• Happy holidays, folks! Thanks to each and every one of you for being part of the Tom's Hardware community!

Cloud 9's new activation system

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

In article <jUx4e.1050$sp3.534@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
dhenriques@noware says...
> I'm doing a bit of research on Cloud 9's activation system which is now
> required when purchasing their add on products
> Do me a favor and use this supplied link to download their small pdf file;
> read it through; then give me a little feedback on how you feel about the
> policy pro and con.

Their policy is enough to keep me from considering the product, however
desirable it might otherwise be (not evaluated).

Only three reinstalls is a bit draconian. Three reinstalls, you have to
request a new key (72 hours), and we may or may not give it to you is
just plain totally unreasonable. Saving the machine configuration to
make sure it is being run on the "same" machine is what MS does with XP,
but even paranoid MS allows some hardware changes before you need to
call. It sounds like this product will refuse to run if I were to add
memory or upgrade the HD.

No thanks. There are plenty of other vendors with non-intrusive anti-
piracy policies.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

I would not buy the product Dudley. Nor will I buy any product that
requires hardware-binding for activation/reinstallation. Too many problems
for the user IMNSHO. Far better for both the developer and the user to adopt
something on the order of the Flight1 wrapper. Given the hard-feelings
already generated with hardware-bound products I would think that this is
going to cost the Cloud 9 team quite a few sales.

Trip

------------------------------

"Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote in message
news:jUx4e.1050$sp3.534@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> I'm doing a bit of research on Cloud 9's activation system which is now
> required when purchasing their add on products
> Do me a favor and use this supplied link to download their small pdf file;
> read it through; then give me a little feedback on how you feel about the
> policy pro and con.
> Thanks much.
> http://www.fscloud9.com/downloads/manuals/cloud9_prodact_100_EN.pdf
> Dudley
>
>
>
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

Thank you Chris;
Appreciate the feed on this.
D


"Chris Thomas" <CThomas@mminternet.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1cbc69c1c6fe1821989683@news.mminternet.com...
> In article <jUx4e.1050$sp3.534@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> dhenriques@noware says...
>> I'm doing a bit of research on Cloud 9's activation system which is now
>> required when purchasing their add on products
>> Do me a favor and use this supplied link to download their small pdf
>> file;
>> read it through; then give me a little feedback on how you feel about the
>> policy pro and con.
>
> Their policy is enough to keep me from considering the product, however
> desirable it might otherwise be (not evaluated).
>
> Only three reinstalls is a bit draconian. Three reinstalls, you have to
> request a new key (72 hours), and we may or may not give it to you is
> just plain totally unreasonable. Saving the machine configuration to
> make sure it is being run on the "same" machine is what MS does with XP,
> but even paranoid MS allows some hardware changes before you need to
> call. It sounds like this product will refuse to run if I were to add
> memory or upgrade the HD.
>
> No thanks. There are plenty of other vendors with non-intrusive anti-
> piracy policies.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

Thank you TL;
It's an interesting issue, and I'm glad for the feed back on it.
D
"Trip Lane" <Trip@NoSpam.com> wrote in message
news:Gf2dnbFKVoGbQc_fRVn-jw@comcast.com...
> I would not buy the product Dudley. Nor will I buy any product that
> requires hardware-binding for activation/reinstallation. Too many problems
> for the user IMNSHO. Far better for both the developer and the user to
> adopt something on the order of the Flight1 wrapper. Given the
> hard-feelings already generated with hardware-bound products I would think
> that this is going to cost the Cloud 9 team quite a few sales.
>
> Trip
>
> ------------------------------
>
> "Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote in message
> news:jUx4e.1050$sp3.534@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>> I'm doing a bit of research on Cloud 9's activation system which is now
>> required when purchasing their add on products
>> Do me a favor and use this supplied link to download their small pdf
>> file; read it through; then give me a little feedback on how you feel
>> about the policy pro and con.
>> Thanks much.
>> http://www.fscloud9.com/downloads/manuals/cloud9_prodact_100_EN.pdf
>> Dudley
>>
>>
>>
>
>
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"Trip Lane"
> Far better for both the developer and the user to adopt
> something on the order of the Flight1 wrapper.

But the Flight1 key file is machine dependant from, I'm guessing, a hardware
hash.

Interesting question, do Flight1's CD products require an on line
verification like the download products?

Dallas
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"Dudley Henriques"
> read it through; then give me a little feedback on how you feel about the
> policy pro and con.

The fundamental security system sounds exactly like Flight1's with the
exception reinstall and hardware changes policy.

