Well...that ain´t came as expected huh?

[Sascha66]

While I respect your views, I have to present the contrarian view in reply.

Take a look at Microsoft sales figures for their full line of PC-based games. What you will note is the dominance of the FSX series in those sales numbers, along with CFS and CFS2, and to a degree even CFS3. Microsoft made more sales off their FSX line of releases than anything else they have ever released for gaming.

In terms of the role of the add-on community, Microsoft long knew that the time between releases was fill admirably by the vast add-on community. The prime role being that this community kept the shelf life and interest of each release active long beyond the timeframe of any other genre of gaming. This allowed MS to maintain, even increase, its sale base when the new titles were released.

I also disagree with your conclusions about LM's Prepar3D. First, it was never intended as a game. The fact that it can be used as such simply points out to its robustness. In terms of being a low-cost commercial PC-based flight simulator, it has a wide appeal and is selling well. It is certainly not a "vague promise," but instead something realized and available to a customer base eager to use it. However, you are not the intended customer base, but rather a mutually beneficial ad-hoc and tertiary customer base the product was never really designed for. However, Lockheed Martin has recognized this tertiary customer base and has made efforts to facilitate the base.

Cheers,

Ken

Good comment. People keep saying that the flightsim community is small - it is not and sales of FSX have shown that there is serious money in flightsimming too.

MS just developed themselves into a hole they have trouble climbing out of.

They scuttled their own boat.

Don't know why some people vaguely try to claim that the market has changed and that is the reason for MS pulling out when there are flightsim enthusiasts all over the world spending millions of bucks.

 

[SkippyBing]

Good comment. People keep saying that the flightsim community is small - it is not and sales of FSX have shown that there is serious money in flightsimming too.

The question is though, how much profit did MS make on FSX? Sales may have been high, but considering the amount of licensing they may have had to do to get the aircraft, airport and terrain data, not to mention development costs, was the return on investment worth it compared to spending the same money developing a Halo sequel? From MS actions I'd guess they thought not hence the attempt to do something different rather than just realise FSXI.

 

[CodyValkyrie]

I disagree with you and Lawman on this: From your post, it seems that you believe that the market changed and MS was somehow not involved in this process

But MS had it in hand to do much better. If there is any decline in the popularity of flightsims at all, it is because MS has disappointed and not gone on and developed a flightsim with a "WOW" effect since FS9.

Before Microsoft stopped development of simulation platforms, the simulation industry had already significantly changed. They were one of the last major bastions of flight simulation software that were not created by small independent developers. In the 90s, most major companies in the industry had their version of a flight simulator. Fly, FlyII, Flight Unlimited 1, 2 and 3, various products by Microprose, Janes, etc. etc. etc. Today, there are only a few in the industry left and with the exception of IL-2/Cliffs of Dover, most large companies have removed themselves from the serious simulation market. I can speak firsthand in that I have helped market simulators to various publishers, and the response was generally the same, that they were not interested in publishing and funding simulator development. It is not nearly as market viable as it once was, and while some people may disagree with what I have said, the truth is in the numbers for everyone to see. Small developers such as DCS are now some of the only "games" in town because they are willing to publish the products on their own or publishing their products overseas where the climate in the market is slightly different. Here in America however publishers have refused to touch simulations with a long pole for years. The reason why Microsoft was semi-successful with their market is because they were one of the very few developers still marketing simulators on a regular basis long after most companies had bailed from the concept, along with the addon development, it had become one of the ONLY simulators for end users to utilize. We are going to see a resurgence somewhat akin to what we saw in the 90s now that companies may not have to develop against Microsoft, however I believe small independent developers will be the future, while companies like Ubisoft etc. will continue producing what makes them money (IE not simulators).

They didn't have to go where the water takes them.

They WERE the water.

... again, because nobody else was able to compete with them as once they were able to do. Simulators are expensive to build, which is my opinion why Microsoft never took the approach of completely rebuilding the wheel. Why break what has been working so successfully for years. The difference in flight is they took a completely different marketing approach. The engine is still the same however.

Good comment. People keep saying that the flightsim community is small - it is not and sales of FSX have shown that there is serious money in flightsimming too.

