A2A to focus on MSFS for entertainment products

[GoranM 3,809]

12 minutes ago, kiwikat said:

I wouldn't be surprised if X-Plane held less than 5-10% of the total market.

It's actually a lot more than that.  

There's a Facebook group and a reddit group, where developers from all flight sims gather and socialize, where numbers have been discussed.  I won't go into specifics, for obvious reasons, but put it this way, if it was as low as 5-10%, every single XP developer would be working part time or full time jobs, while making add ons as a side hustle.  There's an XP dev team with 14 developers, who all work together, full time, on one project at a time, and they're doing very well.

Edited July 4, 2023 by GoranM

[NZ255 312]

52 minutes ago, GoranM said:

It's actually a lot more than that.  

But what’s the market size? It’s probably grown a lot since MSFS came around and it has 12 million users according to MS. 

[GoranM 3,809]

23 minutes ago, NZ255 said:

But what’s the market size?

The market size of X-Plane?  No idea.  I know what it WAS, a few years ago, and I always joked if 5% of total XP customers bought my payware, I'd be a very happy guy.  A very small percentage of people who buy any flight sim, actually invest in payware.  MSFS is obviously a larger payware market than X-Plane.  I don't think anyone disputes that.

 

23 minutes ago, NZ255 said:

It’s probably grown a lot since MSFS came around and it has 12 million users according to MS. 

That number (12 million) is, for all intents and purposes, a bit misleading.  I've seen the official statement from Asobo that said MSFS has had 10 million DOWNLOADS.  A percentage of those downloads were from Gamepass.  How much of a percentage, no one knows.  Put it this way.  Let's say that number, 12 million, is the number of people still actively using MSFS.  And an add on that is priced at say, $70 (Ok, $69.95) is bought by HALF the total number of MSFS users.  That's $420 million in sales.

Obviously, that's simply not happening.  The record number of sales for an add on through 1 store, including add ons for MSFS, is 90 000 units (give or take a few hundred).  And that was for FSX and P3D combined.  I can't mention the dev or the add on, but they have more than 1 sales outlet.  No other add on, AFAIK, has sold more than that, to this day.  

The payware market is pretty small when compared to the host platform.

Edited July 4, 2023 by GoranM

[Rocky_53 1,597]

If you're in business, then you need to follow the cash. 

[GoranM 3,809]

17 minutes ago, Rockliffe said:

If you're in business, then you need to follow the cash  profit. 

I fixed it for you.

If a business simply followed the most cash, there would be no competition.  

Apple vs Microsoft.  Ford vs Chevy.  Lambourghini vs Ferrari.  Real Madrid vs Paris St Germain.  McDonalds vs Burger King.  Intercontinental vs Marriott.  

In all cases, each company thinks they can do it better than their competition.  That's what produces quality.  

Edited July 4, 2023 by GoranM

[jarmstro 2,406]

5 hours ago, GoranM said:

The payware market is pretty small when compared to the host platform.

But surely that is true for XP and P3D as well. Only a percentage of users buy any addons. In fact I remember that you use XP unadorned and as is. (EDIT or was that Janov?) So total sales of the host platform must matter when it come to sales of addons?

Edited July 4, 2023 by jarmstro

[lwt1971 7,484]

31 minutes ago, GoranM said:

If a business simply followed the most cash, there would be no competition.  

Apple vs Microsoft.  Ford vs Chevy.  Lambourghini vs Ferrari.  Real Madrid vs Paris St Germain.  McDonalds vs Burger King.  Intercontinental vs Marriott.  

In all cases, each company thinks they can do it better than their competition.  That's what produces quality.  

Given that a lot/most of the major long-time 3rd party devs such as PMDG, A2A, FSL, iniBuilds, Milviz, Aerosoft, JustFlight, etc and newcomers like Fenix are developing exclusively for the MSFS platform now (i.e. the most cash/revenue potential given the user base numbers for the platform), the "competition" as it were is more between the 3rd party devs themselves I'd say.. and quality results from that. Some may choose to stick to aircraft or an aircraft family that no other 3rd party dev is doing for MSFS so they carve out a space all for themselves, others might more directly compete intentionally or not (i.e. Fenix A32x vs FSL A32x). On a side note, given the sheer popularity of MSFS and different kinds of users on it, add-ons having what some of us would deem poor quality *also* have a chance of making profits as long they are priced appropriately.

Edited July 4, 2023 by lwt1971

[Bobsk8 12,918]

6 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

Given that a lot/most of the major long-time 3rd party devs such as PMDG, A2A, FSL, iniBuilds, Milviz, Aerosoft, JustFlight, etc and newcomers like Fenix are developing exclusively for the MSFS platform now (i.e. the most cash/revenue potential given the user base numbers for the platform), the "competition" as it were is more between the 3rd party devs themselves I'd say.. and quality results from that. Some may choose to stick to aircraft or an aircraft family that no other 3rd party dev is doing so they carve out a space all for themselves, others might more directly compete intentionally or not (i.e. Fenix A32x vs FSL A32x). On a side note, given the sheer popularity of MSFS and different kinds of users on it, add-ons having what some of us would deem poor quality *also* have a chance of making profits as long they price it appropriately.

The bottom line is that MSFS is the sim of tomorrow. If a developer wants to make products for yesterday's sims, they won't be very successful. Just common sense. 

[GoranM 3,809]

21 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

But surely that is true for XP and P3D as well. Only a percentage of users buy any addons. In fact I remember that you use XP as is. So total sales must matter?

It's true for every platform.  But I seriously doubt it's equally proportional between platforms and aircraft types.  An airliner in XP could very easily outsell a GA in MSFS.  Depends what the market wants and how it reacts.  (After your edit.  I think that was Janov.  I have a few add ons.)

