Although it was missing a lot of features that we take for granted in other sims, Flight excelled in performance, in graphics, and in flight model.

 

It is just a pity that the work that went into this is now going to be shelved.

 

You would think that there is now an opportunity for MS to do some kind of deal with one or more 3PDs for them to continue developing the game.

 

But Mr Howard seems to have firmly ruled that out quote “There is no facility to allow 3^rd parties to independently develop content for Microsoft Flight. Though we had hoped to offer this capability in the future, as the product stands today it’s not possible”.

 

What's the saying? - Where there is a will there is a way.

What he is saying is that they are going to sit on it and keep their options. Usually that means that by the time they finally look at it again, it will be worthless.

 

It is just a pity that the work that went into this is now going to be shelved.

 

You would think that there is now an opportunity for MS to do some kind of deal with one or more 3PDs for them to continue developing the game.

 

But Mr Howard seems to have firmly ruled that out quote “There is no facility to allow 3^rd parties to independently develop content for Microsoft Flight. Though we had hoped to offer this capability in the future, as the product stands today it’s not possible”.

 

What's the saying? - Where there is a will there is a way.

 

If you read (can't find them right now) a few posts made on AVSIM by 3pds it's sounds like MS approached them before Flight was released and was rejected because they didn't like the new model. I don't think Howard wants to put his tail between his legs and go back for a second attempt.

Check out Robert Randazo's post about Flight on the PMDG website. You can see that the strategy for this game took a hard turn mid-development cycle when someone at MS decided that too many third parties were making too much money that MS wasn't seeing and tried to keep the whole pie for themselves. Initially the outlook for Flight was much different for 3rd parties - but after postive outreach early, the developers shut down any hope that they would particpate by demanding that MS retain 1/3 of all add on revenues, and that they only be sold through the MS Live channel.

 

Few developers would be able to recoup their investments in development with that model, and not surprisintly, they demurred...

 

We will never know who to blame, but I read an interview with Mr. Howard near the release of Flight, and he sounded like he drank the coolaid. Despite overwhelming criticism from the franchise's most loyal customers, abject dismissal of businesses that have a decade of experience develping add ons for the flight sim market, and very luke-warm reception in the gaming press, Mr. Howard was talking about "massive new audiences" for flying games -he used massive so many times, I'm sure it was on the talking points he was given by the brilliant marketing team that came up with the positioning of this product.

 

I doubt he had any idea how insulting that was to long time supporters of the franchise - like a girlfriend who tells you that you don't matter any more becuase so many boys want to go out with her, or so she thinks...

 

Perhaps whowever started this mess will take some time off and perhaps go take a rudimentary marketing class. The mass market angle is combat, not simulation. That will always be a smaller market - but one that has proved lucrative in the past. FSX sold well, COF sold well, even FS2000 which was a complete disaster of a product sold well.

 

But they got greedy and tried to kill the goose to get at the golden eggs that third party developers worked so hard to create...

 

And frankly, from a karma perspective, I can't say that I feel all that bad for the leaders of this project. Frankly, I hope their careers take a hit - the abject arrogance shown by the develpment leads thinking they were smarter than everyone else in the flight sim community deserves to be rewarded....

Check out Robert Randazo's post about Flight on the PMDG website. You can see that the strategy for this game took a hard turn mid-development cycle when someone at MS decided that too many third parties were making too much money that MS wasn't seeing and tried to keep the whole pie for themselves. Initially the outlook for Flight was much different for 3rd parties - but after postive outreach early, the developers shut down any hope that they would particpate by demanding that MS retain 1/3 of all add on revenues, and that they only be sold through the MS Live channel.

 

This is what I speculated all along... And we can finally see how this game was destined to fail even at launch.

 

The game was never finished (and had no chance at ever being finished) because it never had the support of 3PDs who could finish, or provide enough content.

 

That, and the other fact somebody at MS erroneously thought that there was a huge... Er, massive :P... Demand for a non-combat flight sim by casual gamers and this title was doomed to fail no matter who is to blame.

MS retain 1/3 of all add on revenues, and that they only be sold through the MS Live channel.

 

That's all Microsoft wanted? I would have offered the 3pd's 1/3 and kept 2/3 myself. And it should have been obvious that all content would be sold through the marketplace.

