Following a discussion on another forum on this subject, I e-mailed Microsoft at the address given on itsGame Content Usage Rules page. This page specifically refers to Flight Simulator (all versions)My e-mail and Microsoft's reply are:

Well, there's nothing stopping you working on an addon, although IMHO I don't think it would be wise to put too much effort in incase Flight's formats are different.. Doubt it, but anyway. Nice to know Microsoft are nice and busy with the development though.

Reading those usage rules, and the response you got back, it looks like a lot of addon developers, if they didn't get a commercial license may be in a little hot water. The interesting piece is the statement, that anything you add, can be used by them royalty free. If they were able to enforce this theoretically they can take addons from developers, and use them in Flight or other version with no compensation and not even give credit to the developers. Can you see this happening to developers like PMDG, Level-D, Captain Sim, Orbx, FSDT etc...?

I believe the latter point is to cover the case where Microsoft creates a new add-on, mission or whatever and is to prevent a 3rd party claiming royalties from Microsoft on the basis that it's already created something similar.

This is probably why there is the saying about acting as your own lawyer. In particular, the term "addon" is not defined. Now it is a question in regards to in-game screenshots or videos uploaded as advertisements, but IANAL.scott s..

I thought that my question and the answer were clear.

I wonder if he truly understands the question, or if he is at all aware of the numerous commercial add-ons already in existence.

I wonder if he truly understands the question, or if he is at all aware of the numerous commercial add-ons already in existence.

I think he (I presume you mean the Microsoft person) would have to work very hard not to understand the question. It couldn't have been written any clearer.

Thanks - that was my intention. T

I think he (I presume you mean the Microsoft person) would have to work very hard not to understand the question. It couldn't have been written any clearer.

Thanks - that was my intention. The reply is also perfectly clear.

This discussion was locked in the other forums.Microsoft created the SDK for FS. Microsoft provides the SDK for FS. Microsoft invited developers to participate in the FSX beta. Microsoft has had 'developer summits', inviting developers to come talk with Microsoft about FSX. For something that's "not allowed", Microsoft certainlywent to great lengths to support it.The response from this single Microsoft individual is inaccurate. It's really simple: There is no such thing as a commercial license for FSX. There never was.

I think he (I presume you mean the Microsoft person) would have to work very hard not to understand the question. It couldn't have been written any clearer.

Actually, having dealt with MS regarding FSX since it's release... you'd be surprised how little is "known" by so many in the Microsoft realm regarding a specific product.

This discussion was locked in the other forums.Microsoft created the SDK for FS. Microsoft provides the SDK for FS. Microsoft invited developers to participate in the FSX beta. Microsoft has had 'developer summits', inviting developers to come talk with Microsoft about FSX. For something that's "not allowed", Microsoft certainlywent to great lengths to support it.The response from this single Microsoft individual is inaccurate. It's really simple: There is no such thing as a commercial license for FSX. There never was.Actually, having dealt with MS regarding FSX since it's release... you'd be surprised how little is "known" by so many in the Microsoft realm regarding a specific product.

I'm sure you are absolutely right and wouldn't possibly disagree with you. But that's not the point. The issue I responded to is whether the question asked by the OP in his e-mail to Microsoft was understandable. My opinion is that for any reasonably educated native speaker of English the question could not possibly be clearer. Whether the answer is correct, confused, inaccurate, whatever is a different point. Another issue of course, is that a well written question my indeed be misread by someone and, therefore, misinterpreted. But, regardless of how much, or how little, is know by Microsoft employees, I believe that my argument that the question is well written and clear in its meaning stands.

Another issue of course, is that a well written question my indeed be misread by someone and, therefore, misinterpreted. But, regardless of how much, or how little, is know by Microsoft employees, I believe that my argument that the question is well written and clear in its meaning stands.

Thank you, that is exactly my point. I'm suggesting that the original question could be misread, misunderstood, or the Microsoft employee could simply be ignorant of the rich world of add-ons we have available, and therefore wrong. People sometimes misunderstand things, even if they are written in perfect English.Otherwise, I'm not sure what the intent of the original post was. Does Gerry think we should stop making commercial add-ons? Is he simply pointing out that we might be at risk of violating an EULA? I'm just curious if there's a bigger point to this topic.And who cares anyways? It is up to Microsoft to enforce the EULA. So, if Microsoft wrote it in such a way as to prevent commercial development, they could also choose not to enforce it, allowing 3rd party commercial development to continue.

Well there is a technical difference between ' truly understands the question' and ' the original question could be misread' but that would be pedantic nit picking on my part which would be pointless and, quite frankly, silly. I now understand what you meant and I think that's all that matters really. Thanks for clarifying.As to the original intent of Gerry's post, I presume he posted out of general interest to us all, but I may be wrong. I'm sure he will be able to explain.And who cares anyway? Well I must confess to being an FS9er. I'm sure we've been long forgotten by Microsoft. Though not by quite a few developers who continue to produce addons for us, despite the fact that 'nobody buys FS9 products anymore' ;-)I tend to think that the point you make in your last paragraph is entirely correct. That while developers may clearly be in breach of the EULA, Microsoft simply see no benefit in enforcing the EULA and just ignore it. Rather like an elephant and a mosquito. But then again, can elephants get malaria? Enough. It's Friday and clearly I need to get out for a few beers :-)

Thank you, that is exactly my point. I'm suggesting that the original question could be misread, misunderstood, or the Microsoft employee could simply be ignorant of the rich world of add-ons we have available, and therefore wrong. People sometimes misunderstand things, even if they are written in perfect English.

The question was indeed quite clear but the intended purpose for the proposal could easily have been misconstrued......or did no one else notice to whom the question was addressed: "Microsoft Game Studios Machinima Request"?"Machinima" has a very specific meaning, and has absolutely nothing whatever to do with addon scenery, aircraft, gauges, or utility programs such as FSInn, FSUIPC, et cetera.If you ask the wrong person for an answer, it's highly probable you'll get an incorrect answer! The respondent most probably assumed that Gerry wanted to use FSX to produce a movie, or use "footage" from FSX in some sort of adventure program that does not use FSX as the base platform.I have already agreed in another venue that those who post YouTube (et alia) videos without including the required disclaimer/statement concerning Content Usage most certainly are in breach of the strict letter of the EULA.As Ed wrote already, the undisputed fact that Microsoft hosted not one, but two "Developers Conferences" and took great pains to include both freeware and commercial (payware) developers in their invitations makes it abundantly clear that Microsoft has no issues with folks using the supplied SDK to produce entirely unique game assets. The only caveat is that no assets from the released sim platform may be included in the distribution package.Seriously, what would be the point of creating and releasing a Software Development Kit if they didn't intend that it be used! Use some common sense already... Microsoft's legal department obviously has no qualms about this either, since they are the ones who drafted the Non-Disclosure Agreements...

I think the question was quite vague actually and most likely provoked the ole "well buddy, if you can't provide any more detail than that, the answer is no" response. Had I been in Mike Humphrey's position my first reaction would have been to reply seeking more detail, then I would have decided I didn't have time to screw with it and since there's really no monetary motivation for MS to give any answer other than "No", I'd have decided that I'd spent enough time with it already and replied in a similar manner, although probably not nearly so politely, and then only for the purpose of creating a paper trail in the event that Gerry was up to "no good", which from my experience is typically what someone is doing when they omit details. I see Mike added a couple CC recipients to his reply, CYA is the reason for that I'm guessing.The subject of the e-mail is deceptive as well, you're not asking if you can use the sim commercially, you're asking if you can sell commercial addons for it. Obviously you composed the e-mail to provoke the answer you got. "Why?" is my big question.