More FSX/9 thoughts (split from Game Over thread)

[skydvdan]

you've talked about how great sales were before for xclass

Oh yes, they are more than great. In fact, XClass Europe is now the absolute best seller for Cloud9, with the US coming behind (just another surprise to those suggesting that we should concentrat on the US market)

It has sold more than our last 4 sceneries (KDCA, KMCO, ENBR both versions) put together. The developement cost is *way* lower than a scenery, and that's why it can be sold at 9.99 right from the start.

Do you think that sales would be just as good if the landclass system wasn't incomplete? And before you try to deny that it is broken as in our last conversation about this I direct you to Phil Taylor's own words:

For instance, we are not fixing the landclass issues. It is too big and systemic. We need to globally update our landclass data, that is really the only way.

So as I said before sales are good on that product because it's putting a bandaid on a glaring problem with the landclass. People want their FSX to work as advertised(as real as it gets) and your product gives them that hope so yes, sales would be good.

What about AES? I hear business is booming at Aerosoft for this product.
Can you define efficent? Do you mean nothing that works as well?

We explained our reasons for not supporting AES on our forum, I don't think is necessary to repeat it here.

I don't care why you don't want to support AES. My question was about when you were talking about having to do with efficency. AES is proof that not only is it doable, but it's doable very well.

I'm curious as to what exactly your operating costs are?

Very low. If they weren't, we would have close shop long ago. That's the main reason why FS products are very often released with bugs, it's not that developers are inerhently against their customers, it's simply that none in this small market can afford formal procedure testing and beta or quality assurance like the bigger companies working in the entertainment market.

I asked that question because over and over again you talk about being able to sustain the company.

...we can't certainly sustain a company by releasing new products directly at discount prices....

It seems to me that there isn't much to sustain. It seems that you could release a project once a year and C9 would still be around (ie: flightscenery). Do you have building rental, major travel costs, major equipment costs, etc? Can you please enlighten me about why it's so hard to "sustain" this business?
I'm sure it just comes down to the amount of money that you "want" to make. Seems to me that the most money to be made would be by the company that produced for both versions. That way you're getting the max income from every user.
But, please enlighten me.

[Mike...]

and for FS9 they are holding their purchases because they know they'll switch to FSX, eventually.

Um, I don't remember ever being asked the question - you guys have a nasty and arrogant habit of assuming to know what your customers want and think, but I didn't buy FS9 Bergen because it isn't exactly my cup of tea airport/location wise. Certainly not because I know I'll switch to FSX eventually. Which probably isn't gonna happen at all. KMCO, that would've been a different story, perhaps. But I'm not exactly amused by Cloud9's attitude ever since they coined the phrase "FSX Native". Or maybe the attitude has always been there, but since I got what I wanted before, I may not have noticed it.

Related, "KDCA is better than KLAX, but didn't sell better, because people knew FSX was coming". You can't compare KLAX with KDCA. Quality aside, one is an apple, the other an orange. And that contributes to the numbers, not just FSX vs. FS9. If only numbers were that simple, they aren't.

St. Maarten isn't exactly my cup of tea either, but that's not gonna stop me. I still like FlyTampa. More than ever before even. And it's not like I haven't been buying other FS9 add-ons recently.

[Mike...]

By the way, is Cloud9 in cahoots with MS concerning the landclass series? I've always found it curious that the default landclass was so bad, yet seemingly easy to fix, and that you guys were so quick to release the products. But maybe that's just me.

[Marvel]

By the way, is Cloud9 in cahoots with MS concerning the landclass series? I've always found it curious that the default landclass was so bad, yet seemingly easy to fix, and that you guys were so quick to release the products. But maybe that's just me.

i can't belive! too fun!!!

[paavo]

The "after" shot of Lisbon looks like a bad acid flashback.



http://blogs.msdn.com/photos/phil_taylo ... ginal.aspx

[paavo]

By the way, is Cloud9 in cahoots with MS concerning the landclass series? I've always found it curious that the default landclass was so bad, yet seemingly easy to fix, and that you guys were so quick to release the products. But maybe that's just me.

