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

[garsands 0]

Guys I have not read any of the above yet as I don't have any free time at the moment but I will later.Not sure if I want to as not sure how well my thoughts have gone down.But please remember I am only putting a thought out & trying to think out of the box.I understand you are big fans & supporters of FSX just like me & I really want this whole new FSX (flight) thing to work.I want to play FSX at 60+ FPS using new tech dont we all, but someting is just not right something has gone wrong.I could have just sat back & not made my post but as I feel strongly about this I took a risk & put my thoughts out.This topic started over at OcUK Forums starts from post #106http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18243797

[JasonHarris 96]

I read your posts over there and I think you have completely lost the plot, obviously you are frustrated as you were hoping for a great fsx replacement and now the blame game is in the forefront of your mind. You have no evidence that they are pulling in money left right and center. Did you see the post from the pmdg forum. The PMDG guy is busy doing his taxes from his main job as a consultant. I bet not many have the luxury of doing this full time.

Edited January 8, 2012 by JasonHarris

[Guest]

So say goodbye to real airline liveries.

We don't even know if there will be airliners in Flight. For now it's a pure VFR game. Great for a sunday afternoon flight above Hawaii, and that's it.

[EagleSkinner 36]

Apropos "branding" - with MSF and no third party, Eagleskinner is dead in the water (OK, I have been out of the loop for quite a while due to injury, but if Flight had retained the open format, I may well have considered a more active return)On the other hand, why all the hype about MSF? The released imagery shows that trees are now multi-poly, planes appear to have 4096 pixel capability built in (or 2048 pixel 32-bit has been improved) and maybe the terrain maxima for trees and houses has been tweaked to allow more. I still see microsoft standard landclass polys and we all know that ORBX / FTX can do much better. So Microsoft have realised they made a mistake with FSX in developing for 6 GHz single core processors just as the market went multi-core and finally did for Flight, what they should have done for FSX - fix the FPS issues. Maybe MSF does offer a few extra goodies - we shall have to see what the release in late spring brings.But I would add a caveat about the possible success (or not) of Flight - it'll never make a GOTY status. Not when there are game creators like Bethesda out there. Have you seen Skyrim? Imagine a "Flight" with that level of interactivity... "How dirty do you want your Beaver?", "How many dents in the skin?"But as I say - why the hype about Flight? It's nothing special... Here are three different companies approaching the simulation world from different angles and do note that the Lockheed-Martin offering uses Microsoft ESP as the base...http://www.prepar3d.com/http://www.aeroflyfs.com/index.php/en/http://www.outerra.com/All three produce simulations where anyone can really say "Wow". One you've seen these, anything MS currently has on the shelves pales into insignificance.And talking of "on the shelves" I saw someone buy FS2004 at my local software shop the other day. On that same shelf were both FSX and a rather dusty copy of FS2002.

[xplanery 250]

We don't even know if there will be airliners in Flight. For now it's a pure VFR game. Great for a sunday afternoon flight above Hawaii, and that's it.

Well in flyawaysimulations article they say that free full version of Flight wont have them, but in future Flight team is planning to make them, probably you need to buy them and they are not much higher quality than default 737 of FSX.

[mgh 89]

Don't forget Microsoft won't allow branding like British Airways, Delta, Coke etc. So say goodbye to real airline liveries & logos at airports. This is IF they ever allowed thirdparties to develop for it. Which could be years away, if ever.

Microsoft does use liveries - Boeing in-house and Red Bull but under licence.Which commercial add-on developers have licences for the liveries they use?

