The Big MS Flight Topic

[alainneedle1 32]

Nice to see this opinion thrown out. First time this year I have agreed with Alain?

Life can be great when you are a big fish in a small pond. Then some will not accept being a smaller fish in a much larger pond. Darn egos seem to get in the way...

Are you sure it's only the first time this year.......you'r probably right as we are only 2 months in....

[tempelhof 44]

That should be clear. If you make the area bigger and maintain the level of detail you need more time or more people in other

word it costs more, which means that you have to raise the price. Even if the materiald oesn't add many details and the price stays the same, people will think that they would have sold to a lower price, without this material.

I imagine that Alaska will not be of the same detail as the current Hawaii scenery, simply because it is mostly uninhabited. But to be fair, I wouldn't worry too much about pricing if I were you. They have most likely conducted some kind of market research to know what people are willing to pay for content and where the sweet spot is on the price tag.

If you look at Flight right now you see a program that doesn't really knows what to do. On the one hand the Flight models concentrate on the hard core market, onh the other so stupid maneuvers like catch the loops that even gamers can only laugh about. The missions on the other hand train the users how to fly the plane, which could help beginners.

I would call myself something in between a hardcore simmer and the guy with a beer in his hand who buzzes around for an hour trying to have some non too serious fun. I've spent 2 hours with Flight on the weekend trying to tackle the first two gold coin challenges in the Stearman. I had a lot of fun and will not rest until I have that gold achievement on the second challenge. I haven't tried most of the missions yet, but if they are like the ones in FSX, then I'm sold.

The point is: different people have different preferences. And Flight has many options, none of which are mandatory. If you don't enjoy collecting gold coins, then don't do it. You can do other missions instead, do free flight, jobs or buzz around with friends doing crazy things. I don't see limitations, just options.

I don't know if even the Flight team realizes it: They can only sell the content to a small fraction of people, that really concentrates on flying.

But you won't find millions of people there.

You are extrapolating from the current sim market. MS are trying to create a new market. And to create a new market you need...clever marketing. Don't ask people what they want now, tell them a story that makes them want what you are creating.

And if you look at the details that they will have to put into the program for Bushflyers they might have at the end of the year at least one hundret airstrips. What's the difference to the 20.000 airports in FSX?

Sorry, I don't get that. Are you saying bush pilots would prefer FSX because there are more airports? Then why seem they all to be so focused on the areas covered by orbx?

For MS, once a product has a bad name it's almost impossible to get rid of that bad name. They can improve the product as much as they want, but they can't change the general opinion.

You mean a bad rep like FSX had? Seriously, I think many people have some kind of "crackpot-radar" and they can sense if someone posts irrational rants.

[Hiflyer 129]

For people who think flight has absolutely no chance of success, maybe try some multiplayer, where you will find hordes of people in there happily spinning in the air and doing acrobatics, practicing landings, playing hide and seek and follow the leader; doing mock dogfights, asking for tips about fuel, mixtures, flaps and etc.

I have even seen some more open minded souls from the FSX community in there, giving lessons.

The social aspect is a keeper in the era of tweets, and is a powerful attractant that is also not being taken into some peoples calculations.

Go in there, where the real future of this product is being decided.

[alainneedle1 32]

Guys, some of you are all talking about PreparD3, XP-10 as the next great sim....and maybe they will be BUT is PreparD3 or XP-10 a finished product...naaaaaa... there will be patches and upgrades released all the time to make it better.

Flight is the same, I see international airports in Flight, I see roads in Flight, MS did nothing less then PreparD3 or Laminar, they released an unfinished product to be upgraded with patches and upgrades.....I have Crysis 2, a BIG patch including a DX11 upgrade was released for this game not that long after the game was released.....

