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!

Top notch and spot on commentary Jim! I posted a link to this review to the MS Flight Facebook page earlier today, only to have it deleted and banned from posting on the page. I guess it really is a kids game to them!

For me I think he made the core point well: If "professional flying" (ATC, Coms, complicated multi-runway airports, bad weather cross country navigation...) are not implemented then the primary thing that a computer simulates well is absent. And can't be replaced by feeling cool for flying an A5 to a lake.

That to me seems such a simple and logical point I wasn't aware of before that it all but kills the Flight idea.

Thanks for taking the time to do the review!
I was not surprised by your conclusion and I doubt that many of SimHQ's readers where. As a piece of software with an object moving through air it deservers a few minutes of our attention. That way we will have the facts to make an informed decision weather or not it should have more attention and money.

I will guess that a large part of SimHQ readers likes the challenge of mastering the Sim. In essens we want to get as close to reality as possible. With that in mind I would like to direct your attention to a feature "Dart" wrote to SimHQ: "Confessions of an Elitist" (http://www.simhq.com/_air7/air_256a.html). A feature which I think describes a lot of the readers of SimHQ.

Even though MS Flight might not be target as our markt-segment. We must not forget that we need new blood and that products like MS Flight
and "World of Planes" will draw them in and some of them will end up in the Sim segment.

I agree Vierzinger, as a flight sim community we have to be a little more forgiving and have understanding of the real purpose of simulations like this. If someone would have developed DSC A-10 20+ years ago I know it wouldn't have appealed to me much. Not because I wasn't interested in flight, but being 20 something and with a new family started I just would have never had the time to devote to a sim like that, thank goodness there were sims like CY Air Combat, and Dynamix and Microprose series. Not everyone starts out as an elitist so while most of us here won't even sniff at MS Flight now that doesn't mean it cannot be a useful tool in attracting more members to the fold. If 100 people try MS Flight and out of those 100 maybe only 25 might want to explore more in depth flight sims I see that as 25 more people we don't have right now and thats a good thing overall for everyone involved. I think most fears are based that somehow if MS Flight attracts a large crowd that the rest of the industry will start "dumbing down" every and all future flight sims. While true if MS Flight is popular we will see more developers making these types of sims, but at the same time this should also create a new demand for more in depth sims. This could be the reboot this genre has needed for sometime now. While it will probably be painful for us elitist in the short term but in the end we could all benefit with more developers reinvesting in this genre.

Thanks for posting your thoughts. A reminder Jim's write-up is an opinionated commentary and not intended as a full review of the product.

I appreciate Jim's choice of using the word commentary in the title because pro or con, that is about all we can do with Flight at this time is comment. Depending on your expectations, Flight either exceeded or fell woefully short of them and by all appearances there is little in-between ground. Given what Flight is, many of us have little reason to even comment or review it because it is simply not meant for us. I've used the analogy before, I'll use it again.... As a simmer I have about as much business commenting on Flight as an iRacer does commenting on GTA IV. I came to this realization and made my peace with Flight (not necessarily Microsoft).

The polarization that flight caused is both worrisome and exciting. Worrisome in that it threatens to create a schism that may never be mended within the FS community. Exciting in that it demonstrates just how passionate of a bunch we really are and that maybe, just maybe, Microsoft will take steps to cater to all of us.

I think the renaming and moving market is very deliberate. Here's a recent Q&A they sent out to all Flight customers, and it gives a good idea of who and what style they are aiming for:


I've never flown a plane, real or virtual. Is it easy enough for me to play Microsoft Flight?

PL: Flight is simply the easiest, safest, and least expensive way to have an authentic flight experience. We've designed it so anyone with a PC and mouse can fly an authentic aircraft in a realistic world.

There are hidden challenges, called Aerocaches, in the game. What was the inspiration behind this feature?

PL: There's a real-world activity called geocaching, where people look for caches of stuff hidden throughout the world by others, which inspired us to create an aviation-centered version we call "Aerocaching." We have a rich and beautiful world and Aerocaching is a fun way to reward players for exploring it.

What is your favorite plane, and why?

PL: That's an impossible question to answer. I love just about anything that can fly, and for different reasons, I have an affinity for each plane we're starting with in Flight. The ICON A5 is simply one of the coolest aircraft around.
That said, I've had the pleasure of flying the RV–6A that we modeled in Flight, and it's a blast to fly. Open-cockpit biplanes have a fun factor all their own, and I love the classic look and sound of the Stearman.
And really, who doesn't like the P–51 Mustang? It looks great, flies great, and has amazing history as well.

What's the coolest thing that happened while making Microsoft Flight?

PL: It was very cool when my daughter—who thinks flying games are amazingly boring—suddenly became very interested in Flight once she had a chance to play with it. It's also a pretty good feeling when hard-core flying simulation enthusiasts discover that Flight is FUN!

Is there a particular message you'd like to get to players about Microsoft Flight?

PL: What we have in Flight today are the features and content that we can build to an extremely high quality level. If we couldn't meet that quality bar, we decided to wait and do it later. I also want to reinforce the message that this is just the beginning of Flight. We're actively building new experiences for Flight.

It's safe to say I will definitely not be playing flight, even if it is free. The icon cockpit looks like a car rather than an aircraft. If I wanted to fly such a rediculous thing I would make one myself and fly it. I can't wait to hear that the studio who made flight within Microsoft is being shut down. What a waste. Totally agree with everything the reviewer said, it's not a sim, it's an arcade game. It should not even be placed anywhere near other flight simulators for fear of viral simplicity.

I doubt any 6 year olds would even want to fly this thing, much too boring.

Waste of time nd money Microsoft, back to the drawing board for you, next time try making an actual flight SIMULATOR!

I think it is because of statements like these that diminish our respect for Flight. I won't even go on about the rest of the statements. However, if he said that Flight was "an introduction to flying, with allowances made for the beginner and his lack of skill, to ease him into the frame of mind and skill sets needed to fly a virtual aircraft, with upwards scalability (yet to be implemented) for the most die-hard flight simulation enthusiast," it would probably attract less flak.

I'd call it a demo, not a free game.
I mean LFS, netKar demos have free cars and a track.
But I guess it is quite a large area.