Well...that ain´t came as expected huh?

[Prowler1111]

MS on Flight´s future..wait....future?

http://www.theverge.com/gaming/2012/7/25/3187649/microsoft-vancouver-lays-off-staff-cancels-projects

Best regards

Prowler

[N2056]

I guess they had to figure out for themselves that relying on making add-ons won't make you rich! :icon_lol:

[stiz]

feel sorry for the staff, but its no surprise really. You kinda new it was going tits up when it appeared on steam.

[kjb]

It's no surprise. They had the business model right initially, then dumped it when the abandoned FSX. With Flight, they somehow expected to make more money by people buying their add-ons and since they weren't including the developers who make really good add-ons, it was just a bad idea. With FSX, one could buy the program for a reasonable amount and fly the world with thousands of freeware and payware add-ons.

I'm more surprised that someone there thought it was a good idea in the first place.

[MenendezDiego]

That's what happens when you turn your back on the community.

[OBIO]

WHAT???? MS cancelled Flight!?!??!?! How am I going to sleep tonight? Oh, that's right...on my belly with my head cradled on my right forearm....just the way I sleep every night. No real surprise that Flight crashed already.....for me, it was dead before it was released to world.

OBIO

[gradyhappyg]

Another half finished Microsoft project.
I am shocked I tell ya.
SHOCKED!!!!!

[Pips]

Blimey, that didn't take long did it?

[Naismith]

A kick in the teeth to those people that have actually opened their wallets, perhaps they will sell off the code for some other company to pick up the baton and stumble with it.

[roger-wilco-66]

Hmmm don't know if this is good or bad news. That new M$ strategy got what it deserved, and many are in high hopes for LM now to bring P3D further. With MS crashing with the flight concept, I wonder what will happen now. I hope this calamity has no adverse effects on LMs plans.

Mark

[Mathias]

WOW, that title was going down fast. :icon_eek:

[jankees]

indeed, that was quick.
Just shows you that you should never trust any market-research based spreadsheet-managment speak...
Personally, I was amazed that flight could't keep me interested for much longer than two hours, and most of that was spent installing it.
I mean, a small part of the world that does not interest me, combined with aircraft that didn't interest me or had no cockpit, and that you could not paint or do anything with, water textures that looked very unrealistic (to me anyway) and ground textures that were not that impressive either, especially compared to my orbx world. OK, so it was smooth, but so is my FSX, so what else was there to like?
Still, too bad for all the people that were laid off, I'm sure they did their best with what they were allowed to do.

[jeansy]

it should have been a sub sim

[stansdds]

I'm sorry to see people losing their jobs, but the cancellation of MS Flight does not surprise me. I don't think Flight found much popularity among flight simmers nor among the console gaming crowd.

[FlameOut]

... too bad for all the people that were laid off...

I did not read the link this morning but I will tonight when I get home. I have to ask: ...did they lay off the man responsible for pushing this "idea" of "Flight" and his little group of "yes men" ?

:gameoff::a1451:

[falcon409]

Yep, think there's a lot of us thinking right now. . ."I told ya so. . . ." Shouldn't be a surprise to anyone really.

[Thunderbolt]

what the hell was MS Flight ? :sleep: :icon_lol:

[italoc]

That's what happens when you turn your back on the community.

Those are exactly my words !!!!
Very bad strategy decision in the first place ...
Oh well, nobody is going to regret the end of MS ... on the contrary "allez" with P3D :applause::applause:
Italo

[MudMarine]

I kept MS Flight on my system for 15 mins. They don't seem to understand our communtiy, the dedication and the disposalbe income that we have. Aviation is more than a game, it's a life long passion for me and I'm sure many more: it's not just a hobby!

[T Square]

WHAT???? MS cancelled Flight!?!??!?! How am I going to sleep tonight? Oh, that's right...on my belly with my head cradled on my right forearm....just the way I sleep every night. No real surprise that Flight crashed already.....for me, it was dead before it was released to world.

OBIO

AMEN Brother !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Crusader]

I wonder what happens to any balance you had on the books to purchase any future addons ? Not sure what MS called it .

[icycle]

what the hell was MS Flight ? :sleep: :icon_lol:

I don't think it's possible to put it better!

Unfortunately, MS has allowed the genre that they played a big role in defining, pass them by. Guess that shows what can happen when you let the "marketing / product development types", pitch a concept without proper research. They had their opportunities to make it whole, hale, and hearty, but chose the wrong road when they walked away from the community. The road they chose led them right out of the market.

It was, as they say, "Just a matter of time".

Regards
Bill

[Cirrus N210MS]

thats amazing

MS Flight didnt last Long at All

[Crusader]

[QUOTE=Crusader;733730]I wonder what happens to any balance you had on the books to purchase any future addons ? Not sure what MS called it .

