ScruffyDuck 0 Posted March 20, 2012 Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 http://forum.avsim.net/index.php?app=ccs&module=pages§ion=pages&folder=/AVSIM%20Pages&id=8 Link to post Share on other sites
ddavid 149 Posted March 20, 2012 Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 When I read... To deliver the improvements we wanted in Flight, we had to make some tough tradeoffs. One of those was breaking with the tools that enabled the rich 3rd party ecosystem we had with previous products in the franchise ... I just wonder what planet these people come from. When front men talk like this, they're not speaking to us - rather to their peers and bosses in the board room. Thanks for the HU, Jon - but as I'm not a marketing man, I'll pass on it! Cheers - Dai. Link to post Share on other sites
allardjd 1,853 Posted March 20, 2012 Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 THIS POST IS IN TWO PARTS... PART 1 Quote Tom Allensworth -> ...to discuss the next product in the MS Flight Simulation genre; FLIGHT. I wonder what ol' Tom's been smoking? Quote Joshua Howard -> This new version has always been about finding a way to bring the joy of flight to massive new audiences, and we felt that we couldn’t best do that by building Flight Simulator 11. Joshua Howard -> But simmers aren’t our only customers now... ...we have to make sometimes difficult tradeoffs between the various customers types... I guess I can figure out where we stand in that line-up. Quote Joshua Howard ->...and invested a lot in Flight to create a more sophisticated simulation than we ever had before. ...featuring one state (one of the smallest), a handful of airplanes (one with no cockpit), no traffic, no atc, not much existing hardware/controller support, no RW WX... Quote Joshua Howard ->...the unwillingness of the simmer audience to accept that Flight was intended to appeal to whole new audiences prompted the team to focus on areas where our engagement with our players is more productive. Ah, then it's OUR fault. We must be more understanding of the fact that this thing was not created with serious flight simmers in mind. Is there a hint here that if we'd been more accepting, we'd have gotten more of what we were hoping for? Somehow, I don't think that would have been the case. Quote Joshua Howard ->...had to make some tough tradeoffs. One of those was breaking with the tools that enabled the rich 3rd party ecosystem we had with previous products in the franchise. I do think we will get back to that, but in the mean time we will be managing the content production. That's one way to put it. Quote Joshua Howard ->...I can say that our current approach is to deliver about an airplane a month, and 3 to 4 expansions a year... Wow! We'll have the whole US in only 12 years, and a dozen planes a year. Be still, my heart - where do I sign up? Quote Joshua Howard ->...and not be inappropriately led by the vocal negative minority who post on forums and Facebook. You know who you are - now cut that crap out and play nicely together. Quote Joshua Howard ->When we consider the broad feedback we are getting, it’s fair to say that much deeper simmer functionality is not at the top of our list... Quote Joshua Howard ->We do get requests from simmers for things like ATC, TrackIR, or making the whole world available, and where we can we are adjusting our future roadmap to accommodate these kinds of things. ...meaning, of course, that those things were not on their "roadmap" to begin with. Link to post Share on other sites
allardjd 1,853 Posted March 20, 2012 Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 PART 2 Quote Joshua Howard ->As we get an ever better understanding of what the Flight customer wants (as opposed to what customers of the previous franchise products want), I see us meeting those needs... Have you figured out yet where you stand with this guy, Mr. Serious Flight Simmer? Quote Joshua Howard ->Creating the whole world is not one of our goals for Flight. Previous versions of the franchise include the whole world, and still do, but we didn’t believe that delivering the whole world was a critical part of delivering Flight for massive new audiences. Quote Joshua Howard ->With regard to future areas, our plans are less about delivering geographies and more about delivering very different ways to experience flight. ...over time we look forward to offering more and more of them, but don’t feel the need to offer all of them. Great... I can hardly wait. Quote Joshua Howard ->Long-haul flight is not one of the scenarios that we believe is interesting for the bulk of our audience. Got that, airliner flyers? Now you know where you stand. Quote Joshua Howard ->I can say that we understand that the experience of Flight with TrackIR would be very cool, even for the non-pilot, and even if the total number of TrackIR users is pretty low. I expect we will have more to say about this in the future, but today I can’t commit to anything specific. In other words, when Hell freezes over. Quote Joshua Howard ->...while some were merely angry that we dared to build something that wasn’t exactly