ArmA 2 vs OFP 2

[ricbar89 0]

I have no problems with people opinions, we all have them, but doesn’t mean you use then as fact or against something.

Im just hoping both games turn out great, i really see no reason why anyone should be hostile to either, or be so negative about them, like i said, i hope they both turn out great. Would be great for us fans.

And i agree about Rainbow 6, the new ones are a shadow of the old ones, same with Ghost Recon.  

[froggyluv 2136]

Think almost M1 Platoon 2 simulation complexity, and aircraft? Try Team Apache for Helos like the Cobra and other gunships, and a simplified Lock On Modern Air Combat level simulation for fighter and attack jets.

So they have confirmed player Airplanes in OFP2?

[POTS 0]

Please Please Please! Get that firing out of vehicles into arma2. If you do it, your game will dominate all others. I know you said that it can be implemented and that it would just take some time and you might do it. Well do it please, DO IT! FTW!

[Jensen1 0]

Please Please Please! Get that firing out of vehicles into arma2. If you do it, your game will dominate all others. I know you said that it can be implemented and that it would just take some time and you might do it. Well do it please, DO IT! FTW!

I second that

[sparks50 0]

And let me add to that, not limiting it to specific smaller weapons, but to also let medium/large rifles/machineguns do it.

Edit, oops, wrong section for suggestions. please don't beat me W0lle

[Fredsas 0]

edit - i included faster gameplay in the quote by mistake - i do NOT want faster gameplay COD4 does that well enough thank you very much. no.

When I said faster game play, I meant the animations, which are way to slow. eg pulling out your hand gun. But more importantly is the ability to stop a motion, like the handgun and rpg. You should be able to reverse a animation at a moments notice if you change your mind. Some of the movement animations are simply to slow. The gameplay movement speed of Vegas 6 isn't that fast. Its actually about the same speed as OFP/Arma.

Combining Vegas 6 CQB gameplay with realistic ballistics weapons and scopes, night and thermal vision modes would actually make the infantry aspect of Arma much better. Combined with its screen shake, the ability to black out, see fuzziness and stars, use flash bangs and smoke grenades etc, you would have much more engrossing battle. Can you imagine an intense firefight trying to clear a street with both friendly and enemy AI or other players that know how to take cover, provide blind suppressive fire, break and jump through windows and breach doors, all with light APC or Humvees providing cover? That would be pretty cool. No realism has to be lost. You would have a solid infantry world.

[froggyluv 2136]

Combining Vegas 6 CQB gameplay with realistic ballistics weapons and scopes, night and thermal vision modes would actually make the infantry aspect of Arma much better.  Combined with its screen shake, the ability to black out and see stars etc, useful flashbangs and smoke grenades, you would have much more engrossing battle. Can you imagine an intense firefight trying to clear a street with both friendly and enemy AI or other players that know how to take cover, break  and jump through windows, breaching doors, with light APC or Humvees providing cover? That would be pretty cool. No realism has to be lost. You would have a solid infantry world.

I remember posting almost the same exact thing years ago after first trying Vegas before I realized how boring it was to be stuck on rails in those corrider like areas.

Seeing as it is difficult to make it fun for more than 30 minutes in a game that is entirely devoted to exciting cover/cqb/effects..., what makes you think this is possible in a wide-world combined arms sim? And even if it was possible, you shouldn't be demanding it as if it was gaming's gold standard years ago with BIS lagging far in the dust- quite the contrary.

[Michael_Wittman 0]

Well the big pink elephant in the room is MARKET. I think we all agree that CM are on big money, big budget...well there may be some people that think CM will bet it all on realism rather than coming with another "standard 3dshooter".... let me put my money that CM will make the same that UBISoft made from the very promising "Ghost Recon I" to the (you know what) "Ghost Recon II". Usually people making the decisions of wether the game should be reallistic or fun to play for players in the range from 12 to 22. Whether they bet jumping in the market of mid-range-price "common" shooter almost directly going to fight with BF3 or they are going to the market of "mature" gamers that dont give a **** about "funny shooters" and want the real thing.

Well...if given that BIS has released In-game Trailer rather that CGI renders...I think BIS will still be the only lonely owning the "mature" gaming.

Once again...for the sake of the endless "coop" mode vs "human to human":

- human to human to be funny have to have more fluid (or simiply quick) switching and aiming animations.

