Success and wise business decisions in the PAST have no bearing on success and wise decisions in the FUTURE. They may have been making smart calls in the past which allowed them to survive 27 years.... that has no bearing on the recent decisions they've made and whether it'll allow the company to survive for much longer. Only time will tell, but with the current uproar, where do you think things are trending?


True.... but the effects of those decisions are visible for all to see and the PR result of those decisions are not really very good, is it? Please stop this strawman.... nobody was asking that ED run their decisions by their customers. We were, however, talking about how ED could make such poor decsions....


How does changing the DRM a couple of days after a new module release.... with no news of this change PRIOR to it dropping.... how is that **NOT** amateurish and dishonest?
Kindly explain if you don't mind?



Strawman.



First part, strawman. Clearly we are not complaining about being allowed or being entitled to weigh in. The issue is the change of DRM and the timing, one of which you already admit suxx. Moving on....



Again, they can run their business successfully for 27 years.... and then make the wrong decisions and run it to the ground in the next 27 months. Your point does not pass the smell test. Try another one.

I do.




I am sure you can appreciate that the importance of moving onto an entirely new DRM system for your product line far far outweighs the ones you listed above and accordingly can appreciate why the consumer will be polled in one instance and not in the other.

Ruling out customer with :

Non 64 bit operating systems customers = paid customer unable to use application with 64bit exe

Non DX11 video card customers = paid customer unable to use application with DX10 and below hardware

DRM change to customer with limited connectivity/ no connectivity = paid customer unable to use application is single player mode

Summary
All situations = unable to use paid application

It is very unfortunate, yes, but I suppose that when you have to first of all secure your business it is necessary to infringe on the rights of the few whilst protecting the rights of the many. You cannot please all the people all of the time - there is always going to be someone dissatisfied with the status quo.

OMG!! Wat iz dis? Evidensh??



To be fair, Monnie, Viper is right. Those polls have nothing to do with business decisions. We want to see a DC, where is it? Nada. So nothing was done in this regard. Next winner was the 4th Gen multirole fighters, so maybe the Hornet? Ah, but that's just an assumption!

Asking about OS in use is moot as people can and do change OS quickly and easily. Some gamers hold out since their favorite games might not work nicely with the latest Windows version, but I think that's few and far between. I don't think ED has to make a poll to decide whether to develop a 64-bit exe... that would make sense as a good step up the development ladder.

Asking aboug GPU and DX11 compatibility can just be a market research, seeing how much they could stand to lose if they developed solely for DX11 and whether lower-DX compatibility would be worth adding in.

But as I cited above, this isn't about being involved in ED's decision making procedure..... any question of why/how ED came to their decisions is usually based on incredulity and trying to find a logical explanation for why/how ED does what ED does.



LOL! What a cop out. Where is your mature, constructive, adult conversation now? Where is your "this is a discussion board" now? It is, however, nice to see that there is one thing consistent with you ---- when pressed, you run away. :goodjob:



Bah.... why tell people you are developing a new module? To create hype and encourage sales and pre-orders for your new module.
Why not tell people you are changing to a new DRM scheme? To avoid people making informed decisions which would possibly mean they'll withdraw purchase plans and withdraw pre-orders for your new module.

Note that in both scenarios, the consumer has absolutely no say in the business decision ED is making. The consumer has no say in what module is being developed; the consumer has no say in what DRM scheme is being brought in. However, the consumer **DOES** have a say in what module he will purchase and knowledge of the DRM info might affect that purchase therefore it is beneficial to ED to keep the customer in the dark as long as possible. As leaf has said, bait-and-switch.

Yes, I see clearly now.

Advertise product you can use offline indefinitely. Deliver inferior. Don't be deliberately obtuse; it's transparent.

I beg to differ.

Requirement for online activation, obviously periodical, is definitely made clear at time of purchase.

Provide evidence/source against your "obviously periodical, is definitely made clear" comment.

I can't research it myself as I have refused to buy half-finished content from ED for a long time now however, just out of interest Iwent to the store and there is mention of 'internet activation' just like any other module but nothing that mentions periodical authentication or the product ceasing to function after a set number of days.

