FSX-SE DoveTail Games Buys Licensing Deal with Microsoft

[xplanery 250]

Or a broad audience/large market..........

 

Never going to happen with any civilian flying game, no matter what you do, at least if  with "broad audience/large market" you mean anything like the numbers sold by popular FPS shooters. 

 

Trainsim doesn't have any shooting in it. Doesn't stop DTG from making money out of it. In fact the same goes for all the various popular simulation games available (truck, bus, farming, fishing, etc)

 

 

Yeah, it's entirely possible to make money out of a proper simulator. But to me it seems like some people think turning FS into some kind of an arcade game would make it sell like Skyrim or Battlefield 3. That's not going to happen. 

 

 

 

Yet DTG proved that they could make a similarly (potentially) boring simulator type product profitable. Look at many of the comments in this thread, and the attitudes expressed towards anything that would attract a broad base of users: said users apparently being not much brighter than chimps.

 

 

 

Well who says Prepar3d / FSX / X Plane 10 aren't profitable? I'm pretty sure all of them have made plenty of profit already, why fix it if it ain't broke? 

 

What did DTG do to attract broad base of users? I can think of only these two: 

 

1. Steam. I'm pretty sure Steam availability gives a huge player boost to pretty much any game. 

 

2. Huge sales. I can remember the base sim being given away half free, like -90%. Probably small minority of the people who bought it just because of its ridiculously low price actually found it interesting and kept using it & bought DLC later. 

 

I don't think the game itself is any easier or more accessible to new users than MS train sim, DTG has simply succeeded with their marketing strategy. 

 

 

All FS needs is more tutorials & Steam DLC model to attract more people. Any actual "dumping down" simply to make it easier for beginners wouldn't make sense, FSX with system & flight dynamics of GTA V would get boring very quickly.  

[HiFlyer 9,358]

Never going to happen with any civilian flying game, no matter what you do. 

 

And that's the comfortable myth. I wonder what people will say if DTG succeeds?

 

I'm sure the reverse reasoning at that point will be fascinating.

 

Or perhaps they will fail. Certainly that seems to be the belief.

 

I'm perfectly willing to wait and see.

 

I have some hopes for the social possibilities of the FLIGHT engine, as well as missions. (Last time I mentioned missions, somebody immediately said sounds like a game, to them) 

 

Sounds like the possibility of gentle flight training and some structure, to me.

 

Whats the harm in trying?

 

FSX XPX and P3D will still be there, right?

[Kattz 132]

MY opinion. WHO CARES. I will keep doing as I have done for 20yrs. Nothing changes because you can buy a sim as a DLC. 500 threads of personal opinions. Typical FS world.

+1000.  I got worked up the first 12 hours and then thought, "So what?"  Completely agree.

[Paraffin 2,197]

ATC, AI commercial traffic.  Yep missing features that are vital for immersion.  So yeah it's not a priority for him I know, and that will continue to hurt his sales IMHO.

 

FWIW, those missing features (or more accurately, stuff in there now that doesn't work) have been acknowledged in the dev blogs, and they say they're in the pipeline for improvement. We just don't know when they'll get around to it.

 

That's why the DTG news is a disappointment for me. It would help the entire sim market if an aggressive third party would bring a new product to the table, and light some fires under the current developers. Whatever DTG is planning, I don't think it will be a direct competitor to P3D and XPX, so no help there.

[Kattz 132]

 

 

If it comes down that our keys are thrown out, then I'm off to the other two options

 

 

Unless Microsoft decide to shut down the activation servers, they cannot do anything to us.

 

If that happens, there will be solutions to that issue made freely available  This is a large, intelligent community, even with us scrubs in it...

[frankielera 5]

For me, most people when looking for any software with the word "SIMULATOR" on its title, is because they have a legit interest in it and expect some form of realism....... NOT a c172 fully loaded with missiles. This hobby is for anybody who likes aviation not just for the so called "hardcore simmers" who think beginners only want to "play a game". I remember the first MSFS version i ever got     ( FS2002) and all i did was press F4 and the arrow keys hoping to spot a runway so i can land..... din't care about flight planning, gps or even instruments .....and i thought It was" as real as it gets." Now, was i bad for the hobby? I don't think so, today i own lots of ad dons and have both fsx and fs9 installed on my system. We should welcome those newcomers even if they do so because of this new deal with DTG. I don't see what's so catastrophic about it. Be glad with what you have and remember you probably din't get into this hobby already knowing how to program the T7 fmc.   

[HiFlyer 9,358]

Yeah, it's entirely possible to make money out of a proper simulator. But to me it seems like some people think turning FS into some kind of an arcade game would make it sell like Skyrim or Battlefield 3. That's not going to happen. 

 

 

I wonder who those people are? certainly isn't me.

 

Well who says Prepar3d / FSX / X Plane 10 aren't profitable? I'm pretty sure all of them have made plenty of profit already, why fix it if it ain't broke? 