ROFL.........................

They saw a huge defect in FSX and rushed a quick fix solution to the market, and you know there is nothing wrong with that. It may not be perfect, but it's a quick fix. I think most of us will wait for UT and GE if and when we switch to FSX.

[virtuali]

When I looked at the latest screenshots Phil just posted I could only ask myself one thing: How bombed (drunk) must one be not to run for the hills. I know he is a coder and perhaps doesn't know how to handle Screenshots or doesn't care and showing off gfx wasn't the point of his shots. Still, they are the most disturbing "game screenshots" I have seen since ... can't even remember, perhaps 1992.

Here, I totally agree with you. I wouldn't dare to put screenshots like that in public, in all their 4 bit glory...

I WANT to believe that it's because they are simply too hard pressed on both sides: externally, because users want news and updates, and internally, because they are busy with the patch.

I guess there are two forces at ACES, not always pushing in the same direction, about *what* to put into an update:

1) Visible fixes for the stock product, meaning fixing the default scenery, adding value to FSX "as is".

2) Issues with the engine itself, that wouldn't maybe appear until a 3rd party addon will use them. For example, adding new features to Simconnect would allow for better addons, but as long these are not released, how the average FSX buyer would perceive these as worthy improvements for the patch ?

3) Plain and simple performance issues.

While we would all probably prefer points 2 and 3 as priorities, don't forget that, from Microsoft's point of view, with an user base that it's NOT "ours", but is the whole buying public, the public that would never buy an addon and doesn't even know addons exists, point 1 is important as well.

I think the difficult thing would be including some of all 3 points, and that's the trickiest part.

[virtuali]

Do you think that sales would be just as good if the landclass system wasn't incomplete?

And were, exactly, is the news here ? FS9 was far more "incomplete" as a scenery/terrain/landclass system when it was released. No SRTM mesh, no Navteq database, not so good default textures, all things that FSX has improved. And FS9 uncompleteness HAS opened a market for products like UT, countless meshes, Landclasses, texture sets. Some good, some bad. FS9, in 2003, was even more in dire need for those kind of enhancements.

The only thing that we learned with the XClass experience, is that we should have started right away doing these products in 2003, when FS9 was released, and simply forget about airport scenery design.

My question was about when you were talking about having to do with efficency. AES is proof that not only is it doable, but it's doable very well.

No, it's not "doable very well", as of today. It might be okay for someone that didn't had animated jetways in his scenery to begin with. But all that have, all used their different methods, and they all need to put a substantial amount of work, in case they'd decide to support AES, and they will also need to keep their previous system in place, to support non-AES users. And any work done for AES, will not be useful in FSX anyway. It's bad enough having to support two version of the scenery for the two versions of the sim, it's out of the question having three different jetway styles on top of that.

The advantage of FSX, and with that I mean "efficency", is that can be done with a straightforward and official method, that will not require users of our (or anyone else's) scenery, to buy another 3rd party product.

It seems to me that there isn't much to sustain. It seems that you could release a project once a year and C9 would still be around (ie: flightscenery).

Absolutely not. Please, do not make the mistake of comparing to others, without knowing their motivations, their other eventual business and their expectations. I'm sorry, but there's no way an airport scenery that takes 1 year in the making, would ever be profitable, unless is done during the author's spare time. The only way to sustain this kind of company, is that the owner have other sources of income. There are several popular companies in the FS world, that owners are real world senior airliner pilots. It's quite obvious how they can release a product every year or even every 2 years, and still being around.

Can you please enlighten me about why it's so hard to "sustain" this business?

As I've said already, costs are very low, there's nothing like you cited. The problem is simply that sales, right now, are simply too low in RELATION to developement costs. There's no difference between FS9 and FSX, expect that FSX is disappointing (except for XClass) and FS9 is *worse*.

