third party developers to be blamed for the way Flight has ended up?

[Manny 1,293]

The entire discussion is silly!No one stopped MS from producing and selling Addons. I would have loved it if they built good airport addons or PMDG like 747 or whatever!As far 3rd party being relatively expensive to the cost of FSX... It's to do with economy of scale! Addons are niche products unlike FSX. Maybe, Economics 101 is a good subject to take for some folks. :(

Edited January 9, 2012 by Manny

[alainneedle1 97]

Quote from this post here.... http://forum.avsim.n...ghts-on-flight/"If the sales figures we were being promised were to come true- then all of the restrictions above would have been a minor inconvenience-"So some dev. talked about $ with MS.....

Edited January 9, 2012 by alainneedle1

[Manny 1,293]

So does Intel and nVidea have to pay MS as well? I spend lot more on hardware than addons.The only reason I even have a desktop is because of FSX. Otherwise I would totally be happy with an Apple McAir.

[Manny 1,293]

Haha.. funny thing is you got the analogy backwards. Software exists on top of hardware. It should be MicrosoftFT paying Intel!!!!! lol....

How do you know, who is on top? :(

[n4gix 4,970]

So like Crysis/Crytek and every other PC game out there that used to be exclusive to PC, bascially FLIGHT is an xbox game that is back ported to the PC? What kind of garbage is this?

Oh, most certainly not! It has been clear from the very beginning that Flight is a PC only program. Period.Do so few people actually read any longer?

Or as straightforward negotiation?Possibly Microsoft tried that on because it didn't really care whether it had 3rd party developers on-board or not, so had nothing to lose. May be it even guessed they would walk away?.

Hence the use of "could be ... argued." Not all arguments are persuasive, nor do they always yield truth.

[garsands 0]

Do you really think MSFT can make something like PMDG 737 NGX?

YES I really think they can.A lot of people seem to think the third party developers are some sort of wizards who are the only ones in the world that can make such things.

[simmerhead 885]

Thanks John Venema for bothering to chime in with some factual information in this forum of mostly nonsense. But forgive them. Signs of panic is normal considering Santa didn't deliver the Beta some of us wanted.

[dmaher 0]

A lot of people seem to think the third party developers are some sort of wizards who are the only ones in the world that can make such things.

PMDG is eminent talented…But it's more the cost...than talent.They wouldn't make something like PMDG....simply because there is easier money for MS to make elsewhere.Many favorite add-ons take years to build and refine....that's not something a big organization would allow.They could build a fleet of default-style jets in the same time...and why wouldn't they ;)

[alainneedle1 97]

But forgive them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J56R_s5FPfA

[garsands 0]

Blaming third party developers for how Flight has devolved from potential FSX replacement to a game, is both laughable at best, and insulting at worst.

I in turn find it insulting that you find the need to say this about MS

'Thanks MS, for all the fish.'

John without MS you would not have been able to make FSX software to sale & to sale many commercial licenses atRegions @ $4000 eachAustralia @ $7,000Airports @ $2,500 each

[Orbx 123]

Thanks John Venema for bothering to chime in with some factual information in this forum of mostly nonsense. But forgive them. Signs of panic is normal considering Santa didn't deliver the Beta some of us wanted.

Thanks. However, I am beginning to understand why the majority of developers choose to remain silent here. After my careful explanations over the past week we still see posts like the one above quoting our commercial pricing without really having any understanding of how our business works or comprehending the difference between the enthusiast/hobby market and the commercial markets.MS provided an SDK for FSX, which spawned a sub-industry. Without it, there would be no Orbx, no PMDG NGX, no Accusim - the list goes on. The SDK did not come with any strings attached, and MS sold so many copies of FSX on the back of third party development that they actually ran out of registration keys and had to remaster new CDs for retail outlets.No, we don't owe MS a thing, since the SDK terms of use were clear from the outset.The deception this time round is in their courting of developers for 18 months with the promise of selling our products in their store, and then slamming the door in our faces.Are we ######? You bet we are.So again, thanks for the fish :)

[ViperPilot 81]