- human vs human to be funny have to have way smaller maps with way bigger details in buildings and all that... I mean...32 players that is good or very entertaining for other games is just ridicolous in this game unless you can pick 12 really helping and easy to manage IAs (Pilfius) to make it fun.

- You have to decide wether you go supper-modding capable or standard hard-to-crack cheating. I blink an eye for the "BattleEye" but we all know its putting your hands together to stop a wave. But thank to just make a try.

I dont know if I said it in this same post but I will say again....those who have seen the trailer of OFP2 and think that that´s going to be the in-game graphics are going to have a rude awakening.

For the above mentioned reasons I´ll put my money on BIS I really have never played a game like this before... after 2 years of playing it on a daily basis I recognize I dont master all the game. Bravo for you guys.

I´m of course a coop fan...and although armaholic and other sites have a decent base of maps.. I keep playing diferent versions of Evolution again and again ... so well ... here we are a bunch of people over their 25s (to say the least) with their own money waiting GOOD MP MAPS and noone making anything different than waiting the community to fill the gap.............. ¿Does anyone on BIS own a Iphone? ¿1$ for song?------Do you need more clues????????

Thanks for the attention anyway...

P.D. I dont want to play Evolution Arma 2 for ever and ever...

[Fredsas 0]

I remember posting almost the same exact thing years ago after first trying Vegas before I realized how boring it was to be stuck on rails in those corrider like areas.

Seeing as it is difficult to make it fun for more than 30 minutes in a game that is entirely devoted to exciting cover/cqb/effects..., what makes you think this is possible in a wide-world combined arms sim? And even if it was possible, you shouldn't be demanding it as if it was gaming's gold standard years ago with BIS lagging far in the dust- quite the contrary.

Well it would seem like that is what OFP2 is doing. It all comes down to the engine. It might seem boring now because we are used to it. But its definitely not as boring as the OFP/Arma CQB system. Its just not as easily user friendly as Vegas 2. It would be a lot more fun without losing realism. Actually it would be increasing realism. OFP/Arma CQB system was good for 8 years ago, and it really isn't very realistic anyway. There should be a fresh approach to doing things. Sticking to 8 year old OFP animations in a 2008/9 game wont really garner good reviews. In contrast Vegas 2 got pretty high reviews for its fresh CQB approach. A lot of other games then copied this. These magazines like Gamespot, Computer & Videogames etc might say the game is simply OFP with better graphics. The OFP/Arma infantry interface IS pretty clunky and wooden. It needs innovation.

[Fredsas 0]

I think BIS will still be the only lonely owning the "mature" gaming.

Well this might not be good at all. You don't have to skimp on fun and playability just because you are making a simulation. You just have to think about it and plan it out. For instance, BF2 out the box is fast paced arcade game, but have you seen the full realism remake mods for that game? I know a few people who were hardcore OFP fans, would never touch BF2, they came over to Arma, were disappointed, saw BF2 with realism mods and never came back.

The PC game market is dying because of lack of innovation in the games. The PC is well known for its heavy simulation based games. But if developers make a simulation that is user friendly while keeping realism, a polished game that isn't clunky and "boring" to play those games will sell very well. You can have total realism while maintaining use-ability. No reason why you can't.

[froggyluv 2136]

I see what your saying but basically what your asking them to do is re-invent the wheel. OFP's engine was built for large-scale, open battlfield combined-arms warfare. Vegas 2's was built for small unit shoot-outs with scripted Ai in tiny settings.

To reciprocate your suggestion would be the equivalent of asking Ubisoft to add a couple more hundred square miles, un-hinge the AI, and add potentially thousands of troops, Jets, Tanks, Apc's etc... I guarantee you the AI wouldn't look so stellar after that. I think it is more realistic to enhance the engine in incremental steps rather than trying a complete overhaul -many R6 fans blasted the dumbing down of their beloved game.

Admittedly sometimes while playing ARMA, I'd wish for some feature from another game, but I always miss Arma's freedom and scale while playing another shooter/sim. Vegas,Crysis, COD's,Swat, I've played em all but only one still remains on me HD

[Jensen1 0]

I see what your saying but basically what your asking them to do is re-invent the wheel. OFP's engine was built for large-scale, open battlfield combined-arms warfare. Vegas 2's was built for small unit shoot-outs with scripted Ai in tiny settings.

To reciprocate your suggestion would be the equivalent of asking Ubisoft to add a couple more hundred square miles, un-hinge the AI, and add potentially thousands of troops, Jets, Tanks, Apc's etc... I guarantee you the AI wouldn't look so stellar after that. I think it is more realistic to enhance the engine in incremental steps rather than trying a complete overhaul -many R6 fans blasted the dumbing down of their beloved game.

