Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Rush1169

Microsoft is Freakishly Silent with 'Tough' Questions

Recommended Posts

When anyone asks Microsoft if Flight will have ATC, jets, world coverage, NAVAIDs, etc it's like you're talking to a brick wall. The closest thing I've seen to an actual response is: "All information that is public is posted at www.microsoftflight.com. If it's not there, I can't tell you. :-)". I couldn't even find one CES video on YouTube where someone asked one of the many questions we all have. Not a question being asked where the response was "No comment", but not even someone asking. The MS Facebook page is littered with specific feature questions that are obviously being read but not answered. . .For sure the questions are being asked and they are begin ignored. If the case were that Flight will be absent ATC, jets, world coverage, NAVAIDs, etc, then when asked, you'd think Microsoft would say something like, "Although we realize that hardcore simmers appreciate these features, we've decided that Flight is a product designed for more casual gamers and those features are omitted to increase the products appeal to a different group of users." Or, if they will be there eventually, you'd think they would say something like, "The initial release of Flight is designed to attact a wider audience. There will be that feature available via DLC in the future."They could answer either way. In the case where we won't get 'advanced' features, they can word it as gently as possible. In the case where we will get advanced features, it would greatly calm everyone down. So, why would they chose to simply not answer with anything? I think it's a matter of 'damage control'. They've chosen the lesser of 3 evils. If they come out and say "No advanced features" then a much smaller number of us FSX devotees never download it and the FSX community buzz goes insanely negative. If they come out and say "Yes, advanced features" then we don't download it until those features we want are available and the buzz subsides while we wait. Either answer, affirmative or negative, results in fewer downloads and negative or diminished product buzz. So, in their Harvard marketing estimation, ignoring the question provides the best bang for their buck.It's not as if the question will never be answered - actions speak infinitely louder than words and that's how the 'tough questions' will be answered - it's just a matter of time. If all the features we want are brought to market, all the negative talk that exists today will be nothing but a joke or faded memory and will certainly not cause someone to stick with FSX just because they are mad about the method Microsoft used to reveal it's product. If Flight never becomes what we envision it should be, we stay with FSX in all it's current glory and don't support Flight with our wallet, yet continue buying other Microsoft products that do fit our needs.My opinion is that their silence is not sufficient to draw a conclusion either way in regards to advanced features. I think we'll get ATC, jets, thousands of airports (at least runways + navaids), HQ 3rd party planes, and all the other stuff that makes FSX what it is simply because there is a LOT of money in our collective wallets waiting to be spent. Conversely, it seems there is a LOT LESS money to be made if they don't publish those features. Microsoft has the assets (ie content) to sell and it seems rather irresponsible to simpy not sell them as DLC 'add-ons' for their 30 year old franchise. It just makes a lot more sense to sell 'expansion packs' for Flight than it does to not sell them, no?

Share this post


Link to post

Hm, but what would they actually lose if they told now thay they will provide an airliner? the arcade audience would not be bothered. and the folks like many of us here would possibly still wait with buying DLC until the airliner is available but that is the same situation you mention in your second scenario above. Except that telling us their plans would to some extent stop the negative press. anyway, their silence could mean that they have no clue what will or might come. or MS is just very much into biiig surprises, so much that they are even willing to take bad press on their blog, facebook and elsewhere ;-). both options do not sound to plausible to me when I think about a company like MS.

Edited by DAD

Phil Leaven

i5 10600KF, 32 GB 3200 RAM, MSI 3060 12GB OC, Asus ROG Z490-H, 2 WD Black NVME for each Win11 (500GB) and MSFS (1TB), MSFS Cache and Photogrammetry always disabled, Live Weather and Live Traffic always on, Res 1920x1080

Share this post


Link to post
I think it's a matter of 'damage control'
Exactly! The beating they are taking on their Facebook and Youtube pages is probably why the hush-hush is in effect. It's like with bad movies, there are no press releases and they limit the information and previews until it's too late and you have been taken.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest jahman

I think MS is not providing answers because they themselves don't really know if Flight will fly revenue wise or might be canned by some suits higher up.Lack of information increases risk and an increase in risk increases cost. This applies to all members of the community, developpers, simmers and even MS itself.Contrast this Harvard-esque non-information strategy with how successfully BillG built MS Windows, Office, SQL-Server and developper tools franchises: MS was always giving info, keeping stakeholders oriented respect to future developments.No wonder BillG dorpped out of Harvard! :LMAO:Cheers,- jahman.

