It tells us  nothing about growth. only year-on-year comparisons could do that.

 

It does show that the average age is about 43 years.

I did not mean growth as in more numbers but as in young people joining and growing into the community. It is encouraging that at least some people below 30 are still interested in simming.

 

Sascha

This is an extremely (extremely) picky community, with arguments about what constitutes a "true" sim that rival medieval discussions regarding how many angels can dance on the end of a pin.

Would that be the head end or the pointy end? IIRC, said medieval scholars focused on the head of the pin exclusively.

 

I submit that the same number of angels could dance on either end... :He He:

Would that be the head end or the pointy end? IIRC, said medieval scholars focused on the head of the pin exclusively.

 

I submit that the same number of angels could dance on either end... :He He:

Ten minutes or so ago, I bumped into a thread (now on being watched by the mods status) that is having quite a spirited debate on whether FSX/P3D are games or not.

 

One cannot help but smile........

 

Also, its been empirically proven that angels avoid the pointy end.

did not mean growth as in more numbers but as in young people joining and growing into the community. It is encouraging that at least some people below 30 are still interested in simming.

 

But it would be discouraging if the numbers of young people  this year were less than the numbers last year.

 

EDITED: Re-checking figures

So any news yet about who the new CEO will be?  I hear one of the two remaining candidates is (properly) eager to sell off the whole Xbox fiasco...... as good as it might look to its customers, it's been a complete fiscal disaster for MS, they'd have done better investing in vaccines in Africa for sick children (both in terms of accomplishment and even profit).

the Electronic Games Association (ESA) publishes Essential Facts about the Computer and Video Games Industry annually. It reports on sales of video games and computer games separately. It obviously only reports on USA sales.

It gives the total sales in dollars together with units sold. It also breaksdown the sales of computer games by genre as a percentage of the total. From 2006 it includes the genre Flight, covering flight-based games from all sources. I assume this genre is dominated by FSX and Flight.


I've tabulated the figures from 2006 to 2012 (the last year available)

Year    PC    Flight Game Sales

       Game
      Sales   %     Total
2006 39.7M   2.5%   993k
2007 36.4M   2.2%   801k
2008 29.2M   1.8%   526k
2009 23.5M   1.8%   423k
2010 24.6M   1.5%   369k
2011 16.5M   0.6%    99k

2012 13.2M  0.7%     92k


These make rather sad reading.

 

Over the period the number of PC games has fallen to 33% but the number of Flight PC games have fallen to 9% of their 2006 sales - three times greater decline. Also, Flight sales as a percentage of PC games have fallen to about 28% showing a larger  decline than other genres

If anyone wants to disagree with this it would be helpful to offer some alternative evidence, not just opinion.

ESA has some 37 members including Disney, Electronic Arts, Microsoft, Nintendo, Sega, Sony, and Warner brothers.

NOTE: Reposted after re-checking

 

 

Also, Flight sales as a percentage of PC games have fallen to about 28% showing a larger decline than other genres

 

Sad indeed ... Well I just joined Buffalo Virtual Airliner, I'm off to enjoy it as long as it's still around ...

 

Sscha

the Electronic Games Association (ESA) publishes Essential Facts about the Computer and Video Games Industry annually. It reports on sales of video games and computer games separately. It obviously only reports on USA sales.

 

It gives the total sales in dollars together with units sold. It also breaksdown the sales of computer games by genre as a percentage of the total. From 2006 it includes the genre Flight, covering flight-based games from all sources. I assume this genre is dominated by FSX and Flight.

 

 

I've tabulated the figures from 2006 to 2012 (the last year available)

 

Year    PC    Flight Game Sales

       Game

      Sales   %     Total

2006 39.7M   2.5%   993k

2007 36.4M   2.2%   801k

2008 29.2M   1.8%   526k

2009 23.5M   1.8%   423k

2010 24.6M   1.5%   369k

2011 16.5M   0.6%    99k

2012 13.2M  0.7%     92k

 

 

These make rather sad reading.

 

Over the period the number of PC games has fallen to 33% but the number of Flight PC games have fallen to 9% of their 2006 sales - three times greater decline. Also, Flight sales as a percentage of PC games have fallen to about 28% showing a larger  decline than other genres

 

If anyone wants to disagree with this it would be helpful to offer some alternative evidence, not just opinion.

 

ESA has some 37 members including Disney, Electronic Arts, Microsoft, Nintendo, Sega, Sony, and Warner brothers.

 

NOTE: Reposted after re-checking

 

The sales data comes from the NPD retail tracking company, which I think doesn't count digital downloads, where a lot of PC revenue has moved. That said, given that there have been fewer and fewer new flight game releases it's not that strange their sales would have declined. If in 2002 there were 90 new FPS titles and 10 new sim titles (numbers completely made up of course), and in 2013 there were 90 FPS titles and 1 new sim title the percentage of sim sales would go down, unless the number of simmers increased sufficiently to compensate for people no longer buying more than 1 new sim a year.

The sales data comes from the NPD retail tracking company, which I think doesn't count digital downloads,

That's is the case. However, I believe most FSX purchases were boxed sets so its sales would have be included. Adding other digital downloads would increase sales of other games without increasing those of FSX proportionately. That would make the figures even sadder.

