Why the need for an active internet connection

[Guest]

Temporary offline mode doesn't work ... people simply change their system time/date ... if the product can't connect to the internet it'll never know when it's reached that "periodic" limit.

Agree on the deactivation, in most cases allowing 5 activations over 6 months is sufficient until activation count is automatically reset.  Most pirates aren't gonna wait 3-6 months just to get a small window of activation opportunity.  Most end users aren't re-installing the same product 5 times in 6 months.

50-60% is not related to finding alternative solutions, that's what would happen if piracy were ignored and nothing implemented ... pass all the cost along to honest paying customers, but double edge sword as that can make one's product not cost competitive.

But like I said, cheapest and least intrusive implementation for the 99% use case is "require internet connection".  USB Key (in this day and age) is about $5-10 extra cost on top of the product "standard" price and it takes more than just a resistor to or cloning tool to circumvent ;)  A USB key would solve the issue at a moderate cost to implement.

Agree that servers, routers, and one's own ISP and network devices have failures ... but they are pretty rare (well below 1%) and flight simulation isn't exactly a "do or die" process that requires 24/7 SLA (service level agreements).

Cheers, Rob.

[Guest]

26 minutes ago, Jack_Sawyer said:

You couldn't convince them not to pirate.  One guy even had a pirate flag in his dorm.

Absolutely, it's pointless debating software/music/movie theft with those that perform such activity ... that's exactly why copy protection exists.

Cheers, Rob.

[markdf 84]

3 minutes ago, Rob Ainscough said:

Temporary offline mode doesn't work ... people simply change their system time/date ... if the product can't connect to the internet it'll never know when it's reached that "periodic" limit.

Agree on the deactivation, in most cases allowing 5 activations over 6 months is sufficient until activation count is automatically reset.  Most pirates aren't gonna wait 3-6 months just to get a small window of activation opportunity.  Most end users aren't re-installing the same product 5 times in 6 months.

50-60% is not related to finding alternative solutions, that's what would happen if piracy were ignored and nothing implemented ... pass all the cost along to honest paying customers, but double edge sword as that can make one's product not cost competitive.

But like I said, cheapest and least intrusive implementation for the 99% use case is "require internet connection".  USB Key (in this day and age) is about $5-10 extra cost on top of the product "standard" price and it takes more than just a resistor to circumvent ;)  A USB key would solve the issue at a moderate cost to implement.

Agree that servers, routers, and one's own ISP and network devices have failures ... but they are pretty rare (well below 1%) and flight simulation isn't exactly a "do or die" process that requires 24/7 SLA (service level agreements).

Cheers, Rob.

You and I probably disagree on the temporary offline issue - which is fine, afterall there'd be no point in discussions if we all shared the same views :)

You've picked up on my key point though - I only take serious issue with the always online when compounded with the deactivation/activation issue.  If activations could be managed then I'd accept the internet connectivity as a necessary evil (although a brief allowance should be made for connection glitches at runtime - lets say 15 minutes before giving up?)

The allowing for a number of activations in a time period before forcing resorting to tickets, and releasing each one after a fixed amount of time is a good idea - and one that has worked well for me with some of my other products (such as FSDreamTeam scenery which follows that model for example)  Sometimes I might need to reinstall 2 months in, other times I might not touch my hardware/OS for 8+ months, so it allows for flexibility while still protecting the developer's investment.

[airernie 263]

1 hour ago, markdf said:

You've picked up on my key point though - I only take serious issue with the always online when compounded with the deactivation/activation issue.

I have to admit ignorance to this issue.  I have never experienced it and I don't quite understand why someone would need to deactivate/active enough times for the problem to arise.

As not being able to fly while CP is offline, one solution is to have a non CP version of the controls.xml and camera.cfg files (I'm an FSX user).  In case of prolonged outage, swap the current with those copies and resume flying.  

Sure, you wouldn't have access to CP, but properly configured backups would get you going temporarily.   For shorter outages, grab a cup of tea or take a walk.  

In the real world flights do get cancelled. :-)

Ernie

[markdf 84]

37 minutes ago, airernie said:

I have to admit ignorance to this issue.  I have never experienced it and I don't quite understand why someone would need to deactivate/active enough times for the problem to arise.

As not being able to fly while CP is offline, one solution is to have a non CP version of the controls.xml and camera.cfg files (I'm an FSX user).  In case of prolonged outage, swap the current with those copies and resume flying.  

Sure, you wouldn't have access to CP, but properly configured backups would get you going temporarily.   For shorter outages, grab a cup of tea or take a walk.  

