FSX
Let's hope P3D gets enough support; at least it holds the potential of taking flight simming even further than FSX.
Mike
Let's hope P3D gets enough support; at least it holds the potential of taking flight simming even further than FSX.
Mike
Excellent post.Originally Posted by MenendezDiego
FAA ZMP
PPL ASEL
| Windows 11 | MSI Z690 Tomahawk | 12700K 4.7GHz | EVGA GTX1080 Ti | 32GB 5600 MHz DDR5 | 500GB Samsung 860 Evo SSD | 2x 2TB Samsung 970 Evo M.2 | EVGA 850W Gold | Corsair 5000X |
This has nothing to do with "turning your back on the community". Truth is that the community isn't big enough anymore to make it worthwhile for MS to invest money for (comperatively) so little in return for them. Ask yourself this: where would all those add-on developers be if MS hadn't invested in the development of the base program? Flight was a (desperate) effort to get the punters interested in (civilian) flight simulation again. It is not MS that has turned its back on flight simulation, its the (mass) market that has (and did so long ago). And instead of gloating about the demise of Flight, that's the thing we should be worried about: the world at large apparantly doesn't give a flying **** about flightsims. The failure of Flight only confirms what MS was probably expecting. MS most likely will now turn its back on flight simulation(s). And given the state of affairs, I can't blame them for making that sound business decision. They're not a charity. As for Prepared, we're still to see if and under what conditions Lockheed Martin will (be able to) develop it further. IMHO, Prepared at the moment is nothing more but some vague promises by LM and a desperate clinging on to hope by the FS-community.
Just my 2 cents
TFZ-034
"I fought the law and the law won ..."
As a Flight Simulator user since version 4.0, I have used and enjoyed every version up to FSX. I did purchase P3D when LM released the academic version earlier this year. P3D is FSX with needed refinements which is fantastic. I even spent the time to try out MS Flight, as this "software" had great graphics and a new take on the genre. I found myself going back to FSX or P3D after completing gold in all the challenges, so what incentive is there to keep playing.
Also MS Flight just wasn't as open as I would of liked it to be, I only spent like $4 and used some of my redeemed Bing.com points to get the other add-ons.
I wish that Ace's Studio wasn't disbanded because of what I read from the developer's personal blogs made it sound that FSXI would of leapfrogged the technology and overall user experience of the franchise.
Just my two cents, and I know you don't always get what you want.
Brian
No surprise here. Still not sure who Flight was aimed at. Serious flight simmers, serious gamers, I do not think so. Casual flight simmers, casual gamers, maybe. But one thing, if MS would have release more complete AC and scenery each month, Flight might have worked.
I could not agree more.
If anything, the Flight Simulator community has grown. You only have to look insofar as the amount of hardware that is available and the addon developers to prove that fact. Mad Catz just announced a major addon that ties in with the MSFS series, and that is a major investement. The problem is twofold. First, Flight aimed directly between two different crowds, enthusiasts and casual gamers, not pinning down either crowd. Second, the simulator is not performing financially as well as hoped (I assume, but with reason). It has probably made some money, but when you compare it to the other Goliaths that they have created, it simply does not on paper "perform" as well. When times get rough, you take your irons out of the fires that are the coolest and put them into the hottest ones. That's just the way it goes.
On this part, I respectfully disagree with you. That the number of add-on developers (or add-on products for that matter) is increasing doesn't necessarily mean that the community is increasing as well. I assume you refer to the Mad Catz "Combat Pilot"-add on? To me, that add-on caters to that (hardcore) part of the community that has always wanted to turn MSFS into CFSx and is into multi-player (which makes sense for a "combat" add-on). For Mad Catz, this add-on is probably more a by-product in order to sell their hardware. I don't see the punters shelling out for FSX first and then buy this add-on. Not when you can get the latest FP-shooter for far less and impress your friends with better visual effects.
Again, just my 2 cents and not looking for a "fight".
TFZ-034
"I fought the law and the law won ..."