[Buckster 0]

I'm stting on the fence on this one - but I'm not convinced totally on sales of FSX being massively driven by 3rd party addons - especially the "premium" onesI see it this way - to Joe Blogs on the street - has a PC half interested in flight sims - but not a proper flight simmer - he'd prob by FSX - and maybe - maybenot ever go anywhere near 3rd party addons - he would have bought FSX anywayProper flight simmers (I'd count myself in this camp) - if you'd known FSX would not have addons - I guess 95% of us would have bought it anyway - I would have done - you wouldn't pass up on the latest and greatest sim - so they would have bought FSX anywayI'd love to see sales figures for FSX over the last 5 yearsI'm not convinved the sales figures have been that influenced by availability of 3rd party addons - especially payware ones - but I may be wrong

[N400QW 205]

That's absolutely not how business works. At Cisco Systems, how much money do we get from HP when they write software to monitor our switches and routers. Nothing. How much did Infiniti get when I bought a new set of after market rims for my car? Nothing. How much did my home builder get when we added a new patio? Nothing. How much does Boeing get if Continental decided to retrofit their flight decks with new equipment from a 3rd party? Nothing. How much will Apple get if I buy a new leather case for my iPad from a 3rd party? Nothing. How much should Microsoft get because PMDG is selling the NGX for FSX?The way it works is 3rd party suppliers hitch their wagon to the main manufacturer's star. They depend on sales of the main product to drive sales of the 3rd party product. It also works both ways. If a 3rd party product is popular then it drives sales of the main product. If the PMDG NGX is a demanded product then it will drive sales of FSX which is needed to run it. PMDG makes money, Microsoft makes money. The price point for the main product or the 3rd party is irrelevant in this model.This is the whole reason for the concept of the App store. NOW, if the main developer closes off sales EXCEPT through their store they get to take a cut as the distributor and make the terms. This is the way to get around what I described above. If I could only get rims from the Infiniti store or Cisco made everyone sell their products through the Cisco Store then that is a different story.HOWEVER, my mother always said that "a story has two sides" and in this case I am sure that we have only heard one side of the story.

Excellent post Mike..It is surprising and almost shocking to find such basic lack of understanding on how business works whether brick and mortor wholesale and retail or software wholesale and retail.This appears to be most evident in the FS "community" which bashes the very providers of the platform and content they wish to enjoy.Having been to Seattle prior to FSX RTM we were priviliged to meet with some of the quality members of the now defunct ACES group.In that light it was shocking to see how they and others were treated in every FS public forum available upon FSX RTM.A quick look at "public response" over Flight news verifies once again that many conduct themselves as spoiled children throwing "hissy fits".Heres hoping that "blame game" type inquiries will subside quickly as more people are able to understand the underlying cause of MS decisions and 3rd Party Devs decisions. :(

[Bottle 663]

I haven't posted here in a long long time but obviously the Flight hooha has got me back.How many copies of FSX were sold?How many copies of 3rd party software has been sold for it (I don't include FS9 or earlier addons)?I bet the vast majority of FSX units sold have never been associated with a single piece of 3rd party software, i.e., this flightsim, addon purchasing, forum dwelling community is most likely a MINORITY when one consideres the whole community of FSX customers.I accept I don't know any of the figures and so may be way off, but my personal experience of online communities (over the entire history of the Internet and for multiple completely seperate pursuits) is that they completely over estimate their improtance and their contribution to any particular pursuit/business/etc. That is, I'm willing to bet that you guys and gals here are the vocal MINORITY.If the FSX/3rd party publisher symbiosis was such a great business model for MS, why did they decide to kill FSX and subsequent flight sims? Obviosuly, from MS's perspective, it was not such a flash deal.If 3rd party publishers were the only reason a flightsim would be viable for MS, do you really think they would be so brainless to invest further millions in a new game and exclude the 3rd party publishers?As one of the largest companies in the world, I suspect MS have their fingers on the data, the details, extensive professional analysis (not armchair forum dwellers opinion), etc. to have a pretty good idea as to what will make them money. And that, at the end of the day, is what they are in business to do; It's not a non-for-profit organisation, it's not an aviation evangalist organisation, it's not Father Christmas, it's a company and they are in control of their destiny. As the saying goes, "deal with it".I'm with the OP. I think the current state of Flight is in part due to the actions of the 3rd party publishers. If you read the PMDG, he clearly states that MS approached them to be part of Flight and they repeatedly "demured". After multiple attempts, MS finally washed their hands of them and now they're crying foul. I'd say that sounds like a major business miscalculation on their part and if I was MS I would have done exactly the same.As to what Flight will become, sounds good to me although it's far too early to tell and the leaks obout the beta are mostly transparently sour-grapes. I never saw the point of publishing a half-baked piece of software that had to be 'rescued' by further substantial expenditure on 3rd party software. Most people wwould simply no go there. Now that they know it will be fully supported by the primary publisher, MS will see a much better buy in to it. That's good for them and that's who they are looking after....not you.Rant over.

