Is it really that bad?

[DadJokeCinema 145]

This is just my honest opinion:While FSX may be the last version of Flight Simulator as we know it, maybe its not that bad a thing after all. If flight sim doesnt get updated, we wont be forced to spend money updating our computers to its standards. Addon developers will not have to constantly update their products for the next version of FS, and focus on improving the present versions of their software for FS2004/FSX. Anyone Agree?Just a thought Alex CYUL

Tell this too the guys in the Train Sim hobby who were still trying to get more life out of a ten year old product.

[Guest lgvpilot1]

I use FS9 with an eye toward FSX ,even with the latest news.When I use FS9 I have Sky and cloud Non Stock FS9Weather addonAircraft payware or addonAirports payware or addon airport textures addons grass,trees, addons ai aircraft,ships addons water AddonTerrainMeshAtcMy point is how much of the stock flight sim am i using ?The FS9 that I originally installed has little to do with what i use now and all this applies to FSXI think we are just recently beginning to see what FSX can really do and with people like PMDG creating new aircraft, that , from what i have read perform superbly I just hope that the addon developers Will still see MSFS as a viable platform in two years time if Microsoft do the unthinkable and try and convince us to buy an XboxMark

[Guest N6722c]

GeofaJust some info..right or wrong but they do quote the source..one million copies of FSX sold through Decemebr 08 since the release.Regardshttp://www.gamespot.com/news/blogs/rumor-c...true&page=1

Do they quote what the development cost were for FSX ?My VERY ROUGH estimate ( and it is probably far out, but is a start)100 employees ( Think it is more like 150 )52 weeks a year40 hours a week$200 / hr ( wages + expenses + overhead burden)3 years100 * 52 * 40 * $200 * 3 = $124.8 MILLIONIf they only sold 1 Million copies at say $25 a copy to Microsoft, that puts them $100 Million in the RED.Anyone get better figures ??Geoff

[Geofa 108]

Only figures I have are from Phil's Blog that says fs9 did not do as well:http://blogs.msdn.com/ptaylor/archive/2008...-franchise.aspxBy the way $200/hr for wages?My lawyer/accountant doesn't even charge that. My airplane-maybe close...I guess I am in the wrong business as what I do for a living has about the same odds as being a major league football player-and I don't make that?!Where do you get that $200/hr figure?I have the feeling though in a bad situation right now-there must be some fsms employees reading this having a good laugh..

[n4gix 4,947]

I have the feeling though in a bad situation right now-there must be some fsms employees reading this having a good laugh..

As it happens, contract employees are actually paid a higher rate than FTEs...Of course contract empolyess have no benefits, no perks, et cetera, so work out to a lower cost per seat than FTEs...From my conversations with several (former) ACES folks, they made it very plain that they weren't paid anywhere close to what some folks might imagine. Keep in mind that FTEs were salaried employees, and frequently worked 60/100 hour weeks during "crunch time..."...while the contract empolyees put in their forty hours and went home on time M-F...

[bobbyjoh 11]

This has been an interesting series of comments, but I would like to add my own perspective on this.I have been a MSFS user for years and have gone from the stick images to today's high resolution graphics and function. I current use the LDS 767, along with ASA, Radar Contact which I am a beta team member, MyTrafficX and FSX. My current setup works VERY well. I am please with almost every aspect of the FSX base, if the world stopped right here I would not be unhappy.However the one thing that has been missing in the FSX world are scenery, aircraft and utility addons like there were in FS9. If the MSFS base is to remain static for the time being, then developer's should come forward and start doing thier software work on the THIS base. Our community has always gravitated to innovated products that added excitement to the MSFS base. There seems to me that the excitement about new rendering engines, although appealing, has kept a lot of 3rd party developers from putting their outstanding talents into working on the current base issues ie, look at the number of US airports that have done for FSX.I cannot speculate on the business plan of Microsoft, but I am sure that it does not have its head in the proverbial "sand", they are aware of what the FS franchise has meant to the worldwide gaming community. When ever Mincosoft decides to start work on the next version of MSFS there will be great optimism from all of us. Having said that, what I believe must happen NOW is for the world of 3rd party developers to step up to the plate and release a host of innovative and exciting products for the current FSX base. The financial rewards plus the excitement will at least reduce the "sky is falling" atmosphere that surrounds the ACES layoffs.These are VERY challenging times for everyone, Microsoft is no different than the thousands of other companies that are feeling the pinch of the current economic downturn. However in every dark cloud is a ray of hope and for those of us in this community that could mean lots of good 3rd party products. I hope this possibility will come to fruition.Bob JohnsonDallas

[Guest Alphahawk3]

Only figures I have are from Phil's Blog that says fs9 did not do as well:http://blogs.msdn.com/ptaylor/archive/2008...-franchise.aspxBy the way $200/hr for wages?My lawyer/accountant doesn't even charge that. My airplane-maybe close...I guess I am in the wrong business as what I do for a living has about the same odds as being a major league football player-and I don't make that?!Where do you get that $200/hr figure?I have the feeling though in a bad situation right now-there must be some fsms employees reading this having a good laugh..