MS just developed themselves into a hole they have trouble climbing out of.

I believe they simply misread the market. With the MSFS franchise being a relatively small dollar amount (and I would be willing to argue that until my face is blue) comparatively to their other products, they were more willing to try new strategies, concepts and use it as a test bed to help potentially improve sales. I do not believe this came to fruition, hence why Flight has been cancelled for further development.

Don't know why some people vaguely try to claim that the market has changed and that is the reason for MS pulling out when there are flightsim enthusiasts all over the world spending millions of bucks.

Because it's true? Nobody in the addon industry makes a killing off this work. Some of us make decent wages, but none of us are "rich" from it. There is definitely a market still out there, and tons of money to still be had, but the simulation market cannot and will never compete with products like Call of Duty, Halo, X-Box, iPhone, Office, Windows or other "staples" (debatable) of the industry. The companies that stand to do well in this environment are the companies willing to fill in the void where Microsoft once was. Small developers taking slices of the industry and profiting fairly well from it. This is not terribly complicated, honestly. This IS the reality I have worked in, and I make it my job every day I wake up.

 

[guzler]

I'm not quite sure why MS went to all this trouble of trying to launch a new FS system in the first place.

I'm sure the majority of flight simmers would of rather a refined FSX that allowed smoother play compatible with existing addons without the use of a super computer. This is quite clear across the various forums. You don't need a clever marketing department to work that out.

MS failed to react to that need and this is where it got them. Flight is the first MS flight sim I've never purchased. They got it wrong, pure and simple.

 

[SkippyBing]

I'm not quite sure why MS went to all this trouble of trying to launch a new FS system in the first place.

Because the old way wasn't making them enough money for the amount invested, it's why any business does anything and really isn't that hard to understand.

 

[anthony31]

Don't you just love stats?

MSFlight facebook page 12,371 likes
PMDG facebook page 12,857 likes
Skyrim facebook page 187,875 likes

 

[Lawman]

We all feel strongly about aviation and flight simming. Because this is our hobby, we don't always see things from a rational point of view. For MS, MSFS is just a product in their portfolio. They therefor have no "emotional attachment" to their products. It's just a business decision where they look at the market and ask themselves some very simple questions: it's nice that there is an add-on industry, but is it worthwhile for us to keep pouring money in the development of MSFS? And how does MSFS fit in our (global)market strategy/portfolio?

For MSFS to move truly forward, it basically needs to be redeveloped from the ground up so it can take better advantage of modern hardware. Since FS2000, every next version was "merely" an evolution of the previous one. Hardware development at the time gave them no reason to redesign MSFS, because the whole industry at that time believed we would all soon have 4-5 GHz CPU's (it took much longer in the end than anticipated, and even now we have to overclock our CPU's slightly to get those speeds). To redevelop MSFS would take a considerable investment (why do you think Aerosoft is so cautious about developing their own sim?). And MS basically made the decision that in the current climate the profits they could get were not enough to warrant investing in further development of MSFS, compared to investing that money in other products in their portfolio.

What we also need to consider is that MSFS is not only a fairly expensive program to develop, it is also rather expensive to put it in the market. MSFS is a large program (it now comes on two DVD's). Those DVD's have to be manufactured and stocked. It also comes in multi-language versions, so you have to have different versions of it to cater for local markets. Because of its size, it doesn't lend itself well to digital distribution, especially not in the emerging Asian markets where internet access is comparatively slow for most people. So all this adds to the costs for no gain to MS. And no, you can't compare MSFS to Windows.

So how does Flight fit in the picture? Flight was a comparatively inexpensive way for MS to test the market. Because of its relatively small size, it lends itself well to digital distribuition. They saw the success Apple had and it fitted well into Microsoft's own "Cloud"-stategy (no stocking/manufacturing costs, better DRM etc.).

My point is that the community should try to look at the issue from Microsoft's perspective, that is without the emotional attachment you have. And then you'll see that Microsoft's strategy/behaviour isn't all that "dumb" as the community proclaims it to be (I'm not claiming their strategy paid off, but then again no one holds posession of that elusive crystal ball). For MS, this is just a logical business decision. Even your favourite add-on developers have a business plan; they release those add-ons they think will make them the most profit. You can't maintain a business long by only following your heart and producing add-ons no one (or not enough) people will buy. It may not be romantic, but it's the cold hard truth. And if we were in their shoes, we'd probably make the same decision.