Admittedly sometimes while playing ARMA, I'd wish for some feature from another game, but I always miss Arma's freedom and scale while playing another shooter/sim. Vegas,Crysis, COD's,Swat, I've played em all but only one still remains on me HD

exactly... nuff said...

[Fredsas 0]

I see what your saying but basically what your asking them to do is re-invent the wheel. OFP's engine was built for large-scale, open battlfield combined-arms warfare. Vegas 2's was built for small unit shoot-outs with scripted Ai in tiny settings.

Actually, reinventing the wheel is what they should have done. This is what I meant before about people having low expectations of Arma 2. They've had hella lot of time to do this. Basically with respect to Arma, fans of the OFP series have had to put up with minimalistic changes, and no real difference in game play. In actuality Arma was a step down from OFP, which is why it didn't catch on as fast. A lot of OFP players, Especially the CTI ones (which I was one of) were very reluctant to switch to Arma for a long time.

If it were any other game made by a large popular company eg UBIsoft, Codemasters, EA etc, it would have had the be-jesus blasted out of it by the review critics for lack of innovation and change.

In terms of having Vegas 2 style intelligent CQB AI, that would not be a problem at all in a massive combined arms environment like Arma. It would have been for OFP, but Arma, Arma2 and OFP2 have a decent streaming content engine that doesn't have the entire world trying to take up all your CPU and GPU resources at once. Basically it only processes what you see. Hence if you have a 2000km viewdistance, another battle going on a town 4km away has no effect on your FPS. This is even more enhanced when you play on a dedicated server. There would be absolutely no problem at all in implementing these features in the engine, and you wouldn't have to dumb down anything at all (which is another story, because Arma's simulation was seriously dumbed down compared to OFP). Personally I think the main problem when it comes to innovation and change is that the game is based on a military grade simulator.

Civilian game engine simulators will always be more advanced than military engines. Simply because in the military the developers will have to skimp on graphics, sounds, and immersion to allow for wider area and larger amounts of "players" on cheaper but more common spec hardware. It would all be networked across several server systems. Every military in the world operates by the lowest bidder principle. However doing that in the civilian world is almost unacceptable and will a result in poor sales and bankruptcy.

BIS should have built a brand new engine from scratch for the civilian sector using the latest technology, graphics and physics (eg. I have an nVidia 8800GT which as with all 8 series Geforce cards has built-in physX hardware based physics processing support. However with Arma and Arma 2 its just gonna be sitting there at idle chatting up the GPU and scratching it's arse) and then based the Arma and Arma 2 games on it. With respect it is only because of the success of OFP (which was special because it had no competitors) that people are still putting up with this.

Arma 1 wore off most of the "we were the first so we must be the best" novelty. but I wonder if people will be so gracious in accepting Arma 2 on a similar scale... Remember, In spite of all the criticizing that Arma 1 received, it's excuse was that it was OFP 1.5, and Arma 2 (the Game 2 Engine) would correct that and bring in a whole new world of stuff.

[-Snafu- 79]

Yeah, 'cos building a new engine is a piece of cake.

[Yoma 0]

The PC game market is dying because of lack of innovation in the games. The PC is well known for its heavy simulation based games. But if developers make a simulation that is user friendly while keeping realism, a polished game that isn't clunky and "boring" to play those games will sell very well. You can have total realism while maintaining use-ability. No reason why you can't.

That's bullocks. The main reason for a shrinking PC market is simply piracy and not lack of innovation.

Actually you'll see more innovation (more advanced graphics engines etc) first on PC simply because a powerfull new GPU beats the crap out of a PS3/XBox360. What's happening now is that a lot of developers make sure they target not only pc's but also consoles for the same game. This often leads to a dumbed down game/interface alltogether which I personnally consider a bad thing.

What you seem to forget is that casual gamers won't LIKE a game that's realistic (one bullet=death) and consoles are mostly targeted towards casual gamers.

What casual gamers want is not what most dedicated arma players want.

I don't know in what world you live in, but in mine "total realism" given todays processing/network capabilities is a far away dream.

Anyway, again, let's wait untill both games are out and then return to this discussion. Untill then Arma2 gets the advantage of "proven fun" for me. I don't buy stuff because people say it's going to be good, I buy stuff when I can measure how good they are myself.

