Could these requirements have anything to do with some add-on developers negative atitude to Flight?

Could these requirements have anything to do with some add-on developers negative atitude to Flight?

The add-ons market is not that big either so is it better to split the pie in 8, 20 or 60 pieces or a hand full of third party developers? Other opinions can be found all over the web. http://www.cleared-to-engage.com/2011/06/28/more-details-about-microsoft-flight/

I don’t know ;) ...this thread still reads like bunk to me.Just like all those shuttered threads that have proven to be.Taking a mental leap 1 too far – (I'm guilty)

Yes, especially if it only sells add-ons that pass quality control as to CDTs, memory leakage, un-intrusive install, 100% uninstaller, etc. Cheers, - jahman.

+1 (before) edit: (now) well, but as mentioned above and which I just read now MS will most likely take its share then (see apple). either driving add-on prices up or taking the money from the developers if they cannot afford to increase their prices. plus MS might even dictate prices. So I stand corrected and will delete my previous yes vote :-)

I said no, cause you will probably end up having to pay for Live to acces the marketplace.

I said no, cause you will probably end up having to pay for Live to acces the marketplace.

You have to pay for the add-ons, so why turn people away by making them pay to access a store? That would just be a bad idea.

You have to pay for the add-ons, so why turn people away by making them pay to access a store? That would just be a bad idea.

On xbox you need to pay for live to acces the marketplace, and the add ons cost money. It will probably happen with Flight if they do implement it.

I don't mind paying for live access as long as Flight gets regular patches to stamp out bugs, on-line gameplay gets vastly improved, scenery errors get fixed and add-ons get screened for quality. Cheers, - jahman.

I don't mind paying for live access as long as Flight gets regular patches to stamp out bugs, on-line gameplay gets vastly improved, scenery errors get fixed and add-ons get screened for quality. Cheers, - jahman.

Just to put things into perspective... a quality addon would run at around $200 'per seat'. That's just to cover the cost of having a full-time development/support team.

...Flight gets regular patches to stamp out bugs...

I think there is irony in that regular-patches are chaos for add-on developers...and that could reduce add-on quality.It's better to fix bugs when you should - during alpha and beta.One patch after release is not the end of the world.But there's going to be group that insists the patch is bad...and then you have two sims Sometimes it's better to live with a bug than live with the effects of fixing it :)Part of the art of QA is categorizing bugs accordingly…fixing a small bug at the 11th hour of Beta can be disastrous.

Just to put things into perspective... a quality addon would run at around $200 'per seat'. That's just to cover the cost of having a full-time development/support team.

Not sure what you mean by "full-time development/support team" in the context of Marketplace. Care to expand?

I think there is irony in that regular-patches are chaos for add-on developers...and that could reduce add-on quality.It's better to fix bugs when you should - during alpha and beta.One patch after release is not the end of the world.But there's going to be group that insists the patch is bad...and then you have two sims Sometimes it's better to live with a bug than live with the effects of fixing it :)Part of the art of QA is categorizing bugs accordingly…fixing a small bug at the 11th hour of Beta can be disastrous.

Yes, you do have a point there, but you know how hard it is to stamp out 100% of bugs before release. Recall how the quality of Windows itself improved after monthly on-line patching began, espcecially re: .NET. (Mind, I'm not advocating monthly updates, but 6-monthly would be nice. MS could automate software testing to include certain representative add-ons to insure the patches don't break what works. The other advantage is not throwing a new version of FS over the wall every two to five years, thus ensuring a shorter design cycle and quicker feedback in terms of what works and what doesn't. Cheers, - jahman.

+1 (before) edit: (now) well, but as mentioned above and which I just read now MS will most likely take its share then (see apple). either driving add-on prices up or taking the money from the developers if they cannot afford to increase their prices. plus MS might even dictate prices. So I stand corrected and will delete my previous yes vote :-)

All the on-line stores take their share "either driving add-on prices up or taking the money from the developers if they cannot afford to increase their prices"

Yes, you do have a point there, but you know how hard it is to stamp out 100% of bugs before release. Recall how the quality of Windows itself improved after monthly on-line patching began, espcecially re: .NET. (Mind, I'm not advocating monthly updates, but 6-monthly would be nice.- jahman.

Windows annual sales are about $15 billion and are a core part of Microsoft's business. There is a commercial imperative to ptach it, especially for security aspects because organisations world-wide rely on it. There's no such commercial imperative for Flight. It's a consumer product that no one really depends on those few companies that use it do so with their eyes open.

Windows annual sales are about $15 billion and are a core part of Microsoft's business. There is a commercial imperative to ptach it, especially for security aspects because organisations world-wide rely on it. There's no such commercial imperative for Flight. It's a consumer product that no one really depends on those few companies that use it do so with their eyes open.

You're absolutely right! But then again the automated testing needed for releasing patches to Flight wouldn't be anywhere near the scale of the testing infrastructure needed for releasing a patch for Windows. Cheers, - jahman.

You're absolutely right! But then again the automated testing needed for releasing patches to Flight wouldn't be anywhere near the scale of the testing infrastructure needed for releasing a patch for Windows. Cheers, - jahman.

But what's the benefit to Microsoft is spending time and effort on patching Flight regularly? I suggest there'd be no measurable benefit.