Flight post mortem.

[RoboRay 126]

There's a difference between "commercially viable" and "will pull in enough money to even register on Microsoft's balance sheet."

 

Not that I think Flight was commercially viable as-is. It could have been, if different management and marketing decisions had been made. As in, office politics.

 

But neither Flight-as-it-could-have-been nor FS11 would ever be noticed on Microsoft's balance sheet unless you went looking for it. That doesn't mean they are not viable money-makers... just not enough money for MS to really care about, in the grand scheme of things.

[n4gix 4,947]

Nothing at all to do with the possiblity that neither were commercially viable?

Since MS never has and never will release any financial details on specific products, we cannot make any type of informed analysis. So no, I won't seriously entertain that as a proximate causal factor.

 

Having visited and interacted with people working at the MS campus many times, and having seen first hand the poisonous effects of political in-fighting, I'm much more inclined to accept this as prima-facie evidence.

 

Kevin's own experience was even more "first hand" than my own having seen what happened to Flight from a front row seat as it were, and its sudden ninety-degree left bank in direction and focus coincident with a change in upper management does point more to "politics" than "profitability," especially since this change in direction occurred long before Flight was released.

 

Had Flight not been morphed out of recognition because of this change in direction would the ultimate outcome have been different? Who knows? However given that the original goals were more "FSX+ like" than "Mario Kart like" I suspect not...

[basic ils 0]

Just my opinion, but the problem started with the market research. What was the number JH was throwing around? 20-30 million users? If the average user spent just $5 a year on DLC, what a windfall for MS. A 35 member team bringing in $100-$150 million a year in revenue. I could see why the project got green-lighted. When it became apparent those numbers were unrealistic, they decided to cut their losses. MS has ~135,000 employees. Throwing 35 of them at a relatively low budget project with the potential for huge profit margins is a no brainer. MS spends about $7 billion a year in R&D. Again, Flight was insignificant money wise.

[Gibbage 199]

Good observation basic ils, but JH was not always the lead of Flight. He stepped in late in the game and took over for Pat Cook, who was a vet from the MSFS days. I think under Pat Cooks leadership, Flight would of worked out. I have worked with Pat on two projects, and I would happily match into the depths hell behind him. Thats the sort of leader he is.

 

Unfortunately, things happened, and the leadership changed for whatever reason. I agree with you that Joshua Howard may of promised the moon. Reading his many interviews, he fed right into the "market research" pitfall that many "by the book" managers do. Pat was not like that and had realistic expectation. I hope one day I get to work with Pat again on whatever it may be.

[LHookins 3,103]

A 35 member team

 

First of all, the Flight team was 50 people. The 35 you mention were on another project in another city.

 

I agree with Bill, that this was more office politics than financial performance. For all we know, Flight could have been quite successful and still gotten killed. Those who haven't experienced such office politics have no idea how bad it can get.

 

Yes, a company WILL kill a project that's bringing in a projected $100 million per year if other conditions aren't favorable. Some of these conditions include a perception by top management that the product is tarnishing their reputation (thanks to all the very vocal detractors in every part of the Internet), especially if they're about to release another product (Windows 8) that is important and might be hurt by the reputation loss; the inability of the project leader to play the office politics properly; or a simple hatred of the project by a single top-level manager (like the CFO of IBM getting OS/2 killed).

 

If you can read Dilbert and still find it funny, you haven't lived through it. I used to love Dilbert but had to stop reading it when I was working at one company because it was too true, and too painful.

 

Hook

[DarkstarF16 72]

Knowing the egos that exist in large company's because they thrive on deceit and power I'm far more inclined to believe that internal politics have overtaken what every company should strive for, which is to acknowledge that they employ great people which give customers what they want.

 

[basic ils 0]

First of all, the Flight team was 50 people. The 35 you mention were on another project in another city.

 

 

Sorry, 50 is correct. Still insignificant. Also, wasn't there a rumor or maybe even confirmation that Flight would be included in Windows 8? That might have skewed the 20-30 million user number. I could see where someone with a bug up their butt would decide to not include Flight with Windows 8 thus killing the whole DLC model and killing Flight with it.

[RoboRay 126]

I had speculated here at AVSIM on Flight being one of the free games included in Windows 8 tablets a while back, as the VC touchscreen action and accelerometer yoke control would be a great demo of what the device could do. I never saw anything else written about it, though... I just had a passing thought one day.

[dmaher 0]

I don’t agree that it was politics, or at least that's such a vague term it’s sort of hollow. If you mean opposing visions, assumptions, and interpretations in the chain of command…then I can start to agree. But ultimately this is about revenue.

 

I think there may have been a mistaken assumption along the road that Flight (or FSX-style) DLC was profitable. Profitable enough to make this business run...at least in the short-term. IMO they needed to offload this cost onto 3PD’s, and my guess is they knew that very well. But the situation didn't allow that to happen. Flight did a lot of things right, but I think ultimately didn’t have a realistic picture of their 'new' audience. Still from outside it's very hard to tell.

 

I hadn't heard the rumor that Flight might be in Windows 8. It goes to show...that's the kind of inside info that makes such a huge difference in understanding the strategy behind Flight.

[MommaB 0]

First of all, the Flight team was 50 people. The 35 you mention were on another project in another city.

 

I agree with Bill, that this was more office politics than financial performance. For all we know, Flight could have been quite successful and still gotten killed. Those who haven't experienced such office politics have no idea how bad it can get.