Paul, you'r complaining about the water in Flight....same as FSX is it not, what's stopping MS to make the water look better after a patch or 2 or maybe three in Flight, forget about a patch for FSX, what about the mountain's texture or the look of the city, you did not comment on it, can you buy the same scenery from Orbx to be use with FSX or PreparD3...yes you can but at what cost, and if you buy them for FSX don't forget to buy the required new liscense (or what ever you need) to have them work with PreparD3.

To be fair, there is some stuff I don't like in Flight scenery wise as you can see below...but guess what...same with FSX.

Flight is not for the hardcore like me or other in its current state but I'm sure it will be there sooner than later.

I did not buy XP-10, I do not like the "plausible" world of XP-10 and the roads to nowhere

[KarstenS 180]

They have most likely conducted some kind of market research to know what people are willing to pay for content and where the sweet spot is on the price tag.

Wait a moment, as you already said they are trying to create a new market. How can you research a market that isn't there yet? There are simply to many variables involved so you should say what it really: Pure guess work!

The point is: different people have different preferences. And Flight has many options, none of which are mandatory. If you don't enjoy collecting gold coins, then don't do it. You can do other missions instead, do free flight, jobs or buzz around with friends doing crazy things. I don't see limitations, just options.

Sure. I could do some things, but face it: Today people normally don't have the problem that they don't have anything to do. They have to many options. I am not interested to reach the gold award. And exactly that is a fundamental problem for normal gamers. We are not in X-Box where certain awards give a certain status. In the PC world Live is insignificant! They are not the same market. A major problem since the whole department is in fact the X-Box department. I don't think that Microsoft would today give the go ahead for Flight . The project is pretty much isolated. As I already said: If they would have an X-Box Version the whole project would play a much bigger role.

In fact the project was initialized when there was a gigantic hope that DLC games would control the market in a short while. But in the mean time all conmpanies learned that most of these online games fail. Only a few games achieve the necessary market penetration.

If you look at the interviews the Flight team speaks about millions of people. So I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft asks in a few months when

they have passed the first 500.000 users who regularly buy DLCs.

I think their prices are calculated in this direction. Look at hte Hawi Pack: Not only beautiful islands and the pretty good RV-6 model combined with some additional and pretty good missions. They have thought about this stuff. I think Alaska wasd in fact constructed at the same time, with the chance of some improvements when Hawai went into Beta Mode. But If you look around there are a lot of people who really expect that 6they will lower their prices.

It is obvious that most people don't understand how such projects work. They always think Microsoft does this, Microsoft does that. In fact most of these decisions are from the Flight Team. But they are not really in control. They are held responsible by the Entertainment division of Microsoft, which means today: X-Box! In a way they are Aliens in their own company. Not a good position. When Flight was initiated there were strong plans to Merge X-Box and the PC-Market to a unified Live Network People should play together even if they were on totally different plattforms.

If I look at the heavy fluctuations in their Entertainment Division the chances are pretty high that there are no longer any people in place that initiated Flight. IN fact I wouldn't be surprised if at that time Joshua Howard was not the Leader of the Flight team.

You might start to understand how the situation will be, when The Flight Team has to defend its project. They should have some pretty convincing numbers, when it is time.

They shouldn't be too shocked if the responsible people are in fact already in a battle how to distribute the Flight Budget among themselves. Think about what kind of exciting Kinect programs you could write with this money.

Flight must be in a position wherre they can really pay themselves, all their members, the Bills for the Marketplace and Accounting. Microsoft doesn't feel any responsibility dor a Flight legacy. Most of the responsible Managers probably don't know anything about it.

Sorry, I don't get that. Are you saying bush pilots would prefer FSX because there are more airports? Then why seem they all to be so focused on the areas covered by orbx?

No, you have to read the interviews of Joshua Howard. He always complains that it was it a pretty crazy idea to have more than 20.000 airports in the world. But if you look at Hawai it is pretty likely that if they would ever reach world coverage, Flight would have more than 20.000 airports.

[Paul K 93]

Have to say I totally agree with you Paul. I wont even be tempted by it until it at least includes the whole world and has at least a Baron or any other GA twin!

