Jump to content


- - - - -

AVSIM interview with Flight team leader


  • Please log in to reply
30 replies to this topic

#1 Buziel-411_RED

Buziel-411_RED

    Screenshot Hotshot Nov '11

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,031 posts
  • Location:KDFW

Posted 19 March 2012 - 10:18 PM

http://forum.avsim.n...a... Pages&id=8

Quote

Joshua, we met in December when you and your team were gracious enough to invite a number of organizations in the Flight Simulation Community to Seattle to discuss the next product in the MS Flight Simulation genre; FLIGHT. Since then FLIGHT has been launched and the anticipation that had built up over many months has been addressed. Now that it has been launched and has seen the light of day for a couple of weeks, we are very appreciative that you would take the time to answer our questions.

TA: At our meeting in December, when asked about the existing “hard core" flight sim community's probable negative reaction to FLIGHT, you indicated that you and your team anticipated that reaction and accepted it as an outcome of your decisions you adopted in your FLIGHT business model. Since then, have you altered your view as to the significance of the “hard core's" reaction?

JH: We accepted that by doing something different with the franchise, we were going to upset some of our existing customers, but that's the cost of trying something truly new. This new version has always been about finding a way to bring the joy of flight to massive new audiences, and we felt that we couldn't best do that by building Flight Simulator 11. However, we believe deeply in the value of that underlying simulation, and invested a lot in Flight to create a more sophisticated simulation than we ever had before.

It was encouraging to see that some of our most hardcore customers were able to appreciate how Flight actually improved on previous simulators in many ways, even if they were disappointed with some of the tradeoffs we had to make to enable those improvements. It's critical as a business for us to understand what our customers are saying, and understanding the simmers' concerns is still important to us. But simmers aren't our only customers now, and for a product with as ambitious a mission as Flight's, we have to make sometimes difficult tradeoffs between the various customers types all the time.

TA: Has that reaction altered the direction of your team in any way? If so, in what way?

JH: We looked forward to engaging in a productive dialogue with our users, but were disappointed in the degree of non-productive behavior some flight simulator enthusiasts exhibited. If anything, the unwillingness of the simmer audience to accept that Flight was intended to appeal to whole new audiences prompted the team to focus on areas where our engagement with our players is more productive. I want the studio to keep an appropriate balance of considering the needs of all of our customers, simmer or otherwise.

TA: Much has been said in the community, and you have obliquely addressed it in previous interviews, regarding the role of third party developers. You have alluded that DLC's were going to be an in-house development effort for at least the next couple of years. Given that is the case, do you anticipate that your pace of DLC releases will keep the FLIGHT user happy with the content buildup and frequency of release?

JH: To deliver the improvements we wanted in Flight, we had to make some tough tradeoffs. One of those was breaking with the tools that enabled the rich 3rd party ecosystem we had with previous products in the franchise. I do think we will get back to that, but in the mean time we will be managing the content production. We‘re in discussions with other parties about having them develop content alongside us. As to our ability to keep up with what our customers want, we're not yet able to gauge that. While there will always be customers on either edge of the curve – those who want new content every single day, as well as those who would be happy with new content every few years – we have yet to understand what the right frequency of content is for the bulk of our customers. I believe our internal efforts, and our efforts to find development partners, will be enough to deliver the kinds of content most of our users want – but if not, I'm confident we will do whatever it takes to meet that demand.

TA: What do you see that demand as? A scenery area each month, an aircraft every two? What are your goals in this regard?

JH: We've made some guesses, but fully expect to use real customer feedback to quickly replace those guesses with a better-calibrated plan. As that data is coming together, I can say that our current approach is to deliver about an airplane a month, and 3 to 4 expansions a year, as well as a variety of other kinds of content at various cadences.

TA: You have had three or more weeks under your belt in terms of DLC's. Have the number of downloads met your expectations?

JH: We track a bunch of data, and thus far we have seen some very encouraging trends. The number of folks who sign into LIVE is higher than we had anticipated, and the percentage of folks who end up buying something is very solid. As expected, the Hawaiian Adventure Pack is the most popular piece of DLC. Both of the airplanes are selling better than expected, which is a nice surprise, and we are getting great feedback about both our basic aircraft concept as well as the deluxe.

Our marketing has already done a good job of bringing us the diverse audience we wanted for Flight, and we expect to get better at this over time. One great improvement in the way we now track player behavior is that we can see what players are actually doing, allowing us to pay attention to real user behavior, and not be inappropriately led by the vocal negative minority who post on forums and Facebook.

