A lot of commercial and industrial sectors are following the best practices rules to improve their quality. Why the flight simulation market wouldn't have such practices ?
We, the simmers, want to establish a best practices charter for editors and developers.
Here are a few possible ones. Send your one and Airdailyx will post this charter to all editors.
Best practices in Flight simulation
The charter of best practices is established in order
to improve the excellence of the flight sim market.
1) When bugs are found in a product, the editor/developer must fix and patch under a delay of two weeks maximum.
2) On all new projects, editors and developers must indicate a possible release date.
3) Editors/Developers should post at least 1 preview per month.
4) When a new product is sold as an update from an older version, simmers have a special discount.
5) It's up to you !
Help us to complete this charter and we will ask editors / developers to sign it/
Dom Mason
ADX
16 comments:
With respect to new developments, I see no reason why any developer should need to inform the market of any state of affairs. We cannot demand any previews or whatever, that is and always should be up to the developer him or herself what they feel, if at all, should be previewed when and indeed how regularly.
However, I am definitely for a charter against the release of paid software in a known incomplete state. All this nonsense of extended beta team of a nature that occurred with airsimmer (I should know, as I got burnt on that one), or releasing bit by bit is quite simply scandalous behaviour. It is the insatiable appetite of the flight simmer and the need to have the "latest and greatest" yesterday already that fuels this questionable practice. Developers should be held to a charter to get their software free of known issues before it is released to the general public and state quite clearly in advance of release what exactly the addon brings, and if need be, does not bring.
For example, releasing an addon with a feature of the real world aircraft'
s autoflight system missing is not an issue. If the developer has stated clearly that it is not a feature earmarked for the product in its current release state, then so be it. The developer may wish to add the functionality at a later date, or not. We the customers decide whether or not to purchase based on this feature list. If, however, there is a feature which is part of the addon that does not work as it should, and was known not to work properly prior to release, then I believe a developer has acted immorally. Furthermore, if a developer "promises" the addition of features in a future update release, then does not provide, I believe the customer is entitled to at least a proportion of his/her money back. An example of this practice in my mind is the DA Fokker 70/100, whose VC was promised from the outset and still hasn't seen the light of day other than a few screenshots in a forum...
No editor or developer of payware out there is going to sign a charter containing the points listed above.
Andrew
A good idea but is moot by the fact that developers work under different circumstances and budget. You cannot group everyone under a charter merely to expect a uniform outcome that is acceptable to everyone. It is simply impossible to expect quality outcome from a one-man developer to meet all the above and much more versus a large company such as aerosoft, orbx or justflight, etc. In my book, if a company does not produce quality or don't release on time as expected, I simply vote with my wallet. That's the most effective practise/ultimate consumer charter to keep the developer on his/her toes.
"No editor or developer of payware out there is going to sign a charter containing the points listed above." - I agree with this as a developer. Here are the reasons:
1. For some developers it will take a day to correct something, others won't correct anything at all. But sometimes it takes much more time than 2 weeks to correct a bug. Sometimes it is even impossible to correct it due to FS limitations or an unknown cause!
2. This is impossible. Even Microsoft can't do that, or maybe just a year of release :)
3. They probably would if they got payed for that by bloggers :). And what if they wouldn't?
4. They usually do. But what if they don't? It is up to customers wheather they wan't to buy a product or not. There is always a choice. You don't like - you don't buy. Although there is a no-return policy in online stores, good or bad products/support always influence future sales of developers' products, so in my opinion that market's jungle rule is as fair as it can be, without any charters.
Points 2 and 3 benefit bloggers, but not necessarily developers or the community as a whole.
If you hold a developer to a release date, you are going to get buggy products. Period. They will push it out the door whether it works or not.
Demanding preview pictures forces a developer to focus on cosmetic elements rather than getting a product which works. The developer has to make sure his product is pretty rather than functional.
A product should not be released if it has bugs. Period. Products need to be thoroughly play tested to make sure there are no bugs. A a buggy product is a breach of the contract between the developer and the consumer. (The rule for goods under the Uniform Commercial Code is perfect tender.)
With respect to updates, the question really is why the update is being made. If it is because the original was substandard or of lower quality, the update should be provided for free, not at a special price. The consumer is entitled to a quality product, not some half baked crap the developer pushes out the door. If the product was defective enough to need an update, then the consumer was cheated, and the developer needs to fix it, not use it as an opportunity to gouge the consumer.
