I don't see the problem with this. If there is money to made by the developers then why not? I'm sure they will get a mention in the credits somewhere and it's not like 'little jimmy' (some kid) will care if it's a PMDG plane or an ORBX island anyway. The people that do care are the simmers and they will know who made that particular plane/scenery for sure. Surely the devs would just be making a version for MS Flight so why does it matter that they sign this over to microsoft? They would still have their brand and be making add ons for other simulators wouldn't they?

This makes no sense. The only reason the simmers would know who made that plane is the fact that that plane has been sold to us under that developer's name, support system and community. Your idea would only work right in the beginning. Comapnies like PMDG can absolutely not afford to throw their name away.Also, there's no SDK. Any development would have to be done hand-in-hand with Microsoft. You need to pay them for the privilege. This will cut out so many of the smaller guys. Do you think Pete Dowson would be a household name among simmers if this was the addon model used for flightsim over the last 3 versions? Not a chance in hell. He would've never bothered to even get started. And what about all the hundreds of freeware addons I have installed? Those won't exist. And all the big addon devs that exist today started by making freeware stuff too. What it does is kill the converyer belt of talented young addon devs. It's a sure recipe for a slow and painful death.

Hellohere you gohttp://forum.avsim.n...ghts-on-flight/In Short>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.

where does it state that

MS is requiring them to hand over all source code and IP right to MS and that all add-ons will be strictly sold under the MS brand name

I wonder if the current 30-40 year old crowd is going to be the most technically gifted computing set we'll see. It's all good going on about how the modern kids can use a fancy phone easily, but using a fancy phone is hardly the same as building your 386SX and troubleshooting config.sys for hours on end, and then writing your own programmes using BASIC, and then arriving at school to see they've invested in their first harddrive, a 10mb thing the size of a VCR.

Ever heard of a bloke called David Braben? He wrote 'Elite' for the BBC Micro computer in the early eighties (which I lost track of time playing). He's made a computer to stimulate the teaching of basic computer science called the Raspberry Pi

where does it state that

Hello jerry

• All commercial products would be marketed exclusively by MS and we would not be allowed to sell our own products from our own sites.
• 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.

Seems clear enough to me, pop down to the PMDG forum and ask Mr Randazzo to clarify it for you.

Hello jerry

• All commercial products would be marketed exclusively by MS and we would not be allowed to sell our own products from our own sites.
• 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.

Seems clear enough to me, pop down to the PMDG forum and ask Mr Randazzo to clarify it for you.

But that does not claim that a developer would have to hand over it source code or that its name wouldn't appear when the add-on is advertised in the Flight Store.Developers may well have found those conditions unacceptable but that's a different matter.EDITWhy should I ask Mr Randazzo to clarify it? I'm not questioning his statement. I'm questioning the statement made in this forum that "Developers have stated that MS is requiring them to hand over all source code and IP right to MS and that all add-ons will be strictly sold under the MS brand name"

Edited January 10, 201214 yr by mgh

Because there might be more regions ready for MS Flight then we all expect? :( As someone else already posted (a few hundred times :( ) you don't really think MS talked with 3rd party developers just to create scenery and planes for one Hawaii island alone...?BTW It is funny to see ATC being mentioned so often as being a major part of the FSX-sim... because a lot of simmers HATE the FSX ATC and don't even use it. And now suddenly we can't do without it...? :( (Let it be clear that I love ATC and use it too: not all the time but it certainly is nice to have and I hope MS Flight will have or get it too!)

There will be no whole Earth or even continents if Flyawaysimulations article speaks the truth,and there is no evidence to suggest that Flight would have any big regions. And yes everybody knows that it will have more regions than one Hawaii island, but its also said that they are not planning to model whole Earth so I suspect that they are just some small pacific islands and that kind of stuff, never even whole continents.And Flight should have some kind of ATC as its most likely not going to allow VATSIM or IVAO kind of stuff.And what has covered most of FSX world? FREEWARE. Flight does not allow freeware and anyone with no M$ sunglasses understand that even if Flight had whole world most of it would look just like FSX default which is ugly.

