Others? Possibly true, but I would love to know who.............

 

I can barely think of a project that would be worth it. (at least not in this market) Easier to come up with "parody" planes that were close, but unique, and avoid the whole scenario.

 

Bleah.

 

Don't forget, there's a great big world out there beond flight simulation.

Don't forget, there's a great big world out there beond flight simulation.

 

Which is why I said not in this market.

 

Money lost is still money lost, though. Smarter might be to ask for a percentage of profits, rather than huge up-front fees that many can't pay, else we end up with with the situation we have now: no money made by anyone because the potential returns might be too small to warrant the asking price in a particular market.

 

There are all sorts of tiered pricing schemes that would probably make more sense than what is being described to us in this thread.

It's all about the art of negotiation, and persuasion. It also helps if your a big company! Mmm that didn't seem to be the case with MS but then who knows.

It's those firms that are prepared to pay that set the price.

 

Also I suggest Boeing simply isn't interested in small firms, llike 3PDs, that may only bring a few hundred dollars a year.

I'm sure company's like Boeing have a certain degree of tunnel vision in this regard maybe. After all it's all free advertising albeit to a narrow audience. When I do real world flying (as a passenger I hasten to add) it's cool to fly in an airliner you have 'flown' in RL.

 

It does beg the question, is demanding license fees from such a narrow niche market really worth the effort to a mega company? If it is, then our hobby is bigger than we think. And what does it really add to the bottom line for those company's that demand huge fees?

 

Maybe I'm naive in thinking that the word of mouth advertising would enhance a brands image? That does all depend on how good the simulation is, and would a company want some say in the development process?

 

Not knowing enough about the size of the market I can only speculate.

A B787 sells for over $200M, Boeing has better things to do than deal with a tiny niche market that will earn it practically nothing.

 

I suggest that being in a game won't do anything for Boeing's brand image - how many more 787s would it sell? I suggest none - arlines don't base their purchasing decisions on what's available for FS.

I would note that War Thunder is already boasting of more than 150 WW2-Era fighters to be available just initially in game, with more to come. Also, after an apparent close look at the Flight Debacle, they are stressing that their planes will have cockpits.

 

If a relatively small company can pull this off, with this (see below) level of graphics, and was also apparently able to license the needed craft in huge numbers plus supply them with cockpits, then one has to wonder what the heck stopped Microsoft from making an effort that would have blown everyone else right out of the water. The only thing I can think of is that they just plain old did not care, which is outrageous after spending all the money undoubtedly necessary to get the sim up and running in the first place.

 

I can only dream of an alternate universe where Microsoft sells the rights to the flight technology (or its use) to somebody with a clue.

 

World of Tanks has 1000s of paying customers online at any given time and an active community. That cashflow easily funds a cheap game like that through high volumes of microtransactions. People are worryingly happy to pay to progress and win in those online games. And ** will be integrated in there.

 

In contrast, atm there are 4-500 players online in Flight on steam (that on average probably spent less than what hawaii cost in the sales). And even though the ** planes have a cockpit and working guns does not mean the game and planes are of better quality at all tbh. I've seen wot and it's very basic arcade stuff and I expect ** to be like that.

 

Also I'd be very surprised if the premium models outsold the basic planes in Flight. So consider the market versus the costs of modeling the premium planes rather than looking at the cost of licensing these 60yr old designs. As said previously, it's licensing the current planes by private company where I can see it getting expensive, esp. for ms.

 

edit: since when is w o p a dirty word? ** means world of warplanes to be clear

_{Thanks Devon, that looks really good. I am a World war Two military aviation buff and have many books in my collection on the subject. However I find it sad that small companys can produce these great detailed action games and there is no market for general aviation aircraft with cockpits for people that just want to fly? Death and destruction sells, no doubt about it.}

 

_Steve

World of Tanks has 1000s of paying customers online at any given time and an active community. That cashflow easily funds a cheap game like that through high volumes of microtransactions. People are worryingly happy to pay to progress and win in those online games. And ** will be integrated in there.