The honest truth of the matter is that 3rd party developers aren't to blame for the direction Flight has taken. Microsoft made a decision based on trends in the Gaming Market and on demographics research.PLAIN AND SIMPLE.This notion that the FS Community has the lobbying influence to make a corporation like Microsoft change a product based solely on THEIR needs and desires is not only unrealistic, but reeks of an arrogance that could lead down a very slippery slope. Microsoft never bothered to actively open discussion in these and other Forums about what features Flight should contain, save for a comments page on the Flight website; now, did they? Of probably hundreds of thousands of comments posted to the Flight website... did Microsoft really take the comments to heart, or did they have the plan for Flight set in stone long ago knowing full well how the product was going to end up?In the meantime, companies like Orbx, PMDG and others respond to the incessant requests and pleas for new products from the FS community, and what do they do? They produce products like PNW, NRM and CRM... the 737NG and other products that help enhance and increase our enjoyment of FLIGHT SIMULATION... not flying through gold rings collecting trinkets and storing them in some aerocache.Our community continually asks, whines, and begs for new and more realistic products from 3rd party and freeware developers. And time and time again those developers produce those same products for us that keep our FS jones alive.Now, because the new Flight sim, game, whatever it is...it's finally announced, and AWWW, it's not what everyone spent a year and a half speculating on what it was going to be! Then, information comes out that 3rd party development is to be Microsoft's domain only, and all of a sudden people start to look at those same 3rd party developers (who happened to have saved our collective bacon again and again) like they dropped the ball, and are acting like some sort of greedy corporate machine, ala BoA or AIG.In my very humble, non noteworthy opinion... Microsoft is the problem, not the 3rd party devs. They control the ball here. As I've said in other threads... the FS community is a fringe element to Microsoft; we're just statistics of a discontinued program group. They want to attract a new audience to Flight, and they couldn't care less what we as a community think.The 3rd party developers are small companies, just like any other out there in the world; trying to get by. They have provided the FS community with products that have become invaluable and an integral part of the Flight Simulation experience. We should be congratulating and thanking them for their hard work and dilligence; not calling them greedy and manipulating.The next time you climb into your new shiny 737 NGX, or hop into your C-185 Bush Plane and fly into an Orbx scenery package... think what it would be like if all of these candies weren't available and all you had was the Default scenery and airplanes.Then where would we be?Be thankful for what's available to us already. We should be ashamed of ourselves for being so arrogant, and we should be thankful to all the 3rd party devs that are out there.-- Like I said... just an observation from someone of little merit.

Edited January 10, 2012 by ViperPilot

[jrhoads 6]

Hi John,I have remained quiet to this point, but I really have to say something because you do not represent all developers here.

Thanks. However, I am beginning to understand why the majority of developers choose to remain silent here. After my careful explanations over the past week we still see posts like the one above quoting our commercial pricing without really having any understanding of how our business works or comprehending the difference between the enthusiast/hobby market and the commercial markets.But why are you quoting intentions of Microsoft?MS provided an SDK for FSX, which spawned a sub-industry. Without it, there would be no Orbx, no PMDG NGX, no Accusim - the list goes on. The SDK did not come with any strings attached, and MS sold so many copies of FSX on the back of third party development that they actually ran out of registration keys and had to remaster new CDs for retail outlets.Well... being a dev that worked on the sim long before their was even a conception of an SDK, including working with some of the core developers of the sim itself, I have no sympathy for this comment. We learned to do it the old school way. Roll our sleeves up and figure it out. And we still do. Microsoft never needed us to survive. To think so is to think in vain.No, we don't owe MS a thing, since the SDK terms of use were clear from the outset.Sorry, I do not agree. We owe Microsoft much. Very much and will never think I don't. Without them, we would not have what we have. It is not us or them. It is us together.I never thought differently as an MS partner.The deception this time round is in their courting of developers for 18 months with the promise of selling our products in their store, and then slamming the door in our faces.Please Speak for yourself John. Not as a voice for other developers.Are we ######? You bet we are.So again, thanks for the fish :)Sorry to disagree folks, but the story is much deeper than John or maybe even others assume here. I see no fish. I really don't. I make no accusations. I make no claims, even if I was on the beta. the NDA clearly objects to pubic discussion or admission.But I do respect Microsoft and what they have given us even to this point. Whether they appeal to the masses or the minorities, they have worked hard and honestly. But I believe there has been some mis-representation here. I do not feel the same way and I have some good reasons to believe why I do.Regards,Jim RhoadsFlight1 Software

