What's Your Deal-breaker?

[antonmorse 9]

NO subscription. I will absolutely not keep paying month to month for a game.

Offline play must also be an option, or I will think twice.

And I will only buy it when my pc can handle it, so probably not immediately on release.

[ErichB 3,736]

My only deal-breaker would be a badly implemented third party distribution model which makes it cost (or otherwise) prohibitive for some third parties to contribute to the platform.  A flightsim is only as good as the third party community that is able to support it, so it needs to be as accessible and as big as possible. 

 

[MatthewS 761]

22 hours ago, KBUR said:

Subscription and streaming would be my deal-breaker.... .

I don't mind the subscription, but if scenery can be streamed then presumably it can also be cached to HD for reuse? Or even downloaded in advance based on a flight plan?

[threexgreen 3,315]

I see some are still talking about a subscription model. Look again at MS's update where they cited several AVSIM posts. The hint is obviously just that, a hint, but it's a pretty clear one.

[Christopher Low 5,564]

My deal breaker would be if the new MFS does not deliver a significantly better experience than I currently get in P3D. More of the same is of no interest to me.

[Montie 124]

A new game engine, otherwise I can not be bothered.

[Deleted 250]

if the game is designed too much for Xbox console. 

[Bushido5 61]

Subscriptions  will be a deal breaker. Whether monthly or yearly or whatever.

[G-RFRY 1,765]

58 minutes ago, Pitbull2504 said:

if the game is designed too much for Xbox console. 

Most of the latest Games are made for the console and PC in a survey just over 50% of Gamers still use the desktop PC, Thankfully that's what is keeping the industry manufacturing for the gaming PC, if it was to drop to low it would become a niche market and get very expensive.   

[Guest FlyBaby]

4 hours ago, ErichB said:

My only deal-breaker would be a badly implemented third party distribution model which makes it cost (or otherwise) prohibitive for some third parties to contribute to the platform.  A flightsim is only as good as the third party community that is able to support it, so it needs to be as accessible and as big as possible. 

 

I disagree with your reasoning here...and this is only my opinion.

The third party success has been prevalent in the flight sim arena because the base sims (FSX, P3D, XP) lack so much in their stock form (clouds, weather, terrain, airports for XP). So, yes, the 3rd party DEVs and freeware contributions have enhanced these "bland" base sims to enhance the experience. 

However, when a DEV can charge $100+ dollars for a addon that  negatively impacts the performance of the base sim, sit back...collect the $$$ and have the attitude that the base sim needs their presence to survive, then you basically have 3rd party Devs who are just taking advantage of a market that doesn't have a better base sim option.

With that said, I certainly don't want the distribution model that exists now...

Now comes MSFS...

I hope that MSFS eliminates much of the current fragmented implementation for addons, and get a good chunk of the 3rd party revenue charged to consumers.

If I build a solid base sim that a 3P DEV "needs" to exist, then I will be sure to get a cut representing the platform that I am providing for that DEV to sell their product. 

If the base sim is good enough, then it won't need to depend "so much" on 3P DEVs to fill in the gaps. 

[Dominique_K 10,157]

1 hour ago, FlyBaby said:

 . 

 

This argument comes again and again. I don't want to discuss the idea  that developers take advantage of us because I think it is just not true. A bit paranoid IMHO but it is just my take. BTW I know of  only one developer selling at more than 100 USD a pop, the common prices are between 40 to 80 bucks which quite reasonable and this market has de facto a double scale of pricing ( I mean sales four or five times a year).

However there is something more tangible . The addons market offers us today an enormous choice of aircraft (tens of airliners, GA, warbirds, military jets, helis, from the most complicated to dumbed-down quasi-paper planes) and sceneries (including small dirt strips in the PNG boondocks and mega-airports !). There is no way in the world that  MS would offer us that freedom of choice if they had sort of a monopoly and anyway I do not want them to decide what should be available or not as a DLC. Also if you give MS a monopoly and think that they will not take advantage of it, price-wise , well,  think twice.

[Paraffin 2,197]

10 minutes ago, FlyBaby said:

I hope that MSFS eliminates much of the current fragmented implementation for addons, and get a good chunk of the 3rd party revenue charged to consumers.

If I build a solid base sim that a 3P DEV "needs" to exist, then I will be sure to get a cut representing the platform that I am providing for that DEV to sell their product. 

That would mean one of two things. Either the add-on has to sell for more than it would sell for now as a product for FSX/P3D/XP, or else it would sell for the same amount it does now, and the 3rd party developer gets less money for their work.

Do you think either of those options are viable? Who wants to spend more than we're spending now, for add-ons? And if we want the new MSFS to be built-out as quickly as possible with new aircraft (and probably airports), we'll need buy-in from the 3rd party developers. 
 

Quote

 

If the base sim is good enough, then it won't need to depend "so much" on 3P DEVs to fill in the gaps. 

 

Well sure, in theory.

Back in the real world, the only flight sims that have survived for many years like FSX, P3D, and XP, have large amounts of 3rd party content to keep people interested. 

The sims that were more self contained are no longer with us. They either had short lifetimes with no follow-up like "Fly!" (which was a very good sim otherwise), or failed miserably like MS Flight. 

 

[Guest FlyBaby]

1 minute ago, Paraffin said:

That would mean one of two things. Either the add-on has to sell for more than it would sell for now as a product for FSX/P3D/XP, or else it would sell for the same amount it does now, and the 3rd party developer gets less money for their work.

Do you think either of those options are viable? Who wants to spend more than we're spending now, for add-ons? And if we want the new MSFS to be built-out as quickly as possible with new aircraft (and probably airports), we'll need buy-in from the 3rd party developers. 
 

How many people buy apps and and virtual goods in apps for their mobile phones?

You do realize that Google & Apple take a "good chunk" of the DEV's gross sales and the mobile app business hasn't failed, and I don't hear people complaining about the cost of apps.

Is the mobile app business viable?

I don't mind spending more if it is worth it to me.

 

 

 

 

 

[Dominique_K 10,157]

25 minutes ago, Paraffin said:

 

 

Fly! died because his developer died. He had a team but he was the soul of the sim.  

[Guest FlyBaby]

13 minutes ago, Paraffin said:

Well sure, in theory.

Back in the real world, the only flight sims that have survived for many years like FSX, P3D, and XP, have large amounts of 3rd party content to keep people interested. 

The sims that were more self contained are no longer with us. They either had short lifetimes with no follow-up like "Fly!" (which was a very good sim otherwise), or failed miserably like MS Flight. 

 

No...in the "real" world...

The front running base sims, and some of the addon 3P Devs attended a flight sim convention that MS did not attend. During the same time, MS released the MSFS trailer that everyone has been talking about, speculating about, debating about, drooling over, and eager to get more info about since then.

Said another way, a 2 minute video became more relevant than anything that went on during that 3 day "flight" sim convention. 

I think MSFS's potential is much bigger than anything the flight sim arena has yet to offer. So, "those successful norms" may no longer be "as relevant" now.

I would surely buy it stock given the vids and smooth performance, and MSFS is smart enough to grasp this age of DLC to keep cranking out new stuff form their own shop or however "they see fit" with 3P DEVS.

Will you be hitting the refresh button tomorrow???