Are there other cases?

[Stearman]

No doubt MSFS is a wonderful sim that only a little over two years ago, few of us actually expected to happen.
However, even if I have been greatly enjoying it (and I still do), I can't help but finding somehow "oddish" the approach:
It is a product that, in spite of being admittedly "work in progress" (and supposed to be so yet for another 8 years), openly encourages the use of 3rd party add-ons, which are in fact what gives it interest and appeal (to me anyway).
Notwithstanding, the product is regularly updated without any coordination with 3rd party developers, often leaving their add-ons useless, thus forcing them time after time to release new updates in turn, in sort of an endless race.
Isn't this and oddish approach?
To me it is, and that's why I wonder if there have ever been other cases in the gaming arena or history.

 

[ak416]

With there being dozens and dozens of third party developers, and thousands of products released by them, I don't know how they could possibly coordinate with all of them or test every product in existence when making changes to the sim.

Dino Cattaneo talks about having early access to beta builds and trying to get issues addressed before those builds are released publicly, so if Dino has that access I would have to assume some others do, and if they don't, then why? That's really the only solution that I see for the near future. Make third party devs aware of the changes prior to an update and allow them time to test their products and submit changes. Of course, that's a lot easier said than done given how the marketplace works and other external factors but the alternative is to never change anything that could possibly effect current third party products and that's not really a solution either.

Third party devs are keenly aware of the state of the sim and they chose to release products for a platform that isn't finalized and clearly has a long way to go in some aspects. Microsoft/Asobo has been crystal clear since Day 1 that substantial updates will continue to roll out. Some developers are great at keeping up with the updates and add new features to their already released products as they are introduced to the base sim (DC Designs is a great example) while others sort of just release a product and move onto the next one without much or even any attention given to their back catalogue (I don't buy Carenado for this exact reason).

Is there precedent for this? Well, for the vast majority of games that have mod support, it's very common knowledge amongst modding communities that updates to the base game are going to break mods. It's not really even a question, it's just assumed that mod authors are going to have to update and maintain there mods for games that are still "live", meaning that they still receive updates and possibly new content. The vast majority of mods for games are free which generally relieves mod authors of any sort of obligation to maintain their mod if they decide they don't want to or they are busy with a different project or any other reason that work might stagnate.

My personal opinion is that it's up to third party developers to maintain their products if they want me to continue to purchase them. I also expect Microsoft/Asobo to make that as easy as possible for them to do so.

 

[Stearman]

Thanks for your comments, ak416. Truly enlightening to me.

I'd just add I wasn't aware about that Carenado's policy. In fact I only bought one aircraft from them (the Waco YMF-5) and had to quit using it soon for other reasons (I was unable to control it on the ground, possibly my fault).

As for developers listening to users and willing to keep their products up to date, of course I agree about DC Designs, and would like to add Big Radials and Drzewiecki Design, two favourite of mine.

Thanks once again, happy flying.

 

[ak416]

I probably shouldn't have singled out any developers or at least should have been more clear in what I meant. I didn't necessarily mean that Carenado completely abandons their aircraft, though it can feel like that at times.

The distinction I wanted to make was that some developers treat their catalogue with more care than others. When things like sonic booms and vapor cones and dust effects etc were introduced to the base sim with the F-18 and the Reno updates, DC Designs went back and added those things to all of their aircraft. Other developers seem happy to do the bare minimum in making sure their products basically function correctly and then move onto the next project.

They key thing though is that updates become as painless as possible for both developers and publishers and right now that doesn't seem to be the case. I understand that turnaround time for the marketplace is improving but doesn't seem to be quite where it needs to be. I'm not a developer so I can't really speak to what communication is like between MS and third parties, some developers seem happy with it and others seem to have a lot of complaints but when changes are made to the base sim I think that needs to be clearly communicated with devs well ahead of when those changes are pushed the live build.

 

[bazzar]

Welcome to the world of games development. Developers are fully aware that the host games are going to update and that base code can change. That has always been a risk. The difference today is that market expectations have risen so high that demand for ever more reality and inclusions has resulted in the need for continual updates as technology struggles to keep up with that demand. Often, third party products require significant changes to modeling, code and other aspects of their packages that take a lot of time and effort to do. Sometimes, it is just not possible to do economically and then regrettably, a product becomes obsolete way before its time. Third party developers have the opportunity to beta test host game upgrades but often the SDKs (software development kits) are not updated at the same time as the game. So often, major changes requiring re-code remain a mystery for longer or the developer must spend the time working out how to do it.

None of this is unusual in this game. It is up to the developer to decide a) if the work involved is financially worthwhile and b) if so, how long it will take given existing priorities. When a product is launched, it usually has an upgrade path attached but no developer can faithfully guarantee that those upgrades will work with future upgrades to the game. How could they. All developers can do is future-proof their products as best as they can.