http://tech.yahoo.com/news/nm/20090611/wr_...in_digdownloads

Yup. And so many posters here a few months ago said the new MS CEO was wacko for saying, "The days of developing software for retail sale for a home computer are becoming obsolete."Flight Simulator Live. Get ready for the future of computer gaming....FalconAF

Jim,Your original post really got me thinking (which can be scary sometimes!). But the article you referenced raises some very, very interesting possibilities about the future of flight simulation, and particularly third-party addon developers. I'm curious what your (and other third-party developers, if they want to respond) thoughts about some of these possibilities might be.Let's play a "thought game" here...the names of any companies or products have intentionally been changed to protect me from possible lawsuits :( :"Hello. I'd like to introduce myself. I am the new CEO of SicroMoft. I would like to introduce you to the next evolution of our Slight Fimulator product...Slight Fimulator Live. No more need for you to purchase a hard copy of our Slight Fimulator anymore! With an average Internet connection, you can purchase our entire product online and fly online, much the same way many of you now use other online services like SatVim, SpameGuy, or others. You can even choose to fly Offline if you want! Through a Secure Server connection that will VERIFY your purchase each time you run Slight Fimulator, we can offer you both an in-depth online experience, or your own personal offline experience. Note that the verification of your Slight Fimulator purchase by connecting to our Secure Server when starting Slight Fimulator is solely our way of combating piracy of our product.""Some of you may be crying "FOUL!" right about now. Especially if you are a commercial third-party developer for addons to our previous Slight Fimulator products. Rest assured...we intend to fully support third-party addon development for our Slight Fimulator Live product. But with a slight change. We know software piracy of third-party addons is a continual problem, and can significantly reduce the revenues of your hard work. So we will work with third-party developers to provide a "validation integration" of your addon prior to allowing Slight Fimulator to run on the consumer's computer. In essence, if a Slight Fimulator user attempts to use a pirated copy of a third-party developer's addon with Slight Fimulator, Slight Fimulator will not run. Validation could occur with something like a "Digital Signature" for your addon we grant you for the addon to work with Slight Fimulator."OK, here's my questions:1. Do you think SicroMoft would just "shut out" all commercial third-party addon developers for Slight Fimulator Live? Even after repeated releases of things like their "SDK's" for all previous versions of the product?2. If "SicroMoft" could guarantee that no pirated copy of an addon you developed for Slight Fimulator COULD be used with Slight Fimulator, would you as a developer be willing to pay a "royalty" of some sort to SicroMoft for providing something like a "Digital Signature" for your addon? 3. Do you think this would increase the sales of your addon? Of course, not EVERY "pirate" of one of your addons WOULD buy the addon, but do you think you would see a significant enough increase in your sales and profits to justify #2 above?Software piracy is a problem for most commercial addon developers. Some addon developers currently use an "online verification" procedure to insure an installed version of their addon is not pirated. Current technology could easily use a "digital signature" type of validation EVERY TIME a user attempted to run Slight Fimulator, and any addon for it. If SicroMoft could help addon developers with THEIR piracy problems, would you as a developer go along with it for a nominal fee?Just brain-storming.FalconAF

Such a distribution scheme would offer a singular advantage that vastly outweighs any issue of piracy, that being exposure!Just as the book market is essentially completely opaque to the consumer, so too are third-party addons. Having an announcement and purchase venue for a new product appear to everyone who launches "Slight Fimulator" would potentially result in much higher market awareness that such a product even exists, which of course argues for much higher opportunity for overall net sales of any given product.To me the question isn't "would you?" so much as "why wouldn't you?" By any metric you choose to use, nn% of something is by default greater than 100% of nothing... :(

Another consideration is the Corporatism of the genre. Controlling all aspects of gaming to control access to the experience so thereby on any and all profit from gaming. (Clicking the ticket for 3rd party add ons).Piracy is one reason for these "necessary prerequisite requirements". In my opinion the idea of stopping piracy is just another leveraging tool for large Corporates. I have read elsewhere on the forums after a questions was asked as to "where are all the 3rd party developers and their add-on products". Some choose to answer that they have been scared off by piracy of their products. My observation is that, yes in some cases that may be true, but the other consideration is that people have less disposable income because we are in a Recession (they may still have a job, but are not sure it will be around by the end of the year). I work at an International Airport and we have seen numbers of people traveling plunge, both probably from the lack of spare spend and possibly the concern over Swine Flu. (The last has had a direct impact on School visits from other countries - these numbers are down considerably).

I've always preferred to purchase a physical box containing DVD/CD etc.I've heard (and seen) horror stories for activation online and other DRM schemes.Granted for the majority it usually works well. I hope companies that switch to online distribution will have a lifetime redownload policy or something similar.

I agree...getting digital downloads reinstalled is usually a major pain.

