In 2007 FSX was the 9th best selling game but even then sold only 280,000 copies. The same year the best selling pc game - the World of Warcraft - sold 2.235 million. That's 8 times as many. The best selling console game that year - Halo 3 - sold 4.82 million, that's 17 times as many. it gets worse. Call of Duty: Modern Warefare 3 sold 7.17 million copies in six weeks alone in the USA.

 

i don't acceopt your analogy about publishers. In your terms, Microsoft is a" main-steam"publisher", and not an "academic publisher". It's not structured to be one and there's no reason why it should. I have a friend who's an academic. His latest book is priced at £250 (US$400). The publisher didn't pay for his time to writi eit and he doesn't expect much (if anything) in the way of royalties. Similarly, major car manufacturers aren't structured to produce specialist sports cars, and so don't..

 

At the end of the day Microsoft is investing its own money in development and will put it where it will get the best return..

 

Your post seems indicate not too much confidence with market analysis.

1) You say that in 2007 FSX was the 9th best selling game. That's a marvellous result, considering the genre. Obviusly there are some games that sell more, but you surely don't easily dismiss a game that enter in the first ten.

 

2) You write that "major car manufacturers aren't structured to produce specialist sports cars, and so don't". You demonstrate to knowing not much about the modern giant holdings, as Microsoft and the major car manufacturers.

Just to remain in Italy, my country, Ferrari is almost completely owned by the generalist FIAT, and Lamborghini is owned by the generalist AUDI. The brands remain, and would be stupid to delete them, the property is acquired from the big players.

So, your point seems quite wrong actually.

 

 

A.

In 2007 FSX was the 9th best selling game but even then sold only 280,000 copies. The same year the best selling pc game - the World of Warcraft - sold 2.235 million. That's 8 times as many. The best selling console game that year - Halo 3 - sold 4.82 million, that's 17 times as many. it gets worse. Call of Duty: Modern Warefare 3 sold 7.17 million copies in six weeks alone in the USA.

 

i don't acceopt your analogy about publishers. In your terms, Microsoft is a" main-steam"publisher", and not an "academic publisher". It's not structured to be one and there's no reason why it should. I have a friend who's an academic. His latest book is priced at £250 (US$400). The publisher didn't pay for his time to writi eit and he doesn't expect much (if anything) in the way of royalties. Similarly, major car manufacturers aren't structured to produce specialist sports cars, and so don't..

 

At the end of the day Microsoft is investing its own money in development and will put it where it will get the best return..

 

You speech is correct but MS aims to impose a standard. XBox + Kinetic and Flight for pcs will follow the same path, I mean the imposing of the Kinetic controller + Flight over the pc market.

 

That's the big picture behind the scenes.

 

That's one of the main driving reasons for having released and for future releases of cockpitless warbirds.

Yes, I know, I can keep enjoying FSX as I have for the past years, but now, I know there is better and I am spoiled.

 

I'm actually growing tired of this line. I've said for a long time that Flight! is a awesome running simulator. Its smooth, the graphics are awesome and above all else its stable. But I'm tired of people saying "You guys still have FSX go play it instead". Why can't everyone jump on board and wish everyone could utilize the same simulator? Why can't everyone just hope that a simulator that is supposed to be "realistic" would simulate all aspects of aviation not just general aviation (I am actually a pilot for a Part 135 outfit, I've done it all military and civilian). Aviation becomes to narrow and borrowing if you don't broaden the horizon. I just don't understand why all the extreme pro Flight! individuals solution to people who support FSX is, go away we don't want you here anyways, when there should be more of an effort to get microsoft to realize theres more to aviation than the narrow (albeit fun) general aviation side.