Seems to me that the most money to be made would be by the company that produced for both versions. That way you're getting the max income from every user.

No, what's happening instead, is that we are not even able to recover the *added* time needed to do both versions, from the *added* sales coming from the FS9 version.

[skydvdan]

Do you think that sales would be just as good if the landclass system wasn't incomplete?

And were, exactly, is the news here ? FS9 was far more "incomplete" as a scenery/terrain/landclass system when it was released. No SRTM mesh, no Navteq database, not so good default textures, all things that FSX has improved. And FS9 uncompleteness HAS opened a market for products like UT, countless meshes, Landclasses, texture sets. Some good, some bad. FS9, in 2003, was even more in dire need for those kind of enhancements.

But FS9 doesn't have 2/3 of the US as sahara like desert. Aces has admitted that it's incomplete and that is why it's messed up. Why can't you admit that as well ?

My question was about when you were talking about having to do with efficency. AES is proof that not only is it doable, but it's doable very well.

No, it's not "doable very well", as of today. It might be okay for someone that didn't had animated jetways in his scenery to begin with. But all that have, all used their different methods, and they all need to put a substantial amount of work, in case they'd decide to support AES, and they will also need to keep their previous system in place, to support non-AES users.

The sales numbers and performance of the product speak for themselves. It's VERY doable.

And any work done for AES, will not be useful in FSX anyway. It's bad enough having to support two version of the scenery for the two versions of the sim, it's out of the question having three different jetway styles on top of that.

Who cares about FSX. AES is a FS9 product. It's not needed in FSX, so why even bring it up?

Can you please enlighten me about why it's so hard to "sustain" this business?

As I've said already, costs are very low, there's nothing like you cited. The problem is simply that sales, right now, are simply too low in RELATION to developement costs.

What development costs?!? Are you flying out to the locations and having to pay the airport owners for permission to photograph the locations? People are volentarily sending you free pics. If you can't come up with tangible development costs then stop trying to use that line. At this point we're not buying it.

Seems to me that the most money to be made would be by the company that produced for both versions. That way you're getting the max income from every user.

No, what's happening instead, is that we are not even able to recover the *added* time needed to do both versions, from the *added* sales coming from the FS9 version.

This goes along with what I've said above. I just don't see it? These development costs that you keep mentioning seem to be the cost of the cheetoes that you eat and soda that you drink while you design. Sure website costs I would believe, I pay them myself. But you make it seem as though once you release a scenery you're only making $20 for all you're time invested.

[martin[flytampa]]

The only thing that we learned with the XClass experience, is that we should have started right away doing these products in 2003, when FS9 was released, and simply forget about airport scenery design.

Unfortunately not surprising. Anything with a global appeal, even if just a water texture created within 6 hours and slapped onto simmarket has the potential to outsell the most detailed airport scenery thats been worked on for a year.

Knowing that, I hope everyone (users) can appreciate the work of airport designers even more, because from a pure economical perspective we are the "Addon morons".

[martin[flytampa]]

That's our whole point that I would suggest to Martin to take into consideration: when the default textures are covered and layered with all the things that makes a good groundwork, like dirt, cracks, custom lines, shadows, etc.

Sorry the late reply open this, I over-read it earlier.

Thats sort of what I have been doing (also mentioned a while ago in the "game over" thread regarding your FS9 LAX ground with Afcad apron underneath), but since you mention it again I have one question:

When you say cover the default tarmac with custom stuff.... To my knowledge this can still only be done using the FS2002 SDK, am I correct? I know you can make a grass noise polygon floating above the ground compiled as FSX object... but when it comes to dirt, cracks, lines that really have to be touching the ground, I still see no alternative within the FSX gamepack.

[Awol]

Do you think that sales would be just as good if the landclass system wasn't incomplete?

