Interesting Youtube channel with P3dV6 content...

[DD_Arthur 1,106]

11 minutes ago, JRBarrett said:

A whole lot of common sense

Please! You're spoiling a hilarious thread with a reasonable, rational, factual post.

If we go down that route I'm going to have to cancel my bulk order for Pop Corn.

In the meantime, let the crazies continue!!

😎

[Krakin 5,872]

13 minutes ago, JRBarrett said:

Orbx is an MSFS official MSFS Marketplace partner, and yet they continue to supply content for P3D

Not only that but Orbx has also been commissioned by MS to create default scenery and POIs for MSFS, yet they were on a stream with Austin Meyer to promote content they'd be bringing to XP12.

@GoranM I see you throwing your support behind what Adam has been saying. Did MS approach you and your company with an exclusive deal too? Is that why you haven't made anything for MSFS yet?

[GoranM 3,809]

1 hour ago, Krakin said:

I see you throwing your support behind what Adam has been saying. Did MS approach you and your company with an exclusive deal too? Is that why you haven't made anything for MSFS yet?

I don't really like going into detail about such things.  But I'll give you a basic outline.

First of all, no.  Neither I, nor anyone I worked with (as far as I know, at least) were approached by Asobo or Microsoft.  I do, however, know who was approached.  Most said no.  For their own reasons, I guess.  

That's nothing against MSFS or P3D.  I've said no to some very lucrative contract work. 

I have been approached by some other people to make content for MSFS.  One of them was not at all happy that I said no.  

I have never said no to making content for other flight sims.  I have never unfairly bashed any other sim.  I have voiced criticisms about all of them.  Including X-Plane.  Laminar knows about my criticisms, all too well.  

What I can say for certain is, never say never.  I like MSFS.  I own it.  I paid for a full version of it.  I've messed with it as a dev and as a customer.  It's a flight sim.  I'm not going to go out on a limb and say it's the greatest flight sim to ever be on a PC.  Not because I don't think it is or it isn't.  I just don't look at software that way.  It does what it's supposed to do.  Personally, FS9 was my favorite.  Great memories.

For now, we're tied up with support for our current add ons.

My support for Adam is due to him having a valid point.  There is at least 1 dev team that was paid by Asobo/MS to bring content from 1 sim to MSFS, and that was inibuilds.  It's no secret or conspiracy.  

Personally, I think it's a bad idea.  It has the potential to damage the payware market.  Or at least, the market for the aircraft add on being given away.  You can bet there won't be a payware A310 any time soon.

I guess the price was right and they seized an opportunity.  But it happened.

Edited July 11, 2023 by GoranM

[lwt1971 7,469]

1 hour ago, GoranM said:

My support for Adam is due to him having a valid point. There is at least 1 dev team that was paid by Asobo/MS to bring content from 1 sim to MSFS, and that was inibuilds.  It's no secret or conspiracy.  

That is definitely true and no one is claiming that to be a secret/conspiracy since it was obviously well publicized by both MS and iniBuilds, and there are other devs lesser known who have also been contracted out to provide content for MSFS by MS so that it's free for users (also well publicized by all parties involved). But all that is *very* different from these devs being brought into binding contracts that forces them to *only* produce content for MSFS, and then also lie about that by explicitly going out to the public and giving the reasons that they did for focusing either solely or mostly on MSFS due to business and market conditions. PMDG, A2A, FSL, JustFlight, Milviz, etc certainly were never contracted to provide free content in the core sim, and they've stated what they have re: their forward development. So no, the iniBuilds A310 example does not make Adam's claims valid.
 

Edited July 11, 2023 by lwt1971

[GoranM 3,809]

12 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

But all that is *very* different from these devs being brought into binding contracts that forces them to *only* produce content for MSFS

As a matter of fact, there were some clauses, which I am not going to go into.  I will give you my example when I was approached.  I was told that I will be compensated for my work in exchange for all source files.  The contract I was given had a very robust exclusivity clause in it.  There was a time limit for this exclusivity clause.  

Did inibuilds have this clause as well?  Only they know.  I would bet money that they did.  Only because I've never seen a contract without an exclusivity clause.  And I've seen my share of a few.  I've been doing this for 14 years, Len.  My first contract job was for Icon Aircraft, over a decade ago.

