Whats up with this payware stuff? Payware is not the solution

All this is an opinion I have seen first hand on this forum and I’m just trying to get a point accross that Payware and or 3rd party devs is not the solution to the problem nor should it be.

I have noticed a lot of people referring to payware add-ons for the game. Now I agree that some payware will help improve the game or the user exp like real voice ATC or PACKS I think that’s what its called and sometimes some of the airports have a bit better details that adds the very cool effect as opposed to just cool effects.

But people PAYWARE is NOT the SOLUTION. the game as in the state that it is in now (this date) is very broken even payware could not fix the problems that are in the game now.

Q. hey… X doesn’t work?? A: you can get the paid version that will work

Q: where are the…X A: Just wait until a paid version of it comes out.

Q: this is broken… A: the PAYWARE version is a good fix for it.

the fact is we really need ASOBO and Microsoft to get off their ■■■ and fix this stuff!!! Once this is done then the people can decide on their own if they would like to get the payware version

I agree that some payware may be better or have a better version than the game already provides once the full game is already in a working state.

Most of what I have seen for the so called fixes or improvements cost hundreds of dollars maybe not one by one but if we went will all of the so called payware fixes they would run about $200 on top of the $130USD we or at least some of us have already paid for a broken toy. so you can see my point for paying more for software that is broken to begin with is to pay more for it. seems an insane thing to do to me. Remember that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results.

So people please quit using the “payware” excuse to fix things that should have been working to start with. besides if its broken to start with payware can not fix it. Also whatever happened to FREEWARE? Project opensky did a good job for FSX


I haven’t seen anyone say that payware is the solution to obvious bugs, and moreover I’m confident that as MS / Asobo’s update cadence continues more and more stuff will be cleaned up.

So I wouldn’t get too belt out of shape about it.


From what I’ve been told by people that were in the Alpha, bugs reported would get responses that the community/commercial partners would be expected to provide higher quality “fill in the blank” (avionics - where you can actually do approaches, aircraft system, terrain/airport fixes etc.). So I think we’ll be living with sub-par implementations of these things for a long long (indefinite) time.

I feel like they stuffed the game full of half-complete implementations of airplanes.


I agree…up to a point.

So many people are complaining about advanced items such as VNAV logic, FMC speed/altitude constraints in the FMS etc. These are really advanced functions to implement correctly. That’s why up until now they have only been available in the highest level, study aircraft.

Asobo will never have the resources, or desire to model VNAV/FMS completely and as such, any inclusion will always be deemed bugged, wrong, incomplete, buy a large number of users who compare it’s function to the likes of PMDG.

That’s why I actually believe Asobo made a big mistake by attempting any sort of VNAV function in the first place. It should have been left out completely, with basic modes like FLC and VS being the only default option.


I wouldn’t qualify this a big mistake. They’ve decided to ship the product as they see fit in the greater schemes of things which is their marketing and product strategy. For example take Apple and its app store which is generating 40% of Apple’s services revenue while Apple’s licensing accounts for nearly 25% of Apple’s services revenue.

Now transpose this to FS2020 being the iPhone and FS2020 Market Place being the App Store. In this context, it makes sense to release the simulator now because I believe the bulk of the revenue will come from the XBox when ready. Besides, from Aug 18 to the XBox launch, we, PC customers, are helping them ironing out the major bugs freely so that the simulator is sufficiently polished for the XBox release. In the meantime, a ‘select few’ 3rd party vendors will fill the market place, ready for being preying upon by enthusiast Xbox users.

Having said this, I believe Asobo is for now focusing in making the SDK supporting what is mostly visual (sceneries, airports, good looking aircraft) because this is what sells first.

My point was more that Asobo was, and never will, create a high fidelity, technically accurate simulation of advanced features such as VNAV. Yet to do anything but this, will always be ridiculed as being buggy, incomplete, half finished etc. Hence they would have been better of not including it at all, and acknowledging this should be 3rd party territory.