Edited January 10, 201214 yr by pvjinflight

Also, there's no SDK. Any development would have to be done hand-in-hand with Microsoft. You need to pay them for the privilege. This will cut out so many of the smaller guys. Do you think Pete Dowson would be a household name among simmers if this was the addon model used for flightsim over the last 3 versions? Not a chance in hell. He would've never bothered to even get started. And what about all the hundreds of freeware addons I have installed? Those won't exist. And all the big addon devs that exist today started by making freeware stuff too. What it does is kill the converyer belt of talented young addon devs. It's a sure recipe for a slow and painful death.

I mentioned Pete months ago in a post saying that without his work and support of Flight, many of us won't even be able to configure our controllers as we have them now in FSX. This is a showstopper for me right off the bat.

Edited January 10, 201214 yr by Attila

This is the part that I find odd and I am guessing will change over time. The king of the App store, Apple, certainly allows vendors to sell there apps under their own brand name and keep their IP rights. Its amazing how often MS is just a little off.....kind of the like the sibling of a beautiful movie star that just does not look quite right. LOL.

I agree. must change. how short sighted is MS if they really require 3PD to surrender their IPR to participate in the store and then even pay 30% of revenues on top? who had such a silly idea at MS? Too stupid to be true. I have to do with IPRs in the real world and no sound person would give out IPR rights to be part of a shop or any other reason unless it's a buy out. but then we also talk about (sub)contracting.

Seems clear enough to me, pop down to the PMDG forum and ask Mr Randazzo to clarify it for you.

Actually it's not clear at all... There is certainly no reference to the requirement for 3PD's to surrender their IP to anyone in anything that you have quoted...Seems to be a bit of a furphy at best, gross hyperbole at worst.It may well be the case, but you have not made one to support the premise

Edited January 10, 201214 yr by maxter

I agree. must change. how short sighted is MS if they really require 3PD to surrender their IPR to participate in the store and then even pay 30% of revenues on top? who had such a silly idea at MS? Too stupid to be true. I have to do with IPRs in the real world and no sound person would give out IPR rights to be part of a shop or any other reason unless it's a buy out. but then we also talk about (sub)contracting.

Where is the evidence that Microsoft required developers to give up their IP rights?

Edited January 10, 201214 yr by mgh

But that does not claim that a developer would have to hand over it source code

well, that is true though the other restrictions re marketing come to the same result somehow: being fully dependend on MS. again, in case of a buy out this may make sense. but that again would include handover of IPR incl. source code and no PMDG or other 'bigger' developer would - at this point of time - want and do that since it alllowed MS to decompile and reengineer

Where is the evidence that Microsoft required developers to give up their IP rights?

jumped on the train, see my other post I just made above. guess that is how rumours are made :-)

Edited January 10, 201214 yr by DAD

Actually it's not clear at all... There is certainly no reference to the requirement for 3PD's to surrender their IP to anyone in anything that you have quoted...Seems to be a bit of a furphy at best, gross hyperbole at worst.It may well be the case, but you have not made one to support the premise

MS Flight is covered under the XBox/Games for Windows - LIVE development license. Said license explicitly states that anything made for the game by a third party becomes property of Microsoft.

Microsoft's Xbox LIVE Indie Games Frequently Asked Questions states:

Who owns the IP rights to the game I create? Can I distribute my game on non-Microsoft services?You own the complete IP rights to your game, and you're free to distribute through any service of your choosing. However, we may provide incentives for exclusive distribution through Microsoft services.

What does the XBox/Games for Windows - LIVE development license state?

Edited January 10, 201214 yr by mgh

Microsoft's Xbox LIVE Indie Games Frequently Asked Questions states:

Who owns the IP rights to the game I create? Can I distribute my game on non-Microsoft services?You own the complete IP rights to your game, and you're free to distribute through any service of your choosing. However, we may provide incentives for exclusive distribution through Microsoft services.

What does the XBox/Games for Windows - LIVE development license state?

Except of course Flight is not an indie game! (but you knew that), therefore:

MS Flight is covered under the XBox/Games for Windows - LIVE development license. Said license explicitly states that anything made for the game by a third party becomes property of Microsoft.

... is how the dice roll. End of story.Cheers,- jahman.

Edited January 10, 201214 yr by jahman

... is how the dice roll. End of story.

Not until somone provides a link!