Flight is based on downloadable packs (DLCs) of aircraft, missions and scenery packages, released by MGS. So their (MS) business model is based on people buying this stuff, to make their $$$.But all previous versions of MSFS (and others like X-plane) have been attractive, because there are thousands of add-ons available. MS even released SDKs to encourage add-ons to be made.That is arguably what keeps interest in FS for such long periods of time after they are released. Just look at the Avsim front page to see that developers are still churning out content for FSX many years after release. MS knows this and to make its new sim totally closed would be shooting themselves in the foot.It seems to me that the fact that Flight has been released with very little content is an open invitation for 3rd party developers to create content for it. My question is: How will MS allow these developers to proceed, without creating unwanted competition for themselves?There are a couple of ways MS could proceed:Worst case: MS keeps the sim locked down and allows content to be distributed through the MS App Store (an integrated feature of Windows 8). This would require the approval by theirs truly for each and every add-on - be it free, or payware. This seems Draconion and would require a lot of resources on their part. It would also stymie the otherwise flourishing interest in many addons that previous FS versions have created around themselves.Best case: MS just allows Flight to be totally open. But as mentioned, this could would impact on their business model of selling DLC (remember the base product is free). There is no default terain, aircraft, or ATC to develop a custom layer on top of. So add-on makers are given a clean skeleton to build the meat of the sim on. This method would also result in quality control issues that may have caused headaches with previous versions add-ons.Most likely: MS releases SDKs and developer tools to create add-ons. Some of these tools may require payment, depending what level of add-on you are developing. E.g They release an aircraft making tool. It's free if you want to make freeware, but you can pay for a 'Pro' version. Garmin do similar for map making tools (granted: the difference with Garmin is that they make $$$ from selling the hardware).This kind of thing not only lets the keen kids design their own plane - it also lets proffesional devlopers make great add-ons. The plus for MS is that it keeps quality control over the final product and they still get $$$ from 3rd party add-ons.This new sim - as it stands- is at the 'game' end of the simming spectrum. Regardless of how MS choose to approve add-ons, there seems to be technically much scope for any level of add-on to be developed.The direction that MS chooses to proceed will determine if there is any financial scope for very hard-core addons to be developed. I really don't think anyone is going to be dissapointed though.

My hope is that MS Flight evolves into something similar to the iOS App Store. They open up development to developers who, for the most part, know what they are doing. Like this: MS charges an annual fee for a developer who wishes to make add on content. That developer is then supplied with the SDK and they can create content. The developer then submits the content to MS who puts it through an approval process to ensure it is well done and functional. The developer then puts a price tag on the add-on and MS takes a 30% cut. I don't believe having a sim completely open is a good thing. I'm happy to pay for the content as long as I know what I'm getting is good, and will work. I almost never put anything into FSX that I didn't pay for from a reputable company. I just don't want to deal with freeware that may or may not work and that I have to jump through hoops to install.To me, that is the best case scenario.

My hope is that MS Flight evolves into something similar to the iOS App Store. They open up development to developers who, for the most part, know what they are doing.Like this: MS charges an annual fee for a developer who wishes to make add on content. That developer is then supplied with the SDK and they can create content. The developer then submits the content to MS who puts it through an approval process to ensure it is well done and functional. The developer then puts a price tag on the add-on and MS takes a 30% cut.I don't believe having a sim completely open is a good thing. I'm happy to pay for the content as long as I know what I'm getting is good, and will work. I almost never put anything into FSX that I didn't pay for from a reputable company. I just don't want to deal with freeware that may or may not work and that I have to jump through hoops to install.To me, that is the best case scenario.

I believe that your scenario makes the most sense (to me, from the outside) but I think MS may have a defensible interest in keeping things tight at first until this (potential) new market is defined and stabilized to their satisfaction.

Worst case: MS keeps the sim locked down and allows content to be distributed through the MS App Store (an integrated feature of Windows 8). This would require the approval by theirs truly for each and every add-on - be it free, or payware. This seems Draconion and would require a lot of resources on their part. It would also stymie the otherwise flourishing interest in many addons that previous FS versions have created around themselves.

That is the model. For at least two years. It been stated by MS many times.

It been stated by MS many times.

