MSFS 2024 …. Betrayal ?

[Shack95 2,658]

4 minutes ago, avhpilot said:

isn't it safe to assume that all fs2020 addons from asobo can be upgraded for free in the new marketplace and it'll be fairly easy to modify 3rd party addons at a discount price or for free?

Or perhaps everything still works in the 'new' sim, similar to what happens with X-plane upgrades.

Yes, Microsoft have confirmed that „Current aircraft and airports that are in Microsoft Flight Simulator (2020), as well as virtually all Marketplace add-ons, will be supported in Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024.“ It seems that most stuff will be compatible.

[MartinRex007 390]

This seems consistent with what MS has always done wiith its Flight Simulator since 1982? ChatGPT

1. Microsoft Flight Simulator 1.0 (1982)
2. Microsoft Flight Simulator 2.0 (1984)
3. Microsoft Flight Simulator 3.0 (1988)
4. Microsoft Flight Simulator 4.0 (1989)
5. Microsoft Flight Simulator 5.0 (1993)
6. Microsoft Flight Simulator 5.1 (1995)
7. Microsoft Flight Simulator 95 (1995)
8. Microsoft Flight Simulator 98 (1997)
9. Microsoft Flight Simulator 2000 (1999)
10. Microsoft Flight Simulator 2002 (2001)
11. Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004: A Century of Flight (2003)
12. Microsoft Flight Simulator X (2006)
13. Microsoft Flight (2012)
14. Microsoft Flight Simulator (2020)

[Waldo Pepper 1,953]

If you think incremental releases feel bad,   consider how it felt twenty years ago when MS decided to walk away from the flight sim genre for two decades.  I don't know about you guys,  but there are still many fixes and new features I'd like to see.  As an MSFS glider pilot,  I'm particularly interested in the weather simulation being significantly improved.  More time on the clock means a higher chance of things being improved.

If you want to kill the sim,  keep bitching about every new release until the point that MS just walks away.   As long as we support the sim,   as long as it remains profitable,  MS will keep developing.   

Edited June 15, 2023 by Waldo Pepper

[threexgreen 3,142]

21 hours ago, RustyFlyer said:

Talk about drama queen lol. I suspect that the video originator also feels that it's not possible for people to walk and to chew gum at the same time. Here's a novel thought: Why not hold off condemnation of a product (and of the product's "manufacturer") until after production of the product has concluded and until the actual distribution of the actual, full product has, at least, begun?

The amount of inherently irrational responses to this announcement has left me perplexed and frankly a bit concerned at how easy it apparently is to feed a pre-selected, yet insanely simple and totally conspicuous narrative to people with many not questioning it for even a second on their own: Show a few pretty pictures and include the word mission or career and you've successfully made loads of people strongly believe that's all there is and there is no way there could be something more to it you can't see in the trailer.

[Fiorentoni 4,252]

1 hour ago, Nixoq said:

The amount of inherently irrational responses to this announcement has left me perplexed and frankly a bit concerned at how easy it apparently is to feed a pre-selected, yet insanely simple and totally conspicuous narrative to people with many not questioning it for even a second on their own: Show a few pretty pictures and include the word mission or career and you've successfully made loads of people strongly believe that's all there is and there is no way there could be something more to it you can't see in the trailer.

You are missing the point that the trailer was done by Microsoft themselves. There's no reason to "question" it like you said, because why would they want to show off wrong/untrue negative things about their own flightsim? Your "people are being fed a narrative" makes no sense in this case; that is reserved for when someone wants to make people believe something that is not true. Or do you mean someone else "feeds" this narrative to the poor Avsimmers... like the great conspiracy of Austin Meyer? 😉

Now all of that doesn't mean MSFS 2024 will (only) be as in the trailer, but that's another topic.

[Tuskin38 6,532]

What does the very first trailer for MSFS2020 tell you? (it's 4 years as of June 9th wow)

 

Edited June 16, 2023 by Tuskin38

[jarmstro 2,404]

55 minutes ago, Tuskin38 said:

What does the very first trailer for MSFS2020 tell you? (it's 4 years as of June 9th wow)

It tells me that no other piece of software could have held my interest for so long. I enjoy it just as much now as I did when it when it was first released.

[threexgreen 3,142]

12 hours ago, Fiorentoni said:

You are missing the point that the trailer was done by Microsoft themselves. There's no reason to "question" it like you said, because why would they want to show off wrong/untrue negative things about their own flightsim? Your "people are being fed a narrative" makes no sense in this case; that is reserved for when someone wants to make people believe something that is not true. Or do you mean someone else "feeds" this narrative to the poor Avsimmers... like the great conspiracy of Austin Meyer? 😉

Now all of that doesn't mean MSFS 2024 will (only) be as in the trailer, but that's another topic.

Not trying to be confrontational but it's you who's missing my point. MS showed off a specific aspect of the sim to cater to the occasion (Xbox event) because CFD and thermals just don't reach the audience there. Now loads of people focus solely on that one aspect and are convinced that's all there is and there can't be anything else, because for some reason it's impossible to implement a career mode or missions while also improving weather and flight models - just because one aspect was shown in a 1 minute trailer with next to no information and the other wasn't.

