Guest Writer Jim "Woxof" Hart comments on why flight simmers can't afford the new Microsoft title.

http://SimHQ.com/_air14/air_525a.html

I enjoyed this review of Rise of Flight's business model using screen captures of MS Flight

Hey! Aren't you the guy who likes Skyrim too?

Note the commentary reference to "competitive" DLC.

I thought he was going to say why we "can't afford" the new game, so I was expecting DLC price costing and comparison vs. existing sims.

There was a lot of complaining about what you get for free. No mention of what one gets when they pay for something. I like AVSIM's review better.

Also, the Stearman flight model was compared to a real life stearman. It would be interesting to see it compared to an FSX Stearman... In general it seems like those with a negative opinion of Flight compare it to FSX in the categories where FSX is superior (scenery coverage, # of aircraft included, etc...). But then when other things are discussed (ie - flight modeling) comparisons are made to the real world. And then folks say the scenery isnt any better than payware FSX scenery, but then complain that you have to pay for Flight scenery...

My comment was too short, and clumsy and I'll leave it unedited for context but I meant no insult or anything bad about the article by it. I feel bad now, so will expand a bit. I meant that it was more a discussion of two things:

- A first look at MS Flight. Conclusion: It's a game but kinda pretty.

- It's business model of DLC

The first bit of how much a game or sim something is something we all chat about a lot. It can be pretty subjective, in that for experienced simmers then this first MS Flight release is obviously not who it is aimed at. I also think that it's very early days for a title that seems to be designed to drip-drip-drip onto your harddrive via your creditcard. As an early look the screens and commentary are good, and important early info for those who hadn't seem or tried MS Flight yet.

The business model bit I felt that it's just how the industry is going, and that rounding on this title alone in isolation seemed a bit harsh. We all play flight and racing sims where the FS9/FSX model of 'buy a disk' is no longer the case. Microsoft did not make enough money with FSX to justify keeping the Aces team together. Yes, they are idiots and yes they caused their own short-sighted unprofitability, but the bottom-line is hard to argue with. Simmers can complain, but the truth of the matter is that it was too niche an area to make as much money as other areas (note that I didn't say 'no money', just 'as much money').

What we have here is a new casual game title that allows you to fly around Hawaii in two planes for free. It's free. As in no-cost. Free. You get my gist

Now MS Flight may not open to outside developers, and MS may keep a casual emphasis rather than sell to simmers, but that's how the market works. If they aren't successful then they'll either kill it or change it - neither of those things are worse than no title at all. At heart, I guess my comment is based on the Waving at Windmills frustration level that this game is not something that others want it to be, while my wee furrowed brow is more about the fact that that's not how the game industry works

Finally, Woxof - I thought the article was well written, so thanks. My comments are more in discussion of the premises, which is why we hang out at SimHQ afterall.

Cheers,
FF

Fair enough. One point to please keep in mind. This is a commentary not a review. It is intended to be opinionated.

Ahh... I see. My bad.

So much hatred! Hey, in my days we thought Yeager Air Combat was a hardcore sim...

I'm personally very impressed with Flight. Not be biggest flight sim, I give you that, but it's lovely. Give it a bit of time, I'd say.

Thanks for this great commentary and for calling things by their name. You never disappoint SimHQ!