Business is more complex than a few standard strategies. Something tells me MSFS isn't going to be paid subscription. If it turns out to be true, I'll quote myself and tell you "told ya so!". 😄

12 minutes ago, b737800 said:

I wish it was as simple as that.

For example, you can use Google Translate on the web as much as you like, for free. As soon as you try and integrate it into any product via the API it becomes chargeable, that charge being pretty hefty. In fact Google Translate is about twice the price of the equivalent Bing API, but is also about twice as accurate.

What makes it simpler is the fact that MS isn't using Google's maps, they're using their own. MS and Google would always charge for commercial use because you're using the fruits of their hard work to make a buck off of it. But if its MS using their assets to make one of their own products better, there's no reason to charge the Xbox division the same way they'd charge Laminar Research if they chose to jump on the map streaming train.

2 minutes ago, Krakin said:

What makes it simpler is the fact that MS isn't using Google's maps, they're using their own. MS and Google would always charge for commercial use because you're using the fruits of their hard work to make a buck off of it. But if its MS using their assets to make one of their own products better, there's no reason to charge the Xbox division the same way they'd charge Laminar Research if they chose to jump on the map streaming train.

I'm not disagreeing at all. I should have used Microsoft as the example rather than Google, but the point it was making was that just because you can use it as an individual on the web for free doesn't make exactly the same service free in a product.

Internal billing between different divisions is also more common than most people might think (and a legal requirements in some cases).

I want it to be free. I need it to be free. YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH (sorry, went off on A Few Good Men tangent). The logic used by some to show that it would be unfair if it is not free is, unfortunately, flawed at best.

Hopefully we can take what they've already said and use it for nowt other than the original purchase price and we're all happy. Personally, I'm not against a small charge but I fully understand that some are.

43 minutes ago, b737800 said:

I wish it was as simple as that.

For example, you can use Google Translate on the web as much as you like, for free. As soon as you try and integrate it into any product via the API it becomes chargeable, that charge being pretty hefty. In fact Google Translate is about twice the price of the equivalent Bing API, but is also about twice as accurate.

I know I'm stating the obvious, the there's a big difference between you trying to integrate something into your third party application vs. MS integrating their own technology into their own software. 

On 2/15/2020 at 8:10 AM, mSparks said:

lvl18 orthophoto of the world is something like 50 terrabytes of data.

each of the 400 cities with high lod will be at least another terrabyte plus each.

the kind of scenery you see in this picture.

You are not going to be storing that offline, and you have not been able to access access any of microsofts online features (even multiplayer) without a subscription for several years. So for anything you need "a good internet line" implies "needing a subscription"

I'll thank you not to presume what I will be doing.  Storage is cheap.  I already have 128TB on a home media server.  What's another 50TB for flight sim after the tens of thousands of dollars I have spent on this hobby over the last 25 years?

3 minutes ago, bonchie said:

I know I'm stating the obvious, the there's a big difference between you trying to integrate something into your third party application vs. MS integrating their own technology into their own software. 

Of course there is. That makes it cheaper to the supplier. It doesn't make it free to either them or the consumer. I fear we're going round in circles.

5 minutes ago, b737800 said:

Of course there is. That makes it cheaper to the supplier. It doesn't make it free to either them or the consumer. I fear we're going round in circles.

It pretty much is free to them. There is very, very little possibility that the amount of streaming done by MSFS compared to their entire Bing architecture requires any new infrastructure. It's a minuscule expense compared to the overall technology, which they are already funding for many other projects. 

If you were to itemize it down between each project, sure, MSFS would denote some tiny fraction of costs, but that's not how they are going to look at it. The technology is already there and paid for on their part. They are going to use it in as many lanes as they can to make as much money as they can. 

 

Edited February 19, 20206 yr by bonchie

4 minutes ago, bonchie said:

It pretty much is free to them. There is very, very little possibility that the amount of streaming done by MSFS compared to their entire Bing architecture requires any new infrastructure. It's a minuscule expense compared to the overall technology, which they are already funding for many other projects. 

If you were to itemize it down between each project, sure, MSFS would denote some tiny fraction of costs, but that's not how they are going to look at it. The technology is already there and paid for on their part. They are going to use it in as many lanes as they can to make as much money as they can. 

 

Again I'm not disagreeing, but cost to produce is not the only factor (and often not the biggest) in consumer pricing. Streaming is only 1 factor. There are many others. Only looking at streaming costs totally ignores all of the other costs of producing the Bing Maps data and again, just because they let you look at it in a web browser for free does not mean they have to let you stream it in a game / sim for free. If they want to charge for it they will. Us going on about the fact that their streaming cost is negligible makes not one ounce of difference.

