I'm surprised they lasted this long although I guess that MS posted a loss for the first time a week or so ago may have had something to do with the cleanout.
Just by going on forum numbers you could tell that people just weren't interested in Flight. I doubt the total number of users got to even half of those still using FSX.
Ultimately though MS have only themselves to blame. They produced something that was a crap game and a crap flight simulator. No wonder it failed.
Good discussion.
I have the impression that MS never really had a sound marketing and product strategy for FSX, that's why it went down the drain. Their marketing strategists did not and still do not understand what they created with ESP/FSX or even FS9 and fail to see where they can position themselves in the market to be a evolving and prospering part of it. They only knew how big that market was, and they probably saw that there was a whole industry of addon suppliers making a bigger buck out of the MS flight sim series than they did and wanted to put an end to that.
MS Flight went down the drain because MS tried to tie that addon market into their own system. That was the sole reason for MS Flight to come into being. The failure of that strategy is foreseeable: you only have to take a look on how extremely dynamic - in terms of different product types, evolution of product quality and frequency of releases, and freeware development ... - that market is. It failed because the customers (or community, if you want) expects and wants that market to be dynamic the way it is. Anything else is not acceptable.
What could they have done better? The failure started years ago, after ESP/FSX had been developed. In my eyes, the ESP framework, under which FSX runs, is a fantastic product and a sound basis for serious simulation products. This is the biggest core competence MS had. It completely escapes me that something complex and genial like ESP is created and never touched again. From my point of view, they should have made upgrades (new DirectX versions, performance fixes, 64bit, multicore support, scenery engine, bug fixes...) to FSX / ESP in regular intervals and charge money for them. Develop real life cycles for ESP/FSX, and stay in close contact with the addon developers and serve that market as a team.
The future is dim, IMHO. The ACES team is somewhere else, Paul Allan is gone, the competence of further ESP development is probably lost. That's maybe the reason they licensed it to Lockheed Martin, to possibly wring the last buck out of it. But beware. That meager cash cow might be immensely fat for others, and MS doesn't realize it. I see black clouds on the horizon when after an analysis the whole market seems almost to consist of academic users.
Cheers,
Mark
My scenery development galleries:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/x0skkam7xu8zz8r/DFwnonB1nH
Solomon 1943 V2 Open beta download: http://www.sim-outhouse.com/download...on-1943-V2.zip
Solomon 1943 V2 update 2013-02-05 download: http://www.sim-outhouse.com/download...2013-02-05.zip
Current Project: DHC-4 / C-7a Caribou by Tailored Radials
Dev-Gallery at https://www.dropbox.com/sh/qjdtcoxeg...bAG-2V4Ja?dl=0
For Microsoft, yes. For Flight Simulation, I don't think so.Originally Posted by roger-wilco-66
Windows 8 sounds like a disaster, at least for PC games.
FSX is alive and kicking. It isn't perfect by any means but it is remarkably good. By all accounts sales of FSX addons are booming. P3D is expanding FSX's potential and is being supported by third party developers. X-Plane is making inroads, and again, sales are encouraging. Third party developers are increasing supporting it. Even FS9 is alive and kicking - Carenado have just released a new Bonanza created especially for FS9. If sales are good, more will follow.
I reckon flight simulation has a bright future. I don't care if the 20-30 yr old age group get into it. There are more and more 50 year olds coming on stream. whose kids have flown the nest and who've a bit of extra time for distractions such as flight simulation.
My tuppence worth!
What I meant. MS is out of the race, at least for now.
Cheers,
Mark
My scenery development galleries:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/x0skkam7xu8zz8r/DFwnonB1nH
Solomon 1943 V2 Open beta download: http://www.sim-outhouse.com/download...on-1943-V2.zip
Solomon 1943 V2 update 2013-02-05 download: http://www.sim-outhouse.com/download...2013-02-05.zip
Current Project: DHC-4 / C-7a Caribou by Tailored Radials
Dev-Gallery at https://www.dropbox.com/sh/qjdtcoxeg...bAG-2V4Ja?dl=0
Well I am not too shocked really, cause their "Flight" business model was doomed to end like this. Any business goes down, when it starts losing customer orientation, thatīs basic economic kingergarden-knowledge. And - apart from the poor people who got dumped - I am glad for this clean cut. P3D and others (Aerosoft also anounced plans when FS11 was canceled) who are still passionate about simming and off course their own business will hopefully fill the gap (only a very small one in this case) "MS Flight" left.What I meant. MS is out of the race, at least for now.
