Steam users are mostly young - they like buy a game and get on with it - and have it all and ditched after a week to get on the next and so on.

It does not make sense to invest in DLC for them.

 

?!

 

Many surveys say that while the average gamer age is 30, the average pc game player is about 42.

 

Between those two numbers is significant game playing demographic that companies will absolutely create DLC for.

And i think simulators usually have a more mature playerbase too

 

 

The only criticism I would make of some Train Simulator DLC is that you don't get a lot of track for your money. Another factor (and one that actually stops me from being tempted to purchase TS2016) is the limited scale of the UK network.

 

This is why I was hoping when DTG was licensed to the rights for FSX, they also got the code for the WIP MS Train Simulator 2 project. That was also built off the FSX engine, and was being built on the same principles. It would be a global sim with a default rail database and autogen allowing you to traverse cross continents, with the ability of adding more detailed scenery along the way, just like in FSX. No more separate unconnected routes. At the time of Aces demise, it actually looked like it was getting close to release, and looked as good if not better, then DTG TS series. There was even future plans to merge it with FSX in multiplayer mode, allowing you fly while your friend drove a train below. It would have been a natural for DTG to complete it. Alas it was not to be and DTG appears to be going in a different direction with the TS franchise.

 

 

Many surveys say that while the average gamer age is 30, the average pc game player is about 42.

 

Not sure that matters ... what 3rd party look at is who buys the most DLC and what platform are they mostly buying it for.  Example, suppose you have Platform X with 500,000 users and the "average" user purchases 2 add-ons per year, vs. Platform Y with 200,000 users where the average user purchases 20 add-ons per year.  Platform Y will be the more attractive market for 3rd party content providers.

 

Age does have an influence, if you look at software/music/movie theft/piracy older generations are drastically lower ... this will intern reflect on target markets for products.  Theft from younger generation is around 70%, from older generations drops to <30%.  What's interesting is that there is no financial means association ... meaning it doesn't appear to matter what one's income level is in relationship to theft.  Demographics and age appear to be the primary indicators.

 

I'm sure DTG have access to similar and/or more information to understand this market ... but the picture it paints for me is that the older generation is the  higher revenue potential.  

 

As far as "Global" simulator ... I think that is natural progression ... much of that is already present in FSX-SP2/ESP and has been expanded on ... Avatar mode in P3D is a good example of that extension.  There are lots of "directions" to take this platform ... tapping into the "youth" is definitely going to be a challenge if that is DTG's intention.

 

But it should be pretty apparent by now this is not a "NEW" platform.  If it were, there would be NO need to deal with Microsoft and get access/code to FSX SP2 (ESP) and Orbx wouldn't have been able to whip up scenery for them as quickly as they did if it were a "new" platform.  Like I said, the benefits are that it appears moving to 64bit has limited impact on existing scenery (this is good news).

 

Cheers, Rob.

Not sure that matters ... what 3rd party look at is who buys the most DLC and what platform are they mostly buying it for.  Example, suppose you have Platform X with 500,000 users and the "average" user purchases 2 add-ons per year, vs. Platform Y with 200,000 users where the average user purchases 20 add-ons per year.  Platform Y will be the more attractive market for 3rd party content providers.

 

Age does have an influence, if you look at software/music/movie theft/piracy older generations are drastically lower ... this will intern reflect on target markets for products.  Theft from younger generation is around 70%, from older generations drops to <30%.  What's interesting is that there is no financial means association ... meaning it doesn't appear to matter what one's income level is in relationship to theft.  Demographics and age appear to be the primary indicators.

 

I'm not sure I buy the argument simply because when you look at the facts on the ground, the market leans conspicuously toward games focused on younger and/or more casual demographics. One could simply ask: when was the last AAA title that was geared toward this theoretically profitable older market?

 

Where are the new sims surging to take advantage of our low piracy rate and high dlc purchases?

 

In the real world it seems that if you are making (potentially) hundreds of millions in profit, then you can absorb piracy much better than a product in a much smaller niche, even if the rate of piracy in that niche is much lower.

 

This is even worse if the niche is one in which development costs are high, and profits marginal.

 

Grand Theft Auto V generated almost 800 million dollars worldwide in its first 24 hours. Even if we here had absolutely zero piracy in our niche and every last simmer purchased every last bit of DLC ever produced, well......  even if gta had 97% piracy, we still wouldn't register as more than a used kleenex.

 

I think it would be hard to make a case for the profitability of this market except in the way Dovetail is probably going to do it. As the middleman (along with Steam) with its hands in everyone's pockets.

deleted

I could not have said it better myself. New Flightsim + Backward Compatibility = No Benefits. I say that having spent tons of money on FS9, FSX, XPLANE, P3D just like everyone else. Having a new sim made to use existing scenery/aircraft/add-ons is a mistake.

 

I would think third party developers would jump at the chance to refine their wares for a new platform, it would be a source of revenue, but I am worried that they too will just create special installers (Think ORBX) to install the same scenery over all simulators. It won't be long before FTX will have a quadruple installer for X-Plane.

