Patches !!!! My Thoughts.

[Guest]

There has been much discussion latley in various forums about developers responsibilitys to provide patches when MSoft comes out with a new version of MS FlightSim, some of it very heated on both the developers side as well us the user.The developers have in essence responded with the same MANTRA stating "the product was developed for FS2000 and we the user should be grateful that they are extending their talents to develop a patch so we may continue to use a product we have become quite aquainted with".There is a development team with two very sucessful add-ons. They are just a few days away from releasing their 2002 patch in many forum responses they have stated that the they are not obligated to patch these two items but are because of customer feedback. The only thing that I dont understand about this business principle is why is somthing only developed for 2000 without support carried over to 2002 to me that is a waste of time at the developers end.As a user I have given it alot of thought latly and have come to a conclussion that I would have no problem reaching back into my pocket and pay a upgrade/license fee to help offset the cost to produce a patch to make it compatible with future versions of MSFS.Are we not in essense paying MS for a patch every two years already?Just a thought.

[Guest]

Wha?Where did you read this? I couldn't find the thread/article.Andrew>There is a development team with two very sucessful add-ons. >They are just a few days away from releasing their 2002 >patch in many forum responses they have stated that the they >are not obligated to patch these two items but are because >of customer feedback.

[Guest]

They have a forum on Avsim...not mentioning any names

[Guest]

There is a development team with two very sucessful add-ons. They are just a few days away from releasing their 2002 patch in many forum responses they have stated that the they are not obligated to patch these two items but are because of customer feedback. The only thing that I dont understand about this business principle is why is somthing only developed for 2000 without support carried over to 2002 to me that is a waste of time at the developers end.It may be an investment of resources on the developers' end, but it makes excellent sence from a marketing standpoint.Both these products were bestsellers for FS2000 right up to the point when FS2000 was replaced. People who bought these two products (and other products from other companies) are sometimes still using FS2000 just for these products while using FS2002 for others. There are also many new potential users who would buy these products if only they could use them in FS2002, plus a (smaller) groups who bought the product just before getting FS2002 in the hope they could just use it in that as well and were disappointed when they couldn't.In all, it is a good move for marketting and PR, even while slowing down the development of new products a bit.As a user I have given it alot of thought latly and have come to a conclussion that I would have no problem reaching back into my pocket and pay a upgrade/license fee to help offset the cost to produce a patch to make it compatible with future versions of MSFS.Me neither, but you have to remember that there are many people out there who don't know the cost of software development and maintenance, these people don't understand the cost involved and would scream bloody murder if asked to pay for what they consider a 'simple fix' to make things work, a fix moreover they consider it their godgiven right to demand the developers produce for them for free.

[Guest]

..