what they decided we should build. That's typical of how marketers view those who don't embrace their latest offerings. How dare we not love Flight. Quote Joshua Howard ->As to where we are taking Flight, the answer is that I can’t give you an endpoint, but I can tell you we are committed to the journey. BS ALERT!!! Sounds pretty - says exactly nothing. Quote Joshua Howard ->I believe that Flight can appeal to millions and millions of people, far more than the simulation sub-genre ever garnered... There are more bubble gummers than serious flight simmers, so they are going after the bubble gummers. Have a nice day. Quote Tom Allensworth -> Do you ever foresee a day when MS will return to its Flight Simulation product? Joshua Howard -> Microsoft Flight is our effort to bring this franchise a whole new audience. Our focus now is on making Microsoft Flight the most enjoyable flying experience we can, for anyone who has imagined what it’s like to fly. If returning to Flight Simulator makes sense again sometime in the future, I am confident that Microsoft would not ignore that possibility, but it’s not something that is being actively considered today. 'nuff said. John Link to post Share on other sites
SEATAC 400 Posted March 20, 2012 Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 John, every point that you make about that article.....Is 100% accurate! And funny too. Prear3d is looks like the future, though FSX is far from over. Link to post Share on other sites
simmerhead 0 Posted March 20, 2012 Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 Too bad they didn't make a good game once they decided to abandon the simulator concept. Flight feels like a watered down version of FSX with some uninspired missions thrown in as an excuse for gameplay. Flight is the flying game where you can fly invisible cargo and passengers around a few islands where all life has been extinct... Link to post Share on other sites
allardjd 1,853 Posted March 20, 2012 Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 Don't forget that P3D is operating under a license from MS and the exact terms of that license are not publicly known. Also, L-M is not a mass-market retailer and they won't see a retail version of a flight simulator as a good fit with their "core business". They created P3D with industrial, business and government customers in mind. As an example, our local FS club has been trying to contact P3D via thier web site for a couple of months to see if we can set up a speaker or a visit and we don't even get a response. I agree that P3D could POTENTIALLY be the producer of the next great flight sim, but have to advise caution on that too - it just may not turn out that way. I hope it does. John Link to post Share on other sites
Midlander 0 Posted March 20, 2012 Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 We looked forward to engaging in a productive dialogue with our users, but were disappointed in the degree of non-productive behavior some flight simulator enthusiasts exhibited. If anything, the unwillingness of the simmer audience to accept that Flight was intended to appeal to whole new audiences prompted the team to focus on areas where our engagement with our players is more productive. I want the studio to keep an appropriate balance of considering the needs of all of our customers, simmer or otherwise. This says it all. Translation into English : "We had a new idea, we put it to our existing customers, they didn't like it, so they can go away*" (*= cleaned up version.) How dare simmers object when they found the product would not meet their desires? It is clear from this quote, and the general tenor of the interview, that it was never intended to, so they cannot have been genuinely surprised by the response - can they? Or do they really think end users are in thrall to whatever they produce, just because they are MS? In short, they've gone for selling a quick fix to large numbers of people at a smaller price rather than developing for an at times picky market which demands more time to satisfy. That is their perogative, but leaves the niche market of simmers high and dry. The US bias (Hawaii, Alaska) is also off-putting to me on the other side of the pond. I really think that they are getting ready to drop the PC as a gaming platform altogether - as are most other manufacturers - because the PC platform, being open, means they cannot control the end product. Consoles are their preferred approach, because systems are closed, and can only be made available to developers via (expensive) licences. I have been musing on this for a while, and the approach being taken by Flight tends to reinforce this view - it is aimed at the X-Box user. MS tried to produce their own add-ons in MS Train Simulator back in the day - they were fundamentally flawed (poor visual models, incorrect braking systems, poor sound, hopeless performace modelling). I fear their grasp of aircraft is similarly lacking - based on my experience there, I would not buy an add-on from MS, and the comments on various fora tend to support this stance. I will not be downloading Flight - I will continue to use FS9 and FSX. If the authentication servers for FSX are turned off by the time my PC requires replacement, then I will cease to fly. Sad, but there you go. Midlander Link to post Share on other sites