 

Yes, a company WILL kill a project that's bringing in a projected $100 million per year if other conditions aren't favorable. Some of these conditions include a perception by top management that the product is tarnishing their reputation (thanks to all the very vocal detractors in every part of the Internet), especially if they're about to release another product (Windows 8) that is important and might be hurt by the reputation loss; the inability of the project leader to play the office politics properly; or a simple hatred of the project by a single top-level manager (like the CFO of IBM getting OS/2 killed).

 

If you can read Dilbert and still find it funny, you haven't lived through it. I used to love Dilbert but had to stop reading it when I was working at one company because it was too true, and too painful.

 

Hook

Killing a $100M project would put a significant dent in anyone's christmas bonus and I don't see that happening anytime soon. Likewise, a couple of hundred angry simmers (who, on the whole, aren't too positive about MS products to begin with - believe it or not :P) isn't what you would call a PR nightmare if you offset it with the 600.000.000 w7 licenses sold. If this thing was making enough money it'd still be here for sure. Thing is these game studios are beginning to stand out like a sore thumb to MS, it cost them a lot of money over time and there's no big project like the xbox to fit in and justify it. So it seems smarter to cut and streamline which definitely makes sense from a business point of view.

 

 

I had speculated here at AVSIM on Flight being one of the free games included in Windows 8 tablets a while back, as the VC touchscreen action and accelerometer yoke control would be a great demo of what the device could do. I never saw anything else written about it, though... I just had a passing thought one day.

That's actually a really nice idea, I like that synergy but I think the small pc's that seem to be hip aren't up to that task just yet...

[mgh 89]

Since MS never has and never will release any financial details on specific products, we cannot make any type of informed analysis. So no, I won't seriously entertain that as a proximate causal factor.

 

 

But Microsoft hasn't released any minutes of its internal meetings and discussions so I won't seriously entertain politics as a proximate causual factor.

 

Yes, a company WILL kill a project that's bringing in a projected $100 million per year if other conditions aren't favorable.

 

Have you an example? Anyway surely a project'seither actually bringing in $100M/year or it's projected to do so? - Those are totaqlly different cases,

 

I've been a member of a team working on a projects that have been cancelled and also a member of a team that's decided to cancel projects. Members of the team working on projects that have been cancelled tend to have duifficultly in accepting the decision and rationalise it away as "politics" rather than face the reality - which usually is that it's not commercially viable. Either the return is to low or the risks are to high.

[LHookins 3,103]

Have you an example? Anyway surely a project'seither actually bringing in $100M/year or it's projected to do so?

 

I pretty much did. I don't know exactly how much IBM was making from OS/2, but it wasn't insignificant.

 

Of course, a healthy company would never do such a thing, but Microsoft exhibits many symptoms of Sick Company Syndrome.

 

But Microsoft hasn't released any minutes of its internal meetings and discussions so I won't seriously entertain politics as a proximate causual factor.

 

The politics will never ever make it into minutes of a meeting.

 

Hook, I don’t agree that it was politics, or at least that's such a vague term it’s sort of hollow. If you mean opposing visions, assumptions, and interpretations in the chain of command…then I can start to agree. But ultimately this is about revenue.

 

Any time a company has official policies in place that have the effect of encouraging employees and managers to openly sabotage the efforts of other employees and managers, while it might sound vague to an outsider or someone who has never experienced such things, it's very real and very destructive. "But no one in their right mind would ever do such a thing, right?" Unfortunately, it's some basic management principles that sound like a good idea that have gone seriously wrong.

 

If you've never experienced this yourself, you'll never believe it can happen.

 

Hook

[mgh 89]

The politics will never ever make it into minutes of a meeting.

 

But the minutes will reflect the decisions as influenced by the politics.

 

There is a significant amount of denial in these threads. Some posters wish to believe that Microsoft canclled FS11/Next and Flight because of "politics" rather than because they were no longer commercially viable.

 

Ask yourself the question "What did FSX add to FS9 that would appeal to a wider market than "hardcore" enthusiast? Also ask the same question in relation to FS11 and FSX. I suggest the answer is very little, which more than justifies Microsoft's decision to abandon FS11. The "hardcore" market has become too small to support such further development.

 

Microsoft thought it could reach the wider market with Flight. I always doubted that as events have sadly confirmed.

 

Flight games now have a very limited appeal when compared with the range of other games that are currently available, Times have changed dramatically since the original Flight Simulator was launched but its principles haven't changed - they are still take-off/fly/land. As a result, its appeal to the wider market has diminished. A newbie launching FSX begins by flying a microlight over a harbour. Assuming he has a controller, he can fly around a bit going nowhere.He then finds the 747 (an aircraft he's heard of) and decides to try that. First, he'll find himself having great difficulty getting airborne and, even if he does, will probably stall and crash. At that stage he's likely to ask "is this as good as it gets" and walk away.

 

Customers demands for fidelity and detail have grown dramatically. These significantly increase development costs and time. Combining this with a static, or even shrinking market, for a high fideltiy simulator then it hardly seems urpring that Microsoft decided it's no longer commercially viable.

[Gibbage 199]

Speculate all you want, but the real reason may never be 100% known. Same thing for the original closing of ACES. Like I said, my main theory is that it was mismanaged into the ground, and didnt make enough money for MS to care about.

[dmaher 0]

My work is in the industry too and I’ve had direct experience with at least six canceled games. These always came with a lot of anger and frustration and finger pointing…and even some relief ;) But it is the nature of the business, games are canceled with surprising regularity. There’s nothing particularly unique about what happen to Flight....except that we are fans.