May FSX and Flight Comparison Screenshots

[dmaher 0]

:( I find it sort of funny to read Microsoft has an ‘obligation’ to developers...It’s the contrary, MS uses FS developers - and wisely too.The franchise implies users will get the entire earth and potential any aircraft they want - it's sort of a myth.Absolutely no game team could afford to make that...it's a ridiculous amount of work,Unless they could build an army of volunteers.And no rational challenger would take on a fight...without its own army of volunteers.That’s why they put so much effort into the SDK...they certainly don’t have to....and it’s not free.The army of volunteer workers is an asset to them and I’m sure it figures in their discussions and plans.But they can only do what’s practical on a budget, so don’t expect flowers ;)I do couch my words a little because their hands may be tied – who knows?BTW as we’re counting the number of ‘hardcore’ users...let's ask Steve Jobs about the importance of ‘hardcore’ users :smile:For what it's worth my guess is 5% of total users are hardcore.This has been mentioned before, but previously at FANCON MS was asked, “why not build us a download store?”They answered it was unlikely because FS add-ons are a legal minefield.So I’m very curious how they plan to navigate this.Possibly things have changed...or maybe the add-ons will need to change.I think, and hope, people will use the MS market because it's good - not because they are forced to....don't forget we asked them to make a store too.

[Sharrow 0]

I wholeheartedly agree that MS has no obligation whatsoever to anything other than its shareholders and any decision taken with regards to Flight will be driven purely by what MS believe will yield them the greatest ROI. Fine and dandy.The question, however, very much remains as to what approach (closed or open) will in fact yield the greatest ROI and the arguments above attempt to show that the negatives of closed ecosystem outweigh most (if not all) potential positives. So far the only counter argument to an open ecosystem has been one of pure greed - let's milk this sucker for all she's worth and to hell with any consequences. Why? Well, because that is what big business does. Oh. Ok.

[Chock 17,769]

but are Abacus purchasers really enthusiasts - surely they are much nearer Microsoft’s target market?

Yes they are indeed a more likely target, and that's exactly the point I was making. :( Al

[mgh 89]

I wholeheartedly agree that MS has no obligation whatsoever to anything other than its shareholders and any decision taken with regards to Flight will be driven purely by what MS believe will yield them the greatest ROI. Fine and dandy.The question, however, very much remains as to what approach (closed or open) will in fact yield the greatest ROI and the arguments above attempt to show that the negatives of closed ecosystem outweigh most (if not all) potential positives. So far the only counter argument to an open ecosystem has been one of pure greed - let's milk this sucker for all she's worth and to hell with any consequences. Why? Well, because that is what big business does. Oh. Ok.

What's the difference between greed and maximising ROI?

[JSkorna 137]

mgh's boss: "Mgh, with your next pay check we are going to give you a 10% raise."mgh: "No thanks, keep your money. I don't want to appear greedy."

[jhefner 0]

What's the difference between greed and maximising ROI?

Easy; greed is killing the golden goose.Maximising ROI is starting a golden goose breeding program. :( The quesion on the table is will the new store kill the golden goose or improve the breeding stock.-James P.S. going further, if the Flight Store creates a profitable marketing environment for third party developers while allowing MS to make some off the top, that would be considered good ROI. But if the Flight Store shuts out third party developers while leaving MS to make full profit but with a limited team of internal or contract developers; that would seem like killing the golden goose. Apple's iPod store and Steam seem like the former; too early to tell what the Flight Store will be like.

[mgh 89]

mgh's boss: "Mgh, with your next pay check we are going to give you a 10% raise."mgh: "No thanks, keep your money. I don't want to appear greedy."

LOL. Of course, it's always other people who are greedy!

Easy; greed is killing the golden goose.Maximising ROI is starting a golden goose breeding program. :rolleyes:The quesion on the table is will the new store kill the golden goose or improve the breeding stock.-JamesP.S. going further, if the Flight Store creates a profitable marketing environment for third party developers while allowing MS to make some off the top, that would be considered good ROI. But if the Flight Store shuts out third party developers while leaving MS to make full profit but with a limited team of internal or contract developers; that would seem like killing the golden goose. Apple's iPod store and Steam seem like the former; too early to tell what the Flight Store will be like.

Your a confusing your golden geese. If your second option gives Microsoft a fatter goose ( better ROI) for itself then what's what it should do. Like any other company, it has no interest in fattening other people's geese.

[dmaher 0]

Lol, lots in life comes down to the ability to choose the better goose :biggrin:I have to think any rational dev is going to make every effort to get into a Flight store - if they can.Folks will be beating on their door regardless.

[jhefner 0]

LOL. Of course, it's always other people who are greedy!Your a confusing your golden geese. If your second option gives Microsoft a fatter goose ( better ROI) for itself then what's what it should do. Like any other company, it has no interest in fattening other people's geese.

Yes, that's the question - which goose? Yes, Microsoft gets to keep 100% of the profit if it moves everything in-house and in-store. You could argue that is a greater ROI.BUT, will MS be able to come out with the rich selection of add-ons we have come to enjoy and love for MSFS so far -- aircraft, sceneries, flights, you name it.The answer has to be "no"; and that is where they may be killing the golden goose -- we will look at the default scenery in our favorite parts of the world, compare the planes included to our list of favorites, look at the add-ons available from MS -- and decide to stick with what we have now because the add-ons aren't there. Many folks stuck with FS2004 for that every reason; that was also the reason they put the SDKs out there and encouraged third party add-ons in the first place.But, you could make the opposite arguement that even if they didn't sell a single copy to any of us, but still sold copies to the other 90% of MSFS users out there, PLUS one or two add-ons to say 50% of them, they will still make more money.My guess is the bean counters at MS have looked both scenerios over and decided a winner; I'll guess we'll find out what they decided. I think it also depends on how it plays in the gaming press.-James

[Chock 17,769]

So, this means the Grumman Goose is in Flight? Glad we cleared that one up.Al

[JSkorna 137]

Nope, the goose is cooked.