SEATAC 400 Posted March 20, 2012 Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 I stumbled across this iPad app the other day. It's called Infinite Flight. http://flyingdevstudio.blogspot.com/2012/03/infinite-flight-for-ios-available-now.html It's $4.99, and I'm tempted to download it. While it's not a full fledged flight simulator, it offers things that Flight does not seem to like ILS and some real aircraft. In a way it's like Flight in that it currently has only a few areas in which to fly, but they are expaniding and unlike Microsoft, they are openly soliciting suggestions from the users to improve the app. They say that they aim to be the most realistic flight sim on the iPad (not much of a challenge there). While it is in no way a replacement for the FSX, they seem to be aimed at the simmers and not so much at the gamers. Just an alternative for those of us who want the flight sim fix while we are away from home. They have some videos on their web page if you want to see what it's like. - 9 Airplanes: C-17 Globemaster III, Supermarine Spitfire, Airbus A380-800, Boeing 747-400, A-10, Boeing 737-800, Cessna 172SP, Cirrus SR22, Super Decathlon - 2 Regions: San Francisco Bay Area and Southern California - Flight Planning - Realistic Flight Model - Interactive Flight Lessons - Autopilot (Altitude and Heading, Throttle) - 4 time presets (Sunrise, Day, Sunset and Night) - Weather settings: Wind direction and intensity, visibility... - Yoke helper for easy handling of the airplane - Final Approach Path Display to help with landings - ILS (Instrument Landing System) - Realistic sounds - 5 Camera Modes - Runway lights - Automatic Logbook (entries added for each flight) - Leaderboards - Achievements Link to post Share on other sites
allardjd 1,853 Posted March 20, 2012 Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 Some quotes from Part 1 of the PC Pilot interview with MS in their MAR-APR 2011 Issue: Quote ...people's concern that dropping the word "Simulator" means we are restricting or narrowing the scope of the product...that we are building an arcade game. On the contrary we are embarking on a journey to honour the legacy of the past AND expand the experience... Whether it's floating effortlessly over palm trees or shooting the ILS down to minimums - you will be able to find fun and enjoyment in the world of "Microsoft Flight". We will continue to embrace the depth of play for the core simulation fans... It is understandable that long-time fans fear change and the unknown, but this is not an either-or scenario. We are aiming to honour the legacy of the Flight Simulator franchise while also expanding the experience to brand new audiences. It's all about growing the experience, not watering it down. Some things seem to have changed slightly since this one was published. John Link to post Share on other sites
simmerhead 0 Posted March 21, 2012 Report Share Posted March 21, 2012 Some things seem to have changed slightly since this one was published. John One says what one has to say to get free advertising in a glossy magazine... Seems like the Flight team has changed course several times along the way, and will continue to do so depending on what sells and what doesn't. Too bad. I'd rather the Flight team make a flying game out of passion than trying to guess what sells or not. Link to post Share on other sites
M31 0 Posted March 25, 2012 Report Share Posted March 25, 2012 Some quotes from Part 1 of the PC Pilot interview with MS in their MAR-APR 2011 Issue: ...people's concern that dropping the word "Simulator" means we are restricting or narrowing the scope of the product...that we are building an arcade game. On the contrary we are embarking on a journey to honour the legacy of the past AND expand the experience...Whether it's floating effortlessly over palm trees or shooting the ILS down to minimums - you will be able to find fun and enjoyment in the world of "Microsoft Flight". We will continue to embrace the depth of play for the core simulation fans... It is understandable that long-time fans fear change and the unknown, but this is not an either-or scenario. We are aiming to honour the legacy of the Flight Simulator franchise while also expanding the experience to brand new audiences. It's all about growing the experience, not watering it down. Some things seem to have changed slightly since this one was published. John Well spotted John. It will be interesting to see the final review from PC Pilot in the next issue now the true intention of Flight is out. Link to post Share on other sites