And were, exactly, is the news here ? FS9 was far more "incomplete" as a scenery/terrain/landclass system when it was released. No SRTM mesh, no Navteq database, not so good default textures, all things that FSX has improved. And FS9 uncompleteness HAS opened a market for products like UT, countless meshes, Landclasses, texture sets. Some good, some bad. FS9, in 2003, was even more in dire need for those kind of enhancements.

Boy, I beg to differ on this one. FS9 has far better default textures and landclass. I've never felt the need to change them, with the exception of Ultimate Terrain. What's with the speckled look of the FSX terrain? Uggh. It's taken a couple steps backwards in that area I think.

[bigdogshark62]

Wow! Interesting thread! There is certainly a lot of passion on both sides.

From a pure business angle, here is what I see. Let's say, for example, that "The Company" releases EXYZ airport for FS9 and FSX. They sell 50 versions for FSX, and 40 for FS9. If each airport is US$30, then that's US$2,700 of income. Now, let's say "The Company" decides to just do FSX only (and gets arrogant about that decision, as if people should think they're idiots not to upgrade; good marketing ploy), based on the above numbers in that FSX outsold FS9. So they bump the price to $35, and they sell 60 units for FSX, and 0 for FS9 as it's no longer supported. This brings in a total of US$2,100. Even if they bump the price to $40, it still only brings in the US$2,600 assuming you have no fall off from those customers who are not willing to pay the increased price (simple economics, supply v. demand v. price).

What it boils down to with this method of thinking is "Cutting off your own nose to spite your face." You're losing any potential revenue from customers who would purchase the FS9 product (regardless of whether FS9 or FSX is the superior product). In order to make up the difference, the price will need to be increased, but will not neccessarily offset the loss of the FS9 customers because the increase will price some people out of the market who would have purchased initially.

The bottom line is this: it doesn't matter whether FS9 or FSX is better. Your decision to stop producing FS9 products as of right now is losing you money. Are people still using FS9? Yes. More than FSX? We don't know, but a large segement of the FS population is sticking with it for now. People are still using FS2002. Look at some of the major freeware sites, and you'll see people are still downloading for FS98.

Picture this. Anheuser-Busch sees that their signature product, Budweiser beer, is outselling it's Bud Light product by a 3:2 ratio. So they announce that they will discontinue making Bud Light because sales of Budweiser are higher, and besides, Budweiser tastes better anyway. What happens to the people that drank Bud Light? They move on to other vendors. And the revenue that was coming in from those buyers goes away. Same scenario of, let's say, Volkswagen. Their VW line is outselling all its other brands, so they decide they'll stop making the Audi and Mercedes vehicles due to the number of people buying the VW, and besides, everyone should drive a VW anyway because they're more functional for the everyday person. And all those Mercedes and Audi drivers start driving Lexus and Cadillac cars.

To my mind, it's not a sound business decision at this time (maybe when sales of FSX products FAR exceed the same FS9 product, but that's not neccessarily the case right now). But then, it's your company, and your decision to make, I guess.

I personally do not plan to upgrade to FSX for at least another year, and see no pressing need to do so even if people say FSX is a superior product. And I will continue to purchase from providers that continue to support FS9 (which means some people are losing out on acquiring my money).

Just my US$.02 (adjusted for inflation and exchange rate). Sorry for the length of the lesson.

"RECESS!!! Let's go PLAY!!!"

(Edited for grammar...)

[MD11Forever]

I'll just drop a few lines in here to say that I was extremely disappointed to hear C9 decided to go FSX-only...as I am one of the many staying with FS9 for the forseeable future. My $$$ will go to developers who continue to support FS9. Over the past year or so, I have bought every release from FT, Imagine, and even one from C9. I was going to buy a second from C9, but have held off account I want my $$ to go to a developer who will continue to offer the products I would like to buy. I realize that eventually FSX *may* be a better choice than FS9, but that time has not yet arrived. In my opinion, C9 is losing sales from those who are staying with FS9 (I'd certainly like a new KMCO), as well as alienating the same customers...

Just my $.02 worth.