TA: Based on what you are hearing and reading today; do you anticipate that market demand will necessitate edging beyond “game" like functionality to that of higher fidelity model aircraft and functionality?

JH: When we consider the broad feedback we are getting, it's fair to say that much deeper simmer functionality is not at the top of our list, but I also don't think of things in such a binary way. We do get requests from simmers for things like ATC, TrackIR, or making the whole world available, and where we can we are adjusting our future roadmap to accommodate these kinds of things. However, our data reinforces that Flight already has a much wider audience profile than past products in the franchise, and those people are asking for us to improve the product in a variety of other ways (many of which are about improving the quality of the game, like adding leaderboards, multiplayer missions, or new challenge types). The art, as we see it, is to find places where we can invest in some significant area of the product that increases its appeal to as many people as possible.

TA: If so, do you think that your studio, independently or in cooperation with subcontracted lower tier developers, can deliver the systems and functional fidelity in future aircraft releases that traditional third party developers have delivered for FSX? The Carenado and PMDG products come to mind.

JH: I'm not sure what ‘subcontracted lower tier developers' means, but there are a lot of great folks who want to extend Flight in interesting ways. Today, as we've said before, we are not in a position to enable that kind of external support, though we believe we will be able to in the future. However, we are working on ways to partner with other developers. As we get an ever better understanding of what the Flight customer wants (as opposed to what customers of the previous franchise products want), I see us meeting those needs through both internal and external development. We will take a curated approach, ensuring that at least initially, all development (internal and external) is working from the same set of priorities, intended to deliver improvements that will have the broadest appeal possible.

TA: Again judging from your previous interviews, creating scenery of the entire world as done in previous MSFS series products, is not a goal or yours. Can you give us a bit of a product roadmap on scenery development and priorities?

JH: Creating the whole world is not one of our goals for Flight. Previous versions of the franchise include the whole world, and still do, but we didn't believe that delivering the whole world was a critical part of delivering Flight for massive new audiences. Players of Flight tell us they love the beauty and detail of Hawaii, supporting our position that it's more important to invest in that level of detail in smaller areas than in having a whole world that looks very mediocre. With regard to future areas, our plans are less about delivering geographies and more about delivering very different ways to experience flight. Flying in Hawaii is beautiful and serene, but Alaska by its very nature is visually stunning in an entirely different way, while also being a more treacherous place to fly. Future expansions will continue to offer opportunities for new flight experiences. There are many magnificent places to fly on this planet, and over time we look forward to offering more and more of them, but don't feel the need to offer all of them.

TA: Is there any connectivity between that roadmap and that of aircraft development; i.e., transpacific flights between PHNL and KLAX, or PANC, as examples?

JH: Long-haul flight is not one of the scenarios that we believe is interesting for the bulk of our audience. Clearly some people want this, but our research tells us that for anyone but the simmer, the idea of simulating a flight from Los Angeles to Honolulu is not a highly-requested feature.

TA: There are a number of things that have been suggested for “fixes" or additions. One of the more visible (no pun intended) has been that of compatibility with Track IR. Is that on your schedule to add? For those who seem to be suffering from withdrawal without it, when do think it will be done, if indeed you are going to address this?

JH: As I mentioned before, TrackIR is one of the requests we are getting from simmers. In an effort to balance our investments, we are considering how we can accommodate this request along with all of the other ways we want to grow the experience. I can say that we understand that the experience of Flight with TrackIR would be very cool, even for the non-pilot, and even if the total number of TrackIR users is pretty low. I expect we will have more to say about this in the future, but today I can't commit to anything specific.

TA: What other “fixes" or mods are coming that you can talk about?

JH: We think of extending Flight in many different ways, including by addressing issues that need to be fixed (it's no shame to admit that Flight has some bugs), as well as by adding more content (planes, places, and things to do), and bringing in whole new features or capabilities. We have begun talking about Alaska, as our next expansion, but are still not ready to talk about the ways in which Alaska expands the Flight experience beyond just having a very different kind of geography to fly over. We will start discussing those details soon, though. But even beyond that, the team is hard at work already on the expansion after Alaska, we just don't want to spoil the fun and reveal too much too soon.

TA: We took a very informal poll of third party developers for MS FSX / FS9, and found that many feel that they have been unfairly treated by you and your team in the lead up to FLIGHT. Given the almost universal nature of the replies, we conclude this is not an isolated sentiment. That being the case, do you have any intentions to rebuild MS' relations with these developers? Or, do you even perceive that a problem with 3PD's exist?

