This tactic is perfectly valid if there are at least three of you in the elevator.

3rd Party? :(

This kind of thinking is what will hinder any future success in this genre!Guys that might be how construction and other types of business works but you have to realize MS is also in the console business where they get royalties from EVERYTHING that comes and goes through the xbox. Sony is the same with ps3, Nintendo, etc... even STEAM gets royalties obviously for products sold but also on DLC for products offered. Welcome to the age of software entertainment... it's not the same as your basement!

You are talking about stuff that goes on to proprietary platforms which is different. Steam? no one makes developers use steam. It is available and provides a distribution and payment facility to developers. One reason why there are so many indy games there by small publishers. That is basically how software works. People that open their platform like MS did have profited from doing so. I can think of so many examples of software that I use that is so attractive because of the add ons that are available.

No, and if MS wanted they could have just made their own addons and probably sold a lot more of them than all independent developers combined.

So why didnt they? Not enough profit in it for them. What they want to do is get profit for very little effort, i.e. skimming transactions and taking percentages. That profit is accumulated a lot easier than actually doing what the developers do.

Edited January 8, 201214 yr by JasonHarris

This is a totally ludicrous discussion. Microsoft became what it is off of providing platforms. That's what they do ! The most famous platform they have built is something called Windows in case some of you have never heard of it before.Bob - Las Cruces, NM.

Edited January 8, 201214 yr by Toys_R_Us

3rd Party? :(

ROFL -- too true.Condider this. The number of copies of FSX that were purchased at $60+, and then became shelfware after a few weeks.MS still got the money for the sale.Now consider the number of copies of FLIGHT, thatw ill be downloaded, for FREE, and will become shelfware after a few weeks.( Even the so called BETA Testers are reporting that they are bored with it after a few day, and are no longer evaluating it).Those downloads generate no income for Microsoft.If the only way Microosft is going to make any money off FLIGHT, is through Addon Sales, I cannot see those sales being that significant, when so many Free Downloads of FLIGHT are sitting, unused as Shelfware.It will be interesting to see, in the future, what the "cost of Ownership" is of Flight equipted with enough addon planes, and scenery, to make the "Flight" experience engaugeing enough to keep most players interested in the "GAME".As a Real World pilot, I have little interest in what I have seen of FLIGHT, and I cringe when I see the way it encourages player to fly their aircraft in a most unrealstic manner.OK, to keep on Topic, I will admit, that I am probably an "Old Fart", and more tahn happy to stick with FSX ( and P3D), untill something better comes along. Thats "something better" is clearly not Flight :(

Edited January 8, 201214 yr by FSMP

This kind of thinking is what will hinder any future success in this genre!Guys that might be how construction and other types of business works but you have to realize MS is also in the console business where they get royalties from EVERYTHING that comes and goes through the xbox. Sony is the same with ps3, Nintendo, etc... even STEAM gets royalties obviously for products sold but also on DLC for products offered. Welcome to the age of software entertainment... it's not the same as your basement!

THe PC is NOT an console. The PC is also not a MAC. The PC is a general specification but will run Linux, Unix, Windows and others. The Console is a PROPRIETARY piece of hardware. The PC is not proprietary and uses open standards for many of its parts. You can't go out and build a console out of parts from New Egg but anyone can build a PC and run anything they want on it. You can't decide to change the operating system. You can't do anything at all because it is an appliance and a proprietary one at that. This is why if you want to develop something for the XBOX you have to pay Microsoft. Think to yourself how much does Google pay Microsoft to run Chome on Windows? How much does Bizzard pay Microsoft to develop World of Warcraft for Windows? Windows is a program just like FSX is a program and both have SDKs and / or APIs.Steam gets royalties because steam is an online distributor so they are not the same as MS and FSX. Microsoft is NOT an online distributor of content for FSX. There is no licensing requirement to develop for FSX because that is the TERMS OF THE SDK they released for FREE. So I don't think you have a grasp of the differences between here at all.

Edited January 8, 201214 yr by Mike T

...

---------------------------------------------------------Howard Hughes stated in reply that FSX would have been dead long ago without 3rd party extending. Most right! Also Howard, your point that MS had 'extended' sales of FSX/FS9 from new generations interested in simu-flight BECAUSE of that very 3rd party after-market development is spot on! SPOT ON. Very good points. That really says it all. MS made more 'core' sales by having 3rd party software keeping the CORE PRODUCT life still viable as I type this post.Mitch

Edited January 8, 201214 yr by Sesquashtoo

Looking at how well FS9 and FSX have done over the years simply b/c of 3rd party developers, MS could have made a KILLING off of MS Flight. And I do mean a killing!!!Had they focused on what FSX/FS9 offers, but improved upon it with new coding and still allowed 3rd party developers to create addon's for it they could literally sell the software for probably $100 per copy.If they were smart enough about it, they could have worked out some sort of deal with 3rd party developers to help make the new sim the greatest thing since sliced bread and still profit for years to come.As already stated, 3rd party developers are the ones that have kept FS9 and FSX alive all these years and have expanded the flight simming user base.MS really screwed the pooch with Flight. They must have some real idiots in their finance/development dept.I guess just b/c you're greedy doesn't mean your smart to boot!

