I really don't think you are seeing the big picture at all. The fact is piracy was putting small software companies out of business. It

>My personal view/experience: I haven

>You just don't tell anyone in an open and public statement what >you're going to do with security of this nature or manner. To me it >is like telling all the bad guys to come on in and take whatever >you want because we just can't do anything about it.Ahhh so we are getting to the heart of the matter.Its not so much the policy, but that Aerosoft had the gall to announce it publicly ?Did Aerosoft break some un-written rule amongsts developers that says you never admit this publicly.What is this some sort of don't ask don't tell policy Aerosoft violated ??You think everyone didn't already know ? Regards.Ernie.

Rob,The problem here is you make a valid point, however, most of the people here are in fact honest and therefore cannot really be expected to see what we go through nor can they really be expected to understand the situation in full. All they are going to see is the fact that they have to go through another step in the process thus making it seem like their privacy is being invaded amongst other issues.Alot of their concerns are valid because alot of them are also constantly tweaking their hardware and such so that they have to often times re-install their products.This can be an issue because you then have developers believing 100% in what their software is telling them and an argument then insues between the customer and developer and/or publisher.It like these new anti virus and spyware updates that actually report everything that access the internet as an unwanted "pup" or something and you go to remove it, then all the sudden you've broken something.Anyways, just thought I might try and also point out the other side of the coin.The problem here is everyone's right to one extent or the other, but can't seem to get together.

Ernie,It's not that deep, no, it's just common sense in how we portray certain things.You could use any example or industry you want. To use an example already brought up: You wouldn't advertise in the newspaper that you've gone on vacation and left your house unlocked would you?

Frankly the arguements are moot....1. Pirates will still steal regardless of the methods chosen by developers. A brief browse of the pirate sites will quickly prove that nearly ANY type of software can be had by illegal means. 2. Developers have a responsibility to choose an effective security method which is user friendly for their customers.3. Aerosoft press release does not give them a "competitive advange" over developers who use "other methods".Aerosoft has a right to use whatever method they choose as do all other developers.:-)Hans criteria is correct...1. The method must be user friendly.2. The method must be effective.

"... that doesn't give them the right to make blanket statements like they did."I'm sorry but you're wrong. They've every right to make whatever statements they like, regardless of whether you or others disagree with them. It's called freedom of speech.

Ron,Golly Gee haven't seen you around in a while. I guess I should pick up the phone one of these days...LOL.The debate isn't or shouldn't have been about the actual methods. You are right in that they can choose whatever method they want.They do not have the right however, to state or make it seem like that the rest of us in our industry is basically an open book/server to anyone who wants in.As a major publisher that would send a chill up my spine if I had a product listed with them. That is the clear impression I get out of their statement.

>"... that doesn't give them the right to make blanket>statements like they did.">>I'm sorry but you're wrong. They've every right to make>whatever statements they like, regardless of whether you or>others disagree with them. It's called freedom of speech.While I agree with you, I figured I'd point out that it's a German company. ;)

MGH,Free speech. Ok then, same here, but if I had a product listed with them, I'd be majorly upset.I can't believe you even reduced this whole thing to free speech...LOLWorks both ways don't ya think?

>To use an example already brought up: >>You wouldn't advertise in the newspaper that you've gone on >vacation and left your house unlocked would you?Not really the same thing. The criminals might not be aware of your house or its security system were it not for the newspaper ad.But the day your product hits the market and is announced/advertised/promoted etc the pirates will be aware of it. It does not encourage any more piracy than if no announcement was made and they quietly changed the system. The pirates one way or another will become aware of it fairly quickly. The only people this will affect are the potential customers. And clearly that is who Aerosoft's announcement is directed at.Regards.Ernie.

Rob,There are several publishers that require more then just enter a registration number or go online to register your software. I will not name any here there are several threads locked over flamewars involving such companies. I'm also against machine binding that some add-ons do because I tend to switch between 2 desktops (trouble with my new hardware) and a laptop (on the road relaxation).The limit customer support statement mentions that they wil only support their 'real' customers. Probably you need to type your personal registration number in your forum account before you get support. Not different from what Flight1 does with the Level D and the Ultimate Super 80.Its a shame that in your last paragraph you seem to insinuate that I'm a pirate or might be sharing add-ons illegaly with friends. I'm happy that this thread is a civilized discussion about piracy and the industry and no flamefest lets try to keep it that way.

