Is it really that bad?

[jfri 42]

If 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

I paid significantly more for my copy of FSX, around $100.

[Geofa 108]

"If 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"That over a million copy sold figure for fsx was for last year only and only the United States. Now consider the world.Fsx also made the top 10 game list-as far as I know a first for flight sim.As for it not being a bad thing, look at history. Pro Pilot, Fly, Flight Unlimited all did not last more than a couple years. If a company as big as Microsoft abandons a flight sim which was largely more succesful things do not look rosy for the future.

[greggerm 312]

As for it not being a bad thing, look at history. Pro Pilot, Fly, Flight Unlimited all did not last more than a couple years. If a company as big as Microsoft abandons a flight sim which was largely more succesful things do not look rosy for the future.

Aaah, but one of the major reasons all those other sims didn't last more than a couple of years is because of Microsoft's dominance in the field.

Gaming may be alive and well, but the flight sim genre is dead. Have a look at Falcon 4, ProFlight, Fly!, Jane's F18, LOMAC and IL-2. All of them are either dead or dying.

I'd expect ALL of these items would be dead given their age (*with the exception of pockets of die-hard fans)ProPilot - Released October 1998 (Succumbed to MS) Falcon 4 - Released December 1998 (Successful, carrying on with die hards)Janes F-18 - Released January 2000 (Successful) Fly!2 - Released April 2001 (Publisher forces a beta edition into production - this could have given MS a run if they released it properly) IL-2 - Released November 2001 (Critical acclaim and success)LOMAC - Released November 2003 (Critical acclaim and success) Lest we forget FS2004 - Released July 2003 (We all know the story here)

Thats part of the problem. Falcon 4 is still the top military flightsim. Just buy an old Falcon 4 CD and use the free patches and you are at the 'as real as it gets' stage.

Falcon 4 is hardly an apples-to-apples comparison with FS9 though, and not just in the purpose and style of the game. After a source code leak, and then a subsequent licensing agreement with Atari, a small cadre of programmers effectively rewrote the core of Falcon 4 into the simulation it is today. FS9 is simply being built upon, whereas Falcon 4 was largely re-built. Falcon 4's current following is also a very die-hard but small group - not too many people (as compared to other sims and games) can stomach the ultra-realistic depiction of combat ops that Falcon 4 presents. But I digress...What were we talking about again?Oh yeah - is it really that bad?No. It's really not. There may be a down period longer than normal between new simulators (in which we can all happily use FSX), but like chess games, golf games, and word processors, the flight simulator will never disappear off the personal computer desktop. -Greg

[Geofa 108]

"Aaah, but one of the major reasons all those other sims didn't last more than a couple of years is because of Microsoft's dominance in the field."Perhaps but to use your words though-when the dominant force in the field decides to call it quits, I'd say that is a very bad sign.There will be a flight sim in the future-and I'll bet a beer on it that is will be a Google earth like simulator with a low "serious" component.After all-the market-if there is one in the future, is less concerned about realistic cockpits, procedures, atc, flight dynamics etc. Those nasty things take too much time to do right ,effect the bottom line, and are used by a minority of the market. Things will be changing and I don't think for the better.

[Guest Tingoose]

Bunkers wrote:"btw.. maybe it's all you FS9-huggers who actually strangled FSXI before it was born*runs for cover . . . "I'm after you right now Bunkers :( Seriously, I'm an FS9 hugger and I'm sure it has nothing to do with FSXI going down the pan. It might have more to do with the fact that FSX was made for a future super computer. Probably neither really . . . .I think it's a result of the dire worldwide financial situation.

[MD83 1]

I feel slighted here. What about FS8 and FS9 huggers. Heck, I read posts of people still simming FS98 and they love it.FS2000 seemed to be a red headed step child, I rarely see it mentioned.Please, if you are going to slight FS9 users, remember to include FS8 users too. There are allot of them still around.

I proudly hug BOTH FS8 and FS9.

[craig_read 43]

Hi,I'm probably going to get shot down in flames for this, I am as dissappointed as the rest of you but to be honest with you FS in general will be quite low on Microsofts priorities I would think.Their cash cows are Windows.. Office.. (mainly)... XBox.. Then the following other applications.. Media Player.. MSN.. Hotmail... I would think if they wanted to slim down and streamline in an effort to focus resource on their main issue.. which is the lack of success for Vista.. chopping out any work on relatively small projects would make perfect sense.. Windows and Office are worth BILLIONS of dollars.. to MS.. They're used almost everywhere.. FSX is just a tiny proportion of MS profits... I am sure they made plenty of money on FSX, I can't imagine they'd commission it if they didn't think they would do.. But the fact is, Microsoft are up against some pretty stiff competition.. there are new markets emerging and MS needs to get in on the action:1 - Netbooks... and Linux is doing very, very well indeed.. so they need to get competative here..2 - Vista is not going as well as they hoped.. HOWEVER.. efforts on Windows 7 are continuing and the beta looks good.3 - Linux is actually growing in popularity.. and MS needs to do it's best to keep market share.4 - iTunes.. etc.. are doing well and MS needs to compete..5 - Office needs to get back into the frame.. Open Office has hit sales I bet.6 - Xbox has probably taken a beating as a result of HD DVD not taking off and Blu-Ray being the format.. Most I bet are buying PS3s... not great news!See what I mean?.. MS FS.. I am afraid is really not a big concern.. If I was CEO of MS.. I'd be concentrating on Win7.. Office 2009 and pushing hard for options for mobile phone OS and more in that arena.. It's about competition.. I'm afraid.. and priorities.. that's all.. When they're a bit flush they might revisit FS who knows..CheersCraig

[Kosta 122]

I simply think that MS saw the point where FS is not rentable for coming years. It's the fact that FS9 actually now got to the point where it, with all the addons that are available today, AI and stuff, is working in really acceptable speeds.FSX is not - at least not with the middle-costly hardware. And its gonna be some years until "middle-priced" hardware is out, like its now for FS9 (lets say, one E8500), is out, and people actually are using it, running FSX at the speeds FS9 is running now. My estimate is around 4-5 years. Last time I remember FS9 being as "slow" as FSX is now with the same addons, is year 2004 or around. I think I had P4 clocked to 3,6Ghz back then, 1GB of RAM and an ATI 9700 (or was it X800...).So, I think Microsoft has simply frozen the development until they see that the hardware is picking up with the game, and then we'll go from that point further.Anyway, what would be the point of developing FS11, which would take even more on resources, while not even FSX can get enough. Needless to say, I can still bring my FS9 to its knees (20fps) in various (normal) situations.