Just found out the answer to my stupid question . Their server is still up and I noticed they just added a Cub yesterday so apparently no more future development . I did think the scenery was good but I wish I had not even gotten involved with it in the first place . I loved their Stearman too.

Rich

[Thoe6969]

Well I'm one who tried to support Flight by purchasing the island package and Alaska,only to be really disapointed with the Alaskan scenery.But all the time thinking maybe they would see the light,now I,m sorry I ever gave them a dime

[mike_cyul]

Let's hope P3D gets enough support; at least it holds the potential of taking flight simming even further than FSX.


Mike

[ryanbatc]

That's what happens when you turn your back on the community.

Excellent post.

[Lawman]

That's what happens when you turn your back on the community.

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:a1451:

[BPbobafett1982]

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

[robert41]

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.

[dvj]

indeed, that was quick.
Just shows you that you should never trust any market-research based spreadsheet-managment speak...
Personally, I was amazed that flight could't keep me interested for much longer than two hours, and most of that was spent installing it.
I mean, a small part of the world that does not interest me, combined with aircraft that didn't interest me or had no cockpit, and that you could not paint or do anything with, water textures that looked very unrealistic (to me anyway) and ground textures that were not that impressive either, especially compared to my orbx world. OK, so it was smooth, but so is my FSX, so what else was there to like?
Still, too bad for all the people that were laid off, I'm sure they did their best with what they were allowed to do.

I could not agree more.

[CodyValkyrie]

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.

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.

[Lawman]

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.

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".

[crashaz]

So much for the theory of dumbing down the sim to make it appeal to the masses.
:eek:

[CodyValkyrie]

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".
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.

[Lawman]

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.

[CodyValkyrie]

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.

[AndyE1976]

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.

[Thoe6969]

I wonder what happens to any balance you had on the books to purchase any future addons ? Not sure what MS called it . 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.

[joanvalley]

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.

[Roadburner440]

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.

[bushpilot]

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 imagined, and it was like a nightmare. MS dictating what is "quality" addon? Seriously?

[VCN-1]

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

[CodyValkyrie]

I think the only seriously good sims that had limited land areas were the old Janes series which I immensely enjoyed.
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.

[T Square]

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.

[cheezyflier]

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.

[GypsyBaron]

I guess there wasn't enough 'rain' in MS Flight's 'ecosystem' and it died on the vine.

Paul

[Skyhawk_310R]

Hmmm don't know if this is good or bad news. That new M$ strategy got what it deserved, and many are in high hopes for LM now to bring P3D further. With MS crashing with the flight concept, I wonder what will happen now. I hope this calamity has no adverse effects on LMs plans.

Mark

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

[Skyhawk_310R]

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:a1451:

While I respect your views, I have to present the contrarian view in reply.

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

[Mathias]

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.

[anthony31]

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.

[roger-wilco-66]

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

[JoHubb]

The future is dim, IMHO.

For Microsoft, yes. For Flight Simulation, I don't think so.

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!

[roger-wilco-66]

For Microsoft, yes. For Flight Simulation, I don't think so.
[...]


What I meant. MS is out of the race, at least for now.

Cheers,
Mark

[grunau_baby]

What I meant. MS is out of the race, at least for now.
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, that´s 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.

Alex

[cheezyflier]

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.

[Tako_Kichi]

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.

[stansdds]

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.

[hae5904]

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

[Sascha66]

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.

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.

[Sascha66]

While I respect your views, I have to present the contrarian view in reply.

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

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.

[SkippyBing]

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.

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.

[CodyValkyrie]

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.
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).


They didn't have to go where the water takes them.

They WERE the water.

... 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.


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.

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.


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.
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.

[guzler]

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.

[SkippyBing]

I'm not quite sure why MS went to all this trouble of trying to launch a new FS system in the first place.

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.

[anthony31]

Don't you just love stats?

MSFlight facebook page 12,371 likes
PMDG facebook page 12,857 likes
Skyrim facebook page 187,875 likes

[Lawman]

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?

[Skyhawk_310R]

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

[Lawman]

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.

[robert41]

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.

[PRB]

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...

[Sascha66]

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.

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!

[Sascha66]

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

I couldn't agree more!:salute::salute::salute:

[Ark]

feel sorry for the staff, but its no surprise really. You kinda new it was going tits up when it appeared on steam.

What does being on Steam have to do with it?

[Javis]

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.


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... :)

[guzler]

Lol,

Well written.

It's much easier to keep customers in business than it is to find new ones, especially when they're vocal about what they want, you're research is done for you. Microsoft have failed in their business strategy here, they have binned the relationship with their loyal customers to try to capture a new market and this decision has clearly failed.

