You're not getting my MONEY! Buyer Beware!

[WarpD 824]

Looks more like a case of believing what you are supposed to believe. Are you politically interested by the way? The statements of the mentioned devs lack of facts. There isn't a single valid proof for this one.

There is tons of 'valid proof'. The fact that developers aren't posting all the gritty details doesn't prove that there is no 'valid proof'. Explaining how, where and why developers know the financial impact of piracy would release too much information that the 'public' really doesn't need to know and most certainly the pirates don't need to know.

I've asked them how they measure piracy losses or "gains" of protection. See any answer there? Do you think they can measure the "delaying" of pirates then? The whole software industry can't do this since piracy exists. Talking about no numbers there, not even rough ones.My personal viewpoint still is that they are talking about things they aren't aware of. If you look at this over-confident 'all links are dead ends' statement, you may catch some of this naive drift.Raising sales through heavy copy protection? What an "open minded" business policy. Especially when looking at the outcome of the mentioned spoiled customers from time to time.I really respect other viewpoints, but I can't say that I've read convincing things so far. Once again, "Company B" is the one to aim for. I may state that it even gains more attraction through threads like this one.

Actually strong copy protection does indeed increase sales. Pirates don't steal software that isn't desired. The more desirable it is, the harder they work at stealing it. The harder they work at it, the more important it is to have strong copy protection. As for 'numbers'... how about a 80% drop in sales? Yep, you read correctly. Upon 'publishing' of the cracked software sales dropped by 80%. Another product that took much, much longer to get 'published' saw only a 50% drop in sales at the time. The only logical reason: More people shelled out the money to purchase the software because they stopped waiting for a cracked version.

If there was a benefit of heavy protection, all companies running low measures had to be called stupid. But, from appearance and forum mood, I doubt that e. g. A2A are stupid people. Orbx aren't too. They also seem to be running their business quite happily and successful. Any doubts?Now, there actually is proof for spoiled customers by fancy protection methods (see this thread for example), so what are we supposed to do now? Start "getting annoyed" or start reading things more closely? You may decide, Sir. I will respect your viewpoint of course and appreciate your input.

Some people lock their doors when they're not home, others don't. Are you stating there's no benefit to locking one's doors? Are you saying those who choose to not lock their doors aren't at least being foolish?

DJ Jose does not complain about a small email (which would be a example based discussion only), he questions the general need for it. A huge difference, as pointed out before (means talking about a thing in general). And his viewpoints are valid, reasonable and correct (for me).

Yes, personal responsibility to accomplish/achieve is such a great burden to bear. This is like complaining that one has to drive to a gas station to fill up their tank.

Edited: Ah, dmaher, got your edit there. Now it's better, the song is still cool though. :( Your viewpoints are tolerant, respecting them therefore is easy.You've said that I'm currently not offering any cooperation. Can you define that in some more detail since I've always pointed out some facts or spoke about common misconceptions in this "easy" (it's far away from that state) piracy area.Got the impression that some of my fellow discussion "opponents" just have chosen to run away instead of trying to work on their "clear" arguments.The only upset factor here may be that they are asking questions while not offering answers. Fancy statements and oh so logical explanations don't lead to the point of the problem, they only distract, maybe intentionally, I don't know.Referring to the whole numbers and sales arguments there. Ain't no proof, ain't no numbers, but strong believe, it seems.Are they aware of their lack of knowledge and are they aware of some spoiled customers too? Doesn't look like, but I'm only interpreting some more or less overbearing attitude so far.Have to admit, if they stay away, the thread may be at its end here since all sides posted their viewpoints, statements and facts (partially or just attempted) and I'm running the risk for repeating even more of my written things. May some reader decide about the impression he gets when some things are "so easy to explain". DJ Jose's viewpoint was made clear again and I'm a proud supporter of it now. All "Company Bs" out there, we like you! :( The A ones may have some potential to learn, I hope. Luckily, the market still offers valid role models (B type) to look at.