Edited by jahman

Share this post


Link to post
Exactly! The beating they are taking on their Facebook and Youtube pages is probably why the hush-hush is in effect. It's like with bad movies, there are no press releases and they limit the information and previews until it's too late and you have been taken.
Not exactly. The 'hush-hush' decision was made at the beginning. The 'beating' is a result of that decision. There would also be a 'beating' if they said it's just a flying car game. There would also be a 'beating' if they said it'll peform much better than FSX, but you'll have to re-buy all your addons. It's the lesser of 3 evils.

Share this post


Link to post
Hm, but what would they actually lose if they told now thay they will provide an airliner?
Quote flyawaysimulation.com:- "There are no airlines at the moment, because considering the current geography, there is no need for them.Some people may be disappointed, but it is definitely something on the teams list for the future.There is support for multi-engine aircraft; the team says that there is nothing they cannot make.The game is built on an improved legacy engine, for large scale scenery support.The base is still a globe, it’s just that there is not enough geography yet.But they would rather launch now and not have everything than wait and let the product age.This also helps keep the download size down."OK?

Share this post


Link to post
OK?
Sure. But I would rather prefer to hear this from MS directly and not rely upon some 3rd party comments. Plus I am still missing the strategy/road map. too bad if thats missing but this 'we wait and see what we will do' attitude will not make me buy xbox/live funny money for their DLC packages they may or may not provide in the near or not so near future depending on weather and snowfall in seattle

Phil Leaven

i5 10600KF, 32 GB 3200 RAM, MSI 3060 12GB OC, Asus ROG Z490-H, 2 WD Black NVME for each Win11 (500GB) and MSFS (1TB), MSFS Cache and Photogrammetry always disabled, Live Weather and Live Traffic always on, Res 1920x1080

Share this post


Link to post
When anyone asks Microsoft if Flight will have ATC, jets, world coverage, NAVAIDs, etc it's like you're talking to a brick wall. The closest thing I've seen to an actual response is: "All information that is public is posted at www.microsoftflight.com. If it's not there, I can't tell you. :-)". I couldn't even find one CES video on YouTube where someone asked one of the many questions we all have. Not a question being asked where the response was "No comment", but not even someone asking. The MS Facebook page is littered with specific feature questions that are obviously being read but not answered. . .For sure the questions are being asked and they are begin ignored.If the case were that Flight will be absent ATC, jets, world coverage, NAVAIDs, etc, then when asked, you'd think Microsoft would say something like, "Although we realize that hardcore simmers appreciate these features, we've decided that Flight is a product designed for more casual gamers and those features are omitted to increase the products appeal to a different group of users." Or, if they will be there eventually, you'd think they would say something like, "The initial release of Flight is designed to attact a wider audience. There will be that feature available via DLC in the future."They could answer either way. In the case where we won't get 'advanced' features, they can word it as gently as possible. In the case where we will get advanced features, it would greatly calm everyone down. So, why would they chose to simply not answer with anything? I think it's a matter of 'damage control'. They've chosen the lesser of 3 evils. If they come out and say "No advanced features" then a much smaller number of us FSX devotees never download it and the FSX community buzz goes insanely negative. If they come out and say "Yes, advanced features" then we don't download it until those features we want are available and the buzz subsides while we wait. Either answer, affirmative or negative, results in fewer downloads and negative or diminished product buzz. So, in their Harvard marketing estimation, ignoring the question provides the best bang for their buck.It's not as if the question will never be answered - actions speak infinitely louder than words and that's how the 'tough questions' will be answered - it's just a matter of time. If all the features we want are brought to market, all the negative talk that exists today will be nothing but a joke or faded memory and will certainly not cause someone to stick with FSX just because they are mad about the method Microsoft used to reveal it's product. If Flight never becomes what we envision it should be, we stay with FSX in all it's current glory and don't support Flight with our wallet, yet continue buying other Microsoft products that do fit our needs.My opinion is that their silence is not sufficient to draw a conclusion either way in regards to advanced features. I think we'll get ATC, jets, thousands of airports (at least runways + navaids), HQ 3rd party planes, and all the other stuff that makes FSX what it is simply because there is a LOT of money in our collective wallets waiting to be spent. Conversely, it seems there is a LOT LESS money to be made if they don't publish those features. Microsoft has the assets (ie content) to sell and it seems rather irresponsible to simpy not sell them as DLC 'add-ons' for their 30 year old franchise. It just makes a lot more sense to sell 'expansion packs' for Flight than it does to not sell them, no?
I agree completely! :(

