Quote:
Originally Posted by KG26_Alpha
As far as flight sims go MS constantly produced bugged software that needed Abacus products to re-model and re-work the aircraft & performance in the early days,
patches were rare if not non existent.
Then they released products that had minimal visual changes worse if any (FSX 10)
they were selling compete products where for the amount of work actually done it should have been a patch/addon not a £50.00 software release, thats what killed it off
people were fed up getting torn a new one every time a new FSX tiltle was put on the shelf, same thing happened with CFS3 rinse repeat recycle................
I actually heard CFS pilots on a TS server saying they would never buy IL2 Shturmovik because it was Russian/communist software and inferior programming to MS CFS/FSX
Ermmm yeah right.
.
|
Having seen sell-in and sell-through figures for the release of FS9, FSX, and FSX:Acceleration, all I can say is that they were indeed profitable and successful releases.
CFS4 was, by my understanding, cancelled primarily due to internal studio politics (CFS3 was a problem child and split the team politically and literally - there was a large schism before I arrived in early 2007). Many of the tech improvements prototyped for CFS4 were in FSX.
I'm not looking to start a purse-swinging contest, just had to rebut that comment that both of the Microsoft flightsim products died because of
commercial failure, which wasn't true. The first was part of the 2009 Microsoft layoffs during the economic crash - likely because of the higher than average employee costs at the studio, since there was a full-time art staff and MANY long-time FTEs development and design side, which means higher than average salaries and benefit costs than most game studios. That product was profitable from a sales history standpoint when it died.
The second was stabbed in the cradle for murky corporate-politics reasons that will likely never be known, and you can't fairly call that commercial failure.