4 hours ago, brinx said:

I don't think it matters if the userbase is Game Pass or not. 

While there is also all the reasons Goron just mentioned.

I was really just thinking along the lines that if they had said they had 3 million users, 2.5 million of them being gamepass users - then we would have a bit more evidence which of the steamdb estimates are good estimates.

3 minutes ago, brinx said:

I was focusing on the game itself, not DLCs or microtransactions. Everyone in the industry understand that they are cannibalizing sales in order to grow game pass. There are numerous articles on this subject. If you are one of the 34+ million game pass users, why would you spend $70 on MSFS when it is included in your subscription? The only reason to purchase is if you wanted aircrafts in the higher tiers like deluxe edition, which is more than $70 anyway. Sales alone are just not an accurate indication of success anymore for Microsoft published games. As a result, their metrics shifted to engagement because this paints a more accurate picture. You could have 5 million players, but sales might only show 800 thousand for example because of game pass. 

For the rest of the industry, success is measured by sales, even for other large publishers like Sony and EA. These publishers do not add games to their subscription until at least a year after release, maybe much longer.

Now to your point, once you have the players you can monetize with DLCs and other microtransactions. But you still need the engagement first.

I only knew about the Xplane mobile and Xavion. I used to have xplane mobile on my phone a couple years back. These days I don't buy mobile games anymore. I just stream games to my phone via game pass cloud.

I don’t actually disagree with your main point.  Microsoft does place heavier weight on engagement than raw sales. Where I’m coming from is more a matter of clarification: it’s not that sales become irrelevant, but that they’re part of a wider mix of metrics (engagement, retention, DLC, services, etc.).

And in the same way, “traditional” publishers aren’t really living on box sales alone anymore either. Laminar is a good example.  They’ve got revenue coming in from mobile apps on the App Store and Google Play alongside desktop. A lot of other studios are diversifying too.

So I think we’re on common ground.  Sales are still important, engagement is increasingly important, and the healthiest studios are combining both.

5 hours ago, GoranM said:

it’s not that sales become irrelevant, but that they’re part of a wider mix of metrics (engagement, retention, DLC, services, etc.).

I'm not totally disagreeing with you. I understand that sales are not completely irrelevant. A good indication of this fact is that they are now putting most of their games on other platforms like Steam, PlayStation and Nintendo. I'm just saying raw sales numbers are not as important anymore for games they publish. They are completely fine with users playing via game pass instead of purchasing because that user is still a recurring revenue source.  They are more than happy to take your money if you want to buy though. Console/PC Game Pass subscribers get 20% off of the retail price. Their primary focus however is to increase the value of game pass by having a large catalog. For small teams, Microsoft will even fund the games and allow the developers to sell on other platforms, as long as they release it into game pass on launch day.

Quote

In some other cases, Microsoft will completely fund the production cost of a game. In this situation, the developer can make money from retail sales, while Microsoft may also allow these games to release on PlayStation, Switch, and PC, with the developers taking in that revenue, too. Microsoft uniquely benefits in these types of situations by having a game launch day-and-date on Xbox Game Pass.

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/phil-spencer-explains-how-developers-get-paid-from-xbox-game-pass/1100-6484858/

 

17 minutes ago, brinx said:

I'm not totally disagreeing with you. I understand that sales are not completely irrelevant. A good indication of this fact is that they are now putting most of their games on other platforms like Steam, PlayStation and Nintendo. I'm just saying raw sales numbers are not as important anymore for games they publish. They are completely fine with users playing via game pass instead of purchasing because that user is still a recurring revenue source.  They are more than happy to take your money if you want to buy though. Console/PC Game Pass subscribers get 20% off of the retail price. Their primary focus however is to increase the value of game pass by having a large catalog. For small teams, Microsoft will even fund the games and allow the developers to sell on other platforms, as long as they release it into game pass on launch day.

 

I could be wrong, but as i understand it gamepass revenue is distributed to the studios according to how much time users logged, its not really that different to sales, except the studios see the money far later than they do with sales, but may end up getting far more per user if they create a title that users log a lot of time in.

Hehe, maybe its time xplane was on gamepass....

Edited September 19, 2025Sep 19 by mSparks

23 hours ago, Litjan said:

if X-Plane´s price increased over 60$.

Agree!

But I thought LR had announced a price increase to $80 last year…?

i didnt really pay attention because I had purchased v12 on release…

I thought it strange as MSFS was holding at $60, along with P3D. 

13 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

But I thought LR had announced a price increase to $80 last year…?

Only MSFS 2020 is $60. MSFS 2024 was released at $70 for the standard edition.

I just checked and the price for XP12 is $60. I'm not sure when it was reduced but it was $80 at one point.

