Somehow I think we all got to calling Flight the wrong thing. Listening to the Kim Komando radio show today, she responded to a caller question about marketing software by remarked that the "in" business model used today by many to maybe even most new software offerings is known in the software industry as "freemium". Said Kim, the business plan is to "Give it away for free, in hopes of selling premium add-on's. Knowing what we know now, Flight is clearly predicated on the "freemium" business model which is the current rage among both big and little software suits.There is much to be read on this subject by doing a Google search on the term "freemium". This may clarify for some why Flight was done in the manner it was done. These articles discuss strategy, offerings, rate of expansion, how to sell, who to sell to, how it's done, selling by word of mouth (networking to fellow group users), etc.The modern version of this very popular software business model was started by well-known venture capitalist Fred Wilson around 2006.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemiumhttp://www.avc.com/a_vc/2009/07/freemium-and-freeconomics.htmlBob - Las Cruces, NM

And a good example of this was the release by Just Flight and their 757. Give the plane away for free and hope people will come back and buy paints and different models. Don't know how it turned out for JF, but I have the 757 installed, along with a package of paints I purchased. Someday I'll learn to fly the thing...

Yeah, in the end with freemium you have to pay more to get same amount of content as you would get in traditional full game.Reason why I like FSX is the fact that I can fly anywhere I want without paying more, only then areas where I like to fly most I then buy addons to make it look good. In Flight I would have two options, buying DLC for place that I want to fly just like once, or do not fly at all. Thats where Flights business model gets bad from user viewpoint, or at least if you are adventurer like me.

I think this is part of what may turn out to be an issue for MS if they are not careful. Marketing people tend to fall in love with trendy buzz-words and stuff like that. Working in advertising, design and publishing for years, and being married to someone who does that too, has meant I've dealt with this phenomenon a lot, and the truth is, most marketing people I've ever met are of the type who can 'talk a good fight', but are considerably less sure-footed when it comes to actually pulling things off. And that's coming from someone who got 96 percent in his marketing exam when at college years ago, so it's not like I know nothing about the subject LOL, but I also know a lot about what happens when the trendy meeting is over and you have to actually shift units.Sales of FSX have been estimated at about 2 million copies, which might not be an accurate figure, but it probably is somewhere in the ball park at least. I read that MS are trying to aim for 20 million Flight users, which I personally think is on the optimistic side. I don't think it is impossible, merely optimistic with the approach they are taking. Some of that optimism may well be born of the mode that marketing people think themselves into when a trendy buzz-word such as 'freemium' comes along, but of course anyone who knows anything about marketing will know that even the idea is nothing new at all, being called a loss leader in earlier times.It all sounds great when you've got some preppy upbeat marketing graduate making a presentation in a board room, but it is no guarantee of it actually working out like that in the real world. Of course we should note here that MS did consult the real world too, quizzing many FS developers on their markets and sales as far back as 2009, and they consulted simmers too, if anyone remembers that quiz they put out a few years ago, but having done that, they then shut a lot of them out and decided they could have all of the pie for themselves. Fair enough, but someone has to make all those cool things that people enjoy, which sell, and that somewhat disregards the fact that producing the add-ons which made the kind of reputation companies such as PMDG enjoy, is no five minute development cycle, and their appeal does not come from flying a simplified 737 NG through hoops. Which makes it look to me very much like concentrating on the destination, rather than watching the road you have to travel in order to get there, so there may end up being a scenario where MS may have all the pie, but they find they don't like the taste of it, or more likely the size of it, and indeed how long it remains fresh.I certainly have not got a problem with MS trying to widen the appeal of flight sims, because even if their goal is to make money rather than be altruistic (as it should be for a business), the result would be the same for us. It's just that I'm not convinced that aiming squarely for the gaming community alone in order to achieve that, with only game-like content, is the best way to go about doing it, since, especially where gamers are concerned, it is putting all one's eggs in a very fickle basket.Having said that, I've no doubt that the advent of Flight will bring some people into flight simming who might otherwise not have tried it, in fact we can see evidence of that happening right now here on Avsim, where there have been numerous new members registering and posting 'I've never used a flight sim, can someone tell me how this works?' types of post, and fortunately, the majority of Avsim regulars are happy to help them. The problem for MS though, is that there's a good chance many of these will poke their noses into the other forums and want to try all that other flight sim stuff which they see everyone is raving about, instead of staying with the content for Flight when its scope remains limited.So there can be little doubt that Flight will indeed pull in more simmers, I'm just not convinced it will pull in 18 million more simmers who will be inclined to stay with what Flight offers. Something with a bit of a broader appeal than to merely target gamers might do that though, i.e. perhaps bundling it with MS Office, or any new OS they sell, or handing out DVDs to commuters at railway stations, or airports, whatever, there are loads of things they could try. But one thing they really should try, is introducing more in-depth add-ons for Flight; I bet they'd be surprised how popular something like that would be, because the one thing which people like, gamers included, is a challenge, and there can be nothing more challenging than learning something complex.This is in fact no different from how games work, in that the levels get more difficult as one progresses, and I'm not talking about simply knocking ten seconds off the time between hoops that you have to fly through, I mean an intellectual challenge. They can be fun too of course, so I don't think we have to immediately start demanding airliners with FMC's and the like, but challenging weather, challenging operation of the aircraft's controls and challenging navigational problems are all things that could be added to the aircraft that are in Flight right now.I think Flight is great fun, I really do, but it could be a lot more fun and have a lot more long-lasting appeal. After all, even the best games out there such as Skyrim and the like, tend to have a very short honeymoon period, and then all the gamers are looking at the next new challenge, and if that challenge is an equally simple aeroplane, flying through the same hoops, then it will be no challenge at all, especially to gamers.Al

