Conure

Despite my defence of FSX a few months back, I've actually put some serious time into X Plane 10 now and believe it is actually the better sim. Graphically, technically and in terms of the flight models. http://www.ixeg.net/gallery I think when that is released, along with whatever it is PMDG are releasing for XP10, we'll start to see FSX dwindle..(hopefully).

Not a chance - civilian sims are my main passion, DCS is a secondary interest..I want them to build for XP10! :)

Rule number 1 of the DCS forums: ALWAYS expect a slightly hostile response from a lot of angry fighter pilot wannabes :lol: On a more serious note, it's probably because the civilian market is massive (Check out the traffic moving through the Avsim forums compared to here) so they can make a more money there. Maybe that will change in the future. Alternatively, they may be looking to put their expertise into the next big thing in civilian aviation simming. Will hopefully soon see PMDG / REX/ GEX / UTX heading the way of XP10...

Absolutely - I doubt the complexity of the ending could be easily summed up in a youtube post, and it is so open to interpretation I'm almost positive you could come to a completely different conclusion.

Just played the first hour. Won't give away any spoilers, other than the word "wow"...

Well I read that the devs are really working hard to bring it to full sim level - there are posts on the forum in which the devs state they want to pick up the IL2 community that were let down by CloD. They have some way to go though, but I hope they make it

You're taking it all very seriously. War Thunder to flight simulator is the same as World of World of Tanks is to a tank simulator - I've got a tonne of matches played and haven't spent very much (I make it a principle to make a payment to a game I have spend many hours in, I could have had as much enjoyment had I not paid a penny). The game is not a sim, that's true. But it's great fun - the aircraft have enough individuality to make combat very interesting.

Checking the forum is for chumps, mindlessly posting is the way forward :helpsmilie:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jLSsAuibuQ

There's nothing circular about my argument, let me state it for your simply. A: Shareholders are a good way to raise initial capital (and for raising capital for future projects and expansion, of course). B: Providing good quality products (at a relatively low production cost; though this is irrelevant - this is software we're talking about) is a good way to provide long term profitability. C: I believe that by charging for multiple DLC + Micro transactions + initial unit cost, it prejudices a companies position in terms of long term profitability (as a result of a knock on reputation) as is evidenced by plummeting user reviews. Long term profitability will be compromised when shareholder satisfaction is placed upon above that of customer happiness. D: I believe micro transactions benefit shareholders but provide no significant benefit to consumers. Please see point A and work through to point C for why this isn't a good thing. This is quite simple economics, I'm not sure what it is you're saying is circular? Unless you believe that negative reviews and extremely poor customer feedback is a benefit?

Interesting short article: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/03/11/simcity-is-inherently-broken-lets-not-let-this-go/

I understand the economics behind shareholders entirely. I also understand that service to shareholders can result in sacrifice to the customer. Balancing service to stakeholders/shareholders/government/customers is an important attribute to any business, but in some scenarios the balance is tipped too heavily in the favour of the shareholder which offers short term capital investment. This can lead to a loss of favour with the customer, which leads to loss of sales over the long term. Do you understand how, in the long term, this could be disadvantageous to the business? The "pleasing the shareholder" model has resulted in crap music, repetitive re-franchised games and rushed and buggy software. Yes, shareholders can be a nice way to raise capital - selling high quality products is a better way for long term profitability. That is, unless you're suggesting a business can survive on shareholder investment alone? I can also see how this relates to needing to charge for microtransactions, but if it means people stop buying the software, it won't get them far.

In all seriousness, does it have an edge over Anno 2070 for complexity/city building? Or is it completely different?

Agreed - I sort of wish I hadn't spent so long arguing against SimCity now - It would be laughable for me to buy it now...

Sorry - I meant my other post, regarding Ubuntu, security etc. I was interesting in your reasoning for believing Linux is only more secure as a result of obscurity - Does your knowledge of software come from your time at PC Gamer, or do you have formal security/cryptographc training? The reason I ask is because I work with Ubuntu a lot (and a great deal of my internship over the last 6 months involved intense penetration testing (lol)). I don't believe you've got your facts straight when it comes security - separate debate? Perhaps, but I know you like to get things right so thought it best to correct the misconception. (No offence meant, I have many misconceptions).