20 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

Given that a lot/most of the major long-time 3rd party devs such as PMDG, A2A, FSL, iniBuilds, Milviz, Aerosoft, JustFlight, etc and newcomers like Fenix are developing exclusively for the MSFS platform now

Quite the list.  Remember, inibuilds are developing for MSFS and X-Plane now.  Fenix are developing for MSFS because the code base they are using/licensed, is compatible with MSFS.  So, that's a no brainer.  I doubt they want to recode everything to work in any other sim.  The others you mentioned...same thing.  They built their foundation on the MSFS platform.  So that's no surprise, in the least.  There's absolutely no reason for them to make add ons for anything else.  If you're talking about P3D, then it comes down to the bottom line.  Are they "profitable" in P3D, to the point they can say "We can stay here", or are they struggling to get an acceptable ROI.  Only they know.  In which case, they're forced to make the switch if their profit margins are too thin to stay in P3D.  That's not favoritism or loyalty, per se.  That's just good business.

20 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

On a side note, given the sheer popularity and different kinds of users on MSFS, add-ons having what some of us would deem poor quality *also* have a chance of making profits as long they price it appropriately.

I guess that comes down to what the person with the cash wants.  Maybe the developers making "poor quality" add ons simply think it's a ripe market for some fast cash.  Hopefully, some, or all of those developers will use that initial cashflow to invest into further development.

 

Edited July 4, 2023 by GoranM

[sd_flyer 6,108]

In conclusion: A2A focuses on MSFS, but XP airliner can outsell any GA in MSFS LOL Great thread as usual LOL

[lwt1971 7,484]

23 minutes ago, GoranM said:

Quite the list. 

It is indeed, and the MSFS platform is the better for it.
 

23 minutes ago, GoranM said:

Remember, inibuilds are developing for MSFS and X-Plane now.

Remember, iniBuilds are only making the XP11 A300 compatible with XP12. All forward development of new features and the rework/enhancements the A310 received for the MSFS version, and the upcoming A300 is receiving, they are only doing so for MSFS as of now. A lot of their other aircraft development is also for MSFS in similar fashion. A recent quote from iniBuilds on their discord pretty much lays out their position clearly:
https://discord.com/channels/535246634448191499/535249224254619648/985606688566558832
"We appreciate every single customer for their business and support during our product releases for X-Plane 11. These products were for X-Plane 11 and marketed as such. We have no comments on X-Plane 12, aircraft wise, to make currently, and our focus is very much on Microsoft Flight Simulator. We entered this business to provide the best quality add-ons. Entering a long-term relationship with the fantastic team at Microsoft Flight Simulator, allows us to do just that but to a much wider audience in Microsoft Flight Simulator."

 

23 minutes ago, GoranM said:

Fenix are developing for MSFS because the code base they are using is compatible with MSFS.  So, that's a no brainer. 

Well, not sure it's such a no brainer. The Prosim codebase which the Fenix uses is for systems only, and isn't that Prosim codebase independent of civilian flight simulation software? What makes it more compatible with MSFS than other sims? (I'm sure @Aamir can provide details if he's around). In any case, Fenix as a startup aircraft developer chose to focus on MSFS, and in addition to building on top of the Prosim codebase for systems, they obviously did a lot more from the ground up to realize the final aircraft.
 

Edited July 4, 2023 by lwt1971

[GoranM 3,809]

4 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

In conclusion: A2A focuses on MSFS, but XP airliner can outsell any GA in MSFS LOL Great thread as usual LOL

exactly why I bolded, italicised and underlined a key word in my post.

[GoranM 3,809]

13 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

It is indeed, and the MSFS platform is the better for it.

Great!

13 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

Remember, iniBuilds are only making the XP11 A300 compatible with XP12. All forward development of new features and the rework/enhancements the A310 received for the MSFS version, and the upcoming A300 is receiving, they are only doing so for MSFS as of now.

Many developers say many things.  And then change their mind.  Inibuilds is not immune to that.

13 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

Well, not sure it's such a no brainer. The Prosim codebase which the Fenix uses is for systems only, and isn't that Prosim codebase independent of civilian flight simulation software? What makes it more compatible with MSFS and other sims? (I'm sure @Aamir can provide details if he's around). In any case, Fenix as a startup aircraft developer chose to focus on MSFS, and in addition to building on top of the Prosim codebase for systems, they obviously did a lot more from the ground up to realize the final aircraft.

I'm just going by the statements flying around dev circles.  Prosim is compatible with MSFS.  Fenix would be stupid to try and make their Airbus for something else if it wasn't compatible.

As usual, I can see this going to go pear shaped, really fast, so I'll leave it there.  I've already been misquoted.  Profit and "the most money" are 2 different things.If a dev team can stay profitable, and see a good ROI, there's no reason to switch...for the time being.

Edited July 4, 2023 by GoranM

[jarmstro 2,406]

26 minutes ago, GoranM said:

It's true for every platform.  But I seriously doubt it's equally proportional between platforms and aircraft types.  An airliner in XP could very easily outsell a GA in MSFS.  Depends what the market wants and how it reacts.  (After your edit.  I think that was Janov.  I have a few add ons.)

I suppose the question at the core of this discussion is which platform will make a developer the most money? I honestly don't know. With XP for instance, developers charge twice as much but do they sell more than 50% of the sales they would get in MSFS?

[Aamir 2,913]

32 minutes ago, GoranM said:

Fenix are developing for MSFS because the code base they are using/licensed, is compatible with MSFS

It was actually not compatible, we spent nearly 2 years beating it into working with MSFS, hence the sim releasing in 2020 and us coming out in 2022.