So much for the theory of dumbing down the sim to make it appeal to the masses.
crashAZ- Virtual Navy
[SIGPIC]http://www.sim-outhouse.net/images/rtwr2013/rtwr2013_sm.png[/SIGPIC]
Don't worry, I'm not looking for a fight anyways. Just sharing my thoughts on the industry I have devoted several years to in marketing. I'm quite sure if you compared the numbers of purchasers for the FSX product to those of say, MSFS5.0 they would speak for themselves. Partially this market has come to fruition because the number of simulators has decreased significantly versus what was then a very competitive market. If MSFS wasn't able to produce a fairly decent economy for addon companies, they wouldn't exist to begin with, at least not as thoroughly as we have it now. One only has to look at X-Plane to see that they simply cannot sustain the level of development and addon producers that we have with FSX, hence why everyone has been freaking out for the last few years regarding the closure of ACES and now the loss of development on Flight. What we are seeing is the worry of the developers trickling down to us, the consumers. Hence why companies such as A2A, Orbx and PMDG have made official announcements. I would like to say that the apex of the series however was towards the end of the FS9 run and has been slightly on the decline. Some developers have grown in this environment, such as A2A has frequently said. For the first time in my knowledge, a simulator made a TV spotlight with the FSX release. That to me is unprecedented and indicative of the market.
I think the reason for the "downfall" of flight simulation is that it is no longer a "showcase" product like it used to be in the days when computers were just emerging. Plus, it competes with a lot more other diversions than it had to in the past. I guess the part that annoys me most is the fact that the community views this issue with their own self-interest in mind and utters idiotic statements like "MS betrayed the community". IMHO, however understandable the sentiment, that is an irrational and false argument. MS only does what every company in our capitalist system does and always has done: only invest in those projects that make the most money for the least effort. I think if everyone of us was put in the same position as MS, we all would make exactly the same choice as MS did.
TFZ-034
"I fought the law and the law won ..."
Lawman, I concur 100% with what you just said, and I believe you said it much more eloquently than I could have. I enjoy FSX and have enjoyed the simulations that MS has produced for a long time. I however have no sentimentalism in that this is still a business at the end of the day. My business will not operate on that nature if I wish to survive, hence why I have been clear with my customers that I support all flight simulation platforms, and HAVE indeed marketed beyond FSX many times. A business that does not move with the market does not survive. My business IS that market. I go where the water takes me or I sink. Simple.
Personally I think MS's business plan had a few holes in it and didn't really show an understanding of the market. The only thing that they got right was that there are two types of flight simmer; the casual gamer and the enthusiast (of 'community'). However they tried to capitalize from one without giving enough for the other.
By making Flight a free download they lost any revenue from the casual gamer who just wanted to try it, but not buy any add-ons and the add-ons they did produce were largely just external models, which even the most optimistic developers couldn't have expected to sell well.
By not making Flight into a fully fledged 'FS11' and opening up the development to the many third party developers out there they guaranteed that the enthusiast would be frustrated and quickly go back to FSX. This was their biggest mistake since all the mission and gamey stuff in Flight could have easily lived in an FS11 for the gamer guys without compromising on the fidelity that the community wanted.
It's definitely true that flight sims are not huge sellers like they may once have been, particularly with a lot of gaming taking place on consoles now, but there is a sizeable consumer base using FS9 and FSX who I think retain some hope that there will be a worthy successor that will take the genre into the 64bit era. X-Plane has a strong partner with Aerosoft, but perhaps needs another iteration before it's finally there, so perhaps P3D is where the future lies.
Personally I've just discovered the delights of DCS: A10C - 64bit, fast to load, PMDG like detail and runs like a dream. It wouldn't have been impossible for MS to produce the civilian equivalent.
I had 800 points left and no way in hell was I just going to let Microsucks just keep it so I bought 400 points and got the new cub that should have came with Alaska in the first place.I'll fly it around for a couple days and wipe the whole mess off my harddrive and write it off as a bad experience.
