Wouldn’t you be more upset if you bought something in the MP and it didn’t work? I believe it is nobody’s fault, it’s a complex business that both parties need to resolve. We are clueless as to what goes on in the background. Unless that changes we have to live with it. Raise it again at the developer stream.
If it didn’t work on MP but I knew it worked elsewhere I’d be looking at the MP as the reason. This is the whole point. If their own platform allows it to work just fine when purchased elsewhere and placed in the community folder but doesn’t allow the same when that package is purchased via the MP, what other conclusion could one draw.
@Sling380 In other shops you simply download the file locally to your PC and that’s it. No checks or quality control.
The marketplace architecture is very different in this regard. For example there are file size limits, streaming has to work, no external code and so on. This requires the developers to follow the SDK very closely. Which sometimes they don’t do, for different reasons.
Just because it works somewhere else but not in the MP doesn’t mean the MP is at fault. It’s possible but not the exclusive reason
2 Likes
@IncontnentCamel That’s simply not true. If there were no checks then the package you download would probably not work. They have to check to make sure it runs in the game. Once again for those not getting the point here. The packages already work in the game and all this extra stuff required for MP that’s obviously causing the problems is of Microsoft’s doing. It’s really that simple.
I don’t need to hear excuses for why one store is so much worse than others. If the others can do it so can the one that’s failing. No excuses.
I am not a big fan of MP, since I almost exclusively play on PC. But could the difference between MP and other Shops be the reason it must also run on xbox and now also ps5?
This might be a reasoning for the difference?
Yes, it has to run on xbox. This is the only place they get add ons. I suspect the same issue will apply to ps5.
@Sling380 there is a difference between running in the game and being MP compliant. Just because it’s working that does not mean it’s adhering to the SDK standards. For example a car missing it’s rear brakes, muffler and dripping oil can drive just fine. But it will never be road legal in the EU. To ensure safety, compatibility and a bare minimum level of quality all submissions have to meet certain requirements. You could argue why these rules are needed at all but that’s not really up for debate.
@SylvesterRocket no it doesn’t not have to run on Xbox. You can submit an add-on for PC only
1 Like
You are being silly now. This is not a car or even close to it. The fact is aircraft work no differently in MP or out of MP so claiming it is somehow better because there’s more red tape to wade through is quite frankly ridiculous. It’s only harder to get things into MP because Microsoft make it harder by its own choice. That doesn’t make it better. Just slower, cumbersome and annoying to any potential customers. Luckily if you are on PC you have a choice. As can be seen from the many comments on this very forum many users have indeed made the choice to avoid the MP, either where possible or completely. That tells its own story. I can’t see how that can be defended but each to his own.
Avoidance of the MP is not usually down to the ingestion process. What I have read is folk want updates sooner. (Frankly, I find having all those different ingestion tools from 3rd parties cumbersome - it’s much easier via MP).
I buy in MP because I know then that the plane works with the code. That it is suitable for 2024.
An argument about who is at fault 
is frankly not in anyone’s interest because we, as the customer, do not know anything about it- either way.
What you can do is raise it at the next Developer stream. Hopefully someone explains it to you and everyone else.
Actually it’s all kinds of reasons. Yes updates is one of them and that is linked. The update still needs to meet the laid down criteria. But there are also other important reasons that combined make folks stay away. You’ve only got to read these forums to see the many comments relating to MP frustrations which is what this whole topic is asking for feedback on.
I never claimed that. I just tried to explain why Microsoft chose their way. BTW the car thing is called an analogy… And Microsoft does not necessarily make it harder to release a product on the MP. It’s just different.
I suggest reading through the SDK documentation and the dev forums. I think you’ll get a better understanding of how things work and why Microsoft is a bit more restrictive with what it allows and what not.
Here is one example to get started
Oh and with 2024 if devs do good work, a fast release is possible. After getting through the initial issues, especially with career compatibility, Taog’s Hangar pushed an update and it was released with the next MP update cycle. Doesn’t mean the MP has no issues of course
1 Like
Well actually you did with the whole beaten up car vs super duper EU approved car. No need to be condescending I know perfectly well what an analogy is. I was pointing out your use of a car was a bad one.
Quoting one example as if that somehow applies in every case demonstrates nothing. Also doing good work as you put it implies those that are having issues are not. We know very well known and established devs who have had issues so really not sure where you are going with this.
We can bat back and forth but the fact remains that if as you now seem to have conceded that the MP products are no better for all the delays then why try and justify those delays.
I’m done.
Microsoft has to ensure that certain things are done in a defined way to make sure that things work how they are supposed to and that things conform to corporate guidelines.
“things work how they are supposed to” that would be for example -the already mentioned- asset streaming ability of MSFS 2024, the naming guidelines probably help avoiding name collision (I’m speculating here), other guidelines are in place to enable aircraft in career mode, …
Other stores might not care about those guidelines as, for example, products bought there won’t be streamed in MSFS 2024 anyway and they might not even care about name collisions between different products.
Those guidelines are in place for a reason, not because Microsoft likes to put up arbitrary rules to drive anyone crazy. Sometimes those rules are being reviewed and changed, e.g. the display of weaponry. Some people might not like those rules and guidelines, fair enough. But they are not bad or stupid per se just because we might not understand why they exist.
I’d like to know if there is an easily accessible overview of those guidelines. Some parts can be found in the SDK but I’m sure the Marketplace Content Portal contains more information. Knowing more about those might help understand the reasoning behind them.
1 Like
Now all we need for happiness is an update about "what went wrong and this is how fixed it” 
1 Like
This is a joke, isn´t it? This plane was submitted in August, not 7 days ago. According to Justflight it didn´t pass the ingestion process because of problems on MS side, which JF couldn´t do anything about, this many weeks.
Thats the problem with not knowing where the problem is situated. Now MS states, they needed only 7 days to bring the product to Marketplace…
1 Like
… from the time Blacksquare approved it until it was released. This could mean they went through many different builds, it could also mean that Blacksquare was handed off the build for testing and took 3 months to test and return with approvals, we just don’t know.
This value has never been intended to reflect the entire duration of the process, as has been explained by CMs a few times. It’s intended to showcase the fact that (with very few exceptions) once the owner of the product says it’s ready there is very little, if any, delay in its release.
Obviously there are issues further up stream with some submissions/creators, but none of us can definitively say who’s “fault” it may be without just taking one party’s word for it.
Hopefully now they, Bl Sq. know what is needed, the Dukes will arrive.
1 Like
Then this statistics is useless. JF didn´t do anything these months exept waiting for MS to fix a problem with the ingestion we don´t know.
The Dukes, Starship, Baron and Bonanza are in the pipeline for weeks as well. If MS found a solution today and they would come to MP next week, would the statistics also state, that it took only a few days? I don´t need such misleading statistics.
1 Like
Dukes, Starship, the set of Beechcraft, and hopefully very soon, the beloved Caravan 
3 Likes