I confess that I don't know how hardware changes affect Flight1's products,
I've never made a major hardware configuration change. But, the Flight1 key
file is not transferable to another computer so it is hardware dependant.

Does anyone know what hardware changes it takes to make the key stop
working?


Dallas
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"Dudley Henriques"
> I'm doing a bit of research on Cloud 9's activation system

To me it's not enough to make me say I wouldn't buy the product. The
reality is that you generally don't make that many changes to your hardware
once you're set up and it sounds like the occasional change is automated.

(If you guys haven't noticed I find software security a fascinating
subject... Yeah, I know... "Get a life!".. 🙂

Varmit
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"Dallas" <Cybnorm@spam_me_not.Hotmail.Com> wrote:

>
>"Dudley Henriques"
>> I'm doing a bit of research on Cloud 9's activation system
>
>To me it's not enough to make me say I wouldn't buy the product. The
>reality is that you generally don't make that many changes to your hardware
>once you're set up and it sounds like the occasional change is automated.
>
>(If you guys haven't noticed I find software security a fascinating
>subject... Yeah, I know... "Get a life!".. 🙂

Now then wouldn't you agree that a dongle would have been a better
solution? Less intrusive and it's even portable - in case you want to
take it with you on a trip, just take the dongle along.

All they do now is alienate potential customers with all these
restrictions and basically call every customer a thief with little
added security since folks that really want to steal the sw would
probably have little trouble cracking it.

It only keeps honest people honest.

-=tom=-
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"Dallas" <Cybnorm@spam_me_not.Hotmail.Com> wrote in message
news:25D4e.1419$An2.1136@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Dudley Henriques"
>> I'm doing a bit of research on Cloud 9's activation system
>
> To me it's not enough to make me say I wouldn't buy the product. The
> reality is that you generally don't make that many changes to your
> hardware
> once you're set up and it sounds like the occasional change is automated.
>
> (If you guys haven't noticed I find software security a fascinating
> subject... Yeah, I know... "Get a life!".. 🙂

No, your life is fine Dal. 🙂)
This is going to be a real issue for the industry down the line. It effects
me peripherally because I have to evaluate installation procedure for the
aircraft I review as part of a review.
The issue is quite complicated really and goes deeper than it appears on the
surface.
On one hand, the developers have every right to protect their time, creative
talent, and product. On the other hand, the end user has a right to own
without restriction something paid for in good faith.
This installation procedure is going to be extremely controversial with some
people. I personally don't like it. The readme on this reads like a severe
rental contract rather than a simple sales receipt. It's extremely
proprietary in nature and places many restrictions on the user. Some will
like it and some won't. I'm in the negative column on it, but I want to
treat it objectively and with other people's opinions in mind if I have to
write on it somewhere down the road and I'm fairly certain I will. Getting
this feed back on it helps me a great deal, as even though I don't like this
system myself, I want to be completely fair to a hard working developer
whose rights and ligitimate concerns about software proliferation I
completely understand and agree with.
Dudley
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"Tom Orle"
> All they do now is alienate potential customers with all these
> restrictions and basically call every customer a thief with little
> added security since folks that really want to steal the sw would
> probably have little trouble cracking it.

Well said...

I often wonder just how bad piracy hurts the industry. Most publishers site
the number of illegal copies floating around to calculate the financial
damage of piracy.

That's absurd... I would guess that the basic nature of most of those using
illegal copies is: "If I can't get it for free, I'll do without it."

I wonder if there is any way to calculate the true damage to see if it's
worth all the time and aggravation spend on trying to protect software.

Perhaps a more accurate method would be to compare sales of two similar
products, one without security and one sold through the Flight1 system.

Bill might be able to shed some light on this.

Dallas
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

In the lifetime of a single product, I think there is almost a 100%
likelihood I'll replace my entire system. The main 'feature' of this type of
protection is to stop the product being installed on more than one machine,
so I guess there is about 100% chance I'll have problems down the track:)
There is a basic fault in their logic here -- they are selling to a
computer, rather than a person. Until my computer has its own credit card I
can't accept this.
I'm a bit wary about hardware-linked activation at the moment -- I recently
had my faulty MB replaced under warranty, and reinstalled some extra RAM
which hadn't worked before the replacement. Of course, this triggered the
reactivation process in WinXP (and Office, too.)
Unfortunately this co-incided with me having to give up my cable net and
phone line for a couple of weeks. The 3 days grace didn't seem nearly long
enough, thats for sure. I had to pack up the machine and take it elsewhere
to get it activated, which was simple enough, but I wouldn't want to do that
to reinstall a lousy aircraft.
"Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote in message
news:jUx4e.1050$sp3.534@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> I'm doing a bit of research on Cloud 9's activation system which is now
> required when purchasing their add on products
> Do me a favor and use this supplied link to download their small pdf file;
> read it through; then give me a little feedback on how you feel about the
> policy pro and con.
> Thanks much.
> http://www.fscloud9.com/downloads/manuals/cloud9_prodact_100_EN.pdf
> Dudley
>
>
>
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

OnTarget wrote:
> Of course, this triggered the reactivation process in WinXP (and Office, too.)