One last thing: MS offers you a product, for example FSX. You bought that one product. They are under no obligation to offer you a new version of MSFS (read: another product). It is their prerogative to stop offering (a new version of) MSFS and they could have done so at any moment in the series. Just like a lot of manufacturers and shop keepers do all the time. You accept that from those manufacturers/shop keepers. Why can't you accept MS' (legitimate) decision?

 

[Skyhawk_310R]

Lawman,

With respect, I think I speak for a significant number of people at this forum when I say that most -- if not all of us -- are adult men and women who have families and professional careers. Therefore, most all of us grasp the business fundamentals. Many of us, myself included, have our own personal businesses where bottom line, accounts receivable and payable, plus market penetration are concepts we practice. I also have a professional career fostered over nearly three decades.

Two things come to mind. First, I submit to you that emotional considerations are present in a corporate boardroom. Discussions often become acrimonious. Further, even the wealthiest and most successful of business leaders have their passons. I submit Paul Allen as exhibit A. His choices to patronize the aviation sciences and arts, plus his purchase of the Portland Trailblazers, had much more to do with the emotional appeal of these efforts than any cold and calculated analysis. No one should think less of Paul Allen because he hasn't forgotten that emotion is a vital part of any successful human endeavor, nor anything which should be considered negative.

I submit that any person who devoted the insane hours it takes to create and run a business cannot hope to succeed without a strong foundation in emotional attachment, because only that heart and soul component causes rational humans to sacrifice so much to pursue a business dream -- and dreams themselves are mainly products of emotion -- and God bless America for being a nation where such emotions are not only allowed, but indeed encouraged!

Anyway, pardon the speech, but I felt compelled to point out that whatever true level of emotion is present in our analysis of the situation is hardly a basis to downgrade the accuracy nor appeal of our arguments. There is a sound business fundamental in the FS line, always has been. Many here, myself included, have focused on the business fundamentals. FS as a series sold huge! FSX sold very well indeed! A new FS title would have done very well.

Open architecture is another business principle and was a prime reason for MS's success in the FS line.

Cheers,

Ken

 

[Lawman]

It's more the attitude of at least some part of the community against MS that irritates me. You just have to read through the various FS-forums: "They don't know what the're doing". "They've turned their back on the community and betrayed us". "Typical big wigs in a board room who know nothing". Comments like that. It's basically the same knee-jerk reaction when MS announced they had closed ACES, then announced what Flight was gonna be and now the cancellation of Flight. Those comments are purely made out of self-interest and seem to be the result of an apparant inability to objectively look at a situation from both sides. No, it seems to be cooler to bash, because then your part of the "in-crowd". IMHO, it makes the community look like a bunch of whining, spoiled children who can't stomach the fact that they won't get a new toy to play with, despite still having enough other toys to play with. Maybe it's only another example of how self-centred and egotistical our society has become.

MS simply offered me a product: FSX. I took them up on their offer, expecting no more than FSX. And there wasn't some sort of a deal that I would get anything other than FSX. So MS came through with their end of the deal, I with mine. We both fulfilled our obligations and that was the end of it. Plain and simple.

Edit: let me put it this way: MS made a decision that was theirs to make. It may not be the decision some of us were hoping for, but that's irrelevant. Everyone is entitled to disagree with that decision, but keep the discussion civilized (not saying the members here didn't). We have other people to throw simple, short-sighted slogans around: they're called politicians.

 

[robert41]

I think I understand something now. Here is a part of a post from Avsim.

"With regards to MS Flight, I was invited by Microsoft to attend their "media day" as AVSIM's Reviews Editor. I listened unbiasly to their "sales pitch" and what this product was and what it had to offer. Also in the room were 3rd party developers from various "brand name" companies we are all familiar with. At the end of the presentation I was free to develop my own opinion of the product based on what I had heard."

"The consensus around the room appeared to be unanimous, this "game" would not fly with the simming public. Microsoft's concept was that this was not for simmers but for the millions of people who wanted the opportunity to experience flying without having to have any knowledge or skills in the cockpit. Afterall, you play/control the game with a mouse."

