Thump

It had nothing to do with demanding eternal software. It had to do with not just planned obsolescence (welcome to capitalism) but potentially (unnecessary) forced obsolescence for the sole sake of profit at the detriment of the consumer. Seeing as how this is probably not the case (a recent post gives wiggle room to back out of those statements), the point is moot.

Based on ED's past actions of forcing an upgrade (KA-50), it wasn't a far leap to make. For you, you've gotten your money's worth...this may or may not be the case for others. By all means buy the A-10C II if it scratches that itch for the suite they provide. I don't have a problem with them selling an upgrade in the slightest (markets will decide what cost they will bear).

Thank you for the clarification. Much appreciated.

I know (now) they aren't. At that point in the discussion it went from addressing this specific case to a more generalization discussion on product support and how things would have to be in order to draw parallels. I was addressing specifically the part of your post dealing with the developer's discretion as to how long they choose to support a product. The DCS 2.0/3.0 part was intended to be an example on how it would only make sense to cease support if they were standalone products and not a single system (which DCS effectively is as a concept).

You required me to find a "like module" but then chose to highlight a software product that doesn't fall within the same commercial realm. The product your company pays a lot for does so with the intent on making money from that product to justify its cost. I don't make money from playing DCS (quite the opposite). So the cost and duration of use for that product your company pays for is not like DCS.

These are two contradictory statements.

As of right now, Xbox 360 and it's associated software/services are still supported. Now you used the qualifying terms "like this module" and since there isn't any you can use that as an out. I guess when you're effectively the only game in town (and know it), you can do as you want as long as people are willing to put up with it. And while I did buy the ability to use the license and not a physical piece of property, it is incumbent on the developer/publisher who have taken this approach not to hamper/kill their customer's bought and paid for product (especially when it's working with the current version). These aren't stand alone games with sequels. Now if they were to end DCS 2.0 or make it DCS 3.0 (a completely new game, with a new engine, etc) then we would be talking closer to similarly looking apples.

As long as it's not forced, I agree. From the sounds of it through Nineline's last post, that's the case. It would be beneficial overall as those who want to receive those upgrades can without preventing those who are happy with the current product to continue to do so without impairment.

That's a reasonable answer, thank you Nineline.

Their spaghetti code is not my problem. If they break my game that I paid for, I would expect them to fix what they broke because of their actions. And to put "bug test" and ED in the same sentence is quite a thing to see.

You possibly could, but the problem is that it is a defacto requirement in the MP world to update or else never play online again.

That free update was not out of the goodness of their own hearts, it was a business decision. A cost for a benefit to them that happened to work out for us. And it was a cockpit overall (granted a very good one that breathed a good bit of life back into the module for me), it didn't involve a complete reworking of the Hog.

It is but the age of a product shouldn't be a justification for them removing my ability to use it in the context for which it was meant (and is currently playable). That would be like Samsung walking into your home, taking your TV that's "old" and telling you that you can have their other one at a discount price.

Yeah, being compared to EA (which is ironic with how much EA they have going right now) is not somewhere any company should want to be. Next we'll have "surprise game mechanics"....wait a minute :music_whistling:

If the A-10 was a stand alone product like other companies I would agree. I would also say that those companies also still provide the infrastructure for those older titles for years after the discontinued product (no updates but still playable within its intended environment/community). Their model for DCS being a modular system negates any true equivocation. If they release A-10C II in 2.5.6 and that stops me from being able to play in my current version of the A-10C, they are effectively restricting me from what has already been established as playable.

You literally just described it there. They are forcing me to pay them to keep doing what I'm doing now. I would keep the suite 3 for the same reason I would fly the A-10A. Because they forced it in the past doesn't mean it should be standard.

So what you're telling me is you are going to hold my A-10C hostage after I have paid for it? And if I have to play it on an non-updated server, that's a defacto death of the module. Care to justify this one ED?

Seeing that he isn't even able to download that product, it's very nature is irrelevant much like that statement and it's checkbox.

How is this a mystery a week or so from release?

How is this still a problem.

Your point being?

So you're saying ED can weather a comparable storm?

Granted they "fixed" it relatively quickly (via the axe over scalpel method), they did sell and launch the indestructible viper. Kind of a big oversight/accepted failure.

It's outside the intent of this thread, but I'd have to look into the statistics of their business and how their actions effected their bottom line and whether or not they actually fully recovered. I can say that through the article that I pulled that from, they posted their first loss of a financial Quarter in over 15 years. So I would say that there was indeed an effect due to the loss of trust/litigation.

Welcome to a free market and customer choice.