36 minutes ago, brinx said:

I'm not sure I completely understand why the operating system matters.

Sony has been porting many of their games to steam including Spiderman, God of War, uncharted and many more. These were built for the PlayStation platform and later ported to PC/Steam but I don't think anyone would classify this as a money grab or desperation on Sony's part. These companies are trying to reach the largest audience possible. The budget for these titles is in the hundreds of millions, so they want to recover that and make a profit on top of it.

There’s a pretty big difference between Sony’s strategy and what’s happening with MSFS. Sony is both the publisher and platform holder, and they’ve built out the infrastructure and resources to port almost anything, almost anywhere. They don’t need to justify it beyond expanding reach.

MSFS is a different picture. Sales of 2024 have dropped off compared to 2020, and while Steam numbers aren’t the whole story, the comparison between the two versions paints a clear trend. When you’ve got 300+ developers on payroll at roughly $200K per head, you have to explore new revenue streams. If the PS5 market was such a natural move, why wasn’t it pursued five years ago? Why now? One could reasonably assume it’s a matter of financial need rather than just optional “want.”

And to be clear - I don’t use “cash grab” as a derogatory term. And I probably should've used my wording a little more carefully (Apologies for the misunderstanding @UrgentSiesta) .  Even with my own add-ons, when sales slow, I’ll run discounts. That isn’t desperation, it’s smart business to boost revenue. Same principle applies here: cross-platforming can be a practical response to slower than expected sales.

Nothing wrong with that - Microsoft/Asobo have bills to pay, just like the rest of us.  And if they want to commit to their original promise of 10 years worth of support, then it's obviously a wise business decision.  My original point was, I doubt they would've even considered PS5 if revenue was still up and consistent.

Edited September 30, 2025Sep 30 by GoranM

10 hours ago, tonywob said:

I'm not convinced that it'll get them that many new users. A mobile version probably would do way better. 

I have no idea how successful it will be but let's just consider only the VR side of things for a moment:

• Sony sold 2 million VR headset for PS5, and they are mostly collecting dust because there is a lack of quality VR games 

My thinking is along the lines of:

Tony is a PS5 VR owner that spent $500 on a headset and finds there is a limited selection of good VR games on the console; Tony hears that a flight simulator is releasing that allows him to fly over his house and explore the entire globe in VR. Will he try it? There is strong possibility that he'll want to see what the buzz is about.

Edited September 30, 2025Sep 30 by brinx

5 hours ago, brinx said:

because there is a lack of quality VR games 

erm.. I think we can probably put that comment down to "if it's not a flight simulator, it's not good". For which you are definitely in the right place, but there is a wider world out there: 

 

22 hours ago, brinx said:

I could see that not everyone understands the changing landscape in the gaming hardware and the console space, so I'll try to explain it. Hardware sales over time will play less of a factor going into the future. Many were even predicting that this could even be the last console generation with the rise of cloud gaming.

This move by Microsoft is actually not really surprising. This year they had 6 of the top 10 selling games on PS5, so releasing MSFS on that platform would be a no-brainer even to me.

Growth in the console sector is down overall. Both Sony and Microsoft are lagging behind sales of their last generation consoles. All this of this is happening while the development cost of games continues to rise. It is starting to make more financial sense to release games across multiple platforms. Sony is slowly coming around to this realization also with some releases on both PC and Xbox.

Another reason why hardware is becoming less relevant is because of cloud gaming. It completely removes the hardware from the equation. You buy the game once from Microsoft for example and play it on other services. You can get a Game Pass Cloud Game running on a Virtual Xbox somewhere in the cloud within 20 seconds (I tested with MSFS2020). Microsoft allows you to buy a game from then and run it on a competitor's cloud service like Nvidia GeForce Now using an RTX 4080. Nvidia simply checks to see if you own the license before allowing you to run it on their service. Buy once play anywhere will be a thing in the future. 

You can now stream games to amazon kindle stick, Oculus Quest, Phone, Tablet, Rival Cloud Platforms, LG Electronics and more. No need to own the physical hardware anymore. It is just a radically different approach from what we were used to in the past.

