3 minutes ago, GoranM said:

Then why isn't it compared to Flightgear?  Aerofly?  DCS?  FSX?  GeoFS?  Google Earth Flight sim?  

Because XP12 is the closest competitor of MSFS as you know full well.

2 minutes ago, GoranM said:

We ask that no comparisons be made.

Why? Whats the problem with comparing two competing products? Isn't that the basic principle behind free trade and capitalism?

5 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

Because XP12 is the closest competitor of MSFS as you know full well.

Ok, let's go down another road.  I've saved more posts than I can count, where MSFS users have come into the X-Plane forums, and tried to shut down comparisons between X-Plane and MSFS.  The moderators have also warned people not to engage in comparisons between the two flight sims.  Because, as I said, they end up in heated arguments and locked threads.

Why can't people just enjoy what they want, without being told they chose the less popular platform?

I'm a member of several forums for several different topics, outside of flight simming.  I'm in a Honda group.  Never a comparison made between Honda and Kia.  I'm in a lambourghini group.  Never a comparison made between lambo and ferrari.  

Like I said, there's no point to it.  MSFS isn't going anywhere.  It has the most popularity.  There's no reason for comparisons.  If you think there is, and the moderators allow it, I can start comparing, but I'll be here all day and the thread will end up locked within a few minutes.

Edited March 30, 20233 yr by GoranM

4 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

Whats the problem with comparing two competing products? Isn't that the basic principle behind free trade and capitalism?

I'll give you an example.  A comparison started in our discord between default MSFS and default XP scenery.  I made a comment about it, based on first hand experience, and said the scenery in XP12 is better than MSFS DEFAULT autogen (I capitalized it for the people who get offended at anything negative).  As soon as I said that, it was a free for all.

That is exactly why we don't like comparisons made.  Opinions will not be changed.  

Edited March 30, 20233 yr by GoranM

@GoranM I have a lot of respect for the work you've done on the XP platform and I look forward to you having a go at MSFS with my wallet at the ready. I think you've heard this already but you'll make more money than you ever have if you do. Not that money is the most important thing lol. Just for further clarification, I think what the poster was getting at is that the need for a subscription model makes no sense when LR can keep the lights on with the numbers they have on steam. I don't think it was a dig at XP12 at all.

Personally, I think the whole subscription thing is beyond silly. Jorg promised Phil Spencer that the sim would be able to sustain itself and the marketplace was the solution. Everything points to it doing very well for them. The CEO of MS noted it's success in an investor meeting, Seb has also said the sim will continue after he's retired so I think they're doing just fine. As I said earlier in the thread the resource they're really strapped for is time and to a lesser extent, some specialized human resources (as far as I know, they still haven't filled the position for a programmer well versed in ATC)

1 minute ago, Krakin said:

@GoranM I have a lot of respect for the work you've done on the XP platform and I look forward to you having a go at MSFS with my wallet at the ready. I think you've heard this already but you'll make more money than you ever have if you do. Not that money is the most important thing lol. Just for further clarification, I think what the poster was getting at is that the need for a subscription model makes no sense when LR can keep the lights on with the numbers they have on steam. I don't think it was a dig at XP12 at all.

Personally, I think the whole subscription thing is beyond silly. Jorg promised Phil Spencer that the sim would be able to sustain itself and the marketplace was the solution. Everything points to it doing very well for them. The CEO of MS noted it's success in an investor meeting, Seb has also said the sim will continue after he's retired so I think they're doing just fine. As I said earlier in the thread the resource they're really strapped for is time and to a lesser extent, some specialized human resources (as far as I know, they still haven't filled the position for a programmer well versed in ATC)

Why couldn't you have just said that in the first place!?  At least then I could have a civil conversation.

2 minutes ago, Krakin said:

I think you've heard this already but you'll make more money than you ever have if you do.

More times than anyone can count.

2 minutes ago, Krakin said:

I think what the poster was getting at is that the need for a subscription model makes no sense when LR can keep the lights on with the numbers they have on steam.

Two totally separate scenarios.  LR is run out of Austin's house.  Minimal overheads is an overstatement.  Asobo have a headquarters.  Headquarters means overheads.  And in these times, those overheads are not cheap.  Plus, a staff of about 280.  A developer for MSFS would never be paid less than $USD100K.  At minimum.  Jorg and Seb would be on substantially more.  Then add inibuilds package.  Multiply that $100K by 280, and you can see how the cash stacks up.  If they were paid under $100K, send them my way.  I'll pay them $100K as a s starting salary.  The only reason Asobo or MS would charge a subscription fee is to make more profit.  If we take the rough guess of 3 million users, multiply that by, say $5/mth...yeah, that's a healthy chunk of change.  And I know what servers cost.  5 figures/mth is not unheard of for 1 or more payware products in X-Plane.

