MSFS will never allow users to stay on an older version

[neil0311 366]

1 hour ago, abrams_tank said:

So as a software developer myself, I always suspected there was no way Asobo would allow users to stay on an older version of MSFS.  Anyways, we don't need to guess why anymore.  Matt from Working Title has provided a technical answer on why Microsoft/Asobo cannot allow users to stay on older versions of MSFS, and why users must update to the latest version of MSFS each time an update is released:

So for those who want to stay on an older version of MSFS because you think it's more stable, forget it, it will never happen.  Instead, if you want a more stable release, the most productive way forward is to push Asobo to implement an "opt in" beta for every player in MSFS, so that the beta testing can be expanded to every player who wants to "opt into" the beta (you can vote for the "opt in" beta request here: https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/add-a-beta-version-players-can-enable-before-releasing-a-patch/277648/42).

Good. And it’s no different than any other SaaS or cloud based app. You can’t run your own 3 year old version of G-Mail. iOS and Android (and their apps) require upgrades.

If they allowed each user to decline updates and stay on what version they prefer, how would they ever test or validate anything? People moan and complain now, so can you imagine the user who froze on SU4 who now can’t use specific “SU5” only features or add ons? It would be digital chaos. 

Edited August 16, 2021 by neil0311

[GSalden 4,700]

A very good thing : everybody using the same version.

Otherwise when people are having issues they need to look at multiple versions….

Well done MS.

[ADamiani 470]

2 hours ago, Ricardo41 said:

...and that's a good thing. 

I don't see it the same way.

It may be ok when your beta testers and quality assurance department work fine and you push stable updates without regressions.

As we all know, this is not the case, unfortunately. 

A.

[abrams_tank 7,471]

3 minutes ago, ADamiani said:

I don't see it the same way.

It may be ok when your beta testers and quality assurance department work fine and you push stable updates without regressions.

As we all know, this is not the case, unfortunately. 

A.

The best way is for an "opt in" beta for every player in MSFS.  An "opt in" beta can uncover a lot of bugs so Asobo can fix them before they are released to the public.

[michaelst7 12]

As someone who has had NO PROBLEMS with any update, hot fix or upgrade, I welcome it as it improves a product I've already paid for.  Every update, upgrade and hot fix makes the product cheaper for me in the long run.

Personally, I'd like to see them shut down the "Developers Mode" for every one.  Many, if not most, problems arise from people who make changes to .cfg files, databases and other core elements or files, then complain when an update, upgrade or hot fix doesn't work.  I'd also be OK with some kind of hardware and software compatibility application.  Also, Third party vendors should have their product approved as compatible by the developers.  If not approved, it should relieve  Asobo's responsibility for any problems or incompatibilities.

 

Of course, that's just my opinion.  I could be wrong.

[ADamiani 470]

1 minute ago, michaelst7 said:

As someone who has had NO PROBLEMS with any update, hot fix or upgrade, I welcome it as it improves a product I've already paid for.  Every update, upgrade and hot fix makes the product cheaper for me in the long run.

Personally, I'd like to see them shut down the "Developers Mode" for every one.  Many, if not most, problems arise from people who make changes to .cfg files, databases and other core elements or files, then complain when an update, upgrade or hot fix doesn't work.  I'd also be OK with some kind of hardware and software compatibility application.  Also, Third party vendors should have their product approved as compatible by the developers.  If not approved, it should relieve  Asobo's responsibility for any problems or incompatibilities.

 

Of course, that's just my opinion.  I could be wrong.

The Closed System approach would discourage most freeware producers, who have been so important in the history of this hobby. Changing a .ini file does not require access to dev mode: it's just a file in a folder. In any case, Asobo and Microsoft are already relieved of any responsibility for any problem. If you read carefully the EULA you see that you take the product "as is", which in the case of MSFS is quite an interesting concept full of surprises.

A.