[xplanery 250]

I haven't posted here in a long long time but obviously the Flight hooha has got me back.How many copies of FSX were sold?How many copies of 3rd party software has been sold for it (I don't include FS9 or earlier addons)?I bet the vast majority of FSX units sold have never been associated with a single piece of 3rd party software, i.e., this flightsim, addon purchasing, forum dwelling community is most likely a MINORITY when one consideres the whole community of FSX customers.I accept I don't know any of the figures and so may be way off, but my personal experience of online communities (over the entire history of the Internet and for multiple completely seperate pursuits) is that they completely over estimate their improtance and their contribution to any particular pursuit/business/etc. That is, I'm willing to bet that you guys and gals here are the vocal MINORITY.If the FSX/3rd party publisher symbiosis was such a great business model for MS, why did they decide to kill FSX and subsequent flight sims? Obviosuly, from MS's perspective, it was not such a flash deal.If 3rd party publishers were the only reason a flightsim would be viable for MS, do you really think they would be so brainless to invest further millions in a new game and exclude the 3rd party publishers?As one of the largest companies in the world, I suspect MS have their fingers on the data, the details, extensive professional analysis (not armchair forum dwellers opinion), etc. to have a pretty good idea as to what will make them money. And that, at the end of the day, is what they are in business to do; It's not a non-for-profit organisation, it's not an aviation evangalist organisation, it's not Father Christmas, it's a company and they are in control of their destiny. As the saying goes, "deal with it".I'm with the OP. I think the current state of Flight is in part due to the actions of the 3rd party publishers. If you read the PMDG, he clearly states that MS approached them to be part of Flight and they repeatedly "demured". After multiple attempts, MS finally washed their hands of them and now they're crying foul. I'd say that sounds like a major business miscalculation on their part and if I was MS I would have done exactly the same.As to what Flight will become, sounds good to me although it's far too early to tell and the leaks obout the beta are mostly transparently sour-grapes. I never saw the point of publishing a half-baked piece of software that had to be 'rescued' by further substantial expenditure on 3rd party software. Most people wwould simply no go there. Now that they know it will be fully supported by the primary publisher, MS will see a much better buy in to it. That's good for them and that's who they are looking after....not you.Rant over.

The problem is that target audience of Flight (mainstream) does not like that kind of games and wont buy addons for it, and as its not a simulator most simulator enthusiasts will not buy anything for it.In the end it will be total financial failure. No simulator enthusiasts will pay for bad quality M$ addons for Flight, and mainstream does not like civilian flight games. The fact is that community of FSX for example is almost completely made from people who do use at least many freeware addons for it, almost no one flies with default FSX. M$ marketing people just do not know what they are doing and think that mainstream would really like to fly around with small civilian planes.There is just no need for stupid flying game in few small islands of Hawaii that lacks almost all simulation aspects. It applies to no one. If FSX did not allow third party addons I doubt that even half of its sales had ever happened. Edited January 8, 2012 by pvjinflight

[Guest]

Rant over.

Good rant. :( I also believe that it's a very minor minor minor minority that buys FSX addons. Probably a few percentages of all the people who ever bought FSX also bought addons. So... making the addon part a part of the game, in other words, making MS Flight some sort of portal to an integrated online shop for DLC, is a brilliant idea. Maybe not for simmers but certainly for MS. What's even MORE brilliant is that the default MS Flight package will be FREE of charge! Brilliant again. I am 100% sure that MS will sell a LOT more DLC then any 3rd party FSX addon developer has ever sold. And since they decided to not play along, it's their loss. But also OUR loss, because THEY could have added real 'sim stuff' to MS Flight. Now we just have to see how what exactly MS will add to MS Flight.