I think this is part of what may turn out to be an issue for MS if they are not careful.

Al,And here I thought I was making posts that went a little on the long side... :smile:All kidding aside , I read your entire post and must say, you made some very good and very valid points - well done!

This is in fact no different from how games work, in that the levels get more difficult as one progresses, and I'm not talking about simply knocking ten seconds off the time between hoops that you have to fly through, I mean an intellectual challenge. They can be fun too of course, so I don't think we have to immediately start demanding airliners with FMC's and the like, but challenging weather, challenging operation of the aircraft's controls and challenging navigational problems are all things that could be added to the aircraft that are in Flight right now.

While you and I like a challenge and worked our way up from just flying around to flying complex aircraft, the general public that MS wants to reach - the vast majority - does not operate like this, unfortunately. This is why game franchises that have been running for many years re-invent themselves and the inevitable result is that the long-time supporters call them dumbed down for the masses.I think Flight wanted to avoid being called dumbed down and attempted to retain some level of simulation, in case it would be labeled as such. The way things are now is that anyone who asks for such complexity is labeled hardcore with a negative connotation. It's as if wanting to challenge oneself to go beyond the comfort zone is just not trendy any more. Not only is it not good, but downright bad.How else to explain the negative attitude to having jets in Flight. It should not bother any of the VFR pilots that jets can be flown, but they downright laugh at the prospect. Not only that, it is now a badge of honor not to have anything to do with anything more complex that manually flying an ILS approach. Who needs an autopilot, gps, fmc they say.Of course, at the same time we discover that people have been flight simulation fans for many years and never learned to navigate with VORs and NDBs. It is no surprise that the two initial planes in Flight have no radio navigation capabilities.So, while I agree with your post, Flight is exactly the opposite of what you and I want. It does not want to promote complexity and higher levels of intellectual challenges. It wants to dazzle with scenery and give awards for finding aerocaches.