-----------------------------------------------------------------Enjoying a coffee and these in-depth posts. You said it, brother! The 'Flight' forum has now become really Hangar Chat, whereby we now post through the object of conjecture. I love it! Flight (Hangar Chat 2). The actual discussing of Flight (as usable software) inherent, is no longer even mentioned. Now, it's just semantics. You have to laugh. I'd hate to be sitting in any suit and behind a desk----with any association to Flight. It would be dangerous if they had a office window higher than the first floor!!!...LOLOLOL! People should look up as they walk past any REDMOND campus building.....

Edited January 8, 201214 yr by Sesquashtoo

THe PC is NOT an console. The PC is also not a MAC. The PC is a general specification but will run Linux, Unix, Windows and others. The Console is a PROPRIETARY piece of hardware. The PC is not proprietary and uses open standards for many of its parts. You can't go out and build a console out of parts from New Egg but anyone can build a PC and run anything they want on it. You can't decide to change the operating system. You can't do anything at all because it is an appliance and a proprietary one at that. This is why if you want to develop something for the XBOX you have to pay Microsoft. Think to yourself how much does Google pay Microsoft to run Chome on Windows? How much does Bizzard pay Microsoft to develop World of Warcraft for Windows? Windows is a program just like FSX is a program and both have SDKs and / or APIs.Steam gets royalties because steam is an online distributor so they are not the same as MS and FSX. Microsoft is NOT an online distributor of content for FSX. There is no licensing requirement to develop for FSX because that is the TERMS OF THE SDK they released for FREE. So I don't think you have a grasp of the differences between here at all.

I honestly dont know if there is any $$ given to MS to have program run on its OS (win 7, etc) but the way I was thinking of FSX or any MS Flight sim is as it were just like a console (xbox, ps3, etc), it is their property and 3rd party developers are making money using said property... Kinda the way I went at it and from what it sounds like its also the way MS sees it now... Too bad it's prbly too littly too late for them... on other news, Aerosoft announced full support of XP10. I'm very excited to see that platform really make some progress this and in the coming years!I also was looking to buy that aerofly FS but can't seem to find it in their US store... anyone provide link?, thx

Edited January 8, 201214 yr by Swifta

We may have very well found out the real reason that they renamed this program to just Flight. For 25 years they set a clear legal precedence of allowing the Microsoft Flight Simulator to be an open platform program whether that was intended in writing or not. And they capitalized monetarily on that bit of reality in a big way. With a total rename, they provide a clear cut and well defined new program with no pre-existing legal baggage.Bob - Las Cruces

Edited January 8, 201214 yr by Toys_R_Us

Well, if the Flight exe can be converted to a FSX SP3 patch, I and hundreds of others would be very happy people today; you should see that baby perform! I would happily pay $60-$100 for a FSX patch like that.

I see it as greed on the developers part.

...or extreme Myopia. Wanting 75% of $50.00 x 2500 or something like, instead of 25% of $10.00 x 25,000,000 or something like. Smart move! Perhaps the lost opportunity of a lifetime, perhaps not. Lost in any case. I'd be sputtering and angry too, and perhaps even beating my chest and hurling public insults to the powers that be to cover up my stench of fear and dread of being stuck trying to breathlessly resuscitate an old abandoned platform and forestall certain rigamortis as long as I can. But then again, I don't know, so maybe not.In any case, it may all turn out for the best as multiple MS platforms compete with each other, not for the past, but for the future. Does MS really have two (or more) FLIGHT shoes, and if so (and they sure say they do), when will the other one(s) drop? How can all this shakeup and change not have a positive outcome in the long run for flying enthusiasts? When all the self serving spin doctors quiet down we may see things a whole lot clearer.Kind regards,

