No Subscription Required

[Wobbie 940]

Obviously the disclaimer on this forum is that ALL 'facts'& figures are.. 

until confirmed information has bee released by Microsoft.

[robb13 22]

On 10/11/2019 at 3:56 AM, Flamingpie said:

I understand your conclusion but doubt if it is the correct one. 😉 Streaming data doesn't necessarily mean you will have to pay for it every month. Could well be and sounds logical but it's not mandatory.

Of course there are a myriad of us who still have a broadband internet package of a fixed amount of gb/mth.. We pay for data to be downloaded every month already regardless whether a fixed amount or endless.. Maybe MS will have commercial arrangements with internet providers ( or own those companies) because we will be downloading huge amounts of extra data  each month   !!!

[Casualcas 830]

But we'll gladly give navigraph, and simbrief our money. Hmmm even better if it was a pay for use like VUDU, rather than Netflix.

[Krakin 6,019]

It really is apparent that a lot of simmers have little knowledge of how the gaming industry at large works. Not all of you, thank God, but a lot of you are really showing your lack of familiarity with the things you say. You cannot cite a subscription to an entire platform like Playstation Plus or Xbox Live as evidence for your speculation on whether or not MSFS will have a mandatory sub. That just doesn't make sense. From where I'm sitting, MS will not be able to sell the idea of asking their customers to pay for Live AND pay for streaming data for just one game. The backlash from the xbox community would be epic.

It's different for games like Final Fantasy 14 or WoW where they're always online and the development cycle never ends with constant balance changes, new content etc.

[Lorby_SI 2,081]

On 10/14/2019 at 6:10 AM, HiFlyer said:

Yup, developers have been trying to sell the public on that concept for years, and I never thought anyone brought it.

Didn't they actively make that nonsense illegal in Europe? (First sale doctrine)

I haven't looked into it in a long while, but pretty much thought the concept was so full of legal holes most of the time as to be nearly worthless.

TMBK these discussions are still about ownership of a license.

Nonsense, hm. The issue with software is, that it always consists of the intellectual property itself (=the source code) and the compiled, final, product. Legally, when you own a program, that would mean that you have the source code in your hands, and can do with the assets as you please - even copy/sell them under your own name, as your own product.

To protect the intellectual property of the developer, the assets were split from the usage long ago, and the end user just gets the right to use the compiled product - and nothing else. Pratically everything beyond the mere use as a consumer is a violation of the licensing terms. Ignoring the license terms is nothing illegal (as in lawyer, police, jail), it is a breach of an agreement / a contract between you and the publisher/developer. The only thing that is illegal in the sense of the word is piracy.

That is what the term "the end user never owns software" means. You only own it, when you have written it yourself or acquired the IP. 

AFAIK the legal discussion is about re-selling a license to a third party, and producers trying to prevent that (in the license terms and by making it technically impossible). This discussion has been going on at least since Microsoft lost the battle with the EU over the re-sale of OEM licenses.

Best regards

Edited October 21, 2019 by Lorby_SI

[Superdelphinus 718]

Breach of contract is unlawful though, if not ‘illegal’ (there is a difference, arguably, at least in lawyer circles). 

[Mucker 93]

Those asking what the opposition is to subscription should ask themselves what their opposition is to one off payment for the game?

For the consumer a one off payment is clearly preferable, you know what you are getting and for what price and can use it when you want for as long or as shorter time as you want without worrying about cost.

With subscription you put all the cost of using he product into the hands of the developers/publishers and there is nothing to stop them putting up those prices as and when they feel like it.

They are also more likely to hold product that would otherwise be in the initial release back to be used to promote continued subscription or a price increase.

That same argument can be used for add on's but at least with add on's you get the choice whether to purchase them or not but still have access to the game. You can also pick and choose when you want to purchase an add on whereas subscription will likely tie you into months or even a year and who is to say that add on's won't still be sold separately on top of subscription?

I cannot grasp why any consumer would argue for a subscription based game over a one off purchase..

 

Edited October 21, 2019 by Mucker

[Deleted 250]

23 minutes ago, Mucker said:

Those asking what the opposition is to subscription should ask themselves what their opposition is to one off payment for the game?

For the consumer a one off payment is clearly preferable, you know what you are getting and for what price and can use it when you want for as long or as shorter time as you want without worrying about cost.

With subscription you put all the cost of using he product into the hands of the developers/publishers and there is nothing to stop them putting up those prices as and when they feel like it.

They are also more likely to hold product that would otherwise be in the initial release back to be used to promote continued subscription or a price increase.

That same argument can be used for add on's but at least with add on's you get the choice whether to purchase them or not but still have access to the game. You can also pick and choose when you want to purchase an add on whereas subscription will likely tie you into months or even a year and who is to say that add on's won't still be sold separately on top of subscription?

I cannot grasp why any consumer would argue for a subscription based game over a one off purchase..

 

MS has already confirmed once that no subscription is needed. I think the subscription only refers to the online service. And everyone can understand that these costs are necessary I think.

Thats all 

[Krakin 6,019]

2 hours ago, Pitbull2504 said:

MS has already confirmed once that no subscription is needed. I think the subscription only refers to the online service. And everyone can understand that these costs are necessary I think.

Thats all 

I for one do not understand it and would call them on their BS if they tried to use that excuse.

[Deleted 250]

9 minutes ago, Krakin said:

I for one do not understand it and would call them on their BS if they tried to use that excuse.

you do not understand that you use server and these servers cost? OK

you do not understand that ms msfs wants to update constantly and the ongoing development costs money? OK

i can not help you

[KillerKlient 92]

I don't understand why so many people in this thread think subscriptions are an absolute must for online gameplay.  This is very narrow minded thinking and absolutely not the case.

Yes servers cost money to run, but why jump to the conclusion that the only way to fund them is by having subscription for online modes? That is the WORST possible way to fund these servers, it does not make sense for this type of game / simulator and I'm sure that kind of funding model will kill the servers a lot sooner than any other way.

The blindingly obvious way to fund the servers is through paid add-ons, that's how we have used and kept flight simulators alive for god knows how many decades in the past and it is a proven model used by tripple A game titles.  Not the only way, but certainly a much better and logical way than subscritions for online mode.

Offline mode in my opinion will be a signficantly more inferior experience such that it would not justify being the only option for your "one off" cost.

[Krakin 6,019]

9 minutes ago, Pitbull2504 said:

you do not understand that you use server and these servers cost? OK

you do not understand that ms msfs wants to update constantly and the ongoing development costs money? OK

i can not help you

You do not understand that server costs have been grossly overestimated on this forum. We've had network intensive games on PC for years where we only had to pay the cost of the game once. Phil Spencer himself said their Azure utilization is cheap. Why? because it is not built primarily for gaming. Games like Crackdown 3 and FS2020 are just piggybacking on existing infrastructure.

Ms want's to support the game for a long time but it is not going to be anywhere near as intensive as what goes on with something like a MMO where there's constant balance changes and a need to keep things fresh and interesting. There are also PLENTY of games that have had have had amazing post launch support where subs weren't needed.

You'll notice when the devs were asked about a sub they stated flat out that they don't want it and none of them said anything about what you mentioned possibly affecting the outcome.