JH: It was a very difficult decision to put our 3rd party development plans on hold when we did, which I believe was the primary cause for the frustration these fine developers have had. Ultimately, though, we decided that with our available resources, as a business, we needed to increase our investment in other, more important areas. As a team we initially wanted to do it all – deliver an experience that could bring whole new audiences into flight, but also deliver all of the features the simmer holds dear, including support for the 3rd party ecosystem. The team started working with some 3rd parties, so when we had to back away from them it was bound to upset some of them. We do intend to reach back out to these developers, as well as to new developers, as we work to scale up our content offerings. I don't have any concerns about our ability to build effective relationships with 3rd party content developers, whether they are from the existing pool of usual suspects or new faces.

TA: IGN this week pretty much raked FLIGHT over the coals. However, they ended with a question that we too were going to ask and hopefully you can provide an answer to. Fundamentally, where are you taking FLIGHT?

JH: Trying something new is hard, and we never thought that absolutely everyone would appreciate what we were doing. Some reviewers have better understood our goals, while some were merely angry that we dared to build something that wasn't exactly what they decided we should build. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but our business is not about trying to please that kind of person. As to where we are taking Flight, the answer is that I can't give you an endpoint, but I can tell you we are committed to the journey. I believe that Flight can appeal to millions and millions of people, far more than the simulation sub-genre ever garnered, and our journey will be continuing to explore ways to bring the magic of flight to a massive audience. But simulation is a critical aspect of what we are trying to do – no arcade game can capture the majesty of flying the way a sophisticated simulation can. On our journey I expect the depth and breadth of our simulation to grow, as well for the product to get deeper in many other ways as well. Unlike a retail product, with our living product, our fans can join us on this journey, and we can make progress on the journey measured in weeks, not years.

TA: We could spend the next week of your time asking questions of you; however one question is of importance to those of us that have supported the MS flight sim enterprise for decades. That question is probably one that you are not comfortable answering, but we'll ask it anyway… Do you ever foresee a day when MS will return to its Flight Simulation product?

JH: Microsoft Flight is our effort to bring this franchise a whole new audience. Our focus now is on making Microsoft Flight the most enjoyable flying experience we can, for anyone who has imagined what it's like to fly. If returning to Flight Simulator makes sense again sometime in the future, I am confident that Microsoft would not ignore that possibility, but it's not something that is being actively considered today.

Joshua, thank you for your time and patience in answering what probably seems a rehash of questions you've been asked before. I am sure that our AVSIM readership will appreciate your time and in answering them once again.


#2 jcovelli

jcovelli

    Private Pilot - IFR

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 596 posts
  • Location:WI

Posted 19 March 2012 - 10:54 PM

:hrmm:

it's almost impressive how they can answer every question... without actually answering it.  

the only thing this does is confirm that flight is a kids game and they have no interest in making it anything else.  

the number of people buying stuff is higher than they expected??? they must have had some REALLY low expectations.  


i personally don't fly airliners but it's interesting to me that if people want a flying game without guns... seems like they would want to fly and airliner...  
again.. even as a game, what's the point?

#3 Brandon-M

Brandon-M

    Orville Reincarnate

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,912 posts
  • Location:Canada - Calgary

Posted 19 March 2012 - 11:01 PM

Holy crap, I could sit here and pick at this for hours.

All i got from reading this was:

LALALALALALLA WE CANT HEAR YOU LALALALALALLALALALALALAL


B)


3-4 sceneries a YEAR.

They are aware this is a game intended  for kids and those not really that interested in flying games... they do not think "transatlantic flights will appeal to their new audience" why the :hrmm: are they still trying to market this to the simming community.

Load of crap. This site should not be endorsing this game.

They wanted something new, but they want to keep all the perks that come with continuing the franchise....scuuuuummmmmbaaaaaaaagssss

Edited by Dr_Phil, 19 March 2012 - 11:05 PM.


#4 EduardoSpaz

EduardoSpaz

    Private Pilot - VFR

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 332 posts
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 19 March 2012 - 11:13 PM

Do you know what it really boils down to?  Greed.  This does not surprise me coming from Microsoft.  They are all about the dollar and nothing else.  They could care less about your opinion.

3rd party developers saved FSX from failure, and this is how they repay them.  It is kind of disgusting.

Edited by EduardoSpaz, 19 March 2012 - 11:17 PM.