In the real world flights do get cancelled. :-)

Ernie

"Enough times" in this case translates to "one activation within a three month period" - there's no end user accessible way around that except opening a support ticket to explain yourself.

Preventing piracy is fine, but when we start to stray into the territory of asking paying customers to email justify reinstalling if it falls within a three month boundary then it's a step too far.  In a system where it's both dependant on an activation system AND being connected to the internet with no disconnections during usage, there is no good reason to not allow the customer to deactivate/reactivate/transfer license themselves since it's painfully easy to verify that the same license is only being used in one place at a time (and can only be activated on one machine at a time)

As for the part about going and doing something else: If there's a problem on my own machine preventing me using my software, that's my problem to deal with - I don't mind that.  

If the problem is caused by over zealous and over-reaching copy protection then it's time to re-assess that system.  Good copy protection should be as transparent as possible to legitimate users - I don't care what process it follows in the background, if I'm not doing anything unreasonable with it then I shouldn't really be noticing it doing it's job. (And on every other flight sim product I own, I don't notice it at all - Chaseplane is literally the only one that needs any special attention or outside intervention when I reinstall my system)

A lot of people here fly when they can, and don't have to deal with work/family etc.  If they can't make use of the software in whatever window they've allotted quite often they might not have another chance until the following weekend for example, and if that happens then it highlights an unfortunate design flaw.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,942]

Having an internet connection in order to use any software is not the problem. Having a permanent internet connection in order to use the software is the issue with me. I have no problem with a check of my registration details after a random number of days. Once that check has been made and the software is registered the requirement for a connection should cease. All settings should be saved to the user's PC, not the cloud.

After all, that's how FSLabs manage their aircraft - Concorde and the Airbus. And those packages cost considerably more than CP. The only way the user knows a check has been made is if the registration cannot be verified and a message is displayed after which the sim is terminated. But if you reboot you can still fly those aircraft until the next check x days later. Not perfect for the seller but a sensible balance has been struck.

Aerosoft for a number of years have tied your email address to the registration code supplied to you. Are people really going to share their purchased products when their identify is being passed around? Doubt it.

There has to be some balance. With CP all the power lies with the seller. The customer is completely at the mercy of the seller's infrastructure in order to use the software. That is risky for the seller because no hardware is 100% reliable and should it go down for whatever reason then their reputation could take a big hit.

With very expensive software a dongle is sometimes supplied and understandably so. But for a $40 package??? Sorry, but that's overkill and will push up the price even higher than it already is.

Keven has already stated he will loosen the requirement once CP v1.0 is formally released and it's because of that statement I will be buying the software.

[markdf 84]

11 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Having an internet connection in order to use any software is not the problem. Having a permanent internet connection in order to use the software is the issue with me. I have no problem with a check of my registration details after a random number of days. Once that check has been made and the software is registered the requirement for a connection should cease. All settings should be saved to the user's PC, not the cloud.

After all, that's how FSLabs manage their aircraft - Concorde and the Airbus. And those packages cost considerably more than CP. The only way the user knows a check has been made is if the registration cannot be verified and a message is displayed after which the sim is terminated. But if you reboot you can still fly those aircraft until the next check x days later. Not perfect for the seller but a sensible balance has been struck.

Aerosoft for a number of years have tied your email address to the registration code supplied to you. Are people really going to share their purchased products when their identify is being passed around? Doubt it.

There has to be some balance. With CP all the power lies with the seller. The customer is completely at the mercy of the seller's infrastructure in order to use the software. That is risky for the seller because no hardware is 100% reliable and should it go down for whatever reason then their reputation could take a big hit.

With very expensive software a dongle is sometimes supplied and understandably so. But for a $40 package??? Sorry, but that's overkill and will push up the price even higher than it already is.

Keven has already stated he will loosen the requirement once CP v1.0 is formally released and it's because of that statement I will be buying the software.

As you say - there's a lot of examples of developers in the market who've already produced consumer friendly systems to guard against piracy without punishing their users.  I'm a developer myself and piracy is an ever present issue, but fear of piracy isn't an excuse for going over the top on protection mechanisms.  No matter how good the DRM is, sooner or later it's going to get pirated just the same - Microsoft haven't stopped it, LM haven't stopped it, in fact nobody has.  The key is compromise as in your example with Aerosoft and FSLabs: I've never had any issue with reinstalling their products. What concerns me is the thing about removing the connection requirement after beta - is piracy somehow less of a problem after beta? Or is "after beta" just a good answer that avoids directly confronting the issue or kicking it off into an indeterminate point in the future without having to commit to a timetable for removing it?