Knowing you will come back with a silly comment just as you have done many many times on the ED boards whilst telling people they are wrong about the mechanism/implementation, Microsoft also require internet activation on their Operating Systems and Office products......however it is a one-time activation and can then be used offline with no further limitations when the internet is not available after that point. There is nothing on the Harrier product page (see attachment) nor at the point of purchase that is in any way, shape or form that defines it as 'clear' about the limitations that are currently imposed or the periodic authentication.

Does anything mention a single, one-time activation?

Yep - it does not.

It does not specifically mention single, one-time activation.

It does not specifically mention periodical activation.

What happens now, in the absence of information?

One makes reasonable inferences in the circumstances.

You have ten activations.

You have ten deactivations.

A reasonable inference would be that YOU WILL NEED TO ACCESS THE INTERNET MORE THAN ONCE during the lifetime that the software resides on your computer.

Activation = 1 activations > 1

And yet I bet you or others on this very board have all activated more than once and still have not had their licences revoked after the second attempted activation.

Could it be worded/phrased better?

Of course yes. A lot better.

Just because it's not does not invalidate the premis that multiple activations will be required through the lifetime of reasonable use of the software.

What's that got to with my post? If the post is too hard to understand, I'm sorry - most of us it's pretty self explanatory.

Evidence please? And not a pathetic lying by omission excuse. You said DEFINITELY MADE CLEAR.... "requires internet activation" is quite clear. I've activated my software, I'm good..... but we know this is not the case.



Great.... now run that by me again.... how is that DEFINITELY MADE CLEAR?



Yep, yep... no question about it.... clear as mud!!

I just love how you select the points you tackle. I guess you default on the others, eh?

The Harrier was advertised and sold with no mention of the new DRM scheme they were planning to implement (bait, advertising goods)
As soon as orders are fulfilled or product is released, the switch occurs (switch, intention of substituting DRM)

My apologies.

I thought you meant to confirm that the website only requires a single activation for the software to function properly, fullstop. Whilst this is correct, one must also not neglect to mention that further activations WILL be required when certain parameters are met to enable to software to continue functioning normally.

In reasonable circumstances one activation only, during the lifetime of the product, is not enough.

You WILL be activating, at the very least, more than once.

So you admit that the stating "activation" makes people think it's one time activation. Didn't you earlier say just the opposite. (those are not questions)

How can I admit to know what another person is thinking?

I am not that presumptuous.

What I said in a post before is this:



Does anything mention a single, one-time activation?

Yep - it does not.

It does not specifically mention single, one-time activation.

It does not specifically mention periodical activation.

What happens now, in the absence of information?

One makes reasonable inferences in the circumstances.

You have ten activations.

You have ten deactivations.

A reasonable inference would be that YOU WILL NEED TO ACCESS THE INTERNET MORE THAN ONCE during the lifetime that the software resides on your computer.



In the circumstances people might very well make unreasonable or incorrect inferences. That is however on them - we all do it.

How quick you are to forget!

While it is correct that users will need more than one activation, usually it is because the user himself has done something to require that new activation --- changed PCs, upgraded components, wiped a hard drive, suffered a virus attack, etc. Unless specifically stated, normal users do not expect the need to activate simply because a set number of time has elapsed.

Since you seem to be confused about "specifically stated" let me show you an example that leaves no ambiguity on the matter.





That, Viper, is an example of DEFINITELY MADE CLEAR.... no need to engage in mental acrobatics in an attempt to defend a point.

Why would you need to make any inferences/assumptions? You stated previously that it was 'definitely made clear' but haven't provided nor attempted to provide any evidence to back that up either. I even attached a screenshot of the buying process to prove that it 'definitely isn't made clear'.



You sound quite perplexed yourself and even added in your last post that people make unreasonable or incorrect inferences...I'm not even sure what your thoughts are on this now because you've even contradicted yourself when discussing something that was allegedly absolutely clear in the first instance. Just imagine if a lawyer in a courtroom was this confused!