Moon on a Stick...

[vonBobo 0]

You are going to want to stay within MS's good graces for future possibilities I'm sure, but I would also appreciate your opinion...

 

Do you believe FSX's customers are as low as MS claims they are? Obviously there are many 3pds making a living.

Do you believe Flight's new direction is solely focused on finding that new customer base?

[RYR738 9]

@vonBobo. You need to visit the Argument Clinic. I made an appointment for you ! :LMAO:

 

 

Fred.

[dburne 2]

:LMAO:

 

That was awesome Fred, and may I say somewhat appropriate!

[Guest Antlab]

Actually, a "more interesting" forum is the official "Flight" forum hosted by Steam/Valve, since most of the comments there are from the actual target demographic (the so-called "Gamer" crowd)...

What is most interesting is that with very few exceptions, the comments are about how much fun they're having, and how cool Flight is... :Thinking:

 

Do you mean that forum where the longest thread begins with the complaint of a new user that said:

"Although it does say in the store page, I never though to look as I never thought that they would release a plane without a cockpit view.

I feel a bit conned by this to be honest."

 

?

 

A.

[enamel 4]

Clearly this thread paid for the "All you can argue buffet"! :Just Kidding:

[jcomm 5,890]

I agree 100% with you jcboliveira :-)

 

I only need a better system to run it... FLIGHT will nonetheless allways give a lot of pleasure to fly!

 

In fact, from my personal view, the best simulator is Flight Gear. But I know that 99.99% of AVSIM users don't agree

[n4gix 4,947]

You are going to want to stay within MS's good graces for future possibilities I'm sure, but I would also appreciate your opinion...

 

Do you believe FSX's customers are as low as MS claims they are? Obviously there are many 3pds making a living.

Do you believe Flight's new direction is solely focused on finding that new customer base?

 

Well, you asked me so I do hope you actually take the time to read this serious attempt at a comprehensive answer. :Thinking:

 

Yes in the sense that absolute sales of the actual flightsim product have never been more than a few million copies, so Microsoft themselves haven't seen much of a return on their investment. Was it profitable? Without a doubt it has been, but compared to something more mainstream such as Office, Word or Excel, it has always been just a tiny fraction.

 

Yes also to the second question. Mr. Howard has plainly stated that Flight is targeted to a much larger and far less demanding demographic than that which has been their historical target.

 

For third-party folks, the potential customer base has never been more than a very small fraction of all FS customers, the vast majority of whom never learned that a third-party marketplace was even available. It's a phenomenon known as "Marketplace Opacity" and is similar to the hurdles faced by authors trying to earn a living from having their books published.

 

Every once in awhile, someone will post something like the following as part of their opinion about "Marketing 101..."

 

In general, most MSFS add-on developers don't understand what a "volume" based model looks like. Just take a look at all the commercials on TV for the $19.95 and below price points.

 

Such folks are overlooking what should be blindingly obvious. The root problem faced by anyone with a "widget" to sell is consumer awareness, i.e., advertising!

 

Addon developers are faced with the same core problem as book authors; the opacity of the marketplace. There is simply no way that any developer can reach more than a tiny fraction of those who use any version of flightsimulator, much less a specific version of a flightsimulator such as FS9 and FSX.

 

It's a very simple concept, all things considered:

 

No product will ever sell at any price if the potential market does not know that it exists!

 

How does any book make the "Best Sellers list?" Those who's publishers have invested the huge number of dollars to advertise! Believe me, there are far better books available than those that make such lists, but they languish in relative obscurity because of marketplace opacity. They are simply never "discovered" by potential readers except by word-of-mouth.

 

As a case in point, I've been a huge fan of Science Fiction ever since I first read "Space Cadet" by Robert Heinlien some fifty years ago, and had invested thousands of dollars ever since. I recently donated my entire hard cover collection of ~4,000 books to my local library, among which was a complete first-edition collection of Heinlien, Asimov and Clarke. I remain a very active member on many Sci-Fi websites, forums, newgroups and so forth...

 

Yet even so, it was only by complete accident that I learned about several "new authors" that've totally blown me away with their prodigious and awesome novels. Eric Flint (one of my "new authors") turned out to be a close neighbor, living as he does less than six blocks from my house! Incidentally, it was from Eric that I first learned about the "opacity of the bookmarket..."

