I'm on my phone, but that's a very misleading way to interpret those numbers.

 

It assumes sales happen equally over time and they don't. FSX probably averaged 10x the sales in year one at release vs year 3.

 

So to look at a 3 year average and compare it to a 4 month, initial release period is silly.

 

You'd need equal 4 month intintial release numbers to make a real comparison.

 

It's much more likely that out of that 100 million made over three years, most of it was made in the first 6 months of release. And that would dwarf FLIGHT over the same period.

So to look at a 3 year average and compare it to a 4 month, initial release period is silly.

 

Not if 3 or 4 months is all you have.

 

You'd need equal 4 month initial release numbers to make a real comparison.

 

Simple, take the first year of FSX sales and the available months of Flights first year and do a rough estimate. Its not that complicated. Speaking of factors to take into account, remember that Flight was being given away for free, The Hawaii DLC was much less expensive than FSX was, and that the Alaskan DLC appeared only a short time before the plug was pulled. (heck, I purchased All scenery and dlc in a steam sale for $20) So now calculate how a program that much cheaper overall even approximates a much more expensive programs sales numbers.

 

It probably looks even better considering that by that using online sales, any profit from flight wasn't as eaten into by packaging and distribution costs. (among others)

 

So was Flight a financial success? Not hardly. But the myth that FSX tromped all over it is exaggerated for effect. I suspect the numbers you don't believe, are probably the whole reason Dovetail is in this in the first place. I'm assuming they believe there is something to work with, for a smaller company not looking for Microsoft sized Profit margins.

 

Especially if they can insert themselves firmly into the revenue stream normally inhabited only by 3rd parties in the FSX universe.

You seemed to of completely ignored the meat of my post.

 

Knowing what you know about game sales, do you think FSX was selling anywhere near in year 3 what it was in year 1? Of course not.

 

So to take "the numbers we have" and make a rough estimate by simply dividing by 3 is totally misleading.

 

Like I said. It's very likely FSX sold 10x in year 1 what it did in year three and most of its sales probably happened in the first six months. That'd be consistent with other games and their sales arcs.

 

How much of that 100 million happened in the first four months? 20 million? 30 million? It could be even up to 50% of total sales. Games always sell their bulk early on.

 

The other difference is FLIGHT required ongoing development to drive sales with DLC because it was free to play. Had the numbers made sense, it'd still be around or Dovetail would simply be repackaging it.

 

FSX SE has already sold 377k copies since it's release. And it's a nearly 10 year old game. Of course most of that was at $10-20 probably.

 

Assuming $40 a person, FLIGHT sold 250k copies (people buying DLC) in its 4 months.

 

mgh, on 27 Oct 2013 - 11:26 AM, said:

 

 

    Posted 27 October 2013 - 12:26 PM

    'Tom Allensworth', on 26 Oct 2013 - 7:16 PM, said:

    FACT 1: From late 2006 until the closure of ACES in early 2009, FSX brought in over $100 million dollars in revenue to MS.

    

    FACT 2: From the launch of FLIGHT until its closure some 3 or 4 months later in 2012, it brought in less than $10 million in revenue to MS.

    

    

    Based on those facts, FSX earned an average of $46M a year over that period. Flight was earning the equivalent of between $30M - $40M a year. That’s less than FSX’s average. But, given that revenue declines over time, there may not have been much difference in annual terms between FSX’s final revenue and Flight’s initial revenue. It's certainly not an order different.

Hello? Anybody Math this?

 

Out of Fact#1: $100 millions divided by 3 years (2006 to 2009: 07,08,09) is around $33.333 million of actual money (made).

 

Out of Fact#2: Someone assume $9.999,999 as less than $10 millions so let's keep assuming in 4 months and times 3 to complete the year = roughly $30 millions minus $3.00 = $29,999,997 which were never made. "Flight was earning the equivalent of between $30M - $40M a year." Wow! How? In a pig's eyes. The fact is Mr Allensworth just stated less than $10 Millions and MS, whatever the real figure was, didn't like it.

 

So, IT FAILED!

 

Cheers,

 How much of that 100 million happened in the first four months? 20 million? 30 million? It could be even up to 50% of total sales. Games always sell their bulk early on.

 

A lot of what you are saying brings in complicating factors to make your point and simply ignores others: How much did it cost to make FSX as opposed to Flight with a much smaller team? How much was lost to the large television advertising campaign for FSX as opposed to the The internet campaign of FLIGHT? How much was lost due to boxing, shipping and other associated costs (warehouses, etc) of FSX as opposed to the online distribution of Flight? How much did even just the data required to construct FSX compare to the more detailed but less comprehensive worldwide coverage of FLIGHT? How much did the Licensing of the various planes in FSX compare to the smaller amount of planes (and the warbirds) in Flight?