I don't know where he got that figure. The big news here...and these quotes are right..is the local GM plant....used to be Saturn....each employee cost between 70 and 80 dollars an hour to keep and that is one of the highest figures if not the highest figure for an hourly employe...that includes legacy cost....retirement....health care...and so on....the actual money to the worker...in his pocket would be around 30 dollars and hour. So if it is double that....which I doubt....for MS it would not come up to those numbers. I would venture to say the cost number would not exceed 100 dollars per hour for the whole package....but that is just a guess.....but no way 200. Still a million copies is not that much....I don't think in the gaming world.....when you read about a lot of other games. I don't know how developers make money...or should I say make a good living off of doing add ons for FSX. The guy that owns Orbx...at least I think he is the guy that owns it.....says in his forum at FTX that he has a million dollar investment made in FTX. Be that Australian dollars or US dollars...lot of money.....thus requires lots of scenery to be sold. I guess what I don't know is just how many thousands of copies of an add on are sold. Just makes one wonder. God bless them all though...I sure like my add ons.

[michal 44]

I know my math is rusty but 1 million times say $40 US a copy seems fairly profitable....

The closer look doesn't make it so profitable. Assuming there were roughly 40 members of ACES and every employee in software industry costs these days around (payroll + benefits) $120,000 - they were burning close to $5 mln a year. $40 a copy is NOT Microsoft's profit - it is retail price, also considering that many buy the standard edition I think MS may get $20 a copy out of it. So these 1 million sold copies can only pay for 4 years of development - I think the idea of the BIG profit evaporates fairly quickly.

[Bunkers 52]

Btw, a few days ago i purchased the Ka-50 Black Shark combat sim. It's well made - there are companies out there able to create a nice flight simulator...

DCS keeps getting mentioned, and for good reason. They've proven MS is not the only one who can develop high-end realistic flight sims. However I'm afraid that studio is way too engaged in it's current DCS franchise to even consider taking over the MFS code. But I'm tempted to think there are those who are both capable and willing out there.btw.. maybe it's all you FS9-huggers who actually strangled FSXI before it was born*runs for cover

[guy 24]

This is just my honest opinion:While FSX may be the last version of Flight Simulator as we know it, maybe its not that bad a thing after all. If flight sim doesnt get updated, we wont be forced to spend money updating our computers to its standards. Addon developers will not have to constantly update their products for the next version of FS, and focus on improving the present versions of their software for FS2004/FSX. Anyone Agree?Just a thought Alex CYUL

I agree ... to some point.Is is surely a bad thing for the Aces people who lost their job.But, if there is no new version now for some years to come, this will give more stability and time to add-on developers for sure.And NOBODY knows what will be in 3-4 years from now.Guy

[Guest Bud]

Only figures I have are from Phil's Blog that says fs9 did not do as well:http://blogs.msdn.com/ptaylor/archive/2008...-franchise.aspxBy the way $200/hr for wages?My lawyer/accountant doesn't even charge that. My airplane-maybe close...I guess I am in the wrong business as what I do for a living has about the same odds as being a major league football player-and I don't make that?!Where do you get that $200/hr figure?I have the feeling though in a bad situation right now-there must be some fsms employees reading this having a good laugh..

To be clear, the cost estimated at $200/hr, I believe, is not just wages. In order to get a total unit cost, it is necessary to factor in office costs, insurance, support etc. etc. I think it is quite reasonable to question the profitability of MS games in these circumstances, although the only people who really know probably won't say. If the Games division was viable, M/S would have been much more likely to prune rather than cut.Everyone is a loser here not only the poor folks who have lost their jobs in such a cruel fashion but also there is a loss of the contribution they would have made to their local and to the national economies. Actions such as the one taken by M/S will certainly not help to arrest the pace of the economic downturn. I don't think anyone will be laughing.Bud

[tfm 169]

The closer look doesn't make it so profitable. Assuming there were roughly 40 members of ACES and every employee in software industry costs these days around (payroll + benefits) $120,000 - they were burning close to $5 mln a year. $40 a copy is NOT Microsoft's profit - it is retail price, also considering that many buy the standard edition I think MS may get $20 a copy out of it. So these 1 million sold copies can only pay for 4 years of development - I think the idea of the BIG profit evaporates fairly quickly.

