Yeah and same has happened with many other simulator genres too, such as train simulation.

 

New simulators will keep coming, they will just be developed by smaller companies that are usually made by people very committed to what they are doing, often being ex hobbyists themselves. In my opinion this is only good thing. Of course people who actually made FSX and now later Flight were very committed to what they were simulating, but then there are all those marketing people with no interest towards the genre.

 

I am sure that MS could have made profit with new FS, but of course amount of profit compared to amount of work would probably be much smaller than with some wider market game such as RPG or FPS shooter.

Conjecture is nothing more than someone's opinion. In this case, there is no evidence whatsoever to support it. The information from HiFlyer is based on observed evidence. We know it exists.

 

Evidence without context is no better than conjecture.

 

Besides, we do have some very good evidence that Flight wasn't performing well as a product: Microsoft pulled the plug. I'd say that fact trumps anecdotal evidence any day of the week.

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).

Hook

 

This is quite true, and it does not even has to be a big company.

 

 

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

 

Somehow today's cartoon can apply to the company in question!

http://www.dilbert.c...mic/2012-07-30/

 

I had forgotten about him for quite some years.

 

 

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.

 

Mismanagement and misdirection, lack of leadership and short sight/memory of some executive(s).

 

This decision tarnishes Microsoft's Reputation, maybe just a bit, but still, It sets a precedent, and it ceirtanly is not good for public relations.

 

We will never know what were the REAL reasons.

Anecdotal evidence is really no better than "complete and total conjecture". You say, "Based on my experience, Flight was really popular with the younger crowd." Microsoft's closure of Flight says otherwise and is the fact we have to deal with. The most likely explanation is that the majority of customers who tried Flight didn't stick around long enough to bother with DLC.

 

Ignoring several obvious other points I will stick to just two

 

Anecdotal evidence is subject to objective testing. Others can be questioned; data can be collected, reliability of the claim can be statistically validated to some extent.

 

Conjecture can use objective evidence in its formation, but in essence needs only the the belief of the person making the statement. If doesn't require any evidence, and often stands only only because it is not directly disprovable at the time.

Anecdotal evidence is subject to objective testing. Others can be questioned; data can be collected, reliability of the claim can be statistically validated to some extent.

 

In theory, yes, but not in actual application in this case. All we have is your word that you talked with "dozens" of under-15 gamers -- and in the grand scheme of things, so what? How many of those "dozens" stuck around for more than an hour and actually spent money on DLC? You have no way of knowing, but then you extrapolate from that very slim evidence the very broad conclusion that Microsoft was successfully reaching its target market. Let's just put it very simply: reaching some members within your target market is not the same as reaching your target market. The fact -- not speculation, not conjecture, but fact -- that Microsoft closed the door on Flight is proof positive that they were not reaching their target market. Spin it however you want, but this basic truth is inarguable.

Anybody remembers this?

 

Q&A: Microsoft Flight boss on "rebooting franchise"

 

 

I guess the reboot failed.

Yeah and same has happened with many other simulator genres too, such as train simulation.

 

New simulators will keep coming, they will just be developed by smaller companies that are usually made by people very committed to what they are doing, often being ex hobbyists themselves. In my opinion this is only good thing. Of course people who actually made FSX and now later Flight were very committed to what they were simulating, but then there are all those marketing people with no interest towards the genre.

 

I am sure that MS could have made profit with new FS, but of course amount of profit compared to amount of work would probably be much smaller than with some wider market game such as RPG or FPS shooter.

 

FScamp I totally agree with that. And it might explain why Big Publishers are running away from the middle market. The indie types, 3PD’s included, are willing to run with no margin or even a loss; because there’s a greater purpose. Just as you say. This trend is pretty big…and cost a lot of choice jobs. The good news is quality indie games (using licensed engines often) are getting cheaper to build. But unfortunately indie stakes are much higher for employees and small investors. These devs can’t just walk away from an all-in project...like MS can. I suspect Big Publishers can't compete on the new razor margins...they need a healthy return for investors. So leave the middle be, and then buy any game that breaks through and finds an audience.

Sure do. And I sent that author an email explaining what was happening in the community and directed him to several different fs forums including this one. His reaction and I quote: "Yikes, sounds like a mess"

In theory, yes, but not in actual application in this case. All we have is your word that you talked with "dozens" of under-15 gamers -- and in the grand scheme of things, so what? How many of those "dozens" stuck around for more than an hour and actually spent money on DLC? You have no way of knowing, but then you extrapolate from that very slim evidence the very broad conclusion that Microsoft was successfully reaching its target market. Let's just put it very simply: reaching some members within your target market is not the same as reaching your target market. The fact -- not speculation, not conjecture, but fact -- that Microsoft closed the door on Flight is proof positive that they were not reaching their target market. Spin it however you want, but this basic truth is inarguable.

 

But my word can be corroborated by others if you so desire. no need to trust me at all. As for "extrapolating from that very slim evidence the very broad conclusion that Microsoft was successfully reaching its target market" I said nothing like that. The actual statement was "There is at least anecdotal evidence that flight was reaching a section of its target audience" and that was in answer to a implied statement that no little kids at all were playing. My very next paragraph was an offering of some possible supporting evidence of my counterclaim, something that you have failed to offer in any way.

 

​A least refute my actual statements rather than a reinterpretation. And added vehemence still does not make a supposition a fact. Microsoft closed the doors on flight. The "fact" is that the full reasons remain unknown, People can choose to believe anything they want, including that aliens did it, but that in no way constitutes "proof' of anything until corroborating data is released.

Seems like a lot of *experts* here who have never experienced sick company syndrome first hand. This isn't about disappointement over Flight being cancelled. At this point, it's not even about Flight.

 

I'm not going to bother reading your posts, including a bunch I just skipped.

 

Hook

But my word can be corroborated by others if you so desire. no need to trust me at all. as for "extrapolating from that very slim evidence the very broad conclusion that Microsoft was successfully reaching its target market" I said nothing like that. The actual statement was "There is at least anecdotal evidence that flight was reaching a section of its target audience" and the next paragraph was an offering of some possible supporting evidence, something that you have failed to offer in any way.

 

​ A least refute my actual statements rather than a reinterpretation. And added vehemence still does not make a supposition a fact. Microsoft closed the doors on flight. The fact is that the full reasons remain unknown, People can choose believe anything they want including that aliens did it, but that in no way constitutes "proof' of anything until corroborating data is released.

 

You're just not going to let this one go, are you? :lol:

You're just not going to let this one go, are you? :lol:

 

Just go back to the XPlane forum. Nothing more to see here.

 

Hook

Seems like a lot of *experts* here who have never experienced sick company syndrome first hand.

 

A number of people have commented on the fact that "office politics" is often as not just a way of excusing the closure of a pet project.

 

"My project was a success and poised to make the company millions, but office politics killed it!"

 

Hey, if it helps you sleep at night...

A number of people have commented on the fact that "office politics" is often as not just a way of excusing the closure of a pet project.

 

"My project was a success and poised to make the company millions, but office politics killed it!"

 

Hey, if it helps you sleep at night...

 

If a recent article I read about the situation at Microsoft has any validity, Office politics may actually be a project killer over there.

I said nothing like that. The actual statement was "There is at least anecdotal evidence that flight was reaching a section of its target audience"

 

Hello

But MS did not want a "section" of its target market, they wanted all 20 million of their imagined target market.

Once one of the grown ups still left at MS realised how absurd that proposition was, it was game over for Flight!.