Thank you for the clear breakdown.
Regarding #2, I have two questions.
I only ask because the 737-100 should have been denied based on clearly faked product images alone, assuming a human actually looked at it. With a very small portfolio of products, perhaps Scenery Creation should have been looked at a bit closer.
This for me is specially concerning, even more than the low quality of the aircraft. Such a difference between all time and last 30 days shouldn’t be possible with a product that released a couple weeks ago, even if the reviews are botted or the devs bought their own aircraft several times to leave 5 stars. It really puts to question how the marketplace is counting and showing the reviews, it would be interesting to see if such a difference is also present for other newly released products
False advertising incorrect description
False reviews
1000% scam
Says more about Microsoft, I bet it doesn’t show up on the Sony MP because it’s a scam
Wasn’t this covered before? People keep saying this yet I’ve never heard there is a rule against AI generated screenshots. Do you have evidence there is? If there isn’t, obviously it shouldn’t be denied based on that.
Only MS employees and approved Marketplace creators would know this and they may be bound by an NDA from disclosing details about Marketplace policies, so it’s all speculation - though, in my opinion, a common-sense policy that I would hope exists.
FYI, it’s common in the Microsoft Store itself to use rendered/non-game art for promotion:
As you say, though, any verifiable details are covered by NDA unless an MS exec decides to clarify them publicly.
I think the bigger issue here isn’t the AI-modified images (the plane still looks accurately inaccurate) nor the Marketplace not having a quality standard for releases (Who’s going to make that call? Someone called out Captain Sim above, but while their initial C-130 was deplorable, the current versions aren’t bad at all for their cost).
The biggest issue here, and the one with the clearest path to a solution, is the obviously game-able ratings system. MS should fix this (and they maybe be doing that… Software revision at MS is a snail’s-pace process, with sprints and prioritization and all the other stuff you see at any major software publisher), zero out the reviews on obvious cheats, and find a way to penalize the verifiable cheaters. (Removal or demotion to the bottom of the content feed?)
It’s frustrating to see high-quality add-ons with a few quirks or visuals that don’t satisfy the texture-obsessed at 3.7-4.0 while the junk sits at 4.5-5 due to obvious review-gaming.
Marketing material and screenshots on a product page are very different and should be held to very different standards. There’s a reason fine print clarifying whether something was captured in-engine or not, in an alpha or not, etc., are industry standard.
Oh, absolutely agree that the screenshots should be unprocessed images from the sim.
The MSFS Marketplace doesn’t actually label these as screenshots, which adds to the confusion.
Why can’t marketplace listings have a visual 3D model of the aircraft with textures and cockpit to view similar to the hanger in MSFS 2020?
The buyer can see for themselves the quality of the aircraft.
Because that would involve downloading the entire aircraft package and then rendering it? Performance would be terrible. The 2020 hangar view wasn’t compatible with streaming aircraft, which is why we lost it, making the MP do the same but for every available aircraft would be insanity.
I’ll disagree here. When you misrepresent a product in its advertising, both in images and text (“fully animated” exterior and cockpit is a lot harder to weasel out of than “realistic”), scam seems to be an appropriate description…
The Definition of Scam is
“to trick someone into giving you money or giving you some advantage, in a dishonest and often illegal way”
This really doesn’t describe the 737 or any other creator that has the term scam attached to them.
I Do not think this 737 is right but it isn’t a scam, it is misleading at best
Can’t see how it would be any different than rendering it on the runway.
Correct. As it stands, it’s merely an invitation to treat. Tthere’s no coercion and any decision is based entirely on free will.
Even more important, it is a statistic that can be tracked. If this happens on Steam, you get an email from them asking to explain it. There are ways to let software (even AI) find these things, even if humans are not easily able to.
Letting humans decide how good a DLC is will always remain tricky, and I fully understand that Microsoft does not want any part of that. An example? Years ago, an aircraft I was managing was rejected as it was ‘uncontrollable’. I tested again, all was fine. Got it thrown back with the updated comment that the elevator and aileron were not usable. This went on for a few days until I had a brainwave… "Uh, you guys did remove the gust lock, right? "
Mathijs Kok
PMDG
How are fabricated product images not dishonest?
How are fraudulent reviews not dishonest?
Both of these encourage a potential buyer into providing payment to the developer of this product.
Yes, at the end of the day it comes down to the buyer doing their own due diligence before purchasing. But whatever your definition of a scam is, this product should not be allowed on the marketplace until the falsified product images and reviews are removed.
It isn’t illegal, it isn’t even against Market place policies it seems. It is all about wording.
While i disagree with the AI images its common practise in games and as others and me have said it is misleading but not dishonest.
As for the reviews yeah that is worrying and i would like to know how that’s being done but if it was hacking or getting round the system in anyway Microsoft would be on it they have all the sales figures so they know how many are being sold and where in the world … but i think just giving something stars with no actual wording is pointless anyway
Yeah, but the description and AI images are intentionally misleading, which by definition is deliberately manipulating facts to deceive, not sure how you can say that’s not dishonest?! 
again it is in the wording
Dishonest is an adjective describing behavior or a person characterized by deceit, a lack of integrity, or a willful perversion of the truth.
does that really apply? i’m not sure how fake skies is classed as this.
anyway if it was dishonest i’m sure it wouldn’t be there
I really can’t see the parent company of Copilot outlawing AI ‘enhanced’ (which is no doubt what the devs will claim it was) imagery on the marketplace, at all.
