The Official Microsoft Flight Thread

gropingmantis · 7 Jan 2012 at 11:06

garsands said:
Please don't tell me that you really think you are playing a beta of a finshed game?
Do you understand how a beta test works?

So you are telling me that these Youtube videos of MS flight look like FSX without any third party addons.

1.02 looks as good as Orbx buildings

As show on the MS Flight website aswell.
Looks the some standard as any third party addon I have ever seen if not better using new tech not 6 year old tech.

Stop trolling.

& sorry that you can't even respect the terms of being a beta tester

Soz drinkposting bad idea.

The beta does look like FSX but you are correct as long as MS aren't pulling our legs with those videos then the final product will look decent.

I still don't like the business model though. Seems like it will constrain modders creative abilities which is a bad thing.

Buckster · 7 Jan 2012 at 11:07

the Apple app store does rather well no ? doesn't seem to constrain creative ability much if at all

so could work for Flight

gropingmantis · 7 Jan 2012 at 11:27

Buckster said:
the Apple app store does rather well no ? doesn't seem to constrain creative ability much if at all

so could work for Flight

Good point but the larger modding groups don't seem to be supporting it from what has been posted previously so thats bad.

Buckster · 7 Jan 2012 at 11:30

thats bad agreed - but without knowing what the deal was before (as I said Royalities,licence fees etc - are an unknown to me for FSX) - perhaps what they had before was almost too good ? if that makes sense

Vtec9k · 7 Jan 2012 at 11:50

PMDG said:
Shortly there-after the communication channel went dead. Calls and emails went unanswered, and advance alphas stopped arriving. Shortly there-after we received a perfunctory email advising that our input was no longer desired.

Sounds like MS aren't allowing 3rd party at all!

Apple do very well with a free SDK, $100 developer registration fee and then a flat 30% yet even allowing free apps. Why were MS insisting on such massive licensing fees? That's not win-win.

garsands · 7 Jan 2012 at 13:17

Buckster said:
....but without knowing what the deal was before (as I said Royalities,licence fees etc - are an unknown to me for FSX) - perhaps what they had before was almost too good ? if that makes sense

I 100% agree nor do I know what the deal with FSX is.

I could find out by asking on the main FSX fan forum but I am not going to as I don't want or need the HATE post's that I would get back.

But so far I have seen and only from this forum with ringo747's posts of Quote's from Prepar3D, Orbx & PMDG all of which are Dfensive posts.

JNicol (AVSIM, Lockheed Martin) even put in his post the words

(and trying not to sound defensive!).

So why do they find the need to make such posts in the first place?
Orbx & PMDG posts seen the same thing to me.

Vtec9k said:
Sounds like MS aren't allowing 3rd party at all!

Taken from one of my posts above from the post made by John Venema Orbx CEO.

If they can convince third party developers to create content for it, I wish them luck. I doubt if any company will agree to their terms.

and this taken from PMDG post.

Since that time, I have watched (at times in dismay) the project transitioned from "modest proposal" to "green-lit console-style game" to "resurgent FSX replacement" and back to the console-ish game that the product seems to have become in it's final format

I am sure MS Flight was in the outset going to be a FSX replacement they asked the third party developers to join them but under there terms that you no longer make lots of easy money off the back of OUR software we pay you not the cutomer for you work.

The third party developers did not like this & said no.

So without the support of the third party developers MS Flight could not be a FSX replacement.

So MS Flight did not KILL off a replace for FSX but the third party developers did as they want to keep on making money off the back of FSX.
Like I said before I have paid MS £20 for FSX but I have paid third party developers over £150 that's not right should be the over way round.

But the 90% of the FSX fans think that MS Flight are the bad guys in all this but are they?

Is it not the greedy third party developers?
The ones that feel the need to release defensive post on the matter.

Greed Greed Greed and easy money killed it.