 

cloud gaming has been "the next big thing" for a long time

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Stadia

2 hours ago, EGLD said:

cloud gaming has been "the next big thing" for a long time

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Stadia

Stadia didn't fail because it was a Gaming Cloud Service. Other gaming cloud services are doing fine. It failed because it lacked content while trying to compete with big video game publishers like Microsoft and Sony. You can't have Cloud Gaming without games.

Quote

“Stadia’s lack of important AAA content created a self-sustaining cycle whereby players would not subscribe to Stadia because of the lack of AAA games, and in turn many AAA game developers would not develop games for Stadia due to its small user,” Google Director of Product Management Dov Zimring said

"By comparison, Microsoft’s cloud gaming software, Xbox Cloud Gaming, had a 60-70% share of the cloud gaming market in 2022. Both Sony PlayStation Cloud and Nvidia GeForce Now reported a 10-20% market share in 2022, while Amazon Luna also reported 0-5%" - Forbes.com

Gamepass was a better offer because every Microsoft published game gets added to the service. But it is not strictly a cloud service. It allows you to download the games to your PC/Xbox.  When you are visiting mom and dad, or the kids, whatever the case, you can continue playing on your tablet, phone, amazon fire stick, etc via cloud stream with your saves synced up.  You are not locked to one device like Xbox or PlayStation.

Nvidia GeForce Now on the other hand is offering you up to a 4080 and you can play games that you bought somewhere else. 

Microsoft makes games and they offer it to you via cloud. Nvidia makes hardware and they offer it to you via the cloud. Google made neither, had less than 5% of the market and had no compelling reason to use their service. They were facing an uphill battle. 

Edited September 30, 2025Sep 30 by brinx

43 minutes ago, brinx said:

It failed because it lacked content 

It lacked content because they only carried the most profitable content.

It failed because that still wasnt profitable enough to justify keeping the system up.

Mostly because electricty is expensive iirc. 

 

On 9/29/2025 at 3:15 PM, GoranM said:

I don’t consider ‘cash grab’ anything remotely resembling a scam. A cash grab can be a Black Friday sale. At least, that’s how I see it.  Making it for the PS5, is a lot more like a long term version. There may very well be percentages involved, but it’s still a market they’re willing to exploit for more sales. Mobile platform next?  Who knows. 

Ah - I’m glad I misunderstood your intent. 🤙

On 9/29/2025 at 5:32 PM, GoranM said:

There’s a pretty big difference between Sony’s strategy and what’s happening with MSFS. Sony is both the publisher and platform holder, and they’ve built out the infrastructure and resources to port almost anything, almost anywhere. They don’t need to justify it beyond expanding reach.

MSFS is a different picture. Sales of 2024 have dropped off compared to 2020, and while Steam numbers aren’t the whole story, the comparison between the two versions paints a clear trend. When you’ve got 300+ developers on payroll at roughly $200K per head, you have to explore new revenue streams. If the PS5 market was such a natural move, why wasn’t it pursued five years ago? Why now? One could reasonably assume it’s a matter of financial need rather than just optional “want.”

And to be clear - I don’t use “cash grab” as a derogatory term. And I probably should've used my wording a little more carefully (Apologies for the misunderstanding @UrgentSiesta) .  Even with my own add-ons, when sales slow, I’ll run discounts. That isn’t desperation, it’s smart business to boost revenue. Same principle applies here: cross-platforming can be a practical response to slower than expected sales.

Nothing wrong with that - Microsoft/Asobo have bills to pay, just like the rest of us.  And if they want to commit to their original promise of 10 years worth of support, then it's obviously a wise business decision.  My original point was, I doubt they would've even considered PS5 if revenue was still up and consistent.

Agree  

My big “concern” with MSFS is the constant OpEx of all the servers and bandwidth. It must be insanely expensive (it’s not free just because MS owns both…). 