Yep Matt, and once Flight provides that, it will be interesting to tot up how much money you have to spend to acquire it all. Meanwhile FSX comes with the world and a Baron already, so more money for beer.

[jevon 2]

I played the game (sic) for a couple of hours on release day. Did the training missions and a couple of others, but have had no further interest in opening it again. For me it totally lacks any kind of thrill factor.

I fly strictly high-level pax/freight and need sophisticated IFR capable aircraft no less than the quality of PMDG. I also need quality departure/arrival airport scenery and some halfway decent mesh, terrain and ground environment scenery covering the world. Oh, and the equivalent of IVAO/VATSIM ATC/multiplayer. Until Flight has even the near capability of offering me all of that, I'm totally not interested. So it would seem that Microsoft is in for a very long wait to get even a single $ from me.

The poll in the MS Flight forum on AVSIM is revealing. Roughly 66% of people who've tried Flight say they have not bought any DLC, and 75% say that they either do not plan on purchasing DLC (25%), or they will wait to evaluate DLC before committing (50%). One can speculate, I guess, that the Hawaii Adventure Pack doesn't do it for most of the early adopters.This does not sound like a very enthusiastic vote for Flight.

Frankly, I just do not get what all the broo-ha-ha is about for Microsoft's new offering. But, hey, I still haven't "gotten" Facebook either.

It'll be interesting to see how much excitement there continues to be for Flight six-months down the road.

[HawkDsl 3]

Flight is dead already... it just doesn't know it yet. So much bad press from users, I think there is no saving it.

It's MS's fault. They wanted all the money.

Allot is being made of the DLC, and add on biz.... For the record: Nothing was stopping MS from offering their own add-on's for FSX in the first place. You'd think a giant company like that would have some of the best graphics/aircraft/landscape people on the planet. In fact, they could have blown away just about any third party if the wanted too. Two updates, Acceleration, Deluxe... then... Poof.

Hello?

Fleece.. I mean Flight.. Is a child of the X-box generation.

[Hiflyer 129]

Even assuming that poll was absolutely correct, the likely numbers still come out pretty firmly in Microsoft's favor.

[Hiflyer 129]

Flight is dead already... it just doesn't know it yet. So much bad press from users, I think there is no saving it.

It's MS's fault. They wanted all the money.

Allot is being made of the DLC, and add on biz.... For the record: Nothing was stopping MS from offering their own add-on's for FSX in the first place. You'd think a giant company like that would have some of the best graphics/aircraft/landscape people on the planet. In fact, they could have blown away just about any third party if the wanted too. Two updates, Acceleration, Deluxe... then... Poof.

Hello?

Fleece.. I mean Flight.. Is a child of the X-box generation.

LOL! I will gladly revisit your comment in a year.

[HawkDsl 3]

LOL! I will gladly revisit your comment in a year.

My bet is that MS will have walked away from Flight long before then... even if it is doing well... just like it has on all the MSF products.

[Hiflyer 129]

I will be here to take that bet. (well, I hope so)

See you then!

[tempelhof 44]

Wait a moment, as you already said they are trying to create a new market. How can you research a market that isn't there yet? There are simply to many variables involved so you should say what it really: Pure guess work!

Ever heard of focus groups? You take your target demographics, show them what you're doing and get their feedback to see if the product flies with them. Base your estimates on that feedback along with the overall size of the demographic. It's not rocket science but certainly more than guess work. Just what you need to get million dollar budgets approved.

Sure. I could do some things, but face it:

Today people normally don't have the problem that they don't have anything to do. They have to many options. I am not interested to reach the gold award. And exactly that is a fundamental problem for normal gamers. We are not in X-Box where certain awards give a certain status. In the PC world Live is insignificant! They are not the same market. A major problem since the whole department is in fact the X-Box department. I don't think that Microsoft would today give the go ahead for Flight . The project is pretty much isolated. As I already said: If they would have an X-Box Version the whole project would play a much bigger role.

