On the other hand I can't see Microsoft telling the freeware community to fcuk off. It's been an important part of the success of the franchise. Microsoft has obviously understood this since they have chosen to release SDKs with the last versions of the software and paying much attention to development on the FS Insider website. I can even see Microsoft developing even more user friendly SDK tools to ensure growth in this segment. After all, the best (and possibly worst) aspect of MSFS is it's broad appeal. As a product it covers lots of different segments and appeals to both casual users and die hard fans. It's a game, a simulator, a virtual movie set and a 3D map of the world all at once. It is providing entertainment and education to young and old and everyone in between. MSFS is most of all a flight simulator operating system enabling anyone interested in flying, aviation design, architecture and virtual travel to tailor the software to their needs and level of interest. I'd also be surprised if the Maule in the December screenshots is a newly developed model and not just imported from FSX. I believe some degree of backward compatibility will be present just as the case have been with FS2002, FS2004 and FSX.

Yeah... but common sense and intellegence semms to fall by the wayside when greed comes into play.It's a sad fact of today's business models that their accounants can't see beyound next weeks black ink and they don't concern themselves about anything resembling a future. It's all about maximizing profits in the short term.BTW, keep in mind that I'm just playing devil's advocate here.

...I believe some degree of backward compatibility will be present just as the case have been with FS2002, FS2004 and FSX.

Sure hope so! I'd be pretty upset if all my expensive complex aircraft were to not run in MS Flight (Note: Very modest charge for the developer to recompile the aircraft for MS Flight would be OK.)Cheers,- jahman.

This is a bit of a thought excercise, but bear with me :)  I'm curious what everyone's definition of freeware is.  Now I know that the obvious answer is if it's free, but I'm wondering if that makes the most sense or not in terms of this discussion.  Does it make more sense to think of freeware as stuff made by people in their spare time, vs someone who is part of a company that is doing it professionally?  What if ORBX releases something for free?  Is that freeware?  What if someone who usually releases things for free suddenly charges something for it, even if it is a small amount?  If someone sells something for $0.50 or a dollar?  Is it now payware and not freeware?If you look at Xbox LIVE there are plenty of cases where you can download an add-on for free, so it seems like price alone shouldn't be an issue.

is this a serious post?  You know what freeware vs. payware is....

Yeah... but common sense and intellegence semms to fall by the wayside when greed comes into play.

Now there's a word that has suffered from more misuse than nearly any other word I can think of...In the real world of commerce, "greed" truly applies only to necessities of life. Computer "games" most assuredly do not fall into that category!In addition, greed (also called avarice) in psychology is an inordinate desire to acquire or possess more than one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth, regardless of whose rights are violated in order to obtain it.In the case of the "Greedy" businesses, are anyone's rights being violated? And, is making the most profit for the shareholders who invest their money in the company evil?

Yeah... but common sense and intellegence semms to fall by the wayside when greed comes into play.It's a sad fact of today's business models that their accounants can't see beyound next weeks black ink and they don't concern themselves about anything resembling a future. It's all about maximizing profits in the short term.BTW, keep in mind that I'm just playing devil's advocate here.

In the case of the "Greedy" businesses, are anyone's rights being violated? And, is making the most profit for the shareholders who invest their money in the company evil?

Yes maximizing profits for short term is both greedy and evil. Especially when the intrinsic value of shares are priced long term

Yeah... but common sense and intellegence semms to fall by the wayside when greed comes into play.It's a sad fact of today's business models that their accounants can't see beyound next weeks black ink and they don't concern themselves about anything resembling a future. It's all about maximizing profits in the short term.BTW, keep in mind that I'm just playing devil's advocate here.

A business (or an individual) that fails to look after the short term, will soon find that there is NO long term!AR

Yes maximizing profits for short term is both greedy and evil. Especially when the intrinsic value of shares are priced long term

Stocks haven't been priced for the long-term in eons, they are being priced for short-term greed: Facebook @ $60 billion, and by Goldman Sachs no less? AOL all-over again...

A business (or an individual) that fails to look after the short term, will soon find that there is NO long term!AR

"In the long-run we are all dead!" -John Maynard Keynes (died 1946, the long-run caught up to him.)Cheers,- jahman.

You can discuss all you want about if greed is moral, nessary, commonplace, etc. However it is a absolute given that copoorate greed exists.It is also a given that MS has a history of wanting to donminate any market they enter.Let's no loose site of the fact that MS' sole purpose of marketting a new FS is profits.Now, does MS want to mininmise or maximise profits? :(

Stocks haven't been priced for the long-term in eons, they are being priced for short-term greed: Facebook @ $60 billion, and by Goldman Sachs no less? AOL all-over again...- jahman.

Any company with a P/E ratio greater than 1 or 2 is a long term investment. That's about a 300:1 ratio by Goldman Sachs... and NO ONE is taking it seriously.. even the media.

MS has been making flight sim since 1982... real short term thinking there!

Yes maximizing profits for short term is both greedy and evil. Especially when the intrinsic value of shares are priced long term

Companies need to "optimize" profits over time, in order to "maximize" returns to all of their stakeholders--including shareholders. Companies that seek to "maximize profits in the short run" are much more likely to crash and burn over time.The key point is the time-horizon for which people and company's are willing to call "short/vs long-run". Unfortunately, Wall Street behavior has turned the market into a real-time (micro second trades) casino--rather than a place where folks can make reasonable assessments of risk/return as they seek to back individual or groups of companies.I'd agree that the "traders" have show excessive greed in the world markets the past 30 years--with virtually no tangible benefits to show for it. That is "greed", as Fr. Bill discussed it above.Individual companies trying to make money, now and in the future, get that such "greed" is counterproductive.Which ongoing concerns in our flight sim community have been "greedy"? The only couple I can think of are either ignored in this community, or are long gone....ThanksBill

Didn't someone endowed with red braces and a mobile phone the size and weight of a brick say that 'greed was good' ?? :(

Yes maximizing profits for short term is both greedy and evil. Especially when the intrinsic value of shares are priced long term

Do please understand that I've never said that "greed" doesn't exist. Rather I've stated that the term "greed" is very often misused, abused, and otherwise molested.Like most concepts, it is not simply a black or white issue.