One more thing to those extreme Flight! supporters. I read these forums on a regular basis, I like the stable platform that's Flight! I was even a beta tester. So don't think I'm a all out basher of Flight! cause I could wish for nothin but the success of the PLATFORM not their business model for it. But that being said. Some of your are out of control in your behavior and need to curtail it a bit. I've heard peoples intelligence questioned among other things because of differing opinions. Thats inappropriate and childish imho I'm sure about everyone agrees. Theres no reason anyone can't discuss the pros and cons of a simulation and have any insults directed their way.

To sum it up, FSX is a decent platform, thats it nothin more. We all should be hoping that Flight would invite all aspects of aviation so we can all enjoy the spectacular platform that it is. And people need to stop being at others throats because of a differing opinion. Just because your defending a program doesn't give you free reign to act as you please.

Off Soap Box now, enjoy your days!

Brian

I'm actually growing tired of this line. I've said for a long time that Flight! is a awesome running simulator. Its smooth, the graphics are awesome and above all else its stable. But I'm tired of people saying "You guys still have FSX go play it instead". Why can't everyone jump on board and wish everyone could utilize the same simulator? Why can't everyone just hope that a simulator that is supposed to be "realistic" would simulate all aspects of aviation not just general aviation (I am actually a pilot for a Part 135 outfit, I've done it all military and civilian). Aviation becomes to narrow and borrowing if you don't broaden the horizon. I just don't understand why all the extreme pro Flight! individuals solution to people who support FSX is, go away we don't want you here anyways, when there should be more of an effort to get microsoft to realize theres more to aviation than the narrow (albeit fun) general aviation side.

One more thing to those extreme Flight! supporters. I read these forums on a regular basis, I like the stable platform that's Flight! I was even a beta tester. So don't think I'm a all out basher of Flight! cause I could wish for nothin but the success of the PLATFORM not their business model for it. But that being said. Some of your are out of control in your behavior and need to curtail it a bit. I've heard peoples intelligence questioned among other things because of differing opinions. Thats inappropriate and childish imho I'm sure about everyone agrees. Theres no reason anyone can't discuss the pros and cons of a simulation and have any insults directed their way.

To sum it up, FSX is a decent platform, thats it nothin more. We all should be hoping that Flight would invite all aspects of aviation so we can all enjoy the spectacular platform that it is. And people need to stop being at others throats because of a differing opinion. Just because your defending a program doesn't give you free reign to act as you please.

Off Soap Box now, enjoy your days!

Brian

 

Well, MS have one customer at least!!

vololiberista

I'm actually growing tired of this line. I've said for a long time that Flight! is a awesome running simulator. Its smooth, the graphics are awesome and above all else its stable. But I'm tired of people saying "You guys still have FSX go play it instead". Why can't everyone jump on board and wish everyone could utilize the same simulator? Why can't everyone just hope that a simulator that is supposed to be "realistic" would simulate all aspects of aviation not just general aviation (I am actually a pilot for a Part 135 outfit, I've done it all military and civilian). Aviation becomes to narrow and borrowing if you don't broaden the horizon. I just don't understand why all the extreme pro Flight! individuals solution to people who support FSX is, go away we don't want you here anyways, when there should be more of an effort to get microsoft to realize theres more to aviation than the narrow (albeit fun) general aviation side.

One more thing to those extreme Flight! supporters. I read these forums on a regular basis, I like the stable platform that's Flight! I was even a beta tester. So don't think I'm a all out basher of Flight! cause I could wish for nothin but the success of the PLATFORM not their business model for it. But that being said. Some of your are out of control in your behavior and need to curtail it a bit. I've heard peoples intelligence questioned among other things because of differing opinions. Thats inappropriate and childish imho I'm sure about everyone agrees. Theres no reason anyone can't discuss the pros and cons of a simulation and have any insults directed their way.

To sum it up, FSX is a decent platform, thats it nothin more. We all should be hoping that Flight would invite all aspects of aviation so we can all enjoy the spectacular platform that it is. And people need to stop being at others throats because of a differing opinion. Just because your defending a program doesn't give you free reign to act as you please.

Off Soap Box now, enjoy your days!