The viewpoints are indeed valid in your own thinking. However they don't pass the 'common sense' test. Essentially you are demanding that the 'store' leave it's doors unlocked 24 hours, 7 days a week (or at least give you your own personal key to the store) so that you may obtain whatever it is you require at the moment without impeding your daily schedule. Your claim is that by locking their doors they inconvenience you unfairly and that their locked doors don't really protect them at all and any attempts to claim it reduces theft and thus financial loss is a falacy.

[CFIJose 5,485]

There are some developers that I detest with passion and I would never mention them here for fear that they would get some free publicity.There are those developers who do care and will come to the aid of a customer, even when they know this forum is not the place for them to issue support (i.e. FSDT)Very generous of Umberto. BTW, I have never had a problem using the Addon Manager to install his wonderful airports.

[JSkorna 137]

+1 Ed

[CFIJose 5,485]

Ed,It's a matter of trust. Since there's no trust, or at least the perception of good, there will always be the doubt.There are some some companies that do have the right approach, giving the benefit to the customer, and they are still doing well. Even though ORBX is probably the most sought after software, they still manage to put the customer first - not the pirate.

[WarpD 824]

Ed,It's a matter of trust. Since there's no trust, or at least the perception of good, there will always be the doubt.There are some some companies that do have the right approach, giving the benefit to the customer, and they are still doing well. Even though ORBX is probably the most sought after software, they still manage to put the customer first - not the pirate.

Ok... so let's play a game...I'm a hacker. I just got access to your email, computer, etc. I want what software you have on your system, on mine. So, pretending to be you... I try to install the software on my system, using your purchase information that I found in your email. The company that tracks installation counts would balk at the attempt. The company that doesn't care, because the customer complains too much... just lost out. They were robbed. You really think that's fair and acceptable that a company be vulnerable to such situations just so it's 'easy' for you?

[n4gix 4,947]

I've asked them how they measure piracy losses or "gains" of protection. See any answer there? Do you think they can measure the "delaying" of pirates then? The whole software industry can't do this since piracy exists. Talking about no numbers there, not even rough ones.My personal viewpoint still is that they are talking about things they aren't aware of. If you look at this over-confident 'all links are dead ends' statement, you may catch some of this naive drift.

How could anyone "prove" any real data? I could cite numbers all day long, but unless you -and I do mean YOU personally- were physically present when I "opened the books" for your nosy inspection, you wouldn't be convinced......in fact, you'd probably ask to see the "real ledgers" and not the "cooked ones..." :( I did cite one example of two products where the difference in sales over a six month period was huge, but that's all I'm willing to share. I won't name either the company or the products. You can either believe me or not...Both of the houses I do development work for use the Flight1 system, which as has received favorable comment from others in this thread already. What hasn't been explicitly mentioned however is that everyone who contracts to use the Flight1 system has to accept the 30 day no questions asked refund policy.Your deliberate misquote cannot pass without comment. I said nearly all links, not "all links..."As it happens I've invested far more than a few hours checking every single "hit" for specific product "torrents" for the two houses I do work for as returned from a Google search. I have yet to find a single working link to a complete downloadable file. Since they are products released by the companies I work for, I could hardly be stealing from myself were I actually able to locate a working cracked download! :(

[Dougal 165]

I've been following this thread with interest. There's valid arguments to both sides I think, which will always make this a problematic issue I fear.This subject is VERY apt for myself... I now have over 100 payware addons. I also reinstall Windows, FSX and all these addons far more times than most and, than is absolutely necessary ( I have my reasons ).For those who say such things as "how hard is another 5 minutes of your time?"... You fail to understand just how that impacts people like myself. It can add hours to a new installation!I've given up complaining about the ongoing complexities of activation though. Sadly, it's just the way things are going and I fear will get much worse before a cost effective alternative is found.I do however, avoid purchasing from developers and publishers who's system I feel to be 'over-the-top'.