 

Profitable at what scale? Or to put it another way, if its so profitable, how come nobody else has entered the fray in the last few years? Why have none of the rumors panned out? Why did even Aerosoft back away? Where is the flood of opportunistic profit hunters? Profit and bare survival (for most) is not the same. And even the bare survival is possible (in many cases) only because the players are too minuscule for manufacturers to bother pressing them for royalties.

 

I doubt DTG will be able to ignore that so easily. Which means they are going to need some serious profit.

 

2. Huge sales. I can remember the base sim being given away half free, like -90%. Probably small minority of the people who bought it just because of its ridiculously low price actually found it interesting and kept using it & bought DLC later. 

 

Not a unique model, but it works best in a walled, or at least semi-enclosed garden, which current sims are anything but. Even XPX has eschewed an in-game store which means continued profit can only come from new versions instead of leveraging DLC, which means no free giveaways of the base sim to broaden acceptance. In other words, some things are indeed broke, but we are so accustomed to the status quo and the way things have always been done that we would rather choke than fix it.

 

All FS needs is more tutorials & Steam DLC model to attract more people. Any actual "dumping down" simply to make it easier for beginners wouldn't make sense, FSX with system & flight dynamics of GTA V would get boring very quickly.  

 

 

There is such a thing as a middle ground. to date, we have proven allergic to it

[LHookins 3,103]

Excellent stuff, Devon.  Please keep it up.

 

If you should ever start your own community of like-minded simmers, please consider this my request to be included.

 

Hook

[Kattz 132]

 

 

NOT a c172 fully loaded with missiles.

 

I'm game... wonder what kinda fps I'd get...

[xplanery 250]

Or to put it another way, if its so profitable, how come nobody else has entered the fray in the last few years?

 

Because the market just isn't that big. I can't see all that many different companies in train / truck / ship simulation markets either, this isn't like FPS market where multiple big companies can release new programs every year and makes tons of money with them (like COD & BF). 

That doesn't mean a company or two couldn't make some profit here. 

 

 

 

There is such a thing as a middle ground. to date, we have proven allergic to it

 

Some military flying sims out there offer an arcade mode with easier physics, less system operation etc, I don't see why that couldn't be implemented on a civilian FS too. There's no middle ground that would fit everybody, that's why there should be multiple options that would allow people to choose what features they want to use. 

That's where Flight failed, it chose a middle ground that didn't fully appeal to any group.  

[HiFlyer 9,358]

Some military flying sims out there offer an arcade mode with easier physics, less system operation etc, I don't see why that couldn't be implemented on a civilian FS too. There's no middle ground that would fit everybody, that's why there should be multiple options that would allow people to choose what features they want to use. 

That's where Flight failed, it chose a middle ground that didn't fully appeal to any group.  

 

 

Which is why I don't quite see all the hate for DTG. If you play TS 2014, you would see that it try's as much as it is able to cater to many different types of user. You can use a joy-pad, or the mouse or even something as fancy as a dedicated "Raildriver" controller. You can use simple or complex controls, missions range from beginner to very hard, to make your own.......

 

They work with third parties, and you can buy DLC from other vendors. The community is large and diverse, free stuff is everywhere.... http://www.uktrainsim.com/

 

Yet from here you would think they were flying around in the Death-star; destroying planets.

 

Yep: They look like the devil to me!

 

Come on people! Give them a chance! Kill them later.

 

[gandy 18]

Hiflyer to me it just seems that some people want flight simming to fail based on some of the posts in this thread.

 

I think it's great someone is trying to put new life in to the old sim and I'm happy for them if they make some money along the way good on them.

[ChaoticBeauty 6,692]

There is such a thing as a middle ground. to date, we have proven allergic to it

 

I think FSX is the perfect middle ground actually. You can fly anything from an Ultralight to a 747-400, you can fly missions that ranged from flour bombing to emergency procedures (I really love those), and in Free Flight you can either fly a plane and enjoy the scenery without having to care for an aircraft's operations, or fly hour-long IFR flights with complex weather. And you can do all that in default FSX.

[HiFlyer 9,358]

I think FSX is the perfect middle ground actually. You can fly anything from an Ultralight to a 747-400, you can fly missions that ranged from flour bombing to emergency procedures (I really love those), and in Free Flight you can either fly a plane and enjoy the scenery without having to care for an aircraft's operations, or fly hour-long IFR flights with complex weather. And you can do all that in default FSX.

 

Actually FSX was probably the last middle ground flight simulator. The problem is that it is now utterly dated, and the cost of bringing it up to something akin to modern standards makes DTG DLC look damn competitive. Worse, many of the things that make FSX friendly are disdained by the current community. The simple planes, tutorials and missions......

 

XPX is much closer to the current mood, which is to say little-to-no user friendliness, industrial interface, complexity coming out the ears.....