Brian

 

Big +1 to this post. Hopefully the more ardent flight supporters will read and comprehend the message. Not perceive it as an attack, and thus avoiding unecessary internet debates. I think the Flight Sim community needs to be all inclusive as there aren't a whole lot of us (when comparing to the mainstream).

Your post seems indicate not too much confidence with market analysis.

1) You say that in 2007 FSX was the 9th best selling game. That's a marvellous result, considering the genre. Obviusly there are some games that sell more, but you surely don't easily dismiss a game that enter in the first ten.

 

2) You write that "major car manufacturers aren't structured to produce specialist sports cars, and so don't". You demonstrate to knowing not much about the modern giant holdings, as Microsoft and the major car manufacturers.

Just to remain in Italy, my country, Ferrari is almost completely owned by the generalist FIAT, and Lamborghini is owned by the generalist AUDI. The brands remain, and would be stupid to delete them, the property is acquired from the big players.

So, your point seems quite wrong actually.

 

Microsoft's, and any other company's, decisions are based the present situation and the future prospects - not past history. When Microsoft closed ACES and put an end to FSNext it was almost certainly because it decided that the future return from developing it wasn't justified.

 

Fiat and Audi don't make specialist sports cars - they bought specialist firms to do that.

Microsoft's, and any other company's, decisions are based the present situation and the future prospects - not past history. When Microsoft closed ACES and put an end to FSNext it was almost certainly because it decided that the future return from developing it wasn't justified.

 

Fiat and Audi don't make specialist sports cars - they bought specialist firms to do that.

 

Sorry to say, but you just continue to demonstrate little familiarity with some industrial arguments.

 

1) Any company decision is based also on past history. For many reasons: historical series of economical data, trends about particular sectors, degree of maturity of a particular technology, and many more. This in particular true for big enterprise, that usually have a lot of inertia, they can not change abruptly.

 

2) Do you know how many little companies have been acquire by big holdings, in all market sectors, including cars and informatics? Once acquired, the brand usually is maintained only if of particular value, as for Ferrari and Lamborghini, otherwise it simply disappears, because at that point the effective control is by the big buyer. So we can easily affirm that Fiat and Audi make specialist cars, but not all the people know that, because they only know the exterior brand.

 

A.

Why can't everyone jump on board and wish everyone could utilize the same simulator? Why can't everyone just hope that a simulator that is supposed to be "realistic" would simulate all aspects of aviation not just general aviation (I am actually a pilot for a Part 135 outfit, I've done it all military and civilian).

 

It certainly would be nice. But, as with everything else in life, people want different things (for example, definitions of 'realism' can vary a lot). It's hard to make a product that caters to everyone! I suppose we can always hope though!

Sorry to say, but you just continue to demonstrate little familiarity with some industrial arguments.

 

And you little familarity with investment decisions.

 

Before investing in a new project a company asks will the future expenditure on developing it be justified by the future income? if ultimately the answer is no then the project will be killed = regardless of past expenditure or profits..

 

Many companies have gone under because they were looking to the past and failed to realise that what sold in the past wasn't going to sell in the future.

And you little familarity with investment decisions.

Before investing in a new project a company asks will the future expenditure on developing it be justified by the future income? if ultimately the answer is no then the project will be killed = regardless of past expenditure or profits..

Many companies have gone under because they were looking to the past and failed to realise that what sold in the past wasn't going to sell in the future.

 

Well, obviously nobody knows the future.

In my opinion MS made a mistake by ending a series that went very well (you reported the total 9th place in 2007) for a strange hybrid that at present is about 90th on Steam statistics, and that is gaining tons of (very) negative comments everywhere MS allows the customers to express their opinions.

We will see in the next months if their plan worked, for example checking the data at the end of 2012. Maybe they have some hidden ace (pun intended), otherwise I would bet that the results will be much worse than the glorious (and profitable) past.

 

A.

Well, obviously nobody knows the future.