[CoolP 283]

What a nice and clear view on the minds of some devs there. WarpD, there isn't much to say about your posts, they just speak for themselves.There are customers (I'm calling me 100% valid and I don't have any doubt that e. g. DJ Jose is too) that talk about a trust thing and, not in a single line, ever demanded to 'leave ... doors unlocked 24 hours, 7 days a week' and all you can do is to reduce their comments, thoughts and facts down to the simple and wrong back/white thinking. Since I had to point out the real tenor of my posts for at least three times now and you still reduce it to 'he wants everything for free', I really have doubts when it comes to your reading and/or understanding abilities. Sorry for that. But, it could well be that, since your previous and current arguments still fail, maybe the dirty stuff of some basic rhetoric is in use now, who knows? Just sayin'. If so, nice try. Who would ever have thought then, that your so "clear" statements about the whole sales influence of protection has a "confidential" database? :rolleyes:Maybe you are getting something wrong. No data doesn't mean 'confidential data', your fictional stuff about "delayed" pirated software therefore is what it is, fictional. Since there's no way of measuring piracy numbers, you can't have any percentage, even if you were the fanciest dev ever on the planet. You also can't measure "delay" in the availability of pirated stuff, especially when you're not even aware of the basics there.Now, if you had those oh so clear numbers, what may be the reason for the good devs around to still stick to basic protection only (by the way, that's what everybody is demanding here, since the beginning of this very thread)?Your so simple and "logical" assumptions show one thing very clearly. You don't trust your customers at all. They all have to prove their loyalty to you, even if they already have payed.How can a valid customer then set trust in you, in your policy and your attitude? How can he ever really support you when you are the one who's (naively) thinking that you have to 'force honest people to be honest' (sic!)? And how do you think will this attitude turn him into an active fighter against piracy?I don't break into houses, I don't steal software and I don't trick people. I'm not behaving like this because I get forced to, I'm behaving like this because I am honest. Nobody has to force me to be like this. And so are 99% of your customers. If you really think that you can trap those remaining 1% then with fancy, but for pirate minds still way to easy protection, how could you be called then? I leave that up to the readers. Some of them may believe your 'confidential database' while my facts still can all be googled and are not confidential at all. Just type in a more or less current flight sim title and see for yourself how much delay there is and how many 'dead ends' there really are. Would be the very first step of gaining awareness for the treat you are trying to be smart about.

Ok... so let's play a game...

Your developer friend tried playing games before. Remember, that house thingy?Did you get the impression that this "so simple" example helped or don't you think that he shot himself in the knee while a regular guy like me had to show him that simple "games" are the things that happen in some people's minds only. Since reality isn't simple at all, they don't really help and, yes, it may well be that another shot in your knee is about to burst. So, apart from the fact that you guys are avoiding answers and only pull the out the confidential card when it gets to valid speak-about numbers, you really seem to like that thing, the one with the knee.So I'm still sticking with you, as impolite your avoided answers may be, Sirs.Looking at your "game" example, you once again prove that you are the not trusting dev with a strong tendency to believe that only heavy protection mechanisms will help you to get rid of the "bad" customers which are trying to cheat you all the time. You therefore want to force them to something, full time too.Do you have any numbers concerning those bad customers you are assuming there? I think that this mentality of yours is one of the main causes for people leaving your or other companies out in the rain since their trust in you (they pay you, remember?) isn't answered at all.Think that DJ Jose wanted to cheat the company which he bought a product from? Think that all the guys running into those hardware check ID and activation limit thingies want to cheat you? Just asking, because I really get the impression that you and Jim are looking at customers the very wrong way while other companies around (I gave some examples above) have really understood what protects them and what gives them good sales. Happy customers!As said, pirates don't run into those limits, they avoid them. Only customers (the honest and paying people, remember?) get spoiled there and if they then get in contact with attitudes like yours, they may avoid you in the future. Nice sales policy indeed. :rolleyes:Once again, the "Company B" type shows you guys how it's done. Praise to them and, if anybody is in doubt, this is not a praise of 'everything for free', it never was.I appreciate the input of Dougal by the way. He once again shows how strong this 'force people to be honest' thing already is but also, how it is able to spoil guys while not proving any protection ability against the bad ones.