Alex
Dont grow up! ... Itīs a trap!
jmo, but i think most of you guys have rose colored glasses on. flight simming is pretty much over.
with microsoft out of the game, you'll never see another product on the scale of fs9/fsx ever again.
I think that's a bit of a bold statement to be honest. MS wasn't the be all and end all when it came to flight sims although they were about the only developer to offer a civilian aircraft sim. There have been many flight sim developers in the past (combat based admittedly) and I know of at least two FSX/FS9 developers who are working on their own flight simulator 'engines' (the background code that drives the sim).
FSX and FS9 will continue to be used by the simming community for as long as there are payware and freeware developers willing to invest time (and money) into making new products for them. Enjoy what we have now and support the developers so that they can make more products and the flight sim community will last for many years yet.
Larry
I think MS does want to be out of the flight sim market. I expect they will focus on operating systems, business software, and X-box game titles. Flight sims won't die, other developers will enter the market, even though it is a relatively small market.
My computer: ABS Gladiator Gaming PC featuring an Intel 10700F CPU, EVGA CLC-240 AIO cooler (dead fans replaced with Noctua fans), Asus Tuf Gaming B460M Plus motherboard, 16GB DDR4-3000 RAM, 1 TB NVMe SSD, EVGA RTX3070 FTW3 video card, dead EVGA 750 watt power supply replaced with Antec 900 watt PSU.
Simply put......P3D is the present (version 1) and the future (starting with version 2) :salute: (and not to forget DCS.........)
Glad I never believed in that MS Flight crap......
Cheers,
Hank
I disagree with you and Lawman on this: From your post, it seems that you believe that the market changed and MS was somehow not involved in this process
But MS had it in hand to do much better. If there is any decline in the popularity of flightsims at all, it is because MS has disappointed and not gone on and developed a flightsim with a "WOW" effect since FS9.
Even FSX was more of a backward-looking effort with very little to set it apart from FS9 and with an outdated graphic on release!
Since MS had the market cornered, it was up to them to keep pushing the envelope. Instead they left that to numerous freeware and payware developers.
MS could have kept flightsims an immersive product with showcase quality truly at the cutting edge if they had wanted to.
"A business that does not move with the market does not survive." MS had the rare priviledge of completely defining the market.
They didn't have to go where the water takes them.
They WERE the water.
They blew it. Epic fail. Simple.
Good comment. People keep saying that the flightsim community is small - it is not and sales of FSX have shown that there is serious money in flightsimming too.
MS just developed themselves into a hole they have trouble climbing out of.
They scuttled their own boat.
Don't know why some people vaguely try to claim that the market has changed and that is the reason for MS pulling out when there are flightsim enthusiasts all over the world spending millions of bucks.
The question is though, how much profit did MS make on FSX? Sales may have been high, but considering the amount of licensing they may have had to do to get the aircraft, airport and terrain data, not to mention development costs, was the return on investment worth it compared to spending the same money developing a Halo sequel? From MS actions I'd guess they thought not hence the attempt to do something different rather than just realise FSXI.Good comment. People keep saying that the flightsim community is small - it is not and sales of FSX have shown that there is serious money in flightsimming too.
Before Microsoft stopped development of simulation platforms, the simulation industry had already significantly changed. They were one of the last major bastions of flight simulation software that were not created by small independent developers. In the 90s, most major companies in the industry had their version of a flight simulator. Fly, FlyII, Flight Unlimited 1, 2 and 3, various products by Microprose, Janes, etc. etc. etc. Today, there are only a few in the industry left and with the exception of IL-2/Cliffs of Dover, most large companies have removed themselves from the serious simulation market. I can speak firsthand in that I have helped market simulators to various publishers, and the response was generally the same, that they were not interested in publishing and funding simulator development. It is not nearly as market viable as it once was, and while some people may disagree with what I have said, the truth is in the numbers for everyone to see. Small developers such as DCS are now some of the only "games" in town because they are willing to publish the products on their own or publishing their products overseas where the climate in the market is slightly different. Here in America however publishers have refused to touch simulations with a long pole for years. The reason why Microsoft was semi-successful with their market is because they were one of the very few developers still marketing simulators on a regular basis long after most companies had bailed from the concept, along with the addon development, it had become one of the ONLY simulators for end users to utilize. We are going to see a resurgence somewhat akin to what we saw in the 90s now that companies may not have to develop against Microsoft, however I believe small independent developers will be the future, while companies like Ubisoft etc. will continue producing what makes them money (IE not simulators).
... again, because nobody else was able to compete with them as once they were able to do. Simulators are expensive to build, which is my opinion why Microsoft never took the approach of completely rebuilding the wheel. Why break what has been working so successfully for years. The difference in flight is they took a completely different marketing approach. The engine is still the same however.They didn't have to go where the water takes them.
They WERE the water.
I believe they simply misread the market. With the MSFS franchise being a relatively small dollar amount (and I would be willing to argue that until my face is blue) comparatively to their other products, they were more willing to try new strategies, concepts and use it as a test bed to help potentially improve sales. I do not believe this came to fruition, hence why Flight has been cancelled for further development.
Because it's true? Nobody in the addon industry makes a killing off this work. Some of us make decent wages, but none of us are "rich" from it. There is definitely a market still out there, and tons of money to still be had, but the simulation market cannot and will never compete with products like Call of Duty, Halo, X-Box, iPhone, Office, Windows or other "staples" (debatable) of the industry. The companies that stand to do well in this environment are the companies willing to fill in the void where Microsoft once was. Small developers taking slices of the industry and profiting fairly well from it. This is not terribly complicated, honestly. This IS the reality I have worked in, and I make it my job every day I wake up.Don't know why some people vaguely try to claim that the market has changed and that is the reason for MS pulling out when there are flightsim enthusiasts all over the world spending millions of bucks.
I'm not quite sure why MS went to all this trouble of trying to launch a new FS system in the first place.
I'm sure the majority of flight simmers would of rather a refined FSX that allowed smoother play compatible with existing addons without the use of a super computer. This is quite clear across the various forums. You don't need a clever marketing department to work that out.
MS failed to react to that need and this is where it got them. Flight is the first MS flight sim I've never purchased. They got it wrong, pure and simple.
Because the old way wasn't making them enough money for the amount invested, it's why any business does anything and really isn't that hard to understand.I'm not quite sure why MS went to all this trouble of trying to launch a new FS system in the first place.
Don't you just love stats?
MSFlight facebook page 12,371 likes
PMDG facebook page 12,857 likes
Skyrim facebook page 187,875 likes
We all feel strongly about aviation and flight simming. Because this is our hobby, we don't always see things from a rational point of view. For MS, MSFS is just a product in their portfolio. They therefor have no "emotional attachment" to their products. It's just a business decision where they look at the market and ask themselves some very simple questions: it's nice that there is an add-on industry, but is it worthwhile for us to keep pouring money in the development of MSFS? And how does MSFS fit in our (global)market strategy/portfolio?
For MSFS to move truly forward, it basically needs to be redeveloped from the ground up so it can take better advantage of modern hardware. Since FS2000, every next version was "merely" an evolution of the previous one. Hardware development at the time gave them no reason to redesign MSFS, because the whole industry at that time believed we would all soon have 4-5 GHz CPU's (it took much longer in the end than anticipated, and even now we have to overclock our CPU's slightly to get those speeds). To redevelop MSFS would take a considerable investment (why do you think Aerosoft is so cautious about developing their own sim?). And MS basically made the decision that in the current climate the profits they could get were not enough to warrant investing in further development of MSFS, compared to investing that money in other products in their portfolio.
What we also need to consider is that MSFS is not only a fairly expensive program to develop, it is also rather expensive to put it in the market. MSFS is a large program (it now comes on two DVD's). Those DVD's have to be manufactured and stocked. It also comes in multi-language versions, so you have to have different versions of it to cater for local markets. Because of its size, it doesn't lend itself well to digital distribution, especially not in the emerging Asian markets where internet access is comparatively slow for most people. So all this adds to the costs for no gain to MS. And no, you can't compare MSFS to Windows.
So how does Flight fit in the picture? Flight was a comparatively inexpensive way for MS to test the market. Because of its relatively small size, it lends itself well to digital distribuition. They saw the success Apple had and it fitted well into Microsoft's own "Cloud"-stategy (no stocking/manufacturing costs, better DRM etc.).
My point is that the community should try to look at the issue from Microsoft's perspective, that is without the emotional attachment you have. And then you'll see that Microsoft's strategy/behaviour isn't all that "dumb" as the community proclaims it to be (I'm not claiming their strategy paid off, but then again no one holds posession of that elusive crystal ball). For MS, this is just a logical business decision. Even your favourite add-on developers have a business plan; they release those add-ons they think will make them the most profit. You can't maintain a business long by only following your heart and producing add-ons no one (or not enough) people will buy. It may not be romantic, but it's the cold hard truth. And if we were in their shoes, we'd probably make the same decision.
One last thing: MS offers you a product, for example FSX. You bought that one product. They are under no obligation to offer you a new version of MSFS (read: another product). It is their prerogative to stop offering (a new version of) MSFS and they could have done so at any moment in the series. Just like a lot of manufacturers and shop keepers do all the time. You accept that from those manufacturers/shop keepers. Why can't you accept MS' (legitimate) decision?
TFZ-034
"I fought the law and the law won ..."
Lawman,
With respect, I think I speak for a significant number of people at this forum when I say that most -- if not all of us -- are adult men and women who have families and professional careers. Therefore, most all of us grasp the business fundamentals. Many of us, myself included, have our own personal businesses where bottom line, accounts receivable and payable, plus market penetration are concepts we practice. I also have a professional career fostered over nearly three decades.
Two things come to mind. First, I submit to you that emotional considerations are present in a corporate boardroom. Discussions often become acrimonious. Further, even the wealthiest and most successful of business leaders have their passons. I submit Paul Allen as exhibit A. His choices to patronize the aviation sciences and arts, plus his purchase of the Portland Trailblazers, had much more to do with the emotional appeal of these efforts than any cold and calculated analysis. No one should think less of Paul Allen because he hasn't forgotten that emotion is a vital part of any successful human endeavor, nor anything which should be considered negative.
I submit that any person who devoted the insane hours it takes to create and run a business cannot hope to succeed without a strong foundation in emotional attachment, because only that heart and soul component causes rational humans to sacrifice so much to pursue a business dream -- and dreams themselves are mainly products of emotion -- and God bless America for being a nation where such emotions are not only allowed, but indeed encouraged!
Anyway, pardon the speech, but I felt compelled to point out that whatever true level of emotion is present in our analysis of the situation is hardly a basis to downgrade the accuracy nor appeal of our arguments. There is a sound business fundamental in the FS line, always has been. Many here, myself included, have focused on the business fundamentals. FS as a series sold huge! FSX sold very well indeed! A new FS title would have done very well.
Open architecture is another business principle and was a prime reason for MS's success in the FS line.
Cheers,
Ken
It's more the attitude of at least some part of the community against MS that irritates me. You just have to read through the various FS-forums: "They don't know what the're doing". "They've turned their back on the community and betrayed us". "Typical big wigs in a board room who know nothing". Comments like that. It's basically the same knee-jerk reaction when MS announced they had closed ACES, then announced what Flight was gonna be and now the cancellation of Flight. Those comments are purely made out of self-interest and seem to be the result of an apparant inability to objectively look at a situation from both sides. No, it seems to be cooler to bash, because then your part of the "in-crowd". IMHO, it makes the community look like a bunch of whining, spoiled children who can't stomach the fact that they won't get a new toy to play with, despite still having enough other toys to play with. Maybe it's only another example of how self-centred and egotistical our society has become.
MS simply offered me a product: FSX. I took them up on their offer, expecting no more than FSX. And there wasn't some sort of a deal that I would get anything other than FSX. So MS came through with their end of the deal, I with mine. We both fulfilled our obligations and that was the end of it. Plain and simple.
Edit: let me put it this way: MS made a decision that was theirs to make. It may not be the decision some of us were hoping for, but that's irrelevant. Everyone is entitled to disagree with that decision, but keep the discussion civilized (not saying the members here didn't). We have other people to throw simple, short-sighted slogans around: they're called politicians.
TFZ-034
"I fought the law and the law won ..."
I think I understand something now. Here is a part of a post from Avsim.
"With regards to MS Flight, I was invited by Microsoft to attend their "media day" as AVSIM's Reviews Editor. I listened unbiasly to their "sales pitch" and what this product was and what it had to offer. Also in the room were 3rd party developers from various "brand name" companies we are all familiar with. At the end of the presentation I was free to develop my own opinion of the product based on what I had heard."
"The consensus around the room appeared to be unanimous, this "game" would not fly with the simming public. Microsoft's concept was that this was not for simmers but for the millions of people who wanted the opportunity to experience flying without having to have any knowledge or skills in the cockpit. Afterall, you play/control the game with a mouse."
