Why MSFS must be XBox like or die

[Krakin 5,850]

59 minutes ago, MarcG said:

Hi, can you timestamp that video to the exact second when that bloke states the weather system has been "completely rewritten" please? I've watched again but can't hear him say it, thanks 

He didn't say it, I just remembered it wrong. He used the work they did improving the weather system as one of the reasons justifying the creation of a new sim.

[Sky_Pilot071 581]

You cant beat the drama here.

sp

[MarcG 3,033]

13 minutes ago, Krakin said:

He didn't say it, I just remembered it wrong. He used the work they did improving the weather system as one of the reasons justifying the creation of a new sim.

Ok so it's not "completely rewritten" as you stated, be careful not to spread misinformation without being able to provide a source and facts 😉 easily done, I've learnt the hard way 😄

[bofhlusr 465]

2 hours ago, Krakin said:

What does "Xbox like" even mean?

Here's an easy definition ... it's the opposite of 'study-level'.

[Krakin 5,850]

15 minutes ago, bofhlusr said:

Here's an easy definition ... it's the opposite of 'study-level'.

Well the sim has been facilitating more and more 'study-level' addons while becoming more realistic at its core (see the ground handling improvements in SU15) and it seems to be thriving more than ever. With that being the case, I'd say your assessment is way off and what Phil Spenser is talking about has little to do with MSFS' situation.

Edited April 4 by Krakin

[bofhlusr 465]

1 minute ago, Krakin said:

Well the sim has been facilitating more and more 'study-level' addons while becoming more realistic at its core (see the ground handling improvements in SU15) and it seems to be thriving more  than ever. With that being the case, I'd say your assessment is way off and what Phil Spenser is talking about has little to do with MSFS' situation.

"Your assessment"?  Hmmm... thank you. I should be flattered, but unfortunately, those assessments are by Phil Spencer.  As the current CEO of Microsoft Gaming, Phil Spencer knows more about Xbox gaming than I ever could or would want to (Phil Spencer (business executive) - Wikipedia).

[lwt1971 7,457]

30 minutes ago, bofhlusr said:

Here's an easy definition ... it's the opposite of 'study-level'.

That definition seems to be the opposite of reality given how the sim keeps increasing in fidelity at its core, its default fleet, and the various 3rd party add-ons including funnily enough study-level airliners that those devs have strived to make available *for* XBox (i.e. PMDG, A2A, FSReborn, iniBuilds come to mind with all their 'study-level' aircraft). Heck, MS/Asobo have even contracted iniBuilds to develop an A320 for the default fleet that's significantly higher in fidelity than most default aircraft for any sim, a big reason being to provide something more deeply simulated for XBox users. So all these 3rd party devs and MS/Asobo must have missed this "XBox is opposite of study-level" memo 🙄
 

Edited April 4 by lwt1971

[bofhlusr 465]

6 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

That definition seems to be the opposite of reality given how the sim keeps increasing in fidelity at its core, its default fleet, and the various 3rd party add-ons including funnily enough study-level airliners that those devs have strived to make available *for* XBox (i.e. PMDG, A2A, FSReborn, iniBuilds come to mind). Heck, MS/Asobo are even contracting iniBuilds to develop an A320 for the default fleet that's significantly higher in fidelity than most default aircraft for any sim, a big reason being to provide something more deeply simulated for XBox users. So all these 3rd party devs and MS/Asobo must have missed this "XBox is opposite of study-level" memo 🙄
 

The problem with reality is simply that people have DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS of reality.

Here's an explanation of reality: Do we see reality as it is? | Donald Hoffman | TED (youtube.com) --- worth viewing in my opinion.  Jump to the @7:10 minute mark for a quickie.

[Krakin 5,850]

27 minutes ago, bofhlusr said:

"Your assessment"?  Hmmm... thank you. I should be flattered, but unfortunately, those assessments are by Phil Spencer.  As the current CEO of Microsoft Gaming, Phil Spencer knows more about Xbox gaming than I ever could or would want to (Phil Spencer (business executive) - Wikipedia).

I read the article. Why don't you point out to me anywhere Mr. Spencer said the authenticity of player experiences in MSFS must be compromised in order to make the sim grow?

13 minutes ago, bofhlusr said:

The problem with reality is simply that people have DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS of reality.

Here's an explanation of reality: Do we see reality as it is? | Donald Hoffman | TED (youtube.com) --- worth viewing in my opinion.  Jump to the @7:10 minute mark for a quickie.

You're taking this discussion to weird places for no reason. This isn't about perceptions of reality, it is about basic reading comprehension. Phil said the industry needs to find ways to grow without saying one thing about HOW that would happen. You decided to come up with your own assessment that this means MSFS will have to be dumbed down in order for it to survive. Who ever told you MSFS hasn't been profitable? It certainly wasn't Phil. 2024 is about to launch with over 500 people working on it and it is coming with an even more realistic flight model. If you want to talk about reality, you need to realize that what is actually happening with the sim contradicts what you think Mr. Spencer is trying to say about it.