Loyal customers can and do make a difference to a business, the bottom line is affected by the emotion of each and every customer in a cumulative effect, that's what gets us to hand over cash at the end of the day. Any business strategy that turns it's back on loyal customers is a risky one.

I appreciate that flight sims may no longer be a desire of MS to have in it's core business, in time someone else will fill the gap, it's the law of supply and demand !
In the mean time, FSX will be staying on my PC !

[stiz]

What does being on Steam have to do with it?

MS have been anti-steam in the past, they wanted everyone to use their own version for games. allthough looking round it seems to have relaxed a bit, but not on the major money makers it seems.

[Lawman]

This will be my final "contribution" on the subject because basically I've said what I've wanted to say and I only would be repeating myself.


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 respectfully disagree with you that MS is to blame for the slumping of the FS-market. As a matter of fact, it is largely MS who has kept (civilian) flight simming alive when everybody else pulled out of the genre at the end of the 1990s and either folded or went for RPG's and FP-shooters. Why? Because that was what the mass market was interested in. People can much easier identify with a "lone hero who single-handedly takes on the baddies to save the world" than they can being a virtual pilot "merely going from point A to point B". It is no coincidence that RPG's and FP-shooters emulate the movies, especially in visual effects which are way more eye-catching than MSFS can ever be by definition. There is a (non-coincidental) parallel between what the movie industry churns out and what kind of games get released. Like I've said in a previous post, flight simming lost its "showcase"-status to other genres and has to compete with other pastimes. The niche group that remained (for everything there's a niche group) isn't big enough to make it wortwhile for MS to keep pouring money into MSFS, when they can use that same money for something (even) more profitable to them. Flight simmers are an older demographic with disposable income to buy add-ons and maintain an add-on industry. That is of no use to MS who isn't in the add-on business, but is "expected" to create the base product upon which the add-on industry can build. And because they "have to" supply the base product, MS needs a bigger audience to make it worthwile for them to invest that kind of money. "Flight" was merely a test if a (profitable) market still existed, it's quick demise IMHO proving that it was just a test.

But the point I am trying to make is that MS has no reason nor obligation to "rescue" flight simming (or the add-on industry for that matter) and that most certainly wasn't their motivation for continuing the series for as long as they did. That the community imagines MS has such an obligation is irrational wishful thinking on the part of that community.


Spoiled childern have a right to whine because it's not their fault having been spoiled. That's entirely up to their parents

Continuing with your analogy, I respectfully disagree with your statement that spoiled children have the right to whine. It is perhaps understandable that they whine, but it doesn't mean their point of view is either right or reasonable. When a (spoiled) child goes too far in its demands and starts to disrespect you, you have to discipline it (at least if you're a responsible parent). I think most of us have been brought up that way and raise our children that way. So if we can have that mature attitude regarding our own offspring in real life, why can't we have it on this subject matter and start acting like spoiled children ourselves?

[roger-wilco-66]

I respectfully disagree with you that MS is to blame for the slumping of the FS-market. As a matter of fact, it is largely MS who has kept (civilian) flight simming alive when everybody else pulled out of the genre at the end of the 1990s and either folded or went for RPG's and FP-shooters. [...]


Please accept my respectful disagreement. :wavey: Sascha66 said that MS resigned because their __own__ market slumped, and that's the way it was and still is. "The" FS market outside of Microsofts range is alive as never before. And it was not MS who kept that market alive, it was and is the freeware community and on behalf of the commercial side, the payware addon developers. Ever since and it will be so in the future. If MS can't adjust to that anymore, their out of the race, which they prctically are.
So I agreee with Sascha that it is MSs own fault that their part of the market slumped. What do you expect what happens if you throw a good product on a market like this and stop developing it? At some point the market is saturated, and sales decline. If you want to start earning money again, you need to do something, and MS never did it. Probably couldn't after releasing ACES.
That whole thing is like a greek tragedy, or a fine modern example for Goethe's "The sorcerer's apprentice" : Sir, my need is sore, the spirits I have cited, my commands ignore.
Tha german original illustrates it better, by the way.

:ernae:
Mark



PS: If FSX flightsimmers have ever been "spoiled" then by the freeware community or the payware developers, but never by MS, IMHO.

[Roger]

When Microsoft took on Fs and Cfs, they created a growing, loyal following over a number of years and many of us became Fs and Cfs junkies. "Flight" finished and now nothing at all on the books shows great disrespect from MS to their loyal band. I am very disappointed with this present state of affairs and truely wonder if FsXI would have broken the bank for Microsoft?
I wonder what Bill Gates and Paul Allen really think about the company they created and where it's going?

I believe it's time to close this thread and let this sad state of affairs drift off to thread heaven.