Invest...? Invest?!?

[Guest]

I don't understand why folks that like heavy jets, AI, ATC, and all the stuff that FS9 and FSX has to offer, would even bother visiting his forum. I got rid of FS9 and FSX, and am never interested in visiting those forums anymore because there is nothing there of interest to me.

 

Maybe because they ARE interested in flightsims in general and maybe because they hope Flight will evolve in something they might find a nice alternative or addition for their current sim. As basic ils said: "But, I'll keep following Flight with the hopes it provides me with something I like." That's why. Not visiting a forum if there is nothing of interest for you is logical and easy.

 

Everyone is free to visit this forum, also when they like FSX more, so don't treat them as unwanted visitors (your post made it look that way a little bit, probably due to the quote ). Peope who only shout 'Flight sucks' are adviced to leave, but everyone who participated in this topic up to now has done so in a civil and mature manner, explaining their views and opinions, and all that is fine.

 

BTW I fully agree and am also very happy with the troublefree use of Flight!!!

 

I don't want to spend hundreds of dollars on FSX (REX, ORBX, Accusim, etc...) if I'm eventually going to abandon FSX and play Flight all the time. That's a lot of money I could have used for Flight DLC! Likewise, I don't want to spend $40 on a couple Flight scenery areas if the development of Flight is going to go in a direction I don't like and drive me back to FSX. Then that would be $40 I could have spent on something for FSX.*

 

That's a good point too.

[basic ils 0]

I fully understand, of course, if someone won't buy Alaska because he or she simply doesn't like what Flight has to offer. That's logical! I would do the same! But I simply wonder why (for some people) flightsim-software has to have a future while other games (that may cost even more) need no future at all. (I don't know how to put it more simple. )

 

I guess my answer would be because we've been spoiled ever since FS4 and the potential of what lies ahead. 3PD made FS4-FSX a success and now we're relying solely on MS to provide us with what we need/want. For the longest time my homepage was that other flightsim site, and every morning I couldn't wait to see what was in the "newest files" section. And almost everyday there was something I would download and at least give a try. Some I liked, some not-so-much. With flight, there really hasn't been anything new since release. Now we'll have new scenery, but yet another VC-less aircraft.

 

I'll be honest, I've paid $40-$50 on games that got really no play time at all, but they were genres I wasn't familiar with, so I really didn't know If I'd like them or not (I'm looking at you EA Sports.)

[Bobsk8 12,853]

I game for about 15 years now and in that period a lot have changed. Dev companies getting bigger spending huge amount of money for games. This year i have bought two or three titles that i played for about one or two hours, only to be disappointed with the end result of the game. The market is heavily focussed on graphics and personal i see a dip in game play. Flight is a great product. I have bought it an flew hours and hours, mission after mission...and then suddenly i did not want to fly any more. Why? Because is all the same. There is no challenge whatsoever. Picking passengers with the maule, cruising at 5 for 80 miles, descent,land happy passengers...next. I miss ATC, AI traffic and dynamic weather. While MS stated to invest in the XBOX i think its a perfect strategy, except for our pc based flightsimmers. Planes without cockpits, no ATC or AI. Its all focused on sitting on the couch with a controller and just fly a bit. I don't say its bad but im more into simulator style flying: DCS A-10 for example. You will never ever see that title on a console.

Concerning Alaska...yep, its a different environment but in the end it will be as boring as Hawaii. First i will look into the reviews and keep a close eye on this forum. I will buy Alaska if the gameplay has progressed into deeper simulation aspects. Its MS choice to follow this strategy, its my choice to decide whether to follow it. At this point i don't follow their strategy and thus i will wait for the time to come.

 

If you think flying in Alaska will be boring, I don't see how you could get interested in any kind of flying. I had Misty Fjords on FS9 and some nice Alaska scenery, and flew around Alaska every day for about a year, and was never bored. And by the way ATC, is very rare in Alaska, cause in a light aircraft, even at airports that have towers, once you get out of the airport area, you are on your own anyway. It's real flying......

 

I flew around South Florida in RA, and couldn't wait to get away from the airport and ATC. ATC was a PIA, when you just wanted to fly around, and didn't want someone telling you where to go and how to get there.

[basic ils 0]

*snip* I guess I don't understand why folks that like heavy jets, AI, ATC, and all the stuff that FS9 and FSX has to offer, would even bother visiting his forum. I got rid of FS9 and FSX, and am never interested in visiting those forums anymore because there is nothing there of interest to me. From the way Flight is now, I can't see them ever trying to turn it into an FS11.

 

My simple answer is this. When FSX came out, It became obvious to me my computer (or anyones computer) could handle FSX, so I stopped following FSX and stayed with FS9. Jump ahead a few years when I had the hardware to use FSX on the most basic level, I was completely out-of-the-loop on tweaks, tips, advice, downloads, etc.. that I found it overwhelming doing searches looking for the info available. I promised myself to not let that happen again. So I will continue to follow Flight so as not to be left behind.

