If FLIGHT becomes a failure how will investing in DLC affect buyers?

[JonP01 104]

I well remember the day the FSX demo came out. All these issues were noted by users who had not been beta testers. These users incredulous that the real beta testers had already raised these issues with Microsoft over and over again. One particular comment was along the lines that just because you tell Microsoft there is a problem does not mean they will fix it.Perhaps a similar thing may occur upon the release of Flight.

[dmaher 0]

These users incredulous that the real beta testers had already raised these issues with Microsoft over and over again. One particular comment was along the lines that just because you tell Microsoft there is a problem does not mean they will fix it.

I think this is a very true comment. And it's not only an MS thing...but part of all games (and all complex software I suppose). The root of it is a very school-of-hard-knocks lesson. A significant percentage of bug-fixes introduce new bugs. The only way to reduce that percentage is to restrict new work. But, this only reduces new bugs...it doesn't eliminate new unexpected problems. As a project gets closer to final, the threshold for a fixable bug starts to go up. Minor bugs become too risky to fix, and they're waved. A big part of Alpha is fixing minor bugs. By Beta a bug needs to be very serious to risk a fix. Not sure how that relates to FSX and Flight, but I think it's a common strategy.For Flight though, the idea of shipping content in small chunks means bug management is going to be much-much easier. I haven’t tried Flight, but I suspect the new strategy is going to deliver a much more stable game.

[jcboliveira 1]

I'm not in the flight beta but in all betas and alphas that I participated or managed that was the overall strategy (in fact is never up to the tester to classify the bug). Thats is for the programs for API they are a little bit different since during betas new enhancements are usually provided and tested.

[alainneedle1 97]

Do you honestly think that MS would/could answer such a question?MS most likly doesn't even know themselves how much they are giong to expand Flight..If Flight is basically a failure at launch, you can bet your joy stick that you will never be able to fly out of Hawaii.

Read post # 8.....

[thomamaxi 0]

What is "DLC" please?Paul

[RYR738 9]

What is "DLC" please?Paul

Down Load(able) Content.

[JasonD210 0]

I think the real risk with investment is for DLC developers who decide to cooperate with MS to produce content.If Flight doesn't hit it off, then as a user I guess you won't see so much content produced, get bored with it, and move on. MS might try a few drastic changes in a last ditch attempt to draw in the crowds, for example by introducing a combat expansion, or some kind of adventure, but once it starts going down that route I've no idea what will happoen.No, the real risk is for the developers. Who would want to invest loads of time, money and knowledge in a venture where they are not allowed to promote or market what they do, where MS take a percentage of the revenue, and where they are forced to work to MS restrictions and deadlines? If Flight goes well, it will be ok, but if Flight goes badly, MS will drop you like a stone, and that might prove difficult to recover from.My own view on Flight is a puzzled one. I am having some difficulty in understanding why pilots would want to use it, since it is too basic and gamey to be of interest to them; nor can I see why gamers would want to play it, it being to boring (if one compares it, for example, to GTA IV). I can see it appealing to a group of casual gamers, but I can't see those spending loads of money on DLC, because of all the casual FSX users I have come across, they have never bought any add-ons and would never dream of doing so.

Edited February 15, 2012 by JasonD210

[Rush1169 0]

I think the real risk with investment is for DLC developers who decide to cooperate with MS to produce content.If Flight doesn't hit it off, then as a user I guess you won't see so much content produced

There is a 'time' component that needs to be included in the mix. Flight 1.0 is analagous to FS1.0 - low and slow with limited scenery. MSFT will have plenty of DLC that it can produce in-house adding things like ATC, AI planes, additional scenery, etc. I don't think it will be too much of a stretch to say these components will be profitable and the user base will grow with each additional feature added. The progression between Flight 1.0 to 2.0 to 3.0 won't be like the old days of a 2 year cycle, users will wake up one morning and see 1.1 available and in a couple months, 1.2, etc. Sometimes with a price (additional content), sometimes not (support for additional content). At Flight's infancy, MSFT doesn't need any 3rd party help. By the time Flight's core OS and core 'simmer' features are in place, 3rd parties may be invited to the party at which time it will be much more clear the risk and reward potential for them to make an informed decision.It may be the case that Flight never opens up to 3rd parties. If Flight is a flop, then obviously there would be no 3rd parties interested. If Flight is successful, it's not unimaginable that MSFT still prohibits 3rd parties and simply hires key PMDG developers to come on board, offers PMDG $X for the IP of it's legacy planes and converts, or simply 'copies' the detailed work of those 3rd parties with their existing staff. It's been said by at least one 3rd party developer that making a plane is a whole lot easier than making a simulator. If that's true, and I suspect it is, and you can sell a single, very well made, plane for $79 it's hard to imagine MSFT ignoring that fact.DISCLAIMER: Flight may never be anything more than what we know it is today. Edited February 15, 2012 by Rush1169

[JasonD210 0]

If that's true, and I suspect it is, and you can sell a single, very well made, plane for $79 it's hard to imagine MSFT ignoring that fact.

Indeed, but would a casual gamer pay that?