Soon someone will say that the Bing Maps data already exists so there is no cost to them using it in an additional product, which totally goes against everything that a company is in existence for in the first place.

If we paid for goods based solely on the cost to supply then greetings cards would be a few pence each, not $5.

3 hours ago, tweekz said:

Anyhow, there are enough ways for MS to earn money with MSFS.

This is what some people in the flight sim community can't seem to grasp. We are so used to being nickeled and dimed by developers (no offense to them, they have to make money and have kept this hobby alive) that we've forgotten how lucrative a mass selling piece of software is. 

MSFS stands to make the most money by selling millions of copies as a stand alone piece of software, which is exactly what they say they are going to do. That's what attracts the masses. Games with specific subscription services are incredibly niche (and I'm not talking Xbox Live on console, which is a totally different animal). MS would lose millions of dollars going that route. 

And yes, perhaps 10 years down the road, it will cease to make sense for them to continue streaming to MSFS via the Bing infrastructure they already have. But if it succeeds, they'll be a MSFS v2 that will supplant it, allowing MS to make even more money. That is their plan and they've said as much.

There's also the very likely chance that MS will monetize a store for MSFS in correlation with developers. 

Long story short, I'm not asking you to blindly believe MS when they say there will be no subscription (although there's no reason to think they are lying). I'm asking you to use common sense about how they stand to make the most money, which is what it's always about in the end. 

MS's path to the most money = stand alone sales of the game = most people possible in the game's ecosystem = making the most money via selling DLC for years to come.

That's the strategy. Not trying to nickel and dime people via a subscription service that would cut their user base into a tiny fraction of what it would otherwise be. 

 

Edited February 19, 20206 yr by bonchie

5 hours ago, mSparks said:

Reminds me, by far the biggest cost of running a data center is the electricity they consume, that is huge numbers. Data/CMS is pretty cheap, but throw any decent amount of computation on a user by user basis in there and it goes stratospheric, with each of thousands of servers capable of needing up to ~100kWh a day (cooling them down being a big part of that).

Unfortunately my backside has spent far too many hours sat on those cold floors. The cooling costs is a big reason why datacentres in places like Iceland have become pretty common.

9 minutes ago, b737800 said:

Again I'm not disagreeing, but cost to produce is not the only factor (and often not the biggest) in consumer pricing. Streaming is only 1 factor. There are many others. Only looking at streaming costs totally ignores all of the other costs of producing the Bing Maps data and again, just because they let you look at it in a web browser for free does not mean they have to let you stream it in a game / sim for free. If they want to charge for it they will. Us going on about the fact that their streaming cost is negligible makes not one ounce of difference.

Soon someone will say that the Bing Maps data already exists so there is no cost to them using it in an additional product, which totally goes against everything that a company is in existence for in the first place.

If we paid for goods based solely on the cost to supply then greetings cards would be a few pence each, not $5.

I'm not even sure what you are trying to say at this point. Of course MS "could" charge for something if they wanted to. They could charge $1000 a month for MSFS if they wanted to. 

The question is will they do so and whether it makes sense for them to do so from a monetary standpoint. They won't and it doesn't. You can quote me on that when you aren't paying a subscription after release.  

 

Edited February 19, 20206 yr by bonchie

1 minute ago, bonchie said:

They won't and you can quote me on that when the time comes. 

I'm sure you'll beat me to it.

3 hours ago, tweekz said:

Youtube gets its money by advertisement. Anyhow, there are enough ways for MS to earn money with MSFS.

Yes, of course, the same way Vudu does, I'll watch a free movie, but hey while I'm here, I'll rent "air america"

10 minutes ago, bonchie said:

Games with specific subscription services are incredibly niche

[...]

There's also the very likely chance that MS will monetize a store for MSFS in correlation with developers.

A lot of paid subscription based games have actually changed their approach to the latter strategy lately. Take TESO as an example.

2 minutes ago, tweekz said:

A lot of paid subscription based games have actually changed their approach to the latter strategy lately. Take TESO as an example.

Yep, and they are doing so because volume of sales beats niche subscribers almost every single time. 

MS is going to make a ton more money selling the game to 2 million people and having a huge player base to sell DLC to vs. having 50,000 people on a subscription service, with most dropping off after the first few years anyway. 

Edited February 19, 20206 yr by bonchie