The Marketplace more than covers any costs, anyway.  IIRC, they charge 30% commission on all payware.  

10 minutes ago, Krakin said:

I don't think it was a dig at XP12 at all.

Agree to disagree.  But that could be because I'm taking history into heavy account.

11 minutes ago, Krakin said:

Seb has also said the sim will continue after he's retired so I think they're doing just fine.

I will always take such comments with a grain of salt.  And that, too, is based on history.  (FSX authentication servers being switched off without warning)

12 minutes ago, Krakin said:

As I said earlier in the thread the resource they're really strapped for is time and to a lesser extent, some specialized human resources (as far as I know, they still haven't filled the position for a programmer well versed in ATC)

That, I can't comment too much on.  Personally, I think vatsim and pilot edge are far more popular than default.  But that's just my opinion.

43 minutes ago, GoranM said:

At least then I could have a civil conversation.

Seems to have been perfectly civil to me? But, with respect, if you come to this  forum and basically tell people that under no circumstances can they mention XP at all then you must expect to get replies. You reacted badly to a perfectly reasonable and factual, evidence based post.

Edited March 30, 20233 yr by jarmstro

21 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

basically tell people that under no circumstances can they mention XP at all then you must expect to get replies. You reacted badly to a perfectly reasonable and factual, evidence based post.

Context is everything.  I didn't say "under no circumstances".  What I saw was "MSFS has 7000+ users online and X-Plane has 280.  *How pitiful*".  The asterisk's were added as what I saw as subtext.  Considering the feelings of what many people in here have of X-Plane, am I expected to believe anything to the contrary?

I don't mind comparisons at all.  But it all depends on the context.  Is it factual?  Sure.  Does it mean X-Plane will go out of business?  Hardly.  Contrary to some people's opinions.  Does it mean MSFS is "better"?  That's up to the individual.  

Regardless of all that, the mods don't want comparisons.  I've seen threads locked after just 1 post that draws a comparison.  They don't want them because, as I said, they end up as locked threads.  

And good to see you back, @abrams_tank  I noticed you disappeared for quite a while.  Looking forward to more of your enlightening and informative posts. 😉

Now that I've added MSFS to my collection.

Edited March 30, 20233 yr by GoranM

I'm 100% confident that the comparison was not a dig at all, considering what was up for discussion. People were reading too much into the numbers so context was given.

If there would ever be a subscription model (I can't see it happening myself), then I would like to see a concerted effort to fix Regression Bugs far far quicker and more emphasis on utilising beta periods much more effectively than they currently are including far better direct communication with the Dev team during said beta periods, the "forum mods" go between is clearly not working well enough.

Just those two (simple) areas and I'd be happy to pay monthly, more than happy.

Oh good grief, I'm beginning to wonder if ChatGPT has an account here and is starting its own threads

Good Lord! One mention of XP12 and a big row kicks off. Stick to the topic or it will be locked. 🙄

Can't believe people would support a subscription model for a product that already has a one-time purchase associated with it.

I bought MSFS, there's my support done. MS and Asobo made the cost analysis to make this a one-time purchase product despite being fully aware of their plans to support it for the coming future, why do I suddenly need to also subscribe to a product I already paid for?

Asobo and MS did the cost analysis that a one-time purchase was the better route with the marketplace providing some semblance of funding. However, this isn't new, Playstation sells their consoles at breakeven and sometimes at a loss (depends on the gen you look at) with costs recouped through game sales, fees and services. Microsoft is consistently losing money through xbox game pass because it provides the benefit of an expanded customer base. Ubisoft has been supporting Rainbow Six Siege for nearly 7 years, no one has been required to pay more than the initial price when it went first went on sale. It's supported by continuous yearly packages and other monetary concessions forming the game into a GaaS, which is exactly what MSFS is and many other GaaS platforms don't require subscription models, there's no reason for MSFS to do so.

Not every product needs to be making a monetary profit, they can generate different forms of returns for the business as a whole.

Would be happy to pay for MSFS 2024 on a subscription basis. 

2 hours ago, St Mawgan said:

Would be happy to pay for MSFS 2024 on a subscription basis. 

A company like Laminar, if they charged a subscription for streaming scenery, I could see how that works.  Ortho tiles cost money.  And LR is a private company with not as much access to those kinds of resources as Microsoft.  For Microsoft, the only reason they would do it is if they needed extra funding.  Or, and this isn't out of the question, seeing as Microsoft is a public company, to keep the shareholders happy.  It's obvious MS can afford to keep the servers running, but if they're not in the profit side, they'll find some other way to generate funds.  If it means keeping MSFS going for another 7 years, I feel safe in saying most people in here would be happy to pay a few bucks a month.