 

Don't get me wrong, I fully support 3rd party developers and have most of their major items (PMDG, FTX, AIRBUS, etc). But I agree with HiFlyer on the fact that lets start from scratch and make it right this time. Don't make it Steam only game so that you can nickel and dime us on DLC.

 

What would really be a hoot is to be able to use or cache scenery into RAM (for those of us who have 64GB of memory). If Photoshop can use it, why not a flightsim?

 

 

Don't make it Steam only game so that you can nickel and dime us on DLC.

 

Martin said it would be available from the Windows Store as well.

 

I agree with HiFlyer on the fact that lets start from scratch and make it right this time.

 

+1 for that!

Try not to mention the Windows Store in the Microsoft Flight forum. People might have GFWL flashbacks. (It was a bad trip)  :Ying Yang:  :mellow:

 

Especially for those of us who can't access our purchases.

I could not have said it better myself. New Flightsim + Backward Compatibility = No Benefits. I say that having spent tons of money on FS9, FSX, XPLANE, P3D just like everyone else. Having a new sim made to use existing scenery/aircraft/add-ons is a mistake.

 

This philosophy only works in a sim if there are enough addons available soon after release to keep interest up. You can have a sim that keeps some compatibility, maybe not with existing products, but with the tools ready to develop right from the starting gate, where developers can jump right in to develop first rate addons for it immediately because the knowledge and techniques are similar enough. Or you can break complete compatibility, use different methods, that require a higher learning curve where development is delayed, and interest wanes over time from waiting. We already had a sample of the latter with MS Flight, and look where that went. Same could have happened to X-Plane 10, except they had a large enough group of developers from XP8 and 9 that were able to jump right in and keep the platform going. Look how long it's taking the FS developers to get up to speed on X-Plane 10. The only ones that were successful like Carenado did it sooner by hiring developers already familiar to the platform. Look how long PMDG has taking to develop for it, one aircraft, and then only a sand box model (Their words) to get their feet wet on the new techniques required. Image if XP10 broke it's compatibility with XP8 and 9 and all the developers were starting at the same level PMDG started out, with most not having the same resources that PMDG has and we were just now starting seeing quality addons appear for it. Do you really think XP10 could have survived this long? Or more likely go the way of MS Flight! For better or worse we live in a gotta have it now world. It won't wait for the 3rd party developers to catch up, cash flow will dry up and the platform will die before it has a chance. People are not going to buy a shiny brand new 64bit sim, with basic capabilities with the potential to build it up to years later, when they already have a sim with those capabilities today. Backward compatibility to previous versions or at least in developer techniques, are one of the main reasons the FS franchise is the longest lasting genre in the PC gaming market. It's a formula that has been proven to work, for both the FS and XP markets and why we're able to be here debating it today.

This philosophy only works in a sim if there are enough addons available soon after release to keep interest up. You can have a sim that keeps some compatibility, maybe not with existing products, but with the tools ready to develop right from the starting gate, where developers can jump right in to develop first rate addons for it immediately because the knowledge and techniques are similar enough.

 

Or you can get lots and lots of shovelware.

 

Or you can break complete compatibility, use different methods, that require a higher learning curve where development is delayed, and interest wanes over time from waiting.

 

But waiting for what? It's true that a PMDG plane might take years, and other complex dlc might take a similarly long time, but with Orbx scenery as a base, a lot of dlc is going to be scenery, and that shouldn't be a huge issue to transfer.... its mostly textures..... Certainly it doesn't seem to have taken Orbx very long......

 

As for planes, DTG doesn't seem to have strayed very far from the FSX tree. In fact, they may have stayed a bit too close, unfortunately. 

 

Look how long it's taking the FS developers to get up to speed on X-Plane 10. The only ones that were successful like Carenado did it sooner by hiring developers already familiar to the platform.

 

I've always thought that a major reason its taken so long is that developers have a bad case of FSX on the brain. People are accustomed to swimming in those waters, and real change is always hard. LR has also not done itself any favors, seemingly completely unconcerned with accessibility and market share.

 

I think they've survived this long mostly due to a big influx of cash from their simpler (and more accessible!) tablet version of X-plane. Plus their professional stuff.

 

You said that 'People are not going to buy a shiny brand new 64bit sim, with basic capabilities with the potential to build it up to years later, when they already have a sim with those capabilities today.' 

 

For myself, I will beg to differ. It's been pointed out that this might not be the only market for DTG's effort, and I'm glad of that. It's doesn't always have to be about this particular demographic.

 

You also said that 'Backward compatibility to previous versions or at least in developer techniques, are one of the main reasons the FS franchise is the longest lasting genre in the PC gaming market.'

 

I've always thought (rightly or wrongly) that it was a combo of the fact that the FS franchise was always designed to be very accessible (something that the current advanced market seems to be in the process of forgetting) and also the fact that we literally had no other choices.

 

Believe me, if there was something good coming, I would drop FSX like an old sock. In fact, I already have.

