and leave Microsoft with little financial gain for the effort that would be required.The coming months promise to be interesting ones when it comes to Flight Sim...Alan

Interesting tactic MS is using, isn't it? It seems like that's the way Marketing is going these days; dangle little tidbits of the productin front of the buyer's eyes stringing them along, and hook them when the Product is released.

AlanYes, indeed, and if the strategy is to get everyone talking about the forthcoming product it sure seems to be working.

But, throw in the 'intellectual' properties that 3PD's were required to include in the Agreement and I can see why a company like ORBX balked and hit the road.

I just can't figure out why Microsoft ever thought the idea that all products submitted to the store would become Microsoft's IP would be acceptable. Especially since code used to create something for the store could not be reused to create non store products IIRC.If it wasn't for the IP issue I suspect that most,if not all, of the major 3PDs would have already signed on the dotted line.

I just can't figure out why Microsoft ever thought the idea that all products submitted to the store would become Microsoft's IP would be acceptable. Especially since code used to create something for the store could not be reused to create non store products IIRC.If it wasn't for the IP issue I suspect that most,if not all, of the major 3PDs would have already signed on the dotted line.

The 3PD's have had an unrestricted playing field for years to create products and reap all of the profits from the sales of said products. Now, MS has essentially given a play book to the 3PD'sthat says "Here's the deal... you create for us, we get a 30% cut of what you make from Sales, and you can only sell it in our Online Store. Oh, and something else; whatever you create for us, we own.And, if you have an Online Store... well, you can't sell what you made for us there, either."It's in Microsoft's best interests to control the creative and sales aspect of any 3rd party development, in order to maximize their profits and to prevent any ancillary loss of revenue. Keep all of the hensin one place, and you can watch out for any Foghorn Leghorns that try to usurp the coop.

Steve Balmer steers the USS MS these days... :(

Ugh.... :(

I just can't figure out why Microsoft ever thought the idea that all products submitted to the store would become Microsoft's IP would be acceptable. Especially since code used to create something for the store could not be reused to create non store products IIRC.If it wasn't for the IP issue I suspect that most,if not all, of the major 3PDs would have already signed on the dotted line.

This clause may have been misunderstood...From what I understand, when a publisher sells for a developer they do take on some rights.The intent is not to access and reuse the content but to be in a legal position to publish it.Contracts with familiar FSX vendors also have clauses that allow them to sell a product on your behalf.I don't pretend to be a lawyer :) but my impression is this (NDA leak before settled) is being misinterpreted.We’re being hyper-vigilant to some extent here, and that’s not good :)