The simple fact is that the people who really don't want to pay won't pay and sooner or later a cracked version will surface no matter how many restrictions they decide to cram into the product.  If you approach development from the mindset that your customers are more likely than not to be pirates/criminals, you'll only end up fostering that in the long run whilst at the same time killing any good will towards you when outages cause people to not be able to use the software.  Chaseplane is a good program, and I like it a lot - but the DRM polices make me regret the purchase in hindsight to the point that I've delayed a planned reinstall of my PC for a week while I decided if I was going to go through opening another ticket or just buying a competing product that won't cause me the hassle in the future. On balance the functionality just doesn't justify the installation/usage restrictions for me, so in the absence of being able to return it I'm just inclined to write it off as a lesson learned.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,942]

24 minutes ago, markdf said:

What concerns me is the thing about removing the connection requirement after beta - is piracy somehow less of a problem after beta? Or is "after beta" just a good answer that avoids directly confronting the issue or kicking it off into an indeterminate point in the future without having to commit to a timetable for removing it?

The simple fact is that the people who really don't want to pay won't pay and sooner or later a cracked version will surface no matter how many restrictions they decide to cram into the product.  If you approach development from the mindset that your customers are more likely than not to be pirates/criminals, you'll only end up fostering that in the long run whilst at the same time killing any good will towards you when outages cause people to not be able to use the software.  Chaseplane is a good program, and I like it a lot - but the DRM polices make me regret the purchase in hindsight to the point that I've delayed a planned reinstall of my PC for a week while I decided if I was going to go through opening another ticket or just buying a competing product that won't cause me the hassle in the future. On balance the functionality just doesn't justify the installation/usage restrictions for me, so in the absence of being able to return it I'm just inclined to write it off as a lesson learned.

Only Keven can answer your question about loosening things up once v1 is released. During beta maybe it's helpful for sending logs when people have issues.

Agree about the inevitability of cracked versions appearing. That's just how life is. The lower the price the less likely someone will look for a pirated version but even if it was $1 there will always be some word not allowed who won't want to pay.

I tend not to change hardware configurations so having installed software it tends to stay installed unless I either need a new PC or a larger SSD. I haven't hit any problems in general so far.

Am I correct in thinking that if you want to install CP a second time you have to raise a ticket? Ouch! Hi-Fi allow several installs of their weather programs before you need to contact them and their products are more expensive than this one.

[markdf 84]

1 minute ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Am I correct in thinking that if you want to install CP a second time you have to raise a ticket? Ouch! Hi-Fi allow several installs of their weather programs before you need to contact them and their products are more expensive than this one.

That's right - once you activate, you can't reactivate again within three months without opening a ticket.

That's the part which really pushes it over the edge for me - my gaming PC is also a development PC for work and I'm frequently swapping hardware around in there or reinstalling completely so I'm not a big fan of having to repeatedly ask permission to use something I've paid for. (Haven't tested it since I reinstalled Chaseplane last, but I know that enabling certain Windows features such as Hyper-V can also change the configuration enough to trigger some reactivation systems)

[Ray Proudfoot 8,942]

11 minutes ago, markdf said:

That's right - once you activate, you can't reactivate again within three months without opening a ticket.

That's the part which really pushes it over the edge for me - my gaming PC is also a development PC for work and I'm frequently swapping hardware around in there or reinstalling completely so I'm not a big fan of having to repeatedly ask permission to use something I've paid for. (Haven't tested it since I reinstalled Chaseplane last, but I know that enabling certain Windows features such as Hyper-V can also change the configuration enough to trigger some reactivation systems)

Overkill! Software changes should never invoke a reactivation requirement.

Keven's statement back in Feb included this... "We heard everyone's feedback and we will be providing an offline solution for ChasePlane before the official v1 release later this year."

Given CP appears to be very close to the end of the beta phase perhaps some clarification of that statement is now appropriate so that prospective customers can make an informed decision on whether they want to buy or not.

Edited August 16, 2017 by Ray Proudfoot
Additional info

[markdf 84]

1 minute ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Overkill! Software changes should never invoke a reactivation requirement.

Twice this year I've had to ticket because I fell foul of having to reactivate due to my Windows install needing resetting or wiping (on the same machine) and there's been a couple of other times where I just haven't bothered putting Chaseplane back on the system at all to avoid having to write an email to justify why I need to activate again.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,942]

Mark,

You don't sound like a typical customer as you use your PC for business and domestic purposes. But see my earlier updated post about a statement being appropriate.

