News Gamers Will Spend $2.6 Billion on Gear To Play Microsoft Flight Simulator, Says JPR

[Admin]

That's $1145 per copy of the simulator

Gamers Will Spend $2.6 Billion on Gear To Play Microsoft Flight Simulator, Says JPR : Read more

 

[TerryLaze]

That's $1145 per copy of the simulator

"Over the next three years" is a big part of this.
This can mean three upgrades of about 380 average,so a good CPU a good GPU and a good storage/ram upgrade each year depending on what is most lacking each year.
Huge 4k monitors or VR are going to be a relatively small piece of the pie I would think,especially if it's for this game only.

 

[Chung Leong]

Are they counting just equipment specific to flight sim? Things like rudders and throttles are pretty pricey, but how often do these get upgraded? Maybe people buy new ones for new plane models?

 

[digitalgriffin]

I think they are being a bit overblown there.

Getting a top of the line graphics card is $1100, and a top of the line VR system is $1000. But I doubt many people will do that for one game.

 

[megreyhair]

I think they jumped the gun here. The game is no way stable. It constantly crashes, auto-pilot not working correctly, and many other issues. It is extremely frustrating when you put in a 3 hour flight and have the game crashed right before landing. Loading took forever. Graphics is exceptional and very realistic but unless they fix the issues quickly, this will never take off.

Also flight sim is a very niche market. Hardcore flight simmer will spend ther money. But not every gamer will run out to spend all those $$$ to learn to take-off, fly and land an airplane.

 

[bigdragon]

Make good, PC-exclusive titles. Get serious investment in the PC ecosystem.

I've been wanting Nvidia and AMD to open their own gaming studios for years. The absolute insane graphics card prices are very hard to justify when there's only console ports available to play. Why should I spend $500 for a 2070 Super when I can buy a PS4 for less, get the same same gaming experience, and get good exclusives like Spiderman?

I do hope Microsoft keeps developing serious, PC-centric games. I haven't tried their new flight sim, but I did enjoy FSX. I learned to fly a Cessna 172 in real life thanks to FSX.

 

[Phaaze88]

Why should I spend $500 for a 2070 Super when I can buy a PS4 for less, get the same same gaming experience, and get good exclusives like Spiderman?

The 2 platforms shouldn't be compared at all, really. But people keep doing it for some reason...
A)Console is a FIXED platform of the Home Entertainment variety. 'What you see is what you get' throughout its lifetime.

B)PC is an OPEN platform of the DIY space. It has far more utility than just entertainment, even if that's the only reason the user got one.
'What you see is what you get', does not apply here; it's only limited by software, the user's imagination, and how much they're willing to spend.

 

[InvalidError]

I think they are being a bit overblown there.

Getting a top of the line graphics card is $1100, and a top of the line VR system is $1000. But I doubt many people will do that for one game.

This is an AVERAGE. On one end of the spectrum, you will have hardcore flight-simmers spending well over 20k$ on a full-custom life-like setup and at the other end of the spectrum, you'll have the casual simmers not really spending any money beyond whatever they've already got for other uses. Most simmers will be somewhere in-between.

 

[cryoburner]

This is an AVERAGE. On one end of the spectrum, you will have hardcore flight-simmers spending well over 20k$ on a full-custom life-like setup and at the other end of the spectrum, you'll have the casual simmers not really spending any money beyond whatever they've already got for other uses. Most simmers will be somewhere in-between.

Sure, there are people that will spend thousands of dollars on simulator-specific hardware, but they will make up an extremely tiny portion of those buying the simulator. The vast majority of those expected 2 million sales will be going to people who will spend nothing on hardware specifically for it. And of course, even most of those with expensive simulator setups probably won't be replacing what they already have when moving from existing flight sims, outside of perhaps the core computer hardware.

I would expect increased spending on VR hardware though, as a VR setup will tend to be more immersive than most big multi-screen simulator setups. Still, most of those running the simulator in VR will likely not be picking up a headset specifically for Microsoft Flight Simulator. The same goes for PC hardware in general. There's a lot of grey area where the hardware will be used for other applications and games as well, so determining exactly how much hardware is sold specifically for running the simulator seems like a futile effort. And even if it were to account for a couple billion in hardware sales over three years, that should be put into the context of the couple hundred-billion that will likely be spent on gaming hardware in general over the same period.

I've been wanting Nvidia and AMD to open their own gaming studios for years. The absolute insane graphics card prices are very hard to justify when there's only console ports available to play. Why should I spend $500 for a 2070 Super when I can buy a PS4 for less, get the same same gaming experience, and get good exclusives like Spiderman?