 

http://www.ericflint.net/index.php/2011/09/26/salvos-against-big-brother/#more-3264

 

What do I mean by an "opaque" market? The concept is simple, and is closely related to the concept of information asymmetries as used by some economists. A lot of economic theory is based upon the presumption—the preposterous and absurd presumption—that the market is completely visible to consumers. To put it another way, applied to this topic, when Customer Joe or Jane sets out to buy a book, they know already all the books available on the subject they are interested in. Their choice between Books A, B and C therefore comes down to an informed choice based partly on price, partly on their preference in format (electronic or paper; and, if paper, hardcover or paperback), and partly on their own assessment of the relative talents and skills of the various authors who have produced books on the subject.

 

It's enough to state the proposition for anyone to see how ridiculous it is. In the real world, the situation is almost diametrically the opposite.

 

Now I spoke above about the opacity of the FS marketplace. Let's examine this concept in a bit more detail...

 

The last time I bothered to check (about a year ago) there were slightly more than six thousand unique websites dedicated to flight simulation, most of which have forums specific to MSFS in general, and FS9 and/or FSX in particular. While it is certainly true that the vast majority of them do not enjoy the high number of members as the "Majors," it is also true that, by and large, there is not a great deal of "cross-pollination" between these hugely disparate groups.

 

It is also a truth that many of these websites are topical, regional, national, and/or language specific as well.

 

Every single day I invest (and I mean that literally) hours of my time to visit twenty+ FS websites and their forums. Even so, it is simply not possible for me or any addon developer to "get the word out" to more than a miniscule percentage of the potential marketplace, irrespective of the number of "Press Releases," "Announcements," and just plain casual conversations via forums and other internet newsgroups.

 

It is also a fact that the vast majority of folks who use any version of any flightsimulator simply do not know that there are any sort of addons available at all, whether it be freeware or payware.

 

As I said, this marketplace opacity issue should be self-evident. For example, given that we know for a fact that FSX sold over one million copies in the United States during the fiscal year 2008, where are they? How many millions of copies of FS9 have been sold since its release? Even if we reduce those numbers by one fourth, that still leaves a staggering number of potential sim users and addon customers, so...

 

...where are they?

 

...how does anyone reach them?

 

They sure as dickens aren't registered - much less active - here at AVSIM or any of the other "Major" websites!

 

That is precisely why I grind my teeth in complete frustration whenever anyone announces that they've "formed another FS website" and "set up new forums!" We are our own worst enemy, since all that happens is a further dillution and fragmentation of the community... :diablo:

 

Now, if I (or any other developer) had a couple of million dollars to risk, we could've hired "Vince" of "Sham-Wow" fame to pitch our products on national TV...

 

...then we just might be able to turn a profit hawking our stuff at only $19.95...! :LMAO:

[dburne 2]

For example, given that we know for a fact that FSX sold over one million copies in the United States during the fiscal year 2008, where are they?

 

I would be willing to bet, that the number of those that got shelved out of frustration, is rather high.

[n4gix 4,947]

Do you mean that forum where the longest thread begins with the complaint of a new user that said:

 

What part of "very few exceptions" was unclear? :LMAO:

 

I would be willing to bet, that the number of those that got shelved out of frustration, is rather high.

Well, I was actually asking rhetorically about the person who bought FS9 or FSX, not the actual physical product. Nonetheless, I acknowledge the truthfulness of your observation as well. :LMAO:

[Guest Antlab]

What part of "very few exceptions" was unclear? :LMAO:

 

Ah, I see, the famous "Maths is an opinion" rule

 

A.

[vonBobo 0]

Well, you asked me so I do hope you actually take the time to read this serious attempt at a comprehensive answer. :Thinking:

 

Great insight into to your world, appreciate it.

 

My question was more about MS declaring that FS isn't profitable, and needing to change the direction of the title (I don't believe FS suffers from obscurity :), but I surely agree any earnings from FS are going to be small compared to overall MS revenue). Obviously there is a somewhat lucrative addon market feeding many devs, but which is being utilized by only a small portion of the actual FS fans. I personally believe the "new market" is only a small part of Flight's overall direction.

 

I see how you are going to benefit from this new walled garden environment. Assuming the contract is reasonable to you, you will have access to 100% of Flight's users. You have everything to gain from this new approach, of course you aren't going to do any bellyaching.

[LHookins 3,102]

28 other beta testers agreed with my report,

 

I know that. I was one of the ones who voted.

 

Hook

[n4gix 4,947]

I see how you are going to benefit from this new walled garden environment. Assuming the contract is reasonable to you, you will have access to 100% of Flight's users. You have everything to gain from this new approach, of course you aren't going to do any bellyaching.

 

Yes, Flight becomes the "Vince for ShamWow!" for any third-party developer's who do sign on, should such an option become available.

[quadraspleen 7]

where are they?

 

...how does anyone reach them?

 

They sure as dickens aren't registered - much less active - here at AVSIM or any of the other "Major" websites!