[markdf 84]

8 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Mark,

You don't sound like a typical customer as you use your PC for business and domestic purposes. But see my earlier updated post about a statement being appropriate.

I am on the edge of the scale, but my hope is that my example will demonstrate to them that single activation with a fixed, inflexible time restriction can negatively affect legitimate customers - frequent reinstalls doesn't (and shouldn't automatically) equal pirate or nefarious intent.

The reason I'm speaking out so strongly here is largely because under the DRM is an absolutely fantastic product - on the basis of functionality and features it'd be my first choice every time and I'd be shouting it's praises from the rooftops. If it was a badly written program I wouldn't care enough to say anything, I'd just walk away from it, but as it stands I've got zero negatives or complaints about the actual program, which is saying something for me.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, markdf said:

No matter how good the DRM is, sooner or later it's going to get pirated just the same - Microsoft haven't stopped it, LM haven't stopped it, in fact nobody has.

I'll disagree with you there, we have and we can even identify hacking sources (with good accuracy) ... there are many options for devs to project their work ... literally infinite possibilities (and I think this is sometimes what draws in the "serious" hacker).  But given the frequency of product updates for most software these days, hacking an EXE or DLL that is obfuscated and uses encrypted code migration is going to be VERY short term, not to mention a lot of work that will have to be re-done.  But there are literally infinite ways to protect one's content and to discover hacking attempts.

But I'm still not sure what's wrong with the USB key approach?  It fills that 1% usage case and no need to worry about activation/reactivation.  Seems like a fair compromise to meet a users needs and a developers needs.

6 hours ago, markdf said:

The reason I'm speaking out so strongly here is largely because under the DRM is an absolutely fantastic product - on the basis of functionality and features it'd be my first choice every time and I'd be shouting it's praises from the rooftops.

You're sending very mixed messages, if you feel so strongly about this product then why would $5-10 solution that meets both your needs and the devs needs not work for you?

I'm sure I'll find my name used on some web site because of this posting (that's what usually happens after I post about piracy), but I don't fear hackers and I'm not going to let them take my work for nothing unless I want them to so I can find out who they are.

Cheers, Rob.

[markdf 84]

40 minutes ago, Rob Ainscough said:

I'll disagree with you there, we have and we can even identify hacking sources (with good accuracy) ... there are many options for devs to project their work ... literally infinite possibilities (and I think this is sometimes what draws in the "serious" hacker).  But given the frequency of product updates for most software these days, hacking an EXE or DLL that is obfuscated and uses encrypted code migration is going to be VERY short term, not to mention a lot of work that will have to be re-done.  But there are literally infinite ways to protect one's content and to discover hacking attempts.

But I'm still not sure what's wrong with the USB key approach?  It fills that 1% usage case and no need to worry about activation/reactivation.  Seems like a fair compromise to meet a users needs and a developers needs.

You're sending very mixed messages, if you feel so strongly about this product then why would $5-10 solution that meets both your needs and the devs needs not work for you?

I'm sure I'll find my name used on some web site because of this posting (that's what usually happens after I post about piracy), but I don't fear hackers and I'm not going to let them take my work for nothing unless I want them to so I can find out who they are.

Cheers, Rob.

I don't actually have issue with the USB approach - if it means I can reinstall as needed, then fine. That's what I care about the most, the ability to remove and reactivate the license as needed for my personal use.  Give me that and I'm happy.

Also didn't say that I wouldn't be willing to spend a little extra for the convenience and freedom.  As I said - it's a great product let down by an overly harsh activation policy.  Offer me a solution and I'd go as far as buying a second copy at full price right now.  Frankly price is way down the list of priorities for me, and a long way below convenience. I've just spent thousands getting an apartment adapted for disabled access to give me more freedom to move around more freely - I really don't care about a $5-10 variation in price for a software package.

I do stand by my statement about piracy ultimately being inevitable - wrong as it may be, if the demand is there it'll happen, so we can't let the fear or threat of it be an excuse to start hampering the experience of legitimate users. A good system should be (mostly) transparent to me after it's set up - be that dongle, remote license checking whatever, as long as it doesn't start becoming an issue that gets in the way of using the software.  Other companies in the same industry both above and below this on the cost scale manage to deliver systems that strike an acceptable compromise between security and flexibility so I refuse to be scared by the boogeyman and told that the current system is the only reasonable solution for the developers.

In summary, my complaint here is that there isn't a solution on offer here, paid or otherwise, to get around the three month reactivation policy.  If one is offered I'll be at the front of the queue to sign up for it.