I do however, avoid purchasing from developers and publishers who's system I feel to be 'over-the-top'.

Says it all and I'm very much with him there and so much more after this very thread.

[CoolP 283]

How could anyone "prove" any real data? I could cite numbers all day long, but unless you -and I do mean YOU personally- were physically present when I "opened the books" for your nosy inspection, you wouldn't be convinced......in fact, you'd probably ask to see the "real ledgers" and not the "cooked ones..." :( I did cite one example of two products where the difference in sales over a six month period was huge, but that's all I'm willing to share. I won't name either the company or the products. You can either believe me or not...Both of the houses I do development work for use the Flight1 system, which as has received favorable comment from others in this thread already. What hasn't been explicitly mentioned however is that everyone who contracts to use the Flight1 system has to accept the 30 day no questions asked refund policy.Your deliberate misquote cannot pass without comment. I said nearly all links, not "all links..."As it happens I've invested far more than a few hours checking every single "hit" for specific product "torrents" for the two houses I do work for as returned from a Google search. I have yet to find a single working link to a complete downloadable file. Since they are products released by the companies I work for, I could hardly be stealing from myself were I actually able to locate a working cracked download! :(

n4gix, I hope this doesn't come in too offensive but your books never were of any interest in this thread. Your attitude towards customers was and still is though. That no-trust bias is the way how parts of the industry behaved for decades now, believing in fancy protections and mistrusting even their finest and honest customers by e. g. setting up activation limits for them.If you (still) get the impression that this "forced" approach is showing a clear success and if you still believe that honest people have to be forced to be/stay honest, you may be the very best example ever available and I really leave it up to the readers to judge about the good or bad nature of this very example."Funny" (not in the laughing way though) and interesting to read about your involvement in the whole heavy protection system development at some part. Now, what do I expect from a guy selling the stuff then? Bias-free logics? Sorry for that, I wasn't aware of it but now I am. So you've invested some hours of investigation when it comes down to 'dead' and not so dead links, right? That's noble and useful indeed. Still, I then question your 'our stuff is protected' or even the 'we delay the cracked status by large margins' outcome' some more since this small investigation should have shown where the limits of any protection mechanism is and what it can do, and isn't able to do.Since it's programmed by human beings, the same (not personally) beings then start to re-engineer the stuff.Now, with you as a guy having at least some hours of investigation run, we both don't proclaim that 'stupid pirate' cliché once again, do we?I may catch your delay argument though, but I'm speaking of hours there, not days, weeks or months like you are. Are those hours worth the hassle with spoiled customers, support topics focused on protection only and so on?What do your books say? Do you measure customer happiness too? How?I think the next investigation step of yours may include the question why e. g. Orbx, A2A, Pete D.(who, for example, the Simmarket sales for good reason with his fine FSUIPC) and other fine devs out there are so successful and establish such a nice forum mood while still not getting kicked out of the business by bloody pirates. As said, they also seem to sleep better than some of the thread attendants. At least, that's my impression.This could lead the way to a new understanding of your policy and the way customers like to be treated. It may also establish a view on the really successful ways of business, having a happy (not a forced) customer as the main focus.Oops, have to install Java v25 now. It fixes some things and protects me from a whole bunch of people, trying to hack my system. As they are no customers of mine, I'm able to judge them in the across-the-board way. How easy that is.

[WarpD 824]