That's is the case. However, I believe most FSX purchases were boxed sets so its sales would have be included. Adding other digital downloads would increase sales of other games without increasing those of FSX proportionately. That would make the figures even sadder.

Which brings me back to what I said before. The hobby has become so technical that there is no longer a real point of entry for rank beginners with a casual interest that might be encouraged to grow.

 

Xplane (for instance) is the culmination of that systems first type of thinking. It might be great technically, but there is pretty much nothing there but confusion for a newbie. Its just not a friendly sim. Period. All these years later the progression for a beginner still begins with FSX, which was deliberately designed to cater to a wide range of tastes and play-styles.

 

And then there is Mr Howard and FLIGHT. (Talk about between a rock and a hard place)

 

Given the available information, it becomes even clearer why Microsoft went with a simpler approach to attempt to create a broader audience. The current audience wanted all the sophistication they are use too however, and savaged the greatest potential catalyst for the growth of the hobby and bringing new people in that had come along in years. As Steve (Air1) said earlier, way to shoot ourselves in the foot.

 

I think somebody at Microsoft took a good look at the situation and made a limited approach to revive the hobby. I said before I was astonished they even tried. And in the end that attempt was mauled by the very people who might have eventually benefited the most in the end, if a little patience had been shown. On all sides.

Given the available information, it becomes even clearer why Microsoft went with a simpler approach to attempt to create a broader audience. The current audience wanted all the sophistication they are use too however, and savaged the greatest potential catalyst for the growth of the hobby and bringing new people in that had come along in years. As Steve (Air1) said earlier, way to shoot ourselves in the foot.

 

It's not fault of FS community that Flight didn't succeed, it simply didn't meet its target audience. Most gamers just aren't going to spend money on civilian flight sim no matter how easily approachable you make it and that's why Flight failed, not because of majority of FS community wanting spend money on clearly inferior product. 

 

I believe most of those who are really interested in flight sim type of games have the patience to actually spend some time overcoming the learning curve.

It's not fault of FS community that Flight didn't succeed, it simply didn't meet its target audience. Most gamers just aren't going to spend money on civilian flight sim no matter how easily approachable you make it and that's why Flight failed, not because of majority of FS community wanting spend money on clearly inferior product. 

Maybe not the ultimate fault, but it certainly didn't help. I don't know if you played or not but the venom was awful. To the point that FSX users were coming in game apparently specifically to harangue players for using FLIGHT and telling them to go try a "real" sim IE FSX.

 

Mr Howard Mentioned death threats, a comment that caused surprisingly little soul-searching.

 

It got so bad that eventually players learned to recognize such people and began insta-booting them from the session. At the same time, any articles and any videos that showed up on the web were getting the same heckling by people making frequent references to FSX.

 

It was like being a hunted animal.

 

Its not likely that this is what killed flight, but it certainly didn't help things. Its a fact that only now, after its been deemed safely dead that people can post videos without getting them swamped by bitterness.

 

I've often thought that if I was Microsoft, I would have pulled the plug as well in the face of such virulent opposition; especially as it was never going to be a huge moneymaker on the GTAV scale and was nearly a charity project in the first place.

 

As for gamers not paying for a civilian sim, you can puncture that comfortable community myth right there by the steam sales figures of Aerofly and the sales figures of the tablet versions of civilian sims.... Like Xplane.

 

The sales figures that are funding further development of the tech-version.

 

I submit that its not necessarily civilian sims that don't sell. Its the heavily technical type of sims currently favored by enthusiasts that don't sell.

It's not fault of FS community that Flight didn't succeed, it simply didn't meet its target audience.

That is the case, but the target audience was much greater than solely the FS community.

 

I believe most of those who are really interested in flight sim type of games have the patience to actually spend some time overcoming the learning curve.

But surely the fact is that they represent too small an small audience to be commercially attractive.

I submit that its not necessarily civilian sims that don't sell. Its the heavily technical type of sims currently favored by enthusiasts that don't sell.

 

Well I don't think current sims are necessarily any more technical than they were 10 years ago, after all nobody forces you to use complex payware stuff & if you don't use complex scenery addons not much tweaking is required either. 

 

I think X plane with some more user friendly UI would fit newcomers just as well as the FS series has always done...

 

If you ask me the best way to get some newcomers would be starting to sell X plane through steam and then put it on huge sale. That would make a lot of people somewhat interested in flying to buy it just because of the sale, eventually some of them would most likely keep using it and maybe start buying some addons too. That's what one train simulator platform did in Steam a year or two ago, it was put on huge sale and you could get it for less than 5 euros or so. I believe some of the people who bought it just because of the price eventually found train simming interesting and bought DLC for it. 

 

But surely the fact is that they represent too small an small audience to be commercially attractive. 

 

 

That depends from what you count as commercially attractive. Laminar Research clearly finds the target audience to be big enough to justify the development costs of their simulator. Sure if you expect same kind of profits that modern FPS shooters and other mainstream gamers provide then it's not commercially attractive.

 

In the end FS isn't the only niche genre out there. 

 

 

That depends from what you count as commercially attractive. Laminar Research clearly finds the target audience to be big enough to justify the development costs of their simulator. Sure if you expect same kind of profits that modern FPS shooters and other mainstream gamers provide then it's not commercially attractive.

 

But those are the profits major games developers do expect.