 

If you read the game credits, you may reccognize a few 3pd names. Microsoft DID use third parties. A few others were shut out completely, and the ones that remained were under strict NDAs so even if asked they couldn't tell anyone they were involved. You'll only know who they were by seeing their names in the credits.

 

Hook

That "1/3 for the gatekeeper and 2/3 for the developer" is more or less the industry standard for online mass-market distribution channels. A software developer who doesn't like that split doesn't have a problem with Microsoft... they simply have a problem with modern software distribution portals in general. They certainly aren't going to find better deals elsewhere, unless they want to just keep minding their own little "Mom & Pop" store that doesn't see a lot of traffic.

I still don't know if I buy this Guns vs. Real Flying thing. There is an enormous amount of presupposition that Flight has been cancelled because it totally failed financially, and that it failed financially it was because it reached out to a broader audience. More specifically, there is a great deal of schadenfreude being displayed at the apparent comeuppance of not just a corporation, but a named individual, over their perceived slight* of the "real flight sim community". By "real flight sim community", I think what most people have meant is those that spend a lot of time, money and effort in pursuing a recreation of a highly specific tranche of aviation activity. And if that sounds a bit niche, it's almost certainly because it is.

 

I think there are a lot of casual gamers out there who would be, could be, and have been tempted into flying around in a visually attractive environment without actually feeling the need to blow things up. And not all of us are compelled to spend most of our precious virtual flying time monitoring myriad, high-fidelity systems while at FL 380 - in fact, I reckon there are probably more folk out there who'd enjoy poling about the clouds for 30 minutes without ever having considered the critical importance of radar service or fuel imbalances than folk for whom such minutiae of managing an aircraft of any complexity are paramount.

 

I guess what I am getting at is that there's been quite a lot of unpleasant "I told you so's" (often followed or prefixed by "and that's why I never even bothered to try it"), which presupposes that Flight was a flop. We don't know that it was a commercial flop - it may merely have been not stellar at a time where management were asked to cut x% of not-stellar programs, and the dice fell badly for us flight simmers. It's never pleasant to see people full of their own importance, so can I just make (an arguably self-important) plea for folk to throttle back on the gloating; the exit of a deep-pocketed player in this niche market cannot be a good thing. And more to the point - had MS succeeded in broadening the base of people flying simulated aircraft (and I think there is decent circumstantial evidence from users of these forums that they have), how could that possibly be a bad thing for those of us who care so much about our hobby?

 

 

 

 

*yes, I've read the interviews. And yes, it is easy to read a "you guys aren't the be-all-and-end-all, so quit whining" into them. Ok, minus about 10 million points for style, but I am willing to entertain the notion that it doesn't make the man objectively wrong, either.

It is very unfortunate that Microsoft's poor business decision based on greed hurt innocent third party developers that could have made revenue from an FS11 platform.

^{That's all Microsoft wanted? I would have offered the 3pd's 1/3 and kept 2/3 myself. And it should have been obvious that all content would be sold through the marketplace.}

 

 

 

^{I'm not talking about who contributed to the base flight package or the MS Packaged add ons - I'm talking about stand alone companies like PMDG being allowed to sell add ons into that ecosyste. If they, Aerosoft and Flight 1 took a pass (the best run of the add on companies) that is all I need to know about how realistic the Microsoft proposal was. It was heavy handed and arrogant.}

 

^{That type of model, which Apple uses on its Ap Store, works if you have a huge base of customers - hundreds of millions of iphones and ipads out there. What did Flight have to give developers confidence to develop into this product? They had no establised audience becuase they had hopelessly estranged thier base, a business plan that believed that flight sim was really a serial rpg just waiting to bust out and such outrageous claims (massive, massive massive) that anyone with experience in the flight sim found it very easy to dismiss them as fools. Which, they were.}

 

^{Just looking at DLC, why MS thought they could compete against smaller companies with 10 years of experience serving what is a very fragmented and heavilly segmented market, when they are about moving lots and lots of product to large, mass markets, is baffling. Their decision to price out these companies, who would have given the product instant cred with the existing base of enthusiasts, who might have then stopped turning their face book page into a case study in how not to use social networking, is a key part of their failure.}

 