#5 _NW_

_NW_

    Orville Reincarnate

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,119 posts
  • Location:KSAT

Posted 19 March 2012 - 11:15 PM

blah blah blah blah we wanted to try something new blah blah blah blah blah to make us money blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

#6 suraj

suraj

    Commercial Pilot

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,663 posts
  • Location:London, ON

Posted 19 March 2012 - 11:20 PM

I've said this before, but I'll say it again. We aren't exactly getting what we wanted, but I seriously think we will. Let's just give it time. They are attracting a new audience, and I think they are successfully doing it. They've dumbed the game down, but gave those new users a fun experience mixed with a somewhat realistic flying experience. The game is very early in its development cycle, but after they've attracted that new user, they will still have to appeal to the masses. Think about the first time you played a Microsoft Flight Simulator, were you looking at getting a fully realistic experience? or were you just looking to fly around and get a grasp of things slowly? From my first time, I remember flying around VFR the entire time enjoying the scenery and I never even once looked in the cockpit. That simply just didn't appeal to me. Then I started playing the game more and more and wanted a more realistic experience, so I started finding out little things about the planes and started actually using the cockpit. As time progressed I wanted to have an even more realistic experience, so I started purchasing DLC. If I were to do this all over again and the first flying game I played was Microsoft Flight, I know for a fact I would love the game. So the way I look at it, people will grow tiresome of the simple game, and the masses will demand a realistic game, and Microsoft with their current business model will appeal to what we've always wanted. Just give it time, but I think that day will come.

#7 _BD6_

_BD6_

    June '10 Screenshot Hotshot

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,577 posts
  • Location:Massachusetts, USA

Posted 19 March 2012 - 11:21 PM

Lmao... The Hawaiian Pack DLC is the most popular DLC... Maybe because it's the only fricking DLC?! (that actually gives you more than ONE island.)

#8 jcovelli

jcovelli

    Private Pilot - IFR

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 596 posts
  • Location:WI

Posted 19 March 2012 - 11:30 PM

View Postsuraj, on Mar 19 2012, 11:20 PM, said:

Just give it time, but I think that day will come.

and when that day comes... we'll all be using xplane 10..  and have no interest.

and yeah... that line about the hawaiian content pack was the best line in the whole thing.

Edited by jcovelli, 19 March 2012 - 11:34 PM.


#9 jcovelli

jcovelli

    Private Pilot - IFR

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 596 posts
  • Location:WI

Posted 19 March 2012 - 11:50 PM

the line... while some were merely angry that we dared to build something that wasn't exactly what they decided we should build. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but our business is not about trying to please that kind of person.  
HELLO MICROSOFT... you created flight simulation and without us or in your words "that kind of person"... YOU WOULDN'T EVEN HAVE FLIGHT TO BEGIN WITH.  so again.. thanks for giving us the finger.

F#ck you too

Edited by jcovelli, 19 March 2012 - 11:51 PM.


#10 ChaoticBeauty

ChaoticBeauty

    Private Pilot - IFR

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 574 posts

Posted 20 March 2012 - 08:30 AM

So we're not getting the whole world?

#11 -Dexter

-Dexter

    Supersonic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,183 posts
  • Location:West Virginia, USA

Posted 20 March 2012 - 10:22 AM

View PostChaoticBeauty, on Mar 20 2012, 09:30 AM, said:

So we're not getting the whole world?
What? You mean to say you would want to fly somewhere other than Hawaii?

#12 Brandon-M

Brandon-M

    Orville Reincarnate

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,912 posts
  • Location:Canada - Calgary

Posted 20 March 2012 - 10:47 AM

View PostChaoticBeauty, on Mar 20 2012, 05:30 AM, said:

So we're not getting the whole world?

Nope! They purposely made this game not for simmers, and going by his answers they have zero plans to make any changes. He brought up ATC and dismissed it for one thing. We need to forget this game was ever released :hrmm:

#13 LA_PHX

LA_PHX

    Orville Reincarnate

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,783 posts

Posted 20 March 2012 - 10:52 AM

All I see is, "yeah, we kinda were expecting this and wanted to screw over the people who got us to this point.  :hrmm: you very much, simmers."

View Postb0gey_dead_six, on Mar 19 2012, 09:21 PM, said:

Lmao... The Hawaiian Pack DLC is the most popular DLC... Maybe because it's the only fricking DLC?! (that actually gives you more than ONE island.)
I guess they count incomplete aircraft downloads as DLC.

#14 Spam

Spam

    Commercial Pilot

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,298 posts
  • Location:EGFF

Posted 20 March 2012 - 12:47 PM

i think a few people are going to be eating their own words when they read this...

#15 Brad

Brad

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,792 posts
  • Location:South Carolina

Posted 20 March 2012 - 01:22 PM

What is most disheartening for me is their outlook toward things like ATC and, presumably, weather generation and the like.  But then again I guess those are the sorts of things that make a simulator a simulator, which was not their goal to begin with.  All in all I suppose that's pretty much what I expected them to say.

