My money is that in the next month or two we will hear there is a small staff of MSF whose function is to coordinate development of content by 3PDs for distribution throught Live and Stream. Almost zero downside for MS and a big potential upside.

 

Im not sure about this. While it may seem like a good idea, there are a LOT of legal problems with doing such. Also MS would need to keep a staff to validate 3rd party addon's, and 3rd party dev's would need time to ramp up to the new SDK. Also, how many 3rd party dev's are wanting to jump onto what is a dead platform that shunned them in the first place?

 

I just dont see the pencil pushers at MS looking at all the hurtles they would need to jump through and green lighting something like this. Like I said over and over, Flight is better left outside of MS if its at all possible.

But someone did.

 

Well, I guess your opinion shows that it's possible to come up with all kinds of interpretations that can seem to say anything you wish to find, whether it's there or not, but that doesn't mean that's what they actually said.

Well, I guess your opinion shows that it's possible to come up with all kinds of interpretations that can seem to say anything you wish to find, whether it's there or not, but that doesn't mean that's what they actually said.

 

But what did n4gix actual say in response to my question?

He said there's no way for us to get the data to form a valid assessment. You seem to think that means he has formed an assessment.

He said there's no way for us to get the data to form a valid assessment. You seem to think that means he has formed an assessment.

 

He said "no, I won't seriously entertain [ the possiblity that neither were commercially viable] as a proximate causal factor."

Im not sure about this. While it may seem like a good idea, there are a LOT of legal problems with doing such. Also MS would need to keep a staff to validate 3rd party addon's, and 3rd party dev's would need time to ramp up to the new SDK. Also, how many 3rd party dev's are wanting to jump onto what is a dead platform that shunned them in the first place?

 

I just dont see the pencil pushers at MS looking at all the hurtles they would need to jump through and green lighting something like this. Like I said over and over, Flight is better left outside of MS if its at all possible.

 

Of course it is just speculation. However, I don't see any legal issues with it, it would involve standard licenses and contracts that are done everyday at MS (this is my line of work and I'm confident it would not be an issue). They could set up a third-party to do the validation testing, likely paid for by the developer, so again no cost to MS. I would be suprised if there were not 3PD interested, especisally if the former MSF managment team that they had an issue with are gone. This low risk model would be nothing new to MS or the industry and I doublt hard to get green lighted. You have to wonder if 3PD model was the original plan that MS had intended for MSF and whether the MSF team talked high command at MS into taking the approach they launched with and when that failed right out of the gate they all got sacked and now MS will go back to Plan A. One can hope anyway.

He said "no, I won't seriously entertain [ the possiblity that neither were commercially viable] as a proximate causal factor."

 

I wish the world was as simple as you think it is.

 

Hook

I wish the world was as simple as you think it is.

 

Hook

 

I'm not talking about the the world; i'm talking about a poster who won't seriously entertain the idea that commercial viability had anything to do with Flight's cancellation.

 

Do you refuse to entertain that idea too?

You have to wonder if 3PD model was the original plan that MS had intended for MSF

 

Hello

There is no need to wonder, it is common knowledge that the original plan involved 3PD, we have all read what PMDG ORBX A2A and Milviz have said about their invitations to get involved.

After the 3PD walked away they had no choice but to scale down the title, the small MS Flight! team were never going to have time to hit the launch date and fill the store with DLC.

So we got what we got, we all know there was more to come but it was not going to happen without external help.

People can believe whatever they want to believe. The real truth will appear eventually I hope, and it may even resemble or match the speculation. In the meantime, I myself I will not be according speculation with the same respect as proven facts or truth. Even if that speculation comfortably fits my own personal version of reality.

 

A quick reread of almost any of my posts will show the wording acknowledge's the conjectural nature of the post, and includes some attempt to show the path by which I reached some preliminary conclusions open to further information. Unlike some, I am aware of the possibility of being wrong.

 

Ok... Well either way companies don't kill off products they spent quite a bit of money on for no reason.

