As I asked in another thread, please, name all 3RD party developers excluded from Flight or at least give me a direct link to where MS made that statement, if you can't you will have to reformulate your sentence.

I've read it in an article about the Microsoft's press demonstration that took place on December 13th. It was something close to "All content on the marketplace will be provided by Microsoft. To provide a good selection of content, we are planning to add 1 or 2 select partners with experience in the flight-sim market." I tried to recover the link, but couldn't find it in all the last days' flurry about Flight, sorry. When I find it, I'll let you know!Maybe the word "excluded" is not 100% right in this context. I'm not a native speaker, so please be lenient towards me when a word is a bit off.In addition to that of course we all know the statements from the well-known 3DP manufacturers posted here. They have to be taken with one or many grains of salt, but from their description it seems like MS stopped an initially fruitful collaboration. Maybe it was just that they couldn't agree on the price and they didn't tell us that part here. As long as we don't see the numbers, we don't know who is to blame.Probably this is not enough of a proof to you, but I stand by my original statement. It should be clear from the rest of my posting that I'm trying to be cautious with my arguments and I don't want to bash Flight. For now I can't do more to lend credence to my above statement.I would be very happy to see them officially taking 3DP developers on board, but I just don't see that happening now. Even if they don't, I think Flight has more potential under the hood than many of those lamenting here believe...

Edited January 12, 201214 yr by pstrub

@ Pstrub, don't worry about your written English you'r doing just fine, I was born and raised French speaking ....What 3RD party (the pi$$ed one) developers are writing on this forums is only what they want you (us) to know, why are they so (one so far) pi$$ed about? Well, maby because he (they) dealt with MS for over 2 years spending money on this deal and did not get it his (their) way in this deal.Do you really think that MS decisions makers woke up one morning and out of the blue decided to close the door to 3RD party developers without any reasons at all, no negotiations took place before that, some developers would like you (us) to believe that?Here is a quote from Robert at PMDG... http://forum.avsim.n...ghts-on-flight/ 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.

If the sales figures we were being promised were to come true- then all of the restrictions above would have been a minor inconvenience- but as one of my favorite pilot friends likes to say: "I didn't get to be this old by being stupid." PMDG has been in this business for nearly 15 years- and while we do occasionally make mistakes, I feel that we have a pretty good feel for the simming marketplace, its size and how it operates- and this new business model gave me pause. So as you can clearly see some talk or negotiation took place, so for some to say that MS closed the door without any explaination is impossible to swallow for me, Robert position i can understand, he (they) have to make the best decision possible for their business and if he (they) feel that what he (they) was presented from MS is not for them, I respect that.Like I said in another thread, is it possible that a developer wanted a bigger piece of the pie, or he did not like to be told what part of the world he will have to make scenery for? Maybe some developer (s) don't play well with others.......Look at this old thread on FlyTampa 12/31/2010, I read it again and laughed my head off....I was not that far off if you ask me, I will have to write to MidgeyMidget2 again, I need to yank his chain a little.... :(http://www.flytampa....flight&start=45So if you ask my own personal opinion on Flight.....there is no way Flight was (is) Hawaii only.

Edited January 12, 201214 yr by alainneedle1

Here is the last press released from MS, please show me where they say it will be Hawaii ONLY, just show me..January 4^th, 2012 – Microsoft Flight Takes to the SkiesToday, Microsoft Studios premiered Microsoft Flight, a PC game that lets players jump into the challenge, fun, and freedom of flight. Microsoft Flight will be available as a free download this spring, giving players the freedom to fly the skies over the beautiful Big Island of Hawaii, complete a variety of exciting missions, test their skills in flying challenges, or find hidden aerocaches on the island.

Done.You want to fly anywhere else then you gotta pay per region.

Edited January 12, 201214 yr by Mountain Man

So wrong & misleading

Oh, so you're in denial, too. :biggrin:I have never seen a game significantly change after entering public beta. At that point it's more about making small refinements than huge changes. If you really want to believe that Flight is going to emerge from the beta process as a completely different game then be my guest, but my advice is to be prepared for disappointment.

With FXS, you had to buy the game if you wanted to do more than what the demo gave you.In Flight you don't have to buy the entire world, but pay for only the DLC that you want. Yes, it is different, but that doesn't make it necessarily bad.And how many games have you seen that were released as a core platform, with the intention of using DLC to expand (scenery, aircraft, and other features)?

Edited January 12, 201214 yr by Arwen

Done.You want to fly anywhere else then you gotta pay per region.

What is so wrong with this?"Assuming" these regions are as or better detailed than any 3rd party developer can provide? The same goes with addon aircraft... IMO, Microsoft has more of a means to obtain data for "proper" aircraft dynamics than most 3rd party developers running a company out of their basement. I would be willing to pay a premium for an aircraft that I know flys EXACTLY like the real thing. MS has the $ to make this happen. but I digress...We all will have to wait and see.

They have had 25 years to "make it happen"... yet it wasn't until third party devs came along that we had the likes of PMDG 737NGX. Having the money to make it happen does not mean it will ever happen.

