they are going to lose the audience and it will end as a failure.

I think it's already game over. The "buzz" if there really ever was one is now over. Limited marketing and mediocre reviews haven't helped. If you look at their Facebook page, it has had a fan follower count of just over 10,000 since it's release. Not stellar by any means. No new DLC is going to be a killer.

I think this...Al

Great post! :good:

I guess the need for new content is going to depend on how fast you burn through the old content. And that varies quite a bit. And quite a bit is expectation.I see issues being raised here in the first month that strike me as slightly odd, to be honest. Did we really expect all our dreams to be answered this quickly? What can be named that did that in the first month? How many Sims are still asking for our patience? (and getting it!)Yet after barely a month ennui is setting in? I see (correctable) miss-steps on MS part, but mostly I see an ongoing perception issue.A few weeks ago many were claiming that there would never be areas in the game other than Hawaii, dream on. Now we are saying the other areas and all sorts of other things can't come fast enough, but we are willing to give Aerofly and others some slack. Apparently mostly because we believe they have their hearts in the right place.Again, perception.I am willing to wait at least as long as we are allowing those other sims to reach their potential.

Yet after barely a month ennui is setting in? I see (correctable) miss-steps on MS part, but mostly I see an ongoing perception issue.

+1Agreed.

From my standpoint as a gamer first and simmer second, Flight is definitely not moving fast enough. I have been around for my fair share of game launches and while Flight is not the sloppiest ever, it is not smooth either. With any game there will be people that do not like something about it, some of the comments can be harsh but the developer should be well aware that this is going to happen. To close the doors and be secretive about development is doing nothing but suffocating whatever hype they had after launch, to shut out the community is going to do nothing but alienate the user. And to publicly call out one of your user groups as Joshua Howard did, well that shouldn't be done, ever. The fact is, as a gamer, I have several games in my "rotation", and I will cycle through them as my interests ebb and flow. I usually use a sim, such as FSX and now Flight for relaxation, a getaway from the blazing guns and buzzing sabers. Flight, initially was good for this, however the meager amount of content at launch did not hold my interest for long and I moved on to the next game. As a gamer I am not comparing Flight to other sims, I am comparing it to other games. When doing this it is easy to see that Flight is very shallow, easily trivialized and looses appeal quickly. This is why it was important for Flight to maintain any momentum it had after they launched it, as is known it is a work in progress, and will take time -- time that the majority of gamers will not wait through, not unless they have a constant stream of information, DLC and activities. Microsoft is making a habit of shooting themselves in the foot with simple mistakes, while none of these are title-killers, they do add up and slowly kill a game from attrition.Is it too late for Flight to fully recover to what Microsoft had envisioned, probably not; though in my opinion they need to work hastily. They need to push with some serious public relations, get some content out ASAP, and not allow Mr. Howard to do further verbal damage. Flight can still be a great game, but that is definitely not a guaranteed outcome.

one of the best FSX add-ons you can get does exactly that - Air Hauler

I lost months to that "game". Putting AH to one side - as I have, why? BECASUE I'VE RUN OUT OF THINGS TO DO IN IT!!<---ms take note here; I reached 100% reputation, have a fleet of five C-5A Galaxies, two NGX' and a billion $ in the bank and now it's "over" for me.But seriously, and to slightly correct Cory's comment above: "you can have a game that has flignt sim aspects, but not a flight sim that has game aspects"FSX had game aspects in it. They were integrated into the body of the sim in ways that allowed people to "perceive" them as not being "gamey",(perhaps) and as ways of introducing you to another plane and part of the world - I'm speaking specifically of the Sydney Lear mission, but the flour bags was the same, and also the initial "finding your way" was a close copy of the balloon intro in Flight. (with as good graphics imo)MS do need to come up with new content, and fast. I am now a little jaded with the same old missions, and the lack of another area for me to explore is also a bit of a drag, but, as with Alan, I think MS will realise the score soon enough. I'm not sure that's the issue, though.."the score" may well be apparent, but the remedy for the score isn't (yet)My favourite "old" flight sim was F-16 Combat Pilot (Amiga & Atari) it had awful graphics and even ropier AI, but it put you in the middle of a battle with decisions on where to deploy plances and resources, nd every mission you flew had an effect on the battle as a whole. Microprose was next with Falcon's 3 and latterly 4.0, with their "electronic battlefield" concept, which I again played for about a year non-stop. That was dropped by Microprose (they went bust) and has been "supported" by fans ever since, as has FSX, and latterly, P3D although in a totally different way.Flight _should_ be the future; I'm bnot sure MS realise the weight of expectation on their shouders, as they "stopped listening to simmers" <---Not sure that's true, I just agree with Chock's assesment that it's the marketing jangoes who swung it (nothing new here; move along...)My point is all of the above "games" (as did/does FSX) credited the user with a little intelligence, and supplied grist for that mill. IMO Flight doesn't and needs to, fast.bestjake