Market place piracy protection ?

[cepact 517]

I think one of the most important things to attract third parties into the market place would be to offer piracy protection, like online check services for every addon. This would make really worth even 30% commission. Not only they'll have a huge new audience, and uncrackable software = $$$$

every addon should be bound to microsoft account and checked on launch

 

Edited July 21, 2020 by cepact

[G-RFRY 1,705]

1 hour ago, cepact said:

I think one of the most important things to attract third parties into the market place would be to offer piracy protection, like online check services for every addon. This would make really worth even 30% commission. Not only they'll have a huge new audience, and uncrackable software = $$$$

every addon should be bound to microsoft account and checked on launch

 

Uncrackable software you will make millions if you can come up with that MS alone would line your pockets.

[himmelhorse 1,276]

Hello all,

Just to add my 20 cents here.

"Uncrackable software you will make millions if you can come up with that MS alone would line your pockets" (G-RFRY) Quite correct.

However, let us not forget, that ANYTHIING designed or created by mankind, will eventually be broken, bettered or "cracked" by mankind. To believe otherwise, is to assume that the designer or creator is the worlds most clever or intelligent person and that nobody is ever, going to be more clever or intelligent.  

Whilst I believe that Piracy is dispicable and outright theft, at best, the nature of mankind will ensure that piracy and similar entities of this nature, will never die. A very, very sad reality. However, we (developers and consumers) should do all we can to deter pirates and to make their piracy efforts as difficult and painful (penalties) as possible. Mankind, again, will eventually defeat that because for every pirate there are many, many customers who will take advantage, for whatever reasons, of their offerings.

Just my opinion, lads, but I am sure that there are others who would agree with me.

Regards

Tony

[MatthewS 761]

Didn't someone already hack the alpha/beta?  There's leak videos with no user names display on screen....   Any licence check for 3rd party content could probably be as easily defeated.

[Chock 17,769]

3 hours ago, cepact said:

I think one of the most important things to attract third parties into the market place would be to offer piracy protection, like online check services for every addon. This would make really worth even 30% commission.

I doubt it really would be worth 30 percent commission. This supposes a company would definitely make less money with a lower commission and with less investment in copy protection. Sadly, the evidence doesn't really support that contention. Of course it's difficult to track illegal activities fully because people are not inclined to announce their indulgences in such activities, nevertheless, in so far as analysis of things such as The Pirate Bay, cracked ISOs etc can be made, it has been found that most people inclined to actively seek out and use hacked/cracked products of this nature do not try finding a cracked version of something and if they cannot, then shrug and pay for the product; rather they tend to shrug and then go for a different thing which is cracked.

So the fact that something is not cracked/hacked does not automatically equate to more sales and unfortunately, as with many things, this means there is a cut off point where what you spend on protection reaches a point where the investment is not worth the return.

Sadly, the reality is that in all walks of life and in all endeavours, there are people who want something for nothing and they don't care that it doesn't simply disrespect the creator of the thing they steal, but also everyone else who has to take up the slack by paying more in order to cover such nefarious activities. But that's life, and the only way to look at this without it annoying you beyond measure, is to acknowledge that without the dodgy people out there, there would be no benchmark against which to create a scale for the high benchmark which is the hallmark of the decent people who don't nick software, or anything else for that matter.

Edited July 21, 2020 by Chock

[Chock 17,769]

33 minutes ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

Actually it's not, it's deciding whether to do anything about it or not.

This supposes that in attempting to track things, one can be certain that one is aware of everything, and that is unlikely since people who steal stuff, by their very nature, attempt to conceal the act, so to suppose that you can suss out their every move and everything they are up to, is somewhat naive, as you can never be certain of this.

It's like the old joke about the factory worker suspected of stealing. Every day, the security guards at the factory gate inspect his coat, his trouser pockets and his wheelbarrow to check if he has stolen stuff concealed in there, but they never find anything, so they let him pass. After many years, when the guy finally retires, on his last day the guards ask him if he actually was stealing anything and he replies: 'Yes, I was stealing wheelbarrows'.

 

Edited July 21, 2020 by Chock

[ark 1,288]

Does MSFS support the add-on.xml method, or is that strictly a L-M P3D thing?  I ask because it seems to me the add-on.xml method makes software piracy 'easier'. Someone can just copy an aircraft's add-on folder and in essence have all the files (sounds, effects, dlls, etc.) that go with that aircraft to easily "move" them to another computer. At least that's one developer's explanation for not supporting the add-on xml method. I think more developers would support the add-on.xml method, which would be great for us users, if some better piracy protection could be built in.

Al

Edited July 22, 2020 by ark

[Elwyn 67]

Don't say uncrackable, no software is uncrackable. you are just challenging hackers in that manner.🤔

[honanhal 1,420]

6 hours ago, ark said:

I ask because it seems to me the add-on.xml method makes software piracy 'easier'. Someone can just copy an aircraft's add-on folder and in essence have all the files (sounds, effects, dlls, etc.) that go with that aircraft to easily "move" them to another computer. At least that's one developer's explanation for not supporting the add-on xml method.

Wow, making your product worse to stick it to the pirates. That's some kind of genius decisionmaking...

James

[FlyingBubbles 15]

14 hours ago, cepact said:

I think one of the most important things to attract third parties into the market place would be to offer piracy protection, like online check services for every addon. This would make really worth even 30% commission. Not only they'll have a huge new audience, and uncrackable software = $$$$

every addon should be bound to microsoft account and checked on launch

 

I beg to differ, I think you are totally wrong about that. At my software company we allow piracy but controlled piracy. Piracy is actually the BEST form of marketing and word of mouth. Since we released our 'cracked' version of our software, sales have gone up by 200% I kid you not.

[jeansy 338]

cough cough MS flight, where all addons where sold through the software, that ended up a real winner for everyone, it was one of the dumbest things ive seen with the franchise since FS4 in 92

 

 

[virtuali 4,419]

10 hours ago, ark said:

Someone can just copy an aircraft's add-on folder and in essence have all the files (sounds, effects, dlls, etc.) that go with that aircraft to easily "move" them to another computer. At least that's one developer's explanation for not supporting the add-on xml method.

Really ? This should take the crown for being the lamest excuse I ever heard for being lazy, and not conforming to the vastly superior add-on.xml method.

[virtuali 4,419]

42 minutes ago, jeansy said:

cough cough MS flight, where all addons where sold through the software, that ended up a real winner for everyone, it was one of the dumbest things ive seen with the franchise since FS4 in 92

Not because all add-ons were sold through the software but, because the few that were, had an abysmal quality ( planes without a cockpit, really ? )  and there weren't any 3rd party add-ons, that was the real problem with MS Flight.

[Nuno Pinto 1,394]

16 hours ago, cepact said:

every addon should be bound to microsoft account and checked on launch

 

Worthless effort. Just keep on buying your stuff, do your part, let the world run.

If you think "online checks" prevent anything, better reconsider.

[vc10man 732]

12 hours ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

Actually it's not, it's deciding whether to do anything about it or not.

Bang on the mark, Rob, because I informed LM that a female friend I knew was accessing and using pirated versions on LM and distributing it to her friends, but alas, got no response from LM. So, why bother in the first place?