This whole idea is completely bonkers and is a classic example of bean counters making wild assumptions in order to manipulate people into buying things in a way they would prefer not to, then justifying the paradigm by making wild and unsubstantiate predictions, which are absurd, about what they feel the market will be in xxx years time.There are two distinct methods of buying software. Downloading is fine where the bandwidth demand is modest and there is PERSONAL and quick support when things go wrong. But that is almost never the case. A product like FSX would only work as an "online game" if the bandwidth was cheap enough not just for the provider, but also the user. But additionally, if the software was in ANY WAY compromised due to its digital delivery status, this is a signal that MS and other major developers are doing nothing other than dumbing down their products in order to, in their ludicrously twisted logic, "capture" a casual market that is content to dabble into one-off "games" which are deleted as quickly as they are perceived to be easily downloaded. Several gigabytes of downloaded software is not going to compete with boxed CDs or other methods of delivery unless it is reasonably cheap, utterly reliable and lightning fast, but crucially also equal to its former quality. Currently the internet is actually on balance SLOWER than it was three years ago, due to the enormous increase in quite unnecessary and intrusive commercialisation and overblown graphics which deliver little in solid content but much in PR-based overkill. Google is a classic case in point. Three years ago you could google something like "how to install a light fitting" and you'd get an instant link to hundreds of sites offering advice. Nowadays you have to trawl through 50 pages of adverts for "lighting SOLUTIONS" (how I hate that word) before you get to the guts of what you searched.This insane commercialism, which is slowly strangling the internet, is based NOT on information but advertising, and is something which google and other search engines promised would never happen.Addon developers can efficiently distribute downloadable products, but CORE software is a completely different matter because of its size and scope. There is no doubt in my mind that big and powerful organisations have no interest whatsoever in their customers. They have one goal only....to sell as much as they can to as many as possible, without any regard to the depth of the product, without any respect or acknowledgement of an existing and well-established customer base, and without any regard to the lasting quality of what they are offering. It is a mirror image of the property market which went so badly wrong, based on millions of people assuming they could make a perpetual quick buck out of pure speculation.The diversification of user platforms...Xbox, PS2 and PS2, Wii, and quick fix download rubbish etc etc, has marginalised quality software because vastly powerful vested interests are simply not concerned about the aesthetic qualities of their output. They are concerned only with VOLUME. This will result in an avalanche of poor quality online and hardware-specific games, and a shortage of niche, hobby and specialist software, except at increasingly expensive prices.It is not that I am against download delivery in itself, or even online gaming, so-called. What concerns me is that the background to "online games" has so far had nothing to do with efficient delivery but everything to do with control, loss of quality and grey suited spivs cashing in on a perceived "market". There might indeed be such a market, but I predict that it will be a giant obstacle course avoiding the dross and searching for the decent stuff. The internet is already overwhelmed with dreadful software.It will of course be a total disaster in the long run, but for a short time a few key players will make a fortune. The core market for decent quality software will be obliterated. It will be just like the dot com boom and bust of years ago...too many spivs chasing too much profit at the expense of the whole.In the case of MSFSX, I have no knowledge of why the plug was pulled, but I would guess that part of it was connected with one of the points made above. If there is ever an "online" version of FS, you can be absolutely sure that it will be breathtakingly dumbed down, aimed at a global "family" market and involve an attention span of a few seconds without which the accountants will assume it is not a worthy product. Sorry to be so doom-laden but that's what I guess is going to be the inevitable outcome.Best Wishes,Rob Young (It goes without saying this is a personal post).

Several gigabytes of downloaded software is not going to compete with boxed CDs or other methods of delivery unless it is reasonably cheap, utterly reliable and lightning fast, but crucially also equal to its former quality. Currently the internet is actually on balance SLOWER than it was three years ago, due to the enormous increase in quite unnecessary and intrusive commercialisation and overblown graphics which deliver little in solid content but much in PR-based overkill. Google is a classic case in point. Three years ago you could google something like "how to install a light fitting" and you'd get an instant link to hundreds of sites offering advice. Nowadays you have to trawl through 50 pages of adverts for "lighting SOLUTIONS" (how I hate that word) before you get to the guts of what you searched.

I read and enjoyed your entire post, I agree with it for the most part. The problem I see is huge downloads of games. Take a typical DVD-based PC game, usually about 8-10 GB's of data compressed on the disc. Thats a hefty download for the times. Maybe a few years it wont be so bad. I also fear that an online Flight Simulator would be dumbed down, sorta what happened with FSX, where they introduced missions, what I feel was an arcade-style of gaming. Also their Gamespy network was EXTREMELY buggy and last time I went on there hardly any users were online. (Im not talking about VATSIM, which is doing well because it's much more realistic than stock FSX atmopshere) Just look at the stock air traffic control aspect of FS, no major improvements made since it was introduced (IMHO). A lot of effort spent on graphics/visualizations. And at what cost? You need a Core i7 at the minimum to enjoy FSX (again my opinion).And the worst thing about online software is DRM.... it's only going to get worse.... The honest users always get hurt the most by DRM..... and that's bass ackwards!