12 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

So no, the iniBuilds A310 example does not make Adam's claims valid.

Adam has an opinion.  And he is entitled to it.  You can disagree with him, but that's all it is.  A disagreement.  Is he wrong?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  Are you wrong?  Maybe.  Maybe not.

Is there an exclusivity clause in an Asobo contract?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  But I would say almost definitely.  Are there NDA's in place in the flight sim world.  You betcha.  More than you can possibly imagine.

 

Edited July 11, 2023 by GoranM

[lwt1971 7,469]

2 minutes ago, GoranM said:

Adam has an opinion.  And he is entitled to it.  You can disagree with him, but that's all it is.  A disagreement.  Is he wrong?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  Are you wrong?  Maybe.  Maybe not.

He is definitely entitled to opinions, but as I posted above, he said it is the "truth" multiple times.. I think we are certainly entitled to call that out and ask for evidence before declaring such claims as truth and facts.
 

4 minutes ago, GoranM said:

Is there an exclusivity clause in an Asobo contract?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  But I would say almost definitely. 

Ok sure, I would say definitely not, given how some of these devs *are* and *have* producing/produced content for multiple sims (examples of orbx, iniBuilds, etc given above by JRBarret and Abrams above being just some examples). Oh and more importantly, also given what all these devs have explicitly stated about why they are focusing mostly/solely on MSFS. Until evidence is given about supposed exclusivity clauses/contracts, it's just conjecturing by some here in the forums vs the actual words of the devs.
 

[GoranM 3,809]

25 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

He is definitely entitled to opinions, but as I posted above, he said it is the "truth" multiple times.

Ok, so just disagree with him.  If he can't provide evidence, simply say, "Let's agree to disagree" and move on.  Does it have to continue into name calling?  Does it really matter to you, THAT much?

Was there an exclusivity clause in the inibuilds contract?  I can safely say it'll be a cold day in hell before they disclose that information.  Whether there was or there wasn't.

25 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

Ok sure, I would say definitely not, given how some of these devs *are* and *have* producing/produced content for multiple sims (examples of orbx, iniBuilds, etc given above by JRBarret and Abrams above being just some examples). Oh and more importantly, also given what all these devs have explicitly stated about why they are focusing mostly/solely on MSFS. Until evidence is given about supposed exclusivity clauses/contracts, it's just conjecturing by some here in the forums vs the actual words of the devs.

Please tell me you're not that naive.  I've seen marketing that will make your head spin.  "Wheels rotating like the real world aircraft." (Yes, that was a real marketing statement on a payware add on.)

Let's go one at a time.

OrbX.  The scenery market in X-Plane is definitely not profitable or sustainable.  This is due to ortho with zoom levels that can rival most payware.  MSFS is ripe for a scenery market.  It'd be foolish to think otherwise. 

Inibuilds.  The price was right.  I'm not faulting Ubaid (owner of inibuilds) for accepting the offer.  He did it for his own reasons, and I hold no judgement.  I know some of the developers who work for Ubaid (inibuilds owner).  I have spoken to Ubaid a few times.  Very ambitious young man, who has done something I would never think could be done.  "Manage" a team of developers.  But inibuilds were paid to bring their A310 to MSFS.  We can all agree on that.  Anything beyond that is someone's word.  I've seen it all, Len.  I've seen how business is conducted in the flight sim world.  I've seen reviewers beg for free copies of add ons in return for a positive review.  I was one of them, and I simply refused.  I've seen add ons with Boeing licenses that make me shake my head in disbelief.  (Abacus 787).  Yeah, it's not often I criticize another developer, but in this case, I think it's a widely agreed upon criticism.  If you choose to put 100% faith in a dev teams statements, then more power to you.  I, however, am in some cases, hesitant to do so.  And you may come back with, "So how do we know YOU'RE telling the truth?"

And you're right.  You don't know.  You either believe it, or you don't.  

I think I'll leave it there.  I have work to do, and I think I've said all I need to say.  All that's going to happen is we're both going to agree to disagree.

Edited July 11, 2023 by GoranM

[Juliett Alfa Romeo 564]

@GoranM Thank you.

