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

 

"New users were scared off from FSX when they started a flight staring at a bunch of gauges that they didn't understand..."

 

 

That's assuming they could get it to run at all on their computer... which I think is another major reason for the franchise 'reboot'.

Here's a scenario:- Imagine a large exhibition where all the games and apps companies show off their wares.

In one corner there is MS with a flat screen showing "Flight" nearby there is a fully equiped mock airliner cockpit running FS9/FSX with all the bells whistles and switches working complete with full on ATC etc etc.

It doesn't take much imagination to realise at which exibit people would be queuing to play!

vololiberista

It doesn't take much imagination to realise at which exibit people would be queuing to play!

 

Or which one they'd be queuing to buy.

...nearby there is a fully equiped mock airliner cockpit running FS9/FSX with all the bells whistles and switches working complete with full on ATC etc etc.

Ha! That brought back some memories. I did that once at a business trade fair, where one of the exhibitors had a mock of an airliner cockpit on their stand. People WERE lining up for a go to 'land a jet' and it all looked cool with a proper pilot's seat, big heavy controls and loads of instrumentation...

 

But to make the challenge even accessible to the general public, the mission started on the glidescope, with the only objectives being to place the wheels in a certain spot on the runway, at a certain speed, and a certain rate of descent... Points were deducted for deviation from target parameters. No cross wind, no ATC, just throttle, elevator, flaps and undercarriage were needed. As an incentive the best score of the day got a bottle of Champagne, and the best one (of the 3 day event) won a free return Lufthansa flight to a destination of your choice. Although this was nearly 15 years ago, my winning the big prize was a source of much pride. But it emphasised the lack of 'sim skills' within a general population of pretty intelligent business folk...

Didnt MS sell Xbox at a loss leader made it up in selling games. One poster said, they are looking at profit margins not gross profit. I agree, short term is what shareholders want in stock value. Also, screws people like flying around the globe and simmers like heavyiron MS flight adds vc to warbirds would reduce cranky hardcore and casual simmer gripes.

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.

Add in, optimistically, 2 years further sale of 219,000 and FSX's life time total is still less than 1,5 million - still far less that Call of Duty ; Modern Warefare 3's first day sales.

 

Of course any game Can be compared with any other game - developers do it all the time to compare development costs, market share, revenue, etc before deciding where to put their money in future developments. It's what Microsoft almost certainly did when it stopped developing FSNext and changed direction to develop Flight. IIt cleaerly thought it would get a better return developing Flight than FSNext. That's the underlying reality. Microsoft isn't in the business of subsidising hard core users - it's in the business of maximuising its return on investment.

Add in, optimistically, 2 years further sale of 219,000 and FSX's life time total is still less than 1,5 million - still far less that Call of Duty ; Modern Warefare 3's first day sales.

 

Ok, no problem, we can also stop the discussion. If the only comparison term you use is always COD, there is no need to think much: 99,9% of the game designer/publishers should change work, because they sold, and will sell, less than that.

I think you have a quite oversimplified idea of how a market( any market) works, but that's not a problem.

Please advice us when Flight will surpass COD (obviously before it has to reach Plants vs Zombies...).

 

A.

Add in, optimistically, 2 years further sale of 219,000 and FSX's life time total is still less than 1,5 million - still far less that Call of Duty ; Modern Warefare 3's first day sales.

 

Microsoft isn't in the business of subsidising hard core users - it's in the business of maximuising its return on investment.

 

I really do want Microsoft to make money. I maybe selfish cause I don't care who makes the money, 3pd or MS as long as I have what I want :diablo: . But I really don't understand Microsoft's decisions. Lets look at some of the decisions:

 

1)Would the young crowd whom they are trying to attract (entrants) want a WWII plane or a modern fighter or jetliner? I don't think most young people care about WWII. Most don't identify with history but with current world environment. (I am 48 and I don't identify with WWII planes much. :Just Kidding:)

 

2) Do people tend to like to fly over an area that they have some connection to or do they not care where they fly as long as it is new? I dare say most people do not fly in areas they don't have some sort of connection to. That is why I never flew in say Chili, or Morroco in FSX. This does not mean that a gamer would only want to fly in their home area, but that he has some mental connection to the area they want to fly over. How would releasing on small area of the world and promising two areas a year address that issue?

 

3) Why incorporate such realistic flight dynamics and realistic navigational aids if MS do not care about enthusiasts? If they intend to bring on the enthusiasts into the fold in the future (by offering DLC such as ATC, Long haul flight,etc,) why alienate them as Josh Howard did in his interviews? Microsoft is wavering and does not have a clear vision, they have put one foot in the water (offering navs, realistic flight models etc. for enthusiast) and have left the other foot on the dry land (not committing to ATC, real weather, global scenery, telling enthusiasts that Flight is not for them). They seem scared and sheepish to decide. If they don't have faith and confidence in their product why would you?

