If you aren't familiar with Eve Online, it is a massive online space "sim" that many tens of thousands of people play. It it has a massive learning curve, but for those that spend the time learning and practicing, it has become an addiction. The passion for the game is akin to the passion for Flight Simulator.The developers of Eve Online weren't happy to just please their many fans, they wanted more people and more money. So they decided if they dumbed the game down and added additional features like eye-candy and pointless game elements that it would attract new uses. Additionally, the developers decided to add an online store element to the game-- DLC.Guess how it turned out for them... Microsoft you may want to pay attention.Read the link below. http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/12/02/eve-online-senior-producer-on-why-we-ultimately-failed-with-incarna/

Keep in mind, Eve online is in the MMO segment, and with competition like WoW and SWTOR, it's a tough to hold a peice of market.

Keep in mind, Eve online is in the MMO segment, and with competition like WoW and SWTOR, it's a tough to hold a peice of market.

But another thing is if there is enough market to make Flight DLC´s worth making. It will be hard to get people that have no interest in aviation to play civilian flight game, and big part of FSX users prefer either flying with jets, whole Earth coverage, realistic procedures or online IVAO/VATSIM experience. I doubt that Flight DLC´s are going to sell too well at least in this area of audience.

If you aren't familiar with Eve Online, it is a massive online space "sim" that many tens of thousands of people play. It it has a massive learning curve, but for those that spend the time learning and practicing, it has become an addiction. The passion for the game is akin to the passion for Flight Simulator.The developers of Eve Online weren't happy to just please their many fans, they wanted more people and more money. So they decided if they dumbed the game down and added additional features like eye-candy and pointless game elements that it would attract new uses. Additionally, the developers decided to add an online store element to the game-- DLC.Guess how it turned out for them... Microsoft you may want to pay attention.Read the link below. http://www.pcgamer.c...d-with-incarna/

Will Flight avoid this fate?Short answer is 'NOPE', their heading right for it...

Edited February 14, 201214 yr by Dillon

Will Flight avoid this fate?Short answer is 'NOPE', their heading right for it...

I would have the exact same answer if the question was instead "Will Dillon avoid this fate?". :( Just kidding.

It will be hard to get people that have no interest in aviation to play civilian flight game, and big part of FSX users prefer either flying with jets, whole Earth coverage, realistic procedures or online IVAO/VATSIM experience. I doubt that Flight DLC´s are going to sell too well at least in this area of audience.

But you are forgetting about those who does have interest in aviation but were unable to enjoy flight sim because of the initial steep learning curve. Flight is exactly trying to target this group.

LOL :(

From the OPs link:

Gylfason suggests that Eve’s abstract, complex nature was proving too much of a barrier for new players

In keeping with the ever increasing dumbing down of society, it means that these days if the plot to a game isn't spelled out for the player, they can't "get it". You only need to look at Medal of Honor to see that - totally guided game-play where you are told what to do at each step. How anyone can call that "fun" I have no idea. I was bored within 3 minutes, uninstalled it and went back to flying FS.EVERYTHING is being made for the idiots of society. I don't see it ending any time soon, as long as $$$ are involved.Best regards,Robin.

EVE corrected and the impositions of Incarna and those slights were comparatively minor compared to the lobotimization of MS Flight Simulator that MS Flight appears to be.More importantly, CCP corrected course fairly quickly.

But you are forgetting about those who does have interest in aviation but were unable to enjoy flight sim because of the initial steep learning curve. Flight is exactly trying to target this group.

Then rather than provide a lobotomized version of what FSXI should have beem, MS should have released an add-on with a virtual instructor to teach flying skills.In chess, rules and strategy are difficult for the beginner. Still, you would never dream of changing the rules to make it easier for the beginner because then what the beginner is learning isn't chess. Same with flying.Or take a look at car racing, the paragon of teen interest after FPSs, and tell me how many car racing games are out there that let you drive the car with a mouse, "so that even if you don't know how to drive (and most teenagers below 16 don't) you can enjoy the scenery". Nil.With chess, cars and flying, if you're interested you learn what you need to learn and if you're not interested, it doesn't matter how easy they can make it for you, you still won't take up that activity. (Me, I couldn't care less about chess and car racing, but I enjoy a good game of Go.)Cheers,- jahman.

But you are forgetting about those who does have interest in aviation but were unable to enjoy flight sim because of the initial steep learning curve. Flight is exactly trying to target this group.

Oh yeah, maybe that way then. I have personally never felt that learning curve to FSX default planes would have been steep at all.But how are they going to do that? Learning to land was about only hard thing for newcomer to FSX to learn, maybe they are then going to dumb down flight dynamics to something like GTA or other arcade games.

Edited February 15, 201214 yr by FScamp

Flight is brand new. And it is being built around a free core platform, which is designed to grow as more features are added.Making a game/flightsim more accessible does not necessarily mean that it has been simplified . . . only that the player has more options. For instance, Flight starts with all the flight assists enabled, but all a more experienced person has to do is turn them off.

Flight is brand new. And it is being built around a free core platform, which is designed to grow as more features are added.Making a game/flightsim more accessible does not necessarily mean that it has been simplified . . . only that the player has more options. For instance, Flight starts with all the flight assists enabled, but all a more experienced person has to do is turn them off.

Thank you! I think that FLIGHT has enormous potential and I am hoping that MS will do the best they can. All of the talk of no 3PD always gives me a chuckle. If MS really wanted to make an NGX aircraft, they could do it very easily. They have the resources far beyond any developer in the world and they have 50 some odd people on the team.I kid you not, I think that MS is the best dev team for Flight out there....

Webisode 7 shows some of the design process that is used to create an aircraft for Flight. People here keep getting hung up on this video's "grab a mouse and go" and other comments aimed at beginners, and seem to be missing all the important parts . . . much of which should be very appealing to even the most hardcore flightsimmer. Here's the

Edited February 15, 201214 yr by Arwen

Thank you!I think that FLIGHT has enormous potential and I am hoping that MS will do the best they can.All of the talk of no 3PD always gives me a chuckle. If MS really wanted to make an NGX aircraft, they could do it very easily. They have the resources far beyond any developer in the world and they have 50 some odd people on the team.I kid you not, I think that MS is the best dev team for Flight out there....

MS would have to hire a whole new team to create a PMDG quality NGX. Well, they tried that very thing, because they don't have the resources to do it. In fact, of those 50 people, how many are artists, sound techs, marketing people, UI programmers, graphics programmers etc, and how many have first hand knowledge of the logic diagrams, engineering specs and so on of any aircraft that MS has ever produced?I have first hand knowledge of what it's like to work at CAE, with engineers and programmers to create high quality simulation software. MS will never have the resources to do it, because they cannot charge enough for the final product to be worth it. Only small companies, with much lower overhead - where the CEO actually contributes to the development of the product - can do it and then sell it at a reasonable cost. The fact that they ended up making $5/hr or less is not important to them, because they do it for the love of doing it and use the final product themselves.I find it highly doubtful that more than a few people developing Flight have the passion of the 3PDs. For MS developers it's a job. They could be working on a train simulator just as well as on a flight simulator. You can't say that about most of the 3PDs.

Webisode 7 shows some of the design process that is used to create an aircraft for Flight. People here keep getting hung up on this video's "grab a mouse and go" and other comments aimed at beginners, and seem to be missing all the important parts . . . much of which should be very appealing to even the most hardcore flightsimmer. Here's the

Totally agree. I genuinely think that our community will end up with Flight as our future sim of choice. The sheer performance of Flight makes me attracted to it much more than FSX.