If the update was made to conform to changes in the original (eg a new terminal being added to an airport), then it is fair to charge the consumer for a new version reflecting these changes.
Surely, you don't expect developers to sign such a charter, Dom? One or two might, but good luck getting all of them to sign onto this unrealistic idea. I agree with the second response and will decide with my wallet as always. The notion of a consumer charter is simply moot. Move on to the things you and D'Andre are good at which is to be the leader in blogposts. That's why I come here often.
You won't have any luck getting developers to sign--or probably even agree as to what Best Practices should be. Not that the idea isn't a good one.
A better idea is to have, on your blog, a Wall of Shame. That's where you publish the names of those developers you find to be unethical and having a troubled relationship with consumers.
People do read, and make decisions based on what's printed.
Keep in mind though: If you terribly annoy the developer community--they'll stop talking to you. It's a balancing act.
In the end, there is absolutely nothing wrong with demanding professionalism from those that would invite us to open our wallets...
Thanks you very much for your comments.
I am still thinking of this charter and will come back later with a new one, compiling your ideas. And then, we will see if simmers are all right with it.
The hall of shame is a great idea too :)
Best to you
Dom.
The reason most developers won't sign it is because the customers don't press them enough to sign it.
(Software) Industry standards are as Dom told.
1) Surely noticeable (and widespread) bugs should be corrected within a time limit, but particular cases, as simmers tend to have, (don't get me wrong but i blame custom installations and tastes) can't.
2)Even Microsoft has (expected) release dates for their products.
3) I can't argue about previews (i don't really care about them, and being a college professor i am very pacient LOL!)
4) In every other (software) products when you get an update (X.X to X.Y) is free, why should be flightsimming different? And when you really upgrade (X.X to Y.X) you get a disscount if you were previous user, apparently in flightsimming (most) developers, don't care for thei previous customers.
Can we have a Wall of Shame for developers that steal?
Two entries already
Latin VFR
Drzewiecki
Both documented stealing from their peers. Should be allowed to advertise on this site either.
http://airdailyx.blogspot.com/2011/06/bad-time-for-latin-vfr.html
http://airdailyx.blogspot.com/2011/09/bad-days-for-drzewiecki-design.html
Show your morals & post this Airdaily. Or are you just another AVSIM in the making?
That's a rather quick decision to judge, mister anonymous.
You are comparing two dedicated teams - for years - with editors who are not taking into account customers requests and not uploading patches and updates.
And it still has to be defined if the world stealing is appropriate.
And even so, damaged has been repaired so far.
But something tells me you don"t really care.
DOm
First off, you deserve credit for having a pair of big fat balls & posting that. Especially since both those criminal developers pay your bills with Ads.
Airdaily is no sell out like AVSIM. For sure.
I really don't care about Latin VFR or
Drzewiecki, they are both low tier developers I wouldn't buy anything from anymore. I've thried their stuff, it was well below average.
I just think its a good idea to have a Wall of Shame for stealing devs. AI Aardvark used to have one for repainters that stole their paints. It was an excellent deterrent to prevent the talentless devs stealing from those that work hard. No one can argue with that.
Jeez. Should i post this or not ? Or yes ? No ! hmm no definitely. oups my hand slipped.
Whatever, the word "criminal" was probably out of your mind.
DOm
Who are the editors who are not taking into account customers requests?
Your list of demands is ridiculous. Absolutely insane. Its a niche market, a small community of mostly hobbyists.
Even Apple, Microsoft etc can't follow rules like that.
When Orbx has shareholders, maybe, but for now, it'll be ready when its ready. Don't like it? Piss off & buy a scenery from a two bit developer with a 3 month release time.
Hey anonymous, have you got a name to come here and demand morals?
you are a coward that runs here and starts demanding and accusing without being responsible and stating your name.
Fred Will
It was an idea...
And the feed back was dense and rich.
So i think it was eventually.. a good idea.
Putting it aside until people are ready.
To your service !
Dom
Yep it was just an idea. Now Dom is moving on and so should everyone.
Post a Comment
Comments are now deactivated. Please visit our new website: AirDailyX.net
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.