Share this post


Link to post
Quote flyawaysimulation.com:- "There are no airlines at the moment, because considering the current geography, there is no need for them.Some people may be disappointed, but it is definitely something on the teams list for the future.There is support for multi-engine aircraft; the team says that there is nothing they cannot make.The game is built on an improved legacy engine, for large scale scenery support.The base is still a globe, it’s just that there is not enough geography yet.But they would rather launch now and not have everything than wait and let the product age.This also helps keep the download size down."OK?
I'm starting to get suspicious of these new forum members with low post counts knowing so much about Flight and singing it's praises at every turn... :(

FS2020 

Alienware Aurora R11 10th Gen Intel Core i7 10700F - Windows 10 Home 32GB Ram
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 6GB GDDR6

Share this post


Link to post

@Rush1169Here is the problem with your thinking...if the cockpit-less Mustang sells well, you'll never get any of the things that people in this community want. This is why that plane is there as it is, to see what the market wants.So, if we buy into Hawaii and the Maule for $35, we are saying that this is the way MS needs to go and we'll get another island chain somewhere else with another selection of taildraggers and sightseeing planes, hoops, silly jobs and so on.Considering $35 for what you get is very expensive, when other complete games can be had for $50. For instance, I look at Flight as Test Flight Unlimited, without the variety of planes, things to do, island detail, traffic and fun factor of Test Drive Unlimited.I drove 5000 miles on the roads of Oahu in TDU. I am sure I would come nowhere near flying that much in Flight.

Share this post


Link to post
I'm starting to get suspicious of these new forum members with low post counts knowing so much about Flight and singing it's praises at every turn... :(
Yet it is also based on info from flyawaysimulation.com that people start to speculate negatively about Flight, now you want to discredit them?By the way, torium is not a new member, he joined on 07 feb of 09. Edited by sibtiger

Share this post


Link to post
Not exactly. The 'hush-hush' decision was made at the beginning. The 'beating' is a result of that decision. There would also be a 'beating' if they said it's just a flying car game. There would also be a 'beating' if they said it'll peform much better than FSX, but you'll have to re-buy all your addons. It's the lesser of 3 evils.
If they hade communicated clearly from the beggining about what they wanted to make and how, I would at least have some respected left for MIcrosoft. Instead they kept it all hush hush and gave hints of "catering to long term fans".

Simmerhead - Making the virtual skies unsafe since 1987! 

Share this post


Link to post
Guest jahman
If they hade communicated clearly from the beggining about what they wanted to make and how, I would at least have some respected left for MIcrosoft. Instead they kept it all hush hush and gave hints of "catering to long term fans".
That to me is what it's all about. I'm still smarting from their Dec 8, 2010 press release about the sim legacy being taken into account.Not talking is the best way to break-up a relationship with a partner, business partner, friend, sim community stakeholder. Congrats MS, job well done!Cheers,- jahman. Edited by jahman

Share this post


Link to post
If they hade communicated clearly from the beggining about what they wanted to make and how, I would at least have some respected left for MIcrosoft. Instead they kept it all hush hush and gave hints of "catering to long term fans".
I *completely* understand your position - we'd all love to know NOW if it will or will not be what we want. Since they really haven't given us anything to hang our hat on, we can only speculate. Personally, I don't care what becomes of Flight. If bad, I have FSX. If good, I have Flight. I will still buy Windows and Office. Although I'm obviously an optimist towards Flight, it's only because I am a 'hardcore' business person in real life - it's my day job, and studying products, marketing, consumers, financial statements, corporate decision trees, et al is what I do - it's my profession. So, my mind is completely business-centric during my worktime and when I overlay what I know on top of what Microsoft has, what they are doing with what they have, and how they are presenting it and consider it all from a large, corporate, business perspective and read between those lines, it's as if I can see their vision in my mind. I *know* where they are going with Flight, I just can't prove it.If Flight turns into what you want it to be and is offered at a price you can accept, no matter how bitter you may feel today, you'll buy it and live happily ever after. If it doesn't, well you can say "I told you so" and boot up FSX.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest jahman
it's only because I am a 'hardcore' business person in real life
There are many views of what makes a "hardcore business person": Your's is dispassionate financially-oriented, while BillG's was extremely passionate. BillG bet the company on Win-32 based on a vision that he shared with anyone and everyone who would listen, while the MS Flight team is mum on where Flight is headed.
I *know* where they are going with Flight, I just can't prove it.
Please do share (since MS Flight won't...)I have my own vision: Their "vision"is to go where DLC sales point.Cheers,- jahman.

Share this post


Link to post
Sign in to follow this  
  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...