 

The fact is, that FSX had a huge number of associated costs that were a natural drain on any "profits" being made. The online distribution path is almost inherently less costly if you are doing it with any sort of skill.

 

Of the estimated sales figures of FSX, how much were actual "hard" sales, and how much were estimated sales from boxes shipped?

 

FSX shipped at a time when Flight simulators were "King" in a period of near maximum popularity for the genre. Sales have declined precipitously since then, and that is the market FLIGHT entered.

 

FSX had an instant over the counter cost of 60 to 70 dollars, at least upon introduction. FLIGHT was free, with DLC that dropped to $20 for every single bit of it combined within less than 4 months as Microsoft abandoned the project, unwilling to nurture it in the way that I suspect Dovetail intends to nurture whatever the heck they are doing.

 

Searching for any sort of reliable numbers for FSX sales is a hard game. Data is scattered, and the community sometimes tends to have some triumphalist rhetoric, But the corrected Gamasutra numbers for 2007 indicate 280k copies sold that year. Assuming about $60 per package, that gives something like 17million dollars that year. (Thats US sales, but at this point one starts to wonder very much about accuracy.) http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=17129

 

Depending on your stab at wholesale purchase price by the likes of Best Buy, Walmart, and the like, you could estimate that the total units sold of FSX was somewhere between 350,000 and 550,000 units

 

Assuming $40 a person, FLIGHT sold 250k copies (people buying DLC) in its 4 months

 

I will just leave those two things there for consideration. where people can decide what they want to believe.

 

Continuing: Toms numbers offer a pretty wide range, and honestly, its a mess that leaves you with question marks that still provide no demonstrable concrete reason for the widespread meme that Flight did abysmally, comparatively. Especially when you consider the other factors I first listed. (though everyone is free to) speculate away.

 

What's not speculative is that FSX-SE is already out there.

 

With a development time of about 1-1/2 years, I speculate that anything DTG produces is going to have to heavily depend on modified/updated FLIGHT technology, because anything else would be illogical. This means somebody: a smart company with a record of success, looked at the numbers, and at FLIGHTS (or a flight /fsx hybrids) potential as a well supported program and decided it was worth a shot.

 

When we finally get to see what DTG has under wraps. I'm expecting to see a Modified flight, possibly with world coverage. (you saw it here.)

Waiting for the big letdown as dovetail can't add in all features users demand this is entertainment product not P3D and FSX.

 

 

Hello? Anybody Math this?

 

Yes. The FSX  sales period was from its release to the US market on  17 October 2006 to  23 Jan 2009 when Microsoft has confirmed the closure of Aces Game Studio - about 2.2 years,

 

$10M over 4 or 3 months is eqivalent to $30M to $40M a year.

Yes. The FSX  sales period was from its release to the US market on  17 October 2006 to  23 Jan 2009 when Microsoft has confirmed the closure of Aces Game Studio - about 2.2 years,

 

$10M over 4 or 3 months is eqivalent to $30M to $40M a year.

 

I went back and read the thread where everyone is latching onto one post, but even then the interpretations of it have so many problems.

 

Unless you know what FSX sold in it's first four months specifically, you can't simply assume Flight would of sold 10 million per 4 months for 2.2 years in some linear fashion. What video game has no dramatic deprecation of sales over a 2.2 year period? FSX's sales were front-loaded (like any video game would be), and we can realistically assume this even more so because of the impact Christmas sales would of had on it's total sales. To assume FSX didn't follow a pattern of heavy early sales with tapering off suspends logic in my opinion. So if it sold "over 100 million" in 2.2 years, you can rightly assume perhaps 30-40 million of that came in the first 6 months of release, perhaps a lot more. That would be the number to compare to FLIGHT's initial sales period. N5gix also rightly points out that "over 100 million" could mean anything and "under 10 million" could mean anything.

 

There's also some serious problems with the assertions here about FLIGHT's timeline. For one, FLIGHT was out 4.5 months before cancellation, not 3-4 months. So that's actually 26 million a year if extrapolated in a linear fashion (which again is completely unrealistic). It's kind of a big fudge in the numbers to use 3 months as a baseline. Secondly, it didn't cease sales until October 2013. 

