Do you like the MS Flight marketplace idea?

[Guest 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.

No benefit at all if you see Flight as just another game they sell.But I think the big change is with Flight MS sees flight simming as the giant ecosystem it has become, with many revenue opportunities beyond just selling "a game".And in the context of an ecosystem, patching bugs is important because the quality of the ecosystem experience will affect how large and how fast the system, and thus revenues, grow.If you're managing an ecosystem you can't just throw new versions over the wall every few years. Well you can, it's just not the strategy that will maximize growth and revenue. Cheers, - jahman.

[mgh 89]

No benefit at all if you see Flight as just another game they sell.But I think the big change is with Flight MS sees flight simming as the giant ecosystem it has become, with many revenue opportunities beyond just selling "a game".And in the context of an ecosystem, patching bugs is important because the quality of the ecosystem experience will affect how large and how fast the system, and thus revenues, grow.If you're managing an ecosystem you can't just throw new versions over the wall every few years. Well you can, it's just not the strategy that will maximize growth and revenue. Cheers, - jahman.

I doubt Microsoft sees Flight as an ecosystem. It sees it as an opprtunity to make my money by selling the game and now add-ons. How many extra sales will patches generate and they exceed the costs of developing them?

[Guest jahman]

I doubt Microsoft sees Flight as an ecosystem. It sees it as an opprtunity to make my money by selling the game and now add-ons. How many extra sales will patches generate and they exceed the costs of developing them?

I don't know, how many extra sales of Windows do the monthly updates generate? Cheers, - jahman.

[JSkorna 138]

None.

[Guest jahman]

None.

ROTFL! Cheers, - jahman.

[dmaher 0]

Of course, having a sound, relatively bug free, platform is a benefit.Happy users affect the bottom line - makes a long shelf life.It’s just that the ideal window for patching FS is relatively brief – before the 3^rd party Add-ons come online.Because all add-ons may need corresponding SP's for each update.The real alternative to SP’s is an extension…something FSX didn’t receive as far as I know ;)MS refers to FSX as a “Platform” that’s a clear acknowledgment of the FS ecosystem IMO.So is the SDK and the Marketplace – should we ever see one :)

[Milviz 919]

Actually, the iphone isn't innovative. It's just very pretty... it doesn't do anything special... In fact, if you can name ONE thing that it does better than any other phone, I would be very surprised...other than look good of course... (no true multitasking, no true copy paste, a cr@p keyboard, inability to add to the dictionary, no delete only backspace, bad reception, dropped calls galore, I could go on but seriously... I have two of them and I am never buying another one. Damned expensive paperweights...) And, as far as Flight is concerned... I am sure that, as a dev, I will be VERY concerned if MS decides to close off some devs.... for whatever reason(s).

[mgh 89]

And, as far as Flight is concerned... I am sure that, as a dev, I will be VERY concerned if MS decides to close off some devs.... for whatever reason(s).

I think some non-devs would be quite happy to see some developers closed off.

[Sharrow 0]

And, as far as Flight is concerned... I am sure that, as a dev, I will be VERY concerned if MS decides to close off some devs.... for whatever reason(s).

Could be tough deciding at which point MS is closing off devs and at which point they are closing themselves off by not wanting to agree to x or y. When MS do finally announce some details about the Flight eco-system I will be looking for just one word: flexible.

I think some non-devs would be quite happy to see some developers closed off.

Slippery slope that. Some would swear the world would be a far better place without Aerosoft, for example.

[Guest jahman]

I think some non-devs would be quite happy to see some developers closed off.

+1, there need to be minimum standards to preserve Flight installation stability and performance.

[mgh 89]

Slippery slope that. Some would swear the world would be a far better place without Aerosoft, for example.

Microsoft, Like any other store-keeper, can decide what products it will sell. Assuming there is a certification process then it will be essential to satisfy that before even being considered further. After that, Microsoft can apply whatever other criteria it choses. I trust the developer who said of its product on release:

Although it was always our intention to release a completely bug free product, the realities of the current economic crisis effecting all of us to some measure, have forced us to reconsider and to release the Basic edition before each and every bug has been fixed

would have been closed off.

[Sharrow 0]

All this quality control/pre-screening stuff seems to me to be too much like hard work for very little (if any) reward. Even if we end up with 50% of the addons for Flight which we have nowadays for FSX how many pre-screenings is that a week? And how many of these pre-screenings require back and forth between MS and the devs? What about updates, patches, expansions? And let's not forget that if it is sold exclusively by MS then they will be the ones expected to provide support when (not if) things go wrong. I just don't see it happening.

[Guest jahman]

All this quality control/pre-screening stuff seems to me to be too much like hard work for very little (if any) reward. Even if we end up with 50% of the addons for Flight which we have nowadays for FSX how many pre-screenings is that a week? And how many of these pre-screenings require back and forth between MS and the devs? What about updates, patches, expansions? And let's not forget that if it is sold exclusively by MS then they will be the ones expected to provide support when (not if) things go wrong. I just don't see it happening.

It's not hard work at all and could even be automated for self-testing and self-reproting to MS via their web like their other test suites. A fact of engineering is that errors are proportional to the square of the number of their parts, thus as systems grow in complexity the need for quality assurance increases. The number of folks who have left simming due to instability and constant need to fiddle with settings for software and hardware has driven a lot of folks away from this hobby, and if the Flight ecosystem is to grom and be profitablke for all that needs to change. Cheers, - jahman.

[dmaher 0]

A fact of engineering is that errors are proportional to the square of the number of their parts...

What a great little axiom - I'll use that ;)I've been trying to make a similar rule of thumb about development time.Because I know from experience time and detail don't relate in a linear fashion...I'm just working out what the T-shirt should say. I think Sharrow has a point.What if MS actually enforced the content budgets it uses inhouse?Add-ons would look very different - more like default.Still - performance and stability would be better.I really don't think MS wants to be involved in this headache.They could use a feedback system like Amazon does...the court of public opinion :)

[Tierborn 203]

"A fact of engineering is that errors are proportional to the square of the number of their parts..."What a great little axiom - I'll use that ;)

scientifically speaking .. its a awful axiom. If it were true, airplanes would not be able to fly. A B737 has 400,000 parts .. just think of all the engineering mistakes