I pay monthly for all my other streaming content, but not MSFS. How long can they reasonably maintain the spend?

not to mention the literally unprecedented amount of free content that they continue to give away. Great for us simmers, but must be a further drag on margins, etc  

I’m not worried about a shutdown as MS will keep selling new versions of the sim (and I’ll always have XP if MS exits the market again 👍). 

obviously it’s quite a complex situation and there must be significant drivers other than Units Sold to Consumer “Gamers”. 

Edited October 3, 2025Oct 3 by UrgentSiesta

I’ve been flying XP non-stop now for the past 2 weeks and three things really stand out compared to msfs:

1.  Everything seems so much sharper, especially the cockpit instruments.  I can read smaller fonts in XP, whereas there’s this “fuzziness” to msfs.  Note I fly exclusively in VR.

2.  Yes, the default scenery in XP leaves a lot to be desired.  However, it feels way more alive.  The traffic can be seen for miles, the trees sway realistically in the wind, the ambient sounds, the rain effects on the ground, etc, etc.  It feels more like a living world than a painting.

3.  This is the big one.  The weather.  Every flight is a new experience and feast for the eyes.  The thunderstorms, overcast, multiple cloud layers, the shadows, lighting, turbulence when flying through clouds.  This is by far the standout feature.  When I fly in msfs I know exactly what to expect - different versions of the same cloud puffs, just plain boring and lifeless.

4.  Bonus one - default airports.  I don’t need to scour the interwebs or pay for an upgrade version.

2 hours ago, Gilandred said:

I’ve been flying XP non-stop now for the past 2 weeks and three things really stand out compared to msfs:

Crowdfunded espresso for @Gilandred and more fuel for the aeroplane! 

On 9/26/2025 at 4:09 AM, mSparks said:

Maybe. I'd say I'm 50/50 that or it peaked in 2019. Things feel like they mostly moved sideways since 2020

Watching the latest DEV stream now and it reminded me of this comment. I think they heard you. It was explicitly mentioned that the "hobby is doing quite well" and over 500,000 new users have tried simming since the last stream.

8 hours ago, brinx said:

 and over 500,000 new users have tried simming since the last stream.

This is the kind of corporate bluster that sounds great but doesn't actually say anything.l, and leaves me 50/50.

There is a very, very wide chasm between

500,000 users tried a flight sim on their xbox as part of their gamepass subscription for a couple of hours since the last stream 

And

500,000 users spent more than $50 on flight sim since the last stream with almost none of them asking for a refund.

Later really would be great, I suspect its the former.

And I presume you have seen the reaction to the gamepass price increases. $360 a year doesn't seem sustainable to me...

XP12 released in late 2022, and apparently had record sales.  This would also indicate the hobby is doing quite well.  Even if XP lost market share to MSFS, the size of the pie got a whole lot bigger.

19 hours ago, Gilandred said:

XP12 released in late 2022, and apparently had record sales.  This would also indicate the hobby is doing quite well.  Even if XP lost market share to MSFS, the size of the pie got a whole lot bigger.

XP12 still has a much smaller userbase than XP11 had.

MSFS2024 has a much, much smaller userbase than MSFS2020 had.

Growth requires more than just new sales, it requires the old sales to stick around and grow with it. I see very little evidence they are.

I do very much expect that to change in the not to distant future, but I don't think anyone is close to meeting the expectations that drove the enthusiasm through 2019, let alone exceeding them.

Edited October 10, 2025Oct 10 by mSparks

22 minutes ago, mSparks said:

XP12 still has a much smaller userbase than XP11 had.

MSFS2024 has a much, much smaller userbase than MSFS2020 had.

Growth requires more than just new sales, it requires the old sales to stick around and grow with it. I see very little evidence they are.

I do very much expect that to change in the not to distant future, but I don't think anyone is close to meeting the expectations that drove the enthusiasm through 2019, let alone exceeding them.

I agree XP growth will soon change for the better, especially with the next gen scenery launch, if it’s as good as what I made up in my imagination 😊.

Regarding MSFS 2024, Jorg stated during this weeks developer stream that it had more users than 2020.  I have my own reasons to doubt that, but then he would be lying would he not?