2 hours ago, mSparks said:

I could be wrong, but as i understand it gamepass revenue is distributed to the studios according to how much time users logged, its not really that different to sales, except the studios see the money far later than they do with sales, but may end up getting far more per user if they create a title that users log a lot of time in.

It's not one agreement for all developers. It could be funding, upfront payment or something else. "Speaking to The Verge, Xbox boss Phil Spencer said Microsoft makes all different types of deals with developers, depending on their unique situations."

2 hours ago, mSparks said:

Hehe, maybe its time xplane was on gamepass....

😏

I could even imagine that Laminar would make good wins if their price was massively increased. Let’s say 250 bucks a copy. Compared to what we spent for hardware and all addons, still a ridiculous low price for being the base-plattform for 5+ years. Some younger users may stay away and switch to MSFS but am almost sure that 70-80% may stick with it. It could be an experiment worth trying 😊 I predict Laminar’s revenue could be doubled. And I don’t mean it as a joke. I seriously believe that. Many users are adults with a good work (if they can afford a 3000 $ PC). But sure many will then see XP even more as elitist as it is already considered by some today. But why not?

I remember the time when I was craving a studylevel A330 so much, I would easily have paid 400-500 for one, since sims are my main hobby. And that would still be less than only 1h of flight for my PPL. 

Edited September 19, 2025Sep 19 by Franz007

13 minutes ago, Franz007 said:

I would easily have paid 400-500 for one, since sims are my main hobby. And that would still be less than only 1h of flight for my PPL. 

What.
I am timebuilding IR and I pay 200 USD + CFII fee of 60 USD in a C172 (well equipped, IFR, glass, SBAS etc)

And that is for airborne time, not tacho.

What plane did you fly that made you pay so much for one hour?

1 hour ago, SAS443 said:

What.
I am timebuilding IR and I pay 200 USD + CFII fee of 60 USD in a C172 (well equipped, IFR, glass, SBAS etc)

And that is for airborne time, not tacho.

What plane did you fly that made you pay so much for one hour?

The C172, with the instructor, briefing, debriefing, fuel and airport-taxes. Total 4-5h but for around 1h of flight.

1 hour ago, Franz007 said:

I could even imagine that Laminar would make good wins if their price was massively increased. Let’s say 250 bucks a copy. Compared to what we spent for hardware and all addons, still a ridiculous low price for being the base-plattform for 5+ years. Some younger users may stay away and switch to MSFS but am almost sure that 70-80% may stick with it. It could be an experiment worth trying 😊 I predict Laminar’s revenue could be doubled. And I don’t mean it as a joke. I seriously believe that. Many users are adults with a good work (if they can afford a 3000 $ PC). But sure many will then see XP even more as elitist as it is already considered by some today. But why not?

I remember the time when I was craving a studylevel A330 so much, I would easily have paid 400-500 for one, since sims are my main hobby. And that would still be less than only 1h of flight for my PPL. 

IMHO that’d be a massive mistake. 

whether we know it or not, there are undoubtedly many casual/gamer users of X-Plane. They wouldn’t tolerate that kind of price hike and would jump over to MSFS at $70 in a heartbeat. 

And while I’d be fine with paying the same $70 for XP, I wouldn’t pay any more unless there was some additional content that isn’t presently included (a la the various MSFS editions). 

Now, if there were some “PRO” version of XP (but isn’t it already / intrinsically…?), I’d be willing to consider a PRO level price. I’m just not sure what that’d look like…? 

21 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

IMHO that’d be a massive mistake. 

whether we know it or not, there are undoubtedly many casual/gamer users of X-Plane. They wouldn’t tolerate that kind of price hike and would jump over to MSFS at $70 in a heartbeat. 

And while I’d be fine with paying the same $70 for XP, I wouldn’t pay any more unless there was some additional content that isn’t presently included (a la the various MSFS editions). 

Now, if there were some “PRO” version of XP (but isn’t it already / intrinsically…?), I’d be willing to consider a PRO level price. I’m just not sure what that’d look like…? 

Yeah it could be an interesting case-study 🙂 What I question is why would a « casual gamer » not already have switched to MSFS? If the advantage of XP wouldn’t be worth even 150 bucks to them, in my opinion they would have switched a long time ago to MSFS, even more knowing they will find more addons that are also a bit cheaper. So they probably already spent way more than 150 bucks more than if they had switched to MSFS. My theory is that the hardcore-part of XP isn’t that broke and/or price-sensitive. And there should still he enough left to compensate for the revenue-lost. But of course that is only my theory. But would be interesting…isn’t a way of simulating such a customer-behaviour? 🙂

47 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

Now, if there were some “PRO” version of XP (but i

From what we know, its same as commercial version, but you get one on one professional help. But than the commercial users, certainly dont demand a lot of what laminar gives us. That seems to be driven by the average users. 60fps is all laminar is driving to.