Flight was never intended to be a sim, but a flying game for all. And that is ok. I just wish MS would have been clear about that from the beginning. Or maybe MS did and we did not hear it?

Either way, it is too bad MS has stopped work on Flight.

 

[PRB]

I think I understand something now. Here is a part of a post from Avsim.

"With regards to MS Flight, I was invited by Microsoft to attend their "media day" as AVSIM's Reviews Editor. I listened unbiasly to their "sales pitch" and what this product was and what it had to offer. Also in the room were 3rd party developers from various "brand name" companies we are all familiar with. At the end of the presentation I was free to develop my own opinion of the product based on what I had heard."

"The consensus around the room appeared to be unanimous, this "game" would not fly with the simming public. Microsoft's concept was that this was not for simmers but for the millions of people who wanted the opportunity to experience flying without having to have any knowledge or skills in the cockpit. Afterall, you play/control the game with a mouse."

Flight was never intended to be a sim, but a flying game for all. And that is ok. I just wish MS would have been clear about that from the beginning. Or maybe MS did and we did not hear it?

Either way, it is too bad MS has stopped work on Flight.

Interesting. I'd be interested in knowing how Microsoft ever concluded that a civilian “flight game” would appeal to “the general public” without any knowledge or interest in airplanes. Those people think FS9 and FSX are boring because all you do is “fly around.” It seems like a perfectly designed “worst of both worlds” scenario. Hard core simmers won't like it because it's a “just a game”, and “the general gamer person” won't like it because you can't shoot stuff...

 

[Sascha66]

Because it's true? Nobody in the addon industry makes a killing off this work. Some of us make decent wages, but none of us are "rich" from it. There is definitely a market still out there, and tons of money to still be had, but the simulation market cannot and will never compete with products like Call of Duty, Halo, X-Box, iPhone, Office, Windows or other "staples" (debatable) of the industry. The companies that stand to do well in this environment are the companies willing to fill in the void where Microsoft once was. Small developers taking slices of the industry and profiting fairly well from it. This is not terribly complicated, honestly. This IS the reality I have worked in, and I make it my job every day I wake up.

MS did not have to do everything different - if they were not willing to invest in making an entirely NEW flightsim, they could have spent a moderate amount and done an decent FS11.

You can turn it everywhich way you want, but in any direction it turns out that MS made a bad business decision somewhere along the way.

Killing off the whole franchise would be an even WORSE business decision.

I believe that flight simming in itself would have kept doing fairly well in the coming years if MS had NOT begun to confuse their fan base.

Producing half-assed products like Flight is NEVER good business practice.

The point you are trying to make as I understand it is that MS pulled out because their market slumped.

I agree entirely with that but the point I am trying to get across is that it is mostly MS FAULT that their market has slumped!

 

[Sascha66]

Lawman,

With respect, I think I speak for a significant number of people at this forum when I say that most -- if not all of us -- are adult men and women who have families and professional careers. Therefore, most all of us grasp the business fundamentals. Many of us, myself included, have our own personal businesses where bottom line, accounts receivable and payable, plus market penetration are concepts we practice. I also have a professional career fostered over nearly three decades.

Two things come to mind. First, I submit to you that emotional considerations are present in a corporate boardroom. Discussions often become acrimonious. Further, even the wealthiest and most successful of business leaders have their passons. I submit Paul Allen as exhibit A. His choices to patronize the aviation sciences and arts, plus his purchase of the Portland Trailblazers, had much more to do with the emotional appeal of these efforts than any cold and calculated analysis. No one should think less of Paul Allen because he hasn't forgotten that emotion is a vital part of any successful human endeavor, nor anything which should be considered negative.

I submit that any person who devoted the insane hours it takes to create and run a business cannot hope to succeed without a strong foundation in emotional attachment, because only that heart and soul component causes rational humans to sacrifice so much to pursue a business dream -- and dreams themselves are mainly products of emotion -- and God bless America for being a nation where such emotions are not only allowed, but indeed encouraged!