I know exactly what the microtransactions are - they are are an attempt by Blizzard to make money out of otherwise valueless transactions (which is fine...?) - but I do believe it is sneaky when the game also comes with a significant upfront cost. I would define microtransactions in modern games as "paying for the privilege of something which has no production cost to the producer" - Good for the shareholders, bad for us. I suppose the microtransactions could be justified on the basis they contribute towards server upkeep, and honestly, if microtransactions went completely to them + wage paying I would consider it fine, but I have a sneaking suspicion it probably just lines shareholder pockets. Which is the whole issue in my mind, gaming is moving from being an art form, to "how much money can we make for our shareholders, whilst minimising out input and costs" - I believe that this model is out of sync with consumer requirements. Still, games are businesses and I understand they have to make money. you have been very selective in your response, does this mean you agree with the rest of my post? If it helps validate my argument somewhat, I believe ED have a fantastic model. More expensive than Diablo 3? absolutely. But the content is worth the price of admissions (many times over!).

Then how did you come to the conclusion that there's no debate?

I think you're right - any legislation might have to define a distinction between a service fee and purchasing of software; which would effectively see an end to companies like Blizzard charging an initial cost and then a subscription (either one or the other). At this point it's all hypothesising but one thing is clear - the law is going to change, because right now there is a lot of moral ambiguity. It may well be that it turns completely in favor of the owners, but I hope not.

I think there is a far higher chance that software ownership will be changing in the future - I completed a (compulsory, dull) module at post-grad which discussed current precedents which have been carried out thus far, and there is little consistency at the moment. The law surrounding software ownership is very much a work in progress. I really don't think it's correct to take a subject as fluid, dynamic and brand new as software law, and to try to apply some form of conservative values which relate to the "everlasting state of things" as you did with the moon's core analogy. So, quite the contrary, there is rather a lot of debate - why is it you're led to believe there isn't? I am happy to link you legal articles if you're interested.

Well this is all part of the debate, ownership versus licencing and the ethics which support either side. It's an interesting area of software law and one which I think is likely to shift this way and that over the next decade - particularly as people accumulate vast digital libraries which they want to pass on to their children. I know at my university people often fall into either one of two camps, my own and EtherealNs. Just because currently software licensing and control thereof lies with the developer and their ability to 'loan' the software, it does not mean it will always be so. Indeed I think eventually we may see a complete legal reversal of the current position, as companies which offered software subject to their servers being up, are no longer able to maintain them.

That's true - I happen to really like the World of Tanks Model. I think, like you have said, some micro transactions are worthwhile (if not just for cash flow) but in some cases it is just greedy - I think, with Origin and their excessive DRM it just automatically offends someone that strongly believes in open source and free (not free financially) principles online. I don't just spout this crap, I have a whole hard disk full of open source software which I contribute to where I can. There's something about closed system DRM I am un trusting of - perhaps because I am so used to being able to look at the source, perhaps because I am overly paranoid - who knows. My point is, that in the case of Diablo 3 they not only took the liberty of introducing microtransactions which are more justifiably suited to a F2P model - they also had a base cost for the unit AND made it online only. In my opinion, this is taking control and ownership over the software completely away from the end user - which, again, in my opinion is an issue that we should try to be combating. Can't debate here - I'd like to think CDProjectRed weren't this sort of company, but I agree it's entirely possible. I can't agree here - I strongly believe any Unix based OS is currently far superior in terms of security to Windows, and I don't mean in terms of absolute statistical comparison which (as you would say) would show Unix as superior. Direct penetration testing on Windows versus Unix is often quite one sided, and because of the way the user accounts and kernel can be setup it's inherently secure. Even I get pissed off at times with it not letting me do things, when I'm logged in as root. In addition to that (and this applies to OS X to an extent, granted) security holes in Linux are found and dealt with extremely quickly. I mean, I've seen patches go up for Linux within 20 minutes of them being noted - Microsoft have nowhere close to that response time. Add to that the repository system and the huge amount of clean open source software and you have an extremely safe system. Here's a nice (sort of) current link on the state of things at the moment - apologies if you're an experienced Unix user and are already familiar: http://hothardware.com/Reviews/Why-Linux-Will-Never-Suffer-From-Viruses-Like-Windows/ And a direct quote " Even if they had the exact same market share, it is extremely unlikely that Linux would ever have the same number of exploits as we see in closed-source ecosystems such as Windows. This is a direct result of the open nature, which allows for innumerable companies and hobbyists to access and maintain all portions of the system--a feature that simply can't be replicated in proprietary operating systems. Linux will always have more eyes looking through the code to make it secure, than there are eyes looking through the code to exploit it." I believe this argument can be extended to the argument that games are generally better when they're open - people can make rapid bug fixes and implement top quality mods. It allows creativity to flow, the closed loop DRM system stifles, controls creativity, then charges for the benefit. Perhaps not strictly open source, but certainly free - Dota, Counterstrike, Dayz, Teamfortress Classic, Natural Selection 2 - all brilliant games which began their lives as mods (until some were bought out) - True examples of brilliant gaming and the result of people that are passionate about our hobby. I think these titles showed a lot of originality when they were born - and often, mods do show originality. I'd argue a lot of propriety software is becoming more repetitive. I agree with this. The problem in my opinion is that of extortion. In the case of World of Tanks, they offer a free game and charge for benefits. Fine. In the case of EA, they charge for a game, limit your options to play it, then charge you to remain competitive (want to stay in your BF3 clan? Get the DLC). I suppose ultimately this comes down to a debate about the power of companies to control their software, versus the power of people to own it. I can completely understand your points and I think many of them are valid, but they don't sit right with me.