MS FSX made the software that these guys have been making money off the back off PMDG £60 for one plane! how mush of that does MS get? Nothing?

gropingmantis said:
Flight = F2P FSX with MS only microtransactions. No thanks.

FSX is already & has been microtransactions for the last 6 years by third party developers.

If I posted the above on a third party developers fourm I would get banned if I post this on a FSX fan forum I would get hate hate hate posts back.

Buckster said:
the Apple app store does rather well no ? doesn't seem to constrain creative ability much if at all

so could work for Flight

Thumbs up

garsands · 7 Jan 2012 at 13:17

opps

sorry miss post

garsands · 7 Jan 2012 at 13:18

opps

Yes I did it again

miss post I should be eatting lunch I helping the missus with the kids not sat here posting the above.

picnic · 7 Jan 2012 at 13:50

I've no idea how profitable selling 3rd party addons for FSX is, obviously it'll vary from company to company. If M$ take a significant wedge of your income you may well find you have no viable business model. For many FSX developers I'm sure that'll be the case, for the larger boys maybe not.

This app store style aproach would put many small fs resellers out of business as they solely sell stuff for FS. What about the hardware addon people? Will they have to sell their hardware through M$ to, pay a royalty per item sold?

I do agree that M$ may not make the money out of FS that the combined resources of all the small companies do, but I bet they also employ a significant less number of people.

Flight doesn't sound like it's what I want, hey ho, FSX it is then. That's life, disappointing, but I don't have to buy it if I don't want it. At least it will be free to try.

garsands · 7 Jan 2012 at 23:41

BINGO

There you go

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/01/06/microsoft_flight_sim_free/

I will quote then main part.

It looks likely that Microsoft will either sell upgrades, aping Zynga’s business model, and/or come to a deal with the existing developer base for a level of compatibility - in exchange for a 30 per cent cut of the take. Significantly, Microsoft made no mention of a software developer kit with the initial announcement.

It's the third party developers to be blamed for the way Flight has ended as they will not be able to leech money off FSX anymore.

Just think hidden under MS Flight there is the new FSX able to run at 100FSP smooth as anything just waiting to be unleashed to the world but only if the third party developers give what MS should be given a share of there profits.

So they want MS Flight to fail so you have to keep on paying for FSX addons & they get to keep all the money.

Nate--IRL-- · 7 Jan 2012 at 23:45

Leech money from MS? What are you smoking? An analogy would be like MS getting a cut from software sold to run on windows.

Nate

garsands · 8 Jan 2012 at 00:04

So I make some software a customer pays me £20 for it then a 3rd third party developer comes along & makes £150 from the same customer off my software & I get nothing from that sale!
If it was not for my software that 3rd third party developer would not have made anything.
Have they not just leech £150 off my software?

BTW I don't smoke & sorry if you find it hard to understand.

Nate--IRL-- · 8 Jan 2012 at 00:18

Ok, now apply the above analogy to windows - are all software developers leeching off windows?

How are they "Leeching"? Why should MS get paid for somebody else's hard work? Support for 3rd party Development was central to FS. It was designed in and has greatly benefited MS in FS sales.

Nate

garsands · 8 Jan 2012 at 00:52

It would be total unmanageable for windows to charge all the all software developers.
But it is not unmanageable for MS Flight to charge the 3rd party Developers.

Why should MS get paid for somebody else's hard work?

I have already said if it was not for FSX they would not be able to put in this hard work & make money from it.

You look at it one way I look at it MS way.

But as a business I would look at it MS way.

As a fan of FSX at this point in time I would look at it MS way & get the 3rd party Developers to join MS Flight.

Then I can play the new FSX is that not want we all want?

MS are a business they are not going to make the same mistake again where they make less money then the 3rd party Developers from there own software.

Time for bed

Nate--IRL-- · 8 Jan 2012 at 01:02

OK that is much clearer - and I do get your point.

Unrestricted 3rd party development was (ver successful) feature of FSX but will not be sfeature of Flight. However MS are taking a risk - without support from the heavyweights on the 3rd party scene, Flight is unlikely to match the success of FS9 & X.