 

[michaelst7 12]

3 hours ago, ADamiani said:

The Closed System approach would discourage most freeware producers, who have been so important in the history of this hobby. Changing a .ini file does not require access to dev mode: it's just a file in a folder. In any case, Asobo and Microsoft are already relieved of any responsibility for any problem. If you read carefully the EULA you see that you take the product "as is", which in the case of MSFS is quite an interesting concept full of surprises.

A.

 

Actually, I'd be more inclined to purchase third party software if I knew Asobo had certified it as Compatible with the application.  If I were a third party software developer for MSFS software, having Asobo's approval would make my software more valuable.  I could charge more.  The competition between other developers would motivate me to produce better, and cheaper software.

[enright 496]

7 hours ago, abrams_tank said:

So for those who want to stay on an older version of MSFS because you think it's more stable, forget it, it will never happen.  Instead, if you want a more stable release, the most productive way forward is to push Asobo to implement an "opt in" beta for every player in MSFS, so that the beta testing can be expanded to every player who wants to "opt into" the beta (you can vote for the "opt in" beta request here: https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/add-a-beta-version-players-can-enable-before-releasing-a-patch/277648/42).

This would definitely make the most sense - allow customers to opt-in to "release candidates" as so many other companies do. Then you'd only have to support two versions at any given time, vs. a potentially infinite number of them if you simply allowed people to opt out of updates altogether. You'd also greatly expand the testing audience and therefore be more likely to capture issues with specific CPU / GPU / driver combos. 

I think it's fairly amazing that Asobo is doing so many updates, so regularly and so proactively that this is even an issue. I for one really enjoy the anticipation of having something new to look forward to each month, even if it means a few quirks here and there.

[Isaiah53six 134]

what If I don't want the "Xbox" version but something that can take advantage of the latest PC specs?  it's simply about control folks...an opt in/out beta option would prove me wrong. 

[ADamiani 470]

1 hour ago, michaelst7 said:

Actually, I'd be more inclined to purchase third party software if I knew Asobo had certified it as Compatible with the application.  If I were a third party software developer for MSFS software, having Asobo's approval would make my software more valuable.  I could charge more.  The competition between other developers would motivate me to produce better, and cheaper software.

Yes, but I was talking about freeware. 

A.

[Todd2 2,159]

I like the updates. Sure they break the sim but they've been quick with hotfixes.  I believe the sim now is the best it's ever been I'm stunned with the realism sometimes. Ya it sucks that I can't fly my Carenado planes but this is just growing pains.

[Concodroid 84]

The only other issue is old mods. This is why, for example, Kerbal Space Program players run old installs, so they can use old mods.

[ThrottleUp 630]

As much as I am not a fan of this system I recognize the pointless difficulties in dealing with multiple issues from millions of gamers all on different versions. 

So having EVERYONE on the same field is the way forward.

Prepare for many more issues ahead but no choice, this is the way it has to be done. When your game is running perfectly - play it as much as you can and enjoy it before the next update rolls in and we all watch to see what will be totaled next 😆 

[neil0311 366]

2 hours ago, Concodroid said:

The only other issue is old mods. This is why, for example, Kerbal Space Program players run old installs, so they can use old mods.

That’s not the only issue. Much of the scenery is integrated with data from the Azure cloud. Weather is cloud based. Traffic data is cloud based.

And bugs do get fixed in updates, despite the negative drumbeat that would have you believe otherwise. 

[neil0311 366]

1 hour ago, ThrottleUp said:

When your game is running perfectly - play it as much as you can and enjoy it before the next update rolls in and we all watch to see what will be totaled next 😆

 

 

I know some don’t want to hear it, but none of the updates has caused a problem for me.

I’m sure there has been some minor variation in performance or visuals, but nothing that’s been really noticeable to me.

So again…the people having problems aren’t the majority. They’re the folks who tinker, who tweak, who are using 3rd party or freeware scenery or aircraft, and they are very critical about things many of us don’t even notice. 

Edited August 17, 2021 by neil0311