5 hours ago, mSparks said:

Hehe, maybe its time xplane was on gamepass....

Wouldn't that require Laminar to make an X-Plane Xbox compatible?

 

3 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

But I thought LR had announced a price increase to $80 last year…?

i didnt really pay attention because I had purchased v12 on release…

I thought it strange as MSFS was holding at $60, along with P3D. 

Sales are good, interest is high and their payroll and other costs increased over time, so I guess it made sense for them. 🤷‍♂️

 

2 hours ago, Franz007 said:

I could even imagine that Laminar would make good wins if their price was massively increased. Let’s say 250 bucks a copy. Compared to what we spent for hardware and all addons, still a ridiculous low price for being the base-plattform for 5+ years. Some younger users may stay away and switch to MSFS but am almost sure that 70-80% may stick with it. It could be an experiment worth trying 😊 I predict Laminar’s revenue could be doubled. And I don’t mean it as a joke. I seriously believe that. Many users are adults with a good work (if they can afford a 3000 $ PC). But sure many will then see XP even more as elitist as it is already considered by some today. But why not?

You're focusing too much on a specific stratum of the user base that may be represented strongly in the communities, but is very likely not particularly large in the overall audience. 100,000 people paying $250 isn't even remotely compensating for 500,000 people paying $80.

Even I would abandon ship at $250, unless it's absolutely worth it. And to be worth it, Laminar would have to polish XP to perfection (i.e. my personal interpretation of perfection and mine only and within three update cycles, one month apart at the slowest).

 

2 hours ago, SAS443 said:

What.
I am timebuilding IR and I pay 200 USD + CFII fee of 60 USD in a C172 (well equipped, IFR, glass, SBAS etc)

And that is for airborne time, not tacho.

What plane did you fly that made you pay so much for one hour?

Welcome to Germany, where the PPL(A) is around 15,000€. The "$100 hamburger" in this country is a "500€ sausage (mustard included though)".

28 minutes ago, Bjoern said:

Wouldn't that require Laminar to make an X-Plane Xbox compatible?

 

Sales are good, interest is high and their payroll and other costs increased over time, so I guess it made sense for them. 🤷‍♂️

 

You're focusing too much on a specific stratum of the user base that may be represented strongly in the communities, but is very likely not particularly large in the overall audience. 100,000 people paying $250 isn't even remotely compensating for 500,000 people paying $80.

Even I would abandon ship at $250, unless it's absolutely worth it. And to be worth it, Laminar would have to polish XP to perfection (i.e. my personal interpretation of perfection and mine only and within three update cycles, one month apart at the slowest).

 

Welcome to Germany, where the PPL(A) is around 15,000€. The "$100 hamburger" in this country is a "500€ sausage (mustard included though)".

Got my PPL in 1978 in South Florida. Wet brand new C 152, $19 and hour, instructor $9 and hour. Rented a C 172 on lease back owned by a Dentist, with about 1,000 hours on the hobbs, for $36 an hour wet..   Those were the days. 😉

1 hour ago, Franz007 said:

Yeah it could be an interesting case-study 🙂 What I question is why would a « casual gamer » not already have switched to MSFS? If the advantage of XP wouldn’t be worth even 150 bucks to them, in my opinion they would have switched a long time ago to MSFS, even more knowing they will find more addons that are also a bit cheaper. So they probably already spent way more than 150 bucks more than if they had switched to MSFS. My theory is that the hardcore-part of XP isn’t that broke and/or price-sensitive. And there should still he enough left to compensate for the revenue-lost. But of course that is only my theory. But would be interesting…isn’t a way of simulating such a customer-behaviour? 🙂

I can really only speak for myself, but I run both sims (and others) based on what they’re individually really good at. 

there are tradeoffs to all of them…

and at $70ish each, it really doesn’t matter. 

I guess, for e.g., I wasn’t willing to purchase Prepar3D Professional at $250 because it didn’t offer me anything more than the Academic license  did.

i don’t think I’d be willing to pay a lot more for x-plane for the same reasons. Like…what extra could they offer a consumer beyond a few bundled Hi Fi addons or something that isn’t already in the game…?

despite the fact that many of us spend a LOT more on hardware than simulators (or perhaps because of it), many are price sensitive when it comes to sim & addon prices. 

I mean, I’m open to ideas, but I just can’t agree with the “let’s price it higher so people perceive it as a premium product”, mainly because the cat is out of the bag on that one.