 

The point is, to simply do what HiFlyer did and say "well, 10 million x 4 x 3 = 30 million a year x 3 years = 90 million vs. FSX's 100 million" is totally disingenuous because no game sells even close to a linear fashion. You can't simply divide 100 million by 2.2 by 3 and assume FSX only sold 15 million in it's first 4 months and compare that to FLIGHT's 10 million. Also, the point of Tom's post, per his own words, was that FLIGHT did not reach the expectations placed on it by FSX's sales and so it was doomed to start. Yet, people are now using his two lines to somehow show FLIGHT reached FSX's expectations? Makes no sense in context. 

 

If people want to make the case that FLIGHT did well given the condition of the market compared to when FSX was released (which I think you tried to do on the next page of that thread), fine. But then you have to take into account that Steam has been a boon for sales of PC games. FSX has sold 377k alone on Steam, not because it's a superior modern produc, but because Steam reaches a huge market PC games didn't have in 2006. 

 

Anyway, we can go around and around and get nowhere because so much is being taken from one statement of which no further context is given. I still don't think FLIGHT's DNA is the one to follow for any new civilian simulator for many reasons. 

 

 

Anyway, we can go around and around and get nowhere because so much is being taken from one statement of which no further context is given.

 

The context is perfecly clear. Perhaps you can provide some context yourself = perhaps how many FSX sales were made in the first month of its sale?

The context is perfecly clear. Perhaps you can provide some context yourself = perhaps how many FSX sales were made in the first month of its sale?

 

Yeah, I'm not gonna play these games. I gave a long, well thought out post where I explain my position and how assuming linear sales over years is totally unrealistic. You can respond to those things or not. Doesn't matter to me.

 

If your assumption is FSX sold in a totally linear fashion, with sales in year 3 matching sales in the first months of it's sales, you can think that. 

In truth, the DLC of Flight may have made much more money than FSX ever made for Microsoft. Sales were good and there was a whole world and dozens of aircraft to sell in the future.

 

Microsoft could have made a continuation of the FS series with FS11. They had the team. They had the data. Often the FS series was the showcase for the next version of DirectX, so they had a pattern. A change in corporate direction killed that.

 

What killed Flight was also a change in corporate direction concerning flying games. Microsoft is out of that business.

 

It didn't have a lot to do with money. Both FSX and Flight made money. And FS11, showcasing DirectX10 or 11, would have certainly made as much money as FSX. Flight simulation had simply lost it's corporate champion, and internal corporate politics took it's toll.

 

Doesn't much matter what the exact figures are, or any extrapolation of those figures. It simply was not a monetary decision.

 

Back to topic. If Dovetail can incorporate the elements of FSX, utilizing the Flight engine, I think they have a good approximation of FS11. Do they want to go there? Who knows. But it probably will be a monetary decision.

 

Dick

 

 

 

 

 

Back to topic. If Dovetail can incorporate the elements of FSX, utilizing the Flight engine, I think they have a good approximation of FS11. Do they want to go there? Who knows. But it probably will be a monetary decision.

 

Well......

 

We know that FLIGHT and FSX can be made to work together.... but the problem for me is that it still looks like..... FSX. (albeit a smoother running one)

 

Those visuals are not going to cut it, nowadays, so DTG would probably have to address the texturing in a major way. (If a hybrid was even where they were aiming)

 

If I was them doing something like that, I would be aiming to get ahold of Orbx textures (at a minimum!!)

 

Bleah. So many possibilities.

 

No problem, just a FSX with a more detailed scenery. Can be done. No more FLIGHT thanks.

 

Cheers,

No problem, just a FSX with a more detailed scenery.

 

Would'nt that be P3D? Or FSX with ORBX?

I do not have P3D but I know is based on FSX. So FSX can be upgraded/updated to the same and even better levels. A whole photo-real planet with new and improved mesh, landscape, airports and present Nav aids (updates)? Make the aerodynamics of all flying machines as close as possible to the real things and do not worry about the difficulties of newbies learning. Except for pride, nobody gets hurts in FS when crashing. Pick up yourself and try and try again until your master it.

 

Same with FSX with ORBX I suppose. Do not own it and haven't try the freebees yet. But I had seen the YouTubes.

 

So FSX is the base and DTG should update it. If they do want a brand spanking new simulator, it is risky proposition and can be costly if they fail. So better not too far from the trunk to be safer. The formula is proven already.

 

Satisfy the great majority. Sailplanes, Helicopters, GA, VFR, IFR, Commercial Pilots easy MSFS and hardcore paper charts users with FMC, This last ones should be left to third party still so they should release a new SDK with the update. No time to get involve in heavy detailed stuff, just keep the ball rolling as it has been.

 

MS has still the resources and DTG is a partner of sort. 1 + 1 still two and two is a better tango.

 

Test the waters before jumping, be prudent.

 

Enough.

 

Cheers,