Source?

with the bad reviews and comments they are getting all around the web and very likely magazines - the life span of this 'game' is not going to be long in its current format.sit down and watch ! give it 6 months and the dust will start to bite !

I believe that your scenario makes the most sense (to me, from the outside) but I think MS may have a defensible interest in keeping things tight at first until this (potential) new market is defined and stabilized to their satisfaction.

Absolutely right - they need to keep it in-house for at least a year so they can get things working they they want them. Then they will slowly start adding developers. Hopefully.

Source?

Edit: After some reading I found this post by PMDG.BTW. Why can't I just edit my original post?

Source?

Its mentioned in this preamble of this interview with Josh Howard.http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/interview-joshua-howard-microsoft-flight/091961"Flight will only have DLC produced by Microsoft. At least for the first year or so." He did indicate that they don't believe they will be able to satisfy all of the user demand for DLC.That seems to imply that somewhere along the line a year or so from now, they may start toallow DLC from 3PD's.The implication being that once MS is satisified with their cut of the DLC marketthey will be more willing to allow 3PD DLC.But if the goal is to appeal to the more 'casual' user. I suspect even then, they may controlthe type of 3PD produced. No doubt the addons for FSX are heavy on the Airline Operation sidethey may not want the addon market to go in a direction that effectively excludes their primary target audience.Regards.Ernie.

FSX are heavy on the Airline Operation

Ernie. I'm sure needing a 787? Not to fly from Hilo to Honolulu of course! :shok:

Edited March 5, 201214 yr by Barnstormer1

My hope is that MS Flight evolves into something similar to the iOS App Store. They open up development to developers who, for the most part, know what they are doing. Like this: MS charges an annual fee for a developer who wishes to make add on content. That developer is then supplied with the SDK and they can create content. The developer then submits the content to MS who puts it through an approval process to ensure it is well done and functional. The developer then puts a price tag on the add-on and MS takes a 30% cut.

Unfortunately, these are all the things that I HATE about developing for iOS. I am a software developer and have built a corporate application for iOS, so I have some experience in this area. Fortunately my company pays the $99 a year developer's license and provided me with one of those Mac cubes to do development work on. I hated every minute of it. Their development tools suck. I'm primarily a C#/.NET developer, and doing Objective C programming for iOS was just so backward and inefficient compared to most of the other programming languages I've done coding in (and I've used a LOT of programming languages in my time, including ASM90 (mainframe Assembler), 8088 assembler, C, C++, VB, VB.NET, C#, Java, Perl, Fortran, Cobol, AMOS, javascript, pixi, and a number of others that aren't even around anymore. Apple has become very closed and authoritative in the past 5 years and Microsoft is now following suit with Windows 8 (and of course Flight). It makes me want to format my drive and go to Linux more every day.

You're right but it's far easier to use for the end user than it is for us programmer types and that's the point I'm trying to make. The app store and similar systems are designed to be as user friendly as possible for the average person using the device and there's no doubt Apple has succeeded in that regard. When it comes to making Fllight succeed, it's not us flight sim nuts that will make it succeed, it will be the average john smith out there. What I don't want is an AVSIM file library with 10,000 different user created add-ons or tweaks for flight made by 2,000 different people. That system is a nightmare for new users, and I even find myself having trouble figuring out how to, "install" some of these freeware things. And you're lucky you were just making a corporate app and didn't have to worry about the app store guidelines, you probably would have thrown your cube out the window, lol.

I think it will be some variation of the best case scenario. I hope there will be a way to get in serious stuff done by dedicated hobbyists. Many marginal interest planes & places won't be ever done by commercial developers and it would be shame not to have that content. Then again, no one wants to see yet another version of some plane someone managed to model as their first try... (it's amazing how many flashlight apps there are in app store :-) )

it's amazing how many flashlight apps there are in app store

Or fart apps... In fact - Apple actually mentions fart apps in the app store submission guidelines...

We have over 350,000 apps in the App Store. We don't need any more Fart apps. If your app doesn't do something useful or provide some form of lasting entertainment, it may not be accepted.

I think it will be some variation of the best case scenario. I hope there will be a way to get in serious stuff done by dedicated hobbyists. Many marginal interest planes & places won't be ever done by commercial developers and it would be shame not to have that content.

Agreed 100%.Regards.Ernie.