Is there another form of windows that doesn't look at your system like that?
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"OnTarget" <ontarget@ontargetttt.com> wrote in message
news:NFF4e.16283$1S4.1660974@news.xtra.co.nz...
> In the lifetime of a single product, I think there is almost a 100%
> likelihood I'll replace my entire system. The main 'feature' of this type
> of protection is to stop the product being installed on more than one
> machine, so I guess there is about 100% chance I'll have problems down the
> track:) There is a basic fault in their logic here -- they are selling to
> a computer, rather than a person. Until my computer has its own credit
> card I can't accept this.
> I'm a bit wary about hardware-linked activation at the moment -- I
> recently had my faulty MB replaced under warranty, and reinstalled some
> extra RAM which hadn't worked before the replacement. Of course, this
> triggered the reactivation process in WinXP (and Office, too.)
> Unfortunately this co-incided with me having to give up my cable net and
> phone line for a couple of weeks. The 3 days grace didn't seem nearly long
> enough, thats for sure. I had to pack up the machine and take it elsewhere
> to get it activated, which was simple enough, but I wouldn't want to do
> that to reinstall a lousy aircraft.

In addition to this, this type of installation and buy program in use by add
on aircraft developers is catering in this instance to the flight simulation
community, where hardware change is practically an everyday event!
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot; CFI; Retired
dhenriquestrashatearthlinktrashdotnet
(take out the trash 🙂
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

On 2005-04-06, Dallas <Cybnorm@spam_me_not.Hotmail.Com> wrote:
> "Tom Orle"
>> All they do now is alienate potential customers with all these
>> restrictions and basically call every customer a thief with little
>> added security since folks that really want to steal the sw would
>> probably have little trouble cracking it.
>
> Well said...
>
> I often wonder just how bad piracy hurts the industry. Most publishers site
> the number of illegal copies floating around to calculate the financial
> damage of piracy.
>
> That's absurd... I would guess that the basic nature of most of those using
> illegal copies is: "If I can't get it for free, I'll do without it."
>
I know "some people" who have un-official copies of all sorts of
software - some of it very expensive (graphics packages, music
production software) - and I'm certain they'd not be able to afford the
software let alone choose to pay for it.

Software houses that use the number of illegal copies as an indication
of lost revenue are scare-mongering.


> I wonder if there is any way to calculate the true damage to see if it's
> worth all the time and aggravation spend on trying to protect software.

How could you calculate it? You're not going to get most people who are
doing something illegal to admit to it.


In this increasingly wired world where fewer and fewer people are not
connected to the net I think they should start looking at authentication
for each time the software is started. They set up a server, you start
your game, game registers with their server. If another copy of the game
tries to start while the first is still running *bingo* one of those is
an illegal copy, dis-allow the second version, game doesn't start. If
you've the original version then you've just lost out because you let
your mate copy it. If yours is the copy then hey presto the system
works!

Justin.

--
Justin C by the sea.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 02:30:57 GMT, Dallas wrote:

> Perhaps a more accurate method would be to compare sales of two similar
> products, one without security and one sold through the Flight1 system.
>
> Bill might be able to shed some light on this.

Not really. I'm not aware of any company that has ever released "hard
numbers" to the public.

On the other hand, during my converstations with other developers we have
exchanged "rough data" (by this I mean very general numbers, as in "more
than 4,000 but less than 5,000, and so on).

There have some who would insist that any single stolen copy of a product
should not count as a "lost sale," because the individual who "stole it"
wouldn't have ever bought it to begin with.

Now that may well be true in some individual instances, but how many OTHER
folks who get *copies* of the original stolen product WOULD HAVE bought it,
had a "free copy" not been available???

There is of course no real answer possible...
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"Bill Leaming"
> Now that may well be true in some individual instances, but how many OTHER
> folks who get *copies* of the original stolen product WOULD HAVE bought
it,
> had a "free copy" not been available???

This is that "grey area" in-between the two extremes.

Dallas
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom