AV-8B COPY PROTECTION CHANGE

There are games that require permanent internet connection to play. Even in single player. And they are sold in EU. How that differs to what ED wants to do?

It doesn't. The main gripe people have with this is the fact that this requirement is applied retroactively which was not informed about on purchase.

I'm pretty sure people will still buy modules with this new system, but now they know about the requirement and can take an active choice whether it's acceptable or not, and therefor make an informed decision on whether or not to purchase.

A fair solution to me about previously purchased modules when internet connection was required only once per computer/activation, would be that those would only require "phone home" on update.y.

I agree. The right to play my modules when I please, offline or on, should not be stripped out just like that, it's bad faith.

It doesn't. The main gripe people have with this is the fact that this requirement is applied retroactively which was not informed about on purchase.

 

I'm pretty sure people will still buy modules with this new system, but now they know about the requirement and can take an active choice whether it's acceptable or not, and therefor make an informed decision on whether or not to purchase.

Indeed, and if a very large group of pissed off customers, opened a class action to sue ED for damages just because each, as we all have, several hundred pounds worth of potentially unuseable content on their PCs, it could put ED out of business.

Lets not forget, this is not grand theft auto 2 we are talking about here, it is a very large monetary investment for modt people with several modules and all the terrain.

Suppose they had to reimburse many thousands of customers at once?

It HAS to be checked with legal before implementation and customers offered reimbursement. Most likely no one would take reimbursment, but at least ED has offered.

Perhaps ED could do a "vacation mode" that disables the online checks but either locks the game to one computer or disables new activations for the duration of vacation mode.

Because that was a contract term and a technical requirement at the point the contract was made. This is not. It is a change to a contract that the consumer has not been consulted about. As such it is an unfair contract term ( off the top of my head 93/13 eec) and may well be a breach of EU law.

 

I have no axe to grind either way. Feedback was asked for and I played devils advocate. I just want ED to get it right and fair for everyone.

You mean that the store page should have had information about internet connection needed every 4 days? The information on store page for harrier mentioned that the module will require internet activation as all the other modules. It does not mention how often though and as it is with current copy protection that can mean multiple activation based on state of the installation on your PC too. I understand that people did not expect this change, they are surprised, some enraged but I do not think there is any basement for legal actions here.

I know we are playing with words here, don't get me wrong. And I do know that some people will be affected by this change and that's why Wags said that they will evaluate it and change it based on peoples feedback.

You mean that the store page should have had information about internet connection needed every 4 days? The information on store page for harrier mentioned that the module will require internet activation as all the other modules. It does not mention how often though and as it is with current copy protection that can mean multiple activation based on state of the installation on your PC too. I understand that people did not expect this change, they are surprised, some enraged but I do not think there is any basement for legal actions here.

 

I know we are playing with words here, don't get me wrong. And I do know that some people will be affected by this change and that's why Wags said that they will evaluate it and change it based on peoples feedback.

Putting it on the store page now is too late. It's bolting the stable door after the horse was seen disappearing into the sunset.

The term must be agreed to before the pay now button is pressed. The A10 module is over 7 years old......

They can do it with all the new modules they want, but the existing ones that have been bought already are already subject to contract between the user and ED.

Yes we are playing with words. Everything I say is meant to be constructive. I don't use my DCS PC, during the week for the sake of my marriage, stuck to making typos on a Kindle, and Sith has already said even though my PC is switched off for this time it is not a problem, it will log in normally at the weekend, so I personally am not worried by the technicalities.

I would be pissed about the lack of consultation before altering my contracts however, but that's what I view this thread to be about. Consultation and negotiation.

Putting it on the store page now is too late. It's bolting the stable door after the horse was seen disappearing into the sunset.

The term must be agreed to before the pay now button is pressed. The A10 module is over 7 years old......

They do not have to put it there. It states that it requires Internet for activation and that is enough in my opinion because nowhere is stated how many of these activation's will be needed and that was the same with previous copy protection even though you had limited amount of activation's. There is no mention about it even in Eula. People are basing their expectations about previous experience but if for example Starforce would change with newer version to the same model how would people act to it then?

Let's just wait to how it will evolve. I'm welcoming the change for example. I do not agree with the 4 day limit though. I do want to have one global account and simpler way of activation, but I do not like the idea of limited single player. If I want to update, buy something from shop or play multiplayer then yes go ahead and verify my installation but give me at least 2-3 weeks of Single player when I'm abroad without internet connection.

They do not have to put it there. It states that it requires Internet for activation and that is enough in my opinion because nowhere is stated how many of these activation's will be needed and that was the same with previous copy protection even though you had limited amount of activation's. There is no mention about it even in Eula. People are basing their expectations about previous experience but if for example Starforce would change with newer version to the same model how would people act to it then?

 

Let's just wait to how it will evolve. I'm welcoming the change for example. I do not agree with the 4 day limit though. I do want to have one global account and simpler way of activation, but I do not like the idea of limited single player. If I want to update, buy something from shop or play multiplayer then yes go ahead and verify my installation but give me at least 2-3 weeks of Single player when I'm abroad without internet connection.