It is a gamble for MS. It is even more of a gamble for 3rd party developers though. An already Niche market, now with restrictions on how you can sell your product. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

Nate

Dashik · 8 Jan 2012 at 03:48

Its not the fact that the 3rd party devs would be required to pay a royalty, its the fact that MS were demanding the transfer of the IP rights for each product they put on Live. So effectively the 3rd Party devs are giving there work away to Microsoft as well. That's the problem.

Garsands, Your having a laugh. Most of the large 3rd party devs are not rolling in profits and taking 30% out of what little they make would make it less than worth the effort to develop products for FSX/Flight. 30% of nothing is still nothing......

Remember the market for addons for FSX is very small in reality and tbh Flights going to be no better unless your buying a new pink overcoat for your aircraft and some sparkly shoes.......

FSX relied on the open nature and the addons.

By your analogy any company writing code should pay royalties to the compiler manufacturer......

picnic · 8 Jan 2012 at 07:45

Dashik said:
Its not the fact that the 3rd party devs would be required to pay a royalty, its the fact that MS were demanding the transfer of the IP rights for each product they put on Live.

If that is true M$ have truly lost the plot.

Dashik said:
By your analogy any company writing code should pay royalties to the compiler manufacturer......

And every independent garage should pay the manufacturer of the car he just serviced, and every forecourt and car parts shop...... If that model was adopted across the board everything would cost lots more than it does now so everyone can have a cut.

M$ are welcome to sell their products any way they like, if people join in they do but currently I don't see any love out there from the 3rd party developers in favour of doing so. More money for M$ then as they take a 100% of the DLC they produce, unless of course no one buys it.

garsands · 8 Jan 2012 at 10:01

May I point you to Apple and there App Store

http://www.apple.com/uk/ipad/from-the-app-store/

Every 3rd party dev has to pay Apple a % of there earnings to apples software.

And so they should with out Apples software they would not have been able to make this program in turn make money off the back off apple.

I really fail to see how its so hard for some of you to understand.

picnic said:
And every independent garage should pay the manufacturer of the car he just serviced, and every forecourt and car parts shop...... If that model was adopted across the board everything would cost lots more than it does now so everyone can have a cut.

That is a completely different industry & works in a total diffrent way but don't worry the independent garage doe's already pay the manufacturer in the form of replacement parts that the manufacturer makes.

So far you guys have ask me 'What are you smoking' & 'Your having a laugh'
(This is why I did not want to post my thought's on the main FSX forum but what the hell I have now)

My turn Guys you are stuck in a box how about geting out of this box you are in & think like the late Steve jobs.

& look at the apple store you use our software we will be taking a cut thankyou.

In the paper yesterday there was a story of a guy who has make a iPad app that sends babys to sleep he makes £60,000 a year from it. With out apple he would have got nothing.

Dashik said:
By your analogy any company writing code should pay royalties to the compiler manufacturer......

YES and apple do this with the iPad 140,000 apps (yes some are free but then no one gets any money)

At the moment we are luck that Windoews can't do this YET as it's to much of a big monster to manage.

picnic · 8 Jan 2012 at 10:22

And how many iTouch's, iPhones and iPads have Apple sold. Different market size entirely. I understand fully what you say, I'm entitled to my opinion that I don't think because you provide a product you have the right to expect everyone to pay you money if they produce something of value add for it.

Finally back to the car theme. Sainsbury's do not pay a royalty to the car manufacturer for the fuel you put in the car and there is a whole world of replacement parts made by independents. You don't have to replace you car bits with OEM parts.

gropingmantis · 8 Jan 2012 at 10:43

If I write a Windows program using Visual Studio and then sell it I should pay MS for using their software?

No, if MS want to make money off the modding community then they should be doing what other devs do and employ the modders. Not let them do their work and then take their IP and money.