Q: It seems like the tradeoff you made - building richer, smaller locales to explore in the game - is the loss of the full, open world that could be explored in "Flight Simulator"?
A: The bet we've made is that to the non-hardcore simmer, flying the whole world isn't as interesting when there's nothing really interesting to see or do. I do get that for some segment of the audience that was one of the values - I can fly anywhere, into any airport, 25,000-odd airports was crazy.
But I think as you try to broaden and you want to bring in not the next million or two but the next 20 million or 30 million people, you say I will err on the side of more interesting area that's dense than the same amount of content spread all over the globe. There's a lot to do in Hawaii, and Hawaii is gorgeous.
I'm so sick of this, hey lets appeal to everyone. Yeah they'll make more money but they're creating an ethos of a shallow, pick up and play mentallity to flight simming. Why couldn't they have progressed with FSX taking it one stage further? they could add all the crap that they are doing with this to an actual flight sim so that when people get a taste for it they can progress within the sim. It seems as though Flight will just be a dead end for casual gamers that pick it up because where will they go when they need depth and true simulation?
And no, fly anywhere into any airport isn't crazy it's aviation and it's what people that bought Flight Simulator wanted. I'm sure Hawaii is gorgeous, but there isn't 'alot to do' in aviation terms. There is in a car, or a micro light or v small GA aircraft. There's a little sight seeing.
Everything is getting so watered down.