The problem with that is that you would end up with games released exclusively for certain brands of hardware. Is that what you really want? Games only playable on AMD, Nvidia or Intel graphics cards, where you need to own three different cards to play them all? Consoles do that because they are often selling their hardware at a loss, and need to make their money back through software and service sales, but I wouldn't want to see that on the PC. Oculus already tried something similar with their Oculus exclusives, and even tried to crack down on workarounds until they started receiving bad press for doing so. Being open is a great thing about the PC ecosystem, and I wouldn't want it to be more like consoles in that regard.

And why compare a 2070 SUPER to a PS4? You certainly don't need anywhere near that level of hardware to receive a similar gaming experience as on the existing consoles. A sub-$200 graphics card will provide a similar level of graphics performance as a PS4 Pro or Xbox One X, so long as you don't mind running the games at lower settings and frame rates similar to how they run on the consoles. A 2070 SUPER is more comparable to what the next consoles will offer, but those aren't even out yet, and it shouldn't be too long before a similar level of graphics hardware is available for hundreds of dollars less.

As for the PC only getting "console ports", it's not so much games getting ported to the PC as it is games getting designed to run on as many systems as possible. With AAA games costing tens of millions of dollars to produce, many wouldn't be profitable if limited to a single platform. Big-budget exclusives generally only make sense as an incentive to bring people into a hardware ecosystem to spend money on other things. Today's consoles are more or less just locked-down PCs, so from a profitability standpoint, it generally doesn't make much sense to artificially restrict PC games from releasing on consoles as well. And even a lot of those "console exclusives" eventually make their way to PC.

 

[Chung Leong]

I would expect increased spending on VR hardware though, as a VR setup will tend to be more immersive than most big multi-screen simulator setups.

Why would any flight-sim enthusiast buy a VR goggle? An airliner cockpit is not exactly a very exciting place to be on its own. Just panels with knobs and buttons. Looking at them is not much of a simulation when you can't actually interact with them, even when they're in stereoscopic 3D.

 

[ThatMouse]

That's $1145 per copy of the simulator

Gamers Will Spend $2.6 Billion on Gear To Play Microsoft Flight Simulator, Says JPR : Read more

Almost every PC gamer will be upgrading their video card in the next 3 years anyway. Very few people buy a PC just to play one game.

 

[cryoburner]

Why would any flight-sim enthusiast buy a VR goggle? An airliner cockpit is not exactly a very exciting place to be on its own. Just panels with knobs and buttons. Looking at them is not much of a simulation when you can't actually interact with them, even when they're in stereoscopic 3D.

For a better sense of presence, and being able to lean over to look out a window, rather than just having a screen in front of you. And I'm rather sure the virtual cockpits will be fully interactive in VR, meaning complex, expensive physical setups won't be necessary to simulate the various controls, and would only be more limited aside from the tactile feedback they provide. There are a lot of flight sim users already using VR, and I would expect many more to go that route if Microsoft provides a good VR implementation.

 

[InvalidError]

And I'm rather sure the virtual cockpits will be fully interactive in VR, meaning complex, expensive physical setups won't be necessary to simulate the various controls

Most major controls in airplanes use force feedback to let the pilots know how much control effort hydraulics and electrical assist motors have to put out to hold position. Good luck duplicating those in VR.

 

[Chung Leong]

And I'm rather sure the virtual cockpits will be fully interactive in VR, meaning complex, expensive physical setups won't be necessary to simulate the various controls, and would only be more limited aside from the tactile feedback they provide.

I doubt VR gloves have enough precision to allow you to turn a small knob. And no development in haptic feedback tech can ever simulate the physical support that the flight controls provide. Holding your hands out gripping a non-existing yoke gets tiring after a few minutes. Using a VR goggle meanwhile tires the brain, head, and eyes. You're supposed to wear one for no more than 30 minutes. Prolong use can cause permanent damage to your eyesight, something to be avoided if you have hopes of one day taking it to the real sky.

 

[cryoburner]

Most major controls in airplanes use force feedback to let the pilots know how much control effort hydraulics and electrical assist motors have to put out to hold position. Good luck duplicating those in VR.

I'm not referring to the flight stick and other major controls, as obviously those wouldn't be practical to replicate with virtual inputs alone, but rather the various buttons and other minor controls around the cockpit. There's no reason a flight sim enthusiast would need to give up their HOTAS controller when moving to VR. And for anyone wanting to fly more than one plane, an expensive physical cockpit recreation isn't going to work, whereas any number of cockpits can be accurately simulated in VR.