I'm not saying MS are trying to label their own product as something different. But if it's that easy to convince people who already know MSFS that 2024 is a lame arcade career mode just because the other parts haven't been shown yet I have to wonder how easy it generally must be to convince people of a selected narrative just by simply not showing anything else/showing only the part you want to show, because apparently most are just going to take what they see at face value and think nothing else can exist besides what they've seen.

Now in this case Phil Spencer has said that the reason for it being a new standalone sim is due to improvements in graphics but also weather and flight models being large enough they felt a new sim was warranted, but this probably comes too late for many who have already made their conclusion based on that intial Xbox event showcase.

[Nuno Pinto 1,399]

Get over this, it happened before, it will happen to "FS2024" or whatever that thing will be called as well.

Prepar3D has the same cycles too, nothing new here, it's called "gimme more money".

[Fiorentoni 4,252]

Fascinating how suddenly it seems "enough" for MSFS to be just like P3D. 3 years ago it was supposedly the revolution in flight simming... really absolutely no one of you expected MS2020 to (effectively) "end" in 2024, no one, don't fool yourself. Now suddenly you all act like it's the most normal thing in the world and you all knew from the beginning that the 10-year-plan was completely misunderstood. It's alright to say "I don't care, I'll buy it anyway", but saying that any negative reactions are uncalled for because we all should have known better is just absurd.
That's what psychology calls "sunk cost bias", I guess.

[Cognita 1,089]

The Ten Year Plan thing has, I think, been  misconstrued and tends to be used to further certain arguments. There was never a firm commitment to some 10 year period; It was a statement made in response to questions about Asobo and Microsoft's  commitment to the platform. Jorg has clarified since then that all that was meant was to communicate a long-term commitment, not to make a binding promise that 2020 will be here for 10 years, that no other versions, iterations or products would carry the platform forward. It does not even seem reasonable to infer such conclusions from his original statement. 

I did expect that at some point along the way there would need to be a new version or some form of DLC that would require payment. No game title survives on store purchased DLC alone. Did I anticipate 2024, no. But did I anticipate needing to pay for something like dynamic seasons, yes. Personally, I think the approach of a new version with these new features, possibilities and updated flight model is a better way to go then a bunch of DLC addons.  

[snwboardn 87]

13 minutes ago, Cognita said:

The Ten Year Plan thing has, I think, been  misconstrued and tends to be used to further certain arguments. There was never a firm commitment to some 10 year period; It was a statement made in response to questions about Asobo and Microsoft's  commitment to the platform. Jorg has clarified since then that all that was meant was to communicate a long-term commitment, not to make a binding promise that 2020 will be here for 10 years, that no other versions, iterations or products would carry the platform forward. It does not even seem reasonable to infer such conclusions from his original statement. 

I did expect that at some point along the way there would need to be a new version or some form of DLC that would require payment. No game title survives on store purchased DLC alone. Did I anticipate 2024, no. But did I anticipate needing to pay for something like dynamic seasons, yes. Personally, I think the approach of a new version with these new features, possibilities and updated flight model is a better way to go then a bunch of DLC addons.  

Honestly they need to go to a subscription model, trying to support 2 versions at the same time is dumb and does nothing but split an already niche audience and be nothing but an annoyance for 3rd party devs (paid and freeware). Everyone needs to be on the same version, if that is in the form of a paid update so be it, but the whole "we are going to support both 2020 and 2024 is dumb IMO, and I hope they change their mind and just continue on with 2024. 

[Cognita 1,089]

13 minutes ago, snwboardn said:

Honestly they need to go to a subscription model, trying to support 2 versions at the same time is dumb and does nothing but split an already niche audience and be nothing but an annoyance for 3rd party devs (paid and freeware).

I suspect they have analyzed these options pretty closely. I don't think it will cost them anything substantial to continue 2020; it can go into maintenance mode with no further feature updates or expansions, only high-priority security bug fixes. The cost of the servers is really quite negligible and whether data is streamed to 2020 or 2024 is the same thing. A subscription model likely does not generate the same amount of revenue over the same time period; there is less commitment to the franchise. They also know there was a lot of negative reaction to the notion of a subscription model in the more committed community, and given that may want to steer clear of it.

Edited June 16, 2023 by Cognita

[The Flight Level 2,114]

@Cognita Absolutely. So crazy, how statements get turned and twisted and misunderstood. The slightest negative (true or false) is turned into a calamity for a home computer game! MSFS2024 is a progressive version of Flight Simulator that offers different features and this new version will continue to expand the Flight Simulator audience. Do people really believe Microsoft would stay status quo with 2020 at the rate of new ideas and advancements in computer graphics and technology? Especially in view of the overwhelming success with 2020.

[Krakin 5,775]

24 minutes ago, snwboardn said:

Honestly they need to go to a subscription model,

I hope they never consider such an insane idea.