Good post, Attila.I've done the complexity and higher levels of intellectual challenge, and along the way forgot how much fun flying can be. Flight has brought me back to that.Keep in mind that you're looking at version 1.0 of Flight, and it has the potential to become a lot more. Whether it achieves this potential, we'll have to wait and see.Hook

That is true, however, the problem really, is that I suspect the premise of people staying with Flight long term, and buying tons of content, when it trends toward offering the same simple content over and over, is a mistaken one.Of course, MS may take heart in the fact that where World of Warcraft has a fairly consistent player base of around ten million, that ten million is a rolling populace rather than a static group of the same people, with players coming and going; new players replace older ones. But can a flight sim emulate this, when flying is a solo experience as opposed to the social group raids which are the heart of most MMOs?My worry, and it is a worry which should certainly concern MS more than it does me, is that I think they are trying to turn a flight sim into something it simply cannot be, i.e. a game with sustainable, massively wide appeal for reasons other than simply 'liking aeroplanes'. To come close to doing that, one risks throwing the baby out with the bathwater, where the very thing which makes flight sims enjoyable in the long term, is missing. And there are, quite frankly, many more enjoyable games out there able to garner mass appeal than a flight sim without the intangible magic that a flight sim should have. In short, I just don't think that every genre of computer entertainment can have mass appeal grafted onto it without the risk of destroying the very thing that it was.The real challenge a flight sim offers, is simply the joy flying the aeroplane. It is what it is, no tacked on game is necesary to make that appeal to people who like the idea of flying aeroplanes in the first place.Al

Somehow I think we all got to calling Flight the wrong thing. Listening to the Kim Komando radio show today, she responded to a caller question about marketing software by remarked that the "in" business model used today by many to maybe even most new software offerings is known in the software industry as "freemium". Said Kim, the business plan is to "Give it away for free, in hopes of selling premium add-on's. Knowing what we know now, Flight is clearly predicated on the "freemium" business model which is the current rage among both big and little software suits.There is much to be read on this subject by doing a Google search on the term "freemium". This may clarify for some why Flight was done in the manner it was done. These articles discuss strategy, offerings, rate of expansion, how to sell, who to sell to, how it's done, selling by word of mouth (networking to fellow group users), etc.The modern version of this very popular software business model was started by well-known venture capitalist Fred Wilson around 2006.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemiumhttp://www.avc.com/a_vc/2009/07/freemium-and-freeconomics.htmlBob - Las Cruces, NM

Interesting, you can add to that the "neuromarketting" concept (see Google search)... The reptilian brain loves the "free" concept !Regards,Richard Portier

My worry, and it is a worry which should certainly concern MS more than it does me, is that I think they are trying to turn a flight sim into something it simply cannot be, i.e. a game with sustainable, massively wide appeal for reasons other than simply 'liking aeroplanes'. To come close to doing that, one risks throwing the baby out with the bathwater, where the very thing which makes flight sims enjoyable in the long term, is missing. And there are, quite frankly, many more enjoyable games out there able to garner mass appeal than a flight sim without the intangible magic that a flight sim should have. In short, I just don't think that every genre of computer entertainment can have mass appeal grafted onto it without the risk of destroying the very thing that it was.

I agree with this post totally. The problem we have as simmers (HC or not) is that the very folks developing your game are wanting that 10 million populace WoW used to have. As I believe Arwen said, Flight can't make it as a game. There are too many games that do it better. Can someone please tell the devlopers this?So we have a hybrid that isn't a AAA game title, but isn't a sim that caters to all phases of aviation (yet). I posted a few ideas the Flight folks could use, but I sincerly believe they are pefectly willing to throw the baby, the water and everything else out the window if they can get 20 million players. My own belief is that if the AVSIM community can provide ideas to improve the game portion, perhaps the developer will listen when we seek to impove the simulator portion.I've seen games have flight sim aspects, but never a flight sim with game aspects. The Flight crew is attempting to do the latter and time will if "freemium" (or F2P if you do MMOs) will garner enough people interested in a game and sim at the same time. The F2P model used to mean a failed MMO, but devlopers using that pricing model are finding that they make money hand over fist in many cases. Now if only they could put orcs, elves and dwarves in a Maule...