M31 0 Posted March 25, 2012 Report Share Posted March 25, 2012 Some things seem to have changed slightly since this one was published. John One says what one has to say to get free advertising in a glossy magazine... Seems like the Flight team has changed course several times along the way, and will continue to do so depending on what sells and what doesn't. Too bad. I'd rather the Flight team make a flying game out of passion than trying to guess what sells or not. And I doubt we'll see passion again from MS for a proper Flight Simulator ... for sure Bill Gates seems to have been behind much of the passion for Flight Simulator from MS over the years ... but he's gone now and cant cast no more influence. Link to post Share on other sites
ScruffyDuck 0 Posted March 25, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 25, 2012 Some things seem to have changed slightly since this one was published. John One says what one has to say to get free advertising in a glossy magazine... Seems like the Flight team has changed course several times along the way, and will continue to do so depending on what sells and what doesn't. Too bad. I'd rather the Flight team make a flying game out of passion than trying to guess what sells or not. I would hazard a guess that the Flight Team do have a passion to build the best. However their commercial masters may have other ideas Link to post Share on other sites
M31 0 Posted March 25, 2012 Report Share Posted March 25, 2012 Some things seem to have changed slightly since this one was published. John One says what one has to say to get free advertising in a glossy magazine... Seems like the Flight team has changed course several times along the way, and will continue to do so depending on what sells and what doesn't. Too bad. I'd rather the Flight team make a flying game out of passion than trying to guess what sells or not. I would hazard a guess that the Flight Team do have a passion to build the best. However their commercial masters may have other ideas To be Blunt .... its probably about time the Masters were sacked then. How much longer can Josh be allowed (like the loose cannon he is) keep blaming the hand that feeds him? Quite simply, Flight Simulation as it exists today would not exist if it were not for less greedy more broader minded thinking people from Microsoft in the past. Think again Joshua, you might con some people into thinking Flight has a clear and perfect roadmap, but to this stalwart its clear the Flight team are making it up as they go along with no clear end game plan but to make as much money as quickly as possible along the way before its called a wrap. Prove me wrong, do the decent thing and at least fix some of the most basic bugs before you're next DLC Alaska please. EDIT: These should be provided free of charge in addition to any future DLC and a free download for those with no intentions (like me) of purchasing any more Microsoft Flight add ons ... I've spent enough on this game already. Link to post Share on other sites
allardjd 1,853 Posted March 25, 2012 Report Share Posted March 25, 2012 Businesses exist for the benefit of their stockholders, i.e. their owners. The profit motive is inherent and is not unusual, unethical or otherwise perverted. Companies have a moral and legal obligation to attempt to make a profit for their stockholders. If the people driving the bus at MS, the "...commercial masters..." that Jon references, believe that the company's bottom line will be better enhanced by the likes of MSF than by an FS11, there's no foul in them going that way. If MSF flops financially, then Josh Howard and his ilk may indeed be sacked and not undeservedly, but if it succeeds and generates millions in sales, as they clearly expect it to, then those same commercial masters will have met their obligation to the company and the shareholders and will probably be richly rewarded with bonuses, promotions, stock options, etc. I want an improved FS as much as anyone but can't get my head around the idea that MS owes it to us or is otherwise oblgated to provide it. Even the press releases of a year ago aren't enforcable in any way. They may have changed their mind in the interim or they may have been telling lies in their marketing at the time, though I can't see why they'd do that - who benefits? In any case, it doesn't obligate them to do anything. They will ultimately do what they believe to be in the best interest of their company and their shareholders. Rank and file employees and customers are far down the food chain. Caveat emptor... Fair treatment of customers is part of the equation and smart corporations recognize (and free markets enforce) that giving good value for the dollar is an important element of running a successful business. Microsoft didn't get to be Microsoft by not knowing that. They will continuously test the waters and will try to keep the MSF customers happy and buying more DLC. I suspect the bugs will be fixed and there may even be a few more free downloads in the future, but you'll mostly see an ongoing stream of DLC for sale as they go forward. They've clearly made a decision that the serious flight simmers are small potatoes and we're a market segment they are no longer interested in. I wish they'd decided otherwise, but it's their right and frankly, I don't think there are enough of us to have much impact on them. John EDIT: I do think that those who are interested in serious flight simulation and who downloaded the free MSF content and then perhaps purchased one or two of the DLC packages for a "look and see" excursion have erred. Doing those things reinforces to MS that they've hit the mark. If you don't like what MS has done, don't encourage them. Vote with your wallet by keeping it closed. I haven't spent a dime nor have I downloaded any of the MSF free content. I know all I need to know from what I've read on line and I won't offer MS any positive feedback by touching anything MSF related or adding to the MSF revenue stream. I'm voting by doing that. How did you vote? JDA Link to post Share on other sites
