The Man Who Helped Kill FSX - His New Role

[Tom Allensworth 1,532]

but the NPD numbers were good enough for Phil Taylor to quote on his personal weblog.

 

Those were the only numbers Phil COULD quote and keep his job; they were in the public domain. You don't think he was going to quote the inside real numbers did you? You are mixing up "boxes" sold with "revenue". My numbers are revenue, not boxes sold. In order to derive the boxes sold number you have to use your best guess as to what the wholesale average price per box was. You can spend all day playing the boxes sold game, but no one outside MS Accounting will ever really know. If the revenue number is $100 million and your boxes sold; 2 million is correct, then what was the average income from the box sold?

[mgh 89]

FACT 1: From late 2006 until the closure of ACES in early 2009, FSX brought in over $100 million dollars in revenue to MS.

 

FACT 2: From the launch of FLIGHT until its closure some 3 or 4 months later in 2012, it brought in less than $10 million in revenue to MS.

 

 

Based on those facts, FSX earned an average of $46M a year over that period. Flight was earning the equivalent of between $30M - $40M a year. That’s less than FSX’s average. But, given that revenue declines over time, there may not have been much difference in annual terms between FSX’s final revenue and Flight’s initial revenue. It's certainly not an order different.

 

GTA V’s first day sales of $00M put these into perspective. I know it’s a different genre but it’s a yardstick for companies developing games as is Call of Duty – Black Ops with $500M first day revenue. And they will use it.

 

Looking back to past sales is interesting but can be misleading. Many companies have gone to the wall because they persisted in offering the same product because they failed to recognise that the market had changed.

 

And surely the market has changed. In my view, Flight Simulation is no longer attractive enough for the mass market, but the enthusiasts’ market is too small to support further development by Microsoft?

 

The quality demanded for games has also increased to the extent that development costs can now only be met from mass-market sales. It’s reported the GTA V’s development cost was $200M - $250M.

 

In Flight Simulator’s heyday there was much less competition. Now there is much more and Flight Simulator is not longer relatively as attractive as it was.  To be frank, what it offers now - take off, fly around for a while, and land. - is much the same it originally offered even though the graphics have changed out of all recognition and the flight dynamics, and systems have improved out of all recognition.

 

Talk of “dumbing-down” and “short attention spans” is misconceived. Developers aim to sell into the market that exists: not into the idealised one that we enthusiasts might wish existed.

 

In my view the demise of Microsoft’s interest in flight simulation was simply because  the market had changed was no longer commercial viable. That’s a common-sense decision and there's no conspiracy behind it.

[Tom Allensworth 1,532]

 

 

In my view the demise of Microsoft’s interest in flight simulation was simply because the market had changed was no longer commercial viable. That’s a common-sense decision and there's no conspiracy behind it.

 

Gerry, I agree with that 100% -  with one clarification. "COMMERCIALLY VIABLE" is defined as MS' perception of "commercially viable". There is a solar system's distance between their definition of that and say, Laminar Research's.

[mgh 89]

There is a solar system's distance between their definition of that and say, Laminar Research's.

Of course there is. Microsoft with an annual revenue of $77 Billion is going to have a totally different definition than Laminar Research with a revenue of $???.

[simmerhead 885]

Honestly, I was always astonished (as well as happy) that Flight was ever green-lighted at all. Somebody took a really really big chance, both on flight simulation and on us, and I don't think they will ever do that again. Especially considering how some people behaved. We looked a possible gift horse in the mouth and talked smack about its mama.  :lol:

Either that or some suit heard the word DLC and thought they could steal candy from babies as long as they stamped the Microsoft brand on it.

[Tom Allensworth 1,532]

Of course there is. Microsoft with an annual revenue of $77 Billion is going to have a totally different definition than Laminar Research with a revenue of $???.

 

Of course I stated the obvious. Not for your benefit because you get it, but for those that might not consider that aspect of "viability".

[mgh 89]

Of course I stated the obvious. Not for your benefit because you get it, but for those that might not consider that aspect of "viability".

it is a point worth making.

 

I worked firm a firm that began small, when we took on almost any small project we were offered. We ended up as part of a large multi-national firm when it was no longer commercially viable to take on such small projects any more. We still had the skills to do them but could earn more by applying our resources to larger projects.

[simmerhead 885]

Those were the only numbers Phil COULD quote and keep his job; they were in the public domain. You don't think he was going to quote the inside real numbers did you? You are mixing up "boxes" sold with "revenue". My numbers are revenue, not boxes sold. In order to derive the boxes sold number you have to use your best guess as to what the wholesale average price per box was. You can spend all day playing the boxes sold game, but no one outside MS Accounting will ever really know. If the revenue number is $100 million and your boxes sold; 2 million is correct, then what was the average income from the box sold?