 

Heck it starts you out in Jet, staring in horror at a wall-o-controls Tm      

 

Its a simmers sim, which is to say, pretty much a newcomers nightmare.

 

P3D, with much of FSX's accessibility and friendliness removed, seems not that far behind.

[tttocs 301]

That nearly unconscious attitude has not appeared to change much (if at all) since then, and is still every bit as annoying. Handing it back can also annoy/offend/frustrate some people...... which is exactly the point.

 

It's an enthusiast's community, Devon.  It's going to act that way, and react to changes from that point of view.  Expecting otherwise (and labeling it as "elitist" as a consequence) is silly, unfair and worst of all only serves to reinforce polarization.  That was my point.

 

 

 

True! But after a few years of having anyone that doesn't enjoy taking a half hour to start up a plane be pretty much dismissed as just above orangutans. I can't truthfully say I'm sorry either. It would be a lie.

 

Sure some people react that way, but most don't.  Ignore those who do and move on, for heaven's sake.  You're cherry picking attitudes here to reinforce your argument.  "Serious simmers" come in a lot of different flavors.  Many of us (holds up hand) don't even fly the big tubes.  Also recognize that some get just as annoyed at this kind of dismissive characterization of what constitutes being a serious simmer (or whatever you chose to call it).

 

 

 

Where is the entry point? Where is the simple gateway that allows one with little knowledge to smoothly progress up the ladder? The community myth is that no such gateway is needed because the "kiddies" (more condescension) just wanna crash and blow up stuff; only the faithful need be accommodated. Efforts like FLIGHT are doomed to failure because supposedly we are the only valid market; no other, except shooters exists, and "They" will get bored if they can't blow stuff up and crash things... as if many of us didn't start out doing the exact same things with Janes and all of those other "blow stuff up" simulators that started it all.........

 

The entry point hasn't changed ONE BIT since 2006, other than actually getting easier due to more capable hardware at reasonable prices.  You don't have to make it complex unless you want to.  Yes, if you want to sim at the enthusiast's level it takes effort.  But if you want to have fun buzzing around with just keyboard and mouse and play some missions, things work just fine.  The missing entry point isn't due to US, or the complexity or SIDS and STARS or any other artificial barriers you're trying to construct.  You could spend years flying in FSX and still not know or care what things like SIDs and STARs are if you like, as you DON'T HAVE to know anything about any of this if you don't want to.  The barrier is in fundamental appeal.  See my previous comments on changing attitudes, demographics in aviation as a whole and competing games that are more appealing to current gamers in terms of gameplay and visual appeal.  Note in the above - no condescending or judgmental remarks.  It is what it is.

 

As for the "kiddie" and other condescending remarks nonsense - ignore them.  They're not universal and don't reflect everyone's point of view.  Don't tar the whole community with that brush.  I'm not sure why you choose to focus on them when many of us DON'T feel this way.  Again, you're painting enthusiasts into one convenient box for you to tear down.  This is classic strawman stuff.

 

As for Flight, that argument has seen about every angle possible explored.  Suffice to say that THIS COMMUNITY is not the reason for Flight's failure.  C'mon - you can't have it both ways.  If we're not big enough to support a major product on our own (and we're not!), we're also not big enough to keep a mass-market product from succeeding.

 

 

 

And that's the comfortable myth. I wonder what people will say if DTG succeeds?

 

Not sure what point you're trying to make here.  DTG is already a successful company, and it's very possible that they'll also be successful with wherever they take their Flight Sim product.  That doesn't mean it's going to be something that this community is interested in.  Again note - that's not a judgmental comment, or one intended to show that we're superior humans.  It's a simple fact.  Many of us care deeply about things the general public doesn't even know exist.  That's part and parcel of being an enthusiast.  DTG may make a wildly popular game, but that doesn't mean they're going to take the franchise in a direction that interests the bulk of users here.

 

 

 

Or perhaps they will fail. Certainly that seems to be the belief.

 

No.  The concern (and again, no one knows at this point what will happen, so it's just a concern at this point based on what we know about this company) is that THIS MARKET, the enthusiasts' market, could be cut out from future products.  Is that really so hard for you to see?  Using the ever popular example of SIDs and STARs - today, YOU don't have to worry about SIDs and STARs if you don't want to, but I can use them because I DO want to, as instrument flight training is one of my biggest interests.  Win, win.  Tomorrow, you might get the more visually appealing sim you want, with some great gameplay features, but I might NOT be able to use my beloved SIDs and STARs <yes, it's sarcasm - sorry>, while having to wade through arcade features that I don't want.

 

Make sense?  I have no problem with arcade features in the game, so long as they're optional.  I have no problem with beginner and teaching modes, so long as real-world realistic flight remains a priority.  I have no problem with eye-candy, in fact I love eye-candy as it helps with immersion, but not at the expense of physics.  And so on.

 

Scott