Barnsy

Seriously guys, you have to stop calling this DLC. Clearly you guys don't understand what free-to-play models are about. Unlike DLC, this isn't the developer trying to make an extra buck. The developer DEPENDS on the extra content, seeing as the core game is free. Therefore, the FS team won't be putting out haphazard 'DLC' parts as you guys think of it. From the onset, there will be a large number of available purchases, with more to come.For those of you that aren't aware, of the most successful multiplayer games, Team Fortress 2 is now free-to-play and makes a crapton more money than the original. The upside? Now there's more content than you could ever hope to use in a lifetime. If users desire a certain type of product, they buy that, and the developers realise they need more of said product. It ends up creating a gaming environment that caters to the desires of the players, not the developers (otherwise they go broke). This is the basis for Flight. If you guys can't see the upside to the 'limited' content for a FREE product, I don't know what else to do.Yes, Flight may end up dissapointing. But it also has the potential to be very surprising. I think banning it outright like is occuring is unjustified. FSX was a game for last century, in fact fs 2004 was already completely outdated. It's good to see MS are catching up with modern platforms. And despite what many of you claim, you will ALL try Flight, simply because it's free. You would be stupid to put down a free product of this caliber.

Bob did you see the most recent video? Two battleships are clearly visible (and quite well reproduced I might add). One is obviously a memorial (you can see the ship's outline in the water) and the other is on the surface. That indicates that pearl harbour is definitely there. And seeing as the achievements are focused on visiting all the island's sights, I doubt they would have left that out.

Guys I couldn't read these forums without saying something.How much does the average new game cost these days? In OZ it's roughly 90 bucks. FS has always been a premium product that always shipped at a higher price. Say 110. Now Flight is going to be FREE. I see the improved graphics. If performance is improved (which, I'm sorry, is about friggin time considering how woeful the FSX optimisation was which didn't make any use of current GPU power), great. The videos and images clearly show that A) the island resolution, both in mesh and graphics, is much improved, as are the treelines and buildings, and :( lighting effects are on par with modern GFX and the planes are higher resolution than before. Developer commentaries have also said physics are improved, like airflow over control surfaces etc. (so not just noobie crutches like the sceptics say). Having 'missions' available at airports is appealing. These won't necessarily be arcade-style, but could be legitimate GA 'jobs'. I, for one, though Acceleration was nice to change things up every now and then. The red bull races were fun, trying to beat my own times. So was the carrier landing. And I only paid 30 bucks for it, rather than the 70 or so that are required for the 3rd party products.Now, say you're a hard-core simmer like myself. I like to fly where I live (australia), but on larger hauls with 737s or A320s across the tasman and up north. Obviously I'm not going to like Flight in its free release version, but it WILL let me know whether it has improved over the previous version.Now coming back to my initial point: Flight will be free initially. FSX and all its precedents weren't. Neither are 3rd party products (those are, in my opinion, grossly overpriced. I paid 50 bucks for a Cap Sim C-130, enough to buy another game). Seeing as it's free-to-play, I have 110 bucks that would have otherwise been used to buy a game at my disposal to buy THE GAME THAT BEST MEETS MY DESIRES.This means, buying the Australian geographic pack, buying a couple larger planes, and buying ATC if it is not included in the free release. I might throw in a couple missions just to change things up. Does anyone really think MS will be selling these at the same price as current 3rd parties? For it to appeal to casuals, it will in fact have to be much cheaper. Granted, we might have to wait a bit longer for the larger add-ons to be available, but if it's worth it and MS are able to put the necessary work in (unlike previous FS which had to be COMPLETE on release) then what's the big deal with a bit of a wait? You'd have to wait for 3rd party products anyway.I would wager none of you have played free-to-play games, and there's a reason they're successful. You get only as much product as you're willing to pay for, and generally the more you put in the more you enjoy it, with the maximum payback for the developer letting yet more and more updates and features get produced. Im willing to bet most of you have put AT LEAST 200 dollars extra on 3rd party products like myself (REX and ORBX alone would cost you that much), why would you be so opposed on paying less for the same result from MS?At the end of the day, I don't give a crap about the silly games and personalisation microsoft put in. If the casuals put in money that ends up giving me better products, then be my guest. I just want to end up buying the perfect flight sim for me, which is exactly what free-to-play is about.Give the game a chance guys. Soonish we'll have a list of the included features, and a list of future ones, and a FREE valid test of the flight model and new engine.A final note, what ###### me off the most about FSX was the lack of support. Two patches on a huge game over about 6 years. Free-to-play means continual support, read progressively better performance and fewer and fewer issues.