I do hope that we see a Market/App-store of sorts be developed where 3rd party developers can jump in and sell their products there.  That's actually what I anticipated would be happening at Flight's release - I'm surprised to see Microsoft going it alone and developing all of these things themselves (and yes I know they may be outsourcing some of this development, but they are still at least putting forth the appearance that all of these addons are coming from MS).  Apple harnessed the power of the development community with the iphone/ipad, Google did it with Android, and doesn't Microsoft do it with Windows Phone (I haven't ever seen or used one so I don't know) - so surely that's the endgame at some point.  

As long as that's where we end up, I can handle the stuff they are doing in the meantime.

#16 PrivateCustard

PrivateCustard

    Private Pilot - IFR

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 988 posts
  • Location:Harriers Graveyard

Posted 20 March 2012 - 01:25 PM

Quote

"But simmers aren't our only customers now"

I think the word 'only' needs to be scrubbed from this quote!

#17 Jetset

Jetset

    Contributor

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,456 posts
  • Location:London UK

Posted 20 March 2012 - 03:38 PM

I've lost a lot of the faith I had after reading that interview to a point where I'm reluctant to buy any more content for Flight.
I was especially hoping for a more definitive answer with regards to TrackIR  but it appears implementing it is not high on their list of priorities and it may never even happen.

It's funny that I've never got on with TrackIR when it comes to airline flying in FS9/X but it works so well for GA which I rarely used and so, given that Flight is purely GA (at the moment), I really really want to be able to use it.

I was also hoping that we would be able to, at some point, be able to fly between the geographical areas that were released but this seems to not be the case.

Quote

We do get requests from simmers for things like ATC, TrackIR, or making the whole world available, and where we can we are adjusting our future roadmap to accommodate these kinds of things. However, our data reinforces that Flight already has a much wider audience profile than past products in the franchise, and those people are asking for us to improve the product in a variety of other ways (many of which are about improving the quality of the game, like adding leaderboards, multiplayer missions, or new challenge types).

Are they really Mr. Howard?

#18 Capt_Gabe

Capt_Gabe

    Commercial Pilot

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,537 posts
  • Location:Ireland

Posted 20 March 2012 - 04:58 PM

So that's the Flight team leader ? What ? Is that all he has to say about it ? He has definitely not said an iota that would change my mind towards giving any of my money towards that product, at all, the thing is a tiny folly. I think that as an initial product its a total under achiever, and theres just no way I'm going to feed cash into that maw in order to see if I like whatever they may produce. Fail Fail Fail.

#19 chalbers

chalbers

    Commercial Pilot

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,018 posts

Posted 20 March 2012 - 11:06 PM

Pathetic !!

#20 Mohammad

Mohammad

    Supersonic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,466 posts
  • Location:Kuwait

Posted 21 March 2012 - 12:04 AM

View PostBrad, on Mar 20 2012, 01:22 PM, said:

What is most disheartening for me is their outlook toward things like ATC and, presumably, weather generation and the like.  But then again I guess those are the sorts of things that make a simulator a simulator, which was not their goal to begin with.  All in all I suppose that's pretty much what I expected them to say.

I do hope that we see a Market/App-store of sorts be developed where 3rd party developers can jump in and sell their products there.  That's actually what I anticipated would be happening at Flight's release - I'm surprised to see Microsoft going it alone and developing all of these things themselves (and yes I know they may be outsourcing some of this development, but they are still at least putting forth the appearance that all of these addons are coming from MS).  Apple harnessed the power of the development community with the iphone/ipad, Google did it with Android, and doesn't Microsoft do it with Windows Phone (I haven't ever seen or used one so I don't know) - so surely that's the endgame at some point.  

As long as that's where we end up, I can handle the stuff they are doing in the meantime.
I think MS lost the plot. I mean take a look at Windows 8, Microsoft Flight, and just about every idea they had as of late. They're all nothing but disappointing. MS simply isn't the same company that it used to be when Bill Gates was more active. It went downhill in almost every aspect. Their recent OS plans are ridiculous, their Flight Simulation rebirth was misleading and majorly disappointing, they're probably doing badly in other things too that I don't know about.

I don't see any positive signs, not when MS Flight's team actually still believes in the self-destructive philosophy that it's pursuing.

As of today, Microsoft are nowhere near Apple and Google's standards.

Edited by Mohammad, 21 March 2012 - 12:05 AM.