In my opinion MS made a mistake by ending a series that went very well (you reported the total 9th place in 2007) for a strange hybrid that at present is about 90th on Steam statistics, and that is gaining tons of (very) negative comments everywhere MS allows the customers to express their opinions.

We will see in the next months if their plan worked, for example checking the data at the end of 2012. Maybe they have some hidden ace (pun intended), otherwise I would bet that the results will be much worse than the glorious (and profitable) past.

 

A.

 

If the past was profitable margin wise and not $$ wise, they wouldn't have changed course. At the end of the day MS is only accountable to it's share holders. Profit margins and future guidance are the 2 biggest movers of stock prices. If Flight is making a profit at 15% margin and the execs believe the talent working on flight could do something else within the company and make 30% margin, guess what? Flight is gone no matter how strong the customer base or what promises have been made concerning future sceneries/aircraft. This might also explain the release of VC-less airplanes. It's about profit margins, not profits.

In my opinion MS made a mistake by ending a series that went very well (you reported the total 9th place in 2007)

 

We are all entitled to our opinions, but 2007 is in the past.and times change.

 

The standards now expected from games have increased dramatically together with the costs of developing them. My opinion is that Microsoft decided it wasn't worth developing a successor to FSX because the potental market didn't justify it. FSX is generally accepted to have sold about a million copies over its lifetime. That's now probably too small a market these days given Call of Duty : Modern Warfare 3 is reported to have sold more than 6 million copies on its first day.

FSX is generally accepted to have sold about a million copies over its lifetime. That's now probably too small a market these days given Call of Duty : Modern Warfare 3 is reported to have sold more than 6 million copies on its first day.

 

Maybe you don't read my posts. From the Gamespot article of 2009 concerning the end of Aces Studio:

"2006's Flight Simulator X for the PC has sold more than 1 million units through December in the US, according to the NPD Group, making it far from an unsuccessful outing."

 

1 million up to 2009 only in the US. Considering that it is still sold with worlwide distribution, it surely much surpassed that old regional number.

And you continue with the strange idea that one should compare a flight sim/game with combat titles as MW.

By following this smart strategy, at present Flight is well behind Plants vs Zombies

 

A.

We are all entitled to our opinions, but 2007 is in the past.and times change.

 

The standards now expected from games have increased dramatically together with the costs of developing them. My opinion is that Microsoft decided it wasn't worth developing a successor to FSX because the potental market didn't justify it. FSX is generally accepted to have sold about a million copies over its lifetime. That's now probably too small a market these days given Call of Duty : Modern Warfare 3 is reported to have sold more than 6 million copies on its first day.

MW3 is bad example as this (in my opinion very overrated title) is probably the best selling game brand in the whole world. There is hundreds and hundreds of games that have sold way less and still been successful by making enough money.

 

Anyway, I can see no way how Flight would apply to more people than FSX did. Just simplifying things and adding cockpitless warbirds does not make general public to find it interesting.

I can only hope that Flight's strategy is this:

 

"New users were scared off fromf FSX when they started a flight staring at a bunch of gauges that they didn't understand, so they turned it off and never came back. So for flight we'll make it so they start with no gauges at all flying some fun familiar warbirds from outside. Then with the Icon they can put their toe in the water with a limited set of gauges that are easy to read. Then we'll offer more and more complex gauges and systems until we get them into airliners and supersonic birds."

 

If they follow this strategy then it would mean we are done with the cockpitless warbirds soon. And maybe it means we'll see some twin-engined pistons soon.

 

That strategy would seem reasonable to me. However when I first fired up my first sim, FS95, I felt overwhelmed by all the gauges in the C172 but there were some great lessons and reading material included, *and* knowing that I could work my way up to a 737 made it seem worthwhile. A new user now has no lessons on gauges and no way of knowing if there will be something as cool as a 737 to aim for. So my interest is still there, but I don't know if they're doing the right things to keep the interest of the new guys they're going after.

 

- Gary Letona