[Krakin 5,872]

1 hour ago, GoranM said:

As a matter of fact, there were some clauses, which I am not going to go into.  I will give you my example when I was approached.  I was told that I will be compensated for my work in exchange for all source files.  The contract I was given had a very robust exclusivity clause in it.  There was a time limit for this exclusivity clause.  

What type of dev offered you this? If it wasn't MS then it is confusing and doesn't add anything to the discussion at hand. We are trying to determine whether or not MS is locking third party devs out of other platforms in the way Adam has described.

[lwt1971 7,469]

56 minutes ago, GoranM said:

Was there an exclusivity clause in the inibuilds contract?  I can safely say it'll be a cold day in hell before they disclose that information.  Whether there was or there wasn't.

Please tell me you're not that naive.  I've seen marketing that will make your head spin.  "Wheels rotating like the real world aircraft." (Yes, that was a real marketing statement on a payware add on.)

OrbX.  The scenery market in X-Plane is definitely not profitable or sustainable.  This is due to ortho with zoom levels that can rival most payware.  MSFS is ripe for a scenery market.  It'd be foolish to think otherwise. 

Inibuilds.  The price was right.  I'm not faulting Ubaid (owner of inibuilds) for accepting the offer.  He did it for his own reasons, and I hold no judgement.  I know some of the developers who work for Ubaid (inibuilds owner).  I have spoken to Ubaid a few times.  Very ambitious young man, who has done something I would never think could be done.  "Manage" a team of developers.  But inibuilds were paid to bring their A310 to MSFS.  We can all agree on that.  Anything beyond that is someone's word.  I've seen it all, Len.  I've seen how business is conducted in the flight sim world.  I've seen reviewers beg for free copies of add ons in return for a positive review.  I was one of them, and I simply refused.  I've seen add ons with Boeing licenses that make me shake my head in disbelief.  (Abacus 787).  Yeah, it's not often I criticize another developer, but in this case, I think it's a widely agreed upon criticism.  If you choose to put 100% faith in a dev teams statements, then more power to you.  I, however, am in some cases, hesitant to do so.  And you may come back with, "So how do we know YOU'RE telling the truth?"

And you're right.  You don't know.  You either believe it, or you don't.  

I think I'll leave it there.  I have work to do, and I think I've said all I need to say.  All that's going to happen is we're both going to agree to disagree.

Yes it all comes down to words, and in the absence of actual evidence, if you're calling me naive to put more stock in what the devs publicly say about why are they are focusing on MSFS (coupled with all what we can plainly see in terms of simmer community uptake and sheer popularity of MSFS, the various surveys like Navigraph, the various forums and social media activity for MSFS vs other platforms, etc, etc)... if all that coupled with the devs' very words makes me put more stock (note: it's not "100% faith") in that versus believing some randoms' forum/yt speculation, then color me naive 🙂 ... IMO, it's rather naive and embarrassing to keep spouting these wild theories and/or give credence to them 🙂 

Given that we are putting out opinions and thoughts, in addition to what I said before about maybe it's more to do with sim platform makers not making their platforms compelling enough to retain sizeable user numbers.. I'm also thinking all this wild nonsense about exclusivity clauses/contracts by some are a way to make themselves feel better about their favorite sim platform not being given the attention they want by 3rd party devs, just IMO of course ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Oh yes, we are definitely going to have to agree to disagree.
 

Edited July 11, 2023 by lwt1971

[GoranM 3,809]

19 minutes ago, Krakin said:

What type of dev offered you this?

Obviously I can't say.  It's a very well known dev, and I'm afraid you'll just have to take my word for it.  It is definitely not an isolated case, because I've had other up and coming developers ask me for advice on contracts they were offered.  

19 minutes ago, Krakin said:

We are trying to determine whether or not MS is locking third party devs out of other platforms in the way Adam has described.

Look at it from a business pov.  That's all I'll say on that.

18 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

and in the absence of actual evidence

Exactly this.  There is no evidence for or against.  Period.

18 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

if you're calling me naive to put more stock in what the devs publicly say about why are they are focusing on MSFS

I'm sure you've been around long enough to know, where business is concerned, there is the official word, and then there is the truth.  In some cases, both are identical.  In others, not so identical.