Your response just provided the absolute best example of why developers don't give numbers. Once we do, you claim it's all fiction. So... why ask for that which you're going to claim is a lie to begin with? Where's the 'trust'? LOLOh and this isn't about trusting a customer. In fact, that's actually a really absurd approach to the issue itself.Here's a few facts:1 - The software is available for download by anyone. Paying customer or not.2 - The software is only licensed once the purchase is confirmed.3 - The purchase can only be confirmed during installation.Since the software's sitting out there for absolutely anyone to obtain, why oh why would you think software copy protection needs reflect poorly upon the customer? The protection is there because we make it available for download... a convenience for potential customers. Someone who desires to provide the same software on pirate sites downloads the same copy a paying customer does. The exact same copy. The only difference is the pirate has to get around the copy protection before providing it for download. The paying customer needs only confirm their purchase and their installation's done.Installation limits are a byproduct of friends sharing with friends. I can think of two virtual airlines that did this. Fine upstanding people in public life I'm sure... but for some reason, on the internet, they felt that they were justified in sharing what they had purchased with whomever they chose.Copy protection is a result of people taking advantage of developers. It's a result of people stealing what isn't theirs and laughing about it, even bragging about it. Developers have pretty much zero legal recourse. The vast majority of piracy happens outside the U.S., as example, and hosted in a country that quite literally legalized the concept of intellectual property theft. We don't have the luxury nor the clairvoiance of knowing who we can and can not trust with a downloaded product. It really doesn't work that way and I think if you really sat down and thought about how you could protect your work, you might begin to grasp the logistics of it all.You want us to change how things are done... then step up and change the actual cause of it all, because we can't. We have absolutely no way to address the issue except via copy protection.

[CoolP 283]

Riding down the "confidential" valley again, huh?I don't question your numbers, I question that there are any. May seem like a small difference, for some.

Oh and this isn't about trusting a customer. In fact, that's actually a really absurd approach to the issue itself.

You are right, I don't know how I came up with the no-trust thing. There aren't any activation limits or Hardware-ID based "check routines" on the market so I really must have mixed up things there. :rolleyes:I was speaking about awareness before. I still hope that you are gaining some since the statements and also your attitude are showing exactly what was stated, across-the-board mistrust towards valid customers while pirates, once again, don't run into some limits as they cheat your fancy protection stuff one way or the other.That's why they are pirates, not because they ride ships and call themselves Captain Jack Sparrow. I wasn't up to state romantic things about them, just some facts.And I once again encourage every guy reading this to look for some proof for e. g. 'heavy protection helps' or even "delays" things in the matters of days, weeks, months, as stated by WarpD and some others.You won't find any, so you may trust some non-existent confidential numbers or your own research. That's a freedom one has to protect by the way.

Installation limits are a byproduct of friends sharing with friends.

That is such a nice sentence and it even gets nicer when the reader takes all your previous "trust" related statements into account. Sort of self-revelation and really worth reading. Thank you.Seems like you are checking your "friends" regularly, just to make sure that they are still friends, right?Well, as outlined quite some times now, the good companies (type "B") only give you e. g. a code, let you install the thing, let you access forums and make you a happy and supporting customer, buying their stuff again and developing a clear view on all guys trying to cheat this dev. That's some sort of protection too, does anybody doubt that?No checks in between, no limits, no sleepless nights because the bloody pirate people put down the sales (seems to happen on your end only, if I trust your statements and looking at the lesser protected companies on the market). So why not go with their fair and friendly system, already having proven the ability to enable a stable and happy market while your heavy protection thingy still awaits its proof and has to be defended in threads like these? Seems like the 'friends sharing with friends' mentality only is present at the side receiving some money.So you've caught some VA fellows to share software (reading this from your example) and that therefore does prove that your kind of protection did what exactly?For me, this only proves that you couldn't really impress them enough to stay on the legal side. Since you will never be able to block pirates for 100% with any current or upcoming (assumption there) protection, why not take care of the motivation behind these mentioned VA members?Why not investigate there and find out why they would cheat your company and maybe others not. So they've spoiled Eaglesoft it seems. Maybe they wouldn't have done this at one of your competitors, just because they would have been blocked by the same wall where honest people normally stop, the morality thing.'No, I don't steal from them, they are fair. But I do steal from that other guy, he seems to be way too arrogant'. Ah, I know, doesn't fit into a black/white thinking world where all people are either good or bad. Now reality tells us that people (and mentalities) aren't situated at the extremes of a range, but within those limits. Do I need to prove that?Once again, maybe the last time, these statements of mine don't speak for 'no protection' (they never did), they speak for a customer-friendly one. Type "B" company, DJ Jose, Dougal and some others spoke about it.Your whole paragraph here therefore points to some fictional listener you seem to have focused on. I'm the guy with the realistic view, not the naive 'heavy protection will safe us and increase sales' fellow (note the word 'heavy' before 'protection').