 

4)Prior to the Flight's release, I remember that there was agreement in the community that if Microsoft decided to have an on line store, it would not open the store without several products. After all how can you have a store with barely anything in it? To many people's surprise the store didn't have much in it. Worst yet, we were told we would get 2 sceneries a year and one plane a month. Am I the only one that thinks this is way too little and too slow for a casual gamer to keep his interest in Flight? If the Flight enthusiasts are moaning already about getting bored with Hawaii, do you think a newb will keep his interest for six months? I don't think so.

 

5)Microsoft , through interviews with Josh Howard, has indicated that it will adjust and produce future content according to how well their current DLC is doing. In fact many of you are ( rightly) concerned that if people will keep buying the cockpit less planes then MS would assume that people want cockpit less planes (Which is not necessarily a right deduction). Doesn't this tell us that Microsoft is winging it and did not do a good market research originally? Doesn't it mean that they don't have faith in the product?

 

I love to be proven wrong, and I don't have an MBA so can't bet my life on what I think. But it just doesn't make sense.

Ok, no problem, we can also stop the discussion. If the only comparison term you use is always COD, there is no need to think much: 99,9% of the game designer/publishers should change work, because they sold, and will sell, less than that.

I think you have a quite oversimplified idea of how a market( any market) works, but that's not a problem.

Please advice us when Flight will surpass COD (obviously before it has to reach Plants vs Zombies...).

 

A.

What I saying that FSX sales of 1.5 million over its life are small in relation to sales of other games, and give no assurance that sales of FSNext would have been enough to justify continuing its development. Microsoft (with access to the figures) obviously thought they didn't.

MS is acting thinking about the customers of the future. If nowdays customers metabolize certain instructions they will be prepared in the future to receive more of the same.

 

MS is not taking attention to the copies sold only, there is bigger picture behind. For sure MS is not a naive girl.

I think MS Flight's biggest problem is poor communication from the developer. If MS had said "the next two areas will be Alaska and [insert another interesting area] and the next two deluxe planes will be [insert two good bush-planes]" then people across the forums would be less annoyed because we'd have a small road map. Right now we only get information about the casual planes and nothing more. MS is leading us by the nose. Also MS Flight must have historically poor community-relations (except some Japanese developers who hardly say anything at all). I think MS would gain a lot from being a little less thight on the information. Surely some hint on the next planned deluxe-plane would cause both casual and serious gamers to "look alive".

 

-

Frankia,

Wonderful post. Everything you say makes tremendous sense. I concur completely!

Stan

I actually wouldn't mind the basic warbirds... if they'd just offer something else, too. From time to time.

 

Mix it up. Alternate deluxe plane releases with the basic ones, switching each month.

 

If they want to stick with the WWII theme, there's still plenty of other options. Throw in a PBY... those were based in Hawaii, both at Ford Island and over at Kaneohe. How about a B-25? They've even got one on-hand in the same museum where they're getting info on the fighters. Anything other than yet another cockpitless fighter, again and again and again.

 

But most importantly, every once in a while, offer a new plane that actually has a cockpit. It should not have caught them totally by surprise that people expect planes to have a cockpit. At least offer some with them.

They want people to be starved for the next DLC to hit the market, and the last thing they want is folks on the message board saying "I'll skip the p-40 because the deluxe 172 w/tundra tires is better".

 

The fact is that if you don't like an up coming scenery DLC, you will be stuck with exploring the same region of Flight for a year!!!!~

 

I don't get excited by war birds. I am not gonna buy them regardless of how long they keep me "starved". I also love flying over cities, landmarks and populated areas that have recognizable features, so Alaska would not do it for me. I love GA and like planes such as 172, Archer and Cirrus. But being into GA is not the same as being a bush pilot. So from what I have seen so far I am not gonna buy Alaska even if there are no other sceneries to buy. Am I supposed to explore Hawaii for another year? Would any of you folks including loyal Flight optimists accept "playing" with Flight Hawaian advanture for another year?

 

Perhaps I am clouded with my own needs. I also do not want to inflame or offend anyone. However I want to ask those of you who are so optimistic about Flight the following question: How they can keep the interest going this way? How could this road map work?

 

P.S. The reason MS's communication has been a disaster is that they don't have a clear strategy and can not tell you about their intentions. They simply don't know. Based on what I read MS decided to change direction just few months before release!! My understanding is that the decision to not include enthusiasts as their target came very late in the development. How can one develop a product that has no initial vision and wavers and is so timid? I don't care how many MBA's are they running Flight, all I see is a plane that doesn't seem to be in control.

However I want to ask those of you who are so optimistic about Flight the following question: How they can keep the interest going this way? How could this road map work?

 

I think they can make it work, by giving something to both segments of the market, ie more casual gamer and the more serious simmer.

I believe that is the foundation they have laid for going forward, and I fully expect we will see more of what we want as time goes by. It will never be a full blown FS11, but I do have the faith it will have more of what simmers want to see in the months ahead.