Well, I think now they understand that there is much money to be made by DLC... :(

What if there are indeed several downloadable scenery "areas/regions" available for purchase at the time of FLIGHT's release? Just as an example, what if the following greater areas are available:1) New York area2) Paris area3) Sao Paulo area4) London area5) Tokyo areaNow the question is: What if they are not contigious or connected in any way. In other words, they are loaded separately from a "Scenery Menu" and one can not fly from one area to another? You simply select the scenery from the interface, it loads up and off you go flying or chasing coins. THAT is what I'm expecting from FLIGHT. If I'm proven wrong, it will be a huge plus. But my expectations are that the scenery areas are more like First Person Shooter "Maps" and not necesarily FSX with updated scenery areas being released (as is being done by Orbx, for example.)Hopefully I'm wrong...

Oh, so you're in denial, too. :biggrin:I have never seen a game significantly change after entering public beta. At that point it's more about making small refinements than huge changes. If you really want to believe that Flight is going to emerge from the beta process as a completely different game then be my guest, but my advice is to be prepared for disappointment.

The difference here is Flight is being released as a free platform without content.It's a strategy very different from other 3Dgames...we've tested.All their revenue will come from delivering content.So yes, with Flight you'll see significant changes...all their chips are on content.About all we can evaluate in the beta is the performance of the base features.Even then we won't really know to what extent those features have been pushed.Or what can be added building on the core features.For instance the mission system (which get's no love) contains the core functions needed for implementing ATC.

Oh, so you're in denial, too. :(

No I just support my posts with proof that's all.Again look at the leaked vidoes of MS Flight beta.Then look at the images from the MS Flight website.To help you out I have posted a few below for you.Sorry about the very poor quality of them.

Sorry about the very poor quality of them.

Well, even that 'poor quality' beats the **** out of some other er... sim... :( Which ship looks better? I'll have MS Flight's ship anytime.P.S. Yeah, I know, we aren't in this hobby for the ships, but still...

Edited January 12, 201214 yr by J van E

What if there are indeed several downloadable scenery "areas/regions" available for purchase at the time of FLIGHT's release? Just as an example, what if the following greater areas are available:1) New York area2) Paris area3) Sao Paulo area4) London area5) Tokyo areaNow the question is: What if they are not contigious or connected in any way. In other words, they are loaded separately from a "Scenery Menu" and one can not fly from one area to another? You simply select the scenery from the interface, it loads up and off you go flying or chasing coins.THAT is what I'm expecting from FLIGHT.If I'm proven wrong, it will be a huge plus. But my expectations are that the scenery areas are more like First Person Shooter "Maps" and not necesarily FSX with updated scenery areas being released (as is being done by Orbx, for example.)Hopefully I'm wrong...

That's what I'm afraid of too. I really do hope they prove us wrong.

What is so wrong with this?

I didn't say it was wrong, but I suspect in the end that customers will end up paying more for less.Anyway, I was simply pointing out the fact that Microsoft has officially said that the initial release will be Hawaii only, and beta testers have confirmed this fact, so it is unreasonable to expect that there will be more to it.

Edited January 13, 201214 yr by Mountain Man

For all of the haters out there - you might be dead wrong about Flight and will feel pretty stupid when all is said and done.1. Flight has BETTER graphics than FSX2. Flight has a MORE POWERFUL and EFFICIENT graphics engine than FSX3. Flight has BETTER flight physics than FSX4. Flight has the capability in the core engine to handle all the detailed features and functionality that FSX hasSo they added some "arcadish" type missions for the kids. So what? They could have done that in FSX as well and no one would have complained. In fact, they did add arcadish content in XPACK and no one did complain.The fact is that no one knows what the final release will look like besides Microsoft. Chances are it will be good. Very good. So anyone looking to continue the flame war should think twice.As far as 3rd party developers bailing on Flight? How many publishers do you think balked at Apple's "exorbitant" share for iTunes content - only to come crawling back when it took off in popularity. It will happen. Just a matter of time.Nothing out there now will be able to touch Flight - including prepar3d.

As it turns out, you are all correct. MS Flight will be a dog xxxxx. We're all doomed.

Before and after therapy !! :(

Edited January 12, 201214 yr by RYR738

With FXS, you had to buy the game if you wanted to do more than what the demo gave you.

Nice try, but surely you're not naive enough to think this is the same thing. When you bought FSX, you got the whole package for one price. Microsoft's plan with Flight is to nickle and dime customers while ultimately giving them less in return. FSX, you paid $50 and got the whole world plus a dozen aircraft and missions. Spend $50 on Flight and I can all but guarantee that you'll get not even a fraction of that. If you want a servicable case study, look at Age of Empires III versus Age of Empires Online (also produced by Microsoft). They took a wonderfully deep and engaging RTS experience and turned it into Farmville with swords. You want more than the starting civilization? Pony up the cash. Want to unlock new ages so you're not at a competitive disadvantage? Get out the credit card. Want access to new units and structures? Let's hear the chink of coin first. And so on. The customer is ultimately asked to spend more while getting less in return compared to Age of Empires III. This is how it will be between FSX and Flight.

Now the question is: What if they are not contigious or connected in any way. In other words, they are loaded separately from a "Scenery Menu" and one can not fly from one area to another? You simply select the scenery from the interface, it loads up and off you go flying or chasing coins.THAT is what I'm expecting from FLIGHT.

And since it has been confirmed that Microsoft has no plans to model the entire earth, that's exactly what you're going to get.