Sorry you are quite wrong. Activation is entirely separate from gameplay and if put to the test in court, I would offer the opinion that "The man on the Clapham Omnibus" - UK legal term for the average man in the street would have expectations to play the game which is contained on the hard drive of his PC whether it is on the internet or not, unless clearly expressed to the contrary in a manner that can be taken into account before the contract is made.

"Activation requires internet access" is not sufficiently clear in my view.

Windows says activation via internet or phone is required, it does not stop working when offline and that would be the view of the court.

....:but the existing ones that have been bought already are already subject to contract between the user and ED.

You mean the ones that specifically state that the product requires internet activation?

That has been around for ages already.

As an aside, did you specifically think that that meant only a single once-off activation, even though it does not state anywhere that you will only need to activate once? On the contrary, as governed by the DRM you agreed to at purchase, you can have multiple activations in the space of a couple of days or none at all in a year at present, not dependent on the terms of the contract of use and enjoyment but rather on the terms of the DRM.

One needs to be careful when relying on the current wording. Can be interpreted equally well to fit both sides of the argument.

I've not logged into DCS for quite some time.

I see this and I'm very disappointed.

And call BS! on this one.....I bought the modules under the understanding it was a one-time internet activation not in the near future "call home" crap.

"I don't understand why anyone has a problem with it"

WHAT?

It is dodgy and it is wrong how this is all now going on.

ED you may have just lost a long time customer.

I bought the modules under the understanding it was a one-time internet activation

Who told you that?

Did they not tell you that you would need to activate each time a significant hardware change was detected on your PC?

Who told you that?

 

Did they not tell you that you would need to activate each time a significant hardware change was detected on your PC?

That's irrelevant. The precedent has been set regardless.

You mean the ones that specifically state that the product requires internet activation?

 

That has been around for ages already.

 

As an aside, did you specifically think that that meant only a single once-off activation, even though it does not state anywhere that you will only need to activate once? On the contrary, as governed by the DRM you agreed to at purchase, you can have multiple activations in the space of a couple of days or none at all in a year at present, not dependent on the terms of the contract of use and enjoyment but rather on the terms of the DRM.

 

One needs to be careful when relying on the current wording. Can be interpreted equally well to fit both sides of the argument.

suggest you read post 308.

Who told you that?

 

Did they not tell you that you would need to activate each time a significant hardware change was detected on your PC?

That is a technical consideration outside the scope of ED, not a contractual one.

The precedent has been set regardless.

What precedent?

suggest you read post 308.

I have.

suggest you read post 308.

You might appreciate being made aware of the fact that Viper is a lawyer. His opinion of what a court might think may be slightly more valid than yours (unless you are also a lawyer).

You might appreciate being made aware of the fact that Viper is a lawyer.

In the US. EU consumer law is very different and much further reaching. While not a lawyer, I did have to study UK (common law) for two years as part of my degree, as opposed to US ( very much based around roman law in a lot of aspects, not that I know anything about US law).

In the US.

Actually, his previous residence was Scotland. :)

What precedent?

 

 

 

I have.

Starfarce had been in use since, ooh, LOMAC? That sets the precedent, and it's not an unreasonable assumption.

Actually, his previous residence was Scotland. :)

Excellent! He will be able to state for the record, and advise ED that they are most definitely not in breach of EU law or breach of contract in the EU then.

Just what this thread needs, the definitive statement. I can rest easy now and get some sleep. :) knowing that EDs back is covered.

Starfarce had been in use since, ooh, LOMAC? That sets the precedent, and it's not an unreasonable assumption.

The precedent that a once-off activation is required?

That would be a wholly incorrect assumption. Activation, yes. Once-off, definitely not.

Who told you that?

 

Did they not tell you that you would need to activate each time a significant hardware change was detected on your PC?

Give it a break. I'm quite aware of that and it is beside the point.

You can call it anything you want, I'll still call it BS!

Give it a break. I'm quite aware of that and it is beside the point.

You can call it anything you want, I'll still call it BS!

No need to get worked up.

You specifically stated that when you purchased the module you were under the impression that it’s a one-time only activation.

Your words.

I simply stated that that assumption is incorrect.

Do you have a phone?

 

If you read the thread properly you would know that it is only a phone that is required for authentication and not an internet connection.

 

If you have a cellular phone then you have the ability to have a connection required for authentication.

I’ve read the thread; in which post has that been an official statement?

If you mean cellular data; cost/availability of mobile data vs mobile voice are two different things.

I’ve read the thread; in which post has that been an official statement?

The proposed DRM will require online activation. You use your cellular phone as a mobile hot-spot. You connect to your cellular phone via the wireless network set up on your cellular phone and you attend to the authentication.

I am not certain by what you mean as an 'official' statement. The part where online authentication is required or the part where a cellular phone will suffice?

The former is in the original announcement. The latter is a service provided by the cellular phone. Obviously there will be instances where cellular data will be absent. Again, we are back to the rights of the many vs the rights of the few and finding ways to mitigate potential infringements to the rights of the few, hence this discussion.

Cannot please all the people all of the time.