 

Great post, Bill. It's always good to get the views of an active (and successful) MSFS dev who has been the rounds and seen it all before. You should write a book (and then sell it on Amazon so it becomes a best-seller, even if Amazon will only pay you 12p per copy LOL)

 

A case in point: I have been flying MSFS since I got my first Windows 95 PC, way back in 1996. I knew about AVSIM since about 2000 and frequented it as a guest for a very long time before I actually made an account and started posting. I think that in this regard AVSIM have done the right thing by restricting the forums to registered members (only gradually, I know) and this will go some way to addressing that particular point in your post. This is a sure fire way to both attract new blood onto AVSIM and thus into that ecosystem (for all titles, not just FSX and Flight) and also to make people aware of exactly what is out there..

 

As for MS, surely they are already using the best method to both garner "new" users of flight sim software (although imo large numbers of the "gamers" over at Steam will already have played "flying sim" games like Wings of Prey etc.) and attract the exposure you talk about for the existing customer base. Steam is massive, and MS know it. What better way to advertise "our" hobby? As you say, the Steam users love it. This is fantastic news imo. The more people fly flight sims (even "lite" ones as some ppl think Flight is) the better, surely?

 

If (when imo) MSGS do decide to release Flight "into the wild" so to speak, by the time they do, many, many more users will (hopefully) be aware of both it, and its future potential in terms of the add-on ecosystem.

 

IMO the reason FSX has stayed "underground", despite the sales of >1 million units is precisely the same reason (that you articulate above - lack of awareness) as the reason many of those 1 million plus users don't know about any add-ons, and surely MS is addressing, and will continue to address this, by means of the methods of selling and marketing that they are using, no mater how abstract and self-defeating they may seem to us, the users of the previous, "quietly/under marketed" titles

 

As for the MSFS wasn't "profitable" discussion; profit is a funny word. As you will already know, In its' strictest sense it means the actual moolah you have in your hands once the bills and developers have been paid.

For a small business this is usually quite easy to reconcile. You can see it in your ledger (hopefully). For a larger "profit centre" driven model, like MS has, where different departments drive their own profit margins and campaigns, it is a much, much harder beast to track. Profits become this kind of elastic thing whereby one centre can "underwrite" another's profits.

Looked at this way, you could use the "it wasn't profitable" argument 'til the cows come home, but I don't really buy it. I think it was canned (it wasn't canned; it was changed) for reasons more to do with economies of scale; for somebody like you guys at Eaglesoft, say 6000-10000 units of a particular add-on/plane would be considered to be a good number (yes, no?) With MS, and looking specifically at the "moon on a stick" discussion, it is probably fair to say that < 30000-40000 users of FSX would be into the heavies, and long AP-driven flights (myself included) Now, to a company like PMDG, c. 40000 units (I have no idea here what the actual numbers are and I doubt PMDG would release them, either) would justify continued development of a series of products (see the 777 on its' way) but for a company like MS, who deal in millions of units, 40k (or probably much less) is in no way a marketable number. They would want to see numbers in the 00's of thousands is my guess before they even considered a moon on a stick.

 

With Steam and the "new blood" (I hate that term) coming on-board, perhaps, in two or three years, if enough new users aren't scared off by the sometimes cranky atmosphere at places like AVSIM, and the puerile feedback given at places like Steam and msflight blog, then we will have a whole heap of new buyers of software, not just users as the people who "refuse" to embrace what Flight could be (not what it is, or isn't) because they can't have their home field or heavies (TrackIR will come..be patient)

 

The moon on a stick (schtick?) is really a non-starter (as Gareth put so well in the OP) The whole "we must be allowed to complain about it" is also a non-starter imo..why bother? MS already know what most of us think. They already have their opinions on whether or not they are valid concerns. Do as the posters above have done, and put forward your requests properly..Don't just uninstall it and say, well, that's crap as I can't have/do/be etc.etc as you re just removing yourself from the debate altogether..We need you! If enough sensible and reasoned feedback is given and they think there is profit in them thar hills, what we want will (hopefully) come (eventually?!)

 

So, are they bad for publicising and promoting our hobby or not? (no matter how they do it) For me, it's the latter, all the way.

 

Bring it on MS

 

J

 

EDIT: And Bill, do you know about Alastair Reynolds and Ian M Banks?? If not, buy them NOW!!

[Lethalgoat 0]

 

 

MS haven't taken anything away from you. You still have FS2004, FSX and all the add-ons, don't you?

 

All that's changed is that FS is now accessible to people who want a slick, fun flying experience without having to tweak the software ad infinitum...

 

+1