Anyway, pardon the speech, but I felt compelled to point out that whatever true level of emotion is present in our analysis of the situation is hardly a basis to downgrade the accuracy nor appeal of our arguments. There is a sound business fundamental in the FS line, always has been. Many here, myself included, have focused on the business fundamentals. FS as a series sold huge! FSX sold very well indeed! A new FS title would have done very well.

Open architecture is another business principle and was a prime reason for MS's success in the FS line.

Cheers,

Ken

I couldn't agree more!:salute::salute::salute:

 

[Ark]

feel sorry for the staff, but its no surprise really. You kinda new it was going tits up when it appeared on steam.

What does being on Steam have to do with it?

 

[Javis]

IMHO, it makes the community look like a bunch of whining, spoiled children who can't stomach the fact that they won't get a new toy to play with, despite still having enough other toys to play with.

Yes, but can you blame childern for being spoiled ?... That's always their parents' fault, isn't it.

So here's Mr. M.Soft, well respected man in the neighbourhood, 'Big Daddy' to his many childern. For a couple of decades already, just about on a biannual basis, Mr.Soft brings home a fantastic new toy that all of his childern learned to wait for in great anticipation. He has, probabely inadvertently, created a precedent. He could've easily stopped with just this one fantastic toy, left it at that, but he choosed not to do so. The childern loved Big Daddy tremendously for it. They adored him!

This went on for years and years. As time goes by some of the childern weren't that happy anymore with the new toy Big Daddy brought home, that's one of the negative aspects of a precedent, but there was always the next time to look out for and that's what they did. It's not hard to understand that the childern were heavily dissapointed when, all of a sudden, like lightning out of a blue sky, Big Daddy said "Ok, childern, that's it, no more new toys. Over and out". Most of the childern didn't understand that decision at all because they had always been very grateful for the new toy Big Daddy brought home. They started to look at Big Daddy with different eyes, all of a sudden he didn't look so Big anymore...

But Big Daddy wouldn't be Big Daddy if he left it at that. " Ok,childern, i've changed my mind, i WILL bring you your new toy in a year or so afterall, don't ask me why. And the childern didn't ask him why and again just waited in even more great anticipation as before for the new fantastic toy BD had promised to bring home. When BD finally arrived with the new toy it didn't take long for the childern to find out BD had actually played a dirty trick on them. The new toy proved to be nothing but a fancy looking box with a dead sparrow in it...

They were heavily dissapointed when Mr.Soft told them no more new toys from now on but the more mature childern of the Soft bunch could actually understand his decision. For one thing he probabely may have been in serious financial problems. They couldn't help noticing his more than normal appetite for alcoholic beverages too...

Knowing all these facts, is it really that hard to understand for Mr.Soft's childern to be exceptionally concerned about this awkward situation, even whine about it, particularly in light of the dead sparrow in the fancy box ? Afterall they couldn't help being spoiled to the bone by Mr.Soft himself bringing them all these great new toys once every two or three years for more than 2 decades.

Spoiled childern have a right to whine because it's not their fault having been spoiled. That's entirely up to their parents, in this case to their father, Mr. Soft, Big Daddy, who, btw, is now referred to as Dead Sparrow by his childern...

Can you blame them ? Personally, i don't think so...

 

[guzler]

Lol,

Well written.

It's much easier to keep customers in business than it is to find new ones, especially when they're vocal about what they want, you're research is done for you. Microsoft have failed in their business strategy here, they have binned the relationship with their loyal customers to try to capture a new market and this decision has clearly failed.

Loyal customers can and do make a difference to a business, the bottom line is affected by the emotion of each and every customer in a cumulative effect, that's what gets us to hand over cash at the end of the day. Any business strategy that turns it's back on loyal customers is a risky one.

I appreciate that flight sims may no longer be a desire of MS to have in it's core business, in time someone else will fill the gap, it's the law of supply and demand !
In the mean time, FSX will be staying on my PC !

 

[stiz]

What does being on Steam have to do with it?

MS have been anti-steam in the past, they wanted everyone to use their own version for games. allthough looking round it seems to have relaxed a bit, but not on the major money makers it seems.

 

[Lawman]

This will be my final "contribution" on the subject because basically I've said what I've wanted to say and I only would be repeating myself.