If you can't grasp the basics of how to link two (quite simple) concepts, then that is your problem not mine. EtherealN asserted that longevity is somehow a byproduct of paid services (i.e map packs). I suggested that, in my opinion, longevity is better achieved by opening up the code to the communities. I then explained that we can see that in various software projects in which the code was opened up and made accessible (in contrast to EA's model), we have seen long lasting, robust software solutions developed. I also believe this can provide long term profitability in the form of (substantial) content or engine updates, as seen in DCS. This effectively boils down down the open software (FSF) versus propriety software debate and can be extended to include not just games. Please, if you have no knowledge of what is and is not relevant to the debate, either go and educate of yourself or don't get involved :thumbup:

Because microtransactions and chargeable DLC have been so well received by the community? http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/simcity http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/diablo-iii Have a look at those user scores to see how well the community receives micro transactions. Also see the user scores for the most recent COD games and their associated map packs - also very poorly rated. On the other hand, let's look at alternative (and fairer) ways of providing software to the public - which has been well received by the community in general Path of Exile - free of charge, no risk on investment (unless you consider bandwidth a risk. Let's not get into the opportunity cost!) - don't like it? Nothing lost. Micro transactions are completely justifiable in this scenario - because no price is charged for initial software. The Witcher 2 - significant free content added - presumably very profitable given a third is in the works so recently after the second. - Further investment can be secured from sequals and high quality expansions. Content which almost matches that of the original game. Ubuntu - Absolutely free OS, significantly more powerful and secure than Windows - because it is open to the community. Chivalry - Medieval warfare - Good quality user ratings, a lot of free content. I don't think anybody in the world of Software Development other than the shareholders at EA would agree that the EA model of selling is sustainable. Of course, a line has to be drawn and propriety software has its advantages, i.e, supposedly it offers the advantage of LTS that perhaps free software doesn't (nonsense in my opinion but that's another debate). Your case regarding a DCS module isn't comparable - it is a significant investment in resources to produce a high quality product. Morally and financially justifiable. What is the justification for microtransactions in Simcity (when there is a significant cost for the base software)? Are you honestly going to answer anything other than greed given how well other businesses do without charging for them? Clearly there are better ways for maintaining the extension of software life and fixing of bugs whilst keeping profits up. EA does nothing but alienate its users - to deny that is to deny the general response of the internet to their recent releases.

That is a bunch of corporate nonsense. "It's not that they will have them, it's that they can have them". What does that even mean? That means absolutely nothing. It's a sentence which is completely devoid of any useful information - he may as well have just not said it and we'd still be back at the position of "all future games will have micro-transactions". EA have cleverly designed their games to be useless without the DLC. Battlefield 3 is a nightmare to play without it - constantly being removed from servers when a new DLC map loads. Constant non-event (and expensive) DLC being puked out in a similar style to the release of Call of Duty (but accelerated even beyond that!). Still, it'll sell - and most people will continue to buy, entirely happy about (or ignorant of) their continued relinquishing of their consumer freedoms. Ahh, humanity.

True - but the technology flourishes when it is released from the realm of DRM, indeed technology is typically better the more open and free it is. As an experienced Ubuntu user and advocate of the FSF and their principles I'd have to say that the free software I use is typically higher quality and more stable. I think a good example of Diablo 3 done properly is Path of Exile - free to play, seamless online cooperation etc. In this case, pirates will get SimCity and probably play it offline anyway once it is cracked. Granted, I see some advantages to propriety software but ultimately the less DRM and the more open it is, the better. EA are the enemies of the internet!