• Only ONE Hawaii island
• No JETS
• No ATC
• No AI and no Traffic
• No SDK
• No Third Party Developers
• No FSUIPC / FSRecorder/ etc
• No FREEWARE
• No custom liveries
• No IFR
• No ILS
• No FMS/FMC
• No FBW
• No Failures
• No customization of weather
• list goes on...

The amount of features you are expecting in a product that comes for free is breathtaking.

he amount of features you are expecting in a product that comes for free is breathtaking.

And he is wrong about some of the items on his list.

In other words: This game is not supposed to replace your FSX simulation

That's correct!"Microsoft Flight® is a new approach to a beloved franchise. It is a completely separate product from FSX, designed to appeal to the faithful Flight Simmers (prior primary target) as well as the casual flyers and the masses."

You are not the target audience.

Flight isn't for add-ons built on old technology (FSX). Flight is for innovative Flight Simulator Products!"Overall, the game is a lot more experimental than past Flight Simulator games sold at retail. But offering the game as a free-to-play title opens up new options for experimentation and innovation, Howard said. “This is the right way to deliver an experience that reaches a broader number of people,” he said. “It’s a new muscle we are exercising.”" (venturebeat.com).

Free. Sure. No profit motive at all. I'm not against a new sim, and I'll spend a lot of money for a sim that increases my realism. So tell me, now that I've watched the demos and screen shots, what great new features are to be found that pushes FLIGHT above and beyond FSX and X-Plane for serious simmers? Because I'm not seeing anything that lights my fire. And that's what I'm not hearing in the ads. There are a few ###### here that tell us to be patient and "believe." No problem. I'm patient and I'm very happy with X-Plane 10 and FSX. But I'm not seeing anything in print FROM MICROSOFT that tells me I need to get excited. No, I don't care about slalom flying between wind generator towers. Why aren't they telling us ANYTHING about realism.It's all gaming oriented advertising. Now maybe the flight controls and flight engine is more realistic. Maybe the ATC is there and the navaids and flight planner and GPS and FMC. Maybe there will be big iron available at reasonable prices. Maybe world scenery will be released in reasonable sized areas rather than a small area around big airports. But if so, WHY isn't Microsoft saying these things? Can they afford the negative comments of the FS community that so totally fill these forums and forums elsewhere? Clearly we (the serious flight sim community) are not the targeted audience, are we?That's OK. I'm happy with my investments in other sims. But I seriously wonder why FLIGHT is being announced to the serious flight sim community rather than the general gaming market if they aren't telling us what's new and wonderful aside from flying VFR circles around Hawaii. We are what keeps FSX afloat, not the kiddies at the consoles, but I guess that's where the money is. If this is a console game, great! Advertise it as such and leave us alone. If it meets the needs and attention of serious sim-pilots, for heavens sake tell us and quit releasing squeeky-clean comic strip videos of trick flying. I have a Caravan waiting in Nome in FSX, idling on the runway, so I'm outta here....

This thread deserves 20 aerocaches !

Both audiences are being targeted?

• Only ONE Hawaii island

I can't see how....

Why would you say that. You know that is patently untrue.

Why would you say that. You know that is patently untrue.

It's just Bo making his 146th nonsensical post.

I believe the true target market is actually the most casual of the casual gamers

Yes, if you believe "the most casual of the casual gamers" will buy a lot of add-ons, etc..Of course, the "Start-Pack" is a simpler "construction" aimed at the masses."If this new version of the game works with the new business model — where users can download the initial game and geographic region for free and then pay to unlock other features — then the company could restore a 29-year-old franchise and bring it into the modern age of games. And that could mean a lot of new revenue, as Microsoft has sold millions of the previous games." (venturebeat.com).

If we were the "targeted audience" why would MS be doing this new approach of a Freemium pay-as-you-go DLC piecemeal model with FLIGHT?

Make more money!But keep in mind: - "Both audiences, according to Microsoft, are being targeted." (destructoid.com)."This would provide Microsoft with control of the add-ons, but also most likely provide Microsoft with a cut off the profits of 3rd party add-ons sold within the marketplace." (examiner.com).The serious flight sim community = Loyal Customers?"Loyal Customers: They represent no more than 20 percent of our customer base, but make up more than 50 percent of our sales." (Mark Hunter, "The Sales Hunter").Also keep in mind: - "Howard admitted that past products in the family were “obtuse, dense, and hard to get into.” The dropping of “Simulator” from the name was intentional. But underneath the hood, the game still has all of the same realistic fight mechanics that earlier games had." (venturebeat.com).Flight is a - "console-style game - said Robert S. Randazzo of PMDG. WHY all of the same realistic fight mechanics that earlier games had?

Edited January 14, 201214 yr by torium

Where is all that "new money" going to come from?

Do you really believe that - Microsoft has sold millions of the previous games - to "the most casual of the casual gamers"?Why would Micosoft exchange the same amount of money between customer "A"(old) and customer "B"(new).What's the point?With "the new business model" - MS want income from both (all) audiences -> A + B!50 employees x 3 year = to create "a crippled, handicapped, fragmented arcade game that would never become a viable platform for the real simming community"? AND - still has all of the same realistic fight mechanics that earlier games had!!! :(

Edited January 15, 201214 yr by torium

The voice of reason in my head agrees with etheris on many points, but let's play the optimist game.Let's say on the day Flight is released, we'll get a program with all of FSX's features included in the code AND we'll get all of FSX's data immediately available as various DLC for the total cost of say $80USD. This is as optimist as I can get.We already know that there are improvements in Flight's various subsystems and we'll get better CPU/GPU utilization which probably means better FPS.So with this purchase we'd have default FSX scenery everywhere, MS quality planes, including jets etc, etc oh and a bunch of missions, a career simulator and so on. Great you say, but why should I buy it?Why indeed. Why on the day of release anyway? I can see no reason at all.There will be no high quality add-ons at the start and there may never be any.Fine, don't buy it on day one, the optimists would say, buy it when the store has what you want. Yes, that's what most of us intend to do, by the looks of it.There is only one problem. Since Flight is free and MS has already spent millions, the target market will have to keep Flight afloat long enough for the higher quality add-ons to appear. That could take years, depending on how much the SDK has changed.So, simmers have to depend on gamers to make MS lots of money so they don't cancel Flight.This can go two ways. They don't make enough and we'll never see what we want or it goes really well and hmmm, if they make lots of money with coin chases, we'll never see what we want.So, the best thing would be is for MS to make just enough money so Flight stays alive and MS would think they could make a little bit more from us with the right add-ons.Come to think of it though, they already had this with FSX, just in reverse. No matter how I dice this, the end result does not look very good for simulation fans.

All MS has to do is hit the most saliently mass appeal aircraft first, (ICON A5 being one of them already!) and provide the low hanging fruit DLC, and add-ons.

The ICON has to be the most boring aircraft to fly, I suspect it's only there to create a little revenue (who's paying who in that deal), even the nimble trike from FSX is more enjoyable, if they really want to sell to the masses they better throw a ton of jets and stunt planes in the DLC mix.

The ICON has to be the most boring aircraft to fly, I suspect it's only there to create a little revenue (who's paying who in that deal), even the nimble trike from FSX is more enjoyable, if they really want to sell to the masses they better throw a ton of jets and stunt planes in the DLC mix.

The ICON A5 is an awesome beginner aircraft. Very fun to fly and explore the islands with....

The ICON A5 is an awesome beginner aircraft. Very fun to fly and explore the islands with....

Each to their own I guess, but I have to ask very fun to fly how? It's slow, has very little power, manuevers like a tank, it really is like flying a slow car.