 

In contrast, atm there are 4-500 players online in Flight on steam (that on average probably spent less than what hawaii cost in the sales). And even though the ** planes have a cockpit and working guns does not mean the game and planes are of better quality at all tbh. I've seen wot and it's very basic arcade stuff and I expect ** to be like that.

 

Also I'd be very surprised if the premium models outsold the basic planes in Flight. So consider the market versus the costs of modeling the premium planes rather than looking at the cost of licensing these 60yr old designs. As said previously, it's licensing the current planes by private company where I can see it getting expensive, esp. for ms.

 

edit: since when is w o p a dirty word? ** means world of warplanes to be clear

 

Which is yet another point. The pricing expected for these things is all over the place. People who pay $35 for planes of varying quality in this market expressed displeasure at even $15 for a plane in flight, and the meme was that it was overpriced. Yet War Thunder charges through the nose compared to flight (One of the Beta packages starts at close to $80) and I have a sneaking suspicion this project will make money like bandits.

 

That money might even be enough to pay for or reimburse them for any license fees they had to recover.

 

Meanwhile we benefited from the relatively low prices for Flight and related DLC but in the end, I wonder if Microsoft miscalculated what the market would bear and did themselves a disservice in the process. Gaming sites that booed Flights prices are enthusiastic about War Thunder (poor Flight models or not, which is still unproven) and barely comment on its price model.

 

Microsoft charged us peanuts in comparison, but I wonder if that may have hurt them in recouping the heavy license fees War Thunder is apparently able to cope with. (And War Thunder also has the proven popularity of War-sims over Commercial Aviation to its advantage)

 

I wonder what would have happened if Flights WW2 Aircraft had working guns, and the ability to tear the scenery up a bit..........

_{Thanks Devon, that looks really good. I am a World war Two military aviation buff and have many books in my collection on the subject. However I find it sad that small companys can produce these great detailed action games and there is no market for general aviation aircraft with cockpits for people that just want to fly? Death and destruction sells, no doubt about it.}

 

_Steve

 

Well, not exactly... it's just that simply flying around is boring. No, really, hear me out. Put it in this perspective:

 

How many games involve simply driving a car around? No racing, no combat, no goals, nothing but simply driving?

 

How many games involve simply walking around? Again, no excitement, no structure, just walking.

 

The standard "flight sim" model of unstructured activity doesn't work for them, either. It's not just an inherent problem for flight sims, it's a general principle.

 

Most people want structured entertainment, and combat is one of the easiest structures to come up, from a development standpoint. If other entertaining or otherwise compelling structures are offered, they can be successful as well.

 

But that's riskier. Combat is a "safe" path to follow for developers, so there is a lot of it offered.

 

Only the passionate seek out the "boring" stuff.

 

Well yes, at the end of the day you are correct sir. And that is what Flight promised to deliver, structured, goal orientated entertainment but fell short. Now we are just making it up as we go with what we have left to work with. As you so ably put it. " Only the passionate seek out the boring stuff".

Well I always thought that we get just as bored with it as anyone; its just that we distract ourselves from it (in other sims) by purchasing plane after plane and scenery after scenery to "feed the habit"

 

There are exceptions of course, but I think its a good general observation, and that even Train Sims follow that pattern.

Mmm I have to agree, we re-light our enthusiasm by getting new stuff and by the eternal flame of increasing FPS in other sims by constant tweaking. After all, tweaking and buying stuff go hand in hand. This is no different to say, Golf where you buy stuff and tweak your swing. I'm not a golfer by the way although I've tried it, I lose too many balls!

 

I guess I've just resigned my self to the fact I'm a child and I like to play

 

what would have happened if Flights WW2 Aircraft had working guns

Reading X-Planes manual (an impressively professional document) I note it has limited MP combat.

'Shot-down' planes lose the engine and glide down, presumably to respawn.

I could see that working well in Flight, broadening its appeal and making sense of the cockpitless warbirds whilst avoiding the AirQuake syndrome.

Cheers

Keith