No, of course I knew that PT couldn't reveal internal numbers. I'm not mixing up anything, I just pointed out that there are other numbers floating around than the number you derived at. But it really doesn't matter, because neither you or I will get that in writing from Microsoft, who I'm sure know exactly how many boxes they've produced, how many downloads they've sold, and how many lisences has been activated.

 

I just rely on the fact that Phil Taylor said FSX did good and that ACES recieved the funding to start making FS11 and TS2 long before lightning struck. Of course the truth might be that FSX sales were aweful, or good, but not good enough, or maybe MS just changed strategy in panic after the 2008 financial crisis, or none of the above.

 

Either way, Flight was a sad return and comeback of our beloved simulator, and if FSX sold in as low numbers as half a million copies it seems like an even stranger return. Why on earth did MS continue with such a nice product given it's poor past performance alongside the many obvious changes that had happened in the PC gaming marketplace since 2006? Some suit at MS must have a real love for the series.

[simmerhead 885]

And surely the market has changed. In my view, Flight Simulation is no longer attractive enough for the mass market, but the enthusiasts’ market is too small to support further development by Microsoft?

 

The quality demanded for games has also increased to the extent that development costs can now only be met from mass-market sales. It’s reported the GTA V’s development cost was $200M - $250M.

 

In Flight Simulator’s heyday there was much less competition. Now there is much more and Flight Simulator is not longer relatively as attractive as it was.  To be frank, what it offers now - take off, fly around for a while, and land. - is much the same it originally offered even though the graphics have changed out of all recognition and the flight dynamics, and systems have improved out of all recognition.

 

Talk of “dumbing-down” and “short attention spans” is misconceived. Developers aim to sell into the market that exists: not into the idealised one that we enthusiasts might wish existed.

 

In my view the demise of Microsoft’s interest in flight simulation was simply because  the market had changed was no longer commercial viable. That’s a common-sense decision and there's no conspiracy behind it.

You might very well be right of course, but the again you might be wrong. I think the biggest fault for any future FS developer is to further increase fidelity and complexity - if commercial success is the ultimate goal.

 

There will always be a place for niche games, and the popularity of titles like Minecraft and the Sims show that huge success can be had outside of the shoot and blow up genera. Sandbox games can do good.

 

I don't know what you consider the hayday of FS, but as a gamer since the Commodore 64-era I feel that competition was a lot stronger before with a market that was flooded with games and flight simulators (I've been a collector of flight sims for 25 years and got most of them). The FS series was always behind in terms of graphics and I didn't become a real fan of the series until FS2002, but mostly because I got into real flying at that time. Today the biggest competition doesn't come from other PC games, but other forms of entertainment.

[RichLP 32]

 

 

 
FACT 1: From late 2006 until the closure of ACES in early 2009, FSX brought in over $100 million dollars in revenue to MS.
FACT 2: From the launch of FLIGHT until its closure some 3 or 4 months later in 2012, it brought in less than $10 million in revenue to MS.

 

I'm no mathematician, but if you extrapolate the revenue of Flight in a few months out to the 2 or 3 years of revenue stated for FSX, they would seem pretty equal to me...

[HiFlyer 9,368]

I'm no mathematician, but if you extrapolate the revenue of Flight in a few months out to the 2 or 3 years of revenue stated for FSX, they would seem pretty equal to me...

Also factor in that the base package of Flight was free, and that the cost of DLC was significantly less than the going rate in the FSX market for equivalent content.....

 

There was once a steam sale where I picked up a second copy of flight and all it's DLC for under $20

 

And that was not after Flight was shut down.

[mgh 89]

I think the biggest fault for any future FS developer is to further increase fidelity and complexity - if commercial success is the ultimate goal

I agree. The enhancements called for by enthusiasts will nothing to increase attractiveness to the mass market.

 

There will always be a place for niche games....

Again I agree - but not from Microsoft.

[HiFlyer 9,368]

Don't get me wrong, I actually have nothing at all against complexity. I just advocate that those pressing so aggressively forwards in that direction not forget to cater to other tastes as well, lest they lose the critical mass of of people needed to fund that complexity.

[Matthew Kane 1,343]

I have lots of online friends that are into FSX but only have one friend that I know outside the Internet that does as well.

 

In his case he is a real world pilot, He uses FSX to fly the default King Air, He has never installed a third party and never will. He didn't purchase FSX as it is a bootleg copy. He does a few sessions per month to explore areas he is going to fly to just in the default King Air, Default Scenery, on his laptop, no joysticks,  more or less just to get a feel for the landscape.

 

He would be considered an FSX user but would have been nice if he actually paid for his copy, I doubt he would though because he is an underpaid regional pilot.

[HiFlyer 9,368]

I wonder if there will ever come a time when Mr Howard feels free to speak candidly about the circumstances of Flights demise from his perspective.

 

It seems unlikely, and it's probably a given that anything he had to say would be seen poorly within the community.

 

Still, there are two sides to every story, and at this point I would be fascinated to hear his.

 

I won't hold my breath waiting for that, though!