Over the years (about 30 of them) I have found these forums to be of incalculable value to me. They have saved me-without exaggeration—hundreds of hours in finding solutions to issues that I never would have been able to solve myself. They have saved me thousands of dollars—again without exaggeration --in pointing out features and shortcomings that led me to avoid purchases which would not have met my expectations.

Those who maintain this site, and others like it, provide a service to the community that would not otherwise be available. They are indeed what make us a community in the first instance.

They do it by providing a space for the sharing of opinions, solutions and suggestions from people with a wide range of experience. Many contributors (and I emphatically do not count myself among them) also possess a deep level of expertise.

Recently there has been a trend among a small group of people who feel called upon to mount ad hominum responses to those with whom they disagree or--more accurately-- to those who disagree with them.

Why, they ask, is it necessary to continually question the value of this product or that one when it’s already been criticized on other threads? Since it is a fair question, I would like to venture an answer.

Many new people have recently joined the community and others are discovering the hobby every day. They will look to these forums to find ways to use their (perhaps) limited funds to maximize their enjoyment of the hobby. Some may have limited time for tweaking and would prefer to spend their time in the “air.” Some may have a more specific purpose, like IFR training.

Because the most recent posts are listed first, the newcomers may find only unalloyed enthusiasm for products about which others have been more critical. In other words information, that may be useful to them in getting the most of their time and money may become buried. This can result in an unbalanced—and consequently unhelpful --presentation of the facts.

In the end, I suppose, the question always comes down to this: “For whose benefit do these forums exist—the community-- or the developers?” If it is the former, then how much sense does it make to label the balancing of enthusiasm with objective criticism as “negativity” or “noise”?

It's all about clicks. 

A post with the title "This game is a disaster and Asobo is a criminal enterprise that should be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court" is going to get a whole lot more attention than a "A detailed guide to flying an RNAV approach" post. 

It's $100. For entertainment. One time purchase, no subscription. 

Sometimes people just want to have fun. Maybe share a happy moment without their thread filling up with the same old same old. 

Admirable to keep the negativity at the forefront on behalf of the new members!

3 hours ago, Ricardo41 said:

It's all about clicks. 

A post with the title "This game is a disaster and Asobo is a criminal enterprise that should be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court" is going to get a whole lot more attention than a "A detailed guide to flying an RNAV approach" post. 

 

I personally try to ignore the first type and invariably regret getting involved if I give in to temptation and click on them.

Click bait and trolling is an issue everywhere, not just Aviation forums.   In real life no-one is going to front up at the local outlaw biker gangs favourite bar and grill and walk in wearing a troll T-shirt saying "Harleys are a pile of steaming cow dung and bikers are all big girls blouses" but the same person is more than happy to do something similar on line.

I'm still struggling to understand how it is "negative" to give an honest and factual answer to someone who may be wondering:

  "What can I expect of this product if I buy it today?"

There is certainly no shortage of speculation about what the future holds--and a lot less evidence for it.

 

Edited December 22, 20205 yr by TASCHMANN

5 hours ago, TASCHMANN said:

For whose benefit do these forums exist—the community-- or the developers?”

Actually, the Flight Sim Community is comprised of users, developers and other business people.  That is our community, and it's always been like that.  Moreover, it has always been the third party developers, many of whom were/are flight simmers themselves, who push our hobby to the levels we have enjoyed and this will continue to be the case.

Best wishes!

 

40 minutes ago, TASCHMANN said:

I'm still struggling to understand how it is "negative" to give an honest and factual answer to someone who may be wondering:

  "What can I expect of this product if I buy it today?"

There is certainly a no shortage of speculation about what the future holds--and a lot less evidence for it.

 

 

Very true.  There are no problems with honest and factual answers without an agenda.

However  typical posts (generically across all games  - not just MSFS) are not that like that, they are actually things like:

•  this game (insert game name here) is a total ripoff and I am uninstalling and going back to (insert name of other game OP wants to promote)
• I paid (insert dollar amount) and my internet rules lawyer interpretation of imaginary consumer law is they now owe me a refund because (insert discrepancy between early promotion and final product) even though I now have 300 hours in game
• this game (insert game name here) does not meet the needs of my very specialised niche use case and therefore the game should be withdrawn from the market and the developer sued
• this game (insert game name here) features (insert gender/religion/race here) and is therefore biased against (insert OP gender/religion/race) and therefore should be banned
• I paid (insert dollar amount) and therefore deserve unlimited instant 24/7 support

etc etc

In other words anything but honest and factual answers without an agenda.

 

Edited December 22, 20205 yr by Glenn Fitzpatrick