[Yoma 0]

In terms of having Vegas 2 style intelligent CQB AI, that would not be a problem at all in a massive combined arms environment like Arma. It would have been for OFP, but Arma, Arma2 and OFP2 have a decent streaming content engine that doesn't have the entire world trying to take up all your CPU and GPU resources at once. Basically it only processes what you see. Hence if you have a 2000km viewdistance, another battle going on a town 4km away has no effect on your FPS. This is even more enhanced when you play on a dedicated server. There would be absolutely no problem at all in implementing these features in the engine, and you wouldn't have to dumb down anything at all (which is another story, because Arma's simulation was seriously dumbed down compared to OFP). Personally I think the main problem when it comes to innovation and change is that the game is based on a military grade simulator.

Civilian game engine simulators will always be more advanced than military engines. Simply because in the military the developers will have to skimp on graphics, sounds, and immersion to allow for wider area and larger amounts of "players" on cheaper but more common spec hardware. It would all be networked across several server systems. Every military in the world operates by the lowest bidder principle. However doing that in the civilian world is almost unacceptable and will a result in poor sales and bankruptcy.

BIS should have built a brand new engine from scratch for the civilian sector using the latest technology, graphics and physics (eg. I have an nVidia 8800GT which as with all 8 series Geforce cards has built-in physX hardware based physics processing support. However with Arma and Arma 2 its just gonna be sitting there at idle chatting up the GPU and scratching it's arse) and then based the Arma and Arma 2 games on it. With respect it is only because of the success of OFP (which was special because it had no competitors) that people are still putting up with this.

Arma 1 wore off most of the "we were the first so we must be the best" novelty. but I wonder if people will be so gracious in accepting Arma 2 on a similar scale... Remember, In spite of all the criticizing that Arma 1 received, it's excuse was that it was OFP 1.5, and Arma 2 (the Game 2 Engine) would correct that and bring in a whole new world of stuff.

Wow so now all of the sudden you have a PHD in graphical computer sciences + artificial intelligence + modern computer hardware.

Something you do not seem to consider is that every game-engine will have it's limitations and will be optimised towards a certain goal. If that where not the case there would be no reason for developers to start from scratch and reinvent the wheel. I'm pretty sure a game like Arma would simply be impossible to make in an engine like Unreal3 for example.

I don't think there is an ultimate VirtualReality engine out there that's affordable and can run on normal pc hardware engine yet. If you really think that LOMAC is as advanced as the stuff actual pilots train on then that's your problem. The graphics on a real simulator may be a bit less, but the reality of simulation will be uncomparable.

I don't think Arma wore anything off. Sure it's not perfect, but it's still uncomparable to anything else out there.

Maybe physx is technically not suited for large scale events like battles in arma combined with network bandwidth. Consider this: in arma you shoot a driving car. You want physx to calculate the path that car is going follow, maybe even how the car itself is damaged. Who is going to do that calculation? Maybe it needs to be the server as other people will need to see that car behave exactly the same. (after all we all want to take cover behind the same wreck after it crashed) These kind of calculations could maybe be possible on a single client machine, but how will they behave networked? How many of these events could occure at the same time? Again, unless you have a very big amount of education and can show me some numbers I think it's fantasy you're talking.

[mr.g-c 6]

Quote[/b] ]The main reason for a shrinking PC market is simply piracy and not lack of innovation

Well i would consider this as absolute bullocks.

Just look through the revenue-rates/dividend(if payed) from all the software/gaming companies of the last 20 years..... the figure is/was astronomically raising towards the upper right side.

There is no crisis on the PC market, if they talk about a "crisis" its because of the damn rating agencies which demanding a up to 30% return rate in order to be considered as "profitable".

Example: I bet you don't know it, but before the "new millennium", it was often OK/normal for corporations/middle-sized to larger companies, to have return rates of 2,5% - meant rather creating more workplaces and having a lower revenue - sadly "human greed" has turned that completely into the opposite direction the last ~10 years.

The results are more "less-quality/shorter-living" software products, cutting employees, etc. to get your company back "profitable" in the view of the investors (which hear the rating agencies opinion).

Piracy was always and will always be.

I remember back in 5,25" ~700kb days, everyone was copying disks and handing them to friends which owned computers.

I even know a lot of friends/relatives which first do illegal download the software/games over P2P Networks and if they think the software is "good" then they buy it.

[Deadfast 43]

The main reason for a shrinking PC market is simply piracy and not lack of innovation.