M31 0 Posted March 25, 2012 Report Share Posted March 25, 2012 I don't think anyone's questioning MS's right to make as much money as possible John, however I do think their alleged passion has got a bit lost along the way, demonising the very people that supported Microsoft's longest running franchise, even over Windows ... does not sound to clever of an idea to me. I could cite several instances where Joshua seems to loath the foundation of Flight Simmers that Flight is built upon and his gobbledygook double talk, but as far as this simmer is concerned, Flight is a dead end now and Joshua has burned too many bridges. But yes, I get it, its all about dollars now and once we all start to accept this we can move on and realise anything better from the current administration team from Microsoft is just a pipe dream and fond memory's of the way it was. To be sure, we've seen a lot of double standards from MS from their gaming division since Bill Gates left ... a reality check is needed I think. Check one .... Microsoft resurrect their Train sim series again, only to cancel it soon later, unbelievably they start it up again and soon cancel it finally, we were told from them it was originally a good seller too ... forgive me for not believing a word that comes out of Microsofts mouth again ... its not that that I am a train simmer, just that I feel for the fellow sim enthusiasts MS lied to there too;. Check two ... Microsoft provisionally announce a successor to FSX ... and guess what, after a short while they sack everyone to do with it .. a while later they announce MS Flight and lose the Simulator part at the end this time ... fast forward to MS Flight now, well at least it made it to market this time and its far from perfect again ... but does anyone here apart from me see a pattern of flip flopping and non committal from Microsoft now and especially since Bill Gates left? John, I appreciate what you are saying, Microsoft can make as much money as they see fit, but from now on they wont be getting much more of mine ... such is my passion as a long term Flight Sim enthusiast and the way Joshua has talked down to us has left a very bitter taste .. someone should take that guy aside and have a little word before he does any more damage. Cheers. Edit: EDIT: I do think that those who are interested in serious flight simulation and who downloaded the free MSF content and then perhaps purchased one or two of the DLC packages for a "look and see" excursion have erred. Doing those things reinforces to MS that they've hit the mark. I don't think so, the basic package was so basic you had to have a little more content to see for yourself what MS Flight was really about before making a considered opinion, I've given them the benefit of the doubt and I still think MS Flight is not for me ... cant get much fairer than that ... my future message to MS Flight and Joshua is I wont be buying Alaska or anything else for Flight and I think its this next DLC that will really make or break MS Flight ... it goes without saying track IR for those that need it and a few other basic bug fix's should be provided free of charge before they attempt to sell anything else though. Link to post Share on other sites
brett 2,314 Posted March 25, 2012 Report Share Posted March 25, 2012 I agree that they need to make money but I don't like the way that it's never enough money for them. This in turn lets them sit on there high horse and believe that giving us less for our money is okay in there eyes. You can call it capitalism, which I believe in, but I call it greed at this point in time. This way of thinking also allowed them to feel that improving FSX was not worth the money even at the cost of alianating a what they felt was a small previous customer base. Looking at it this way makes me feel that they did indeed "owe" us at least updated or SP version of FSX. It's not just M$ that is like this nowaday's, everyone wants more and more at the price of throwing away reason. Who knows, they will probely start charging us for aero charts. Link to post Share on other sites