^{I don't think they understand that many of us feel like we know the people at these add on compaines. The community is that tight. Microsoft was asking us to betray those people and sign on to their pathetically small universe, flying their mediocre aircraft in a dead, silent world. MS has no track record of delivering anything of the quality of a PMDG, a Flight 1 or Aerosoft aircraft - why would any of us believe they would start doing so now?}

 

^{This was a cluster fu**. It deserved to fall away, and you can't blame the third party people for not supporting it. Only an idiot would have invested anyting in this product until it had proved itself.}

 

^{The smartest piece of advice I've seen ont this board is that MS should have debuted the product with a full market of planes, missions, scenery and functionality. Including a few from third party vendors under a more favorable pricing model would also have given this attempt a lot more credibility with people like me. But instead, we were told of vast treasures just down the road, and all we got were warbirds without cockpits, small, slow GA airplanes, and one scenery add on.}

 

^{If they had done that, and not dismissed their critics as being early 21st century ludites, this might have worked.}

That "1/3 for the gatekeeper and 2/3 for the developer" is more or less the industry standard for online mass-market distribution channels. A software developer who doesn't like that split doesn't have a problem with Microsoft... they simply have a problem with modern software distribution portals in general. They certainly aren't going to find better deals elsewhere, unless they want to just keep minding their own little "Mom & Pop" store that doesn't see a lot of traffic.

 

Another angle on this argument is the assumption that an App-Store style cut of the retail price would have meant 30% less for the 3rd-part devs. An equally plausible scenario is a 30% hike in prices of 3PD content - and frankly, that might not have bothered folk too much when it came to the purchase/don't purchase decision. Instead of paying $24.99 for an FSX add-on aircraft, you'd be paying $32.49 for an aircraft in a new-release sim that has dynamic shadows in the virtual cockpit, much better out-of-the-box sim performance and a seamless purchase and installation route (GFWL flakiness notwithstanding. That would have to be fixed). The dev gets the same revenue as they would have in a non-app store environment, MS make their cu for developing the platform, and everyone's happy. I doubt that the extra $7.50 would make such a huge difference - I'm pretty sure hardcore sim add-ons are fairly price inelastic. I've been amused at times by some posts where people have been justifying their disappointment in such-and-such an add-on by bemoaning the thousands of dollars they have spent on hardware and software, only to go on to claim that such-and-such an add-on is badly overpriced at a tiny fraction of what they claim to have already spent on the hobby, and that they are clearly very cross about it (before generally going on to add that they'll buy it anyway, but under protest). Let's face it, if you're even thinking of breaking out the credit card to buy a virtual plane, you're already addicted...

Another angle on this argument is the assumption that an App-Store style cut of the retail price would have meant 30% less for the 3rd-part devs. An equally plausible scenario is a 30% hike in prices of 3PD content - and frankly, that might not have bothered folk too much when it came to the purchase/don't purchase decision. Instead of paying $24.99 for an FSX add-on aircraft, you'd be paying $32.49 for an aircraft

 

I doubt that the extra $7.50 would make such a huge difference

 

Both of those assumptions are right in line with what I expect would have occurred, as well.

May I chime in here?

 

(I don't frequent these forums as I used to, regretfully, as every day obligations have increased tremendously with grown up children now).

 

I doubt that any third party developer, be it an individual or a company, would have minded tremendously the 30-70 split that is common nowadays, especially given the rather increased exposure it would have brought - a smaller piece of a much bigger pie ends up being a larger piece overall, isn't that the case usually? - In fact, there are plenty of individual developers who get a much smaller piece now from big distributors than the 30-70 arrangement they would have been offered.

 

The real problem was elsewhere - I am afraid I am bound by ethics (and a Non-Disclosure Agreement that we may or may not have signed) so I cannot divulge details (some others didn't have such problems, I recall, so you may find information if you look for it). Suffice it to say that anyone who tries to convince you that their problem was they would make less money developing and selling via the Flight online marketplace is probably trying to shift focus away from the real issues.

 

What I *am* free to disclose, however, as a former Microsoft MVP, is that there were many polite, respectful and decent discussions that took place which alerted Microsoft to our views (in a more "internal" manner) regarding this matter. What they chose to do with those views is, well, rather obvious.

 

Regards,