Well, in about a month, maybe two, we will probably see the second coming of the MMO that made free to play a success more than any other: Guild Wars. Although it did sort of do it the other way around to what MS are doing with Flight. So, taking a big leaf out of their book, and as you suggest, if we can get some DLC dragons to attack Hawaii in Flight and then arm up that P-51 (and give it a cockpit to placate the hard core) then we will have cracked it on all fronts. Quick, get me MS on speed dial!Actually, dogfighting a dragon in a P-51 sounds cool, if I'm being completely honest. I probably really would buy that if it was a DLC :LMAO:Joking aside, I suspect, and in fact always have done, that ultimately we will get more complex DLC, simply because it will have to be like that in order to attract people in the longer term.Al

I'm interested in GW2. WoW killed itself with Cataclysm and SWTOR wasn't what they thought it would be.Ok, back on topic.You've nailed it Alan. There's your raid: Weapons and monsters. But you can't use weapons and you can't kill any animals. (No one wants a PG13 flight sim) I can see it now... NYC DLC... Throw bananas at King Kong as he climbs on the Empire State building. If he eats enough bananas thrown by you and your flghter wing, he falls to the ground and sleeps. :Loser:Seriously though, I hope Flight evolves into something that pleases all of us in the flight sim community. Gamers have tons of options...

I think that's hit the point really, in a sort off offhand way. I really like stuff like Guild Wars, I've got an SWTOR account, and a Star Trek Online one, I've got Mass Effect, Skyrim, Battlefield Bad Company, etc, etc, pretty much all of those types of games which are the pinnacle of their genre, and therein lies the problem...In short, I like computer games, good ones. But if I want to play one of those, then that is what I will do, and that's what other gamers will do too. If they are by chance turned on to the notion of flying a simulated aeroplane by playing Flight and suddenly realise 'hey, I like this flying sim stuff', then my guess is that they won't stay with it in Flight, they'll want the Skyrim of flight sims, not the Hello Kitty Island of them, and that means they'll go and buy FSX and the PMDG 737NG, or the A2A Flying Fortress, or the Caranedo Cessna. Because they are the pinnacle of flight simming.Flight could be the pinnacle of flight sims too if MS wanted it to be, but it won't become that by having a leaderboard for who can fly through the most hoops in a minute. Not that it isn't fun to do that once in a while, but 'once in a while' is not what MS are imagining Flight is going to be. That's why I think they will change their tune and go for more complex stuff, eventually.There is nothing wrong with making a flight sim that has game aspects to it, after all, one of the best FSX add-ons you can get does exactly that - Air Hauler, and one of the really great games/sims that pulls it off too is Take On Helicopters, so it is certainly possible to do it. But relying on very simple game aspects and hoping that gamers will keep playing simply because a different aeroplane dashboard is in front of the player, is I suspect, not the way to go about it. I know MS apparently believe otherwise, but I happen to think they are mistaken. I'll keep playing Flight, but that will be because I happen to like aeroplanes, and not because it is a compelling game, I've got Mass Effect if I want one of those, and Guild Wars, and Skyrim and...Al

I think that's hit the point really, in a sort off offhand way. I really like stuff like Guild Wars, I've got an SWTOR account, and a Star Trek Online one, I've got Mass Effect, Skyrim, Battlefield Bad Company, etc, etc, pretty much all of those types of games which are the pinnacle of their genre, and therein lies the problem...In short, I like computer games, good ones. But if I want to play one of those, then that is what I will do, and that's what other gamers will do too. If they are by chance turned on to the notion of flying a simulated aeroplane by playing Flight and suddenly realise 'hey, I like this flying sim stuff', then my guess is that they won't stay with it in Flight, they'll want the Skyrim of flight sims, not the Hello Kitty Island of them, and that means they'll go and buy FSX and the PMDG 737NG, or the A2A Flying Fortress, or the Caranedo Cessna. Because they are the pinnacle of flight simming.Flight could be the pinnacle of flight sims too if MS wanted it to be.

I think that pretty much sums up the reality of the situation. MS has made a product that will suceed in creating new flight-simmers and simultaneously drive them away to competing flight sims. Meanwhile, the gamers who choose not to become simmers will also quickly drift away. Flight has no chance at all of ever keeping them for long... even AAA-rated games rarely hold a huge audience for long without compelling, competitive multiplayer. Flight has neither.The only ones who will buy Flight DLC long-term are the simmers, and we are sucking hind-teat here.

Agreed. At this rate, as much as I hate to say it, if they don't release more content soon or do something to make even the gamers keep coming back, they are going to lose the audience and it will end as a failure. Keeping us coming back is what they need to focus on.