I wasn't wondering IF MS Flight was going to fail, that was a clear yes to me, but more like WHEN it was going to happen... I feel for the guys that gave it their best shot to give what MS asked of them, and in that sense, I think it was a good idea but greed turned it into a lousy one. Imagine, 3d developers be allowed to continue to sell their products but through a MS marketplace, where MS would provide better and safer transactions for the customers to buy these products and standarize features and quality of the add-on (no more surprises of a bad model after sale). Imagine, if MS with its mighty money power, go after the pirates that make current legal sales of add-ons crumble. Imagine, if MS would have had a customer support dedicated section of their marketplace and pass on a simplified lists of bugs to work on to the developers. Imagine, if MS would have denied 3rd party developers the right to keep making add-ons if they didn't satisfy the customer 100%, also, MS would have settle disputes of sales and/or quality of the product instead. I can see success if MS would have given a "base" terrain area to add-on developers and they would populate and modify those accordingly to better represent that country/area than a default one, and selling this via the marketplace so you would have the option to buy piece by piece of a better looking world.
That and many other considerations could have made MS Flight a success, of course, and not taking away the simulation aspect of it. Then you start dreaming of giving it combat capabilities via further developing, undersea capability too. So you go on and on and on, but the really bad things they did, was to try to keep it for themselves, strip it down of scenery and simulation capabilities, and ultimately, not really listening to the community. I HOPE there was a lesson learnt and MS comes back with not just "something", but FSXI if I may still dream.
Jose.
Makes me glad I did not jump to from flight... when RSR (from PMDG) made his original postings on the subject it seemed like a bad idea. Especially the more we found out on the back end I don't think they were ever really commited to it. Personally if I can not play with my toys and fly anywhere other than 1 island it is not worth the effort. I think the only seriously good sims that had limited land areas were the old Janes series which I immensely enjoyed. I know we have a full pipeline of products for FSX, so we will be sticking with it for the foreseeable future as well.
Steve
FSX Hours: 3000+
I imagined, and it was like a nightmare. MS dictating what is "quality" addon? Seriously?
I was one of I think thousands of beta testers for Flight.
It became obvious early on that Flight was not going to be a product that was going to hold the interest of the avid simmer.
And because of that direction I dropped out of being a beta tester and removed MS Flight from my computer.
It was to me a major disappointment.
It is unfortunate that the programmers who put all that time and effort have been cut adrift.
VCN-1
Let's not forget that the original MSFS series were dedicated solely to particular areas, such as Chicago, etc. The whole Flight Unlimited series was based upon this concept, and did it quite well. The fall of Looking Glass studios had nothing to do with their simulations, but had to do with financing that caused the company to split. Another parallel that could be drawn is the scenery for Orbx, in which many simmers now exclusively fly in these areas alone.
It is my belief that limited regions are not necessarily the killer of a simulation, but rather the depth and adaptability of the simulation itself even in small regional areas is what makes it successful or not. If we had the option to purchase a very high fidelity and immersive simulator that focused on a specific state or region, I'm willing to bet that most of us here would make the purchase and enjoy the product.
This is just my opinion, Microsoft in general has not changed it's buisness plan since it started. It's a simple plan really 1. Create an Operating System where non exsists and corner that market. 2. Once the market is cornered don't produce the best product just an adequate product which will require constant updates to function correctly, a sort of programed/planned obsolesence. 3. This will in-turn require the user, who is now locked into our product because we have monopolizied the market and eliminated all but minor competition, to constantly pay more to purchase or update our product, thus increasing our profits. 4. Repeat the above until the product market no longer supports a profit and dump it like yesterdays trash.
Why should it be any different with FS than it is with Windows. For example we are all about to be blitzed with "Windows 8" it will be rolled out as the greatest thing since the wheel. Now if history repeats it's self, Windows 8 will suck because every other OS that Microsoft puts out sucks and is followed up by an improve version within 1 to 2 years. Which will cost you a new computor because your current rig is hopelessly out of date or it is so full of problems you have to buy the updated/corrected OS to use it. Unfortunately we are all victims of Microsofts monoply of the computor industry in general. We gave them "MS Flight" the Flight Sim community didn't bow at our feet, kiss our boots, or most important spend their money, screw them ! Windows 8 is on the way will make them pay ! Again just my opinion.
T Square
The Load Toad
WEAPONSLOADER CREEDWe, the unwillingLed by the unknowing,Are doing the impossible,For the ungrateful.
i think part of the reason that some people might feel that microsoft turned it's back on the community is because of a couple of things.
1) fsx was doing pretty well when they killed aces. they never considered what their core end user is to begin with.
