How strong is Aerosoft really? The big 2026 analysis. Is Aerosoft still the market leader in the simulation sector?

If you look at the numbers objectively, Aerosoft undoubtedly remains one of the most important publishers in the German-speaking simulation market. The company was founded in 1991 and, according to publicly available corporate data, employs around 35 staff members. Especially in a specialized niche, this is a relevant size. Added to this is the extraordinary breadth of its portfolio: bus simulation, rail simulation, flight simulation, add-ons, hardware, and long-term DLC structures. It is precisely this diversification that is a massive strategic advantage.

Aerosoft is also significantly more interesting from a numbers perspective than it may seem at first glance. Current publisher data from the Steam environment estimates Aerosoft’s lifetime revenue at around 51 million US dollars. At the same time, the average revenue per released game is estimated at around 962,000 US dollars, while the median is approximately 266,000 US dollars. This combination is particularly interesting because it shows two things at once: on the one hand, Aerosoft has individual titles and product lines that clearly perform economically. On the other hand, the portfolio is broad enough to absorb weaker releases without immediately destabilizing the publisher as a whole. For a specialized niche publisher in the simulation segment, this is a remarkably strong value.

It becomes even more interesting when you look not only at the total sum but at the structure behind it. Aerosoft is not active in just one segment, but spreads its brand across several pillars: bus simulation, rail simulation, flight simulation, add-ons, hardware, and long-term DLC models. This diversification is one of the biggest differences compared to many other publishers in the simulation market. While some providers depend heavily on one or two brands, Aerosoft is positioned much more broadly. This does not automatically mean that every release is successful. But it does mean that the brand as a whole is more robust than that of a publisher that places almost everything on a single flagship title.

That is exactly why the 51 million US dollars in lifetime revenue must be classified properly. In relation to the global online simulation games market, which is estimated at around 10.53 billion US dollars for 2026 and is expected to grow to 19.47 billion US dollars by 2031, Aerosoft is of course not a global mass-market publisher. But within the specialized field of vehicle and transport simulation, the visibility of the brand is significantly greater than the pure market share would suggest. In other words: Aerosoft is not a giant globally like a mainstream publisher, but within the German-speaking simulation scene it remains one of the defining brands.

This also becomes interesting in direct comparison with other names. Dovetail Games is a central reference point in the rail segment and is currently listed by Steam data sources with a significantly smaller total Steam revenue volume of around 11 million US dollars. At the same time, Dovetail is much more focused on the rail sector, particularly through Train Sim World 6 and Train Simulator Classic. Aerosoft, on the other hand, is positioned more broadly in the vehicle simulation sector and is therefore structurally secured in a different way.

The comparison with astragon Entertainment also highlights this structural difference. Astragon is clearly one of the most important simulation publishers in the German-speaking market, especially through brands such as Bus Simulator 21, Police Simulator: Patrol Officers, and Construction Simulator. Strategically, however, the difference lies visibly in the target audience: Aerosoft is more deeply rooted in the traditional PC, add-on, and enthusiast market, while astragon often operates closer to the mainstream and console audience.

A particularly important distinction here is the difference between publisher strength and individual title performance. In recent weeks, individual weak titles have repeatedly been cited in relation to Aerosoft, and this criticism can also be supported by data. For Park Ranger Simulator, released on February 19, 2026, the current Steam status shows 79 reviews, of which only 18 percent are positive. The game is therefore officially classified as “very negative.” Activity is also extremely low.

But this is precisely where proper journalistic classification becomes decisive: individual weak releases do not automatically determine the overall strength of the publisher. Aerosoft’s market weight does not arise from one single game, but from decades of market presence, brand recognition, add-on structures, and multiple established pillars at the same time.

However, it is important to classify this correctly: a strong publisher is not automatically free of problems. This is exactly where things currently become interesting.

In recent weeks and months, several individual releases have come under heavy criticism. Titles such as Park Ranger Simulator or Military Logistics Simulator have been discussed very critically within the community, on Steam, and in specialist media. These cases naturally raise the question of whether the strategic breadth of the portfolio is partly coming at the expense of perceived quality.

From my point of view, this is exactly the key analytical point: you must not judge the publisher solely by individual weak releases, but you must not downplay them either. Both can be true at the same time.

Another area that currently cannot be ignored journalistically is the allegations that have recently been brought more strongly into public discussion through a video by EinfachMory, as well as statements by former employees and a whistleblower. Here, a particularly clean and distanced classification is important: these are allegations and second-hand accounts, not legally established facts.

Several points are being discussed. Firstly, there are questions surrounding the handling of reviews – including descriptions according to which positive reviews may have been organized through external platforms such as Fiverr or internally encouraged. These points were particularly raised through statements by a whistleblower and form the basis of the mentioned video.

A second major area of criticism concerns cooperation with developer studios. Especially in connection with Military Logistics Simulator, statements from an affected developer were cited, according to which strategic decisions and advisory guidance were allegedly not sufficiently aligned with the wishes of the target audience.

The debate became particularly visible in the area of marketing and communication. Two examples are repeatedly mentioned at present. Firstly, the issue surrounding the so-called “SIMU working student” project, where cooperation with external agencies and communication partners raised questions about control and internal coordination. Secondly, the much-discussed pre-release video by Kaktusfeige for the console version of The Bus, which gave a technically problematic impression before release.

However, this must be assessed fairly and constructively: the same console version was later received significantly better in its final form, which shows that the actual product state and its communicative external presentation were not always identical. From the perspective of many observers, the issue lay less in the final product than in the first public impression.

And this is exactly where I see the biggest constructive lever for Aerosoft: communication, perceived quality, and community trust.

Because economically, the brand remains strong. Especially in the flight simulation sector, Aerosoft continues to possess enormous expertise.

A second future lever, in my view, is quality over breadth. Fewer experiments outside the core business, but longer development cycles, stronger quality control, and more visible community involvement would help rebuild trust in the long term.

Our personal, but fact-based conclusion is therefore constructive: despite justified criticism of individual releases and the currently discussed allegations, Aerosoft remains one of the most important players in the German-speaking simulation market in both economic and brand-strategic terms. The real question for the future is not whether Aerosoft will remain relevant – but how consistently the company can combine its core strengths with quality and transparent communication.

How do you currently perceive Aerosoft as a publisher? Do you distinguish between individual weak releases and the overall brand? How important is transparent communication from a publisher to you? How do you assess the currently discussed allegations?