Why the profligate update process?

[tfm 169]

There are three aspects to my question:

 

1. Why can’t updates be a one-step procedure rather than having to launch updates from separate apps (MSFS and the MS Store) and from separate places in the same app (MSFS update screen and MSFS Marketplace)?

 

2. Why can’t updates be smaller? Hardly anything in the code changes with each iteration, we are certainly not seeing gigabytes of new coding with each download - so why can’t we have a small download that changes the bits of particular files that need updating, instead of wasting so much bandwidth?

 

3. Why are updates mandatory? 
 

 

[TENPATROL 138]

https://flightsimulator.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/requests/new

[Biggles2010 342]

The update process does seem to be very heavy on bandwidth, but the system would be dictated by MS. They probably assume that most users can download at 300Mb/s plus, because the main mass gaming markets are the USA, Japan and South Korea, which all have very high speeds available. Much of Europe and other parts of the world can only dream of speeds like that, but are less significant to MS.

Where I think MS may have an upcoming problem is when the 'masses' get fed up with the hassle of running MSFS, after they realise that the regular updates can be a nuisance. The forum here is filled with posts of new failures, bugs, and workarounds after every update, quite apart from the messy system of downloads. Many people here on Avsim are relatively experienced with simulation and computers, and can discuss and deal with these things, but they are a tiny proportion of those who have purchased MSFS. 

Many users, without past experience, will enjoy the novelty until the recurring problems outweigh the enjoyment. Then they will air their views on social media, which can turn a marketing success into a disaster very quickly. That would certainly impact further development.

 

[FPStewy 538]

2 hours ago, tfm said:

1. Why can’t updates be a one-step procedure

If you've noticed they are not even updates they patch packages and every package checks for licensing. It's old school but for obvious reasons that are for another day. The last time I saw these types of "patches" it was in the late 90's. But to do this on this type of game borders on derangement thinking.

[tfm 169]

Thanks for the replies guys. 
 

So it seems that nobody here can think of a good or sufficient technical reason for this way of doing things .

[greggerm 312]

5 minutes ago, tfm said:

So it seems that nobody here can think of a good or sufficient technical reason for this way of doing things .

Well your post has only been here for two hours... it's a bit early to say nobody has any reasons just yet.

What follows is my speculative take on it...

2 hours ago, tfm said:

1. Why can’t updates be a one-step procedure rather than having to launch updates from separate apps (MSFS and the MS Store) and from separate places in the same app (MSFS update screen and MSFS Marketplace)?

Step one of the update process takes care of the "core" platform... one could say it covers the launcher and executables for MSFS. Step two from the in-game interface covers the remainder of the content itself. By splitting it up, it probably allows for easier maintenance of the MS Store and Steam versions by limiting the material unique to the distribution platforms to the first step, and handling all of the common material for both platforms in the second step.

2 hours ago, tfm said:

2. Why can’t updates be smaller?

It is a good question, but I'm guessing that with bandwidth being a open commodity they've taken to updating full files instead of doing delta-changes to them. This might reduce the likelihood of corruption during the updates, and also helps assure the platform that each installation indeed has the files it needs for the version.

2 hours ago, tfm said:

3. Why are updates mandatory? 

Like other games which have an online environment, having all players on the same version is important for compatibility and functionality. Everyone is flying on the same platform, with the same set of default content.  I would also wager that they'd likely need to set up and maintain full online instances of each version, and if this involves a full cut of the Bing terrain we're flying over, that could be a very costly investment with each version.

 

Again, my answers are speculative, but they seem plausible to me.

-Greg