I think Geoff's figures are a fair guess-timate. MSFS has always been an incongruous foal in the MS stable. It has never been obvious to me how it could possibly pay its way and I suspect that it has been kept alive for largely profile / marketing reasons, rather than pure economic ones. For example I specifically recall that FSX was marketed (in the UK, anyway) to cross-sell Vista - and we all know how well that bright idea worked.Also, let us be blunt: how many employees worked in the ACES studio? About 100? For that number of employees to work to a 4-year refresh cycle for a product like FSX is suicidal. ("Acceleration" was not a proper refresh IMHO: it was just a way of inducing people to pay for SP2). No responsible commercial organisation can sustain such a lack of productivity in such a large team. I know they were working on a number of different projects. But in the end, that's just not a good enough excuse in ANY business. They (or their managers) dropped the ball - big-time - at an unforgiving moment in the economic cycle.Having said that, like others here I would extend my sympathy to the individuals involved, as well as to the countless others who have suffered, or will suffer, for mistakes made by the lunatic and profligate governments we have been inflicted with over the past decade or so. But that is another subject.So far as MSFS is concerned, I hope I am wrong but I am afraid we have seen the last in a long and venerable line. Luckily FSX, for all its shortcomings, is itself a reasonable legacy. Tim

[Geofa 108]

I think Geoff's figures are a fair guess-timate. MSFS has always been an incongruous foal in the MS stable. It has never been obvious to me how it could possibly pay its way and I suspect that it has been kept alive for largely profile / marketing reasons, rather than pure economic ones. For example I specifically recall that FSX was marketed (in the UK, anyway) to cross-sell Vista - and we all know how well that bright idea worked.Also, let us be blunt: how many employees worked in the ACES studio? About 100? For that number of employees to work to a 4-year refresh cycle for a product like FSX is suicidal. ("Acceleration" was not a proper refresh IMHO: it was just a way of inducing people to pay for SP2). No responsible commercial organisation can sustain such a lack of productivity in such a large team. I know they were working on a number of different projects. But in the end, that's just not a good enough excuse in ANY business. They (or their managers) dropped the ball - big-time - at an unforgiving moment in the economic cycle.Having said that, like others here I would extend my sympathy to the individuals involved, as well as to the countless others who have suffered, or will suffer, for mistakes made by the lunatic and profligate governments we have been inflicted with over the past decade or so. But that is another subject.So far as MSFS is concerned, I hope I am wrong but I am afraid we have seen the last in a long and venerable line. Luckily FSX, for all its shortcomings, is itself a reasonable legacy. Tim

As Mango pointed out in another thread and I have to admit I missed it:" has sold more than 1 million units through December in the US, according to the NPD Group, making it far from an unsuccessful outing."More than 1 million in the US. Now wonder what the worldwide figures are. Better redo all our math, including mine. :(

[orchestra_nl 925]

I agree ... to some point.Is is surely a bad thing for the Aces people who lost their job.But, if there is no new version now for some years to come, this will give more stability and time to add-on developers for sure.And NOBODY knows what will be in 3-4 years from now.Guy

Nobody knows, but restarting the franchise 4 yours from now is much more difficult (and expensive) than just continuing it today; after four years, the people that made up ACES will have long gone and their documentation will have gathered a lot of dust. The software code will be ancient by then and software doesn't age well. A restart of the FS franchise may mean starting from scratch and while in itself it might not be a bad thing, chances are that it is deemed financially unsound.I hope that those who have been so wrongfully sacked get a chance to continue their work with another company or at least find a job to support themselves and their families. I was shocked and hurt when I learned the awful news and can only imagine what it must feel like for those who not just consider flightsim their hobby but their job as well.

[tfm 169]

As Mango pointed out in another thread and I have to admit I missed it:" has sold more than 1 million units through December in the US, according to the NPD Group, making it far from an unsuccessful outing."More than 1 million in the US. Now wonder what the worldwide figures are. Better redo all our math, including mine. :(

But suppose worldwide sales account for another 1 million, or 2 million: that's still just a drop in the ocean.Suppose the ACES team employed an average of 100 individuals. Obviously I don't know the right numbers but I wouldn't be surprised if that translates to overheads of about $1000 per head per month (rent, services and support) plus about $6,000 per month per head in salaries etc: ie, about $700,000 per month. Multiply that by 48 months and you get a staggering $336,000,000 for the four-year cost of keeping the team afloat. But let's say I'm grotesquely wrong, and those numbers should be halved: that still leaves $168,000,000 to be recovered from games sales over four years just to break even! Obviously not all of those costs would be hypothecated to FS. But an accountant probably wouldn't drill down to that level of detail, because (presumably) you could not hypothecate the team. Whichever way you cut it, you need to sell an awful lot of games to cover those overheads. That's why the size of the development team and the length of the development cycle are absolutely critical.With limited exceptions, producing PC games is only sustainable if it can be achieved by a tiny team with low overheads. This is because games do not command anywhere near the same margins as productive software. My guess is that ACES essentially became a victim of the same tendency to bloat that afflicts so many MS products. These are the respects in which, I suggest, the studio and/or its managers dropped the ball big-time. They needed a much smaller team concentrating exclusively, and ruthlessly, on turning out successive generations of product on a cycle of 2 years maximum. I suspect that they lost momentum and efficiency: if so, it will be difficult for others to recover it. However, in theory - with the right determination - it is conceivable that the product might be resurrected under a leaner and more focused team. Tim