Somehow I don’t think XBOX users care if VNAV PATH to SPEED changes, or AT or Above/Below altitude constraints, work absolutely correctly as per the FCOM.


The solution is time…

1 Like

Hahaha, Asobo will NEVER ‘finish’ advanced features like VNAV. To do so would literally mean creating a PMDG level aircraft. Why people even expect this to happen I’m not sure.


Was not referring to highly advanced payware features… only current bugs.

1 Like

Yeah, this is putting words in someones mouth that they didn’t say then yell at them for it. IE: Trolling.

1 Like

Trolling is definitely not my intention.

In my first post, I actually said I agree with the OP. But only up to a point.

3rd party dev shouldn’t be replied on to fix the bugs, incomplete features, and shortcomings that Asobo have/will leave in the sim. With that I completely agree.

The point I was trying to make is there is a small but vocal group (not necessarily including the OP, or anyone else who has replied, in that group), who believe that really advanced functions and features, should be replicated to the most extreme detail by Asobo, for free. These users will continue to yell about it in the these forums, because their expectations are simply to high, or they want everything without having to pay a cent more.

I feel if Asobo is going to implement a feature. It should work. If not leave it out.

My biggest gripe is the Longitude fuel consumption. Its an aircraft I paid extra for and it only gets 1/3 of its range. To add it cant be community modified so it will only ever be as good as Asobo will make it.

Its still my preferred sim. I’m hoping given a reasonable amount of time bugs are fixed and included aircraft features are complete.


I am not so sure that Microsoft (remember it is their labelled product) doesn’t have the resources.

[citation needed] Alpha and Beta testers were and are under NDA.

When has Asobo or Microsoft ever given those answers? They haven’t. This whole thread is a strawman. :small_airplane: :smiley_cat:

1 Like

I whole heatedly agree with this!

Hence why I think some of the halfbaked features they attempted, should probably have been omitted entirely, so they could focus on ensuring what they did include works correctly and completely.

Yes, I can see where your’e coming from and I agree with a goodly part of your post.

It is indeed madness, at this stage, to consider ad hoc payware as the way to address bugs etc.

That said, I have seen a few reversible tweaks [for want of a better word] that are usable whilst Asobo / MS get their collective s**t together. But of course the tweaks I am referring to are offered at no cost.

I expect the most constructive way forward here is to make sure that all the bugs and glitches that we come across are raised in the Self Service section and then follow that up with a little patience.
Yes, a little patience. MSFS 2020 is an absolute behemoth of a piece of software, comprising millions of lines of code. Hell, just making sense of all the stuff that gets written here [in the forums], sorting the wheat from the chaff and collating what’s left into an actionable fix list must, in and of itself, take an absolute age.

So, for now I suggest we all keep faith with this project.
This simulator is - bugs and all - already way superior to all the opposition.
It is an absolute visual feast.
I love it and I want it to succeed.

1 Like

I just want the AP to work and the plane not crash or do other stupid things on me. IE a rollercoaster ride to 10,000ft or complete shut down at 36k ft or APU’s not starting and the list goes on simple basic items that … then I’ll be ok with it and will probably be still interested in playing more of it.

1 Like

Asobo/MS haven’t said that. other people have in the forums here have. this post just disagrees with that line of responses that I heave seen and has even been said and a response in other posts.

I’m not mad at any one and every one has their own opinion. I am just posting this to place responsibility where it needs to be. the Devs of MSFS

1 Like

I beg your pardon? MSFS supposedly sold 700.000 copies in the US alone. Even if each of those sales was just the base version, revenue for the US alone since launch would be an absolute minimum of $42 Million. Let’s say in all other countries of the world combined sales would also be 700.000 (That is a very low estimate) with only base versions sold - then we get another $42 Million. That means that revenue of MSFS till now would be a minimum of $84 Million. More realistically the number will most likely well exceed the $100 Million mark.

With this kind of budget I would assume that it should be feaseable to deliver fully operational default aircraft (Including VNAV), as well as fixing other issues.