allardjd 1,853 Posted March 25, 2012 Report Share Posted March 25, 2012 Quote Who knows, they will probely start charging us for aero charts. Surely you know that the FAA charts website is being closed to individuals on April 5th? After that the only way to get them will be to buy them from companies who have a contract with the FAA for access. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Businesses are not charities. Do you seriously expect a company to say, "That's enough profit - we don't need to make any more. Let's spend a few million to do something nice for a small group of former customers, even though we may lose money on it." The shareholders would vote the Board of Directors and company executives out on the street at the very next shareholder meeting. Look at it from the perspective of the investor who buys shares of the company's stock expecting a return on his investment in the form of dividends or an improved share price. He's going to take a dim view of corporate benevolence beyond a certain point. The profit motive is built in. Three things potentially put a brake on it to some extent. 1) Free markets and competition. If Company B offers something similar for less or something better for the same price then Company A's profits will suffer. 2) Government regulations that prohibit or limit exploitation of customers, unfair business practices, deceptive marketing, etc. (We can argue all day about whether that's really the intent of government regulation or if it's effective, but in theory, this item belongs in the list.) 3) Customer satisfaction; customer good-will; brand loyalty, company reputation, etc. If companies treat enough customers poorly enough, their fortunes (in both senses of the word) will fall. I think MS has made a conscious decision that they can not turn enough profit (or perhaps none at all) by producing FS11. It's all about ROI. If you have X million dollars to spend on development projects, you spend it on those projects that promise the best return on investment. Selling a steady stream of MSF DLC to millions of bubble-gummers using game consoles looks better to MS than spending the same amount of money or more to develop FS11 and selling it to a few tens of thousands of serious flight simmers who'll buy it once and go elsewhere with their add-on dollars if they can. I'm no happier than you about it, but I recognize that it's a reasonably logical decision on MS' part, however disappointing that is to us. It doesn't make them the devil, unethical or anything other than businessmen looking out for the well-being of their company. That's what they are SUPPOSED to do. John Link to post Share on other sites
Midlander 0 Posted March 25, 2012 Report Share Posted March 25, 2012 I want an improved FS as much as anyone but can't get my head around the idea that MS owes it to us or is otherwise oblgated to provide it. Even the press releases of a year ago aren't enforcable in any way. They may have changed their mind in the interim or they may have been telling lies in their marketing at the time, though I can't see why they'd do that - who benefits? In any case, it doesn't obligate them to do anything. They will ultimately do what they believe to be in the best interest of their company and their shareholders. Rank and file employees and customers are far down the food chain. Caveat emptor... I don't dispute MS' right to make money. However, I think that gave them an excellent reason to lie a year ago. By intimating that it would be a sort of FS11, it ensured that no third party would look at developing a competing "proper" simulation to launch in competition with their new product. Having achieved that, they would gamble that a significant part of the sim community would try Flight - possibly more would have done had there not been leaks from beta testers - especially by getting certain board operators "on side" (mentioning no names, but A***m springs to mind) buying content in an (ultimately doomed, IMHO) attempt to make the product usable. Many of us like to be first to try a new toy. I think the strategy has backfired, and they weren't expecting such a backlash from exisiting users. We may be a relatively small group, but potential new gamers looking at Flight will Google, and will see the negativity - another reason I think it will go to console fairly quickly. They've clearly made a decision that the serious flight simmers are small potatoes and we're a market segment they are no longer interested in. I wish they'd decided otherwise, but it's their right and frankly, I don't think there are enough of us to have much impact on them. John Unfortunately this is true, and I think the decision to licence FSX code to Lockheed confirms this. Whether Lockheed will want / be able to provide for the home market as an adjunct to their core business market remains to be seen - either directly, or through onward licencing via a third party, remains to be seen. I suspect when MS pull the plug on FSX sales and the authentication servers are taken off line - I give it until late Summer or Autumn 2012 - they may allow a more open licencing structure with Lockheed if requested. I agree with your stance on the download issue - MS will not get a live account, or any download of free or paid for content from me. It's a very small stand, but what else can an individual do? Midlander Link to post Share on other sites