 

You can have a sim that keeps some compatibility, maybe not with existing products, but with the tools ready to develop right from the starting gate, where developers can jump right in to develop first rate addons for it immediately because the knowledge and techniques are similar enough

 

Agreed for the most part, I understand the need for 3rd party developers to be able produce new content for the sim, but that's the keyword "NEW". If some parts of the sim were closed then we would not have a need to have 6 different flight planners to populate 3rd party FMS data for example. If we were able to create and load a flightplan from the sim into the FMS's of PMDG, Majestic, or Airbus for instance, that can be made mandatory along with other content.

 

Not asking to kick 3rd party developers to the curb, I would not live with my FSXif it wasn't for PMDG, ORBX, etc., but' it wasn't what it could have been out of the box. Now DT has an opportunity to create something wonderful and not with just basic capabilities.

 

If the product was re-done from the ground up and spectacular out of the box the right way, we would not need 3rd party addon's at launch day and can wait until they create new(ish) content.

 

I know ORBX is working with DT and most likely others as well, which is good they should be working on content NOW and not waiting until after the sim is release so the wait would be as long as you think.

 

MS Flight wasn't touted as a full fledged flight sim from the jump, so I don't know what comparison can be made with that.

 

You are right though, we live in a I want it now society and that unfortunately is going to cost us all regardless. If it's Steam or Windows Store, I know we going to be DLC'd to death. "If you want you aircraft to have landing gear get the DLC for $5.00" (Over-exaggerating of course, but you get the idea)

 

X-Plane - Not sure what to say about that. I've had XPlane since it came out and still don't know how to use it, way to many addons and no airports (well I think there are 15 now - that only took 5 years) It's like learning autocad (got that from another post - it's true) - Don't believe me? Try getting WorldTraffic for Xplane if you want AI traffic (actual liveries are separate), You have to learn programming. Way to much effort.

 

Interesting Thought: 64Bit XPlane Graphics/Scenery (Seasonal of course) + FSX/P3D Operation (Commands, menu's etc) + Unreal Engine 4 (or some sort of engine). Wonder what that would produce?

 

Imagine a sim that doen't need:

 

Rex for Clouds/Textures - The clouds aren't crappy out of the box.

MyTraffic 6.0 - Because there are actual liveries and world planes

GSX Ground Environment - Speaks for itself

ASNext - Because there actually might be a weather engine out of the box

EditVoicePackX - Because it has the proper ICO lingo

ProATX/X - So we can actually make a flight IFR flight plan with ATC w/o digging up tech specs for each aircraft.

 

I would pay the $120+ for that for a sim like that (only once though :smile:), you guys do with P3D, every time a major version comes out, go ahead and pay them another $60 every year. (Isn't that like renting a flight sim?)

 

-Cheers

I don't get the angst about using FSX's "10 year old code." Where do you think FLIGHT came from?

So who's to say DTG doesn't simply advance FSX in a positive way as well, gaining many of the positives of FLIGHT along the way?

X-Plane - Not sure what to say about that. I've had XPlane since it came out and still don't know how to use it, way to many addons and no airports (well I think there are 15 now - that only took 5 years) It's like learning autocad (got that from another post - it's true) - Don't believe me? Try getting WorldTraffic for Xplane if you want AI traffic (actual liveries are separate), You have to learn programming. Way to much effort.
 

 

That's a misconception that's largely changed. XP10 has about 4000 airports created for it now.

Something like almost 2000 come stock and you can download whichever others you want (another 700 or so will be added as default in the next release as well). They are mostly pretty good as well. Even my hometown KVKS, an obscure airport by many measures, is accurately modeled vs. the garbage FSX has for default.

 

I guess you are talking payware, but there are dozens of airports out there for free that rival many payware additions (as well as hundreds available that are still light years better then FSX default). MisterX's stuff is insanely good for freeware.

I don't get the angst about using FSX's "10 year old code." Where do you think FLIGHT came from?

 

So who's to say DTG doesn't simply advance FSX in a positive way as well, gaining many of the positives of FLIGHT along the way?

 

For myself, I said a while ago in another thread that Flight was great for its time, but its been several years, and anything new coming out should step up its game and finally move beyond the MS heritage.

 

It remains to be seen if DTG will be able to do that enough to mark its upcoming offering(s) as truly next gen product(s) rather than yet more modified iterations of FSX.

 

Will it be nice? Probably. Will it be anything truly new? (That P3D couldn't do?)

 

Remains to be seen.

 

I'm a bit torn by what we've seen. So far.

 

 

For myself, I said a while ago in another thread that Flight was great for its time, but its been several years, and anything new coming out should step up its game and finally move beyond the MS heritage.

 

When Aerosoft was planning on their own sim, they tried this approach, but guess what, they weren't able to find any engine out there that could match the capabilities of what the FSX/ESP engine was capable of. The only other engine proven in a global flightim was X-Planes, but that was proprietary to Austin. Outerra does look promising, but to date is unproven on a global scale.