Microsoft Reportedly Shuts Down Vancouver-Based Studio [UPDATE: Projects Cancelled]

http://kotaku.com/5929141/

Well what can we say, IMHO I think the marketing strategy of Josh Howard doomed this from the start, thinking he could ignore/insult the loyal "hardcore" sim fans of the series because there were untapped millions of casual simmers out there that would pay money for his cockpitless DLC has proven out to be as flawed as many of us thought.


Oh well I am glad at least they added TrackIR support, hopefully the improved codebase is picked up somewhere down the line for FS11.

Ironically this comes on the same day that they released the "Deluxe Carbon Cub" with a cockpit and all... I think it will be highly discounted on Steam in the near future, I'll wait to see if so before I pick it up.

I for one am gutted, I hate to see any flight sim fail to such a degree, especially if it had potential (should they have started to listen more to the community).

More to the point, having suck a fair bit of cash into this lame pig, I can't help but wonder what the hell happens when they decide to turn off the servers, seeing as you can only fly on-line? I will be seriously narked if that happens any time soon.

Seems to me that the project must have had the potential to make money further down the line, seems a drastic step to pull the plug so early...

I would love to see their numbers. Number of DLC sales, client downloads, active users etc.

Also: http://forum.avsim.net/page/index.html/_/pri-news/reports-of-ms-flight-shutdown-r489

They experimented, they failed. I just hope that they either bury flight sims for good or at least go for a ground-up reboot.

Here's a copy/paste of my post from this thread: http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3614093.html

I, for one, will be glad and relieved if MS Flight really does fail. It's not that I don't want to see another decent flight sim in the marketplace (I do!), or that I enjoy throwing my money away (I don't!), but I do not want THAT type of "flight sim" succeeding. For all it could have been, MS Flight was bad, in all the ways the commenters in this thread before me have already pointed out.

I acknowledge and recognize that there is a real sense of loss here - MS Flight raised our hopes and expectations for a great flight sim with realism, great visuals, and an unprecedented level of natively supported multiplayer interaction for a flight sim - but that loss is only imaginary. That simulation we wanted, that we dreamed for, that we hoped for, never really existed. We'll probably never know, but I have my doubts that that flight sim was ever even planned.

It is my naive yet fervent hope that current and future developers learn a lesson from MS Flight's aborted takeoff: you can't make a successful game just by adding DLC - there has to be a game in there, too. MS Flight just doesn't have that aspect and, had it succeeded, would have served as an awful, terrible example of how a developer can just cobble together planes and eye candy and then charge an all-too-willing flight sim community whatever they want for it.

So, while I sympathize for folks who are dealing with the loss of a flight sim that could have been, I'm dancing in the streets singing "Ding, dong, the Witch is dead! The Wicked Witch is dead!"

Same as EinsteenEP, ill copy from the other thread so its down here inthe right forum too;

Ok guys,

heres where we are at. Ive copied what Scott posted over at another site to save me time as things are a little crazy here at the moment;

"I just want to get this out there before we get those who wish to capitalize on the cancellation of Flight.

MS did approach A2A six months before Flight was announced to come aboard and write new systems for their engine. This was mostly due to their interest in Accu-Sim systems. We never joined only because we didn't believe, for several reasons, the direction they were going in was a sound one.

However later, when Flight was released, we were a little concerned that the release of Flight could sap away customers. We watched our web traffic closely those days Flight was released, and to our surprise, didn't see even a 1% change in activity. In fact, the only argument that could be made is there was a benefit to FSX. In the past six months, sales and popularity have not only increased but surged.

FSX is strong and healthy for three reasons:
1. It is the recipient of more time, money, and engineering than any other software platform. Probably well over a 10 to 1 ratio over most other platforms.
2. Outstanding open architecture allows hard working 3rd party companies to thrive
3. Lockheed Martin's P3D keeps the big guns invested in the platform

We have a long list of projects in development now and planned for the future for Accu-Sim and Accu-Feel with a projected lifetime for many years. Our money is on FSX.

Scott
A2A Simulations. "

I totally agree with point 2 made by A2A.

The Flight debacle sends a strong message in my opinion: if you want your sim platform to be popular, keep it open! I didn't like the closed nature of Flight, and the devs were very pretentious about how this was supposed to be of a benefit to us - they were saying "look, all these 3rd party freeware and payware are bad, they make the market too complicated, while we will make it easy and ideal for you - a few months later Flight was suffering content starvation with only cockpitless mediocre aircrafts, followed by a rushed out expansion - so that's how they had saved us from 3rd party developers...
I wish other developer could open their eyes and change their view on this topic before it's too late for them too. Flight was a good engine, but its content made it a big waste of an engine, and it's the only one potential waste of a flight sim engine out there... But luckily other developers stay true to the spirit of creating open platforms and these, I hope, will be the ones creating the long lasting platforms that we'll enjoy for years.

Indeed, the engine... I bet if they remade the FSX with Flight's engine they would have made more profit than they did from this silly DLC cockpitless plane carousel.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

The problem with an open sim architecture, is that it benefits the 3rd party devs and the user, but not the original developer.

The one point that whats-his-moron (the guy in charge of the Flight project) got correct, is that the FSX aftermarket has become very complex, very confusing, and very expensive. It's overwhelming for a new user to come in and get their copy up to spec with some of the posters on this forum. The biggest complaint about FSX I hear from devs is the massive support headaches that go with it.