Flight was never intended to be a sim, but a flying game for all. And that is ok. I just wish MS would have been clear about that from the beginning. Or maybe MS did and we did not hear it?
Either way, it is too bad MS has stopped work on Flight.
Interesting. I'd be interested in knowing how Microsoft ever concluded that a civilian flight game would appeal to the general public without any knowledge or interest in airplanes. Those people think FS9 and FSX are boring because all you do is fly around. It seems like a perfectly designed worst of both worlds scenario. Hard core simmers won't like it because it's a just a game, and the general gamer person won't like it because you can't shoot stuff...
MB: GIGABYTE GA-X299 UD4 PRO ATX
CPU: Intel(R) Core Processor i9-10900X Ten-Core 3.7GHz
MEM: 64GB (8GBx8) DDR4/3000MHz Quad Channel
GPU: RTX 3080 Ti 12GB GDDR6
OS: Win 10 Pro 64bit
HP Reverb G2
MS did not have to do everything different - if they were not willing to invest in making an entirely NEW flightsim, they could have spent a moderate amount and done an decent FS11.
You can turn it everywhich way you want, but in any direction it turns out that MS made a bad business decision somewhere along the way.
Killing off the whole franchise would be an even WORSE business decision.
I believe that flight simming in itself would have kept doing fairly well in the coming years if MS had NOT begun to confuse their fan base.
Producing half-assed products like Flight is NEVER good business practice.
The point you are trying to make as I understand it is that MS pulled out because their market slumped.
I agree entirely with that but the point I am trying to get across is that it is mostly MS FAULT that their market has slumped!
I couldn't agree more!:salute::salute::salute:
What does being on Steam have to do with it?
Ark
--------------------------
Win7 64-bit
Asus P6T Deluxe mobo
Core i7 920 @ 4.0
6GB G.Skill DDR3 1600
Evga GTX 480 SC+
SB X-FI Fatality
640GB WD "Black"
Dell 3007WFP-HC 30" LCD / Acer H233H 23" LCD
Yes, but can you blame childern for being spoiled ?... That's always their parents' fault, isn't it.
So here's Mr. M.Soft, well respected man in the neighbourhood, 'Big Daddy' to his many childern. For a couple of decades already, just about on a biannual basis, Mr.Soft brings home a fantastic new toy that all of his childern learned to wait for in great anticipation. He has, probabely inadvertently, created a precedent. He could've easily stopped with just this one fantastic toy, left it at that, but he choosed not to do so. The childern loved Big Daddy tremendously for it. They adored him!
This went on for years and years. As time goes by some of the childern weren't that happy anymore with the new toy Big Daddy brought home, that's one of the negative aspects of a precedent, but there was always the next time to look out for and that's what they did. It's not hard to understand that the childern were heavily dissapointed when, all of a sudden, like lightning out of a blue sky, Big Daddy said "Ok, childern, that's it, no more new toys. Over and out". Most of the childern didn't understand that decision at all because they had always been very grateful for the new toy Big Daddy brought home. They started to look at Big Daddy with different eyes, all of a sudden he didn't look so Big anymore...
But Big Daddy wouldn't be Big Daddy if he left it at that. " Ok,childern, i've changed my mind, i WILL bring you your new toy in a year or so afterall, don't ask me why. And the childern didn't ask him why and again just waited in even more great anticipation as before for the new fantastic toy BD had promised to bring home. When BD finally arrived with the new toy it didn't take long for the childern to find out BD had actually played a dirty trick on them. The new toy proved to be nothing but a fancy looking box with a dead sparrow in it...
They were heavily dissapointed when Mr.Soft told them no more new toys from now on but the more mature childern of the Soft bunch could actually understand his decision. For one thing he probabely may have been in serious financial problems. They couldn't help noticing his more than normal appetite for alcoholic beverages too...
Knowing all these facts, is it really that hard to understand for Mr.Soft's childern to be exceptionally concerned about this awkward situation, even whine about it, particularly in light of the dead sparrow in the fancy box ? Afterall they couldn't help being spoiled to the bone by Mr.Soft himself bringing them all these great new toys once every two or three years for more than 2 decades.
Spoiled childern have a right to whine because it's not their fault having been spoiled. That's entirely up to their parents, in this case to their father, Mr. Soft, Big Daddy, who, btw, is now referred to as Dead Sparrow by his childern...
Can you blame them ? Personally, i don't think so...
Members who have read this thread: 171
Posting Permissions
FSX
Bookmarks