In fact the project was initialized when there was a gigantic hope that DLC games would control the market in a short while. But in the mean time all conmpanies learned that most of these online games fail. Only a few games achieve the necessary market penetration.

If you look at the interviews the Flight team speaks about millions of people. So I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft asks in a few months when

they have passed the first 500.000 users who regularly buy DLCs.

I think their prices are calculated in this direction. Look at hte Hawi Pack: Not only beautiful islands and the pretty good RV-6 model combined with some additional and pretty good missions. They have thought about this stuff. I think Alaska wasd in fact constructed at the same time, with the chance of some improvements when Hawai went into Beta Mode. But If you look around there are a lot of people who really expect that 6they will lower their prices.

It is obvious that most people don't understand how such projects work. They always think Microsoft does this, Microsoft does that. In fact most of these decisions are from the Flight Team. But they are not really in control. They are held responsible by the Entertainment division of Microsoft, which means today: X-Box! In a way they are Aliens in their own company. Not a good position. When Flight was initiated there were strong plans to Merge X-Box and the PC-Market to a unified Live Network People should play together even if they were on totally different plattforms.

If I look at the heavy fluctuations in their Entertainment Division the chances are pretty high that there are no longer any people in place that initiated Flight. IN fact I wouldn't be surprised if at that time Joshua Howard was not the Leader of the Flight team.

You might start to understand how the situation will be, when The Flight Team has to defend its project. They should have some pretty convincing numbers, when it is time.

They shouldn't be too shocked if the responsible people are in fact already in a battle how to distribute the Flight Budget among themselves. Think about what kind of exciting Kinect programs you could write with this money.

Flight must be in a position wherre they can really pay themselves, all their members, the Bills for the Marketplace and Accounting. Microsoft doesn't feel any responsibility dor a Flight legacy. Most of the responsible Managers probably don't know anything about it.

Now we're getting to it. If I understand your argumentation right, you see Flight fail because of internal budget battles with the XBox folks. I say: doesn't happen.

Big companies such as Microsoft have some cash cow products such as Windows or Office that are sold to saturated markets. They sit on a pile of cash, but what they need is growth to keep shareholders happy. And they are willing to accept short term losses in certain divisions in order to enter new markets. MSFS was killed because its market was declining.

I think the whole purpose of Flight is to bring new users to the Games for Windows Live platform, users that have no XBox. And I dare to say that they are willing to accept a couple of millions in losses every year as long as enough new users are signing up and thus making the platform an alternative to Steam.

I mean MS loses about one billion dollars on Bing each quarter, they pay Nokia one billion dollars to switch to Windows Mobile. MS can afford to have these pet projects if they seem strategically important. Compare that to the losses Flight could ever produce...

My point is: Flight will stay unless people ignore it completely.

No, you have to read the interviews of Joshua Howard. He always complains that it was it a pretty crazy idea to have more than 20.000 airports in the world. But if you look at Hawai it is pretty likely that if they would ever reach world coverage, Flight would have more than 20.000 airports.

Now I get your point. I must admit, I find it rather unlikely that Flight would ever cover the entire world. And if they choose to do so to appease some hardcore simmers, the scenery may not be much better than what we have with FSX. But I bet that they will focus on certain areas for which they can produce content to tell a user story.

Anyway, I still don't get why so many people want to see Flight fail. If it gets more users intetested in serious sims, then its good for all of us. Third party developers' revenue may suffer short term, because some of the serious simmers who are using Flight will have to split their hobby-related budget between the platforms. But if more people come to those platforms in one or two years then all will be good.

[tempelhof 44]

The poll in the MS Flight forum on AVSIM is revealing. Roughly 66% of people who've tried Flight say they have not bought any DLC, and 75% say that they either do not plan on purchasing DLC (25%), or they will wait to evaluate DLC before committing (50%). One can speculate, I guess, that the Hawaii Adventure Pack doesn't do it for most of the early adopters.This does not sound like a very enthusiastic vote for Flight.

I don't know that the target demographic of Flight is, but I don't think an Avsim poll is represantative of it. Anyway, statistics can be interpreted in multiple ways, depending on what you're trying to prove. You can say 75% did not buy DLC yet or will need to evaluate that further, or you can say that 75% already bought DLC or consider doing it when the content is right...

[simmerhead 7]

Anyway, I still don't get why so many people want to see Flight fail. If it gets more users intetested in serious sims, then its good for all of us. Third party developers' revenue may suffer short term, because some of the serious simmers who are using Flight will have to split their hobby-related budget between the platforms. But if more people come to those platforms in one or two years then all will be good.

I'd like it to fail if that ment FS11 would be back on track, but I highly doubt that will happen.

If Flight is a success and catches on I'm not sure it would bring more people to FSX. Once heavily invested in Flight DLC and accustomed to the much better usability I imagine most users would rather live with the shortcomings of Flight than live with the hassle of the aged FSX platform. The majority of people choose simplicity over quality.

I don't know this to be a fact, but I guess that just a small percentage of FSX users became hardcore simmers. Most FSX buyers fooled around with it for a short while, then moved on to other games.

The Flight team made one right assumption: FSX has poor usability and gameplay for the casual gamer and simmer. Too bad they didn't succeed in creating a good game when they dumbed everything down. Now it's a poor game and a poor sim.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

how many more cities will you sell if they had night texture, I myself would have bought all of them if I could have fly over them at night.

We would not have sold ANY more because they would simply not be done. As we explained many time it increase the development costs with 200% or more. The market is simply not large enough to get enough more sales to make up for that and the market for 50 euro US City addon is non existing. But we tell people exactly what they buy. If MS would explain people what they buy I would have little problems. When I asked why the aircraft was so simplified I was told by MS that was because that was what their customers expected. Before you know it they would have to include some kind of manual with an aircraft, god forbid that would happen.

Although it may seem different, I still like FLIGHT a lot. It's a great game, but people who hope that MS will make it into a more serious simulator really got to look at the facts. They could not care less about a serious simulator at this moment. It's not their market. It does not fit their marketing plan. They made this more clear then ever when the positioned FLIGHT as a game, on site, in press releases, everywhere. They never did that before.

[Matt_Smith 1116]

Yep Matt, and once Flight provides that, it will be interesting to tot up how much money you have to spend to acquire it all. Meanwhile FSX comes with the world and a Baron already, so more money for beer.

And thats what it ultimately boils down to, value for money for us simmers, who also like to keep the beer bridge topped up. Flight at present offers no value for money.

[alainneedle1 32]

Mathijs, don't get me wrong, I completely understand your point about night texture, it's a business decision on your part, I was just saying that I love flying at night so for me night textures is a must, I would have done the same thing as you if the market for night texture was not there.

I also agree that MS should be more open with their customers but hey they chosed not to.

Quote" They could not care less about a serious simulator at this moment. "end of quote. That's exactly what I'm trying to explain, so far Flight is not for the hardcore simmers but it does have a LOT of potential, MS is in business to make money, (are we not all in business to do the same) in the future if something specificaly release by MS for hardcore simmers is a success you can bet your shirt they will release more.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Mathijs, don't get me wrong, I completely understand your point about night texture, it's a business decision on your part, I was just saying that I love flying at night so for me night textures is a must, I would have done the same thing as you if the market for night texture was not there.

I also agree that MS should be more open with their customers but hey they chosed not to.

Quote" They could not care less about a serious simulator at this moment. "end of quote. That's exactly what I'm trying to explain, so far Flight is not for the hardcore simmers but it does have a LOT of potential, MS is in business to make money, (are we not all in business to do the same) in the future if something specificaly release by MS for hardcore simmers is a success you can bet your shirt they will release more.

The only potential I predict is Alaska the same way as they did Hawaii. $40 in total, scenery, one aircraft and missions. We'll see.

Btw I am offline for a few days to attend the X-Plane developers conference we are organizing this weekend.

[KarstenS 180]

Base your estimates on that feedback along with the overall size of the demographic. It's not rocket science but certainly more than guess work. Just what you need to get million dollar budgets approved.

Simply look at the error ratings of these methods. If they try to minimize the errors it gets expensive. For such a small scale project and the diverse target group simply to expensive. Sure it is always claimed: We checked it, but look at it closely and you see for the most part a smoke screen. The people simply don't react as they usual do, so the resultsa can be totally meaningless.

I think the whole purpose of Flight is to bring new users to the Games for Windows Live platform, users that have no XBox. And I dare to say that they are willing to accept a couple of millions in losses every year as long as enough new users are signing up and thus making the platform an alternative to Steam.

Oh, I see, so Flight will be a great success and this means Steam is doomed?

Take a closer look. How does Flight help the Live environment?

They offer a free product, so users have to download it via the marketplace and Flight and Live install themselves together.

To get the Stearman you need.a Live account so you additionally get a special ID for this user and his computers.

You can show how the plattform can be used tu sell Download content.

You see the problem? "Flight" has already done this. There is no longer any bigger need for Flight in this purpose.

In fact I don't even think that Flight is entitled to any further funding by Microsoft. They financed the programming and the first three to four areas. Now this project has simply to keep its promises. And this can be done pretty easily. The Flight team simply gets a certain percentage if their sold downloads. They don't need to do anything else. They enabled the project to stand on its feet and now it has to take care of itself. If the money is not sufficient for their staff, they simply have to fire a few people and if the whole project collapses: Tough luck. It is simply one of the huger number of failed experiments. In fact this was the original purpose of this devision. They have a huge number of projects that fail. An example: the Zune player.

The project simply has to stand on its own feet.

An important point that many people might miss: A programmer in the US isn't really employed by company, but by his project.If his project is finished or he is no longer needed he has to fin a new project. There are internal boards that only members of the company can access,and internal company members have priority, but if you don't find a new project your company with the company is terminated automatically. In fact most of the programmers quit a project once their part is done and start in other projects or in other companies. So it is normally that many, especially better people change the project once their team leader can no longer guarantee that his contract will be extended.

For projects like Flight it pretty much means that the best people have left the project already. It is totally normal that a project has to fire people. In fact the tendency of people to change projects is so high, that for key projects they had to make a special class of contracts so that they don't think they can leave project when this version is done and someone forgot to tell them that they are needed for the next version.

Apple as an example calls them "Software Evangelists".

[Hiflyer 129]

Some basic math, even assuming that poll is 100% accurate still shows flight making tens of millions of dollars.

Just assume a few million people download it and only 33% buy DLC at $19

Score.

Honestly, the whole path for the detractors has been to step back and retrench as their positions crumble one by one.

"Its only gonna be Hawaii! Don't delude yourselves, it will never be more!"

Oh.

"Well the radios don't even work! it sucks!!"

Oh.

"Well nobody is gonna buy that stupid DLC!! they are gonna lose money and die!"

Oh?

How long do we do this?

[PatrickZ 300]

You assume 33 percent is a realistic percentage, I think it's a rather high expectation. 5 percent is more like it.

[tempelhof 44]

I agree that 33% is a little high. A 10% conversion rate would already be considered as awesome.

[tempelhof 44]

Simply look at the error ratings of these methods. If they try to minimize the errors it gets expensive. For such a small scale project and the diverse target group simply to expensive. Sure it is always claimed: We checked it, but look at it closely and you see for the most part a smoke screen. The people simply don't react as they usual do, so the resultsa can be totally meaningless.

No risk, no fun, right? MS is not in the insurance business.

Oh, I see, so Flight will be a great success and this means Steam is doomed?

Take a closer look. How does Flight help the Live environment?

They offer a free product, so users have to download it via the marketplace and Flight and Live install themselves together.