There are already lots of flight sim users making use of both a physical controller and a VR headset, and the general impression seems to be that once one has tried a sim in VR, they tend to not want to go back to running it on a monitor. Traditional screens can hold some advantages like higher pixel density, but some newer headsets are getting to resolutions where that's less of a concern. Perhaps that's why the VR in Microsoft Flight Simulator will be initially launching for the HP Reverb 2 with its dual 2160x2160 screens, before coming to other headsets at a later time. Microsoft may want to ensure people have a better first impression than some other headsets might provide.

I doubt VR gloves have enough precision to allow you to turn a small knob. And no development in haptic feedback tech can ever simulate the physical support that the flight controls provide. Holding your hands out gripping a non-existing yoke gets tiring after a few minutes. Using a VR goggle meanwhile tires the brain, head, and eyes. You're supposed to wear one for no more than 30 minutes. Prolong use can cause permanent damage to your eyesight, something to be avoided if you have hopes of one day taking it to the real sky.

You sound like you are not very up-to-date on the current state of VR. Most current VR controllers offer near millimeter-level accuracy with full 6DOF tracking. Gloves are not all that common, in favor of hand-held controllers, but I could see those being more useful for sims where one is also interacting with a physical controller.

As for VR headsets tiring the brain and eyes, that shouldn't be a problem so much with most modern PC headsets that provide near-perfect head-tracking and high refresh rates. Low frame rates could potentially be tiring, and that could be a concern for a flight sim, though modern headsets can use techniques to simulate a doubling of frame rates when they get low to reduce that issue.

And damaging eyesight? They are just screens behind lenses. The lenses adjust the focus to be more distant than a typical monitor setup, so its not like one is focusing on something right in front of their eyes. If a VR headset damages your eyesight, then a monitor should as well.

 

[digitalgriffin]

Why would any flight-sim enthusiast buy a VR goggle? An airliner cockpit is not exactly a very exciting place to be on its own. Just panels with knobs and buttons. Looking at them is not much of a simulation when you can't actually interact with them, even when they're in stereoscopic 3D.

There is a tremendous amount of information in the cockpit. Theres even a 3rd seat for a flight engineer on some jets.

A VR helmet allows you to swing your head wildly to where its needed and when, focusing on the details of each instrument. Its similar to driving sims in vr. Even if you have 180 degrees of monitor you would never have the vertical pervue or gpu horsepower to render 3 monitors at once.

I dont even know how vr will work with 1080p 2080ti's barely touching 60fps.

Microsoft better have some serious optimization ready on day 0 or you're going to have a lot of sick pilots in vr.

Also someone really needs to implement per eye sli/crossfire. Vr is the ultimate use of this old tech because the viewports are independent and don't require cross card information. (Which is super ironic that an old failed tech is the answer to vr horsepower issues)

 

[Flayed]

I can see that people who are really really into flying would spend money on this. After all spending a few grand on PC hardware is nothing compared to how much it costs to actually fly.

 

[InvalidError]

A VR helmet allows you to swing your head wildly to where its needed and when, focusing on the details of each instrument. Its similar to driving sims in vr. Even if you have 180 degrees of monitor you would never have the vertical pervue or gpu horsepower to render 3 monitors at once.

In actual racing, drivers get a whole lot of information from the seat of their pants and the G-forces on their body. You don't get those from VR.

 

[Chung Leong]

A VR helmet allows you to swing your head wildly to where its needed and when, focusing on the details of each instrument. Its similar to driving sims in vr. Even if you have 180 degrees of monitor you would never have the vertical pervue or gpu horsepower to render 3 monitors at once.

With a VR goggle strapped to your head, you can't quickly switch to an external view. For a flight sim, that's important since you get the most spectacular view from outside the plane. Inside the cockpit, the visual is dull and largely unchanging.

Instrument panels can be offloaded to tablets. These don't cost much and can do an excellent job of replicating experience of interacting with a glass cockpit.

 

[digitalgriffin]

With a VR goggle strapped to your head, you can't quickly switch to an external view. For a flight sim, that's important since you get the most spectacular view from outside the plane. Inside the cockpit, the visual is dull and largely unchanging.

Instrument panels can be offloaded to tablets. These don't cost much and can do an excellent job of replicating experience of interacting with a glass cockpit.

When you are sitting in a cockpit, you're head is swinging in close air situations to see what the opposing plane is doing. Instruments don't tell you everything. Even the JSF's use augmented reality to allow the pilots to see outside their cockpit so they have a better situational awareness. There are cameras all over the fuselage which allow the computers to see outside the cockpit. These are then stitched back together in near real time and show the pilot his situation like he was floating in mid air with no plane around him.