 

edit: Quick example. I didn't purchase any of the VC-less warbirds. But I did pick up the free Red Tail. I immediately tweaked the cfg file to set the camera position to the faux-cockpit. If I hadn't been following the forum, I would have had no idea this would have been possible.

[pmanhart 176]

Of course purchasing a Flight Simulator is an investment. Of course purshasing an FPS is an investment. You are investing in a product that you expect to entertain you. The time and money spent has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it can be defined as an investment. Also, when you make that investment you are not only entertaining yourself, but you investing in the company(s) that developed and published the product. If no one bought Flight products, MSGS wouldn't have a revenue stream (other than MS itself) to spend in enhancing their product. Similarly, if no one invested in Activision by purchasing the next Call of Duty, I seriously doubt Activision would invest in furthering production of the COD line.

 

We all make investments in what we choose to invest in, and the effects of those investments range much farther and wider than just the data on our hard drives and smiles (or frowns) on our faces.

 

I have not bought into the Flight product line simply because I do not want to invest in a simulator that does not fulfill my needs. Regardless of what entertains others, it does not entertain me. Where I choose to invest my money, and most importantly time, is my prerogative.

 

J, since you have decided to purchase Alaska, you have chosen to invest in Flight and the further development and expansion of it. There's nothing wrong with that, nor is there anything wrong with saving your money to invest it some other way.

[Mickel 42]

I'm torn (relatively... it's a game...). Part of me is thinking a couple of 'decent' planes and I'd be happy in Hawaii, and tossing the cub in as basic really rubs me up the wrong way (I'm not alone). Not at all would have been better. Assuming sales figures mean far more than posts by a reasonbly small minority, it's lose/lose to buy a pack with a cockpitless plane. (cynic mode: on) Yay... we've sold another one. Everyone likes them. Tick the box. Make more. It's what the masses want. (cynic mode: off) But... I have a suspicion that later in the week or sometime next I'm going to crumble. And it's going to annoy me - that the only way to discourage those things is not buy them, but I can't not in this case. Only for a little while though. Investment is too strong a word to use. We are simply voting with our dollars/pesos/euros in the hope that MS will invest (they're the ones making the investment here - taking a risk with their cash for a return) in the things that we want them to.

[RoboRay 126]

ATC, is very rare in Alaska, cause in a light aircraft, even at airports that have towers, once you get out of the airport area, you are on your own anyway.

 

Heck, most of the "towered" airports in Alaska don't actually have towers! They've just got a radio relay to a controller in another tower somewhere else. There are only three physical control towers for the entire state.

 

There's little to no radar coverage, and the VHF communication situation isn't much better. You may not even be able to find anyone on the radio to talk to.

[Bobsk8 12,853]

I'm torn (relatively... it's a game...). Part of me is thinking a couple of 'decent' planes and I'd be happy in Hawaii, and tossing the cub in as basic really rubs me up the wrong way (I'm not alone). Not at all would have been better. Assuming sales figures mean far more than posts by a reasonbly small minority, it's lose/lose to buy a pack with a cockpitless plane. (cynic mode: on) Yay... we've sold another one. Everyone likes them. Tick the box. Make more. It's what the masses want. (cynic mode: off) But... I have a suspicion that later in the week or sometime next I'm going to crumble. And it's going to annoy me - that the only way to discourage those things is not buy them, but I can't not in this case. Only for a little while though. Investment is too strong a word to use. We are simply voting with our dollars/pesos/euros in the hope that MS will invest (they're the ones making the investment here - taking a risk with their cash for a return) in the things that we want them to.

 

Sorry I don't get the logic. I want to buy something, and the thing I am going to buy, has a free gift that comes with it. Because I don't care for the free gift, I am not going to buy the product..... Huh!!!!

[Mickel 42]

Because it's not free. I can understand your POV, and it's going to be why I fold.

[T_Fleck 36]

For me I have to look at Flight in a different light then I would a typical game. For one, it does not have a beginning nor and end, it is more like a work in progress; not unlike an MMO. Because of that, I do consider money spent to be an investment into the future development of the project. When I buy a game such as Call of Duty, or Dragon Age I know before I buy it that it is more or less complete, and it will end. With Flight, that cannot be said.

 

For the $30 investment, including the free stuff, the content is really not on par with other mainstream games. For $20 more how much content did IL2:CoD deliver? How many planes, with cockpits, did it come with? (Now, I am not speaking for the quality or how well it runs, just content). I had thought of Flight more along the lines of RoF, a bit pricey at first but, the regular content, paid and free has made up for it. I also thought, "Surely MS can keep up with a small independent developer such as Neoqb/777". The regular content updates is what justifies the price for me.

 

I do not regret buying the Hawaii pack or the Maule, regardless of the price. However, my decision to wait on Alaska stems entirely from the last three months of DLC, it feels as though I have been slapped in the face on the last Wednesday of every month since launch. Then, to pour salt on the wound they announce that Alaska will be bundled with a "basic" Carbon Cub. You can call it free all you like, but I don't think the GFWL market offers itemized receipts.

