2 hours ago, tweekz said:

What streams?

I'm wondering this also.. Are people streaming the beta what is he talking about?

A year from now? Incomplete. Not released.

1 hour ago, FPStewy said:

January 2021 - MSFS should be released this year.

I know. But I want to know how you will use the sim when it becomes normal. And not the first days after release. 

If someone has to pay for extra bandwidth, then it will cost them to fly in the sim if they're using any kind of streaming data and they go over their limit.  

For example, anything over 25 gig per month (which my family always uses every month anyway) will cost me $10 per additional gig.  Guess what I won't be doing. 😄

Even if you're not paying Microsoft, you could end up paying your ISP.

Hook

4 hours ago, divide said:

It's been confirmed already that a subscription won't be needed, even to access the online data streaming. This point has been discussed many times on this forum.

I hope you're right, but remember this is Microsoft and they are definitely in the business of making $$. And they are not altruistic enough to provide anything at a loss to their bottom line. Pulling the plug on FSX and Flight come to mind. Microsoft Bob, too.

So while they tempt you with "a subscription won't be needed," if you want the eye-popping visuals in the Asobo Studio releases you can bet they'll be reaching in your pocket.

2 hours ago, LHookins said:

If someone has to pay for extra bandwidth, then it will cost them to fly in the sim if they're using any kind of streaming data and they go over their limit.  

For example, anything over 25 gig per month (which my family always uses every month anyway) will cost me $10 per additional gig.  Guess what I won't be doing. 😄

Even if you're not paying Microsoft, you could end up paying your ISP.

Hook

You will still have the offline mode.

 

4 hours ago, Twenty6 said:

I hope you're right, but remember this is Microsoft and they are definitely in the business of making $$. And they are not altruistic enough to provide anything at a loss to their bottom line. Pulling the plug on FSX and Flight come to mind. Microsoft Bob, too.

So while they tempt you with "a subscription won't be needed," if you want the eye-popping visuals in the Asobo Studio releases you can bet they'll be reaching in your pocket.

Microsoft is indeed ultimately in the business of making money, but that doesn't necessarily mean each individual thing they make or provide has to create as much revenue as it can.

Example: Microsoft released their "Adaptive Controller" last year for people with physical disabilities.  Phil Spencer openly acknowledged it was unlikely to ever make a profit, because of the R&D involved, and the comparatively tiny market for them.  However, the controller indirectly gave them invaluable free "feelgood" marketing and positive press for months, which obviously has value for the company.  They even advertised the XAC during the Superbowl last year.

Another Example: Console hardware is almost always sold at a loss initially (Nintendo excepted).  The PlayStation 3 was infamously sold at a $300 loss per console by Sony, when it first released.  However, platform holders are generally fine with this loss, because they make their money back and more, on stuff like software, accessories, and services - all of which they either control, or get a direct cut of.

If the backend cost to Microsoft for Azure streaming of MSFS is marginal enough, and they see enough upside in showcasing the value of Azure, or showing PC gamers they are committed to the PC space again, or keeping people on the MSFS bandwagon in order to sell them official post-release paid add-ons, they could absolutely decide to eat that cost.

The thing about being a company with a trillion dollar market cap, and a thousand different projects going on at any given time, is that the road to sustained growth doesn't need to be as simple as wringing every dollar out of every project.

Edited January 13, 20206 yr by Scottoest

12 minutes ago, Scottoest said:

 

Microsoft is indeed ultimately in the business of making money, but that doesn't necessarily mean each individual thing they make or provide has to create as much revenue as it can.

Example: Microsoft released their "Adaptive Controller" last year for people with physical disabilities.  Phil Spencer openly acknowledged it was unlikely to ever make a profit, because of the R&D involved, and the comparatively tiny market for them.  However, the controller indirectly gave them invaluable free "feelgood" marketing and positive press for months, which obviously has value for the company.  They even advertised the XAC during the Superbowl last year.

Another Example: Console hardware is almost always sold at a loss initially (Nintendo excepted).  The PlayStation 3 was infamously sold at a $300 loss per console by Sony, when it first released.  However, platform holders are generally fine with this loss, because they make their money back and more, on stuff like software, accessories, and services - all of which they either control, or get a direct cut of.

