3 minutes ago, GoranM said:

I really want to leave it here.

You really should because you're not making a lick of sense. Let's recap

 

4 minutes ago, GoranM said:

Someone's word.

No, the evidence i presented was what I quoted right after.

 

5 minutes ago, GoranM said:

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.  

Wrong again. We have already spoken about Orbx multiple times but you seem to be ignoring it. They have also been contracted to make default content for MSFS multiple times but they are clearly still releasing products for other platforms.

In conclusion, you haven't given us anything that would give weight to what Adam said. You admitted this by claiming there was no evidence for or against (clearly there is evidence against).

44 minutes ago, GoranM said:

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

So some randoms make wild claims on the internet, contrary to what 3rd party devs have actually said in public statements. And then since there supposedly is no evidence to the contrary, or because these devs haven't come out to explicitly deny said randoms' wild claims, therefore the claims are plausible? Ok, the logic here is... something else.
 

44 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?  

Lol I brought it up as backing evidence to what the 3rd party devs are all saying, as to why they are focusing solely/mostly on MSFS. You know, the statements some around here are calling as lies due to some mythical exclusivity clause/contract which is the supposed real reason.

In any case and for example, if one thinks iniBuilds are lying about why they are mostly focusing on MSFS, and if there was this mythical exclusivity clause, then why did they update the A300 and Beluga for XP12? And why is Orbx still making content for P3D? And why have other devs stated publicly they will re-evaluate P3D v6 and XP 12 in the future. A2A has also said they are still thinking about maybe doing something for XP12 after their MSFS work. If such exclusivity contracts/clauses are in place with MS, then all the actual doings/sayings/happenings of these devs are contrary to that.
 

44 minutes ago, GoranM said:

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?

Well, those posters who don't actually have/use P3D/XP who go to those forums to ridicule those sims are silly and should definitely be called out (if they have criticisms then that's a whole different story of course). But once again, that's besides the point. That's not what we're doing here are we. We are discussing some wild claims raised about MS and 3rd party devs, in the P3D forum. And given you were stressing on everything being just words and opinions, I took the liberty to opinionate on why I think these wild claims are being made 🙂 
 

Edited July 11, 20232 yr by lwt1971

I'm not a native speaker so my understanding might be incorrect...However, if a flatearther comes in saying "I believe the Earth is flat", he is stating his opinion. If that flatearther comes in saying "The Earth is flat, that is the real truth, a fact", he is not stating his opinion, is he spreading BS.

I'm not sure the controversial messages posted earlier fall into the first category, but again, I could be (and I am often) wrong.

If I hire you to create something, I certainly can insist via contract that you create that thing exclusively for me in exchange for whatever I pay you.  I could also insist via contract that your creative work only be done for me, and that you not do competing work for others for some period of time.

That said, there's pretty clear circumstantial evidence that Microsoft/Asobo have done as in the first case, specifically with the exclusive creation of the A310 add-on included in the MSFS 40th Anniversary Edition.  There's also plenty of circumstantial evidence that MSFS has not done as in the second case, as no developer producing add-ons incorporated into MSFS appears to be working solely and exclusively for Microsoft--as pointed out, outfits doing contract work for M$ like iniBuilds and Orbx also develop and market other add-ons for varied platforms independent of M$.

I'm no great fan of Microsoft, but I'm also no fan of scapegoating them for something as shaky and thin as this accusation.  It's incredibly easy, even stylish, to take to YouTube and the rest of Socialdisease Media and create a tempest in a teapot over nothing, especially when it's aimed at the big bad corporate wolf.  This sure looks alot like that.  And given that we don't want to play a part in that kind of scapegoating, we'll end this here before the usual suspects join in and get folks all riled up and at each other's throats.  Anyone wanting to carry on the discussion further can continue that elsewhere.