In the end it will be total financial failure. No simulator enthusiasts will pay for bad quality M$ addons for Flight, and mainstream does not like civilian flight games. The fact is that community of FSX for example is almost completely made from people who do use at least many freeware addons for it, almost no one flies with default FSX. M$ marketing people just do not know what they are doing and think that mainstream would really like to fly around with small civilian planes.There is just no need for stupid flying game in few small islands of Hawaii that lacks almost all simulation aspects. It applies to no one.

Almost no one flies default FSX, you say. You are so wrong. The majority of people who bought FSX don't even KNOW there are addons for it. As Bottle said, we simmers usually overestimate the amount of simmers. You say the community of FSX is completely made from people who do use at least many freeware addons for it: that's right. But the COMMUNITY you are talking about is very small. A lot smaller than you think. And that's why MS is very clever to release a basic game for free and at the same time use that free game to let people see they can get more DLC. As I said, most FSX owners don't even know that it's possible to add stuff to FSX. They SURE will now that it is possible for MS Flight. Edited January 8, 2012 by J van E

[m_av 0]

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

I think it's a lot more complicated than that.Does M$ deseve a cent for anything written in/or using Word - any book, any movie script, any research whether in science, medicine or anything else ? Where should the line be drawn, IF AT ALL ?Does Garmin owe anything to the Auto companies, if they create an auto-based navigation system customized to use on any given car model, Ford, GM, Chrysler, Honda, Toyota, etc.Does an Architect owe anything to the CAD software company for city planning or designing buildings and structures developed on the CAD software ?Consumers have the power - they can just walk by and ignore the greed !

[xplanery 250]

Good rant. :( I also believe that it's a very minor minor minor minority that buys FSX addons. Probably a few percentages of all the people who ever bought FSX also bought addons. So... making the addon part a part of the game, in other words, making MS Flight some sort of portal to an integrated online shop for DLC, is a brilliant idea. Maybe not for simmers but certainly for MS. What's even MORE brilliant is that the default MS Flight package will be FREE of charge! Brilliant again. I am 100% sure that MS will sell a LOT more DLC then any 3rd party FSX addon developer has ever sold. And since they decided to not play along, it's their loss. But also OUR loss, because THEY could have added real 'sim stuff' to MS Flight. Now we just have to see how what exactly MS will add to MS Flight.

But like said it does not support freeware addons either. Every single flight simmer I know has downloaded at least some freeware, and now those people will probably not use Flight. Also if most of FSX community did not buy third party addons why they would buy addons from MS? But still the biggest fail is that Flight does not apply to its target audience or to flight simmers, which means that it will have no customers and it will never sell much. Anyone can see that. Edited January 8, 2012 by pvjinflight

[ErnieAlston 33]

Well in flyawaysimulations article they say that free full version of Flight wont have them, but in future Flight team is planning to make them, probably you need to buy them and they are not much higher quality than default 737 of FSX.

I'm not so sure that will be true, the reason the default planes were the lever thel are is because theyhad to deliver entire simulation and default aircraft came at no additional cost, that will not be the case with Flight.They can spend a lot more time on aircraft now that they are charging for them as added content.But really, what good are Airliners without Airports to fly to ?I would think before we see any Airliners The first thing that has to occur are scenery and airport expansion addons.I'm just wondering how the additional content will be priced, just to give us everything FSX gave us for $60 US ?For instance could they charge $1(US) per default type airport ? No, It'd cost you over 20K just to get the same number of Airports in Flight that are in FSX. It'd have to be something like 500 default FSX like airports for $1, and still it'd cost you over$40 to get the same number of default type airports you have in FSX.These Flight content addons would have to be priced very very low to make this sim successfull.Regards.Ernie.

[mgh 89]

The simple fact is that no one is to blame.Microsoft takes commercial decisions abut the products it develops and has decided that Flight is what it wants. Similarly, third party developers take commercial decisions about what they intend to develop.Microsoft's decision resulted in a change of direction but, after all, it's put in the investment and it decides what to invest it in.