>I also think it's easy for you to get all judgmental with all>these developers when its not your money that is being stolen.> Somehow I think you might start screaming bloody murder and>start taking "incredibly limitating" measures yourself if it>was your pocket the pirates were picking.>>RobRob:Ahh, so true!Ironically, it *is* the consumer's pocket that's being picked -- to a certain extent, mind you -- by piracy, since it forces developers to charge more for their product to cover the anti-piracy expenses. The irreconcilable dichotomy of the situation is that quite a number of developers -- like pirates -- often "pick the pockets" of consumers as well by releasing products that don't match up with their advertising (we call this "lying" and "stealing" where I live, so it's very similar). Yet I don't see developers banding together against developers who *clearly* do this as a matter of course; not even a whimper against a developer who doesn't get his/her/their proverbial act together. This hurts the developer's wallet, too, since the hoodwinked buyer might have spent those monies on the responsible developer's product.Thus, given this dichotomy, why should there be a consensus by developers to unite against *anything*, then? "Free" market means just that; "free" to do anything with their product or method of distribution, for good or ill.I'm really not sure if Aerosoft did a smart or good thing. However, to use an argument set forth by another prolific poster in this thread, maybe the rest of us -- including the small developer -- don't understand what it is to run an addon distribution network and, thus, should keep our mouths shut since we don't know what we're talking about. :(

Maybe not idiotic, but a smart decision. If they know they have lost customers due to a certain problem, by announcing the change, they get them back. Personally Ive seen increasing "security" measures taken by those producing software since the 70's, and had a lot of doubts about how effective it may be. Those who will steal, will do so, in spite of it. If they cant crack it themselves, they will just get it from those who can. Ive known some who pirate software, and the majority that Ive talked with, do it due to the "challange." Many who "collect" such software, may try it once or twice, and go on to try other "new" things they collect. Few ever use it for long. It seems to me, they spend much more time downloading, and trying it just to see if they can, than they ever spend using it. Then they just delete it. One friend that I talked with, was amazed at how much better his system ran, after showing him all the junk left by programs he'd tried, and deleted. Running a free program called CCleaner, removed over 2800 invalid entries from his registry, etc.. He decided to stop his "hobby" of collecting or trying pirated software. My thoughts have been, if software companies spent all the time and money they spend on "security" they would produce a better product, and develop more business from those who will always pay for all the software. This may be why Aerosoft made this decision, that it was wasting a lot of time to focus so much on security, if it would just be cracked anyway.Personally I'd like to see the time spent on Demo versions of software which would expire in say 30 days, than on security. Ive tried lots of such software, then bought that which I felt was worth my time, and the price. Maybe those pirating software, would then try the demo to get their "trial" free, and remove it from the system as they will anyway.Of all those using the FS including five kids and three friends, I don't know of anyone using a single piece of "pirated" FS add-on software. Have never seen any offered, and have seen those who asked others to "send a copy" attacked in the forums. If we all did what we could to discourage anyone we know who does pirate software, it might even deal with the problem a lot more effectively.

>They do not have the right however, to state or make it seem>like that the rest of us in our industry is basically an open>book/server to anyone who wants in.They do when they are right and the rest are wrong. Aeorsoft is not the only company moving away from ineffective protection schemes, so are companies like Ubisoft, especially as so many of the schemes are:A) Weak and easily broken:( Insecure - open system wide vulnerabilitiesc) Cause reams of technical complaintsThere is zero empirical evidence to support the idea that these protection and registration schemes do much to protect, and ultimately are not very effective cost wise. The reality is the "protection" schemes used were put in place to help a few *large* companies re-enforce their stock value. There were, and stll are, legitimate concernes that on the scale that a company like Sony sells original works, there might be extra profits made by getting back some of the revenue lost through piracy, even tho the costs of implementing them are massive. The costs would be recoved through volume.This is called economy of scale.For somebody small... the costs outweigh the benifit. The only reason I suspect the majority of small businesses use it is because IT decision makers have a tendency to believe the Spin put forth by PR firms who use pretty young college grads to go and push their prodtucs with (ever been to an IT trade show?). This is particularly effective in the geek ridden IT workplace.The massively growing concern for personal security has also caused many companies, from Sony to Ubisoft, to back-peddle away from these things as they are a customer relations nightmare (though Sony seems to be in a state of denial even though its already cost them a small fortune in law suits and recalls).The reality is most of the protection and registration software out there is poorly designed and does more to restrict the rights of the legitimate purchaser than prevent theft.I suspect Aerosoft is backing away not only because of the stated reasons but also to avoid the potential backlash from security concerns with software that "calls home" and opens up security holes. I congratulate them on their vision and respect for their customers. Besides, they do not say they will not support their product, they only say you will need to be a legit license to get it. This makes perfect sense.So does withdrawing from a battle you can not win and is only costing you resources. How is publicly stating that a bad thing?Here is an article by PC Gamers Editor In Chief:http://next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_c...d=2445&Itemid=2CheersShad