2) they widely circulated a survey asking all kinds of questions about what they might do with flight simulator, creating alot of speculation and anticipation. then they released a product that could only have ignored the data they collected from it.
by their actions they quite clearly did abandon this community. the motivation being profit-driven requires no mensa candidate to figure out.
imagine this sort of business model being adopted across the board. all products and services available through large companies are only what some accountant learned from sifting marketing data. so you only get what they're sure will sell at a certain rate, and you get zero respect or consideration before, during, and after purchase. when you have that image in your head, you're seeing your future.
I guess there wasn't enough 'rain' in MS Flight's 'ecosystem' and it died on the vine.
Paul
USS Dewey DLG-14, ET"C" School Treasure Island-Instructor, OASU/VX-8 Aircrewman
That's pretty much my reaction to it also. It could be the big end to Microsoft's involvement with anything flying related. Remember, the big proponent of aviation with Microsoft, co-founder Paul Allen, is no longer active with Microsoft. Paul was the reason why there was a stream of FSX and CFS titles coming out of MS like clockwork.
It could also be a smart analysis that the strategic pieces of this effort were off base. Does this therefore mean that MS is going to rethink and continue the FSX series? Who knows! But, it would be nice if that were the case, and in the process, perhaps finally zig to the multi-core processor architecture that drives PC's today. MS really failed when they decided not to support multi-core processor in optimal form with FSX.
Ken
While I respect your views, I have to present the contrarian view in reply.This has nothing to do with "turning your back on the community". Truth is that the community isn't big enough anymore to make it worthwhile for MS to invest money for (comperatively) so little in return for them. Ask yourself this: where would all those add-on developers be if MS hadn't invested in the development of the base program? Flight was a (desperate) effort to get the punters interested in (civilian) flight simulation again. It is not MS that has turned its back on flight simulation, its the (mass) market that has (and did so long ago). And instead of gloating about the demise of Flight, that's the thing we should be worried about: the world at large apparantly doesn't give a flying **** about flightsims. The failure of Flight only confirms what MS was probably expecting. MS most likely will now turn its back on flight simulation(s). And given the state of affairs, I can't blame them for making that sound business decision. They're not a charity. As for Prepared, we're still to see if and under what conditions Lockheed Martin will (be able to) develop it further. IMHO, Prepared at the moment is nothing more but some vague promises by LM and a desperate clinging on to hope by the FS-community.
Just my 2 cents
Take a look at Microsoft sales figures for their full line of PC-based games. What you will note is the dominance of the FSX series in those sales numbers, along with CFS and CFS2, and to a degree even CFS3. Microsoft made more sales off their FSX line of releases than anything else they have ever released for gaming.
In terms of the role of the add-on community, Microsoft long knew that the time between releases was fill admirably by the vast add-on community. The prime role being that this community kept the shelf life and interest of each release active long beyond the timeframe of any other genre of gaming. This allowed MS to maintain, even increase, its sale base when the new titles were released.
I also disagree with your conclusions about LM's Prepar3D. First, it was never intended as a game. The fact that it can be used as such simply points out to its robustness. In terms of being a low-cost commercial PC-based flight simulator, it has a wide appeal and is selling well. It is certainly not a "vague promise," but instead something realized and available to a customer base eager to use it. However, you are not the intended customer base, but rather a mutually beneficial ad-hoc and tertiary customer base the product was never really designed for. However, Lockheed Martin has recognized this tertiary customer base and has made efforts to facilitate the base.
Cheers,
Ken
Nothing of all this in the past 7 years - the cancellation of CFS4 the week before it was supposed to get released to the beta testers, the appeareance of FSX, the rise and fall of ESP and the desaster of Flight - has nothing to do with actual sales. Sales were good and it's said that FSX was the best selling title of the whole franchise. Well, one exception maybe, Flight and ESP probably were commercial failures while FSX sure was not (all the best of luck to LM, I just don't see them having more success than MS with ESP)!
It is biz dev who at the time of CFS4/pre FSX decided to go the commercial simulation/ESP road that didn't work, and it was biz dev who decided to use what was left as a testbed for new marketing strategies what didn't work either.
Mathias
Members who have read this thread: 171
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks