The problem is that a flight sim title is not the right type of game or sim for this new arena.

The problem is that a flight sim title is not the right type of game or sim for this new arena.

Your right, the idea that you can tweak a pure flying game to entertain this audience is a risky one.The gameplay would need to be extremely sophisticated.Beyond the aero-sim physics...the only unique thing the FS engine can offer is accurate geography.

Your right, the idea that you can tweak a pure flying game to entertain this audience is wrong.The gameplay would need to be extremely sophisticated.

For any audience really. What you can do is the exact opposite though...the way it should have been done so that you have both types of simmers.

I never knew that Tokermax was a geriatric !!I'm shocked. :(

My take on all of this Tom? Microsoft is getting EXACTLY what they wanted from inviting you all out there, and then NDA'ing everything, and then setting a drop date for publicity for a FREE game; they generated CHEAP buzz for a pig in lipstick. I am sure they are now all sitting back sipping cocktails and cheering each other on a job well done for getting the word out there.We'd do ourselves a GREAT service by shutting up about Flight and moving on. I for one will NOT give MS another CENT with this current model as shown.

Geez, it's worse than I thought!

Hohoho I am solidly in the 40-50 bracket (watch it...the middle of the range :( ).Age jokes aside one wonders if Microsoft marketing considered looking at numbers of current active MSFS users versus the numbers sold.While FS9 and FSX were bestsellers-what percentage of those sales resulted in continual active use as opposed to being purchased as a gift and promptly "coasterized" or flown briefly and put away.In the end all Microsoft had to do was look at the MMO/social media explosion of the past ten years or so....and I would bet large that someone paid close attention to things like World Of Tanks (another give away the razor sell the blade affair.....and yuck...give me Steel Beasts any day) and catering to a larger audience supplemented with the inevitable microtransactions probably made the decision to ignore us "geriatrics" rather easy being a relatively small minority.In a way it should be percieved as good news by FSX/FS9 add-on developers.I'll also mention it again-it might not be an awful idea for Microsoft to license the FSX source code to an appropriate 3rd party developer (not Lockheed-Martin) to optimise and update for the minority segment. MS would get a further return on investment and we would have somebody...a PMDG/Aerosoft/whoever modernizing the code for a proper re-release. I dunno...just a thought.

MS surveys tell the same, they are not out of this world even if it seems like that.The plot is different, there is a purpose in MS to own the brain of younger kids because they are the customers of the future.So, which best way than owning their vulnerable brain since the beginning ?Old farts like us are not more attackable from this point of view so MS decided to hit the weak ring of the chain.As simple as that.-

Edited January 5, 201214 yr by Mark II

I'm 18, and many other serious simmers are. AVSIM may quite likely have an older user base than the norm. Look at VATSIM, for example. A great deal of it's members of young, particularly users of more advanced aircraft.My understanding of flight sim demographics is that the older set tends to prefer the less advanced freeware, because they're used to it and have lower expectations.

Edited January 5, 201214 yr by dlrk

Look at VATSIM, for example. A great deal of it's members of young, particularly users of more advanced aircraft.(...)the older set tends to prefer the less advanced freeware, because they're used to it and have lower expectations.

I don't know how you have gathered your statistical data, but in my view it is quite the opposite.I know a lot of VATSIM pilots and none of them is a youngster (not saying there are none of course).Plus all the hardcore simmers I know personally or from this forum are at least around 30.By the way how can you be a genuine 'hardcore simmer' being 18?How many years of experience and how much knowledge have you managed to collect?When did you start?And let me quote you once again:

the older set tends to prefer the less advanced freeware, because they're used to it and have lower expectations.

How did you come to this (ridiculous) conclusion?

My understanding of flight sim demographics is that the older set tends to prefer the less advanced freeware, because they're used to it and have lower expectations.

I think that being 47 years old I may qualify as 'the older set'. I purchase mainly the more complex payware products, eg iFly 737, PMDG B747, MD-11 (with training from AOA), LDS767, Supronov Yak 40, ASE for weather, TOPCAT for planning, etc. For freeware I use the PT TU-154m - which is almost the definition of complexity. I believe from what I read here and in other forums that many of the people using these types of product are within my age group. As you can see, I have rather high expectations.I think you may find that your statement is incorrect and based on flawed evidence/analysis.As for Flight. FS9 continues to run on my system. I own FSX but my old steam powered computer cannot run it, the DVDs are going nowhere though. Flight is of no interest to me whatsoever without the availability of high quality addon products.

Take a look at the ages of the guys running VA's and VATSIM ACCs.

Take a look at the ages of the guys running VA's and VATSIM ACCs.

I don't think that short sentence provides sufficient data to prove your assertation that "My understanding of flight sim demographics is that the older set tends to prefer the less advanced freeware, because they're used to it and have lower expectations." Additionally VAs and VATSIM do not cover the entire FS community and so, on what basis can your vague comment be used to prove your assertation?I'm sure that you are absolutely correct and that some people who run VAs are from 'the younger set' - in the VA I belong to, Noble Air, they are a little older. Though I'm sure we have some youngsters there too.I don't use VATSIM and have no idea about age groups there. However, I do know Rafal Haczek and know him to be reliable in the statements that he makes. On that basis, I must presume that he is correct and you are incorrect - unless you can show me that his statement regarding VATSIM is inaccurate.You may well be right, however, and possibly the majority of 'oldies' prefer the more simpler addons - it would be interesting to know - if anyone can provide real data as opposed to opinion - which I freely admit is all I have to offer here. All I know is that in my 10 years here at AVSIM a very large percentage of posts that I read concerning the more complex and demanding addons are written by us 'oldies'. Overall therefore, I believe your statement to be an overgeneralisation.

Mr Allensworth, the survey posted in the OP, is not a survey of the target market for Flight. MS has admitted as much when they told you they were expecting this reaction form the hard core simmers. The survey posted in the OP is a survey of Avsim members. That is a small sample and heavily skewed towards the hard core side of the realism spectrum. The stated goal of Flight is to sell to people who would not previously have considered buying a flight sim, thus a survey of (a non-representative subset of) the existing flightsim users does not offer much in the way of useful marketing.FSX sold (I believe) over a million copies. How many members does Avsim have? Although we're a pretty vocal bunch, I doubt we're representative for the average flight sim user.The groups here are self-selecting. For example the fact that everybody who posts on the PMDG sub-forum is heavily into having as much realism as possible, with 2500 page manuals to accompany their add-ons shouldn't come as a big surprise. If they weren't, they wouldn't be on that sub-forum. If you only post on that sub-forum, it would be easy to believe that all simmers want that level of realism. However sales figures say otherwise*, for example ask Aerosoft what the average FS customer looks like.*Before someone tries to counter this, yes I'm sure the NGX sold well, I'm also sure the number of NGX units sold pales in comparison to the numbers of less complex planes and certainly in comparison to the total number of FSX copies sold.Side-note, my VA has 44% <35 (with a minimum age to join of 16), so a tad younger than Avsim, though a direct comparison is difficult due to the differences in binning.

Mr Allensworth, the survey posted in the OP, is not a survey of the target market for Flight. MS has admitted as much when they told you they were expecting this reaction form the hard core simmers. The survey posted in the OP is a survey of Avsim members. That is a small sample and heavily skewed towards the hard core side of the realism spectrum. The stated goal of Flight is to sell to people who would not previously have considered buying a flight sim, thus a survey of (a non-representative subset of) the existing flightsim users does not offer much in the way of useful marketing.FSX sold (I believe) over a million copies. How many members does Avsim have? Although we're a pretty vocal bunch, I doubt we're representative for the average flight sim user.The groups here are self-selecting. For example the fact that everybody who posts on the PMDG sub-forum is heavily into having as much realism as possible, with 2500 page manuals to accompany their add-ons shouldn't come as a big surprise. If they weren't, they wouldn't be on that sub-forum. If you only post on that sub-forum, it would be easy to believe that all simmers want that level of realism. However sales figures say otherwise*, for example ask Aerosoft what the average FS customer looks like.*Before someone tries to counter this, yes I'm sure the NGX sold well, I'm also sure the number of NGX units sold pales in comparison to the numbers of less complex planes and certainly in comparison to the total number of FSX copies sold.Side-note, my VA has 44% <35 (with a minimum age to join of 16), so a tad younger than Avsim, though a direct comparison is difficult due to the differences in binning.

Good points from all of you who assailed a small sample of a sub-population represented by just one of the simulation/aviation enthusiast sites.I have spent, literally, thousands of dollars of this hobby. The natural trends in labor suggest that it is people in this 30-60 range that can do so. There are other hobbies aimed this crowd, and within them, consumer are accordingly fleeced. The mistake Microsoft appears to be making is: the engine must be used for this OR that, when it clearly can accommodate both. They've done the "deluxe" and "professional" thing before, so why not again? And, brace yourselves fellas, Microsoft is making it clear that they WILL BE getting a cut of pie that is my $$$s of expenditures on MSFS addons. Their best way at backpedaling this will be to offer an SDK and a means to get that content into the game.Take Steam and TrainSim 2012: those add-ons are also vigorously priced, but at least I have the tools available to get my own content, or other 3rd-party content into the game as well. When I was in favor of the Live Marketplace approach, it was when I anticipated it would be like the Steam and TrainSim 2012 arrangement. Now, with no way to get end-user and other 3rd-party content into the game, it is a dead-end and closed environment (which, when we see the file structure, I suspect we'll find out it is not).I think what we are doing in here today, is collectively reacting with dismay now that we realize that there really isn't anything in here for the simulation enthusiast.Or, maybe this is all a ruse, and they're making us so desperate and hungry for 3rd-party stuff and an SDK that, when they finally offer it to us, we'll PAY. Trust me, with an online store regulating the content, we will indeed PAY. This should hobble piracy somewhat.