Read what i said

 

Fair's fair.  Please read what others are saying.  There's no "wailing and gnashing of teeth", only people pointing out that NEW USERS who are coming to FSX for the first time through the new Steam Edition will not have the tools necessary to get into the developers side of the hobby.  NEW USERS.

 

Scott 

They are not creating. They are re-selling!

 

I suggest they are creating DLC but I'll agree that it's a distinction without a difference.

 

Why are you not taking the opportunity of re-selling DLC to FSX-SE?

 

Fair's fair. Please read what others are saying. There's no "wailing and gnashing of teeth", only people pointing out that NEW USERS who are coming to FSX for the first time through the new Steam Edition will not have the tools necessary to get into the developers side of the hobby. NEW USERS.

 

And also the developers "wailing and gnashing of teeth" about their business opportunities?

Why are you not taking the opportunity of re-selling DLC to FSX-SE?

 

I have already answered this on another thread, which I believe you have seen and perhaps even contributed to.

And also the developers "wailing and gnashing of teeth" about their business opportunities?

 

 

Different discussion.

 

Scott

As far as what does the average FSX:SE simmer care about the SDK, I think there are several tools in there of use to users.  For example tmfviewer, the traffic tools, and maybe the mission creation stuff (sort of on the intersection of user and developer I suppose).  Also I  would say imagetool, though I guess you can find that elsewhere (not sure it is 100% identical to the fsx one though.  That might also be in the DirectX SDK and I'm not sure you can get that for free any more).

 

scott s.

.

Where did DTG/Steam state that FSX-SE included the SDK?

 

....from this quote in their reply (see above):

 

"This is a re-release of FSX Gold Edition".

 

The Gold Edition contains the full SDK, ergo that means it should contain everything the original Gold Edition included. They even confirm this by an addendum saying the only changes made were connected with CD installation no longer relevant.

 

If they were forbidden to include the SDK then, as Bill points out, why did they include most of it (except the compilers)? The SDK contains a lot of lists of variables, descriptions and params useful to freeware and payware developers alike, not just the compilers.

 

If they were banned from including the SDK then why did they in fact include ANY of it? They can't have it both ways!

It's likely that they a: don't want anyone making dlc that they cannot control and b: can't provide support for an area that they are, for all intents and purposes, total noobs at.

 

I wouldn't want to have to deal either.

Gotta love Microsoft ... they are so paranoid they might be giving away the next software revolution in a 8 year old SDK.  Maybe I can get Microsoft to license DOS 1.0 without a boot loader.  hehe

 

Microsoft agreements, true to form as always ... you gotta admit, it's a little funny how Microsoft work these licensing deals ... I can see those tasked with the job of coming up with the terms ... "well what if this market explodes and we're left without our cut ... it could be the next big thing like the iPhone thing?!" ... lawyer huddle ... re-group ... "how about this idea, lets take out some of the SDK ... problem solved!"  

 

In some ways it's a tragedy ... in other ways it's just Microsoft being Microsoft (probably the last company on earth I'd ever want to make a deal with).

 

Sorry if I find humor in this, I'm sure it's not funny for some.

 

Cheers, Rob.

Hi Rob,

 

There is no evidence at all that MS forbade the publishing of the SDK and if you look at the vague and obfuscated wording of the statement alluding to it, the other party might well have encouraged such a condition so that they could later claim they were handcuffed, while all along they were requesting the very same thing themselves. It pays to be quite forensic about these things!

 

 

I'm doing is opening up some sort of dialogue about something of interest to the community.

 

 

Good on you Wob.  Healthy discussion and enlightenment should always be welcome.

Could it be that Dovetail is actually chuckling at us & the SDK is a non issue with them?

 

Maybe Dovetail's marketing plan is to release FSX:Steam to the newbies out there, their 'captive market' & not really for the, shall we call them. the hard core simmers. or even the more experienced guys that already are into the hobby.

So, their marketing idea could be that their release is a complete ready to run package, with suitable add-ons being released as DLC's?

 

Maybe we should consider FSX:Steam not as a replacement for FSX, but a completely 'new' sim geared for their market & to introduce new blood to simming. The fact that there are devs releasing & modding for FSX:SE is a bonus, but I think, maybe, they have released their version as a precurser to their own sim that is rumoured.

 

Could they be practising on the market?

 

This could be a worry if their 'new' release will be open to DLC's only?

Could it be that Dovetail is actually chuckling at us & the SDK is a non issue with them?

 

 

I don't think so. I think it is more likely they are quaking in their boots because everything you have usefully revealed (thank you) and information now emerging from several separate developers who knew very well what was going on (and you can easily find statements to that effect), doesn't paint them in a good light does it?

 

From the beginning I have tried to point out that re-launching a core product for a ridiculously low price must mean that there will be consequences further down the line. They are not using the Steam edition as a marketing test, and they are not testing for a closed system later on. This IS an attempt at a closed system right now, through two methods, firstly to prevent access to an SDK by even hobbyist new users let alone new authors and secondly to repress discussion through a draconian NDA that has nothing whatever to do with protecting the rights of all the parties, but simply to prevent it being known what lousy deals they are offering.

 

I can assure you that there will be several authors who are utterly furious that they entered negotiations in good faith only to be offered peanuts and now feel trapped under the threat of non disclosure.

 

I have already pointed out that at least one middleman falsely claimed he was an exclusive agent on behalf of DTG when he clearly wasn't, but this is not necessarily the fault of DTG,

 

To quote the great Walter Scott: Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.

 

Many authors and developers have kept quiet about this situation for many months. Now it is in the public domain, you will see more and more people coming forward. I want to make it clear that some authors appear to be happy with the situation, but at least four major developers are not and have now said so publicly. Please note that as before mine is a strictly personal view.

 

I think this thread is a wonderful example of decent, civilised and measured discussion of the kind that is a good service to those who are passionate about flight simulation and I want to thank Avsim for intelligently and courageously keeping it open.

 

 

I think this thread is a wonderful example of decent, civilised and measured discussion of the kind that is a good service to those who are passionate about flight simulation and I want to thank Avsim for intelligently and courageously keeping it open.

Hear, hear! To go 5 pages without any vitriol being spilled is in itself remarkable testament to the common-sense and maturity shown, to have a cogent discussion.

 

Well done to all.

I really like your Walter Scott quote, Robert.

 

As far as the pricing goes, one wonders..

Here, in South Africa, you can still get FSX: Gold for the equivilent of about $14.00 from various on-line & PC stores.

 

Sure, Dovetail have to pay whatever fees that need to be paid to Microsoft, & their initial launch free of $5 really stirred the pot, but that was the bait that hooked so many.

 

I started this thread when I found something that I thought would be on interest to the community, & re-posted here, even though I no longer fly FSX.

 

I was sure that whatever came out of this would be of benefit to all. It has been an eye-opener listening to how the developers feel, & how open this discussion is. Another thanks to Avsim for intelligently moderating & stepping in where neccessary. Thanks Tom.

 

By the way, it would be interesting to know how many downloads there have been since December & how many have been sustained.

 

Robin

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I find it strange in the extreme that although DTG most certainly has at least one and probably more members reading this, they have not responded.

 

To me this absolutely confirms the worst of all cases.