To get the Stearman you need.a Live account so you additionally get a special ID for this user and his computers.

You can show how the plattform can be used tu sell Download content.

You see the problem? "Flight" has already done this. There is no longer any bigger need for Flight in this purpose.

They still need your credit card details. Selling at least one DLC to some percentage of the users would certainly be desirable.

In fact I don't even think that Flight is entitled to any further funding by Microsoft. They financed the programming and the first three to four areas. Now this project has simply to keep its promises. And this can be done pretty easily. The Flight team simply gets a certain percentage if their sold downloads. They don't need to do anything else. They enabled the project to stand on its feet and now it has to take care of itself. If the money is not sufficient for their staff, they simply have to fire a few people and if the whole project collapses: Tough luck. It is simply one of the huger number of failed experiments. In fact this was the original purpose of this devision. They have a huge number of projects that fail. An example: the Zune player.

I don't think that DLCs sold is the only metric for success. You need to look at the bigger picture. Like I said, registrations for Games for Windows Live. Also, bringing users to Bing for the aerocache search. Maybe future Kinect sales if they ever make it working with Flight. That's what I can think of at the moment. But there may still be something behind door number three.

The project simply has to stand on its own feet.

An important point that many people might miss: A programmer in the US isn't really employed by company, but by his project.If his project is finished or he is no longer needed he has to fin a new project. There are internal boards that only members of the company can access,and internal company members have priority, but if you don't find a new project your company with the company is terminated automatically. In fact most of the programmers quit a project once their part is done and start in other projects or in other companies. So it is normally that many, especially better people change the project once their team leader can no longer guarantee that his contract will be extended.

For projects like Flight it pretty much means that the best people have left the project already. It is totally normal that a project has to fire people. In fact the tendency of people to change projects is so high, that for key projects they had to make a special class of contracts so that they don't think they can leave project when this version is done and someone forgot to tell them that they are needed for the next version.

Apple as an example calls them "Software Evangelists".

So you think because they have to fire some people that means they won't ever be able to produce additional content? That doesn't sound reasonable to me. You forget the fact that developers can be signed up to multiple projects and there are still freelance/third party developers in the game working as contractors if the rumors are true.

[KarstenS 180]

I don't think that DLCs sold is the only metric for success. You need to look at the bigger picture. Like I said, registrations for Games for Windows Live. Also, bringing users to Bing for the aerocache search.

I see the bigtger picture, but exactly since I see the picture I see how ingsignificant Flight is there.Live needs much more and bigger projects to be even recogniced compared wi6th Steam. The use of Bing doesn't matter to Bing in any way. It only avoids angry remarks why they would be so stupid not to use Bing. This is simply expected from a good Microsoft program.

Maybe future Kinect sales if they ever make it working with Flight. That's what I can think of at the moment. But there may still be something behind door number three.

So you think because they have to fire some people that means they won't ever be able to produce additional content?

Not quite as simple. It is more complex.

They have to reduce their staff which means less updates and less DLC that they can present in a certain time frame. This doesn't really help their sales since some people get bored and simply don't see the new DLC.

on the other hand there is the key problem. The remaining stuff has to do more and different things, so some people get more capabilities and experience and are qualified enough to join other, more prestigious and better paid projects. They have to be replaced, so you have to employ a new member. What most people don't realize this doesn't help at once. It takes between three to sic months till you can really use the new one effectively while on the other hand more experienced people must make time to teach the new member.. This means: more delays for DLC. the money that previously was sufficient for one year now has to last for 18 months, which means you have to fire more people, your projects becomes even less well liked...and we begin again.

You don't find good qualified people outside of the project since there is no SDK and no free market where people can develop their own sceneries, planes or missions till they are on a level to become a professional. It is much morew difficult to get outside help too, since the project has shifted. They must be taught about the new limits and features. They probably don't have to relearn as for a change from FSX to X-Plane 10 but there are probably some changes and these changes will grow.