In addition, MS doesn't see any money after the inital FSX purchase, so the motivation for an open platform is limited. What EVERYONE needed (and still needs) is FSX with a content management system and purchase portal that streamlines the process of developing, selling, upgrading,and supporting third party products that operate within the engine. The idea here is that MS controls the way content makes it's way into the engine,and charges a fee per add-on. In excahnge for this fee, developers get
- DRM (the portal could act as a DRM system, in the veign of steam or iTUnes),
-product support management (and far fewer headaches, as the porta can act as ATC for all the add-ons a user has, managing conflicting add-ons as needed),
-direct access and marketing to the user base

Users get:
-much fewer headaches with conflicitng add-ons, system crashes, and config file tinkering.
-no more onerus DRM
-One stop shopping for content.

This would have given all parties a slice of the pie, and solidify the engine as the defacto flight experiance for the community.

Instead, MS got greedy, took the whole pie for itself, and hurt itself in the end.

Honestly, i have my hands full with flight sims. BMS, DCS, ROF, OFF, etc. i never had any intention of buying Flight. But I would have sprung for a full price update of FSX. Microsoft really is a company with serious management issues. First you let go everyone from FSX. That was disrespecful. Who cares if FSX loses a few bucks, or barely breaks even. It was an important product in terms of prestige. And then they launch Flight? And then kill it? Too many bean counters with ZERO passion running MS.

Compare these bozos to ED, or the VOLUNTEERS over at BMS. Night and day.

Very nicely put.
An App Store of sorts would have been ideal, with a share for both the devs and MS, but they got greedy.

I suspect greed was on both sides (mostly on MS's side, but some of it on the 3PP side). The 3PP were initially offered the opportunity to participate. From their own mouths (numerous sources), they stated they were less than enthusiastic about the deal and decided not to play along. MS eventually got fed up with them and decided to go it alone (and it was probably a convenient decision because they thought it would end up with more profit for them). How would this have progressed if the 3PPs had been enthusiastic about Flight? It was simply an economy of scales proposition and the 3PPs couldn't see that.

I actually agree with Microsofts general decision to change directions with Aces/MSFS. It simply wasn't working. If the business-unit can't turn profit, then it needs to change. That's what businesses do. What I disagree with is the direction they took with flight.

At this point though, MS will never be successful in flight sims again. They're too big, and too stubborn. They can't innovate, and that's what needs to happen.

That said, passionate developers who do it for the love of the hobby are a wonderful thing for all of us. I'm glad we have them.

But they aren't the future of this hobby. A viable business model must emerge to save sims. "Boxed software", sold for $60 along side other casual titles simply doesn't work for flight sims. Our product is one that will wind up costing the end user $200 for a simulation "operating system", populated by a third party like aerosoft, A2A, and Carenado.

This is because there is no one company out there in this little niche of entertainment software large enough to bring a pure retail sim environment to market. ED needs to rely on military contracts to keep writing paychecks, A2A doesn't have the staff to develop a robust ground-up sim environment, and Laminar still can't get out from under Steve Austins bull-headed pride.

Got it in one. I am disappointed that Flight has closed. It could have been so good but as others have said it failed because its target audience was kept small by limited scenery and planes. Imagine a sim as huge as FSX but playing as smoothly as Flight with everything maxed out and not even breaking sweat and we would have the dream sim.

We need a new FSX using the code from Flight as much as we need 777 to make a new WW2 combat sim.

I can't say I am surprised Flight had some good points but was too bogged down with arcade stuff to really make it worth our time.
I really hope someone brings out another sim I am not asking for the world but many Europe or Europe and then add on packs for the USA ect or visa verse with some nice GA's some fun stuff like a Lightning a few airliners is that really too much to ask for?

I've heard otherwise. Can you substantiate, with facts and sources, that ACES was cut because FSX was unprofitable?

The fundamental proble with flight was simplly horribly conflicting gameplay and DLC. None of the DLC released between initial release and the Alaska pack release was really usable. For a game with gameplay centred on exploring and cargo/passenger hauling all those cockpitless warbirds made no sense.

I actually enjoyed a lot of the gameplay, and quite liked the original aircraft lineup. But I didn't buy any DLC after launch until the Alaska pack(at some point I'll buy the DLX Carbon Cub), I did buy most of the launch DLC (skipped the P-51D) though.

Less warbirds and more cargo haulers could have saved Flight. Hell, a simple Beaver or Otter was all that was really needed as it would have allowed certain missions which are essentially impossible currently due to payload limits to be completed.

2 things may have made Flight an enjoyable experience for me...

1. More planes and scenery.
2. Something like "Cargo pilot" or "FSPassengers" built into the vanilla game. I'd be much more willing to explore places in the game if I'm doing it in the context of managing a cargo company or airline.

Flying through hoops or exploring a dead Hawaii in a plane that is barely faster than my car? Well they know where they can shove that.

Not sure if anyone saw the interesting recent comments from Aerosoft's Mathijs Kok about Flight on the AVSIM interview:
AVSIM An Interview With Aerosoft Mathijs Kok

Excerpt of those comments here:

Q: Finally....your views on the Munich Conference, the demise of MS Flight....and your views on the future of the Hobby?

Let’s start with FLIGHT.

The moment we understood what it would be we told each other that it would not work, that Microsoft just did not understand the kind of customer that pays our bills. There were promising parts, but it was released as a brain dead simulator. Aircraft without cockpits? What were they thinking? Strangely enough we did like it, we hoped it would bring in a new generation of simmers and we hoped Microsoft would see the light. We told them we spoke to them, they spoke to us, but as so often the people working on the project at Microsoft had little say.

The problem with Microsoft is the company itself at this moment. It seems to lack direction in any field expect the Operating Systems. They start and stop projects seemingly without reason, we worked a lot for them but they did not prove to be a very reliable partner.

Just two weeks before FLIGHT was cancelled they were talking to us about new content.

Interesting to see that 2 weeks before cancelling the project, they were considering involving 3rd Party Developers...