Sorry, I have to disagree.

The only reason why PC market is supposedly shrinking are greedy distributors.

The game doesn't sell 1M copies.

Hm, might that be?

Is it 'cos the game buggy? Is it 'cos it's repetitive? Is it 'cos it's boring as hell?

Of course not, it's the damn pirates!

[Michael_Wittman 0]

The PC game market is dying because of lack of innovation in the games. The PC is well known for its heavy simulation based games. But if developers make a simulation that is user friendly while keeping realism, a polished game that isn't clunky and "boring" to play those games will sell very well. You can have total realism while maintaining use-ability. No reason why you can't.

That's bullocks. The main reason for a shrinking PC market is simply piracy and not lack of innovation.

Actually you'll see more innovation (more advanced graphics engines etc) first on PC simply because a powerfull new GPU beats the crap out of a PS3/XBox360. What's happening now is that a lot of developers make sure they target not only pc's but also consoles for the same game. This often leads to a dumbed down game/interface alltogether which I personnally consider a bad thing.

What you seem to forget is that casual gamers won't LIKE a game that's realistic (one bullet=death) and consoles are mostly targeted towards casual gamers.

What casual gamers want is not what most dedicated arma players want.

I don't know in what world you live in, but in mine "total realism" given todays processing/network capabilities is a far away dream.

Anyway, again, let's wait untill both games are out and then return to this discussion. Untill then Arma2 gets the advantage of "proven fun" for me. I don't buy stuff because people say it's going to be good, I buy stuff when I can measure how good they are myself.

+1 on this

[Yoma 0]

Quote[/b] ]The main reason for a shrinking PC market is simply piracy and not lack of innovation

Well i would consider this as absolute bullocks.

Just look through the revenue-rates/dividend(if payed) from all the software/gaming companies of the last 20 years..... the figure is/was astronomically raising towards the upper right side.

There is no crisis on the PC market, if they talk about a "crisis" its because of the damn rating agencies which demanding a up to 30% return rate in order to be considered as "profitable".

Example: I bet you don't know it, but before the "new millennium", it was often OK/normal for corporations/middle-sized to larger companies, to have return rates of 2,5% - meant rather creating more workplaces and having a lower revenue - sadly "human greed" has turned that completely into the opposite direction the last ~10 years.

The results are more "less-quality/shorter-living" software products, cutting employees, etc. to get your company back "profitable" in the view of the investors (which hear the rating agencies opinion).

Piracy was always and will always be.

I remember back in 5,25" ~700kb days, everyone was copying disks and handing them to friends which owned computers.

I even know a lot of friends/relatives which first do illegal download the software/games over P2P Networks and if they think the software is "good" then they buy it.

20 years ago the average budget needed to make a game was way smaller.

10 years ago file shareing network popularity was not comparable to what it is now. A lot of the massused protocols didn't even exist then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer-to-peer#History

Also if you compare the number of broadband users today to the number 10 years ago that's a big difference.

Given the time technology needs to get really mainstream, it's reasonable that by now actual results begin to penetrate sales statistics. It's not just me saying that, it's developers themselves.

Ubisoft manager on piracy

ID Soft on piracy

EA on piracy

I think that actual profit margins on games may have gone down. As developers need to invest more, but get about the same return (games still cost the same price when coming out compared to 10 years ago). This effectively means they need to sell more copies to make the same profit.

Anyway, the "greed" topic may be of great interest to the actual Arma2 vs OFP2 debate. Who do you think will be more greedy, CM or BIS? What effect will that have on the game?

[Second 0]

(which is another story, because Arma's simulation was seriously dumbed down compared to OFP). Personally I think the main problem when it comes to innovation and change is that the game is based on a military grade simulator.

First of all: in what aspect ArmA fares worse that OFP in simulation front?  OFP has it's bright sides, but really in simulation? Go ahead and rock my world.

How come military will dumb down game developers?   They get what the see is suitable for them (if it available), as a return they bring wealth to business and like one can be seen in ArmA2 dev-team may have option to take something from work they have done for VBS2 and put it in their commercial title (i personally didnt' believe that was possible). And in simulation front military, with it's wishes/demands on features, brings knowledge to developers as dev-team will code them in to product. Nice try to turn VBS against ArmA.   Only problem is that it strains resources from developing commercial title, then again that brings money which can be used to hire more workforce.