[lwt1971 7,457]

36 minutes ago, bofhlusr said:

The problem with reality is simply that people have DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS of reality.

Here's an explanation of reality: Do we see reality as it is? | Donald Hoffman | TED (youtube.com) --- worth viewing in my opinion.  Jump to the @7:10 minute mark for a quickie.

Umm ok sure?.. As some others have said the whole premise of this thread is non-sensical, and what Phil Spencer is talking about doesn't have to do with MSFS (he was asked about layoffs after the Activision acquisition, and about the whole gaming industry in general).

These spurious claims of MSFS backtracking in fidelity due to XBox is farcical because the reality is the very opposite.. firstly the whole premise that the expanding of the flight simming audience to XBox must therefore mean MSFS and add-ons have to regress in fidelity is bogus given that the opposite is happening (as I mentioned above). MS/Asobo wouldn't be spending resources to increase the fidelity of the default aircraft, avionics, etc if that were the case surely. Why bother bringing on Working Title to bring us payware level quality avionics in the default sim and increase the FDE/systems/etc fidelity of default aircraft if the focus is on the supposedly non-serious arcade-loving masses of XBox users? Why bother contracting iniBuilds to build a higher fidelity default A320 primarily for XBox users, or give as a free A310? Why are PMDG, A2A, etc bothering spending more effort in order to enable their study-level aircraft for XBox? And like I said before on this thread, the work coming out from the likes of Fenix, A2A, PMDG, JustFlight, iniBuilds, FSW, Milviz, sure don't seem to be less in fidelity compared to similar add-ons before MSFS. Irrespective of whatever one's "definition of reality" is, this whining about how "XBox is causing MSFS and my precious adults-only niche flight sim genre to regress" is rather silly.

Oh and given how the Phil Spencer article talks about growth or lack thereof, MS/Asobo doubled their extended team size from ~250 to ~500.. so guess they definitely are growing 🤷‍♂️
 

Edited April 4 by lwt1971

[Mace 1,960]

2 hours ago, bofhlusr said:

Here's an easy definition ... it's the opposite of 'study-level'.

When you grow the audience, there's more of everything....yes more base-level add-ons, but also more hi-fidelity add-ons, more of everything.

It's up to the user to get what they want/need, caveat emptor.

Fact and reality is that MSFS dev team size has grown a lot, so, it must be bucking the trend of the gaming industry in general.

[eslader 1,816]

50 minutes ago, Mace said:

When you grow the audience, there's more of everything....yes more base-level add-ons, but also more hi-fidelity add-ons, more of everything.

Yep. And that's a good thing, including the base level "junk" most of us here wouldn't touch.

It's the same story over in DCS. The F15 is what I'd call an "easy-mode" fighter. It's not modeled to anywhere near the fidelity of the F16 and F18. I went crazy and bought almost every plane DCS offers back in one of the 50% off sales. The F15 was not one of them. I'm not interested in easy-mode in my flight sim. But I'm glad it's there because it gets more people involved and using the sim, which means the sim is more likely to keep getting updated and developed.

Put another way, they wouldn't bother to pave the roads if it were just me in my MR2 tooling along; I need those boring minivans and Camrys out there so I have a paved road to drive on. 😉

 

[Tuskin38 6,635]

5 hours ago, bofhlusr said:

Here's an easy definition ... it's the opposite of 'study-level'.

It depends on what aircraft you're flying. You can't define the entire simulator like that.

Even in FSX/P3D/XP there are basic aircraft and highly accurate aircraft.

I used to fly aircraft in FSX/P3D with my X-Box controller, got pretty good at it. Does that make FSX/P3D 'X-Box like'?

Edited April 5 by Tuskin38

[GaryK 201]

13 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

Hmmm…I know we’re going way off topic 

You're right........this is one for Hangar Chat👍

Edited April 5 by GaryK

[Lonesome Cowboy Burt 173]

7 hours ago, eslader said:

Yep. And that's a good thing, including the base level "junk" most of us here wouldn't touch.

It's the same story over in DCS. The F15 is what I'd call an "easy-mode" fighter. It's not modeled to anywhere near the fidelity of the F16 and F18. I went crazy and bought almost every plane DCS offers back in one of the 50% off sales. The F15 was not one of them. I'm not interested in easy-mode in my flight sim. But I'm glad it's there because it gets more people involved and using the sim, which means the sim is more likely to keep getting updated and developed.

Put another way, they wouldn't bother to pave the roads if it were just me in my MR2 tooling along; I need those boring minivans and Camrys out there so I have a paved road to drive on. 😉

 

Conversely, if a company sees its getting more sales from the trash then it starts biasing towards providing trash