 

So, for me to spend any more money on Flight, I need to know for a fact that I will not be stuck flying the RV-6 and Maule from now until the game is defunct. There is nothing wrong with them, they are nicely done, but I need more than two planes to keep my interest alive. Alaska is simply not worth it to me if those are my only two choices for flying enjoyment.

[Jayskits 0]

The OP gives the answer to his own question when he concludes "Why do people buy games . . . " To many here, it's not a 'game', a mindless idle diversion for 30 minutes or so. It is a lifestyle, a passion to which they have a great dedication.

 

pmanhart hits the nail on the head when he says

I have not bought into the Flight product line simply because I do not want to invest in a simulator that does not fulfill my needs. Regardless of what entertains others, it does not entertain me.

 

If you enjoy the Flight 'game' for whatever it is today, then buy it and enjoy it.

 

However, Flight (right now as the 'game' that it currently is) offers nothing of value to those who want a long term true flight simulator with all the functionality that is attendant to that. If Flight ever matures to be a true (and better) replacement for FSX, then I'm sure that many on here who are dedicated to full flight simulators will gladly analyze the offering and make the switch if, as pmanhart syas, "it fulfills my needs".

[Kaboki 437]

I would spend alot on flight if I knew that ATC, AI traffic, and other stuff that FSX has would be supported in flight. And I would also like to know if I can fly from Alaska too Hawaii, that's important for me, maybe not for other people. Right know i feel my investment in Orbx is better. I know where they are going, I'll probably support them until the end because i like their scenery alot. Flight has some eyecandy that fsx don't have but I can live without it.

Flight for me just feels empty, 16 players multiplayer in Alaska... think Its gonna feel empty in the big Alaska scenery. And another thing about multiplayer is that I always seem to meet people just trying too get on my six and ram me, takes away some of the realism. AI traffic is not perfect in FSX but for me it feels more like a living breating world than Flight. I maybe pick it up if Microsoft shed some light on this.

 

In ordenary games is often not the DLC that makes the game, It's somewhat complete when you buy it, if It Isn't then I don't buy it.

i.e I have never actually bought any DLC for ordenary games, but i think Its different with Flightsims where the addons do the rest that wasn't put in there in the first place. And I also think Flightsims have a longer life, It doesnt get replaced so fast than other games. For me FSX has atleast 2 years more too live. And after these to years maybe i look into Flight again if the things I've mentioned have been made. If not maybe I'll check out Prepar3D. Time will tell if there is ever gonna be a good replacement for FSX. Right now I don't see Flight replacing anything I have.

 

I dont' like trowing money at something Im not know where is going. Let's say i bought Alaska and whatever Is next and these planes without VC in god faith that Microsoft would take care of these things, and when

2 years have gone and I still not seeing any AI, ATC etc just nice new scenery with more planes without VC . For me thats not a god investment. And I call It investment because i like my money and just not giving it away to something I feel will not take care of my invstement, don't like them using my money to spit out planes wihout a VC. Others may Invest in what they see is important for them.

[RoboRay 126]

If you enjoy the Flight 'game' for whatever it is today, then buy it and enjoy it.

 

However, Flight (right now as the 'game' that it currently is) offers nothing of value to those who want a long term true flight simulator with all the functionality that is attendant to that. If Flight ever matures to be a true (and better) replacement for FSX, then I'm sure that many on here who are dedicated to full flight simulators will gladly analyze the offering and make the switch if, as pmanhart syas, "it fulfills my needs".

 

Other than the use of "true flight simulator" I would have to more or less agree.

 

You don't have to simulate everything to be a "true flight simulator." If you do, then there is no "true flight simulator" in existence.

 

But in any case, Flight is already far more than just the "game" you see with a casual inspection. If you look carefully, you'll find a pretty intricate and accurate simulation hidden away underneath. But one with many limitations.

 

A solid foundation is in place. Now we just have to hope MS does something more serious with it.

 

Also keep in mind that many "reviews" are being written with a strong bias, by people "offended" by the direction MS is taking. It's certainly fair to be critical of MS's marketing and development decisions with Flight. But after reading many of those "reviews" it's become apparent that the writer took only a cursory look at the product itself before proclaiming his predetermined conclusions.

 

Do yourself a favor and take a hard look at the product yourself before forming an opinion based on the words of others. But also remember that the best parts of it aren't free. If you want aircraft with IFR-equipped cockpits and a little cargo capacity to do Jobs, you have to buy some DLC.

 

But the base game, a fairly large island, and a couple of simple planes are all free, after all, so what do you have to lose?

[Kaboki 437]

I would also like to add that Im in the Flight forum just beacuse It's the only place to find some new information about this sim/game. Im paying attention to Flight, maybe some day it turns out to be what Im looking for (Replacement for FSX). That day may never come but I'll be here just to get updated.

[RoboRay 126]

I would also like to add that Im in the Flight forum just beacuse It's the only place to find some new information about this sim/game. Im paying attention to Flight, maybe some day it turns out to be what Im looking for (Replacement for FSX). That day may never come but I'll be here just to get updated.

 

And you're welcome here. I hope they do eventually deliver what you're looking for.