Your point of view in engine is valid. Engines gets old and grumpy at some point of time. Then it's time to do something about it. Will ArmA2's be such, no telling yet. But i'd believe it doesn't live at edge of it's lifespan yet. Mod-teams have reached quite good results in various aspects also in simulation front... How come dev-team wouldn't be able to code them into game with new engine   Why they won't implement it all is because not enough money and time (and maybe for pride too, who knows). Sadly ArmA returned to square one, however that doesn't say that ArmA2 would, it seems to start from where ArmA was left. This is merely touching the simulation aspect of game.

Sure i get that you wish to have 100% realistic working planes. Well we will see who will be able to deliver that holding also 100% tank-simulation and 100% infantry simulation.

[celery 8]

If the PC market is shrinking (source on that plz?), it's shrinking because concentrating on consoles is much more profitable especially with the internet being used in the current generation as a distribution channel. In multi platform games the PC version usually sells a fraction of what the consoles do because consoles are more popular as gaming platforms. A decent gaming rig is expensive and as a platform very vulnerable to hardware and software incompatibility.

Piracy rates vary greatly depending on who is saying it. DRM proponents of course want to greatly exaggerate the number to justify their cause. Ironically the stronger the protection, the more the game gets wared (e.g. BioShock & Spore) while even non-AAA releases can get to a top seller list when they have no protection (Sins of a Solar Empire).

[Fredsas 0]

Maybe physx is technically not suited for large scale events like battles in arma combined with network bandwidth. Consider this: in arma you shoot a driving car. You want physx to calculate the path that car is going follow, maybe even how the car itself is damaged. Who is going to do that calculation? Maybe it needs to be the server as other people will need to see that car behave exactly the same. (after all we all want to take cover behind the same wreck after it crashed) These kind of calculations could maybe be possible on a single client machine, but how will they behave networked? How many of these events could occure at the same time? Again, unless you have a very big amount of education and can show me some numbers I think it's fantasy you're talking.

Hmm, good point. but maybe you'll want to tell that to the Unreal players. Unreal which by the way is a multi-CPU, GPU capable heavy PhysX (Havok) based multiplayer engine/game. A car would be treated no differently in general from a soldier's body, which by the way would be even more complex because it would literally have more moving parts eg. arms, head, legs with rag doll physics etc.

Again in terms of size of battlefield, network info would go hand in hand with the streaming content engine. No point in processing, or sending action info on what you cant see. Some location info yes, but nothing else more complicated.

In general that is why I've always questioned the capabilities of the Engine and not specifically the finished game. I have considered the Game 2 engine which is why they should have built new engine from scratch. After all they had the time to do it. Codemasters did it in about the same amount of time as they had.

In some of the previews for OFP2 for instance, they hinted that the engine would support detachable limbs. Of course that level of blood and gore would mean a +18 age game rating. But that wouldn't be a problem anyway since kids don't wanna play a hardcore sim.. or do they?

Ahh.. The days of playing Soldier of Fortune... Shotgun to the kneecap.. end of story

[mr.g-c 6]

Sorry Yoma, but non of what you said or post goes into what i have said.

Of course the companies say that about piracy... its up to you to find out about "why" a company is "against" piracy.... lol funny enough

The point you should looking to is often called "Investor Relations". If you can't find it on the homepage of the company, check your local business-register. Here in germany for instance you can look into the financial data of EVERY company around germany - no matter how small it is.

Then Look at the Annual Financial Datas.

Try to acquire the financial Data from the last 25 years and compare it.... you will not see any "shrink" (besides at crisis-point like bursting of bubbles like at 2000-2001 - but actually software company are compared to other markets pretty "crisis resistant")

If you will see any shrink you will see a shrink in employee numbers, but nowhere else.

Even AFTER every P2P network emerged like today, Software companies have very high growth rates, sometimes avaerage ~10% or even more - they don't suffer!

I hate to justify myself here, but i was very good schoolboy in business & economics and the last year in the 13st grade on the IT-School, our topic was in greatly the "Software market".

Trust me a lot of arguments were spoken there, but the software market is going very good....

Globalism or the emerging 2nd world countries are giving a gigantic boost on top of that.

[leckig 0]

In some of the previews for OFP2 for instance, they hinted that the engine would support detachable limbs. Of course that level of blood and gore would mean a +18 age game rating. But that wouldn't be a problem anyway since kids don't wanna play a hardcore sim.. or do they?

nooo, it would be PG13. As long as as you cannot see ATTACHED tits, it is PG13. Detached are still fine.