brett 2,314 Posted March 25, 2012 Report Share Posted March 25, 2012 I understand what your saying John, that doesn't mean I still think it's right. I was talking about "excessive" profit at the expense of there customers. I think they could of still made money with FSX and also produced addons for it, to produce a profit. A combination of FSX and some of the improvements of Flight would have made sense. Flight just made more sense to them from a profit standpoint because its closed and they could start from scratch(alot of addons already out there for FSX). I find it funny that they worked with all the 3rd party companies that produce content for FSX, all buddy buddy like, found out what they wanted during thier reconnoiter and then slammed the door in thier faces. I enjoy your arguments but still feel put out by M$ as I would for anyone that would care more about excess profit then the customer, whether it be a large corperation or a small corner store. I did not install Flight because I didn't see anything I liked on the web and although I thought about trying it out for fun, I agree with your point about voting with my actions and decided that the fun(?) was not worth going against my principles. Who knows, maybe Prepar3D is there plan for us. The deal between Lockheed and them was closed and look at the price. I did know about the charts, hence the wink face. Does anyone know how the sales of Flight content are doing? Link to post Share on other sites
simmerhead 0 Posted March 25, 2012 Report Share Posted March 25, 2012 Tech companies need to focus on more than the next quarter. Greed killed Kodak, and has seriously hurt Nokia and Sony. Tech is about innovation and taking risks. I'm no Apple fan, but am still in awe of how they crushed Sony's Walkman franchise with the iPod and made smartphones and tablets a must have item while the competition were too busy milking their ageing cows. Flight is an excuse for a game. It stinks of low budget and is below the dignity of the worlds largest software company who I have loyally supported for 25+ years. Because of that I've tried very hard to find something to like about Flight. Surely there had to be something I had missed, but sadly the more I played the more dissapointed I became... Link to post Share on other sites
allardjd 1,853 Posted March 25, 2012 Report Share Posted March 25, 2012 Why do you consider MS profits excessive? They have a market capitalization of about $268B and a share price of about $32. That's about 8 billion shares outstanding. For their fiscal year 2011 the stock paid $0.64 per share - that's the total for all four quarters. That's a return of a little under 2% on your invested money for each share. That's how much money the stockholders, i.e. the owners of MS, put in their pockets for FY 2011. All the rest of their revenue goes to pay the bills and grow the company, e.g. new projects, R&D, acquisitions, etc. Their latest published annual revenue was almost $70B and if my math is right they paid about $5.4B of that in stock dividends, so that was a little less than 13% of total revenue returned to the shareholders. That's a very good result but not excessive considering the high share price. By the way, the revenue from the division of MS that's responsible for MSF (and a lot of other things, including FSX and Xbox) accounts for about 3-1/2% of MS total revenue. The lion's share of revenue comes from MS Office and Windows. John Link to post Share on other sites
brett 2,314 Posted March 26, 2012 Report Share Posted March 26, 2012 Not to shabby either, a couble of mil to fix the mistakes they left in the last version, spread over a couple of years, wouldn't kill them (but I get your point). Although that would put a dent in their bonus money. Don't forget to add creative book keeping into your figures. So what your saying is big business doesn't really owe their customers any loyalty because after all it's just in the business to make as much money as they can so they can be more loyal to the stockholders. Call me naive and we can leave it at that. If my post sounds mean I apologize, it really is a pleasure to talk to you John I guess I just have a thing against big business and should learn to curb my feelings in posts. Link to post Share on other sites
allardjd 1,853 Posted March 26, 2012 Report Share Posted March 26, 2012 Quote Greed killed Kodak How so? From where I sit, digital imagery in all its various forms and Kodak's unwillingness or inability to adapt quickly or completely enough to it killed them. The marketplace voted with their wallet and Kodak lost the election because there were suddenly more convenient, more attractive, more economical alternatives to what they were selling. It's probably more accurate to say they died from having their head in the sand. When new technology emerges that makes the star you've hitched your wagon to obsolete and unattactive to your customers, you'd better adapt very quickly or they'll be gone. When your customers leave, you'll be gone too, and very quickly. Newspaper and magazine publishers are faced with that today and it's already too late for most of them. The Swiss watchmaking industry had a similar experience at the dawn of the digital age and very nearly collapsed en masse. John Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now