FalconAF I will respond to your questions.1. No I don't. I don't have a direct feel to the way SicroMoft is thinking today, but in the past, Deuces realized that much of their market depended on 3rd parties and 3rd parties depended on them. Before FSX there were some real plans for Deuces and some 3rd parties to get together, but the plans never were followed and nothing became of it. I am still under a NDA so that is all I can say about that. Fr. Will from Robinhard can confirm this as he might.2. SicroMoft in the near past was not interested in this, as then some of the support issues would become theirs. They wanted the options and responsibility to stay with the 3rd parties. SicroMoft has their hands full with protecting their own software so I don't think they would also want to protect ours. 3rd parties are also getting better at protecting their own software.3. No, probably not because I think we feel we can do a better job in-house and have better control of the whole security system. Once you start making pacts, you lose some of the independence that makes you a 3rd party company. BTW not one customer of ours has been harmed in any way under our new online license system, so this idea that these systems harm honest users in any way is bunk.Some other users in this thread need to realize that they are already using an Online system for much of their FS enjoyment and it is only going to grow. Also, they need to look really hard at some of the XBOX titles that are being released and compare them to what is available on the PC. NHL Hockey that can sound and look like the real thing, an NBA title that can download real time injury reports and player stats. War games where people from all over the globe can join together and with a microphone and headphones communicate with no lag whatsoever. No, I am not saying that FS should be for XBOX, but there is so much potential for those types of technology to be programmed into the next FS version that some need to open their minds to the possibilities. And please don't get me started on FSX and what it could have been. That donkey was beaten along time ago.Thanks,

Yup. And so many posters here a few months ago said the new MS CEO was wacko for saying, "The days of developing software for retail sale for a home computer are becoming obsolete."Flight Simulator Live. Get ready for the future of computer gaming....FalconAF

Flight Simulator Live???

Some other users in this thread need to realize that they are already using an Online system for much of their FS enjoyment

Yes and it's unfortunate... We like FS, and we'll continue to support it, at least I will. About 95% of my other PC games are on CDs and DVDs though. Roughly 40% of the ones I own are available through a direct download....

Hi,OK, let's say this again. Microsoft Live DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOU DON'T PHYSICALLY HAVE A DVD IN YOUR HAND! For XBOX you still need to get in your car, drive to the local Best Buy, find your game, stand in line, tell the 17 year old girl that you don't want their 3 year extended coverage, give them your zip code, then pay. On the way home you stop for gas, grab something to drink and then an hour later you are back home. You put the DVD into the XBOX and off you go. IF YOU PURCHASE a LIVE account, then you can go online, LIVE, and experience the online features of your game.Would it not be cool to have Online ATC, multiplayer with voice, a system where almost real time AI planes would be in your FS? Oh thats right, some have that now and pay a huge monthly price for it!If any of you have used an Active Sky weather product, VATSIM, IVAO, live traffic, or multiplayer you have used an Online system.

(It goes without saying this is a personal post).

Robert, you are so dead on right it just ain't funny. Regards,Jim Rhoads

Errrm, is anyone here noting that the article Jim cited combines two entirely different concepts. Some of the comments seem directed to one concept and some to the other. "But gamers -- especially on personal computers -- are increasingly turning to alternative methods to play and buy games, such as downloading or "streaming" online games, rather than trekking to a store." The first is downloading software that you then install and run on your computer. Old hat. Been there, done that. All that's revolutionary there was the elimination of the tangible product, substituting instead a digital one. You own a license to use the program and it is time unlimited. The second is downloading the results of software you don't have, software that is running on someone else's server. This is the streaming from the cloud concept. Every time you want the product, you have to go ask somebody else to run it for you. You own nothing beyond the right to see the results of someone else running a program somewhere else, and that right is time limited. For there to be a vibrant add on market sustaining third party developers in that second case, there must be in place a mechanism that can integrate that add on into either the cloud server just for you, or integrate it into the instance of its manifestation on the remote client computer - yours. Can anyone figure out how those uncountable variations can all be implemented and co-exist without bringing to a grinding halt the entire apparatus? I can't, not within economic reasonableness, and I suspect there would be no place for add ons in the cloud. In other words, I can't see a way that the cloud model supports personalization, which is the driving force behind add on purchases. I think, for it to be economically functional, it has to be a one size fits all solution, not one adaptable to personal taste.The cloud is no answer to opacity concerns unless the cloud can be personalized, which, understanding the purpose of the cloud, is not in the cards. The whole commercial purpose of the cloud is to make the consumer subscribe, not own, and to require recurring purchases. It is an annuity for the vendor. You can't modify what you can't own, so it seems to me the cloud model is the death knell of third party add on vendors, not in any way a solution. This is terminal opacity, as I see it.-Doug[Edit] PS to Jim - I don't see a reference in the article you cited to LIVE. As I read your comments about LIVE, you assert that LIVE can be the add on function. Perhaps that is so, but what is the compelling reason one would choose to acquire add ons through LIVE as compared to owning them by buying them outright and running them on one's own computer? I don't think LIVE actually has any relation to the opacity issue Fr. Bill agitates about, and I don't particularly see any advantage over a solution provided by MSFT as an add on over those provided by third party vendors themselves. As far as use of a console is concerned in the context of a flight simulation program, the milieu and the audience are so totally different comparing console users to PC simulation users that I find the argument appealing to no one who matters in the final analysis. It may be a technically elegant solution, but one that no significant number of actual customers for an individually owned and separately run flight simulation are interested in. -D