The point you are trying to make as I understand it is that MS pulled out because their market slumped.I agree entirely with that but the point I am trying to get across is that it is mostly MS FAULT that their market has slumped!

I respectfully disagree with you that MS is to blame for the slumping of the FS-market. As a matter of fact, it is largely MS who has kept (civilian) flight simming alive when everybody else pulled out of the genre at the end of the 1990s and either folded or went for RPG's and FP-shooters. Why? Because that was what the mass market was interested in. People can much easier identify with a "lone hero who single-handedly takes on the baddies to save the world" than they can being a virtual pilot "merely going from point A to point B". It is no coincidence that RPG's and FP-shooters emulate the movies, especially in visual effects which are way more eye-catching than MSFS can ever be by definition. There is a (non-coincidental) parallel between what the movie industry churns out and what kind of games get released. Like I've said in a previous post, flight simming lost its "showcase"-status to other genres and has to compete with other pastimes. The niche group that remained (for everything there's a niche group) isn't big enough to make it wortwhile for MS to keep pouring money into MSFS, when they can use that same money for something (even) more profitable to them. Flight simmers are an older demographic with disposable income to buy add-ons and maintain an add-on industry. That is of no use to MS who isn't in the add-on business, but is "expected" to create the base product upon which the add-on industry can build. And because they "have to" supply the base product, MS needs a bigger audience to make it worthwile for them to invest that kind of money. "Flight" was merely a test if a (profitable) market still existed, it's quick demise IMHO proving that it was just a test.

But the point I am trying to make is that MS has no reason nor obligation to "rescue" flight simming (or the add-on industry for that matter) and that most certainly wasn't their motivation for continuing the series for as long as they did. That the community imagines MS has such an obligation is irrational wishful thinking on the part of that community.

Spoiled childern have a right to whine because it's not their fault having been spoiled. That's entirely up to their parents

Continuing with your analogy, I respectfully disagree with your statement that spoiled children have the right to whine. It is perhaps understandable that they whine, but it doesn't mean their point of view is either right or reasonable. When a (spoiled) child goes too far in its demands and starts to disrespect you, you have to discipline it (at least if you're a responsible parent). I think most of us have been brought up that way and raise our children that way. So if we can have that mature attitude regarding our own offspring in real life, why can't we have it on this subject matter and start acting like spoiled children ourselves?

 

[roger-wilco-66]

I respectfully disagree with you that MS is to blame for the slumping of the FS-market. As a matter of fact, it is largely MS who has kept (civilian) flight simming alive when everybody else pulled out of the genre at the end of the 1990s and either folded or went for RPG's and FP-shooters. [...]

Please accept my respectful disagreement. Sascha66 said that MS resigned because their __own__ market slumped, and that's the way it was and still is. "The" FS market outside of Microsofts range is alive as never before. And it was not MS who kept that market alive, it was and is the freeware community and on behalf of the commercial side, the payware addon developers. Ever since and it will be so in the future. If MS can't adjust to that anymore, their out of the race, which they prctically are.
So I agreee with Sascha that it is MSs own fault that their part of the market slumped. What do you expect what happens if you throw a good product on a market like this and stop developing it? At some point the market is saturated, and sales decline. If you want to start earning money again, you need to do something, and MS never did it. Probably couldn't after releasing ACES.
That whole thing is like a greek tragedy, or a fine modern example for Goethe's "The sorcerer's apprentice" : Sir, my need is sore, the spirits I have cited, my commands ignore.
Tha german original illustrates it better, by the way.

:ernae:
Mark



PS: If FSX flightsimmers have ever been "spoiled" then by the freeware community or the payware developers, but never by MS, IMHO.

 

[Roger]

When Microsoft took on Fs and Cfs, they created a growing, loyal following over a number of years and many of us became Fs and Cfs junkies. "Flight" finished and now nothing at all on the books shows great disrespect from MS to their loyal band. I am very disappointed with this present state of affairs and truely wonder if FsXI would have broken the bank for Microsoft?
I wonder what Bill Gates and Paul Allen really think about the company they created and where it's going?

I believe it's time to close this thread and let this sad state of affairs drift off to thread heaven.