 

As far as the truth or facts coming out.. I doubt that will happen.. MS made a business decision for business reasons... that's all

Of course it is just speculation. However, I don't see any legal issues with it, it would involve standard licenses and contracts that are done everyday at MS (this is my line of work and I'm confident it would not be an issue). They could set up a third-party to do the validation testing, likely paid for by the developer, so again no cost to MS. I would be suprised if there were not 3PD interested, especisally if the former MSF managment team that they had an issue with are gone. This low risk model would be nothing new to MS or the industry and I doublt hard to get green lighted. You have to wonder if 3PD model was the original plan that MS had intended for MSF and whether the MSF team talked high command at MS into taking the approach they launched with and when that failed right out of the gate they all got sacked and now MS will go back to Plan A. One can hope anyway.

 

Us 3rd party's walk a grey line. Technically, any aircraft manufacturer can go after us for representing there aircraft without a proper license. In fact, it has happened in the past. The thing is, we make such little money, it would cost them more money to go after us then they would get. Also, there public image would be hurt for chasing after the little guys. Both Grumman and Cessna did this in the past. We can license things from manufacturers, but the cost would be too great for the return for most of us.

 

Now, if you have Microsoft selling an unlicensed Boeing product, Boeing can go after MS since they DO have money. Thats the legal problems im referring too. With FSX, MS is not responsible for what there users put into there own game.

 

Hello

There is no need to wonder, it is common knowledge that the original plan involved 3PD, we have all read what PMDG ORBX A2A and Milviz have said about their invitations to get involved.

After the 3PD walked away they had no choice but to scale down the title, the small MS Flight! team were never going to have time to hit the launch date and fill the store with DLC.

So we got what we got, we all know there was more to come but it was not going to happen without external help.

 

3PD's did not walk away from Flight. Some did, but others were willing to work with MS. The problem is, MS didnt want 3rd party's yet. I wont name names, but I know of many 3rd party's that were working with MS, but MS just stopped returning there E-mails with no explanation. In essence, 3rd party's were cut out soon after Joshua Howard took over. BTW, im not braking NDA since this is NOT information I gained from my time on Flight, but information I gained working with 3rd party's AFTER I left Flight.

, it would cost them more money to go after us then they would get.

 

But if another commercial licence holder complains it may become worthwhile pursuing an unlicenced 3PD to protect the income from the commercial licence holder.

I'm not talking about the the world; i'm talking about a poster who won't seriously entertain the idea that commercial viability had anything to do with Flight's cancellation.

 

If A, then B. No deviation. No other possible influences. Holy writ. The world is a simple place, with well defined rules.

 

Unless you're somehow privy to Microsoft's top managment's decisions, the cold hard truth is, we don't know why Flight was cancelled. The team probably doesn't know. "Perforance stacking" couldn't have had anything to do with it, could it? Not all management decisions are made by logic. Someone could have simply flippantly decided, "Kill it." Even if it was profitable.

 

Odd that a top level decision was made just 4 months after release. They already had the Cub in the pipeline, and kept Flight going just long enough to release it. The Cub has proven quite popular, but apparently management didn't care to wait around to see if it would be profitable enough to continue with Flight. Maybe Alaska didn't sell very well, even if other DLC did, and that was the only milestone they used.

 

If you haven't read this yet, you should. Everyone should. All 6 pages. It gets more interesting after the first page. Oh... and it explains Performance Stacking.

 

http://www.vanityfair.com/business/2012/08/microsoft-lost-mojo-steve-ballmer

 

Hook

But if another commercial licence holder complains it may become worthwhile pursuing an unlicenced 3PD to protect the income from the commercial licence holder.

 

Thats another nasty problem MS would need to deal with. What if 3rd party A wants to do X aircraft, and so does 3rd party B. MS would need to mediate the dispute. Again, something they dont want to deal with.

 

There is just a LOT of legal issues MS would be thrust into doing 3rd party stuff.

Odd that a top level decision was made just 4 months after release. They already had the Cub in the pipeline...

If anyone missed the significance of the date...it was the beginning of a new fiscal year. I was anxiously waiting for news on the other project here in Vancouver...it was canceled too.

 

There is just a LOT of legal issues MS would be thrust into doing 3rd party stuff.

I remember at an Avsim conference, Aces was asked if they would consider making a built-in store for 3PDs. They said they would like to, and would continue to look into it, but legally it was impractical and unlikely.

 

And that may very well be the biggest reason why 3PD's were never included in Flight.

(subcontractors on the other hand answer directly to MS)