Copy protection is a result of people taking advantage of developers. It's a result of people stealing what isn't theirs and laughing about it, even bragging about it. Developers have pretty much zero legal recourse. The vast majority of piracy happens outside the U.S., as example, and hosted in a country that quite literally legalized the concept of intellectual property theft. We don't have the luxury nor the clairvoiance of knowing who we can and can not trust with a downloaded product. It really doesn't work that way and I think if you really sat down and thought about how you could protect your work, you might begin to grasp the logistics of it all.You want us to change how things are done... then step up and change the actual cause of it all, because we can't. We have absolutely no way to address the issue except via copy protection.

[bsmfinegan 12]

In defence of n4gix and WarpD the company they develop for (Eaglesoft Development Group) use the Flight1 wrapper system. As a paying customer I have not found an easier way of installing and activating a piece of software.However I have some sympathy with CoolIP's arguments that honest customers should be treated as just that, rather than be treated as 'guilty until proven innocent' so to speak.One thing I don't agree with is forcing an honest customer to jump through hoops to get his/her software activated, there is one particular Dev whom I won't name here who seems to really think that all their customers are crooks..you know the saying "it takes one to know one".I suppose all of this goes to prove the difficulty in doing business over the internet where everyone is faceless and as WarD pointed out the Dev has no point of redress.Bryan.

[ubersu 78]

There are honest customers and there are customers. They simply can't be distinguished by the simple act of buying the software. I have seen police departments and government agencies purchase software and hand it out to all their friends. The act of buying a software license isn't sufficient to establish honesty.DJ

[CoolP 283]

Bryan, a fair answer and a clear viewpoint. I appreciate that input.I just want to mention that there isn't any problem in the handling of e. g. the F1 system. I actually did mention it in a positive way, regarding that handling.But we have to be aware that, when talking in general about protection and the more or less customer friendly nature of it, we have to ask for the general need of e. g. activation limits.So while the handling may seem like a Pro for the thing, the sheer existence of those limits for themselves come as a big downside.Since I'm talking about e. g. easy methods like a serial you get after buying, you may see that there are at least two types of protection methods out there, the heavy ones (with the limits and so on) and the lesser "heavy" ones. My vote goes for the lesser heavy ones (they have a good handling too) as all protection so far proved not to be able to withstand the pirate motivation and drive.I don't start to act surprised if the guys selling some of the heavy stuff find Pros only though. :rolleyes:Hoping to have shed some light of the intentions here, pointing out that the general talk about things may sometimes name the handling as a Pro and the existence as a big Con.

There are honest customers and there are customers. They simply can't be distinguished by the simple act of buying the software. I have seen police departments and government agencies purchase software and hand it out to all their friends. The act of buying a software license isn't sufficient to establish honesty.

True! But since those check routines only catch the honest guys in "your" customer base while the other ones already got rid of the limits by applying a crack or something, one has to question the need and the experienced stress when using fancy protection stuff, right?I don't get the impression that those heavily checked customers are too happy about those 'are you still my friend' checks. Do you?

[WarpD 824]

You've repeatedly called me a liar. I'm uncertain where you come across with such 'authority' to make this claim. You don't know me, not one bit. Your conclusions in each and every response is that I make things up to support my stance on copy protection. Now in your latest post you go one step further and essentially label me as paranoid and untrusting of my friends. Yet again another statement regarding me personally.Stay on the actual subject and get off of me. You are treading dangerously outside the allowable boundaries of posts on AVSIM when your posts start to become attacks of my personal character.You asked for definitive information regarding whether or not copy protection is of any value to a developer. I gave that to you. I did not give you the details of where that data was obtained... nor will I. Revealing details of piracy isn't something I or any other developer is going to do. You can't ask that we provide you with information on what copy protection does or doesn't do for us and then claim what we offer are lies.I'm not a liar, you're wrong for calling me one. At the least, you owe me a public apology.