[Rush1169 0]

Indeed, but would a casual gamer pay that?

There won't be a PMDG level $79 plane with Flight 1.0. That one comes somewhere down the line as the additional features are added and Flight matures from it's FS1.0 equivalent to it's Flight 10.0 iteration, during that time more and more 'hard core' simmers are coming on board. My theory is that when the time is right, the PMDG level offerings will become available. Flight 1.0 is certainly not that time simply because there is so many missing pieces needed to support a PMDG level plane.Now, if you believe that Flight will never be more than a 'casual game' and never evolve into a 'hard core' sim, as many people do and they may be right, then of course there won't even be a reason for a PMDG level plane and the point is moot. But, if Flight 1.0 adds faster planes, more distance between points, ATC, IFR flight planning, and progressively more complex aircraft systems in future versions, there will also be a much larger 'hard core' base of users ready to buy a $79 plane.DISCLAIMER: Flight may never be anything more than what we know it is today.

[tf51d 284]

Sloped runways are also worth a mention here because this is quite unique to Flight and adds a type of realism I have not seen before.

You're the only one I have seen that has referenced this feature. I have to say, I viewed all the leaked Beta videos, and I didn't see anything that indicated sloped runways. Assuming you are right though, sloped runways would hardly be unique to Flight! X-Plane has had them for years. In fact FSX itself is capable of them, and some 3rd party developers both freeware and payware has implemented them at some locations. MS didn't implement them itself, because they won't work with the AI system. Oh but that won't be a problem with Flight, since it has no AI!!!Here's one from FSX!!

Edited February 15, 2012 by tf51d

[Attila 2]

There won't be a PMDG level $79 plane with Flight 1.0. That one comes somewhere down the line as the additional features are added and Flight matures from it's FS1.0 equivalent to it's Flight 10.0 iteration, during that time more and more 'hard core' simmers are coming on board. My theory is that when the time is right, the PMDG level offerings will become available. Flight 1.0 is certainly not that time simply because there is so many missing pieces needed to support a PMDG level plane.Now, if you believe that Flight will never be more than a 'casual game' and never evolve into a 'hard core' sim, as many people do and they may be right, then of course there won't even be a reason for a PMDG level plane and the point is moot. But, if Flight 1.0 adds faster planes, more distance between points, ATC, IFR flight planning, and progressively more complex aircraft systems in future versions, there will also be a much larger 'hard core' base of users ready to buy a $79 plane.DISCLAIMER: Flight may never be anything more than what we know it is today.

You seem to ignore that MS 1.0 was made at a time when it was state of the art and it had very little competition.We are in 2012, where Flight 1.0 is not state of the art in anything. There is nothing ground breaking in its design nor its implementation. It is not a new way to simulate flight and there is lots of competition - from other flight games as well as just other, better made, more complete games.Flight will be old news in 6 months or less and to keep the target audience interested, there has to be a fast pace of DLC release and core game improvement.The first real test of this pace will be on release day, when we see how many bugs were actually fixed from the beta and how many will be found by a million people in the first 48 hours - provided they can download the game in that time.

[Rush1169 0]

Flight will be old news in 6 months or less and to keep the target audience interested, there has to be a fast pace of DLC release and core game improvement.

Exactly true. I'd hope MSFT is smart enough to realize this. Maybe they are not. If Flight is what it is and if the only thing MSFT plans to do with DLC is GA planes, additional scenery, and find the kayaker missions, then we'll all do something else more interesting. Flight's success or failure in that guise, either way, will have very little meaning to any of us other than disappointment.I think MSFT is smart enough to realize Flight 1.0 will be much more profitable if they go in more than one direction. The first direction being simple, fun, accomplishment based and the second direction being the additon of all the stuff missing that is found in FSX. MSFT marketing still hasn't ruled out this multi-directional approach, rather it seems to support it (albiet lacking in specific details).

[xplanery 250]

Yeah. I cant see Flight as what it looks now to be anything revolutionary. At least graphically its still far behind Aerofly FS and other comparable games. I would be happy with graphics improvements it has if it then actually covered whole world, but right now I cant see much difference to 6 years old FSX with few proper addons which is alarming as Flight still covers relatively small areas that should be possible easily to be covered with way higher detail.

[Arwen 289]

I'm not sure what you expect from a Flightsim. I have been using Flight on an older PC, but it definitely looks better than FSX (and I have GEX and UTX installed). and it runs MUCH better (even with FSX's AI disabled). So it may not be "revolutionary," but I see a LOT of improvements. And it is my understanding that even many of the much faster PCs (compared to mine) cannot max out all the graphic settings. Even though Flight seems to scale pretty well, you have to remember that Flight has been designed to appeal to a broader range of users . . . many of whom don't own high-end gaming computers. Plus, if Flight does end up eventually adding features like AI and ATC, those things will also require some resources. I don't own the AeroFly flight simulator, but it is my understanding that the graphics are limited to day time only. When Flight is released, everyone will have to judge it for themselves. I'm looking forward to seeing how the released build has been improved, and being able to run Flight on my new PC (which I'm hoping I'll have be the end of the month).

Edited February 15, 2012 by Arwen