If the backend cost to Microsoft for Azure streaming of MSFS is marginal enough, and they see enough upside in showcasing the value of Azure, or showing PC gamers they are committed to the PC space again, or keeping people on the MSFS bandwagon in order to sell them official post-release paid add-ons, they could absolutely decide to eat that cost.

The thing about being a company with a trillion dollar market cap, and a thousand different projects going on at any given time, is that the road to sustained growth doesn't need to be as simple as wringing every dollar out of every project.

Amen. Well said.

11 hours ago, Scottoest said:

 

Microsoft is indeed ultimately in the business of making money, but that doesn't necessarily mean each individual thing they make or provide has to create as much revenue as it can.

Example: Microsoft released their "Adaptive Controller" last year for people with physical disabilities.  Phil Spencer openly acknowledged it was unlikely to ever make a profit, because of the R&D involved, and the comparatively tiny market for them.  However, the controller indirectly gave them invaluable free "feelgood" marketing and positive press for months, which obviously has value for the company.  They even advertised the XAC during the Superbowl last year.

Another Example: Console hardware is almost always sold at a loss initially (Nintendo excepted).  The PlayStation 3 was infamously sold at a $300 loss per console by Sony, when it first released.  However, platform holders are generally fine with this loss, because they make their money back and more, on stuff like software, accessories, and services - all of which they either control, or get a direct cut of.

If the backend cost to Microsoft for Azure streaming of MSFS is marginal enough, and they see enough upside in showcasing the value of Azure, or showing PC gamers they are committed to the PC space again, or keeping people on the MSFS bandwagon in order to sell them official post-release paid add-ons, they could absolutely decide to eat that cost.

The thing about being a company with a trillion dollar market cap, and a thousand different projects going on at any given time, is that the road to sustained growth doesn't need to be as simple as wringing every dollar out of every project.

Well said, but I hope they make a good pofit out of it, directly or indirectly (all simmers should hope that also). This way we will have updates besides the 10 years that they are already commited.

This is why I've always advocated the developers of the base sim should have their own add-ons store, where the 3rd parties would help the development of the base sim sharing a portion of their profits. In the end of the day, MS/ASOBO will need to justify the continuity of the simulator development.

13 hours ago, Scottoest said:

If the backend cost to Microsoft for Azure streaming of MSFS is marginal enough, and they see enough upside in showcasing the value of Azure, or showing PC gamers they are committed to the PC space again, or keeping people on the MSFS bandwagon in order to sell them official post-release paid add-ons, they could absolutely decide to eat that cost.

You've got that backward. As an example, Apple makes money selling the iphone. But Apple makes MONEY selling services to use on the iphone. They sell you that service every month after month after month. Someone sold you the actual iphone... once. PMDG sells you a product once; Navigraph sells you a service every month.

Asobo will be selling FS2020 directly and/or thru the Microsoft Store. Either way Microsoft doesn't care cuz they have a minimal investment in the program's development and have long ago written off flight simulation software. And they'll grab 30% if checkout is thru their store.

So I buy FS2020 but it looks pretty much like P3D, or FSX:SE, or Xplane but it does come with a one month free subscription that will dramatically increase the visuals and therefore the immersion, the resolution, the level of detail. After the free month I can continue the ultimate experience all for the unbelievably low price of ??

But it won't be free. Streaming terrain, mesh and airport runways isn't going to help the blind to see, or the lame to walk. The only "feel good" moment will come when the accountants tell Microsoft they can write off the new servers and A/C units.

Jay I sincerely believe that you are way out in left-field with your thesis.

20 hours ago, LHookins said:

If someone has to pay for extra bandwidth, then it will cost them to fly in the sim if they're using any kind of streaming data and they go over their limit. 

I thought that's a relict from the past. Anyway, same goes for streaming movies or anything else. It's your responsibility. 😉

20 hours ago, Twenty6 said:

So while they tempt you with "a subscription won't be needed," if you want the eye-popping visuals in the Asobo Studio releases you can bet they'll be reaching in your pocket.

That isn't bad by default. It's all just a matter of it is worth it for you personally.

24 minutes ago, n4gix said:

Jay I sincerely believe that you are way out in left-field with your thesis.

Noted. I could very well be totally wrong. I grew up a Capitalist and think things thru by following the money.

I'm also a fisherman and find that hiding the hook with a juicy worm catches more fish.

1 hour ago, Twenty6 said:

I grew up a Capitalist

He must work for Ms in Wisconsin!