[gtrbarbarian 1]

Hi all,While I will say that based on the current information on Flight, it doesn't look promising as our future sim of choice, based on the lack of fidelity shown in the beta, I think there is a narrow view going on in these forums that has nothing to do with business and everything to do with passion for aviation and real simulation.However, that being said, software development technologies have changed significantly in the last 6 years since FSX and more importantly, software markets have changed... I think Microsoft is just trying to play catch up with market trends it missed in the past. It is trying to survive. Their stock price is less than half what it was a decade ago. It doesn't matter if they have lots of operating cash...as the world is changing around them they are starting to be irrelevant. Microsoft is slowly becoming the Cobol Dinosaur. Yes we are stuck with Windows at home on wintel...linux ui and plug and play still isn't bulletproof. Vista and Win 7? Win 7 is solid, but my development shop is still running XP. We already have the licenses paid for. We recently moved our servers from Win Server 2003 to RedHat Linux. Office 2010? Most people I know still run Office 2003. Windows Phone 7? Not a bad little embedded OS, except, well Apple and Google own that market. Tablets, same thing... I think that is leading to some knee jerk decisions (Flight) which are not well thought out...but then again, they have not made great decisions over the last decade in deciding where the market was going....Especially when talking about the way in which software applications are built and distributed.There is a reason that windows 8 is basically a web platform. It acts like a tablet OS, and it connects to the Windows Store. These are two HUGE trends that Microsoft is sorely late in adopting. MS screwed the PR on this one as well...most developers over the last year thought that the 10 years they had invested into learning and developing in .NET were wasted, and that .NET (to include managed C++, C#, VB.net) was a dead technology as Win 8 is pushing HTML 5 and Javascript as the main programming technologies. Low and behold, it turns out that .NET is still very much supported. Go check out the bad feelings from developers towards MS that that generated!If it weren't for the long history as the base OS for the personal computer, and it's OEM agreements with Dell et al, Microsoft would have gone the way of the many tech companies that met their demise over the last decade. XP in all of it's flavors has been a pretty stable OS, as is W7. However it is no longer doing that great in the server market...linux now accounts for >63% of servers.[added] I think this says alot... http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2012/01/09/the-dows-3-biggest-losers-today.aspxThey are changing their paradigm to match what and more importantly how consumers are actually buying. What they are lacking is the PR abilities to manage that change. Everyone who's ever done development in a large organization knows that technology is usually the easiest part of the project. It is managing organizational change, and stakeholder expectations that are difficult. This community comes under the definition of stakeholders. This is a same basic flaw with all software development...and I have seen it in every organization I've worked at....If you don't talk to your users, you build a product that is a tool useful to no one.Just a little correct stakeholder and change management, could foster great relationships and community all around...why don't they get it?

Edited January 10, 2012 by gtrbarbarian

[alainneedle1 97]

I will not say that the direction MS is taking with Flight (direction still to be...) is the devs. fault, trust me both side have sharp business man in their camps. OK, so after reading some post here on Avsin like this one http://forum.avsim.net/topic/358874-some-thoughts-on-flight/ and from other developers you guys still think that Flight was Hawaii only from the get go...the involved devs on the project talked for 18 months with MS (some been courted) to make scenery for Hawaii only??So, PMDG will make their plane available to fly around the big Island only?How many developers does it take to cover the big Island with HD sceneries?How many developers does it take to make all airport on the big Island?Who was "gonna" make Kona and Hilo international, Aerosoft, Orbx and FlyTampa or all of them together?So you will all tell me that after 18 months everybody involved with Flight knew that Flight was going to be Hawaii only from the start and they went along with it?So where is the rest of Flight...