Edited January 8, 201214 yr by SpiritFlyer

My two cents, MS is to blame for Flight's new direction, not third partiesWTF?It couldn't be all that difficult to take the FSX 737-800 and turn it into the full 737NG family, MS would then sell that as an expansion pack for FSX. SInce MS modeled the orginal FSX -800 and have the software that made it, they can pull that off and take advantage of the lead time they had over the third parties. Ditto goes for the A321.People would've purchased that, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. MS could've done that to get more of that tasty money, but they didn't.Flight's approach is a gross overcompensation by MS for missing the window it had with FSX. and it won't work. It won't work because MS can't satisfy everyone, not everone likes single prop GA, not everyone likes Hawaii, and everyone hates being married to an unknown time table.Microsoft can't please evryone on their own, that's why third parties exist, that's why previous MSFS's have been foundations (generic planet Earth and an assortmant of every aircraft class) to be built on.Flight is a poor simulator because it is too limited and those of us who fly jets are left out, those of us who want to fly GA anywhere beside Hawaii are left out, Those of us who want to fly something other than the Icon A5, Stearman, Vans RV8, or whatever MS offers in their store are...LEFT OUT.Flight is a mediocre game because it's just "PilotWings: Hawaii" the market MS is trying to attract is smaller than they think, they think they'll get "everyone", but in the end kids (whom's parents wish to shelter them from violence) will be the only ones playing. Everyone else is going to be bored due to the lack of explosions and the inability to go beyond Hawaii. And kids aren't the best customers since they don't have wallets and the parents will only spend so much (plus little Timmy is going to get bored with the game eventually anyway.)Previous MSFS games were profitable because they appealed to every category of Flight Simmer, sales were "Wonder Twin powers activate!" as all flavors of simmer bought the same program, the 3rd parties maintained the interest of Simmers by adding content that each simmer wanted in detail that would be unprofitable for MS to accomplish. The cherry on top is that 3rd party content attracted and motivated more poeple to buy MSFS (which coincidentally profited MS.) Hence why the MSFS franchise was a profit maker for 20 years, until ACES was shutdown and "Flight" was created.

Edited January 8, 201214 yr by FSX4Life

...or extreme Myopia. Wanting 75% of $50.00 x 2500 or something like, instead of 25% of $10.00 x 25,000,000 or something like. Smart move! Perhaps the lost opportunity of a lifetime, perhaps not. Lost in any case. I'd be sputtering and angry too, and perhaps even beating my chest and hurling public insults to the powers that be to cover up my stench of fear and dread of being stuck trying to breathlessly resuscitate an old abandoned platform and forestall certain rigamortis as long as I can. But then again, I don't know, so maybe not.In any case, it may all turn out for the best as multiple MS platforms compete with each other, not for the past, but for the future. Does MS really have two (or more) FLIGHT shoes, and if so (and they sure say they do), when will the other one(s) drop? How can all this shakeup and change not have a positive outcome in the long run for flying enthusiasts? When all the self serving spin doctors quiet down we may see things a whole lot clearer.Kind regards,

Very wise words, as usual.If the current top devs would have agreed with MS and start to develop for Flight, we could have been SURE Flight WOULD indeed become a real SIM! Would you switch to Flight if Orbx and PMDG said they are going to support it? Yes, you would! And they would have made more money because a lot more people will be using the free Flight version (all old FS-users and a LOT of new users) and selling more for a lower price gives you more money in the end then selling less for a high price... But the devs were all shortsighted and only thought of their own business. We know by now that some (certainly not all) devs don't give a damn about us customers and are only in it to satisfy their shareholders.I do think devs should have agreed with MS. Seems they have just as much dollar signs in their eyes as MS. Even more. As I said I am 100% sure we all would be delighted with Flight if the top devs would have supported it because then we would be sure we would get the SIM we all wanted. It would have been a win-win-win situation for sure.So I agree with main point of the OP: thanks to the devs we are now stuck with an old program for our simming needs. And does anyone really believe that FSX is going to be around another 10 years...? Keep on dreaming.Who dares to say he will NOT download Flight if today the top devs announced they are going to support Flight? Well...?

Edited January 8, 201214 yr by J van E

Before you blame the developers re-read the 2 postings by the 3rd party developers. It wasn't just about the money, and we don't know how much percentage Microsoft wanted anyway - 30% is just a common figure being banded about.Microsoft wanted the IP rights to the products, the source code, the technologies, complete control, in other words the whole thing. Here is a quote from Robert of PMDG.

Eventually we were presented with a picture of how our lives would have to change in order to support FLIGHT:

• All commercial products would be marketed exclusively by MS and we would not be allowed to sell our own products from our own sites.
• No freeware, not even free expansions to our own products. (Think: liveries)
• Unclear controls regarding pricing.
• The inability to market our own products in the brick and mortar retail market without purchasing licenses to our own products in advance of production. (This would increase our costs dramatically, making it impossible to support a retail operation...)
• All developers would be required to pay a sizable per-unit license fee on all FLIGHT products.

I am actually very glad that the 3rd party developers didn't bow down to Microsoft even if that means PilotWings Flight didn't turn out the way we wanted it. Essentially if our favourite 3rd party developers had agreed to Microsoft's terms then you might as well just say goodbye to them as companies. History has shown that partnering with Microsoft has always ended up unfavourably for the 3rd party developer.This isn't the same as selling on the Apple store, this is giving up your company soul to the devil.No, Microsoft are the ones to blame for wanting to bully their way into the FlightSim add-on market.

Edited January 8, 201214 yr by Marith

No, big unethical capitalist company M$ is to be blamed from all this. Flight has no future.

Edited January 8, 201214 yr by pvjinflight