18 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

(coupled with all what we can plainly see in terms of simmer community uptake and sheer popularity of MSFS, the various surveys like Navigraph, the various forums and social media activity for MSFS vs other platforms, etc, etc)

Why do you keep bringing this up?  With included adjectives like "sheer popularity".  Why is it so important to you to keep bringing up MSFS's popularity.  Everyone knows it's the most popular flight sim.  There are people who just prefer to use something else.  Does it really bother you that much that there are some people who don't agree with what you agree with?  

18 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

IMO, it's rather naive and embarrassing to keep spouting these wild theories and/or give credence to them

I can think of much more embarrassing things I've seen in the other sections of avsim.  Remember, they're opinions.  Nothing more.  Nothing less.

18 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

Given that we are putting out opinions and thoughts, in addition to what I said before about maybe it's more to do with sim platform makers not making their platforms compelling enough to retain sizeable user numbers.. I'm also thinking all this wild nonsense about exclusivity clauses/contracts by some are a way to make themselves feel better about their favorite sim platform not being given the attention they want by 3rd party devs, just IMO of course ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Not really sure where this is coming from.  I could say the same thing about some people coming into the P3D and X-Plane forums, making posts about how bad those flight sims are, and how much greater MSFS is.  Are they doing it to reassure themselves that their choice is the right choice, even though it's not getting the attention of people who prefer something else?  Or can they just leave people to their own devices?

🤷‍♂️

Edited July 11, 2023 by GoranM

[Krakin 5,872]

3 minutes ago, GoranM said:

Obviously I can't say.  It's a very well known dev, and I'm afraid you'll just have to take my word for it.  It is definitely not an isolated case, because I've had other up and coming developers ask me for advice on contracts they were offered.  

I didn't ask you to name the dev, I asked you what TYPE of dev it was, as in was it MS or a third party dev. Since you were referencing the dev you mentioned in your first response, it clearly wasn't Microsoft and as I mentioned earlier, adds nothing to the discussion at had.

5 minutes ago, GoranM said:

Exactly this.  There is no evidence for or against.  Period.

But there IS evidence against Adams claims:

 

3 hours ago, JRBarrett said:

“The Marketplace will operate under an Agency model, which means that you, as the content creator, will set the price for every piece of content you submit. Becoming a partner doesn’t alter your ability to sell your content on your own websites and storefronts. Just like with FSX, you can continue to sell your content outside of our Marketplace. Becoming a Microsoft Flight Simulator Marketplace Partner essentially unlocks another channel for you.”

 

[Krakin 5,872]

28 minutes ago, GoranM said:

Why do you keep bringing this up?  With included adjectives like "sheer popularity".  Why is it so important to you to keep bringing up MSFS's popularity.  Everyone knows it's the most popular flight sim.  There are people who just prefer to use something else.  Does it really bother you that much that there are some people who don't agree with what you agree with?  

That is not what he is getting at and you know it. He is echoing what many third party devs have said and asserting that he is seeing it for himself. This has zero to do with him being salty about anyone preferring other sims. Stick to what is being discussed.

Edited July 11, 2023 by Krakin

[GoranM 3,809]

6 minutes ago, Krakin said:

But there IS evidence against Adams claims:

Someone's word.  That's all it is.  I'm not calling Ubaid a liar.  He is, in fact, a very responsible person who knows not to show details of a contract.  I never said inibuilds DID have an exclusivity clause.  I said it's "maybe.  maybe not.", and he may have been under (very likely) NDA that prevented him from saying so.  In any case, MSFS has a good quality free A310 that people are enjoying.  That's all that matters, yes?  Anything else is minor details.

6 minutes ago, Krakin said:

“The Marketplace will operate under an Agency model, which means that you, as the content creator, will set the price for every piece of content you submit. Becoming a partner doesn’t alter your ability to sell your content on your own websites and storefronts. Just like with FSX, you can continue to sell your content outside of our Marketplace. Becoming a Microsoft Flight Simulator Marketplace Partner essentially unlocks another channel for you.”

Yes, I know about this.  And it pertains to independent, 3rd party developers, not contracted by Asobo, who wish to sell through multiple outlets.  Nothing new or secretive about that.  Contracts between Asobo and dev teams, however, are very different.  

I really want to leave it here.  The thread is likely going to get locked if it keeps going in this direction, and I have a lot of work to do.  

 

[PavlinS 179]

 

I wanna know why does Adam's Twitch is in this condition. There should be some kind of explanation for that.